Prama Ki Nayi Paribhasha

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Prama ki Nayi Paribhasha" (A New Definition of Prama) by Prof. Sangamlal Pandey, in English:

Central Thesis: The Concept of "Sandarshan" (Co-vision/Holistic Vision)

The author, Prof. Sangamlal Pandey, proposes a new philosophical framework he calls "Sandarshan" (Sandarshan Shastra). He argues that the Jain distinction between "darshan" (vision/perspective) and "gyan" (knowledge) is valid. He highlights Jainism's emphasis on "charitra" (conduct/practice) as its most significant contribution. According to Pandey, the Jain path to liberation ("moksha marga") is a "trividh vyapar" (threefold activity) involving Samyakdarshan (right vision), Samyakgyan (right knowledge), and Samyakcharitra (right conduct). This combined activity generates a body of knowledge that he terms "Sandarshan," from which "Sandarshan Shastra" (the science of Sandarshan) originates.

Pandey clarifies that the word "darshan" in the Jain sutra "Samyakdarshan, Gyan, Charitrani Mokshamargah" (Right vision, knowledge, and conduct are the path to liberation) refers to something distinct from the "moksha vidya" (science of liberation) also mentioned in the same sutra. He asserts that the entire "moksha marga" is not merely "darshan" but rather "Sandarshan." This "Sandarshan" is composed of the three elements: darshan, gyan, and charitra.

The Nature of Knowledge (Gyan) and its Relationship with Darshan and Charitra:

Pandey posits that knowledge ("gyan") alone conveys information about existence. "Darshan" and "charitra," however, are the means by which existence is understood or described. They derive their ability to indicate or describe existence from knowledge, borrowing from it. Knowledge itself is merely an indicator ("gyapak"), not a creator ("karak"). It reveals the object but does not create it. While "drishti" (vision) is not creation, darshan and charitra possess a unique characteristic of "karyakritva" (agency/action). They contribute qualities to existence, organizing it into intellectual categories.

These actions of darshan and charitra do not alter or distort existence because knowledge itself is devoid of any inherent power or capability for actualization ("arthakriyakaritva"). It possesses only the capacity for revelation ("arthaprakashakatva"). The creation of qualities by darshan and charitra serves to elucidate this revelation, which is secondary and not the primary essence.

The Core of Sandarshan: "Samyaktva" and the Definition of "Prama":

The essence of "Sandarshan," which is being referred to as "Moksha Vidya," is samyaktva (rightness/correctness). This "samyaktva" is present in samyakdarshan, samyakgyan, and samyakcharitra. The "sam" prefix in "Sandarshan" signifies this "samyaktva."

Defining "Prama" (Correct Cognition/Knowledge):

The author then delves into defining "Prama." He asserts that "Prama" is knowledge. The use of the adjective "satya" (true) with "gyan" is redundant and stems from unfamiliarity with the meaning of "gyan." "Prama" is knowledge, and knowledge is "Prama." The Western influence has led to the usage of "satyata" (truthfulness), but "satyata" is not a quality of knowledge; it is knowledge itself, manifested as form and structure.

The Dual Nature of Knowledge and the Role of "Vritti" (Mental Modifications):

Knowledge, as a component of "Sandarshan," exists in two forms: bodh-rup (form of consciousness/awareness) and vritti-rup (form of mental modifications). He references the English philosopher George Berkeley, who distinguished between "notion" (awareness) and "idea" (mental modification), but failed to integrate them. Berkeley's insights were limited to the analysis of "vritti-gyan" (knowledge through mental modifications).

In contrast, Pandey cites the 18th-century Advaita Vedanta philosopher Mahadevananda Saraswati, who emphasized the necessity of "svayambodha" (self-awareness) for the validity of "vritti-gyan." Mahadevananda Saraswati defines "Prama" in two ways:

1. Bodheddha Vrittiḥ Pramā: A mental modification illuminated by awareness is "Prama."
2. Vṛttīddho Bodhaḥ Pramā: Awareness illuminated by a mental modification is "Prama."

This implies a reciprocal relationship where awareness illuminates the mental modification, and the mental modification illuminates awareness.

The Relationship between "Vritti" and "Bodh":

The author explains the "vyapya-vyapak" (pervaded-pervading) relationship between "vritti" and "bodh." Both are mutually pervaded. "Bodh" is the pervading entity, and "vritti" is pervaded; conversely, "vritti" is the pervading entity, and "bodh" is pervaded. This indicates a non-dualistic relationship ("ananyata sambandha") but not absolute identity, as "bodh" is indivisible and always present, while "vritti" is divisible and transient.

The Limitations of "Vritti" and the Primacy of "Bodh":

Pandey argues that while "vritti" (mental modifications) are associated with the perceived object, they are not the ultimate reality. The perceived object, when understood through mental modifications, is considered "phalavyapya" (fruit-pervaded), meaning it is the result or implication of the mental modification. However, this does not prove the reality of the object itself. The object has "bodh-vyapya" (pervaded by awareness), which makes the mental modification related to it "Prama." But the object itself lacking "bodh-vyapya" makes it fall into the category of "aprama" (incorrect cognition).

This explains the ongoing debates in scientific philosophy about the fundamental nature of objects. For instance, the debate on whether an object is made of clay, what that clay is, its constituent particles, and so on, leads to an infinite regress.

The Foundation of Reality in "Sandarshan":

"Bodh" is not dependent on "vritti." The idea that emptiness of "vritti" is the characteristic of "bodh" is unclear and inconsistent. "Bodh" requires a center of consciousness like mind, intellect, ego, or a higher self (God). However, "bodh" is distinct from all these transient "vrittis." It is ancient, eternal, and self-existent, while "vrittis" are recent and contingent.

"Bodh" absorbs innumerable "vrittis," treating them as mere points without independent existence. The combination of "bodh" and "vritti" constitutes "Prama," which is knowledge. This knowledge is characterized by the subject-object relationship, but "bodh" is neither the subject nor the object. It is direct experience and absolute existence. In this sense, "Prama" is existence, and existence is "Prama."

Connection to Western and Indian Philosophy:

Pandey draws parallels with F.H. Bradley's philosophy, suggesting that his own framework culminates in a similar understanding. Advaita Vedanta posits "bodh" as the supreme Brahman and the most unwavering "vritti" as Ishvara or the lower Brahman. The co-existence of "bodh" and "vritti" reflects the relationship between the higher and lower Brahman, leading to the identification of monotheism and absolute monism.

Conclusion: The Dawn of "Sandarshan Shastra":

The author concludes that this new definition of "Prama" initiates a new school of philosophy, "Sandarshan Shastra." This framework incorporates the authentic insights of all ancient philosophers, primarily focusing on the "bodh-paksha" (aspect of awareness) and the "vritti-paksha" (aspect of mental modifications) of knowledge and their relationship to validity. While this definition aligns with Advaita Vedanta's view that worldly objects are mere witnesses, it ultimately emphasizes the "vritti-vyapya" (pervaded by mental modifications) nature of experiential knowledge, ultimately rooted in the pervading "bodh."