________________
LXXX
PRAVACANASĀRA,
respective prophets, for on that depended the very life and death of their systems; it was the omniscience that could give infallibility to their prophets and therefore automatically to their scriptures that constituted the utterances of these prophets. A good deal of literature has grown round this topic. With Kundakundá sarvajñatā is a dogma, a religious heritage and an essential part of tire doctrine he represents; he has not tried to prove it logically, perhaps it was not needed in his days. The Nijjuttis show the traces of the logical approach to the subject, but the definite period of polemic logic in Jaina literature, so far as the existing Jaina works are concerned, begins with Samantabhadra (circa 2nd century A. D.); this period almost corresponds with the adoption of Sanskrit by the Jainas which was more convenient for polemical style. Umāsvati is the first Jaina author to adopt Sanskrit; in his Tattvārthasūtra he describes omniscience (I, 10, 11, 29 ) on the same lines of Kundakunda, but he does not attempt to prove it. The relative chronology of Jaina authors requires that Umāsvāti might have flourished somewhere between Kundakunda and Samantabhadra. Samantabhadra tries to prove the possibility of sarvajñatā; perhaps he has in view some attack either by Cārvāka or Mimāmsā on the Sūtras of Umāsvāti. Samantabhadra's verses about Sarvajñatā have been looked upon as profound, full of meaning; and all the following authors, right upto the end of middle ages, have tried to prove the
sibility of Sarvaiñatā almost on the very capital of Samantabhadra's arguments. The subject has been discussed with great zeal for centuries together by some of the greatest logicians that the Sanskrit language has ever come to be handled by.
1 It would not be out of place, if I give here references to various important discussions
about Sarvajñatā, in Indian Literature, arranged according to relative chronology. Really the logical discussion about Sarvajõatā begins with Samantabhadra (c. 2nd century A. D.) who tries to establish Sarvajñatū in his Aptamimāmsā, verses 5-6. Siddhasena, who is undoubtedly later than Kundakunda, who flourished. possibly after Samantabhadra, and who is generally assigned to the end of the 6th century A. D. (or even a century or two, I think, he might be earlier ), in his Sanmati-prakarana (Ed. Ahmedabad 1930), 2nd kūnda, discusses about Kevalajñāna, the same as Sarvajñāng or Sarvajñatā, particularly with the background of the S'vetambara canon in viow, From some verses quoted by Anantakirti in his Brhat-sarvajñasiddhi it appears that Dharınakirti might have attacked the word dürürtha etc, used by Samantabhadra. Pátrakesarī, who flourished possibly earlier than Akalarika, in his Pañicanamaskarastotra, clearly defines Kevalajñāda in select words of which akraman (cqual to yugapal) rominds us of the attack raiced by Siddhasens against tho S'vetambara capon; bo also attempts the proof of omniscience (sce verses 4, 18-20 MDJG vol. 13). The colopbop that it is composed by Vidyānanda is put possibly by the editor being misled by the identification of Pátrakesari and Vidyananda proposed by Dr. Pathal, but it is nous prored to be erroneous, Akalaika (circa middle of the 7th century A. D.) in his Astas'ati, a commentary on Aplamimūnisa of Samantabhndrs, explains clearly the position of Somaptabhadra particularly with the Buddhist attack in view, Kumārila ( middle of tho 7th century) in his S'lolarārlila (p. 80 etc. Ed. Bonares) attacks Buddhist Sarvajñata and Jaina Kevalajñāna (verse 141); so far as the attack against the Jainas is concerned he bag in view tho statements of Samantabhadra and possibly he is acquainted with the view of Akalaska. Kumārila's views have been fully and thoroughly criticised by S'antarakṣita (703-762 A. D.) in his Tattvasangraho and by Kamalas'ila (713-703 A, D,) in his commentary on the same. We find some
