Tattvārtha Sūtra is a standard text aiming to explain all essential points of Jain philosophy apparently without challenging the other schools. The importance of the text lies on the historical position of that which is a turning point between the Āgamic period and the philosophical period; therefore along with a philosophical sensibility the text reflects the original thought of the Jain system before being trapped by the philosophical challenges of other schools. The text, according to its title, was supposed to cover all philosophical points of the school and the epistemological concerns might not be exceptions.
The aim of this paper is to introduce Jain epistemology as it is presented in the mentioned text mainly from the ninth aphorism to the thirty third of its first chapter[1].
Classification of knowledge[2]
Like almost all primary systematical treaties of Indian philosophy (like Yoga Sūtras or Sāmkhya Kārikā or Nyāya Sūtras), the aphorist has started classifying knowledge without giving any definition of ‘knowledge’ so that a question like ‘what knowledge is?’ is not answered in this text.
Knowledge, most basically, is of five kinds:
matijñāna (sensual cognition)
śrutajñāna (verbal cognition)
avadhijñāna (clairvoyance)
manahparyayajñāna (mind reading)
kevalajñāna (omniscience)[3]
Matijñāna[4]
Matijñāna is a knowledge which is produced by the means of sense-organs and/or mind. It has four manifests: memory, recognition, reasoning and apprehension[5]. The process of matijñāna is explained through four succeeding stages: avagraha, īhā, avāya and dhāranā[6].
Avgraha is the awareness which is primarily caused by the mere physical contact between an object and a sense-organ[7] without any articulation about the nature of the object[8].
Īhā is a stage at which the person inquires what the nature of the object is.
Avāya is a stage at which some characteristics are assigned to the object so that the mind can determine and identify the object.
Dhāranā is a stage at which the identity of the object gained at the last stage, is engraved in the mind[9].
Śrutajñāna[10]
It is the linguistic cognition through which we get the meaning of a verbal expression of the reality. Of course, matijñāna is a precondition for śrutajñāna; because in order to understand the meaning of a verbal expression first one should identify the vocal nature of the sounds and syllables trough sensual cognition whether through ear (hearing) or through eye (reading). Only after that it is possible to cognize the meaning which the syllables signify.
Although the object of śrutajñāna may be any kind of verbal expression, it is traditionally considered only in the case of the Jain scriptures. Therefore, this class of knowledge is concerned for giving religious information.
Avadhijñāna[11]
Clairvoyance[12] occurs in two cases:
heavenly and hellish beings
human beings who has eliminated their knowledge-covering karmas by the means of following the religious instructions
This power is classified under six classes:
a power depending on a particular space
a power depending on a particular time
a power with a gradually decreasing range
a power with a gradually increasing range
a power with an irregularly increasing and decreasing range
a power with fix and everlasting range
Manahparyayajñāna[13]
As it can be understood from the title of this class of cognition, it’s to cognize the modes of the mind. We should remember that according to Jain, mind is a material object, which like all other objects has two aspects: a substantial aspect which is represented by the constant attributes and an accidental aspect which is represented by the varying attributes. Mental contents and mental phases are the accidental attributes of mind and through mind-reading one can be aware of the mental modes of the others. Fallibility of this cognition depends on purity of the subject of cognition.
A question may occur at this point: what is the difference between clairvoyance and mind-reading? The text tries to make a distinction between them on account of the following explanations[14]:
a) Clairvoyance may be possessed by all various types of beings, even in spite of their impurity, while mind-reading occurs only in the case of pure beings.
b) The object of clairvoyance may be every thing and every where, while the object of mind-reading exists only in a region in which there is mind i.e. human region.
c) The region in which the subject of clairvoyance exists may be the hell, the heaven or the human region, while the region in which the subject of mind-reading exists is the same region in which the partially pure human souls exist.
d) The object of clairvoyance is matter and some general modes of that, while the object of mind-reading is a special kind of the modes which exist only in mind without cognizing necessarily the non-mental modes of the matter.
Kevalajñāna[15]
Omniscience is a kind of cognition produced by the essential absolute knowledge of a soul of which all knowledge-covering karmas are dropped. It is the only kind of knowledge which encompasses all substances with their all infinite modes. Although the previous kinds of knowledge can appear simultaneously together, none of them can appear while omniscience has been attained[16].
Further Divisions[17]
Among these five classes of knowledge, matijñāna and śrutajñāna are mediated by sense-organs, mind and words (in the case of the latter), while the others are produced only by elimination of the karmas which usually cover the essential knowledge of the soul; therefore in their cases, there is no need to any medium. The former division (mediate) is called paroksa and the latter division (immediate) is called pratyaksa[18]. Additionally, only mediate cognitions and clairvoyance may be false and false-hood never happens in the case of mind-reading and omniscience.
Notes:
[1] My reference in this paper is: Umāsvāti; Tattvārtha Sūtra; tr. Tatia Nathmal; Motilal Banarsidass Publishers; Delhi; 2007.
[2] Sutra I. 9.
[3] It’s questionable that what is the method or criterion for this classification: the method of cognition, the object, the mode or the means? Apparently, these five classes are arranged so that hey can narrate the stages of a spiritual progress of human being. Here, I thing the religious purpose has overcome any other philosophical concern.
[4] Sutras I. 13-19.
[5] Here, the main idea of the classification can be got clearly: matijñāna includes all cognitions of which an item of production is ordinary sensation even if sensation is not maintaining the whole process of the cognition (for example in the case of reasoning) apart from the knowledge of scriptures which is status due to religious purposes is different.
[6] It’s remarkable that in this text, there is no mention to darśana which would be placed in the further systematical texts before avagraha although not as a kind and a stage of knowledge.
[7] This stage is denied by the text in the cases of the sense-organ of sight and mind because in these cases there is no physical contact between the object and the organ (sutra I. 19).
[8] This role in the further texts has been given to darśana of which the only object is ‘existence’ (see Pramāna-Naya-Tattvālokalamkara, II. 7).
[9] This stage provides the three first manifests of matijñāna, namely memory, recognition and reasoning. Furthermore, it’s remarkable that this four-fold pattern can be applied to these manifests also. For example in the case of recognition, first we contact the object, then we inquire the identity of the object, then we come to know that this is the same object which we have cognized previously and then we engrave this identity in the mind so that these four stages form a very complicated net of mental processes.
[10] Sutra I. 20.
[11] Sutras I. 21-23.
[12] Again the text escapes from giving a definition for this class of knowledge.
[13] Sutras I. 24-26.
[14] The responsible for this confusion is the previously mentioned epistemologically imprecise method of classification of knowledge.
[15] Sutras I. 26-31.
[16] The reason is that: absolute knowledge is an essential aspect of the soul which is normally covered by a certain kind of karma. If this karma is eliminated completely and omniscience is on hand, it’s nonsense to eliminate that again partially in order to produce the inferior kinds of knowledge.
[17] Sutras I. 10-12 and I. 32-33.
[18] Obviously this naming differs from all other schools (and even the later Jain systematical texts) because the sensual cognition according to them is pratyaksa while in this text it is paroksa.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment