International Journal of Jaina Studies (IJJS) Archive 2015
The Taste of the Mango: A Jaina-Buddhist Controversy on Evidence
Author: Marie-Hélène Gorisse
International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 3 (2015) 1-19
In the classical framework of Indian philosophy, the different schools of thought agree on the fact that the correctness of an inference relies on a special necessary relation standing between the evidence-property and the target-property. In this framework, there is a controversy between Buddhist and Jain philosophers concerning the marks of this necessary relation, named the “invariable concomitance”. More precisely, whereas the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakīrti holds that only two types of inferential evidence, namely natural property and effect, can ensure that inferential reasoning relies upon an invariable concomitance, the Jain Māṇikyanandi claims that there are no less than six situations in which the presence of an invariable concomitance is unquestionable, namely when the evidence-property is pervaded by the target-property, or when it is its effect, its cause, its predecessor, its successor or its co-existent. In this line, the typical answer from the Buddhist side is to show that any evidence other than natural property and effect can in fact be traceable to one of them. Contrarily, the Jain strategy is to show that natural property and effect are not sufficient in order to give a correct account of the diversity of correct inferences. The aim of this paper is to give a presentation of these discrepancies between the Jain and the Buddhist theories of inference, as they are found in Māṇikyanandi’s Parīkṣāmukham, the Introduction to Philosophical Investigation, a digest of Akalaṅka’s mature philosophy on one side, and in Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇavārttikasvavṛtti, his Auto-commentary on the Essay on Knowledge on the other side.
A Specific Rule in India for Common Difference as Found in the Gommaṭasāra of Nemicandra (c. 981)
Author: Dipak Jadhav
International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 2 (2015) 1-21
This paper brings the formula d = S ÷ n²k into light and discusses its various aspects including its context in Jaina philosophy. It was set forth and utilized by Nemicandra (c. 981) in the Gommaṭasāra (Karmakāṇḍa) in order to demonstrate the lower-thought-activity (adhaḥ pravṛtta karaṇa). The lower-thought-activity is conceived as a special process of thought-concentration which causes destruction (kṣapaṇa) or suppression (upaśamana) of the sub-classes of conduct-deluding karma. The paper also offers a rationale for this specific formula. The relevance of the formula lies in the fact that it can be used for generating various arithmetic progressions by finding the common differences, d , in accordance with various values of an arbitrary number, k , while their sums, S , and the numbers of their terms, n , remain fixed. This way he used it. It can also be used for generating various arithmetic progressions by finding in accordance with various values of k while n and d remain fixed and by finding n in accordance with various appropriate values of k while S and d remain fixed.
What can the lifespans of Ṛṣabha, Bharata, Śreyāṃsa, and Ara tell us about the History of the concept of Mount Meru?
Author: Ruth Satinsky
International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 1 (2015) 1-24
Willibald Kirfel (1920/1990), in his major study of Indian cosmology, Die Kosmographie der Inder nach den Quellen dargestellt, compares the Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jaina cosmological systems, and concludes that the early Brahmanical cosmology forms the basis of the later cosmology found in the epics and Purāṇas, and that of the Buddhist and Jaina systems, as well. Contrary to Kirfel, this paper will present some provisional ideas which suggest that the concept of Mount Meru entered Brahmanical literature under the influence of the culture out of which Jainism and Buddhism arose, the culture of Greater Magadha. This hypothesis is based on three observations: 1) the concept of Mount Meru ("the golden mountain at the center of the earth and the universe, around which the heavenly bodies revolve") is prominent in the Jaina and Buddhist canons, but strikingly absent from Brahmanical literature prior to the Mahābhārata; 2) its late introduction into Brahmanical literature marks the shift from Vedic to epic and Purāṇic cosmology at a time when Brahmanical contacts with Buddhism, Jainism, and their region of origin, Greater Magadha, were possible and presumably established; and 3) a special group of numbers, "the number eighty-four and its multiples," is also prominent in the Jaina and Buddhist canons, and in Ājīvikism, but likewise absent from Brahmanical literature prior to the Mahābhārata. The lifespans of Ṛṣabha, Bharata, Śreyāṃsa, and Ara, and the height of Mount Meru are linked to this special group of numbers, and will serve, amongst others, as examples.
Jain Perceptions of Nāth and Haṭha Yogīs in Pre-Colonial North India
Author: John E. Cort
International Journal of Jaina Studies (Online) Vol. 11, No. 4 (2015) 1-22
Toward the end of the Banārsī Vilās, the “collected works” of Banārsīdās (1586-1643) that was compiled by his colleague Jagjīvanrām in 1644, there is a curious seven-caupāī composition entitled Gorakhnāth ke Vacan, or “The Sayings of Gorakhnāth.” The text, which may or may not have been authored by Banārsīdās, but at the very least provides us with a Jain reception of Gorakhnāth’s teachings, gives a very favorable short summary of them. To the best of my knowledge, no scholarly attention has been focused on this text. Scholars of Banārsīdās at best simply mention it in passing. Scholars of Gorakhnāth, and the Nāths seem largely to be ignorant of the text. A century later, in his Mokṣa-mārg Prakāśak, the Jaipur-based Terāpanth ideologue Ṭoḍarmal (ca. 1719/20-1766/67) included a discussion of the practices of Haṭha Yogīs, who most likely were Rāmānandīs. His comments were harshly critical of these false practices. Neither account of these “Hindu” Yogic practitioners of early modern north India is sufficiently extensive or detailed to provide useful contemporary evidence of the details of the practices of these Yogic groups. They do, however, show us two very different responses to the problem of religious diversity. While Banārsīdās affirms the superiority of the Jain teachings in other texts, the inclusion of Gorakhnāth ke Vacan in his Banārsī Vilās shows that he was a curious spiritual seeker, who could find value in non-Jain practices and ideas. Ṭoḍarmal, on the other hand, was a staunch ideologue, who exalted the Jain doctrines and denigrated all others.