________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.org
Acharya Shri Kailassagarsuri Gyanmandir
SATYAŠĀSANA-PARIKSA
can exist as the content of the Absolute or of the individual or as an independent entity. Now the first alternative is not conceivable. The conception of nescience in the Absolute which is of the nature of cognition and ex hypothesi omniscient involves self-contradiction. Nor can it be supposed to subsist in the individual, because the individual is not different from the Absolute and as such is free from all taint of nescience. How can nescience exist in the individual self which also is of the nature of pure cognition ? Nor is the third alternative a tenable hypothesis, because nescience admitted as an independent entity, like the Absolute, cannot be supposed to be annihilated by knowledge and so knowledge of the identity of the self and the Absolute, which is prescribed to be the condition of salvation, being the eliminator of nescience, will have no purpose to serve. Knowledge of identity is believed to lead to the perfect emancipation of the self, because it is assumed to be destructive of nescience which induced bondage. But if nescience be an independent entity like the Absolute and be coeval with the Absolute from beginningless time, it will be as eternal as the Absolute Self. And the bondage also will be an eternal fact. Sureśvara answers that the nature of nescience cannot be determined by an organ of knowledge. Nescience is not capable of being determined by logic, yet it cannot be denied that it exists. The individual feels that he is ignorant of many things. He is as certain of his ignorance as he is of his own existence. The individual is directly aware that he is a conscious being. So consciousness and existence are inalienable characteristics of the individual self. From the authority of revelation as well as the evidence of logic, the self is known to be identical with the Absolute Brahman. And we have seen that nescience is not possible in the Absolute and the individual alike. Sureśvara inaintains that this is not the correct approach for determining the relation of nescience. To deny the existence of nescience would be contradiction of a felt fact. So, however irrational and illogical the concept of nescience may appear to be, its actual existence has got to be admitted by all. It is true that the conception of nescience as an independent entity is an absurd hypothesis. We find it from our study of the Upanişads that nescience is totally destroyed by knowledge of the reality. This is also the finding of incontestable experience. Our ordinary errors such as the perception of shell for the silver are found to be annihilated when followed by correct knowledge of the reality. This would be impossible and also unaccountable if nescience were eternal verity. It must be admitted that there is no raison d'etre for error. It is possible only when the conditions of knowledge are given a false twist by something superadded to them. It is absolutely unintelligible why should there be a deviation from the normal standard. Certainly this deviation cannot be the normal law as this would make
For Private And Personal Use Only
