Sarvagntva Aur Uska Arth - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Sarvagntva aur Uska Arth" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on its core arguments and observations:

The article "Sarvagntva aur Uska Arth" (Omniscience and Its Meaning) by Sukhlal Sanghavi explores the concept of omniscience, particularly within the Jain tradition, and distinguishes between two primary approaches to understanding reality: Hetuvad (reason-based) and Ahetuvad (faith/tradition-based).

The Fundamental Divide: Hetuvad vs. Ahetuvad

The author begins by highlighting that life has two main components: faith and intellect. While interconnected, they have distinct spheres of influence. Matters provable by intellect, logic, inference, or science are easily accepted by faith. However, not all matters of faith can be subjected to inference or science. Many transcendental elements, accepted in various traditions, fall outside the scope of empirical proof.

Sanghavi argues that hetuvad (reason/logic) is limited by space and time. In contrast, ahetuvad is necessary for subjects beyond the reach of senses and mind, relying on tradition, the insights of great seers, or spiritual intuition. Jain tradition, through its ancient scholars, recognized this distinction. When presented with transcendental Jain concepts like dharmastikaya (principle of motion) and abhavyatva (unfitness for liberation), they stated that such subjects cannot be proven by hetuvad and must be accepted through ahetuvad.

Sanghavi points out that this reliance on ahetuvad for transcendental matters is not unique to Jainism. Vedanta, when faced with the limitations of logic in establishing the transcendental Brahman, resorted to the authority of the Shruti (scriptures). Nāgārjuna, a powerful logician, found logic insufficient for establishing the emptiness of self-nature and turned to Prajna (wisdom). Even thinkers like Kant suggested that matters beyond space and time are subjects of faith.

Omniscience in Jainism: A Traditional and Evolving Concept

Omniscience (Sarvagyatva) is a highly revered concept in Jainism. The central question is its meaning and whether it falls under hetuvad or ahetuvad. Historically, Jainism has provided answers through hetuvad. However, some Jain acharyas, notably Kundakunda and Haribhadra Suri, found the use of hetuvad for omniscience problematic.

Kundakunda: A deeply spiritual thinker, Kundakunda felt that a mere reliance on tradition for omniscience was insufficient. While acknowledging the traditional definition of omniscience (knowing all three times, past, present, and future), he proposed a deeper meaning in his Niyamsara. Through the distinction of Nishchaya Naya (ultimate truth) and Vyavahara Naya (conventional truth), he suggested that knowing the nature of the soul itself and being absorbed in it is the Nishchaya Naya view of omniscience. Knowing external objects like the universe falls under Vyavahara Naya. Sanghavi notes that Kundakunda considered Vyavahara Naya as less ultimate. This analysis suggests Kundakunda's view was that the ultimate goal is self-knowledge, making it the ultimate truth.
Haribhadra Suri: Another influential acharya, Haribhadra, had previously supported the concept of omniscience using hetuvad in his logical works. However, upon discovering flaws and contradictions in this approach, he sought a more universally acceptable meaning. He broadened the definition of omniscience, accepting the omniscience of spiritual figures like Buddha and Kapila, previously denied. This shift, particularly evident in his Yogadrishtisumuccaya, suggests a move towards seeing omniscience as a quality attainable by virtuous and spiritually advanced individuals, rather than solely a traditional Jain doctrine.

The "True" Meaning of Omniscience in Jainism: An Alternative Interpretation

Sanghavi proposes that the traditional understanding of omniscience in Jainism—knowing all states of being in all three times simultaneously—may not have been the original meaning. He points to passages in older Jain scriptures like Acharanga Sutra which state, "He who knows one, knows all; he who knows all, knows one."

Sanghavi interprets this differently from later logicians. He argues that in the context of the Acharanga Sutra, this refers to knowing the root cause of vices (kashayas) and their manifestations. For example, understanding one vice leads to understanding all its forms and related vices. He believes the passage is about overcoming internal passions and impurities, not about perceiving the entire universe in all its states. The focus is on spiritual discipline and the eradication of the root causes of suffering.

He contrasts this with the dialogue between Indrabhuti Gautama (Mahavira's chief disciple) and Jamali. When asked about the eternality of the world, Jamali remained silent, while Mahavira answered that from the dravya (substance) perspective, the world is eternal, and from the paryaya (state/mode) perspective, it is non-eternal. Sanghavi interprets this as Mahavira defining omniscience as the ability to understand reality from both the dravya and paryaya viewpoints, which aligns with the core Jain philosophy of Syadvada (manifold aspects). This understanding of omniscience is also supported by ancient Upanishadic teachings where knowing the ultimate Self (Brahman) leads to knowing everything else, similar to understanding the essence of clay leading to knowledge of all its earthen forms.

The Evolution and Current State of the Debate

Sanghavi traces the concept of omniscience through four stages:

Early Vedic Period: Rishis used epithets suggesting omniscience for their deities simply to praise their greatness.
Upanishadic and Early Jain Interpretation: Seers and scholars interpreted these epithets, with Upanishadic sages emphasizing the knowledge of Brahman, while Jain sages focused on the knowledge of the soul and the path of conduct.
Development of Logical Arguments: This stage saw the rise of logically constructed arguments to prove omniscience, often leading to a disregard for experiential and balanced perspectives, and a tendency to denigrate the greatness of others.
Re-emergence of Experience and Moderation: This final stage, championed by thinkers like Haribhadra and Yashovijay, brings back the emphasis on experience, broad-mindedness, and a more inclusive understanding of omniscience, acknowledging that all virtuous individuals possess it.

Conclusion

Sanghavi concludes that the current understanding of omniscience in Jainism, heavily reliant on logical proofs and the simultaneous perception of all three-time states, is a result of later scholastic competition. He advocates for a return to a more original, experiential, and broad interpretation, aligning with the spirit of dravya-paryaya understanding, which acknowledges the omniscience of all virtuous individuals. He criticizes the tendency of contemporary Jain scholars to perpetuate outdated logical arguments without acknowledging their limitations and the evolving understanding of this profound concept. The article suggests that the latter interpretation is closer to the truth, being rooted in experience and intellectual comprehension, free from sectarian bias.