________________
122 Studies in Umāsvāti sarvajña to kevala. By these philosophers the word sarvajña is used in epistemological context because it originally means knowledge which has every substance and mode as its object. Samantabhadra and the other Jaina logicians had to use this word in debate on the omniscience with other schools. Judging from the usage of the words, it can be said that Umāsvāti has much more interest in the epistemological side of omniscience than in its karmic aspect.
Conclusions
From these discussions it can be safely said that: 1. Umāsvāti, the author of the Tattvārthasūtra and
Praśama-rati, places emphasis upon the karmic aspect of omniscience rather than the epistemological. Though he does explain the epistemology of the omniscience, he puts
greater emphasis on the karmic aspect. 2. In his works as a whole he remains in the Jaina tradition
itself and never tries to debate with other schools of Indian philosophies. The same is true when he refers to the omniscience. He must have had some knowledge on inference. However Umāsvāti does not use it to prove the existence of the omniscience. The exclusive usage of the
word kevala or kevalin also shows this fact. 3. Thus he must belong to the early part of Jaina philosophical
tradition, that is to say, the period after the āgamic age and before the age of logic to which Samantabhadra and Akalanka belong. In other words, Umāsvāti stands at a turning point in the history of Jaina philosophy.
References
1. Matišrutāvadhimanahparyaya-kevalāni jñānam. -Tattvārthasūtra
(along with the Sarvārthasiddhi ed. Phūlcandra Siddhāntat Sāstrī, Delhi: Bhāratiya Jñānpīh Mürtidevi Jaina Granthamālā Skt.8, n.d.) 1-9.
