Omniscient Beings
Summary
Harisatya Bhattacharyya compares the Jain doctrine of omniscience with views expressed in other Indian philosophical systems. For the Jains, omniscience (kevala‑jñāna) is real and is attained by liberated beings, notably the Tirthankaras. They do not believe in a creator God; instead, they hold that perfected souls are omniscient because they have removed all karmic obstructions. The article begins by outlining the Buddhist position. Buddhist thinkers deny the existence of a supreme creator and, like the Jains, accept that mundane beings are not omniscient. A controversy arises over whether liberated beings are omniscient: some Buddhists argue that nirvāṇa implies extinction and therefore omniscience is meaningless; others view nirvāṇa as an everlasting state in which perfected beings possess blessed knowledge. The author notes that the Mimāṃsā and Vedic schools assume an omniscient God but do not consider the question of divine omniscience further. The article then surveys the Sankhya and Yoga view that supernatural powers (vibhūtis) acquired by yogis include an expanded vision that approaches omniscience, though it is still limited. Bhattacharyya next discusses the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika schools. Nyāya philosophers argue that the instrument (karaṇa) of knowledge cannot connect simultaneously with multiple objects, so omniscience is impossible. However, they admit that recollections of all things can present themselves to a sage possessing samūhalambana or collective knowledge, which is akin to intuition (pratibha). Vaiśeṣika thinkers describe āṛṣa‑jñāna, the seer’s knowledge of all things, which is similar to pratibha‑jñāna. Throughout the piece, Bhattacharyya uses these comparisons to highlight the distinctive Jain claim that liberated beings are omniscient. The article ends by announcing that the examination of other philosophical views will continue in a subsequent instalment.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
Bhattacharyya concludes that the idea of omniscient beings is controversial in Indian philosophy. Non‑Jain schools either deny the possibility of omniscience or interpret it as an intuitive or collective knowledge rather than a simultaneous cognition of all things. In contrast, Jains uphold the existence of omniscient liberated souls and base their spiritual practice on attaining kevala‑jñāna. The author suggests that further discussion with other philosophical views will shed more light on the distinctive Jain position.