Dr. N.L. Kachhara
If reality is not completely comprehended by the nayaor by some of the pramanas, the question of their validity needs consideration. What kind of validity would the Jaina like to assign to these partial comprehensions? We have seen that the determination of partial comprehensions is also based on something ontologically true in the structure of the objects. The pramanas that fail to comprehend reality as a whole must proceed on similar grounds. Both the nayas and the pramanas yield a valid type of knowledge. "A naya comprehension is also valid as it yields a right cognition of its subject-matter." A naya is not admitted as an antithesis of a pramana because it embodies a type of knowledge. It is a part of the pramana. A naya is neither a pramana nor its antithesis, being free from contradiction. Vidyananda also establishes a relationship between the nayas and pramanas by saying that the former are parts of the latter. At the same time, Jainism would like to emphasize that a pramana transcends the totality of the nayas by gaining a different essence. The pramana does not remain the same as it was in isolation. In this sense alone, we can say that the nayas lose their existence when they enter into a system to yield a pramana. A pramana is an integrated system of nayas; it is a system in which, as Blenshard holds, "integration would be so complete that no part could be seen for what it was without seeing its relation with the whole, and the whole itself could be understood only through the contribution of every part."
Valid and Invalid Knowledge
The knowledge of a soul can be valid or invalid. The knowledge of the Omniscient is pramana and is always valid, but that of a non-omniscient person is naya type and can be valid or invalid. The reasons for invalid knowledge can be internal, in the form of a karma veil, or external, consisting of doubtful evidence and supporting means. External factors become important when internal knowledge is not available. In the case of external means of knowledge, nimitta, the role of the senses, mind, light, distance, place, time, etc. are important conditions.
There are two reasons for invalid knowledge: (a) spiritual, and (b) physical or practical. The reason for spiritual invalidity is mithyatva, wrong perception, on the rise of wrong belief-deluding karma. The reason for practical invalidity is the rise of intelligence-obscuring, jnanavaraniya, karma. Spiritual invalidity arises in perverse souls with the rise of wrong belief-deluding karma, but practical invalidity can be present in both samyakdristi souls with right perception as well as in mithyadristi souls with wrong perception. Mithyatva is the result of the rise of wrong belief-deluding karma and samyaktva is the result of the annihilation, suppression or ksayopashama of belief-deluding karma. In a samyagdristi soul, belief-deluding karma and the anantanubandhi passion karmas have been eliminated.
It is important to distinguish between wrong perception and invalid knowledge, ajnana. A soul with wrong or perverse views can have a valid organ of knowledge on the destruction of intelligence-obscuring karma. As wrong perception means doubts and misapprehensions in right perception, invalid knowledge is not doubt or misapprehension of right knowledge: it simply does not perceive right knowledge. Both valid and invalid knowledge are forms of knowledge; they differ only by the souls possessing them. In the spiritual context, the knowledge of a soul with right perception, samyagdristi, is right knowledge and that of a soul with wrong perception, mithyadristi, is wrong knowledge. The doubts and apprehensions of samyagdristi are also parts of knowledge and that of mithyadristi constitute wrong knowledge. This does not mean that the doubts and misapprehensions of a samyagdristi or their absence in mithyadristi form valid knowledge. Doubts and misapprehensions of any soul is always invalid knowledge and their absence is necessary for valid knowledge. Doubts and misapprehensions are caused by the rise of intelligence-obscuring karma and not by the rise of wrong belief-deluding karma.
Three kinds of ignorance (empirical, articulate, and vibhanga) and three kinds of knowledge (empirical, articulate, and avadhi) are not misapprehensions. All of these are the results of differences in the levels of destruction of intelligence-obscuring karma. The only difference between them is that in the case of ignorance the soul is mithyadristi and in the case of knowledge the soul is samyagdristi.
A mixed-perception soul, misradristi, is doubtful about the truth; a soul with perverse perception, mithyadristi, perceives the wrong truth. The former does not perceive wrong truth but is only doubtful. Despite having valid knowledge, a mithyadristi soul cannot be called samyagdristi because of the rise of wrong belief-deluding karma.
A soul with a higher level of annihilation of intelligence-obscuring karma is assumed to be a scholar, learned person, scientist, etc. When he or she is also an authority on his or her subject and is free from doubts and misapprehensions, he or she can have valid knowledge of the naya type when the factors of practical invalidity are absent. It does not matter whether such a person is mithyadristi, which may be the case in respect to most scholars and scientists, particularly in the West today, or samyagdristi. If he or she is samyagdristi, his or her knowledge is based on right perception and is also valid. Such individuals work for the pursuit of knowledge in the general interest, leaving behind self-interest. They become saints in spirit and use their knowledge for the welfare of society and for the well-being of this planet.
There is a continuing debate about the role of buddhi, intellect, and bhavana, perception of reality. A mithyadristi can be intelligent and possess valid knowledge, but there is no assurance that his or her bhavana is pure, so he or she may misuse his or her knowledge. A samyagdristi has pure bhavana, so his or her knowledge, even when imperfect, is closer to the truth and describes reality with fewer chances of contradiction.
In summary, we recall that there are two types of valid knowledge: (a) direct knowledge that perceives the object without any medium; and (2) indirect knowledge that perceives the object with the help of a medium. The direct knowledge of the Omniscient is true and valid. The knowledge of a soul with psychical karma has been divided into two types, direct and indirect. Indirect knowledge is further divided as follows:
1. Empirical (Mati) knowledge
(a) Valid knowledge
(i) Sensual, direct knowledge
(ii) Indirect knowledge as memory, power of identification, logic and speculation
(b) Invalid knowledge
2. Articulate (Sruti) knowledge
(a) Valid knowledge
(i) Scriptural knowledge
(ii) Knowledge received through words of an authority
(b) Invalid knowledge
