________________
ON THE PROBLEM OF JNANA-DARŠANA
99
Buddhists who accept the possibility of simultaneous occurrence of a jñāna and a darśana of ordinary persons.81
No two thoughts (jñānas-vikalpas) occur simultaneously. The Jaina, the Buddhist and the Nyāya-Vaiseșika philosophers accept this.
In Moksa jñāna and darsana become doubly ananta. In addition to their being nirāvarana they become nirvişaya (= not paricchinna by any object = aparicchinna = ananta). Sukha in moksa is considered to be ananta on the ground of its being nirvisaya. The same logic should be applied to jñāna and darśana. In Moksa citta is a knower without knowing and a seer withour seeing.
The Sānkhya-Yoga thinkers recognized two tattvas. viz. purusa (= ātmā) and citta. They attributed the faculty of darśana to puruşa alone and the faculty of jñāna to citta alone. Buddhists rejected purusa (= ātmā) altogether and attributed the faculty of darśana to citta. Thus the citta recognized by the Buddhists possesses both the faculties, viz. darśana and jñāna. Those very reasons that urged the Buddhists to reject ātmā urged the Jainas also to reject it. Jainas rejected ātmā, accepting the citta alone. The terms ‘sacitta', 'acitta', (pudhai citta'82 etc. frequently used in old Jaina literature point to this fact. Jainas rejected ātma-tattva but retained the name ‘ātman' which they gave to the citta-tattva. Hence for them “ātman' and 'citta' became interchangeable terms, synonyms83 meaning that very thing which the Sankhya-Yoga and the Buddhist thinkers mean by the term 'citta' alone. We know that the citta of Sānkhya is variable constant (parināminitya) and body-size (śariraparimānākāramātram); it can expand or contract itself according to the size of the body which it inhabits (sankocavikāsı).84 The Jaina description of ātmā exactly tallies with this description of Sankhya citta. As a matter of fact, Sankhya citta is totally accepted by the Jainas without introducing any change in it; of course, they attributed darśana of puruşa to citta as they have totally rejected puruṣa or ātman. Thus Jainas are as anātmavādi as the Buddhists. But by giving the name ātman to the citta they have created an illusion that they belong to the ātman tradition. This Jaina position will be clear if we contrast it with the Vaisesika and the Sankara Vedānta positions. The Vaiseșika thinkers rejected citta altogether and attributed its faculty of jñāna (along with other cittadharmas) to absolutely changeless puruṣa. They neglect the faculty of darśana, they do not refer to it, so we can say that they do not accept it. According to them jñāna is the quality of puruṣa. They maintain that by (śarīrāvacchinna) ātma-manah-samyoga (nimittakārana) jñāna is
