are not right knowledge, since they do not lead to the realization of such objects as are presented by them. It is true no doubt that since all objects are momentary, the object which was perceived at the moment of perception was not the same as that which was realized at a later moment. But the series of existents which started with the first perception of a blue object finds itself realized by the realization of other existents of the same series (_niladau ya eva santana@h paricchinno nilajnanena sa eva tena prapita@h tena nilajnanam prama@nam_) [Footnote ref 2].
When it is said that right knowledge is an invariable antecedent of the realization of any desirable thing or the retarding of any undesirable thing, it must be noted that it is not meant
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Brief extracts from the opinions of two other commentators of _Nyayaybindu_, Vinitadeva and S’antabhadra (seventh century), are found in _Nyayabindu@tikatippani_, a commentary of _Nyayabindutika_ of Dharmmottara, but their texts are not available to us.]
[Footnote 2: _Nyayabindu@tika@tippani_, p. 11.]
153
that right knowledge is directly the cause of it; for, with the rise of any right perception, there is a memory of past experiences, desire is aroused, through desire an endeavour in accordance with it is launched, and as a result of that there is realization of the object of desire. Thus, looked at from this point of view, right knowledge is not directly the cause of the realization of the object. Right knowledge of course directly indicates the presentation, the object of desire, but so far as the object is a mere presentation it is not a subject of enquiry. It becomes a subject of enquiry only in connection with our achieving the object presented by perception.
Perception (_pratyaks’a_) has been defined by Dharmakirtti as a presentation, which is generated by the objects alone, unassociated by any names or relations (_kalpana_) and which is not erroneous (_kalpanapo@dhamabhrantam_) [Footnote ref 1]. This definition does not indeed represent the actual nature (_svarupa_) of perception, but only shows the condition which must be fulfilled in order that anything may be valid perception. What is meant by saying that a perception is not erroneous is simply this, that it will be such that if one engages himself in an endeavour in accordance with it, he will not be baffled in the object which was presented to him by his perception (_tasmadgrahye arthe vasturupe yadaviparyastam tadabhrantamiha veditavyam_}. It is said that a right perception could not be associated with names (_kalpana_ or _abhilapa_). This qualification is added only with a view of leaving out all that is not directly generated by the object. A name is given to a thing only when it is associated in the mind, through memory, as being the same as perceived before. This cannot, therefore, be regarded as being produced by the object of perception. The senses present the objects by coming in contact with them, and the objects also must of necessity allow themselves to be presented as they are when they are in contact with the proper senses. But the work of recognition or giving names is not what is directly produced by the objects themselves, for this involves the unification of previous experiences, and this is certainly not what is presented
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The definition first given in the _Pramanasamucaya_ (not available in Sanskrit) of Di@nnaga (500 A.D.) was “_Kalpanapodham_.” According to Dharmakirtti it is the indeterminate knowledge (_nirvikalpa jnana_) consisting only of the copy of the object presented to the senses that constitutes the valid element presented to perception. The determinate knowledge (_savikalpa jnana_), as formed by the conceptual activity of the mind identifying the object with what has been experienced before, cannot be regarded as truly representing what is really presented to the senses.]
154
to the sense
(_purvad@r@s@taparad@r@s@tancarthamekikurvadvijnanamasannihitavi@sayam purvad@r@s@tasyasannihitatvat_). In all illusory perceptions it is the sense which is affected either by extraneous or by inherent physiological causes. If the senses are not perverted they are bound to present the object correctly. Perception thus means the correct presentation through the senses of an object in its own uniqueness as containing only those features which are its and its alone (_svalak@sa@nam_). The validity of knowledge consists in the sameness that it has with the objects presented by it (_arthena saha yatsarupyam sad@rs’yamasya jnanasya tatprama@namiha_). But the objection here is that if our percept is only similar to the external object then this similarity is a thing which is different from the presentation, and thus perception becomes invalid. But the similarity is not different from the percept which appears as being similar to the object. It is by virtue of their sameness that we refer to the object by the percept (_taditi sarupyam tasya vas’at_) and our perception of the object becomes possible. It is because we have an awareness of blueness that we speak of having perceived a blue object. The relation, however, between the notion of similarity of the perception with the blue object and the indefinite awareness of blue in perception is not one of causation but of a determinant and a determinate (_vyavasthapyavyavasthapakabhavena_). Thus it is the same cognition which in one form stands as signifying the similarity with the object of perception and is in another indefinite form the awareness as the percept (_tata ekasya vastuna@h kincidrupam prama@nam kincitprama@naphalam na virudhyate_). It is on account of this similarity with the object that a cognition can be a determinant of the definite awareness (_vyavasthapanaheturhi sarupyam_), so that by the determinate we know the determinant and thus by the similarity of the sense-datum with the object {_prama@na_) we come to think that our awareness has this particular form as “blue” (_prama@naphala_). If this sameness between the knowledge and its object was not felt we could not have spoken of the object from the awareness (_sarupyamanubhutam vyavasthapanahetu@h_). The object generates an awareness similar to itself, and it is this correspondence that can lead us to the realization of the object so presented by right knowledge [Footnote ref l].
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See also pp. 340 and 409. It is unfortunate that, excepting the _Nyayabindu, Nyayabindu@tika, Nyayabindu@tika@tippani_ (St Petersburg, 1909), no other works dealing with this interesting doctrine of perception are available to us. _Nyayabindu_ is probably one of the earliest works in which we hear of the doctrine of _arthakriyakaritva_ (practical fulfilment of our desire as a criterion of right knowledge). Later on it was regarded as a criterion of existence, as Ratnakirtti’s works and the profuse references by Hindu writers to the Buddhistic doctrines prove. The word _arthakriya_ is found in Candrakirtti’s commentary on Nagarjuna and also in such early works as _Lalitavistara_ (pointed out to me by Dr E.J. Thomas of the Cambridge University Library) but the word has no philosophical significance there.]
155
Sautrantika theory of Inference [Footnote ref 1].
According to the Sautrantika doctrine of Buddhism as described by Dharmakirtti and Dharmmottara which is probably the only account of systematic Buddhist logic that is now available to us in Sanskrit, inference (_anumana_) is divided into two classes, called svarthanumana (inferential knowledge attained by a person arguing in his own mind or judgments), and pararthanumana (inference through the help of articulated propositions for convincing others in a debate). The validity of inference depended, like the validity of perception, on copying the actually existing facts of the external world. Inference copied external realities as much as perception did; just as the validity of the immediate perception of blue depends upon its similarity to the external blue thing perceived, so the validity of the inference of a blue thing also, so far as it is knowledge, depends upon its resemblance to the external fact thus inferred (_sarupyavas’addhi tannilapratitirupam sidhyati_).
The reason by which an inference is made should be such that it may be present only in those cases where the thing to be inferred exists, and absent in every case where it does not exist. It is only when the reason is tested by both these joint conditions that an unfailing connection (_pratibandha_) between the reason and the thing to be inferred can be established. It is not enough that the reason should be present in all cases where the thing to be inferred exists and absent where it does not exist, but it is necessary that it should be present only in the above case. This law (_niyama_) is essential for establishing the unfailing condition necessary for inference [Footnote ref 2]. This unfailing natural connection (_svabhavapratibandha_) is found in two types
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: As the _Prama@nasamuccaya_ of Dinnaga is not available in Sanskrit, we can hardly know anything of developed Buddhist logic except what can be got from the _Nyayabindu@tika_ of Dharmmottara.]
[Footnote 2: _tasmat niyamavatorevanvayavyatirekayo@h prayoga@h karttavya@h yena pratibandho gamyeta sadhanyasa sadhyena. Nyayabindu@tika_, p. 24.]
156
of cases. The first is that where the nature of the reason is contained in the thing to be inferred as a part of its nature, i.e. where the reason stands for a species of which the thing to be inferred is a genus; thus a stupid person living in a place full of tall pines may come to think that pines are called trees because they are tall and it may be useful to point out to him that even a small pine plant is a tree because it is pine; the quality of pineness forms a part of the essence of treeness, for the former being a species is contained in the latter as a genus; the nature of the species being identical with the nature of the genus, one could infer the latter from the former but not _vice versa_; this is called the unfailing natural connection of identity of nature (_tadatmya_). The second is that where the cause is inferred from the effect which stands as the reason of the former. Thus from the smoke the fire which has produced it may be inferred. The ground of these inferences is that reason is naturally indissolubly connected with the thing to be inferred, and unless this is the case, no inference is warrantable.
This natural indissoluble connection (_svabhavapratibandha_), be it of the nature of identity of essence of the species in the genus or inseparable connection of the effect with the cause, is the ground of all inference [Footnote ref 1]. The svabhavapratibandha determines the inseparability of connection (avinabhavaniyama) and the inference is made not through a series of premisses, but directly by the li@nga (reason) which has the inseparable connection [Footnote ref 2].
The second type of inference known as pararthanumana agrees with svarthanumana in all essential characteristics; the main difference between the two is this, that in the case of pararthanumana, the inferential process has to be put verbally in premisses.
Pandit Ratnakarasanti, probably of the ninth or the tenth century A.D., wrote a paper named _Antarvyaptisamarthana_ in which
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _na hi yo yatra svabhavena na pratibaddha@h sa tam apratibaddhavi@sayamavs’yameva na vyabhicaratiti nasti tayoravyabhicaraniyama. Nyayabindu@tika_, p. 29.]
[Footnote 2: The inseparable connection determining inference is only possible when the li@nga satisfies the three following conditions, viz. (1) pak@sasattva (existence of the li@nga in the pak@sa–the thing about which something is inferred); (2) sapak@sasattva (existence of the li@nga in those cases where the sadhya oc probandum existed), and (3) vipak@sasattva (its non-existence in all those places where the sadhya did not exist). The Buddhists admitted three propositions in a syllogism, e.g. The hill has fire, because it has smoke, like a kitchen but unlike a lake.]
157
he tried to show that the concomitance is not between those cases which possess the li@nga or reason with the cases which possess the sadhya (probandum) but between that which has the characteristics of the li@nga with that which has the characteristics of the sadhya (probandum); or in other words the concomitance is not between the places containing the smoke such as kitchen, etc., and the places containing fire but between that which has the characteristic of the li@nga, viz. the smoke, and that which has the characteristic of the sadhya, viz. the fire. This view of the nature of concomitance is known as inner concomitance (_antarvyapti_), whereas the former, viz. the concomitance between the thing possessing li@nga and that possessing sadhya, is known as outer concomitance (_bahirvyapti_) and generally accepted by the Nyaya school of thought. This antarvyapti doctrine of concomitance is indeed a later Buddhist doctrine.
It may not be out of place here to remark that evidences of some form of Buddhist logic probably go back at least as early as the _Kathavatthu_ (200 B.C.). Thus Aung on the evidence of the _Yamaka_ points out that Buddhist logic at the time of As’oka “was conversant with the distribution of terms” and the process of conversion. He further points out that the logical premisses such as the udahara@na (_Yo yo aggima so so dhumava_–whatever is fiery is smoky), the upanayana (_ayam pabbato dhumava_–this hill is smoky) and the niggama (_tasmadayam aggima_–therefore that is fiery) were also known. (Aung further sums up the method of the arguments which are found in the _Kathavatthu_ as follows:
“Adherent. Is _A B_? (_@thapana_).
Opponent. Yes.
Adherent. Is _C D_? (_papana_).
Opponent. No.
Adherent. But if _A_ be _B_ then (you should have said) _C_ is _D_. That _B_ can be affirmed of _A_ but _D_ of _C_ is false. Hence your first answer is refuted.”)
The antecedent of the hypothetical major premiss is termed @thapana, because the opponent’s position, _A_ is _B_, is conditionally established for the purpose of refutation.
The consequent of the hypothetical major premiss is termed papana because it is got from the antecedent. And the conclusion
158
is termed ropa@na because the regulation is placed on the opponent. Next:
“If _D_ be derived of _C_.
Then _B_ should have been derived of _A_. But you affirmed _B_ of _A_.
(therefore) That _B_ can be affirmed of _A_ but not of _D_ or _C_ is wrong.”
This is the pa@tiloma, inverse or indirect method, as contrasted with the former or direct method, anuloma. In both methods the consequent is derived. But if we reverse the hypothetical major in the latter method we get
“If _A_ is _B_ _C_ is _D_.
But _A_ is _B_.
Therefore _C_ is _D_.
By this indirect method the opponent’s second answer is reestablished [Footnote ref 1].”
The Doctrine of Momentariness.
Ratnakirtti (950 A.D.) sought to prove the momentariness of all existence (_sattva_), first, by the concomitance discovered by the method of agreement in presence (_anvayavyapti_), and then by the method of difference by proving that the production of effects could not be justified on the assumption of things being permanent and hence accepting the doctrine of momentariness as the only alternative. Existence is defined as the capacity of producing anything (_arthakriyakaritva_). The form of the first type of argument by anvayavyapti may be given thus: “Whatever exists is momentary, by virtue of its existence, as for example the jug; all things about the momentariness of which we are discussing are existents and are therefore momentary.” It cannot be said that the jug which has been chosen as an example of an existent is not momentary; for the jug is producing certain effects at the present moment; and it cannot be held that these are all identical in the past and the future or that it is producing no effect at all in the past and future, for the first is impossible, for those which are done now could not be done again in the future; the second is impossible, for if it has any capacity to
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote: 1: See introduction to the translation of _Kathavatthu_ (_Points of Controversy_) by Mrs Rhys Davids.]
159
produce effects it must not cease doing so, as in that case one might as well expect that there should not be any effect even at the present moment. Whatever has the capacity of producing anything at any time must of necessity do it. So if it does produce at one moment and does not produce at another, this contradiction will prove the supposition that the things were different at the different moments. If it is held that the nature of production varies at different moments, then also the thing at those two moments must be different, for a thing could not have in it two contradictory capacities.
Since the jug does not produce at the present moment the work of the past and the future moments, it cannot evidently do so, and hence is not identical with the jug in the past and in the future, for the fact that the jug has the capacity and has not the capacity as well, proves that it is not the same jug at the two moments (_s’aktas’aktasvabhavataya pratik@sa@nam bheda@h_). The capacity of producing effects (_arthakriyas’akti_), which is but the other name of existence, is universally concomitant with momentariness (_k@sa@nikatvavyapta_).
The Nyaya school of philosophy objects to this view and says that the capacity of anything cannot be known until the effect produced is known, and if capacity to produce effects be regarded as existence or being, then the being or existence of the effect cannot be known, until that has produced another effect and that another _ad infinitum_. Since there can be no being that has not capacity of producing effects, and as this capacity can demonstrate itself only in an infinite chain, it will be impossible to know any being or to affirm the capacity of producing effects as the definition of existence. Moreover if all things were momentary there would be no permanent perceiver to observe the change, and there being nothing fixed there could hardly be any means even of taking to any kind of inference. To this Ratnakirtti replies that capacity (_saamarthya_) cannot be denied, for it is demonstrated even in making the denial. The observation of any concomitance in agreement in presence, or agreement in absence, does not require any permanent observer, for under certain conditions of agreement there is the knowledge of the concomitance of agreement in presence, and in other conditions there is the knowledge of the concomitance in absence. This knowledge of concomitance at the succeeding moment holds within
160
itself the experience of the conditions of the preceding moment, and this alone is what we find and not any permanent observer.
The Buddhist definition of being or existence (_sattva_) is indeed capacity, and we arrived at this when it was observed that in all proved cases capacity was all that could be defined of being;–seed was but the capacity of producing shoots, and even if this capacity should require further capacity to produce effects, the fact which has been perceived still remains, viz. that the existence of seeds is nothing but the capacity of producing the shoots and thus there is no vicious infinite [Footnote ref l]. Though things are momentary, yet we could have concomitance between things only so long as their apparent forms are not different (_atadrupaparav@rttayoreva sadhyasadhanayo@h pratyak@se@na vyaptigraha@nat_). The vyapti or concomitance of any two things (e.g. the fire and the smoke) is based on extreme similarity and not on identity.
Another objection raised against the doctrine of momentariness is this, that a cause (e.g. seed) must wait for a number of other collocations of earth, water, etc., before it can produce the effect (e.g. the shoots) and hence the doctrine must fail. To this Ratnakirtti replies that the seed does not exist before and produce the effect when joined by other collocations, but such is the special effectiveness of a particular seed-moment, that it produces both the collocations or conditions as well as the effect, the shoot. How a special seed-moment became endowed with such special effectiveness is to be sought in other causal moments which preceded it, and on which it was dependent. Ratnakirtti wishes to draw attention to the fact that as one perceptual moment reveals a number of objects, so one causal moment may produce a number of effects. Thus he says that the inference that whatever has being is momentary is valid and free from any fallacy.
It is not important to enlarge upon the second part of Ratnakirtti’s arguments in which he tries to show that the production of effects could not be explained if we did not suppose
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The distinction between vicious and harmless infinites was known to the Indians at least as early as the sixth or the seventh century. Jayanta quotes a passage which differentiates the two clearly (_Nyayamanjari_, p. 22):
“_mulak@satikarimahuranavastham hi du@sa@nam. mulasiddhau tvarucyapi nanavastha nivaryate._”
The infinite regress that has to be gone through in order to arrive at the root matter awaiting to be solved destroys the root and is hence vicious, whereas if the root is saved there is no harm in a regress though one may not be willing to have it.]
161
all things to be momentary, for this is more an attempt to refute the doctrines of Nyaya than an elaboration of the Buddhist principles.
The doctrine of momentariness ought to be a direct corollary of the Buddhist metaphysics. But it is curious that though all dharmas were regarded as changing, the fact that they were all strictly momentary (_k@sa@nika_–i.e. existing only for one moment) was not emphasized in early Pali literature. As’vagho@sa in his _S’raddhotpadas’astra_ speaks of all skandhas as k@sa@nika (Suzuki’s translation, p. 105). Buddhaghosa also speaks of the meditation of the khandhas as kha@nika in his _Visuddhimagga._ But from the seventh century A.D. till the tenth century this doctrine together with the doctrine of arthakriyakaritva received great attention at the hands of the Sautrantikas and the Vaibha@sikas. All the Nyaya and Vedanta literature of this period is full of refutations and criticisms of these doctrines. The only Buddhist account available of the doctrine of momentariness is from the pen of Ratnakirtti. Some of the general features of his argument in favour of the view have been given above. Elaborate accounts of it may be found in any of the important Nyaya works of this period such as _Nynyamanjari, Tatparyya@tika_ of Vacaspati Mis’ra, etc.
Buddhism did not at any time believe anything to be permanent. With the development of this doctrine they gave great emphasis to this point. Things came to view at one moment and the next moment they were destroyed. Whatever is existent is momentary. It is said that our notion of permanence is derived from the notion of permanence of ourselves, but Buddhism denied the existence of any such permanent selves. What appears as self is but the bundle of ideas, emotions, and active tendencies manifesting at any particular moment. The next moment these dissolve, and new bundles determined by the preceding ones appear and so on. The present thought is thus the only thinker. Apart from the emotions, ideas, and active tendencies, we cannot discover any separate self or soul. It is the combined product of these ideas, emotions, etc., that yield the illusory appearance of self at any moment. The consciousness of self is the resultant product as it were of the combination of ideas, emotions, etc., at any particular moment. As these ideas, emotions, etc., change every moment there is no such thing as a permanent self.
The fact that I remember that I have been existing for
162
a long time past does not prove that a permanent self has been existing for such a long period. When I say this is that book, I perceive the book with my eye at the present moment, but that “this book” is the same as “that book” (i.e. the book arising in memory), cannot be perceived by the senses. It is evident that the “that book” of memory refers to a book seen in the past, whereas “this book” refers to the book which is before my eyes. The feeling of identity which is adduced to prove permanence is thus due to a confusion between an object of memory referring to a past and different object with the object as perceived at the present moment by the senses [Footnote ref 1]. This is true not only of all recognition of identity and permanence of external objects but also of the perception of the identity of self, for the perception of self-identity results from the confusion of certain ideas or emotions arising in memory with similar ideas of the present moment. But since memory points to an object of past perception, and the perception to another object of the present moment, identity cannot be proved by a confusion of the two. Every moment all objects of the world are suffering dissolution and destruction, but yet things appear to persist, and destruction cannot often be noticed. Our hair and nails grow and are cut, but yet we think that we have the same hair and nail that we had before, in place of old hairs new ones similar to them have sprung forth, and they leave the impression as if the old ones were persisting. So it is that though things are destroyed every moment, others similar to these often rise into being and are destroyed the next moment and so on, and these similar things succeeding in a series produce the impression that it is one and the same thing which has been persisting through all the passing moments [Footnote ref 2]. Just as the flame of a candle is changing every moment and yet it seems to us as if we have been perceiving the same flame all the while, so all our bodies, our ideas, emotions, etc., all external objects around us are being destroyed every moment, and new ones are being generated at every succeeding moment, but so long as the objects of the succeeding moments are similar to those of the preceding moments, it appears to us that things have remained the same and no destruction has taken place.
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See pratyabhijnanirasa of the Buddhists, _Nyayamanjari_, V.S. Series, pp. 449, etc.]
[Footnote 2: See _Tarkarahasyadipika_ of Gu@naratna, p. 30, and also _Nyayamanjari,_ V.S. edition, p. 450.]
163
The Doctrine of Momentariness and the Doctrine of Causal Efficiency (Arthakriyakaritva).
It appears that a thing or a phenomenon may be defined from the Buddhist point of view as being the combination of diverse characteristics [Footnote ref 1]. What we call a thing is but a conglomeration of diverse characteristics which are found to affect, determine or influence other conglomerations appearing as sentient or as inanimate bodies. So long as the characteristics forming the elements of any conglomeration remain perfectly the same, the conglomeration may be said to be the same. As soon as any of these characteristics is supplanted by any other new characteristic, the conglomeration is to be called a new one [Footnote ref 2]. Existence or being of things means the work that any conglomeration does or the influence that it exerts on other conglomerations. This in Sanskrit is called _arthakriyakaritva_ which literally translated means–the power of performing actions and purposes of some kind [Footnote ref 3]. The criterion of existence or being is the performance of certain specific actions, or rather existence means that a certain effect has been produced in some way (causal efficiency). That which has produced such an effect is then called existent or _sat_. Any change in the effect thus produced means a corresponding change of existence. Now, that selfsame definite specific effect
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Compare _Milindapanha,_ II. I. 1–The Chariot Simile.]
[Footnote 2: Compare _Tarkarahasyadipika_ of Gu@naratna, A.S.’s edition, pp. 24, 28 and _Nyayamanjari,_ V.S. edition, pp. 445, etc., and also the paper on _K@sa@nabha@ngasiddhi_ by Ratnakirtti in _Six Buddhist Nyaya tracts_.]
[Footnote 3: This meaning of the word “arthakriyakaritva” is different from the meaning of the word as we found in the section “sautrantika theory of perception.” But we find the development of this meaning both in Ratnakirtti as well as in Nyaya writers who referred to this doctrine. With Vinitadeva (seventh century A.D.) the word “_arthakriyasiddhi_” meant the fulfilment of any need such as the cooking of rice by fire (_arthas’abdena prayojanamucyate puru@sasya praycjana@m darupakadi tasya siddhi@h ni@spatti@h_–the word _artha_ means need; the need of man such as cooking by logs, etc.; _siddhi_ of that, means accomplishment). With Dharmottara who flourished about a century and a half later _arthasiddhi_ means action (anu@s@thiti) with reference to undesirable and desirable objects (_heyopadeyarthavi@saya_). But with Ratnakirtti (950 A.D.) the word _arthakriyakaritva_ has an entirely different sense. It means with him efficiency of producing any action or event, and as such it is regarded as the characteristic definition of existence _sattva_). Thus he says in his _K@sa@nabha@ngasiddhi,_ pp. 20, 21, that though in different philosophies there are different definitions of existence or being, he will open his argument with the universally accepted definition of existence as _arthakriyakaritva_ (efficiency of causing any action or event). Whenever Hindu writers after Ratnakirtti refer to the Buddhist doctrine of _arthakriyakaritva_ they usually refer to this doctrine in Ratnakirtti’s sense.]
164
which is produced now was never produced before, and cannot be repeated in the future, for that identical effect which is once produced cannot be produced again. So the effects produced in us by objects at different moments of time may be similar but cannot be identical. Each moment is associated with a new effect and each new effect thus produced means in each case the coming into being of a correspondingly new existence of things. If things were permanent there would be no reason why they should be performing different effects at different points of time. Any difference in the effect produced, whether due to the thing itself or its combination with other accessories, justifies us in asserting that the thing has changed and a new one has come in its place. The existence of a jug for example is known by the power it has of forcing itself upon our minds; if it had no such power then we could not have said that it existed. We can have no notion of the meaning of existence other than the impression produced on us; this impression is nothing else but the power exerted by things on us, for there is no reason why one should hold that beyond such powers as are associated with the production of impressions or effects there should be some other permanent entity to which the power adhered, and which existed even when the power was not exerted. We perceive the power of producing effects and define each unit of such power as amounting to a unit of existence. And as there would be different units of power at different moments, there should also be as many new existences, i.e. existents must be regarded as momentary, existing at each moment that exerts a new power. This definition of existence naturally brings in the doctrine of momentariness shown by Ratnakirtti.
Some Ontological Problems on which the Different Indian Systems Diverged.
We cannot close our examination of Buddhist philosophy without briefly referring to its views on some ontological problems which were favourite subjects of discussion in almost all philosophical circles of India. These are in brief: (1) the relation of cause and effect, (2) the relation of the whole (_avayavi_) and the part (_avayava_), (3) the relation of generality (_samanya_) to the specific individuals, (4) the relation of attributes or qualities and the substance and the problem of the relation of inherence, (5) the
165
relation of power (_s’akti_) to the power-possessor (_s’aktiman_). Thus on the relation of cause and effect, S’a@nkara held that cause alone was permanent, real, and all effects as such were but impermanent illusions due to ignorance, Sa@mkhya held that there was no difference between cause and effect, except that the former was only the earlier stage which when transformed through certain changes became the effect. The history of any causal activity is the history of the transformation of the cause into the effects. Buddhism holds everything to be momentary, so neither cause nor effect can abide. One is called the effect because its momentary existence has been determined by the destruction of its momentary antecedent called the cause. There is no permanent reality which undergoes the change, but one change is determined by another and this determination is nothing more than “that happening, this happened.” On the relation of parts to whole, Buddhism does not believe in the existence of wholes. According to it, it is the parts which illusorily appear as the whole, the individual atoms rise into being and die the next moment and thus there is no such thing as “whole [Footnote ref 1]. The Buddhists hold again that there are no universals, for it is the individuals alone which come and go. There are my five fingers as individuals but there is no such thing as fingerness (_a@ngulitva_) as the abstract universal of the fingers. On the relation of attributes and substance we know that the Sautrantika Buddhists did not believe in the existence of any substance apart from its attributes; what we call a substance is but a unit capable of producing a unit of sensation. In the external world there are as many individual simple units (atoms) as there are points of sensations. Corresponding to each unit of sensation there is a separate simple unit in the objective world. Our perception of a thing is thus the perception of the assemblage of these sensations. In the objective world also there are no substances but atoms or reals, each representing a unit of sensation, force or attribute, rising into being and dying the next moment. Buddhism thus denies the existence of any such relation as that of inherence (_samavaya_) in which relation the attributes are said to exist in the substance, for since there are no separate substances there is no necessity for admitting the relation of inherence. Following the same logic Buddhism also does not
166
believe in the existence of a power-possessor separate from the power.
Brief survey of the evolution of Buddhist Thought.
In the earliest period of Buddhism more attention was paid to the four noble truths than to systematic metaphysics. What was sorrow, what was the cause of sorrow, what was the cessation of sorrow and what could lead to it? The doctrine of _pa@ticcasamuppada_ was offered only to explain how sorrow came in and not with a view to the solving of a metaphysical problem. The discussion of ultimate metaphysical problems, such as whether the world was eternal or non-eternal, or whether a Tathagata existed after death or not, were considered as heresies in early Buddhism. Great emphasis was laid on sila, samadhi and panna and the doctrine that there was no soul. The Abhidhammas hardly give us any new philosophy which was not contained in the Suttas. They only elaborated the materials of the suttas with enumerations and definitions. With the evolution of Mahayana scriptures from some time about 200 B.C. the doctrine of the non-essentialness and voidness of all _dhammas_ began to be preached. This doctrine, which was taken up and elaborated by Nagarjuna, Aryyadeva, Kumarajiva and Candrakirtti, is more or less a corollary from the older doctrine of Buddhism. If one could not say whether the world was eternal or non-eternal, or whether a Tathagata existed or did not exist after death, and if there was no permanent soul and all the dhammas were changing, the only legitimate way of thinking about all things appeared to be to think of them as mere void and non-essential appearances. These appearances appear as being mutually related but apart from their appearance they have no other essence, no being or reality. The Tathata doctrine which was preached by As’vagho@sa oscillated between the position of this absolute non-essentialness of all dhammas and the Brahminic idea that something existed as the background of all these non-essential dhammas. This he called tathata, but he could not consistently say that any such permanent entity could exist. The Vijnanavada doctrine which also took its rise at this time appears to me to be a mixture of the S’unyavada doctrine and the Tathata doctrine; but when carefully examined it seems to be nothing but S’unyavada, with an attempt at explaining all the observed phenomena. If everything was
167
non-essential how did it originate? Vijnanavada proposes to give an answer, and says that these phenomena are all but ideas of the mind generated by the beginningless vasana (desire) of the mind. The difficulty which is felt with regard to the Tathata doctrine that there must be some reality which is generating all these ideas appearing as phenomena, is the same as that in the Vijnanavada doctrine. The Vijnanavadins could not admit the existence of such a reality, but yet their doctrines led them to it. They could not properly solve the difficulty, and admitted that their doctrine was some sort of a compromise with the Brahminical doctrines of heresy, but they said that this was a compromise to make the doctrine intelligible to the heretics; in truth however the reality assumed in the doctrine was also non-essential. The Vijnanavada literature that is available to us is very scanty and from that we are not in a position to judge what answers Vijnanavada could give on the point. These three doctrines developed almost about the same time and the difficulty of conceiving s’unya (void), tathata, (thatness) and the alayavijnana of Vijnanavada is more or less the same.
The Tathata doctrine of As’vagho@sa practically ceased with him. But the S’unyavada and the Vijnanavada doctrines which originated probably about 200 B.C. continued to develop probably till the eighth century A.D. Vigorous disputes with S’unyavada doctrines are rarely made in any independent work of Hindu philosophy, after Kumarila and S’a@nkara. From the third or the fourth century A.D. some Buddhists took to the study of systematic logic and began to criticize the doctrine of the Hindu logicians. Di@nnaga the Buddhist logician (500 A.D.) probably started these hostile criticisms by trying to refute the doctrines of the great Hindu logician Vatsyayana, in his Prama@nasamuccaya. In association with this logical activity we find the activity of two other schools of Buddhism, viz. the Sarvastivadins (known also as Vaibha@sikas) and the Sautrantikas. Both the Vaibha@sikas and the Sautrantikas accepted the existence of the external world, and they were generally in conflict with the Hindu schools of thought Nyaya-Vais’e@sika and Sa@mkhya which also admitted the existence of the external world. Vasubandhu (420-500 A.D.) was one of the most illustrious names of this school. We have from this time forth a number of great Buddhist thinkers such as Yas’omitra (commentator of Vasubandhu’s work),
168
Dharmmakirtti (writer of Nyayabindu 635 A.D.), Vinitadeva and S’antabhadra (commentators of Nyayabindu), Dharmmottara (commentator of Nyayabindu 847 A.D.), Ratnakirtti (950 A.D.), Pa@n@dita As’oka, and Ratnakara S’anti, some of whose contributions have been published in the _Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts_, published in Calcutta in the _Bibliotheca Indica_ series. These Buddhist writers were mainly interested in discussions regarding the nature of perception, inference, the doctrine of momentariness, and the doctrine of causal efficiency (_arthakriyakaritva_) as demonstrating the nature of existence. On the negative side they were interested in denying the ontological theories of Nyaya and Sa@mkhya with regard to the nature of class-concepts, negation, relation of whole and part, connotation of terms, etc. These problems hardly attracted any notice in the non-Sautrantika and non-Vaibha@sika schools of Buddhism of earlier times. They of course agreed with the earlier Buddhists in denying the existence of a permanent soul, but this they did with the help of their doctrine of causal efficiency. The points of disagreement between Hindu thought up to S’a@nkara (800 A.D.) and Buddhist thought till the time of S’a@nkara consisted mainly in the denial by the Buddhists of a permanent soul and the permanent external world. For Hindu thought was more or less realistic, and even the Vedanta of S’a@nkara admitted the existence of the permanent external world in some sense. With S’a@nkara the forms of the external world were no doubt illusory, but they all had a permanent background in the Brahman, which was the only reality behind all mental and the physical phenomena. The Sautrantikas admitted the existence of the external world and so their quarrel with Nyaya and Sa@mkhya was with regard to their doctrine of momentariness; their denial of soul and their views on the different ontological problems were in accordance with their doctrine of momentariness. After the twelfth century we do not hear much of any new disputes with the Buddhists. From this time the disputes were mainly between the different systems of Hindu philosophers, viz. Nyaya, the Vedanta of the school of S’a@nkara and the Theistic Vedanta of Ramanuja, Madhva, etc.
169
CHAPTER VI
THE JAINA PHILOSOPHY
The Origin of Jainism.
Notwithstanding the radical differences in their philosophical notions Jainism and Buddhism, which were originally both orders of monks outside the pale of Brahmanism, present some resemblance in outward appearance, and some European scholars who became acquainted with Jainism through inadequate samples of Jaina literature easily persuaded themselves that it was an offshoot of Buddhism, and even Indians unacquainted with Jaina literature are often found to commit the same mistake. But it has now been proved beyond doubt that this idea is wrong and Jainism is at least as old as Buddhism. The oldest Buddhist works frequently mention the Jains as a rival sect, under their old name Nigantha and their leader Nataputta Varddhamana Mahavira, the last prophet of the Jains. The canonical books of the Jains mention as contemporaries of Mahavira the same kings as reigned during Buddha’s career.
Thus Mahavira was a contemporary of Buddha, but unlike Buddha he was neither the author of the religion nor the founder of the sect, but a monk who having espoused the Jaina creed afterwards became the seer and the last prophet (Tirtha@nkara) of Jainism[Footnote ref 1]. His predecessor Pars’va, the last Tirtha@nkara but one, is said to have died 250 years before Mahavira, while Pars’va’s predecessor Ari@s@tanemi is said to have died 84,000 years before Mahavira’s Nirva@na. The story in _Uttaradhyayanasutra_ that a disciple of Pars’va met a disciple of Mahavira and brought about the union of the old Jainism and that propounded by Mahavira seems to suggest that this Pars’va was probably a historical person.
According to the belief of the orthodox Jains, the Jaina religion is eternal, and it has been revealed again and again in every one of the endless succeeding periods of the world by innumerable Tirthankaras. In the present period the first Tirtha@nkara was @R@sabha and the last, the 24th, was Vardhamana Mahavira. All
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See Jacobi’s article on Jainism, _E. R.E._]
170
Tirtha@nkaras have reached mok@sa at their death, and they neither care for nor have any influence on worldly affairs, but yet they are regarded as “Gods” by the Jains and are worshipped [Footnote ref 1].
Two Sects of Jainism [Footnote ref 2].
There are two main sects of Jains, S’vetambaras (wearers of white cloths) and Digambaras (the naked). They are generally agreed on all the fundamental principles of Jainism. The tenets peculiar to the Digambaras are firstly that perfect saints such as the Tirtha@nkaras live without food, secondly that the embryo of Mahavira was not removed from the womb of Devananda to that of Tris’ala as the S’vetambaras contend, thirdly that a monk who owns any property and wears clothes cannot reach Mok@sa, fourthly that no woman can reach Mok@sa [Footnote ref 3]. The Digambaras deny the canonical works of the S’vetambaras and assert that these had been lost immediately after Mahavira. The origin of the Digambaras is attributed to S’ivabhuti (A.D. 83) by the S’vetambaras as due to a schism in the old S’vetambara church, of which there had already been previous to that seven other schisms. The Digambaras in their turn deny this, and say that they themselves alone have preserved the original practices, and that under Bhadrabahu, the eighth sage after Mahavira, the last Tirtha@nkara, there rose the sect of Ardhaphalakas with laxer principles, from which developed the present sect of S’vetambaras (A.D. 80). The Digambaras having separated in early times from the S’vetambaras developed peculiar religious ceremonies of their own, and have a different ecclesiastical and literary history, though there is practically no difference about the main creed. It may not be out of place here to mention that the Sanskrit works of the Digambaras go back to a greater antiquity than those of the S’vetambaras, if we except the canonical books of the latter. It may be noted in this connection that there developed in later times about 84 different schools of Jainism differing from one another only in minute details of conduct. These were called _gacchas_, and the most important of these is the Kharatara Gaccha, which had split into many minor gacchas. Both sects of Jains have
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See “_Digumbara Jain Iconography (1. A, xxxii [1903] p. 459” of J. Burgess, and Buhler’s “Specimens of Jina sculptures from Mathura,” in _Epigraphica Indica_, II. pp. 311 etc. See also Jacobi’s article on Jainism, _E.R.E._]
[Footnote 2: See Jacobi’s article on Jainism, _E.R.E._]
[Footnote 3: See Gu@naratna’s commentary on Jainism in _@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya_.]
171
preserved a list of the succession of their teachers from Mahavira (_sthaviravali, pa@t@tavali, gurvavali_) and also many legends about them such as those in the _Kalpasutra_, the _Paris’i@s@ta-parvan_ of Hemacandra, etc.
The Canonical and other Literature of the Jains.
According to the Jains there were originally two kinds of sacred books, the fourteen Purvas and the eleven A@ngas. The Purvas continued to be transmitted for some time but were gradually lost. The works known as the eleven A@ngas are now the oldest parts of the existing Jain canon. The names of these are _Acara, Sutrak@rta, Sthana, Samavaya Bhagavati, Jnatadharmakathas, Upasakadas’as, Antak@rtadas’as Anuttaraupapatikadas’as, Pras’navyakara@na, Vipaka_. In addition to these there are the twelve _Upa@ngas_ [Footnote ref 1], the ten _Prakir@nas_ [Footnote ref 2], six _Chedasutras_ [Footnote ref 3], _Nandi_ and _Anuyogadvara_ and four _Mulasutras_ (_Uttaradhyayana, Avas’yaka, Das’avaikalika_, and _Pi@n@daniryukti_). The Digambaras however assert that these original works have all been lost, and that the present works which pass by the old names are spurious. The original language of these according to the Jains was Ardhamagadhi, but these suffered attempts at modernization and it is best to call the language of the sacred texts Jaina Prakrit and that of the later works Jaina Mahara@s@tri. A large literature of glosses and commentaries has grown up round the sacred texts. And besides these, the Jains possess separate works, which contain systematic expositions of their faith in Prakrit and Sanskrit. Many commentaries have also been written upon these independent treatises. One of the oldest of these treatises is Umasvati’s _Tattvarthadhigamasutra_(1-85 A.D.). Some of the most important later Jaina works on which this chapter is based are _Vis’e@savas’yakabha@sya_, Jaina _Tarkavarttika_, with the commentary of S’antyacaryya, _Dravyasa@mgraha_ of Nemicandra (1150 A.D.), _Syadvadamanjari_ of Malli@sena (1292 A.D.), _Nyayavatara_ of Siddhasena Divakara (533 A.D.), _Parik@samukhasutralaghuv@rtti_ of Anantaviryya (1039 A.D.), _Prameyakamalamarta@n@da_ of Prabhacandra
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Aupapatika, Rajapras’niya, Jivabhigama, Prajnapana, Jambudvipaprajnapti, Candraprajnapti, Suryaprajnapti, Nirayavali, Kalpavata@msika, Pu@spika, Pu@spaculika, V@r@s@nida@sas_.]
[Footnote 2: _Catu@hs’ara@na, Sa@mstara, Aturapratyakhyana, Bhaktaparijna, Ta@ndulavaiyali, Ca@n@davija, Devendrastava, Ga@nivija, Mahapratyakhyana, Virastava_.]
[Footnote 3: _Nis’itha, Mahanis’itha, Vyavahara, Das’as’rutaskandha, B@rhatkalpa, Pancakalpa_.]
172
(825 A.D.), _Yogas’astra_ of Hemacandra (1088-1172 A.D.), and _Prama@nanayatattvalokala@mkara_ of Deva Suri (1086-1169 A.D.). I am indebted for these dates to Vidyabhu@sa@na’s _Indian Logic_.
It may here be mentioned that the Jains also possess a secular literature of their own in poetry and prose, both Sanskrit and Prakrit. There are also many moral tales (e.g. _Samaraicca-kaha, Upamitabhavaprapanca-katha_ in Prakrit, and the _Yas’astilaka_ of Somadeva and Dhanapala’s _Tilakamanjari_); Jaina Sanskrit poems both in the Pura@na and Kavya style and hymns in Prakrit and Sanskrit are also very numerous. There are also many Jaina dramas. The Jaina authors have also contributed many works, original treatises as well as commentaries, to the scientific literature of India in its various branches: grammar, biography, metrics, poetics, philosophy, etc. The contributions of the Jains to logic deserve special notice [Footnote ref 1].
Some General Characteristics of the Jains.
The Jains exist only in India and their number is a little less than a million and a half. The Digambaras are found chiefly in Southern India but also in the North, in the North-western provinces, Eastern Rajputana and the Punjab. The head-quarters of the S’vetambaras are in Gujarat and Western Rajputana, but they are to be found also all over Northern and Central India.
The outfit of a monk, as Jacobi describes it, is restricted to bare necessaries, and these he must beg–clothes, a blanket, an alms-bowl, a stick, a broom to sweep the ground, a piece of cloth to cover his mouth when speaking lest insects should enter it [Footnote ref 2]. The outfit of nuns is the same except that they have additional clothes. The Digambaras have a similar outfit, but keep no clothes, use brooms of peacock’s feathers or hairs of the tail of a cow (_camara_) [Footnote ref 3]. The monks shave the head or remove the hair by plucking it out. The latter method of getting rid of the hair is to be preferred, and is regarded sometimes as an essential rite. The duties of monks are very hard. They should sleep only three hours and spend the rest of the time in repenting of and expiating sins, meditating, studying, begging alms (in the afternoon), and careful inspection of their clothes and other things for the removal of insects. The laymen should try to approach the ideal of conduct of the monks
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See Jacobi’s article on Jainism. _E.R.E._]
[Footnote 2: See Jacobi, _loc. cat._]
[Footnote 3: See _@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya_, chapter IV.]
173
by taking upon themselves particular vows, and the monks are required to deliver sermons and explain the sacred texts in the upas’rayas (separate buildings for monks like the Buddhist viharas). The principle of extreme carefulness not to destroy any living being has been in monastic life carried out to its very last consequences, and has shaped the conduct of the laity in a great measure. No layman will intentionally kill any living being, not even an insect, however troublesome. He will remove it carefully without hurting it. The principle of not hurting any living being thus bars them from many professions such as agriculture, etc., and has thrust them into commerce [Footnote ref 1].
Life of Mahavira.
Mahavira, the last prophet of the Jains, was a K@sattriya of the Jnata clan and a native of Vais’ali (modern Besarh, 27 miles north of Patna). He was the second son of Siddhartha and Tris’ala. The S’vetambaras maintain that the embryo of the Tirtha@nkara which first entered the womb of the Brahmin lady Devananda was then transferred to the womb of Tris’ala. This story the Digambaras do not believe as we have already seen. His parents were the worshippers of Pars’va and gave him the name Varddhamana (Vira or Mahavira). He married Yas’oda and had a daughter by her. In his thirtieth year his parents died and with the permission of his brother Nandivardhana he became a monk. After twelve years of self-mortification and meditation he attained omniscience (_kevala_, cf. _bodhi_ of the Buddhists). He lived to preach for forty-two years more, and attained mok@sa (emancipation) some years before Buddha in about 480 B.C. [Footnote ref 2].
The Fundamental Ideas of Jaina Ontology.
A thing (such as clay) is seen to assume various shapes and to undergo diverse changes (such as the form of a jug, or pan, etc.), and we have seen that the Chandogya Upani@sad held that since in all changes the clay-matter remained permanent, that alone was true, whereas the changes of form and state were but appearances, the nature of which cannot be rationally
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See Jacobi’s article on Jainism, _E. R.E._]
[Footnote 2: See Hoernle’s translation of _Uvasagadasao_, Jacobi, _loc. cit_., and Hoernle’s article on the Ajivakas, _E. R.E._ The S’vetambaras, however, say that this date was 527 B.C. and the Digambaras place it eighteen years later.]
174
demonstrated or explained. The unchangeable substance (e.g. the clay-matter) alone is true, and the changing forms are mere illusions of the senses, mere objects of name (_nama-rupa_) [Footnote ref 1]. What we call tangibility, visibility, or other sense-qualities, have no real existence, for they are always changing, and are like mere phantoms of which no conception can be made by the light of reason.
The Buddhists hold that changing qualities can alone be perceived and that there is no unchanging substance behind them. What we perceive as clay is but some specific quality, what we perceive as jug is also some quality. Apart from these qualities we do not perceive any qualitiless substance, which the Upani@sads regard as permanent and unchangeable. The permanent and unchangeable substance is thus a mere fiction of ignorance, as there are only the passing collocations of qualities. Qualities do not imply that there are substances to which they adhere, for the so-called pure substance does not exist, as it can neither be perceived by the senses nor inferred. There are only the momentary passing qualities. We should regard each change of quality as a new existence.
The Jains we know were the contemporaries of Buddha and possibly of some of the Upani@sads too, and they had also a solution to offer. They held that it was not true that substance alone was true and qualities were mere false and illusory appearances. Further it was not true as the Buddhists said that there was no permanent substance but merely the change of passing qualities, for both these represent two extreme views and are contrary to experience. Both of them, however, contain some elements of truth but not the whole truth as given in experience. Experience shows that in all changes there are three elements: (1) that some collocations of qualities appear to remain unchanged; (2) that some new qualities are generated; (3) that some old qualities are destroyed. It is true that qualities of things are changing every minute, but all qualities are not changing. Thus when a jug is made, it means that the clay-lump has been destroyed, a jug has been generated and the clay is permanent, i.e. all production means that some old qualities have been lost, some new ones brought in, and there is some part in it which is permanent The clay has become lost in some form, has generated itself in another, and remained permanent in still
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See Chandogya, VI. 1.]
175
another form. It is by virtue of these unchanged qualities that a thing is said to be permanent though undergoing change. Thus when a lump of gold is turned into a rod or a ring, all the specific qualities which come under the connotation of the word “gold” are seen to continue, though the forms are successively changed, and with each such change some of its qualities are lost and some new ones are acquired. Such being the case, the truth comes to this, that there is always a permanent entity as represented by the permanence of such qualities as lead us to call it a substance in spite of all its diverse changes. The nature of being (_sat_) then is neither the absolutely unchangeable, nor the momentary changing qualities or existences, but involves them both. Being then, as is testified by experience, is that which involves a permanent unit, which is incessantly every moment losing some qualities and gaining new ones. The notion of being involves a permanent (_dhruva_) accession of some new qualities (_utpada_) and loss of some old qualities (_vyaya_) [Footnote ref.1]. The solution of Jainism is thus a reconciliation of the two extremes of Vedantism and Buddhism on grounds of common-sense experience.
The Doctrine of Relative Pluralism (anekantavada).
This conception of being as the union of the permanent and change brings us naturally to the doctrine of Anekantavada or what we may call relative pluralism as against the extreme absolutism of the Upani@sads and the pluralism of the Buddhists. The Jains regarded all things as _anekanta_ (_na-ekanta_), or in other words they held that nothing could be affirmed absolutely, as all affirmations were true only under certain conditions and limitations. Thus speaking of a gold jug, we see that its existence as a substance (_dravya_) is of the nature of a collocation of atoms and not as any other substance such as space (_akas’a_), i.e. a gold jug is a _dravya_ only in one sense of the term and not in every sense; so it is a _dravya_ in the sense that it is a collocation of atoms and not a _dravya_ in the sense of space or time (_kala_). It is thus both a dravya and not a dravya at one and the same time. Again it is atomic in the sense that it is a composite of earth-atoms and not atomic in the sense that it is
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote: 1: See _Tattvarthadhigamasutra_, and Gu@naratna’s treatment of Jainism in _@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya_.]
176
not a composite of water-atoms. Again it is a composite of earth-atoms only in the sense that gold is a metallic modification of earth, and not any other modification of earth as clay or stone. Its being constituted of metal-atoms is again true in the sense that it is made up of gold-atoms and not of iron-atoms. It is made up again of gold-atoms in the sense of melted and unsullied gold and not as gold in the natural condition. It is again made up of such unsullied and melted gold as has been hammered and shaped by the goldsmith Devadatta and not by Yajnadatta. Its being made up of atoms conditioned as above is again only true in the sense that the collocation has been shaped as a jug and not as a pot and so on. Thus proceeding in a similar manner the Jains say that all affirmations are true of a thing only in a certain limited sense. All things (_vastu_) thus possess an infinite number of qualities (_anantadharmatmaka@m vastu_), each of which can only be affirmed in a particular sense. Such an ordinary thing as a jug will be found to be the object of an infinite number of affirmations and the possessor of an infinite number of qualities from infinite points of view, which are all true in certain restricted senses and not absolutely [Footnote ref l]. Thus in the positive relation riches cannot be affirmed of poverty but in the negative relation such an affirmation is possible as when we say “the poor man has no riches.” The poor man possesses riches not in a positive but in a negative way. Thus in some relation or other anything may be affirmed of any other thing, and again in other relations the very same thing cannot be affirmed of it. The different standpoints from which things (though possessed of infinite determinations) can be spoken of as possessing this or that quality or as appearing in relation to this or that, are technically called _naya_ [Footnote ref 2].
The Doctrine of Nayas.
In framing judgments about things there are two ways open to us, firstly we may notice the manifold qualities and characteristics of anything but view them as unified in the thing; thus when we say “this is a book” we do not look at its characteristic qualities as being different from it, but rather the qualities or characteristics are perceived as having no separate existence from
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See Gu@naratna on Jainamata in _@Sa@ddarsanasamuccaya_, pp. 211. etc., and also _Tattvarthadhigamasutra_.]
[Footnote 2: See _Tattvarthadhigamasutra_, and _Vis’e@savalyaka bha@sya_, pp. 895-923.]
177
the thing. Secondly we may notice the qualities separately and regard the thing as a mere non-existent fiction (cf. the Buddhist view); thus I may speak of the different qualities of the book separately and hold that the qualities of things are alone perceptible and the book apart from these cannot be found. These two points of view are respectively called _dravyanaya_ and _paryayanaya_ [Footnote ref 1]. The dravyanaya again shows itself in three forms, and paryayanaya in four forms, of which the first form only is important for our purposes, the other three being important rather from the point of view of grammar and language had better be omitted here. The three nayas under dravyanaya are called naigama-naya, sa@mgraha-naya and vyavahara-naya.
When we speak of a thing from a purely common sense point of view, we do not make our ideas clear or precise. Thus I may hold a book in my hand and when asked whether my hands are empty, I may say, no, I have something in my hand, or I may say, I have a book in my hand. It is evident that in the first answer I looked at the book from the widest and most general point of view as a “thing,” whereas in the second I looked at it in its special existence as a book. Again I may be reading a page of a book, and I may say I am reading a book, but in reality I was reading only one of the pages of the book. I may be scribbling on loose sheets, and may say this is my book on Jaina philosophy, whereas in reality there were no books but merely some loose sheets. This looking at things from the loose common sense view, in which we do not consider them from the point of view of their most general characteristic as “being” or as any of their special characteristics, but simply as they appear at first sight, is technically called the naigama standpoint. This empirical view probably proceeds on the assumption that a thing possesses the most general as well as the most special qualities, and hence we may lay stress on any one of these at any time and ignore the other ones. This is the point of view from which according to the Jains the Nyaya and Vais’e@sika schools interpret experience.
Sa@mgraha-naya is the looking at things merely from the most general point of view. Thus we may speak of all individual things from their most general and fundamental aspect as “being.” This according to the Jains is the Vedanta way of looking at things.
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Syadvadama@njari_, pp. 171-173.]
178
The vyavahara-naya standpoint holds that the real essence of things is to be regarded from the point of view of actual practical experience of the thing, which unifies within it some general as well as some special traits, which has been existing from past times and remain in the future, but yet suffer trifling changes all the while, changes which are serviceable to us in a thousand ways. Thus a “book” has no doubt some general traits, shared by all books, but it has some special traits as well. Its atoms are continually suffering some displacement and rearrangement, but yet it has been existing as a book for some time past and will exist for some time in the future as well. All these characteristics, go to make up the essence of the “book” of our everyday experience, and none of these can be separated and held up as being the concept of a “book.” This according to the Jains is the Sa@mkhya way of looking at things.
The first view of paryaya-naya called _@rjusutra_ is the Buddhist view which does not believe in the existence of the thing in the past or in the future, but holds that a thing is a mere conglomeration of characteristics which may be said to produce effects at any given moment. At each new moment there are new collocations of new qualities and it is these which may be regarded as the true essence of our notion of things [Footnote ref 1].
The nayas as we have already said are but points of view, or aspects of looking at things, and as such are infinite in number. The above four represent only a broad classification of these. The Jains hold that the Nyaya-Vais’e@sika, the Vedanta, the Sa@mkhya, and the Buddhist, have each tried to interpret and systematize experience from one of the above four points of view, and each regards the interpretation from his point of view as being absolutely true to the exclusion of all other points of view. This is their error (_nayabhasa_), for each standpoint represents only one of the many points of view from which a thing can be looked at. The affirmations from any point of view are thus true in a limited sense and under limited conditions. Infinite numbers of affirmations may be made of things from infinite points of view. Affirmations or judgments according to any naya or standpoint cannot therefore be absolute, for even contrary affirmations of the very selfsame
_________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The other standpoints of paryaya-naya, which represent grammatical and linguistic points of view, are _s’abda-naya, samabhiru@dha-naya_, and _evambhula-naya_. See _Vis’e@savas’yaka bha@sya_, pp. 895-923.]
179
things may be held to be true from other points of view. The truth of each affirmation is thus only conditional, and inconceivable from the absolute point of view. To guarantee correctness therefore each affirmation should be preceded by the phrase _syat_ (may be). This will indicate that the affirmation is only relative, made somehow, from some point of view and under some reservations and not in any sense absolute. There is no judgment which is absolutely true, and no judgment which is absolutely false. All judgments are true in some sense and false in another. This brings us to the famous Jaina doctrine of Syadvada [Footnote ref 1].
The Doctrine of Syadvada.
The doctrine of Syadvada holds that since the most contrary characteristics of infinite variety may be associated with a thing, affirmation made from whatever standpoint (_naya_) cannot be regarded as absolute. All affirmations are true (in some _syadasti_ or “may be it is” sense); all affirmations are false in some sense; all affirmations are indefinite or inconceivable in some sense (_syadavaktavya_); all affirmations are true as well as false in some sense (_syadasti syannasti_); all affirmations are true as well as indefinite (_syadasti cavaktavyas’ca_); all affirmations are false as well as indefinite; all affirmations are true and false and indefinite in some sense (_syadasti syannasti syadavaktavyas’ca_). Thus we may say “the jug is” or the jug has being, but it is more correct to say explicitly that “may be (syat) that the jug is,” otherwise if “being” here is taken absolutely of any and every kind of being, it might also mean that there is a lump of clay or a pillar, or a cloth or any other thing. The existence here is limited and defined by the form of the jug. “The jug is” does not mean absolute existence but a limited kind of existence as determined by the form of the jug, “The jug is” thus means that a limited kind of existence, namely the jug-existence is affirmed and not existence in general in the absolute or unlimited sense, for then the sentence “the jug is” might as well mean “the clay is,” “the tree is,” “the cloth is,” etc. Again the existence of the jug is determined by the negation of all other things in the world; each quality or characteristic (such as red colour) of the jug is apprehended and defined by the negation of all the infinite varieties (such as black, blue, golden), etc., of its class, and it is by the combined negation of all
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _Vis’e@savas’yaka bha@sya_, pp. 895, etc., and _Syadvadamanjari_, pp. 170, etc.]
180
the infinite number of characteristics or qualities other than those constituting the jug that a jug may be apprehended or defined. What we call the being of the jug is thus the non-being of all the rest except itself. Thus though looked at from one point of view the judgment “the jug is” may mean affirmation of being, looked at from another point of view it means an affirmation of non-being (of all other objects). Thus of the judgment “the jug is” one may say, may be it is an affirmation of being (_syadasti_), may be it is a negation of being (_syannasti_); or I may proceed in quite another way and say that “the jug is” means “this jug is here,” which naturally indicates that “this jug is not there” and thus the judgment “the jug is” (i.e. is here) also means that “the jug is not there,” and so we see that the affirmation of the being of the jug is true only of this place and false of another, and this justifies us in saying that “may be that in some sense the jug is,” and “may be in some sense that the jug is not.” Combining these two aspects we may say that in some sense “may be that the jug is,” and in some sense “may be that the jug is not.” We understood here that if we put emphasis on the side of the characteristics constituting being, we may say “the jug is,” but if we put emphasis on the other side, we may as well say “the jug is not.” Both the affirmations hold good of the jug according as the emphasis is put on either side. But if without emphasis on either side we try to comprehend the two opposite and contradictory judgments regarding the jug, we see that the nature of the jug or of the existence of the jug is indefinite, unspeakable and inconceivable–_avaktavya,_ for how can we affirm both being and non-being of the same thing, and yet such is the nature of things that we cannot but do it. Thus all affirmations are true, are not true, are both true and untrue, and are thus unspeakable, inconceivable, and indefinite. Combining these four again we derive another three, (1) that in some sense it may be that the jug is, and (2) is yet unspeakable, or (3) that the jug is not and is unspeakable, or finally that the jug is, is not, and is unspeakable. Thus the Jains hold that no affirmation, or judgment, is absolute in its nature, each is true in its own limited sense only, and for each one of them any of the above seven alternatives (technically called _saptabha@ngi_ holds good [Footnote ref 1]. The Jains say that other Indian systems each from its own point of view asserts itself to be the absolute and the only
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _Syadvadamanjari_, with Hemacandra’s commentary, pp. 166, etc.]
181
point of view. They do not perceive that the nature of reality is such that the truth of any assertion is merely conditional, and holds good only in certain conditions, circumstances, or senses (_upadhi_). It is thus impossible to make any affirmation which is universally and absolutely valid. For a contrary or contradictory affirmation will always be found to hold good of any judgment in some sense or other. As all reality is partly permanent and partly exposed to change of the form of losing and gaining old and new qualities, and is thus relatively permanent and changeful, so all our affirmations regarding truth are also only relatively valid and invalid. Being, non-being and indefinite, the three categories of logic, are all equally available in some sense or other in all their permutations for any and every kind of judgment. There is no universal and absolute position or negation, and all judgments are valid only conditionally. The relation of the naya doctrine with the syadvada doctrine is therefore this, that for any judgment according to any and every naya there are as many alternatives as are indicated by syadvada. The validity of such a judgment is therefore only conditional. If this is borne in mind when making any judgment according to any naya, the naya is rightly used. If, however, the judgments are made absolutely according to any particular naya without any reference to other nayas as required by the syadvada doctrine the nayas are wrongly used as in the case of other systems, and then such judgments are false and should therefore be called false nayas (_nayabhasa_) [Footnote ref 1].
Knowledge, its value for us.
The Buddhist Dharmottara in his commentary on _Nyayabindu_ says that people who are anxious to fulfil some purpose or end in which they are interested, value the knowledge which helps them to attain that purpose. It is because knowledge is thus found to be useful and sought by men that philosophy takes upon it the task of examining the nature of true knowledge (_samyagjnana_ or _prama@na_). The main test of true knowledge is that it helps us to attain our purpose. The Jains also are in general agreement with the above view of knowledge of the Buddhists [Footnote ref 2]. They also
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The earliest mention of the doctrine of syadvada and saptabha@ngi probably occurs in Bhadrabahu’s (433-357 B.C.) commentary _Sutrak@rtanganiryukti_.
[Footnote 2: See _Prama@na-naya-tattvalokala@mkara_ (Benares), p. 16; also _Parik@sa-mukha-suira-v@rtti_ (Asiatic Society), ch. I.]
182
say that knowledge is not to be valued for its own sake. The validity (_prama@nya_) of anything consists in this, that it directly helps us to get what is good for us and to avoid what is bad for us. Knowledge alone has this capacity, for by it we can adapt ourselves to our environments and try to acquire what is good for us and avoid what is bad [Footnote ref 1]. The conditions that lead to the production of such knowledge (such as the presence of full light and proximity to the eye in the case of seeing an object by visual perception) have but little relevancy in this connection. For we are not concerned with how a cognition is produced, as it can be of no help to us in serving our purposes. It is enough for us to know that external objects under certain conditions assume such a special fitness (_yogyata_) that we can have knowledge of them. We have no guarantee that they generate knowledge in us, for we are only aware that under certain conditions we know a thing, whereas under other conditions we do not know it [Footnote ref 2]. The enquiry as to the nature of the special fitness of things which makes knowledge of them possible does not concern us. Those conditions which confer such a special fitness on things as to render them perceivable have but little to do with us; for our purposes which consist only in the acquirement of good and avoidance of evil, can only be served by knowledge and not by those conditions of external objects.
Knowledge reveals our own self as a knowing subject as well as the objects that are known by us. We have no reason to suppose (like the Buddhists) that all knowledge by perception of external objects is in the first instance indefinite and indeterminate, and that all our determinate notions of form, colour, size and other characteristics of the thing are not directly given in our perceptual experience, but are derived only by imagination (_utprek@sa_), and that therefore true perceptual knowledge only certifies the validity of the indefinite and indeterminate crude sense data (_nirvikalpa jnana_). Experience shows that true knowledge on the one hand reveals us as subjects or knowers, and on the other hand gives a correct sketch of the external objects in all the diversity of their characteristics. It is for this reason that knowledge is our immediate and most prominent means of serving our purposes.
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Prama@na-naya-tattvalokala@mkara,_ p. 26.]
[Footnote 2: See _Pari@sa-mukha-sutra,_ II. 9, and its v@rtti, and also the concluding v@rtti of ch. II.]
183
Of course knowledge cannot directly and immediately bring to us the good we want, but since it faithfully communicates to us the nature of the objects around us, it renders our actions for the attainment of good and the avoidance of evil, possible; for if knowledge did not possess these functions, this would have been impossible. The validity of knowledge thus consists in this, that it is the most direct, immediate, and indispensable means for serving our purposes. So long as any knowledge is uncontradicted it should be held as true. False knowledge is that which represents things in relations in which they do not exist. When a rope in a badly lighted place gives rise to the illusion of a snake, the illusion consists in taking the rope to be a snake, i.e. perceiving a snake where it does not exist. Snakes exist and ropes also exist, there is no untruth in that [Footnote ref 1]. The error thus consists in this, that the snake is perceived where the rope exists. The perception of a snake under relations and environments in which it was not then existing is what is meant by error here. What was at first perceived as a snake was later on contradicted and thus found false. Falsehood therefore consists in the misrepresentation of objective facts in experience. True knowledge therefore is that which gives such a correct and faithful representation of its object as is never afterwards found to be contradicted. Thus knowledge when imparted directly in association with the organs in sense-perception is very clear, vivid, and distinct, and is called perceptional (_pratyak@sa_); when attained otherwise the knowledge is not so clear and vivid and is then called non-perceptional (_parok@sa_ [Footnote ref 2]).
Theory of Perception.
The main difference of the Jains from the Buddhists in the theory of perception lies, as we have already seen, in this, that the Jains think that perception (_pratyak@sa_) reveals to us the external objects just as they are with most of their diverse characteristics of colour, form, etc., and also in this, that knowledge arises in the soul
________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Illusion consists in attributing such spatial, temporal or other kinds of relations to the objects of our judgment as do not actually exist, but the objects themselves actually exist in other relations. When I mistake the rope for the snake, the snake actually exists though its relationing with the “this” as “this is a snake” does not exist, for the snake is not the rope. This illusion is thus called _satkhyati_ or misrelationing of existents (_sat_)].
[Footnote 2: See _Jaina-tarka-varttika_ of Siddhasena, ch. I., and v@rtti by S’antyacarya, Prama@nanayatattvalokala@mkara, ch. I., _Pariksa-mukha-sutra-v@rtti,_ ch. I.]
184
from within it as if by removing a veil which had been covering it before. Objects are also not mere forms of knowledge (as the Vijnanavadin Buddhist thinks) but are actually existing. Knowledge of external objects by perception is gained through the senses. The exterior physical sense such as the eye must be distinguished from the invisible faculty or power of vision of the soul, which alone deserves the name of sense. We have five such cognitive senses. But the Jains think that since by our experience we are only aware of five kinds of sense knowledge corresponding to the five senses, it is better to say that it is the “self” which gains of itself those different kinds of sense-knowledge in association with those exterior senses as if by removal of a covering, on account of the existence of which the knowledge could not reveal itself before. The process of external perception does not thus involve the exercise of any separate and distinct sense, though the rise of the sense-knowledge in the soul takes place in association with the particular sense-organ such as eye, etc. The soul is in touch with all parts of the body, and visual knowledge is that knowledge which is generated in the soul through that part of it which is associated with, or is in touch with the eye. To take an example, I look before me and see a rose. Before looking at it the knowledge of rose was in me, but only in a covered condition, and hence could not get itself manifested. The act of looking at the rose means that such a fitness has come into the rose and into myself that the rose is made visible, and the veil over my knowledge of rose is removed. When visual knowledge arises, this happens in association with the eye; I say that I see through the visual sense, whereas in reality experience shows that I have only a knowledge of the visual type (associated with eye). As experience does not reveal the separate senses, it is unwarrantable to assert that they have an existence apart from the self. Proceeding in a similar way the Jains discard the separate existence of manas (mind-organ) also, for manas also is not given in experience, and the hypothesis of its existence is unnecessary, as self alone can serve its purpose [Footnote ref 1]. Perception of an object means
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Tanna indriyam bhautikam kim tu atma ca indriyam…anupahatacak@suradides’e@su eva atmana@h karmak@sayopas’amaslenasthagitagavak@satulyani cak@suradini upakara@nani. Jaina-Vattika-V@rtti,_ II. p. 98. In many places, however, the five senses, such as eye, ear, etc., are mentioned as senses, and living beings are often classified according to the number of senses they possess. (See _Prama@namima@msa._ See also _Tattvartha-dhigamasutra_, ch. II. etc.) But this is with reference to the sense organs. The denial of separate senses is with reference to admitting them as entities or capacities having a distinct and separate category of existence from the soul. The sense organs are like windows for the soul to look out. They cannot thus modify the sense-knowledge which rises in the soul by inward determination; for it is already existent in it; the perceptual process only means that the veil which as observing it is removed.]
185
that the veil of ignorance upon the “self” regarding the object has been removed. Inwardly this removal is determined by the karma of the individual, outwardly it is determined by the presence of the object of perception, light, the capacity of the sense organs, and such other conditions. Contrary to the Buddhists and many other Indian systems, the Jains denied the existence of any nirvikalpa (indeterminate) stage preceding the final savikalpa (determinate) stage of perception. There was a direct revelation of objects from within and no indeterminate sense-materials were necessary for the development of determinate perceptions. We must contrast this with the Buddhists who regarded that the first stage consisting of the presentation of indeterminate sense materials was the only valid part of perception. The determinate stage with them is the result of the application of mental categories, such as imagination, memory, etc., and hence does not truly represent the presentative part [Footnote ref 1].
Non-Perceptual Knowledge.
Non-perceptual knowledge (_parok@sa_) differs from pratyak@sa in this, that it does not give us so vivid a picture of objects as the latter. Since the Jains do not admit that the senses had any function in determining the cognitions of the soul, the only distinction they could draw between perception and other forms of knowledge was that the knowledge of the former kind (perception) gave us clearer features and characteristics of objects than the latter. Parok@sa thus includes inference, recognition, implication, memory, etc.; and this knowledge is decidedly less vivid than perception.
Regarding inference, the Jains hold that it is unnecessary to have five propositions, such as: (1) “the hill is fiery,” (2) “because of smoke,” (3) “wherever there is smoke there is fire, such as the kitchen,” (4) “this hill is smoky,” (5) “therefore it is fiery,” called respectively _pratijna, hetu, drs@tanta, upanaya_ and _nigamana_, except for the purpose of explicitness. It is only the first two propositions which actually enter into the inferential process (_Prameyakamalamarta@n@da,_ pp. 108, 109). When we make an
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1 _Prameyakamalamarta@n@da,_ pp. 8-11.]
186
inference we do not proceed through the five propositions as above. They who know that the reason is inseparably connected with the probandum either as coexistence (_sahabhava_) or as invariable antecedence (_kramabhava_) will from the mere statement of the existence of the reason (e.g. smoke) in the hill jump to the conclusion that the hill has got fire. A syllogism consisting of five propositions is rather for explaining the matter to a child than for representing the actual state of the mind in making an inference [Footnote ref 1].
As regards proof by testimony the Jains do not admit the authority of the Vedas, but believe that the Jaina scriptures give us right knowledge, for these are the utterances of persons who have lived a worldly life but afterwards by right actions and right knowledge have conquered all passions and removed all ignorance [Footnote ref 2].
Knowledge as Revelation.
The Buddhists had affirmed that the proof of the existence of anything depended upon the effect that it could produce on us. That which could produce any effect on us was existent, and that
_____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: As regards concomitance (_vyapti_) some of the Jaina logicians like the Buddhists prefer _antarvyapti_ (between smoke and fire) to bahirvyapti (the place containing smoke with the place containing fire). They also divide inference into two classes, svarthanumana for one’s own self and _pararthanumana_ for convincing others. It may not be out of place to note that the earliest Jaina view as maintained by Bhadrabahu in his Das’avaikalikaniryukti was in favour of ten propositions for making an inference; (1) _Pratijna_ (e.g. non-injury to life is the greatest virtue), (2) _Pratijnavibhakti_ (non-injury to life is the greatest virtue according to Jaina scriptures), (3) _Hetu_ (because those who adhere to non-injury are loved by gods and it is meritorious to do them honour), (4) _Hetu vibhakti_ (those who do so are the only persons who can live in the highest places of virtue), (5) _Vipak@sa_ (but even by doing injury one may prosper and even by reviling Jaina scriptures one may attain merit as is the case with Brahmins), (6) _Vipak@sa prati@sedha_ (it is not so, it is impossible that those who despise Jaina scriptures should be loved by gods or should deserve honour), (7) _D@r@s@anta_ (the Arhats take food from householders as they do not like to cook themselves for fear of killing insects), (8) _As’a@nka (but the sins of the householders should touch the arhats, for they cook for them), (9) _As’a@nkaprati@sedha_ (this cannot be, for the arhats go to certain houses unexpectedly, so it could not be said that the cooking was undertaken for them), (10) _Naigamana_ (non-injury is therefore the greatest virtue) (Vidyabhu@sa@na’s _Indian Logic_). These are persuasive statements which are often actually adopted in a discussion, but from a formal point of view many of these are irrelevant. When Vatsyayana in his _Nyayasutrabha@sya_, I. 1. 32, says that Gautama introduced the doctrine of five propositions as against the doctrine of ten propositions as held by other logicians, he probably had this Jaina view in his mind.]
[Footnote 2: See _Jainatarkavarttika_, and _Parik@samukhasutrav@rtti_, and _@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya_ with Gu@naratna on Jainism.]
187
which could not non-existent. In fact production of effect was with them the only definition of existence (being). Theoretically each unit of effect being different from any other unit of effect they supposed that there was a succession of different units of effect or, what is the same thing, acknowledged a succession of new substances every moment. All things were thus momentary. The Jains urged that the reason why the production of effect may be regarded as the only proof of being is that we can assert only that thing the existence of which is indicated by a corresponding experience. When we have a unit of experience we suppose the existence of the object as its ground. This being so, the theoretical analysis of the Buddhists that each unit of effect produced in us is not exactly the same at each new point of time, and that therefore all things are momentary, is fallacious; for experience shows that not all of an object is found to be changing every moment; some part of it (e.g. gold in a gold ornament) is found to remain permanent while other parts (e.g. its form as earrings or bangles) are seen to undergo change. How in the face of such an experience can we assert that the whole thing vanishes every moment and that new things are being renewed at each succeeding moment? Hence leaving aside mere abstract and unfounded speculations, if we look to experience we find that the conception of being or existence involves a notion of permanence associated with change–_paryaya_ (acquirement of new qualities and the loss of old ones). The Jains hold that the defects of other systems lie in this, that they interpret experience only from one particular standpoint (_naya_) whereas they alone carefully weigh experience from all points of view and acquiesce in the truths indicated by it, not absolutely but under proper reservations and limitations. The Jains hold that in formulating the doctrine of _arthakriyakaritva_ the Buddhists at first showed signs of starting on their enquiry on the evidence of experience, but soon they became one-sided in their analysis and indulged in unwarrantable abstract speculations which went directly against experience. Thus if we go by experience we can neither reject the self nor the external world as some Buddhists did. Knowledge which reveals to us the clear-cut features of the external world certifies at the same time that such knowledge is part and parcel of myself as the subject. Knowledge is thus felt to be an expression of my own self. We do not perceive in experience that knowledge
188
in us is generated by the external world, but there is in us the rise of knowledge and of certain objects made known to us by it. The rise of knowledge is thus only parallel to certain objective collocations of things which somehow have the special fitness that they and they alone are perceived at that particular moment. Looked at from this point of view all our experiences are centred in ourselves, for determined somehow, our experiences come to us as modifications of our own self. Knowledge being a character of the self, it shows itself as manifestations of the self independent of the senses. No distinction should be made between a conscious and an unconscious element in knowledge as Sa@mkhya does. Nor should knowledge be regarded as a copy of the objects which it reveals, as the Sautrantikas think, for then by copying the materiality of the object, knowledge would itself become material. Knowledge should thus be regarded as a formless quality of the self revealing all objects by itself. But the Mima@msa view that the validity (_prama@nya_) of all knowledge is proved by knowledge itself _svata@hprama@nya_) is wrong. Both logically and psychologically the validity of knowledge depends upon outward correspondence (sa@mvada) with facts. But in those cases where by previous knowledge of correspondence a right belief has been produced there may be a psychological ascertainment of validity without reference to objective facts (_prama@nyamutpattau parata eva jnaptau svakarye ca svata@h paratas’ca. abhyasanabhyasapek@saya_) [Footnote ref 1]. The objective world exists as it is certified by experience. But that it generates knowledge in us is an unwarrantable hypothesis, for knowledge appears as a revelation of our own self. This brings us to a consideration of Jaina metaphysics.
The Jivas.
The Jains say that experience shows that all things may be divided into the living (_jiva_) and the non-living (_ajiva_). The principle of life is entirely distinct from the body, and it is most erroneous to think that life is either the product or the property of the body [Footnote ref 2] It is on account of this life-principle that the body appears to be living This principle is the soul. The soul is directly perceived (by introspection) just as the external things are. It is not a mere symbolical object indicated by a phrase or
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: _Prameyakamalamarta@n@da,_ pp. 38-43.]
[Footnote 2: See _Jaina Varttika,_ p. 60.]
189
a description. This is directly against the view of the great Mima@msa authority Prabhakara [Footnote ref 1]. The soul in its pure state is possessed of infinite perception (_ananta-dars’ana_), infinite knowledge (_ananta-jnana_), infinite bliss (_ananta-sukha_) and infinite power (_ananta-virya_) [Footnote ref 2]. It is all perfect. Ordinarily however, with the exception of a few released pure souls (_mukta-jiva_) all the other jivas (_sa@msarin_) have all their purity and power covered with a thin veil of karma matter which has been accumulating in them from beginningless time. These souls are infinite in number. They are substances and are eternal. They in reality occupy innumerable space-points in our mundane world (_lokakas`a_), have a limited size (_madhyama-parima@na_) and are neither all-pervasive (_vibhu_) nor atomic (_anu_); it is on account of this that _jiva_ is called _Jivastikaya_. The word _astikaya_ means anything that occupies space or has some pervasiveness; but these souls expand and contract themselves according to the dimensions of the body which they occupy at any time (bigger in the elephant and smaller in the ant life). It is well to remember that according to the Jains the soul occupies the whole of the body in which it lives, so that from the tip of the hair to the nail of the foot, wherever there may be any cause of sensation, it can at once feel it. The manner in which the soul occupies the body is often explained as being similar to the manner in which a lamp illumines the whole room though remaining in one corner of the room. The Jains divide the jivas according to the number of sense-organs they possess. The lowest class consists of plants, which possess only the sense-organ of touch. The next higher class is that of worms, which possess two sense-organs of touch and taste. Next come the ants, etc., which possess touch, taste, and smell. The next higher one that of bees, etc., possessing vision in addition to touch, taste, and smell. The vertebrates possess all the five sense-organs. The higher animals among these, namely men, denizens of hell, and the gods possess in addition to these an inner sense-organ namely _manas_ by virtue of which they are
__________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See _Prameyakamalamarta@nda,_ p. 33.]
[Footnote 2: The Jains distinguish between _dars’ana_ and _jnana_. Dars’ana is the knowledge of things without their details, e.g. I see a cloth. Jnana means the knowledge of details, e.g. I not only see the cloth, but know to whom it belongs, of what quality it is, where it was prepared, etc. In all cognition we have first dars’ana and then jnana. The pure souls possess infinite general perception of all things as well as infinite knowledge of all things in all their details.]
190
called rational (_sa@mjnin_) while the lower animals have no reason and are called _asamjnin_.
Proceeding towards the lowest animal we find that the Jains regard all the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) as being animated by souls. Thus particles of earth, etc., are the bodies of souls, called earth-lives, etc. These we may call elementary lives; they live and die and are born again in another elementary body. These elementary lives are either gross or subtle; in the latter case they are invisible. The last class of one-organ lives are plants. Of some plants each is the body of one soul only; but of other plants, each is an aggregation of embodied souls, which have all the functions of life such as respiration and nutrition in common. Plants in which only one soul is embodied are always gross; they exist in the habitable part of the world only. But those plants of which each is a colony of plant lives may also be subtle and invisible, and in that case they are distributed all over the world. The whole universe is full of minute beings called _nigodas_; they are groups of infinite number of souls forming very small clusters, having respiration and nutrition in common and experiencing extreme pains. The whole space of the world is closely packed with them like a box filled with powder. The nigodas furnish the supply of souls in place of those that have reached Moksa. But an infinitesimally small fraction of one single nigoda has sufficed to replace the vacancy caused in the world by the Nirvana of all the souls that have been liberated from beginningless past down to the present. Thus it is evident the sa@msara will never be empty of living beings. Those of the _nigodas_ who long for development come out and continue their course of progress through successive stages [Footnote ref 1].
Karma Theory.
It is on account of their merits or demerits that the jivas are born as gods, men, animals, or denizens of hell. We have already noticed in Chapter III that the cause of the embodiment of soul is the presence in it of karma matter. The natural perfections of the pure soul are sullied by the different kinds of karma matter. Those which obscure right knowledge of details (_jnana_) are called _jnanavara@niya_, those which obscure right perception (_dars’ana_) as in sleep are called _dars’anavaraniya_, those which
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See Jacobi’s article on Jainism, _E. R.E._, and _Lokaprakas’a_, VI. pp. 31 ff.]
191
obscure the bliss-nature of the soul and thus produce pleasure and pain are _vedaniya_, and those which obscure the right attitude of the soul towards faith and right conduct _mohaniya_ [Footnote ref 1]. In addition to these four kinds of karma there are other four kinds of karma which determine (1) the length of life in any birth, (2) the peculiar body with its general and special qualities and faculties, (3) the nationality, caste, family, social standing, etc., (4) the inborn energy of the soul by the obstruction of which it prevents the doing of a good action when there is a desire to do it. These are respectively called (1) _ayu@ska karma_, (2) _nama karma_, (3) _gotra karma_, (4) _antaraya karma_. By our actions of mind, speech and body, we are continually producing certain subtle karma matter which in the first instance is called _bhava karma_, which transforms itself into _dravya karma_ and pours itself into the soul and sticks there by coming into contact with the passions (_ka@saya_) of the soul. These act like viscous substances in retaining the inpouring karma matter. This matter acts in eight different ways and it is accordingly divided into eight classes, as we have already noticed. This karma is the cause of bondage and sorrow. According as good or bad karma matter sticks to the soul it gets itself coloured respectively as golden, lotus-pink, white and black, blue and grey and they are called the _les’yas_. The feelings generated by the accumulation of the karma-matter are called _bhava-les’ya_ and the actual coloration of the soul by it is called _dravya-les’ya_. According as any karma matter has been generated by good, bad, or indifferent actions, it gives us pleasure, pain, or feeling of indifference. Even the knowledge that we are constantly getting by perception, inference, etc., is but the result of the effect of karmas in accordance with which the particular kind of veil which was obscuring any particular kind of knowledge is removed at any time and we have a knowledge of a corresponding nature. By our own karmas the veils over our knowledge, feeling, etc., are so removed that we have just that kind of knowledge and feeling that we deserved to have. All knowledge, feeling, etc., are thus in one sense generated from within, the external objects which are ordinarily said to be generating them all being but mere coexistent external conditions.
____________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The Jains acknowledge five kinds of knowledge: (1) _matijnana_ (ordinary cognition), (2) _s’ruti_ (testimony), (3) _avadhi_ (supernatural cognition), (4) _mana@hparyaya_ (thought-reading), (5) _kevala-jnana_ (omniscience).]
192
After the effect of a particular karma matter (_karma-varga@na_) is once produced, it is discharged and purged from off the soul. This process of purging off the karmas is called _nirjara_. If no new karma matter should accumulate then, the gradual purging off of the karmas might make the soul free of karma matter, but as it is, while some karma matter is being purged off, other karma matter is continually pouring in, and thus the purging and binding processes continuing simultaneously force the soul to continue its mundane cycle of existence, transmigration, and rebirth. After the death of each individual his soul, together with its karmic body (_karma@nas’arira_), goes in a few moments to the place of its new birth and there assumes a new body, expanding or contracting in accordance with the dimensions of the latter.
In the ordinary course karma takes effect and produces its proper results, and at such a stage the soul is said to be in the _audayika_ state. By proper efforts karma may however be prevented from taking effect, though it still continues to exist, and this is said to be the _aupas’amika_ state of the soul. When karma is not only prevented from operating but is annihilated, the soul is said to be in the _k@sayika_ state, and it is from this state that Mok@sa is attained. There is, however, a fourth state of ordinary good men with whom some karma is annihilated, some neutralized, and some active (_k@sayopas’amika_) [Footnote ref 1].
Karma, Asrava and Nirjara.
It is on account of karma that the souls have to suffer all the experiences of this world process, including births and rebirths in diverse spheres of life as gods, men or animals, or insects. The karmas are certain sorts of infra-atomic particles of matter (_karma-varga@na_}. The influx of these karma particles into the soul is called asrava in Jainism. These karmas are produced by body, mind, and speech. The asravas represent the channels or modes through which the karmas enter the soul, just like the channels through which water enters into a pond. But the Jains distinguish between the channels and the karmas which actually
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The stages through which a developing soul passes are technically called _gu@nasthanas_ which are fourteen in number. The first three stages represent the growth of faith in Jainism, the next five stages are those in which all the passions are controlled, in the next four stages the ascetic practises yoga and destroys all his karmas, at the thirteenth stage he is divested of all karmas but he still practises yoga and at the fourteenth stage he attains liberation (see Dravyasa@mgrahav@rtti, 13th verse).]