Jain Darshan Me Darshanopayog Ka Sthan

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on the concept of Darshanopayoga (perceptual cognition) within Jain philosophy:

The text, "Jain Darshan me Darshanopayog ka Sthan" by Bansidhar Pandit, explores the nature and significance of Darshanopayoga in Jainism, comparing and contrasting it with the concept of Pratyaksha (direct perception) in Buddhist philosophy.

Key Arguments and Concepts:

• Darshanopayoga vs. Buddhist Pratyaksha: While there's a similarity in the superficial appearance between Buddhist Pratyaksha and Jain Darshanopayoga, the fundamental difference lies in their classification as valid knowledge (Pramana). Buddhist Pratyaksha is considered a Pramana. In contrast, Jain Darshanopayoga is placed outside the categories of Pramana and Apramana (invalid knowledge).

• Pramana and Apramana in Jainism: Jainism defines Pramana as that which is both self-aware (swaparavyavasaayi) and aware of the other (aparavyavasaayi). That which is aware of itself but not of the other is considered Apramana. Both these states, involving awareness of self and other, fall under Jyanopayoga (inferential or conceptual cognition).

• The Nature of Darshanopayoga: Darshanopayoga is characterized by the complete absence of self-other awareness (swaparavyavasaayatmakata ka sarvatha abhav). Because it lacks this duality, it cannot be classified as either Pramana or Apramana.

• The Indispensable Role of Darshanopayoga: Despite not being a Pramana, Darshanopayoga is considered crucial in Jainism because it is an indispensable cause for the origination of Jyanopayoga. Every act of knowing (Jyan) is preceded by an act of perception (Darshan).

• The Six Substances of the Universe: The text briefly outlines the Jain understanding of the universe, comprised of six substances (dravyas): soul (Jiva), matter (Pudgala), dharma (medium of motion), adharma (medium of rest), space (Akasha), and time (Kala). All these substances are in a state of constant transformation (parinaman) while retaining their inherent nature.

• The Interplay of Darshanopayoga and Jyanopayoga:

  • Souls (Jiva) possess two distinct capacities: seeing (darshan) and knowing (jnan). These correspond to Darshanopayoga and Jyanopayoga respectively.
  • These two upayogas (modes of cognition) have an inseparable relationship (avinaabhavarupa sambandha). Darshan is the cause for Jnan.
  • Omniscient (Sarvajna) Beings: In omniscient beings, Darshanopayoga and Jyanopayoga occur simultaneously and are complete.
  • Limited (Alpajña) Beings: In limited beings, Darshanopayoga precedes Jyanopayoga. The author challenges the traditional view that Jyanopayoga does not arise when Darshanopayoga is present, and vice versa.

• Author's Argument for Simultaneous Occurrence in Alpajña: The author argues that for the cause-and-effect relationship between Darshan and Jnan to be consistent, both must occur together in limited beings, just as they do in omniscient beings. The idea that Jnan occurs after Darshan is considered a later interpretation, not a fundamental Jain principle.

  • If the previous state of a substance is the cause of its subsequent state, and Darshanopayoga is the previous state of Jyanopayoga, then this sequential causality is accepted. However, the author questions why, if this is the case, the simultaneous occurrence in omniscient beings is accepted. If the fear of disrupting omniscience leads to simultaneous occurrence for the omniscient, then the sequential argument for the limited becomes problematic.
  • The existence of separate karmas covering these faculties (Darshanavarana and Jnanavarana) suggests distinct powers, implying that Darshanopayoga and Jyanopayoga are not merely sequential states of the same power.

• Addressing the Objection of Incompleteness in Alpajña: The objection is raised that while the Darshan and Jnan of an omniscient being are complete and independent, those of a limited being are incomplete and interdependent, making simultaneous occurrence impossible.

  • The author counters that if a being has the capacity for simultaneous upayogas, then limitedness is not an obstacle. Conversely, if there's no inherent capacity for simultaneous upayogas, then omniscience cannot facilitate it.
  • The omniscient being's perception and knowledge of infinite objects at any moment are not infinite separate upayogas but rather a single Darshanopayoga encompassing all objects and a single Jyanopayoga encompassing all objects.
  • Similarly, various powers of the soul (faith, conduct, happiness, strength) exist in developed forms simultaneously in both omniscient and limited beings. If a power doesn't exist in some developed form in all states, it implies its absence altogether. Therefore, if other powers exist alongside knowledge in limited beings, the power of perception must also exist in some developed form. This continuous existence of powers in developed forms is what constitutes Upayoga.

• The Causality of Darshan in Jnan:

  • The text emphasizes that specific Darshan is the cause of specific Jnan. For example, Avadhijnan (clairvoyant knowledge) is caused by Avadhidarshan (clairvoyant perception), and knowledge gained through senses is caused by perception through those same senses.
  • If Darshan at one time causes Jnan at another, the specific causal relationship between Darshanopayoga and Jyanopayoga in limited beings becomes inconsistent. For instance, Matijnana (sense-based knowledge) should occur even after Avadhidarshan, and Avadhijnana should occur after sensory perception, which is not the case. Therefore, Jnan only occurs in the presence of Darshan, not after its absence.

• Debunking the Oppositional Nature of Darshan and Jnan:

  • The text addresses the argument that Darshan (general apprehension, formless, non-conceptual, non-judgmental) and Jnan (specific apprehension, with form, conceptual, judgmental) are contradictory and cannot coexist.
  • The author argues that since this apparent contradiction exists even in the simultaneous Darshan and Jnan of an omniscient being, it doesn't preclude their co-occurrence.
  • If one were to claim that only Jyanopayoga exists in an omniscient being and Darshan is merely a metaphorical designation, then the need for separate knowledge-covering karmas (Darshanavarana) would be eliminated.
  • The author suggests that the confusion arises from misunderstanding the specific meanings of terms like "general apprehension" and "specific apprehension" when applied to Darshan and Jnan.

• Redefining Darshan: The author refutes common interpretations of Darshan that would make it conceptual or judgmental, or an inactive state of consciousness.

  • The author's proposed meaning of Darshan is the formation of the form of the knowable object within the soul's regions (Atmapradesha). When the form of a particular object appears in the soul's regions, that object is perceived.
  • For an omniscient being, all soul regions are constantly and naturally reflecting all objects due to the complete eradication of Darshanavarana karma, leading to immediate knowledge of all things.
  • For a limited being, the reflection of an object in the soul's regions is dependent on causes and conditions (nimittadhina). When the form of a specific object appears in specific soul regions through a specific sense, Matijnana (sense-based knowledge) occurs, and this corresponding perception is called sensory Darshan.
  • Shrutajnana (scriptural knowledge) follows Matijnana and doesn't necessitate a separate Darshan.
  • Avadhijnana is dependent on Avadhidarshan, which is the reflection of specific objects in specific soul regions without the aid of senses.
  • Manahparyayajnana (mind-reading knowledge) follows Ichhamatijnana, and the Darshan required for Ichhamatijnana is present during Manahparyayajnana.

• Conclusion on Darshan:

  1. Darshan is defined as the reflection of one, many, or all objects in the soul's regions, with or without the aid of senses or other causal factors.
  2. Both omniscient and limited beings gain knowledge of objects only in the presence of such Darshan, and not otherwise.
  3. Specific Darshan is the cause of specific object knowledge.

• Reiterating the Nature of Darshan:

  • Darshan is called "general apprehension" because it lacks the distinction of validity (Pramana) and invalidity (Apramana) found in Jnan. This is due to the complete absence of self-other awareness. While it grasps objects, it doesn't convey self-experience to the perceiver, and therefore cannot convey the experience of another.
  • Jnan, whether valid or invalid, always has self-awareness and is thus called "specific apprehension."
  • Darshan is also called formless (nirakar) because it lacks the form of validity or invalidity, stemming from the absence of self and other awareness.
  • It is also called non-judgmental (avyavasaayaatmak) due to the lack of self and other awareness. Pramana knowledge has both, while Apramana knowledge at least has self-awareness. Since it's non-judgmental, it cannot be conceptual.
  • Therefore, Darshan is also called non-conceptual (nirvikalpak). Unlike valid knowledge where the knower thinks "I know the pot" and the object is "This is a pot," or invalid knowledge with its doubts and misapprehensions, Darshan does not involve such conceptualizations. The absence of self and other awareness prevents these.

• Final Statement: Despite the differences in being general vs. specific, formless vs. with form, non-judgmental vs. judgmental, and non-conceptual vs. conceptual, the simultaneous occurrence of Darshan and Jnan is not impossible. The author expresses hope that these insights into Darshanopayoga will receive attention from scholars.