Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 43

32
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. I
seeks to refute. From his very assertion, he will say, the person's belief is understood. This is certainly a case of inference of the cause from the effect. It is admitted tacitly or explicitly that the assertion of a man is the exponent of his conviction just as the smoke is the exponent of fire. It is assumed that speech is the effect of corresponding belief, So this is nothing but inference. Again when the sceptic denies the existence of anything he does so on the strength of his non-perception. Well, he would argue that an object is not present because it is not perceived. Had it been present it must have been perceived like the other things present in the situation which are invariably perceived. This is an instance of inference as has been shown by Dharmakīrti. So the denial of the validity of extra-perceptual cognition such as inference is only a make-believe and intentional fraud
The Buddhist believes in perception and inference as valid cogni. tion and also accords to both the same logical status in respect of cogency. The Jaina agrees with the Buddhist so far. But he joins issue with the Buddhist when he denies the validity of verbal testimony. It is on the testimony of scriptures which have been composed by men of extraordinary powers of perception and who have condescended to impart the results of their knowledge to the unenlightened persons out
campassion for their benefit, we come to know of heaven, hell and the existence of angels and gods. That there is life after death is also believed on the authority of such statement. Certainly the knowledge of such imperceptible objects cannot be secured by perception or even inference which derives its conditions, viz., the minor and major premises from perception. Had these been perceptible, there would not have been scope for scepticism. That the statements of veracious persons are true has to be admitted by the sceptic The field of our perceptual knowledge is limited and we know of other nations and countries and their war and alliance on the testimony of knowledgeable persons whose veracity is not open to doubt. That we rely on such testimony is evident from our acceptance of such knowledge. The denial of the validity of such testimony would make a person a total ignoramus and lead him to absurd situations,
ence, if one bistence after deathance taken by the pra counter questio
The materialist may contend that such things are believed on the testimony of other persons because they are verifiable by experience, if one takes the trouble of going to those places. But belief in heaven and existence after death stand in a different category. They are not verifiable. This is the stance taken by the present day materi. alists, sceptics and logical positivists. We would put a counter question