Sabhashya Tattvarthadhigam Sutra Me Pratyaksha Praman

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, focusing on the discussion of "Pratyaksha Pramana" (Direct Perception) within the Sabhashya Tattvarthadhigama Sutra:

The text is an excerpt from a work titled "Sabhashya Tattvarthadhigama Sutra me Pratyaksha Praman" by Dr. Shreeprakash Pandey, published by Z_Yatindrasuri_Diksha_Shatabdi_Smarak_Granth_012036.pdf. The central theme is the analysis of the concept of direct perception (pratyaksha) as presented in the Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, particularly its commentary (Bhashya) by Vachak Umaswati.

I. Authorship and Significance of Tattvarthadhigama Sutra and its Bhashya:

• The Tattvarthadhigama Sutra is a highly important work in Jain philosophical and religious literature, authored by Vachak Umaswati (circa 365 CE). It is considered the first Sanskrit text of Jain literature and is praised for its ability to encapsulate the entirety of Jain philosophy in a concise manner.
• The text is universally acknowledged as significant across all Jain traditions (Svetambara and Digambara). Both traditions have produced extensive commentaries and explanations of its sutras.
• There is a debate regarding the authorship and dating of the Tattvarthadhigama Sutra and its Bhashya. While the Svetambara tradition generally accepts Umaswati as the author, some Digambara scholars, like Pandit Phoolchand Siddhantashastri, attribute the Sutra to Umaswati but the Bhashya to a figure named Gridhrapichacharya. The text acknowledges that the names Umaswati, Umachwami, and Gridhrapichacharya are associated with the authorship and there is ongoing debate about the exact identity and time period. However, the text emphasizes the work's immense popularity.

II. The Concept of Pramana (Means of Valid Knowledge) in Jainism and other Indian Philosophies:

• The text begins by defining "pramana" as that by which "prama" (accurate knowledge or understanding) is attained. It emphasizes that knowledge itself is the ultimate means of dispelling ignorance and achieving liberation.
• Jain Rejection of Non-Jain Pramanas: The Jain perspective, as elaborated in the Sabhashya Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, rejects the definitions of pramana offered by other Indian philosophical schools:
  • Nyaya (Logicians): Nyaya defines pramana based on sannikarsa (contact between sense organs and objects), identifying six types of sannikarsa. The Jains argue that sannikarsa (being inert) cannot be the cause of knowledge (which dispels ignorance). Knowledge, not inert contact, is the true cause. They also point out that sannikarsa is not always a sufficient condition for knowledge (e.g., seeing empty space) and cannot account for knowledge of subtle, distant, or imperceptible objects, thus limiting omniscience.
  • Buddhism: Buddhists define pramana as arthasaroopya (similarity between the object and the cognition). They recognize two types of knowledge: nirvikalpaka (indeterminate) and savikalpaka (determinate), accepting only pratyaksha (direct perception) and anumana (inference) as valid pramanas. Jains reject the idea that only similarity constitutes pramana. They also critique the Buddhist acceptance of nirvikalpaka knowledge as pramana, arguing it cannot support practical, conventional behavior and that an indeterminate cognition cannot generate a determinate one without contradiction. If indeterminate knowledge leads to determinate knowledge, then determinate knowledge itself should be considered the primary pramana.
  • Samkhya: Samkhya considers the indriya-vritti (activity of the sense organs) as the pramana. Jains argue that since sense organs are inert (achetana), they cannot be the most effective cause (sadhakatama) of knowledge. They analyze the concept of vritti and find it insufficient.
  • Mimamsa: Mimamsa considers jnatru-vyapara (the activity of the knower) as pramana. Jains question the very existence of such an independent activity and, if it exists, argue it cannot be the primary pramana, as it is either dependent on other factors or is itself a form of knowledge.
• The Jain Position: The Jain philosophical tradition asserts that knowledge itself is the pramana. It is the means by which objects are correctly understood. Umaswati defines pramana as that through which "pramiti" (accurate cognition) occurs.

III. Types of Knowledge and their Classification as Pramana in Jainism:

• The Jain tradition classifies knowledge into five types: Mati, Shruta, Avadhi, Manahparyaya, and Kevala. Umaswati, in the Sabhashya Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, categorizes these as Samyak Jnana (right knowledge) and establishes them as pramanas.
• Pratyaksha (Direct Perception) and Paroksha (Indirect Perception): The Jain tradition primarily divides pramana into two categories: Pratyaksha and Paroksha.
  • Paroksha: Knowledge that depends on external instruments like sense organs and mind is considered Paroksha. Umaswati classifies Mati (sensory knowledge) and Shruta (scriptural knowledge) under this category, as they rely on sense organs and mind.
  • Pratyaksha: Knowledge that is independent of external instruments and arises directly from the soul is considered Pratyaksha. Umaswati identifies Avadhi, Manahparyaya, and Kevala as Pratyaksha.

IV. Detailed Analysis of Jain Pratyaksha:

• Etymology of 'Aksha': The word 'aksha' is derived from the root 'ash', meaning "to pervade" or "to know." 'Aksha' can refer to the soul (which pervades all objects) or the sense organs (which engage with objects).
• Jain Interpretation of Pratyaksha:
  • The Jain tradition generally interprets 'aksha' as the soul, and thus pratyaksha is soul-dependent knowledge, independent of sense organs.
  • However, to account for worldly experience and common understanding, the term 'aksha' has also been interpreted in relation to sense organs.
• Key Characteristics of Jain Pratyaksha:
  • Self-Dependent and Clear Knowledge: The core characteristic of Jain pratyaksha is knowledge that is self-dependent (atma-sapheksha) and clear/luminous (vishada or spashta).
  • Independence from External Aids: It does not require the intervention of sense organs or the mind.
  • Causation: This knowledge arises from the fruition or partial fruition (kshayopashama or kshaya) of soul-affirming knowledge-obscuring karmas.
• Umaswati's Classification and Subsequent Interpretations:
  • Umaswati explicitly states that knowledge dependent on sense organs and mind is Paroksha. He includes Avadhi, Manahparyaya, and Kevala as Pratyaksha.
  • Later Jain scholars, influenced by logical traditions, introduced the concept of Samvyavaharika Pratyaksha (conventional direct perception) to encompass sense-organ-based and mind-based knowledge that is essential for worldly interaction. They termed Umaswati's Pratyaksha (Avadhi, Manahparyaya, Kevala) as Paramarthika Pratyaksha (ultimate direct perception).
  • The text notes that this distinction of Samvyavaharika and Paramarthika Pratyaksha was not explicitly present in Umaswati's Tattvarthadhigama Sutra or its Bhashya but emerged later to reconcile with logical frameworks and worldly pragmatism.

V. Types of Pratyaksha According to Umaswati:

• Avadhi Jnana (Limited Direct Knowledge):
  • Definition: Knowledge that is limited in scope (substance, place, time, and state) and can perceive form-matter (roopi padarth) without the help of sense organs or mind.
  • Types:
    • Bhava-pratyaya (Dependent on Existence): Occurs in beings in the infernal realms (naraka) and celestial realms (deva) by virtue of their birth and inherent soul-disposition.
    • Guna-pratyaya (Dependent on Qualities/Kshayopashama): Occurs in beings in the animal and human realms, resulting from the kshayopashama of Avadhi-knowledge-obscuring karma. This requires effort and qualification.
  • Six Sub-types (described in detail): Ananugami (location-bound), Anugami (pervasive), Hiyamanaka (diminishing), Vardhamanaka (increasing), Anavasthita (unstable), and Avasthita (stable). The text details the characteristics and examples for each.
• Manahparyaya Jnana (Knowledge of Others' Minds):
  • Definition: The ability to directly know the thoughts and mental modifications of others without the aid of sense organs or mind.
  • Two Interpretations:
    • Nandi Sutra/Anuyogasutra Tradition: Knows the mental thoughts themselves.
    • Visheshavashyakabhashya Tradition: Knows the mental permutations and then infers the thoughts.
  • Two Types:
    • Rijumati: Knows present mental states.
    • Vipulamati: Knows past, present, and future mental states, and is more refined and stable.
  • Conditions: Requires a certain level of ethical conduct (charitra) and the kshayopashama of Manahparyaya-knowledge-obscuring karma.
• Kevala Jnana (Omniscience):
  • Definition: Absolute, complete, and direct knowledge of all substances and their infinite states across all time.
  • Causation: Arises from the complete destruction (kshaya) of Moha-obscuring, Darshana-obscuring, and Antaraya karmas.
  • Characteristics: It is the highest form of knowledge, making the possessor a Sarvajna (omniscient). It encompasses all knowable things and is unparalleled.

VI. Critique of Buddhist Pratyaksha:

• The text specifically critiques the Buddhist definition of pratyaksha as kalpanapodham (devoid of conceptualization or imagination). Jains argue that if pratyaksha is truly devoid of all conceptualization, then even the assertion of its existence or its nature as pratyaksha would be a form of conceptualization, leading to self-contradiction. Therefore, they maintain that savikalpaka (determinate) knowledge, when clear, is the true pratyaksha.

VII. Conclusion:

• The analysis in the Sabhashya Tattvarthadhigama Sutra emphasizes that true Jain pratyaksha is self-dependent, luminous knowledge (atma-sapheksha and vishada), primarily embodied by Avadhi, Manahparyaya, and Kevala Jnana.
• While knowledge dependent on sense organs and mind is classified as Paroksha by Umaswati, later scholars introduced the distinction of Samvyavaharika Pratyaksha to accommodate worldly interactions, while retaining Umaswati's categories as Paramarthika Pratyaksha.
• The Jain perspective on pratyaksha, as presented in the text, is rooted in the Agamic tradition, prioritizing direct soul-experience over mere sensory contact or external causality.