Book Title: Jaina Psychology Author(s): Mohanlal Mehta Publisher: Sohanlal Jain Dharm Pracharak Samiti AmrutsarPage 63
________________ 46 JAINA PSYCHOLOGY entirely unqualified object never enters into our cognition, since discrimination is the most fundamental character of consciousness. JAINA CONCEPTION OF INDETERMINATE COGNITION With this background in mind we, now, proceed to the Jaina conception of indeterminate cognition as elaborated by different Jaina thinkers. According to the Jaina, indeterminate cognition apprehends merely the existence of an object, and not its other attributes. This view resembles the conception of the Sankarite to a certain extent. In the language of modern psychology, it is pure sensation of the existence of objects. The Jaina does not deny that in this state of cognition we apprehend the qualifications of an object. He recognizes the apprehension of the qualifications in the form of existence, and not in the shape of qualification, since the cognition of a quality as qualifying an object presupposes distinction and determination. Moreover, the Jaina writers are not unanimous with respect to the nature of indeterminate cognition. The aforesaid opinion is more prevalent in the works of the Jaina logicians and is generally ascribed to the Jaina system. INTROSPECTION AND OBSERVATION Vīrasena observes in his commentary Dhavala on Satkhaṇḍāgama of Puspadanta that which cognises an external object of the nature of both generic and specific qualities is comprehension, i.e., determinate cognition (jñāna), and the introspection of the self of the same nature is apprehension, i.e., indeterminate cognition (darśana). He criticises those philosophers who hold that comprehension cognises only the particular, whereas apprehension knows only the general. Particularity without generality is a figment and generality bereft of particularity is an impossibility. The cognition that knows a particular aspect of an object without a general one is invalid. Similarly, the cognition of the universal bereft of the particular is not valid. In his opinion, therefore, both apprehension and comprehension cognise the object as it is. Since the object is a complex of universality and particularity, each of the two cognises both the particular and the general. The difference between the two lies in the fact that the former apprehends the internal entity, i.e., the self, whereas the latter cognises external objects. In a different language, apprehension is introvert, while comprehension is extravert. As regards the nature of the object itself, the internal entity asPage Navigation
1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238