Proceedings and papers of National Seminar on Jainology

Author(s): Yugalkishor Mishra
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 191

162
Vaishali Institutc Research Bulletin No. 8
The word kāya in atthikāya stands for an cntity that has parts. The Tatvaprad ipikā-vrtti of Amitacandra on Pamcāstikāva (Kärikū, 5) says:
Kāyatvākhyam sāvayavatvam avascyam Siddhascnagani in his (kā on Umāsvā'i's Talvārthasutra-Bhā sva, V.1 (p. 317), has explained astikāva as follows:
kāya sabdenā pattir abhidhitsita' stiśubdena dhrouvyam. āpādanam
āpattiki, āvirbhāvatirobhāvau, vastuna utpūdavinā sāv iti yāval.
A comparative look at thc cxplanations given of the words sakkāva in Pali and athikāya in Prakrit shows a very close affinity between the two concepts represented by them. The concept of atthikāya must have been prevalent in the days of the Buddha. It was therefore not impossible that the Buddha should adapt the concept of athikāya through the word sakkāya to suit his philosophy of aniccatā and analtatā. Linguisticaly it was but plausible to frame a new word like sakkāya as a Buddhist counterpart of the Jaina atthikāya. Asti and sat are derived from the same root and have identical mcaning. The Buddha's concept of sat was of course quite different from Mahāvira's concept of sal. As an upholder of the doctrine of anityatā, the Buddha conceived the sal as what is changing, whereas Mahāvira as an upholder of nityānityată conceived sat as possessed of both permanence and change. If this fundamental difference is kept in vicw, there should be no difficulty in accepting that atthikāya and sakkūya where etymologically identical, though ontologically possessed of different connotations.
Note :
1. For the ancient connotation of the word kūva, vide Pānuini, 111.3.41 and III.3.42. Also Siddhāntakaumudi kayah sarire. chate'sminn asthyädikum iti kāyah