Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Books, poems, drama…

A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 by Surendranath Dasgupta

Part 5 out of 13

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 1.4 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

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.]


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.]


to the sense
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.]


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

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.]


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

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.]


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

"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


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

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.]


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

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


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.]


all things to be momentary, for this is more an attempt to refute
the doctrines of Nyaya than an elaboration of the Buddhist

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


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.]


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

[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.]


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


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


believe in the existence of a power-possessor separate from the

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


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),


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.




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._]


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

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


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,

[Footnote 3: _Nis'itha, Mahanis'itha, Vyavahara, Das'as'rutaskandha,
B@rhatkalpa, Pancakalpa_.]


(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.]


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.]


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.]


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_.]


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

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.]


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.]


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.]


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.]


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,


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

[Footnote 2: See _Prama@na-naya-tattvalokala@mkara_ (Benares), p. 16; also
_Parik@sa-mukha-suira-v@rtti_ (Asiatic Society), ch. I.]


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.]


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.]


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.]


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.]


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.]


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


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.]


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.]


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.]


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_


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).]

Book of the day: