________________
83
and in abundance in the Upanishadic period Evidently the author is thinking of such metaphysical doctrines when he speaks of the Self identifying with dharmadı Sankara who appears in the field several centuries later adopts exactly a similar attıtude and condemns such identification as examples of adhyasa* or erroneous transposition of attributes
CHAPTER III
One other point we have to note here which is of epistemological interest is the relation of the Knower to the object of knowledge According to Jaina theory, though the object known is related to the Knower, still it is entirely independent and selfsubsistent Its nature can by no means be interfered with The idealistic systems both in India and Eutope maintain that the object of knowledge is not only known by the agent, but is also constructed by the knowing agent in the act of knowing Thus the object of knowledge is practically derived from the creative activity of the knowing agent The knowing Self or ego is thus credited with the capacity of producing the external world out of itself in the process of knowing Such an idealistic monism is incompatible with Jaina metaphysics Probably the author was thinking of this erroneous metaphysical doctrine when he condemned the false identity of the Self with the external objects एव पराणि दव्वाणि अप्पय कुणदि मदबुद्धीओ । अप्पाण अवि य पर करेदि अण्णाणभावेण ॥ ९६ ॥ Evam parani davvani appayam kunadı mandabuddhivo Appanam kaviyaparam karedi annanabhavena
एव पराणि द्रव्याणि आत्मान करोति मन्दबुद्धिस्तु ॥ आत्मानमपि च पर करोति अज्ञानभावेन ॥ ९६ ॥
(96)
96 Thus a person of dull intellect (bahirätman) takes alien things to be Self and through sheer ignorance takes the Self also to be alien things
*The term Adhyasa is first used by Amritachandra the Comentator of Samayasara This term is not found in the upanished but is adopted by Sankara in his Bashya
+ ज्ञा नान्मृग तृष्णका जलधिया धावति पातु मृगा अज्ञानात्तमसि द्रवति भुजगा ध्यासेन रज्जौ जना
