Nyayavatara

Author(s): Satish Chandra Vidyabhushan
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/008447/1

Page #1

THER
NYAYAVATARA
(THE EARLIEST JAINA WORK
ON PURE LOGIC.)
.
OXO
SYBLIOTHECA JAIN
SATIS CHANDRA VIDYABHUSANA.

Page #2

JUST PUBLISHED!
JUST PUBLISHED !!
A UNIQUE PUBLICATION
THE KEY OF KNOWLEDGE
By CHAMPAT RAI JAIN, Bar-at-Law.
all Times !!
Good for all men !
all ages !!!
An unbiassed philosophical treatise, giving an esoteric explanation of the principles underlying all principal religions, and valuable hints for the attainment of self-realization.
No Library should be without a copy.
Price Rs. 10 or 16s.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR In the Press
THE PRACTICAL YOGAS OF JAINISM. THE SACRED BOOKS OF THE JAINAS.
1. Dravya-Samgraha, of Nemnichandra Siddhanta Chakravarti.. Translated into English with 13 plates by the Genl. Editor, Mr. S. C. Ghoshal, M.A., B.L., Saraswati, Kavyatirtha, Vidyabhusana, Bharati. English Edition, Rs. 4 or 6s.
2. Also translated into Chinese by Mr. Wan Hui, a Buddhist Scholar from China.
3. Munisuvrita Kavya, of Sri Arahedas Kavi.--Edited by the General Editor, Mr. Ghoshal.
4. Vipak-Sutra. --Also Edited by the General Editor.
5. Pravachanasara, of Sri Kundkundacharya. Edited by Dr. T. K. Laddu, Ph.D., Professor of Sanskrit and Epigraphy, Queen's College. Benares.
6. Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, of Sri Umasvami. Translated into English with valuable notes by J. L. Jaini, M.A., Bar-at-Law, and Judge, High Court, Indore.
7. Panchastikaya Samayasara, of Sri Kundakundacharya. --Edited by Justice J. L. Jaini, M.A.,
8. The Jaina Gem Dictionary. Compiled and Edited by Justice J. L. Jaini, M.A.
9. Purusharth-Siddyupaya, of Sri Amrit Chandra Acharya. Translated into English with explanatory notes by Ajit Prasada, M.A., LLB.
THE CENTRAL JAINA PUBLISHING HOUSE--ARRAH.

Page #3

The Library of Jaina Literature—Vol. II.
NYAYAVATARA:
THE EARLIEST JAINA WORK ON PURE LOGIC
BY
SIDDHA SENA DIVAKARA (The Celebrated Kșupinaka of Vikramāditya's Court)
WITH SANSKRIT TEXT AND COMMENTARY
EDITED FOR THE FIRST TIME
WITH NOTES AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION
BY
MAHAMAHOPADHYAYA DR. SATIS CHANDRA VIDYABHUSANA, SIDDHANTA MAHODADHI, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.R.S.,
PRINCIPAL, SANSKRIT COLI.EGE, CALCUTTA, Author of the History of the Medieval School of Indian Lagic, etc.
PUBLISHER KUMAR DEVENDRA PRASADA THE CENTRAL JAINA PUBLISHING HOUSE
ARRAH, (INDIA) 1915.

Page #4

CONTENTS.
PACE
.
.
.
i
Preface . . . . . Introduction . . · · · ·
ation . . . . . . Text with Translation and Notes . . Commentary called Nyayavatara-vivrti.
. · . .
. · .
.
.
.
5.
.
7
. 31

Page #5

PREFACE.
(SECOND EDITION.) The second edition of this treatise on Jaina Logic is intended to be included as a volume of " the Library of Jaina Literature” in the publication of the Sacred Books of the Jaina Society, ARRAH.
I take this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks to my friend Kumar Devendra Prasad, Managing Director of the said Society, at whose suggestion this edition was undertaken.
I hope the work, which as a treatise on Jaina Logic is unique in its character will in this way obtain a wider circulation.
SATIS CHANDRA VIDYABHUSANA.
SANSKRIT COLLEGE,
CALCUTTA : December, 1915.

Page #6


Page #7

PREFACE.
(FIRST EDITION.) Professor Peterson, in his Fifth Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Circle, mentions a Jaina Sanskrit work called Nyāyāvatāra by Siddha Sena Divākara. A manuscript of this work, together with a commentary on it called Nyāyāvatāra-vivrti, was kindly procured for me from a private library in Bhavanagara, Bombay, by the well-known Svetāmbara Sadhus, Sastravisarada Jainacharyya Vijaya Dharma Suri and Upadhyaya Indravijaya.
Seeing that the Nyāyāvatāra is a very important work, being the earliest known Jaina treatise on Pure Logic, I have, in the present volume, attached the text of it with extracts from its verbose commentary. I have also included in the volume an English translation which I prepared for the “Journal” of the Indian Research Society of Calcutta. The notes which I have added to elucidate the translation are based on the commentary already referred to.
I acknowledge with thanks that Mr. C. Russell, M.A., Principal, Patna College, has kindly helped me with a number of suggestions while the translation was passing through the press.

Page #8

iv
PREFACE.
My thanks are also due to Rai Sarat Chandra Das, Bahadur, C.I.E., at whose instance I undertook this work, and who, at the suggestion of the Government of Bengal, forwarded its advance proof to the International Congress of Orientalists held at Copenhagen in August 1908. It was kindly accepted by that learned body as a contribution on the Jaina philosophical literature.
SATIS CHANDRA VIDYABHUSANA.
PRESIDENCY COLLEGE,
CALCUTTA : February, 1909.

Page #9

INTRODUCTION.
thor of Nyâyâvatâra.
Logic was mixed up with metaphysics and reliSiddha Sena Ni- gion in the ancient writing of the vakara, the au- Jainas as in those of other sects in
India. The first Jaina writer on Pure Logic appears to have been Siddha Sena Divâkara. It was he who, for the first time among the Jainas, distinguished logic from the cognate branches of learning by composing a metrical work called Nyâi, yâ vatâra' on Logic in thirty-two stanzas,
Siddha Sena Divâ kara is the famous author of the Sammati-tarka---sûtra, which is a Prâkrta work on philosoplıy, containing an elaborate discussion on the principles of logic. This author, who belonged to the Svetânıbara (the white-robed) sect, has been
A manuscript of the Nyâya yatára by Siddha Sena Divâkara,
ether with its commentary called Nyayavatára-vivrti, was kindly procured for me from Bhavanagara, Bombay, by Venerable Dharmavijaya and his pupil, Indravijaya. For further information about this work, see a notice of it in Peterson's Fifth Report on Sanskrit MSS., p. 289. The notes, incorporated in this paper for the elucidation of the translation, are all based on the Nyâyâvatâ ra-vivrti.

Page #10

2
ลง
INTRODUCTION.
mentioned by Pradyumna Sûri (1000 A. D.) in his Vicâra-sâra-prakarana.1
This famous logician, who was a pupil of Vṛddhavâdi Sûri, received the name of Kumuda-candra2 at the time of his ordination. He is said to have split, by the efficacy of his prayers, the Linga (Brâhmanical symbol) of Rudra in the temple of Mahâkala at Ujjaini, and to have called forth an image of Pârsvanatha by reciting his Kalyâṇa-mandira-stava. He is believed to have converted king Vikramaditya to Jainism, 470 years after the Nirvana of Mahâvira.3 The Jainas believe that he was the spiritual tutor of that famous king, as is evident from the Kumârapâla-caritra and other works.
It may be noted here that Vikramâditya of Ujjaini has been considered by scholars to be identical with Yasodharma Deva, king of Malwa, who, according to Alberuni, defeated the Huns at Korur, in 533 A. D. The Chinese pilgrim, Hwen-tshang, who came to India in 629 A. D., says that a very powerful king (presumably Vikramâditya] reigned 60
1
पंचैव य वारिससए सिद्धसेण दिवायरी य जयपयड़ो । छलए वीसहिए सक्कथुऊ अज्जरक्खि पहू ॥ २६ ॥ (Vicara-sara-prakarana, noticed by Peterson Report, p. 272.)
in his Third
Cf. Prabhavakacaritra VIII, V. 57.
* See Klatt's Pattâvalî of the Kharatara Gaccha in the Indian Antiquary, Vol. XI, Sept. 1882, p. 247.

Page #11

INTRODUCTION.
years before his arrival there. From these it appears that Siddha Sena Divâkara, who was a contemporary of Vikramaditya, must have lived at Ujjainî about 550 A. D.
Legends and historical accounts show that Siddha Sena was the well-known Kṣapanaka2 (the Jaina sage), who adorned the court of Vikramaditya and was one of the Nine Geras (Nava Ratna). Varâhamihira, the famous astronomer, who was another of the Nine Gems of the court of Vikramaditya, lived between A D. 5053 and A.D. 587. We are told that Kṣapanaka, alias Siddha Sena, was a contemporary of Varâhamihira; so he must have flourished about the middle of the 6th century.
1 Vide Beal's Buddhistic Records of the Western World, Vol. 11, p. 26.
धन्वन्तरिः चपणकोऽमरसिंहशङ्कर्वे ताल भट्टघटखर्पर कालिदासाः । ख्याता वराहमिहिरो नृपतेः सभायां रत्नानि वै वररुचिर्नव विक्रमस्य ॥
2
(Jyotirvidâbharaṇa).
* Vide Dr. Thibaut's Introduction to Pañcasiddhântika, p. XXX. Varahamihira chose Saka 427 or A. D. 505 as the abdapizda of his astronomical calculation, showing thereby that he lived about that time. So
सप्ताश्विवेद-संख्यं शककालमपास्य चैत्रशुक्लादौ ।
agiafìà mài vaagè âru fè̟aura^ ( = 11
(Pañcasiddhântika, Chap. 1, edited by Dr. G. Thibaut and Sudhakara Dvivedi.)

Page #12

INTRODUCTION. There is an excellent commentary on the NyâyâCandra-prabha vatâ ra, called the Nyâyâvatâra-vivrti Sûri, author of
Nyāyāyatára- by Candra-prabha Sûri, who also vivști (2)
belonged to the Svetârnbara sect and founded the Purnimâ Gaccha3 in San vat 1159 or A.D. 1102. He was a pupil of Jayasimha Sûri, and preceptor of Dharamaghoaa. He wrote another logical treatise, called Prameya-ratna-koșa, and a philosophical treatise called Darsana-suddhi, otherwise called Samyaktva-prakaraņa. He was a great logician, and in controversy appeared as a lion before opponents, who resembled elephants. In the introduction to his Nyâyâ vatâra-vivrti he has quoted the Buddhist logicians, Dharmottara and Arcata, and in the concluding lines has craved the mercy of Jina.
* See Peterson's Fourth Report, p. xxvii, and Peterson ?, xvi. In the Nya yavata ra-vivrti itself there is no mention of Candra-prabha Sûri. I found somewhere that he was the author of it. The authorship of the Nyâyâvatâra-vivști must, however, for the present remain an open question.
* Sec Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar's Report, 1883-84, p. 147.
Vide Jain â gama List, Bombay, p. 77, and Peterson's Third Report on Sanskrit NISS., Appendix, p. 9.
'तीर्थे वीरविभोः सुधर्मगणभत् सन्तानलब्धोन्नतिश्वास्त्रिोज्ज्वलचन्द्रगच्छजलधिप्रोल्लासशीतयुतिः । साहित्यागमतर्कलक्षण महाविद्यापगा सागरः श्रीचन्द्रप्रभ सूरिरद्भुतमतिर्वादीम सिंहोऽभवत् ॥ १ ॥ (Dasavalkalika-tîka by Tilakâcârya, noticed in Peterson's Fifth Report, p. 65.)

Page #13

AN OBSERVATION.
[Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana maintains here that Siddha Sena Divakara was identical with the well-known Ksapanaka. This view perfectly commends itself to me.—There is proof enough that Siddha Sena was a Jaina sage and lived in the court of Vikramaditya. That Ksapanaka was one of the Nine Gems of the court of Vikarmaditya is also very widely known, and it remains only to prove that he was a Jaina sage. We have instances enough in the Pancatantra where the Jaina ascetics are nicknanied as Ksapanaka. The following instances from the Avadanakalpalata will show that the Buddhists also designated the Jaina ascetics as Ksapanaka :
भगवद्भाषितं तत्तु सुभद्रेण निवेदितम् । श्रुत्वा क्षपणकः क्षिप्रमभूद् द्वेषविषाकुलः॥९॥ तस्य सर्व शतां वेत्ति सुभद्रो यदि मगिरा। तदेष क्षपणश्रद्धां त्यक्ष्यति श्रमणादरात् ॥ १२ ।। मूर्ख क्षपणभक्तेन तगिरा हतयोषिता । त्वया त्यक्तस्वपुत्रेण किं नाम सुकृता कृतम् ॥४०॥
(Jyotiskavadana).
SARAT CH. DAS.]

Page #14


Page #15

न्यायावतार NYAYAVATARA.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION, WITH NOTES. प्रमाणं स्वपराभासि ज्ञानं बाधविवर्जितम् । प्रत्यक्ष च परोक्षच द्विधा मेयविनिश्चयात् ॥१॥
1. Pramâna (valid knowledge) is the knowledge which illumines itself and other things without any obstruction : it is divided as pratyakşa (direct knowledge or perception) and parolşa (indirect knowledge) as knowables are ascertained in two ways.
This definition sets aside the view of those Buddhists (Yogåcårasl who maintain that knowledge illumines itself alone, inasmuch as there is, according to them, no external object beyond it. The same definition is also in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Naiyâyika, Mîuo âmsaka and others, who hold that knowledge illumines the external object alone, as it cannot illumine itself. The Jainas maintain that it is only when knowledge illumines itself that it can take cognizance of the external object. So according to them knowledge, like a lamp, illumines itself as well as the object lying outside it.
Those whose sight has been obscured by darkness often seo many false images, such as two moons, etc. ; men bewildered by sophism are found to believe that every thing is momentary, or the like. With a view to differentiate such kinds of false

Page #16

NYAYAVATARA.
knowledge from prama?a (valid knowledge), the phrase "without obstruction” has been used,
Pramana (valid knowledge) is divided here into pratyaksa (direct knowledge) and paroksa (indirect knowledge), including in the latter anumana (inference and sabda (the verbal testimony). This division contravenes the conclusion of Cârvaka that there is only one pramina, viz., prutyuksa (perception or direct knowledge), for, pratyakşa cannot be established as a pramå ra, except through the medium of the parokşa (indirect knowledge). It also sets aside the view of the Saugatas (Buddhists) who divide pramcra into pratyakşa (direct knowledge or perception) and anumâna (inference), without any notice of subda (the verbal testimony).
प्रसिद्धानि प्रमाणानि व्यवहारश्च तत्कृतः। प्रमाणलक्षणस्योक्तौ ज्ञायते न प्रयोजनम् ॥२॥
2. Pramânas and the practical use made of them are well known : there appears no necessity for giving any definition of the pramânas.
There was never a time when the acts of seeing, inferring, etc., were not performed. The use of these acts is also well known, for it is through them that we can choose one thing and reject another thing. So it appears superfluous to explain the nature of pramana (valid knowledge).
प्रसिद्धानां प्रमाणानां लक्षणाक्तौ प्रयोजनम् । तद्व्यामोहनिवृत्तिः स्याद् व्यामूढ़मनसामिह ॥ ३॥
3. The necessity here for giving the definition of the well-known pramânas is to remove the stupidity froin the mind of stupid people.
Pramâra (valid knowledge), though well-known, is explained here to warn the foolish people from taking false knowledge as true.

Page #17

NYAYAVATARA.
अपरोक्षतयार्थस्य ग्राहकं शानमीदृशम् । प्रत्यक्षमितरद शेयं परोक्षग्रहणेक्षया ॥४॥
4. Such knowledge that takes cognizance of objects, not beyond the range of the senses, is pratyakşa (direct knowledge or perception); the other is known as parokza (indirect knowledge), in reference to the manner of taking the cognizance.
The words prattikikset. (direct knowledge) and parokşa (indirect knowledge) have been used here in their ordinary acceptations, namely, the first for sense-perceptions, and the second for inference and verbal testimony. In the ancient Jaina scriptures, however, prutyaksit (diroct knowledge) signified perfect knowledge acquired by the soul direct through meditation and not through the channels of tho senses, while pa' oksa (indirect knowledge) signified knowledge derived through the medium of the senses or signs comprising perception, inference and the verbal testimony.
साध्याविनाभुनो लिङ्गात् साध्यनिश्चायकं स्मृतम् । अनुमानं तदभ्रान्तं प्रमाणत्वात् समक्षवत् ॥ ५॥
5. The knowledge determinant of that which is to be proved (i.e., the major term, called in Sanskrit sådhya), derived through the mark ii.e., the middle term called in Sanskrit linga) which is inseparably connected with the same, is known as anumâna (inference): being a pramâņa it is free from invalidity like perception (pratyahşa).
Inference is of two kinds : (1) svarthanumana, inference for one's own self, and (2) parirthinuicêut, intorence for the sake of others. The first kind is the inferonce drawn in one's own mind after having made repeated observations. Suppose that

Page #18

10
NYAYAVATARA.
having repeatedly seen in the kitchen and other places, that where there is smoke there is fire, and having realised in his mind that there is a universal antecedence of fire in respect of smoke, a man afterwards goes to a hill and entertains a doubt as to whether or not there is fire in it. Instantly, when he observes smoke on it, he recollects the inseparablo connection between fire and smoke, and concludes in his mind that the hill has fire in it, as it bas smokeon it. This is an inference for one's own self. The inference for tho sake of others will be defined later on.
This definition of inforence, says the commentator, sets aside the view of certain writers (such as Dharmakirti, the Buddhist] who maintain that non-perception (anipulahdhi), identity (sverbhava) and causality (karua) are tho marks or grounds of inference, or of certain other writers who hold the effect (kcírya), cause (kiiru?a), conjunction (sainyoga), coexistence (samavaya), and opposition (virodha) to be such marks or grounds. The division of inference as (1) à priori (purvavat, from cause to effect), (2) à posteriori (śeşavat, from effect to cause) and (3) from analogy (saminya to-drsta, perception of homogeneousness, that is, the recognition of the subject as being referrable to some class, and as being thence liable to have predicated of it whatever may be predicable of the class) fas given in the Nyâya-sûtra of Aksapada Gautama) is also hereby set aside.
न प्रत्यक्षमपि भ्रान्तं प्रमाणत्वविनिश्चयात् । भ्रान्तं प्रमाणमित्येतद् विरुद्धवचनं यतः॥६॥
6. Since it is a prameno, pratyakşa (perception), too, is not invalid, for, “a pramana, is invalid ” is an absurd expression.
Some Buddhists) who maintain that the world is true only from the practical or illusory point of view (lokasumurti), but false from the transcendental or absolute standpoint

Page #19

11
(para marthika), consider perception (pratyaksa) to be merely illusory, and consequently invalid from the absolute standard of truth. But this view is opposed by the Jainas, who maintain that the world is real from all standpoints, and consequently perception is not invalid.
NYAYAVATARA.
सकलप्रतिभासस्य भ्रान्तत्वासिद्धितः स्फुटम् ।
प्रमाणं स्वान्यनिश्चायि द्वयसिद्धौ प्रसिद्ध्यति ॥ ७ ॥
7. Owing to the impossibility of all phenomena (external objects) being invalid, prumāņa is evidently a determinant of self and other things, and serves to establish both.
The world is not an illusion: knowledge and its objects are all real.
दृष्टेष्टाव्याहतत्वाद्वाक्यात् परमार्थाभिधायिनः । तत्त्वग्राहितयात्पन्नमानं शाब्दं प्रकीर्त्तितम् ॥ ८ ॥
8. Knowledge arising from words, which taken in their proper acceptance express real objects not inconsistent with what are established by perception, is known as súbda (the verbal testimony).
Sabda (the word or verbal testimony) is of two kinds, viz., (1) laukika (the knowledge derived from a reliable person), and (2) sástraja (the knowledge derived from scripture).
आप्तोपज्ञमनुल्लडुरमदृष्टेष्टविरोधकम् ।
तत्त्वोपदेशकृत् सार्वं शास्त्रं कापथघट्टनम् ॥ ९ ॥
9. The scripture (sâstra) is that which was invented (or first known) by a competent person, which is not such as to be passed over by others, which is not incompatible with the truths derived

Page #20

12
from perception, which imparts true instructions and which is profitable to all men and is preventive of the evil path.
NYAYAVATARA.
This definition sets aside the view of those [Mimâmsakas] who maintain that the scripture [such as the Veda] is eternal and was not composed by any human being. The scripture could not have been called a verbal testimony (śabda or word), unless it embodied the words of any particular person or persons.
स्वनिश्चयवदन्येषां निश्चयेात्पादनं बुधैः ।
परार्थं मानमाख्यातं वाक्यं तदुपचारतः ॥ १० ॥
10. Like the decision for oneself, the production of a decision in others is called by the learned 'knowledge for the sake of others' (parârthamâna): specch is designated as such by metaphor.
or
Knowledge is of two kinds : (1) knowledge for one's own self (svarthu mana), and (2) knowledge for the sake of others (parartha mána). The second is defined as that which produces decision or belief (niścaya) in others, i.e., which enables others to ascertain the nature of things. The "word " speech" (sabda or vakya) comes under this class, that is, it is knowledge for the sake of others, for it produces decision in others. It is true the "word itself is not knowledge, but being the medium through which knowledge is conveyed to others, it is figuratively identified with knowledge.
46
प्रत्यक्षेणानुमानेन प्रसिद्धार्थप्रकाशनात् ।
परस्य तदुपायत्वात् परार्थत्वं द्वयोरपि ॥ ११ ॥
11. Perception and inference having disclosed objects with which we are familiar, and they being the means of communication to other people, both of them are knowledge for the sake of others.

Page #21

NYAYAVATARA.
13
Perception and inference are as much knowledge for one's own self (svartha mtina) as for the sake of others (parartha mâna). They aro called “ knowledge for the sake of others," because the results of perception and inference arrived at by one's own self can be communicated to others through words.
प्रत्यक्षप्रतिपन्नार्थप्रतिपादि च यद्वचः । प्रत्यक्ष प्रतिभासस्य निमित्तत्वात्तदुच्यते ॥ १२ ॥
12. A statement expressive of the object ascertained by perception is also called perception : it is so called being the cause of the object's manifestation,
As the result of perception can be communicated to others through the word, the word itself is figuratively called perception. For instance, the deposition of a witness is taken by the judge as equivalent to perception, though in truth the judge has not perceived the fact deposed to.
साध्याविनाभुवो हेतार्वचो यत् प्रतिपादकम् । परार्थमनुमानं तत् पक्षादिवचनात्मकम् ॥१३॥
13. A statement expressive of the reason (2.e., mark or the middle term, called hetu) which is inseparably connected with that which is to be proved (i.c., the major term, called súdhya) having been composed of the minor term (called pakşa, signifying a side or place), etc., is called an inference for the sake of others (parârthânumâna).
In an “inference for the sake of others" the minor term (paksa), etc., must be explicitly set forth. The major term or * proven" (sadlya) is that which is to be proved. The middle term or reason (hetu, linga or sadhana) is that which cannot

Page #22

14
NYAYAVATARA.
exist, except in connection with the major term or “ proven" (sádhya or lingi). The minor term or abode (paks) is that with which the reason or middle term (lietu) is connected, and whose connection with the major terin (séidhya) is to be proved. In a proposition, the subject is the minor term (pakşcı), and the predicate the major term (sidhya). The following is an “ inference for the sake of others":
(1) This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term)-- proposition (pratiñi);
(2) because it is full of smoke (middle term);
(3) whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, just as the kitchen (example, dratanta);
(4) 30 is this hill full of smoke (application, upanaya) : (5) therefore, this hill is full of fire (conclusion, nigamana),
The above is a mediocre (madhyama) form of an + inferenco for the sake of others." Here the minor term (paksa), the major term (scidhya), the middle term (hetu) and example (drstânta) have been used. The worst (jaghanya) form of an * inferenco for the sake of others " consists in a mere statement of the reason or middle term (hetu), besides the major term (s:idhya) and the minor tern (paksa), thus :
(1) This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term); (2) because it is full of smoke (middle term).
The best (uttama) form of an inference for the sake of others consists in the statement of the following ten parts or members (dasåvayjava): (1) proposition (pratiju); (2) correction of the proposition (pratijña-suddhi); (3) reason or middle term (hetu); (4) correction of the reason or middle term (hetuśuddhi) ; (5) example (drștanta) ; (6) correction of the example (drštúnta-suddhi) ; (7) application (upanaya) ; (8) correction of the application (upanaya-suddhi) ; (9) conclusion (nigamana), and (10) correction of the conclusion (nigamana-śuddhi).
Any form containing less than ten members, down to five, is called mediocre (madhyama).

Page #23

NYAYAVATARA.
15
साध्याभ्युपगमः पक्षः प्रत्यक्षाद्यनिराकृतः । तत्प्रयोगोऽत्र कर्तव्यो हेतार्गोचरदीपकः ॥ २४ ॥
14. Pakşa (the minor term) is that which is asserted to be connected with the (major term or) sâdhya, and is not excluded by perception, etc. ; it is to be used here (in an inference for the sake of others) as exhibiting an abode of the reason (i.e., the middle term, called hetu).
Some philosophers hold that the minor term (pakşa) is not an essential part of an inference. But this view, according to the Jainas, is untonable, it being absolutely necessary to state the minor term (palesa) in an inference.
अन्यथा वाद्यभिप्रेतहेतुगोचरमोहितः । प्रत्यायस्य भवेद्धतुविरुद्धारेकिता यथा ॥ १५॥
15. Otherwise, owing to a misconception as to the abode of the reason (i.e., pakşa or minor term) as intended by the disputant, his reason (hetu or middle terin) may appear to his opponent as absurd.
If any disputant does not explicitly state the minor term (paksa), his reason might be misunderstood by his opponent, e.g. :--
(1) This hill (minor torm) is full of fire (major term);
(2) because it is full of sinoke (middle term). The above inference, if the minor term is omitted, will assume the following form:
(1) Full of fire (major term);
(2) becauso full of smoke (middle term). Here the opponent might not at once recollect any abode or place (minor term, paksu) in which the fire and smoke abide in

Page #24

16
NYAYAVATARA.
union, and might mistake a lake for such an abode. In such a case, the whole argument will be misunderstood.
धानुष्कगुणसंप्रेक्षि जनस्य परिविध्यतः । धानुष्कस्य विना लक्ष्यनिर्देशेन गुणेतरी ॥१६॥
16. A man who has come to behold the excellence of an archer will have to beliold the opposite of it, if the archer hits without fixing an aim.
Just as a clever archer, with a view to preventing his arrow from going to a wrong direction, fixes his aim before hitting, so a skilful disputant, in order to avoid being misunderstood, should, in stating an inference, mention the minor teru (paksa) with which the major term (slidhya) and the iniddle term (hetui) are both connected.
हेतोस्तथोपपत्ता वा स्यात् प्रयोगोऽन्यथापि वा । द्विधान्यतरेणापि साध्यसिद्धिर्भवेदिति ॥ १७॥
17. The reason (or the middle term, i.e., hetu! may be used to show connection or the opposite of it; in either of these two ways, the sâdhya (that which is to be proved) can be proved.
The reason or middle term (hetu) can be used in two ways as follows: (1) the reason or middle term (hetu) may exist only if the major term (sádhya) existed, such as in the proposition “here there is fire, because there is smoke," the smoke (middle term) may exist only if there is fire (major term); and (2) the reason or middle term (hetre) cannot exist if the major term (sådhya) does not exist, such as in the proposition “here there is fire, because otherwise there could not be any smoke,” the smoke (middle term) could not have existed if there had been no fire (major term).

Page #25

NYAYAVATARA.
17
साध्यसाधनयोाप्तिर्यत्र निश्चीयतेतराम् । साधम्र्येण स दृष्टान्तः सम्बन्धस्मरणान्मतः॥१८॥
18. Where the inseparable connection of the major term (sâdhya) and the middle term (sâdhana or hetu) is shown by homogeneousness (sadharmya), the example is called a homogeneous one, on account of the connection between those terms) being recollected.
An example (drstcînta) is a familiar case which reassures the inseparable connection (vyapti) between the major term (sådhya) and the middle term (letu). It is of two kinds: (1) homogeneous (sádharmya), and (2) heterogeneous (vaidharmya). The homogeneous exaraple is that which reassures the connection (vycpti) hy honogeneousness (sáidharnya), thus:
(1) This hill is full of fire (major torm); (2) because it is full of smoke (middle term);
(3) just as the kitchen (homogeneous example). Here the fire and smoke abide homogeneously in the kitchen.
साध्ये निवर्तमाने तु साधनस्याप्यसम्भवः । ख्याप्यते यत्र दृष्टान्ते वैधम्म्येणेति स स्मृतः॥१९॥
19. The heterogeneous example is that which shows that the absence of the major term (sâdhya) is followed by the absence of the middle term.
The heterogeneous example reassures the connection (vycapti) by contrariety, that is, by showing that the absence of the major term (sådhya) is attended by the absence of the middle term (hetu), thus :
(1) This hill has no smoke (major term); (2) because it has no fire (middle term); (3) just as a lake (heterogeneous example).

Page #26

18
NYAYAVATARA.
अन्तातैरव साध्यस्य सिद्धर्बहिरुदाहृतिः। व्यर्था स्यात्तदसद्भावेऽप्येवं न्यायविदो विदुः॥२०॥
20. Logicians maintain that to cite an example from outside is useless, as that which is to be proved (sâdhya) can be proved through internal inseparable connection Santar-vyâpti), even without such example.
Internal inseparable connection (antar-työpti) occurs when the minor term (paksa) itself as the common link of the middle term (hetre) and the major term (sådhya) shows the inseparable connection between them, thus:--
(1) This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term);
(2) because it is full of smoke (middl Here the inseparable connection between the fire and smoke is shown by the hill (minor term), which is their common ground.
External inseparable connection (hahir-vycipti) occurs when an example (drstânta) from outside is introduced as the common link of the middle terma (het) and the major term (sådhya) to reassure the inseparable connection between tbem, thus :
(1) This hill is full of fire (major term); (2) because it is full of smoke (middle term) ;
(3) just as a kitchen (example). Here the kitchen, which forms no essential part of the inference, is introduced from outside as the common link of the fire and smoke, to reassure the inseparable connection between them (the fire and smoke).
Some logicians (such as Vasubandhu) hold that that which is to be proved, that is, the “proven " or the major term (sádhya), can be established by the internal inseparable connection (antar-vyậpti) alono, so the pointing out of the external inseparable connection (bahir-vypti) is superfluous. It is useless even when there is no internal inseparable

Page #27

NYAYAVATARA
19
connection. In the case of the internal inseparable connection being existent external inseparable connection is superfluous, and in the case of the forrer being non-existent the latter is useless.
प्रतिपाद्यस्य यः सिद्धः पक्षाभासोऽस्ति लिङ्गतः। लोकस्ववचनाभ्यां च बाधितोऽनेकधा मतः ॥ २१॥
21.' If that of wliich the major term or preclicate (sådhya) is aflirmed is opposed by evidence (linga!, the public understanding, one's own statement, etc., we have that which is known as the fallacy of the minor term or thesis (Pakşa-bhâsa), of which there are many varieties.
The semblance or fallacy of the minor term or thesis (palsabhiisa) arises when one predicates of the minor term (paksa) that which is yet to be proved to the opponent, or which is incapable of being proved, or when it is opposed to perception and inference, or inconsistent with the public understanding or incongruous with one's own statement, thus :
(1) “ The jar is corporcal (paudgalika)" this is a conclusion which is yet to be proved to the opponent.
(2) “Every thing is momentary " this is a Saugata (Buddhist) doctrine which, according to the Jainas, is incapable of being proved.
(3) “ The general (sananya) and particular (višeşa) things are without parts, are distinct from each other and are like themselves alone "—this is opposed to perception.
(4) “There is no omniscient being"-this is, according to the Jainas, opposed to inference.
(5) « The sister is to be taken as wife "—this is inconsistent with the public understanding.
(6) "All things are non-existent"—this is incongruous with one's own statement.

Page #28

20
NYAYAVATARA.
अन्यथानुपपन्नत्वं हेतोर्लक्षणमीरितम् । तदप्रतीतिसन्देहविपर्यासैस्तदाभता ॥ २२ ॥
22. The reason (i.e., the middle term called hetu) has been defined as that which cannot exist except in connection with the major term (sådhya) ; the fallacy of the reason (hetvâbhâsa) arises from non-conception, doubt or misconception about it (the middle term).
(1) This hill is full of fire (major term); (2) because it is full of smoke (middle torm).
In this example " saioke" is the middle term or reason (hetu) which cannot exist, except in an inseparable connection (union) with “firo," which is the major term (sadhya).
असिद्धस्त्वप्रतीतो यो योऽन्यथैवोपपद्यते । विरुद्धो योऽन्यथाप्यत्र युक्तोऽनैकान्तिकः स तु ॥ २३ ॥
23. That which has not yet been established is called “the unproved ” (asiddha); that which is possible only in the opposite way is called “the inconsistent” (viruddha); that which can be explained in one way as well as in the opposite way is called “the uncertain” (anaikantika).
Semblance of the reason or fallacy of the middle torm (hetvábhiisa) is of threo kinds, as follows:
(1) The unproved (asiddha) such as: “the sky-lotus is fragrant, becauso it has the generic property of lotuses." Here the reason, viz., the sky-lotus (which is unreal] has the generic property of lotuses, is unproyed.
(2) The inconsistent (viruddha) such as: * this is fiery, because it is a body of water." Here the reason alleged is opposed to what is to be established.

Page #29

NYAYAVATARA.
21
(3) The uncertain (anailcántila) such as: "all things are momentary, because they aro existent." Here the reason alleged is uncertain, because 'existenco' may or may not be a proof of momentariness, for, an opponent might equally argue : "all things are eternal, because they are existent."
साधम्म्यणात्र दृष्टान्तदोषा न्यायविदीरिताः । अपलक्षणहेतूत्थाः साध्यादिविकलादयः ॥२४॥
24. Logicians have declared that fallacies of the example (drstântâbhâsa) in the homogeneous form, arise here from an imperfect middle term or from a defect in the major term, etc.
Fallacies of the homogeneous example (sâdharmya drstântabhásct) arise from a dofect in the major term (skidhyu) or middle term (hetu) or both, or from doubt abont them, thus :
(1) Inferenco is invalid (major term), because it is a source of knowledge (midale term), like perception (homogeneous examplo),
Here the example involves a defect in the major term (sadhya), for perception is not invalid.
(2) Perception is invalid (major term), because it is a source of truc lenowledge (middle term), like a dream (homogeneous example).
Here the example involves 3 defect in the middle term (betu), for a dream is not a source of true knowledge.
(3) The omniscient being is not existent (major term), because he is not apprehended by the senses (middle term), like a jar (homogeneous example).
Here the example involves a defect in both the major and middle terms (sidhya and lietu), for the jar is both existent and apprehended by the senses.
(4) This person is devoid of passions (major term), because he is mortal (middle term), like the man in the street (homogencois example),
Ilere the example involves doubt as to the validity of the

Page #30

22
NYAYAVATARA.
major term, for it is doubtful whether the man in the street is devoid of passions.
(5) This person is mortal (major term), because he is full of passions (middle term), like the man in the street (homogeneous example).
Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of the middle term, for it is doubtful whether the man in the street is devoid of passions.
(6) This person is not omniscient (major term), because he is full of passions (middle torm), like the man in the street (homogeneous example).
Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of both the major and middle terms, for it is doubtful whether the man in the street is full of passions and not omniscient.
Some unnecessarily lay down three other kinds of fallacy of the homogoneous example (sádharmya-drståntaibhasa), viz. :
(1) Unconnected (anahvYC), such as : This porson is full of passions (major term), because he is a speaker (uniddle torm), like a certain man in Mugadla (examplo).
Here, though a certain man in Magadha is both a speaker and full of passions, yet there is no inseparable connection between “being a speaker" and "being full of passions."
(2) Of connection unshown (upradarsitánvaija), such as :
Sound is non-eternal (major term), because it is udventitious (middle term), as a jar (example).
Hero, though there is an inseparable connection between “adventitious” and “ non-eternal," yet it has not been shown in the proper form, as :
" Whatever is adventitious, is non-eternal, as a jar."
[Dignåga, the Buddhist, urged the necessity of converting the example into a universal proposition, with a view to show the connection between the middle terın and major term in the proper form.]
(3) Of contrary connection (viparitânvaya), such as :---
Sound is non-eternal (major term), because it is adventitious (middle term).

Page #31

NYAYAVATARA,
23
Here, if the inseparable connection (ylipti) is shown, thus
“ Whatever is non-eternal, is adventitious as a jar," instead of thus
“ Whatever is adventitious, is non-etornal as a jar,” the example would involyo the fallacy of contrary connection.
वैधयेणात्र दृष्टान्तदोषा न्यायविदीरिताः । साध्यसाधनयुग्मानामनिवृतेश्च संशयात् ॥ २५॥
25. Logicians have declared that fallacies of the example in the heterogeneous form arise when the absence of the major term (sadhya) or the middle term (sâdhana or hetui or both, is not shown, or when there is a doubt about tliem.
The fallacy of the heterogeneous example (vaidharmyadrsłontábhasa) is of six kinds, thus :
(1) Inference is invalid (major term), because it is a source of true knowledge (iniddlo term); whatover is not invalid is not a source of true knowledge, as a dream (heterogeneous example).
Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in the major term (sâdhya), for a dream is really invalid, though it has been cited as not invalid.
(2) Perception is non-reflective or nirvilalpaka (major term), because it is a source of true knowledge (middle term); whatever is reflective or savikal puka, is not a source of true knowledge, as inference (heterogeneous example).
Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in the middle term (sadhana), for inference is really a source of true knowledge, though it has been cited as not-such.
(3) Sound is eternal and non-eternal (major term), because it is an existence (middle term); whatever is not eternal and non-eternal is not an existence, as a jar (heterogeneous example).

Page #32

24
NYAYAVATARA
Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in both the major and middle terms (sádhya and sadha nat), for the jar is both "eternal and non-eternal," and "an existence."
(4) Kapila is non-omniscient (major term), because he is a non-propounder of the four noble truths (middle term); whoever is not non-omniscient is not non-propounder of the four noble truths, as Buddha (heterogeneous example).
Here the example involves in the negative form a doubt as to the validity of the major term (sadhya), for it is doubtful whether Buddha was omniscient.
(5) This person is untrustworthy (major term), because he is full of passions (middle term); whoever is not un-trustworthy is not full of passions, as Buddha (heterogeneous example).
Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of the middle term (hetu), for it is doubtful whether Buddha is not full of passions.
(6) Kapila is not devoid of passions (major term), because he did not give his own flesh to the hungry (middle term); whoever is devoid of passions gives his own flesh to the hungry, as Buddha (heterogeneous example).
Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of both the major and middle terms (sádhya and sadhana), for it is doubtful whether Buddha was devoid of passions and gave his own flesh to the hungry.
Some unnecessarily lay down three other kinds of fallacy of the heterogeneous example (vu idharmya-drstantibhisa), viz. :
(1) Unseparated (uvyatireki): This person is not devoid of passions (major term), because he is a spealer (middle term); whoever is devoid of passions is not a speaker, as a piece of stone (heterogeneous example).
Here, though a piece of stone is both “devoid of passions" and “not a speaker," yet there is no unavoidable separation (vyatirelca vyapti) between "devoid of passions” and “a speaker."

Page #33

NYAYAVATARA.
25
(2) Of separation unshown (apradarŝita-vyatíreka) : Sound is non-eternal (major term), because it is adventitious (middle term); just as ether (example).
Here, though there is an unavoidable separation between "adventitions" and "eternal," yet it has not been shown in the proper form such as: "Whatever is not adventitious, is eternal, just as ether."
[Dignaga, the Buddhist, urged the necessity of converting the heterogeneous example into a universal negative proposition, with a view to point out the connection of the middle term and major term.]
(3) Of contrary separation (viparita-vyatireka) :
Sound is not eternal (major term), because it is adventitious (middle term); whatever is eternal, is not adventitious, just as ether (example).
Here the example has been put in a contrary way, for the proper form should have been: "Whatever is not adventitious is eternal, just as ether.
वाद्यते साधने प्रोक्तदोषाणामुदभावनम् ।
दूषणं निरवद्ये तु दूषणाभासनामकम् ॥ २६ ॥
26. Refutation (dûşana) is the pointing out of the aforesaid fallacies in the reasoning of an opponent; but it is called a semblance of a refutation (dûşanâhúsa), when the reasoning is really devoid of defects.
A disputant is said really to refute his opponent, if the former can detect in the reasoning of the latter any of the fallacies aforementioned. But it will be a mere semblance of refutation, if he ascribes to his opponent fallacies which he has not really committed.
सकलावरणमुक्तात्मकेवलं यत् प्रकाशते ।
प्रत्यक्ष सकलार्थात्मसततप्रतिभासनम् ॥ २७ ॥
27. That which is characterised as free from

Page #34

26
all obstructions and shines as the absolute is called (supreme or transcendental) perception; it uninterruptedly illumines the nature of all objects.
Perception (pratyakṣa) is used in two senses: (1) supreme or transcendental (páramárthika) and (2) practical (vyāvahārika). The practical perception consists of the knowledge acquired by the soul through the channels of the senses, such as the visual knowledge, auditory knowledge, etc. Transcendental perception is the knowledge acquired by the soul direct, through meditation, without the intervention of the senses or signs.
NYAYAVATARA.
प्रमाणस्य फलं साक्षादशानविनिवर्त्तनम् ।
केवलस्य सुखापेक्ष शेषस्यादानहानधीः ॥ २८ ॥
28. The immediate effect of pramâna (valid knowledge) is the removal of ignorance; the mediate effect of the absolute knowledge is bliss and equanimity, while that of the ordinary practical knowledge is the facility to select or reject.
Prumana (valid knowledge) is of two kinds : (1) kevala, absolute and (2) ordinary. The immediate effect of both is the cessation of ignorance. The mediate effect of the absolute knowledge is happiness and equanimity, while that of the ordinary knowledge is the facility which it affords us to choose the desirable and reject the undesirable.
अनेकान्तात्मकं वस्तु गोचरः सर्वसंविदाम् । एकदेशविशिष्टोऽर्थो नयस्य विषया मतः ॥ २९ ॥
29. Since things have many characters (that is, may be conceived from many points of view), they are the objects of all-sided knowledge (omniscience); but a thing conceived from one particular point

Page #35

NYAYAVATARA.
27
of view is the object of naya (or one-sided knowledge).
Objects, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, possess many different characteristics, and may be taken from different standpoints. They are understood in their entire character by omniscience alone, while to take them from a certain standpoint is the scope of raya (the one-sided method of comprehension).
Nuya (the one-sided method of comprehension) is of seven kinds, mentioned below:
(1) Vaigama (the non-distinguishod) is the method by which an object is taken in its generic and specific capacities not distinguished from each other. For instance, by the term “bamboo" one may understand a number of properties, some of which are peculiar to its own species, while the remaining ones are possessed by it in cominon with other trees, such as a mango, jack, banyan, etc., without any distinction being made between these two glasses of properties. The Nyaya and Vaiseșika schools of philosophy follow the Naigama nuyu.
(2) Saingraha (the generic) is the method by which the generic properties alone are taken into consideration without apy cognizance of the particular properties which, independent of the former, are non-entities, like-sky flowers. Thus, when we speak of a mango, jack or bamboo, we mean that it is a tree. The Advaita and Sâmkhya systems of philosophy follow the saingraha naya.
(3) V'yavah ira (the practical) is the method by which the practical or particular alone, is considered, for the general without the particular is a non-entity, like the horn of a hare. On being asked to bring a tree, can anybody bring the tree in general ? No, he can bring only a particular tree, such as a mango, jack or bamboo.
The Carvâka philosophy follows the Vyavahára naya.
(4) Rj-sutra (the straight expression) is the method by which a thing, as it exists at present, is considered, without any

Page #36

28
NYAYAVATARA.
reference to the past or future. It is useless to ponder over things as they were in the past or will become in the future. All practical purposes are served by the thing itself, as it exists at the present moment. For instance, a man, who was formerly (in a previous birth) my son, is now born as a prince somowhero else ; he is of no practical ase to me now. So the Rja-sútra recognises only the entity itself (ohtiva), and does not consider the name (nâmu), image (sthapana), or the constituent cause (drivya). For instance, a poor cowherd, if he bears the name of indra, does not thereby become the lord of heavens. An image of a king cannot accomplish the function of the king himself. The causes in me which will lead to my accepting a different kind of body in a futuro birth, cannot enable inne to enjoy that body now. Some hold that the atoms alone are true, while practically it is the aggregates or lumps alone that are true. This is Rju-sútra, which is followed by the Buddhists.
(5) Sabda (the verbal) consists in using a word in a conventional sense, and not according to its etymological derivation. Thus the word satrit usually, or in its conventional sense, means “ enemy," while etymologically " a destroyer". The grainmarians are tho followers of this method.
(6) Samabhirudha (the subtle) consists in making nice distinctions among the synonyms, applying cach name appropriately according to their etymological derivation. The grammarians are the followers of this method.
(7) Evambhúta (the such-like) consists in naming a thing only when it possesses its practical efficiency. Thus a man should be named salera, if he actually possesses strength (sakti), implied by the name. The grammarians are the followers of this method.
नयानामेकनिष्ठानां प्रवृत्तेः श्रुतवम॑नि । सम्पूर्णार्थविनिश्चायि स्याद्वादश्रतमुच्यते ॥ ३०॥
30. The knowledge which determines the full meaning of an object through the employment, in

Page #37

NYAYAVATARA.
29
the scriptural method, of one-sided nayas, is called Syâdvâdu-sruta.
The śruta or scriptural knowledge is of three kinds, viz. : (1) false hearing or knowledge (mithya-śruta), such as that derived from the scripture of the bad Tirthikas; (2) hearing of the one-sided method (naya-śruta), that is, the knowledge derived from that part of the Jaina scripture which teaches us to comprehend things from any particular standpoint; and (3) hearing of the all-sided method (syad-vada-śrutu), that is, the knowledge derived from that part of the Jaina scripture which teaches us to comprehend things from all-sided standpoints. The naya-śruta (knowledge of the one-sided method) has been described in the previous verse. The syad-váda (knowledge of the all-sided method) is described below:
Syad-vada, which literally signifies assertion of possibilities, seeks to ascertain the meaning of things from all possible standpoints. Things are neither existent nor non-existent absolutely. A thing may be said to exist in a certain way and to be non-existent in another way, and so forth. Syád-váda examines things from seven points of view, hence the doctrine is also called supta-bhangî-naya (seven-fold paralogism). It is stated as follows: (1) May be, it is (syâdusti); (2) may be, it is, not (syad-nasti); (3) may be, it is, and it is not (syäd-asti-násti); (4) may be, it is indescribable (syid-avyaktavyam); (5) may be, it is and yet indescribable (syad-asti ca avaktavyañca); (6) may be, it is not, and also indescribable (syad násti ca avaktavyañca); (7) may be, it is, and it is not, and also indescribable (syad asti ca asti ca avaktavyañcu).
When a thing is to be established, we say "it is," when it is to be denied, we say "it is not.' When a thing is to be established and denied in turn, we say "it is and it is not." When a thing is to be established and denied simultaneously, we say, "it is indescribable." When a thing is to be established and yet described as indescribable, we say "it is, and yet indescribable." When a thing is to be denied and also

Page #38

30
NYAYAVATARA.
declared as indescribable, we say " it is not, and also indescribable." When a thing is to be established and denied as well as declared indescribable at the same time, we say 5s it is and it is not, and also indescribable." Sycid, which signifies “may be," denotes all these seven possibilities, that is, a thing may be looked at from one of the above seven points of view, there being no eighth alternative.
प्रमाता स्वान्यनिर्भासी कर्त्ता भोक्ता विवृत्तिमान् । स्वसंवेदनसंसिद्धो जीवः क्षित्याद्यनात्मकः ॥३१॥
31. The spirit (soul or jiva) is the knower, doer and enjoyer, illumines self and others, undergoes changes of condition, is realised only in self-consciousness, and is different from the earth, etc. .
The soul (åtman or jiva) has knowledge, and so is different from knowledge itself. As an enjoyer and doer, the soul in the Jaina philosophy is different from that of the Samkhya philosophy. The soul by the Jainas is described as undergoing changes of condition. In this respect, it is different from that of the Nyâya and Vaiáeşika philosophy.
प्रमाणादिव्यवस्थेयमनादिनिधनात्मिका। सर्वसंव्यवहट्टणां प्रसिद्धापि प्रकीर्तिता ॥ ३२ ॥
कृतिरियं श्रीसितपट्टसिद्धसेनदिवाकरस्य ।। 32. This system of pranina, etc., is beginningless and endless; though familiar to all persons in every day practice, it is yet explained here.
This shows that the world, as conceived by the Jainas, is eternal.

Page #39

. न्यायावतारविवृतीः । अवियुतसामान्यविशेषदेशिनं वर्द्धमानमानम्य । न्यायावतारविवृतिः स्मृतिबीजविवृद्धये क्रियते॥ 'प्रमाणेत्यादि' अनेन च तादात्म्य-तदुत्पत्तिलक्षणसंबन्धविकलतया ध्वनेर्बहिरर्थ प्रति प्रामाण्यायोगात् अभिधेयादिसूचनद्वारोत्पन्नार्थसंशयमुखेन श्रोतारः श्रवणं प्रति प्रोत्साह्यन्ते इति धम्मोत्तरो मन्यते । ...अच्चंटस्तु आह । न श्रावकोत्साहकमेतत् प्रामाण्याभावात् तेषां चाप्रमाणादप्रवृत्तेः।
स्व आत्मा स्वरूपं, परोऽर्थः । तो आभासयितुं प्रकाशयितुं शीलं यस्य तत् । तथा ज्ञायते निर्णोयते तत्त्वं येन तत् शानम् । बाध्यते अनेनेति बाधः, विपरीतार्थोपस्थापकप्रमाणप्रवृत्तिरिति यावत् । सेन विशेषेण वर्जितं रहितं यत् ज्ञानं तत् प्रमाणमिति संटंकः । स्वपराभासीत्यनेन ये स्वाभास्येव ज्ञानं मन्यन्ते ते शानवादिनो बौद्ध विशेषाः; ये च पराभास्येव मीमांसकनैयायिकादयः; ते निरस्तास्ते हि बहिरर्थाभावात् ज्ञानं स्वांशपर्यवसितसत्ताकम् इत्याचक्षीरन् । तदयुक्तम् । झयार्थाभावे झानाभावप्रसङ्गात् । .........पराभास्यपि स्वप्रकाशाभावात् अभिदधीरन् तदप्यसम्बद्धम् । स्वप्रकाशाभावे परप्रकाशायोगात्न हि प्रदीपः स्वरूपमनुद्योतयन् घटाद्युद्योतने व्याप्रियते।
तत्र सिद्धान्तप्रसिद्धपारमार्थिकप्रत्यक्षापेक्षयाऽक्षशब्दो जीवपयायतया प्रसिद्धः। इह तु व्यावहारिकप्रत्यक्षप्रस्तावात्

Page #40

32
NYAYAVATARA.
अक्षध्वनिरिन्द्रियवचनो गृह्यते ततश्च अक्ष प्रति गतं प्रत्यक्ष* यदिन्द्रियमाश्रित्य उज्जिहीते अर्थसाक्षात्कारि ज्ञानं तत् प्रत्यक्षमित्यर्थः । ततश्च सर्वज्ञानानां यत् स्वरूपसंवेदनं तदपि प्रत्यक्षमित्युक्तं भवति । तत्रापि स्वरूपस्य ग्राह्यस्य साक्षात्करणसद्भावादिति । अक्षोभ्यः परतो वर्त्तते इति परोक्षमक्षव्यापारनिरपेक्ष मनोव्यापारेण साक्षादपरिच्छेदकं यत् ज्ञानं द्विधैव... द्वाभ्यामेव प्रकाराभ्यां
तत्परोक्षमिति भावः । मेयस्य ग्राह्यार्थस्य विनिश्चयात् स्वरूपनिर्णयात् ॥ १ ॥ प्रसिद्धानि प्ररूढानि, नाधुना साध्यानीत्यर्थः । प्रमाणानि प्रत्यक्षानुमानशब्दानि । ... ... यदर्थं प्रमाणपरीक्षणं असावपि जलपानशीतत्राणदिर्व्यवहारोऽनादिप्ररूढः । तन्निरर्थकं प्रमागालक्षणाभिधानमिति ॥ २ ॥
यद्यपि प्रतिप्राणिप्रसिद्धानि प्रमाणानि । अन्यथा तत्कृतनिखिलव्यवहारोच्छेदप्रसंगात्तदुच्छेदे च दृष्टहान्याद्यापत्तेः । ... व्यामूढं विपरीतग्रस्तं विचित्रतां गतं मनोऽन्तःकरणं येषां ते तथा तेषाम्, इहेति लोके । ...... यद्यनादिप्रसिद्धं प्रमाणलक्षणं प्रति न केचित् अपि व्यामुह्येयुस्तदा यद् भवद्भिः प्रागुदग्राहि निरर्थकं प्रमाणलक्षणमिति तद् युक्तमेव स्यात् । न चैतदेवम्, तत्र व्यामूढानां दर्शनात् ॥ ३ ॥
परोक्षोऽक्षगोचरातीतस्ततेोऽन्योऽपरोक्षस्तद्भावस्तत्ता तया साक्षात्कृततयेति यावत् । तस्य [ अर्थस्य ] ग्राहकं व्यवसायात्मकतया साक्षात् परिच्छेदकं यत् ज्ञानं तदीदृशमिति ईदृगेव प्रत्यक्षमिति संटंकः । अर्थस्य ग्राहकमित्यस्य ग्रहणेक्षयेति वक्ष्यमाणपदसापेक्षत्वादमुना बहिरपि येऽर्थकालाकलनविकलं
...

Page #41

NYAYAVITANA.
33
सकलमपि शानं प्रलपन्ति तानिरस्थति । ... ... ग्राहकमिति च निर्णायकं द्रष्टव्यं निर्णयाभावेऽर्थग्रहणायोगात् । तेन यत् तथागतैः प्रत्यपादि प्रत्यक्ष कल्पनापढिमभ्रान्तमिति तदपास्तं भवति । तस्य युक्तिरिक्तत्वात् । तथाहि, ते निर्विकल्पकत्वेऽध्यक्षस्य युक्ताः खेटयन्ति किलेदमर्थसामर्थ्यनादीयते सन्निहितार्थक्रिया समर्थार्थग्राहकत्वात् । ... तस्मात् [प्रत्यक्षात् ] इतरत् असाक्षादर्थग्राहकं ज्ञानं परोक्षमिति झयमवगन्तव्यमेतदपि स्वसंवेदनापेक्षया प्रत्यक्षमेव । बहिरर्थापेक्षया तु परोक्ष-व्यपदेशमश्नुते इति दर्शयन्नाह ग्रहणेक्षयेति । इह ग्रहणं प्रक्रमाद् बहिःप्रवर्तनमुच्यते । अन्यथा विशेषणवैयर्थ्यात् तस्येक्षापेक्षतया बहिःप्रवृत्तिपालोचनयेति यावत् । तदयमर्थो यद्यपि स्वयं प्रत्यक्ष तथापि लिंगशब्दादिद्वारेण बहिर्विषयग्रहणेऽसाक्षात्कारितया व्याप्रियते इति परोक्षमित्युच्यते । ... तद्यथा अनुमानं शाब्दं चेति ॥४॥
साध्याविनाभुन इत्यनेन परप्रणीतलिंगलक्षणव्युदासमाचष्टे । ततश्च यत् परे प्रोचुः । पक्षधर्मान्वयव्यतिरेकलक्षणरूपत्रयोपलक्षितानि त्रीणि एव लिंगानि अनुपलब्धिः स्वभावः कार्यतेति । तदुक्तं “अनुमेयेऽथ तत्तुल्ये सद्भावो नास्तिताऽसति । निश्चितानुपलम्भात्मकायाख्या हेतवस्त्रयः" ॥ इति ॥
तथाऽन्येऽस्येदं कार्य कारणं संयोगि समवायि विरोधि चेति लिंगिकमिति। तथा पूर्ववत् शेषवत् सामान्यतादृष्टमित्यादि। तबालप्रलपितप्रायमित्यवगन्तव्यम् । पक्षधर्मत्वविरहेऽपि अनुमिमीमहे कालादिकसूत्रधर्मी समस्त्येव तत्र पक्षधर्मता लिंगस्य गृह्यते इति चेत् न, अतिप्रसङ्गात् । एवंहि शब्दस्य

Page #42

34
NYAYAVATARA.
अनित्यत्वे साध्ये काककार्यादेरपि गमकत्वप्रसक्तः । तत्रापि लोकादेधर्मिणः कल्पयितु शक्यत्वात् । ... अधुना यत् शौद्धोदनशिष्यकैन्यंगादि यदुतभ्रान्तमनुमानं सामान्यप्रतिभासित्वात् तस्य च बहिः स्वलक्षणे व्यतिरेकाव्यतिरेकविकल्पाभ्यामपाक्रियमाणतया योगात्तद्रूपतया वत न तस्याध्यवसायादेतस्मिन् तद्ग्रहस्य च भ्रान्तिलक्षणत्वात् ... तदुक्तम् "अतस्मिन् तद्ग्रहो भ्रान्तिरपि संबन्धतःप्रमा” इति तदपाकतुमाह तदभ्रान्तमित्यादि ॥ ५॥
न केवलमनुमानं भ्रान्तं किं तर्हि यद्भवद्भिः दृष्टान्ततया उपात्तं प्रत्यक्ष तदपि भ्रान्तमेव "सर्वमालम्बने भ्रान्तम्” इति वचनात् । ... लोकसंवृत्तिं घटयन्सो वयं दृढ़तरवासनाप्रबोधसंपादितसत्ताकयाःप्रत्यक्षानुमानयोःप्रमाणतामाचक्ष्महे ॥६॥ ___ सकलप्रतिभासस्य समस्तसंवेदनस्य भ्रान्तत्वासिद्धितो विपर्यस्तत्वानिष्पत्तेः यत् स्फुटं स्वान्यनिश्चायि सुनिश्चिततया स्वपरप्रकाशकं तत् प्रमाणमिति सम्बन्धः। तच्च द्वयसिद्धौ स्वरूपार्थलक्षणयुग्मनिष्पत्तौ प्रसिध्यति निष्पद्यते नान्यथा प्रमेयाभावे प्रमाणाभावात् ॥७॥
दृष्टन प्रमाणावलोकितेन इष्टः प्रतिपिपादयिषिताऽव्याहतोऽ निराकृतः सामर्थ्यादों यस्मिन् वाक्ये तत् तथा प्रमाणनिश्चितार्थाबाधितमिति यावत् । तस्मात् परमेोऽकृत्रिमः पुरुषोपयोगी शक्यानुष्ठानो वाऽर्थी वाच्यस्तमभिधातुं शील यस्य तत् परमार्थाभिधायि विशिष्टार्थदर्शकमित्यर्थः। ततस्तत्वग्राहितया उत्पन्नं प्रकृतवाक्यप्रतिपाद्यार्थादानशीलतया लब्धात्मसत्ताक यन्मानं तत् शाब्दमिति प्रकीर्तितम् । ... तदप्रामाण्ये

Page #43

NYAYAVATARA.
35
परार्थानुमानप्रलयप्रसंगात् तस्य वचनरूपत्वात् । ... शाब्द च द्विधा भवति । लौकिकं शास्त्रजं च। ... यादृशः शास्त्रात् तजातं प्रमाणतामनुभवति तदर्शयति ॥ ८ ॥
प्राप्तः प्रक्षीणाशेषरागादिदोषगणास्तेनोपक्षम् आदी उपलब्धम् अनेन अपौरुषेयापोहमाह; तस्य प्रमाणबाधितत्वात् पुरुषव्यापाराभावे वचनानुपलब्धेरुपलम्भेऽपि तदर्थानवगमात् तदर्थनिश्चयार्थ पुरुषाश्रयणे गजस्नानन्यायप्रसंगात् । ... उल्लङ्घनते प्राबल्येन गम्यते अभिभूयते अन्यैरित्युल्लचंय ततोऽन्यदनुल्लङ्घन सर्ववचनातिशायीति यावत् । ... दृष्टेन प्रमाणनिर्णीतेन इष्टस्य तद्वाच्यस्य विरोधो यस्मिन् तत् तथा तदेव । यदि चादृष्टः प्रमाणेन इष्टो वचनान्तरेण तयाविरोधक तद्विरुद्धार्थाभिधानात् । ततोऽन्यत् अदृष्टेष्टविरोधकम् अबाधार्थाभिधायीत्यर्थः । ... तत्त्वं जीवादयः पदार्थाः प्रमाणप्रतिष्ठितत्वात् तेषाम् उपदेशः स्वरूपप्रकाशनं तद्रक्षणादिविधानं वा तं करोतीति तत्त्वोपदेशकृत् अतएव सावं सर्वस्मै हितं ... । कुत्सिताः पन्थानः कापथास्तीर्थान्तराणि तेषां घट्टनं विचालकं निराकारकं सर्वजनापकारिकुमतविध्वंसकमित्यर्थः ॥९॥
स्व आत्मा तस्य निश्चयः प्रमेयाधिगमः तद्वदन्यैषां प्रतिपाद्यानां निश्चयोत्पादनं प्रमेयपरिच्छेदकज्ञानप्रादुर्भावनं यथाऽऽत्मनोऽर्थनिर्णयस्तथा परेषां निर्णयजननमित्यर्थः । बुधैर्विद्वद्भिः परस्मै अर्थः प्रयोजनं येन तत् परार्थं मीयतेऽनेनेति मानम् । ननु च यदि निश्चयोत्पादनं परार्थमानं तदा ज्ञानमपि परप्रत्यायनाय व्याप्रियमाणं परार्थं प्राप्नोतीत्याह । वाक्यं

Page #44

36
NYAYAVATARA.
परार्थ न ज्ञानं तस्यैव आनन्तर्येण व्यापारात् परप्रयोजनमात्रत्वाच्च इतरस्य तु व्यवहितत्वात् स्वपरोपकारित्वात् च । कथं वचनमज्ञानरूपं प्रमाणमित्याह । तदुपचारतस्तस्य ज्ञानस्य उपचारोऽतद्रूपस्यापि तदङ्गतया तद्रूपत्वेन ग्रहणम् ततः इदम् उक्तं भवति प्रतिपाद्यगतमुत्पत्स्यमानं यत् ज्ञानं तदव्यवहितकारणत्वात् वचनमपि उपचारेण प्रमाणमित्युच्यते॥१०॥
प्रत्यक्षेणापि अनुमानेनेव प्रसिद्धार्थप्रकाशनात् स्वप्रतीतप्रमेयप्रत्यायनात् परार्थत्वं प्रतिपाद्यप्रयोजनत्वंद्वयोरपि प्रत्यक्षानुमानयोस्तुल्यकारणत्वान्नानुमानस्यैवैकस्येत्यभिप्रायः । ... तद्यथाऽनुमानप्रतीतोऽर्थः परस्मै प्रतिपाद्यमानो वचनरूपापन्न: परार्थमनुमानम् तथा प्रत्यक्षप्रतीतोऽपि परार्थं प्रत्यक्ष परप्रत्यायनस्य तुल्यत्वात् वचनव्यापारस्यैव भेदात् । तथाह्यनुमानप्रतीतं प्रत्यायन्नवं वचनयति । अग्निरत्र धूमात् । यत्र यत्र धूमस्तत्र तत्राग्निः । यथा महानसादौ । वैधयेण वा अग्नपभावे न क्वचिद् धूमो यथा जलाशयादा । तथा च धूमोऽयं तस्मात् धूमादग्निरत्रेति ।... प्रत्यक्षप्रतीतं पुनर्दर्शयन् एतावद्वक्ति । पश्य राजा गच्छति । ततश्च वचनात् विविधादपि समग्रसामग्रीकस्य प्रतिपाद्यस्य अनुमेयप्रत्यक्षार्थविषया यतः प्रतीतिरुल्लसत्यता द्वयोरपि परार्थता इत्याह च । परस्य तदुपायत्वात् प्रतिपाद्यस्य प्रतीति प्रतिपादकस्य प्रत्यक्षानुमाननिर्णीतार्थप्रकाशनकारणत्वादित्यर्थः। एतेन पूर्वकारिकोक्तोपचारकारणं च लक्षयति ॥ ११॥
यद्वचः प्रत्यक्षप्रतिपन्नार्थप्रतिपादि साक्षात्कारिझानगोचरकथनचतुरं तत् प्रत्यक्षमुच्यते।... वचनं कुतः प्रत्यक्षमित्याह ।

Page #45

NYAYAVATARA.
37
प्रतिभासस्य निमित्तत्वात् प्रतिपाद्यप्रत्यक्षप्रकाशहेतुत्वाद् उपचारेण उच्यते ॥१२॥
पक्षो वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणः स प्रादिर्येषां हेतुदृष्टान्तोपनयनिगमादीनां तानि तथा तेषां वचनानि प्रतिपादका ध्वनयः तान्यैवात्मस्वरूपं यस्य तत्पक्षादिवचनात्मकं न तु च हेतुप्रतिपादकं वचः परार्थमनुमानमित्यभिधायतत्पक्षादिवचनात्मकमिति वदतः पूर्वापरव्याहता वाचो युक्तिः । नैतदस्ति । एवं मन्यते । नैकः प्रकारः परार्थानुमानस्य किं तर्हि यथा परस्य सुखेन प्रमेयप्रतीतिर्भवति तथा यत्र सः प्रत्यायनीयः तत्र दशावयवसाधनं प्रतिपादनोपायः तद्यथा पक्षादयः पञ्च तच्छुद्धयश्च ॥ १३॥
साध्यस्य अनुमेयस्य अभ्युपगमोऽङ्गीकरणं प्राश्निकादीनां पुरतः प्रतिज्ञास्वीकार इत्यर्थः ।...प्रत्यक्षाद्यनिराकृत इति प्रत्यक्ष साक्षात्कारिसंवेदनमादिशब्दादनुमानस्ववचनलोका गृह्यन्ते तैः अनिराकृतः अबाधितः । ...तद्यथा सर्वमनेकान्तात्मकम् अस्ति सर्वज्ञ इत्यादि । तस्य पक्षस्य प्रयोगोऽभिधानमत्र परार्थानुमानप्रस्तावे कर्तव्यो विधेयः । हेतोर्गोचरदीपक इति निर्देशस्य विषयसंदर्शकत्वात् इत्यर्थः ॥ १४॥ ____ अन्यथेत्युक्तविपरीताश्रयणे पक्षप्रयोगाकरणे इत्यर्थः । वादिनो हेतूपन्यासकर्तुरभिप्रेतोऽभिमतः स चासौ हेतुगोचरश्च वाद्यभिप्रेतहेतुगोचरस्तत्र मुह्यति दोलायते तच्छीलश्च यस्तस्य प्रत्यायस्य प्रतिवादिना हेतुविरुद्धारेकितो भवेत् विरोधशङ्काकलङ्कितः स्यादित्यर्थः । ततश्च सम्यग् हेतावपि विपक्ष एवायं वर्तते इति व्यामोहात् विरुद्धदूषण

Page #46

38
NYAYAVATARA.
मभिदधीत । पक्षोपन्यासातु निर्णीतहेतुगोचरस्य नैष दोषः स्यादित्यभिप्रायः । अमुमेवार्थ स्पष्टं दृष्टान्नाह ॥१५॥
यथा लक्ष्यनिर्देशं विना धानुष्कस्य इषु प्रक्षिपतो यौ गुणदोषी तैा तद्दर्शिजनस्य विपर्यस्तावपि प्रतिभातः । गुणाऽपि दोषतया दोषोऽपि वा गुणतया तथा पक्षनिर्देशं विना हेतुमुपन्यस्यतो वादिनो यो स्वाभिप्रेतसाध्यसाधनसमर्थत्वासमर्थत्वलक्षण गुणदोषौ तौ प्राशिकप्रतिवाद्यादीनां विपरीतावपि प्रतिभात इति भावार्थः ॥ १६॥
स्वार्थानुमानप्रस्तावे हि परप्रणीतलक्षणान्तरव्यपाहेन साध्यव्यतिरेकात् सामस्त्येन हेताळवृत्तिरेवैकं लक्षणमिति निर्णीतं परार्थानुमानेनापि तदेव प्रकाशनीयं वचनरचना तु कचित् प्रवर्तते इत्यभिप्रायवांस्तवैविध्यमाह । हेताईिविधः प्रयोगः स्यादिति सम्बन्धः । कथमित्याह । तथैव साध्यसद्भावे एव उपपत्तिर्विद्यमानता तया तथोपपत्या यथा अग्निरत्र धूमस्य तथैव उपपत्तेरिति । अन्यथापि वा इत्यनेनावयवे समुदायोपचारात् अन्यथानुपपत्ति लक्षयति अन्यथा साध्यव्यतिरेके अनुपपत्तिः अविद्यमानता एव तया वा अन्यथानुपपत्या हेतोः प्रयोगः स्यात् । यथा अग्निरत्र धूमस्य अन्यथानुपपत्तिरिति एते च द्वे अपि एकस्मिन् साध्ये प्रयोक्तव्ये इति मन्येत ।...तथीपपत्तिप्रयोगेण अन्यथाऽनुपपत्त्यप्रयोगेण वा साध्यस्य प्रतिपिपादयिषितार्थस्य सिद्धिनिष्पत्तिः...भवेत् ॥१७॥
साध्यं जिज्ञासितार्थात्मकं साधनं तद्गमका हेतुः तयाः साध्यसाधनयोः व्याप्तिः इदमनेन विना न भवतीत्येवंरूपा यत्र क्वचिनिश्चीयतेतराम् अतिशयेन निर्णीयते स साधयेदृष्टान्तः ।

Page #47

NYAYAVATARA.
3)
यथा अग्निरत्र धूमस्य तथैव उपपत्तः महानसादिवत् । इत्ययं च अविस्मृतप्रतिबन्धे प्रतिवादिनि न प्रयोक्तव्य इत्याह ॥१८॥
साध्ये गम्ये निवर्तमाने असंभवति तु शब्दोऽवधारणार्थो भिन्नक्रमः स च साधनस्य असंभव एव इत्यत्र द्रष्टव्यः । ख्याप्यते प्रतिपाद्यते यत्र क्वचित् दृष्टान्ते स वैधय॑ण भवति इति शब्देन सम्बन्धस्मरणात् इति इदमत्रापि संबध्नाति अस्यापि स्मर्यमाणे संबन्धे अप्रयोगात् इति किमर्थं विस्मृतसंबन्धे पव प्रतिवादिनि दृष्टान्तः प्रयुज्यते नान्यदेति प्रवचनावकाशमाशङ्कयाह ॥ १९ ॥
अन्यन्दा हि स्मयमाणे वा संबन्धे अप्रयुज्येतागृहीते वा... ततश्च अन्तः पक्षमध्ये व्याप्तिः साधनस्य साध्याक्रान्तत्वम् अन्तर्व्याप्तिस्तस्यैव साध्यसंगम्यसंसिद्धः प्रतीतेः बहिर्विवक्षितधर्मिणाऽन्यत्र दृष्टान्तधर्मिणि उदाहृतिः व्याप्तिदर्शनरूपा व्यर्था निष्प्रयोजना । तदसद्भावेऽप्येव संबन्धाद् ग्रहणाद् अन्तर्व्यात्प्त्यभावेऽप्येवमिति व्यथैव बहिरुदाहृतिः । नहि सहदशनात् । क्वचित् सर्वत्र तद्रपता सिध्यति व्यभिचारदर्शनात् । तस्माद् अगृहीतसम्बन्धे प्रतिपाद्ये प्रमाणे न प्रतिबन्धः । साध्यस्तसिद्धौ तत एव साध्यसिद्धरकिञ्चित्करी दृष्टान्तादाहृतिरिति न्यायविद्वांसो विदुरवबुध्यन्ते इति । इह च प्रकरणे शेषावयवानां उपनयनिगमनशुद्धिपञ्चकलक्षणानां संक्षिप्तरुचिसत्त्वानुग्रहपरत्वात् अस्य यद्यपि साक्षाल्लक्षणं नोक्तं तथाप्यत एव प्रतिपादितावयवत्रयं बुद्धिमद्भिरुन्नेयम् । यतोऽवयवापेक्षया जघन्यमध्यमोत्कृष्टाः तिस्रः कथा भवन्ति इति । तत्र हेतुप्रतिपादनमात्रं जघन्या, याद्यवयवनिवेदनं मध्यमा,

Page #48

40
NYATAVATARA.
संपूर्णदशावयवकथनमुत्कृष्टा । तत्र इह मध्यमायाः साक्षात् कथनेन जघन्योत्कृष्टे अर्थतः सूचयति; तत् सद्भावस्य प्रमाणसिद्धत्वात् इति ॥२०॥
प्रतिपाद्यस्य प्रतिवादिनः यः कश्चित् सिद्धः प्रतीतावारूढ एव स पक्षाभासः । साध्यस्यैव पक्षत्वात् सिद्धस्य साधनानहत्वाद् अतिप्रसक्तस्तथाऽक्षलिंगतोऽध्यक्षहेतुभ्यां लोकस्ववचनाभ्यां च बाधितस्तिरस्कृतो यः स पक्षाभासस्तत्र प्रतिपाद्यसिद्धो यथा पौद्गलिको घटः । सौगतं वा प्रति सर्व क्षणिकमित्यादि । प्रत्यक्षबाधितो यथा निरंशानि स्वलक्षणानि परस्परविविक्तौ वा सामान्यविशेषाविति । अनुमानबाधितो यथा नास्ति सर्वज्ञ इति । लोकबाधितो यथा गम्या माता इति । स्ववचनबाधितो यथा न सन्ति सर्वे भावा इति ॥ २१ ॥ _ हेतालक्षणम् असाधारणधर्मरूपं यदीरितं गमितम् अनेकार्थत्वाद्दा धातोः प्रतिपादितं स्वार्थानुमानप्रस्तावे। यदुतान्यथानुपपन्नत्वमिति । तस्य अप्रतीतिरनध्यवसायः, संदेहो दोलायमानता, विपर्यासो वैपरीत्यनिर्णयाऽप्रतीतिश्च संदेदेहश्च विपर्यासश्चेति द्वन्द्वः । तदाभता हेत्वाभासता ॥२२॥
यः कश्चिदप्रतीतः प्रतीत्याऽगोचरीकृतोऽनिश्चितः सोऽसिद्धनामा हेत्वाभासः ।...यस्तु अन्यथैव साध्यं विनैव विपक्ष एवेति यावत् उपपद्यते सम्भवति स विरुद्धाभिधानः । यः पुनः अन्यथापि साध्यविपर्ययेणापि युक्तो घटमानकोऽपि शब्दात् साध्येनापि सोऽत्र व्यतिकरेऽनैकान्तिकसंज्ञो ज्ञातव्य इति । तत्र प्रतिप्राणिप्रसिद्धप्रमाणप्रतिष्ठितानेकान्तविरुद्धबुद्धिभिः कणभक्षाक्षपादबुद्धादिशिष्यकैरुपन्यस्यमानाः सर्व एव हेतवः।

Page #49

NYAYAVATARA.
41
तद्यथा एकान्तेन नित्यः शब्दोऽनित्यो वा । सत्त्वात् उत्पत्तिमत्त्वात् कृतकत्वात् प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वात् इत्याह ।...कल्पनारचितसत्ताकानां च सर्वशक्तिविरहरूपतया निःस्वभावत्वात् । तथापि तेषां साधनत्वे साध्यमपि निःस्वभावमिति । खरविषाणं शशविषाणस्य साधनमापद्यते इति शोभनः साध्यसाध. नव्यवहारः ।...एवं हि नभःपुण्डरीकं तत्र नास्तीति सत्तादिकमपि कल्पयितुं न शक्यमिति प्रसज्येत ।...अनित्यवादी नित्यवादिनं प्रति प्रमाणयति । सर्व क्षणिक सत्त्वात्...... नित्यवादी पुनः एवं प्रमाणयति । सर्व नित्यं सत्त्वात् । तस्माद् अमी सर्व एव हेतवः सन्तोऽनेकान्तमन्तरेण नोपपद्यन्ते इति तमेव प्रतिपादयितुम् ईशते विमूढबुद्धिभिः पुनः विपक्षसाधनार्थम् उपन्यस्यमाना विवक्षया प्रसिद्ध विरुद्धानकान्तिकतामाबिभ्रतीति स्थितम् ॥ २३ ॥
दृष्टान्तदोषा दृष्टान्ताभासा इत्यर्थः ।...साध्यं गम्यम् आदिशब्दात् साधनोभयपरिग्रहः। तद्विकलास्तच्छ्रन्या आदिशब्दात् सन्दिग्धसाध्यसाधनोभयधमा गृह्यन्ते । किंभूता पते इत्याह । अपगतं लक्षणं येभ्यस्ते तथा च ते हेतवश्च तेभ्य उत्था उत्थान येषां तेअपलक्षणहेतूत्थाः। इदं च प्रायकं विशेषणं, सम्यग हेतावपि वक्तदोषवशात् दृष्टान्ताभासतोपपत्तेः यथा नित्यानित्यः शब्दः श्रावणत्वात् घटवदिति । तत्र साध्यविकलो यथा, भ्रान्तम् अनुमानं प्रमाणत्वात् प्रत्यक्षवत् प्रत्यक्षस्य भ्रान्तताविकलत्वात्...... । साधनविकलो यथा, जाग्रत्संवेदनंभ्रान्तं प्रमाणत्वात् स्वप्नसंवेदनवत् स्वप्नसंवेदनस्य प्रमाणतावैकल्यात्... । उभयविकलो यथा, नास्ति सर्वशः प्रत्यक्षाद्यनुप

Page #50

42
NYAYAYATAA.
लब्धत्वात् घटवत् घटस्य सरचात् प्रत्यक्षादिभिरुपलब्धत्वाच्च । सन्दिग्धसाध्यधरो यथा, वीतरागोऽयं मरणधर्मत्वात् रथ्यापुरुषवत् रथ्यापुरुषे वीतरागत्वस्य सन्दिग्धत्वात्...। सन्दिग्धसाधनधम्मो यथा, मरणधमाऽयं पुरुषो रागादिमत्त्वात् रथ्यापुरुषवत् द्रष्टव्यः पुरुषे रागादिमत्वस्य सन्दिग्धत्वात् वीतरागस्यापि तथा सम्भवादिति । सन्दिग्धोभयधर्मो यथा, असर्वज्ञोऽयं रागादिमत्त्वात् रथ्यापुरुषवत् इति रथ्यापुरुषे प्रदर्शितन्यायेन उभयस्यापि सन्दिग्धत्वादिति । ननु च परैरन्यदपि दृष्टान्ताभासत्रयमुक्तं तद्यथा अनन्वयाऽप्रदर्शितान्वयो विपरीतान्वयश्चेति । तत्र अनन्वयो यथा, रागादिमान् विवक्षितः पुरुषो वक्तत्वाद् इष्टपुरुषवदिति यद्यपि किलेटपुरुषे रागादिमत्त्वं वक्तत्वं च साध्यसाधनधम्मैौ दृष्टौ तथापि यो यो वक्ता स स रागादिमानिति व्याप्तपसिद्धरनन्वयोऽयं दृष्टान्तः । तथा अप्रदर्शितान्वयो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् घटवदिति । अत्र यद्यपि वास्तवोऽन्वयोऽस्ति तथापि वादिना वचनेन न प्रकाशित इति अप्रदर्शितान्वयो दृष्टान्तः । विपरीतान्वया यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् इति । हेतुमभिधाय यदनित्यं तत् कृतकं घटवदिति विपरीतव्याप्तिदर्शनात् विपरीतान्वयः ॥ २४ ॥
साध्याभावः साधनाभावव्याप्तौ दयितुमभिप्रेयते यस्मिन् तद् वैधय॑म् । तेनात्र दृष्टान्तदोषा न्यायविदीरिता इति दत्तार्थ साध्यसाधनयुग्मानांगम्यगमकोभयानाम् अनिवृत्तः अविवर्त्तनात् च शब्दस्य व्यवहितप्रयोगत्वात् संशयाञ्च निवृत्तिसंदेहाच्चेत्यर्थः । तदनेन षड़ दृष्टान्ताभासाः सूचिताः । तद्यथा साध्याव्यतिरेकी (१), साधनाव्यतिरेकी (२), साध्यसाधनाव्यतिरेकी

Page #51

NYAYAVATARA.
43
(३), तथा सन्दिग्धसाध्यव्यतिरेकः (४), सन्दिग्धसाधनव्यतिरेकः (५), सन्दिग्धसाध्यसाधनव्यतिरेकश्चेति (६) । तत्र साध्याव्यतिरेकी यथा, भ्रान्तमनुमानं प्रमाणत्वात् इत्यत्र वैधHदृष्टान्ता यत् पुनर्भ्रान्तं न भवति न तत् प्रमाणं तद्यथा स्वप्नज्ञानमिति स्वप्नज्ञानाद् भ्रान्ततानिवृत्तेः साध्याव्यतिरेकित्वमिति । साधनाव्यतिरेकी यथा, प्रत्यक्ष निर्विकल्पकं प्रमाणत्वादिति । अत्र वैधय॑दृष्टान्तो यत् पुनः सविकल्पकं न तत् प्रमाणं तद्यथाऽनुमानमनुप्रमाणताऽनिवृत्तः साधनाव्यतिरेकित्वम् । उभयाव्यतिरेकी यथा, नित्यानित्यः शब्दः सत्त्वात् इत्यत्र वैधय॑दृष्टान्तो यः पुनर्न नित्यानित्यः स न सन् तद्यथा घटः घटादुभयस्यापि अव्यावृत्तेरुभयाव्यतिरेकित्वमिति । तथा सन्दिग्धसाध्यव्यतिरेकः, असर्वज्ञा अनाता वा कपिलादयः आर्यसत्यचतुष्टयाप्रतिपादकत्वादिति । अत्र वैधय॑दृष्टान्तः यः पुनः सर्वज्ञ प्राप्तो वा असौ आर्यसत्यचतुष्टयं प्रत्यपीपदत् तद्यथा शौद्धोदनिरिति । अयं च साध्यव्यतिरेकी वा आर्यसत्यचतुष्टयस्य दुःखसमुदयमार्गनिरोधलक्षणस्य प्रमाणबाधितत्वेन तद्भाषकस्य असर्वज्ञतानाप्ततोपपत्तेः ... ... तस्मात् शौद्धोदनेः सकाशाद् असर्वज्ञतानाप्ततालक्षणस्य साध्यस्य व्यावृत्तिः सन्दिग्धेति सन्दिग्धसाध्यव्यतिरेकित्वमिति । सन्दिग्धसाधनव्यतिरेको यथा, अनादेयवाक्यःकश्चिदविक्षितः पुरुषो रागादिमत्त्वादित्यत्र वैधय॑दृष्टान्तो यः पुनः आदेयवाक्यो न स रागादिमान् तद्यथा सुगत इति... सुगतात् रागादिमत्वव्यावृत्तिसंशयात् सन्दिग्धसाधनव्यतिरेकित्वमिति । सन्दिग्धसाध्यसाधनव्यतिरेको यथा, वीतरागाः कपिलादयः करुणास्पदेषु

Page #52

44
NYAYAVATARA.
अपि अकरुणापरीतचित्ततया दत्तनिजकमांसशकलत्वादिति । अत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो ये पुनर्वीतरागास्ते करुणापरीतचित्ततया दत्तनिजमांसशकलाः तद्यथा बोधिसत्त्वा इत्यत्र साधनसाध्यधर्मयेार्बोधिसत्वेभ्या व्यावृत्तिः सन्दिग्धा ततः प्रतिपादितप्रमागावैकल्यात् न ज्ञायते कि ते रागादिमन्तः उत वीतरागास्तथाऽ नुकम्प्येषु किं स्वपिशितखण्डानि दत्तवन्तो नेति वा अतः सन्दिग्धसाध्यसाधनव्यतिरेकित्वमिति । परैः परेऽपि दृष्टान्ताभासास्त्रया विमृश्यभाषितया दर्शितास्तद्यथाऽव्यतिरेकोऽप्रदर्शितव्यतिरेकोऽविपरीतव्यतिरेकश्चेति । ते अस्माभिः प्रयुक्तत्वात्तु दर्शयितव्याः । तथाहि अव्यतिरेकस्तैर्दर्शिता यथा, अवीतरागः कश्चिद् विवक्षितः पुरुषो वक्तत्वादित्यत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो यः पुनः वीतरागो न स वक्ता यथेोपलखण्ड इति यद्यपि किलोपलखण्डाद् उभयं व्यावृत्तं तथापि व्याप्तया व्यतिरेकासिद्धेः अव्यतिरेकित्वमिति । तथाहि अप्रदर्शितव्यतिरेकस्तैरुक्तो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् आकाशवदित्यत्र विद्यमानोऽपि व्यतिरेको वादिना वचनेन उद्भावित इति दुष्टता । विपरीतव्यतिरेकः पुनरभिहिता यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वाद् इत्यत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्ता यदकृतकं तन्नित्यं भवति यथाऽऽकाशमिति इत्यत्र विपर्यस्तव्यतिरेक प्रदर्शनात् विपरीतव्यतिरेकित्वम् ॥ २५ ॥
साध्यते प्रतिपाद्यप्रतीता आरोहाते तु मेयं येन तत् साधनं तच अनेकरूपं प्राक प्रत्यपादि । तद्यथा । कचित् हेतुरेवैकः, कचित् पक्षहेतू, क्वचित् पक्षहेतुदृष्टान्ताः क्वचित् ते एव सोपनयाः, क्वचित् सनिगमनाः, क्वचित् एकैकतच्छुद्धिवृद्ध्येति । ... तत्रेह सम्यक्साधनस्य दूषयितुमशक्यत्वात् साधनाभास एव
...
3

Page #53

NYAYAVATARA.
45
तत्सामोपपत्तेः ...। तत्र प्रोक्तदोषाणां प्रत्यक्षादिनिराकृतपक्षासिद्धादिहेतुसाध्यादिविकलदृष्टान्ताद्युपन्यासलक्षणानामुद्भावन प्रानिकानां पुरतः प्रकाशनं यत् तद् दृष्यते स्वाभिप्रेतसाध्यप्रत्यायनवैकल्यलक्षणं विकृति नीयते साधनमनेनेति दूषणमिति ज्ञ यम् ॥ २६॥
सकलं समस्तम् आवृणोति आवियते वाअनेनेत्यावरणम् । तत् स्वरूपप्रच्छादनं कर्मेत्यर्थः । सकलं च तदावरणां च सकलावरणं तेन मुक्तो रहितः आत्मा स्वरूपं यस्य तत् तथा । अतएव केवलम् असहायम् आवरणक्षयोपशमविचित्रतयैव बोधस्य नानाकारस्य प्रवृत्तेः । सामस्त्येन पुनः आवरणनिर्दलने विबन्धकारणवैकल्याद् एकाकारतयैव तस्य विवर्तनाद् अतो शानान्तरनिरपेक्षं यत् प्रकाशते प्रथते निरुपाधिकं द्योतते इत्यर्थः। तत् परमार्थतः प्रत्यक्षं तदिदं सकलावरणमुक्तात्मेति हेतुद्वारेण तथा केवलं तत् प्रकाशते इति स्वरूपता निरूप्य अधुना कार्यद्वारेण निरूपयन्नाह । सकलार्थात्मनां समस्तवस्तुस्वरूपाणां सततप्रतिभासनम् अनवरतप्रकाशनं सकलार्थात्मसततप्रतिभासनमिति प्रतिभास्यतेऽनेनेति प्रतिभासनम् आत्मनो धर्मरूपतया भेदवद्विवक्षितं शानमिति यावत् । अस्य च पारमार्थिकत्वं निरुपचरितशब्दार्थोपपत्तेः । तथाहि । अक्षशब्दो जीवपायस्ततश्चाक्षं प्रति वर्तते इति प्रत्यक्षं यत्रात्मनः साक्षाद्वरापारः । व्यावहारिकं पुनरिन्द्रियव्यवहितात्मव्यापारसम्पाद्यत्वात् परमार्थतः परोक्षमेव धूमादग्निशानवत्तिरोधानाविशेषात् ॥ २७॥
द्विविधं हि प्रमाणस्य फलं साक्षाद् असाक्षाच अनन्तरं व्यवहितं चेत्यर्थः । तत्र साक्षाद् अज्ञानम् अनध्यवसायः

Page #54

46
NYAYAVATARA,
प्रमेयापरिच्छित्तिस्तस्य विनिवर्तनं विशेषेण प्रलयापादन प्रमाणस्य फलम् अज्ञानोद्दलनद्वारेण तस्य प्रवृत्तेः तस्य सर्वानर्थमूलतया प्रमात्रपकारित्वात् तन्निवर्तनस्य प्रयाजनता युक्तव । एतच्चानन्तरप्रयोजनं सर्वज्ञानामेकरूपत्वात् सामान्येनोक्तम् । व्यवहितप्रयोजनं पुनः विभागेनाह । केवलस्य सर्वशशानस्य सुख वैषयिकं सुखातोतपरमालादानुभव उपेक्षा साक्षात् समस्तानुभवेऽपि हानोपादानोपादानेच्छाभावान्मध्यस्थवृत्तिता ते सुखोपेक्षे फलमित्यर्थः । शेषस्य तद्वरतिरिक्तप्राकृतलोकप्रमाणस्य आदानं ग्रहणं हानं परित्यागस्तयोरादानहानया?ः बुद्धिरादानहानधीः, सा फलमिति यावत् । ततश्च प्रादेयानां सम्यगदर्शननकचन्दनादीनां या आदित्सा तथा, हेयानां मिथ्यादर्शनादिविषकण्टकानां या जिहासा प्रमाणसाध्या प्रमाणात्तसिद्धेः ॥ २८ ॥
अनेके बहवोऽन्ता अंशा धर्मा वा आत्मनः स्वरूपाणि यस्य तद् अनेकात्मकं कि तद्वस्तु बहिरन्तश्च गोचरः विषयः सर्वसंविदां समस्तसंवित्तीनामनेन अनेकान्तमन्तरेण संवेदनप्रसरव्यवच्छे दं दर्शयति ... । एक इत्यादि अनन्तधर्माध्यासितं वस्तु साभिप्रेतैकधर्मविशिष्टं नयति प्रापयति संवेदनमारोहयतीति नयः प्रमाणप्रवृत्तेरुत्तरकालभावी परामर्श इत्यर्थस्तस्य विषयः प्रमाणस्य गोचरो मतोऽभिप्रेत एकदेशेन अनित्यत्वादिधर्मलक्षणेन विशिष्टः पररूपेभ्यो व्यवच्छिन्नेत्यर्थः। ... सर्वसंग्राहिसत्ताभिप्रायपरिकल्पनाद्वारेण सप्त नयाः प्रतिपादिताः, तद्यथा । नैगम-संग्रह-व्यवहार-ऋजुसूत्र-शब्द-समभिरूढ़ एवंभूता नया इत्यतोऽस्माभिरपि से एव वर्ण्यन्ते कथमेते सर्वाभि

Page #55

NYAYAVATARA.
47
प्रायसंग्राहकाः इति चेत् । उच्यते । इति प्रायस्तावद् अर्थद्वारेण शब्दद्वारेण वा प्रवर्तत गत्यन्तराभावात् । अर्थश्च सामान्यरूपो विशेषरूपो वा शब्दोऽपि रूढितो व्युत्पत्तितश्च व्युत्पत्तिरपि सामान्यनिमित्तप्रयुक्ता तत्कालभाविनिमित्त प्रयुक्ता वा स्यात् । ... येऽपि परस्परविशकलितौ सामान्यविशेषरै इच्छन्ति तत् समुदायरूपा नैगमः । ये पुनः केवलं सामान्यं वाञ्छन्ति तत् समूहसंपाद्यः संग्रहः। ये पुनरनपेक्षितशास्त्रीयसामान्यविशेषं लोकव्यवहारमवतरन्तं घटादिकं पदार्थम् अभिप्रयन्ति तन्निचयजात्या व्यवहारः । ये तु क्षणक्षयिणः परमाणुलक्षणा विशेषाः सत्या इति मन्यन्ते तत्संघातघटित ऋजुसूत्र इति । तथा ये रूढितः शब्दानां प्रवृत्तिं वाञ्छन्ति तन्निवहसाध्यः शब्द इति । ये तु व्युत्पत्तितो ध्वनीनां प्रवृत्तिं वाञ्छन्ति नान्यथा तवारजन्यं समभिरुढ इति । ये तु वर्तमानकालभाविव्युत्पत्तिनिमित्तमधिकृत्य शब्दाः प्रवर्तन्ते नान्यथेति मन्यन्ते तत्संघटितः खल्वेवंभूत इति । तदेवं न कश्चन विकल्पोऽस्ति वस्तुगोचरो योऽत्र नयसप्तके नान्तर्यातीति सर्वाभिप्रायसंग्राहका एते इति स्थितम् । ... तथाहि नैगमनयदर्शनानुसारिणौ नैयायिकवैशेषिको, संग्रहाभिप्रायप्रवृत्ताः सर्वेऽपि अद्वैतवादाः सांख्यदर्शनं च, व्यवहारनयानुपातिप्रायश्चार्वाकदर्शनम् , ऋजुसूत्राकूतप्रवृत्तबुद्धयस्ताथागताः, शब्दादिनयमतावलम्बिनो वैयाकरणादयः ॥... तथाहि नयति केनचिद् अंशेन विशिष्टमर्थ प्रापयति योऽभिप्रायः स नयः ॥ २९॥
इह त्रिविधं श्रुतम् । तद्यथा । मिथ्याश्रुतं, नयश्रुतं, स्याद्वादश्रुतम् । तत्र श्रूयते इति श्रुतमागमः। मिथ्याऽलीकं श्रुतं

Page #56

48
NYAYAVATARA.
मिथ्याश्रुतम् । तश्च दुर्नयाभिप्रायप्रवृत्तं तीर्थिकसम्बन्धि निर्गोचरत्वात् । तथा नयैः हेतुभूतैः श्रुतं नयश्रुतम् । एतव्य अर्हदागमान्तर्गतमेव एकनयाभिप्रायप्रतिबद्धम् ।... तथा निर्दिश्यमानधर्मव्यतिरिक्ताशेषधर्मान्तरसंसूचकेन स्यात् युक्तो वादोऽभिप्रेतधर्मवचनं स्याद्वादः । तदात्मकं श्रुतं तत् किं भूतमुच्यते इत्यत्राह । संपूर्ण विकलः स चासावर्थश्च तद्विनिश्चायि तन्निर्णयहेतुत्वाद् एवमभिधीयते । नयानां नैगमादीनाम् एकनिष्ठानां एकधर्मग्रहणपय्र्यवसितानां श्रुतवर्त्मनि आगममार्गे प्रवृत्तेः तदेकैकाभिप्रायप्रतिबद्ध संपूर्णार्थविनिश्चायि
प्रवर्त्तनान्न तत्समुदायस्यैव संपूर्णार्थविनिश्चायकत्वाद्
इत्याकूतम्
॥ ३० ॥
...
स्वान्यौ आत्मपरी निर्भासयितुम् उद्योतयितुं शीलमस्येति स्वान्यनिर्भासी स्वस्वरूपार्थयेाः प्रकाशक इति यावत् । विवर्त्तनम् अपरापरपर्य्यायेषु गमनं विवृत्तिः परिणामः सा विद्यते यस्येति विवृत्तिमान् । स्व आत्मा संवेद्यते अनेनेति स्वसंवेदनं सेन सम्यक् सिद्धः प्रतिष्ठितः प्रतीतो वा स्वसंवेदनसंसिद्धः । क्षितिः पृथिवी आदिर्येषां तानि क्षित्यादीनि । आदिशब्दाद् अम्बु तेजोवाय्वाकाशानि गृहयन्ते । न विद्यते आत्मा स्वरूपमस्येति अनात्मकः क्षित्यादिस्वरूपो न भवति इत्यर्थः । ... स्वान्यनिर्भासीत्यनेन प्रागुक्तस्वपराभासिप्रमाणविशेषवन् मीमांसकान् परोक्षबुद्धिवादिनो योगाचारांश्च ज्ञानमात्रवादिनः प्रतिक्षिपति । कथं ज्ञानज्ञानिनोः कथंचिदभेदेन तदुक्तन्यायाविशेषादिति कर्त्ता भोक्तेति विशेषणद्वयेन सांख्यमतं विकुट्टयति । विवृत्तिमानित्यमुना तु एकान्तनित्यं अपरि
...

Page #57

NYAYAVATARA.
49
ग्रामिनं नैयायिकवैशेषिकादिप्रकल्पितं प्रमातारं निरस्यति सर्वथाऽविचलितरूपस्य अर्थग्रहणपरिणामानुपपत्तेः ॥ ३१ ॥
प्रमाणानि प्रत्यक्षादीनि आदिशब्दान्नयपरिग्रहः । तेषां व्यवस्था प्रतिनियतलक्षणादिरूपा मय्यादा सा इयमनन्तरोक्तस्थित्या प्रकीर्त्तितेति । ... सर्वसंव्यवहर्त्तृणां लौकिकतीर्थिकभेदभिन्नसमस्तव्यवहारवतां प्रसिद्धाऽपि रूढाऽपि तदप्रसिद्धौ निखिलव्यवहारोच्छेदप्रसंगात् । प्रकीर्त्तिता संशब्दिता अव्युत्पन्नविप्रतिपन्नव्यामोहापोहायेति गम्यते ॥ ३२ ॥
...
स्याद्वादकेसरिसुभीषणनादभीतेरुत्तस्तलोलनयनान् प्रपलाय्यमानान् । हे दुर्नयाश्रितकुतीर्थिमृगाननन्यत्राणान् विहाय जिनमेत्य तमाश्रयध्वम् ॥ भक्तिर्मया भगवति प्रकटीकृतेयं तच्छासनांशकथनान्न मतिः स्वकीया । मोहादतो यदिह किंचिदभूदसाधु तत् साधवः कृतकृपा मयि शोधयन्तु ॥ न्यायावतारविवृति विधिना विधित्साः सिद्धः पुनर्थ इह पुण्यचयस्ततो मे । नित्यः परार्थकरणेोद्यतमाभवान्तात् भूयाज्जिनेन्द्र मतलंपटमेव चेतः ॥ इति न्यायावतारविवृतिः समाप्ता । कृतिरियं सितपट्ट श्रीसिद्धसेनदिवाकरव्याख्यानकस्य तर्कप्रकरणवृत्तेरिति ॥
Printed by Apurva Krishna Bose, at the Indian Press, Allahabad,

Page #58


Page #59

THE LIBRARY OF JAINA LITERATURE
Vol. 1.- The Paramatma Prakash of Sri Yogindra Acharya, by Rickhab Das Jain, B.A. Price Rs. 2 or 3s.
Vol. II. The Nyayavatara. --The Earliest Jaina work on Pure Logic of Siddha Sena Divakara. Edited by Mahamahopadhyaya D. Jatis Chandra Vidyabhusana MA., Ph. D. Siddhanta - Mahodadhi. Pre Re. Torts. 60. 70;
Vol. III. --The Naya Karnika. A Primer on Jaina Logic by Mr. Mohan Lal D. Desai, B.A, LL.B., Editor, Jaina Swetambara Conferenco Herald, Bombay. Price Re. I or Is. 6d.
Vol. IV. The Jaina Law of Inheritance or Bhadrabahu Samhita. Edited by Justice J. L. Jaini, M.A. Price Re. 1-4 or 2s.
Vol. V. Husn-i-Avval. (In Urdu.) An original work on Jainism, by Mr. Jineshwar Dass Jain, late Editor, Zubano, Delhi. Price Rs. 1-8 or 3s..
Vol. VI. -Atam-Khyati Samayasaro, of Sri Kundkundacharya.-. Translated from Sanskrit into easy and lucid Hindi by Jaina Dharma Bhusana Brahmchari Sri Sital Prasad Ji, Hony. Principal, Syadvada Jaina Mahavidyalaya, Benares, and Editor, Jaina Mitra.' Bombay.
Vol. VII. Trishasti-Shalaka-Purusha Charitra, of Sri Hemchandracharya. By Prof. Amulya Charan Vidyabhusana.
Vol. VIII.- Atmanushashana, of Sri Guna-Bhadra Acharya. Translated into English by J. L. Jaini, M.A., Bar-at-Law. and Judge, High Court, Indore.
Vol. IX. Life and Works of Sri Nemichandra Siddhanta Chakravarti and Chamundaraya, in Hindi, with 12 Plates by Kumar Devendra Prasad of Arrah.
Vol. X. -Thiru-Nuttaradhati..By Mr. C. S. Mallinath, Manan. gudi. Price 8 Ans. or Is.
THE JAINA SCRIPTURE GIFT SERIES. (1) Jainism is not Atheism, and the six Dravyas of Jaina Philosophy by Mr. H. Warren, Honorary Secretary, Jaina Literature Society, London. Price 2 Ans. or 2d.
(2) Pure Thoughts or Samayak Path.By Ajit Prasada, M.A., LL.B. Price 2 As. 2 d.

Page #60
AN IMPORTANT PUBLICATION THE KEY OF KNOWLEDGE By CHAMPAT RAI JAIN, Bar-at-Law Over 1,100 pages Handsomely bound in cloth with gilt letters. Price Rs. 10 or 16s PUBLISR 115HING AINA PO HOUSE . 93 JHI U C ARRAN Indian Agents Messrs. THACKER SPINK & Co., Calcutta. THEOSOPHICAL PUBLISHING HOUSE, Benares. London Agents : PROBASTHAIN & Co., 41, Great Russel Street, London, W. C. American Agents : THE OPEN COURT PUBLISHING Co., Chicago.: