Applied Philosophy Of Anekanta ► 2. Metaphysical Basis of Anekānta ► 2.7 Varieties of Examples Highlighting the Interrelationship of Trinity

Posted: 03.04.2014

Jain ācāryas have cited different types of novel and living examples for showing the inter-relation of utpāda-vyaya-dhrauvya nature of sat. The very common example of ancient time is of pitcher, clay, and mudness, which is already mentioned earlier as used by Kundakunda in his Pravacanasāra text, by Akalaṁka in Tatvārtharājavārtika and by Devanandi in his work of Sarvārthasiddhi. Ācārya Kundakunda of (2nd cent. CE) quotes the example of seed, sprout and treeness. In his text he cites an example:

paryāyastūdpādavyayadhrauvyairālambyante utpāpa vyaya dhravyāṇāme yeṣadharmatvāt bījāṇkura pādapvat. yathā kilāṇśinaḥ pādapasya bījaṅkurpādapatvalaknāstrayoṇśā bhaṅgot- pādadhrauvyalakṣaṇairātmadhārmairālamitaḥ samameva pratibhānti.[1]

Let us look at the seed of a plant. When the seed is planted in the soil, it must necessarily break the shell to sprout out. This is the first step in its attempt to grow. Then the sprouting seed further undergoes change and some portion of it, comes out seeking the sunlight and the other portion goes down into the soil, evolves and gradually undergoes enormous changes into the root system. Similarly, the portion that shoots up into the air and sunlight will also undergo enormous changes, of sprouting out in to tendrils and leaves, finally resulting in branches and the stem of the plant all of which are engaged in the task of producing nourishment with the help of sunlight. At every stage, we find change, the old leaves being shed off and the new shoots coming in. This is the general law of nature. The life of the seed never extirpates; it lives, even though it is being constantly changed, and this is what reality is. So, in a substance some modification originates and some other passes away, but the substantiality neither originates nor is destroyed.[2] He further exemplifies as follows,

yathaiv chotpadyamānaṃ pāṇdubhāven, vyaymānaṁ

It means, a mango in its unripened state is green in colour. As the process of ripening continues, it becomes yellow in colour. This shows the destruction of green colour and origination of yellow in the same fruit called mango, which shows its permanency.

Lord Mahavira never admitted the absolute expression of any concept as permanent or impermanent. Bhagavaī cites an example of bāla, from vyavahāra point of view, bāla means a child, and from spiritual point of view, bāla means unrestrained being. He says:

sāsaye bālaye, baliyattaṁ asāsayaṁ,
sāsaye paṇdiye, paṅdiyattaṁ asāsayaṁ

A man is paṇdita, knower of scriptures, from vyavahāra point of view, and from spiritual point of view a restrained being i.e. when the modes of bāla originates, the modes of paṇdita destroys still, the soulness remains permanent in both the modes.

Even Umāsvāti (3rd cent. CE) explains the inter­relation of trinity through the following verse as,

siddhatvenotpādo vyayosya sansārbhāvato jñeyayḥ,
jīvatvena dhrauvyaṁ tritayayutaṁ sarvamevaṁ tu.[5]

When a mundane soul attains the state of siddhahood, there is origination of the siddhahood mode and the destruction of mundanehood mode, the permanent in both the stages is soulhood. Thus, trinity is proved.

Umāsvāti in his Bhāṣya cites an example of trinity. As elevation and depression of a balance occurs simultaneously. While one end of the beam of the balance raises, the other end falls at the same time; if one end falls, the other raises at the same moment; similarly, without cessation in the prior order, the posterior order cannot come into being. Therefore, both must be accepted to occur simultaneously.[6]

Umāsvāmi in his Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra cites an example of a man in anger and forgiveness supervenes. His angry soul is replaced by a forgiving one, i.e., the forgiving condition comes into existence, at the same time an anger goes out of existence; and all throughout the process, the soul continues to be the same. In Viśeṣāvaśyaka Bhāśya, Jinabhadragaṇi (5th cent. CE) explains utpāda, vyaya and dhrauvya in philosophical way as:

nāṇassāvaraṇassa ya samayaṁ tamhā pagāsa-tamaso vā,
uppāya-vyaya-dhammā, taha neya savvabhavāṇaṁ.[7]

With the destruction of darkness, generally the origination of light is seen simultaneously, but the material atoms of both, the darkness and the light are permanent in both the stages. Likewise the destruction of knowledge covering karma and the origination of omniscience is simultaneous and still the soulhood is permanent.

In the same way, even Jinadasgaṇī (6th cent. CE) in his Daśvaikālika Cūrṇī, cites two examples of soul and matter. The birth in the human realm is caused due to the death in the heavenly realm, still the soulhood is eternal. Likewise the destruction of an atom and the origination of dvipradeshi skandha (an aggregate) and in both the cases, the matterhood remains as permanent. Siddhasena Ganī (6 cent. CE) in his 'Sanmati Tarka’ text gave a living example of trinity. He says,

jo āauṇcanakālo so ceva pasāriyassa vi ṇa jutto,
tesiṁ puṇa padivattī-vgame kālaṅtaraṁ ṇatthi.
uppajjamāṇakālaṁ uppaṇṇaṁ ti vigayaṁ vigacchataṅtaṁ,
daviyaṁ paṇṇavayaṅto tikālavisayaṁ visesei

The finger is a thing when bent cannot remain erect and vice-versa. Straightness and crookedness of a thing take place simultaneously. The origination of 'straightness’ (saralatā paryāya) means the destruction of crookendness (vakratā paryāya). They both are the results of one and the same action taking place at one and the same time. And at the same time ‘finger’ is permanent (sthiti) as a finger. This establishes the fact that trinity are samakālina, that is to say, they occur at one and the same time.

Now, contrary to that if we take only one paryāya, namely, crookedness (vakratā) or straightness (saralatā), we are able to accommodate a different time limit for each of the three utpāda, sthiti, and nāśa. When the finger ceases to be crooked and becomes straight, from that very moment saralatā-paryāya begins. Vakratā paryāya begins when the finger loses straight condition and assumes crookedness. And sthiti sāmānya remains in force from the moment it becomes straight upto the moment it loses straightness. Thus we are able to allot different moments for each of them.

Thus utpāda, sthiti and nāśa, all these three states of a reality is bhinnakālina (occurring at different intervals) or ekakālina (occurring simultaneously), at the same time. As we saw above, are themselves different, or one with the dravya of which they are the dharmās (properties). They are different because they are its constituents and they are not different also, because they don't claim a separate existence being all included in the dravya.

Malliṣena (10th cent. CE) says, we can experience the origination and cessation through an example of conch. When a white conch is perceived as yellow due to defective eyes and when our eye's defect is removed, again we get knowledge of white conch and knowledge of yellow conch disappears. In white conch, origination of yellow colour and cessation of the same, and still the knowledge of white colour conch is prevailing in both the states of modes.[9]

In our day-to-day affairs, we experience change in the form of origination and cessation in a substance and its permanent nature at one and the same time. Samantabhadra (8th cent. A.D.) cites an example as:

ghatamaulisuvarṇārthī naśotpādasthitiṣvayaṁ,
śokapramodamādhyasthyaṁ jano yāti sahetukaṁ. 3.59

Different psychological reactions are perceived in different individual persons at one and the same time, on the breaking up of a gold kalaśa (pot) and the making of a crown out of the same stuff. The man desiring the kalaśa is sorry over its destruction, the other man desiring for the crown is happy on its making, the third person desiring only gold, appears to be neutral. Thus, origination, cessation and persistence are identical in this respect, that they are in one and the same substance, but they are also different in the sense, that they give rise to different cognition. So it is clear that, the object is characterized by the three aspects, origination, cessation and persistence. Even Haribhadrasūri[10] and Kumārila Bhatta, also has dealt with the problem of the three aspects of an entity by quoting the same example.

Samantabhadra tries to prove the triple nature of a reality through an example of milk also. He says:

payovrato na dadhyati ṇa payotti dadhivrataḥ,
agorasavrato nobhe tasmāt tattvaṁ trayātmakaṁ

It means, one person vowed to milk, does not eat curds; one vowed to curds, does not eat milk; one vowed to abstinence form cow products avoids both. Haribhadrasūri also quoted the very same verse in his text.[11] Therefore, the entity is triple.

Another example is given by Malliṣeṇa in his commentary text Syādvāda Maṅjarī that nails and hair although we cut, still they grow slowly; the nails are changing every moment. The origination of new nail and disappearance of the old nails goes on and on, still one accepts it, as the same nail. This sort of pratyabhijñyā (recognition) can occur only in the triple nature of Reality.[12] Another living example is quoted by Malliṣeṇa as follows:

na ca jīvādau vastuni harṣāmarodasīnyadi,
paryāya paramparānubhavaḥ rasaladarūpaḥ, kasyacid bādhakasyābhāvāt.[13]

Likewise, we experience in our day-to-day life, the various modes of human emotions, namely, pleasure, anger and sadness and so forth. These modes are seen logically undeniable and unobjectionable, experienced in the same human being. Thus the three-fold nature of reality is proved.

This Jain theory of identity and change has been compared to the chemical change. In 1789, Lavoisier, an eminent scientist, propounded the theory of conservation of matter. According to this theory, matter is constant. Its modifications are only expressions. The modifications do not destroy matter, nor do they add to the quantity of matter. Just as the coal when burnt becomes ash, the matter is not altogether destroyed. It is only converted into ash and gases. The Jains have affirmed the same point when they say that in the modifications of dravya, the quantum of dravya does not change, it is eternal. It expresses itself in different forms.

Therefore, dravya is constant in all its modifications.[14] The very same example is quoted by Pūjyapāda in his Sarvārthasiddhi text.[15] Thus, we see, the three-fold nature of reality meet together simultaneously in a single period of time. All the examples quoted above are very much related to our day-to-day life. Let us proceed to explain the possible transgressions occurring in the acceptance of absolute Origination, Cessation, Permanent nature of Reality.

Share this page on: