Svabhavvada A Study - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text "Svabhavvada a Study" by V. M. Kulkarni:

The paper "Svabhavvada: A Study" by V. M. Kulkarni investigates the Jain perspective on Svabhāvavāda (Naturalism), a philosophical doctrine that posits that the world and its phenomena originate and operate solely due to the inherent nature of things.

The author begins by referencing the Svetasvatara Upanishad, which lists various proposed first causes for the world's variety, including Time, Nature (Svabhāva), Destiny, Chance, Elements, and Purusha. Kulkarni's focus is on understanding Svabhāvavāda, specifically as opposed to Accidentalism.

Core Tenets of Svabhāvavāda:

The study draws upon numerous Sanskrit and Prakrit texts to outline the central ideas of Svabhāvavāda:

Inherent Nature as the Sole Cause: Proponents of Svabhāvavāda argue that all phenomena, including good and evil, existence and non-existence, happiness and suffering, are a result of the intrinsic nature of things. This makes any external effort or divine intervention unnecessary and futile.
Examples of Natural Development: This doctrine is illustrated with various examples:
- The heat of fire and liquidity of water are seen as intrinsic qualities.
- The sharpness of thorns, the varied colors of peacocks, the sweetness of sugarcane, and the bitterness of nimba are attributed to their inherent nature.
- The development of a fetus into a body with limbs is seen as a natural process.
- The existence of agreeable or disagreeable qualities in sensory objects is also attributed to nature.
Rejection of External Causes: Svabhāvavādins generally reject other explanatory causes like Karma, God, Time, or even self-effort (Purushakara). The universe unfolds "naturally" or "accidentally" from the inherent properties of matter and beings.
Individuality and Self-Determination: While some interpretations suggest that individuals are determined by their own "somatic and psychic nature," the core idea is that the world's order and the experiences within it are self-generated by the nature of the components.

Historical and Philosophical Context:

The paper traces the presence of Svabhāvavāda across various Indian philosophical schools:

Upanishads: Mentioned as one of the possible causes considered by thinkers.
Buddhism (Ashvaghosha's Buddhacarita): Clearly articulates the Svabhāvavādin viewpoint, emphasizing the vanity of effort due to natural development.
Nyaya: Gautama's Nyayasutra, as explained by Vatsyayana, presents Svabhāvavāda as an opposing view (Purvapaksa), illustrating it with the sharpness of thorns.
Samkhya: Commentaries mention Svabhāva as a cause proposed by others, often subsumed under the broader concept of Prakriti (Primordial Matter). Gaudapada, for instance, integrates Svabhāva into Prakriti.
Brhatsamhita: Utpala's commentary highlights Svabhāvavāda's belief in nature as the sole cause of the world's variety and destruction, using similar examples to Ashvaghosha.
Advaita Vedanta (Sarva-Siddhanta-Sangraha): Sankara briefly describes the doctrine, stating that pleasure and pain are experienced by nature, with no other cause.
Jainism:
- Maladhari Hemachandra (commentary on Visesavasthyakabhasya and Ganadharavada): Quotes verses presenting Svabhāvavāda as originating without cause and due to mere accident. He also attempts to distinguish it from Yadṛcchā (chance).
- Siddhasena Divakara, Haribhadra: Jaina writers generally view Svabhāvavāda as one among many causes, asserting that a correct belief acknowledges multiple factors (Kala, Svabhava, Niyati, Karma, Purushakara) rather than elevating one to sole importance.
- Gunaratna (commentary on Saddarśana-Samuccaya): Attributes to others the view that the world's variety is explained by its own nature, without karma.
- Devendra (commentary on Uttaradhyayana Sutra): A Prakrit verse hints at Svabhāvavāda by questioning the creators of natural beauty and qualities.
- Silanka (commentary on Sutrakrtanga): Presents Svabhāvavāda as a view held by others, attributing the variety of the world to inherent character, but later refutes it by arguing that inherent character cannot be the sole cause of joy and sorrow without being either distinct from or identical to the person. He also critiques the idea of no effort yielding rewards.
- Jñanavimala (commentary on Praśnavyākarana Sutra): States that some believe the universe is produced by Svabhāva and everything occurs by Svabhāva alone.
- Abhayadeva (commentary on Praśnavyākarana Sutra): Attempts to differentiate Yadṛcchā (accident, chance) from Svabhāva (natural development), explaining happiness and grief as due to accident, while attributing natural development to Svabhāva.
Mahabharata: Contains numerous references to Svabhāva as the cause of all phenomena.
Bhagavad Gita: Uses the doctrine of Svabhāva to explain caste duties and the irresistible force driving actions, particularly in persuading Arjuna.
Nyāyamañjarī (Jayanta): Dismisses Svabhāvavāda and establishes the doctrine of Adṛṣṭa (Karma), refuting the argument that a baby's mouth opening is spontaneous by showing it's caused by natural development (like a lotus blooming due to sunlight).
Tattvasangraha (Shantaraksita & Kamalasila): Provides a detailed exposition and refutation of Svabhavika-jagadvada, arguing that if things occur naturally, they should not appear at specific times and places, implying the need for particular causes.

Distinction between Yadṛcchāvāda and Svabhāvavāda:

The paper highlights that while often conflated (as suggested by Gautama and Vatsyayana), these doctrines are distinct. Yadṛcchāvāda (Accidentalism) posits a chaotic world with order arising purely by chance. Svabhāvavāda, however, acknowledges inherent causation, with things unfolding according to their own nature. The former denies causation entirely, while the latter accepts it as intrinsic.

Relationship to Ājīvikism and Materialism:

Kulkarni discusses Basham's suggestion that Svabhāvavāda might be a sub-sect of Ājīvikism due to their shared emphasis on the futility of human effort. However, Kulkarni argues that Svabhāvavāda is more closely aligned with Materialism or Cārvākadarśana because both deny a transmigrating soul, a concept present in Niyativāda (which is linked to Ājīvikism). He suggests Svabhāvavāda is "part and parcel of Materialism."

Dialectic and Refutation:

The paper notes that detailed expositions of Svabhāvavāda are scarce, with most information coming from its opponents who present it as a Purvapaksa for refutation. This raises a caution about judging the Svabhāvavādins' logical prowess, as opponents might have ascribed easily refutable arguments. Jaina critics, like Jinabhadragani and Silanka, refute Svabhāvavāda by emphasizing the doctrine of Karma and demonstrating the limitations of an inherent nature as a sole explanatory principle. Silanka, for instance, argues that inherent nature cannot be the cause of joy and sorrow unless it is either identical to or distinct from the person, both of which lead to logical inconsistencies.

Conclusion:

The study concludes that Svabhāvavāda was a significant philosophical position in ancient India, evidenced by its frequent mention and critique across various traditions. While often presented as a doctrine of ultimate self-causation, it was largely refuted by rival schools, including Jainism, for its failure to adequately explain the order, variety, and directedness observed in the universe, especially in contrast to concepts like Karma. However, the Jain tradition, within its framework of Syadvada, found a way to accommodate the idea of "inherent nature" as one of many contributing factors.