________________
112
TULSI-PRAJNA, Oct.-Dec., 1992
Prabhācandra (1st half of 12th Century A.D.), Vādideva Sūri (later half of 12th Century A.D.) and Shree Yaśovijaya jee (18th Century A.D).
The Jaina logicians argue that the Sabdabrahman is a prameya and a prameya needs a pramāņa for its recognition. There is no pramāņa through which we can prove the existence of the Sabdabrahman 6 In the Tattvārthaílokavårttika, Vidyānandi opines that the Sabdabrahman is not proved by Perception, Inference and Verbal Testimony.? This standpoint of Vidyānandi is also supported by Sāntarakṣita, Abhayadeva, Prabhācandra and Vādideva. However, Prabhācandra and Vādideva ask the grammarians during their discussion that the Sabdabrahman is cognised by indriyajanya pratyakşa, or by atīndriya pratyaksa, or by Svasamvedanaśīla pratyoksa? The first alternative is not qualified enough to recognise the Sabdabrahman as it is not recognised by the Jaina Logicians. They argue that this type of pratyaksa is illusary like the perception during dream.8 Thus the sensuai perception may not be taken as a cause of the perception of the Sabdabrahman. In the Sanmatitarka Prakaraņa it has been argued that a sense perceives that which is present and which is also large (sthūla) in nature. Therefore, the Sabdabrahman is not perceived by the sense organs. This is also supported by Prabhacandra in his Prameyakamalamārtanda.. During the discussion, both Prabhācandra and Vādideva Sūri raise the same question--by which sense organ do we perceive the Sabdabrahman ? either by Śrotrendriya or by any other indriya ?10 Since the Sabdabrahman is beyond the subject of the Śrotrendriya, that may not be a cause to know the Sabdabrahman If we accept that this is subject of the Śrotrendriya, then we have to accept that everything should be known by each and every indriya (sepse organ). But it is not possible to accept. Again, in the Nyāyakumudacandra it has been explained that the other sense organs (i.e, other than Śrotrendriya) also are not qualified enough to be the causes for the perception of the Sabdabrahman; because Šabda may not be a subject of any other sense organ other than the Śrotren. driya, 11 Thus it may be concluded that the Sabdabrahman is not recognised by the indriyajanya pratyakşa.
The Sabdabrahman is also not a subject of the atindriyapratyakșa. In the Nyāya-Kumada Candra, Prabhācandra opines that the anindriyapratyaksa perception without any sense organ is not accepted by the grammarians and therefore that should not be the cause to establish the Sabdabrahman. 12 In the reply the grammarians argue that a Yogi realises the existence of the SB (Subdabrahman) through Dhyāna and therefore, the existence of the SB is proved by atindriyapratyaksa of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
