non-essential how did it originate? Vijñānavāda proposes to give an answer, and says that these phenomena are all but ideas of the mind. generated by the beginningless vāsanā (desire) of the mind. The difficulty which is felt with regard to the Tathată doctrine that there must be some reality which is generating all these ideas appearing as phenomena, is the same as that in the Vijñānavāda doctrine. The Vijñānavādins 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 Vijñānavāda literature that is available to us is very scanty and from that we are not in a position to judge what answers Vijñānavāda could give on the point. These three doctrines developed almost about the same time and the difficulty of conceiving śūnya (void), tathatā, (thatness) and the ālayavijñāna of Vijñānavāda is more or less the same.

The Tathata doctrine of Asvaghosa practically ceased with him. But the Śūnyavāda and the Vijñānavāda doctrines which originated probably about 200 B.C. continued to develop probably till the eighth century A.D. Vigorous disputes with Sūnyavāda doctrines are rarely made in any independent work of Hindu philosophy, after Kumārila and Śankara. 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. Dinnāga the Buddhist logician (500 A.D.) probably started these hostile criticisms by trying to refute the doctrines of the great Hindu logician Vātsyāyana, in his Pramāṇasamuccaya. In association with this logical activity we find the activity of two other schools of Buddhism, viz. the Sarvāstivādins (known also as Vaibhāṣikas) and the Sautrāntikas. Both the Vaibhāṣikas and the Sautrāntikas accepted the existence of the external world, and they were generally in conflict with the Hindu schools of thought Nyāya-Vaišeṣika and Samkhya 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 Yasomitra (commentator of Vasubandhu's work),

Dharmmakirtti (writer of Nyāyabindu 635 A.D.), Vinītadeva and Śantabhadra (commentators of Nyāyabindu), Dharmmottara (commentator of Nyāyabindu 847 A.D.), Ratnakīrtti (950 A.D.), Pandita Aśoka, and Ratnākara Śānti, some of whose contributious 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 (arthakriyākāritva) as demonstrating the nature of existence. On the negative side they were interested in denying the ontological theories of Nyaya and Samkhya 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-Sautrāntika and non-Vaibhāṣika 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 Śankara (800 A.D.) and Buddhist thought till the time of Šankara 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 Sankara admitted the existence of the permanent external world in some sense. With Śankara 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 Sautrāntikas admitted the existence of the external world and so their quarrel with Nyaya and Sāmkhya 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. Nyāya, the Vedanta of the school of Sankara and the Theistic Vedanta of Rāmānuja, Madhva, etc.

CHAPTER VI

THE JAINA PHILOSOPHY

The Origin of Jainism.

NOTWITHSTANDING the radical differences in their philosophical notions Jainism and Buddhism, which were originally both orders of monks outside the pale of Brahmanism, present some resemblance in outward appearance, and some European scholars who became acquainted with Jainism through inadequate samples of Jaina literature easily persuaded themselves that it was an offshoot of Buddhism, and even Indians unacquainted with Jaina literature are often found to commit the same mistake. But it has now been proved beyond doubt that this idea is wrong and Jainism is at least as old as Buddhism. The oldest Buddhist works frequently mention the Jains as a rival sect, under their old name Nigantha and their leader Nataputta Varddhamāna ✔ Mahāvīra, the last prophet of the Jains. The canonical books of the Jains mention as contemporaries of Mahāvīra the same kings as reigned during Buddha's career.

Thus Mahāvīra 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 (Tīrthankara) of Jainism'. His predecessor Pārśva, the last Tirthankara but one, is said to have died 250 years before Mahāvīra, while Pārśva's predecessor Ariṣṭanemi is said to have died 84,000 years before Mahāvīra's Nirvāṇa. The story in Uttaradhyayanasūtra that a disciple of Pārsva met a disciple of Mahāvīra and brought about the union of the old Jainism and that propounded by Mahāvīra seems to suggest that this Pārśva 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 Tirthankara was Rṣabha and the last, the 24th, was Vardhamāna Mahāvīra. All

1 See Jacobi's article on Jainism, E. R. E.

Tirthankaras have reached mokṣa 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 worshipped1

Two Sects of Jainism'.

There are two main sects of Jains, Švetāmbaras (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 Tirthankaras live without food, secondly that the embryo of Mahāvīra was not removed from the womb of Devanandā to that of Trisalā as the Svetambaras contend, thirdly that a monk who owns any property and wears clothes cannot reach Mokṣa, fourthly that no woman can reach Mokṣa. The Digambaras deny the canonical works of the Svetambaras and assert that these had been lost immediately after Mahāvīra. The origin of the Digambaras is attributed to Śivabhūti (A.D. 83) by the Śvetāmbaras as due to a schism in the old Śvetāmbara 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 Bhadrabāhu, the eighth sage after Mahāvīra, the last Tīrthankara, there rose the sect of Ardhaphālakas with laxer principles, from which developed the present sect of Svetāmbaras (A.D. 80). The Digambaras having separated in early times from the Svetambaras 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 Svetāmbaras, 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

1 See "Digumbara Jain Iconography (1. A, xxxii [1903] p. 459" of J. Burgess, and Bühler's "Specimens of Jina sculptures from Mathurā,” in Epigraphica Indica, 1I. pp. 311 etc. See also Jacobi's article on Jainism, E. R. E.

See Jacobi's article on Jainism, E. R. E.

'See Gunaratna's commentary on Jainism in Șaḍdarśanasamuccaya.

preserved a list of the succession of their teachers from Mahāvīra (sthaviravali, paṭṭāvali, gurvāvali) and also many legends about them such as those in the Kalpasūtra, the Parisiṣṭa-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 Pūrvas and the eleven Angas. The Pūrvas continued to be transmitted for some time but were gradually lost. The works known as the eleven Angas are now the oldest parts of the existing Jain canon. The names of these are Ācāra, Sūtrakṛta, Sthāna, Samavāya Bhagavati, Jñātadharmakathās, Upāsakadaśās, Antakṛtadaśās Anuttaraupapātikadaśās, Praśnavyākaraṇa, Vipāka. In addition to these there are the twelve Upangas1, the ten Prakīrņas, six Chedasūtras3, Nandi and Anuyogadvāra and four Mūlasūtras (Uttaradhyayana, Āvaśyaka, Daśavaikālika, and Pindaniryukti). 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 Ardhamāgadhi, 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 Mahārāṣṭrī. 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 Umāsvāti's Tattvärthadhigamasūtra (1-85 A.D.). Some of the most important later Jaina works on which this chapter is based are Viseṣāvasyakabhāṣya, Jaina Tarkavārttika, with the commentary of Śantyācāryya, Dravyasamgraha of Nemicandra (1150 A.D.), Syādvādamañjari of Mallisena (1292 A.D.), Nyāyāvatāra of Siddhasena Divākara (533 A.D.), Parīkṣāmukhasūtralaghuvṛtti of Anantaviryya (1039 A.D.), Prameyakamalamārtaṇḍa of Prabhā

1 Aupapātika, Rājapraśnīya, Jīvābhigama, Prajñāpanā, Jambudvipaprajñapti, Candraprajñapti, Süryaprajñapti, Nirayāvali, Kalpāvatamsikā, Puṣpikā, Puṣpacülikā, Vrsnidaśās.

Catuḥsarana, Samstāra, Āturapratyākhyāna, Bhaktāparijñā, Taṇdulavaiyālī, Caṇḍāvija, Devendrastava, Gaṇivīja, Mahāpratyākhyāna, Vīrastava.

3 Niśītha, Mahāniśītha, Vyavahāra, Daśaśrutaskandha, Bṛhatkalpa, Pañcakalpa.