________________
136
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
the Jaina śāstras only. With regard to the first type of śāstras, it is stated that they are the fanciful creation of perverse persons. But the sāstras falling under the head of transcendental āgama are composed by omniscient beings. It seems that in very early times only the words of Jina (omniscient person) were regarded as pramāna (valid), but gradually even the words of śrutakevalin and daśapūrvi came to be regarded as pramāņa. Of course, the words of the latter were regarded as pramāņa not independently but on the ground that they were always in consonance with the āgamas by Jinas. It is a belief among the Jainas that only the Caturdaśapūrvadhara and Dasapūrvadhara are invariably possessed of the right attitude;" hence there is no possibility of their stating things that may go against the āgamas by Jinas. Eventually, even the instructions of sthaviras, not found in the āgamas but visualised by them on the strength of their genius, also came to be regarded as pramāņa. Thus, the alaukika āgama is further divided under two heads, angapravista and angabāhya., One important thing to be noted here is that in the Daśavaikālika-Niryukti it is explicitly stated that though the words of a Jina are infallible and valid, one should give logical reason (hetu) and illustration (udāharana) in their support.
The above discussion shows that the prāmānya-aprāmānya of āgamas depend on the right or wrong attitude of the author. But there is another criterion also for its determination. All words are neutral, that is, neither pramāņa nor apramāņa. It is the attitude of the knower that makes them pramāņa or apramāņa. Thus, prāmānya or aprāmānya of words depends upon the attitude of the knower. If his attitude is right, whatever he knows becomes right and if his attitude is wrong, his knowledge derived from right scriptures also becomes wrong. Similarly, if the result of the knowledge of the mithyā (laukika) śruta (false scriptures) by a mithya-drsti (person of perverse attitude) turns out in the end to be the abandonment of the perversity, the mithya-śruta (false scripture) is to be considered as samyak-śruta (right scripture).
Umāsvāti gives the following synonyms of śruta : āptavacana, āgama, upadeśa, aitihya, āmnāya, pravacana and Jinavacana. He recognises two types of scriptures, viz., angabāhya and angapravista. Sāmāyika etc. are included in the first type and the twelve angas are included in the second type. What is the basis of this distinction ? The distinction is based on the types of teachers.
Regarding āgama, Kundakunda observes. • 'He who is free from all defects and is possessed of all pure qualities is the supreme authority.
