Jain Darshan Me Sarvagnata

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Jain Darshan me Sarvagnata" by Darbarilal Kothiya:

Book Title: Jain Darshan me Sarvagnata (Omniscience in Jain Philosophy) Author: Darbarilal Kothiya Publisher: Z_Darbarilal_Kothiya_Abhinandan_Granth_012020.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/210723/1

This text explores the concept of omniscience (Sarvagnata) within the framework of Jain philosophy, contrasting it with other Indian philosophical schools.

Introduction & Background: The book begins by stating that most Indian philosophical systems, with the exception of Charvaka and Mimamsa, acknowledge and attempt to establish the possibility of omniscience through logical arguments and scriptural evidence.

Charvaka Philosophy's Stance: Charvaka philosophy adheres to the principle that only what is perceived by the senses exists. Since omniscience is not directly perceivable through the senses, they reject its possibility in any individual. They do not accept any pramana (means of knowledge) beyond perception.

Mimamsa Philosophy's Stance: Mimamsa acknowledges the existence of non-perceptible entities like Dharma, Adharma, Heaven, and Hell, but asserts that knowledge of these can only come from the Vedas, not from any human. They believe humans are inherently flawed by desires (raga), making them incapable of accurately perceiving these non-perceptible realities. Shabar Swami and Bhatta Kumara, prominent Mimamsa thinkers, argue that while the Vedas are the sole source for knowledge of Dharma and Adharma, they deny the possibility of omniscience in any human. Kumara specifically states they only negate omniscience regarding Dharma, not other matters. His reasoning is that human experiences are contradictory, making them unreliable for knowing Dharma. He asserts that only the Vedas, being eternal and infallible, can reveal Dharma.

Buddhism's Stance on Omniscience: Buddhism emphasizes the profound realization attained through the cessation of ignorance and craving, which allows yogis to directly perceive all things, including non-perceptible ones. Thinkers like Dignaga defined omniscience as the direct perception of subtle and distant objects. However, the Buddha himself did not heavily emphasize his own omniscience, declaring some non-perceptible matters as "unexplainable." He did, however, teach that liberation and the path to it (Dharma) could be directly realized without relying on scripture. The Buddhist logician Dharmakirti considered the Buddha knowledgeable in Dharma but deemed omniscience as irrelevant for the path to liberation, stating that knowing what to accept and reject is paramount, not knowing everything. Shantarakshita and his disciple Kamalashila also affirmed the Buddha's omniscience, but primarily focused on his knowledge of Dharma, considering omniscience secondary. Thus, Buddhism's emphasis is on the practical knowledge of what leads to liberation.

Nyaya-Vaisheshika Philosophy's Stance: This school accepts omniscience in God and also in other yogis. However, they believe that in liberated souls, this omniscience ceases because it is a temporary attainment derived from yoga and the conjunction of the soul with the mind, similar to other yogic powers (riddhis). Once liberated, the soul is devoid of mental conjunction and yoga, leading to the cessation of knowledge-related qualities, including omniscience. God's omniscience, however, is considered eternal.

Samkhya-Yoga Philosophy's Stance: The atheistic Samkhya school attributes omniscience to Prakriti (nature), while the theistic Yoga school attributes it to Ishvara (God). Samkhya views knowledge as an outcome of intellect, which originates from Mahat (cosmic intellect) and ultimately Prakriti. Therefore, omniscience is inherent in Prakriti but ceases upon liberation. Yoga posits that Ishvara possesses eternal omniscience, while yogis achieve a temporary omniscience through 'tarak' (discriminative) knowledge, which also ceases after liberation. In the state of liberation, the soul resides purely in its conscious nature, separate from knowledge. Not all yogis are guaranteed to attain this omniscience. Thus, in Yoga, omniscience is a possibility, but it is temporary and not eternal.

Vedanta Philosophy's Stance: Vedanta considers omniscience to be an attribute of the inner consciousness (antahkaran) and present until the state of Jivanmukta (liberated while living). After this, it is either lost or merges into self-knowledge. In liberation, the soul, free from ignorance, becomes identical with the pure Brahman, and its omniscience dissolves into this ultimate state.

Detailed Discussion on Omniscience in Jain Philosophy: Jain philosophy considers knowledge as the inherent nature or natural quality of the soul, capable of illuminating both itself and other objects. The inability to know something is attributed to the obstruction caused by knowledge-obscuring karma (jnanavaraniya) and other afflictions. When these obstructions are removed, the soul, by its very nature, knows all knowable objects without hindrance. This state is called omniscience (Sarvagnata). Jain thinkers have consistently defined omniscience as the direct, unhindered perception of all substances across all time (past, present, and future) and all realms of existence.

• Scriptural Evidence: Scriptures like the Shatkhandagama Sutras and Acharanga Sutras state that the Kevalis (omniscient beings) simultaneously know and see all beings, all substances, and all phenomena in the entire universe.
• Acarya Kundakunda: States that with the absence of obscurations, Kevala Jnana (omniscience) fully knows all knowable objects – present, past, future, subtle, and distant. He argues that one who cannot fully comprehend a single substance with infinite modes cannot comprehend all substances.
• Acarya Shivarya and Bhadra Bahu: Clearly support omniscience, asserting that the Vitaraga Bhagavan (emotionless enlightened beings) simultaneously know and see all knowable objects across the three times and all realms.
• Logicians: Jain logicians from the logical era, including Samantabhadra, Siddhasena, Akalanka, Haribhadra, Patraswami, Virasena, Vidyananda, Prabhachandra, and Hemachandra, strongly advocated and established the concept of omniscience. Many of them wrote independent treatises dedicated to proving omniscience. Works like Samantabhadra's Aptamimamsa, Akalanka's Sarvajna Siddhi, Vidyananda's Aptapariksha, and Anantakirti's Sarvajna Siddhi are noteworthy. The text claims that Jain philosophers have significantly enriched Indian philosophy through their extensive contemplation and literature on omniscience.

Samantabhadra's Arguments: Samantabhadra argues that subtle and non-perceptible objects are directly known by certain individuals because they are inferable, much like fire. He further contends that the absence of afflictions and obscurations in certain souls can be proven by their varying degrees in others, analogous to how impurities are removed from gold. With the removal of these obstructions, the soul, by its nature, knows all knowable things. Ignorance arises either from the soul's inability to know or from the presence of obstructions. Since the soul is inherently knower and the obstructions can be fully removed through spiritual practice, there is no reason why a Vitaraga Mahayogi would not know all knowable objects. Samantabhadra also emphasizes omniscience as an essential characteristic of an Aptra (a perfect being).

Akalanka's Arguments: Akalanka presents several key arguments:

1. Inherent Capacity: The soul possesses the inherent capacity to know all substances. Even if others know subtle things through scripture, it's because of this inherent capacity. While worldly souls are covered by knowledge-obscuring karma, the complete removal of these karmic obstructions allows the soul's intrinsic, non-sensory knowledge to grasp all objects.
2. Celestial Knowledge: If individuals did not possess knowledge of non-perceptible Dharma and Adharma, how could there be accurate predictions about celestial events like eclipses of the sun and moon and their auspicious or inauspicious consequences? Such predictions, made without sensory aid, are clearly true. Similar to how true dreams accurately reveal future gains without sensory assistance, the knowledge of an omniscient being is clear and consistent regarding non-perceptible entities, without any reliance on the senses, which actually limit knowledge.
3. Gradual Perfection: Just as an atom expands to occupy space, knowledge also progresses in degrees. When knowledge reaches its absolute and unsurpassable state, omniscience is attained. This is not limited to specific individuals or societies but is attainable by any qualified seeker.
4. Absence of Obstructions: There are no valid obstructions to omniscience. Perceptual and other valid means of knowledge do not obstruct it, as they affirm existence. The Mimanasa argument of non-existence (abhava-pramana) also fails to negate omniscience, as it requires prior perception of the object whose non-existence is to be proven, which is impossible for omniscience across infinite beings and times. Therefore, without any obstruction, the existence of omniscience is established.

Aśhtasahasri and Jayadhavala: Acaryas Virasena and Vidyananda further support the concept of omniscience with a verse: "How can a knower become ignorant of the knowable if there is no obstruction? Just as fire, without obstruction, burns its fuel." This highlights that if the soul is a knower, the knowable objects are present, and there is no hindrance between them, the soul will naturally know them. When obscurations are removed, the concepts of nearness and farness become irrelevant to the soul's knowledge.

Conclusion: Jain philosophy asserts that omniscience is an inevitable consequence of the absence of obstructions and flaws in every soul. The Jain concept of omniscience differs from Vedanta's in that Jainism considers the obscurations and flaws that cover omniscience to be real, whereas Vedanta regards ignorance as illusory. Furthermore, Jain omniscience is beginningless and endless, with each liberated soul possessing its own distinct omniscience, leading to an infinite number of omniscient beings. In contrast, Vedanta's liberated souls merge into the singular, eternal Brahman, losing their individual existence, and their omniscience is limited to the state of being associated with the inner consciousness, after which it ceases or is absorbed into Brahman.