________________
26
SATYASASANA-PARIKSÅ
this awareness the status of a true cognition, and he thinks the content of error, at least the predicative part of it, as neither real nor unreal, but something logically indeterminable. The reason he advances in support of his position is that it is set aside by a true cognition following upon it. Nobody denies that error is corrected by a subsequent valid experience. But that should not be interpreted as evidence of the unreality of the cognition or of the content. It may be false cognition but nonetheless it is a cognition, and true so far as its occurrence is taken into consideration. It is regarded as error because the external object is not possessed of the predicate judged to belong to it in error. The contradiction only proves that the predicate does not belong to the subject and nothing more. It has already been explained that the contradiction cannot mean that error did not happen. Error is bound to be admitted as historical event, and to be true so far as it is a real happening. The Vedāntist has affirmed that the awareness of error is effected by pure consciousness, and as such cannot be assigned any logical value. But this seems to be a distinction without difference. Granted that error is felt by pure consciousness. But why should this awareness be not valid ? If the awareness of error be invalid, there will be no possible means of asserting that it is a psychical occurrence. The question of validity or invalidity of a cognition is not capable of being decided by the intrinsic character of the cognition in question. The validity of a cognition can be decided by external evidence, at least in the initial stage. A cognition is regarded as invalid only when it is found to be contradicted by a subsequent cognition showing that the predicate does not belong to the subject. The awareness of error, no matter whether pure or empirical, is not contradicted by any subsequent congnition. The subsequent cognition does not annul the historicity of error as a cognition. It only shows, as we have observed, that the predicate does not belong to the subject. Thus there does not seem to be any logical warrant for questioning the validity of awareness of error as a fact whether it be classed as empirical or metempirical.
As regards the contention of Sureśvara that nescience or error is not deterininable by a valid cognition or an instrument of it, the faina does not think that it is based upon truth. It has been observed that a cognition is proved to be false when it is contradicted by a subsequent cognition having the same reference. The contradicting cognition is held to be true by all even including the Vedāntist. This shows that error is proved by truth which is based upon a true objective datum. The Jaina accordingly thinks that the Vedāntist's interpretation of error as an alogical fact is due to a hasty appraisal of the logical issue. Error as well as truth is always capable of being determined only with reference to reality. When the cognition is found to correspond to
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
