________________
E. Leumann, An outline of the Avaśyaka Literature
The question, which visualizing they assumed, had been answered immediately in the types of knowledge III & V since these correspond to a visualizing (3 & 4) named after them. On the other hand, various possibilities of interpretation present themselves with II & IV. Then a welcomed playground resulted from the post-Canonical playing with concepts.
In the entire matter Jinabhadra displays a certain insecurity. While dealing with IV he acknowledges an opinion that he had rejected in II. Thus, he himself shows how little importance there is to the reading jānai na pāsai that he had claimed for II. At both passages someone later adds to Jinabhadra's words a reference to the Prajñāpanā that is out of place the second time. Thus, it arises that the Bhāsya, half through the fault of the author and half through the fault of the interpolator, appears somewhat unfavourable for the topic that we are concerned with.
The Bhāsya passage dealing with II reads: I 552" The attentive srutajñānin correctly knows everything that is present with respect to
matter, space, time and introspection. He also visualizes it - some (think) (who read jāņai pāsai in the Nandi)
actually, by means of acakşur-darśana. 553 To him (should be replied): Since acaksurdarśana is common (to the mati-jñānin
and the śrutajñānin) how should the matijñānin not see by it, but the śrutajñānin?
Why such a difference! [554 In the Prajñāpanā (chap. XXX Ed. fol. 756 f.), (meanwhile everywhere,) except at
the mati-(jñāna)-division and at acakṣurdarśana', visualizing is clearly postulated;
for this reason visualizing at śruta(-jñāna) is correct.]
Jinabhadra, then, adopts here the reading jāņai na pāsai. One could also translate 552": He also visualizes it. – Some (say): and, in fact, ...
In that case, Jinabhadra's mistake would have been passed over. Then he would not have disputed perceiving itself, but only acakşurdarśana. On the other hand, the interpolator might have tagged on 552 in the sense of the first account and then have found fault with 554. This interpretation in favour of Jinabhadra is not possible for two reasons: Sīlānka and Hemacandra interpret 552 concurrently in the earlier manner, in fact, on the basis of Jinabhadra's commentary, and Jinabhadra would not have rejected acakṣurdarśana if he would have recognized visualizing at all without postulating another darśana for it.
Much more comprehensive is the Bhāsya-passage dealing with IV: I 814 That (one) (manahparyāyajñānin) perceives by means of acakşurdarśana, like the
śrutajñānin. 814. (If someone objects that acaksurdarśana might be) right for the śruta (-jñānin since
this) (is) parokşa, but not for the manaḥ(paryāya)jñāna (because this) (is) pratyakşa, (thus, we reply:) if it is correct with parokșa, then it fits still better (also) with pratyakşa; 815° if (only) (manahparyāya)jñāna and not (also) (acakşur)darśana is pratyakşa, then what does this matter for that one (manahparyāyajñānin, since, indeed, also the avadhijñānin perceives a paroksa-object by cakşurdarśana and acakşurdarśana)? Others say! (the manahparyāyajñānin visualizes) as a result of avadhidarśana. But in the Canon that (avadhidarśana) has not been attributed to 816', nor even a (special) manahparyāya-darśana, or any other (darśana) beyond the (known)
darśana-foursome. 817
Or (does someone) believe, "avadhidarśana" might be (nothing more than) a(nother) name for the (supposed) manahparyāya-darsana (as well) as for the
8159
81ÈR.
What is particular about this contradiction need not be discussed here.
112
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
