________________
206
ARGUMENTS BASED ON..
of omniscience is spiritual and not bodily.187 The Buddhists do not accept Analogy as a valid means of cognition. But for the Jainas, even if it were reliable, it would be of no use in proving the existence of the omniscient being because it requires similarity of the object cow (gavaya ) to something well-known (go'). In the present case the omniscient being is not an well-known object, nor there is anything similar to it.138
Then the other argument that after having found that no man is omniscient one can conclude that no man is omniscient simply recoils upon the Mināṁsakas thewselves, since if all men are seen by anybody he is himself an omniscient be ing. If non-omniscience of all proves one's own omniscience, the argument is incongruous.
(E) Argument based on the Scriptures (Agamas)
According to the Mimāṁsakas, “the existence of the omniscient cannot be proved by scriptures; for in that case there would be circular reasoning,"189 i.e. the scripture will depend for it validity upon the omniscience of the author and the omniscience of the author will depend upon the scriptures for its confirmation. Scriptures muy be either eternal or non-eternal. In the eternal scripture, which is no other than the Veda, there is no proof of omniscience of anybody. Such sentences occuring in the Veda- 'He is omniscient and the like are only eulogistic and should not be taken as descriptive.180
127 Prabhācandra, Nyāya-kumudacandra, Vol. I. p. 94; cp. Śäntarakṣita
Ibid., 3558-3561. 128 Prabhācandra, Ibid., p. 94; Ratnakīrti, Ibid., p; 25. 129 Kumārila, Ibid., II. 118. Also see II. 119-120. cp. Śäntaraksita.
Ibid., 3188-3189; Prabhācandra, Ibid., p. 87, Prameya-kamala-mār.
tanda, p. 249. 130 Tattvārtha-śloka-vārttikam of Vidyananda, p. 65; Sanmati-Tarka of
Siddhasena Divakara (Tikā), p. 46; Syadvada-Ratnakara of Deva Suri, p. 364.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
