________________
196
PROBLEM OF AVIDYA
[ch.
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 been already 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 a 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 cognition. 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 (which means the same thing) is not determinable by a valid cognition or an instrument of it, the Jaina 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 the objective situation in all respects it is called truth. When, on the other hand, it fails to conform to reality in any respect it is called false. So nescience as error is always determinable with reference to reality, and that again by means of an accredited organ of knowledge. As for the further contention of Sureśvara that nescience is not possible for a person possessed of knowledge, it is observed that nescience is not possible in a person who is possessed of perfect knowledge and as such is omniscient. But there is no evidence to show that it is not possible for a man whose knowledge is limited. The assertion of Sureśvara
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
