Praman Phal Charcha - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Praman Phal Charcha" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on the discussion of praman (means of knowledge) and its phal (result or fruit) within different philosophical traditions, with a particular emphasis on the Jain perspective:

Introduction: The Significance of Praman and Phal

The discussion of praman and its phal holds a special place in philosophy. While this topic was considered even in the earlier scriptural era (Shruti-Agam Yuga), it gained prominence and a more practical dimension during the logical era (Tark Yuga). In the spiritual era, knowledge was valued for its ability to eradicate ignorance (avidya) and lead to spiritual liberation (moksha). The Upanishads, Buddhist Pitakas, and Jain Agamas all speak of the fruit of knowledge as the destruction of ignorance or the attainment of true understanding, ultimately leading to moksha.

However, in the Tark Yuga, the discussion of praman and phal became more practical and worldly. This means that the analysis now includes not only the ultimate spiritual goal but also the immediate, observable results of knowledge in everyday life. Therefore, the discussions from the Tark Yuga encompass both the otherworldly spiritual perspective and the worldly, practical view. The worldly perspective focuses on what is directly achieved through praman in practical dealings, and what is achieved indirectly, irrespective of whether it leads to ultimate liberation or not. This is because the worldly perspective also includes the results of praman for those who are not eligible for spiritual liberation.

Key Areas of Discussion Across Traditions

The Tark Yuga discussions across Vedic, Buddhist, and Jain traditions primarily focus on two aspects:

The mutual relationship between praman and phal: Whether they are distinct or identical.
The nature of phal.

Vedic Traditions (Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa):

These traditions generally consider phal to be distinct from praman.
They describe a progression of results starting from the sensory contact (sannikarsa) after sensory activity, leading to judgments of acceptance, rejection, or indifference (hānopādāna-upekṣābuddhi).
While acknowledging this sequence, they view earlier stages (like sannikarsa, nirvikalpa, and savikalpa perceptions) as both praman in relation to subsequent stages and as phal in relation to preceding stages.
Essentially, the senses themselves are considered praman, not phal. The final judgment is phal, not praman. The intermediate stages (sannikarsa, etc.) are praman in relation to what follows and phal in relation to what precedes.
This perspective clearly establishes a distinction between praman and phal. Vacaspatimishra, for instance, arranged the concepts of praman and phal in the Samkhya system with this distinction in mind.

Buddhist Tradition:

The Buddhist tradition presents two main views on the nature of phal:
1. The attainment of the object (viṣayādhigati).
2. Self-awareness or self-cognition (svasaṁvitti).
While Dignaga is credited with collecting these two views, Dharmakirti and his commentator Dharmottara provided earlier discussions. Shantarakshita, along with his disciple Kamalashila, not only collected these views but also provided logical arguments for them and explained their mutual differences.
Externalism (Sautrāntika): According to this view, the cognition of the object's form within the knowledge (jñānagata viṣayasārūpya) is praman, and the attainment of that object (viṣayādhigati) is phal.
Idealism (Yogācāra/Vijñānavāda): According to this view, self-cognition (svasaṁvedana) is phal, and the inherent capacity or quality of knowledge itself (jñānanagata tathāvidha yogyatā) is praman.
It is important to note that in the Buddhist view, both praman and phal are considered qualities of knowledge, and because they are not considered distinct, they are called identical (abhinna).
Kumarila Bhatta refuted this Buddhist view of identity. Shantarakshita, in turn, provided a thorough response to Kumarila's refutation, demonstrating the logical validity of the Buddhist concept of identity.

Jain Tradition:

The Jain tradition, true to its nature of anekānta (many-sidedness), presents a view where praman and phal can be both distinct and identical (bhedābheda).
Early Logicians (Siddhasena Divakara and Samantabhadra): These were the first Jain logicians to systematically discuss the phal of praman from a worldly perspective, according to Jain principles.
- Both had the same view on phal: The direct phal of praman is the cessation of ignorance (ajñānanivr̥tti).
- The indirect phal is the judgment of acceptance, rejection, or indifference (hānopādāna-upekṣābuddhi) as per the situation.
- Key Points of Siddhasena and Samantabhadra's View:
  1. Mention of Ignorance Destruction as phal: This is a significant contribution not found in Vedic or Buddhist traditions.
  2. Absence of Intermediate Fruits: Unlike Vedic traditions, they do not explicitly mention intermediate stages as being both praman and phal in a relative sense. This is similar to Buddhist logic.
  3. Absence of Distinction/Identity Debate: They do not explicitly discuss the distinctness or identity of praman and phal.
Akalanka: Akalanka is a key figure after Siddhasena and Samantabhadra. He summarized their views on phal and addressed the two points that were previously not specified:
- He clarified the Jain position on the distinction and identity of praman and phal.
- He adapted the Vedic/Nyaya/Mimamsa approach of considering intermediate fruits as relatively praman and phal to the Jain context.
Manikyanandi and Devaguri: These scholars, in their sutras, only reiterated the points made by Siddhasena and Samantabhadra regarding the phal of praman.
- They did, however, articulate the Jain concept of the distinction and identity of praman and phal as indicated by Akalanka.
- Crucially, they did not formulate the nuanced Jain style of considering intermediate fruits as relatively praman and phal, as suggested by Akalanka.
Vidyānanda: Vidyānanda's keen insight focused on the terms "cessation of ignorance" (ajñānanivr̥tti) and "cognition of self and others" (sva-paravyavasiti).
- He identified the "cognition of self and others," which results from praman according to Yogācāra and Sautrāntika philosophies, as the "cessation of ignorance" in the Jain context.
- Prabhācandra and Devaguri followed this interpretation.
Consensus: It became a settled view among Jain logicians that the "cessation of ignorance" (ajñānanivr̥tti) referred to by Siddhasena and Samantabhadra is essentially the "cognition of self and others" (sva-paravyavasiti).
Hemačandra: Ācārya Hemačandra, in the present discussion, not only collected the views of all previous Jain logicians but also added his own unique contributions.
- Unlike Prabhācandra and Devaguri, he did not equate the "cognition of self and others" with the "cessation of ignorance." Instead, he considered both as separate phals.
- He addressed the criticisms leveled by Kumarila against the Buddhist concept of identity, providing refutations in a Buddhist style but with his own characteristic logical and grammatical elegance.
- Just as he followed Akalanka in many areas, he also literally incorporated Akalanka's established Jain style of viewing intermediate fruits as relatively praman and phal into his sutras.

Conclusion: Synthesis of Traditions

Through the discussion of praman and phal, the presented text showcases a synthesis of Vedic, Buddhist, and Jain traditions, harmonized within the framework of Jain philosophy. The work effectively demonstrates how the Jain perspective on praman and its phal evolved, incorporating and reinterpreting insights from other schools while maintaining its unique anekānta character.