________________
236
Roger Jackson
assumes that the Buddha has knoweldge in the highest degree, it follows that the Buddha should be unmistaken with regard to the ultimate and conventional patures of all existents; because he is authoritative, therefore, the Buddha must be omniscient.37 This sort of interpretation obviously rests not on what DharmakIrti has written but on what he might have said had he reflected on the implications of his definition of pramāņa for a full Mahāyāna conception of the Buddha-Prajñākaragupta, it seems, had so reflected. As a result, Dharmak Irti is seen implicitly to prove the Buddha's omniscience simply by proving his authoritativeness--this despite the ridicule Dharmakirti seems to heap on the idea of omniscience at I. 31-35. Prajñākaragupta states quite plainly that these verses do “not refute the omniscience that is knowledge of all things, 39 and the ability to see great distances is derided as insufficient for comprising omniscience--it must be accompanied by knowledge of what is to be attained and what avoided. The substitution of "authority" by "omniscience" considerably changes the tone of Dharmakfrti's argument, making it sound as if he accepts omniscience and is chiefly concerned to refute the mistaken notion that knowledge of hidden objects is both a necessary and sufficient condition for omniscience; in fact, it is necessary (for omniscience in the sense of sarvākarajñatā), but not sufficient. Knowledge of what is to be attained and what avoided is both necessary and sufficient for omniscience in a limited sense, e. g., sarvajñatā; it is necessary, but not sufficient, for sarvākarajñatā.
Prajñākaragupta, then, while recognizing that Dharmakirti does not teach universal omniscience at Pramāņavārttika I. 31-35, clearly believes in it himself, and begins to find it in Dharmakirti: not only does he carefully note DharmakIrti' nihil obstat regarding the possibility of omniscience, but appears to believe that DharmakIrti, as he does, holds that omniscience is a logical corollary of the Buddha's authoritativeness.
IV. The Tibetan Commentarial Tradition :
The fruition of the interpretive seeds sown by Prajnakaragupta is found in the Tibetan tradition of the Pramānavārttika commentary. It is axiomatic for this tradition that omniscience-like liberation, the selflessness of the person, the subtle impermanence of sound, etc. -is a slightly hidden phenomenon (kiincid paroksa) which is logically demonstrable through proper inference.39 The tradition further assumes that the locus classicus for proofs of omniscience is the “pramāṇasiddhi" chapter of the pramāņavārttika.
As we have noted above, rGyal tshab, the 15th century dGe lugs pa scholar who wrote the first great Tibetan commentary on the Pramāņavārttika, entitles his commentary on the "pramānasiddhi” chapter “An Explanation of Liberation and Omniscience and the Path that Leads to them.” At the very outset of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
