Correspondence

Summary

The correspondence section features a reader’s response to the journal’s article on omniscient beings. The writer acknowledges that, according to Jain scriptures, omniscience (kevala jñāna) is the highest type of perception and can be attained when the soul destroys all karmic obstructionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#:~:text=In%20Jainism%2C%20omniscience%20is%20considered,6. Omniscient beings are considered essential for guiding others to emancipationhttps://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/state-of-omniscience#:~:text=The%20state%20of%20omniscience%2C%20as,in%20spiritual%20guidance%20and%20realization. However, he questions whether omniscience and mokṣa represent factual states or function as metaphors. He notes that there is no empirical method to verify that any individual has attained omniscience; such claims rely on scriptural authority. He also observes that liberated souls are said to exist beyond the physical universe and do not interact with the world, making their existence more of a philosophical postulate than an observable reality. The letter references philosophical critiques from Nyāya and Buddhist schools, which argue that knowledge arises from specific causal conditions and is momentary, casting doubt on the possibility of an omniscient consciousness. It also considers whether belief in omniscience is compatible with free will, since knowing all future events could render human choices illusory. The writer suggests that the concepts of omniscience and mokṣa serve as aspirational ideals encouraging non‑violence, self‑discipline and mental clarity rather than literal descriptions of achievable states. He proposes that reinterpreting these concepts symbolically can make ancient teachings relevant to contemporary seekers. The editor appreciates the critique and invites further discussion, emphasising the journal’s role as a forum for diverse perspectives.