________________
456
Epistemology of Jainas
that, though he is not against the logicality of the second view; but the words of the Agamas are the supreme authority, If logic goes against them we should drop it and hold the Agamic view.
Siddhasena Divākara, being a great logician, holds that in case jñāna and darśana are simultaneous, there is no reason in holding them different. The same logic which establishes their simultaneity supports identity also. So, he introduced the third view; and interpreted some Agamic quotations also in his support.
Thus, all the three views were established and had its champions. But, Umāsvāti was a great supporter of the Agamic tradition. His support to the second view still remains a mystery.
It is also probable that these views might have originated from the mutual discussions of the Jaina thinkers, without any outside influence.
The discussion about these three views continued in the Svetambara literature for more than 150 years. Each view was supported by reputed scholars. Jinabhadra has collected all the views with their arguments in his Viseṣaṇavati and Viseṣāva. śyakabhāṣya.
Arguments for each view
The first view is generally based on the Agamic statements. In the Pannavaṇāsūtra Gautama asks Mahāvīra whether a kevalin sees (pasai) Ratnaprabha (the first plane of hellish kingdom) at the same moment when he knows (jāņi) it. Mahavira replies in the negative. He gives reason in the support of his view that jñāna is articulate while darśana is inarticulate. If is for this reason that a kevalin when sees, does not know; and when knows, does not see. The same question is asked about the other planes of hellish kingdom also, with the same reply.
The above statement of Pannavaṇā, which has parallel passages in the Bhagavati also, clearly expresses that jñāna and
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
