Jaina Epistemology

SR No.: 006738
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Indra Chandra Shastri
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1990
Total Pages: 516
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 21 MB

Page 147

122
Epistemology of Jainas
evolutes of material unconscious substance, however fine it may be. They cannot be intellicized unless connected with an intelligent being This function is done by Purusa. In the process of cognition buddhi plays the active part; because it constructs the images. In the process of intellicizing of buddhi also, Purusa does not play any active part. According to Vācaspati Miśra Buddhi receives the reflection of Purusa also and according to Vijñānabhikṣu it is reflected into Puruşa after getting the reflection of the object. The moon does not play any active part wben it is reflected into water. It exists just as it was before the reflection. It is the purity of water substance that is responsible for getting reflection. The moon is the same for the object where it is reflected and where not. Vijñānabhikṣu cites the example of mirror, which also knows no change whether anything is reflected into it, or not. The Jaina criticises this view on several groupds :
Firstly, the dualistic theory of representation is merely a fancy. There is no proof supporting the theory of images or modes as proposed by the Sārkhya. The Jaina believes, that our cognitions directly apprehend the external objects. Cognition does not mean creation or reflection, but simply illumination of the already existing objects.
Secondly. cit has no form or corporeal qualities, and therefore, it cannot be reflected into Buddhi. Reflection is possible in a thing which has colour or form.
Thirdly, the absolute division of the entities as active and passive has no basis. There is nothing which is entirely passive. Simple awareness also implies some action on the part of the person holding it. It is a reaction of the external effect, and must attribute the reactor with some activity. In the case of reflection also we cannot say that the reflector is absolutely inactive. Had it been so, there would be no difference between a lump of clay and the glass. There is no reason why the latter should receive the reflection and not the former, when other