The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha. Madhava
[as well as that of Jina], which embraces virtue, vice, &c., would not be established as authoritative, if there were not in him the attribute of omniscience,[49] and so on."
We reply as follows:—As for the supposed contradiction of an Arhat's existence, derived from the failure of the five affirmative proofs—this is untenable, because there are proofs, as inference, &c., which do establish[50] his existence. Thus any soul will become omniscient when, (its natural capacity for grasping all objects remaining the same), the hindrances to such knowledge are done away. Whatever thing has a natural capacity for knowing any object, will, when its hindrances to such knowledge are done away, actually know it, just as the sense of vision cognises form, directly the hindrances of darkness, &c., are removed. Now there is such a soul, which has its hindrances done away, its natural capacity for grasping all things remaining unchanged; therefore there is an omniscient being. Nor is the assertion unestablished that the soul has a natural capacity for grasping all things; for otherwise the Mímáṃsist could not maintain that a knowledge of all possible cases can be produced by the authoritative injunction of a text,[51]—nor could there otherwise be the knowledge of universal propositions, such as that in our favourite argument, "All things are indeterminate from the very fact of their existence" [and, of course, a follower of the Nyáya will grant that universal propositions can be known, though he will dispute the truth of this particular one]. Now it is clear that the teachers of the Púrva Mímáṃsá accept the thesis that the soul has a natural capacity for grasping all things; since they allow that a knowledge embracing all things can be produced by the discussion of injunctions and prohibitions, as is said [by Śabara in his commentary on the Sútras, i. 1, 2], "A precept makes known the past, the present, the future, the minute, the obstructed, the distant, &c." Nor can you say that "it is impossible to destroy the obstructions which hinder the soul's knowing all things," because we [Jainas] are convinced that there are certain special means to destroy these obstructions, viz., the three ["gems"], right intuition, &c. By this charm also, all inferior assaults of argument can be put to flight.
But the Naiyáyika may interpose, "You talk of the pure intelligence, which, after all hindrances are done away, sees all objects, having sense-perception at its height; but this is irrelevant, because there can be no hindrance to the omniscient, as from all eternity he has been always liberated." We reply that there is no proof of your eternally liberated being. There cannot be an omniscient who is eternally "liberated," from the very fact of his being "liberated," like other liberated persons—since the use of the term "liberated" necessarily implies the having been previously bound; and if the latter is absent, the former must be too, as is seen in the case of the ether. "But is not this being's existence definitely proved by his being the maker of that eternal series of effects, the earth, &c.? according to the well-known argument, 'the earth, &c., must have had a maker, because they have the nature of effects, as a jar.'" This argument, however, will not hold, because you cannot prove that they have the nature of effects. You cannot establish this from the fact of their being composed of parts, because this supposition falls upon the horns of a dilemma. Does this "being composed of parts" mean (i.) the being in contact with the parts; or (ii.) "the being in intimate relation to the parts; or (iii.) the being produced from parts;" or (iv.) the being a substance in intimate relation; or (v.) the being the object of an idea involving the notion of parts?
Not the first, because it would apply too widely, as it would include ether [since this, though not itself composed of parts, is in contact with the parts of other things;] nor the second, because it would similarly include genus, &c. [as this resides in a substance by intimate relation, and yet itself is not composed of parts;] nor the third, because this involves a term ("produced") just as much disputed as the one directly in question;[52] nor the fourth, because its neck is caught in the pillory of the following alternative:—Do you mean by your phrase used above that it is to be a substance, and to have something else in intimate relation to itself—or do you mean that it must have intimate relation to something else, in order to be valid for your argument? If you say the former, it will equally apply to ether, since this is a substance, and has its qualities resident in it by intimate relation; if you say the latter, your new position involves as much dispute as the original point, since you would have to prove the existence of intimate relation in the parts, or the so-called "intimate causes," which you mean by "something else." We use these terms in compliance with your terminology; but, of course, from our point of view, we do not allow such a thing as "intimate relation," as there is no proof of its existence.
Nor can the fifth alternative be allowed, because this would reach too far, as it would include soul, &c., since soul can be the object of an idea involving the notion of parts, and yet it is acknowledged to be not an effect.[53] Nor can you maintain that the soul may still be indiscerptible in itself, but by reason of its connection with something possessing parts may itself become metaphorically the object of an idea involving the notion of parts, because there is a mutual contradiction in the idea of that which has no parts and that which is all-pervading, just as the atom [which is indiscerptible but not all-pervading].
And, moreover, is there only one maker? Or, again, is he independent?
In the former case your position will apply too far, as it will extend erroneously to palaces, &c., where we see for ourselves the work of many different men, as carpenters, &c., and [in the second case] if all the world were produced by this one maker, all other agents would be superfluous. As it has been said in the Vítarágastuti, or "Praise of Jina"—
1. "There is one eternal maker for the world, all-pervading, independent, and true; they have none of these inextricable delusions, whose teacher art thou."
And again—
2. "There is here no maker acting by his own free will, else his influence would extend to the making of a mat. What would be the use of yourself or all the artisans, if Íśwara fabricates the three worlds?"
Therefore it is right to hold, as we do, that omniscience is produced when the hindrances are removed by the three means before alluded to.
Nor need the objection be made that "right intuition," &c., are impossible, as there is no other teacher to go to—because this universal knowledge can be produced by the inspired works of former omniscient Jinas. Nor is our doctrine liable to the imputation of such faults as Anyonyáśrayatá,[54] &c., because we accept an eternal succession of revealed doctrines and omniscient teachers, like the endless series of seed springing from shoot and shoot from seed. So much for this preliminary discussion.
The well-known triad called the three gems, right intuition, &c., are thus described in the Paramágamasára (which is devoted to the exposition of the doctrines of the Arhats)—"Right intuition, right knowledge, right conduct are the path of liberation." This has been thus explained by Yogadeva:—
(a.) When the meaning of the predicaments, the soul, &c., has been declared by an Arhat in exact accordance with their reality, absolute faith in the teaching, i.e., the entire absence of any contrary idea, is "right intuition." And to this effect runs the Tattvártha-sútra, "Faith in the predicaments[55] is right 'intuition.'" Or, as another definition gives it, "Acquiescence in the predicaments declared by a Jina is called 'right faith;' it is produced either by natural character or by the guru's instruction." "Natural character" means the soul's own nature, independent of another's teaching; "instruction" is the knowledge produced by the teaching of another in the form of explanation, &c.
(b.) "Right knowledge" is a knowledge of the predicaments, soul, &c., according to their real nature, undisturbed by any illusion or doubt; as