Sarvagnatva

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text from "Sarvagnatva" by Sukhlal Sanghavi:

This excerpt from Sukhlal Sanghavi's "Sarvagnatva" delves into the historical understanding of omniscience and omnivision (Sarvajnata and Sarvadarshitva) within the Jain tradition. The author uses three primary sources to trace this concept: ancient Jain Agamas, later Jain literature, and Buddhist texts.

Sanghavi asserts that later Jain literature consistently upholds the possibility of omniscience and omnivision, viewing it not merely as a figurative or faith-based attribute but as a genuine characteristic of their Tirthankaras like Mahavira. The ancient Agamas also firmly establish this, describing Mahavira and other Arhats as undoubtedly omniscient and omniscient. Furthermore, the Jain Agamas actively oppose the claims of omniscience and omnivision made by leaders of other religious sects. A prime example is the Jain Agamas' mockery of Jamali, Mahavira's disciple who later formed his own sect, and their rejection of the omniscience claimed by Mahavira's contemporary, Gosala. This is contrasted with the followers of Jamali and Gosala, who considered their respective leaders as Jinas, Arhats, and omniscient beings.

The text notes that Buddhist scriptures also frequently attribute epithets indicating omniscience and omnivision to prominent figures of other traditions, not only to Gautama Buddha but also to individuals like Purana Kassapa and Gosala.

Based on these sources, Sanghavi draws three key historical conclusions:

1. Prestige and Leadership: Similar to how modern followers consider their leaders as "world-gurus" and "acharyas," or how academic titles like "doctor" hold prestige today, in ancient times, every religious sect considered its leader as omniscient and omniscient to gain satisfaction and establish authority.
2. Inter-sectarian Opposition: Followers of any given sect would attempt to deny the claims of omniscience and omnivision in the leaders of other sects.
3. Community Faith as a Criterion: The primary criterion for accepting the concept of omniscience and omnivision was, for the most part, communal faith and belief.

The author concludes that it is undeniable that Mahavira was considered omniscient and omniscient within the Nirgrantha (Jain) tradition even during his lifetime. However, the question remains about the Nirgrantha tradition's stance on omniscience and omnivision before Mahavira. Jain Agamas suggest that some Pārśvapathyika Nirgranthas (followers of Pārśvanātha) accepted Mahavira's authority only when they were no longer doubtful of his omniscience and omnivision. This implies that even before Mahavira, the Pārśvapathyika Nirgrantha tradition held the belief that Tirthankaras were omniscient and omniscient, a view that remained unbroken in the later Nirgrantha tradition.

The text explicitly states that the purpose here is not to logically examine the possibility of omniscience and omnivision but rather to understand the communal mindset, particularly within the Nirgrantha tradition, concerning this subject in ancient historical periods. The author highlights Buddha as someone who strongly challenged this millennia-old faith-based belief in omniscience and omnivision. Buddha himself never claimed to be omniscient or omniscient, nor did he appreciate others making such claims on his behalf. He would also refute, through logical arguments, the claims of omniscience and omnivision made by leaders of other sects for their respective proponents. This opposition from Buddha further sheds light on the prevailing mindset regarding omniscience and omnivision during that era.