________________
Soul
365
invariable relationship to be known? It is impossible for the Pratyakṣa to know such relationship. As shown already, omniscience itself is beyond the range of the Pratyakşa and the knowledge of a relation is impossible without a previous knowledge of the related. Hence in the matter of an inference about the omniscient a valid Hetu is wanting.
Upamāna consists in a determination about an object from the knowledge of an object similar to it. If one is told "A Gabaya is like a Go (cow", he decides the quadruped which he meets in the forest to be a Gabaya, if it is found to resemble a cow. This is Upamāna or analogical reasoning. None, however, resembling an omniscient being is seen, so that the very basis of the Upamāna is wanting. Hence the Mimāṁsaka's contend that an omniscient being cannot be an object of Upamāna.
The Veda's are the Agama or the collection of the authoritative sayings. According to the Mīmāṁsaka's, only those parts of the Veda's are authoritative and valid which deal with injunctions about what are to be done (Vidhi) and what are not to be done (Nişedha). The portions of the Vedas which contain the Mantra's and the Brāhmaṇa's are thus Pramāņa or sources of valid knowledge, while the Upanişads which do not deal with the moral injunctions are not valid authorities. The Mimāṁsaka's point out that nowhere in the Vedic Mantra's or Brāhmaṇa's we come across any conception about the omniscient. The Veda's themselves are the unquestioned and the unquestionable teachers regarding man's duties and it is superfluous to admit an omniscient being for the purpose of teaching duties to mankind. Hence we find no mention of any omniscient being in the authoritative portions of the Veda's and if there is any mention of such a being in any parts of the Veda's, the separts are not authoritative. It is said that there are mentions of the omniscient in the various non-Vedic texts e.g., the Purāņas. The Mimāmsaka's ask: Are these non-Vedic texts composed by an omniscient being or an inomniscient being? If by the latter, they are not authoritative. In the former case, there would be fallacy
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
