Chapter 5.8 - The Omniscience (sarvajña)

Haribhadrasūri states that the emancipation is always preceded by the omniscience [i.e., sarvajña]. The omniscience alone is the straight and short path which results into the attainment of emancipation. If such is the case then how can there be a difference of opinion among those possessing omniscience^[1] .

From the above statement of our author it can be said that there exists an eternal relation between the omniscience and emancipation. Moreover we may say only that state of omniscience is true which unfailingly results into the attainment of emancipation via the process of yoganirodha. Here the word omniscience is used for the state of omniscience and also for the person who possesses omniscience.

In order to achieve emancipation one has to acquire the state of omniscience [i.e., sarvajña]. Therefore if the state of emancipation is essentially one and the same, then the omniscience has to be only one. One can say that the easiest and most straight way to the emancipation is the state of omniscience. Hence, it is said that the one who is non-omniscient is not eligible to obtain the state of emancipation. If we look at this fact from the view-point of an ordinary aspirant, we may say that an aspirant can attain emancipation only by following an omniscient person. An ordinary aspirant who is desirous of obtaining omniscience [i.e., sarvajña] has to have deep faith in words of an omniscient. He must obey the words of an omniscient by understanding them in right sense. He must have to walk on the path shown by an omniscient one. No matter who the omniscient is as an individual, the true omniscient one would undoubtedly show that path which unfailingly leads an aspirant to the attainment of emancipation. This is how the trueness of an omniscient one is tested and not by his different name or his devotees’ opinions regarding him.

We know that there does not exist any difference in the nature of omniscience [i.e., sarvajña] as well as an omniscient person. Moreover, we also know that the path to reach the ultimate truth is one only. And we are informed that though the state of emancipation is designated differently, it is one and the same. If such is the case then why do we hear different omniscient persons delivering sermons (deśanā) on different subjects?

This fact is viewed from different stand-point by our author. First of all he says that the omniscient persons, whose sermons differ from one another, are competent physicians/best healers of the ailment known as worldly existence^[2] .Whatever may be the subject of sermons their mere intention to deliver the sermons is to enlighten different types to disciples in different manners. Hence every omniscient one, while preaching, would utter only those words which are conducive to sow the seeds of religious faith in the disciple. Moreover an omniscient one always keeps on checking whether his preaching elevate the disciple spiritually and help to ripen the sown seeds of religious faith into the form of ultimate fruit^[3] . In short Haribhadrasūri implies that no matter what an omniscient one preaches, every omniscient one’s preaching is intended to fulfill above explained objective.

In Ṣoḍaśaka, the reason for diversity in sermon, is given as follows.

hitamapi vāyoroṣadhamahitaṃ tat śleṣmaṇo yathā'tyantam |
saddharmadeśanauṣadhamovaṃ bālādyapekṣāmiti ||1.15||

The valuable treatise Yogasāraprābhṛta says following lines regarding different sermons of the omniscient. The verse is,

vicitrā deśanāstatra bhavyacittā'nurodhataḥ |
kurvanti sūrayo vaidyā yathāvyādhyanurodhataḥ ||8.94

It is a well known fact that every omniscient adopts different ways to enlighten his disciples. The adoption of ways relies on disciples’ eligibility, their respective growth on the spiritual way, the diversity in periods of time and so on.

Keeping everything in mind our author gives following reasons for diversity in preaching among omniscient ones:

1. The foremost reason is that the concerned disciples possess the diversity in levels of understanding. The omniscient persons teaching exhibits diversity of content parallel to the diversity present in the disciples. The preaching of sage Kapila presents the permanent nature of a soul which does not correspond with the teachings other sages viz. sage Sugata. This does not mean that these omniscient sages comprehend and acknowledge the nature of a soul differently. Their preaching emphasis different characteristics of a soul considering different eligibilities of the listeners. The omniscient sages are better judge to decide what type of audience should be taught which type of teachings. In short the variety of teaching is found because of diversity in type of listeners^[4] .

2. Another reason is that the different omniscient sages adopt different stand-point owing to their belonging to different periods of time. Since the omniscient sages flourish in different periods of time, the differences in their preaching are found. For instance if an omniscient belong to the good era, he would get worthy audience. Therefore his preaching would be parallel to the understanding of that particular type of audience. Whereas an omniscient who belong to bad era (fifth era as per Jain tradition) would definitely get audience who is influenced by the time period it belongs to. Therefore these two omniscient have to adopt different stand-point while preaching disciples. The same is the case with omniscient sages who belong to different different geographical as well as regional backgrounds^[5] .

The following lines of auto-commentary on twenty third dvātriṃśikā throw ample light on the second reason.

The lines are:

“..., tathā kapilādīnāmapi kālāntarā'pāyabhīrūn śiṣyānadhikṛtyopasarjanīkṛtaparyāyā dravyapradhānā deśanā | sutratādīnāṃ tu bhogā''sthāvato'dhikṛtyopasarjanī kṛtadravyā paryāyapradhānā deśane ti | na tu te'nvayavyatirekavadvastuvedino na bhavanti, sarvajñatvā'nupapattoḥ... |”^[6]

The following lines of commentary Nayalatā on this verse explain the words of the auto-commentary in great detail. They are:

...kapilādīnāmapi dravyāthikanayā'valambināṃ kālāntarā'pāyabhīrūn = kālāntarabhāvimaraṇa-vyasana-sakaṭādi-lakṣaṇā'narthabhītān brāhmaṇādīn śiṣyān adhikṛtya = āśritya upasarjanīkṛtaparyāyā = gauṇīkṛtakṣaṇikapariṇāmā dravyapradhānā = dhruvadravyaprādhānyakā deśanā puLṣaprakṛtigocarā yujyate eva |......, yataḥ sugatādīnāṃ tu bhogā''sthāvataḥ = rājya-sampatti-kāmanīyakanyādibhogopabhogo-bhicvaṅgavataḥ kṣātriyādīn śicyān adhikṛtya = rāgānibandhaviṣa?gatanityatvavāsanāparityāgāya upasarjanī kṛtadravyā = gauṇīkṛtadhruvadravyā paryāyapradhānā = kṣaṇabhaṅgurapariṇāmamukhyā deśanā yujyata eva |..... ||23.27 ||^[7]

The treatise Sanmatitarka also says the similar type of thing in the following verse.

jaṃ kālipalaṃ darisaṇaṃ eyaṃ davvaḍhiyassa vattavva |
sudvoaṇataṇaassa u parisuddho pajjavaviappo || 3.48 ||

In Śāstravārtāsamuccaya Haribhadrasūri says that since the great composers of sacred texts are free from any type of attachment, they never preach improper things.

The verse is:

śāstrakārā mahātmānaḥ prāyo vītaspṛhā bhave |
sattvārthasamapravṛttāśca kathaṃ te'्yuktabhāṣiṇaḥ || 3.15. ||

In Śāstravārtāsamuccaya Haribhadrasūri has said that a follower of vitarāga should never disrespect views of other great sages viz. Kapila. If the follower does so, he in a way disrespects the Jain scriptures.

The lines are as follows:

divyamahāmunikapilādyabhiprāyamanunnīya tagśanā dveṣastu |
dṛṣṭivāda dveṣaparyavasāyitvānna yukto vītarāga samayasthitānām || 3.44. ||

The commentator of Nayalatā writes following lines which justify most logically Haribhadrasūri’s advice of not disregarding other saintly personages.

The lines are:

...| veṣavelakṣaṇyamātreṇa nirvyājaparārthakaraṇaśīla tantrāntarīyamahaṣi-tiraskāre'khilamahaṣitiraskārā''pattiḥ, ekasyā'pi guṇitaḥ tiraskāre tadgattaguṇatiraskāreṇa taddvārā nikhilaguṇitiraskārasya nyāyyatvāt |
katyamovaikasmin sādho hī lite pūjite vā sakalasādhūnāṃ hīlanā pūjā veti saṅgagacchate |...^[8]

The statements of Nayalatā commentary derives authoritativeness from the below given lines of Oghaniryukti. The lines are:

bharaheravayavidehe pannarasa vi kammabhūmigā sāhū |
ekkaṃbhi hīliyaṃmi savve te hīliyā huṃti ||426||
bharaheravayavidehe pannarasavi kammabhūmigā sāhū |
ekkaṃmi pūiyaṃmī savve te pūiyā huṃti ||427||

Haribhadrasūri gives third and very important reason for apparent diversity in sermons. It is said that every omniscient person delivers the sermon one and same but different disciples understand it differently owing to their own capacity of soul (bhavyatva). Moreover, the disciples could grasp it so only because the omniscient person had accumulated good karmans in his earlier births. Due to the emergence of meritorious acts resulted from the previously accumulated good karmans, an omniscient person’s preaching is understood by the disciples in their own way^[9] .

It is not the case that the disciple who understands the sermon in his own way does not benefit himself from it. The sermon turns out beneficial to each one in a way that specially suits him. Therefore it can be said that the preaching well demonstrates its fruitful character in each and every case^[10] .

Haribhadrasūri gives the concluding remark in the latter half of verse 138 of the treatise Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya. He says that though the diversity of sermons is found among omniscient sages, every sermon is essentially rooted in omniscience^[11] . It is not the case that different omniscient sages deliver sermon, which is mere an outcome of their own minds. Nothing preached by them is baseless. They have comprehended and digested well the sacred scriptures authored by the omniscient one (i.e. the chief omniscient one), but they preach only that portion of the scriptures which is relevant to the present time and disciples’ capacity. That is to say whether sage Kapila delivers sermon emphasizing substantive stand-point (dravyārthikanaya) and sage Sugata mainly preaches the modal stand-point (paryāyārthikanaya). Their preachings are deeply rooted in the omniscience [i.e., sarvajña] only. Moreover, both the sages may take only one standpoint in sermon but they know the nature of thing from other stand-point (i.e. other than their own) too.

After explaining the diversified nature of sermons of omniscient persons from various perspectives our author instructs ordinary person (who is non-omniscient). It is said that since he is unable to fanthom the intensions behind the omniscient one’s different sermons, he should not repudiate an omniscient one. The repudiation done by an ordinary one certainly result into the extremely unfortunate consequence to him ^[12] .Here, we know that the element of omniscience [i.e., sarvajña] is one and the sermons of omniscient are deeply rooted in principles propounded by the omniscient persons. Therefore, without knowing the noble intentions and implied meanings present in the sermons, the ordinary should not judge the originality of the omniscient persons. By disrespecting the views of an omniscient person the ordinary person commits a serious mistake which result into accumulation of bad karmans.

Moreover our compassionate author very gently says that it is not proper for worthy ordinary one to oppose the statements of even ordinary person. Then the repudiation of the omniscient persons ought to be more painful than piercing one’s own tongue^[13] .

On one hand Haribhadrasūri states that an ordinary person’s activity of repudiating the omniscient one is futile. And on the other hand he very politely says that such an activity of an ordinary person would degrade his noble personality.

Haribhadrasūri gives an example which narrates the aforementioned mistake of an ordiary person aptly. His mistake is compared with a blind man’s statement pertaining to nonexistence of the moon or to various shapes of it other than round. Such statements made by a blind man is senseless. So also will be the attitude of an ordinary one who repudiates preaching of omniscient persons and discriminate between them^[14] . Here the question is how can a man, who has never perceived the moon by his eyes, claim about its non-existence or various shapes viz square and so on. Similarly an ordinary one, who has neither attained the state of omniscience [i.e., sarvajña] nor has capability to comprehend the intentions of the omniscient ones, can not repudiate or discriminate between them.

Among ordinary people there are a few noble worthy non-omniscient individuals. Even though the unworthy ordinary people do not turn away from disrespecting the omniscients, the worthy individuals should not do it.

Haribhadrasūri defines a moble worthy non-omniscient individual as follows.

(1) He does not speak in the manner similar to that of an evil minded person.

(2) He always speaks:

1. what is definite in meaning,
2. what is full of meaning and
3. what proves beneficial to others^[15] .

Haribhadrasūri has very clearly and emphatically stated that the real nature of suprasensuous entity can not be determined by the fallacious argument. We have dealt with it in great detail in the early phase of this chapter. If the real nature of the supra sensuous entity can not be grasped by the fallacious argument, then why can not one rely upon the inferential knowledge (anumāna) for it? Haribhadrasūri answers it as follows. He states that the task of determining the essential nature of supra sensuous entity viz. omniscience is not within the scope of inferential knowledge.

He gives following reason for it^[16] .

(1) It is not the case that the conclusion derived by the inferential knowledge always remains final. Even in the case of sensuous entities a right determination of their nature is impossible through inferential knowledge. If it is incapable of determining the nature of sensuous entities, how it can determine the nature of supra sensuous entities? It has been said by sage Bhartṛhari, a man of rich wit, in the present context “even after people skilled in the art of inference have inferred a thing through hard labour it so happens that those more skilled than them prove the same thing to be otherwise^[17] .” The statement of sage Bhartṛhari reminds us of a similar type of statement made by our author in the treatise Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya. Our author has made it while explaining the role of illustration in the fallacious argument^[18] .

(2) The another reason is that if the ascertainment of nature of supra sensuous entities falls under the scope of inferential knowledge the logicians would have arrived at a final conclusion on the question by now^[19] .

Haribhadrasūri has dilated upon the futility of fallacious argument, oneness of omniscience [i.e., sarvajña], one and same way to attain liberation, oneness of the state of emancipation, and omniscience rooted sermons of the omniscient persons. Now he proceeds to present the essence of everything in a nut shell. He says that to determine the real nature of supra sensuous entities viz. omniscience [i.e., sarvajña] one has to take resort to yogic knowledge. The determination of their nature is impossible except through yogic knowledge. Hence to enter into dispute regarding these matters will be as futile as the activity of a blind person. Haribhadrasūri announces finally that the ascertainment of real nature of supra sensuous entities could neither be done by the fallacious argument (kutarka) nor by the inferential knowledge (anumāna). It can only be done by yogic knowledge.

A beholder of fourth yogadṛṣṭi is soon going to obtain right faith (samyagdarśana). His present state is under the influence of delusion. He does not possess subtle understanding. He is not completely free from the deadly grip of fallacious argument. Haribhadrasūri has instructed him the way to get victory over it. Haribhadrasūri has also warned him that if he desires to comprehend real nature of supra-sensuous entity he must rely upon the yogic knowledge. The subject in question asks our author that how to follow the yogic knowledge? Our author answers compassionately that for it you should follow the path of the great ones in a manner that is just. While following their path he should avoid transgressions in matters of spiritual activities^[20] .

Now Haribhadrasūri defines the path which the great ones have lived in their life.

It is as follows:

(1) On one side the subject in question should scrupulously avoid inflicting even the slightest pain on others. On the other side he should always strive to be helpful to others^[21] .

(2) Parents, preceptors, deities, brahmins, the mendicants/renouncers and the doers of austerities ought to be honoured with the heart/mind which has high regard for their commands^[22] .

(3) One should have compassion for highly sinful persons who are greatly inflicted by their own misdeeds. Such a righteous behaviour is conducive to attainment of true religion. Therefore the righteous behaviour is considered to be the highest religion^[23] .

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

sarvajñapūrvakaṃ caita-nniyamādeva yat sthitam |
āsanno'yamṛjurmārga-stadbhedastatkathaṃ bhavet ||133||
..............ṛjuravakro mārgaḥ-panthāḥ|........||133||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary.

[2]:

citrā tu deśanaiteṣāṃ, syād...........|
yasmādete mahātmāno, bhavavyādhibhiṣagvarāḥ ||134||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya

[3]:

yasyā yena prakāreṇa, bījādhānādisambhavaḥ |
sānubandho bhavatyete, tathā tasya jagustataḥ ||135||

..........., bījādhānādisambhavastathābhavodvegādibhāvena sānubandho bhavati tathātathottaraguṇavṛddhyā ete — sarvajñāḥ tathā - tena prakāreṇa.... ||135||

- Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary.

[4]:

eteṣāṃ-sarvajñānāṃ kapila-sugatādīnāṃ syādbhavet, vineyānuguṇyataḥ - tathāvidhaśiṣyānuguṇyena | kālāntarāpāyabhīrūmadhikṛtyopasarjanī kṛtaparyāyā dravyapradhāna, nityadeśanā, bhogāsthāvatastvadhikṛtyopasarjanīkṛta dravyā paryāyapradhānā anityadeśanā | na tu te'nvayavyatirekavadvastuvedino na bhavanti, sarvajñatvānupapattoḥ | evaṃdeśanā tu tathātadguṇasandarśanenā'duṣṭaivetyāha-.....||134||
   -Auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya.

[5]:

yadvā tattannayāpekṣā, tattkālādiyogataḥ |
ṛṣibhyo deśanā citrā, tanmūlaiṣā'pi tattvataḥ ||132||

yadvā tattannayāpekṣā-dravyāstikādīnadhikṛtya, tattkālādiyogataḥ - duṣamādiyogāt, ṛṣibhyaḥ-kapilādibhya eva deśanā citroti |..... ||132||

- Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary.

[6]:

Part- 6, Pg.1598, 1599.

[7]:

Page 1598,1599, part- 6.

[8]:

Pg.1609, vol.6, line 19-21.

[9]:

ekā'pi deśanaiteṣāṃ, yadvā śrotuvibhodataḥ |
acintyapuṇyasāmarthyāt , tathā citrā'vabhāsate ||136|

ekāpi deśanā tanmukhavinirgamadhikṛtya eteṣāṃ-sarvajñānāṃ yadvāśrotṛvibhodatastathābhavyatvabhodena, acintyapuṇyasāmarthyāt-parabodhāśayopāttakarmavipākādityarthaḥ, tathā nityādiprakāreṇa citrā'vabhāsata kati ||136||

– ibid.

[10]:

yathābhavyaṃ ca sarveṣā-mupakāro'pi tatkṛtaḥ |
jāyate'vandhyatā'pyeva-masyāḥ sarvatra susthitā ||137||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya.

[11]:

yadvā tattannayāpekṣā,............. |
............, tanmūlaiṣā'pi tattvataḥ ||138||

..... | na coyamapi nirmūletyāha-tanmūlaiṣā'pi sarvajñadeśanāmūlaiṣā'pi tattvataḥ paramārthona, tatpravacanānusāratastathāpravṛttoriti ||138||

– Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary.

[12]:

tadabhiprāyamajñātvā, na tato'rvāgdaśāṃ satām |
yujyate tatpratikṣopo, mahānarthakaraḥ paraḥ ||139||

tadabhiprāyaṃ-sarvajñābhiprāyaṃ ajñātvā na tataḥ kāraṇāt arvāgdṛśāṃ satāṃ -pramātṝṇām,......... ||139||

– ibid.

[13]:

na yujyate pratikṣopaḥ sāmānyasyā'pi tat satām |
āryāpavādastu puna-rjihvāchedādhiko mataḥ ||141||

na yujyate pratikṣopo-nirākaraṇarūpaḥ sāmānyasyā'pi kasyacit puruṣādaiḥ, tat tasmāt satāṃ-munīnām āryāpavādastu punaḥ-sarvajñaparibhava katyarthaḥ, kimityāha-jihvāchedādhiko mataḥ tathāvidhapratyapāyabhāvena ||141||

– ibid.

[14]:

niśānāthapratikṣopo, yathā'ndhānāmasaṅgataḥ |
tadbhaidaparikalpaśca, tathaivā'rvāgdṛśāmayam ||140||

........., tadparibhodakalpaśca-niśānāthabhoda-parikalpaśca vakracaturadtvāriḥ,........||140||

– ibid.

[15]:

kudṛṣṭādi ca no santo, bhāṣante prāyaśaḥ kvacit |
niścitaṃ sāravaccaiva, kintu sattvārthakṛt sadā ||142||

kudṛṣṭādi ca - ‘kudṛṣṭaṃ kuśrutaṃ caiva kutsya(si) ta’ katyādi, .... katyāha-niścitam-asandigdhaṃ, sāravaccaiva nā'pārthakam, kintu sattvārthakṛt — parārthakaraṇaśīlaṃ sadā bhāṣante ||142||

– ibid.

[16]:

na cā'numānaviṣaya, eṣo'rthastattvato mataḥ |
na cā'to niścayaḥ samya-ganyatrā'pyāha dhīdhanaḥ ||144||
   -Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya.

[17]:

“yatnenā'numito'pyarthaḥ kuśalairanumātṛbhiḥ |
abhiyuktatarairanyai-ranyathaivopapādyate” ||145||
   -ibid.

[18]:

See verse: 95 and 97 of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccya.

[19]:

jñāyeran hetuvādena, padārthā yadyatīndriyāḥ |
kālenaitāvatā prājñaiḥ, kṛtaḥ syāt teṣu niścayaḥ ||146||

jñāyeran hetuvādenā'numānavādena........prājñaistarkikaiḥ.....||146||

– Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary.

300

[20]:

tadatra mahatāṃ vartma, samāśritya vicakṣaṇaiḥ |
vatitavyaṃ yathānyāyaṃ, tadatikramavajitaiḥ ||149||

...... vicakṣaṇaiḥ - paṇḍitaiḥ ......, tadatikramavajitairmahadvartmāticārarahitaiḥ ||149||

– ibid.

[21]:

parapīḍeha sūkṣamā'pi, varjanīyā prayatnataḥ |
tadvat tadupakāre'pi, yatitavyaṃ sadaiva hi ||150||

parapīḍā-parabādhā.......... kimityāha-varjanīyā parityavtavyā prayatnataḥ-sūkṣmābhogona |...yatitavyamanuṣṭhānadvāreṇa sadaiva hīti ||150||

– ibid.

[22]:

guravo devatā viprā, yatayaśca tapodhanāḥ |
pūjanīyā mahātmānaḥ, suprayatnena cotasā ||151||

guravo-mātāpitṛpramukhāḥ, devatāḥ sāmānyenaiva, viprāḥ-dvijāḥ, yatayaśca-pravrajitāśca, tapodhanāḥ-tadvantaḥ, .....| kathamityāha-suprayatnena cotasā ājñāpradhānenetyarthaḥ ||151||

– ibid.

[23]:

pāpavatsvapi cā'tyantaṃ, svakarmanihiteṣvalam |
anukampaiva sattveṣu, nyāyyā dharmo'yamuttamaḥ ||152||

pāpavatsvapi cā'tyantaṃ lubdhakādiṣu.... anukampaiva sattveṣu nyāyyā na matsaro, dharmo'yamuttamaḥ, kāraṇo kāryopacārāditi ||152||

– ibid.