Sarvagnyavada

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Sarvagnyavada" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on its exploration of the concept of omniscience in Indian philosophy:

Book Title: Sarvagnyavada (The Doctrine of Omniscience) Author: Sukhlal Sanghavi

This text delves into the historical and philosophical discourse surrounding the concept of "Sarvagnyavada" (omniscientism) within various Indian philosophical traditions. It examines the belief in omniscient beings, the arguments for and against it, and how different schools of thought interpreted and applied this concept.

Key Themes and Arguments:

• Pre-Mahavira and Buddha: The text states that the idea of an omniscient being, particularly one possessing unique, transcendental knowledge, was present in Indian thought and scriptures even before Lord Mahavira and Buddha. This belief was held by both scholars and the common populace.

• Development of the Debate: Over the approximately 2,500 years of Indian literature since the time of Mahavira and Buddha, the debate surrounding omniscience has evolved significantly. Detailed, nuanced, and engaging discussions have occurred concerning the existence (asti-paksha) and non-existence (nasti-paksha) of omniscient beings, along with supporting and opposing arguments.

• Major Opponents of Omniscience: The primary schools that reject omniscience are identified as:

  • Charvaka: This materialist school posits that only the empirically perceivable world exists. Therefore, there is no room for an intangible soul or its powers like omniscience.
  • Agnosticism (Ajnanavada): Similar to modern scientists, these thinkers believe that knowledge, including transcendental knowledge, has its limits. No matter how advanced knowledge becomes, it is inherently incapable of fully grasping all past, present, and future gross and subtle phenomena. Something always remains unknowable because the power of knowledge itself is finite.
  • Purva Mimamsa: While accepting the existence of non-empirical entities like the soul, rebirth, and afterlife, and not objecting to some form of transcendental knowledge, the Purva Mimamsa school, being a proponent of the authority of the Vedas as authored by no human (apaurusheya), opposes any transcendental knowledge that would undermine the unauthored nature of the Vedas. Their objection is specifically to a direct knower of dharma or an omniscient being whose existence would be independent of the Vedas. They do not deny that the Vedas themselves reveal dharma and all substances.

• Major Proponents of Omniscience: The text lists several schools that accept omniscience:

  • Nyaya-Vaisheshika: These schools are theistic. They consider God to be omniscient because God's knowledge is eternal, uncreated, and all-encompassing, simultaneously knowing all past, present, and future gross and subtle matters. While they believe in omniscience for other souls, it's limited to yogis (those who have attained spiritual powers through yoga), and even then, not all yogis are considered omniscient, only those who have specifically achieved this capacity. They also state that omniscience is not a prerequisite for liberation (moksha), and even liberated omniscient souls do not retain complete knowledge, as their yogic knowledge is impermanent compared to God's eternal knowledge.
  • Samkhya, Yoga, and Vedanta: The nature of omniscience in these schools is similar to that in Nyaya-Vaisheshika. Although Yoga posits God, it attributes divine omniscience to the buddhi-tattva (intellect) rather than to the conscious soul, as it finds it difficult to support omniscience within the soul. Similar to Nyaya-Vaisheshika, intellectual omniscience is not considered essential for liberation in these traditions; it's a yogic attainment achieved by some practitioners.

• The Origin of the Debate: The text acknowledges the difficulty in definitively identifying the originator of the omniscience debate or whether it arose from pure philosophical inquiry or sectarian religious arguments. It's also unclear whether the concept of omniscience in divine beings like Brahma or Vishnu preceded the idea of omniscience in human beings like Buddha and Mahavira, or vice versa, or if they developed independently. However, it is generally concluded that the discussion likely originated from the refutation and affirmation of religious traditions and later acquired a philosophical character, becoming a subject for neutral philosophical contemplation.

• The Role of Vedas: The core of the debate often revolved around establishing the authority of the Vedas.

  • Mimamsa's Rejection: Their rejection of omniscience was primarily to uphold the unauthored and eternal nature of the Vedas.
  • Other Vedic Schools' Acceptance: Schools like Nyaya-Vaisheshika supported omniscience to demonstrate the authority of the Vedas by showing their divine origin (paurusheya).
  • Jain and Buddhist Affirmation: Jain and Buddhist schools, which championed human omniscience, aimed to establish the authority of their own scriptures and reject the authority of the Vedas.

• The Mimamsa Counter-Argument (Kumarila Bhatta): Kumarila argued that the purpose of the Vedas is to independently ordain dharma and adharma through rituals like sacrifices, without relying on any particular person. Therefore, no one, whether a human yogi like Buddha or Jinna, a deity like Brahma or Vishnu, or a sage like Kapila, can directly know dharma and adharma without the intermediary of scripture. He asserted that dharma is universally and eternally consistent, which can only be established if it's prescribed by the eternal Vedas. If figures like Buddha were direct expounders of dharma, such consistency wouldn't be possible, as they might not always be enlightened, might not reach all places, and their teachings might not always be unanimous. Kumarila thus refuted direct knowledge of dharma and, consequently, omniscience. He interpreted the omniscience attributed to deities like Brahma in the Upanishads as merely self-knowledge. He also criticized figures like Buddha and Mahavira for preaching dharma to lower castes and the ignorant while not preaching to learned Brahmins, suggesting they were not "dharma-knowers" from the Vedic perspective. A significant argument by Kumarila against the omniscience of figures like Buddha and Mahavira was the contradiction in their teachings; if they were truly omniscient, their teachings should be as consistent as the Vedas.

• The Buddhist Counter-Argument (Shantarakshita): Shantarakshita, in response to Kumarila and other Mimamsakas, meticulously refuted their arguments. He argued that the Vedas themselves are flawed and contain violence, making them unsuitable as a source of dharma. He stated that Buddha, out of compassion, taught dharma based on his own experience for worldly prosperity and liberation. Preaching to the ignorant was an expression of his compassion. He questioned the Mimamsakas about the definitive proof of Brahminhood, pointing out the long passage of time and the fickleness of women, making it impossible to ascertain the purity of lineage. Shantarakshita also asserted that true Brahmins and ascetics are found only in the Buddhist tradition. Ultimately, he established the general possibility of omniscience and then argued that it is impossible in figures like Mahavira and Kapila, but possible only in Buddha. His core argument was that the mind is luminous and inherently intelligent, and impurities like defilements (kleshavarana) and knowable objects (jneyavarana) are external. Through the knowledge of non-self (nairatmyadarshana), the sole truth, these impurities are removed, leading to permanent omniscience through the power of meditation. Since Rishabha, Vardhamana, and Kapila did not fully teach anekanta (non-absolutism), non-self, or self-knowledge respectively, they could not achieve the removal of coverings and thus omniscience.

• Jain and Samkhya/Buddhist Similarities: The text notes that Samkhya and Jainacharya (Jain scholars) made similar attempts: while affirming the possibility of omniscience, they established it solely within their own Tirthankaras (Jain spiritual leaders) and declared it impossible in others. Jain acharyas argued that anekanta is the true doctrine, and omniscience is attainable only through its proper perception and practice. Since Bhagwan Rishabha and Vardhamana perfectly realized and taught anekanta, they were omniscient, and their scriptures are faultless and worthy of acceptance. Jain scholars like Siddhasena, Samantabhadra, Akalanka, and Hemachandra presented similar arguments for omniscience, just like Buddhist and Samkhya scholars.

• Subtle Differences: The difference lies in what each school considers the ultimate truth: some emphasized the realization of non-self, others the realization of principles like Purusha and Prakriti, some the truth of the six Dravyas (substances), Gunas (qualities), etc., while others focused solely on self-knowledge. However, all these arguments led to the establishment of omniscience in their respective chief proponents. The Jains, by demonstrating the truth of anekanta, established omniscience in Bhagwan Rishabha and Vardhamana.

• Common Ground: Despite these sectarian differences, all omniscientist philosophies share the common philosophical understanding that through right knowledge (samyak-jnana), false knowledge and related afflictions (kleshas) are destroyed, and the possibility of the complete eradication of the veil of ignorance (jnana-avarana) exists.

In essence, "Sarvagnyavada" by Sukhlal Sanghavi provides a detailed historical and philosophical overview of the concept of omniscience in Indian thought, highlighting the differing viewpoints of various schools and the underlying reasons for their stances, particularly in relation to the authority of scriptures and spiritual traditions.