Jaina Literature and Philosophy a Critical Approach

SR No.: 001936
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1998
Total Pages: 126
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Religion, & Literature
File Size: 13 MB

Page 40

34
Aspects of Jainology : Volume VI
44.
phical traditions, particularly in Nyāya and Sankhya mentioned only three types of Pramānas. Umāsvāti school, but in due course of time they got it associated (c. 3rd 4th A. D.) for the first time declared five-fold with their concept of five-fold knowledge. Thus, what- knowledge as Pramāṇa and divided it into two classes ever development of Jaina theory of Pramāna is seen Pratyaksa and Parokya. Later on, Nandisūtra divided in Jainism, is the result of its synthesis with Pañca- Pratyaksa in two sub-classes Sāmvyāvahārika and jñanavāda. While classifying the Pramāņa some new Pāramārthika, including sensory perception into the concepts came into existence. They are undoubtedly first one and Avadhi, Manah-paryaya and Kevala into unique contributions of Jaina philosophy. For insta- the second, respectively. The four Āgamic divisions of nce, Smộti (memory ), Pratyabhijña ( recognition) Matijñāna—Avagraha (the cognition of an object as and Tarka ( Induction ) were for the first time such without a further positing of the appropriate considered as Pramāņa.
name, class, etc. ); īhā ( the thought process that is We shall now see as to how the development undertaken with a view to specifically ascertain the of Pramanavāda took place in Jaina āgamas. Jaina general object that has been grasped by avagraha ); āgamas refer three and four types of Pramāna Avāya (when further attentiveness to final ascertainaccepted by Sankhya and Naiyāyikas, respectively. ment takes place regarding the particular feature Sthānanga clearly mentions three types of Vyavasāya grasped at the stage of Iha ) and Dhāraņā (the constant ( determinate cognition), i.e.. Pratyaksa (perception ), stream of the ascertainment, the impression left Prātyika and Anugāmika (inference) whereas behind it and the memory made possible by this Bhagavati mentions four types of Vyavasāya, i.e., impression, all these operations or the form of matiPratyaksa. Anumāna. Upamāna ( comparison and jñana are called dhārana ) were accepted as the two Agama ( verbal testimony ). Similarly, in Sthānāriga classes of sensory perception. The indirect knowfour types of pramānas called Hetu are mentioned. ledge (Parokşa-jñāna ) enumerated the cognition In this way Sthānārga mentions both, three
originated from mind ( manasajanya jñāna ) and fold and four-fold classification of Pramāņa in the
Verbal testimony ( Śrutajñāna ) with a view that form of Vyavasāya and Hetu, respectively. Anuyoga
Inference (Anumāna ) etc. are the forms of Manasadvārasutra not only clearly mentions four types of any Pramāņa but also elaborately discusses each of them.
Thus, the attempt to synthesize the concept of The details about the four Pramānas given by Pramāna with the theory of five-fold knowledge in Anuyogadvārasatra is very much similar to that of the true sense begins from the period of Umāsvāti. Nyāya school. As I have stated earlier, Bhagavati Ācārya Umāsvāti maintains that these five types of refers to the Anuyogadvāra for more details about cognition ( knowledge ) are five pramānas and the Pramāņas. It indicates that at the time of Valabhi divides these five cognition into two Pramānas - council (c. 5th A. D.) the concept of four types of direct and indirect. Pt. Malvania has observed that the Pramāņa had already been accepted by Jaina first attempt of this synthesis was made in Anuyogaphilosophers but when Pramāņavāda got synthesized dvārasütra, the only text accommodating Naiyāyika's with the conception of five-fold knowledge, the four-fold division of Pramāņa into knowledge. But Upamāna (comparison ) had no place in it.
this attempt not being in accordance with the Jaina Later, Siddhasena Divākara in his Nyāyāva- view, the later scholars tried to solve this problem and tāra and Haribhadrasūri in his Anekāntajayapatakā ultimately succeeded in doing so. They discussed the