Akalank Granthtraya Aur Uske Karta

This document, "Akalank Granthtraya aur Uske Karta" (The Akalank Granthtraya and its Author), is an in-depth analysis of the author Akalankadev and his trilogy of Jain philosophical works, likely comprising Laghiyastray, Nyayavinishchay, and Pramanasangraha.

Here's a comprehensive summary of its key points in English:

1. Introduction to Akalankadev's Life and Works:

• Scarcity of Biographical Information: The text begins by acknowledging the lack of detailed autobiographical or contemporary accounts of Akalankadev's life. The oldest surviving biographical works, like Harishen's Kathakosha (completed 941 CE), do not mention him.
• Later Biographical Sources: Akalank's life is described in later works like Prabhachandra's Gadya Kathakosha (estimated 14th century CE), Devachandra's Kannada work Rajavali Kathe (16th century CE), and the Mallishenprasasti (1185 CE), which mentions his debates.
• Challenges in Dating: Due to the late origin of these sources, their historical accuracy is questioned. The text highlights the limited available material for reconstructing his life.
• Focus on Internal Evidence: The author emphasizes the importance of internal textual analysis of Akalankadev's own works to determine his time period, as external evidence is scarce and often contradictory.

2. Debates on Akalankadev's Time Period:

• Two Main Viewpoints: The text presents two prominent theories for Akalankadev's era:
  • Dr. K.B. Pathak's View: This view places Akalankadev around 700 CE (Shak Samvat), based on the interpretation of "Vikramarka Shakeabd" in Akalank Charita as Shak Samvat. This aligns with his debates with the Rashtrakuta kings like Dantidurga II or Krishna I.
  • Prof. Shrikant Shastri and Pt. Jugal Kishore Mukhtar's View: This view interprets "Vikramarka Shakeabd" as Vikram Samvat 700 (643 CE).
• Critique of Supporting Arguments: The author critically examines the evidence used to support both viewpoints:
  • Arguments against the earlier dating (643 CE): The text scrutinizes the mention of Siddhivinishchay in the Nishith Churni and the authorship of the Nandi Churni. It raises doubts about the dating of the Nandi Churni and its author, Jinadasganni Mahattara, suggesting that even if the Nishith Churni mentions Siddhivinishchay, the dating of the former is not definitively established. It also dismisses the reliance on the 15th-16th century Akalank Charita for dating, noting that it was written centuries after Akalank.
  • Arguments supporting the later dating (700 CE): The author's primary contribution is a detailed comparative analysis of Akalankadev's works with those of other prominent philosophers.

3. Comparative Analysis of Philosophical Works:

• Establishing Chronology of Contemporaries: The text meticulously traces the intellectual lineage and chronological order of key philosophers relevant to Akalankadev's time:
  • Bhartrihari (c. 600-650 CE): His Vakyapadiya and philosophical ideas are discussed.
  • Kumarila Bhatta (c. 600-680 CE): His critiques of Bhartrihari's philosophy are highlighted.
  • Dharmakirti (c. 620-690 CE): The text argues strongly that Dharmakirti criticized Kumarila Bhatta, not vice versa, based on detailed textual evidence from Pramana Varttika. This is a crucial point in establishing the relative chronology.
  • Prajnakaragupta (c. 670-725 CE): A prominent commentator on Dharmakirti, whose ideas are analyzed.
  • Karnakagomi (c. 690-750 CE): Another commentator on Dharmakirti, whose work (Pramana Varttika Svopajnavritti Tika) is discussed.
  • Dharmottara (c. 650-720 CE): A commentator on Dharmakirti.
  • Shantarakshita (c. 705-762 CE): Author of Tattvasangraha, whose ideas are compared.
• Akalankadev's Engagement with these Philosophers: The text provides extensive examples of how Akalankadev critiqued and responded to the philosophical positions of Bhartrihari, Kumarila, Dharmakirti, Prajnakaragupta, Karnakagomi, Dharmottara, and Shantarakshita. The detailed citations demonstrate Akalank's deep understanding and engagement with their arguments.
• Dating Akalankadev: Based on this comparative analysis, the author concludes that Akalankadev must have been at least 50 years after Dharmakirti and his commentators. This leads to a dating for Akalankadev around 720-780 CE. This timeline also aligns better with the biographical details from the Mallishenprasasti and Prabhachandra's work regarding his presence in the courts of Rashtrakuta kings.

4. Introduction to the "Akalank Granthtraya":

• Authorship: The text confirms the authorship of the trilogy by Shrimad Bhatta Akalankadev, noting his tendency to use his name in his works, sometimes as a descriptor for Jinendra or his own texts.
• The Trilogy: The three works are identified as:
  • Laghiyastray: A collection of three small treatises, likely on logic and epistemology. The name itself suggests a collection of concise works. The text discusses the history of this name and its possible origin with Anantavirya. It outlines the structure of Laghiyastray with its six paricchedas (chapters) covering Pramana and Naya.
  • Nyayavinishchay: This work is presented as Akalankadev's response to Dharmakirti's Pramana Vinishchay. It covers topics in three prastavas (sections): Pratyaksha, Anumana, and Pravachana.
  • Pramanasangraha: This is described as a vast and complex work, likely Akalankadev's most comprehensive exposition on logic and epistemology, containing numerous debates and detailed analysis. It has nine prastavas.
• Stylistic Analysis:
  • Clarity in Agama: Akalank's writing is described as clear and fluid when discussing Jain scriptural topics.
  • Complexity in Logic: His logical and dialectical writings are considered dense, profound, and challenging, requiring significant effort to understand. Even his commentators found his work difficult.
  • Influence of Tradition and Opponents: His works show the influence of earlier Jain masters like Samantabhadra, Pujyapada, and Siddhasena Divakara, as well as a deep engagement with Buddhist philosophers like Dignaga and Dharmakirti, and Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta.
  • Use of Humor and Ridicule: Akalank's writing sometimes includes humor and ridicule, particularly when refuting opponents.
  • Focus on Buddhism: A significant portion of his work is dedicated to refuting Buddhist philosophical positions.

5. Detailed Examination of Key Philosophical Concepts:

The text then delves into a detailed exposition of the philosophical concepts discussed in the trilogy, offering Akalankadev's perspective and his refutations of opposing views:

• Pramana (Means of Valid Knowledge):

  • Definition: Akalank defines pramana as a knowledge that is determinative, free from doubt and contradiction (avisamvadi), and grasps the unapprehended (anadhigatarthagrahi).
  • Critique of Pramana Sambhava: He refutes the Buddhist notion of pramana sambhava (the possibility of multiple valid means of knowledge for the same object) by arguing that each pramana has a distinct scope.
  • Self-Cognition of Knowledge: Akalank argues for the self-cognition of knowledge (svasamvedana) in a non-conceptual (nirvikalpaka) form, refuting Buddhist theories of conceptualized knowledge (sakara) and others' views on knowledge being known through other knowledge (jnantarvedya).
  • Classification of Pramanas: He classifies pramana into Pratyaksha (Direct Perception) and Paroksha (Indirect Perception), with detailed sub-classifications.
  • Reinterpretation of Pratyaksha: Akalank defines pratyaksha as determinative, clear (visada), and directly cognized, refuting the Buddhist emphasis on non-conceptual perception and the Nyaya emphasis on sense-object contact. He argues that volitional cognition (savikalpa) is the true pratyaksha.
  • The Role of Inference (Anumana): He discusses inference, its components, and refutes the Buddhist concept of the "three-wheeled" inference (trirupa linga), advocating for the "impossible alternative" (anyathanupapatti) as the true basis of inference.
  • The Validity of Testimony (Agama/Shruta): Akalank defends the validity of Jain scripture (Agama) and the testimony of omniscient beings (Sarvajna), refuting the Mimamsa claim of Vedic eternality and the Buddhist rejection of the Buddha's omniscence.
  • Critique of Other Pramanas: He refutes Upamana (Analogy) and Arthapatti (Implication) as separate pramanas, incorporating their valid aspects into Pratyaksha and Anumana.
  • Pratyakshabhasa (Fallacious Perception): He analyzes various fallacies of perception.

• The Concept of Reality (Dravya, Paryaya, Naya, Niskepa):

  • Anekantavada (The Doctrine of Manysidedness): This is presented as the cornerstone of Jain philosophy, aiming for a synthesis of opposing viewpoints. It is described as a tool for mental peace and reconciling conflicting ideas.
  • The Nature of Reality: Akalank describes reality as dravya (substance) which is eternal and the basis of change, and paryaya (modes/attributes) which are transient and undergo change. Reality possesses both permanence and change.
  • Critique of Extremes: He refutes the Buddhist extreme of momentary existence (kshanika) and the Upanishadic extreme of absolute permanence (nitya), advocating for a middle path of qualified permanence and change.
  • Naya (Standpoints): The text explains the Jain concept of naya as partial perspectives that, when considered in relation to each other, lead to a complete understanding of reality. It details the various nayavada such as Naigama, Sangraha, Vyavahara, Rjusutra, Shabda, Samabhirudha, and Evambhuta. He emphasizes that a naya is valid (sunaya) when it is relative and acknowledges other viewpoints, but becomes erroneous (durnaya) when it becomes absolute and denies others.
  • Niskepa (Classification/Application): The text explains the concept of niskepa as a method of applying classifications for better understanding and disambiguation, covering Nama, Sthapana, Dravya, and Bhava.

• Saptabhangi (The Sevenfold Predication):

  • The Seven Syllogisms: This doctrine is explained as a method of expressing the manifold nature of reality, where each statement is qualified by "syat" (perhaps/in some respect). The seven propositions are: Syat Asti (is), Syat Nasti (is not), Syat Avaktavya (is indescribable), Syat Asti-Nasti (is and is not), Syat Asti-Avaktavya (is and is indescribable), Syat Nasti-Avaktavya (is not and is indescribable), and Syat Asti-Nasti-Avaktavya (is, is not, and is indescribable).
  • Origin of Saptabhangi: The text traces the origin of the sevenfold predication to Kundakunda, noting that the earliest texts mention only three primary propositions (Asti, Nasti, Avaktavya).
  • The Purpose of Saptabhangi: It serves to reconcile seemingly contradictory attributes of reality. The author emphasizes that the "syat" qualification is crucial for maintaining the relativity of each statement.

• Omniscience (Sarvajnatva) and Other Concepts:

  • Defense of Omniscience: Akalankadev strongly defends the Jain concept of omniscience, refuting the arguments of Mimamsakas (like Kumarila) who denied it, and analyzing the Buddhist understanding of omniscience as merely omniscience of suffering (dharmmata).
  • Refutation of Materialism (Bhutachaitanyavada): He refutes the Charvaka view that consciousness is merely a product of material elements.
  • Critique of Idealism (Vijnanavada) and Nihilism (Shunyavada): He engages with and refutes the Buddhist schools of Vijnanavada (consciousness-only) and Shunyavada (emptiness).
  • Critique of Anvayavyatireka and Anyathanupapatti: He discusses the relationship between cause and effect and the role of anvaya (concomitance) and vyatireka (non-concomitance) in logical reasoning.

6. Conclusion:

The document underscores the profound philosophical depth and intellectual rigor of Akalankadev's works. It highlights his critical engagement with contemporary philosophical traditions and his significant contribution to the development of Jain logic and epistemology, particularly through his rigorous analysis of pramana, naya, and saptabhangi. The author's efforts to establish Akalankadev's time period through detailed textual comparison are a key achievement of this study.