ABSTRACT
The challenge of Jain philosophers both prior to and contemporary with Kumarila – philosophers such as Samantabhadra and Akalanka – are thought to have played a significant role in compelling Kumarila to systematize and refine his arguments with respect to the doctrine of human omniscience. Haribhadra’s account of the Jain-Mimamsa debate is organized in terms of two diametrically opposite propositions which bring the polemics to a close – one negating and the other affirming the existence of an omniscient being. In the Sastravartasamuccaya, Haribhadra puts himself in the vada-tradition, whereas in his Sarvajnasiddhi he argues with the Mimamsakas from within the pramana tradition of logic and epistemology. In contrast to the Jain tradition, but not unlike Christian, Muslim and Jewish ecclesiastics, Kumarila and the Mimamsakas viewed man as intrinsically flawed, impaired by defects such as attachment, desire, etc., and thus incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, dharma and adharma.
