________________
II. 10-15 ]
[ 79
4. If we, according to the view of Kramavāda or Sahavada, regard two separate functions of knowing and perceiving, it follows that a Kevali perceives a phase or aspect of a thing which was unknown before, similarly he knows an aspect of a thing which was not perceived before. In other words, it would mean that for a Kevali some thing at least of a thing remains either unknown or unperceived. If this be so, how can we say that he is all knower or all perceiver? On the other hand, a Kevalin according to these two views would mean one by whom some thing remains unknown or unperceived.
CHAPTER II
5. In the scriptures knowledge and perception are said to be endless, limitless. But if we follow these two views and regard two separate functions the limitlessness of knowledge and perception can not be maintained. For perception, because it is indistinct, has necessarily a limited province as compared with knowledge which is distinct.
The view of oneness, on the other hand, is not at all open to the above-mentioned fallacies or defects since it accepts only one function and admits that the one function has the double capacity to comprehend both the general and the particular in the case of a Kevalin. And so there is no difference between Absolute knowledge and Absolute perception 10-14.
In the following verse Kramavādi tries to defend himself but is finally silenced by the author:
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
