युक्त्यनुशासन और आचार्य समन्तभद्र
By विद्यावाचस्पति डॉ. श्रीरंजनसूरिदेव
Summary
The text discusses the work "Yuktyanushasana" by Acharya Samantabhadra, a prominent Jain philosopher from the second century CE. The text explains that Samantabhadra considered the teachings of Lord Mahavira as a "sarvodayatirtha" (a ford for universal upliftment), as described in the 61st verse of the work. This teaching is characterized as anekantavada (non-absolutism), which avoids contradictions by considering both primary and secondary aspects of reality. The text notes that the original name of the work was likely "Vira Jina Stotra," as the author refers to it as a hymn to Vira Jina in the beginning and end, but later commentators named it "Yuktyanushasana." The work contains 64 verses, with the first 62 in Upajati meter and the last two in Shikharini meter. Samantabhadra's purpose was to praise Lord Mahavira's teachings, which he believed could transform even a hostile person into a virtuous one, as stated in verse 62. The text describes Samantabhadra as a great scholar who traveled across India, including Patliputra, Malava, Sindhu, Thakka, Kanchipura, and Vidisha, engaging in philosophical debates. He claimed ten epithets for himself, including acharya, poet, and master of various sciences. The main theme of "Yuktyanushasana" is the superiority of Vira's teachings, which present reality as both identical and different. Samantabhadra refutes Buddhist momentariness and Charvaka materialism, criticizing their support for violence. He emphasizes that anekantavada is essential for understanding truth and avoiding one-sided views, and that it provides a path to liberation and ethical living.
Conclusion
The analysis of Ācārya Samantabhadra’s *Yuktyanuśāsana* reveals that its core function is not merely devotional but dialectical, establishing the Jina’s teaching as a *sarvodaya tīrtha*—a comprehensive path to universal uplift. The text’s sustained refutation of absolutist schools, from Buddhist momentariness to Cārvāka materialism, demonstrates that only the *anekānta* (non-absolutist) perspective can resolve philosophical contradictions without falling into self-defeating extremes. For contemporary readers, this implies that genuine intellectual tolerance requires more than passive acceptance; it demands an active, reasoned engagement with opposing views. The document’s ultimate outcome is a methodological framework where truth is not monolithic but multifaceted, accessible only through a dialectic that respects both unity and diversity. This has profound implications for modern discourse, suggesting that dogmatic polarization can be overcome not by abandoning conviction,