Aspect of Jainology Part 3 Pandita Dalsukh Malvaniya

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 558

Dharmakirti's Attitude Toward Omniscience
Dharmakirti's own words that he believed in any kind of omniscience, let alone sarväkarajñata. The crucial passage, covering verses 31-35 of the pramāṇasiddhi chapter of the Pramanavärttika (Shastri's edition), may be translated as follows:
233
Some (Mimämsakas) say: "An authoritative being is one who cognizes hidden objects. Because there is no (means of) accomplishing (or proving, the state of such a being), no one (can) make the effort (to accomplish that state). Dharmakirti replies): We who are apprehensive about being misled through taking as a teacher an ignoramus seek someone who is knowledgeable, so that we may make the effort to understand (what he teaches). Therefore, we should. investigate his gnosis (to determine that) it is practicable, his knowledge of the number of insects (in the world) is of no use to us. We assert that authoritative being is one who knows what is to be attained and what avoided, together with the methods (of so attaining and avoiding)-not someone who knows everything. Whether or not (a teacher) sees great distances, he should see the principles (that meet) the desires (of beings) if someone who sees great distances is an authoritative being, come, let us rely on vultures!
Singh classifies Dharmakirti's view-as expressed in these verses as a definition of omniscience as knowledge of practical utility (märgajñata)." That practical utility is involved is clear, what is not so certain is (a) whether Dharmaktrti is, in fact, offering a definition of omiscience in those terms or (b) if he is, how that omniscience might best be classified. (A) We must remember that the chapter from which. we have drawn our passage is concerned primarily with establishing the meaning of pramäṇa, and most particularly with proving that the Buddha is pramana-both in the sense that all Buddha-cognitions are authoritative or valid and in the sense that for unenlightened sentient beings he is the "means" to be relied upon until they themselves have "become authoritative" (pramanabhuta ). Dharmakirti defines the "one who knows what is to be attained. and what avoided, together with the methods (of so attaining and avoiding )" (heyopadeyatattvasya sabhyupāyasya vedakaḥ) as a pramana, o an omniscient being. Omniscience may or may not, in fact, be a quality of the Buddha, but it clearly is irrelevant to his establishment as an authoritative being. (B) If, for the sake of argument, we grant with Singh that Dharmakĭrti perhaps is implicitly offering a more limited definition of omniscience, it is likely that the type he is defining is not mārgajñata-which, whatever Singh means by it, connotes in the Abhisamayalamkara tradition a Mahayana arya's cognition of the emptiness of the three possible Buddhist spiritual paths22-but sarvajñata, the Hinayana ārya's cognition of the selflessness of all persons, which implies a direct understanding of what is to be avoided (self-grasping, ätmagraha) and what attained (the wisdom cognizing selflessness), which is in turn equivalent to an understanding of the four noble truths.23