Parikshamukham

Author(s): Saratchandra Ghoshal
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/004085/1

Page #1

THE
SACRED BOOKS OF THE JAINAS
Edited
WITH CO-OPERATION OF VARIOUS SCHOLARS
S. C. GHOSHAL, M. A., B. L.
Sarasvatī, Kavyatirtha, Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Bhārati. Sometime: Professor of Sanskrit, Edward College, Pabna ( Bengal ),
and Professor of English and Philosophy, Hindu College, Delhi ( Punjab ), Member, Legislative Council,
District Magistrate, Cooch Behar.
Volume XI
PARĪKSĀMUKHAM
PRINTED BY
KIRAN KUMAR Roy, AT METROPOLITAN PRINTING & PUBLISHING HOUSE, LTD.
90, LOWER CIRCULAR ROAD, CALCUTTA.

Page #2

Page #3

PARĪKSĀMUKHAM
By
MĀNIKYANANDĪ
(WITH PRAMEYA-RATNAMĀLĀ BY ANANTAVIRYA)
EDITED WITH TRANSLATION, INTRODUCTION, NOTES AND AN ORIGINAL COMMENTARY IN ENGLISH

By
SARAT CHANDRA GHOSHAL, M. A., B. L. Sarasvati, Kavyatirtha, Vidyabhuṣaṇa, Bharat.
Jubilee Post Graduate Scholar, Bankim Chandra Gold Medallist and Jyotish Chandra Medallist (University of Calcutta); Ewart Prizeman,
Scottish Church College; Author of "The Digamvara Saints of India", "Varuni", "Yautuk", "Vairagyer Pathe", Editor of "Kriyayogasara", "Upakathā", "Gitavali", "Sundarakanda Rāmāyaṇa”, "Dravya-samgraha", "Vedanta Paribhāṣā" etc.
PUBLISHED BY
THE CENTRAL JAINA PUBLISHING HOUSE, AJITASRAM, LUCKNOW.
1940

Page #4

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Original Texts with Translations, Commentary and Notes.
Volume I. Davva-Samgaha ( Dravya-Sangraha )
of Nemi Chandra Siddhānta-Chakra
varti with Brahmadeva's Commentary Price Rs. 5-8 Volume II. Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra of Umāsvāmi Price Rs. 4-8 Volume III. Panchāstikāyasamayasāra of Kundakundāchārya
Price Rs. 4-8 Volume IV. Puruşārtha-siddhyupāya of Amrita Chandra Sūri
Price Rs. 4-8 Volume V. Gommata-sāra (Jiva Kānda) of Nemi .
Chandra Siddhānta-Chakravarti Price Rs. 5-8 . Volume VI. Gommata-sāra (Karma Kānda) Part I
of Nemi Chandra Siddhānta Chakravarti
Price Rs. 4-8 Volume VII. Ātmānušāsana of Guņabhadrāchārya Price Rs. 2-8 Volume VIII. Samaya-sıra of Kundakundāchārya Price Rs. 3-0 Volume IX. Niyama-sāra of Kundakundāchārya Price Rs. 2-8 Volume X. Gommata-sāra (Karma Kanda) Part II of Nemi Chandra Siddhānta Chakra
Price Rs. 4-8
varti
·
All available at :THE CENTRAL JAINA PUBLISHING HOUSE,
Ajitasram, Lucknow.

Page #5

Parikṣamukham is a standard work on Jaina
Earlier writers
or
on Jaina Nyaya. Nyaya philosophy. The earliest writers on this subject were Kundakundacharya and Umāsvāmi Umāsvāti (1st century A. D.). Umāsvāmi wrote his work Tattvarthādhigama Sūtra in the form of aphorisms. Parikṣāmukham is also written in the same style. Commentators to Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra were many and the most famous of them developed this subject in their commentaries. The following among them are worthy of special mention (1) Pujyapada Devanandi, a Digamvara, the writer of Sarvartha-siddhi ( 5th century A. D.); (2) author of Gandhahasti Mahabhāṣya (Samantabhadra according to the Digamvara view, or Siddhasena Divakara according to the Svetamvara view or Siddhasena Gani according to another view); (3) Akalanka, a Digam vara, the writer of Tattvartharaja-varttika (7th century A. D.); and (4) Vidyanandi or Vidyananda, a Digamvara, author of Tattvärtha-sloka-varttika (9th century A. D.).
Umāsvāmi.
Kundakunda
charya.]
Samantabhadra.

INTRODUCTION
Kundakundacharya is the author of many works the most famous of them being Pravachanasāra, Panchastikaya-samayasāra, Samayasāra and Niyama
sāra.
Samantabhadra (2nd century A. D.?) a Digamvara scholar saint whose date has not been definitely ascertained) was the author of the famous work Apta-mimāmsā. Akalanka Deva wrote a commentary on this work entitled Asta-sati. Vidyananda or Vidyanandi wrote a commentary on Aṣṭa-sati entitled Aṣṭa-sahasri. Yuktyanusāsana is another

Page #6

Akalanka.
important work of Samanta-bhadra among his
voluminous writings. Siddhasena Siddhasena Divākara, a śvetāmvara (6th or Divakara. 7th century A. D.) wrote Nyāyāvatāra a short
treatise in verse on Jaina Nyāya. A commentary on this was written by Siddharşi ( 10th century A. D.) and Chandraprabha Sūri (12th century A. D.). Siddhasena's other works are Dvātrinsikā and Sammati Tarka the latter commented on by Abhayadeva Sūri ( 10th century A. D. ).
Haribhadra Sūri the author of ŞaddarśanaHaribhadra.
samuchchaya lived about 700—770 A. D.* Guņaratna ( 15th century A. D.) wrote a commentary of this work. . Akalanka Deva the great Digamvara writer developed in elaborate treatises the subject of Jaina · Nyāya philosophy. His Tattvārtha-rāja-vārttika, Aştaśati, Nyāya-viniśchaya, Lagbiya-straya, Pramāņa-sangraha etc. show the masterly way in which he handled this subject and all writers who followed
him, modelled their writings on his treatises. Manikyanandi. Māņikyanandi the author of Parikşāmukham was
the first writer who condensed the subject in the form of aphorisms taking materials from Akalanka's works. Many commentaries of Parikşāmukham the most famous among them being Prameyakamala-mārtaņda by Prabhāchandra and Prameyaratna-mālā by Ananta-virya came to be written and a large number of commentaries on Prameya-ratnamālā exist in manuscript form in many Jain libraries scattered throughout India. The work Parikšā
* "far af 81 FAT fhuiz" an article in Hindi published in Jain Sāhitya Sānsodhaka, Bhāga 1, Anka I,

Page #7

Deva-Suri
Hemachandra.
Later works on Jaina Nyaya.

iii
mukham received such a celebrity that Deva-sūri (11th century A. D.) wrote Pramāṇa-naya-tattvālokālankara with its commentary Syadvāda-ratnākara closely imitating the aphorisms of Parikṣāmukham and substituting merely synonyms in many of the aphorisms. Ratnaprabha-suri (12th century A. D.) wrote a commentary Syadvāda-ratnākarāvatarika to Syadvāda-ratnākara. Rājasekhara ( 14th century A. D.) wrote a Pañjika on Ratnaprabha's work and Jñanachandra (14th century A. D.) wrote a Tippana to the same.
The next great writer was Hemachandra who wrote voluminous works on almost every subject. His celebrated work Dvatrinsika on the model of Siddhasena's work has been commented on in detail by Mallişena (13th century) in a commentary entitled Syādvadamañjari in which different systems of Hindu, Bauddha, Chārvāka and other systems of philosophy have been reviewed and criticised. His famous work on Jaina Nyaya is Pramaṇamimāmsa a portion only of which has up to this date been discovered.
Many other more or less important works on Jaina Nyaya such as Nyāya-dipikā of Dharmabhuṣaṇa, Saptabhangitarangini of Vimala-dasa, Patraparikṣā and Apta-parikṣa of Vidyānanda, Pramālakṣma and Pramāṇa-parikṣā of Vidyānandi, Jainatarka-bhāṣā, Jaina-tarka-varttika, Naya-chakram, Naya-pradipam, Naya-rahasyam, Nayopadeśaḥ, Pramāṇa-nirṇayaḥ and innumerable glosses on the standard works and their commentaries already mentioned came to be written, but no new viewpoint was adopted by any of these later writers whose main object was to explain or amplify the view of older writers.

Page #8

The goal of
Nyaya philosophy.
iv
The real object of the Nyaya philosophy in the Hindu sastras was propounded as attainment of liberation1. In Brihadaraṇyaka Upanisad, the sage Yajnavalkya told his wife Maitreyi that we should learn about the soul, understand it and meditate on it. For proper understanding of the nature of a thing, help of the Nyaya philosophy is essential. It is said that we suffer misery because we have false knowledge regarding the soul, such as considering the body as soul. When we perceive the error of such a wrong belief, we get true knowledge". The Jain view also is that the Nyaya philosophy leads to right faith, right knowledge and right conduct which produce liberation1.
Difference in philosophical views is based on different kinds and methods of appreciation of the one eternal truth All Indian philosophies aim at
1. "fenfèm: " Gautama Nyāya Sūtra I. 1. “प्रमाणादि-पदार्थ- तत्वज्ञानान्निःश्रेयसं दृष्टं, नहि कचित् पदार्थों ज्ञायमानो हानोपादानोपेक्षा बुद्धिनिमित्तं न भवतीति । एवञ्च कृत्वा सर्वे पदार्थों ज्ञेयतया उपक्षिप्यन्ते इति । परन्तु निःश्रेयसमत्यादेस्तत्वज्ञानाद् भवति ।"

Nyaya-värttika by Udyotkara.
2. "आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो मैत्रेय्यात्मनो वा अरे दर्शनेन श्रवणेन मत्या वा विज्ञानेनेदं सर्वं विदितम् । ” Brihadaranyaka Upanisad. 4. 4. 5. Sankaracharya has mentioned that Manana as laid down in the word "Mantavya" is to be made by Tarka ":" This gives rise to the development of the Nyaya philosophy.
तः
3. " दोषनिमित्तानां तत्वज्ञानादहंकारनिवृत्तिः ।" Nyāya Sūtra, 4. 2. 1. “मिथ्योपलब्धिविनाशस्तत्वज्ञानात् ॥” Ibid. 4. 2. 3.
4. Dee Tagesau.

Page #9

V

the attainment of real happiness and destruction of misery. In Yogavasistha Rāmāyaṇa it is mentioned: "O Rama! the idea of creation consisting of Ahamkara, Manas, Buddhi etc. which have been described by me as modification of one, are differently described by the authors of Nyaya philosophy.. The Sankhya and Chārvāka philosophies have described the same differently. The followers of Jaimini (Mimamsã philosophy), Arhats (Jainas), Bauddhas, Vaiseṣikas and others of peculiar views like Pancharatras have described the same in different manner. All of them however will go to the same eternal goal as passengers from different places travelling at different times reach a particular city".1
The great masters of philosophy knew this truth and in ancient times though each propounded his own theory and even criticised the views of others, intolerance was absolutely absent. All great teachers and writers were always eager to learn what others have thought and said on a particular question and an attempt was always made to discuss a particular point from different aspects. There is indisputable
1. “अहंकारमनोबुद्धिदृष्टयः सृष्टिकल्पनाः । एकरूपतया प्रोक्ता या मया रघुनन्दन || unfuftaten are affeval: 1 argen pfèyà: ericâzanafazia zncze || जैमिनीयैश्चार्हतैश्च बौद्धैर्वैशेषिकैस्तथा । अन्यैरपि विचित्रैस्तैः पाञ्चरात्रादिभिस्तथा || सर्वैरपि च गन्तव्यं तैः पदं पारमार्थिकम् ।
fafazi Zamoled: guùæsfmarsaïì: 11”
Utpatti Prakarana 96. 48-51.

Page #10

Different
systems of
Indian philosophy.
Astika and Nastika
philosophies.
vi
evidence that Buddha discussed the views of the Jainas as well as of other sects in his time. There is evidence of such discussions by Sri Mahavira the twenty fourth Tirthankara of the Jainas.
The first attempt to give a concise view of the different systems of philosophy was made by Jain sage Haribhadra Suri in his Saddarśana-samuchchaya. In this work he has described (1) Bauddha (2) Nyaya (3) Sankhya (4) Jaina (5) Vaiseṣika and (6) Mimāmsā systems of philosophy.' We find that within Sankhya, he has also described Patañjala philosophy and within Mimamsa, he has dealt with Pūrva-mimāmsā as well as Uttara-mimāmsā or Vedanta. Thus though Haribhadra's work is named "A compendium of six philosophies", in reality it treats of eight systems of philosophy. In Vivekavilāsa by Jinadatta Sūri (13th century) the same enumeration has been followed. Rajasekhara Sūri (13th century) mentioning these six (really eight) systems of philosophy has stated that the Nastika views cannot be accepted as philosophies.

It is necessary to understand the difference of Astika and Nastika philosophies. Though Madhavacharya in his Sarvadarśana-sangraha has described sixteen systems of philosophy viz. (1) Chārvāka
1. "बौद्धं नैयायिकं सांख्यं जैनं वैशेषिकं तथा । जैमिनीयञ्च षड्विधानि दर्शनानाममून्यहो |”
Saddarśana-samuchchaya 3.
2. "जैन सांख्यं जैमिनीये योगे वैशेषिकं तथा । सौगतं दर्शनान्येवं नास्तिकं न तु दर्शनम् ॥”
Saddarśanasamuchchaya Page 1 (Yasovijaya series, Benares)

Page #11

vii
(2) Bauddha (3) Arhata (4) Rāmānuja (5) Madhava (6) Pasupata (7) Śaiva (8) Pratyavijñā (9) Raseśvara (10) Pāniņiya (11) Nyāya (12) Vaiseṣika (13) Sankhya (14) Yoga (15) Pūrva-mimāmsā (16) Uttaramimamsa, it is on the basis of the distinction of the Astika and Nastika philosophies that the so-called Nastika philosophies came to be excluded in the subsequent list of approved philosophies. By six systems of Indian philosophy, according to current acceptance Nyaya, Vaiseṣika, Sankhya, Pātañjala (Yoga), Mimamsa and Vedanta are understood. The Jaina and Bauddha philosophies were excluded from this list by later writers on the ground that these systems are Nastika philosophies. Raghunandan has quoted a verse from Hayasirṣa-pañcharatra that the philosophies of Gautama, Kāṇada, Kapila, Patanjali, Vyasa and Jaimini are the only six systems of philosophy1.
The word Nastika is differently interpreted. The derivative meaning from the Sutra of Pāņiņi is taken to be "he who does not accept Paraloka or existence after death" The second interpretation is that by Nastika we mean the person who does not accept the existence of Isvara1 and the third
1. "गौतमस्य कणादस्य कपिलस्य पतञ्चलेः ।
व्यासस्य जैमिनेश्चापि दर्शनानि षडेव हि ॥” Devapratisthatattva. 2. "afea arfta fąg #fa: 1" Aṣṭadhyayi of Pāniņi. 4.4.60.
3. "परलोकः अस्तीति यस्य मतिरस्ति स आस्तिकः ।
agfauriat arftas: 11”

4. “ नास्तिकः परलोकतत्साधनाद्यभाववादी । तत्साक्षिण ईश्वरस्य असत्यवादी च || "
Kāśikā.
Nyāyakosa.

Page #12

viii
meaning is that Nastika indicates the man who denies the authority of the Vedas1.
Now, if we accept the meaning of Nastika as one who does not accept Paraloka (existence after death), Karma and the fruits of Karma, we cannot say that Jaina and Baudha philosophies are Nastika philosophies for both of these systems of philosophy accept these.
Again, if we interpret 'Nastika' to mean 'denying the existence of Isvara', the Sankhya.as well as Mimāmsā systems of philosophy should be taken as Nastika philosophies as neither Kapila nor Jaimini has accepted the existence of a creator (Isvara). But we have shown above that these two systems of philosophy have not been excluded from the list of six philosophies on such a ground.
The conclusion is therefore inevitable that to call Bauddha and Jaina philosophies "Nastika", the third interpretation of the word "Nastika" viz. denying the authority of the Vedas, must be accepted, for these philosophies do not accept the Vedas as eternal or as infallible. The Bauddhas accept two Pramāņas, Pratyakṣa and Anumana and do not accept the authority of the Vedas. 2 In Jain 1. “ नास्तिको वेदनिन्दकः । " Institutes of Manu. 2. “ये तु सौगतसंसारमोचकागमाः कस्तेषु प्रामाण्यमार्योऽनुमोदते, बौद्धशास्त्रे हि विशिष्टा दृश्यते वेदवाहयता ।

जातिधर्मोदिताचार परिहारावधारणात् ||" Nyāyamañjari. “महाजनश्च वेदानां वेदार्थानुगामिनां च पुराणधर्मशास्त्राणां वेदाविरोधिना केषाञ्चिदागमानां प्रामाण्यमनुमन्यते, न वेदविरुद्धानां बौद्धाद्यागमानाम् ॥”
Nyāyamañjarī. For a full discussion vide a Bengali article "Astika and Nastika Darśana" by Dr. Ashutosh Éaştri,

Page #13

philosophy Agama (words, signs etc. of an Apta or reliable person), has been accepted as a variety of Pramāņa but the authority of the Vedas has not been accepted".
But this exclusion of Jain philosophy was effected at a very late stage. We find that its doctrines were attempted to be refuted in the Vedānta-sūtras, and Kumārila and Sankarāchārya levelled their arguments against certain Jain views such as existence of omniscient beings. There cannot be any doubt that all the different systems of philosophy whether the same were Astika or Nāstika according to different interpretations were thoroughly studied and in conferences before saints, kings and scholars, discussions and refutations of various doctrines were of very frequent occurrence. We find in Saktisangama Tantra [between 1555 to 1604 A. D.] that Jaina philosophy was taken as one of Kāli DarśanasEven Jayanta Bhatta the celebrated Hindų author of Nyāya mañjari [9th century] accepted Jaina philosophy to be authoritative3.
1. Vide Pages 44 to 49 of Prameya-ratnamālā appended to this work in which the view that Āgama can include the Vedas is refuted whether it be accepted that the Vedas are Pauruşeya ( produced by human beings ) or Apaurușeya ( not produced by human beings and eternal ).
2. Śaktisangamatantra edited by Binayatosh Bhattacharya M.A. Ph. D. (Gaekwad Oriental Series).
3. Jayanta Bhatta began his argument that others can be Apta like the author of the Vedas, saying "pret Hamaraing naTUS afaaret". His conclusion is exemplified in the verse :
___ नानाविधैरागममार्गभेदैरादिश्यमाना वहवोऽभ्युपायाः । __ . एकत्र ते श्रेयसि संपतन्ति सिन्धौ प्रवाहा इव जाणवीयाः ॥" P-2

Page #14

Nomenclature
of Nyāya.
The name "Nyāya" came to be applied later to a system of philosophy which dealt with logic. The original name was "Anvikșiki” from Anvikşā (discussion). Fruitless Tarka Vidyā was always discouraged" but that Anyikșiki which will lead to the attainment of a knowledge of self was always regarded as a subject to be learnt. In Manu-samhitā we find that a King should learn Anviksikio. Rājasekhara in his Kāvya-mimāmsā has mentioned that Anvikșiki knowledge is of two kinds, being of the nature of Pūrvapakşa and Uttarapaksa and that Jaina, Bauddha and Chārvāka systems are of the former and Sānkhya, Nyāya and Vaiseșika systems are of the latter kind.
In Chhāndogya Upanişad (VII-1) and in Mahābhāşya of Patañjali, we find Nyāya philosophy named as “Vāko-vākya.” Vātsyāyana mentioned the fivelimbed syllogism (for Parārthānumāna) as Nyāya.
After describing persecution of persons who set up new sects for worldly enjoyment and profligacy, by king Šankaravarmā of Kashmir, Jayanta Bhatta says that the doctrines of the Jains etc. are not such :
"तदपूर्वमिति विदित्वा निवारयामास धर्मतत्वज्ञः ।
राजा शंकरवा न पुन नादिमतमेवम् ॥" 1. Vide : "traligat a facutageant forfremy_" Mahābhārata śāntiparva 180. 47. To what extent such wrong arguments can proceed will appear from the attempt of sage Jābāli to dissuade Rāma from going to the forest to fulfil the vow of his father. Rāmāyana. Ayodhyākānda. Canto 109.
2. " Faltfemastaralaçenta " Manu-sambitā, 7.43. 3. Kāvyamimāņsā. Chapter II.

Page #15

From analogy the science propounding this has also been called Nyāya'.
The Hindu Nyāya and Vaiseșika philosophies are mentioned as Yauga by Jain logicians. The Vaišeșika system is earlier than the Nyāya philosophy and its logical principles are accepted by the latter. "The Nyāya analyses the different ways in which our knowledge is acquired. They are said to
be intuition (Pratyakşa), inference (Anumāna), comEssence of parison (Upamāna), and verbal testimony (Sabda). Nyāya-Vaisesika Though Pratyakşa originally meant sense perception, principles of it soon came to cover all immediate apprehension reasoning. whether through the aid of senses or otherwise. It
is knowledge whose instrumental cause is not knowledge (Jñānākaraṇakam jñānam). In inference comparison etc. we require a knowledge of premises or of similarity, but such knowledge is not an antecedent condition of intuition. The word is used for the result or the apprehension of the truth as well as the process or the operation which leads to the result. .
Sense-perception follows on the modification of the self produced by the contact of the senses with their objects. Two kinds of perception are distinguished, determinate (Savikalpaka) and indeterminate (Nirvikalpaka) which correspond roughly to knowledge about and acquaintance with an object.
Inference operates neither with regard to things unknown nor with regard to that known
1. In Subalopanişad we find : 17 ATHTET HEEFT for 1" In Yājňavalkya Samhitā we read : "OTTOTETTATHIATI” Some also use the word Niti to mean Nyāya e.g. "HIGIT fara af 7" Milinda-panha.

Page #16

xii
definitely for certain ; it functions only with regard to things that are doubtful. (N. B. I. I. i.). It derives a conclusion from the ascertained fact of the subject possessing a property which is constantly accompanied by another. We ascertain that the hill is on fire from the fact that the hill has smoke and smoke is universally accompanied by fire. Infer. ential reasoning is stated in the form of a syllogism of which the five members are: 1. Proposition (Pratijñā): the hill is on fire; 2. Reason (Hetu) : because it smokes ; 3. Example (Udāharaña) : whatever shows smoke shows fire e. g. a kitchen ; 4. Application (Upanaya): So is this hill, and 5. Conclusion (Nigamana): therefore, the hill is on fire. The first member states the thesis to be established. It is only a suggestion. It contains a subject of what is observed, which is generally an individual or a class, and a predicate, which is to be proved. The subject is the minor term (Pakşa, Dharmin) and the predicate the major (Sādhya, Dharma). The second member of the syllogism states the presence in the minor of the middle term called ground (Hetu). The third takes us to the basis of inference, the major premise. Though Gautama and Vātsyāyana may not have regarded the example as the illustration of a general rule later Nyāya looks upon it as the statement of an invariable concomitance between the mark and the character inferred (Vyāpti-prati-pādakam Vākyam). The conclusion re-states the proposition as grounded. Nāgārjuna is given the credit for dispensing with the last two members of the syllogism as superfluous.
Universal propositions are reached through enumeration, intuition and indirect proof. Uninterrupted agreement (Niyata Sāhacharya) reinforced

Page #17

xii
by absence of exceptions (Avinābhāva-rupasambandha) leads to unconditional concomitances. Nature does not always supply us with positive and negative instances of the necessary type. In such cases indirect proof (Tarka) may be used. By pointing out the absurdities in which we are landed, if we deny a suggested hypothesis, we indirectly prove its validity. Even when we observe all possible cases and strengthen our conclusion by indirect proof we cannot reach absolute certainty. Experience of sensible particulars, however thorough and exhaustive, cannot give rise to universal relations. Gangesa recognises the non-sensuous (Alaukika) activity involved in the apprehension of universals (Sāmānyalakşaņa).."
In' my commentary on the Parīkņāmukham, I have pointed out in detail where and in what manner Jain logicians differ from the above views of Hindu Nyāya and Vaiseșika Philosophies.
Pramāṇa is the main theme of all Nyāya philosophies. Different systems admit different number of Pramāņas In Tārkika-rakṣā (11th century) we find; “The Chārvākas accept only one Pramāņa viz. Pratyakșa ; Kaņāda and Buddha accept two Pramāṇas Pratyakşa and Anumāna; the Sāņkhya system and some sects of Nyāya philosophy acknowledge three Pramāņas viz, Pratyakşa, Anumāna and Sabda; some followers of the Nyāya philosophy accept four Pramāņas, Pratyakşa, Anumāna, Šabda and Upumāna; Prabhākara (one school of Mimāṁsā philosophy) accept five Pramāņas, Pratyakşa, Anu
Pramāņas,
Britt.
1. S. Radhakrishnan : Indian Philosophy Encyclo. Vol. 12. Page 250.

Page #18

xiy
māna, Upumāna, Sabda and Arthāpatti; the Bhāttas (followers of Kumārila Bhatta, another school of Mimāmsā philosophy) as well as the followers of the Vedānta philosophy accept six Pramāņas viz. Pratyakşa, Anumāna, Upamāna, Sabda, Arthāpatti and
Abhāva.” Jain Nyāya
The earliest detailed reference to the subject of before Māņikya. Pramāņa in Jain Nyāya is found in the Tattvārthānandi. dhigama Sūtra of Umāsvāmi. The twelve Angas of
the Jainas prevalent at the time of Sri Mahāvira only give a hint of Anekāntavāda but no specific re
ference of Pramāņa, Naya or Sapta-Bhangi is found Kunda-kunda.
in the same. Kundakunda in his Pravachanasāra has mentioned the two kinds of Pramāņa viz Pra
(1) STARTHA aratat fugerat ga: 1
प्रत्यक्षमनुमानञ्च सांख्याः शब्दश्च ते अपि । न्यायैकदेशिनोऽप्येवमुपमानं च केचन । अर्थापत्त्या सहैतानि चत्वार्याह प्रभाकरः ॥ अभावषष्ठान्येतानि भाट्टा वेदान्तिनस्तथा।"
Tārkika raksā by Varadarāja Writers like Varadarāja as above have termed scholars who have formulated different views from the same of Gautama as "Nyāyaika-desins”. Mallinātha in his commentary on Tārkika-raksā has explained Nyāyaikadesins as Bhūşaņa and others (p erstatt
quirent: 1') The Jain scholor Gunaratna in his commentary on Saddarśanasamuchchaya (Haribhadra Sūri) has mentioned a commentary called Nyāya-bhuşaņa among the eighteen commentaries of the work Nyāya-sāra by Bhā-sarvajña (arragona Frans ATGRIC1967: are con tant Faire UNEMI") Some infer that the view of Bhūşaņa is novel and opposed to Nyāya-sūtras of Gautama on some points which include the number of Pramāṇas, Bhūşaņa accepting only three ( Pratyakşa, Anumāna and Sabda ) though Gautama admits four (Prayakşa, Anumāna, Upamāna and Sabda).

Page #19

tyakşa and Parokşa and the Sapta-bhangi. But these references give only the barest outlines without any definite details. For example, Kundakunda says:
“The knowledge of him who beholds the immaterial, the supra-sensorial in material objects (mūrtāni), and the hidden, complete (embracing) the self and
the other, is called Pratyakşa (immediate)” 1. Pravachanasāra. Śruta-skandha I. 54 Trans. by Barrend Faddegon.
Amritachandra in his commentary thus explains this verse : "Supra-sensorial knowledge beholds the immaterial, the suprasensorial even in material objects, and the hidden complete, whether included in own as in other. Such knowledge surely is a seer, owing to its immediateness, with reference to (a) immaterial (a-mūrta) substances such as the principles of motion and stationariness (b) immaterial, but supra-sensorial substances, such as the ultimate atom, (c) that which is hidden in respect of substance .e. g. time: that which is hidden in respect of place e. g. the Pradeśas of space located outside the world ; that which is hidden in time, e. g. in non-present modifications; that which is hidden in respect of forms-of-being, namely five (Sukşma) modifications latent within gross (Sthūla) modifications : thus with reference to all things, distinguished as own and other.
Immediate knowledge indeed, bound to a single self, called the Akşa and having the immediacy of its manifested infinite purity and beginning-less connection with the generality of perfect intelligence (Siddha-Chaitanya Sāmānya) does not search for exterior means, enjoys infinity, because of its possession of infinite energies. Knowledge enjoying such prestige, seeing that the knowable appearances no more outgo knowledge than combustible appearances the fire, what can resist such knowledge ? Therefore it is acceptable.” Ibid p. 35.
Here Akşa is taken as synonym of Atman. This is to be remembered to contrast the interpretation of Akşa as Indriya (senses) by other Naiyāyikas,

Page #20

Xyi
"The soul, in itself immaterial, goes into materiality (mūrti) and then apprehending with this material (body) the material (world), sometimes knows and sometimes does not know that--which-isfit-for-knowledge (yogya).”
"Touch, taste, smell, colour and sound are the material objects (pudgalas) for the sense-organs ; the sense organs do not grasp them simultaneously."
“The sense-organs are called an exterior (para) substance, and not an innate nature of the self; how then could that which is reached by them be an immediate perception for the self ?”
"Knowledge of objects from another is called indirect ; but if knowledge is acquired by the soul alone (Keyala Jñāna) then it is direct.” 1
Kundakunda describes the sensorial joy ; not supremely real of those who possess indirect knowledge (Parokşa-Jñāna) thus :
"The lords of men, demons and Gods, oppressed by their natural (sahaja) organs of sense, unable to withstand that misery, find pleasure in satisfying
objects". 1. Pravachana-sāra. I. 55-58 Trans by Barend Faddegon.
2. Ibid 1-63. Amritachandra explains this verse thus : "Those creatures who through lack of immediate knowledge take refuge in indirect knowledge have a congenial affection for their organs of sense, which are the equipment therefor. So in these persons having this affection for their sense-organs and, while devoured by the flaring Kāla-fire of great infatuation, utterly longing and thirsty, like heated balls of iron, and unable to withstand the vehemence of this misery, there arises a satisfaction (rati) with these satisfying (ramya) objects, which serve to soothe their disease. Hence since the sense-organs must be compared to a disease and the objects to means for soothing the disease, no really-true joy exists for those who have a limited knowledge."'Ibid. pp. 41-42.

Page #21

Umasvami.
P-3
xvii
Kundakunda lays down that a soul in its perfect condition has omniscience knowing by direct intuition (pratyakṣa) substances, states etc. in all times and places without operation of senses. Parokṣa (indirect) knowledge is sense-knowledge, the senses being a material accretion to the soul.

Saptabhangi is briefly described in Pravachanasara II.23. As this matter is not dealt with in Parikṣāmukham, we do not dilate upon this subject
here.
Umāsvami in the Tattvarthadhigama Sūtra made a more detailed reference to Pramāņas and its subdivisions. Laying down the utility of Pramaņas and Nayas as means of instruction for attaining right faith', Umasvami has mentioned that "Mati, Śruta, Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala are right knowledge" and these also consist of two Pramāņas. Mati and Śruta are taken to be Parokṣa1 and Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala as Pratyakṣas. We find in Kundakunda's Pravachana-sara the idea of Mati, Śruta, Avadhi and Manaḥparyaya in the following verse:
3
1. “ प्रमाणनयैरधिगमः ।"
2. “मतिश्रुतावधिमनः पर्ययकेवलानि ज्ञानम् ।” Ibid I. 9.
3. " तत् प्रमाणे ।”
4. "
5.
6. Pravachana-sara III. 34.
"The saint (Sadhu) has the scripture for eye; all creatures have their sense-organs for eyes; the Devas have eyes which see the remote (avadhi); but the liberated souls (siddhas) have eyes which see everywhere."
" प्रत्यक्षमन्यत् । "
"
Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, I. 6.
Ibid I. 10.
Ibid I. 11.
Ibid I. 12.
Trans. by Barend
Faddegon p. 177,

Page #22

Samantabhadra.
xviii
Kundakunda's description of Kevala knowledge has already been quoted.
The oldest idea of Pramāņā in Jainism as expounded by Umāsvāmi and as already described is that the knowledge which is derived without the help of the senses or mind is Pratyakṣa and the knowledge derived from the help of the senses or mind is Parokṣa. Among the three varieties of Pratyakṣa Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala, the first two cognise only objects having form. For this reason knowledge derived from these two kinds of Pratyakṣa Pramāņa are called Vikala Pratyakṣa, but Kevala knowledge cognises all objects with or without form in the past, present or future and is therefore known as Sakala Pratyakṣa. Mati and Śruta are the two varieties of Paroakṣa and Umāsvāmi has mentioned that Smriti, Sanjña (Pratyabhijñāna), Chinta (Tarka), and Abhinibodha (Anumana) are within Mati Jñana (the first variety of Parokşa)'.

Samantabhadra first used the nomenclature "Nyaya" and in this respect he inaugurated a separate subject. He however did not compose any special work in Jain Nyaya. He mentions that Pramāņa illuminates itself as well as other objects and states that the result of Pramana is acceptance of desirable things, leaving undesirable things or indifference He has also mentioned Śruta Pra
1. “मतिः स्मृति: संज्ञा चिन्ताभिनिबोध इत्यनर्थान्तरम् ।”
Tattvarthadhigama Sūtra. See Parikṣāmukham page 80. Aphorism 2. 2. “स्वपरावभासकं यथा प्रमाणं भुवि बुद्धिलक्षणम् ।"
Svayambhu Stotra. Verse 63.
3. " उपेक्षा फलमादूयस्य शेषस्यादानहानधीः ।"
Apta-mimāmsā Verse 102.

Page #23

Siddhasena.
Akalanka,
xix
māņa as Syādvāda and has stated Naya to be its part1.
Siddhasena Divakara added the word "Badhavivarjjita" (without any obstruction) to the definition of Pramāņa by Samanta-bhadra viz. that it illuminates itself as well as other objects2. Though Samantabhadra used inference to establish an omniscient being in his Apta-mimamsa, yet we find the definition of Anumana with its subdivisions Svār tha and Parartha for the first time in the Nyāyāvatara of Siddhasena. In this work also we get definitions of limbs of Pararthānumāna such as Pakṣa, Hetu and Driṣṭanta. The fallacies also have been described in the aforesaid treatise3.

4
It is of the utmost importance to remember that except in the Jaina Nyaya, we nowhere find knowledge derived from the senses being called Parokṣa Pramana. In Hindu Nyaya philosophy and in all other Hindu Sastras, knowledge derived from the senses is known as Pratyakṣa Pramāņa. Akalanka the greatest of Jain logicians attempted to reconcile this in the following way. He accepted Pratyakṣa and Parokṣa as two Pramāņas but instead of dividing Pratyakṣa into Sakala and Vikala, he laid down two hitherto unknown divisions viz.
1. “ स्यादूवाद - प्रविभक्तार्थे विशेषव्यंजको नयः । "
Apta-mimamsa. Verse 106.
2. Vide Parikṣāmukham p. 20 Note 9.
3. Verses from Nyāyāvatāra on all these matters have been quoted in footnotes in Parikṣāmukham in appropriate places. 4. “ इन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षोत्पन्नं ज्ञानमव्यपदेश्यमव्यभिचारि-व्यवसायात्मकं . प्रत्यक्षम् ॥”
Nyaya Sutra ( Gautama) I. 1. 4.

Page #24

XX
Sānvyavahārika and Mukhya Pratyakṣa'. He further laid down that Mati Jñana derived through the senses and mind is not Parokṣa but Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa. As Mati came to be recognised as Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa, its corelated Smriti, Sanjñā, Chinta and Abhinibodha as mentioned by Umāsvāmi also came under the same head. But a subtle distinction was made by Akalanka. He subdivided Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa into two heads (a) Indriya-pratyakṣa (knowledge derived through the senses) under which came Mati and (b) Anindriya-pratyakṣa (knowledge derived through mind) under which came Smriti, Sanjñā, Chinta and Abhinibodha as mind is prevalent in these four. This change necessitated a change of definition of Pratyakṣa and Akalanka accordingly defined Pratyakṣa as "clear knowledge." ("Pratyakşam visadam jñānam.")
Now, to meet the argument that if we take Mati as Pratyakṣa we must say that the traditional acceptance of the view that it is Parokṣa is denied undermining the oldest authorities like Umāsvāmi, Akalanka has written that Mati, Smriti, Sanjñā, Chintā and Abhinibodha will be Pratyakṣa so long as these
1. “प्रत्यक्षं विशदं ज्ञानं मुख्यसांव्यवहारिकम् ।
qi fasci affa :" Laghiyastraya Verse 1. 2. “आये परोक्षमपरं प्रत्यक्षं प्राहुरंजसा ।
केवलं लोकबुद्धेधव मतेर्लक्षणसंग्रहः || ”

Nyaya-viniśchaya
3. 'तत्र सांव्यवहारिकं इन्द्रियानिन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षम् ।”
4. "अनिन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षं स्मृतिसंज्ञाचिन्ताभिनिवोधात्मकम् ।”
Vivriti on Laghiyastraya. Verse 4.
Verse 93.
Vivriti on Laghiyastraya. Verse 61.

Page #25

xxi
remain in the mental state. The moment these are connected with words i.e. are expressed in words they will become Parokṣa1. Thus, Akalanka has accepted Mati etc, as Pratyakṣa in one sense and Parokṣa in another sense. According to Akalanka Śruta is what is heard and so the knowledge derived through words is Śruta and the knowledge having no connection with words is Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa.
The peculiarity of Akalanka is that under Śruta in Parokṣa Pramāņa he has two subdivisions Aksaratmaka and Anakṣaratmaka. Other Jain logicians have mentioned that Anumana (inference) is of two kinds Svarthānumāna (inference for one's own self) and Pararthānumāna (inference for the sake of others). Akalanka says that it is not inference alone that has these two subdivisions but other Pramāņas also may be for Svartha and Parartha. Svarthānumāna is accepted by Akalanka to be included in Anakṣaratmaka Śruta Pramāņa as no help of words is necessary for its acceptance and Pararthānumāna according to Akalanka comes within Akṣaratmaka Anumana as this cannot arise without help of words. The Pramāņas Arthāpatti, Agama etc are all recognised by Akalanka to be varieties of Śruta Pramāṇa.
The following tables will illustrate the difference between the divisions of Pramāņa by the oldest writers such as Umāsvāmi and Akalanka.
1. “ ज्ञानमादूयं मति: संज्ञा चिन्ता चाभिनिवोधनम् । प्राङ्नामयोजनाचछेषं श्रुतं शब्दानुयोजनात् ॥ " Laghiyastraya.

Page #26

Pramāņa (according to Akalanka )
Pratyakşa
Paroksa
Sruta
Sānvyavahārika
Mukhya
Akşarātmaka
Anakşarātmaka
Indriyapratyakşa
Anindriyapratyakşa
Mati
Smriti
Sanjñā
Chintā
Abhinibodha

Page #27

Avadhi
Pratyakşa
Manaḥparyaya
Vikala
Pramāņa (according to Umāsvāmi)
Kevala
or
Sakala
Smriti
Mati
Sanjñā
or
Pratyabhijñāna
Chintä
or
Tarka
Parokṣa
T Abhinivodha
or
Anumāna
Śruta
xxiii

Page #28

Later Writers.
xxiv
The writers who followed Akalanka (such as Ananta-virya, Vidyananda etc.) did not accept Smriti etc. as Anindriya-pratyakṣa though in one sense they were ready to accept knowledge derived through the senses to be Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa. The views of later writers have been fully discussed by me in the commentary of Parikṣāmukham and the charts printed in Pages 76 and 77 of the work might be compared with the charts printed above.

Manikyanandi in his Parikṣāmukham has closely followed the views of Akalanka. Before the time of Manikyanandi, Pramāņa was defined as "Svaparavyavasayi jñāna" (valid knowledge of itself and other). Manikyanandi added the word "Apurva" (not proved before) in the definition. Akalaňka has mentioned the same thing by the word "Anadhigatārthagrāhi". A verse (the author of which has not been identified) in Mimamsa philosophy shows that the element "Apurva" was also accepted as essential to Pramāņa in that philosophy also2.
Māņikyanandi has not followed Jainagama by including Avagraha etc. within knowledge. He has mentioned Agama in place of Śruta Pramāņa and has placed it under Parokṣa Pramāņa.
Subsequent developments and detailed definitions and discussions have been investigated in my commentary on Parikṣāmukham where in all cases the original authority has been quoted to give the readers an opportunity to form their own opinions in case they wish to differ from the same of my own.
1. “ प्रमाणमविसंवादि ज्ञानम् अनधिगतार्थाधिगमलक्षणत्वात् ।” Asta-śati 2. “ तत्रापूर्वार्थविज्ञानं निश्चितं वाधवर्जितम् ।
अदुष्टकारणारव्धं प्रमाणं लोकसम्मतम् ॥”

Page #29

XXV
The Buddhist views.
The use of ‘Vyavasāya' or “Nischaya” in the definition of Pramāņa as used by Māņikyanandi is to differentiate the Jain view from that of the Buddhists who do not accept this to be essential in Pramāņa. Some Buddhist philosophers also deny the existence of external objects. To differentiate the Jain view the word “Artha” has been introduced in the definition of Pramāņa by Māņikyanandi (see page 29).
There are four sects of Buddhist philosophers : i Mādhyamika 2 Yogāchāra 3 Sautrāntika and 4 Baibhāsika. Those who maintain that everything is void are Mādhyamikas or Sūnyavādins or Nihilists. Those who maintain the reality of everything are known as Sarvāstitvavādin or Realists divided into two groups (a) Sautrāntikas and (b) Baibhāsikas. Those who maintain that thought only is real are known as Vijñānavādins or Idealists.
Sankarāchārya in his Bhāsya an Vedānta Sūtra II. 2-18 writes that the difference . of views arose either from expounding different views at different times by Buddha or from the different views adopted by the disciples of Buddha?. Sankarāchārya mentions that there are three kinds of disciples known as Sarvāstityavādins, Vijñānavādins and Saryaśūnyatāvādins 3Bāchaspati Miśra in his commentary Bhāmati on the same Sūtra says “Disciples have great, medium or little intelligence. Those who have little
1. "GET RE AT2f9-Mar-tante-
af974-ig talt: POTSU: 1"
Brahmavidyābharaṇa 2. "T ag : af afrigtigäter at 1
Śānkarabhāşya to Vedānta Sūtra II. 2. 18 ___ 3. "तत्रैते त्रयो वादिनो भवन्ति । केचित् सर्वास्तित्ववादिनः, केचिद्विज्ञाना:: Ferrani afgai, apie ga: Hariança eft ?"bid.
P-4

Page #30

xxvi
intelligence descend into Nihilism following the existence of everything. Those who have medium intellect descend into Nihilism following the view that thought only is real. Those who have great intellectual capacity grasp Nihilism without any intermediate hold of anything". The following verses. from Bodhicharyavatāra are quoted in the Bhamati :

"The instructions of the preceptors of people follow the inclination of their souls and so differ in many ways by various means. Sometimes the instructions are deep, and sometimes superficial. Sometimes these are of both the above kinds. Though these are different, really they are not different being characterised by Śūnyata (Nihilism)".
The view of Sarvastitvavādins (Realists) who maintain that everything whether external or internal is real is thus described by Sankarāchārya. "What is external is either element (Bhuta) or elementary (Bhautika); What is internal is either mind (Chitta) or mental (Chaitta). The elements are earth, water and so on; elementals are colour etc. 1. In explaining "Vineyabhedat va" in the Sankara Bhāṣya, Bachaspati Misra says:
"होनमध्यमोत्कृष्टधियो हि शिष्या भवन्ति । तत्र ये हीनमतस्ते सर्वास्तित्ववादेन तदाशयानुरोधाद् शून्यतायामवतार्यन्ते । ये तु मध्यमास्ते ज्ञानमात्रास्तित्वेन शून्यताया - मवतार्यन्ते । ये तु प्रकृष्टमतयस्तेभ्यः साक्षादेव शून्यतातत्वं प्रतिपादूयते ।”
Bhamati on Vedanta Sūtra II. 2. 18
2. "देशना लोकनाथानां सत्वाशयवशानुगाः ।
fugurà aguı olan curddgft: ga: 11 गंभीरोत्तानभेदेन क्वचिचोभयलक्षणा ।
भिन्नापि देशनाभिन्ना शून्यताद्वयलक्षणा ||" Bodhichittavivarana.

Page #31

xxvii
on the one hand, and the eye and the other sense. organs on the other hand. Earth and the other three elements arise from the aggregation of the four different kinds of atoms; the atoms of earth being hard, those of water viscid, those of fire hot, those of air mobile.

The inward world consists of the five so-called 'groups' (skandha), the group of sensation (rupas. kandha), the group of knowledge (vijñānaskandha), the group of feeling (vedana-skandha) the group of verbal knowledge (sanjāskandha) and the group of impressions (samskāraskandha) ; which taken together constitute the basis of all personal existence". (Dr. Thibaut's translation. Sacred Books of the East. Vol. XXXIV Page 403).
The Skandhas are thus described in the following Note of Dr. Thibaut to the above. This will explain the Alayavijñāna and Pravrittivijñāna mentioned in Page 29.
"The rupaskandha comprises the senses and their objects, colour etc.; the sense-organs were above called Bhautika, they here reappear as Chaittika on account of their connection with thought. Their objects likewise are classed as Chaittika in so far as they are perceived by the senses. The vijñānaskandha comprises the series of self-cognitions (ahamaham ityalayavijñānapravavah) according to
1. “ सर्वास्तित्ववादिनो वाह्यमान्तरञ्च वस्त्वभ्युपगच्छन्ति, भूतं भौतिकं चित्तं चैत्तश्च । तत्र भूतं पृथिवीधात्वादयः, भौतिकं रुपादयश्चक्षुरादयश्च । चतुष्टये च पृथिव्यादिपरमाणवः खरस्नेहोष्णे रणस्वभावास्ते पृथिव्यादिभावेन संहन्यन्त इति मन्यन्ते । तथा रुपविज्ञानवेदनासंज्ञासंस्कारसंज्ञकाः पंच स्कन्धाः, तेऽप्याध्यात्मं सर्वव्यवहारास्पदभावेन संहन्यन्त इति मन्यन्ते ।” Śāņkarabhāṣya to Vedanta Sūtra II. 2. 18

Page #32

xxviii
all commentators ; and in addition according to Brahmavidyabharaṇa, the knowledge determinate and indeterminate of external things (savikalpakam nirvikalpakancha pravrittivijñānasangitam). The vedanāskandha comprises pleasure, pain etc. The sanjāskandha comprises the cognition of things by their names (Gauraśva ityādi-sabda-sanjalpitapratyayaḥ, Ananda Giri; Gauraśva ityevam namavisista-savikalpaḥ pratyayaḥ, Go. Au; Sanjñā Yajnadattādipada-tadullekhi savikalpapratyayo vā dvitiyapakṣe vijñānapadena savikalpapratyayo na grahyaḥ. Brahmavidyabharaṇa) The Samskaraskandha comprises passion, aversion etc. dharma and adharma... The Vijñanaskandha is Chitta, the other skandhas Chaitta."
Nyāya-praveśa
1. शुचि नरः शिरः कपालं प्राण्यङ्गत्वात् शंखशुक्तिवत् ।
2. माता मे वन्ध्या ।
3. वाष्पादिभावेन संदिहयमानो भूतसंधातोग्निसिद्धावुपदिश्यमानः संदिग्धासिद्धः ।
4. तत्र पक्षः प्रसिद्धो धर्मी ।
3.
Similarities between the aphorisms in Parikṣāmukham and the same in Nyaya-prabesa and Nyayavindu of Dharma-kirti have been shown by Pandit Kailas Chandra Śāstri1.
Nyaya-vindu
1. अनुमानं द्विधा ।
2. स्वार्थ परार्थ च ।
• नेहा प्रतिवद्धसामर्थानि धूमकारणानि

सन्ति, धूमाभावात् । 4. नात्र शिंशपा वृक्षाभावात् ।
5. नास्त्यत्र शीतस्पर्शः धूमात् ।
....
....
....
....
Parikṣāmukham
VI. 19
VI. 20
VI. 25, 26 III. 26, 27
III. 52
III. 53
III. 81
III. 80
III. 73

Page #33

xxix The title of the work Parikṣāmukham is thus
derived according to the author of NyāyamaņiMeaning of the dipikā : Pariksa or Tarka is the discussion used in title "Parīksā.
finding out the strength or weakness of various mukham."
arguments which are opposed to one another. 'Pari'
means full' and 'Tksanam' means discussion' (of subjects). 'Amukha' means 'the entrance' to those who want to understand this subject. This work (Parikşāmukham) is like such a door.”:
Another derivation is also suggested by the same writer as follows : “As examination of all objects is made by Pramāņa so Pramāṇa is the first thing (Amukha) in Fariksa (discussion). Here the work itself describing Pramāņa (which is Parikṣāmukham) is also titled in the same name. As ascertainment is made by Pramāṇas leaving aside fallacies, discussion goes on with the help of Pramāṇas by those engaged in arguments. So the name 'Pariksamukham' of this work is justified.”
Nothing in detail is known about Māņikyanandi Māņikyanandi, the
ndi. the author of Pariksāmukham. In the Visvakosa
1. "अन्योन्यविरुद्ध-नानायुक्तिप्रावल्यदौर्बल्यावधारणाय प्रवर्त्तमानो विचारः परीक्षा तर्क इति यावत् । 'परि' समन्तादशेष निःशेषत 'ईक्षणं' विचारणं यत्र अर्थानाम् इति व्युत्पत्तेः। तस्य 'आमुखं' तव्युत्पत्तौ प्रवेशार्थिनां प्रवेशद्वारमिदं प्रकरणम् ।"
2. "अथवा समस्तप्रमेयजालपरीक्षायाः प्रमाणपूर्वकत्वात् प्रमाणं परीक्षामुखम् । अत्र मुखशब्दस्य प्रथमार्थवाचित्वात् प्रमाणप्रतिपादकं प्रकरणमपि परीक्षामुखमित्युच्यते । प्रमाणनिश्चयस्यापि एतत् प्रकरणपूर्वकत्वात् तदाभासव्यावृत्त्या निश्चितं हि प्रमाणं पुरस्कृत्य परीक्षा क्रियते प्रेक्षापूर्वकारिभिरिति प्रकरणस्य परीक्षामुखनामधेयमनुपचरितम् ॥"
Nyāyamaņi-dipikā, a commentary on Prameya-ratna-mālā. [ From a Manuscript preserved in Jain Siddhanta Bhavan, ARRAH ].

Page #34

Manikyanandi was later than Akalaňka.
XXX
(a Bengali encyclopaedia) it is mentioned "According to the Pattavali of the Sarasvati Gachcha of the Digamvaras, Manikyanandi became Pattadhara in 585 Vikrama Samvat (523 A. D.) Before be became a Pattadhara that is to say, in the beginning of the 6th century, Manikyanandi wrote Parikṣāmukham.

This view is untenable. It is accepted by everyone that Manikyanandi was later than Akalanka and that he based his work or Akalanka's writings. Anantavirya, the author of Prameya-ratna-mālā a commentary on Parikṣāmukham begins his work by saluting Māņikayanandi in this manner :
Salutation to that Manikyanandi who has churned the nectar of the knowledge of Nyaya from the ocean of the words of Akalanka1.
In Nyayamani-dipika a commentary on Prameya-ratna-mālā we find :
"Bhatta Akalanka Deva promulgated the influence of the true religion by the weapon of arguments delighting the hearts of all scholars of the world in the court of King Hima-sitala....Afterwards the great sage Manikyanandi wrote the Prakarana Parikṣāmukham culling the subject matter from the ocean of the sastra written by him (Akalanka). This work (of Manikyanandi) is like a vessel to cross the ocean (of the work of Akalanka.)"
1. “ अकलंकवचोऽम्मोधेरुदधे येन धीमता ।
2.
न्यायविद्यामृतं तस्मै नमो माणिक्यनन्दिने || " Prameyaratnamāla. 'सकलराजाधिराजपरमेश्वरस्य हिमशीतलस्य महाराजस्य महास्थानमध्ये ·· भगवान् भट्टाकलंकदेवो विश्वविद्वन्मण्डलहद्दयाह्लादियुक्तिशस्त्रेण जगत्सद्धर्मप्रभावमवबुधत्तमाम् । तदनु ··· माणिक्यनंदिमुनिवृन्दारकस्तत्प्रकाशितशास्त्रमहोदधे रुद्धृत्य तदवगाहनाय पोतोपमं 'परीक्षामुख' नामधेयमन्वर्थमुद्वहत् प्रकरणमारचयन् मुदा ।”
Nyayamanidipika ( A Mss. ).

Page #35

xxxi
Time of Akalanka.
Prabhāchandra the author of Prameyakamalamārtanda has written : “As the subject as laid down by Akalanka could be understood only by the wise, the Achārya (Māņikyanandi) composed this Prakaraṇa to explain that subject quoting the same with the object of laying down the same and wishing to explain the same (to all)".
There are differences of opinion as to the time during which Akalanka flourished. In Ārādhanākathā-koşa (15th or 16th century A.D.), Akalanka is described as the son of the minister of Subhatunga the King of Mānyakheta. It is also mentioned that there was a discussion in the court of King Himasitala between him and the Buddhists. In the Mallişeņa · Prasasti in Sravana Belgola the latter incident is supported. It is also mentioned therein that Akalanka visited the court of King Sāhasatunga. Dr. Satish Chandra Vidyābhūşana has taken Subhatunga or Sāhasatunga as Krisnarāja I of the Rashtrakuta dynasty. Pandit Nathuram Premi following this view has mentioned that the time of Akalanka was from Vikram Samvat 810 to 832 (753 to 775 A.D.)3 Dr. K. B. Pathak holds the view
..
___ 1. "श्रीमदकलंकार्थोऽ व्युत्पन्नप्रज्ञैरवगन्तुं न शक्यत इति तद्व्युत्पादनाय करतलामलकवत् तदर्थमुद्धृत्य प्रतिपादयितुकामस्तत्परिज्ञानानुग्रहेच्छाप्रेरितस्तदर्थafaurgagqui 976 Tofagarar: GTE 1" Prameya-kamala-mārtanda.
2. “Māņikyanandi was a Digamvara author... As his work is based on that of Akalanka, he must have lived after 750 A. D.... Māņikyanandi seems to have lived about 800 A.D.” History of the Medieval School of Indian Logic. Page 28.
3. Jain Hitaishi Bhāga 11. Page 428. Vide 37 tangan ८१० से ८३२ तक के किसी समय में जीवित थे।"

Page #36

xxxii
that Akalanka was a contemporary of Sahasatunga Dantidurga. B. Kamta Prasad Jain criticising the view of Mr. Premi, has accepted the view that Sahasatunga was none other than Dantidurga who reigned from 744 to 759 A.D. and has suggested that the time of Akalanka was from 744 to 782 A. D. B. Kamata Prasad has given arguments to support his view in his article in Hindi entitled "Sree Bhattakalanka Deva" published in Jain Siddhanta Bhaskar Bhāga 3, Kiran 4. This view has however been ably refuted by Pandit Kailas Chandra Sastri in his article "Bhattākalanka kā Samaya" printed in the same journal (Bhāga 4 Kiran 3).
The first argument of B. Kamtaprasad is that Akalanka has been mentioned by Jinasena in his. Harivamsapurāṇa and two verses have been quoted in support of this view and it is also mentioned that Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar has also mentioned this fact. It has however been pointed out by Pandit Kailās Chandra Sastri that it is not correct to interpret the word 'Deva' in the first verse to mean Akalanka. It really refers to Devanandi alias Pujyapāda the author of Jainendra Vyakaraṇa. In the second verse it is merely mentioned that the fame of Virasena is ‘akalanka' ('free from any flaw'). It has no
1. “ इन्द्रचन्द्रार्कजैनेन्द्रव्याडिव्याकरणेक्षिणः ।

देवस्य देवसंधस्य न वन्द्यन्ते गिरः कथम् ॥”
Verse 31. Harivamsa Purāņa.
"वीरसेनगुरोः कीर्त्तिरकलंकावभासते ।”
Verse 39. Harivamsa Purāṇa. 2. Principal Results of my last two years studies in Sanskrit Mss. Literature by R. G. Bhandarkar (Wier, 1889) Page 31.

Page #37

connection with the author ‘Akalanka'. Had Jinasena any desire to eulogise Akalanka, he would have done this in an un-ambiguous manner.
It is however not disputed by Pandit Šāstri that Jinasena was a writer later than Akalanka. Vidyānanda in his Aştasahasri a commentary on Akalanka's Aştašati has mentioned Kumārasena. This Kumārasena has also been mentioned in Hariyamsapurāņa of Jinasena. Prabhāchandra a commentator on Parikṣāmukham who was undoutedly later than Māạikyanandi who followed Akalanka is mentioned in the Adipurāņa of Jinasena. The next argument of B. Kamtaprasad is that Akalanka was later than Dharmakirti, the Buddhist philosopher who flourished in the beginning of the seventh century ( 635 to 650 A.D. approximately ) Pandit Šāstri admits this and gives examples showing that Akalanka has quoted and refuted the views of Dharma-kirti'. Pandit śāstri however
1. The following instances are given : (a) The Kārikā in Akalanka's Laghiya-straya beginning with "Faria qufaeculiari" mentions "aaa: Fiera ferratafiarechal" found in kārikā 124 Chapter III of Pramāņa-vārttika written by Dharma-kirti.
Vide also “Dharmakirti who is not referred to by Hieun Thsang but is referred to by I-Tsing very probably belonged to a period between 600-650 A.D.” Introduction to Sadhana-mālā Page XXVII by B. Bhattacharya M.A. (Gaekwad's Oriental Series).
(b) The argument hi agri Hrafeitora: 1" mentioned in Pramāņa-vārttika I. 91 has been met by Akalanka in his Nyāyavinischaya in the verse beginning with TAI CEATAI na anfi Avatai"
(c)' In Aşta-sats of Akalanka on Aptamimāṁsā verse 53 we P-5

Page #38

xxxiv
is unable to accept the conclusion of B. Kamtaprasad from this fact that Akalanka was at least hundred years later than Dharmakirti, for it is urged that even contemporary writers can quote and refute each other's views and many examples can be given of such refutations.
Dr. K. B. Pathak has mentioned that as Kumārila Bhatta has attacked some of the views of Samantabhadra and Akalanka, it must be supposed that he was a contemporary of those writers and lived even after the death of Akalanka. In his article discussing the date of Samanta-bhadra” he has mentioned that the refutations of each other's views by Kumārila and Akalanka took place at the latter half of the eighth century A.D. B. Kamtaprasad has accepted this view and lays down that the time of Kumārila is 700 to 760 A. D. Pandit Šāstri points out that as B. Kamtaprasad accepts the time of Akalanka to be 744 'to 782 A.D., how can it be possible that Kumārila lived even after the death of Akalanka as Kumārila according to B. Kamtaprasad (following Dr. K. B. Pathak) lived only up to 760 A. D.? Further, Pandit Šāstri is unable to accept this date of Kumārila without satisfactory proof, but is willing to accept that Kumārila
find "न तस्य किंचिद् भवति न भवत्येव केवलम्". This is exactly the second half of verse 279, Chapter I of Pramāņa-vārttika.
(d) The view of Akalanka expressed in the sentence beginning with "atracafetaret 91" mentioned in Aştasahasri Page 81 discussing the Nigraha-sthānas of the Buddhist philosophers is a refutation of the Vāda-nyāya of Dharmakirti.
1. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. II. p. 141.

Page #39

XXXV
existed during the latter part of the seventh century refuting the view of Dr. K. B. Pathak that Kumārila flourished in the 8th century'.
In the work ‘Akalanka-charitra’ it is mentioned that in 700 Vikrama Samyat (643 A.D.) there was a great discussion between Akalanka and the Buddhists: Pandit Šāstri points out that B. Kamta Prasad has taken the date as saka 700 but it is clear from the Sanskrit verse that Vikram Samyat is referred herein.
Pandit Śāstri holds the view that Akalanka flourished in the middle of the 7th century. After cri. ticising the views of B. Kamtaprasad, Dr. Pathak, Dr. Bhandarkar, and Dr. S. C. Vidyābbūşaņa as mentioned above, he mentions the following evidence regarding the time of Akalanka.
Siddhasena Gani has written a commentary on the Tattvārtha Bhāşya. Siddhasena has mentioned Dharmakirti (7th century ). Silānka ( 9th century) has mentioned Siddhasena as Gandhahasti. The date of Siddhasena therefore lies between these broad periods. Siddhasena has mentioned the work
1. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vol. XIII. P. 157. 2. "Familien taloTerrazamHIERO Testimular agafat HETELE II"
Epigraphia Carnatika II. Introduction. Pandit Jugalkishore Mukhtar in his article "समन्तभद्र का समय site Eto o fato 9789" (Jaina Jagat. Year IX. Vol. 15 Page 16 ) has given the reading " 193141@ter" which appears to be the correct one.

Page #40

xxxvi
"Siddhi-viniśchaya', of Akalanka in his Tattvārtha Bhāşya Tikā".
Jinadāsa Gaņi Mahottar composed a Chūrņi on Niśītha-sūtra. In a Mss. of this work, the date of its composition is mentioned as Saka Samvat 598 (676 A.D.) Jinadāsa has mentioned the work Siddhi-vinischaya of Akalanka? So Akalanka cannot have flourished later than 676 A.D.
Pandit Šāstri quotes the following internal evidence from Akalanka's works which may be valuable to ascertain his date.
Dignāga the celebrated Buddhist philosopher in laying down the definition of Pratyakşa Pramāņa bas mentioned that Pratyakşa is 'Kalpanāpodha' Dharmakirti who was later than Dignāga added "Abhrānta’ to it in defining Pratyakşa. Akalanka in his Tattvārtha-rājavārttika has criticised the definition of Pratyakşa Pramāņa as laid down by Dignāga. A verse from Dignāga's Pramāņa-samuchchaya has also been quoted by Akalanka3.
Pandit Śāştri is of opinion that as Akalanka has not criticised Dharmakirti's definition of Pramāņa in his Tattvārtha-rāja-vārttika, though he criticised views of Dharmakirti in his other works,
we may infer that Dharmakirti's works Pramāņa1. "get oppe TCUTAFIT: Faarufunafafael telefonlan: felice fafara cupientemente uscatent fastefna EMUIEROTI” Page 37.
2. “दसणगाही-दसणणाणप्यभावगाणि सत्थाणि सिद्धिविनिच्छयसंमविमादि गेहंतो असंथरमाणे जं अकप्पियं पडिसेवति जयनाथे तत्थ से सुद्धो अप्रायश्चित्ती भवतीत्यर्थः।"
3. Sed ac A14 ATAFALGUTATI : TETETUTËTraga Faconureperat ll"
Pramāņa-samuchchaya by Dignāga.

Page #41

XXXVü
vārttika, Pramāņa-viniśchaya etc. were composed later than Tattvārtha-rāja-vārttika. In Tattvārtharāja-vārttika, Akalanka has quoted a verse which is said to be the first verse of the Prakaraña entitled Santānantara-siddhi' of Dharmakirti“. Pandit Sāstri holds the view that as Dharmakirti flourished from 635 to 650 A. D. Akalanka’s date can be ascertained from this.
Akalanka has also quoted from the work ‘Abhidharmakoşa' of Vasubandhuo.
Pandit Šāstri concludes from the above that Dharmakirti flourished from 635 to 650 A. D. and that Akalanka lived in the middle of the 7th century A.D.
In my opinion, no great help is derived from the internal evidence namely that Akalanka has mentioned Dharmakirti, Vasubandhu or Dignāga.
There is a view that Vasubandhu and Dignāga were contemporaries'. Udyotakara in his Nyāyavārttika refuted the views of Dignāga while discussing Prameya of Anumāna Pramāņa. Udyotakara has also mentioned Dharmakirti and Vinita-deva in Nyāyavārttika. This Udyotakara has been men
1. "glayali farmi egr FAQESUE TCHETT 1 Apa gle HTC HT a ag a ag eft: 11"
Tattvārtharāja vārttika. P. 19. [ Sanātana Jaina Granthamālā ] 2. "afar fara fe que fagnatura: 1 निरुपणानुस्मरणविकल्पनविकल्पकाः ॥"
Abhidharma-koşa of Vasubandhu. We find the reading "faloperire face geht:" in Abhidharma-kosa.
3. Nyāyadarśana by Mahamahopādhyāya Phanibhūşaņa Tarkabāgis Vol. I. (first edition ) Page 39.

Page #42

xxxviii
tioned by Subandhu the author of Vāsavadattā". Subandhu was earlier than Bāṇabhatta who lived in the court of king Harshavardhana of Kanauj (beginning of the 7th century). Bāṇabhatta has praised the work Vāsavadattā in his work Harşacharita?. Thus only this much can be mentioned with certainty that Dignāga, Dharmakirti and Vasubandhu could not have flourished later than the sixth century. Dr. Jacobi says "He (Udyotakara ) may therefore have flourished in the early part of the sixth century or still earlier "3.
But Vasubandhu and Dignāga might have lived long before the 6th century A. D. Yuan Chwang who came to Nālandā Vihāra in 637 A. D. has written that within a thousand years from the death or the Nirvāņa of Buddha, Monaratha and his disciple Vasubandhu livedo. Samuel Beal in his note to the above passage has written that at that time the Chinese Buddhists, accepted the date of Nirvāņa of Buddha as 850 B. C. On this calculation
1. rifeerfaria squinea-F97914,1" Vāsavadattā. 2. Watarameet Tri aragalu" Harşa-charitam.
3. The Dates of the Philosophical Sūtras of the Brahmaņas by Hermann Jacobi [Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 31, 1911 ].
4. "This Master ( Manoratha ) made his auspicious advent within the 1000 years after the Buddha's decease...Manoratha... sent an account of the circumstances to his disciple Vasubandhu and died.” (Ta-T'ang-Hsi-yü-chi by Yuan Chwang ).
Thomas Watters writes : “According to Yuan-Chwang Manoratha flourished within 1000 years after the decease of Buddha. This, taking the Chinese reckoning would place the date of the Šāstra-master before A.D. 150”.

Page #43

xxxix
the date of Vasubandhu will fall in the 2nd century Dignaga accordingly will be of the same
B. C.1
date.
The commentator Mallinatha has mentioned while explaining a verse in Kalidasa's Meghaduta that Dignaga was a contemporary of Kalidasa. This view has however been not generally accepted.

It is difficult to lay down definitely as has been done by Pandit Sastri that because Akalanka has criticised the definition of only Dignaga and not that of Dharmakirti in his Tattvartharajavārttika, we should conclude that the work 'Pramāṇaviniśchaya' of Dharmakirti was not then written. In our opinion, it is very unsafe to draw such a cónclusion from only this material specially as Pandit Sastri himself shows that Akalanka named his work 'Nyaya-viniśchaya' on the line of Dharmakirti's 'Pramana-viniśchaya' and the views of Dharmakirti have been refuted in other works of Akalanka.
Kumārila Bhatta was not referred to in the Nyaya Varttika of Udyotakaras. This may sup
1. But see: "Asanga brother of Vasubandhu (280-360) must have flourished in the first half of the fourth century". Introduction to Sadhana-mālā (Geakwad's Oriental Series) Page XXVII by B. Bhattacharya M.A.
2. “ दिङ्नागानां पथि परिहरण स्थूलहस्तावलेपान् ॥” Meghadūtam. Purva-meghaḥ verse 14.
“दिङ्नागाचार्यस्य कालिदासप्रतिपक्षस्य हस्ताबलेपान् हस्तविन्यासपूर्वकदूषणानि अद्रेरद्रिकल्पस्य दिङ्नागाचार्यस्य शृंगं प्राधान्यं हरति ।”
Sanjivani (commentary by Mallinatha).
3. Nyāyadarśana by Mahāmohopadhyāya Phaṇibhūṣaṇa Tarkabagis Vol. 1 (first edition P. 37-38).

Page #44

xl
port the view of Pandit Sastri that Kumārila Bhatta was not at least earlier than the 7th century A. D.
A. B. Keith in his Karma-Mimamsa Pages 10-11 writes: "Kumārila's date is determinable within defiinite limits; he used the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrihari; neither Hieun-Thsang nor It-sing mentions him; he was before Śankara; he attacked the Jain theory of an omniscient being as propounded in the Apta-mimamsa of Samanta-bhadra, but is not ans wered by Akalanka in his Asṭaśati which comments on the Apta-mimāmsā. On the other hand he is freely attacked by Vidyananda and Prabhachandra who both lived before 838 A. D. Vidyananda assures us, doubtless correctly, that he criticised the Buddhist Dharmakirti and Prabhakara, on the latter point agreeing with the result above arrived from internal evidence. The upper limit is therefore, not earlier than 700 A. D. The lower limit depends on his precise chronological relation to Sankara and the latter's exact date. Later tradition, the Sankaravijayas of Madhava and the pseudo-Anandagiri would make him an older contemporary, but the interval may have been considerably longer."
We agree with the views of Pandit Sastri regarding his conclusion about the time of Akalanka so far as materials are available up to the present.
We have dealt with the date af Akalanka in detail as we have no other data for fixing the date of Manikyanandi who we only know flourished later than Akalanka and based his work on Akalanka's writings. From what have already been discussed, we may infer that Manikyanandi flourished during

Page #45

the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th Commentaries century A. D. He has mentioned the Chārvāka on Parīkņā
school of philosophy as well as the Buddhist, mukham.
Sānkhya and Nyāya-vaiseșika systems of philosophy and Prabhākara and Jaimini?. Prabhāchandra
was the most celebrated commentator of ParikşāI. Prameya- mukham. His work is entitled “Prameya-kamala
kamala- mārtanda”. This Prabhāchandra has been mentioned mārtanda by (with his work Nyāya-kumuda-chandrodaya ) Prabhāchandra.
by Jinasena in Adipurāņa ( 838 A. D.) in the following verse :
"I praise Prabhāchandra the poet whose fame is white as the rays of the moon and who has encompassed the whole world by making 'Chandrodaya' (ʻrising of the moon' ; another meaning the work entitled Kumudachandrodaya' )”.
Prabhāchandra saluted Māņikyanandi at the
beginning of Prameya-kamala-mārtanda“. 1.: erfaffl Figa: gallgfaaret TEACHER Tacfaperala 11” Parikṣāmukham VI. 56.
2. “सौगतसांरव्ययौगप्रभाकरजैमिनीयानां प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमोपमानार्थाFerra sarfa cuffiaa Il" Ibid VI. 57. 3. "GILTSPURTE GH1975afå Egài
Stical and coi ta 319redi FOTEL II" Adi-purāņa.
Jinasena lived in the court of Amoghavarşa I who reigned according to Vincent Smith from 815 to 877 A.D. ( Early History of India P. 328 ). 4. SETEN ATI achegarcraatit
माणिक्यनन्दिपदपंकजसत्प्रसादात् । अर्थ किं न स्फुटयति प्रकृतं लधीयांलोकस्य भानुकरविस्फुरितादू गवाक्षः ॥"
Prameyakamala-mārtaņda. P-6

Page #46

II. Prameyaratnamālā by Anantavirya.

xlii
'3
Prabhachandra's commentary is specially valuable as it quotes the views of various Hindu and Buddhist writers on Nyaya philosophy and criticising the same establishes the Jain view.
The view of Dr. K. B. Pathak that Prabhāchandra was a disciple of Akalanka is erroneous1.
1. Dr. Pathak has taken the following verse of Prabhachandra in his work Nyayakumudachandrodaya to mean that Prabhachandra was a disciple of Akalanka, but no such interpretation is possible (Vide article by Pandit Jugalkisore published in Anekanta Vol. I. Page 130 ).
"वोधः कोऽप्यसमः समस्तविषयं प्राप्याकलंकं पदम् जातस्तेन समस्तवस्तुविषयं व्याख्यायते तत्पदम् । किं न श्रीगणभृज्जिनेन्द्रपदतः प्राप्तप्रभावः स्वयं व्यारव्यात्यप्रतिमं वचो जिनपतेः सर्वात्मभाषात्मकम् ॥” 2. " त्रैलोक्योदर वर्त्तिवस्तुविषयज्ञानप्रभावोदयो दुष्प्रापोऽप्यकलंकदेवसरणिः प्राप्तोऽत्र पुण्योदयात् । स्वभ्यस्तश्च विवेचितश्च शतशः सोऽनन्तवीर्योक्तितो भूयान्मे नयनीतिदत्तमनसस्तद्बोधसिद्धिप्रदः || ” 8. “ गूढमर्थमकलंक वाङ् मयागाधभूमिनिहितं तदर्थिनाम् । व्यञ्जयत्यमलमनन्तवीर्यवान दीपवर्त्तिरनिशं पदे पदे ॥"
The most widely read commentary of Parikṣāmukham is Prameya-ratnamālā. We have published the full text of it in this edition. The writer of this is Ananta-virya who also wrote commentaries of Akalanka's works. Prabhachandra has mentioned at the beginning of the fourth Chapter of his Nyayakumudachandra that he has been able to study and discuss many times through the writings of Anantavirya, the difficult expositions of Akalanka imparting ȧ knowledge of all objects in the three worlds. Vādirāja Sūri in his Nyaya-viniśchaya-vivarana writes that at every step the deep meaning of Akalanka's writing has been illuminated by the writings of Anantavirya like a lamp3.

Page #47

xii
Though such a great writer, Anantavirya professed utmost humility in saying at the beginning of his commentary on Siddhiviniśchaya :-"It is a great wonder that even Anantavirya (in another sense 'one who has infinite power' ) is unable to explain fully the meaning of the work of Akalanka"1.
In this commentary on Siddhiviniśchaya, Anantavirya has mentioned Dharmottar, Prajñākar and Archata. The date of Archata the author of the commentary on Hetu-vindu is according to Rāhula Sankrityāyana 825 A. D. Ananta-virya must have therefore flourished not earlier than the 9th century A.D.
In Prameyaratnamālā, Anantavirya has referred to Dharmakirti (page 10 ) Vyāsa (page 20 ), Patañjali (page 20 ) Avadhūta (page 20 ) and Manu ( page 49 ). He has mentioned the works Apta-parikşā (page 23), Devāgamālankāra also known as Apta-mimāņsā (page 24 ) by Samantabhadra and Naya-chakra. He has quoted from the Vedas ( page 20 ) and Sankhya-kārika ( page 52 ) of Isvara-krişņa. ___Sayana-Madhava in his Sarva-darsana-samgraha while explaining Saptabhanginaya of Arhata
Darsana has quoted Ananta-virya'. 1. "देवस्यानन्तवीर्योऽपि पदं व्यक्तुं तु सर्वतः ।
न जानीतेऽकलंकस्य चित्रमेतद् परं भुवि ॥" 2. "तत्सर्वमनन्तवीर्यः प्रत्यपीपदत्
तविधानविवक्षायां स्यादस्तीति गतिर्भवेत् । स्यानास्तीति प्रयोगः स्यात्तन्निषेधे विवक्षिते ।। क्रमेणोभयवाग्छायां प्रयोगः समुदायभाक् । युगपत्तद्विवक्षायां स्यादवाच्यमशक्तितः ।। आद्यावाच्यविवक्षायां पञ्चमो भंग इष्यते । अन्त्यावाच्यविवक्षायां षष्ठभंगसमुद्भवः ॥ समुच्चयेन युक्तश्च सप्तमो भंग उच्यते ।। इति ।"

Page #48

xliv
Ananta-virya has mentioned Prabhāchandra in the beginning of his work : "When there is a moon like the work of Prabhāchandra, how can I resembling a fire-fiy expect to be counted ?"1
It is mentioned in the beginning of Prameyaratna-mala that this commentary 'Panchikai on Parikşāmukham was composed for study of Sāntişeņa at the request of Hirapa the favourite son of Vaijeya'. At the colophon of this work it is mentioned that Vaijeya was born in the family of Vadarīpāla. His wife was Nāņāmba who was also known as Revati, Prabhāvati and Prathitāmbikā. Hirapa was their son. At his request, Anantavirya has cleared the meaning of the work of Māņikyanandi 4.
Sarvadarśana-samgraha Edited by V. S. Abhayankar Pages 83-8+. . 1. "प्रभेन्दुवचनोदारचन्द्रिकाप्रसरे सति । मादृशाः क नु गण्यन्ते ज्योतिरिङ्गणसन्निभा ॥"
Prameya-ratnamālā. 2. Pañchikā is a commentary in which each word of the
original work is explained. c.f.
"कारिका स्वल्पवृत्तिस्तु, सूत्रं सूचनकं स्मृतम् ।
टीका निरन्तरं व्याख्या, पंचिका पदभंजिका ॥" 3. "वैजेयप्रियपुत्रस्य हीरपस्योपरोधतः ।
शान्तिषेणार्थमारब्धा परीक्षामुखपंचिका.॥" Prameyaratnamala. "श्रीमान् बैजेयनामाभूदप्रणोर्गणशालिनाम् । वदरीपालवंशालिव्योमदयुमणिरुर्जितः ।। तदीयपत्नी भुवि विश्रुतासीन्नाणाम्बनान्मा गुणशीलसीमा । यां रेवतीति प्रथिताम्विकेति प्रभावतीति प्रवदन्ति सन्तः ॥ तस्यामभूद्विश्वजनीनवृत्तिनाम्बुवाहो भूवि हीरपारव्यः । स्वगोत्रविस्तारनभोंशुमाली सम्यक्त्वरत्नाभरणार्चितांगः ॥ तस्योपरोधवशतो विशदोरुकीर्तेर्माणिक्यनन्दिकृतशास्त्रमगाधबोधम् । स्पष्टीकृतं कतिपयैर्वचनैरुदारैर्वालप्रवोधकरमेतदनन्तवीर्यैः ॥"
Colophon to Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #49

xlv
Commentaries on Prameya ratna-mālā.
(a) Arthaprakāśikā.
Prameyakamalamārtaņda being a voluminous work and full of discussions regarding views of logicians other than Jain logicians, could not easily be tackled by those who wanted to learn the subjectmatter only of Parikşāmukham. Prameya-ratnamālā satisfied their want being a shorter and simpler work though it briefly alluded to the views of other logicians wherever necessary. Many expositions of this commentary Prameyaratnamālā were written. Three of these are preserved in Jain Siddhānta Bhavan, Arrah.
The first is Arthaprakāśikā. In the verses at the beginning it is mentioned that it is written by Panditāchārya (no specific name being given )'. Some attribute it (without however any definite proof ) to Chārukirti. There were several Chārukirtis and nothing definite can be said as who really was the author of this treatise. The Mangalācharaṇa, the colophon and a portion from the middle of this work have been printed from the Mss. in Jain Siddhānta Bhāskara. Bhāga 4. Kiraņa 1. Prasasti-sangraha page 66.
The second is Prameya-ratna-mālā-lankāra. After saluting Akalanka?, and Māņikyanandi® the author praises Prabhāchandra the author of Prameya
(b) Prameya- ratnamalalaňkāra.
1.
“ afastarafa aferat grade255741 प्रमेयरत्नमालार्थः संक्षेपेण विविच्यते । प्रमेयरत्नमालायाः व्यारन्यास् सन्ति सहस्रशः । aerfa afocalarifa'da flag: ll" Arthaprakāsikā. "Percal PPATAISHAT A fe a alespea grati”
Prameyaratnamālālankāra. dan anda France et Tahffurecaret HH !" Ibid.
2.
3.

Page #50

1.
2.
xlvi
kamalamārtaṇḍa1. The author then mentions his name as Charu-kirti and the name of the work as Prameyaratnamālālaṁkāra. From the colophon of this work we learn that this Charukirti resided in Śravana Belgola (where the world-renowed image of Gommatesvara exists) and belonged to Desi Gana. Gommatesvara or Vahuvali is saluted
in two verses at the end1.
Pandit Bhujavali Sastri is of opinion that it is very probable that this Charukirti was the author of the same name who composed commentaries on Pārsvābhyudaya, Chandraprabha kavya, Adipurāṇa, Yasodharacharita, Neminirvāņa etc. The Pattadhisas of Śravana Belgola are all known by the common name of Charukirti. So it is difficult to settle who this particular person was.
" जयतु प्रभेन्दुसूरिः प्रमेयकमलप्रकाण्डमार्त्तण्डेन ।” Ibid. “श्रीचारुकीर्त्तिधुर्यस्सन्तनुते पण्डितार्यमुनिवर्यः ।
व्याख्यां प्रमेयरत्नालंकाराख्यां मुनीन्द्रसुत्राणाम् ॥” Ibid. “श्रीमद्देशिगणाप्रगण्यस्य श्रीमद् वेल् गुलपुरनिवासरसिकस्य चारुकीर्त्तिपण्डिताचार्यस्य कृतौ परीक्षामुखसूत्रव्याख्यायां प्रमेयरत्नमालालंकारसमाख्यायाम् ...'
3.
33
Ibid.

The Mangalacharana, the colophon and some portions from the middle of this manuscript have been printed in Jain Siddhanta Bhaskar. Bhāga 4. Kirana 1. Prasasti sangraha pages 68-71.
4. “किं च श्रीगुमटेश्वरस्य कृपया विंध्याद्रिचूडामणेः ।" Ibid.
Also:
“श्रीमदूवेलगुलमध्यभासुरमहाविन्ध्याद्रिचिन्तामणिः
श्रीमद् बाहुबली करोतु कुशलं भव्यात्मनां सन्ततम् ।” Ibid.
5.
Notes by Pandit K. Bhujavali Śāstri on Prasasti
sangraha Page 71 (Jain Siddhanta Bhaskara. Bhāga 4. Kiraṇa 1).

Page #51

xlvii
(c) Nyayamani
dipika.
The third work is Nyāyamaņidipikā. Two Mss. of this work are preserved in Jain Siddhānta Bhavan, Arrah. The name of the author is not found in the Mss. Pandit Subayya Sāstri says that in some palm leaf Mss. of this work, the name of the writer is mentioned as Ajitasenāchārya. Pandit K. Bhujavali Šāstri says that this is supported by "Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prākrita Manuscripts in the Central Provinces and Berar by R. B. Hiralal B. A. Appendix B"1.
The author has made obeisance to Akalanka, Anantavirya, Māņikyanandi and Prabhāchandra in the Mangalācharaṇa of his work?. As regards commentaries to Parikşāmukham, he mentions that Prabhāchandra wrote an exhaustive commentary entitled Prameyakamalamārtaņda. Though this work was suitable to scholars, there was a necessity for a shorter and easier commentary. Hirapa Vaiśya the son of Vaijeya of the family of Badripāla requested Ananta-virya to teach Santisena. Anantavirya composed Prameya-ratna-mālā under these circumstances.
1. - Notes by Pandit K. Bhujavali Sastri on Prasasti sangraha Page 2-3 (Jain Siddhānta Bhāskar Bhāga II. Kiraņa 1'). 2. श्रीवर्द्धमानमकलंकमनन्तवीर्यमाणिक्यनंदियतिभाषितशास्त्रवृत्तिम् । "भक्त्या प्रभेन्दुरचितालघुवृत्तिदृष्टया नत्वा यथाविधि वृणोमि । लघुप्रपञ्चम् ॥"
Nyaya-mani-dipika. 3. "तदनु तत्प्रकरणस्य विशिष्टतमोऽतिस्पष्टं....प्रभाचन्द्रभट्टारकः प्रमेयकमलमार्तण्डनामवृहपृत्तिं चरीकरोति स्म। तद् वृत्तिग्रन्थस्य....सकलविद्वञ्चित्तप्रकाशकत्वेऽपि....बालान्तःकरण....प्रकाशनसामर्थ्याभावमाकलय्य तत्प्रकाशनाय.... प्रमेयरत्नमालेत्यन्वर्थनामोवहती....लध्वी वृत्ति....अनन्तवीर्याचार्यवयों....वैजेयप्रियसूनुना हीरपाख्यवैश्योत्तमेन वदरीपालवंशद्युमणिना शान्तिषेणाध्यापनाभिलाषिणा प्रेरितः सन् प्रारीपसुः....” Ibid.

Page #52

xlviii
III. Prameya-
kanthika.
A commentary named Prameya-kaņthikā on Parikşāmukham was written by śāntivarņi. It has not been possible to ascertain details about this sāntivarņi or the probable time when his work was written. There are five Sections (Falas) in this work. Following the Sūtras of Parikṣāmukham the author has refuted the views of other logicians ( Bauddha etc. ) and established the Jain view. A Mss. of this work is preserved in Jain Siddhānta Bhavan, Arrah and the portions at the beginning and the colophon have been published in Jain Siddhānta Bhaskara Bhāga 4, Kiranas 1 and 2. 'PrasastiSangraha, pages 72 and 731. .
Vādiveva Sūri (12th century A. D.) composed Pramāna-naya-tattvālokālankāra closely following Parikşāmukham. Many aphorisms are exactly the same, only synonyms being used”. In some aphorisms, an attempt is seen to show some novelty by giving examples of a different kind but the examples
Parīkņāmukham and Pramana
naya-tattvalokalankara.
___1.
The Mangalacharana runs thus :
"श्रीवर्धमानमानम्य विष्णुं विश्वसृजं हरं।
परीक्षामुखसुत्रस्य ग्रन्थस्यार्थ विवृण्महे ॥" The Colophon is : "श्रीशान्तिवर्णिविरचितायां प्रमेयकण्ठिकायां पञ्चमः स्तवकः समाप्तः ।
प्रमेयकण्ठिका जीयात् प्रसिद्धानेकसद्गुणा। लसन् मार्तण्ड-साम्राज्ययौवराज्यस्य कण्ठिका ॥ स निष्कलङ्क जनयन्तु तर्के वा बाधितर्को मम तर्करत्ने ।
केनानिशं ब्रह्मकृतः कलंकश्चन्द्रस्य किं भूषणकारणं न ॥" Compare “हिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमर्थ हि प्रमाणं ततो ज्ञानमेव तत् ॥"
Pariksāmukham. I. 2. and "अभिमतानभिमतवस्तुस्वीकारतिरस्कारक्षम हि प्रमाणमतो
ज्ञानमेवेदम् ।” Pramānanayatattvalokilaikāra I. 3.
2.

Page #53

xlix
in Parikşāmukhum are more simple and easily understood'. In many places some extra words have been introduced in aphorismss. A detailed comparison between Parikşāmukham and Pramāņa-nayatattvālokālankāra will be found in the article in
Hindi entitled 'Pramāna-nayatattvalankāra ki samiksa' by Pandit Bansidhar Ji in Jain Siddhānta Bhāskar, Bhaga 2. Kirañas 1 and 2. Pages 18 and 70.
___ 1. Compare : "घटमहमात्मना वेद्मि।" Pariksamukham I. 8.
"करिकलभकमहमात्मना जानामि ।"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra I. 16. “प्रदीपवत् ।" Pariksamukham. I. 12. मिहिरालोकवत् ।"
___Pramānanayatattvalokalankara I. 17. or "यथा नद्यास्तीरे मोदकराशयः सन्ति धावध्वं मानवकाः।"
Parikṣāmukham VI. 52. “यथा मेकलकन्यकायाः कूले तालहिन्तालयोर्मले सुलभाः पिण्डखजुराः सन्ति त्वरितं गच्छत गच्छत शावकाः।"
Pramananayatattvalokalankāra. VI. 84. 2. Compare : “सहचारिणोरपि परस्परपरिहारेणावस्थानात्
सहोत्पादाच्च ।" Pariksāmukham III. 64. “सहचारिणोः परस्पररुपत्यागेन तादात्म्यानुपपत्तेः सहोत्पादेन तदुत्पत्तिविपत्तेश्च सहचरहेतोरपि प्रोक्तेषु नानुप्रवेशः।"
____Pramānanayatattvalokalankāra III. 76. "उपलम्भानुपलम्भनिमित्तं व्याप्तिज्ञानमूहः ॥ इदमस्मिन् सत्येव भवत्यसति न भवत्येवेति च॥" Pariksāmukham. III.11.12. 'उपलम्भानुपलम्भसंभवं त्रिकालीकलितसाध्यसाधनसम्बन्धाद्यालंवनम् इदमस्मिन् सत्येव भवतीत्याद्याकारं संवेदनमूहापरनामा
at: 11" Pramāṇa-naya-tattvālokālankāra III. 7. P-7
or

Page #54

Hemachandra also wrote his Pramāņa pimāmsă in aphorisms though Sūtra works at such a late period when he flourished were unnecessary. (Vide Pramāņa mimāmsā by S. C. Ghoshal Jain Gazette Vol. XI p. 138).
Parīkņāmukham is divided into six sections Subject matter. (Samuddeśa). In the first section Pramīņa is defined Parikşămukham.
and explained. In the second section two kinds of Pramāņa viz. Pratyakşa and Parokşa are mentioned and Pratyakşa with its varieties are described. The third section deals with Parokşa Pramāna and its subdivisions Smriti, abbijñāna, Tarka, · Anum.na and Agima. Ne rreater portion of this section is devoted to Antenne (inte ance) the most important subject in all as works. The two varieties of Anumāņa viz. Svunna and Parārtha are described in detail. The fourth section treats with the subject of Pramāṇa with its two varieties Sāmānya and Višeşa with their subdivisions. In the fifth section, the result of Framāņa is described. The sixth and the last section deals with fallacies.
There are 13 aphorisms in the first, 12 in the second, 101 in the third, 9 in the fourth, 3 in the fifth and 74 in the sixth section of this work.
In the present edition, a new line has been struck out in writing the English commentary. Without entering into the usual refutations and counters refutations of views of Jain, Hindu and Buldhist logicians as is found in Sanskrit commentaries which will create a volumious work and cloud the main theme, I have taken special pains to make a comparative study of the subject matter and have quoted the views of all important older and later writers on this sub tc. It is hoped that the reader by going

Page #55

li
through this commentary will not only gain a thorough idea of Jain Vyāya as succintly put down by the celebrated Digimvara writer Māņikyanandi who was never surpassed by any other author in making a clear and brief exposition of the subject but he will also have a grasp of the work of other Digamvara as well as 'vetām vara authors many of whom like Vā-lideva composed works which atteinpted to rival that of Māņikyanandi. My attempt has been to explain in a simple and clear way the views of Jain Nyāya taking great pains to cull authorities from all available important Jain works. I have not left out the views of Hindu and Buddhist philosophers which are referred to in the work itself though I have dealt with the same only so far as is necessary for the understanding of the subject.
The present work was undertaken with the generous help of the trustees of J. L. Jaini Memorial Fund to whom my heartfelt thanks are due. Portions of the work were printed in the Jain Gazette through the courtesy of Pandit Ajit Prasad M.A. LL.B., the Editor of the said journal without whose efforts this work would never have been undertaken.
I am deeply indebted to Brahmachari Sital Prasāslji and Pandit Sumerchand Nyāyatirtha M. A. LL.B. for their valuable suggestions. For loan of rare books and manuscripts my sincerest gratitu le is due to the authorities of the Jain Siddhānt Bhavan, Arrah. late Puran Chand Nahar M. A., B. L. Vakil, High Court, Calcutta, Seth Ananda Raj Surana of
Delhi and Pandit K. Bhujabali Castri, Arrah. COOCHBEHAR,
S. C. GHOSHAL. August, 1940.

Page #56

A GUIDE TO TRANSLITERATION
VOWELS
37 - A
39—Ā
5-U #-RI
—Rİ
Ami ni
-LI
LLIB S-E $-AI. :
31-0
-OU –M :-H
1111111
CONSONANTS
10
$-Ka e-Kha 7-Ga 2-Gha
Fşa स-Sa -Ha
<-ľa
-Tha 3-Da 7-Dha 0-Ņa a-Ta 9-Tha
5
9-Pa 5-Pha a-Ba 4-Bha #-Ma
-Ya T-Ra 3-La a-Va
9-Cha 5-Chha 5-Ja
-Jha 5-Na
-Da 4-Dha -Na

Page #57

ste
परीक्षामुखम् PARĪKSĀMUKHAM
प्रमाणादर्थसंसिद्धिस्तदाभासाद्विपर्ययः ।
इति वक्ष्ये तयोर्लक्ष्म सिद्धमल्पं लघीयसः ॥ Pramāṇādarthasamsiddhistadābhāsādviparyayah.
Iti vakşye tayorlakşma siddhamalpaņ laghiyasaḥ.
Padapātha. Jama Pramāṇāt, from Pramāņa ( valid knowledge ), 37eftiferite: Arthasamsiddhiḥ, knowables are rightly ascertained, ATATATL Tadābhāsāt, from Pramāņābhāsa ( false knowledge ), faria: Viparyaya', the opposite (happens ), fat Iti, for that reason, gatua: Laghiyasal, for those who desire a short exposition, 7ht: Tayoh, of those (i. e. Pramāṇa and Pramāņābhūsa ), fagn Siddham, as laid down by authorities, 37699 Alpam, short, A. Lakşma, definition, 72 Vakşye, ( I shall ) speak ( describe ).
1. From Pramāņa ( valid knowledge ) knowables are rightly ascertained and from Pramāņābhāsa (false knowledge), the opposite happens. For this reason, I shall describe the definitions of these as laid down by authorities in a concise manner for the benefit of those who desire a short exposition ( of this subject ).
Commentary Māņikyanandi the author of Parikşāmukham begins his work by mentioning the subject matter of the treatise and says that he will define and deal with Pramāņa ( valid knowledge ) and Pramāņābhāsa ( false knowledge ).

Page #58

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Prabhāchandra in his commentary named Prameyakamalamārtaņda on Parikşāmukham writes that the wise only appreciate a work which has coherence in its subject matter, which has some object in view and this object is possible of attainment. Incoherent words like those of a mad man find no hearing. Useless attempts like counting the hairs of an ass or teeth of a crow or finding the weight of an egg of a sheep ( which are impossibilities ) are not made by wise men. They are not also attracted to a task which is unpalatable such as finding out another husband to one's own mother or to follow an advice to perform a task incapable of being fulfilled like the finding out of a jewel on the head of a snake known as Takşaka which is said to cure all kinds of fever.”
Prabhāchandra quotes these verses to support his view :
"At the beginning of every fāstra, the object with its connection should be mentioned, for a hearer pays attention to only a definite subject and things connected with the same. Who would pay attention to a treatise or do any kind of work till its necessity is patent? That Šāstra for which no necessity is explained is not desired by the wise. So at the outset, the necessity is to be explained. When the results of studying a Šāstra are known, the wise begin to read it with the object of attaining these results. Until connection with the subject matter is established, the writing is regarded as speech of a man uttering incoherent words in delirium. So commentators should explain the necessity of a work with its connected subject matter. Otherwise it will be useless.3
1 Warfare afa ar çral À CETTE 147437 1
at afar daroitga qefarcuri” 2 "सम्बन्धाभिधेयशक्यानुष्ठानेष्टप्रयोजनवन्ति हि शास्त्राणि प्रेक्षावद्भिराद्रियन्ते, नेतराणि। सम्बन्धाभिधेयरहितस्योन्मत्तादिवाक्यवत्, तद्वतोऽप्यप्रयोजनवतः काकदन्तपरीक्षावद् , अनभिमतप्रयोजनवतो वा मातृविवाहोपदेशवद् , अशक्यानुष्ठानस्य वा सर्वज्वरहरतक्षकचूडारत्नालंकारोपदेशवदू , तैरनादरणीयत्वात् ॥"
3 "सिद्धार्थ सिद्धसम्बन्धं श्रोता श्रोतुं प्रवर्तते ।
शास्त्रादौ तेन वक्तव्यः सम्बन्धः सप्रयोजनः ।।

Page #59

Parikṣāmukham
The necessity for studying logic and attaining right knowledge will be evident from the following. The path of liberation according to Jain doctrines, consists of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. These three are called the three jewels in Jain works. These are attained in a particular stage of development by the householder. Their perfection is attained in the Arhat stage. Right faith is the belief in the seven Tattvas (essential principles) of Jainism.± The Tattvas are Jiva, Ajiva, Asrava, Bandha, Samvara, Nirjarā and Moksa. "
सर्वस्यैव हि शास्त्रस्य कर्मणो वापि कस्यचित् । यावत् प्रयोजनं नोक्तं तावत्तत् केन गृह्यताम् ॥ अनिर्दिष्टफलं सर्वं न प्रेक्षापूर्वकारिभिः । शास्त्रमाद्रियते तेन वाच्यमग्रे प्रयोजनम् ॥ शास्त्रस्य तु फले ज्ञाते तत्प्राप्त्याशावशीकृताः । प्रेक्षावन्तः प्रवर्त्तन्ते तेन वाच्यं प्रयोजनम् ॥ यावत् प्रयोजनेनास्य सम्बन्धो नाभिधीयते । असम्बद्धप्रलापित्वाद्भवेत्तावदसङ्गतिः ॥ 'तस्माद् व्याख्याङ्गमिच्छद्भिः सहेतुः सप्रयोजनः । शास्त्रावतारसम्बन्धो वाच्यो नान्योऽस्ति निष्फलः || ” 1 " सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणि मोक्षमार्गः ।”
Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 1. “कृत्स्नकर्मक्षयो मोक्षो भव्यस्य परिणामिनः । ज्ञानदर्शनचारित्र त्रयोपायः प्रकीर्त्तितः ॥ "

Chandraprabha-charitam XVIII. 123.
"ज्ञानदर्शनचारित्रैरुपायैः परिणामिनः ।
भव्यस्यायमनेकाङ्गविकल्पैरेव जायते || "
Dharmaśarmābhyudayam XXI. 161.
2 " तत्वार्थ श्रद्धानं सम्यग्दर्शनम् ।”
3 " जीवाजीवात्रंववंधसंवरनिर्जरामोक्षास्तत्वम् । "
3
Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 2.
Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 4.

Page #60

The Sacred Books of the Jainas the Jainas
: A sincere belief in the Tattvas which is called right faith or Samyaktva arises either of itself or through instruction. That is to say, it may arise from intuition independently of any precept or it may come to exist from external sources e. g. from precept of others or by reading the scriptures. There is no necessity for any work on Logic for those who get right faith through intuition, but as regards others, Pramūņa and Naya are the means of instruction. Thus the connection of Pramāṇa with the highest goal viz. the attainment of liberation is established.
The pursuit of study of Pramāņas accordingly cannot be unpalatable. It is the object of every being to acquire what is desirable and leave what is un-desirable. In Nyāya philosophy, an example is commonly cited that people like to have garlands of flowers, sandal paste etc. while they wish to avoid snakes, thorns etc. This like or dislike arises from actual perception. People act accordingly towards these objects to acquire or avoid the same. Vātsyāyana, the writer of the Bhāşya on the Nyāya Sūtras of Gautama writes "The knower by Pramāņa only understands the real nature of knowables and wishes to have or leave the same.".
These Tattvas have been explained in detail in Dravyasamgraha (Edited by S. C. Ghoshal ), Vol. I, Sacred Books of the Jainas. 1 Wafanfanare a11"
Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 3. 2 "AMAZTETTA: 1"
Tattvārthādhigama sūtra I, 6. 3 Dharmabhūşana Yati has begun his Nyāya-dipikā in the above strain :
'प्रमाणनयैरधिगम इति महाशास्त्रतत्वार्थसूत्रम् । तत् खलु परमपुरुषार्थनिःश्रेयससाधनसम्यग्दर्शनादिविषयीभूत-जीवादि-तत्वाधिगमोपायनिरुपणपरम् । प्रमाणनयाभ्यां हि विवेचिता जीबादयः सम्यगधिगम्यते । तव्यतिरेकेण जीवादूयधिगमे प्रमाणान्तरासंभवात् । तत एव जीवादयधिगमोपायभूतौ प्रमाणनयावपि विवेक्तव्यौ ॥" 1 4 "Arta Acacialseiyu6F4 Thefaritqafar frerafa atı"

Page #61

Parikṣāmukham
In spiritual activities also, a man who understands the transitory character of the worldly objects of enjoyment and the eternal nature of the supreme being, leaves the temporal things and turns to God. This knowing of the real nature of things is a path to liberation and this knowledge is Pramāņa. Māņikyanandi has expressed the same idea in the third aphorism of Samuddeśa I of Parikṣamukham.1
The result of Pramāņa has been mentioned to be the destruction of wrong knowledge, leaving (undesirable objects), acquiring (desirable objects) or acting indifferently towards objects. Siddhasena Divakara has mentioned in his Nyāyāvatāra : "The immediate effect of Pramāņa 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" (Translation by Dr. Satis Chandra Vidyabhusan)
In another way, it may be urged that it is only when we use our faculties after understanding the real nature of a thing, that our efforts succeed. If a man wants water but wrongly supposes oil to be water, his efforts towards the oil would be fruitless in the attainment of his object. By Pramana we understand the real nature of objects and by Pramāṇābhāsa, we get false knowledge. So we must leave Pramāṇābhāsa and through Pramāņas, understand the real nature of objects. This is the meaning of the first
1 " हिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमर्थ हि प्रमाणं ततो ज्ञानमेव तत् । " Parikṣamukham I. 3.
2. “अज्ञान निवृत्तिनोपादानोपेक्षाच फलम् ।”
Parikṣāmukham V. 1.
3 " प्रमाणस्य फलं साक्षादज्ञान विनिवर्त्तनम् । केवलस्य सुखोपेक्षे शेषस्यादानहानधीः || ”

5
Nyayavatara Ed. by S. C.
Vidyabhusana p. 26.

Page #62

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
line of the first Sloka of Pariksāmukham. The same has been mentioned by Vātsyāyana' and by Vidyānanda Svāmi.”
The importance of Pramāṇa is thus established both as regards our worldly pursuits and as regards the attainment of liberation by understanding the way to it with the removal of hindrances by Pramāṇas and Nayas."
In Parikṣāmukham the author deals mainly with Pramāņas without discussing the Nayas. Many authors like Hemachandra have held that Nayas are part of Pramāṇas and many authors on Jain Logic have set out only the word "Pramāna" in the title though they discussed both Pramāṇas and Nayas in their works. For example, Hemachandra has named his work "Pramāņa-mināmsā” though he dealt with both Pramāṇas and Nayas in his treatise. Hemchandra writes in his Bhāşya to the first aphorism of Pramāņamimāmsā : "In this work we have not only a discussion of Pramānas but also of Nayas which form part of Pramānas and by which a correct knowledge is obtained by refutation of wrong Nayas”.4" There are also separate works like Saptabhangitarangiņi in which Nayas have been discussed in detail.
Prabhāchandra mentions that the word “Pramāņa” is used in the singular number in the sloka, in the general sense as the author has no intention to set up the various kinds of Pramāņas in the enumeration."
1 “प्रमाणतोऽर्थप्रतिपत्तौ प्रवृत्तिसामर्थ्यादर्थवत् प्रमाणं, प्रमाणमन्तरेण नार्थप्रतिपत्तिः, नार्थप्रतिपत्तिमन्तरेण प्रवृत्तिसामर्थ्य ।" .
2 "TAGE-TİFETE: 1"
3 Hemachandra affirms this : "aa feradaa gama afegitigaLÀTANT Atari Agfaretai faretai 1" Pramāņa Mimāṁsā I. 1.
। “न प्रमाणमात्रस्यैव विचारोऽत्राधिकृतः किन्तु तदेकदेशभूतानां दुर्णयनिराकरणद्वारेण परिशोधितमार्गानां नयानामपि ।” Pramānu Mimamsa
[ Translated by S. C. Ghoshal.
- Jain Gazette ( 1915 ) Vol. XI. Page 278 ] 5 'वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणलक्षितप्रमाणभेदमनभिप्रेत्यानन्तरसकलप्रमाणविशेषसाधारणप्रमाणलक्षणपुरःसरः 'प्रमाणादू' इत्येकवचननिर्देशः कृतः ।”

Page #63

Parikşāmukham
An objection is raised by the commentator Prabhāchandra “Does the author Māņikyanandi wish to define Pramāṇa and Pramāņābhāsa according to the previous authors on the subject or according to his own inclination ? If the former, there is no reason for his undertaking this labour, for a thing which has already been reduced to powder, should not be powdered again. If the latter, there is no necessity to take all this trouble, for scholars would not consider with regard any compilation produced according to one's own inclination ( as opposed to the works of old writers ).” The commentator replies to this objection by saying that (i) by the use of the word "Siddham”, it is meant that the author will follow the definitions as laid down by venerable writers of old and (ii) by the use of the word “Alpam” it is meant that the method of treatment will be different viz. that the author will treat the subject in a concise manner leaving aside the detailed exposition of writers like Akalanka. That is to say, though the writer will follow the definitions of the older writers, the method of treatment being new ( as it will be brief as distinguished from the detailed statement of older writers) there cannot be any apprehension that the work will be a use-less repetition. Those who do not want a very lengthy and detailed treatment of a subject would be satisfied with a short exposition. The author whose mind is always prone to doing good to others cannot be said to have any intention of cheating the disciples by promulgating definitions opposed to older writers and invented by himself."
1 "ननु चेदं वक्ष्यमाणं प्रमाणलक्षणं पूर्वशास्त्राप्रसिद्धं तद्विपरीतं वा, यदि पूर्वशास्त्राप्रसिद्धं, तर्हि तव्युत्पादनप्रयासो नारम्भणीयः, स्वरुचिविरचितत्वेन सतामनादरणीयत्वात् । तत्प्रसिद्धं तु नितरामतन्न व्युत्पादनीयं, पिष्टपेषणप्रसंगादू इत्याहः 'सिद्धमल्पम् । प्रथमविशेषणेन व्युत्पादनवत् तल्लक्षणप्रणयने स्वातन्त्र्यं परिहृतम् । तदेवाकलंकमिदं पूर्वशास्त्रपरम्पराप्रमाणप्रसिद्धं लघूपायेन प्रतिपाद्य प्रज्ञापरिपाकार्थ व्युत्पद्यते, न स्वरुचिविरचितं ; नापि प्रमाणानुपपन्नं, परोपकारनियतचेतसो ग्रन्थकृतो विनेयसंवादने प्रयोजनाभावात् । तथाभूतं हि वदन् विसंवादकः स्यात् । 'अल्प' मिति विशेषणेन यदन्यत्राकलंकदेवैविस्तरेणोक्तं प्रमाणेतरलक्षणं, तदेवात्र संक्षेपेण विनेयव्युत्पादनार्थ अभिधीयते इति पुनरुक्तत्वनिरासः ।"

Page #64

8
.
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
In older works of Jain writers, logic was mixed up with metaphysics and religion. Subsequent writers composed separate works confining themselves exclusively to the subject of pure Logic. These writers however did not depart from the original definitions of older works though in delineation they adopted different methods and even when they tried to modify the definitions, they laid down that the modified meaning was the intention of the old writers. The veneration to the oldest propounders of Logic will be universally found in the works of all subsequent writers. So Mānikyanandi also begins his work by saying that he will lay down the definitions of Pramāņa and Pramāṇābhāsa according to ancient authorities (“Siddham”).
The same fact appears in Hindu philosophies where the authors attempt to base their theories on texts of the Vedas which are universally accepted as undisputable authorities. We find attempts to explain a particular passage from the Vedas in diverse ways to suit the purpose of different expositors.
Māņikyanandi has based his Parikşāmukham on the work of Akalanka Deva. Anantavirya the writer of Prameyaratnamālā a commentary on Parikşāmukham has offered his obeisance to Māņikyanandi thus : “Salutation to that Māņikyanandi who has churned the nectar of Nyāya-vidyā from the ocean of Akalanka's words."1 Prabhāchandra also states that as the work of Aklanka would not be easily understood by all, Māņikyanandi has composed the Prakaraṇa Pariksāmukham.2 In Nyāyamaņidipikā the same has been mentioned."
1 56370a=ISFHTEIGEE Ja sithat I न्यायविद्यामृतं तस्मै नमो माणिक्यनन्दिने ।”
Frameyaratnamālā 2. 2 "श्रीमदकलंकार्थोऽव्युत्पन्नप्रज्ञैरवगतुं न शक्यते, इति तद्व्युत्पादनाय करतलामलकवत् तदर्थमुद्धृत्य प्रतिपादयितुकामस्तत्परिज्ञानानुग्रहेच्छाप्रेरितस्तदर्थafaqiqagqui garofightETT: JE 1" Prameyakamala-Mārtaņda.
3 "भगवान् भट्टाकलंकदेवो विश्वविद्वन्मण्डलहृदयाल्हादियुक्तिशास्त्रेण जगत्

Page #65

Parikşāmukham The commentators of Parikṣāmukham were faced with the fact that there is no Mangalācharaṇa in this work. In most of Brahmanical works, Mangalācharaṇa verses are found and even where there are no special verses, attempts are made by commentators to show that the first words of such works e. g. "Atha” is auspicious and serves the purpose of Margalācharaṇa." The Jain writers also hold that Mangalācharaṇa should be used to remove obstacles to a successful completion of the work, as even the great men are subject to many obstructions even in good work.? The use of Mangalācharaṇa is also supported by Siştāchāra ( practice of the good or the respectable ).
Prabhāchandra and Anantavirya write that salutation can be made by words, by the body and also mentally. So though salutation in words is not found in this work, it can be urged that salutation by bodily movements or a mental salutation has been made. If any one is unwilling to accept this, it can be said that the words in the beginning viz. “Pramāņa" can have a secondary meaning which would serve the purpose of salutation. “Mā” means "Lakşmi" and “Aña” means "Sabda”. He who has “Pra” (Prakrişta = सधर्मप्रभावमवूबुधत्तमाम् । तदनु वालानुजिघृक्षुः......माणिक्यनन्दिमुनिवृन्दारकस्तत्. प्रकाशित-शास्त्रमहोदधेरुद्धृत्य तदवगाहनाय पोतोपमं परीक्षामुखनामधेयमन्वर्थमुवहत् JETTAITTU..." Nyāyamaņi-dipikā. (This work has not been printed. The quotation is from a MSS. preserved in the Jain Siddhānta Bhaban, Arrah. See also Jaina Siddhānta Bhāskara, Bhāga. II. Kiraňa I. Prasasti-sangraha P. 1.)
1 484172tezlong araat namn: get i ___ कन्ठं भित्वा विनिर्यातौ तेन मांगलिकावुभौ ॥" 2 dzife aglamla wana węglufà 1 अश्रेयसि प्रवृत्तानां कापि यान्ति विनायकाः ।।
___ तस्मादशेषप्रत्यूहोपशमनाय मंगलमभिधेयम् ।”
Šilānkāchārya's Commentary on the Āchārānga Sūtras, P–2

Page #66

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
excellent ) Māna is Pramāna ( i. e. the omniscient Arhat) from whom right knowledge can be obtained (Arthasamsiddhih) and from his Abhāsa ( viz. Gods like Hari, Hara etc. ) the opposite happens. It must be confessed that this interpretation is too farfetched. There are instances of writers like Dharma-kirti beginning his work without any Mangalacharaṇa, which was completed and there are instances of works like Baṇa-bhatta's Kādambari which was never completed though it began with a Mangalacharana. To readers of the present day, this question of Mangalacharana may appear to be of little importance, but in old texts and commentaries, a good deal of ingenuity has been displayed to
10
1 " ननु निःशेषविघ्नोपशमनायेष्टदेवतानमस्कारः शास्त्रकृता कथं न कृत इि न वाच्यम् । तस्य मनः कायाभ्यामपि सम्भवात् । अथवा वाचनिकोऽपि नमस्कारोऽवादिवाक्येनाभिहितो वेदितव्यः । केषांचिद् वाक्यानामुभयार्थप्रतिपादनपरत्वेनापि दृश्यमानत्वात् ।.... .. तत्रादिवाक्यस्य नमस्कारपरताभिधीयते ।....अनन्त चतुष्टय स्वरुपा .. न्तरंगलक्षणा समवसरणादिस्वभावा वहिरंगलक्षणा लक्ष्मीर्मा इत्युच्यते । आणः शब्दः । मा च आणश्च माणौ । प्रकृष्टौ माणौ यस्यासौ प्रमाणः । हरिहराय - संभविविभूतियुक्तो दृष्टेष्टाविरुद्धवाक् च भगवान् अर्हन्नेवं अभिधीयते इत्यसाधारणगुणोपदर्शनमेव भगवतः संस्तवनमभिधीयते । तस्माद् प्रमाणाद् अवधिभूताद् अर्थ - संसिद्धिर्भवति । तदाभासाच्च हरिहरादेरर्थसंसिद्धिर्न भवति ।"
Prameyaratnamālā.
2 Dharmakirti the celebrated Buddhist philosopher is said to have flourished in the 7th Century A.D. He is mentioned by the Jain writer Vidyanandi Svami in Asta-sahasri and Patraparikṣā. He begins his work without any Mangalacharaṇa thus: “सम्यग्ज्ञानपूर्विका सर्वपुरुषार्थसिद्धिः । " Prabhāchandra hints that Dharmakirti must have made mental or bodily obeisance though not verbal salutation : “दृश्यते धर्मकीर्त्यादीनामप्येवंविधा प्रवृत्तिः, वाङ्नमस्कारमन्तरेणैव 'सभ्यग्ज्ञानपूर्विका सर्वपुरुषार्थसिद्धिः' इत्यादि वाक्योपन्यासात् ।”
Prameyakamalamārtaṇda.

Page #67

il
Parikşāmukham explain away the exceptional cases of works of Dharma-Kirti and Bāņa-bhatta. It is mentioned in Muktāvali that in cases where the work is completed without any hindrance though no Mangalācharaṇa is made, the explanation is that a counteraction of bad luck by Mangalācharaṇa was made in a previous life and where we see that in spite of a Mangalācharaṇa, the work is not completed, we should suppose that the evil karma of the writer offering hindrances to a successful completion was so great that the merit obtained by Mangalācharaṇa is not sufficient to counteract the same. 1
____ 1 "इत्थं च यत्र मंगलं न दृश्यते तत्र जन्मान्तरीयं तत् कल्प्यते । यत्र च सत्यपि मंगले समाप्तिर्न दृश्यते तत्र वलवत्तरो विघ्नो विघ्नप्राचुर्य च वोध्यम् ।”
Muktāvali. In Jain tradition Mangalācharaṇa is observed in three ways : (i) by rećiting the word Namaḥ, especially bowing to
the worshipful, as Samantbhadra has done in the beginning of Ratņa Karaņda Srāvakāchāra, A: श्रीवर्द्धमानाय etc. by singing a song of victory in the name of the worshipful, as has been done by Amritachandra in Puruşārtha Siddhyupāya, dostala ni sifa: etc. by proclaiming the basic principles so as to include both the above ideas, as has been done by Umasvāmi in Tattvārthādhigama Sutra, सम्यग्दर्शन
ज्ञानचारित्राणि मोक्षमार्गः। All these modes show the good and pious thought-activities of the writer. According to Jainism thoughts are the main causes of bondage, liberation, or decrease in the intensity or duration of Karmas already bound. Thoughts bring about a change in the nature of the obstructive Karma. If that Karma is mild, it will be altered ; if very-strong, it cannot be altered. That is why some authors succeed in their undertaking, while others do not. Pious motives of an author considerably help in combating vicious Karmas, if they are not of a very strong kind.

Page #68

प्रथमः समुद्देशः स्वापूर्वार्धव्यवसायात्मकं ज्ञानं प्रमाणम् । १ ।
I. Svāpūrvārthavyavasāyātmakam jñānam Pramāņam.
I. Pramāņa is valid knowledge of itself and of things not proved before.
Commentary
The word 'Apurvārtha' will be explained in sutra 4 which follows and the word 'Sva-vyavasaya' will be explained in sūtra 6. Briefly speaking, Apurvārtha is that whose nature was not definitely ascertained before by any Pramāņa. The valid knowledge of such an object is Pramaņa. Knowledge illumines itself at the same time as well as its object. That is to say, Pramāņa knows itself simultaneously with the object not definitely ascertained before.
This view of the Jains is in great contrast with the view as laid down in the Nyaya philosophy of the Hindus. In Tarkasangraha we find "of whatever description anything is, when our idea of that thing is of that same description, it is called a right notion; as in the case of silver, the idea of its being silver. This is called Prama ( commensurate with its object ). The supposing a thing to be as the thing is not, is called a wrong notion; as in the case of a shell, the notion of its being silver. This is called Apramā." (Dr. Ballantyne's translation).1
The principle of Pramāņa in the Nyaya philosophy of the Hindus, is that there are causes which produce right notion (Pramā)
1 " तद्वति तत्प्रकारको ऽनुभवो यथार्थः । यथा रजत इदं रजतमिति ज्ञानम् । सैव प्रमेत्युच्यते । तदभाववति तत्प्रकारकोऽनुभवोऽयथार्थः । यथा शुक्ताविदं रजतमिति ज्ञानम् । सैवाप्रमेत्युच्यते ।”
Tarka-sangraha.

Page #69

Parikşāmukham and because these causes produce Pramā they are called Pramāṇas. The causes are of four kinds and the right notion produced by them are also of four kinds. In Tarka-sangraha we find "Right notion is of four kinds through the divisions of Pratyakşa ( Perceptions), Anumiti ( Inferences ) Upamiti (conclusions from similarity) and sābda ( Authoritative Assertions ) understood. The efficient ( peculiar ) cause of those also is of four kinds, through the divisions of Perception, Inference, Recognition of similarity and Authoritative Assertion” ( Dr. Ballantyne's translation ).
Vātsyāyana in his Bhāșya on Nyāyasūtras of Gautama says "Pramā is the right knowledge of objects”? that is to say “it is a notion of that which exists in its right form"3 or in other words “it is a knowledge of a thing in the same form as it really is”.4 The instrument of this Pramā is Pramāņa.
The Jain doctrine is that Pramāṇa is not the cause of right knowledge but right knowledge of itself and of the objects not previously ascertained rightly.
The subject of Pramāna is treated in older Jain works like the Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra in connection with knowledge. Umāsvāmi writes “Mati, Sruta, Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala ( are right ) knowledge”.5 These ( five kinds of knowledge ) are the (two kinds of ) Pramāņas”. “The first two ( kinds
1 "यथार्थानुभवश्चतुर्विधः प्रत्यक्षानुमित्युपमितिशाब्दभेदात् । तत्करणमपि garaj ATHLEHETATATTHETE / Tarka-sangraha. ..2 "zauffagiri hr THT 1" Vātsyāyana Bhāșya.
3 677 ve Ta akigha:” Vātsyāna Bhāşya. 4 "qafa gama A,” Vātsyāyana Bhāsya. 5 "fagarafema:namaetta 179741"
Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 9. 6 "TEL TATUT ”. Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 10.

Page #70

The Sacred Books of the Jainas of knowledge viz. Mati and Śruta ) are Paroksa ( Pramanas )”1 and “the remaining ( three ) are Pratyakşa ( Pramīņas )2 .
With these five kinds of knowledge, Kumati, Ku-śruta and Vibhangāvadhi are added to make up eight kinds of knowledge. These three are nothing but false knowledges of Mati, Sruta and Avadhi, that is to say, Kumati is Ajñāna ( false knowledge ) of Mati ; Kuśruta is Ajñāna of Sruta and Vibhangābadhi is Ajñāna of Avadhi. Kundakundāchārya has mentioned all these eight varieties of Jūāna in Panchāstikāyasamayasāra : "Abhinibodhika or Mati, Sruta, Avadhi, Manaḥ-paryaya and Kevala-these are the five varieties of Jiāna. Kumati, Ku-śruta and Vibhangathese three also are connected with Jñāna."3 .
Mati Jñāna is knowledge derived through the senses including the knowledge which arises from the activity of the mind. In Jain psychology, four stages of Mati Jñāna which follow Darsana ( inexpressible contact of an object with sense consiousness ) have been mentioned. These are (i) Avagraha (ii) Ihā (iii) Avāya and (iv) Dhāranā. When an object is brought in contact with a sense-organ, we have a' general knowledge of an object. There is an excitation in the sense-organ by the stimulus i.e. the object present in the outside world. Then there is an excitation in the consciousness. Thus, in the first stage, a person is barely conscious of the existence of an object. This is Avagraha. The second stage Ihā consists in the desire to know
.
1 663789 917877 " Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 11. 2 "UHTASARI". Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra I. 12. 3 "आभिणिवोधिसुदोधिमणकेवलाणि णाणाणि पंचभेयाणि । कुमदिसुद-विभंगाणि य तिणि वि णाणेहिं संजुत्ते ॥"
Pañchāstikāya samayasāra 41. 4 trepaxrefertit qafararefcaefauha48:1"
Pramāna-mimāmsā I. 1. 27.

Page #71

15
Parikşāmukham whether it is this or that, That is to say, similarities and differences of the object with and from other objects become the subject of consciousness in this stage.1 For example, when we see a man, the first stage is that we are simply conscious that it is a human being and in the second stage we want to know the particulars such as that this man is a resident of Karņāta or Lāta country; or, when we hear a noise, at first we are conscious of merely a sound, then we desire to know whether it is from blowing a conch shell or from blowing a horn."
In the third stage Avāya, there is a definite finding of the particulars which we desired to know in the second stage. The
"विषयविषयिसंनिपातसमनंतरमाद्यग्रहणमवग्रहः ।"
Tattvārtharājavārttika. "विषयविषयिसनिपातानन्तर--समुद्भूत-सत्तामात्र- गोचरदर्शनाज्जातमाद्य-- मवान्तर सामान्याकार-विशिष्टवस्तुग्रहणमवग्रहः ।"
Pramana-Naya-tattvalokalankāra. II. 7. "अक्षार्थयोगजाद् वस्तुमात्रग्रहणलक्षणात् ।
जातं यद्वस्तुभेदस्य ग्रहणं तदवग्रहः ॥" Tattvārthaslokavarttika. 1 "अवगृहीतविशेषकाङ्क्षणमीहा।" Pramina Mimamsa I. I. 28. ___ "अवगृहीतार्थविशेषकाङ्क्षणमीहा।"
... Pramāņa-Naya-tattvālokālańkāra II. 8. "अवगृहीतेऽर्थे तद्विशेषाकाङ्क्षणमीहा।" Tattvārtharajavārttika. "तद्गृहीतार्थसामान्ये यद्विशेषस्य काङ्क्षणम् ।
निश्चयाभिमुखं सेहा संशीतेभिन्नलक्षणा ॥" Tattvārthaslokavarttika. -2 “अक्प्रहेण विषयीकृतो योऽर्थोऽवान्तर-मनुष्यत्वादिजातिविशेषलक्षणस्तस्य विशेषः कर्णाट-लाटादिभेदस्तस्याकाङ्क्षणं भवितव्यताप्रत्ययरुपतया ग्रहणाभिमुख्यHitecufiteira ” Ratnākarāvatārikā II. 8.
8 “अवप्रहगृहीतस्य शब्दादेरर्थस्य किमयं शब्दः शाङ्खः शाङ्गों वेति संशये सति माधुर्यादयः शङ्खधर्मा एवोपलभ्यन्ते न कार्कश्यादयः शार्ङ्गधर्मा इत्यन्वयव्यतिरेकरुपविशेषपर्यालोचनरुपा मतिश्चेष्टेहा।" Pramāna mimāmsa,

Page #72

16
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
second stage is merely an attempt to know the particulars, while the third stage consists of the ascertainment of these particulars." There may be some doubt in the first and second stages but in the third stage this is absent. For example, in the third stage there is a finding that the sound is of a conch shell and not that of a horn.
The fourth stage Dhāraṇā consists of the lasting impression which results after the object with its particulars is definitely ascertained. It is this impression ( Samskāra ) which enables us to remember the object afterwards.*
1 "ईहितविशेषनिर्णयोऽवायः ।" Pramana-mimāmsa I. 1. 29. and
Pramāņa-Naya-tattvälokālaňkāra I. 9. "विशेषनिमा॑नायाथात्म्यावगमनमवायः ।" Tattvārtharijavarttika.
"तस्यैव निर्णयोऽवायः ।" Tattvārthaslokavarttika. 2 "इह चावग्रहहयोरन्तराले अभ्यस्तेऽपि विषये संशयज्ञानमस्त्येव ।" _ "ईहाक्रोडीकृते वस्तुनि विशेषस्य शाङ्क्ष एवायं शब्दो न शाङ्ग इत्येवं
रुपस्यावधारणमवायः ।" Pramāna-mimamsa. 3 'निर्मातार्थाविस्मृति र्धारणा।" Tattvārtharaja-varttika. "स एव हठतमावस्थापन्नो धारणा।"
____Pramāna-Nayatattvalokalankāra I. 10. 4 "स्मृतिहेतुः सा धारणा।" Tattvārthaslokavarttika. ___ “स्मृतिहेतुर्धारणा।" Pramāna-mimamsa I 1. 30.
All these four stages of Matijñāna have been summarised by Vidyānandi thus :
"अक्षार्थयोगजादू वस्तुमात्रग्रहणलक्षणात् । जातं यद्वस्तुभेदस्य ग्रहणं तदवग्रहः ।। तद्गृहीतार्थसामान्ये यद्विशेषस्य काङ्क्षणम् । निश्चयाभिमुखं सेहा संशयाद् भिन्नलक्षणा ॥ तस्यैव निर्णयोऽवायः स्मृतिहेतुः सा धारणा।"

Page #73

Parikṣāmukham
17
Śruta Jñana is knowledge derived from words spoken or from gestures or facial expressions, from reading books and from all other kinds of signs or symbols.
Avadhi Jiana is the knowledge directly acquired by the soul without the medium of the activity of the mind or the senses1. Knowledge in the hypnotic state is the nearest approach to an illustration. As this knowledge also is acquired through the medium of the brain and the senses according to the Jain view, this can not be accepted as an example of Avadhi Jñana.
Manaḥparyaya Jñana is the knowledge of thoughts of others. Thought-reading may be mentioned to convey some feeble idea of this kind of knowledge. According to Jainism, no lay man can have this knowledge. Only a saint in a particular stage of spiritual advancement can acquire or develop this knowledge. Kevala Jñana is omniscience or knowledge unlimited by space, time or object. According to Jainism, Jain saints who completely practise right faith, right knowledge and right conduct can attain this knowledge. In the Hindu Purāņas, some saints are said to have such a knowledge and are called Sarvajñas or Trikāladarśīs.
These eight kinds of knowledge viz. Mati, Kumati, Śruta, Ku-śrutra, Avadhi, Vibhangavadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala are classified from another point of view into two classes viz. Pratyakşa and Parokşa and these two constitute the Pramaņas of the Jain Logic1.
1 " परापेक्षां विना ज्ञानं रुपिणां भणितोऽवधिः ।"
Tattvärthasara by Amritachandra Sūri I. 25.
2. “ परकीयमनः स्पार्थज्ञानमक्षानपेक्षया ।
F: " Tattvarthasara I. 28. 3 " णाणं अडवियप्पं मदिसुदओही अणाणणाणाणि । मणपज्जय केवलमवि पच्चक्ख परोक्खभेयं च ॥"

Dravya-samgraha 5.
4 "मतिश्रुतावधिमनः पर्ययकेवलानि ज्ञानम् ।” P-3

Page #74

18
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
According to Umasvāmi, Mati and Śruta are Parokṣa knowledge and Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala are Pratyakṣa knowledge. A detailed description of Pratyakṣa and Parokṣa will follow in the present treatise and we shall discuss later on the criticism how Mati and Śruta Jñana described as Parokṣa Pramāņa in the Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, can be called Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa in works on Jain Logic.
We shall now deal with the derivation of the word 'Pramāņa' according to the writers of Jain Logic.
It has been laid down by Prabhachandra in Prameyakamalamartanda that the word Pramāņa may be derived in three ways. In the first place, the suffix "Anat" may be held to be used in active voice meaning "That which knows rightly (viz the soul) is Pramāṇa". From the definition of Pramaņa, we learn that Pramāņa is right knowledge of itself and of objects not previously ascertained. This derivation means that just as a lamp illumines itself as well as other objects, the soul knows itself as well as other objects. In the second place the suffix may be used in the sense of instrumentality. The meaning would then be "That by which right knowledge is gained is Pramāņa1. In this case just as light appears when obstructions to it are removed, so right knowledge will come on removal of obstructions to it. In the third derivation there is use of the suffix in Bhava-vachya (passive intransitive
" तत् प्रमाणे । ” "आये परोक्षम् ।”
"" Tattvarthādhigama Sūtra I. 9-12.
1 "अत्र प्रमाणशब्दः कर्त्ता करणभावसाधनो । तत्र... स्वपरप्रमेयस्वरुपं प्र मिमीते यथावज्जानातीति प्रमाणमात्मा... आत्मन एव हि क साधनप्रमाणशब्देनाभिधानं स्वातन्त्र्येन विवक्षितत्वात् स्वपर प्रकाशात्मकस्य प्रदीपादेः प्रकाशाभिघानवत् । साधकतमत्वादिविवक्षायां तु प्रमीयते येन तत् प्रमाणं प्रमितिमात्रं वा प्रतिबंधापाये प्रादुर्भूतविज्ञान पर्यायस्य प्राधान्येनाश्रयणात् प्रदीपादेः प्रभाभारात्मकप्रकाशवत् ।”
Prameyakamalamārtaṇda.

Page #75

Parikṣāmukham
19
voice) where stress is laid on the verb only, the meaning being the same as in active voice.
In Tattvartharajavārttika it has been mentioned: "What is the meaning of the word Pramaņa? The meaning of the word Pramāņa can be understood according to one's desire by deriving it in Bhāva-vāchya (passive intransitive voice) Kartri-vāchya (active voice) and Karana - vachya (instrumental voice)””.
A grammarian might object that according to Jainendra Vyakaraṇa the suffix Anat is used only in the sense of Karana (instrumentality) and Adhara (or Adhikarana, locative sense)®. So how can it be suffixed in Kartri or Bhāva-vachya? The reply to this is given by a commentator on Prameyaratnamālā that though the aforesaid aphorism exists in Jainendra Vyakaraṇa, we may accept the principle that "There are exceptions in krit suffixes" and this covers cases like the present one where suffixes are used in senses not provided in particular aphorisms1.
2 " प्रमाणशब्दस्य कोऽर्थः ? भावकर्त्त करणत्वोपपत्तेः प्रमाणशब्दस्येच्छातोऽश्रध्यवसायः ।"
८
"अयं प्रमाणशब्दः, भावे, कर्त्तरि करणे च वर्त्तते । तत्र भावे, तावत् प्रमेयार्थ प्रति निवृत्तव्यापारस्य तत्वकथनात् प्रमाणमिति । कर्त्तरि, प्रमेयार्थ प्रति प्रमातृत्वशक्ति-परिणतस्याश्रितत्वान् तत् प्रमिणोति प्रमेयमिति प्रमाणं । करणे प्रमातृप्रमेययोः प्रमाणप्रमेययोश्च स्यादन्यत्वात् प्रमिणोत्यनेनेति प्रमाणम् ।”
3 " करणाधारे चानट् ।” Jainendra Vyākarana II. 3. 112.
4 " ननु प्रमाणशब्दो कथं कर्त्तृ'साधन इति चेत्, न । 'करणाधारे चानट्' इति करणाधिकरणभावेष्वनटो विहितत्वेऽपि 'कृद्वहुलम्' इति वचनात् अन्यत्र कारकेष्वपि बहुलं कृत्प्रत्ययसद्भावादनटोपि कृत्यादन्यत्रापि भावादपादीयतेऽस्मादित्यपादानं संप्रदीयतेऽस्मादिति संप्रदानमित्यादिवत् ।” Nyāyamani-dipika.
( A. Mss. in Jain Siddhānta Bhaban, Arrah ).

Tattvärtharajavārttika.

Page #76

20.
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Other writers have derived the word Pramāņa by holding that the suffix "Anat” is used in the sense of instrumentality as laid down in Jainendra Vyākaraṇa.
Dharmabhūşaņa in his Nyāya-dipikā has laid down that the word Jñāna as well as Pramāņa are derived with the affix "Anat" in the Karaña-vāchya (instrumental voice)". Dharma bhūşaņa supports his view by a quotation from Pramāņa-nirņaya. Hemachandra in his Pramāņa-mimāmsā writes "That by which the essence of substances is rightly understood by eliminating doubt etc. is Pramāna which is the instrumental cause of Pramā (right knowledge)"?. In Pramā lakṣma the same has been laid down in another language.
The definition of Pramāṇa as given by other Jain writers may be compared with that of Māņikyanandi. First, we may mention the definition as laid down in Nyāyāvatāra :
"Pramāņa (valid knowledge) is the knowledge which illumines. itself and other things without any obstruction” (Trans. by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşana)".
Dr. Vidyābhūşana writes in his commentary on this definition : "The Jains maintain that it is only when knowledge illumines itself that it can take cognizance of the external object. So, accord
5 WETUTETURİ Eddaa spera stata gfa nafafa I....gada gamTEA Tetrasatafa ATUTETTİ 64141" Nyāya-dipikā.
6 "इदमेव हि प्रमाणस्य प्रमाणत्वं यत् प्रमितिक्रियां प्रति साधकतमत्वेन Ascurcag " Pramāņa-nirņaya.
7 "प्रकर्षेण संशयादिव्यवच्छेदेन मीयते परिच्छिद्यते वस्तुतत्वं येन तत् प्रमाणं GATTI ETTH 1" Pramāņa-mimāņsā.
8 "प्रमीयते स्वान्यात्मकोऽर्थोऽनेनेति करणसाधनं प्रमाणं तच्चान्यवधानेन afHat F1 Tatacara 1" Pramā-lakṣma.
9 "प्रमाणं स्वपराभासि ज्ञानं बाधविवर्जितम्।" Nyayavatāra.

Page #77

Parikşāmukham ing 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 see many false images, such as two moons etc.; men bewildered by sophism are found to believe that everything is momentary or the like. With a view to differentiate such kinds of false knowledge from Pramāņa (valid knowledge) the phrase 'without obstruction' has been used.” (Nyāyāvatāra, page 7).
The definition in Pramā-lakşma of Buddhisāgara is the same as that in Nyāyāvatāra.
In Nyāya-dipika we find "Pramāṇa is perfect knowledge 10." Vidyānanda in his Pramāņa-pariksā also lays down the same definition.
Hemachandra defines Pramāņa thus : “Pramāṇa is the perfect ascertainment of a knowable”11 and criticises the definition of Māņikyanandi in Parikṣāmukham. He says "Some say that if we accept that we again know a thing which had been previously ascertained by Pramāņa, the result would be that a thing which has already been powdered will be powdered again. Also, by accepting this view, Pramāṇa would apply to knowledge of objects already ascertained and in the case of continuous knowledge of an object. So, according to those who object thus, the definition should be that Pramāņa is ascertainment of objects not previously ascertained. So some one ( referring to the definition adopted by Māņikyanandi) has laid down the definition of Pramāņa to be ‘Pramāṇa is valid knowledge of itself and of things not proved before". 12
10 "AFFLERİ TATUTAI" Nyāya-dipikā.
11 "ppreffufa: FATTA, 1" Pramāņa-mimāṁsā. I. I. 2. _12 "ननु च परिच्छिन्नमर्थ परिच्छिन्दता प्रमाणेन पिष्टं पिष्टं स्यात् । तथाच गृहीतमाहिणां धारावाहिकज्ञानानामपि प्रामाण्यप्रसङ्गस्ततोऽपूर्वार्थनिर्णय इत्यस्तु लक्षणम् ,

Page #78

22
The Sacred Books of the Jainas Hemachandra criticises the definition of Pramāņa as mentioned in the Parikşamukham on two grounds. First, that this definition excludes the knowledge of a thing already ascertained. According to Hemachandra, it is equally Pramāṇa when a thing is ascertained for the first time, as when a thing which has previously been ascertained, is again known 13. So Hemachandra says that Pramāņa is perfect ascertainment of a knowable.
The second objection refers to Dhārābāhik Jõāna. This is a series of states throughout which the same object is presented in consciousness. This for example arises when we see an object continuously for some time. Each state of consciousness in this case lasts only for a moment. Then follows a second state and is lost. Then a third state succeeds and is lost and so on. Now if we define Pramāṇa as knowledge of things not ascertained before, the objection is that in the first state of Dhārābāhik Jñāna, this may apply. But in the second and subsequent stages of the presentation of the object, the object cannot be said to be 'Apūrvārtha' (not previously ascertained ) as mentioned in the definition for it was ascertained after it had been cognised in the first momentary state. So Dhārābāhik Jňāna will be excluded from Pramāņa if we accept the definition of Pramāņa in Parikşāmukham.
A similar objection was raised and refuted in works in Hindu philosophy. To give an example, we may quote the definition of Pramāņa in Vedānta-paribhāṣā. The author Dharmarājādhvarindra writes that if re-collection be included within Pramā ( right knowledge ), the definition of Pramāṇa will be of one kind and if re-collection be excluded from Pramā, the definition will be of a different kind. According to this writer : "Pramāņa is the instrumental cause of right knowledge (Pramā). When the definiयथाहुः ‘स्वापूर्वार्थव्यवसायात्मकं ज्ञानं प्रमाणम्' इति तथापूर्वार्थविज्ञानमिति ।" Pramāņa-mimāṁsā.
13 SETEHTAINED ga yetarligurtsfa Aramhuri" Pramāņamimāņsā I. 1. 4.

Page #79

Parikṣāmukham
23 tion of Pramā excludes re-collection, Pramā is defined as consisting in the knowledge of an object, which has not been previously perceived and which is not rejected as false. But when re-collection is included, Pramā consists in the knowledge of an object which is not rejected as false”.
Now, in the first place when Pramā is taken to exclude recollection, the definition being knowledge of an object not previously perceived and not rejected as false, how can this definition apply to Dhārābāhik Jiāna ? For as we have noted before in Dhārābāhik Jñana, in the second and succeeding presentations of an object, it cannot be “not previously perceived" as it was perceived in the first momentary state. This criticism is met by Dharmarājādhvarindra by saying "In the definition of Pramā from which re-collection is excluded, there is no fault of non-pervasiveness. For since it is admitted that time though destitute of form can be cognised through the sense-organs, even a persistent state of cognition has for its object that which is particularised by association with each separate moment and is not the object of each previous cognition"2. That is to say, knowledge of a jar even at the first moment will be different from knowledge of the same jar at the second moment for there will be distinct knowledge in each case e. g. this is a jar seen at the first moment, this is a jar seen at the second moment and so on. "The object known in each moment is particularised or determined by that moment and thus differs from the object presented in each previous or succeeding moment”. Further, the
1 Translation by A. Venis. 67ET GARAT: asco TATUT स्मृतिव्यावृत्तं प्रमात्वमनधिगतावाधितार्थविषयज्ञानत्वं, स्मृतिसाधारणन्तु अवाधितार्थfarqaşlacaq " Vedānta-paribhāṣā. Chapter I.
2 Translation by A. Venis. "tarrila fost वेद्यत्वाभ्युपगमेन धारावाहिकवुधेरपि पूर्वपूर्वज्ञानाविषय-तत्तत्क्षणविशेषविषयकत्वेन न da stounfan: 1° Vedānta-paribhāşā.
3 A. Venis. Notes on Vedānta-paribhāşā.

Page #80

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
objection may be met in another way, if we say that really speaking the knowledge in Dhārābāhik Jñana is one and the same throughout and not different in each of the different moments. Dharmarājādhvarindra says: "More-over, according to (Vedantic) tenet, there is no variation of knowledge in the case of a persistent cognition; but as long as there is a presentation of the jar, so long the modification of the internal organ in the form of the jar is one and the same and not various. For the persistence of the modification is admitted until there arises a modification which excludes the former. And thus the knowledge of a jar or like object, consisting in the intelligence which is reflected in the modification of the internal organ persists there during that time and is one and the same. Therefore the fault of non-pervasiveness is not to be feared in our definition".
24
The criticism of Hemachandra as regards the definition of Pramāņa as laid dawn by Manikyanandi may be met in the manner described above.
We may note that Udayanacharya in his Kusumāñjali has also said that faults of non-pervasiveness (Avyāpti ) and Ativyāpti will arise if we accept the definition of Pramāņa to be the cause of knowledge of an object which was not perceived before. So Pramāņa should be defined only as right knowledge". In Jain works like TattvarathasaraR the same has been laid down.
4 Translation by A. Venis. "ffgrcà ancianfengite A ज्ञानभेदः, किन्तु यावद् यावद् घटस्फुरणं तावद् घटाकारान्तः करणवृत्तिः एकैव, न तु a1a1, qà: zafarìfugzyqqfaqezatenfucanganura | aena aqufanfeaचैतन्यरूपं घटादिज्ञानमपि तत्र तावत्कालीनम् एकमेव, इति न अव्याप्ति-शङ्कापि । " Vedanta-paribhāṣā. Chapter I. For a detailed treatment, the reader may refer to Vedantaparibhāṣa edited by S. C. Ghoshal Pages 5-8. 5 " अप्राप्तेरधिकप्राप्ते रलक्षणमपूर्वदृक् ।
यथार्थानुभवो मानं अनपेक्षतयेष्यते ।” Kusumanjali..

Page #81

25
Parikşāmukham In the Samkhya philosophy, it is laid down that Pramā (right knowledge) consists of ascertainment of a thing which was not previously ascertained and Pramāņa (which according to the Samkhya doctrine is of three kinds) is the instrumental cause of Pramā?. Prabhākara Bhatta in his exposition of Mimāṁsā philosophy has defined Pramāņa to be ascertainment of things not ascertained before. Thus, the definition in Parikṣāmukham is in agreement on this point with the Sāmkhya philosophy.
Though by means of explanation and argument as adopted in Vedānta-paribhāṣā as quoted above, the definition of Pramāņa can be applied to Dhārābāhika Jñāna even if we hold the ascertainment of things not perceived before (Apūrvārtha) as one of its characteristics, yet commentators of Parikṣāmukham have held that Dhārābāhika Jūāna is excluded from Pramāņa. For example, Anantavirya in Frameyaratnamālā writes “The adjective Apūrva is used to exclude from Pramāna Dhārābāhika Jūāna which cognises things already cognised?” This has been expanded in Arthaprakāśikā an unpublished commentary on Prameya-ratnamālā in this manner :
“Why has the adjective Apūrva been applied to Artha ? We reply, it is to exclude Dhārābāhika Jñāna. Dhārābāhika Jñāna means a series of knowledge like 'this is a pitcher, this is a pitcher, etc. In this series, the first knowledge is Pramāņa as this consists
6 "ARTIŞATCH AT TATTICafdag 1" Tattvārthasāra.
7 "द्वयोरेकतरस्य वाप्यसन्निकृष्टार्थपरिच्छित्तिः प्रमा, तत्-साधकतमं यत् तत् Safari A1014 I” Sāņkhya-darśana. Chapter I. Sūtra 87. Here the word Asannikriştārtha means the same as Apārvārtha in Parikṣāmukham.
1 In Nyāyadipikā, this definition of the Mimāṁsā philosophy is quoted : 537APEPOTATAT Larifa:24* TATUT' fè HIET: 1" .
2 "अस्य चापूर्व-विशेषणं गृहीतग्राहिधारावाहिज्ञानस्य प्रमाणतापरिहारार्थITALI" Prameya-ratnamālā.
. P-4

Page #82

26
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
of ascertainment of the object. The second and succeeding knowledge is not Pramāņa as in the same the object is not ascertained. As the object is ascertained by the first knowledge, the subsequent knowledge is quite insignificant. So the word Apūrva has been used as an adjective to Artha so that the (definition of Pramāņa) may not extend to the second and succeeding states of knowledge which would become included in the definition if merely Pramāna be defined) as ascertainment of object. By Apūrva it is understood that which has not become the object of previous knowledge. So in Dhārābāhika Jñāna, in the second and subsequent states of knowledge, the definition does not apply as in the first stage the object has been ascertained and in the second and subsequent stages, the object is not one which is previously unascertained”.
Nyāyamanidipikā also follows Artha-prakāśikā by laying down "Dhārābāhika Jñāna is excluded by this adjective, Apārvārtha?". In Nyāyadipikā it has been mentioned that in Jain logic, Dhārābāhika Jñāna is not recognised as Pramāņa.
1 "अर्थस्य अपूर्वविशेषणं किमर्थम् ? इति चेत्, धारावाहिकज्ञानव्यवच्छेदार्थमिति ब्रूमः। घटोऽयं घटोऽयं इत्यादि-ज्ञानपरंपरा धारावाहिकज्ञानम् । तादृशज्ञानपरंपरायां प्राथमिकज्ञानमेव प्रमाणं, तस्यैव विषयपरिच्छित्तिजनकत्वात् । द्वितीयादिज्ञानं तु न प्रमाणं, तस्य विषयपरिच्छित्तिजनकत्वाभावात् । प्रथमज्ञानेनैव परिच्छित्तेः जनितत्वेन द्वितीयादिज्ञानस्य अकिंचित्करत्वात् । तादृशद्वितीयादिज्ञाने अर्थविषयकव्यवसायात्मकत्वज्ञानत्वरुपनिरुक्तलक्षणसत्वेन अतिव्याप्तिनिरासार्थ अर्थे अपूर्वविशेषणम् । अपूर्वत्वं च पूर्वकालीनज्ञानान्तराविषयत्वं । तथाच, धारावाहिकज्ञानेषु द्वितीयादिज्ञाने प्राथमिक-ज्ञानगृहीतार्थविषयकत्वस्यैव सत्वेन पूर्वकालीनज्ञानान्तरागृहीतार्थविषयकव्यवसायात्मकत्वरुपलक्षणस्य अभावात् नातिव्याप्तिः।" Arthaprakāśikā ( from a Mss. in Jain Siddhānta Bhavan, Arrah.)
2 "अनेन अपूर्वार्थविशेषणेन धारावाहिविज्ञानमेव निरस्यते ।" Nyayamanidipika ( from a Mss. in Jain Siddhanta Bhavan, Arrah)
3 "अथापि धारावाहिकवुद्धिष्वतिव्याप्तिस्तासां सम्यगज्ञानत्वात्। न च तासामार्हतमते प्रामाण्याभ्युपगम इति । उच्यते एकस्मिन्नेव घटे घटविषयाज्ञानविघटनार्थ आये ज्ञाने प्रवृत्ते तेन घटप्रमितौ सिद्धायां पुनर्घटोऽयं घटोऽयमित्येवमुत्पन्नान्युत्तरोत्तर

Page #83

Parikṣāmukham
27
We have thus seen that in all earlier works on Nyāya philosophy Pramāņa has been taken to consist of knowledge of an object not ascertained before. The Mimāmsā philosophy of the Hindus have accepted that Gautama the propounder of the old school of the Nyaya philosophy of the Hindus must have taken Pramana in this sense and we have shown that the Mimamsakas led by Kumarila Bhatta have defined Prama as ascertainment of an object not ascertained before. The older writers on Jain logic like Manikya-nandi lay down a definition of Pramāņa which is not at all different in this particular point (though there are differences on other points as already mentioned). Later writers specially those of the new school of Nyaya philosophy of the Hindus led by Gangesa the author of Tattva-Chintamani who flourished in the 14th Century have discarded this peculiarity in the definition of Pramana and satisfied themselves by saying that Prama is knowledge free from fallacy1. Their view has been summarised in the extract from Tarka-sangraha quoted above. Later Jain writers like Hemachandra who flourished in the twelfth century as shown ज्ञानानि खलु धारावाहिकज्ञानानि । न ह्येषां प्रमितिं प्रति साधकतमत्वं प्रथमज्ञानेनैव प्रमितेः सिद्धत्वात् । कथं तत्र लक्षणमतिव्याप्नोति तेषां गृहीतग्राहित्वात् । " Nyāyadipikā. ie. "This definition that Pramāņa is right knowledge may overlap the case of Dhārābāhika Jñana. These knowledges (viz Dhārābāhika knowledges) are not Pramāņas according to Jain doctrine. It may be mentioned that when a pitcher is seen, first of all there is Pramāņa of a pitcher when the Ajñāna regarding a pitcher is removed. In the first knowledge, there is right conception of a pitcher. The subsequent knowledges 'this is a pitcher' are Dhārābāhika Jñāna. As by the first knowledge, we have Pramiti (right conception), the subsequent knowledges not being instrumental in producing Pramiti, are not Pramāņas. So the definition does not overlap as there are cases where a thing already perceived are again perceived."
1 " भ्रमभिन्नन्तु ज्ञानमत्रोच्यते प्रमा ।" Vide Viśva koşa 1st Edition Vol. X. P. 481.

Page #84

28
The Sacred Books of the Jainas above similarly discarded this peculiarity in the definition of Pramāṇa and criticised the older writers.
The writers who appeared still later reverted to the definition of the earliest writers and we have shown an example from Vedānta-paribhāṣā how this was done. The writer of the Vedāntaparibhāṣā was later than Gangesa as he wrote a commentary on the works of Gangesa. The main object of attack of writers like Hemachandra was the inapplicability of the definition of Pramāņa in Dhārābāhika Jñāna. Though some of the Jain commentators lay down that only the first state of knowledge in Dhārābāhika Jñāna is Pramāņa, if we follow the arguments in Vedānta-paribhāṣā, the object cognised in the second and subsequent stages can also be said to be Apārvārtha and hence the knowledge in these stages also would be Pramāņa. The main point of attack being thus met, we do not see any fault in the definition as adopted by Māņikya-nandi. The subtle discussions in the new school of Nyāya philosophy on this point will necessitate a seperate work and so we refrain from embo- . dying the same in this commentary.
In Prameya-ratnamālā each of the words in the definition of Pramāņa as laid down by Māņikya-nandi has been explained as refuting definitions of other philosophies. According to this commentary, the word Jñāna (knowledge) shows that the Jain doctrine does not follow the view of Naiyāyikas that Pramāņa consists of connection of the senses with the objects". The word Vyavasāya is used refuting the view of the Buddhists viz. Pramāņa consists of Nirvikalpa Pratyakṣa of four kinds i.e. Sva-samvedanapratyakşa ( understanding of the self ), Indriya-pratyakşa, ( cognition through senses), Manopratyakşa (understanding by mind) and Yogipratyakşa ( cognition of the Yogis ). The Buddhists do
___ 1 'तस्य च ज्ञानमिति विशेषणं अज्ञानरूपस्य सन्निकर्षादे-नैयायिकादिgf feqafi JA1695272greitti" Prameyaratnamālā.
2 "तथा ज्ञानस्यापि स्वसंवेदनेन्द्रियमनोयोगिप्रत्यक्षस्य निर्विकल्पकस्य Fara gta atra: ufafaqai afariati YARICH HEUTE” Ibid.

Page #85

Parikşāmukham
29 not accept Vyavasāya or Nischaya to be essential in Pramāņa. The word Artha is used to refute the views of those who deny the existence of external objects like Vijñānādvaitavādins, Māyāvādins and Mādhyamikas'. The view of Vijñānādvaitavādins is that every object consists of knowledge and there is nothing to be cognised. Knowledge according to this view is of two kinds Alaya-vijñāna and Pravrittivijñāna. Ālaya-vijñāna is the self and Pravrittivijñāna is jar, cloth etc. A verse is quoted in Arthaprakāśikā meaning “That is Ālaya-vijñāna which consists of the self and the knowledge of bluishness etc., is Pravrittivijñāna”3. The persons holding this view say that everything is knowledge and there is nothing to be cognised. The Māyāvādins say that everything is Brahma, that what we see as a jar, a cloth etc., are all unreal, and only Brahma is real. Mādhyamikas are Śūnyavādins who say that the essence is void. It does neither exist, nor is non-existent, nor existent as well as non-existent, nor distinct from existence and non-existencet. The word 'Sva' is used to refute the views of the
For details of Bauddha Nyāya view on this point, the reader may refer to the work Nyāyavindu of Dharma-kirti.
1 "तथा वहिरापह्नोतॄणां विज्ञानाद्वैतवादिनां पुरुषाद्वैतवादिनां पश्यतोहराणां शून्यकान्तवादिनां च विपर्यासव्युदासार्थमर्थ- ग्रहणम् ।" Prameyaratnamala.
..2 "तत्र तावद्विज्ञानाद्वैतवादि...सर्व वस्तु ज्ञानात्मकमेव, तदितरज्ञेयाकारस्तु नास्त्येव। तच्च ज्ञानं द्विविधं, आलयविज्ञानं प्रवृत्तिविज्ञानं च तत्र आलयविज्ञानं आत्मपदवाच्यं, प्रवृत्तिविज्ञानं तु घटपटादिपदवाच्यम् ।” Arthaprakāsika.
3 "तत् स्यादालयविज्ञानं यत्तु स्यादहमास्पदं । तत् स्यात् प्रवृत्तिविज्ञानं यत्तु नीलादिगोचरं ।”
Verse quoted in Arthaprakāśikā. ... 4 'माध्यमिकास्तु....शून्यमेव तत्वं । तथाहि सर्व जगत् । न सत् , नास्तित्वप्रतीतिविरोधात् । नाप्यसत् , अस्त्त्विप्रतीतिविरोधात् । नापि सदसत् , सत्वासत्वयोरत्यन्तविरूदूधयोरेकत्र समावेशासंभवात् । नापि सदसद्विलक्षणं सत्वादिप्रतीतिविरोधादेव। तस्मानिरूक्तचतुःप्रकाररहितं शून्यमेव तत्वं। तदुक्तं

Page #86

30
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Nyaya, Samkhya, Mimāmsā and Yoga philosophies in which Pramāņa does not include the knowledge itself as well as the objects known at the same time1.
We have thus seen that most of the definitions of Pramāņa lay down that it is the right knowledge of objects. Some hold like Manikyanandi that the object must be one which was not ascertained before; while others are of view that this is not at all essential. The main difference in Jain doctrine is that knowledge as Pramāņa like the sun or a lamp illumines itself as well as the objects simultaneously. हिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमर्थं हि प्रमाणं, ततो ज्ञानमेव तत् ॥ २ ॥
2. Hitahitaprāptipariharasamartham hi prmāņam tato jñāna
meva tat.
2. Because Pramāņa enables acquiring beneficial things and leaving non-beneficial objects, this is nothing but knowledge. Commentary
Pramāņa leads to the acquirement of pleasure and its causes and abstention from sorrow and its causes. When a man is thirsty, he searches for an object to quench the thirst and begins to seek water. That Pramāņa which points out this water is sought by a thirsty man, for by a right knowledge that this is water acquired by Pramāņa there is no want of receipt of the object desired viz., water.
न सन्नासन्न सदसन्न चाप्यनुभयात्मकं । चतुष्कोटिविनिर्मुक्तं तत्वं माध्यमिका विदुः ।।
gfa au1a geuùa acaffa afa" Arthaprakāśikā. ( Mss. ) 1 " तथा परोक्षज्ञानवादिनां मीमांसकानामस्वसंवेदनज्ञानवादिनां सांख्यानां ज्ञानान्तरप्रत्यक्षज्ञानवादिनां यौगानां च मतमपाकर्तुं स्वपदोपादानम् ।" Prameyaratnamālā.
2 This is shortly expressed by Prabhachandra as follows: "हितं सुखं तत् साधनं च तद्विपरीतं अहितं, तयोः प्राप्तिपरिहारौ । प्राप्तिः खलूपादेयभूतार्थक्रियाप्रसाधकार्थप्रदर्शकत्वम् । अर्थक्रियार्थी हि पुरुषः तन्निष्पादनसमर्थं

Page #87

Parikṣāmukham
31
The acquirement of desired objects depends on the activities ( Pravritti ) and not on Pramāņa. One first desires to have an object and then performs activities. It cannot be said that without the activity to acquire the object, Pramāņa points out objects because this view is contrary to our every day experience. It is known to every body that even such prominent objects like the sun and the moon are not seen by men when they do not direct their activities to the same. Where the sun and the moon are not causes of activities ( Prayritti ), there is no showing ( Pradarśakattva ) and hence there is no Pratyakşa. The function of Pramāṇa is not to give objects ( Prāpaka ) but to show them ( Pradarśaka ).
By this aphorism the view that Pramāņa can be anything which is not knowledge like connection of the senses with external objects ( which is technically called Sannikarsa) is refuted'. Chandraprabha Sūri in his.Nyāyāvatāra-vivriti has mentioned that as the Jains accept that knowledge illumines itself as well as the object, they refute the views of Yogāchāra Buddhists who hold that knowledge only illumines itself and the views of Mimāmsakas, Naiyāyikas etc., who maintain that knowledge illumines the external object alone, as it cannot illumine itself".
प्राप्तुकामस्तत्प्रदर्शकमेव प्रमाणमन्वेषत इत्यस्य प्रदर्शकत्वमेव प्रापकत्वम् । न हि तेन प्रदर्शितेऽर्थे प्राप्त्यभावः" Prameyakamala-mārtanda.
___ 1 "प्रवृत्तिमूला तूपादेयार्थप्राप्तिर्न प्रमाणाधीना तस्याः पुरुषेच्छाधीन प्रवृत्तिप्रभवत्वात् । न च प्रवृत्यभावे प्रमाणस्यार्थप्रदर्शकत्वलक्षणव्यापाराभावो वाच्यः प्रतीतिविरोधात् । न खलु चन्द्रार्कादिविषयं प्रत्यक्षमप्रवर्तकत्वात् न तत् प्रदर्शकमिति लोके प्रतीतिः।" Prameyakamala-mārtanda.
2 “यस्माद्धिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमथं प्रमाणं, ततस्तत् प्रमाणत्वेनाभ्युपगतं वस्तु ज्ञानमेव भवितुमर्हति । नाज्ञानरुपं सन्निकर्षादि ।" Prameyaratnamala.
3 "ये स्वाभास्येव ज्ञानं मन्यन्ते ते ज्ञानवादिनो वौद्धविशेषाः, ये च पराभास्येव मीमांसकनैयायिकादयः, ते निरस्तास्ते हि वहिरर्थाभावात् ज्ञानं स्वांशपर्यवसितसत्ताकम् इत्याचक्षीरन् । तदयुक्तम् । ज्ञेयार्थाभावे ज्ञानाभावप्रसङ्गात् ।....पराभास्यपि

Page #88

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
This is laid down in "An Epitome of Jainism" as follows: "The question, therefore, to begin with is, what is Pramāņa from our point of view? Pramana, we define, is the valid knowledge which reveals itself as well as its knowable. It is worthy of note that by this we, first, put aside the Buddhist view that there being nothing external, knowledge only reveals itself and secondly, we contradict as well the Naiyayika and the Mimāmsaka schools of thought who teach that knowledge does not reveal itself but reveals external relations. We hold however, that just as colour reveals itself as well as the object to which it belongs, so knowledge revealing itself reveals the knowable as well."1
afaxurazi zaıìafasstenggenaza || 3 ||
32
3. Tanniśchayatmakam samāropaviruddhatvādanumānavat. 3. That (viz. Pramāņa) being opposed to Samaropa (viz. fallacies) consists of definiteness like Anumana ( inference).
Commentary
Pramāņa must be free from Samaropa ( fallacies) which is of three kinds Samsaya, Anadhyavasaya and Viparyaya". Samsaya arises when there is a doubt about an object i.e. when our mind sways between this or that, without being able to assert the true nature of a thing. For example, when a person sees someस्वप्रकाशाभावात् अभिदधीरन् तदप्यसम्बद्धम् । स्वप्रकाशाभावे परप्रकाशायोगात् । न हि प्रदीपः स्वरूपमनुद्योतयन् घटाद्युद्योतने व्याप्रियते ।" Nyāyāvatāra-vivriti An Epitome of Jainism by Nahar & Ghosh. P. 70. 2 " अतस्मिंस्तदध्यवसायः समारोपः " Pramāna-nayatattvālokalankara. I. 7
1
"faqdarian" Pramāṇa-nayatattvā
lokālankära. I. 8.
3 “अनुभयत्रोभयकोटिसंस्पर्शी' प्रत्ययः संशयः।”

Pramāṇa-mimāmsā I. I. 5.
" साधकवाधकप्रमाणामावादनवस्थिताऽनेक कोटिसंस्पर्श ज्ञानं संशयः । "
Pramana-naya-tattvālokālaṁkāra. I, 11,

Page #89

Parikşāmukham
33
thing at a distance in the darkness, a doubt arises in his mind whether it is a man or a post'. The knowledge in this case touches two ideas without being able to fix it to a particular right knowledge of the object seen. It must be understood that when a thing is capable of two conceptions, there is no Doubt, though there are two ideas in the same object. For example in the Saptabhangi Naya in Jain philosophy a pitcher is in one sense, said to exist while in another, it is said not to exist’. When the details of the head, hands etc. of a man or the branches, hollow etc. of a tree are not perceived being at a distance and in the darkness, we have knowledge of only something high. In this case a doubt arises whether it is a tree or a man'.
When we have a knowledge that this is something without any clear idea what it is, we have Anadhyavasāya which is also known as Vibhrama ( Indefiniteness ). If a man touches something when he walks but does not understand what it is, his knowledge is Anadhyavasāya. He is conscious that he has touched something but is unable to say what its real nature is . : 1.6791151 Firgaf gaat ar 1" Pramāṇanayatattvālokā
lankāra. I. 12.
“यथान्धकारे दूरादूर्दाकारवस्तूपलम्भात् साधकवाधकप्रमाणाभावे सति :. Ferrogat gaat afat 464a: \" Pramāņa-mimāṁsā. Bhāşya to
Aphorism I. 1.5.
2 To emphasize this, Hemachandra has used the word “Anubhayatra” in the definition of Samśaya quoted above e. g. "अनुभयत्र-ग्रहणमुभयरुपे वस्तुन्युभयकोटिसंस्पर्शोऽपि संशयत्वनिराकरणार्थ, यथाऽस्ति # FIFT T : farceuifFAATCHSTIC I" ( Pramāņa-mimāṁsā.)
• 3 "विरुद्धानेककोटिस्पर्शि ज्ञानं संशयः। यथाऽयं स्थाणुर्वा पुरुषो वेति । स्थाणुपुरुषसाधारणोद्धतादिदर्शनाद् तद्विशेषस्प वक्रकोटर-शिरः-पाण्यादेः साधकप्रमाणFAATAIGN Fri quasi farai alafT/" Nyāya-dipikā. 4 "AFTSTAATHEZA: 1 791 179AELETRIEITHI”
Pramāņa-naya-tattvālokālaňkāra. I. 13. 14,
P-5

Page #90

84
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
The knowledge of an object as quite the contrary to its real self is known as Viparyaya or Vimoha. When we think nacre to be silver or a rope to be a snake, we have a knowledge vitiated by Viparyaya or Vimoha (Perversity'). Such is also the case when a person attacked by a particular disease tastes a sweet thing as bitter, or sees two moons by a defect in vision or thinks trees to be moving while travelling in a boat or a railway carriage or sees a circle of fire when a burning brand is spun round?
Pramāṇa is free from these three kinds of fallacies. These
"किमित्यालोचनमात्रमनध्यवसायः । यथा पथि गच्छतस्तृणस्पर्शादिज्ञानम्"
Nyāya-dipikā. Dharmabhūşana lays down that Anadhyavasāya does not touch different ideas, so it is not Sambaya. It is also not Viparyaya as it does not comprehend the reality of the opposite idea :
"इदं हि नानाकोट्यवलंवनाभावादू न संशयः ।
विपरीतैककोटि-निश्चयाभावान्न विपर्ययः ।" Nyaya-dipika. "विशेषानुल्लेख्यमनध्यवसायः।" Pramāna-mimamsa I. 1. 7.
"दूरान्धकारादिवशादसाधारणधर्मावमर्शरहितः प्रत्ययोऽनिश्चयात्मकत्वादनध्यवसायः यथा किमेतदिति ।” Bhasya on Ibid. 1 "विपरीतैककोटिनिष्टंकनं विपर्ययः। यथा शुक्तिकायामिदं रजतमिति ।"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaňkāra. 1. 9. 10. "अतस्मिंस्तदेवेति विपर्ययः ।" Pramāna-mimamsa I. 1. 7.
"विपरीतकोटिनिश्चयो विपर्ययः । यथा शुक्तिकायामिद रजतमिति ज्ञानम् । अत्रापि सादृश्यादिनिमित्तवशात् शुक्तिविपरीते रजते निश्चयः ।" Nyaya-dipika.
2 "यथा धातुवैषम्यान्मधुरादि-द्रव्येषु तिक्तादिप्रत्ययः, तिमिरादिदोषादेकस्मिन्नपि चन्द्रे द्विचन्द्रादिप्रत्ययः, नौयानादगच्छत्स्वपि वृक्षेषु गच्छत्-प्रत्ययः आशभ्रमणादलातादाक्चक्रेऽपि चक्रप्रत्ययः।" Bhasya to Aphorism 1. 1. 7 in Pramāna-mimamsa.

Page #91

Þarikşāmukham are termed Pramāņābhāsas by Māņikyanandi and are mentioned in the sixth chapter of Parikşāmukham'.
According to the Jain doctrine, liberation is attained by a soul possessed of certain characteristics, viz. right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. Right faith or Samyaktva is a sincere belief in the seven Tattvas ( essential principles ) of Jainism viz. Jiva, Ajiva, Asrava, Bandha, Samvara, Nirjarā and Mokşa. It is only after a person has right faith that he can attain right knowledge. Right knowledge or Samyak Jñāna is the detailed cognition of the ego and non-ego and is free from the fallacies Samsaya, Anadhyavasāya and Viparyaya as described above. A person may have a knowledge of the aforesaid seven principles of Jainism but that knowledge may be vague or indefinite or it may be full of doubts or it may be entirely wrong. When indecision, doubts or belief in opposite principles disappear from removal of fallacies, a person attains perfect knowledge. The understanding of Pramāņas is therefore not useless even to a person who has given up worldly pursuits and is bent upon obtaining liberation.
Anantavirya says that the Buddhists might say that they agree to the view that Pramāņa is knowledge as mentioned in the second aphorism but they do not agree that all Pramāṇas consist of definite knowledge. According to them it is only in case of one variety of Pramāņa viz. inference that correctness can be asserted. In other cases for example in Nirvikalpaka Pratyakşa as understood by the Buddhists, definiteness is not essentially found. In opposition to this view this aphorism has been laid down in which
1 "tasifalgaryetariąsiadruga: JAUNATAT: 1" Parikşāmukham VI. 2. 2 " fanteraquafarafanzi 37699THAFFI OTEVÍ FANOU HMITTAUTAI TH”
Dravya-samgraba. Verse. 42.

Page #92

The Sacred Books of the Jainas it has been mentioned that not only in Anumāna but in all kinds of Pramāņa, there is definite knowledge'.
faftsgerref: 11 xill 4. Aniśchitohpūrvārthaḥ. 4. Apūrvārtha is that which has not been ascertained.
Commentary In the definition of Pramāņa as laid down in the first aphonism, the word Apārvārtha has been used. This word is explained in this aphorism. Apārvārtha is that which has not previously been ascertained by any Pramāņa by making it free from fallacies like Doubt, Indefiniteness or Perversity.
We have previously mentioned that there are four stages of knowledge. First, we have a general knowledge of a thing brought into contact with a sense organ ( Avagraha ). Then we have a desire to know the particulars ( Ihā). A doubt may be started by saying that as Avagraha precedes Iha, the knowledge in the second stage viz. Ihā cannot be said to be a knowledge of a thing ·not ascertained before as in the first stage ( Avagraha ) it has already been ascertained. The reply to this is that as details are not ascertained by Avagraha but only by Ihā it cannot be said that ascertainment of the object takes place during the first stage viz. Avagraha? The ascertainment consists of a perfect and correct idea of the thing.
1. "37218 atra:, HaC al afsafgouacha marta gratuzi, न तदस्माभिनिषिध्यते । तत्तु व्यवसायात्मकमेवेत्यत्र न युक्तिमुत्पश्यामः। अनुमानस्येव व्यवसायात्मनः प्रामाण्याभ्युपगमात् । प्रत्यक्षस्य तु निर्विकल्पकत्वेऽप्यविfazada grauatagafla Talki" Prameyaratnamālā. 2 67: JAMUTIFCIO Frigya danezafha: pitsgafef: 1"
Prameyaratnamālā. 8 “तेनेहादिज्ञानविषयस्यावग्रहादिगृहीतत्वेऽपि न पूर्वार्थत्वम् । अवग्रहादिनेEife facingalare fatta Fragam Hala" Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #93

Parikṣāmukham
reìsfa Barcì¶rate= || & ||
5. Driştohpi samāropāttādrik.
5. Even an ascertained thing becomes so (i. e., unascertained) through Samaropa ( fallacies ).
Commentary
37
It is urged in this aphorism that by Apurvārtha, we not only mean a thing not ascertained before but also a thing previously ascertained but which has subsequently become involved in fallacies1. In the latter class, we do away with the fallacies and ascertain the thing again correctly. This subsequent ascertainment is also said to be of a thing not ascertained before as in the interval there were fallacies destroying the true idea of the object.
Dharmabhūṣaṇa has quoted this aphorism in Nyāya-dipikā saying that after we see a pitcher, we may see other things and then again see the pitcher and the question may arise whether the subsequent knowledge of the pitcher is Pramāņa as it had been already ascertained before. The answer to this question is that in this case the pitcher is to be taken as unascertained because there may be fallacies in the interval2.
This however can be explained in another way following the argument in the case of Dhārāvāhika Jñana. Though a section of Jain writers exclude Dhārāvāhika Jñana from Pramāņa, we have shown how it can be fitted to the definition of Pramāņa. Similarly when we have knowledge of a pitcher followed by knowledge of other things and then again we have knowledge of the pitcher it
1. “ अथोक्तप्रकार एवापूर्वार्थः किमन्योऽप्यस्तीत्याह · · दृष्टोऽपि गृहीतोऽपि a àazafafaa çàcufqqızı: enqafut wafa | aadunfèfa Èg: 1”

Prameyaratnamālā.
2. ननु घटे दृष्ट पुनरन्यव्यासंगे पश्चाद् घट एव दृष्टे पश्चात्तमं ज्ञानमप्रमाणं प्राप्नोति... इति चेत्, न । दृष्टस्यापि मध्ये समारोपे सत्यदृष्टत्वात् । तदुक्तं 'दृष्टोऽपि Nyāya-dipika.
समारोपात्तादृक्' इति ।”

Page #94

The Sacred Books of the Jainas may be said that different knowledges of the pitcher on the two occasions are different ascertainments characterised by different time, place, etc. So the second ascertainment can be Pramāņa as well as the first.
The view is therefore clear that not only an object never ascertained before can be Pramāṇa but the same object after previous ascertainment can again be Pramāņa for fallacies may vitiate the first ascertainment making it necessary for another ascertainment of the true characteristics of the object. In our everyday life we may see an object previously perceived but be unable to find out its real nature owing to its being covered by dirt etc., when we see it for the second time. But if this dirt be removed we get a real knowledge of it. So a Pramāṇa also may be vitiated by fallacies and again become Pramāņa when the fallacies are removed'.
स्वोन्मुखतया प्रतिभासन स्वस्य व्यवसायः॥६॥ 6. Svonmukhatayā pratibhāsanam svasya vyavasāyaḥ.
6. The ascertainment of self is the illumination of it towards itself.
Commentary This aphorism explains the words. “Sva ... vyavasāya" used in the definition of Pramāņa in the first aphorism.
When the knowledge becomes its own object, it illumines itself and we say that in Pramāṇa there is ascertainment of itself ( as well as of the object ).
This is further explained in the next aphorism.
1. "एतदुक्तं भवति, गृहीतमपि ध्यामलिताकारतया यन्निणेतुं न शक्यते तदपि वस्त्वपूर्वमिति व्यपदिश्यते प्रवृत्तसमारोपाव्यवच्छेदात् ।” Prameyaratnamala.
2. The word Fairy@azt is explained as safarger seat i.e. becoming its own object of ascertainment or in other words, Fata: Folga ana i.e. the knowledge illumines itself. ( Arthaprakāśikā )

Page #95

Parikṣāmukham
39 sporta tangut ll ll. 7. Arthasyeva tadunmukhatayā. 7. It becomes its own object, like other objects.
Commentary This aphorism gives an example explaining the preceding aphorism. As the ascertainment of external objects results from directing attention towards them, so the knowledge itself is ascertained by it. In every knowledge there is a subject and an object and in valid knowledge the object as well as the knowledge itself is ascertained. A concrete example is given in the next aphorism to elucidate this.
घटमहमात्मना वेनि॥८॥ 8. Ghatamahamātmanā vedmi. 8. I know the pitcher through myself.
Commentary Here “I” is the subject ( Pramātā ) and “the pitcher" is the object ( Prameya), “knowing" is the action (Pramiti ) and "through myself” is the instrumental cause of this knowledge ( Pramāṇa ). Thus in such a knowledge we have an understanding of a subject, an object, an instrumental cause and a verb signifying action. This is mentioned in the next aphorism.
Aphorisms 6, 7, 8 are embodied in a different language in a single Sūtra in Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra. Instead of a pitcher, the example given there is that of a baby elephant'.
कर्मवत्कर्तृ करणक्रियाप्रतीतेः ॥९॥ 9. Karmavatkartrikaraṇakriyāpratiteḥ.
. 1. "Fan Syafra: Fageda Tarnai arearea agifayeta aff85H HEATHAI FATA 1" Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, I. 17.

Page #96

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
9. Because (in our knowledge) we have an understanding of the subject, an instrumental cause and the verb, in the same manner as the object.
40
Commentary
Anantavirya says that this aphorism denies the views of those who maintain that knowledge ascertains only the object but not itself, others who hold that knowledge ascertains either itself or an object, others again who lay down that in knowledge there is understanding of only the subject and the object and of others who say that in knowledge there is understanding of subject, object and a verb1. By this aphorism it is laid down that according to the Jain view, in knowledge there is understanding of four things, a subject, an object, a verb and an instrumental cause. The thing which is known is the object. The subject is the self. Pramāņa is the instrumental cause and Pramiti is the verb.
In Arthaprakāśikā, it is mentioned that this is in contradistinction with the view of Naiyayikas who hold that in Pratyakşa Pramaņa only the object (Prameya ) is understood e. g. that this is a pitcher and that the knowledge does not know itself or the subject (Pramātā ) or the result ( Pramiti ). It is urged that this is also in opposition to the view of Mimamsakas following Prabhakara who say that objects like pitchers and the self are ascertained by Pratyakṣa Pramāņa and who deny that Pramiti or the instrumental cause is ascertained by such Pramāņa. Further it is mentioned that this refutes the view of the followers of Jaimini who admit the understanding of Pramāņa, Prameya and Pramiti in Pratyakṣa Pramāņa but deny the instrumental cause.
1. “ ननु ज्ञानमर्थमेवाध्यवस्यति न स्वात्मानम् । आत्मानं फलं वेति केचित् । कर्त्तृकर्मणोरेव प्रतीतिरित्यपरे । कर्तृकर्मक्रियाणामेव प्रतीतिरित्यन्ये । तेषां मतमखिलमपि प्रतीतिबाधितमिति दर्शयन्नाह । " Prameyaratnamālā. 2. “ अत्राहु' नैयायिकादयः अज्ञानं प्रमेयमेव प्रत्यक्षीकरोति । अयं घट इत्याकारेण ज्ञानेन प्रमेयरूपघटादेरेव प्रत्यक्षीकरणात् । अतः तादृशज्ञानं न स्वस्वरूपं, ancuncuci qurant, anfq afufagi nó an acarîtaifa |

Page #97

Parikṣāmukham
शब्दानुच्चारणेऽपि स्वस्यानुभवनमर्थवत् ॥ १० ॥
10. Śabdānuchchāraṇehpi svasyānubhavanamarthavat.
10. Just as in the case of objects, there is understanding of itself (the knowledge) without utterance of the word (signifying
it ).
Commentary
It is our everyday knowledge that though the word "pitcher" is not uttered, we can have experience of a pitcher. So we can have experience of the knowledge itself though no word signifying knowledge is uttered. This is urged to meet the view of those who say that there can be no experience without the help of words. It cannot be urged that as there is no use of the word 'knowledge' in an experience of an object, the knowledge cannot become its own object; for we see that even when the word 'pitcher' is not uttered we can have experience of a pitcher.
को वा तत्प्रतिभासिनमर्थमध्यक्षमिच्छंस्तदेव तथा नेच्छेत् ॥ ११॥
11. Ko vā tatpratibhāsinamarthamadhyaksamichchhamstadeva tatha nechchhet.
11. Who does not accept it ( i. e. knowledge) to be of that manner ( i. e. being the subject - matter of experience ) when one admits that in Pratyakṣa the object is illumined by knowledge?
प्रदीपवत् ॥ १२ ॥
12. Pradipavat.
12. Like a lamp.
41
-भाट्टास्तु प्रमाणप्रमेययोरेव प्रत्यक्षतः प्रतिपत्तिः । प्रत्यक्षेण प्रमेयस्य घटादेः प्रमातुश्च आत्मनः प्रत्यक्षीकरणात् । न तु प्रमितिकरणज्ञानयोरपि प्रत्यक्षतः प्रतिपत्तिः सम्भवतीति वदन्ति ।
प्रमाणप्रमेयप्रमितीनामेव प्रत्यक्षतः प्रतिपत्तिः, न तु प्रमितिकरणज्ञानस्येति
जैमिनीयाः ।
तेषां सर्वेषामपि मतमनुभवपराहतमिति दर्शयन्नाह ।” Arthaprakāśikā.
P-6

Page #98

42
.
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Commentary Just as a lamp illumines itself as well as objects like a jar etc., so knowledge illumines itself as well as objects known. There cannot be any one who would accept objects as knowable by knowledge but deny that knowledge itself can be known.
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, aphorisms 11 and 12 of Parikşāmukham are written in a slightly different language'. The example there given is that of the sun instead of a lamp.
The fact that knowledge illumines itself is accepted by later Jain writers like Hemachandra though in the definition of Pramāņa accepted by them they exclude this. Hemachandra mentions that older writers have laid down that as objects are ascertained by knowledge, so the knowledge itself becomes its own object. Hemachandra quotes two definitions of older writers: one is of Siddhasena in Nyāyāvatāra in which it is laid down that Pramāṇa illumines itself as well as other objects and the other is of Māņikyanandi in Parikṣāmukham as we have already discussed. Hemachandra admits following the example as given by Māņikyanandi 'I know a pitcher', that the knowledge illumines itself in such a case like the subject and object'. He also mentions that as an object reveals itself, so the knowledge reveals itself and consequently a knowledge can know itself. It is also stated by him that like a lamp, knowledge reveals an object capable of revealing itself as knowledge has the power of illuminations. It cannot be urged that
1. : ay HEUTSCH argi afãHTHAFTARFTER aquari alfararta Feciaal 1" Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, I. 18.
2. "नन्वर्थनिर्णयवत् स्वनिर्णयोऽपि वृद्धः प्रमाणलक्षणत्वेनोक्तः 'प्रमाणं Fatrafe' sfa, 'rareARTHA TATUTA for a" Pramāṇamimāņsā. Bhāșya to 1. 1. 2.
3. WELCHE FATICA A Hat T HTHATrata" Ibid.
4. "अर्थोन्मुखतयेव स्वोन्मुखतयापि ज्ञानस्य प्रतिभासात् स्वनिर्णयात्मकत्वHofer I” Ibid.
5. "en ka gAITATAHARI nerafa gertaan!” Ibid.

Page #99

Pariksāmukham
as illumination is the very essence of knowledge, it cannot be the illuminator for its illuminating characteristic is established by the destruction of wrong knowledge“. But admitting all these Hemachandra propounds the following aphorism “The ascertainment of itself though it happens, is not the definition of Pramāņa) as this happens also in fallacies ( which are not Pramāṇas)".
Hemachandra himself in his own Bhāșya to this aphorism writes that the views of others who lay down that knowledge illumines itself is approved by me. But in laying down a definition that quality only which distinguishes the object defined should be mentioned and not all the qualities which exist in a thing. In other words, a definition is not a description. Hemachandra adds that there is no knowledge whether right or wrong which does not illumine itself. So even in doubt etc., the knowledge illumines itself but this kind of knowledge being false is excluded from Pramāņas. For this reason, Hemachandra says that he has excluded self-illumination as a characteristic of Pramāņa in his definition?.
But he supports the older writers by saying that they have not committed any fault by using this characteristic in the definition of Pramāņa as they have done so for examination of the characteristics of Pramāņa.
___ 1. "संवेदनस्य प्रकाशत्वात् प्रकाशकत्वमसिद्धमिति चेत्, न, अज्ञानFACreigento 9473196419487: 1” Ibid. : 2. "Fafarofa: FACUZTATATÜS Haralı”
Pramāṇamimāņsā. 1. 1. 3. - 3. "सन्नपि परोक्तमनुमोदते अयमर्थो, नहि अस्तीत्येव सर्व लक्षणं वाच्यं किन्तु यो धर्मो विपक्षाद् व्यावर्त्तते, स्वनिर्णयस्त्वप्रमाणेऽपि संशयादौ वर्तते, नहि काचित् ज्ञानमात्रा सास्ति या न स्वसंविदिता नाम ततो न स्वनिर्णयो लक्षणमुक्तोऽFHIFT” Bhāşya to Aphorism I. 1. 3. in Pramīņa-mimāṁsā.
4. "Peg Talanteiga faza rete: ?. Ibid.

Page #100

44
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
..
ATATATU FATA: 977 22 118311 13. Tatprāmāṇyam svataḥ paratascha.
13. The validity of Pramāņa rises from itself or through another (Pramāņa).
Commentary In this aphorism, the point how a Pramāņa establishes its validity, is discussed. In the Nyāya philosophy as propounded by Gautama, it has been laid down that the validity of Pramāņa arises through other help. Vātsyāyana the writer of the Bhāșya of Nyāya-sūtras of Gautama says that through inference, the validity of a Pramāṇa is established. We know that Pramāṇa is not the opposite of a correct understanding by the help of inference. So we must say in such a case that the validity of Pramāṇa is established
nother viz. inference. . An example will make this clear. A thirsty man seeks. water. That which causes a knowledge of water in a mirage is not Pramāṇa, for in a mirage the thirst of that man cannot be mitigated. Such a knowledge is a fallacy. Conformity with the object presented is known as the validity of Pramāņa, and nonconformity with the object presented is the opposite of Pramāņa-.
A criticism may be made of the view that if by inference, the validity of a Pramāṇa is established, we may ask : if an inference which is itself a Pramāņa confirms another Pramāņa to establish its validity, how will this inference be validated ? If we say, that another inference will validate this, the result would be an endless chain of inferences. So we must accept that in some cases Pramāņa validates itself and in other cases, its validity is established by inference. Jain writers accordingly hold that validity of Pramāņa
1. "farfag TATTET. STATvej arh ? afantafauroufrafcrani"
Nyāyadipikā. "ज्ञानस्य प्रमेयाव्यभिचारित्वं प्रामाण्यम् । तदितरत्त्वप्रामाण्यम् ।"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, I. 19. 20.

Page #101

Parikṣāmukham arises either from itself or through another Pramāņa (like inference).
It may be asked, in what case does the validity of a Pramāņa arises of itself and in what case through another Pramāņa ? The answer is that in the case of objects with which we are already familiar, the Pramana rises of itself. For example, when we look at our palm and have a knowledge of the same, no inference is necessary to establish its validity. Similarly when we see a pond previously seen many times in our own village, the validity does not require the help of inference but arises of itself. This is shown by the fact that immediately afterwards we go to it to wash ourselves or drink water. But when we see a reservoir of water not seen before at any time, we may have a doubt at first whether this is really water or a mirage. Then we use our inference and say that as we are having a smell of lotuses, feeling cool wind etc., it must be water and no mirage and so our former knowledge of water is Pramāṇa and not a fallacy'.
Hemachandra also mentions that we become certain of the validity of a Pramāņa either by itself or through the help of others?. When we look at our palm of hand which is familiar to us, we have no wish to examine whether this knowledge is valid or not, for we have not the slightest doubt regarding it. Similarly
1. 'तत्र तावदभ्यस्तविषये जलमिदमिति ज्ञाने जाते ज्ञानस्वरूपज्ञप्तिसमय एव तद्गतं प्रामाण्यमपि ज्ञायत एव। अन्यथोत्तरक्षण एव निःशशंकप्रवृत्तेरयोगात्। अस्ति हि जलज्ञानोत्तरक्षण एव निःश्शंका प्रवृत्तिः। अनभ्यस्ते तु विषये जलज्ञाने जाते जलज्ञानं मम जातमिति ज्ञानस्वरूपनिर्णयेऽपि प्रामाण्यनिर्णयोऽन्यत एव । अन्यथोत्तरकाले संदेहानुपपत्तेः। अस्ति हि संदेहो जलज्ञानं मम जातं, तत् किं जलमुत मरीचिकेति ? ततः कमलपरिमलशिशिरमंदमरुत्प्रचारप्रभृतिभिरवधारयति। प्रमाणं प्राक्तनं जलज्ञानं, कमलपरिमलाद्यन्यथानुपपत्तेः ।" Nyāyadipikā.
2. "प्रामाण्यनिश्चयः स्वतः परतो वा।" Pramāna-mimamsa, I. I. 8.

Page #102

46
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
when we are afflicted by thirst and want to drink water, or when we want to bathe or to assuage the heat of our body and see a tank already familiar to us, we at once proceed to it without stopping to examine, whether the knowledge is valid or not. But in other cases regarding objects with which we are not already familiar, we take the help of inference etc., to establish the validity of the knowledge'.
Vidyānanda has affirmed this by saying "Pramāņa establishes itself regarding objects with which we are already familiar and takes the help of other in other cases”. 2
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, it is mentioned that Prāmāṇya and Aprāmāṇya ( validity and its opposite ) arise through others, but regarding their knowledge, they arise by themselves or through others. In Prameyaratnamālā also we find that Prāmāṇya arises by itself.*
In Arthaprakāśikā it is mentioned that in this aphorism the words "utpattau" (“when it arises") and "svakārye” (“in its working” ) may be taken as understood. The meaning would then be that when Prāmāṇya arises it takes help of others but regard
___1. "प्रामाण्यनिश्चयः क्वचित् स्वतो यथाऽभ्यासदशापन्ने स्वकरतलादिज्ञाने स्नानपानावगाहनोदन्योपशमादावर्थक्रियानि से वा प्रत्यक्षज्ञाने, नहि तत्र परीक्षाकांक्षाऽस्ति प्रेक्षावताम् , तथाहि जलज्ञानं ततो दाहपिपासातस्य तत्र प्रवृत्तिस्ततस्तत्प्राप्तिः ततः स्नानपानादीनि ततो दाहोदन्योपशम इत्येतावतैव भवति कृती प्रमाता न पुनर्दाहोदन्योपशमज्ञानमपि परीक्षते इत्यस्य स्वतः प्रामाण्यम् ।....कचित् परतः प्रामाण्य निश्चयो यथाऽनभ्यासदशापन्ने प्रत्यक्षे।" Bhasya to Pramāna-mimamsa I. 1. 8. 2. "प्रामाण्यं तु स्वतः सिद्धमभ्यासात् परतोऽन्यथा ॥"
Pramāņa-parikṣā. 3. “तदुभयमुत्पत्तौ परत एव ज्ञप्तौ तु स्वतः परतश्च ।”
___Pramāna-nayatattvalokalaikāra I. 11. 4. "अथवा प्रामाण्यमुत्पत्तौ परत एव ।" Prameyaratnamala.

Page #103

Parikṣāmukham
47
ing its work viz. determination of objects, it takes its own help in the case of familiar objects and help of others in other cases.1
Here ends the first chapter of Parikṣāmukham. We have seen that in the first aphorism of this chapter, the definition of Pramāṇa has been given. In the aphorisms which follow this definition is explained. For example in the second aphorism it is laid down that Pramāņa cannot be anything else than knowledge as indicated in the definition. The words "sva-vyavasaya" in the definition is explained in aphorisms 6 and 7 and a concrete example is given in aphorism 8. The word "Apūrvārtha" is explained in aphorism 4. Thus defining Pramāņa and explaining the general characteristics of Pramāņa in the first chapter the author will proceed in the next chapter to mention the different varieties of Pramāņa viz. Pratyakṣa and Paroksa. Pratyakṣa Pramaṇa will be discussed in detail in the second chapter and Parokṣa Pramāņa will be examined in the third chapter.
End of Chapter I.
1. “ अथवा उत्पत्तौ स्वकार्य च इति पदद्वयमपि अस्मिन् सूत्रे अध्याहर्त्तव्यं । तथाच अयमर्थः । प्रामाण्यमुत्पत्तौ परत एव ।.... विषयपरिच्छित्यादिलक्षणस्वकार्ये प्रामाण्यमभ्यासदशायां स्वतो गृह्यते । अनभ्यासदशायां परतो गृह्यत इति ।”
Arthaprakāsikā.

Page #104

द्वितीयः समुद्देशः
SAMUDDESA II
AGDUT || ? ||
1. Taddvedha.
1. This (Pramāņa) is of two kinds.
Commentary
Jain Logic accepts only two kinds of Pramāņas, Pratyakṣa and Parokṣa. This distinguishes the Jain view from the views of Hindu and Buddhist philosophers. According to the Charvaka school of philosophy there is only one Pramāņa named Pratyakṣa. Buddhist philosophy admits two varieties of Pramāņa viz. Pratyakṣa and Anumana. In Vaiseṣika philosophy also Pratyakṣa and Anumana are the only Pramaņas which are recognised, for according to this system of philosophy Sabda etc. (which are recognised by some as Pramāņas) are included within Anumana. In Samkhya and Yoga philosophies, three kinds of Pramāņas viz. Pratyakṣa, Anumāna and Agama (Sabda) are accepted. In Nyaya philosophy four kinds of Pramaņas, Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, Upamana and Sabda are recognised. The Mimamsa school of philosophy as propounded by Prabhakara and his followers recognise five Pramāņas, Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, Upamāna, Śabda and Arthapatti. The Bhatta school of Mimamsä philosophy recognises one more Pramāņa viz. Abhāva in addition to the five Pramāņas accepted by Prabhakara. The Vedanta view as discussed in the Vedanta-paribhāṣā is that there are six kinds of Pramāņas viz. Pratyakṣa, Anumana, Upamāna, Śabda, Arthāpatti and Anupa
labdhi.
Hemachandra in his Pramāṇamimāmsā laying down that "Pramana is of two varieties1 mentions in his Bhāṣya that this refutes the views of Charvaka, Vaiseṣika, Samkhya, Nyāya,
I. "fa" Pramāņa-mimāmsā, I. I. 9.

Page #105

49
Parikşāmukham Prābhākara and Bhūtta ( the two schools of Mimāmsā) philosophy.
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra we have "Pramāṇa is of two kinds-Pratyakşa and Parokşa”2. Dharmabhūşaņa also lays down the same
qaraçta 11 2 11 2. Pratyakşetarabhedāt.
2. As it is of two varieties, Pratyakşa and another ( viz. Parokşa ).
Commentary This is connected with the previous aphorism which lays down that Pramāņa is of two kinds and this aphorism mentions the two kinds of Pramāņas. In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra as we have already quoted these two aphorisms have been put down in a single aphorism. Hemachandra follows Māņikyanandi and after mentioning that Pramāņa is of two kinds* lays down in the next aphorism that the Pramāṇas are Pratyakșa and Parokşa”. In Nyāyāvatāra we find “Pramāṇa is divided as Pratyaksa and Parokșa as knowables are ascertained in two ways”6 Haribhadra Sūri lays down “According to the (Jain ) view, Pratyakşa and
_1. "तेन प्रत्यक्षमेवैकं प्रमाणमिति चार्वाकाः, प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमाः प्रमाणानीति वैशेषिकाः, तान्येवेति सांख्याः, सहोपमानेन चत्वारीति नैयायिकाः, सहार्थापत्त्या पञ्चेति प्राभाकराः, सहाभावेन षडिति भाट्टा इति न्यूनाधिक प्रमाणवादिनः प्रतिक्षिप्ताः ।" Bhāşya to Ibid.
2. salah 54&T a 7 a 1" Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, II. I.
3. "Thi fafaa argei TT&" Nyāyadipikā, Prakāśa II. 4. "HOT FETT 1" Pramāņa-mimāmsā. I. I. 9 . 5. “Fue a Tail" Ibid 1. I. 10 6. "Te uiti a facut fafana 11" Nyāyāyatāra I,
P—7

Page #106

50
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Parokşa are two kinds of Pramāṇas”1. In Tattvārtha Sūtra, Pramāṇas have been laid down in three aphorisms: "This knowledge consisting of Mati, śruta, Avadhi, Manahparyaya and Kevalao consists of two Pramāņas. The first two are Parokşa Pramāṇas* The remaining ones are Pratyakşa”5,
fand T777 11 3 11 3. Visadam Pratyakşam. 3. (The knowledge ) which is clear is Pratyakşa.
Commentary The word "Knowledge” (Jñānam ) is to be understood in this aphorism. Clearness is the characteristic of Pratyakşa Pramāņa. This clearness is expressed by the words Visada, Spasta, Nirmala etc. in works on Jain Logic?. The idea may be thus explained by an example. We may have knowledge of fire directly or when we are told by a reliable person whom we believe “Here is fire” or when we see smoke and infer that there is fire. The second and third kind of knowledge is not direct and not therefore styled as clear. That there is difference between this direct and indirect knowledge is understood by everyone. This direct knowledge is not dependant on Sabda or Anumāna. It
1. "YET YTT&a à GHIŪT Hà I" Şaļdarsanasamuchchaya. śloka 55.
" Tattvārtha Sūtra. I. 9. 3. " FATŮ 1" Ibid I. 10. 4. "Ticet TT&T 1" Ibid I. 11 5. "CUTHFIA I" Ibid I. 12. 6. "Afafa ata 1" Prameyaratnamālā. 7. " ta itse aanget Fyeraficultat: ztea clariter 1"
Nyāya-dipikā.

Page #107

Parikṣāmukham
51 arises when there is destruction or mitigation of the obstruction to Jñāna".
Akalanka Deva in Nyāyaviniśchaya has mentioned that the definition of Pratyakşa has been mentioned to be clear knowledge. Syādvādavidyāpati has explained in the commentary that clearness means perspicuous illumination. This is felt by every one when one proceeds to examine the character of the knowledge.
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaňkāra, the word Spaşta has been used in place of Visada. The meaning is the same. In Nyāyadipikā4 and in Pramāņa-mimāmsā” the word Visada has been followed.
The older Jain logicians have accepted the view which is contrary to that adopted in other philosophies that knowledge derived through the senses is Parokşa and not Pratyakşa. Their view is based on the authority of Umāsvămi ( as already quoted ), Akalanka etc., who maintain that knowledge derived through meditation independant of the senses is Pratyakşa ( direct knowledge ). Later writers on Jain logic however have laid down that senseperception is Pratyakşa and other kinds of knowledge are Parokşa. For example Siddhasena Divākara writes "Such knowledge that
1: ' ffag. fasigafaHTASI ATA ? gayet :- Alauren Hanविशिष्टक्षयोपशामाद्वा शब्दानुमानाद्यसंभवि यन्नमल्यमनुभवसिद्धं । दृश्यते खल्वग्निरस्तीत्याप्तवचनाद् घूमादिलिंगाचोत्पन्नाज ज्ञानादयमग्निरित्युत्पन्नस्य द्रियिकस्य ज्ञानस्य fasta: 1" Nyāya-dipikā.
2. "TUTTO NE: FTE ATATHFIAT 1" Nyāyaviniśchayālankāra.
3. “निर्मलप्रतिभासत्वमेव स्पष्टत्वं । स्वानुभवप्रसिद्धं चैतत् सर्वस्यापि परीक्षprafat Franta fataza " Comm. by Syādvāda-vidyāpati.
4. "Ta fazleafari ATA TETOHI” Nyāyadipikā. 5. "Farne: 977877, 1" Pramāņa-mimāmsā. I. I. 13.

Page #108

52
The Sacred Books of the Jainas takes cognizance of objects, not beyond the range of the senses, is Pratyakşa ( direct knowledge or perception ); the other is known as Parokşa (indirect knowledge ) in reference to the manner of taking the cognizance". (Translation by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa ).
Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūsana in his notes on the above verse of Siddhasena Divākara has mentioned the difference between the views of the older and later writers on Jain Logic thus :
"The words Pratyakşa ( 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, Pratyakşa ( direct knowledge ) signified perfect knowledge acquired by the soul direct through meditation and not through the channels of the senses, while Parokșa ( indirect knowledge ) signified knowledge derived through the medium of the senses or signs comprising perception, inference and the verbal testimony”. . Now we may turn to the derivation of the word Pratyakşa as given by different Jain writers. In Syādvādaratnākara we find that the derivative meaning of Fratyakşa is that which rests on Akşa (i. e., a sense ). There it is also mentioned that the derivation is by Tatpuruşa Samāsa. It cannot be Avyayibhāva, as in that case the word should always be in the neuter gender but we use Pratyakşa in all the three genders. Haribhadra Sūri derives
1. OBTOTTATTET. ITER ETTAHERTHI
gratefHata TIET DEU2477 11" Nyāyāvatāra. 4 2. Nyāyāvatāra Edited by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa P. 9.
3. Bertalana afa vei pricaarfri EFTATA 1 fanga:' sfat तत्पुरुषः। ततश्च 'द्विगुप्राप्तापन्नालं पूर्वगतिसमासेषु' परवल्लिंगताप्रतिषेधादभिधेयबल्लिंगतायां विलिंगः प्रत्यक्षशब्दः सिद्धः। एवं च प्रत्यक्ष ज्ञानं, प्रत्यक्षो बोधः, प्रत्यक्षा

Page #109

Parikşāmukham the word thus : "Akşa means Jiva as it enjoys or pervades all Dravya, Ksetra, Kala and Bhava. Aksa also means Indriya ( senses ) as it enjoys objects. When Aksa meets Aksa we have Pratyakşa that is to say knowledge arises through the senses" 1. Hemachandra also lays down the derivation adopted by Haribhadra”. These derivations have been criticised in Syādvādaratnākara as already mentioned.
Now a question may be asked, if by the derivation we get that knowledge arising from sense-perception is Pratyakşa, how can the view of writers who call such knowledge Parokşa and only direct knowledge derived through meditation Pratyakşa, be tenable. The answer has been given in Syādvādaratnākara that whatever the derivative meaning of a word may be, in use we do not stick to it. For example the derivative meaning of the word "Gauh" (a cow) is that 'which goes. This meaning can apply to any moving thing but use of the word Gauh is not at all made in its derivative sense. So in the case of Pratyakşa Pramāṇa also, its derivative meaning cannot stop its being applied to knowledge like Avadhi etc., derived without the help of any senses. बुद्धिरित्यादयो व्यपदेशाः प्रवर्तन्ते । अक्षमक्षं प्रति वर्तत इति प्रत्यक्षमिति त्वव्ययीभावे 'अव्ययीभावश्च' इत्यनेन सदा नपुंसकत्वं स्यात् ।' Syadvadaratnakara, II. 1.
1. "अश्नुतेऽक्ष्णोति वा व्याप्नोति सकलद्रव्यक्षेत्र-कालभावानित्यक्षो जीवोsश्नुते विषयमित्यक्षमिन्द्रियं च। अक्षमक्ष प्रतिगतं प्रत्यक्षमिंद्रियाण्याश्रित्य व्यवहारसाधकं यजज्ञानमुत्पद्यते तत् प्रत्यक्षमित्यर्थः ।" Saddarsanasamuchchaya. Comm. on Verse 55..
- 2. "अश्नुते अक्ष्णोति वा व्याप्नोति सकलद्रव्यक्षेत्रकालभावानित्यक्षो जीवः । अश्नुते विषयमित्यक्षमिंद्रियं च प्रतिः प्रतिगतार्थः अक्षं प्रतिगतं तदाश्रितं अक्षाणि चेंद्रियाणि तानि प्रतिगतमिंद्रियाण्याश्रित्योज्जिहीते यज्ज्ञानं तत् प्रत्यक्षम् ।" Pramāna mimamsa. Bhāsya on I. I. 10.
3. "नन्वेवं प्रत्यक्षशब्दस्य व्युत्पत्तौ कथमिंद्रियानाश्रितस्य मानसस्यावध्यादेश्व प्रत्यक्षव्यपदेशः स्यादिति चेत् ? उच्यते । प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तस्य तत्रापि सद्भावात् ।

Page #110

54
The Sacred Books of the Jainas We have already mentioned that according to the Jain doctrine, knowledge is of five kinds : (1) Mati ( knowledge derived through the senses including the knowledge which arises from the activity of the mind ), (2) Śruta ( knowledge derived through symbols or signs e. g. words, gestures etc. ), (3) Avadhi ( psychic knowledge which the soul acquires without the help of any sense ), (4) Manaḥparyaya ( knowledge of thoughts of others ) and (5) Kevala ( omniscience ). There are false knowledges of Mati, Sruta and Avadbi which make up a total of eight kinds of knowledge recognised in Jainism. We have seen that in Tattvārtha Sūtra, Mati and Sruta Jñāna have been described as Paroksa Pramāṇas and Avadhi, Manahparyaya and Kevala as Pratyaksa Pramāṇas. The distinction between Pratyakşa and Parokşa' according to Tattvārtha Sūtra is that in the former the soul gets a clear knowledge of an object without depending upon any other knowledge while in the latter, the cognition is not clear by itself but has to depend upon some other kind of knowledge. We have already given an example of this dependance when, to have a knowledge of fire by seeing smoke, we have to depend on the knowledge of smoke and then infer the existence of fire.
But later writers like Jain logicians have laid down that Mati and Śruta Jñāna are Sānvyavahārika Pratyakşas and Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala are Pāramārthika or Mukhya Pratyakşa. Brahmadeva in his commentary on Dravya-samgraha tries to reconcile this contradiction in the following manner. First he raises the question : “The disciple asks 'In Tattvārtha Sūtra, Mati and Śruta have been described as Parokșa in the aphorism Adye अक्षाश्रितत्वं हि प्रत्यक्षशब्दस्य व्युत्पत्तिनिमित्तं, गतिक्रियेव गोशब्दस्य, प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तं त्वेकार्थसमवायिनाऽक्षाश्रितत्वेनोपलक्षितमर्थसाक्षात्कारत्वं गतिक्रिययोपलक्षितं गोत्वमिव गोशब्दस्य। अन्यद्धि शब्दस्य व्युत्पत्तिनिमित्तं, अन्यच्च प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् । इतरथा गच्छन्नेव गौगौरिति व्यपदिश्येत नापरो व्युत्पत्तिनिमित्ताभावात् । जात्यन्तरविशिष्टं हि तुरगादिकं गति-क्रियापरिणतं व्युत्पत्तिनिमित्तसद्भावात् गोशब्दाभिधेयं Fara 1" Syādvādaratnākara, II. 1.

Page #111

Parikşāmukham
55 Paroksam (I. 11 ). How can these be Pratyaksa ( according to the view of Jain writers on Logic ?' Brahmadeva then answers this question by saying that the aphorism of Umāsvāmi is to be regarded as a general rule ( utsarga ) while the sayings of Jain logicians are to be taken as special rules or exceptions ( Apavāda ). In special or exceptional cases, the general rule is not followed. So though in Tattvārtha Sūtra it has been mentioned that Mati and Śruta Jñānas are Parokșa knowledge, there are particular cases which may be taken as exceptions where these may be called Pratyakşa’. For example, Śruta Jñāna can be wholly Parokșa as when it arises from words only or when it consists of knowledge of outside objects e. g. heaven, liberation etc. But when the soul has internal knowledge that it has happiness or misery or it consists of infinite knowledge, this Sruta Jñāna is partially Parokşa. But Sruta Jñāna is Pratyaksa in case of ordinary householders ( though Paroksa in case of Kevalins who have omniscience when it cognizes the soul". Brahmadeva further says that we all know
___ 1 'अत्राह शिष्यः :-'आद्ये परोक्षम्' इति तत्त्वार्थसूत्रे मतिश्रुतद्वयं परोक्ष भणितं तिष्ठति, कथं प्रत्यक्षं भवति ?” Commentary on Dravyasamgraha, Verse 5.
2 “परिहारमाह। तदुत्सर्गव्याख्यानम् , इदं पुनरपवादव्याख्यानम् । यदि तदुत्सर्गव्याख्यानं न भवति, तर्हि मतिज्ञानं कथं तत्त्वार्थे परोक्षं भणितं तिष्ठति ? तर्कशास्त्रे सांव्यवहारिकं प्रत्यक्षं कथं जातम् ? यथा अपवादव्याख्यानेन मतिज्ञानं परोक्षमपि प्रत्यक्षज्ञानं तथा स्वात्माभिमुखं भावश्रुतज्ञानमपि परोक्षं सत् प्रत्यक्षंभण्यते।" Brahmadeva : Dravyasamgraha-Vritti Verse 5.
3 "शब्दात्मकं श्रुतज्ञानं परोक्षमेव तावत् । स्वर्गापवर्गादिबहिर्विषयपरिच्छित्तिपरिज्ञानं विकल्परूपं तदपि परोक्षं। यत्पुनरभ्यन्तरे सुखदुःखविकल्परूपोऽहमनन्तज्ञानादिरूपोऽहमिति वा तदीषत्परोक्षम् । यच्च निश्चय-भावश्रुतज्ञानं तच्च शुद्धात्माभिमुखसुखसंवित्तिस्वरूपं . स्वसंवित्त्याकारेण सविकल्पमपीन्द्रियमनोजनितरागादिविकल्पजालरहितत्वेन निर्विकल्पम् , अभेदनयेन तदेवात्मशब्दवाच्यं, वीतरागचारित्राविनाभूतं केवलज्ञानापेक्षया परोक्षमपि संसारिणां क्षायिकज्ञानाभावात् क्षायोपशमिकमपि प्रत्यक्षमभिधीयते।" Ibid.

Page #112

56
The Sacred Books of the Jainas that the knowledge of our happiness and misery is Pratyakşa, but if we say that according to Tattvārtha Sūtra, Mati and Sruta Jñāna are always Parokşa, the knowledge of our happiness or misery should also become Parokșa which is absurd'.
In this connection we may mention the view of Dharmabhūşaņa who says : “Some say that Pratyakşa should only be that which arises through the senses, eye etc., as Akşa means the senses ( and according to the derivative meaning Pratyakşa means that arising from the senses ). This view is not correct. The knowledges Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala arise through the soul and are independent of the senses. There is no doubt that these are Pratyakşa. The characteristic of Pratyakşa is clearness and not being caused by the senses. For this reason among the five kinds of knowledge Mati, Sruta, Avadhi, Manahparyaya and Kevala, it has been mentioned ( in the Tattvārtha Sūtra ) that the former two are Parokșa and the others are Pratyakşa". Whatever may be the derivative meaning, the meaning fixed by use makes Avadhi, Manahparyaya and Kevala to be Pratyakşa.3 Or the derivation can be changed in the following manner. Akşa means the soul as it pervades or knows and that which arises in the soul
1 “यदि पुनरेकान्तेन परोक्षं भवति तर्हि सुखदुःखादिसंवेदनमपि परोक्षं प्राप्नोति, न च तथा।" Ibid.
2 “कश्चिदाह 'अक्ष नाम चक्षुरादिकमिंद्रियं तत् प्रतीत्य यदुत्पद्यते तदेव प्रत्यक्षमुचितं नान्यत्' इति तदप्यसत्। आत्ममात्रसापेक्षाणामवधिमनःपर्ययकेवलानामिंद्रियनिरपेक्षाणामपि प्रत्यक्षत्वाविरोधात् । स्पष्टत्वमेव हि प्रत्यक्षत्वप्रयोजक नेंद्रियजन्यत्वं । अत एव हि मतिश्रुतावधिमनःपर्ययकेवलानां ज्ञानत्वेन प्रतिपन्नानां मध्ये 'आद्ये परोक्ष', 'प्रत्यक्षमन्यत्' इत्याययोर्मतिश्रुतयोः परोक्षत्वकथनमन्येषां त्ववधिमनःपर्ययकेवलानां प्रत्यक्षत्ववाचो युक्तिः ।” Nyayadipika. Prakasa II.
3 “कथं पुनरेतेषां प्रत्यक्षशब्दवाच्यत्वमिति चेत् ? रूढित इति ब्रूमः ।"
Ibid.

Page #113

Parikşāmukham
57
independent of the senses is Pratyakşa". So if we quarrel that we must follow the derivative meaning, a solution is given by adopting a derivation which fits with the definition.
प्रतीत्यन्तराव्यवधानेन विशेषवत्तया वा प्रतिभासनं वैशद्यम् ॥४॥
4. Pratītyantarāvyavadhānena višeșavattayā vā pratibhāsanam vaiśadyam.
4. Clearness means illumination without any other intermediate knowledge or illumination in details.
Commentary
In Aphorism 3, it was mentioned that the knowledge which is clear is Pratyakşa. In the present aphorism, clearness is explained.
Clearness of knowledge means illumination of an object when there is no intermediate knowledge. For example, in inference we have an intermediate knowledge. When we see smoke and infer that there is fire, there is the intermediate knowledge of smoke before we have the knowledge of fire. Where there is no such intervention of another knowledge, we hold that the knowledge is clear. Another definition is also given. Clearness means knowledge of an object with all its details.
Hemachandra has laid down : "Clearness means illumination which does not depend on any other Pramāņa ( Anumāna, Sabda etc. ) or understanding that it is of such and such a nature”2. In Anumāna and Sabda, the knowledge depends on other Pramāṇas but that is not the case in Pratyakşa Pramāņa. There is another
1 "अथवा अक्ष्णोति व्याप्नोति जानातीत्यक्ष आत्मा तन्मात्रापेक्षोत्पत्तिकं Irteafara 1 Ibid.
2 "A raratat createn fahreit at deretti" Pramāņamimāmsā I. 1. 14.
P-8

Page #114

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
definition of clearness viz. that it grasps all the details and hence forms a correct knowledge by being a Pratyakṣa Pramāņa1.
58
In Syādvādaratnakara this aphorism is criticised. It is mentioned there: "Some say "Clearness means illumination without any intermediate knowledge'. They say that in Parokṣa Pramāņas like Anumana, the knowledge of fire arises after the intermediate knowledge of smoke, so that knowledge is not clear but in Pratyakṣa there is no such intermediate knowledge, so it is clear. Those who hold this view have not got an idea of Jain philosophy even in their dreams. For, how will they establish the knowledge Ihā etc. when connected with doubt ?" So in Syadvādaratnākara, support is given to the definition of clearness as laid down in Pramāṇanaya-tattvālokālaṁkāra which is as follows:
"Clearness means the illumination of details in excess of that produced by Anumāna etc.”3. A verse is quoted in Syadvadaratnākara meaning the same thing.
1 " प्रस्तुतात् प्रमाणादन्यत् प्रमाणं शब्दलिंगादिज्ञानं तत् प्रमाणान्तरं, तन्निरपेक्षता वैशद्यम् । न हि शब्दानुमानादिवत् प्रत्यक्ष स्वोत्पत्तौ शब्दलिंगादिज्ञानं प्रमाणान्तरमपेक्षते इत्येकं वैशद्यलक्षणम् । लक्षणान्तरमपि इदन्तया प्रतिभासो वेति । इदन्तया विशेषनिष्ठतया यः प्रतिभासः सम्यगर्थनिर्णयस्य सोऽपि वैशद्यम् । वा शब्दः लक्षणान्तरत्वसूचनार्थः । " Bhāsya on Pramāna-mimāmsā I. 1. 14. 2 " केचित्तु तार्किकम्मन्याः प्रतीत्यन्तराव्यवधानेन प्रतिभासनमपि ज्ञानस्य वैशद्यं वदन्ति । अनुमानादिपरोक्षप्रमाणभेदेषु हि धूमादिगोचरप्रतीतिव्यवधानेन धूमध्वजादिवस्तुनः प्रतीतिरित्यवैशद्यं तेषाम्, प्रत्यक्षे तु नैवं प्रतीत्यन्तरव्यवधानमस्तीति वैशद्यं तस्य । न ते जैनदर्शनोपनिषदं स्वप्नेऽपि प्रापुः । एवं प्रकारं वैशद्यं वदन्तस्ते कथमीहादिज्ञानस्य संदेहाद्यपेक्षिणः प्रत्यक्षतां व्यवस्थापयिष्यन्ति ?” Syadvādaratnākara.
3 " अनुमानाद्याधिक्येन विशेषप्रकाशनं स्पष्टत्वम् ।"
Pramānanayatattvālokālankāra. II. 3
4 " अनुमानादयतिरेकेण विशेषप्रतिभासनं । तदूवैशद्यं मतं बुद्धेरवैशद्यमतः परम् ॥”

Verse quoted in Syādvādaratnākara.

Page #115

Parikṣāmukham
We have already mentioned while discussing the definition of Pramāņa, the four kinds of Mati Jñāna viz. Avagraha, Īhā, Avāya and Dharaṇā. The first stage is the bare knowledge of an object. In the second stage there is an attempt to know the particulars of the object whereby similarities with or differences from other objects are known. In the third stage there is a definite finding of these particulars and in the fourth stage there is a lasting impression which arises after the object is known with all its particulars.
Now these four stages are accepted in Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa which will be discussed in the next aphorism. The criticism of Syadvādaratnākara is that as in the case of Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa we recognise one knowledge after another (viz. Avagraha, Iha, Avaya and Dharaṇā) there are intermediate knowledges and so the definition of clearness that it is bereft of intermediate knowledge cannot be correct. For clearness being the characteristic of Pratyakṣa Pramāņa we see that it cannot apply to Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa where four stages of knowledge arise one after another.
59
This criticism however has been met in the commentaries of Pariksāmukham and other works on Jain Logic. In Prameyaratnamālā, it is mentioned that "by intervention of another knowledge" it should be understood that the intermediate knowledge is of a quite different object and not of the same object. For example, in Anumāna we have knowledge of one object, smoke and a quite different object, fire, later on. But in Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa we have knowledge of the same object in four stages. For example, first we are merely conscious of a man ; then we desire to know his particulars. In the third stage we ascertain the particulars that he belongs to such and such a country etc., and in the fourth stage we get a lasting impression1. In Prameyakamalamārtaṇḍa, the
1 " यद्यप्यवायस्यावग्रहेहाप्रतीतिभ्यां व्यवधानं, तथापि न परोक्षत्वं विषयविषयिणोर्भेदे सति व्यवधानं तत्र परोक्षत्वम् । तर्हि अनुमानाध्यक्षविषयस्यैकात्मग्राह्यस्याग्नेरभिन्नस्योपलम्भादध्यक्षस्य परोक्षतेति तदप्ययुक्तम् ।
भिन्नविषयत्वाभावात् ।

Page #116

60
The Sacred Books of the Jainas .. definition of Māņikyanandi has been supported. That view has again been criticised in Syādvādaratnākara'. It will serve no purpose to go into details of this controversy. We have explained the main point fully and we have seen that no fault appears in the definition of clearness as given by Māņikyanandi. Though 'in Pramāņa-naya-tattvālokālankāra an attempt is made to give a different definition, later writers like Hemachandra have followed Māņikyanāndi.
इन्द्रियानिन्द्रियनिमित्तं देशतः सांव्यवहारिकम् ॥५॥ 5. Indriyānindriyanimittam deśataḥ sāŋvyavahārikam,
5. (The knowledge )which is partially clear and arises from Indriya (the senses ) and Anindriya (the mind ) is Saivyavahārika Pratyakşa.
विसदृशसामग्रीजन्यभिन्नविषया प्रतीतिः प्रतीत्यन्तरमुच्यते नान्यदिति न दोषः ।" Prameyaratnamālā.
1 "नन्वेवमीहादिज्ञानस्यावग्रहायपेक्षत्वादव्यवधानेन प्रतिभासनलक्षणवैशयाभावात् प्रत्यक्षता न स्यात्तदसारम् । अपरापरेन्द्रियव्यापारादेवावग्रहादीनामुत्पत्तेस्तत्र तदपेक्षत्वासिद्धेः। एकमेव चेदं विज्ञानमवग्रहादयतिशयवदपरापरचक्षुरादिव्यापारादुत्पन्नं सत् स्वतन्त्रतया स्वविषये प्रवर्तत इति प्रमाणान्तराव्यवधानमत्रापि प्रसिद्धमेव। अनुमानादिप्रतीतिस्तु लिंगादिप्रतीत्यैव जनिता सति स्वविषये प्रवर्त्तते इत्यव्यवधानेन प्रतिभासनाभावान्न प्रत्यक्षता" Prameya-kamala-mārtanda
The above has been criticised in Syādrādaratnākara thus : "अथ प्रयुरपरापरेन्द्रियव्यापारादेवेहादीनामुत्पत्तेः सन्देहायनपेक्षत्वात् प्रतीत्यन्तराव्यवधानेन प्रत्यक्षतेति, तदपि प्रतीतिपराङ मुखत्वम् । ईहादयो हि संदेहादिभ्यः समुपजायमानाः प्रतीयन्त एवेति कथं तदनपेक्षत्वम् ? प्रतीयमानस्यापि कार्यकारणभावस्यात्रापहवे सर्वत्र तदपह्नवः किं न स्यात् ? अथैकमिदं संवेदनमवग्रहायतिशयोपेतमित्यत्रापि प्रतीत्यन्तराव्यवधानमस्तीति, ननु तथापि तदनेकत्वपक्षे प्रतीत्यन्तरव्यवधानमलब्धसमाधान', स्यावादिना ह्यवाहादीनामेकत्वमिवानेकत्वमपि वक्तव्यम् ।"

Page #117

Parikşāmukham
61
Commentary
Pratyakşa Pramāņa is subdivided into two classes Sānvyavahārika and Mukhya or Pārarmārthika. In this aphorism the definition of Sānvyavahārika Pratyakşa is given
In Pramāņaparikṣā, Vidyānanda Svāmi has divided Pratyakşa into three classes Indriya-pratyakşa, Anindriya-pratyakşa and Atindriya-pratyakşa. The first two however can be included under Sānvyavahārika Pratyakşa. So the twofold division of Pratyakşa will be sufficient. In Pramāņa-nayatattvālokālankāra, Pratyakşa has been divided into Sānvyavahārika and Pāramārthika and Sānvyavahārika again has been subdivided into Indriyanivandhana and Anindriya-nivandhanas. In Pramāna-mimamsa Pratyakşa has been divided into Mukhya and Sārvyavahārika* and in Nyāyadipikā, the divisions are Sānvyavahārika and Pāramārthika”. Mukhya or Pāramārthika are one and the same
thing.
1 "तच्च प्रत्यक्षं द्वधा मुख्यसंव्यवहारभेदाद् इति मनसि कृत्य प्रथम सांव्यवहारिकप्रत्यक्षस्योत्पादिकां सामग्री तभेदं च प्राह ।" Prameyaratnamala. 2 “तत् त्रिविधं, इन्द्रियानिन्द्रियातीन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षविकल्पनात्।”
Pramānapariksa. 3. "तद्विप्रकारं सांव्यवहारिकं पारमार्थिकं च ।" . "तत्रायं द्विविधमिन्द्रियनिवन्धनमनिन्द्रियनिवन्धनं च ।"
____Pramananayatattvalokalankāra. II. 4. 5 4 "तत् सर्वथावरणविलये चेतनस्य स्वरूपाविर्भावो मुख्यं केवलम् ।"
Pramāņa-mīmāmsā I. 1. 15 "तत् तारतम्येऽवधिमनःपर्ययौ च ।" Ibid 1. 1. 18 "इन्द्रियमनोनिमित्तावग्रहेहावायधारणात्मा सांव्यवहारिकम् ।"
_Ibid, 1. 1. 21 5 "तत् प्रत्यक्षं द्विविधं सांव्यवहारिकं पारमार्थिकं च ।”
Nyāya-dipikā.

Page #118

62
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
.
.
The knowledge which is partially clear is Sānvyavahārika Pratyakșa and the knowledge which is fully clear is Mukhya or Pāramārthika Pratyakşa'.
Sanvyavahāra is the perfect satisfaction of a desire to cognize?. That which arises from Sanvyavahāra is called Sānvyavahārika The knowledge in Sānvyavahārika Pratyakşa being partially clear, it is also called Amukhya Pratyakşa as opposed to Mukhya Pratyakșa where the knowledge is fully clear.
Sānvyavahārika Pratyakşa is caused by Indriya and Anindriya. According to Jainism, the Indriyas ( senses ) are five viz. touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing”. Mind is called Anindriya or No-indriya. But by this distinction, it should not be supposed that mind is not Indriya. Akalanka Deva in Tattvārtharāja-vārttika has laid down “We call a female who is unable to conceive, ‘a woman without a belly'. This does not mean that really this female has no belly at all but the meaning is that she is unable to conceive. So when we call mind to be Anindriya it means that it does not produce impressions of objects like organs of sense eye etc. on contact. This does not however mean that mind is not a sense". 6
1 "seni asrat razgaituerte aq AjoyaEI9464274, 1" “यजज्ञानं साकल्येन स्पष्टं तत् पारमार्थिकप्रत्यक्षं मुख्यप्रत्यक्षमिति यावत् ।"
Nyāya-dipikā. 2 "Fateta: nafarfagittant yaert: FETETT: 1"
Pramāņa-Mimāmsā Vritti on I. I. 21. 3 "समीचीनः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिरूपो व्यवहारः संव्यवहारः, तत्र भवं सांव्यव
Ef74514_1" Prameya-ratna-mālā. 4 "gea STEELFTHYLrfagrara” Nyāya-dipikā. 5 'स्पर्शरसगन्धरूपशब्दग्रहणलक्षणानि स्पर्शनरसनघ्राणचक्षुःश्रोत्राणी
fargenfot gothraHÇifa 1" Pramāņa-mimāṁsā I. 1. 22. 6 kifáradt Alsgaraqi" Tattvārtharājavārttika on Sūtra
I. 14. It is thus explained in the Commentary on this :

Page #119

63
Parikşāmukham In Nyāya philosophy of the Hindus, mind has been accepted as Indriya. But a distinction has been made from other senses. It has been mentioned that the true senses touch, taste etc. are fixed in their particular objects. For example, the sense of smell can produce a knowledge of smell but not of taste, sight etc. The mind however can apply itself to every object in all its qualities. In mind there is no special quality like those existing in senses e. g. smell etc.1 This has been affirmed by Uddyotkara' and in substance this view is the same as that of Hemachandra already quoted in the footnote.
Gautama has taken consideration of the five Jňānendriyas, eye, ear etc., but in Smritis and other philosophies of the Hindus, five Karmendriyas (Vāk, Pāda, Pāņi, Pāyu and Upastha ) have also been mentioned as senses. Thus the total number of senses according to this view is ten. Manu has mentioned that mind is
"मनोऽतंकरणमनिन्द्रियमित्युच्यते। कथं इंद्रियप्रतिषेधेन मन उच्यते ?.... यथानुदरा कन्या इति नास्या उदरं न विद्यते, किन्तु गर्भभारोद्वहनसमर्थोदराभावादनुदरा। तथानिंद्रियमिति नास्येंद्रियत्वाभावः। किन्तु चक्षुरादिवत् प्रतिनियतदेशविषयावस्थानाभावादनिन्द्रियं मन इत्युच्यते ।”
This is affirmed in Pramāna-mimamsa : "सर्वार्थग्रहणं मनः ।" I. 1. 25. The Bhāsya on it lays down “सर्वे न तु स्पर्शनादीनां स्पर्शादिवत् प्रतिनियता एवार्था गृह्यन्ते तेनेति सर्वार्थग्रहणं मनोऽनिन्द्रियमिति नो इन्द्रियमिति चोच्यते ।"
1 "भौतिकानीन्द्रियाणि नियतविषयाणि, सगुणानाञ्चैषामिन्द्रियभाव इति । मनस्तु अभौतिकं सर्वविषयञ्च, नास्य सगुणस्येन्द्रियभाव इति । सति चेन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षे सन्निधिमसन्निधिञ्चास्य युगपजज्ञानाऽनुत्पत्तिकारणं वक्ष्याम इति। मनश्वेन्द्रियभावान्न वाच्यं लक्षणान्तरमिति । तन्त्रान्तरसमाचाराच्चैतत् प्रत्येतव्यमिति ।" Vātsyāyana Bhāsya to Nyāya-sūtra I. 1. 4.
2 "मनः सर्वविषयं स्मृतिकारणसंयोगाधारत्वात् आत्मवत् सुखग्राहकसंयोगाधिकरणत्वात् समस्तेन्द्रियाधिष्ठातृत्वात् ।" Nyaya-varttika.

Page #120

64
The Sacred Books of the Jainas the eleventh sense In Sānkhya Sūtra? and Sānkhyakārikās of Isvarakrişņa we find that mind is both Jūānendriya and Karmendriya.
In Vedānta paribhāṣā however it is laid down that mind is not a sense*. To support this view the following is quoted from Katha Upanisad III. 10 : "Objects are beyond the organs of senses, mind is beyond the sense-organs."5 In Vedānta Sūtra however ( II. 4. 17 ) we find mind accepted as a sense. Cankarāchārya in his Bhāşya to the above Sūtra has taken mind as a sense supporting his view by quoting Smriti. In Bhāmati, Vāchaspati Miśra quoted different views regarding the acceptance of mind as a sense but his own conclusion is that mind is a sense. In Srimadbhagavadgitā mind has been accepted as a sense".
1
"एकादशेन्द्रियाण्याहुर्यानि पूर्वे मनीषिणः। तानि सम्यक् प्रवक्ष्यामि यथावदनुपूर्वशः ।। श्रोत्रं त्वक् चक्षुषी जिह्वा नासिका चैव पञ्चमी । पायूपस्थं हस्तपादं वाक् चैव दशमी स्मृता ॥ बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि पञ्चैषां श्रोत्रादीन्यनुपूर्वशः। कर्मेन्द्रियाणि पञ्चैषां पायवादीनां प्रचक्षते ।। एकादशं मनो ज्ञेयं स्वगुणेनोभयात्मकम् ।”
___Manusamhita II. 89-92 2 "उभयात्मकं मनः।" Sankhya Sutra II. 26. 3 “उभयात्मकमत्र मनः।" Sankhya-karika 27. 4 "न तावत् अन्तःकरणम् इन्द्रियम् इत्यत्र मानमस्ति ।"
Vedānta-paribhāṣā. 5 इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा ह्यर्थाः अर्थेभ्यश्च परं मनः ।'
इत्यादि श्रुत्या मनसोऽनिन्द्रियत्वावगमाच्च ।” Vedanta-paribhasa. 6 "वेदानां सामवेदोऽस्मि देवानामस्मि वासवः ।
इन्द्रियाणां मनश्चास्मि भूतानामस्मि चेतना ॥" Gita X. 22.

Page #121

Parikṣāmukham
65 Thus the view of the Jain Logic is in accordance with the view which preponderates in the Hindu philosophy regarding mind being a sense. But though Jain Logic accepts mind as a sense it calls it a small or intangible sense ( No-indriya or Işat-indriya ) because it is not materially cognisable like the other senses. Its function according to Jain view is discernible only by highly developed souls who have Manaḥparyayajñāna as described in the commentary on Aphorism I. Samuddeśa I of this work.
नार्थालोको कारणं परिच्छेद्यत्वात्तमोवत् ॥६॥ 6. Nārthālokau kāraṇam parichchedyatvāttamovat.
6. The object and light is not the instrument (of Pratyakşa knowledge ) as the same are capable of being ascertained as in the case of darkness.
"ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः ।
Hartgriezerfor desfacenfa pufat 11" Ibid XIV. 7. In Vedānta-paribhāşā the latter verse has been tried to be explained away thus : "If you object that the quotation from the Bhagavadgita is conclusive 'the organs of sense with the mind to make up six'( #A:9818ef0' ), we reply, no ; for no contradiction results in filling up the number six with mind, though mind be not reckoned as an organ of sense. There is no positive injunction restricting the completion of the number relating to the organs of sense to such an organ only. Instance the text : 'the five including the sacrificer eat the Idā oblation'; here we notice that the completion of the number five, relating to the Ritvik priests, is effected by means of the sacrificer ( himself the fifth ) who is not a Ritvik. And in the quotation 'He taught the five, the Vedas and Mahābhārata, we observe that the completion of the number five relating to the Vedas, is effected by the Mahābhārata which is not a Veda.” (Trans. by A. Venis )
. But this argument is use-less as in the first verse (X. 22 ), it is unmistakably mentioned “I am Manas ( the Mind ) among the senses," where the best among the senses is meant,
P-9

Page #122

66
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Commentary
In the preceding aphorism, it has been mentioned that mind and the senses cause Pratyakşa knowledge. One may urge that light or a particular object is also necessary to give rise to Pratyakşa knowledge. So these should also be mentioned as cause of Pratyakşa knowledge. To refute this, it is mentioned in the present aphorism that an object or light does not cause Pratyakşa knowledge. The example of darkness is cited to establish this for it is well-known that we have a knowledge of darkness though it obstructs perception and is not the cause'
This is further elucidated in the following two aphorisms. तदन्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधानाभावाच केशोंडुकज्ञानवन्नक्तंचरज्ञानवच ॥ ७
7. Tadanyayavyatirekānuvidhānābhāvāchcha kesondukajñānavannaktańcharajñānavachcha.
7. That ( is established ) from universal affirmative and universal negative propositions like the knowledge of mosquito on a hair and like the knowledge of animals which see during the night.
Commentary Some may urge, that it may be established by inference that an object or light is the cause of Pratyakşa knowledge. To refute this it is mentioned that even by inference this cannot be established. For a deduction by inference follows from a knowledge of a concomitance expressed in an universal affirmative proposition ( Anvayavyāptijñāna) e. g. where there is smoke, there is fire or from a knowledge of a concomitance expressed in a universal negative proposition e. g. where is no smoke, there is no fire.
1. "प्रसिद्धं हि तमसो विज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकत्वेनातत्कारणस्यापि परिच्छेद्यत्वम् ।” Prameyakamala-mārtaņda.
2.663791TATATE agerialaari: 1 29 fe, qafe14772 faşinat तदन्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधानात्। यद् यस्यान्वयव्यतिरेकावनुविधत्ते, तत् तस्य कार्यम् ।

Page #123

Parikşāmukham
67
To establish an inference, it will be necessary to hold where there is light, there is knowledge but we see that even where there is no light there can be knowledge as in the case of cats or owls in a dark night when there is no light. Further lice cannot see even when there is light. So, it cannot be propounded that where there is an object there is knowledge, for some persons in a particular state may have a knowledge of a mosquito on a hair though really there is no such mosquito”. A person suffering from jaundice may perceive yellowness while really there is no yellowness. So the relationship of cause and effect which is recognised by concomitance expressed in an universal affirmative or negative proposition cannot be found in light or object with knowledge.
Hemachandra in his Pramāṇa-mimāņsā also affirms this by saying “An object or light is not the cause of knowledge as knowledge can arise withoạt the universal negative proposition ( viz. where there is no object or light, there is no knowledge )."2 Hemachandra cites examples of knowledge of water in a mirage though there is really no water or knowledge of objects in darkness by certain animals and the knowledge of Yogis about things in the past and the future and urges that this proves that object or light is not the cause of knowledge”. यथा अग्नेमः । अन्वयव्यतिरेकावनुविधत्ते चार्थालोकयोनिम्', इति । न चात्रासिद्धो हेतुस्तत्सद्भावे सत्येवास्य भावादभावे चाभावाद् ।” Prameyakamalamartanda.
1. "अन्वयव्यतिरेकगम्यो हि कार्यकारणभावः। तत्रालोकस्तावन्न ज्ञानकारणं तदभावेऽपि चूकादीनां तदनुत्पत्तेः। तद्वदर्थोऽपि न ज्ञानकारणं तदभावेऽपि केशमशकादिज्ञानोत्पत्तेः। तथा च कुतोऽर्थजत्वं ज्ञानस्य ? तदुक्तं परीक्षामुखे 'नार्थालोको कारणं' इति । प्रामाण्यस्य चार्थाव्यभिचार एव निबंधनं, न त्वर्थजन्यत्वं, स्वसंवेदनस्य विषयाजन्यत्वेऽपि प्रामाण्याभ्युपगमात् । नहि किंचित् स्वस्मादेव जायते ।" Nyaya-dipika.
2. "नार्थालोको ज्ञानस्य निमित्तमव्यतिरेकात् ।" Pramānamimamsa I. 1. 26
___3. “मरुमरीचिकादौ जलाभावेऽपि जलज्ञानस्य वृषदंशादीनां चालोका

Page #124

68
The Sacred Books of the Jainas अतजन्यमपि तत्प्रकाशकं प्रदीपवत् ॥८॥ 8. Atajjanyamapi tat-prakāśakam pradipavat.
8. Though it ( i. e. knowledge ) is not caused by it ( i. e. the object ), it (i. e. knowledge ) illumines it (i. e. the object ) like a lamp.
Commentary The knowledge of an object though not caused by the object illumines the object. By the expression 'without being caused by it', it is also implied "though of not the same shape”. An object is illuminated by a lamp which is neither caused by an object, nor is of the same shape as the object'. स्वावरणक्षयोपशमलक्षणयोग्यतया हि प्रतिनियतमर्थ
व्यवस्थापयति ॥९॥ 9. Svavaranaksayopasamalaksanayogyatayā hi pratiniyatamartham vyavasthāpayati.
9. Surely (Pratyakşa knowledge ) always illumines objects according to its power characterised by the mitigation of its hindrances.
Commentary
According to Jain philosophy, Upayoga is the sole characteristic of Jiva. Upayoga is a sort of inclination which arises from consciousness. This inclination is either towards Darśana or towards Jhana. Darsana is of four kinds Chaksu, Achaksu, Avadhi भावेऽपि सान्द्रतमतमःपटलविलिप्तदेशगतवस्तुप्रतिपत्तेश्च दर्शनात् योगिना चातीतानागतार्थग्रहणे किमर्थस्य निमित्तत्वं, निमित्तत्वे चार्थक्रियाकारित्वेन सत्त्वादतीतानागतत्वafa: 1" Bhāsya to Aphorism I. I. 26 in Pramāņa-mimāmsā.
1. “अर्थाजन्यमप्यर्थप्रकाशकमित्यर्थः । अतज्जन्यत्वमुपलक्षणम् । तेनातदाकारमपीत्यर्थः । उभयत्रापि प्रदीपो दृष्टान्तः। यथा प्रदीपस्यातजन्यस्याऽतदाकारधारिणोऽपि तत्प्रकाशकत्वं, तथा ज्ञानस्यापि।" Prameyaratnamala.

Page #125

Parikṣāmukham
69 and Kevala' and Jñāna as already expounded in commentaries of previous aphorisms in this work is of eight kinds viz. Mati, Śruta, Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala and false knowledges of Mati, Śruta and Avadhi.
In Darśana, details are not perceived but in Jñāna details are perceived. “Before we know things in a detailed way, there is the stage where we simply see, hear, or otherwise become conscious of it in a general way without going into its ins and outs. This is the first state of knowledge : it may be called indefinite cognition (Darśana ). If this stage is not experienced, there can be no knowledge of the thing”. In Jñāna, there is cognition of details.
Jain philosophy lays down that there are certain classes of Karma which obscure the four kinds of Darsana as well as the eight kinds of Jñāna. "Darśana is of four kinds : Chakşu, Achakşu, Avadhi and Kevala ;-so there are also four kinds of Karma which obscure each of these varieties. When there is a cessation or mitigation (Kşayopaśama) of one or more of these varieties of Karma, the corresponding class or classes of Darśana is or are evolved. Thus by the removal of these Karmas, which obscure the Darsana which is received through the eye, a Jiva can see through the eyes. This is Chakşu Darsana ( Darsana through the eye ). Again, by the removal of that Karma which obscures the Darśana through any sense other than the eye, or mind, a Jiva can cognize through the four organs of sense-ear, nose, tongue or skin and through the mind.
1. breastmint az SRET OTTWOT I CHCO HFT
जीवस्स सव्वकालं अणण्णभूदं वियाणीहि ॥ दसणमवि चकखुजुदं अचखुजुदमवि य ओहिणा सहियं । अणिधणमणंतविसयं केवलियं चावि पण्णत्तं ॥"
Panchāstikāyasamayasāra 40, 42. "उवओगो दुवियप्पो दसण णाणं च दंसणं चदुधा।
44 3777€ 3 let JATHT Wees otsill" Dravya-samgraha 4. 2. Jainism by Herbert Warren, Page 29.

Page #126

70
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
This is called Achakṣu Darśana (Darśana not through the eye). Similarly, when Karmas obscuring Avadhi Darśana are removed, a Jiva can have Avadhi Darśana (conation before particular kind of psychic knowledge, limited by space and time and obtained directly by the soul e.g. clairvoyance). Lastly by the removal of the Karmas which obscure Kevala Darśana, a Jiva can have Kevala (or perfect) Darśana (in which everything in the three worlds existent in the present, past and future is at once cognized ).
Besides the four varieties of Karmas obscuring Darśana already mentioned, there are also five others mentioned by Umasvāmi e. g. Nidrā (sleep), Nidrānidrā (deep sleep), Prachala (Trance), Prachalaprachalā ( drowsiness) and Styānagriddhi (Somnambulistic state). These together with the Karmas obscuring Chaksu, Achakṣu, Avadhi and Kevala Darśana already mentioned, make up nine Darśanavaraniya Karmas.
Just as there are Darśanavaraṇiya Karmas which obscure Darśana, so there are Jñanavaraniya Karmas which obscure Jñana. Umāsvāmi has mentioned that there are five sorts of Jñānāvaraṇiya Karmas which obscure Mati, Śruta, Avadhi, Manaḥparyaya and Kevala knowledge3.
One may argue that in a knowledge of a pitcher, the pitcher and nothing else is the object of knowledge. Here the substance is the cause of its being the object of knowledge. But by denying as in the previous aphorism that the object is not the cause of knowledge, you must satisfy us by laying down the cause which particularises that such and such a thing would produce such and such a knowledge.
1. 'चक्षुरचक्षुरवधिकेवलानां निद्रानिद्रानिद्राप्रचलाप्रचलाप्रचलास्त्यानगृद्धयश्च ।' Tattvarthadhigama Sūtra VIII. 7.
2. Dravyasamgraha Edited by S. C. Ghoshal Page 10. 3. “मतिश्रुतावधिमनः पर्ययकेवलानाम् ।” Tattvārthadhigama Sūtra
VIII. 6.

Page #127

Parikṣāmukham
71
Raising this objection in Nyayadipikā, Dharmabhūṣaṇa meets it by saying that Yogyata is the cause regarding the object of knowledge and this Yogyata is nothing but the mitigation or cessation of Karma obstructing knowledge. Dharmabhūṣaṇa quotes the present aphorism of Parikṣamukham to support his view1.
That is to say when a Karma obstructing a particular kind of Jiana is mitigated or entirely removed, knowledge arises and illumines objects like a lamp. This knowledge is not therefore caused by the object and is not of the same shape as the object.
In Vedanta-paribhāṣā it has been laid down that just as water goes out from a pond and entering fields of different shape, assumes different shape, so mind getting out through the sense-organs eye etc. goes to objects like pitchers and is changed like those objects. This view is not accepted by Jain logicians as laid down in this aphorism. According to Jain view, the object is neither the cause nor the transformer of the mind to its shape.
कारणस्य च परिच्छेदयत्वे करणादिना व्यभिचारः ॥ १० ॥
10. Kāranasya cha parichchedyatve karanādinā vyabhichārah. 10. There will be non-application in the case of senses etc. you accept the cause as the thing perceived.
if
Commentary
This aphorism is laid down to refute the view that a cause of a knowledge can be the object of knowledge. We know that the
1. “ यदुक्तं घटज्ञानस्य घट एव विषयो, न पर इति । अर्थजत्वं हि विषयं प्रति नियमकारणं, तज्जन्यत्वात् । यद्विषयमेव चैतदिति । तत्तु भवता नाभ्युपगम्यते इति चेत्; यौग्यतैव विषयं प्रति नियमकारणमिति ब्रूमः । का नाम योग्यतेति उच्यतेस्वावरणक्षयोपशमः । तदुक्तं 'स्वावरणक्षयोपशमलक्षणयोग्यतया हि प्रतिनियतमर्थं व्यवस्थापयति' इति ।" Nyāyadipika.
2. “ तत्र यथा तड़ागोदकं छिद्रान्निर्गत्य कुल्यात्मना केदारान् प्रविश्य तद्वदेव चतुष्कोणाद्याकारं भवति तथा तैजसमन्तःकरणमपि चक्षुरादिद्वारा निर्गत्य घटादिविषयदेशं गत्वा घटादिविषयाकारेण परिणमते ||" Vedanta- paribhasa Chapter I.

Page #128

72
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
senses or mind are instrumental in producing knowledge. In this sense, these can be said to be the cause of knowledge. But these cannot be the objects of knowledge for when we get knowledge of objects through these, we have not the knowledge of the senses or mind. So we cannot accept that a cause of knowledge is the object of knowledge. सामग्रीविशेषविश्लेषिता खिलावरणमतीन्द्रियमशेषतो मुख्यम् ॥११॥
11. Samagriviseṣaviśleṣitākhilāvaraṇamatindriyamaseṣato mukhyam.
11. Mukhya or supreme (Pratyakṣa) is clear in every respect, has no dependance on any sense and arises after destruction of all obstructions by perfection of Samagri ( Dravya, Kṣetra, Kāla and Bhāva).
Commentary
That knowledge which is absolutely clear is called Pāramarthika or Mukhya Pratyakṣa. This is of two kinds, Sakala and Vikala. Vikala Pratyakṣa is subdivided into Avadhi and Manaḥparyaya (which we have previously described.)1.
Vikala Jñana is knowledge of certain things while Sakala Jnāna is knowledge of all things or omniscience". Sakala Jnana is also known as Kevala Jñāna. Ordinary individuals do not have this knowledge. According to Jain view it is only the Arhats who can have this knowledge. When Mohaniya or alluring Karmas are destroyed and the Karmas obstructing Jñana and Darśana are
1. "सर्वतो विशदं पारमार्थिकं प्रत्यक्षं । यज्ज्ञानं साकल्येन स्पष्टं तत् पारमार्थिकप्रत्यक्ष मुख्यप्रत्यक्षमिति यावत् । तदुद्विविधं सकलं विकलं च । ... · तदपि द्विविधं अवधिज्ञानं मन:पर्ययज्ञानं चेति ।" Nyāyadipika.
2. “ तत्र कतिपयविषयं विकलं... सर्वद्रव्यपर्यायविषयं सकलं ॥"
४. " तदवान्नर्हन्निर्दोषत्वात् । "

Nyāyadipikā.
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra. II. 14.

Page #129

Parikṣāmukham
73 removed and the Antarāyas ( obstructive Karmas ) are also destroyed, Kevala knowledge arises.
Siddhasena defines Mukhya Pratyakṣa as follows: "That which is characterised as free from all obstructions and shines as the absolute is called supreme or transcendental perception ; it uninterruptedly illumines the nature of all objects.”2
In Mukhya Pratyakşa, knowledge is acquired by the soul direct without the intervention of senses or signs”.
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, the two varieties of Pārmārthika Pratyakṣa viz. Vikala and Sakala have been mentioned. The two subdivisions ( Avadhi and Manahparyaya Jñāna ) of Vikala have also been laid down“. Hemachandra defines Kevala 1. “मोहक्षयाज्ज्ञानदर्शनावरणान्तरायक्षयाञ्च केवलम् ।”
Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra X. 1. During different stages of development, these Karmas disappear. At the end of the tenth Guņasthāna, Mohaniya Karmas are destroyed and at the end of the twelfth Guņasthāna, Antarāya Karmas disappear.
2. Nyāyāvatāra. Tr. by S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa Pages 25-26. The original verse is as follows :---
"सकलावरणमुक्तात्मकेवलं यत् प्रकाशते ।
972a FATTUA TAITHTHAH, ” Nyāyāvatāra 27. 3. "qitarféla garra4aAHTAIŪRAI"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra II. 18. 4. Waga 920 71"
" fanshafaharrastaan heri" Ibid. II. 19
and II. 20.
The difference between Avadhi and Manahparyaya is shown in the next two aphorisms :
P-10

Page #130

74
The Sacred Books of the Jainas Pratyaksa as the appearance of the true nature of itself when all the obstructions are thoroughly removed'. Hemachandra also mentions that besides Kevala, Avadhi and Manałparyaya are also Mukhya Pratyaksa and Avadhi is of two kinds Bhava-pratyaya and Guņapratyaya. Bhava-pratyaya concerns celestials or inmates of hell and Guņapratyaya concerns human and sub-human beings.
When we establish Kevala Jñāna, we must accept the existence of omniscient beings. So, the celebrated Jain writer Samantabhadra in his work Apta-mīmāṁsā has laid down :
"सूक्ष्मान्तरितदूरार्थाः प्रत्यक्षाः कस्यचिद् यथा ।
अनुमेयत्वतोऽग्न्यादिरिति सर्वज्ञ-संस्थितिः ॥" i.e. The existence of an omniscient being is established from the fact that to some beings invisible things like atoms, things or persons remote in time or things far beyond ( like the Meru hill ) become known as objects of direct perception just like the knowledge of the existence of fire in a hill (which ordinary people know through inference by seeing the smoke) is also the subject of perception.
This knowledge can not be derived through the senses for in that case it could not have cognated all objects, for the senses can only stimulate knowledge of objects which can be perceived by them. So when there is knowledge of things beyond the perception of
"अवधिज्ञानावरणविलयविशेषसमुद्भवं भवगुणप्रत्ययं रूपिद्रव्यगोचरमafogliat" Ibid II. 21. “संयमविशुद्धिनिबन्धनाद, विशिष्टावरणविभेदाज्जातं मनोद्रव्यपर्यायालंबनं
HA:QU1194, 1" Ibid II.22. 1. "aq udaracuamet TAFT Fastpaulat gert 1994, "
Pramāņa-mīmāmsā. I. 1. 15 2. "Tacari Sarawa:pelet 1" Ibid I. 1. 18.
"IT SETT HAAFITIUUTITTI" Ibid I. 1. 19.

Page #131

Parikṣāmukham senses it must be held that this arises without the interyention of senses and so it is Atindriya and acquired by the soul direct.
सावरणत्वे करणजन्य च प्रतिवन्धसम्भवात् ॥१२॥ 12. Sāvaraṇatve karaṇajanya cha pratibandhasambhavāt.
12. Obstruction may arise in the case of a knowledge which is caused by senses and which has hindrances.
Commentary It has been mentioned in the previous aphorism that in Mukhya Pratyakşa, we have a knowledge absolutely clear in all respects. A question may now be asked “What is the cause which may give rise to such a clearness ?" The answer is "Removal of all obstruction is the cause of clearness." Where there is possibility of obstruction there may be hindrance of knowledge and similarly where there is dependance on the senses knowledge might not arise of things which are beyond the perceptive power of the senses. So in this aphorism the definition of the previous aphorism is supported by saying that we have defined Mukhya Pratyakşa as not arising through senses and as arising after destruction of hindrances because there is possibility of obstruction of perfect knowledge when hindrances exist or senses are depended on for acquiring knowledge.
The second chapter ends here. In this chapter we have seen that Pratyakşa Pramāṇa is of two kinds Sānvyavahārika and Mukhya. Māņikyanandi has not given the subdivisions of these two kinds of Pratyakşa but we have shown from other works on Jain logic that Sānvyavahārika Pratyakşa is of four kinds Avagraha, Ihā, Avāya and Dhāraņā and Mukhya or Pāramārthika or Atindriya Pratyakşa is of two kinds Vikala and Sakala or Kevala. Vikala Pratyakşa is of two kinds Avadhi and Manahparyaya. Avadhi again may be of Bhava-pratyaya or Guņapratyaya and Manahparyaya is of two kinds Riju ( the knowledge of simple impressions in the mind of another ) and Vipula ( the knowledge of all kinds of thoughts and impressions whether simple or complex ).
End of Chapter II.

Page #132

CHART I.
[ CHAPTER II ]
Pratyakşa
Sānvyavahārika
Pāramārthika
Indriyanibandhana Anindriya
nibandhana
Vikala
Sakala (Kevala )
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Avagraha
Ihā
Avāya
Dhāranā
Avadhi
Manahparyaya
Bhavapratyaya
Guņapratyaya
Riju
Vipula

Page #133

Smriti
(Aphorism 3 )
CHART II.
[CHAPTER III.]
Parokşa
Pratyabhijñāna
Tarka
Anumāna
(Aphorism 5) (Aphorism 11) (Aphorism 14)
Svartha (Aphorism 54)
Agama (Aphorism 99)
Parartha (Aphorism 55)
Parikṣāmukham
77

Page #134

तृतीयः समुद्देशः।
CHAPTER III.
परोक्षमितरत् ॥१॥ 1. Parokşamitarat. 1. The other variety of Pramāna is Paroksa.
Commentary In Chapter I Pramāṇa has been defined. In Chapter II, aphorism I it has been mentioned that Pramāņa -is of two kinds (Pratyakșa and Parokşa ). Pratyakşa Pramāṇa with its subdivisions has been described in detail in Chapter II. In the third chapter, the author proceeds to describe Paroksa Pramāṇa with its varieties.
Parokşa Pramāṇa is knowledge which is not clear.'. What is meant by clearness has been explained in Aphorism II. 4 of Parikṣā-mukham. The knowledge in which the illumination is not clear according to this exposition is Parokşa”.
In Saddarśana-samuchchaya, the derivation of Parokşa has thus been given : "अक्षाणां परं परोक्षं, अक्षेभ्यः परतो वर्तत इति वा, परेणेन्द्रियादिना वोक्ष्यते परोक्षम्"।
In Nyāyāvatāra, Pratyakșa and Parokșa have thus been defined:
1. "अस्पष्टं परोक्षम् ।" Pramana-naya-tattvalokālankāra III. I.
"स्वपरव्यवसायज्ञानं यदस्पष्टमुक्तलक्षणात् स्पष्टाद्विपरीतमविशदं तत् परोक्षमित्यवगन्तव्यम् ।" Syadvadaratnākara, Chapter III. I.
"अविशदः परोक्षम् ।” Pramāna-mimamsa, I. 2. I. "अविशदः सम्यगर्थनिर्णयः परोक्षप्रमाणम् ।” Bhasya to Ibid. "अविशदप्रतिभासं परोक्षम् ।” Nyaya-dipika. 2. “यस्य ज्ञानस्य प्रतिभासो विशदो न भवति तत् परोक्षप्रमाणम् ।”
Nyāya-dipikā.

Page #135

Pariksāmukham
79
"Such knowledge that takes cognizance of objects, not beyond the range of the senses, is Pratyakṣa ( direct knowledge or perception); the other is known as Parokşa (indirect knowledge ) in reference to the manner of taking the cognizance” ( Trans. by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa )'.
In a note to this Dr. Vidyābhūşaņa writes “The words Pratyakşa ( 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 Jain Scriptures, however, Pratyakşa (direct knowledge ) signified perfect knowledge acquired by the soul direct through meditation and not through the channels of the senses, while Parokşa ( indirect knowledge ) signified knowledge derived through the medium of the senses or signs comprising perception, inference and the verbal testimony.” Nyāyāvatāra p. 9.
In defining clearness, Māņikyanandi has mentioned in Pariksā-mukham II. 4 that in case of clear knowledge there is no existence of any intermediate knowledge. In Parokșa there is always an intermediate knowledge. For example, Parokşa Pramāņa as will be mentioned in the next aphorism is of five kinds : Smriti, Pratyabhijñāna, Tarka, Anumāna and Agama. Of these Smriti ( remembrance ) is dependant on a previous experience. Pratyabhijñāna ( recognition ) depends on Smriti (remembrance ) and cognition, Tarka depends on cognition, Smriti and Pratyabhijñāna ; Anumāna depends on recognition of Linga ( middle term ) and Āgama depends on hearing of words. In each variety of Parokşa
"अपरोक्षतयार्थस्य ग्राहकं ज्ञानमीदृशम् । प्रत्यक्षमितरत् ज्ञेयं परोक्षं ग्रहणेक्षया ॥"
Nyāyāvatāra IV. This is identical with Verse 86 in Saddarśana-samuchchaya of Haribhadra Sūri,

Page #136

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Pramāṇa, therefore, there is a dependance on another cognition while as shown before there is no such dependance in Pratyakṣa Pramāņa1.
80
geuxıfqfafazi zgfaqeqfagnaazigananTNAĤĘK || 2. ||
2. Pratyakṣadinimittam smritipratyabhijñānatarkānumānāgamabhedam.
2. (Parokṣa) consists of varieties Smriti, Pratyabhijñāna, Tarka, Anumana and Agama and is caused by Pratyakṣa
etc.
Commentary
In this aphorism the five kinds of Parokṣa Pramāņa are enumerated. It is mentioned that all these are caused by Pratyakṣa etc. In Prameya-ratnamālā it is mentioned that by the word "etc." "2 Parokṣa is to be understood as included as a cause. That is to say that some variety of Parokṣa Pramāņa may be caused by Pratyakṣa Pramāņa and some may be caused by Pratyakṣa as well as Parokṣa Pramāņa or only by Parokṣa Pramāņa. We have mentioned in the commentary on the previous aphorism how each of these varieties of Parokṣa Pramāņa is dependant on Pratyakṣa and Parokṣa Pramāņa.
Hemachandra mentions these varieties of Parokṣa mentioning "Uha" in place of "Tarka" which is merely a synonym3. In
1. “पंचविधस्याप्यस्य परोक्षस्य प्रत्ययांतरसापेक्षत्वेनैवोत्पत्तिः । तद् यथा, स्मरणस्य प्राक्तनानुभवापेक्षा, प्रत्यभिज्ञानस्य स्मरणानुभवापेक्षा, तर्कस्यानुभवस्मरणप्रत्यभिज्ञानापेक्षा, अनुमानस्य च लिंगदर्शनाद्यपेक्षा, आगमस्य शब्दश्रवणसंकेतग्रहणाद्यपेक्षा । प्रत्यक्षं तु न तथा, स्वातंत्र्येणैवोत्पत्तेः ।" Nyāya-dipika.
2. “प्रत्यक्षादिनिमित्तमित्यत्रादिशब्देन परोक्षमपि गृह्यते । " Prameya
ratna-mālā.
3. “ स्मृतिप्रत्यभिज्ञानोहानुमानागमास्तद्विधयः ।”

Pramāṇa-mimāmsā, I. 2. 2,

Page #137

Parikṣāmukham
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra, the varieties are mentioned in Parikṣāmukham'.
Manibhadra mentioning these five varieties of Pramāņa adds that Mati-jñāna and Éruta-jñāna also are Parokṣa Pramāņa2.
81
gitaristafaazanı afçızıı œfa: 0) 3 11
3. Samskarodbodhanivandhana tadityākārā smritiḥ.
3. Remembrance is of the form "it is that" produced by the raising up of previous experience.
Commentary
We have mentioned before that when an object with all its particulars is definitely ascertained, we get a lasting impression of the object which is called Dharana. This impression is the Samskāra which enables us to remember the object afterwards. Remembrance consists of the knowledge "this is that" when this impression is aroused by any cognition.
the same as
In Pramana-naya-tattvālokālaṁkāra it is mentioned "Remembrance arises from the awakening of the impression regarding an Hemaobject previously cognised to the effect that this is that". chandra calls this impression (Samskāra) Vāsana and defining remembrance as caused by the awakening of Vasana to the form
1. “ स्मरणप्रत्यभिज्ञानतर्कानुमानागमभेदतस्तत् पञ्चप्रकारम् ।”

Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra, III. 2.
2.
“परोक्षं स्मरणप्रत्यभिज्ञानतर्कानुमानागमभेदम् । अमुयैव भङ्गया मतिश्रुतa af " Commentary on Saddarśana-samuchchaya. Dharmabhūṣaṇa also mentions the same five varieties of Paroksa thus : “तत् पंचविधं - स्मृतिः प्रत्यभिज्ञानं तर्कोऽनुमानागमश्चेति । ” Nyayadipikā.
3. “ तत्र संस्कारप्रबोधसंभूतमनुभूतार्थविषयं तदित्याकारं वेदनं स्मरणम् ।” Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra III. 3,
P-11

Page #138

82
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
that 'this is that lays down that though the impression exists always, it does not become the cause of remembrance unless it is awakened from its dormant state by the mitigation or disappearance of the obstructions and cognition of the previously experienced objects.
In remembrance, therefore, there must be a previous cognition. For example, when we see a man named Devadatta and subsequently again see him, the impression of him derived at the first cognition is aroused on the second occasion and we have a knowledge “This is that Devadatta”. Remembrance cannot arise when there is nd previous cognition?.
The root of remembrance is Dhāraṇā*. Avagraha, Ihā and Avāya cannot cause remembrance as there is no Dhāraṇā in these stages of cognition. We have already stated that in the first stage ( Avagraha ) we have simply a knowledge of an object e. g. a man ; in the second stage ( Ihā ) we desire to know particulars about the man and in the third stage ( Avāya ) we find the particulars. It is not until we go to the fourth stage ( Dhāraņā ) that we acquire a lasting impression. This Dhāraṇā so modifies the soul that it produces knowledge in that object even after a lapse of time". 1. Warengtag 1 afc419147 Fla: 1
Pramāņa-mimāmsā I. 2. 3. 2. “चिरकालस्थायिन्यपि वासनाऽनुदुद्धा न स्मृतिहेतुः, आवरणक्षयोपशमसदृशदर्शनादिसामग्रीलब्धप्रबोधा तु स्मृतिं जनयति " Bhāsya to Ibid.
3. "Ta 87 ATA para: ? afcrilat atauaaegfa fafa: 1 यथा स देवदत्त इति। अत्र हि प्रागनुभूत एव देवदत्तस्तत्तया प्रतीयते, तस्मादेषा geitfarantefaragozafament 9, 37agutafaut aqgnya: 1" Nyāya-dipikā. 4. "fa-egafcun" Pramāņa-mimāmsā I. I. 29.
True alghat rullan ga” Nyāyadipikā. 5. "37anelcuetasfà ecurriT 3THTÀ pasarial TOT हि तथात्मानं संस्करोति यथासावात्मा कालान्तरेऽपि तस्मिन् विषये ज्ञानमुत्पादयति ।" Nyāya-dipikā.

Page #139

Parikṣāmukham
83
One may object that Smriti can never be Pramāņa as it cognises an object already once cognised. The reply to this is that this objection is not maintainable. For as the different stages of Avagraha, Iha, Avaya and Dhāraṇā are Pramāņas though an object is perceived through these stages owing to peculiarities of each stage as distinct from those in other stages, so remembrance having a peculiarity viz. the knowledge "this is that" is a separate Pramāņa being not identical with the simple knowledge of an object on the first occasion 1. Further, remembrance is opposed to forgetfulness doubt etc. and so is recognised as a separate Pramāņa2.
Again, when one sees smoke and infers a fire, he goes to the spot to get fire if he wants it. Here the knowledge of fire is at first Parokṣa Pramāņa being caused by inference and then when the person goes to the spot and sees the fire with his eyes, there is Pratyakṣa Pramāņa. If we say that there cannot be any Pramāņa when there is a first cognition, this Pratyakṣa knowledge of fire which follows an inference of fire does not also become Pramāņa3. स देवदत्तो यथा ॥ ४ ॥
4. Sa devadatto yathā.
4. As for example, "This is Devadatta".
Commentary
This is an example of remembrance defined in the previous aphorism. When one sees a man named Devadatta previously seen
1. “ नन्वेवं धारणागृहीत एव स्मरणस्योत्पत्तौ गृहीतग्राहित्वादप्रामाण्यं प्रसज्यत इति चेन्न, विषय विशेषसद्भावादीहादिवत् । यथा हि अवग्रहादिगृहीतविषयानामीहादीनां विषयविशेषसद्भावात् स्वविषयसमारोपन्यवच्छेदकत्वेन प्रामाण्यं तथा स्मरणस्यापि धारणा गृहीतविषयप्रवृत्तावपि प्रामाण्यमेव । धारणाया हीदन्तावच्छिन्नो विषयः, स्मरणस्य तु तत्तावच्छिन्नः । " Nyāya-dipika.
2. “विस्मरणसंशयविपर्यासलक्षणः समारोपोऽस्ति तन्निराकरणाच्चास्याः स्मृतेः प्रामाण्यम् ।" Prameyakamala-mārtanda.
3. "यदि चानुभूते प्रवृत्तमित्येतावता स्मरणप्रमाणं स्यात्, तर्हि अनुमिते अग्नौ पश्चात् प्रवृत्तं प्रत्यक्षमपि अप्रमाणं स्यात् ।” Nyāya-dipikā.

Page #140

84
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
and remembers that this is Devadatta we have Smriti. In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaňkāra, this example is given “As for example, this is that image of the Tirthankara"1. दर्शनस्मरणकारणकं संकलनं प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् , तदेवेदं तत्सदृशं
तद्विलक्षणं तत्प्रतियोगोत्यादि ॥५॥ 5. Darśanasmaraṇakāraṇakam samkalanam pratyabhijñānam tadevedam tatsadrićam tadvilakṣaṇam tatpratiyogityādi.
यथा स एवायं देवदत्तः ॥ ६ ॥ _6. Yathā sa evayam devadattah. ..
गोसदृशो गवयः ॥ ७॥ .. 7. Go-sadriso gavayah.
गोविलक्षणो महिषः ॥ ८॥ ___8. Go-vilaksano mahisah.
इदमस्माद् दूरम् ॥९॥ 9. Idamasmād dūram.
वृक्षोऽयमित्यादि ॥ १०॥ 10. Vriksoyamityadi.
5. Pratyabhijñāna is the deduction following from Darsana and Smriti e. g. this is verily that, this is like that, this is different from that, this is opposite to that etc. .
6. As for example, this is that Devadatta. 7. A Gavaya is like a cow. 8. A buffalo is different from a cow. 9. This is far from this. 10. This is a tree etc. 1. "तत्तीर्थकरविम्बमिति यथा।"
Pramāņa-naya-tattvālokālankāra III. 4.

Page #141

Parikṣāmukham
Commentary In Pratyabhijñāna, we recognise an object by noticing similarities and differences. The differences between Smriti and Pratyabhijñāna may be illustrated thus. We see a certain man. We then remember that we have seen bim previously. This is Smriti or Smaraņa. Then if we deduce that this is that very man named Devadatta, we have Pratyabhijñāna. Again, we may go to a forest and see a strange creature like a Gavaya. Then we remember that we have read or heard about such a creature and deduce from its similarities with a cow and the description read or heard before, that this is a Gavaya. We notice the characteristics of a buffalo and distinguish it from a cow. We judge the distance of an object and say that this is far or near. We decide that this is a tree or other object. All these and others are examples of Pratyabhijñāna.
In Hindu philosophics, a deduction from similarities has been recognised as a separate Pramāņa named Upamāna'. The Jain
1. "उपमितिकरणमुपमानम्। तच्च सादृश्यज्ञानात्मकम्। उपमितित्वजातिमत्युपमितिः। कथमियम् उत्पद्यत इति चेदुच्यते । गवयमजानन् कश्चिन्नागरिकः कंचिद्वनेचरं कीदृशो गवयपदवाच्य इति पृच्छति । ततस्तेनोक्तो गोसदृशो गवयपदवाच्य इत्युत्तरितः स कदाचिद् वनं गतो गोसदृशं पिंडं पश्यन् प्रागुक्तातिदेशवाक्यार्थ स्मृत्वासौ Tanygalau gfa afaqa tufafa: 1" Tarka-kaumudi
"तत्र सादृश्यप्रमाकरणमुपमानम् । तथाहि नगरेषु दृष्टगोपिण्डस्य पुरुषस्य वनं गतस्य गवयेन्द्रियसनिकर्षे सति भवति प्रतीतिः अयं पिंडो गोसदृश इति । तदनन्तरञ्च Hafa farsa: 34 AEIT Heta affat i" Vedānta-paribhāṣā. Chapter IV.
"Comparison or the recognition of likeness, is the cause of an inference from similarity. Such an inference consists in the knowledge of relation between a name and the thing so named. Its instrument is the knowledge of a likeness. The recollection of the purport of a statement of resemblance is the operation of that instrument. For example, a person not knowing what is meant by

Page #142

86
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
view is that there is no necessity to recognise a separate Pramāņa named Upamāna arising from noticing similarities as this can be included within Pratyabhijñāna and not only similarities but dissimilarities (e. g. those distinguishing a buffalo from a cow ) and knowledge of distance or nearness is got from Pratyabhijñāna. Dharmabhūṣaṇa summarises this and a detailed exposition of the same has been made by Prabhachandra1.
Hemachandra has followed the definition of Pratyabhijñāna as laid down in Parikṣa-mukham2. The substance of the definition in Pramāṇa-nayatattvālokālankāra is the same though the language is somewhat different".
the word Gavaya having heard from some inhabitant of the forest that a Gavaya is like a cow, goes to the forest. Remembering the purport of what he has been told, he sees a body like that of a cow. Then this inference from similarity arises (in his mind) that this is what is meant by the word Gavaya." Tarka-sangraha, Translated by Jacob. Page 12.
अन्यथा
1. “ सादृश्यप्रत्यभिज्ञानमुपमानाख्यं पृथक् प्रमाणमिति केचित् कथयन्ति तदसत् । स्मृत्यनुभवपूर्वकसंकलनज्ञानत्वेन प्रत्यभिज्ञानत्वानतिवृत्तेः । गोविलक्षण महिष इत्यादिविसदृशत्वप्रत्ययस्य इदमस्माद दूरम् इत्यादेश्च प्रत्ययस्य स - प्रतियोगिकस्य पृथक्-प्रमाणत्वं स्यात् । ततो वैसादृश्यादि - प्रत्ययवत् सादृश्यप्रत्ययस्यापि प्रत्यभिज्ञानलक्षणाक्रान्तत्वेन प्रत्यभिज्ञानत्वमेवेति प्रामाणिकपद्धतिः ।"
Nyāya-dipika. “गोसदृशगवयाभिधानयोर्वाच्यवाचकसंबंधं प्रतिपद्य पुनर्गवयदर्शनात् तत्प्रतिपत्तिः प्रत्यभिज्ञा किं नेष्यते ?” Prameyakamala-mārtanda.
2. “ दर्शनस्मरणसंभवं तदेवेदं तत्सदृशं तदूविलक्षणं तत्प्रतियोगीत्यादिसंकलनं प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् ।” Pramāna-mimāmsā I. 2. 4.
3. " अनुभवस्मृतिहेतुकं तिर्यगूर्ध्वता सामान्यादिगोचरं संकलनात्मकं ज्ञानं प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् ।”
"यथा तज्जातीय एवायं गोपिण्डो गोसदृशो गवयः स एवायं जिनदत्त इत्यादि । "
Pramānanayatattvālokalankāra. III. 5. 6.

Page #143

87
Parikşāmukham In the tenth aphorism, the word "etc.” has been used. In Prameya-ratna-mālā, it is mentioned that by this word the recognition of other objects from distinguishing characteristics is included. For example, a swan is recognised from its power of separating milk from water, a bee is recognised from having six legs, a Saptaparņa tree is recognised from having seven leaves, a Mechaka jewel is recognised from its having five colours, a young woman is recognised from her high breasts, a rhinoceros is recognised from its single horn, a Sarabha ( a fabulous creature ) is recognised from its eight legs and a lion is recognised from its manes”l.
उपलम्भानुपलम्भनिमित्तं व्यासिज्ञानमूहः ॥११॥ 11. Upalambhānupalambhanimittam vyaptijnanamāhah.
इदमस्मिन् सत्येव भवत्यसति न भवत्येवेति च ॥१२॥ 12. Idamasmin satyeva bhavatyasati na bhavatyeveti cha.
यथानावेव धूमस्तभावे न भवत्येवेति च ॥१३॥ 13. Yathāgnāveva dhūmastadabhāve na bhavatyeveti cha. ___11. The knowledge of universal concomitance arising from finding and not finding, is Uha ( or Tarka ).
. '17. Such as, this exists when that exists and this does not exist when that does not exist.
13. For example, smoke exists only in fire and when there is no fire, there is no smoke.
“पयोबुभेदी हंसः स्यात् षट्पदैः भ्रमरः स्मृतः । सप्तपर्णैस्तु तत्त्वज्ञैर्विज्ञेयो विषमच्छदः ।। पंचवर्णैर्भवेद् रत्नं मेचकाख्यं पृथुस्तनी । युवतिश्चैकशृंगोऽपि गण्डकः परिकीर्तितः ॥ शरभोऽप्यष्टभिः पादैः सिंहश्चारुसटान्वितः ॥” ।
Verses quoted in Prameya-ratnamālā.

Page #144

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Commentary
From this aphorism, begins the most important subject of inference which attracted the subtle brains of all the Jain, Hindu and Buddhist logicians. In this aphorism Vyāptijñāna ( the knowledge of universal concomitance) which is the basis of all inference is defined. It should be remembered that in Hindu Nyaya philosophy Tarka is defined as a special kind of knowledge (Sambhāvanā). Vatsyayana and Uddyotakara have followed this interpretation in their commentaries on the Nyayasutra of Gautama. The later writers like Udayana also define Tarka as a special kind of objection. But in Jain logic Tarka is defined as knowledge of universal concomitance. In Nyaya-dipika we-find "The knowledge of universal concomitance is Tarka".
88
Vyapti (universal concomitance) is a kind of relation-ship between the middle term and the major term. The middle term is technically called( as will be seen later on) Hetu, Linga or Sadhana. The major term is known as Sadhya or Vyapaka The minor term is known as Pakṣa. Vyapti is also called Avinābhava2. The example given universally to explain Vyapti is this: 'Where there is smoke, there is fire'.
In other words, Tarka is a separate Pramāņa which is instru mental in producing a knowledge of Vyapti or Abinābhāva3. In Śloka-värttika it is mentioned "Tarka is the instrumental cause of the result consisting of cessation of ignorance regarding the relationship of the major term and the middle term "4.
Üha is another name of Tarka.
1. "fia: " Nyaya-dipikaā.
2. “ साध्यसाधनयोर्गम्यगमकभावप्रयोजको व्यभिचारगंधासहिष्णुः संबंधविशेषो व्याप्तिरविनाभाव इति च व्यपदिश्यते ।”_Nyāya-dipika.
3. " तस्याश्चाविनाभावापरनाम्न्या व्याप्तेः प्रमितौ यत् साधकतमं तदिदं तर्काख्यं पृथक् प्रमाणम् ।” Nyāya-dipika.
4. “ साध्यसाधनसंबंध्यज्ञाननिवृत्तरूपे हि फले साधकतमस्तर्कः । "
5. " ऊह इति तर्कस्यैव व्यपदेशान्तरम् ।” Nyāya-dipika.

Śloka-värttika.

Page #145

Parikṣāmukham
Tarka or Uha concludes the presence or absence of one thing in connection with another in all places and times. We find fire when we see smoke. After constant knowledge of this kind we conclude that in all places and at all times smoke is inseparable from fire. This Tarka Pramāņa is different from Pratyakṣa in which the relationship of fire and smoke is perceived only in a place which is near but no knowledge of universal concomitance arises from Pratyakṣa1.
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra, it has been mentioned "Tarka which is also called Uha is knowledge produced from finding and not finding, dependant on the relationship of the major term and the middle term in the past, present and future viz. that this happens on that. As for example, wherever there is some smoke, this must be on account of the existence of fire and when it (i.e. fire) does not exist, this (smoke) does not exist".
Hemachandra's definition of Tarka or Uha is identical with that in Parikṣa-mukham3.
In the relation of two things like smoke and fire, one object (e. g. smoke) is called Vyapya, and the other (e. g. fire) is known as Vyapaka. Hemachandra therefore defines Vyapti thus: "Vyapti is existence of Vyapaka whenever there is Vyapya or the existence of Vyapya whenever there is Vyapaka"4.
1. 'अत्र हि धूमे सति भूयोऽग्न्युपलंभे, सर्वत्र सर्वदा धूमोऽग्निं न व्यभिचरति, एवं सर्वोपसंहारेणाविनाभाविज्ञानं पश्चादुत्पन्नं तर्काख्यं प्रत्यक्षादेः पृथगेव । प्रत्यक्षस्य सन्निहितदेश एव धूमाग्निसंबंध प्रकाशनान्न व्याप्तिप्रकाशकत्वम् ।” Nyāya-dipika. 2. “उपलं भानुपलंभसंभवं त्रिकालीकलितसाध्यसाधनसंबध्याद्यालंवनमिद
मस्मिन्सत्येव भवतीत्याद्याकारं संवेदनमूहापरनामा तर्कः ॥
"यथा यावान् कश्चिद् धूमः स सर्वो वह्नौ सत्येव भवतीति तस्मिन्नसत्यौ न Harafa" Pramāṇanayatattvälokālankāra. III. 7. 8.
3. “ उपलं भानुपलंभनिमित्तं व्याप्तिज्ञानमूहः ।”
89
Pramāṇa-mimāmsā. I. 2. 5.
4. “ व्याप्तिव्यापकस्य व्याप्ये सति भाव एव व्याप्यस्य वा तत्रैव भावः ।"
Pramāṇa-mimamsā. 1. 2. 6.
P-12

Page #146

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
साधनात् साध्यविज्ञानमनुमानम् ॥१४॥
14. Sadhanāt sadhyavijñānamanumānam.
14. Anumāna (inference) is the knowledge of Sadhya (the major term) from Sadhana (the middle term).
90
Commentary
A definition of Sadhana will be given in the next aphorism and Sadhya will be defined in aphorism 20.
Sadhana as we have already mentioned is the middle term and Sadhya the major term. In inference we have a knowledge of Sadhya (e. g. fire) from Sadhana (e. g. smoke ). The syllogism will be detailed later on.
It may be mentioned here that in Hindu philosophies like the Nyaya and Vaiseşika systems, the knowledge derived from Anumāna Pramāņa is called Anumiti but in Jain logic, the knowledge itself is called Anumana. The result of Anumana, according to Jain logic, is the cessation of ignorance. Manikya-nandi has devoted a separate chapter (Samuddeśa V) where the result of Pramāņas is discussed in detail. We shall deal with this subject there.
Hemachandra and Dharma-bhuṣaṇa's definition of Anumana is the same as mentioned in this aphorism'. In Śloka-vārttika it is mentioned "The wise know Anumana to be the knowledge of Sadhya from sadhana". The Sadhana must be Jñāyamāna (in a knowing state) to produce Anumana. Otherwise no inference can arise. For example, to a sleeping man, smoke cannot give rise
1. “ साधनात् साध्यविज्ञानमनुमानम् ।”
Pramāṇa-mimāmsā I. 2. 7 and Nyāya-dipikā.
2. “साधनात् साध्यविज्ञानमनुमानं विदुर्बुधाः । " Sloka vārttika.

Page #147

91
Parikşāmukham to an inference of fire'. Sādhana is also known as Linga or Hetu. Vātsyāyana in his Bhāșya on Nyāya-sūtras of Gautama ( I. 1. 3) has mentioned "Anumāna is the subsequent knowing of the Lingi (e. g. fire ) by the Linga (e. g. smoke ) in its knowing state”2. Udayanāchārya while explaining "Tallingamanu-māpakam” of the Prasastapādabhāșya has mentioned that Jñāyamāna linga is the instrumental cause of Anumāna".
It appears from the Vaiseșika Sūtra of Kaņāda* and the statement of Prasastapāda the writer of the Bhāşya on the Vaiseșika Sūtrass that they also admit that inference results from Jñāyamāna Linga.
साध्याविनाभावित्वेन निश्चितो हेतुः ॥१५॥ 15. Sādhyāvinābhāvitvena niśchito hetuḥ.
16. Hetu ( or Sadhana or Linga ) is that which is fixed in concomitance with Sādhya.
Commentary
In this aphorism Sādhana is defined. That which cannot be without Sādhya is Sādhana or Hetu, e. g. smoke which can never
1. “साधनाजज्ञायमानादू धूमादेः साध्येऽग्न्यादौ लिंगिनि यद्विज्ञानं तदनुमानम्। अज्ञायमानस्य तस्य साध्यज्ञानजनकत्वे हि सुप्तादीनामप्यग्न्यादिज्ञानोत्पत्तिTeivT: 1" Nyāya-dipikā. 2. "मितेन लिंगेन लिंगिनोऽर्थस्य पश्चान्मानमनुमानम् ।”
___Vatsyāyana-Bhasya. 3. "अनुमितिरूपप्रमाकरणम् । एतेन परामृष्यमाणं लिंगमनुमानम् ।”
___Guna-Kiranāvali. 4. “हेतुरपदेशो लिंगं प्रमाणं करणमित्यनर्थान्तरम् ।”
Vaišeşika Sūtra. 9. 2. 4. "अनुमेयेन संबंध प्रसिद्धं च तदन्विते । तदभावे च नास्त्येव तल्लिंगमनुमापकम् ॥" Prasastapāda.

Page #148

92
The Sacred Books of the Jainas be without fire. This is also known as Linga ( sign or mark ) and is the same as the middle term of a syllogism.
Kumāranandi Bhattāraka has mentioned "A Linga has the characteristic of being non-existent otherwise" ("3772799972 FOSTHETI") e. g. smoke is non-existent otherwise than with fire. In Pramāņa-naya-tattvālokālankāra the same view is expressed'. In other words, a Sādhana can exist only in relation with Sādhya. It is therefore the determinant of Sādhya.
सहक्रमभावनियमोऽविनाभावः ॥ १६॥ 16. Sahakramabhāvaniyamo a-vinābhāvaḥ.
16. Avinābhāva ( or Vyāpti ) is the rule of co-existence or the existence of one following the other ( being related as cause and effect ).
Commentary Vyāpti, which has already been explained before, is here described as being of two kinds being connected in co-existence or in existence of one after another as in the case of a cause and its effect. These are being elucidated in the aphorisms which follow. Hemachandra also defines Avinābhāva in a similar manner?.
सहचारिणोाप्यव्यापकयोश्च सहभावः ॥ १७ ॥ 17. Sahachārinorvyāpyavyāpakayoścha sahabhāvaḥ.
17. Sahabhāva exists in objects co-existent or in objects Vyāpya and Vyāpaka.
1. "fafar-419194477 PSTUTT : Il"
Pramāņa-nayatattvālokālankāra III. 11. 2. "HERAHIAT: HEHHEfathsfarra: 1"
Pramāņa-mimāņsā 1. 2. 10.

Page #149

Parikşāmukham
Commentary
The universal concomitance as exemplified by Sahabhāva can be seen in the form and colour in a fruit or being a tree and being a Simšapā ( a kind of tree ). The former is an example of co-existence and the latter a relationship of Vyāpya and Vyāpaka'.
पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोः कार्यकारणयोश्च क्रमभावः ॥१८॥ 18. Pūrvottarachāriņoḥ kāryakāraņayoścha kramabhāvaḥ.
18. Krama-bhāva exists in cases when one follows the other or in the case of cause and effect.
Commentary The example commonly given in Jain logic of one following the other is : the constellation Krittikā is followed by the constellation Rohiņi. The example of cause and effect is given as smoke following fire?.
Aniat faufa: 118811 19. Tarkāt tannirņayaḥ. 19. This is ascertained by Tarka.
Commentary We have already explained that by. Tarka ( universal concomitance ) inference is caused. The Jain philosophers sometimes hold that cause and effect are the same ( Abheda ) and according to such a view though universal concomitance itself is called Tarka, it is mentioned in this aphorism that Tarka determines universal concomitance. Hemachandra also holds this view".
1. "Eifunt: Fall Chat: 216411484729 gatrariarazififa 1"
Prameya-ratna-mālā. ___2. “पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोः कृत्तिकोदयशकटोदययोः कार्यकारणयोश्च धूमधूमध्वFilt: FAHTA: 1" Prameya-ratna-mālā.
3. hela 1293: 1" Pramāņa-mimāṁsā I. 2. 11.

Page #150

94
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
इष्टमबाधितमसिद्ध साध्यम् ॥ २० ॥ 20. Istamabadhitamasiddham sādhyam. सन्दिग्धविपर्यस्ताव्युत्पन्नानां साध्यत्वं यथा
स्यादित्यसिद्धपदम् ॥ २१॥ 21. Sandigdhaviparyastāvyutpannānām sādhyatvam yathā syādityasiddhapadam.
अनिष्टाध्यक्षादिवाधितयोः साध्यत्वं माभूदितीष्टा. बाधितवचनम् ॥ २२ ॥ ..
22. Anistadhyaksadivadhitayoh sadhyatvam ma bhuditistāvādhitavachanam.
न चासिद्धवदिष्टं प्रतिवादिनः ॥ २३ ॥ 28. Na chāsiddhavadistam prativadinah.
प्रत्यायनाय होच्छा वकतुरेव ॥ २४ ॥ 24. Pratyāyanāya hichchhā vaktureva..
20. Sādhya is what is desired and what is Abādhita (i. e. opposed to Pratyakşa etc.) and what is not Siddha ( already established ).
21. The word "Asiddha” has been used in defining Sādhya so that the doubtful, the false and the not understood may become Sadhya.
22 The words “Işta” and “Abādhita” have been used so that what is not desired and what is opposed to Pratyakşa etc. might not be ( included in the definition of ) Sadhya.
23. In the case of an adversary, “Ista' is not required like "Asiddha".
24. The intention to explain exists only in the speaker.

Page #151

95
Parikşāmukham
Commentary Sādhya (the major term) is defined in Aphorism 20. That which one wishes to establish is Sadhya. For example, we want to establish fire when we see smoke. So fire is Sādhya. But it should be noted that there should not be any Bādhā ( hindrance ). Hemachandra has mentioned that Bādhā is of six kinds (i) that which is opposed to Pratyakşa (ii) that which is opposed to Anumāna (iii) that which is opposed to Agama (iv) that which is opposed to popular belief (v) that which is opposed to one's own words and (vi) that which is opposed to belief
That which is opposed to Pratyakşa is thus illustrated. If one says that fire is cold, honey is not sweet, jasmine flowers are not sweet-scented, a pitcher is invisible etc. we have examples of Pratyakşabādhā. The instance of Bādhā by Anumāna is : "The palm of the hand is hairy'. Agama-bādbā is what is against the injunctions of scriptures, for example, "Dharma does not produce happiness after death”. It is enjoined in the scriptures that Dharma leads to happiness after death. Loka-bādhā is what is against popular belief. For example, "The skull of a human being is a clean object”. The popular belief in this case is that skulls of human beings are unclean objects. Bādhā regarding one's own words are exemplified in "My mother is barren." That which is against belief is. Pratiti-bādhā e. g. Chandra ( the moon ) is not Śaśi ( the moon ) We know that Chandra and Sasi are synonyms signifying the moon? 1. "TENIIGATATTHET #qanuatazit area: 11"
Pramāņa-mimāmsā I. 2. 14. 2. "तत्र प्रत्यक्षबाधा यथा अनुष्णोऽग्निः , न मधु मधुरं, न सुगंधि विदलन्Areatyeri, 37714 22:, 377raut: stoti, affar afetei scalig i SEATAबाधा यथा, सरोम हस्ततलं, नित्यः शब्द इति वा ।...आगमबाधा यथा प्रेत्यासुखप्रदो धर्म इति, परलोके सुखप्रदत्वं धर्मस्य सर्वागमसिद्धम् । लोकबाधा यथा, शुचि नरशिरःकपालमिति, लोके हि नरशिरःकपालादीनां अशुचित्वं सुप्रसिद्धं । स्ववचनबाधा

Page #152

96
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Sadhya again should be one not previously established. Objects in cases of doubt e. g. when we are not certain whether this is a post or a man, cases of mistake e. g. when we mistake nacre to be silver and cases where we have no clear knowledge as when we merely touch a thing while going without clearly perceiving what it is, can become Sadhya. For, in these cases we establish by inference what the real thing is.
___The three adjectives “Ista", "Abadhita" and "Asiddha" are therefore necessary. These have been termed “Abhipsita”, “Anirākrita” and “Apratita” in Prameya-naya-tattvālokālankāra? and "Sisādhayişita", "Abādhya" and "Asiddha" by Hemachandra?
Some may say, you have mentioned that what is desired is Sadhya. The desire of human beings is to sit, lie down, eat, go etc. So these should be Sādhya. In Prameyaratnamālā this is refuted by saying that by desire is meant the desire in connection with Sādhana. The meaning is to be understood according to the context.
When we see a Sadhana (e. g. smoke ) we desire to know of what this is a sign and the desired object inferred from the Sādhana (e. g. fire ) is the Sādhya'. यथा माता मे बन्ध्येति। प्रतीतिबाधा यथा, अचन्द्रः शशीति, अत्र शशिनश्चन्द्रशब्दवाच्यत्वं प्रतीतिसिद्धम् इति प्रतीति-बाधा।" Pramāna-Mimamsa Bhasya to 1.2.14.
1. "अप्रतीतमनिराकृतमभीप्सितं साध्यम् ।। शंकितविपरीतानध्यवसितवस्तुनां साध्यताप्रतिपत्त्यर्थमप्रतीतवचनम् ॥ प्रत्यक्षादिविरुद्धस्य साध्यत्वं मा प्रसज्यतामित्यनिराकृतग्रहणम् ॥ अनभिप्रेतस्यासाध्यत्वप्रतिपत्तयेऽभीप्सितपदोपादानम् ॥"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra. III. 14-17 2. “सिसाधयिषितमसिद्धमवाध्यं साध्यं पक्षः ॥” ।
Pramāņa-mimāmsā I. 1. 13. 3. "अत्रापरे दूषणमाचक्षते, आसनशयनभोजनयाननिधुवनादेरपीष्टत्वात्तदपि साध्यमनुषज्यत इति । तेऽप्यतिवालिशा अप्रस्तुतप्रलापित्वात् । अत्र हि साधनमधिक्रियते। तेन साधनविषयत्वेनेप्सितमिष्टमुच्यते ।" Prameya-ratna-mala.

Page #153

97
Parikşāmukham This adjective "Ista" ( desired ) is to be taken in connection with one's own intention. For, the person wishing to know fire from the smoke has this desire. When the inference of fire from smoke is explained to another person (who is technically called Prativādi), the Sādhya (fire ) is not "Işta” to the latter. All the adjectives are not applicable to all parties but some to some parties according to uset. Hemachandra has used the word "सिसाधयिषितम्" explaining it as “साधयितुमिष्टं” (i. e. desired to establish) to evade this controversy in his definition of Sādhya.
Akalanka Deva in Nyāya-viniśchaya has thus defined
Sādhya :
"साध्यं शक्यमभिप्रेतमप्रसिद्धं ततोऽपरं ।
साध्याभासं विरुद्धादि साधनाविषयात्वतः ॥" i. e. “Sadhya is Sakya (fit to be established not being opposed to Pramana etc.), Abhipreta or Ista ( desired ) and Aprasiddha or Asiddha ( like objects in cases of doubt, mistake or non-distinction ). The opposite to Sādhya is Sādhyābhāsa. These are Viruddha ( opposed to Pratyakşa etc) etc. because these cannot be made known by Sādhana."
In śloka-vārttika Sādhana and Sādhya have been similarly defined :
_ “अन्यथानुपपत्त्येकलक्षणं तत्र साधनं ।
साध्यं शक्यमभिप्रेतमप्रसिद्धमुदाहृतं ॥" i. e. "the characteristic of Sadhana is that it does not arise otherwise and “Sādhya is Šakya, Abhipreta and Aprasiddha."
Dharmabhūşaņa also has followed these definitions”.
1. “न हि सर्व सर्वापेक्षया विशेषणम् , अपि तु किंचित् कमप्युद्दिश्य भवतीति । यथा असिधं प्रतिवादयपेक्षया न तथेष्टम् इत्यर्थः ।"
Prameyaratnamālā. 2. "शक्यमभिप्रेतमप्रसिद्ध साध्यं । यत्प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणाबाधितत्वेन साधयितुं शक्यं, वायभिमतत्वेनाभिप्रेतं, संदेहायाक्रान्तत्वेनाप्रसिद्धं तदेव साध्यम् ।" Nyayadipika.
P-13

Page #154

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
arsi un: afaafafæret at aṁf 1|26||
25. Sadhyam dharmah kvachittad visiṣto va dharmi.
25. Sadhya is a Dharma and sometimes it is Dharmi in which there is the abode of the Dharma.
98
Commentary
:
In our familiar example we have seen that fire is the Sadhya (or the major term). Now, a distinction is being made. It is urged that when we have a knowledge of universal concomitance, Sadhya is a Dharma. For in such cases we hold wherever there is smoke there is fire. Here Sadhya is fire. But after the inferential process we have the Dharmi (e.g. the mountain in which the fire is) which is the abode of the Dharma ( Sadhya) as described above. This Dharmi is technically called the Pakṣa (the minor term) as will be mentioned in the next aphorism. When Sadhya is merely Dharma, there is no knowledge of Dharmi. For example, whenever we see smoke, we have an idea of fire but not of mountain or other object containing the fire. It is only when Sadhya is Dharmi, that we have the idea of the thing which is the abode of Dharma which is technically called Pakṣa1.
26. Pakṣa iti yāvat.
26. This is also known as Paksa (the minor term).
पक्ष इति यावत् ॥ २६ ॥
Commentary
It has been explained in the previous aphorism that the Dharmi containing the Dharma of Sadhya is called Pakṣa. For
1. “ साध्यं साध्यधर्मविशिष्टो धर्मी कचित्तु धर्मः ।” Pramāṇa
mimāmsā I. 2. 15

"व्याप्तिग्रहण समयापेक्षया साध्यं धर्म एवान्यथा तदनुपपत्तेः ॥
न हि यत्र यत्र धूमस्तत्र चित्रभानोरिव धरित्रीधरस्याप्यनुवृत्तिरस्ति ॥ आनुमानिकप्रतिपन्त्यवसरापेक्षया तु पक्षापरपर्यायस्तद्विशिष्टः प्रसिद्धो धर्मी || " Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaȧkāra III, 19-21

Page #155

99
Parikņāmukham example, a mountain is Paksa as in it there is fire ( Sādhya ). In other words when we want to separate Dharma and Dharmi, we say that Sadhya is Dharma ( viz. in the case of fire ) but when we do not want to separate Dharma from Dharmi, we say that Sadhya is Dharmi or Pakşa (e. g. the mountain in which there is abode of fire ).
afact staf 11 29 11 27. Prasiddho dharmi. 27. Dharmi is well known.
Commentary A Dharmi is known sometimes by Pramāṇa, sometimes by Vikalpa ( imagination ) and sometimes both by Vikalpa and Pramāņa”. Hemachandra writes that a Dharmi is Pramāņasiddha as well as Buddhi-siddha”.
The example of knowledge of a Dharmi by Vikalpa is : "There exists an omniscient being”. The example of knowledge of a Dharmi by Pramāņa is : “This mountain has fire.” The example of knowledge of a Dharmi both by Pramāṇa and Vikalpa is “Sound is not eternal”
विकल्पसिद्धे तस्मिन् सत्तेतरे साध्ये ॥ २८ ॥ 28. Vikalpa-şiddhe tasmin sattetare sādhye.
अस्ति सर्वज्ञो नास्ति खरविषाणम् ॥ २९ ॥ 29. Asti sarvajño nāsti kharavişāņam. 1. "fagra effor: #fara gara, araferenta, fara
gaturale977774 1" Nyāyadipikā. : "fa fatiua: gafaa gatua: Balfo fa 48A1077977 1"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra III. 21 2. "A TATUTTE: 11 gramatisfà 11"
Pramāņa-mimāmsā. I. 2. 16-17 3. "791 AHER HAFTargact, feather pastarît, safat: aftfahrt 11" Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaňkāra III. 22

Page #156

100
The Sacred Books of the Jainas 28. When it ( Dharmi ) is established by Vikalpa, the Sadhya consists of existence and non-existence...
29. The omniscient exists. Horns of the ass do not exist.
Commentary
When we see smoke and infer fire, the object in which the fire is (e. g. the mountain ) is known by Pratyaksa Pramana. But in the case of our belief in the existence and non-existence viz. "the omniscient exists” or "Horns of the ass do not exist” the Sādhya consisting of existence or non-existence is preceded by our such' belief. So these are cases of Vikalpa-siddhi of the Dharmit.
प्रमाणोभयसिद्धे तु साध्यधर्मविशिष्टता ॥ ३०॥ 30. Pramānobhayasiddhe tu sadhyadharmavis istatā.
अग्निमानयं देशः परिणामी शब्द इति यथा ॥ ३१ ॥ 31. Agnimānayam deśaḥ pariņāmi sabda iti yathā.
30. When (a Dharmi) is established by Pramāņa or by both (i. e. by Pramāņa and Vikalpa ), it is characterised by having the Dharma as Sādhya. 31. As for example, this place has fire ; sound is transient.
Commentary In a Dharmi which is establihed by Pramāna, the Sādhya exists as Dharma. For example, we see by Pratyakșa a place
1. "विकल्पसिद्धो यथा, सर्वज्ञः अस्ति सुनिश्चितासंभवबाधकप्रमाणत्वात् इत्यस्तित्वे साध्ये सर्वज्ञः। अथवा खरविषाणं नास्तिीति नास्तित्वे साध्ये खरविषाणं । सर्वज्ञो ह्यस्तित्वसिद्धेः प्राङ् न प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणसिद्धः। अपि तु प्रतीतिमात्र-सिद्ध इति विकल्पसिद्धोऽयं धर्मी। तथा खरविषाणमपि नास्तित्वसिद्धेः प्राग् विकल्पसिद्धं ॥” "विकल्पसिद्धे तु धर्मिणि सत्तासत्तयोरेव साध्यत्वमिति नियमः ।"
Nyāyadipikā.

Page #157

Parikşāmukham
101 containing fire and the place ( which is Dharmi or Pakşa ) has the Dharmit (or Sadhya ) e. g. fire. The example of a Dharmi established by Pramāņa as well as by Vikalpa is this : Sound is transient because it is caused ( by some ). Here sound can be established by Pramāņa as well as by Vikalpa'.
व्याप्तौ तु साध्यं धर्म एव ॥ ३२॥ 32. Vyāptau tu sādhyam dharma eva.
37FCUT ACETATET 1133 111 33. Anyathā tadaghatanāt.
32. In universal concomitance, the Sādhya is only Dharma ( and not Dharmi )
33. Otherwise, it ( i. e. universal concomitance ) cannot happen.
Commentary It is not possible to find an universal concomitance seeing · smoke that all mountains contain fire?. So in such a case the
Sādhya viz. the fire is only Dharma and not Dharmi or Paksa viz. mountain. In other words, the universal concomitance is between fire and smoke but not between smoke and the object which is the abode of fire. So, a distinction should be made in this case by saying that here the Sādhya is only a Dharma and not a Dharmi. साध्यधर्माधारसंदेहापनोदाय गम्यमानस्यापि पक्षस्य वचनम् ॥ ३४ ॥
34. Sādhyadharmādhārasandehāpanodāya gamyamānasyāpi pakşasya vachanam.
___ 1. 'तत्र प्रमाणसिद्धो धर्मी यथा धूमवत्वादग्निमत्वे साध्ये पर्वतः खलु प्रत्यक्षेणानुभूयते ।....उभयसिद्धो धर्मी यथा शब्दो परिणामी कृतकत्वात् इत्यत्र शब्दः ।" Nyāya-dipikā.
2. "न हि धूमदर्शनात् सर्वत्र पर्वतोऽग्निमानिति व्याप्तिः शक्या कत्तु प्रमाणfattata l." Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #158

102
The Sacred Books of the Jainas साध्यधर्मिणि साधनधर्माववोधनाय पक्षधर्मोपसंहारवत् ॥ ३५॥
35. Sādhyadharmiņi sādhanadharmāvavodhanāya pakşadharmopasamhāravat. को वा त्रिधा हेतुमुक्त्वा समर्थयमानो न पक्षयति ॥ ३६॥
36. Ko vā tridhā hetumuktvā samarthayamāno na pakşayati.
34. The Pakşa is used though it is understood (from Pratyakşa ) to dispel doubts regarding the abode of Sādhya when it is a Dharma.
35. As for example, Upanaya is used to explain the Dharma of Sadhana (the middle term, sign or mark) in the Dharmi containing Sādhya.
36. Is there anyone who does not use a Paksa to substantiate after mentioning the three kinds of Hetu ?
Commentary It may be urged that in inference, there is no necessity of a Pakşa. For in the case of inference of fire in a mountain by seeing smoke, the mountain (Pakşa ) is established by Pratyakşa. So it is not necessary to establish it again by inference (Anumāna ). It is redundant to establish by inference, what we get by Pratyakşa.
In answer to this, it is urged, that mention of Paksa is necessary to localize the Sādhya. Smoke may be in the mountain or in kitchens or in other places. To remove doubts as to where the smoke exists, the use of Pakṣa is necessary. Excluding the Paksa, we will only get a mention of the abstract relationship between smoke and fire. It may in such a case reduce Anumāna to Tarka e. g. 'where is this fire which is indicated by smoke ?' Or it may lead to an absurd inference e. g. existence of fire in a lake.
"Some philosophers hold that the minor term ( Pakşa ) is not an essential part of an inference. But this view according to the Jainas, is untenable, it being absolutely necessary to state the minor term ( Pakşa ) in the inference"."
1. Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūşan : Nyāyāvatāra. p. 15

Page #159

Parikşāmukham
103 Siddhasena Divākara has mentioned in his Nyāyāvatāra :
“It (i. e. Pakşa ) 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).
Otherwise owing to a misconception as to the abode of reason (i. e. Paksa or the minor term ) as intended by the disputant his reason (Hetu or the middle term ) may appear to his opponent as absurd.
A man who has come to behold the excellence of an archer will have to behold the opposite of it, if the archer hits without fixing an aim?.”.
Dr. Vidyābhūṣaṇa has amplified this as below :
"If any disputant does not explicitly state the minor term (Pakşa ) his reason might be misunderstood by his opponent e. g.
(1) This hill ( the minor term ) is full of fire ( the major term);
(2) Because it is full of smoke ( the middle term ). The above inference, if the minor term is omitted, will assume the following form :
(1) Full of fire ( the major term ) (2) because full of smoke ( the middle term )
Here the opponent might not at once recollect any abode or place ( the minor term, Pakşa) in which the fire and smoke abide in ụnion, and might mistake a lake for such an abode. In such a case the whole argument will be misunderstood.
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
Tagiisa attionit gatita ciu4:1" “अन्यथा वायभिप्रेतहेतुगोचरमोहितः । प्रत्यायस्य भवेद्धेतुर्विरुद्धारेकितो यथा ॥ धानुष्कगुणसंप्रेक्षि जनस्य परिविध्यतः । 9Tgsel faar zulasta quart II” Nyāyāvatāra 14-16

Page #160

104
The Sacred Books of the Jainas skilful disputant, in order to avoid being misunderstood, should, in stating an inference, mention the minor term ( Pakşa ) with which the major term ( Sādhya ) and the middle term ( Hetu ) are both connected.
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra the same is mentioned as follows : "The use of Pakṣa must be adopted as we always mention as conclusion by word expressing Dharmi (Pakşa or the minor term e. g. mountain ) Dharma ( Sādhya or the major term e. g. fire ) and Hetu ( the middle term ). Who will not agree to the use of Pakṣa in support of the Sādhana (the middle term) after mentioning the three varieties of the same'.
The three kinds of Hetu will be described later on.
Hemachandra has mentioned the subject of this aphorism in a similar language:
एतद्वयमेवानुमानाङ्गंनोदाहरणम् ॥ ३७॥ 37. Etaddvayamevānumānāngam nodāharaṇam.
37. These two only are the limbs of Anumāna, and not the Udāharaña.
Commentary
In Prameyaratnamālā, it is mentioned that this Aphorism refutes the view of the Sānkhya philosophy which holds that Anumāna has three limbs viz. Pakşa, Hetu and Dțistānta or Udāharaṇa, that of the Mimāmsā philosophy according to which there are four limbs of Anumāna viz. Pratijñā, Hetu, Udāharaṇa and Upanaya and that of the Nyāya-vaiseșika philosophies which hold
___1. “साध्यस्य प्रतिनियतधर्मिधर्महेतोरुपसंहारवचनवत् पक्षप्रयोगोऽप्यवश्यमाश्रयितव्यः ।” “त्रिविधं साधनमभिधायैव तत्समर्थनं विदधानः कः खलु न पक्षgetrarítenza i” ( JAMAYACEITA: 1 3188184 1]
2. “गम्यमानत्वेऽपि साध्यधर्मा-धार-सन्देहापनोदाय धर्मिणि पक्षधर्मोपसंहारancaufa: 1" Pramāņa-mimāmsā 2. 1. 8.

Page #161

Parikṣāmukham
105
that there are five limbs of Anumāna viz. Pratijñā, Hetu, Udaharaṇa, Upanaya and Nigamana1.
It may be urged that the words "and not the Udaharana" are redundant in this aphorism, as the word 'only' in the aphorism is sufficient for the purpose. The commentator Anantavirya says that these words have been used to refute the views of others.
In the Nyaya philosophy of Gautama, five limbs of syllogism are recognised. These are Pratijñā ( proposition ), Hetu, Udaharaṇa (illustration), Upanaya ( application) and Nigamana (conclusion). The following is an example:
--
(1) This hill is full of fire. (Pratijñā)
(2) Because it is full of smoke. (Hetu)
(3) Whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, as a kitchen (Driṣṭānta)
(4) So is this kill full of smoke. (Upanaya )
(5) Therefore this hill is full of fire. (Nigamana)
According to the view of Jain logicians as propounded in Parikṣamukham, only Pakṣa and Hetu are the two limbs of Anumāna.
In Pramaṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra, it is mentioned: "Inference derived from the speech of another has only two parts viz. Pakṣa and Hetu and not Driṣṭanta etc.
1. “ ननु भवतु पक्षप्रयोगस्तथापि पक्षहेतुदृष्टान्तभेदेन त्र्यवयवमनुमानमिति सांख्यः । प्रतिज्ञाहे तूदाहरणोपनयभेदेन चतुरवयमिति मीमांसकः । प्रतिज्ञाहेतूदाहरणोपनयनिगमनभेदात् पंचावयवमिति यौगः । तन्मतमपाकुर्वन् स्वमतसिद्धमवयवद्वय"Prameyaratnamālā.
2. " एवकारेणै "वोदाहरणादिव्यवच्छेदे सिद्धेऽपि परमतनिरासार्थं पुनर्नोfcy" Prameyaratnamālā.
3. "पक्षहेतुवचन लक्षणमवयवद्वयमेव परप्रतिपत्तेरंगं न दृष्टान्तादिवचनम् । "
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra III. 28

P-14

Page #162

106
The Sacred Books of the Jainas This aphorism is amplified in the aphorisms which follow. न हि तत् साध्यप्रतिपत्यङ्गं तत्र यथोक्तहेतोरेव व्यापारात् ॥ ३८ ॥
38. Na hi tat sādhyapratipatyangam tatra yathoktahetoreva vyāpārāt. तदविनाभावनिश्चयार्थं वा विपक्षे बाधकादेव तत् सिद्धेः ॥ ३९ ॥
39. Tadavinābhāyaniśchayārtham vā vipakşe vādhakādeva tat-siddheh.
38. That (Udāharaṇa ) is not the cause of understanding the Sādhya because, the aforesaid Hetu works there ( as the cause )
39. (That Udāharaņa ) also is ( not necessary ) for establishing the universal concomitance ( with the Sādhya ). That ( universal concomitance ) is established from the opposition to its adverse ( character ).
Commentary
When we give the example of a kitchen to illustrate the universal concomitance 'where there is smoke, there is fire,' we cannot say that the illustration is of any help in the understanding of the Sadhya viz. fire, for the knowledge of fire is derived from the Hetu ( viz. 'Because it is full of smoke'). The Udāharaṇa therefore is not a part of inference. It cannot also be said that Udāharaṇa causes a belief of universal concomitance with the Sadhya, because the universal concomitance is established when we get proof opposed to its adverse character.
व्यक्तिरूपं च निदर्शनं सामान्येन तु व्याप्तिस्तत्रापि तद्विप्रतिपत्तावनवस्थानं स्यात् दृष्टान्तान्तरापेक्षणात् ॥४०॥
40. Vyaktirūpam cha nidarśanam sāmānyena tu vyāptistatrāpi tadvipratipattāvanavasthānam syāt drstāntāntarāpekşanāt.
40. A Udāharaña deals only with particular but Vyāpti deals with universal concomitance. If that is not understood, the fault of Anavasthā will arise, as recourse to another example will have to be made,

Page #163

107
Parikşāmukham
Commentary The existence of smoke in a kitchen is a particular instance of the concomitance of smoke and fire. It cannot establish universal concomitance of smoke and fire. If we doubt the example of the kitchen, another example will have to be cited and even if the latter again be disbelieved, a third illustration will be necessary. So the Udāharaṇa cannot be said to be the cause of the knowledge of universal concomitance. At the utmost it can be said to yield a knowledge of concomitance in a particular instance. The fault of Anavasthā ( no final settlement ) arises when we seek one instance after another to come at the idea of universal concomitance from particular instances.
This aphorism in another language is given in the Pramāņanayatattvālokālankāra III. 364. नापि व्याप्तिस्मरणार्थ तथाविधहेतुप्रयोगादेव तत्स्मृतेः ॥ ४१ ॥
41. Nāpi vyāpti-smaraņārtham tathāvidhahetuprayogādeva tatsmrite”.
41. (This Udāharaṇa ) cannot remind the universal concomitance, because such a reminiscence arises from the use of Hetu of that kind ( which is connected with previously understood knowledge of the connection between smoke and fire ).
Commentary
The knowledge of relationship between Sādhya and Sādhana (e. g. fire and smoke) must exist before there can be any Anumāna. Udāharaņa gives an example of this relationship or Vyāpti ( universal concomitance ) and only tends to establish the validity of Vyāpti. It cannot be said to be of any real help in reminding us about the universal concomitance. This Vyāpti is reminded by the Hetu "where there is smoke, there is fire” and not by the Udāharaṇa viz. "As in the kitchen”. Only a thing which had been : 1. "Farera afaste and a El Franta sulatetnat faufacat सत्यां तदन्तरापेक्षायामनवस्थितेनिवारः समवतारः।"

Page #164

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
experienced before, can be remembered. So universal concomitance can be reminded only by the Hetu and not by hundreds of examples'. This is also mentioned in Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankara III. 372.
108
तत्परमभिधीयमानं साध्यधर्मिणि साध्यसाधने सन्देहयति ॥४२॥ sadhyadharmiņi sadhya
42. Tatparamabhidhiyamānam
sadhane sandehayati.
42. This (Udaharaṇa) only raises a doubt in establishing Sadhya (e. g. fire) in the Dharmi (e. g. mountain) containing Sadhya (e. g. fire).
Commentary
Udaharaṇa is not the cause of universal concomitance. On the contrary, it raises a doubt whether fire is really in the mountain or not for we are given an illustration where fire may exist without the mountain which we see. It is after we remember the universal concomitance through Hetu that we come to the conclusion that the mountain is full of fire. Udaharana therefore is not an essential part of inference.
कुतोऽन्यथोपनयनिगमने ॥४३॥
43. Kutohnyathopanaya-nigamane.
43. Otherwise, why should there be Upanaya and Nigamana?
Commentary
We have already mentioned the five parts of the inference as accepted in the Nyaya philosophy of Gautama. The fourth and the fifth parts are Upanaya and Nigamana, viz. So is this hill full of smoke' (Upanaya) and 'Therefore this hill is full of
1. “ गृहीतसम्बन्धस्य हेतुप्रदर्शनेनैव व्याप्तिसिद्धिरगृहीतसम्बन्धस्य दृष्टान्तशतेनापि न तत्स्मरणमनुभूतविषयत्वात् स्मरणस्येति भावः । " Prameyaratnamālā. 2. “ नाप्यविनाभावस्मृतये प्रतिपन्नप्रतिबन्धस्य व्युत्पन्नमतेः पक्षहेतु- प्रदर्शनेनैव तत्प्रसिद्धेः ।"

Page #165

Parikşāmukham
109 fire' ( Nigamana). Māņikyanandi urges that acceptance of these two presupposes some doubt about the existence of fire in the mountain owing to the use of the Udāharaṇa. Otherwise, what is the use of having these two parts Upanaya and Nigamana ?
The modern syllogism of European philosophy following the same of Aristotle is of three propositions.
1. All things which are full of smoke are full of fire, 2. This mountain is full of smoke, 3. Therefore this mountain is full of fire.
It will be seen that in the first proposition, Vyāpti or universal concomitance is laid down. In the second proposition the Hetu is mentioned and in the third the Pratijñā is given. The Upanaya, Nigamana ann Dristānta are not accepted in modern syllogism. Really speaking, the Upanaya and Nigamana ( which will be defined in Aphorisms 50 and 51 which follow) are merely repetitions of what is stated in the Pratijñā and Hetu. So these are not necessary parts of Anumāna. This is laid down in the next aphorism. न च ते तदंगे। साध्यधर्मिणि हेतुसाध्ययोर्वचनादेवासंशयाद् ॥४४॥
44. Na cha te tadange. Sādhyadharmiņi hetu-sādhyayorvachanādevāsaņśayāt.
44. These ( Upanaya and Nigamana ) are not parts of that ( Anumāna ) because by mentioning the Sādhya and the Hetu in the Dharmi containing the Sādhya, no doubt exists.
Commentary When we mention the Hetu ( the middle term e. g. smoke ) and the Sadhya ( the major term e. g. fire) in the Dharmi (e. g. mountain ) which contains the Sādhya (e. g. fire ), we have no kind of doubt in the knowledge of the Sādhya (e. g. fire ) or in other words the existence of the Hetu ( smoke ) and Sadhya (fire) is ascertained by their mention without there being any kind of doubt. So it is redundant to repeat them again in the form

Page #166

110
The Sacred Books of the Jainas of Upanaya and Nigamana. So these two parts should not be considered as necessary limbs of Upamāna.
"There is no power of Upanaya and Nigamana to produce a knowledge in the mind of others as this knowledge arises from the use of the Pakşa and the Hetu." Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra. III. 40.
समर्थनं वा वरं हेतुरूपमनुमानावयवो वाऽस्तु
FTET Agritona 11 86 11 45. Samarthanam vā varam heturūpamanumānāvayavo vāhstu sādhye tadupayogāt.
45. (The establishment e. g. fire ) is got from the support of the limb of Anumāna named Hetu (e. g. smoke ) as this ( Hetu e. g. smoke ) is connected with the Sādhya ( e. g. fire ).
Commentary The purport of this aphorism is that there is no necessity of the parts of Anumāna, Dșiştānta, Upanaya and Nigamana because the Sādhya ( e. g. fire ) is established by Hetu (e. g. smoke ). As we have knowledge of the Sādhya without the help of Dșistānta, Upanaya and Nigamana these cannot be said to be essential parts of Anumāna.
When faults of Hetu are dispelled and it is supported, it is said to have samarthana. If you say that that which is not supported can never be a Hetu, and so after mentioning Driştānta etc. a support should be given to the same, we reply that it is the very Hetu which is a part of Anumāna which establishes the Sādhya and it is not at all necessary to give any other support by mentioning Udāharaṇa etc. first.
1. "किं चाभिधायापि दृष्टान्तादिकं समर्थनमवश्यं वक्तव्यम् , असमर्थितस्य अहेतुत्वात् , इति ; तदेव वरं हेतुरूपम् अनुमानावयवो वाऽस्तु साध्यसिद्धौ तस्यैवोपयोJagieron 1" Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #167

Parikşāmukham
111
Pramānanayatattvālokālankāra mentions the same in another language":
वालव्युत्पत्त्यर्थं तत्त्रयोपगमे शास्त्र एवासौ
न वादे, अनुपयोगात् ॥ ४६ ॥ 46. Būlavyutpattyartham tattrayopagame śāstra evāsau na vāde, anupayogāt.
46. These ( Dựistānta ) etc. may be for understanding of those who have little knowledge and for this purpose may be discussed only in the Sāstra, but these are quite unfit to be used in logical discussions.
Commentary When we try to teach others who have no full knowledge of inference, we may use Dșiştānta etc. and for this purpose in works on logic, we may treat this subject. Such words may be of use to students. But in logical discussions between trained men, these are useless.
“The statement of Pakşa..and Hetu are alone needed in an inference at the instance of another. It is obvious that the true basis of Anumāna is always the force of Vyāpti (logical connection), so that the moment this relationship is asserted by mentioning the Sādhana, smoke and the like, mind is immediately led to that which is inseparably connected therewith, and discovers the Sādhya... Upanaya and Nigamana besides serving no useful purpose, are also objectionable as pure repetition of what is already stated in the Pratijñā and Hetu ; and Udāharaṇa would reduce logic to a child's play. For while it may be necessary to cite an actual instance of Vyāpti ( logical connection ) in a Vitarāgakathā (lecture to a pupil) to enable little children to familiarize themselves with the basis of inference it is bad rhetoric to do so in the course of a .. 1. "F aha ai qrafagacitATEAT agrator Elfaigualisfa agiwara," Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaňkāra III. 41.

Page #168

112
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Vijigisukathā ( logical discussion ) with a clever and presumably learned opponent. And after all Udāharaṇa only tends to establish the validity of Vyāpti and may be useful in showing the necessary relationship between the Sadhana and its Sādhya ; it is of no real help in Anumāna which presupposes the knowledge of this relationship.
The modern syllogism of three steps, or propositions, as they are called, is also open to objection for similar reasons. It is the culmination of a highly elaborate system of ratiocination, it is true, but it is no less true that the system of which it is the outcome is not a natural but a highly artificial one. The practical value of modern logic, as a science, is to be judged from the fact that its inferential processes, though suitable to a certain extent, for the purposes of the school room, are never actually resorted to by men ---not even by lawyers, philosophers and logicians—in their daily life, nor can they be carried out without first bending the current of thought from its natural channel, and forcing it into the artificial and rigid frame-work of an Aristotelian syllogism.
The syllogism that answers the practical requirements of life and is natural to rational mind, then, consists of two and only two steps-Pratijñā and Hetu'.”
दृष्टान्तो वेधा, अन्वयव्यतिरेकभेदात् ॥४७॥ 47. Dristānto dvedhā anvayavyatirekabhedāt.
47. The Driştānta is of two kinds, being with Anvaya and Vyatireka.
Commentary
It has been mentioned that Driştānta, Upanaya and Nigamana are not parts of Anumāna. But in the previous aphorism it was stated that these may be discussed in the Šāstras
1. The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain Pp. 42, 43, Foot note,

Page #169

Parikṣāmukham
113
for teaching students. So in this and the next two aphorisms the two kinds of Driṣṭanta, and in aphorisms 50 and 51 Upanaya and Nigamana are explained.
Anezzená Aneri za uggûð eìszaggcETA: || 86 ||
48. Sadhyavyāptam sadhanam yatra pradarśyate sohnvayadriṣṭāntaḥ.
साध्याभावे साधनाभावो यत्र कथ्यते स व्यतिरेकदृष्टान्तः ॥ ४९ ॥
49. Sadhyābhāve sādhanābhāvo yatra kathyate sa vyatirekadriṣṭāntaḥ.
49. Where the Sadhana is shown as always concomitant with Sadhya, that is ( an example) of Anvaya Driṣṭānta.
50. Where the absence of Sadhana is mentioned through the absence of Sadhya, that is (an example) of Vyatireka Driṣṭanta.
Commentary
The Driṣṭanta or illustration which states a connection between the Sadhya (fire) and Sadhana (smoke) affirmatively e. g. 'where there is smoke, there is fire as in a kitchen' is Anvaya Driṣṭanta. The Driṣṭanta which mentions the same connection negatively e. g. 'where there is no smoke, there is no fire as in a lake' is Vyatireka Driṣṭānta.
This is propounded in another language in the Nyāyāvatāra as follows:
"Where the inseparable connection of the major term (Sadhya) and the middle term (Sadhana or Hetu) is shown by homogeneousness (Sadharmya) the example is called a homogeneous one, on account of the connection (between those terms) being recollected.
The heterogeneous example is that which shows that the absence of the major term ( Sadhya) is followed by the absence of the middle term." Verses 18 and 191.
1. “ साध्यसाधनयोर्व्याप्तिर्यत्र निश्चीयतेतराम् । साधम्र्येण स दृष्टान्तः सम्बन्धस्मरणान्मतः ॥ P-15

Page #170

114
The Sacred Books of the Jainas Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūşaņa has commented on the above thus :
“An example ( Driştānta ) is a familiar case, which re-assures the inseparable connection ( Vyāpti ) between the major term ( Sādhya ) and the middle term (Hetu ). It is of two kinds : 1. homogeneous (Sādharmya) and 2. heterogeneous (Vaidharmya). The homogeneous example is that which re-assures the connection ( Vyāpti ) by homogeneousness ( Sādharmya ) thus :
1. This hill is full of fire ( major term ); 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.
The heterogeneous example re-assures the connection (Vyāpti) by contrariety, that is, by showing that absence of the major term ( Sādhya ) 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 )"."
In Pramänanayatattvālokālankāra (III. 43-46 ) we find : "Illustration ( Driştānta ) consists of knowledge of obstruction. It is of two kinds being connected with homogeneousness or heterogeneousness. Homogeneous example is that where the existence of the quality of the Sādhya is invariably revealed with the existence of the quality of Sādhana. Heterogeneous example is that where the invariable absence of Sādhana is shown on account of the absence of the Sādhya?"
साध्ये निवर्तमाने तु साधनस्याप्यसंभवः ।
ख्याप्यते यत्र दृष्टान्ते वैधयेणेति स स्मृतः ॥" 1. Nyāyāvatāra by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa p. 17. 2. "fadenfaat TETE Eglra: 1
स द्वेधा साधय॑तो वैधयंतश्च । यत्र साधनधर्मसत्तायामवश्यं साध्यधर्मसत्ता प्रकाश्यते स साधर्म्यदृष्टान्तः । यत्र तु साध्याभावे साधनस्यावश्यमभावः प्रदर्श्यते स वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तः ।"

Page #171

Parikṣāmukham
The Naiyayikas following Gautama also mention "Udaharaṇa is illustration following a mention of universal concomitance, e. g. whatever is full of smoke is full of fire as a kitchen. This is Sadharmya Udaharaṇa. Whatever is not full of fire is not full of smoke as a lake. This is an example of Vaidharmya Udāharaṇa1."
हेतोरुपसंहार उपनयः ॥ ५० ॥
50. Hetorupasamhāra upanayaḥ.
50. Upanaya is the application (asserting the existence) of the Hetu (in the Dharmi after a knowledge of concomitance).
Commentary
Upanaya is the description of the undoubted existence of the Hetu (e. g. smoke) in the Paksa (e. g. mountain) in concomitance2.
We have already mentioned the five parts of Anumana as adopted by Gautama viz. Pratijñā, Hetu, Udaharaṇa, Upanaya and Nigamana. Upanaya or application is used after Dristanta e. g. "So is this hill full of smoke."
115
afaşıung_fangaq || G2 ||||
51. Pratijñāyāstu nigamanam.
51. Nigamana is the (conclusion) of the Pratijñā.

1. “ व्याप्तिपूर्वकदृष्टान्तवचनमुदाहरणम् । यथा यो यो धूमवान सावसावग्निमान् यथा महानसः । इति साधम्र्योदाहरणम् । यो योऽग्निमान्न भवति स स धूमवान्न भवति यथा महाहृदः । इति वैधम्र्योदाहरणम् ।" Nyaya-dipika. Prakaśa III. 2. " हेतोः साध्यधर्मिणि उपसंहरणमुपनयः ।”
3. " प्रतिज्ञाहेतूदाहरणोपनयनिगमनान्यवयवाः ।”
Pramāṇa-naya-tattvālokālaṁkāra, III. 47.
Nyayasutra of Gautama.

Page #172

116
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Commentary Pratijñā is the proposition to be proved. In other words the statement of the Pakşa is the Pratijña", e. g. this hill ( minor term ) is full of fire ( the major term ). This proposition is the Pratijñā.
After setting out the Pratijñā, we mention the Hetu, Udāharaṇa and Upanaya. Last of all we come to the conclusion as already set forth in the Pratijñā. This conclusion is the fifth part of Anumāna and is called Nigamana.
It may be urged that as according to the Jain logicians Udāharaṇa, Upanaya and Nigamana are not accepted as parts of inference, why have these been described in this work ? In answer to this, it may be said that we have already mentioned that in works on Logic, these may be described for teaching students. According to the different manners of exposition, the parts of Anumāna in Vitarāgakathā ( lecture to pupils ) may be two (Pratijñā and Hetu), three (Pratijñā, Hetu and Udāharaṇa ), four (Pratijñā, Hetu, Udāharaṇa and Upanaya ) or five ( Pratijñā, Hetu, Udāharaṇa, Upanaya and Nigamana )? This use of different parts depends upon the suitability of persons to whom the subject is explained”.
TGEHTAT ETT 1198 11 52. Tadanumānam dvedhā.
1. Epeakerzen gafirhan1"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra, III. 48. 2. “वीतरागकथायां तु प्रतिपाद्याशयानुरोधेन प्रतिज्ञाहेतू द्वाववयवौ, प्रतिज्ञाहेतूदाहरणानि त्रयः, प्रतिज्ञाहेतूदाहरणोपनयाश्चत्वारः, प्रतिज्ञाहेतूदाहरणोपनयfamaaifa ar jafà paraitrei pentru fiecareti" Nyāya-dipikā. Prakāśa III. 3. geticafenet a afangulattaa: 1"
Kumaranandi Bhattāraka, quoted in Nyāya-dipikā.

Page #173

Parikşāmukham
117 Faire-profãęta 11 93 11 53. Svārtha-parārthabhedāt.
FruiETIETH 1198 11 54. Svārthamuktalakṣaṇam.
परार्थ तु तदर्थपरामर्शिवचनाजातम् ॥५५॥ 55. Parārtham tu tadarthaparāmarsivachanājjātam. 52. This Anumāna is of two kinds : 53. Svārtha and Parārtha. 54. Svārtha ( Anumāna) has already been defined.
55. Parārtha ( Anumāna ) arises from words touching that (Svārthānumāna )*.
Commentary
· Anumāna is of two kinds, Svārthānumāna and Parārthānumāna. The former variety has been defined in aphorism 14 of the third samuddeśa of this work viz. “the knowledge of Sādhya ( the major term e. g. fire) from Sādhana or Hetu (the middle term e. g. smoke ) is Anumāna." Parārthānumāna arises through words of another.
"Inference is of two kinds : 1. Svārthānumāna, inference for one's own self, and 2. Parārthānumāna, inference for the sake of others. The first kind is the inference drawn in one's own mind after having made repeated observations. Suppose that 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 after
* "तद्विधा स्वार्थ परार्थ च।" "स्वार्थ स्वनिश्चितसाध्याविनाभावैकलक्षणात् ATTATA ATANIAH, II" "sted TheTEAIH9ast: 9721"
Pramāņamimāṁsā, 1. 2. 8, 1, 2, 9, and II, 1, 1,

Page #174

118
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
wards 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 inseparable connection between fire and smoke, and concludes in his mind that the hill has fire in it, as it has smoke on it. This is an inference for one's own self.”
Parārthānumāna has thus been defined in Nyāyāvatāra :
“A statement expressive of the reason (i. e. mark or the middle term, called Hetu ) which is inseparably connected with that which is to be proved ( i. e. the major term, called Sādhya ) having been composed of the minor term ( called Paksa, signifying a side or place ) etc., is called an inference for the sake of others (Parārthānumāna )."
This is amplified by Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūşaņa as follows:
"In an 'inference for the sake of others' the minor term ( pakşa ) etc. must be explicity set forth. The major term or ‘proven' ( Sadhya ) is that which is to be proved. The middle term or reason (hetu, linga or sādhana ) is that which cannot exist except in connection with the major term or 'proven' ( sādhya or lingi ). The minor term or abode ( Pakşa ) is that with which the reason or middle term ( hetu ) is connected, and whose connection with the major term ( Sādhya ) is to be proved. In a proposition the subject is the minor term ( pakşa ) and the predicate the major term (sādhya ). The following is an inference for the sake of others :
1. This hill ( minor term ) is full of fire ( major term ) - Proposition ( pratijñā ),
2. Because it is full of smoke ( middle term ),
1. Nyāyāvatāra by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa, p. 9. 2. "Enfaatjat ataiat za afaqat! परार्थमनुमानं तत् पक्षादिवचनात्मकम् ॥"
Nyāyāvatāra. verse 10.

Page #175

Pariksāmukham
119
3. Whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, just as the kitchen ( example, driştānta ),
4. So is this hill full of smoke( application, upanaya ),
5. Therefore, this hill is full of fire ( conclusion, nigamana )'."
The example given above consists of five parts as acknowledged in the Nyāya philosophy of Gautama. But Jain logicians accept only two parts. So according to them “Parārthānumāna means the knowledge of Sādhya from its Sādhana arising in the mind in consequence of the speech of another. It consists of two parts, Pratijñā and Hetu. Pratijñā means the proposition to be proved and Hetu is the statement of the logical connection called Vyāpti advanced in proof thereof. Illustration : There is fire in this hill ( Pratijñā), because there is smoke on it ( Hetu )”2.
तद्वचनमपि तद्धेतुत्वात् ॥५६॥ :56. Tadvachanamapi taddhetutvāt.
56. The words expressing this ( Parārthānumāna ) is also Parārthānumāna as these ( words ) are the cause of that ( knowledge arising in Parārthānumāna ).
Commentary Anantavirya says that though really the knowledge is Parārthānumāna, the words in a secondary sense are also called so. In such cases the cause is taken as the effect or the effect is taken as the cause.
1. Nyāyāvatāra by Dr. S. C. Vidhyābhūşaņa, pp. 13-14. 2. The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain pp. 41-43. 3. W ayqantai" Pramāņa-mimāmsā. II. 1. 2.
4. "orefahtaafaqg4q7hfa qafqa1a4 ... 1 1 कार्यस्योपचारात् । अथवा तत्प्रतिपादकानुमानं हेतुर्यस्य तत्-तदूधेतुस्तस्य भावस्तत्त्वं ततस्तद्वचनमपि तथा....अस्मिन् पक्षे कार्ये कारणस्योपचारः।"
Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #176

120
CHART III. CHAPTER III.
HETU (Aphorism 57 )
Anvaya or Upalabdhi
(Aphorism 58 )
Vyatireka or Anupalabdhi
( Aphorism 58 )
Vidhi
Pratişedha
Pratisedha
Vidhi Aviruddha Anupalabdhi
(Aphorism 78 )
(Aviruddha Upalabdhi )
(Aphorism 59 )
Viruddha Anupalabdhi
(Aphorism 86 )
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Vyāpya Karya Kāraṇa Pūrva- Uttara. Saha
chara chara chara (Aphor- (Aphor. (Aphor- (Aphor- (Aphor- (Aphorism 65 ) ism 66) ism 67) ism 68) ism 69) ism 70)
Svabhāva Vyapaka Karya Kārana Pūrva- Uttara- Saha
chara chara chara (Aphorism (Aphorism (Aphor- (Aphor- (Aphor- (Aphor- (Aphor
79) *80) ism 81) ism 82) ism 83) ism 84) ism 85)
Viruddha upalabdhi
(Aphorism 71)
Vyāpya Karya Kāraņa (Aphorism (Aphorism (Aphorism
72 ) 73 ) 74 )
Pūrvachara Uttarachara Sahachara (Aphorism (Aphorism (Aphorism 75 ) 76 )
77 )
Kārya (Aphorism
Kāraņa (Aphorism
Svabhava (Aphorism
89 )
87 )
88 )

Page #177

Parikṣāmukham
स हेतुधोपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धिभेदात् ॥ ५७ ॥
57. Sa heturdvedhopalabdhyanupalabdhibhedāt.
57. That Hetu is of two kinds Upalabdhi and Anupalabdhi.
Commentary
We have already mentioned that universal concomitance can be expressed in two ways viz. affirmatively called Anvaya e. g. 'wherever there is smoke there is fire' or negatively called Vyatireka e. g. 'where there is no fire there is no smoke.' The first kind of Hetu is known as Upalabdhi and the second Anupalabdhi1.
5qqfafafafaquatcgqoqfam || 62 ||
58. Upalabdhirbidhipratiṣedhayoranupalabdhiścha.
58. Upalabdhi,is subdivided into Vidhi and Pratiṣedha. Anupalabdhi also (is subdivided into the same two kinds ).
Commentary
In Upalabdhi Hetu, the Sadhya may be of two kinds, Vidhi and Pratiṣedha. These two kinds of Sadhya also can exist in Anupalabdhi Hetu. It should not be said that in Upalabdhi the Sadhya is only in the form of Vidhi and in Anupalabdhi, it is in the form of Pratiṣedha.
121
The Upalabdhi and Anupalabdhi Hetus are subdivided into two kinds each those which prove the existence of a fact (Vidhi) and those that prove the non-existence of a fact (Nişedha).
A Hetu may also be of Viruddha (contradictory) nature implying existence of a fact which is incompatible with the Sadhya e. g. there is no fire in this pitcher, because it is full of water; or it may be of Aviruddha (non-contradictory) nature such as in an argument which is not based on any fact incompatible with the
1. “ तद् द्वेधा ।” “तथोपपत्त्यन्यथानुपपत्तिभेदात् । "

P-16
Pramāṇa-mimāmsā II. 1. 3 and II. I. 4.

Page #178

122
The Sacred Books of the Jainas existence of Sādhya e. g. there is fire in this hill, because there is smoke on it. ( Vide The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain, p. 44). अविरुद्धोपलब्धिर्विधौ षोढा व्याप्यकार्यकारणपूर्वोत्तर
HETHETO 1199 11 59. Aviruddhopalabdhirvidhau şodhā vyāpya-kārya-kāraṇapūrvo-ttara-sahachara-bhedāt.
59. Aviruddha Upalabdhi is of six kinds in Vidhi viz. Vyāpya, Kārya, Kāraņa, Pūrvachara, Uttarachara and Sahachara.
Commentary : Upalabdhi in Vidhi will be explained in Aphorisms 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 respectively.
In Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra III. 6. 4. it is mentioned that the Aviruddhopalabdhi in establishing a Vidhi is of six kinds".
In the Buddhist philosophy it is held that the inference proving the existence of a fact ( Vidhi ) is only of two kinds Svabhāva ( own nature ) and Kārya (effect ). But in this aphorism, six varieties of Aviruddha Upalabdhi establishing Vidhi have been mentioned. So in the following five aphorisms the view of the Buddhist logicians is refuted and that of the Jain logicians established.
The next aphorism lays down why Kāraṇa should be accepted as a Hetu. रसादेकसामग्रथनुमानेन रूपानुमानमिच्छद्भिरिष्टमेव किश्चित् कारणं हेतुर्यत्र सामर्थ्याप्रतिबन्धकारणान्तरावैकल्ये ॥६० ॥
60. Rasādekasāmagryanumānena rūpānumānamichchhadbhiriștameva kinchit kāraṇam heturyatra sāmarthyāprativandhakāraṇāntarā-vaikalye.
1. "aalaagtocarafag: Free DTET” 2. E eura:, fafurarri flauta, Fahramreiågrai"
Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #179

Parikşāmukham
123 60. From Rasa (juice ), one thing is inferred and from that, Rūpa ( form ) is inferred. Those who accept this, accept also some Kāraṇa as Hetu where there is no other Kāraņa to obstruct the potency of the Kāraṇa ( or cause).
Commentary
Kāraņa ( cause ) is not accepted by all logicians as a true Hetu because according to their view, a Kāraṇa ( cause ) is not always followed by its appropriate Kārya ( effect ). Dharmabhūşaņa says, “An effect may preclude a cause for without a cause no effect can take place. But a cause can exist without any effect 1 e. g. we see fire though there is no smoke. So a fire cannot be said to indicate smoke. To this argument, the following is the reply. Whenever there is a cause having potency, we invariably find its effect”2 There may be cases in which a cause is opposed by some other cause by which the potency of the first cause is lost. In such cases the first cause may not cause any effect but where this potency is not obstructed, we are certain to find a result. By accepting Kāraña as a Hetu, we mean a Kāraṇa having potency. "The true Kāraņa always implies an active, potent ( having Samarthya ) cause which nothing can prevent from producing its effect. In the instance of rain-clouds, the absence of all those causes which prevent tủem from giving rain is presumed and implied.”3
In this aphorism an illustration is given. There is juice in some fruit. Suppose a man in the dark tastes juice of a mango. He
1. “कारणस्य तु कार्याविनाभावाभावादलिंगत्वम् । नावश्यं कारणानि prefafa Haraft for a watai" Prameyaratnamālā.
... 2. "ननु कार्य कारणानुमापकमस्तु कारणाभावे कार्यस्यानुपपत्तेः। कारणं तु कार्याभावेऽपि संभवति। यथा धूमाभावेऽपि संभवन् वह्निः सुप्रतीतः। अतएव न वहिधूमं गमयति इति चेत्, तन्न । उन्मीलितशक्तिकस्य कारणस्य कार्याव्यभिचारित्वेन poral afar grallattarai" Nyāyadipikā.
3. The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain, P. 47.

Page #180

124
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
infers its form from the juice arising from previous experience that such a juice is connected with such a fruit. In this case as there is no obstruction to the inference and existence of another cause one must accept the Kāraņa ( cause )'. So the view of the Buddhists that there are only Syabhāva-Hetu and Kārya-Hetu is not correct.
न च पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोस्तादात्म्यं तदुत्पत्ति
1996479TÀ AGT49 : 11 88 11 61. Na cha pūrvottarachāriņostādātmyam tadutpattirvā kālavyavadhāne tadanupalabdheḥ.
61. In the case of antecedence and consequence, there is no identity or its appearance, for there is no knowledge of these after an interval of time.
Commentary
In this aphorism, it is asserted that the Pūrvachara and Uttarachara Hetus (i. e. Hetus concerned with antecedence and consequence ) cannot be said to be included within the SvabhāvaHetu or Kāraya-Hetu as accepted by the Buddhists. SvabhāvaHetu is concerned with identity and in Kārya-Hetu, one thing arises from another. So in both these cases the two things exist at the same time. But in antecedence and consequence, the two things do not exist together. The example of identity is as follows :—There is no jar in this room, because its Syabhāva ( identity ) is not to be found ( that is, nothing resembling its identity is present in it). The example of Kārya is : There is fire
1. "तमस्विन्यामास्वाद्यमानादाम्रादिफलरसादेकसामप्रथानुमित्या रूपाद्यनुमितिमभिमन्यमानैरभिमतमेव किमपि कारणं हेतुतया यत्र शक्तरप्रतिस्खलनमपरकारणAlbinei a " Pramāṇanayatattvālokālankāra III. 66. ___ 2. “पूर्वोत्तरचरयोर्न स्वभावकार्यकारणभावौ तयोः कालव्यवहितावनुपEHTOI" Ibid, III. 67.

Page #181

Parikṣāmukham
in this hill, because there is smoke on it. Now these illustrations will show that Svabhāva or Kārya Hetu cannot include Pūrvachara ( antecedent) or Uttarachara (consequent) Hetus in which cases there is an interval between two things e. g. It will be Sunday tomorrow because it is Saturday to-day (antecedence), or yesterday was a Sunday, because it is Monday to-day (consequence). भाव्यतीतयोर्मरणजाग्र होधयोरपि नारिष्टोद्बोधौ प्रति हेतुत्वम् ॥ ६२ ॥
62. Bhabyatitayormaraṇajāgradbodhayorapi nariṣṭodbodhau prati hetutvam.
62. The future and the past, death and the knowledge of waking are not the causes of Aristas (omens of death) or of rising (in the morning ).
125
Commentary
The Buddhist logicians hold that a relationship of cause and effect can exist though there be an interval of time, as the death which will occur in the future is the cause of the Aristas (signs preceding and foretelling death) or the past knowledge of waking is the cause of rising in the morning after sleep. Jain logicians say that death which will occur in future is not the cause of omens of death and the past knowledge of waking is not the cause of our rising in the morning for the existence of an effect when there is a cause depends on the cause. In the aforesaid examples, causes do not exist up to the happening of the effect. So there cannot be any Kāraṇa Hetu in these instances. This has been propounded in another language in Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra III. 681.
तदूव्यापाराश्रितं हि तद्भावभावित्वम् ॥ ६३ ॥
63. Tadvyāpārāśritam hi tadbhāvabhāvitvam.
63. Because that (Karya) happens with the existence of that (Karana) as that is connected with this.
1. ' न चातिक्रान्तानागतयोर्जाप्रदूदशासंवेदनमरणयोः प्रबोधोत्पत्तौ प्रति कारणत्वं व्यवहितत्वेन निर्व्यापारत्वात् ।”

Page #182

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Commentary
As a potter is the cause of a pot having connection with the latter, so the causality of a thing depends on its connection with the thing. So where there is no such connection, it is not proper to infer the relation of cause and effect1.
126
सहचारिणोरपि परस्परपरिहारेणावस्थानात् सहोत्पादाच्च ॥ ६४ ॥
64. Sahacharinorapi parasparaparihārenābasthānāt sahotpādāchcha.
64. Co-existence ( is also a separate Hetu) because the things exist independently of each other and arise together.
Commentary
The Sahachari ( co-existent) Hetu is also not included within Kārya Hetu, Kāraṇa Hetu or Svabhāva Hetu. As the things have separate and independent existence, this Sahachari Hetu cannot be said as the same as Svabhava Hetu which signifies identity. Also, as these arise simultaneously, it cannot be said to be Karya Hetu or Kārana Hetu‡.
I. "स्वव्यापारापेक्षिणी हि कार्यं प्रति पदार्थस्य कारणत्वव्यवस्था कुलालस्येव कलसं प्रति ।"
" न च व्यवहितयोस्तयोर्व्यापार परिकल्पनं न्याय्यमतिप्रसक्तेः ।” “परंपराव्यवहितानां परेषामपि तत्कल्पनस्य निवारयितुमशक्यत्वात् ॥”
Pramānanayatattvālokālañkāra III. 69, 70, 71.
2. “परस्परपरिहारेणोपालंभात् तादात्म्यासंभवात् स्वभावहेतावनन्तर्भावः । सहोत्पादाच्च न कार्ये कारणे वा इति । न च समानसमयवर्त्तिनोः कार्यकारणभावः सव्येतरगोविषाणवत् । कार्यकारणयोः प्रतिनियमाभावप्रसंगाच्च ।”
Prameyaratnamālā “सहचारिणोः परस्परस्वरूपपरित्यागेन तादात्म्यानुपपत्तेः सहोत्पादेन तदुत्पत्तिविपत्तेश्च सहचरहेतोरपि प्रोक्तेषु नानुप्रवेशः ।"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra III. 72

Page #183

Parikşāmukham
127 Example of Vyāpya Hetu :
परिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वात् । य एवं स एवं दृष्टो, यथा घटः ।
कृतकश्चायं तस्मात् परिणामीति । यस्तु न परिणामी स न कृतको दृष्टो, यथा बन्ध्यास्तनंधयः । कृतकश्चायं तस्मात् परिणामीति ॥ ६५ ॥ 65. Pariņāmi śabdaḥ kritakatvāt. Ya evaņ sa evam drişto yathā ghataḥ. Kritakaśchāyam tasmāt pariņāmiti.
Yastu na pariņāmi sa na kritako drişto, yathā vandhyāstanandhayah.
Kritakaśchāyam tasmāt pariņāmiti.
65. Sound is subject to modification, because it is a product.
All products are seen as liable to modifications e. g. a pitcher. This is a product, so this is subject to modification.
That which is not a product is not seen as liable to modifications as the son of a barren woman.
This is a product, so this is subject to modification".
Commentary
In Aphorism 59, it has been mentioned that there are six kinds of Aviruddha Upalabdhi in Vidhi. In the present aphorism an example of the first variety viz., Aviruddha Vyāpyopalabdhi is given.
1. "Here sound falls in the larger category of products which is characterised by the quality of being subject to modification. Therefore being Vyāpya (included ) in the larger class Vyāpaka it is liable to have the whole class predicated of itself.”'
The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain, P. 47, footnote,

Page #184

128
The Sacred Books of the Jainas In this aphorism all the parts of the inference are given in detail showing Sādharmya and Vaidharmya. In subsequent aphorisms only the example in short will be given. It may be expanded like the present aphorism in all its parts.
Example of Kārya Hetu ( effect ):
___ अस्त्यत्र देहिनि बुद्धिाहारादेः ॥ ६६ ॥ 66. Astyatra dehini buddhirbyāhārādeḥ.
66. There is intelligence in this animal as it shows activities like speech etc.
Commentary The familiar example 'There is fire in this bill, because there is smoke on it is also an illustration of Kārya Hetu. Example of Kāraṇa Hetu ( cause ) :
37F79TT OTOT JATT II e II 67. Astyatra chhāyā chhatrāt. 67. There is shade here, as there is an umbrella.
Commentary Another example is this : “There will be rain, as potent rain-clouds are seen.”
Example of Puryachara ( antecedent ) Hetu :
___ उदेष्यति शकटं कृत्तिकोदयात् ॥ ६८ ॥ 68. Udesyati Sakatam krittikodayāt.
68. The Rohiņi ( constellation ) will appear ( after a muhūrta ) as the Krittikā ( constellation') has arisen.
Commentary There are twenty seven Nakşatras which rise one after the other. The first four are the Aśvini, the Bharaņi, the Krittikā and the Rohiņi. Now as the time of the Krittikā is going to pass, we infer that the Rohiņi will now arise. Similarly, we infer from the existence of the Krittikā, that the Bharaṇi had arisen before. This is an example of consequence which is mentioned in the next aphorism.

Page #185

Parikşāmukham
129 Example of Uttarachara ( consequence ) Hetu :
उदगाद् भरणिः प्राक्तत एवः॥ ६९॥ 69. Udagād bharaṇiḥ prāktata eva. 69. The Bharaṇi had already risen before this. Example of Sahachara Hetu ( co-existence ) :
अस्त्यत्त्र मातुलिंगे रूपं रसात् ॥ ७० ॥ 70. Astyatra mātulinge rūpam rasāt.
70. There is colour in this Mātulinga (fruit) as there is juice (in it)':
We have finished the description of the six varieties of Aviruddha Upalabdhi. Now follows the illustrations of six kinds of Viruddha Upalabdhi after its definition.
विरूद्धतदपलब्धिः प्रतिषेधे तथा ॥ ७१॥ 71. Viruddhatadupalabdhiḥ pratiședhe tathā.
71. Viruddha Upalabdhi is also the same (i. e. of six varieties ) implying a Sadhya of a non-existent nature (or which is refuted ).
Example of Viruddha Vyāpya Upalabdhi :.. ATEITT Ítae Et STGUTE 11 92 11 72. Nāstyatra śītasparśa auṣṇyāt. 72. There is no feeling of cold here, as it is hot.
Commentary By refuting ( Pratişedha) the feeling of cold, its antithesis ( Viruddha ) fire and the heat pervading ( vyāpya ) the same is inferred.
1. “This illustration proceeds on the principle of concomitance or co-existence of colour and taste, so that the presence of the one is an index to the existence of the other.” The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain, P. 48, footnote.
P-17

Page #186

130
The Sacred Books of the Jainas Example of Viruddha Kāryopalabdbi :
नास्त्यत्र शीतस्पर्मो धूमात् ॥ 73. Nāstyatra śítasparso dhūmāt. 73. There is no feeling of cold here, because there is smoke.
Commentary Here cold is the antithesis of heat the Kārya of which is smoke. So this is an example of inference of a Kārya ( effect ) of the antithesis.
Example of Viruddha Kāraṇopalabdhi :नास्मिन् शरीरिणि सुखमस्ति हृदयशल्यात् ॥ ७४ ॥ 74. Nāsmin śarīriņi sukhamasti hridayaśalyāt.
74. There is no happiness in this creature because it has grief ( the antithesis of happiness )
Example of Viruddha Pārvachara Upalabdhi :
नोदेष्यति मुहूर्तान्ते शकट रेवत्युदयात् ॥ ७॥ 75. Nodeșyati muhārtānte sakatam revatyudayāt.
75. The Rohiņi will not rise after the end of a Muhūrta as the Revati has arisen.
Commentary The constellation of the Rohiņi will not appear after a Muhūrta (two ghatikās=48 minutes ) as now the constellation Revati which succeeds the constellation Aśvini ( which as opposed to the Rohiņi ) has arisen.
Another example is this : Tomorrow will not be a Sunday, because it is Friday today.
Example of Viruddha Uttarachara Upalabdhi :
नोदगाद् भरणिमुहूर्तात् पूर्व पुष्योदयात् ॥ ७६ ॥ 70. Nodagād Bharaṇirmultūrttāt pūrvam pușyodayāt.
76. The Bharaņi ( constellation ) did not appear before the Muhūrta because ( now ) the constellation Pusyā has arisen,

Page #187

Parikṣāmukham
Commentary
The constellations up to Pusya according to sequence are these: The Aśvini, the Bharani, the Krittikā, the Rohini, the Mrigasirā, the Ādra, the Punarvasu, and the Pusya. So when there is the Pusya constellation which follows the Punarvasu, it follows that the Bharani did not rise one Muhurta before it as it was Punarvasu which rose in that time.
Another example of this is: "Yesterday was not a Friday, because it is Tuesday to-day".
Example of Viruddha Sahachara upalabdhi :— area funt gengreneisaipendezi atą || 99 ||
131
77. Nastyatra bhittau parabhāgabhāvo'rvagbhagadarśanāt. 77. This wall is not devoid of an outside, because it has an inside [the Sahachara (coexistent) of the outside ].
Six varieties of each of Aviruddha and Viruddha upalabdhi have now been described. Next we proceed to describe the (seven) varieties of Aviruddha Anupalabdhi and (three) varieties of Viruddha Anupalabdhi. अविरुद्धानुपलब्धिः प्रतिषेधे सप्तधा स्वभावव्यापककार्यकारणपूर्वोत्तर सहचरानुपलम्भभेदात् ॥ ७८ ॥
78. Aviruddhanupalabdhiḥ pratiṣedhe saptadha svabhava
vyāpakakaryakāraṇa-pūrvottarasahacharānupalambhabhedāt.
78. When (the Sadhya consists of) Pratiṣedha (nonexistence of some fact ), Aviruddha Anupalabdhi is of seven kinds viz. non-finding of Svabhava, Vyapaka, Kārya, Kāraṇa, Pūrvachara, Uttarachara and Sahachara
Commentary
There are seven kinds of Aviruddha Anupalabdhi which cause knowledge of nonexistence of some fact. Not finding the antithesis consists of Aviruddha Anupalabdhi and when this

Page #188

132
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
establishes non-existence of some fact, we call it Aviruddha Anupalabdhi in Pratiṣedha. This is of seven kinds, examples of which will be given in the following seven aphorisms 79-85*.
Example of Aviruddha Svabhāva Anupalabdhi :
atteua yað aðìsgrad: || 99 ||
79. Nastyatra bhutale ghato'nupalabdheḥ.
79. There is no pitcher in this place because (its Svabhāva or identity) is not to be found (i. e. nothing resembling its identity is present here).
Example of Aviruddha Vyāpaka Anupalabdhi :
aneua friaımı genEVOZÙ: || 20 ||
80. Nastyatra sinśapā vrikṣānupalabdheḥ.
80. There is no Sinśapa (tree) here, because no tree is found here.
:
Example of Aviruddha Kāryanupalabdhi :नास्त्यत्राप्रतिवद्ध सामथ्र्यग्निधूमानुपलब्धेः ॥ ८१ ॥
81. Nastyatrāpratibaddhasāmarthyo'gnirdhūmānupalabdheḥ. 81. There is no fire whose potency (Samarthya) has not been obstructed here, because we do not find smoke.
Example of Aviruddha Kāraṇānupalabdhi :
Atreya qaìsavà: || 63 ||
82. Nastyatra dhūmo'nagneḥ.
82. There is no smoke here because there is no fire.
1. “ तत्राविरुद्धानुपलब्धिः प्रतिषेधावबोधे सप्तप्रकाराः । "
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra, III. 90. “प्रतिषेध्येनाविरुद्धानां स्वभावव्यापककार्यकारणपूर्व चरोत्तरसहचाराणाम
f: "Ibid. III. 91.

Page #189

Parikṣāmukham
133 Example of Aviruddha Pūrvachara Anupalabdhi : न भविष्यति मुहूतीते शकट कृत्तिकोदयानुपलब्धेः ॥ ८३ ॥
83. Na bhavișyati muhūrtānte sakatam krittikodayānupalabdheḥ.
83. There will be no rise of the Rohiņi after a Muhūrta as we have no knowledge of the rise of the Krittikā.
Commentary Another Example is this : It will not be Sunday tomorrow because it is not Saturday to-day. Example of Aviruddha Uttarachara Anupalabdhi :
नोदगाद भरणिर्मुहूर्तात् प्राक्तत एव ॥ ८४ ॥ 84. Nodagād Bharaṇirmuhūrttāt prāktata eya.
84. The Bharaṇi had not risen before a Muhūrta because now the Krittikā is not up.
Example of Ayiruddha Sahachara Anupalabdhi : नास्त्यत्र समतुलायामुन्नामो नामानुपलब्धेः ॥ ८५॥ 85. Nastyatra samatulāyāmunnāmo nāmānupalabdheḥ.
85. One pan of this pair of scales does not touch beam as the other one is on the same level with it.
Now, the varieties of Viruddha Anupalabdhi ( nonfinding of antithesis ) establishing a Sādhya of Vidhi ( existence of a fact) are being described. विरुद्धानुपलब्धिर्विधौ त्रेधा विरुद्ध कार्यकारणस्वभावा
395 foTÄta Il C II 86, Viruddhānupalabdhirvidhau tredhā viruddhakāryakāraṇasyabhāvānupalabdhibhedāt.
86. Viruddha Anupalabdhi in Vidhi is of three kinds :Viruddha Kārya Anupalabdhi, Viruddha Kāraṇa Anupalabdhi and Viruddha Syabhāva Anupalabdhi.

Page #190

134
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Example of Viruddha Karya Anupalabdhi :venskan anforfa barfufaðmisfia निरामयचेष्टानुपलब्धेः ॥ ८७ ॥
87. Yathasmin prāṇini vyadhiviśeşosti niramayacheṣṭānupa
labdheḥ.
87. As for example, some disease exists in this animal, because the actions of a healthy body are not found.
Example of Viruddha Karaṇa Anupalabdhi अस्त्यत्र देहिनि दुःखमिष्टसंयोगाभावात् ॥ ८८ ॥
88. Astyatra dehini duḥkhamistasanyogabhāvāt.
88. There is grief in this creature, because it has no connection with its dear ones.
Example of Viruddha Svabhava Anupalabdhi
अनेकान्तात्मकं वस्त्वेकांतस्वरूपानुपलब्धेः ॥ ८९ ॥
89. Anekantātmakam vastvekāntasvarūpānupalabdheḥ. 89. All things are Anekāntika (posessed of different aspects) because we do not find that these have only one aspect.
Commentary
:
In Pramananayatattvālokālaṁkāra, five varieties1 (instead of three as described in the Parikṣāmukham) of Viruddha Anupalabdhi in Vidhi have been described. The first three are the same as described in aphorisms 87, 88 and 89. The additional ones are Viruddha Vyapaka Anupalabdhi e. g. "There is wind here because there is no heat" and Viruddha Sahachara Anupalabdhi e. g. 'He has false knowledge because we do not find perfect knowledge in him'2.
1. "facqunguwafueg forfunatal deen 1"
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra, III. 99. 2. Maxgqsenqengusqfèrian arcaa sen eitwangueqà: 1” “faequasar quofsurian arcaza frezanci qrangrienguosi: 1”
Ibid III. 104, 105

Page #191

Parikşāmukham परंपरया संभवत् साधनमत्रैवान्तर्भावनीयम् ॥ ९॥
90. Paramparayā sambhavat sādhanamatraivāntarbhāvaniyam.
90. The Hetus which arise one after the other should be included within those ( which have been described ).
Commentary There are cases where a Hetu is not the direct cause of anything but it leads to another and that leads to a third etc. In such cases there is no necessity of accepting these as separate Hetus, but we should include these within the proper Hetus already defined and illustrated. Examples of such Hetus are given in the following aphorism.
___अभूत्र चक्रे शिवकः स्थासात् ॥ ९१ ॥ 91. Abhūdatra chakre sivakaḥ sthāsāt.
कार्यकार्यमविरुद्धकायो पलब्धौ ॥१२॥ 92. Kāryakāryamaviruddhakāryopalabdhau.
91. There was Sivaka (a clod of earth resembling a Sivalinga) on this potter's wheel because we see Sthāsa there.
92. (This Hetu showing ) effect of an effect will be included within Aviruddha Kārya upalabdhi ( as already defined ).
Commentary To manufacture a pitcher, a clod of earth is necessary. This clod: resembling a Sivalinga is placed on the potter's wheel. Chhatraka ( mushroom ) may grow on it and after that. Strāsa ( signs of mushroom ) may be found on the earth. As Sthāsa is now seen, we infer Sivaka though the intervening Hetu Chhatraka is not seen or mentioned. Sthāsa is therefore the effect of Chhatraka which is an effect of Sivaka. This can be included within Ayiruddha Kāryopalabdhi as already defined.
नास्त्यत्र गुहायां मृगक्रीडनं मृगारिसंशब्दनात् । कारणविरुद्धकार्य विरुद्धकायों पलब्धौ यथा ॥९३ ॥ . 93. Nāstyatra guhāyām mrigakridanam mrigārisamśabdanāt.
Kāraṇaviruddhakāryam viruddhakāryopalabdhau yathā.

Page #192

136
The Sacred Books of the Jainas 93. There is no play of deer in this cave because there is a roar of lion. Here there is an effect opposed to a cause. This should be included) within Viruddha Kārya Upalabdhi.
Commentary In the example given, deer (Kāraņa ) are the causes of play (Kārya ). A lion is the antithesis ( Viruddha ) of deer for no deer can play in the presence of a lion. The Kārya of lion is the roaring. So we have Kāraṇa Viruddha Kārya in this place. This should be included within Viruddha Kārya Upalabdhi and not recognized as a separate inference.
व्युतपन्नप्रयोगस्तु तथोपपत्याऽन्यथानुपपत्त्यैव वा ॥ ९४॥ 94. Vyutpannaprayogastu tathopapattyānyathānupapattyaiva
vā.
94. The use by those who are conversant ( with the process of inference :) is from existence or non-existence of that universal concomitance ( between the Sādhya and the Sādhana ).
Commentary It has already been mentioned ( Aphorism 46 ) that though five parts of Anumāna are used for teaching students, really there are only two parts of an inference ( Aphorism 37 ). But those who are conversant with processes of reasoning employ inference through the knowledge of the existence of Sādhya (e. g. fire ) always along with Sādhana (e. g. smoke ) or the nonexistence of Sādhya where Sādhana is absent. This is amplified in the four aphorisms which follow. अग्निमानयं देशस्तथैव धूमवत्त्वोपपत्तेधू मवत्त्वान्यथानुपपत्तेर्वा ॥९॥
हेतुप्रयोगे हि यथा व्याप्तिग्रहणं विधीयते सा च
ATATĒTU Eyqyacaatta 11 Bell 95. Agnimānayam deśastathaiva dhūmavattvopapatterdhūmavattvānyathānupapattervā.
96. Hetuprayoge hi yathā vyāptigrahaņam vidhiyate sū cha tāvanmātreņa vyutpannairayadhāryate.

Page #193

137
Parikşāmukham तावता च साध्यसिद्धिः ॥९७ ॥ 97. Tāvatā cha sādhyasiddhiḥ.
ata 7TFIETSITTELTATTET: II 8611 98. Tena pakşastadādhārasūchanāyoktaḥ.
95. This place is full of fire, for existence of smoke is only possible if there be fire here or ( this place is not full of fire ) as smoke does not exist here.
96. In the employment of Hetu, the use of Vyāpti ( universal concomitance ) is made. That ( Vyāpti ) is understood by the persons conversant ( with the process of inference ) from it ( viz. Hetu ) ( without use of Údāharaṇa etc. ).
97. The Sādhya is established from this ( viz. Heta ) only.
98. So it has been mentioned that it is necessary to mention Pakşa to indicate the Adhāra ( abode ) of Hetu consisting of universal concomitance.
Commentary The subjectmatter of these four aphorisms has already been discussed in connection with the establishment of the principle that Driştānta etc. are not necessary in inference by logicians conversant with the processes of reasoning, though these may be used in lectures to pupils for their better understanding ( vide Aphorisms 37, 43, 44 and 46 ).
आप्तवचनादिनिबंधनमर्थज्ञानमागमः ॥९९॥ 99. Aptavachanādinivandhanamarthajñānamāgamaḥ.
99. Agama is knowledge derived from words etc. of a reliable person.
Commentary The characteristics of Anumāna have been described. Now the same of Agama are mentioned. Knowledge derived from iq.
P-18

Page #194

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
terpretation of signs, symbols, words etc. is called Śruta Jñana. Now the words, signs etc. of a person who has no motive for deceiving or misleading any one, are reliable. Such a person is known as Apta. The knowledge derived from words etc. of an Apta is called Agama.
138
This is the same as Sabda Pramāṇa of Hindu philosophers. Knowledge may be derived from words of living beings or from scriptures. In Nyāyāvatāra, the Sabda Pramāņa with its subdivision scriptural knowledge is thus described :
"Knowledge arising from words, which taken in their proper acceptance express real objects not inconsistent with what are established by perception, is known as Sabda (the verbal testimony).
The scripture (Sastra) 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 from perception, which imparts true instructions and which is profitable to all men and is preventive of the evil path1."
Dr. S. C. Vidyabhuṣana in his notes to these verses has written: "Sabda (the word or verbal testimony) is of two kinds, viz. (1) Laukika (the knowledge derived from a reliable person), and (2) Sastraja (the knowledge derived from scripture ). This definition sets aside the view of those (Mimamsakas) who maintain that the scripture (such as the Veda) is eternal and was not composed by any human being. The scripture could not have
1. “ दृष्टेष्टाव्याहतत्वाद् वाक्यात् परमार्थाभिधायिनः । तत्त्वप्राहितयोत्पन्नमानं शाब्दं प्रकीर्त्तितम् ॥ आप्तोपज्ञमनुल्लङ्घयमदृष्टेष्टविरोधकम् । तत्त्वोपदेशकृत् सार्व शास्त्रं कापथधट्टनम् ॥”
Nyāyāvatāra 8. 9.
The latter verse appears
Tr. by Dr. S. C. Vidyabhūṣana. as verse 9 in Ratnakaraṇḍaśrāvakachāra by Samantabhadra
(2nd century).

Page #195

Parikṣāmukham
139
been called a verbal testimony (Śabda or word) unless it embodied the words of any particular person or persons1."
In Pramaṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra it is mentioned: "Agama is knowledge derived from words etc. of an Apta. The words themselves are also called Agama in a secondary sense. For example, there is a mine of jewels in this place. Hills etc. containing jewels exist. An Apta is a person who knows the real nature of a thing about which he speaks and who speaks according to his correct knowledge. Only words of such a person are established without any opposition. Such an Apta is of two kinds Laukika or Lokottara. A Laukika person is (an ordinary human being) like Janaka. Lokottara persons are like the Tirthankaras?" In the Hindu Nyaya philosophy also Śabda (Pramāṇa ) is said to be derived from the speech of one worthy of confidence and a person who speaks the truth becomes worthy (Apta) of such confidence3.
An Apta is free from eighteen faults viz. hunger, thirst, senility, disease, birth, death, fear, pride, attachment, aversion, infatuation, worry, conceit, hatred, uneasiness, sweat, sleep and
1. Nyāyāvatāra Edited by S. C. Vidyabhūṣana, Pp. 11-12. 2. “आप्तवचनादाविर्भूतमर्थसंवेदन मागमः ॥”
"उपचारादाप्तवचनश्च ॥"
" समस्त्यत्र प्रदेशे रत्न निधानं, सन्ति रत्नसानुप्रभृतयः ॥”
"अभिधेयं वस्तु यत्रावस्थितं यो जानीते यथाज्ञानं चाभिधत्ते स आप्तः ।। "
" तस्य हि वचनम् अविसंवादि भवति ।"
" स च द्वेधा लौकिको लोकोत्तरश्च ।” “लौकिको अनकादिर्लोकोत्तरस्तु तीर्थकरादितः ॥”
Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṁkāra IV. 1-7
3. " आप्तवाक्यं शब्दः । आप्तस्तु यथार्थवक्ता ।"

Tarkasangraha by Annam Bhatta 48.

Page #196

राथ
140
The Sacred Books of the Jainas surprise. He is the knower of all things. Being free from faults, he reveals the scriptures. He is of the highest status and of unsurpassed splendour. He is free from attachment and void of impurities. He has omniscience and has no beginning, middle or end and is a friend of all living beings and their teachers. Just as a drum sounds being struck by the hands of the drummer without any desire of its own, so an Apta reveals the Truth for the benefit of people without any personal motive* Revelation comes out of an Apta spontaneously to remove sufferings of people. सहजयोग्यतासंकेतवशाद्धि शब्दादयो वस्तुप्रतिपत्तिहेतवः ॥१०॥
100. Sahajayogyatāsamketavasāddhi sabdādayo , 'vastupratipattihetavaḥ.
यथा मेर्वादयः सन्ति ॥ १०१॥ 101. Yathā mervādayaḥ santi.
100. Words etc. ( signs, symbols and other things of like nature ) are causes of knowledge of things through their inherent power in connoting things. 101. As for example "The Meru etc. exist."
Commentary A question may arise, how do we have knowledge derived from words? In Hindu Nyāya philosophy it is mentioned “The
1. "क्षुत्पिपासाजरातङ्कजन्मान्तकभयस्मयाः । न रागद्वेषमोहाश्च यस्याप्तः स प्रकीर्तितः ॥"
Ratnakaraņdaśrāvakāchāra, Verse 6 2. “आप्तेनोच्छिन्नदोषेण सर्वज्ञेनागमेशिना।
भवितव्यं नियोगेन नान्यथा ह्याप्तता भवेत् ॥" Ibid Verse 5 3. "परमेष्ठी परंज्योतिर्विरागो विमलः कृती।
सर्वज्ञोऽनादिमध्यान्तः सार्वः शास्तोपलाल्यते ॥" Ibid Verse 7 4. "अनात्मार्थ विना रागैः शास्ता शास्ति सतो हितम् ।।
ध्वनन् शिल्पिकरस्पर्शानमुरजः किमपेक्षते ॥" Ibid Verse 8

Page #197

Parikşāmukham
141 cause of the knowledge of the sense of a sentence is the interdependance, Compatibility and Juxta-position (of the words ). Inter-dependance means the inability of a word to indicate the intended sense in the absence of another word. Compatibility consists in ( a word's ) not rendering futile the sense (of a sentence). Juxta-position consists in the enunciation of the words without a (long ) pause between each.
A collection of words devoid of interdependance etc. is no valid sentence. For example 'cow, horse, man, elephant' gives no information, the words not looking out for one another. The expression 'He should irrigate with fire' is no cause of right knowledge, for there is no compatibility ( between fire and irrigation ). The words 'Bring-the-cow' not pronounced close together but with an interval of some three hours between each, are not a cause of correct knowledge, from the absence of ( the requisite closeness of ) juxta-position"."
: "A speech is a collection of significant sounds as for example, Bring the cow. A significant sound is that which is possessed of power ( to convey a meaning )2."
Now, if we ask, who decides that such and such a word means such and such a thing, the answer given by some Hindu logicians is that it is God's will which decides this. “The power (of a word ) is the appointment, in the shape of God's will that such and
1. 637191877 green siffata APIENA&T: 1 Seg Tetratव्यतिरेकप्रयुक्तान्वयाननुभावकत्वमाकांक्षा । अर्थाबाधो योग्यता। पदानामविलंवेनोच्चारणं eifafa: 1
आकांक्षादिरहितं वाक्यमप्रमाणम् । यथा गौरश्चः पुरुषो हस्तीति न प्रमाणमाकांक्षाविरहात्। अग्निना सिञ्चेदिति न प्रमाणं योग्यताविरहात् । प्रहरे प्रहरेStarf tarta Tiraculeueia a THTI Hifarbamaracali" Tarkasangraha, 49-50.
2. “ I CHE: 1 911 Tarafa I T GL" Tarkasangraba, 48.

Page #198

142
The Sacred Books of the Jainas . such an import should be recognizable from such and such a significant sound'. Or, we may hold that we take the meaning of words from its use in a particular sense by previous users?.
In this connection we may remember the conclusions arrived at by scholars dealing with the science of language regarding sematology or the science of meaning of words. “The phenomena with which sematology deals are too complicated, too dependent on psychological conditions ; the element of chance or conscious exertion of will seems to enter into them, and it is often left to the arbitrary choice of an individual to determine the change of meaning to be undergone by a word. Still this meaning must be accepted by the community before it can become part of language; unless it is so accepted it will remain a mere literary curiosity in the pages of a technical dictionary. And since its acceptance by the community is due to general causes, influencing many minds alike, it is possible to analyze and formulate these causes, in fact, to refer significant change to certain definite principles to bring it under certain definite generalizations. Moreover, it must be remembered that the ideas suggested by most words are what Locke calls ‘mixed modes. A word like just or beauty is but a shorthand note suggesting a number of ideas more or less associated with one another. But the ideas associated with it in one mind cannot be exactly those associated with it in another ; to one man it suggests what it does not to another. So long as we move in a gociety subjected to the same social influences and education as ourselves we do not readily perceive the fact, since the leading ideas called up by the word will be alike for all ; but it is quite otherwise when we come to deal with those whose education has been imperfect as compared with our own. A young speaker often imagines that he makes himself intelligible to an uneducated
1. Sehra Tera spermat elgan gazatoareita: Efte:
Tarkasangraha, 48. 2. etapa a gé gaan afwanca: 1" Šabdaśaktiprakāsikā

Page #199

Parikṣāmukham
m
143
audience by using short and homely words ; unless he also suits his ideas to theirs, he will be no better understood than if he spoke in the purest Johnsonese. If we are suddenly brought into contact with experts in a subject we have not studied, or dip into a book on an unfamiliar branch of knowledge, we seem to be listening to the meaningless sounds of a foreign tongue. The words used may not be technical words ; but familiar words and expressions will bear senses and suggest ideas to those who use them which they will not bear to us. It is impossible to convey in a translation all that is meant by the original writer. We may say that the French juste answers to the English just, and so it does in a rough way; but the train of thoughts associated with juste is not that associated wih just, and the true meaning of a passage may often depend more on the associated thoughts than on the leading idea itself. Nearly every word, in fact, may be described as a complex of ideas, which is not the same in the minds of any two individuals, its general meaning lying in the common ideas attached to it by all the members of a particular society. The significations, therefore, with which the comparative philologist has to concern himself are those unconsciously agreed upon by a body of men, or rather the common group of ideas suggested by a word to all of them alike. Here again some general causes must be at work which may yet be revealed by a careful analysis. The comparative philologist has not to trouble himself, like the classical philologist, with discovering the exact ideas connected with a word by some individual author; it is the meaning of words as they are used in current speech, not as they illustrate the idiosyncrasies of a writer, which it is his province to investigate."."
We must also remember that analogy lends new senses to words. The original meaning is forgotten and metaphorical senses come to be used in its place. A dead meaning may again be
1. Introduction to the Science of Language ( Sayce ) Vol. I Pp. 336-338,

Page #200

144
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
revived. There are also metaphors, variation of meaning according to their application to persons or things, to what is good or bad, great or small. Words change their signification according to their use as active or passive, as subjects or as objects. An idea may also be expressed either by a compound or periphrasis or by a single word. The same word may also be applied in a variety of senses, the particular sense which it bears being determined by the context. Change of meaning may also follow from change of pronunciation or the introduction of new words“.
In aphorism 99 it has been mentioned that knowledge can be derived from “words etc.” of an Apta. We have mentioned that by ‘etc.' it is implied that signs, symbols etc. can also impart knowledge. The modern science of language also recognises that thoughts can be expressed by other symbols than words. Writing consisting of hieroglyphics or mathematical symbols and gesture language are examples of this. Onomatopaeia, interjectional or instinctive cries also of men whose language we do not know are intelligible to us.
End of Samuddeśa 3. ,
1. Ibid Pp. 338-343,

Page #201

P-19
I Sāmānya (or Dravya ) (Aphorism 3)
Tiryak (Aphorism 4)
CHART IV.
[CHAPTER IV.]
Visaya (Aphorism 1)
Viseṣa (or Paryāya) (Aphorism 6)
Paryāya
Urddhvatā (Aphorism 5) (Aphorism 8)
Vyatireka (Aphorism 9)
Parikṣāmukham
145

Page #202

चतुर्थः समुद्देशः
SAMUDDEĆA IV. This samuddeśa deals with the object of Pramāņa. .
सामान्यविशेषात्मा तदर्थो विषयः ॥१॥ 1. Sāmānyaviseşatmā tadartho viņayaḥ. · 1. The subject matter of it ( Pramāņa ) is vişaya of two kinds characterised by sāmānya and višeșa.
Commentary The subject matter of this samuddeśa is summarised in the Chart which faces this page.
“Things in nature are characterised by many-sidedness. Each of them presents a number of aspects which have to be known before we can be said to have exact knowledge of their nature.
The different points of view for studying things are called Nayas of which the Dravyārthika ( the natural ) and the Paryāyārthika ( changing or conditional) are the most important.
The Dravyārthika point of view only takes into consideration the nature of the substance of material of a thing, while the Paryāyārthika confines itself to the study of the form or forms in which substances manifest themselves.”
“Jainism aims, from the very commencement, at a systematic classification of the subject matter of knowledge, and divides the philosophical standpoint into two main heads, the Nischaya and the Vyavahāra. Of these, the former deals with the permanent qualities, hence, the essential nature of things about which there can be no possibility of doubt, and which remains true under all
1.
The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain, Pp. 21-22,

Page #203

Parikṣāmukham
147
circumstances, conditions and states. For this reason, it is called the Nischaya i. e. the natural or certain. The latter, however, only deals with things not with reference to their real or essential nature, but with respect to their utility or non-natural states and conditions. The statement "This is a jar of clay' is an illustration of the Nischaya Naya, while 'This is a jar of butter' is true only from the Vyavahara or the practical point of view1."
In Naya-karṇikā by Vinaya-vijaya we have: "All objects possess two kinds of properties, viz. 1. Sāmānya or the generalizing (general) and 2. Višesa or the differentiating (specific) properties; the general expressing the genus (jāti) etc. and the specific expressing the species, differences and distinctions. By means of general properties in each of a hundred ('hundred' here means 'all') jars, one idea (that of jarness is recognised and by means of specific properties, people distinguish each individual particular jar as their own?"
Hemachandra writes: "The objects of Pramāņa are things characterised by Dravya or Paryaya." Dravya and Paryaya are the same as Samanya and Viseṣa or Nischaya and Vyavahāra. अनुष्टत्तव्यावृत्तप्रत्ययगोचरत्वात् पूर्वोत्तराकारपरिहारावाप्तिस्थितिलक्षणपरिणामेनार्थक्रियोपपत्तेश्च ॥ २॥*
2. Anuvritta-vyavritta-pratyaya-gocharatvāt pūrvottarākāraparihārāvapti-sthiti-lakṣaṇa-pariņāmenārtha-kriyopapatteścha.
“पूर्वोत्तराकारपरिहार स्वीकारस्थितिलक्षणपरिणामेनास्यार्थक्रियोपपत्तिः ।” Pramāṇamimāmsā I. I. 34 1. The Nayakarṇikā by M. D. Desai. Introduction Pp. 5-6. 2. “ अर्थाः सर्वेऽपि सामान्यविशेषा उभयात्मकाः ।
सामान्यं तत्र जात्यादि विशेषश्च विभेदकाः ।। ऐक्यबुद्धिर्घटशते भवेत् सामान्यधर्मतः । विशेषाच्च निजं निजं लक्षयन्त्रि घटं जनाः ।। "
3. " प्रमाणस्य विषयो द्रव्यपर्यायात्मकं वस्तु ।”
*

Nayakarnika 3 and 4
Pramāṇa-mimāmsā I. 1 31.

Page #204

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
2. As there is attainment of the object (as a result of knowledge) from signs of changes from its original state to a later state preserving its essential characteristics and from our idea of general and special characteristics.
148
Commentary
In every substance, there is knowledge of its general and special characteristics. For example, we have a general knowledge of a man and a special knowledge whether he is a Brahmin or not etc. Also, a thing changes its qualities for example a man grows up, leaving his childhood and youth and becomes old. But throughout his different ages, he maintains essential charcteristics of being a person.
This acceptance of change leading to the manysidedness of a thing is a peculiarity of Jain doctrine establishing the Anekantavāda.
"Dravya means that which flows or changes. While changing through its different qualities and modifications, its essential nature persists. This kind of progressive development is associated with Dravya. But such development is also the characteristic of substance. Hence according to Jaina attitude, Dravya is not entirely different from Satta or substance...
According to this view there is no unchanging substance or Satta in Jaina system. Here the similarity between the Hegelian concept of 'thing' and the Jaina concept of Dravya is worth noticing. Satta is not 'a thing in itself' behind Dravya. Satta and Dravya are one and the same as Hegel mentioned. Thing in itself and experience are not absolutely distinct. Dravya refers to facts of experience. Satta refers to existence or reality. One may be
abstracted from the other but it is not different from the other as a fact1."
1. “दवियदि गच्छदि ताई ताईं सव्भाव पज्जयाई जं । दवियं तं भण्णंति अण्णणणभूदं तु सत्तादो ।"

Pañchastikāyasamayasara. Verse 9.

Page #205

Parikşāmukham
149 This changing nature of the substance is mentioned in the Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra as "Sat ( the dravya ) consists of utpāda, vyaya and dhrauvya'.” Utpada is appearance i. e., assuming new modification. This does not mean creation out of nothing. Creation by the fiat of a will is not recognised by the Jainas. Utpāda therefore means that phase of the process of the development when a new form is assumed. Vyaya is losing the previous form. Here also it is different from absolute disappearance. It only means that phase in the process of development where the earlier form is replaced by the succeeding one. Dhrauvya refers to the persistence of the essential nature of dravya which undergoes development and which makes both utpāda and vyaya simultaneously possible. In fact the process of development includes all the three phases. This fact is not only recognised by scientists like Darwin and Spencer, but by the great French philosopher Bergson who has raised it to an important philosophical principle?."
Hemachandra says that from the fact that only a thing characterised by Dravya and Paryāya is capable of producing the result of Pramāņa viz. acceptance of things desirable and nonacceptance of undesirable things or indifference to the latter, we say that merely a Dravya or a Paryāya or both of them independantly of the thing cannot be the object of Pramāṇa'.
1. "Ha FouTut I" "3q4i gomitougat Hai"
Tattvārtha Sūtra V. 29 and 30. 2. Sacred Books of the Jainas Vol. III. P. 9.
3. “कुतः पुनर्द्रव्यपर्यायात्मकमेव वस्तु प्रमाणानां विषयो, न द्रव्यमात्र पर्यायमात्रमुभयं वा स्वतन्त्रमित्याह, अर्थक्रियासामर्थ्यात् । अर्थस्य हानोपादानादिलक्षणस्य क्रियानिष्पत्तिस्तत्र सामर्थ्यात् द्रव्यपर्यायात्मकस्यैव वस्तुनोऽर्थक्रियासमर्थcarecere': 1" Pramāņa-mimāmsá 1. 1. 32.

Page #206

The Sacred Books of the Jainas ___ सामान्य वेधा तिर्यगूलताभेदात् ॥ ३ ॥ 3. Sāmānyam dvedhā tiryagūrdhvatābhedāt.
3. Sāmānya is of two kinds being divided into Tiryak (sāmānya ) and ūçdhvatā ( sąmāṇya ).
सहशपरिणामस्तिर्यक् खंडमुंडादिषु गोत्ववत् ॥ ४ ॥ 4. Sadrisaparinamastiryak khandamundadisu gotvavat.
4. Tiryak (sāmānya ) is the same modification such as Khanda Munda etc. in the condition of a cow.
परापरविवर्तव्यापिद्रव्यमूर्खता मृदिव स्थासादिषु ॥५॥
5. Parāparavivartavyāpidravyamūrddhvatā mridiva sthāsādisu.
5. Urdhvatā sāmānya is a thing which remains the same through changes such as earth in its ( modifications ) sthāsa etc.
विशेषश्च ॥ ६॥ 6. Visesascha.
पर्यायव्यतिरेकभेदात् ॥ ७॥ 7. Paryāyavyatirekabhedāt. 6. Višeşa ( is ) also ( of two kinds ). 7. Being divided into Paryaya and Vyatireka.
एकस्मिन् द्रव्ये क्रमभाविनः परिणामाः पर्याया आत्मनि
हर्षविषादादिवत् ॥ ८॥ 8. Ekasmin dravye kramabhavinah parinamah paryayā ātmani hargavişādādivat.
___8. Paryayās are modifications in sequence in a single substance e. g. joy and grief in oneself.

Page #207

Parikṣāmukham
151 अर्थान्तरगतो विसदृशपरिणामो व्यतिरेको गोमहिषादिवत् ॥९॥
9. Arthāntaragato visadrića-pariņāmo vyatireko gomahişādivat.
9. Vyatirekas are different modifications in different objects such as a cow and a buffalo etc.
Commeñitàry With this aphorism, the description of the subject matter of Pramāņa ends. In the next samuddeśa the result of Pramāņa will be discussed.
End of Samuddesa sv.

Page #208

पञ्चमः समुद्देशः SAMUDDEŚA V.
अज्ञाननिष्टत्तिनोपादानोपेक्षाच फलम् ॥ १ ॥
1. Ajñāna-nivrittirhanopādānopeksāścha phalam.
1. The result is the dispelling of false knowledge and leaving ( the undesirable things ), acquirement ( of desirable things) and indifference ( to other things ).
Commentary
The result of Pramāņa primarily consists of correct knowledge dispelling false knowledge, secondarily it leads to the acquirement of desirable objects, discarding of undesirable objects and indifference to other objects. This secondary result arises after we ascertain an object correctly by Pramāņa1.
Hemachandra mentions: when Pramāņa arises in a person, the correct knowledge of an object is established. The immediate result is therefore the destruction of false knowledge, or the idea of leaving ( the undesirable ) etc. The following verse of Nyāyāvatāra is quoted in the commentary by Hemachandra.
"प्रमाणस्य फलं साक्षादज्ञान विनिवर्त्तनम् । केवलस्य सुखोपेक्षे शेषस्यादानहानधीः ॥"
1. “द्विविधं हि फलं साक्षात् पारम्पर्येणेति । साक्षादज्ञाननिवृत्तिः पारम्पर्येण हानादिकमिति । प्रमेयनिश्चयोत्तरकालभावित्वात् तस्येति ।”
2. " तस्यां सत्यामर्थप्रकाशसिद्धेः । "
" अज्ञाननिवृत्तिर्वा ।” "हानादिबुद्धयो वा ।”

Pramāna-mimāmsā I. 1. 38.
Ibid. I. 1. 39. Ibid. I. 1. 41.
Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #209

Parikṣāmukham
153
That is to say, the immediate result of Pramāņa is the removal of ignorance. So the mediate effect is happiness and indifference or equanimity to a Kevali (one possessed of absolute knowledge) and to others, a desire to accept (desirable objects) and leave (undesirable objects).
In Apta Mimāmsã also the same has been mentioned: "उपेक्षा फलमादयस्य शेषस्यादानहानधीः ।
पूर्वा वाऽज्ञाननाशो वा सर्वस्यास्य स्वगोचरे ॥ "
In Sarvartha-siddhi while explaining the aphorism "Tat Pramane" of Tattvärthadhigama Sutra, the result of Pramāņa is mentioned as “अन्धकारकल्पाज्ञानाभावः अज्ञाननाशो वा फलमित्युच्यते ।” i. e. "the result is said to be the want of false knowledge resembling darkness or the destruction of false knowledge."
We have discussed while dealing with the definition of Pramana that the Jain logicians have accepted the result of Pramāņa to be the same as Pramāņa. In Hindu philosophical systems like the Nyaya and Vaiseṣika systems, the knowledge is mentioned as a result of Pramaņa. For example Gautama in his Nyaya Sutras has propounded that the knowledge of fire from smoke is the result known as Anumiti from Anumāna Pramāņa (inference). But in Jain logic, this result itself has been called Anumana and the dispelling of false knowledge is said to be the result of Pramāṇa.
It will be laid down in the two aphorisms which follow that in one sense a result is indentical with Pramana and in another sense it is different.
In the different stages of knowledge Avagraha, Îhā, Avāya Dharana, Smriti, Pratyabhijñāna, Uha, and Anumana, the first is Pramana and the second is the result of the first. Again the second becomes Pramāņa and the third becomes the result of the second and so on1.
1. “ अवग्रहादीनां वा क्रमापेक्षजननधर्माणां पूर्वं पूर्वं प्रमाणमुत्तरमुत्तरं फलम् ।"
Pramāņa-mimāmsā I. 1. 40.
P-20

Page #210

154
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
प्रमाणादभिन्नं भिन्नं च ॥ २ ॥
2. Pramānādabhinnam bhinnam cha.
2. ( The result ) is different and not different (in another sense ) from the Pramāna.
यः प्रमिमीते स एव निवृत्ताज्ञानो जहात्यादत्त उपेक्षते चेति प्रतीतेः ॥ ३ ॥
3. Yaḥ pramimite sa eva nivrittäjñāno jahatyādatta upekṣate cheti pratiteh.
3. He who takes cognizance, becomes free from false. knowledge and rejects ( undesirable objects ), selects ( desirable objects )
or becomes indifferent.
Commentary
The self which is changed in the form of a Pramāņa is also changed in the form of the result. In this sense Pramana is not different from its result. But if we take that Pramana is the instrumental cause ( Kārana) of the action ( Kriyā ) viz. the result, we can say in this sense, that Pramāņa is different from the _result1.
"अवग्रहेहावायधारणास्मृतिप्रत्यभिज्ञानोहानुमानानां क्रमेणोपजायमानानां यद् यत् पूर्वं तत्त प्रमाणं यद्यदुत्तरं तत्तत्फलरूपं प्रतिपत्तव्यम् । अवग्रहपरिणामवान् ह्यात्मा ईहारूपफलतया परिणमति इतीहाफलापेक्षया अवग्रहः प्रमाणम्, ततोपीहा प्रमाणमवायः फलं, पुनरवायः प्रमाणं धारणा फलम्, ईहाधारणयोर्ज्ञानोपादानत्वात् ज्ञानरूपतोन्नेया, ततो धारणा प्रमाणं स्मृतिः फलम्, ततोऽपि स्मृतिः प्रमाणं प्रत्यभिज्ञानं फलं, ततोऽपि प्रत्यभिज्ञा प्रमाणमूहः फलं ततोऽप्यूहः प्रमाणमनुमानं फलमिति प्रमाणफलविभाग इति । " Bhāsya to Ibid.
1. “ यस्यैवात्मनः प्रमाणाकारेण परिणतिस्तस्यैव फलरूपतया परिणाम इत्येकप्रमापेक्षया प्रमाणफलयोरभेद । करणक्रियापरिणामभेदाद् भेदः । "
Prameyaratnamālā.

Page #211

Parikṣāmukham
This is also laid down in Pramaṇa-mimāmsā1.
It is mentioned in Prameyaratnamālā that the propounders of Nyayavaiseṣika philosophies maintain that Pramāņa is different from its result and the Buddhists say that the result is identical with the Pramāņa. Refuting these views, it is laid down by Manikyanandi that result is in one sense different from Pramāņa and in another, identical with it2.
End of Samuddeśa V.

1. “ प्रमाणाद् भिन्नाभिन्नम् । ” Pramāna-mīmāmsa. I. I. 24. " करणरूपत्वात् क्रियारूपत्वाच्च प्रमाणफलयोरभेदः |... · तस्यैवात्मनः प्रमाणाकारेण परिणतिस्तस्यैव फलरूपतया परिणाम इत्येकप्रमात्रापेक्षया प्रमाणफलयोरभेद: ।" Ibid. Bhāsya.
2. " तद्विविधमपि फलं प्रमाणाद्भिन्नमेवेति यौगाः । अभिन्नमेवेति सौगताः । तन्मतद्वयनिरासेन स्वमतं व्यवस्थापयितुमाह । " Prameyaratnamāla.
155

Page #212

षष्ठः समुद्देशः SAMUDDEĆA VI.
ततोऽन्यत्तदाभासम् ॥ १॥ 1. Tatonyattadābhāsam 1. The opposite of it, is Abhāsa of the same.
Commentary In this Chapter, the fallacies will be taken up and described. We have mentioned before hand the nature, number, object and result of Pramāņa. The opposite of these will be fallacies of these. The fallacies of Pramāņa are described in Aphorisms 2-54, those of number are described in aphorism 55 ; those of object are described in aphorism 61 and those of result in aphorism 06. अस्वसंविदितगृहीतार्थदर्शनसंशयादयः प्रमाणाभासाः ॥२॥
2. Asvasam viditagrihitārthadarsanasamsayādayaḥ pramāņābhāsāḥ.
2. Pramāṇābhāsas (fallacies of Pramāņa) are non-cognizance by one's own-self, knowledge of what has already been known, doubt etc.
स्वविषयोपदर्शकत्वाभावात् ॥३॥ 3. Svavişayopadarśakatvābhāvāt.
3. Because ( such knowledge ) does not establish its own object. पुरुषान्तरपूर्वार्थगच्छत्तृणस्पर्शस्थाणुपुरुषादिज्ञानवत् ॥४॥
4. Puruşāntarapūrvārthagachchattriņa-sparsa-sthāņupuruşādijñānayat.
4. As (for example ), the knowledge of another person, the knowledge of a thing previously known, the knowledge of touching

Page #213

Parikṣāmukham
157
grass of a person moving, the knowledge whether this is a post or a
man etc.
Commentary
That which is not cognized by one's own self does not establish one's own knowledge; so it is not fit to establish the object of knowledge. Consequently knowledge of others is not Pramana but only a fallacy.
Again Nirvikalpaka Darśana is a fallacy as the Vikalpa caused by it (and not itself) shows the object.
Knowledge of what has already been known is a fallacy as it does not establish the object (being already known by previous experience).
By the word "doubt etc." in the aphorism, Samsaya (doubt), Anadhyavasaya and Viparyaya are meant. These have been thoroughly described in the commentary on Aphorism 3 Samuddeśa I of this work.
चक्षू रसीद्रव्ये संयुक्तसमवायवच्च ॥ ५ ॥
5. Chakṣu rasayordravye samjuktasamavāyavachcha.
5. Like Samjukta Samavaya of eye and juice in a thing.
Commentary
According to the view of Hindu Nyaya philosophy, knowledge of colour etc. arises in Samavaya Samvandha (intimate relation or co-inherence). Seven categories viz. substance (Dravya), quality (Guņa ), action ( Karma ), genus (Sāmānya), difference ( Viśeșa ). co-inherence (Samavaya) and non-existence ( Abhava) are recognized in Hindu Nyaya philosophy'. Samavaya is thus described: "Intimate relation is co-inherence (Samavaya). It exists in things which cannot exist separately. Two things which cannot exist separately are those of which two, the one exists only as lodged in the other. Such pairs are, parts and what is made up of the parts,
1. “ द्रव्यगुणकर्मसामान्यविशेषसमवायाभावाः सप्तपदार्थाः ।" Tarkasai
graha.

Page #214

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
qualities and the thing qualified, action and agent, species and individual, and difference and eternal substances1." "It exist, between the whole and its parts, the class and the individual, substance and qualities, agent and action, the ultimate atom and its viseșa." When the eye sees a pitcher, the colour which is co-inherent in the pitcher is cognized by the eye. So according to Hindn Naiyayikas, the relationship of Samjukta Samavaya can be the cause of the knowledge of colour.
158
In Jain Nyaya philosophy this view is not accepted and is refuted by this aphorism. It is urged that when we see a fruit, we do not cognise its taste though the taste has co-inherence in the fruit. So it cannot be said that knowledge arises from Samjukta Samavaya Samvandha. Though in a thing (fruit) there is co-inherence of sight and taste, Pramāņa of taste cannot arise from the sight. In the same manner coinherence of sight and colour also cannot be accepted as Pramāņa. So the Pramāņa called Sannikarśa in Hindu Nyaya philosophy is not accepted by Jain logicians. अवैशये प्रत्यक्षं तदाभासं बौद्धस्याकस्माद्
gagginız fgfasıaaa II. & ||
6. Avaiśadye pratyakṣam tadābhāsam bauddhasyākasmāt dhūma-darśanādvanhivijñānavat.
6. When Pratyakṣa is accepted in (things) not clear, we have its fallacy e. g. cognizance of fire by the followers of the Buddhist philosophy from sudden vision of smoke.
Commentary
In this aphorism, fallacy of Pratyakṣa ( Pratyakṣābhāsa) is described.
1. Dr. Ballantyne's Translation of the following passage from Tarkasangraha : “नित्यसंवन्धः समवायोऽयुत सिद्धवृत्तिः । ययोर्द्वयोर्मध्य एकमपराश्रितमेवावतिष्ठते तावयुतसिद्धौ ॥ अवयवावयविनौ गुणगुणिनौ क्रियाक्रियावन्तौ जातिव्यक्ती विशेषनित्यद्रव्ये च ।”
2. Arthur Venis. Notes on Vedanta-Paribhāṣā,

Page #215

Parikṣāmukham
159
Acceptance of Pratyakṣa knowledge without
clearness is
fallacy of Pratyakṣa. This happens in the case of the followers of the Buddhist Nyaya philosophy who hold that from a sudden vision of smoke, a knowledge of fire arises by Pratyakṣa and not by inference (Anumana). Clearness has already been defined in Samuddeśa II. Aphorism 4 as illumination without any other intermediate knowledge or illumination in details. In Anumana or inference we have an intermediate knowledge of smoke before we have a knowledge of fire and from the smoke we infer that there is fire. In Pratyakṣa we see the fire with our own eyes or learn of its existence by words of a reliable person. The view of the Buddhist Nyaya philosophy that we have a Pratyakṣa knowledge of fire from the sudden vision of smoke is held to be faulty in this aphorism. It is said that such a knowledge wants clearness which is the characteristic of Pratyakṣa is Pratyakṣābhāsa. Details of Pratyakṣa knowledge have already been mentioned in Samuddeśa II. a reference to to which may be made. In a sudden vision of smoke, there is no definite ascertainment (Nischaya) whether it is smoke or steam. So the knowledge of concomitance of fire and smoke cannot arise. For this uncertainty the knowledge of fire as derived from a sudden vision of smoke is Pratyakṣābhāsa. The Nirvikalpa Pratyakṣa as accepted by the Buddhists is for this reason Pratyakṣābhāsa (fallacy of Pratyakṣa )'.
वैशद्येऽपि परोक्षं तदाभासं मीमांसकस्य करणस्य ज्ञानवत् ॥ ७ ॥ 7. Vaiśadyehpi paroksam tadabhāsam mimāmsakasya karaṇasya jñānavat.
7. In Parokṣa (accepted) in clearness, (we have) its fallacy (Paroksabhāsa) e. g. knowledge derived from the senses as accepted by the Mimasakas.
1. “ यथा धुमवाष्पादिविवेकनिश्चयाभावाद् व्याप्तिग्रहणाभावाद् अकस्माद् घुमदर्शनाज्जातं यद्वह्निविज्ञानं तत्तदाभासं भवति कस्मादनिश्चयाद् । तथा वौद्धपरिकल्पितं यन्निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्षं तत् प्रत्यक्षाभासं भवति कस्मादनिश्चयात् । ” Note on Prameyakamalamārtanda.

Page #216

160
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Commentary Parokşābhāsa ( fallacy of Parokşa ) arises when we accept Parokșa knowledge as clear. The followers of the Mimāmsā philosophy hold that knowledge derived from the senses is Parokşa. This view is refuted in this aphorism which lays down that such knowledge is clear and hence cannot be Parokşa. In Samuddesa III of this work, Parokşa knowledge has been described in detail and clearness has been described in Aphorism 3 Samuddeśa II. In knowledge derived from the senses, we have no intermediate knowledge ( as in the case of inference e. g. of smoke before we cognise fire ). So clearness exists in these cases and to hold such cases to be Parokșa will be fallacy of Parokşa., . अतस्मिंस्तदिति ज्ञानं स्मरणाभासं जिनदत्त
AFFIT TUT I Cll 8. Atasminstaditi jñānam smaraņābhāsam jinadatte sa Devadatto yathā.
8. Smaraņābhāsa ( fallacy of memory ) is the knowledge in one of another e. g. when we ( falsely recognise ) Jinadatta as Devadatta.
Commentary
Fallacies of each of the subdivisions of Pratyakşa viz. Smriti, Pratyabhijñāna, Tarka, Anumāna and Agama are described in Aphorisms 8, 9, 10, 11-50 and 51 of this Samuddeśa.
Smriti or Smaraṇa ( recollection) has been defined in Aphorism 3 of Samuddeśa III. We see Jinadatta. Later on when we see him again, we recognise him to be that Jina-datta. This is Smriti or recollection. But if we have remembrance of Devadatta when we see Jinadatta, this will be a fallacy of recollection ( Smaraņābhāsa ).
___ 1. "न हि करणज्ञानेऽव्यवधानेन प्रतिभासलक्षणं वैशयमसिद्धं स्वार्थयोः प्रतीत्यन्तरनिरपेक्षतया तत्र प्रतिभासनात् ।” Prameyakamalamartanda.

Page #217

Parikşāmukham
161 सदृशे तदेवेदं तस्मिन्नेव तेन सदृशं यमलकवदित्यादि
प्रत्यभिज्ञानाभासम् ॥९॥ 9. Sadrise tadevedam tasminneva tena sadrićam yamalakavadityādi pratyavijñānābhāsam.
9. Fallacy of Pratyabhijñāna is the knowledge of "this is that" in things bearing similarity or knowledge of similarity in the identical thing e. g. in the case of twins.
Commentary In the case of twins, we may falsely take one of them as the other from the similarity or we may fail to recognise the real person wanted and say that he resembles the real man ( without understanding that he is the real man ). There are therefore two kinds of fallacy of Pratyabhijñāna one referring to identity (Ekatva Pratyabhijñānābhāsa ) and the other to similarity (Sãdrisyapratyabhijñānābhāsa'.
Pratyabhijñāna has already been defined and explained in Aphorisms 5-10 Samuddeśa III to which a reference may be made.
असम्बद्धे तज्ज्ञानं तर्काभासम् ॥ १०॥ 10. Asambaddhe tajjñānam tarkābhāsam.
10. Knowledge of concomitance in objects not related is fallacy of Tarka.
Commentary Tarka or Uha has been defined in Aphorism 11 of Samuddeśa III. In Tarka we have knowledge of universal concomitance viz. that of fire and smoke. Fallacy of Tarka occurs when we set up inseparable connection between objects which are independent of each other e. g. smoke and water.
: 1. "ferrari Arafahamway Eroti ; qocalana, EreYPAOLAञ्चेति। तत्रैकत्वं सादृश्यावभासः, सादृश्ये चैकत्वाभासस्तदाभासमिति ।" Prameyaratnamālā.
P-21

Page #218

162
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
THTHTATTAR II 33 11 11. Idamanumānābhāsaņ. . 11. The following are fallacies of Anumāna.
Commentary Anumīna has been defined in Aphorism 11 of Samuddeśa III Anumāna is employed by using Pakşa, Hetu and Dristānta. Fallacies of these viz Paksābhāsa, Hetvābhāsa and Driştāntābhāsa with their subdivisions will be described in the following aphorisms.
att faetfe 927TATA: 11 8811 12. Tatrāniştādi pakşābhāsaḥ.
अनिष्टो मीमांसकस्यानित्यः शब्दः ॥ १३ ॥ 13. Anisto mimāņsakasyānityaḥ sabdaḥ.
fhE: Tam: Toc: 118811 14. Siddhaḥ śrāvaṇaḥ śabdaḥ.
वाधितः प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमलोकस्ववचनैः ॥ १५ ॥ 15. Vădhitaḥ pratyakşānumānāgamalokasvavachanaiḥ.
12. Among them Pakşābhāsa ( fallacy of the minor term or thesis ) is Anista ( un-accepted ) etc.
13. Anista (un-accepted ) is ( the view of ) Mimāņsakas that sound is momentary.
1!. It is established that sounds can be heard by the ear.
15. Opposition ( may exist ) from Pratyakşa, Anumāna, Āgama, popular acceptance and one's own words.
Commentary
The followers of Mimāmsā philosophy hold that sound is eternal. So in their case there will be Pakşābhāsa if we establish that sound is momentary. In the definition of Pakşa we haye laid

Page #219

163
Parikşāmukham down that it must be İşta ( acceptable or that what we want ). Opposite of it will be Anista and hence it will be a fallacy of Pakşa.
Next, to establish by inference what is accepted ( Siddha ) is also Pakşābhāsa e. g. “Sound can be heard by the ear'.
There is also Pakşābhāsa when it involves opposition to Pratyakşa, Anumāna, Agama, Loka-vachana and Sva-vachana. These will be illustrated in the following five aphorisms. (See Page 95 ).
Siddhasena Divākara has defined Paksābhāsa in his Nyāyāvatāra as follows :
"If that of which the major term or predicate ( Sadhya ) is affirmed 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 ( Pakşā-bhāsa ) of which there are many varieties?”. तत्र प्रत्यक्षवाधितो यथाऽनुष्णोऽग्निद्रव्यत्वाज्जलवत् ॥ १६ ॥
16. Tatra pratyakşavādhito yathānusņognirdravyatvājjalavat.
16. In these subdivisions, Pratyakşa-vādhita ( opposed to Pratyakşa ) may be exemplified by "Fire is not hot as it is a thing e. g. water".
Commentary Any proposition laying down anything opposed to actual perception is an instance of Pratyakşa-vādhita. We know by actual perception that fire is hot. If anyone tries to lay down in the shape of inference “Fire is not hot as it is a thing e. g. water”, it will be an example of Pratyaksa-vādhita.
- अपरिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वात् घटवत् ॥ १७॥ 17. Apariņāmi śabdaḥ kritakatvāt ghatavat. 1. "fangeret a: The CT-retsig fra: 1
74-9997712Ti a aratat ha: 11" Nyāyāvatiira, 21.

Page #220

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
17. Sound is without modification as it is something caused e. g. a pitcher.
164
Commentary
This aphorism gives an example of the fallacy Anumanavadhita. The following is the correct inference or Anumana:
"Sound has modification.
Because it is caused.
Like a pitcher."
But if we try to establish an inference opposed to this inference as follows:
"Sound is without modification.
Because it is caused.
Like a pitcher."
It will be an instance of Anumana-vādhita that is to say opposed by inference.
deargent ad: yoonfxxacençorica || 36 ||
18. Pretyāsukhaprado dharmaḥ puruṣāśritatvādadharmavat. 18. Dharma will produce grief after death as it is subservient to beings like Adharma.
Commentary.
This is an example of the fallacy Agama-vadhita. In all Sastras, it is accepted that pursuit of Dharma will produce happiness after death and Adharma will cause misery. If we try to establish by inference that Dharma will produce misery after death, it will be an example of Agama-vadhita Anumana (i. e. inference as opposed to the sastras).
vat.
शुचि नरशिरःकपालं प्राण्यंगत्वाच्छङ्गशुक्तिवत् ॥ १९ ॥
19. Suchi narasirahkapālam praṇyangat vachchankhaśukti

Page #221

Parikṣāmukham
165
19. A human skull is pure as it is a part of the body of an animal like a conch-shell or oyster.
Commentary
This is an example of Loka-vadhita Anumāna or inference opposed to public understanding. According to popular acceptance parts of bodies of some animals e. g. conch-shells and oysters are accepted as pure, while parts of bodies of other animals e. g. human skull are considered as impure. So if we try to establish by inference as mentioned in the aphorism that human skull is pure, it will be a fallacy of Loka-vadhita Anumāna.
माता मे बन्ध्या पुरुषसंयोगेऽप्यगर्भत्वात् प्रसिद्धबन्ध्यावत् ॥२०॥ bandhya
Mātā me
puruṣasamyogepyagarbhatvāt
20. prasiddhabandhyāvat.
20. My mother is barren because she does not conceive in spite of connection with a male like women famous as barren.
Commentary
This is an example of Sva-vachana-vādhita Anumāna (or inference opposed to one's own words). If a person says that his mother is barren and tries to establish this by an inference as shown in the aphorism, the inference will be opposed to his own words and will be a fallacy of Svavachana-vadhita Anumāna.
Dr. Satis Chandra Vidyabhuṣaṇa in his notes on the translation of Nyāyāvatāra has mentioned the following with reference to different kinds of Pakṣābhāsa which will further elucidate the aphorisms in Parikṣāmukham regarding this subject.
"The semblance or fallacy of the minor term or thesis (Pakṣābhāsa) 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 statement thus :

Page #222

166
The Sacred Books of the Jainas (1) "The jar is corporeal ( Paudgalika )—This is a conclusion which is yet to be proved to the opponent.
(2) ‘Everything is nothing'. This is a Saugata ( Buddhist ) doctrine which according to the Jainas, is incapable of being proved.
(3) "The general ( Sāmānya ) 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.
हेत्वाभासा असिद्ध विरुद्धानकान्तिकाकिञ्चित्कराः ॥२१॥ 21. Hetvābhāsā asiddhaviruddhānaikāntikākiichitkarāḥ.
21. Hetvābhāsas are Asiddha, Viruddha, Anaikāntika and Akiichitkara.
Commentary Now the fallacies of Hetu are being described. Hetu has been defined in Aphorism 15 in Samuddeśa III. The opposites of this are fallacies of Hetu'. These are of four kinds : Asiddha, Viruddha, Anaikāntika and Akiñchitkara.
Siddhasena has laid down “The reason (i. e. the middle term called Hetu has been defined as that which cannot exist except in connection with the major term ( Sādhya ); the fallacy of the rea
1. “साध्याविनाभावित्वेन निश्चितो हेतुरित्युक्तं प्राक् । तद्विपरीतास्तु gratitet: 1" Prameya-kamala-mārtanda.

Page #223

Parikṣāmukham
son ( Hetvābhāsa ) arises from non-conception, doubt or misconception about it ( the middle term ) "1.
66
Siddhasena lays down that there are only three (and not four as mentioned in Parikṣamukham) varieties of Hetvābhāsa: 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 )"2
Hemachandra also in his Framaņa-mimāsā lays down that there are only three kinds of Hetvābhāsa viz. Asiddha, Viruddha and Anaikantika". He rejects the view of those who maintain that there are two other forms of Hetvabhāsa viz. Kālātīta and Prakaraṇa-sama. According to Hemachandra, Kālātita is included within the fallacy of Pakṣa and Prakaraṇa-sama is an impossibility as none but a madman can use it. In arguments between sane men this is an impossibility1.
1. “ अन्यथानुपपन्नत्वं हेतोर्लक्षणमीरितम् ।
तदप्रतीतिसन्देह विपर्यासैस्तदाभता ॥” Nyāyāvatāra 22.
167
2. " असिद्धस्त्वप्रतीतो यो योऽन्यथैवोपपद्यते ।
विरुद्धो योऽन्यथाप्यत्र युक्तोऽनैकान्तिकः स तु ||" Nyāyāvatāra 23.
8. “असिद्धविरुद्धानैकान्तिकास्त्रयो हेत्वाभासाः ॥ "
Pramāna-mīmāmsā II. 1. 16.
4. " त्रय इति संख्यान्तरव्यवच्छेदार्थम् । तेन कालातीत प्रकरणसमयोर्व्यवच्छेदः । तत्र कालातीतस्य पक्षदोषेष्वन्तर्भावः प्रत्यक्षागमबाधितधर्मिनिर्देशानन्तरप्रयुक्तः कालात्ययापदिष्ट इति हि तस्य लक्षणम् इति यथाऽनुष्णस्तेजोऽवयवी कृतकत्वाद् घटवदिति । प्रकरणसमस्तु न सम्भवत्येव नह्यास्ति सम्भबो यथोक्तलक्षणोऽनुमाने प्रयुक्तेऽदूषिते वानुमानान्तरस्य यत्तूदाहरणमनित्यः शब्दः पक्षसपक्षयोरन्यतरत्वादिति तदतीवासाम्प्रतम् । कोहि चतुरंगसभायां बादी प्रतिबादी चैवंविधमसम्बद्धमनुन्मत्तोऽभिदधीत ?” Framāna Mimāmsã. Bhāsya to Aphorism II. 1. 16,

Page #224

168
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
असत्सत्तानिश्चयोऽसिद्धः ॥ २२ ॥ 22. Asatsattāniśchayo'siddhaḥ.
22. Asiddha is that whose existence is wanting in Pakşa and which is not definitely established.
Commentary Asiddha Hetvābhāsa is of two kinds : Svarūpāsiddha and Sandigdhāsiddha.
These will be described in the aphorisms which follow. अविद्यमानसत्ताकः परिणामी शब्दश्चाक्षुषत्वात् ॥ २३ ॥
23. Avidyamānasattākaḥ pariņāmi sabda chākṣuşatvāt. Fototerata 11 88 11
24. Svarūpeṇāsatvāt.
23. “Sound is perishable because it can be seen by the eyes." This is an example of ) non-existence of itself. 24. Because it does not exist at all in its self.
Commentary , Sound is heard by the ear and not seen by the eye. So in the Pakşa 'Sound, Hetu in its real nature does not exist. So this is an example of Svarūpāsiddha Hetvābhāsa where the falsehood is a matter of certainty. अविद्यमान निश्चयो मुग्धबुद्धिं प्रति, अग्निरत्र धूमात् ॥ २५ ॥
25. Avidyamānaniśchayo mugdhabuddhim prati agniratra dhūmāt. तस्य वाष्पादिभाबेन भूतसंघाते संदेहात् ॥ २६ ॥
26. Tasya vāşpādibhāvena bhūtasamghāte sandehāt.
25. When there is uncertainty, if one says to a man of inferior intellect Here is fire because there is smoke.'
26. He bas doubt owing to the existence of vapour etc. in the collection of many elements ( earth, water, etc. and he cannot definitely ascertain whether it it is smoke or vapour. )

Page #225

Parikṣāmukham
169
Commentary Sandigdhāsiddha is described in these aphorisms. This fallacy arises where there is an uncertainty of the Hetu itself. For example, where there is no certainty whether what is seen is smoke or vapour, if one infers there is fire because there is smoke', the inference will not be sound as the very existence of the Hetu viz. smoke is involved in doubt. A person who is not thoroughly conversant with the major term ( Sādhya ) or the middle term ( Hetu or Sādhana ) will not be able to ascertain 'this is smoke' and 'this is vapour' So there is absence of certainty in these cases which is the criterion of the fallacy of Sandigdhāsiddha.
सांरव्यं प्रति परिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वात् ॥ २७ ।। 27. Sānkhyam prati pariņāmi šabdaḥ kritakatvāt.
HATSTATTA 11 86 11 28. Tenājñātatvāt.
27. To (the follower of) the Sānkhya (philosophy) : 'Sound is perishable, because it is caused ( by some one ). 28. Because he does not know ( or accept ) it.
• Commentary In Sānkhya philosophy, appearance and disappearance ( and not creation and destruction ) of things are accepted. So the inference 'Sound is perishable because it is created by a follower of the Sānkhya philosophy is an example of Sandigdhāsiddha because he does not accept creating of a sound as creation is unknown ( Ajñāta ) to him.
1. cata descarregatura: kiferentes, seurat: 2791 01691fatida sifqgatal Halfhfheig RAFTI” Pramāņa-mimāṁsā. Bhāșya on II. 1. 17.
2. "कुतोऽस्याविद्यमाननियततेत्याह । मुग्धबुद्धेर्बाष्पादिभावेन भूतसंघाते संदेहात्। न खलु साध्यसाधनयोरव्युत्पन्नप्रज्ञो धूमादिरीदृशो बाष्पादिश्चेदृश इति faafia Faef: 1" Prameyakamala-mārtaņda,
P--22

Page #226

170
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
Hemachandra has mentioned that Asiddha Hetvāblıāsa may be Svarūpāsiddha or Sandigdhāsiddha. The first should not be held to arise from not having the quality of a Paksa ( minor term ) because the definition of a Hetu has no connection with the quality of a Pakşa. This fallacy arises from the fact that it wants the essence of Hetu viz. that it cannot arise otherwise. Hemachandra quotes the following verse from Kumārila Bhatta :- .
"To infer the son of a Brahmin, to be a Brahmin is not universally accepted as it depends on the quality of Pakşa”. (For the mother might be unchaste ).?
Hemachandra has mentioned three subdivisions of Asiddha Hetvābhāsa viz Asiddha regarding Vādi, that regarding Prativādi and that regarding both. The illustration of the first of these is the same as given in Aphorism 27 of this Samuddeśa of Parikşāmukham.
Some Jain logicians have laid down that there are other varieties of Asiddha Hetvābhāsa viz. Visesyasiddha, Visesana
____ 1. "नासन्ननिश्चितसत्वो वान्यथानुपपन्न इति सत्वस्यासिद्धौ सन्देहे वाऽसिद्धः।” Pramāna-mimāmsa. II. 1. 17.
2. “अपक्षधर्मत्वादयमसिद्ध इति न मन्तव्यमित्याह नान्यथानुपपन्न इति, अन्यथानुपपत्तिरूपहेतुलक्षणविरहात् अयमसिद्धो नापक्षधर्मत्वात् । नहि पक्षधर्मत्वं हेतोलक्षणं तदभावेऽप्यन्यथानुपपत्तिबलाद्धेतुत्वोपपत्तेरित्युक्तप्रायम् । भट्टोऽप्याह
पित्रोश्च ब्राह्मणत्वेन पुत्रब्राह्मणतानुमा । सर्वलोकप्रसिद्धा न पक्षधर्ममपेक्षते ॥"
Pramāņa-mimāmsā II. 1. 17. 3. “वादिप्रतिवादयुभयभेदाञ्चैतभेदः ॥”
____Pramāna-mimamsa II. 1. 18. 4. “तत्र वादयसिद्धो यथा परिणामी शब्द उत्पत्तिमत्त्वात् अयं सांरव्यस्य स्वयंवादिनोऽसिद्धः। तन्मते उत्पत्तिमत्त्वस्यानभ्युपेतत्वात् नासदुत्पद्यते नापि सद्विनश्यत्युत्पादविनाशयोराविर्भावतिरोभावरूपत्वादिति तत्सिद्धान्ताच्च ।” Pramānamimāmsā. II. 1. 18.

Page #227

171
siddha, Bhāgāsiddha, Aśrayāsiddha, Aśraiyakādeśasiddha, Vyarthaviseṣyäsiddha, Vyarthaviseṣaṇasiddha, Sandigdhaviseṣyasiddha and Sandigdha-viseṣaṇāsiddha1. Hemachandra says that all these are included within Vadyasiddha, Prativadyasiddha and Ubhayasiddha as defined by him3.
In Prameyakamala-mārtaṇda also it is mentioned "Others accept varieties of Asiddha viz. Viseṣyasiddha etc. These are mere varieties of Asiddha Hetvabhasa (as defined in Parikṣamukham) because they bear the criterion of non-existence of itself. So these are not separate varieties, for there is no separate characteristics of these”.
Parikṣāmukham
विपरीत निश्चिताविनाभावो विरुद्धोऽपरिणामी
शब्दः कृतकत्वात् ॥ २९ ॥
29. Viparitanischitāvinābhāvo viruddhopariņāmi sabdaḥ kritakatvāt.
1. “ तत्र विशेष्यासिद्धादय उदाह्रियन्ते । विशेष्यासिद्धो यथाऽनित्यः शब्दः सामान्यवत्वे सति चाक्षुषत्वात् । विशेषणासिद्धो यथाऽनित्यः शब्दश्चाक्षुषत्वे सति सामान्यविशेषवत्वात् । भागासिद्धो यथानित्यः शब्दः प्रयत्नानन्तरीयकत्वात् । आश्रयासिद्धो यथास्ति प्रधानं विश्वपरिणामित्वात् । आश्रयैकदेशासिद्धो यथा नित्या: प्रधानपुरुषेश्वराः अकृतकत्वात् । व्यर्थविशेष्यासिद्धो यथा नित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वे सति सामान्यवत्वात् । संदिग्धविशेष्यासिद्धो यथा अद्यापि रागादियुक्तः कपिल: पुरुषत्वे सत्यद्याप्यनुत्पन्नतत्वज्ञानत्वात् । संदिगधविशेषणासिद्धो यथा अद्यापि रागादियुक्तः कपिलः सर्वदा तत्वज्ञानरहितत्वे सति पुरुषत्वात् ।” Pramāna-mīmāmsā. Bhāsya to II. 1. 19.
2. “ एते असिद्धभेदा यदान्यतरवाद्यसिद्धत्वेन प्रतिवादद्यसिद्धा वा भवन्ति, यदोभयवादद्यसिद्धत्वेन भवन्ति ।" Ibid.
३. "ये च विशेष्यासिद्धादयोऽसिद्धप्रकाराः परैरिष्टास्तेऽसत्सत्ताकत्वलक्षणासिद्ध-प्रकारान्नार्थान्तरं, तल्लक्षणभेदाभावात् । "

विवक्ष्यन्ते तदा वादयसिद्धाः विवक्ष्यन्ते तदोभयसिद्धा
Prameyakamala-mārtaņda.

Page #228

172
The Sacred Books of the Jainas. 29. Viruddha (Hetvābhāsa ) is concomitance with the opposite of the major term e. g. sound is not perishable because it is caused.
Commentary
In this aphorism, Viruddha Hetvābhāsa is defined and illustrated. Where the universal concomitance ( Avinābhāva or Vyāpti ) is ascertained with the opposite of the major term, we get the fallacy of Viruddha Hetvābhāsa. In this case the inseparable connection ( Vyāpti ) of the middle term is not with the major term but with its antithesis. The example given is "Sound is eternal because it is an effect”. Now there is universal connection of an effect with perishability, but if we try to establish its opposite by the example given above, we get fallacy of Viruddha Hetvābhāsa.
Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa in his notes on Nyāyāvatāra gives another example : "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".
Hemachandra defines Viruddha as that whose concomitance is the opposite or which is derived otherwise'.
Some hold the view that there are eight kinds of Viruddha, but in Prameya-kamala-mārtaņda it is' mentioned that all of these come under the definition here given? Hemachandra also is of the same view3. 1. "faqatalaanishaziatqueghiat faria: Il"
Pramāņa-mimāmsā II. 1. 20. 2. “ये चाष्टौ विरुद्धभेदा परिष्टास्तेऽप्येतल्लक्षणलक्षितत्वाविशेषतोऽत्रैवान्तsfarar " Prameyakamala-mārtaņda.
3. "pata Spirit farasi Giganeasfà fizetat " Pramāņamimāmsī Bhāșya on II. 1. 20. These eight varieties of Viruddha are described as follows by Hemchandra. There are four varieties where Sapakşa exists and there are four varieties when Sapakşa

Page #229

Parikṣāmukham
विपक्षेऽप्यविरुद्धवृत्तिरनैकान्तिकः ॥ ३० ॥
30. Vipaksepyaviruddhavrittiranaikāntikah
30. In Anaikāntika ( Hetvābhāsa ), ( Hetu ) resides also in Vipaksa (in addition to being in Pakṣa and Sapakṣa).
173
निश्चितवृत्तिरनित्यः शब्दः प्रमेयत्वाद् घटवत् ॥ ३१ ॥
31. Nischitavrittiranityaḥ sabdaḥ prameyatvad ghatavat.
31. Where it is certain that (Hetu ) is in ( Vipaksa ) ( we have the fallacy of Nischita vipaksa vritti Hetvābhāsa ), eg. "Sound is perishable because it is knowable like a pitcher.
आकाशे नित्येऽप्यस्य निश्चयात् ॥ ३२ ॥
32. Akāśe nityepyasya niśchayat.
32. Because it ( the quality of knowability ) is ascertained in things like Akāśa which are imperishable.
शंकितवृत्तिस्तु नास्ति सर्वज्ञो वक्तृत्वात् ॥ ३३ ॥
33. Sankitavrittistu nāsti sarvajño vaktritvat.
does not exist. : “सति सपक्षे चत्वारो भेदाः । ( 1 ) पक्षविपक्षव्यापको, यथा नित्यः शब्दः कार्यत्वात् । (:) पक्षव्यापको विपक्षैकदेशवृत्तिः, यथा नित्यः शब्दः सामान्यवत्वे सत्यस्मदादिवाह्येन्द्रियग्राह्यत्वात् । (3) पक्षैकदेशवृत्तिर्विपक्षव्यापको, यथा अनित्या पृथिवी कृतकत्वात् । (1) पक्षविपक्षैकदेशवृत्तिः, यथा नित्यः शब्दः प्रयत्नानन्तरीयकत्वात् ।
असति सपक्षे चत्वारो विरुद्धा: । ( 5 ) पक्षविपक्षव्यापको, यथा आकाशविशेषगुणः शब्दः प्रमेयत्वात् । ( 6 ) पक्षव्यापको विपक्षैकदेशषृत्तिः, यथा आकाशविशेषगुणः शब्दो वाह्येन्द्रियग्राह्यत्वात् । ( 7 ) पक्षैकदेशवृत्तिर्विपक्षव्यापको, यथा आकाशविशेषगुणः शब्दोऽपदात्मकत्वात् । ( 8 ) पक्षविपक्षैकदेशवृत्तिः, यथा आकाशविशेषगुणः शब्दः प्रयत्नानन्तरीयकत्वात् । एषु च चतुर्षु विरुद्धता पक्षैकदेशवृत्तिषु चतुर्षु पुनरसिद्धता विरुद्धता च इत्युभयसमावेशः ।” Ibid.

Page #230

174
The Sacred Books of the Jainas . 33. Where the matter is involved in doubt ( we have the fallacy of sankita vipakșa vritti e. g. an omniscient being does not exist for he can speak.
pareata ancatfattata 11 3811 34. Sarvajñatvena vaktritvāvirodhāt.
34. Because there is no opposition of being able to speak with omniscience.
Commentary
· When Hetu is found in Pakşa, Sapaksa and Vipakșa we have the fallacy of Anaikāntika Hetvābhāsa. "The effect of the presence of the Hetu in Vipaksa is to rob the conclusion of that logical validity which Anumāna ( inference ) directly aims at”.
“Anaikāntika Hetvābhāsa is of two kinds (1) the Niśchita Vipakşa vritti where it is certain that the Hetu resides in the Vipaksa and (2) the Bankita Vipakşa vritti where the matter is involved in doubt."1
The following are illustrations : (1) “Sound is perishable because it is knowledge”.
This is an instance of the Niśchita Vipaksa Vritti type, because it is certain that the quality of knowability resides not only in perishable things, but also in those that are imperishable e. g. space, souls and the like.
(2) Watches are fragile because they are manufactured with machinery.
This is an instance of the Sankita Vipaksa Vritti. The fallacy in this case lies in the fact that it is not certain whether the quality of being manufactured with machinery does or does not reside in things which are not fragile i. e. the Vipaksa.?
ke.
1. The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain Page 55. 2. The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain Pages 55–56.

Page #231

Parikşāmukham
175 Dr. Vidyābhūsaņa in his note on Verse 23 of Nyāyāvatāra already quoted says:
"The uncertain ( Anaikāntika ) such as 'All things are momentary, because they are existent'. Here the reason alleged is uncertain, because 'existence' may or may not be a proof of momentariness, for, an opponent may equally argue : ‘all things are eternal, because they are existent'.' This example corresponds to the Sankita Vipakşa Vritti variety of Anaikāntika Hetvābhāsa mentioned above. The first variety is not described in Nyāyāvatāra.
Hemachandra defines and illustrates both the varieties and uses the same examples as given in Parikṣāmukham. He mentions that some logicians accept other varieties of Anaikāntika Hetvābhāsa but it is not necessary to accept these as all of these are included in the definition of the two varieties Niśchita Vipaksa Vritti and Sankita Vipakşa Vritti varieties."
1. Nyāyāvatāra by S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa Page 21. 2. "नियमस्यासिद्धौ संदेहे वाऽन्यथाप्युपपद्यमानोऽनैकान्तिकः ।"
____Pramānamimamsa II. 1. 21. __"नियमोऽविनाभावस्तस्यासिद्धावनैकान्तिको यथाऽनित्यः शब्दः प्रमेयत्वात् प्रमेयत्वं नित्येप्याकाशादावस्तीति । संदेहे यथा सर्वज्ञः कश्चिद्रागादिमान् वा वक्तत्वात स्वभावविप्रकृष्टाभ्यां हि सर्वज्ञत्ववीतरागत्वाभ्यां हि न वक्तृत्वस्य विरोधः सिद्धः, न च रागादिकार्यम् वचनमिति संदिग्धोऽन्वयः ।" Bhasyu to Ibid. ___8. “ये चान्येऽन्यैरनैकान्तिकभेदा उदाहृतास्ते उक्तलक्षण एवान्तर्भवन्ति । (1) पक्षत्रयव्यापकः, यथानित्यः शब्दः प्रमेयत्वात् । (2) पक्षसपक्षव्यापको विपक्षकदेशवृत्तिः, यथा गौरयं विषाणित्वात् । (3) पक्षविपक्षव्यापकः सपक्षकदेशवृत्तिः यथा नायं गौरविषाणित्वात् । (4) पक्षव्यापकः सपक्षविपक्षकदेशवृत्तिः, यथानित्यः शब्दः प्रत्यक्षत्वात्। (5) प.कदेशवृत्तिः सपक्षविपक्षव्यापको, यथा न द्रव्याण्याकाश कालदिगात्ममनांसि क्षणिकविशेषगुणरहितत्वात् । (6) पक्षविपक्षैकदेशवृत्तिः सपक्षविपक्षव्यापकः, यथा न द्रव्याप्याकाशकालदिगात्ममनांसि क्षणिकविशेषगुणरहितत्वात ।

Page #232

176
The Sacred Books of the Jainas सिद्धे प्रत्यक्षत्वादिवाधिते च साध्ये हेतुरकिंचित्करः ॥३५॥
____ 35. Siddhe pratyaksatvadivadhite cha sadhye heturakinchitkarah. सिद्धः श्रावणः शब्दः शब्दत्वात् ॥ ३६ ॥
36. Siddhah Sravanah sabdah sabdatvat. किंचिदकरणात् ॥ ३७॥
37. Kiñchidakaraṇāt. यथाऽनुष्णोऽग्निद्रव्यत्वादित्यादौ किंचित् कर्तु मशक्यत्वात् ॥३८॥
38. Yathānuşşo’gnirdravyatvādityādau kiñchit karttumaśakyatvāt. लक्षण एवासौ दोषो व्युत्पन्नप्रयोगस्य पक्षदोषेणैव दुष्टत्वात् ॥३९॥
39. Laksana evāsau doso vyutpannaprayogasya paksadoseņaiva duşțatvāt.
35. Akiñchitkara ( Hetvābhāsa ) consists of (use of ) Hetu ( middle term ) in connection with a Sādhya ( major term ) which had already been established and which is opposed by Pratyaksa etc.
___36. Capability of being heard by the ear' is established regarding sound, as it is sound.
___37. Because ( Hetu) does not do anything ( in such a case ).
38. As for example, fire is cold as this a thing. In such cases ( Hetu ) cannot do anything.
39. This fault arises only in definition. For in use by those conversant with reasoning, the fault is proved by fault of Paksa ( minor term ). (7) पक्षविपक्षैकदेशवृत्तिः सपक्षव्यापी, यथा न द्रव्याणि दिक्कालमनांस्यमूर्त्तत्वात् । (8) सपक्षपक्षकदेशवृत्तिर्विपक्षव्यापी, यथा द्रव्याणि दिक्कालमनांस्यमूर्त्तत्वात् । (9) पक्षत्रयैकदेशवृत्तिर्यथा अनित्या पृथिवी प्रत्यक्षत्वात् ॥” Ibid.

Page #233

Pariksāmukham
177
Commentary Akiñchitkara Hetvābhāsa is here defined. Really speaking, this is not a separate variety as this is included in the fallacy of Pakşābhāsa as already defined being opposed to Pratyakşa, Anumāna, Āgama, Loka-vachana and Sva-vachana ( Aphorism 15 ).
This fault is included in those varieties of fallacies. If you say, that it is redundant to lay down a separate definition of Akiñchitkara Hetvābhāsa, we reply ( by Aphorism 39 ) that this fallacy is described only for the understanding of students in a treatise dealing with definitions though this is not used at the time of discussion by logicians'.
As this is not really a different variety, it is not mentioned in works such as Nyāyāvatāra, Pramāņa-mimāmsā etc.
Two examples of Akiñchitkara Hetvābhāsa are given in Pariksāmukham. The first is : “Sound is capable being heard by the ear, because it is a sound”. Here the capability of being heard is established by itself. So it is useless to establish this by employing a Hetu. So this is an example of Akinchitkara Hetvābhāsa where Sadhya ( Major term ) is Siddha (already established). The second example is "Fire is cold as this is a thing". Here coldness of fire is opposed to Pratyakşa. So employment of such a reasoning cannot produce any result in such cases. This is an example of Akiñchitkara Hetvābhāsa where Sādhya is opposed by Pratyakşa’
__ 1. “ननु प्रसिद्धः प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमलोकस्ववचनैश्च वाधितः पक्षाभासः प्रतिपादितः। तदोषेनैव चास्य दुष्टत्वात् । पृथगकिंचित्कराभिधानमनर्थकमित्याशङ्कय 'लक्षण एवं' इत्यादिना प्रतिविधत्ते । लक्षणे लक्ष्यव्युत्पादनशास्त्रे एवासावकिंचित्करत्वलक्षणो दोषो विनेयव्युत्पत्त्यर्थ व्युत्पाद्यते । न तु व्युत्पन्नानां प्रयोगकाले। कुत एतFESTE 1949 9712 92 tara gerata 1" Prameyakamala-mārtanda
2. “सिद्धे निर्णीते प्रमाणान्तरात् साध्ये प्रत्यक्षादिबाधिते च हेतुर्न किंचित् करोतीत्यकिंचित् करोऽनर्थको यथा श्रावणः शब्दः शब्दत्वात् । नह यसौ स्वसाध्य साधयति तस्याध्यक्षादेव प्रसिद्धेः। नापि साध्यान्तरं तत्रावृत्तेरित्यत आह 'किंचिद
P-23

Page #234

178
The Sacred Books of the Jainas: “Akiñchitkara Hetvābhāsa is the fallacy of redundancy. This is also of two kinds.
(a) The Siddhasādhana which means the establishing of that which has already been proved by some other kind of Pramāṇa. Illustration : Sound is heard by the ear, because it is sound.
(b) The Vādhita vişaya which relates to a proposition inconsistent with Pratyakşa (direct observation or jñāna ), logical inference, scriptural text or its own sense. Illustrations : (i) Fire is not endowed with warmth, because it is a substance (inconsistent with Pratyakşa). (ii) Sound is unchanging, because it is not an effect ( inconsistent with Anumāna ). (iii) Dharma (virtue or righteousness ) is the cause of pain, because it resides in man ( inconsistent with scripture according to which Dharma is the cause of happiness ). (iv) Z is the son of a barren woman because she has never conceived (inconsistent with the proposition itself)”.?
दृष्टान्ताभासा अन्वयेऽसिद्धसाध्यसाधनोभयाः ॥४०॥ 40. Dristāntābhāsā anyaye'siddhasādhyasādhanobhayā). अपौरुषेयः शब्दोऽमूर्त्तत्वादिन्द्रयसुखपरमाणुघटवत् ॥४१॥
41. Apauruşeyah Sabdo’mūrttatvādindriyasukhaparamāņu: ghatavat.
विपरीतान्वयश्च यदपौरुषेयं तदमूर्तम् ॥४२॥
42. Viparitānvayaścha yadapauruşeyam tadamūrttam. विद्युदादिनातिप्रसंगात् ॥ ४३ ॥
43. Vidyudādinātiprasangāt. करणात्' प्रत्यक्षादिवाधिते च साध्येऽकिंचित्करोऽसौ अनुष्णोग्निद्रव्यत्वात् इत्यादौ TATT I gatsinfosfaa #Traficure fåfaq 4a3ficata 1" Prameyakamala-mārtanda.
1, The Science of Thought by C. R. Jain Pages 56-57

Page #235

Parikṣāmukham
179
40. Fallacies of Driṣṭanta (illustration) in Anvaya consists of non-establishment of Sadhya, Sadhana or both of them.
41. Sound is unproduced by man because it has no form like sensual pleasure, atom or pitcher.
42. Viparitanvaya also: "That which is unproduced by man has no form".
43. Because this will be applied in lightening etc. safata facaqsufaten: qrarfoafzuguratatea ||88||| 44. Vyatireke siddha-tadvyatirekāḥ paramāṇvindriyasukhākāśavat.
विपरीतव्यतिरेकश्च यन्नामूर्त्तत्वं तन्नापौरुषेयम् ॥ ४५ ॥
45. Viparita-vyatirekaścha yannāmurttatvam tannāpauru
şeyam.
44. In Vyatireka, Siddha and the Vyatirekas of the same, like atom, sensual pleasure and Akāśa.
45. Viparita Vyatireka: The quality of not being without form, is not unproduced by man.
Commentary
"Driṣṭantābhāsa (fallacy of illustration) occurs when a Dristanta is not an appropriate illustration. This is of two kinds : (i) Sadharmya or Anvaya Driṣṭāntābhāsa and (ii) Vaidharmya or Vyatireka Driṣṭāntābhāsa.
The Sadharmya fallacy arises when a negative illustration is given in place of an affirmative one. Illustration: There is no Sarvajña (omniscient being) because he is not apprehended by the senses, like a jar. [The illustration should have been of some thing not perceivable with the senses ].
The Vaidharmya is the opposite of Sadharmya. Illustration: Kapila is omniscient, because he is beset with desires like the Arhanta (Tirthankara). [Here the comparison should have

Page #236

180
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
been with some one who became omniscient without giving up his desires, not with the Arhanta who is absolutely desireless ].
. Every illustration has reference to either the Sādhya, or Sādhana or both. This gives us three forms of the Anvaya and three of the Vyatireka Dristāntābhāsa. Illustrations : (i) Sound is Apauruşeya (unproduced by man ) because it is devoid of sensible qualities ; whatever is devoid of sensible qualities is Apauruşeya, like (a) sensual pleasure (6) an atom or (c) a jar. [ Here (a) is an instance of the wrong illustration of the Sādhya ( because sensual pleasure is the opposite of Apauruşeya ) (b) of the Sādhana (an atom is not devoid of sensible qualities ) and (c) of both, the Sādhya and Sādhana ( for a jar is neither Apauruşeya nor devoid of sensible qualities ). These are instances of the Anvaya Dristāntābhāsa. (ii) Sound is Apauruşeya because it is Amūrttika ( devoid of sensible qualities ); whatever is not Apauruşeya is not Amūrttika as (a) an atom (b) sense-gratification or (c) space. [ This is a three-fold illustration of the Vyatireka Dristāntābhāsa. The atom, being Apauruşeya does not furnish an instance of the not Apaurușeya quality ; sense-gratification is not not-Amūrttika, and space is neither not-Apauruşeya nor not-Amūrttika ).
Anvaya Dristāntābhāsa also occurs where the order of the Sādhya and Sādhana is reversed in the exemplification of Hetu. Illustration : There is fire in this hill. Because there is smoke on it. Whereever there is fire there is smoke ( Anvaya Driştāntābhāsa ). [The true form of the Anvaya exemplification here should be “Whereever there is smoke there is fire" 1.
Similarly, Vyatireka Dristāntābhäsa also occurs when the Sādhya and Sādhana replace each other in Vyatireka exemplification. Illustration :
This hill is full of smoke. Because it is full of fire. Whatever is not full of smoke is also not full of fire.

Page #237

Parikṣāmukham
181
[The fallacy is obvious, for there may be fire without smoke ]'.
Siddhasena has defined Driṣṭāntābhāsa as follows: "Logicians have declared that fallacies of the example (Driṣṭāntābhāsa) in the homogeneous form, arise here from an imperfect middle term or from a defect in the major term etc.
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 (Sadhana or Hetu) or both, is not shown, or when there is a doubt about them".
In the commentary to Nyāyāvatāra the varieties of Sadharmya and Vaidharmya Driṣṭantābhāsa are thus described :
"Fallacies of the homogeneous example (Sadharmya Drişṭāntābhāsa) arise from a defect in the major term ( Sadhya) or middle term (Hetu) or both, or from doubt about them, thus:
(1) Inference is invalid ( major term) because it is a source of knowledge (middle term) like perception (homogeneous example). 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 true knowledge (middle term) like a dream (homogeneous example). Here the example involves a defect in the middle term (Hetu) for a dream is not a source of true knowledge.
2.
1. The Science of Thought Pages 57-58 " साधम्र्येणात्र दृष्टान्तदोषा न्यायविदीरिताः । अपलक्षण हेतूत्थाः साध्यादिविकलादयः ॥ audona zezain zanefaciften: | साध्यसाधनयुग्मानामनिवृत्तेश्च संशयात् ॥”
Nyāyāvatāra. 24, 25. Translated by S. C. Vidyabhūṣaṇa. Pages, 21 and 23.

Page #238

182
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
(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 ( Sādhya and Hetu ) 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 a man in the street ( homogeneous example ). Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of the 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 term ) 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.1
1. "तत्र साध्यविकलो यथा, भ्रान्तमनुमानं प्रमाणत्वात् प्रत्यक्षवत् , प्रत्यक्षस्य भ्रान्तताविकलत्वात् । साधनविकलो यथा जाग्रत्संवेदनं भ्रान्तं प्रमाणत्वात् स्वप्नसंवेदनवत् , स्वप्नसंवेदनस्य प्रमाणताव्यकल्यात् । उभयविकलो यथा, नास्ति सर्वज्ञः प्रत्यक्षाद्यनुपलब्धत्वात घटवत् , घटस्य सत्वात् प्रत्यक्षादिभिरुपलब्धत्वाच्च । संदिग्धसाध्यधर्मो यथा, वीतरागोऽयं मरणधर्मत्वात् रथ्यापुरुषवत् , रथ्यापुरुषे वीतरागस्य संदिग्धत्वात् । संदिग्धसाधनधर्मो यथा, मरणधर्मोऽयं पुरुषो रागादिमत्वात् , रथ्यापुरुषवत् द्रष्टव्यः, पुरुषे रागादिमत्वस्य संदिग्धत्वात् वीतरागस्यापि तथा संभवात् । संदिग्धोभयधर्मो यथा असर्वज्ञोऽयं रागादिमत्वात् रथ्यापुरुषवत् इति रथ्यापुरुषे प्रदर्शितन्यायेन उभयस्यापि संदिग्धत्वात् ।" Nyayavatāra-vivriti. Translation by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa.

Page #239

Parikşāmukham
183
The fallacy of the heterogeneous example ( Vaidharmya Driştāntābhāsa ) is of six kinds, thus :
(1) Inference is invalid ( major term ) because it is a source of true knowledge ( middle term ); whatever 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 ( Sādhya ) for a dream is really invalid though it has been cited as not invalid.
(2) Perception is non-reflective or Nirvikalpaka ( major term) because it is a source of true knowledge ( middle term ); whatever is reflective or Savikalpaka, 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 ( Sādhana ) 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 ). Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in both the major and middle terms ( Sādhya and Sādhana ) 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 ( Sādhya) 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 untrustworthy is not full of passions, as Buddha ( heterogeneous example ) Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of the middle

Page #240

184
The Sacred Books of the Jainas 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 ( Sadhya and Sādhana ) for it is doubtful whether Buddha was devoid of passions and gave his own flesh to the hungry”.1
. 1. "तदनेन षड् दृष्टान्ताभासाः सूचिताः। तद् यथा साध्याव्यतिरेकी (१) साधनाव्यतिरेकी (२) साध्यसाधनाव्यतिरेकी (३) तथा संदिग्धसाध्याव्यतिरेकः (४) संदिग्धसाधनव्यतिरेकः (५) संदिग्धसाध्यसाधनव्यतिरेकश्च (६)। तत्र साध्याव्यतिरेकी यथा, भ्रान्तमनुमानं प्रमाणत्वात् , इत्यत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो यत् पुनःभ्रान्तं न भवति न तत् प्रमाणं तद् यथा स्वप्नज्ञानमिति। स्वप्नज्ञानात् भ्रान्ततानिवृत्तेः साध्याव्यतिरेकित्वम् । साधनाव्यतिरेकी यथा, प्रत्यक्षं निर्विकल्पकं प्रमाणत्वात् । अत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो, यत् पुनः सविकल्पकं न तत् प्रमाणं तद् यथानुमानमनुप्रमाणतानिवृत्तेः साधनाव्यतिरेकित्वम् । उभयाव्यतिरेकी यथा, नित्यानित्यः शब्दः सत्वात् इत्यत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो यः पुनर्न नित्यानित्यः स न सन् तद् यथा घटः घटादुभयस्यापि अव्यावृत्तेरुभयाव्यतिरेकित्वम् । तथा संदिग्धसाध्यव्यतिरेकः, असर्वज्ञा अनाप्ता वा कपिलादयः आर्यसत्यचतुष्टयाप्रतिपादकत्वात् । अत्रं वैधादृष्टान्तः यः पुनः सर्वज्ञ आप्तो वा असौ आर्यसत्यचतुष्टयं प्रत्यपीपदत् तद् यथा शौद्धोदनिरिति । अयं च साध्यव्यतिरेकी वा आर्यसत्यचतुष्टयस्य दुःखसमुदयमार्गनिरोधलक्षणस्य प्रमाणवाधितत्वेन तदुभाषकस्य असर्वज्ञतानाप्ततोपपत्तः ।...तस्मात् शौद्धोदनेः सकाशात् असर्वज्ञतानाप्ततालक्षणस्य साध्यस्य व्यावृत्तिः सन्दिग्धेति सन्दिग्धसाध्यव्यतिरेकित्वम् । सन्दिग्धसाधनव्यतिरेको यथा, अनादेयवाक्यः कश्चिदू विवक्षितः पुरुषो रागादिमत्वादित्यत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो यः पुनः आदेयवाक्यो न स रागादिमान तयथा सुगत इति ।.... सुगतात् रागादिमत्वव्यावृत्तिसंशयात् संदिग्धसाधनव्यतिरेकित्वम् । संदिग्धसाध्यसाधनव्यतिरेको यथा, वीतरागाः कपिलादयः करुणास्पदेषु अपि अकरुणापरीतचित्ततया दत्तनिजमांसशकलत्वात् । अत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो ये पुनर्वीतरागास्ते करुणापरीतचित्ततया दत्तनिजमांसशकलाः तद् यथा बोधिसत्वा इत्यत्र साधनसाध्यधर्मयोर्बोधिसत्वेभ्यो

Page #241

Parikşāmukham
185 Hemachandra in his Pramāņa-mimāņsā lays down that there are eight varieties of Dristāntābhāsa according to Sādharmya and Vaidharmya'. First, he defines and exemplifies the three varieties of Sādharmya Dristāntābhāsa as given in the Parikṣāmukham viz. Sādhya-vikala, Sādhana-vikala and Sādhyasādhanovaya-vikala”. Then he defines and illustrates the three varieties of Vaidharmya-Driştāntābhāsa viz. Sādhya-vyatireki, Sādhanavyatireki and Ubhaya-vyatireki”. Then he mentions the three varieties Sandigdha Sādhyānvaya, Sandigdha Sādhanānvaya and Sandigdha Ubhayānvaya and the three varieties Sandigdha Sādhya Vyatireka, Sandigdha Sādhana Vyatireka and Sandigdha Ubhaya Vyatireka“. Besides these he mentions two varieties Viparitānvaya and Viparita Vyatireka and two varieties Apradarsita Anvaya and Apradarsita Vyatireka”. These last four varieties are not accepted by all. व्यावृत्तिः सन्दिग्धा ततः प्रतिपादितप्रमाणवैकल्यात् न ज्ञायते किं ते रागादिमन्तः उत वीतरागास्तथानुकम्प्येषु किं स्वपिशितखण्डानि दत्तवन्तो नेति वा अतः सन्दिग्धसाध्यErau faracafafar 1" Nyāyāvatāra-vivriti. 1. "At traztagraet terra HTAT: 11"
Pramāņa-mīmāmsā. II. 1. 22. ___2. "अमूर्त्तत्वेन नित्ये शब्दे साध्ये कर्मपरमाणुघटाः साध्यसाधनोभयfaract: Il?. Ibid. II. 1. 23. 3. Mari TTATEA ferram: Arbagyou fatfatur: it?
Ibid II, 1. 24. 4. “वचनाद्रागे रागान्मरणधर्मत्वकिंचिज्ज्ञत्वयोः सन्दिग्धसाध्यादूयन्वयaufarhat Tema4164: 11" Ibid II. 1. 15. .5. "Fauztarragoufeest ll" Ibid II. 1. 26.
fafaragoufardant ll" Ibid II. 1. 27. The eight varieties of Sādharmya Driştāntābhāsa are thus summed up by Hemachandra :
P-24

Page #242

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
For example, the author of the Nyāyāvatāra-vivriti refutes the view that there are three other varieties of Sadharmya Drişṭāntābhāsa viz. Ananvaya, Apradarsitānvaya and Viparitānvaya and three other varieties of Vaidharmya Driṣṭāntābhāsa viz. Avyatireki, Apradarsita-vyatireka and Viparita-vyatireka.
186
"Some unnecessarily lay down three other kinds of fallacy of the homogeneous example (Sadharmya Driṣṭāntābhāsa) viz. (1) Un-connected (Ananvaya) such as, this person is full of passions (major term), because he is a speaker (middle term) like a certain man in Magadha (example). 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 (Apradarśitānvaya) such as, Sound is non-eternal (major term) because it is adventitious (middle term), as a jar (example). Here 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'. [ Dignaga the Buddhist urged the necessity of converting the example into a universal proposition with a view to show the connection between the middle term and major term in the proper form ].
(3) Of contrary connection (Viparitānvaya) such as :Sound is non-eternal (major term) because it is adventitious,
“साध्यविकलः साधनविकलः उभयविकलः सन्दिग्धसाध्यान्वयः सन्दिग्धसावनान्वयः, सन्दिग्धोभयान्वयः विपरीतान्वयः अप्रदर्शितान्वयः चेत्यष्टौ साधर्म्य - दृष्टान्ताभासाः । "
The eight varieties of Vaidharmya Driṣṭāntābhāsa are mentioned by Hemachandra as follows:
“साध्याव्यावृत्तसाधनाव्यावृत्तोभयव्यावृत्ताः सन्दिग्धसाध्यव्यावृत्तिसन्दिग्धसाधन
व्यावृत्तिसन्दिग्धोभयव्यावृत्तयो विपरीतव्यतिरेकोऽप्रदर्शितव्यतिरेकश्चेत्यष्टावेव वैधर्म्य - zgitalman Haffa "

Page #243

187
Parikṣāmukham ( middle term ). Here if the inseparable connection ( Vyāpti ) is shown, thus 'whatever is non-eternal is adventitious as a jar' instead of thus : 'Whatever is adventitions, is non-eternal as a jar' the example would involve the fallacy of contrary connection”l.
"Some unnecessarily lay down three other kinds of fallacy of the heterogeneous example ( Vaidharmya Dristāntābhāsa ) viz. (1) Unseparated ( Avyatireki ): This person is not devoid of passions ( major term ) because he is a speaker ( 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 ( Vyatireka Vyāpti ) between 'devoid of passions' and 'a.speaker'.
(2) Of separation unshown ( Apradarsita Vyatireka ) Sound is, non-eternal ( major term ) because it is adventitious ( middle term ) just as ether' ( example ). Here though there is an unavoidable separation between “adventitious' and 'eternal', yet it has not been shown in the proper form such as 'whatever is not adventitious is eternal, just as ether'. [ Dignāga 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
. 1. "ननु च परैरन्यदपि दृष्टान्ताभासत्रयमुक्तं तद् यथा अनन्वयोऽप्रदर्शितान्वयो विपरीतान्वयश्च । तत्र अनन्वयो यथा, रागादिमान् विवक्षितः पुरुषो वक्तृत्वाद् इष्टपुरुषवत् इति । यद्यपि किलष्टपुरुषे रागादिमत्वं वक्तृत्वं च साध्यसाधनधर्मों दृष्टौ तथापि यो यो वक्ता सो सो रागादिमानिति व्याप्त्यसिद्धेरनन्वयोऽयं दृष्टान्तः। तथाप्रदर्शितान्वयो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् घटवदिति । अत्र यद्यपि वास्तवोऽन्वयोऽस्ति तथापि वादिना वचनेन न प्रकाशित इति अप्रदर्शितान्वयो दृष्टान्तः । विपरीतान्वयो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् । हेतुमभिधाय यदनित्यं तत् कृतकं घटवदिति विपरीतव्याप्तिदर्शनात् विपरीतान्वयः ॥" Nyayavatāra-vivriti.

Page #244

188
The Sacred Books of the Jainas 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'1.
Hemachandra agrees that Ananvaya and Avyatireki might be excluded from varieties of Driştāntābhāsa”.
बालप्रयोगाभासः पंचावयवेषु कियधीनता ॥ ४६॥ .
46. Bālaprayogābhāsaḥ pañchāvayaveșu kiyaddhinatā. अग्निमानयं देशो धूमवत्वात् यदित्थं तदित्थं यथा महानसः ॥४७॥
47. Agnimānayam deso dhāmavatvat yadittham tadittham yathā mahānasaḥ
1. “परैः परेऽपि दृष्टान्ताभासास्त्रयो विमृश्यभाषितया दर्शितास्तद्यथाऽव्यतिरेकोऽप्रदर्शितव्यतिरेकोऽविपरीतव्यतिरेकश्च। ते अस्माभिः अयुक्तत्वात्तु दर्शयितव्याः। तथा हि अव्यतिरेकस्तैर्दर्शितो यथा, अवीतरागः कश्चिद् विवक्षितः पुरुषो वक्तृत्वादित्यत्र वैधय॑दृष्टान्तो यः पुनः वीतरागो न स वक्ता यथोपलखण्ड इति । यद्यपि किलोपलखण्डात् उभयं व्यावृत्तं तथापि व्याप्त्या व्यतिरेकासिद्धेः अव्यतिरेकित्वमिति । तथाहि अप्रदर्शितव्यतिरेकस्तैरुक्तो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् आकाशवदित्यत्र विद्यमानोऽपि व्यतिरेको वादिना वचनेन उभावित इति दुष्टता। विपरीतव्यतिरेकः पुनरभिहितो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् , इत्यत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो यदकृतकं तन्नित्यं भवति यथाकाशमिति इत्यत्र विपर्यस्तव्यतिरेकप्रदर्शनात fantaoufallacan, " Nyāyāvatāra-vivriti.
2. "ननु अनन्वयाव्यतिरेकावपि कैश्चिदृष्टान्ताभासाबुक्तौ, यथा रागादिमानयं वचनात् अत्र साधर्म्यदृष्टान्ते आत्मनि रागवचनयोः सत्यपि साहित्ये वैधhदृष्टान्ते चोपलखण्डे सत्यामपि सह निवृत्तौ प्रतिबन्धाभावेनान्वयव्यतिरेकयोरभाव इत्यनन्वयाव्यतिरेकौ तौ कस्मादिह नोक्तौ। उच्यते, ताभ्यां पूर्वे न भियन्त इति साधर्म्यवैधाभ्यां प्रत्येकमष्टावेव दृष्टान्ताभासा भवन्ति यदाहुः
लिंगस्यानन्वया अष्टावष्टावव्यतिरेकिणः । नान्यथानुपपन्नत्वं कथंचित् ख्यापयन्त्यमी॥" Bhāşya to Aphorism II. 1. 27 in Pramāņa-mimāṁsā.

Page #245

Parikṣāmukham
धूमवांश्चायमिति वा ॥ ४८ ॥
48. Dhumavänśchāyamiti vā.
तस्मादग्निमान् धूमवांश्चायं ॥ ४९ ॥
49. Tasmādagnimān dhūmavānśchāyaṇ.
स्पष्टतया प्रकृत- प्रतिपत्तेरयोगात् ॥ ५० ॥
50. Spaṣṭataya prakrita-pratipatterayogāt.
46. The fallacy of Bala-prayoga consists of absence of one of the five limbs (of syllogism).
47. This place is full of fire as it is full of smoke. Where there is smoke there is fire. As for example, a kitchen.
48. Or, this is full of smoke.
49. So it is full of fire and it is full of smoke.
189
50. As clear understanding of the real thing is not established from it.
Commentary
In Chapter III, the five limbs of syllogism have been described. These are as follows:
1. This hill is full of fire (Pratijñā ).
2.
Because it is full of smoke (Hetu ).
3. Whatever is full of smoke is also full of fire, as a kitchen (Udāharaṇa).
4. So is this hill full of smoke (Upanaya).
5. Therefore, this hill is full of fire (Nigamana).
It has been mentioned in that Chapter, that only the first two are really necessary for inference, the last three being only used to convince children.

Fallacy in using syllogism to convince children arises if we do not mention all the five limbs of syllogism; e. g. if we mention

Page #246

190
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
.
only the first three or the first four of these limbs. This fallacy also arises if we mention these in a wrong order i. e. if Nigamana be mentioned before Upanaya for this debars a clear understanding of the real thing. रागद्वेषमोहाक्रान्तपुरुषवचनाज्जातमागमाभासम् ॥५१॥
51. Rāgadveşamohākrāntapuruṣavachanājjātamägamābhāsam. यथा नद्यास्तीरे मोदकराशयः सन्ति धावध्वं माणवकाः ॥२॥
52. Yathā nadyāstire modakarāśayaḥ santi dhāvadhyam māņavakāḥ. अंगुल्यग्रे हस्तियूथशतमास्त इति च ॥ ५३॥
53. Angulyagre hastiyūthasatamāsta iti cha. faziaigta 11 G8 11
54. Visamvādāt.
51. Fallacy of Agama arises from words of a person seized by attachment, hatred, mistake etc.
52. As for example, Run boys. There are a large quantity of sweetmeats on the river-bank.
53. Or, one hundred elephants are standing on the tip of the finger.
54. Because ( these ) want ( the element of Pramāņa ) viz. true knowledge.
Commentary Āgama has been defined in Aphorism 99, Samuddesa III as the knowledge of objects got from words of reliable person etc. ( viz. scripture ). Now, the words of persons who are not reliable and who may be actuated to deceive people are examples of Āgamābhāsa. If one utters a falsehood urging that there are sweetmeats on the banks of a river and urges boys to run to the river side, this will be an example of fallacy of Agama. Further, if one

Page #247

Parikṣāmukham
says what is impossible viz. one hundred elephants are standing on the tip of a finger, it will also be Agamabhāsa. Jain logicians also say that when true scripture is mis-quoted to support a false proposition, we have an example of Agamābhāsa.
191
प्रत्यक्षमेवैकं प्रमाणमित्यादि संख्याभासम् ॥ ५५ ॥
55. Pratyaksamevaikam pramānamityādi sañkhyābhāsam. लोकायतिकस्य प्रत्यक्षतः परलोकादिनिषेधस्य परबुद्धधादेश्वासिद्धेरतद्विषयत्वात् ॥ ५६ ॥
56. Laukāyatikasya pratyaksatah paralokādinisedhasya paravudhyādeśchasiddheratadviṣayatvāt.
सौगत सांख्ययोगप्राभाकर- जैमिनीयानां गमोपमानार्थापत्त्यभावैरेकैका धिकैर्व्याप्तिवत् ॥ ५७ ॥
57. Saugata-sankhya-yauga-prābhākara-jaiminiyānām__pratyakṣānumānāgamopamānārthāpattyabhāvairekaikādhikairvyāptivat.
अनुमानादेस्तदविषयत्वे प्रमाणान्तरत्वम् ॥ ५८ ॥
58. Anumānādestadvisayatve pramānāntaratvam. तर्कस्यैव व्याप्तिगोचरत्वे प्रमाणान्तरत्वम् अप्रमाणस्याव्यवस्थापकत्वात् ॥ ५९ ॥
59. Tarkasyeva vyāptigocharatve pramānāntaratvam apra māṇasyāvyavasthāpakatvāt.
प्रतिभासभेदस्य च भेदकत्वात् ॥ ६० ॥
60. Pratibhāsa-bhedasya cha bhedakatvat
55. Sankhyābhasa (Fallacy of number) is maintaining ‘Pratyaksa is the only Pramāna' etc.

प्रत्यक्षानुमाना
56. Because according to the view of the followers of Chārvaka philosophy the other world is denied from Pratyakṣa and

Page #248

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
knowledge of others cannot be derived (from Pratyakṣa), so these cannot be the subject matter of it (Pratyakṣa).
192
57. Like Vyapti in case of the followers of the Buddhist, Sankhya, Nyaya, Prabhakara (school of Mimamsa philosophy) and Jaimini (school of Mimamsa philosophy) who accept Pratyakṣa, Anumana, Agama, Upamana, Arthapatti and Abhāva exceeding one by one (in their doctrines respectively).
58. Knowledge of others being the subject of Anumāna etc. will become another Pramāņa.
59. Tarka also being understood from Vyapti will become another Pramāņa. For that which is not Pramāņa cannot establish anything.
60. Because there is a difference according to difference of illumination.
Commentary
There is a great difference of opinion among Indian philosophers regarding the number of Pramana. According to the Chārvāka view, there is only one Pramāņa viz. Pratyakṣa. According to the Buddhist philosophy, there are two Pramāņas viz. Pratyakṣa and Anumana. In Vaiseṣika philosophy, Pratyakṣa and Anumana are accepted as Pramaņas for according to this philosophy the Pramāņas Śabda etc. are included within Anumana.
In Sankhya philosophy, three Pramāņas viz. Pratyakṣa, Anumana and Agama have been accepted. In Nyaya philosophy, four kinds of Pramāņa viz. Pratyakṣa, Anumana, Upamāna and Sabda have been mentioned. In Mimāmsa philosophy those who follow the school of Prabhakara mention that there are five Pramāņas: Pratyakṣa, Anumana, Upamana, Śabda and Arthapatti, and those who follow the Bhatta school mention that there are six Pramāņas viz. Pratyakṣa, Anumāna, Upamāna, Śabda, Arthāpatti and Abhāva.
In Parikṣāmukham it is mentioned that denial of any kind of Pramāņa as accepted in this work will lead to the fallacy of

Page #249

Pariksāmukham
193
Sankhyābhāsa ( fallacy with reference to the number ). It is urged that an example of this fallacy is the view of the Chārvāka philosophy that there is no other Pramāņa except Pratyakşa. For the other world or knowledge of others cannot be derived from Pratyakşa Pramāņa. That knowledge which cannot know an object cannot establish the existence or non-existence of that object. So the Chārvāka philosophy cannot establish the non-existence of the next world, or the existence of knowledge of others through Pratyakşa.
Again the knowledge of Vyāpti has to be accepted separately. So the view of philosophers who accept two, three, four, five or six Pramāṇas commit the. fallacy of Sankhyā (number). For example, if Chārvāka will say 'I will prove the other world by Anumāna (inference ), he will have to accept a Pramāņa other than Pratyakşa. So the view of Chārvāka that there is only one Pramāņa viz. Pratyakşa, becomes vitiated by Sankhyābhāsa.
Again, some like the Buddhists accept Tarka to be a separate Pramāņa to establish Vyāpti. The fallacy will be similar as shown in the acceptance of ‘inference' by the Chārvākas for Tarka will increase the number of Pramāṇas as accepted by these philosophers. It cannot be said that though Tarka is accepted, it is not accepted as Pramāņa. To hold such a view will lead to the failure of establishing Vyāpti for if Tarka be not accepted as Pramāņa, Vyāpti will not be established by it. That which is not a Pramāṇa cannot establish an object. So if we accept establishment of Vyāpti by Tarka, we must accept Tarka to be a Pramāņa.
There is a further reason for accepting Tarka etc. as Pramāṇas. Where illuminations are different, Pramāṇas must also be different. In Pratyakşa, Tarka etc. the illumination is not the same. So these must be treated as different Pramāṇas.
विषयाभासः सामान्य विशेषो द्वयं वा स्वतंत्रम् ॥ ६१॥ 61.. Visayābhāsaḥ sāmānyam višeşo dvayam vā svatantram.
P-25

Page #250

194
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
.
तथा प्रतिभासनात् कार्याकरणाच ॥ १२ ॥ 62. Tathā pratibhāsanāt kāryākaraṇāchcha. समर्थस्य करणे सर्वदोत्पत्तिरनपेक्षत्वात् ॥ ६३ ॥
63. Samarthasya karaṇe sarvadotpattiranapekșatvāt. परापेक्षणे परिणामित्वमन्यथा तद्भावात् ॥ ६४ ॥
64. Parāpekṣaṇe pariņāmitvamanyathā tadabhāvāt. स्वयमसमर्थस्य अकारकत्वात् पूर्ववत् ॥ ६५ ॥ 65. Svayamasamarthasya akārakatvāt pūrvavat.
61. Visayābhāsa ( fallacy of object ) ( happens ) where Sāmānya or Viseșa or both of them ( are ) separately ( accepted).
62. As it appears like the same, and as it does not do any work.
63. Accepting it to be Samartha ( effective ) will lead to creation ( of result ) at all times, being independant.
64. On accepting dependency on other (causes), the quality of being modified will have to be accepted as otherwise, this does not exist.
65. Because, that which is ineffective in itself cannot cause anything as the former.
Commentary Fallacy of Vişaya ( object ) arises when we say that the object of Pramāṇa is only Sāmānya or only Viseșa or that Sāmānya and Višeşa are separate objects of Pramāņa. In objects only Sāmānya etc. are not seen and only Sāmānya etc. cannot produce any result. On accepting that Sāmānya etc. can effect something we are led to two stand-points viz, whether Sāmānya etc. effect anything being Samartha (effective cause ) or Asamartha ( non-effective cause ). If we accept that Sāmānya etc. effect things being Samartha, we will be led to the inevitable conclusion that

Page #251

195
Parikşāmukham effects will always arise for no other thing than Sāmānya etc. will be required to produce effects. If we maintain that Sāmānya etc. require other accessories, we must maintain that it consists of modification. Whenever we accept accessory causes for production of an effect, the conclusion is inevitable that modification will occur. To accept the second view viz. that Sāmānya etc. produce effect being Asamartha will not be proper. A cause which is Asamartha cannot produce anything either before or after combination with accessory causes. So Sāmānya etc. if taken as Asamartha will not be able to produce any result.
फलाभासं प्रमाणादभिन्नं भिन्नमेव वा ॥ ६६ ॥ 66. Phalābhāsam pramāņādabhinnam bhinnameva vā. अभेदे तव्यवहारानुपपत्तः ॥ ६७॥ 67. Abhede tadvyavahārānupapatteủ.
व्यावृत्त्यापि न तत्कल्पना फलान्तराव्यावृत्त्याफलत्वप्रसंगात् ॥ ६८॥
68. Vyāvrittyāpi na tatkalpanā phalāntarādvyāyrittyāphalatvaprasangāt
प्रमाणाव्यावृत्त्येवाप्रमाणत्वस्य ॥ ६९ ॥
69. Pramāṇādvyāvrittyevāpramāṇatvasya. तस्माद्वास्तवोऽभेदः ॥ ७० ॥ 70. Tasmādvāstavo'bhedaḥ. भेदे त्वात्मान्तरवत्तदनुपपत्तः ॥ ७१॥ 71. Bhede tvātmāntaravattadanupapatteb. समवायेऽतिप्रसंगः ॥ ७२॥ 72. Samavāye’tiprasangaḥ.
66. Phalābhāsa (fallacy of result ) is either separate or not separate from Pramāņa.

Page #252

196
The Sacred Books of the Jainas 67. If we accept inseparableness, its ( separate ) use cannot happen.
68. Its imagination by its opposite cannot ( be accepted ) for ( we ) shall have to assume ( then ) non-result by its opposite (e. g. ) another result.
69. Just as Apramāņa is derived from Pramāņa by holding the opposite.
70. So, really there is no difference.
71. (If ) difference ( be accepted ), it will not be derived as in the case of another soul.
72. There will be Atiprasanga ( if we urge ) Samavāya.
Commentary
Phalābhāsa ( fallacy of the result of Pramāņa ) is either separate from Pramāņa or inseparable from it. If we accept that the result is always inseparable from Pramāņa, we cannot say as usual that this is the Pramāņa and this is the result. : If it is mentioned as is done by the Buddhists, that the result will be understood by absence of non-result, it will not be correct. For non-result can then in a similar manner be understood by result of a like nature just as the Buddhists agree to Apramāņa by absence of Pramāņa of a like nature. If non-result is taken to be imagined in all cases, there will be nothing as result in this world. So it
nust be accepted that there is a real difference between Pramāņa and its result. But it cannot be said that the difference is absolute. For in that case there will be the following difficulty. The result of Pramāņa in a being other than myself is separate from me. If the difference of Pramāna and its result is taken as absolute the result of Pramāņa of my own soul will also be different from me. It will therefore become impossible to say "this result is the result of my Pramāņa”. If you urge that though Pramāņa and its result are separate, still according to the relation-ship of Samavāya ( co-inherence ), wherever there will be Pramāņa in a soul, there will also be the result by relationship of co-inherence,

Page #253

Parikṣāmukham
197
we will reply that there will be the fault of Atiprasanga viz. as Samavāya has been accepted as Nitya (eternal) and Vyāpaka (pervasive), all souls will have the quality of equal co-inherence, and it cannot be that in a particular soul Pramaņa and the result will exist in relationship of Samavaya.
QATOTAĘTATEN GEADìgenfant aftea19ftzaętał anfça: aranagımıet afaarfęzì gqonqqo| = ||93||
73. Pramāṇatadabhasau duṣṭatayodbhāvitau parihritaparihritadoṣau vadinaḥ sadhanatadabhāsau prativadino dūṣaṇabhūṣaṇe cha.
73. Pramana and its Abhasa being shown as faulty and being made free from or connected with fault will be Sadhana or its Abhasa in case of the Vadi and Duṣaṇa (fault) or Bhusaṇa (adornment) respectively of Prativādi ( opponent).
Commentary
In a discussion between two persons, one uses Pramāņa first. He is called the Vadi. His opponent is known as Prativādi. When the Vadi uses a Pramāņa his Prativādi may say that this is faulty. If the Vadi can show that the fault urged is really nonexistent, he wins in the argument and the Pramana becomes Sadhana in case of the Vadi and Dusana in case of the Prativādi. If again, at the outset the Vadi uses Sadhanābhāsa and the Prativadi points out the fault which the Vadi fails to refute, then this Sadhanābhāsa becomes Duşana to the Vadi and Bhuṣaṇa to the Prativādi.
Hemachandra defines Duṣaṇa as the words by which faults like Asiddha, Viruddha etc. are shown in propositions1. There can also be Duṣaṇābhāsa viz. an apparent Duṣaṇa though really it can be proved to be non-existent. Vada is laying down of a
1. “anungtaigenari q”
2. “ अभूतदोषोभावनानि दूषणाभासा जात्युत्तराणि ॥”

Pramāṇa-mīmāmsā, II. 1. 28.
Pramāṇa-mimāmsä II. 1. 29.

Page #254

198
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
proposition and its faults in the presence of members of a council and others to prove the real thing'. When the Vādi lays down a proposition, the Prativādi finds out its fault. Again when the Prativādi lays down anything, the Vādi finds out its fault. The utterances of the Vādi and Prativādi in this manner are vāda?.
संभवदन्यदविचारणीयम् ॥ ७४॥ 74. Sambhavadanyadvicharaniyam.
74. Other ( varieties ) which exist, are to be understood by reasoning ( from other works ).
Commentary ___In Pariksamukham, Pramāna only is described in detail. But it has been laid down that Pramāņa as well as Naya are
means of instruction ("प्रमाणनयैरधिगमः" Tattvartha Sutra I. 6 ) by which right faith is established. In this aphorism it is mentioned that Nayas are not described in detail in this work but may be learnt from other workss.
1. "तत्वसंरक्षणार्थ प्राश्निकादिसमक्षं साधनदूषणवदनं वादः ॥” ।
Pramāņa-mimāņsā II. 1. 30. 2. "स्वपक्षसिद्धये वादिनः साधनं, तत्प्रतिषेधाय प्रतिवादिनो दूषणं, प्रतिवादिनोऽपि स्वपक्षसिद्धये साधनं तत्प्रतिषेधाय वादिनो दूषणं, तदेवं वादिनः साधनषणे प्रतिवादिनोऽपि साधनदूषणे तयोर्वादिप्रतिवादिभ्यां वदनमभिधानं बादः ॥" Bhasya to Pramāņa-mimāṁsā. II. 1. 30. Hemachandra says that Vādi, Prativādi, Sabhāpati ( the president' or umpire ) and members of the Council—these four are limbs of a discussion. The members of the Council must be impartial, learned, efficient in discussions and capable of balancing the arguments like a scale "स्वसमयपरसमयज्ञाः कुलजाः पक्षद्वयेप्सिताः क्षमिणः । वादपथेष्वभियुक्तास्तुलासमाः प्राश्निकाः प्रोक्ताः॥"
3. "संभवविद्यमानं अन्यत् प्रमाणतत्वात् नयस्वरूपं शास्त्रान्तरप्रसिद्धं विचारणीयमिह युक्त्या प्रतिपत्तव्यम् ।" Prameya-ratnamala.

Page #255

Pariksāmukham
199 Nayas are mainly divided into two classes : (i) Dravyārthika Naya and (ii) Paryāyārthika Naya. Dravyārthika Naya is subdivided into (a) Naigama (b) Sangraha and (c) Vyavahāra and Paryāyārthika Naya is subdivided into (a) Riju-sūtra (b) Sabda (c) Samabhirudha and (d) Evambhūta'.
Siddhasena mentions : "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 of view is the object of Naya (or one-sided knowledge )"2.
"Objects whether intrinsic or extrinsic, possess many different characteristics, and may be taken from different stand-points. They are understood in their entire character by omniscience alone, while to take them from a certain stand-point is the scope of Naya (the one sided method of comprehension )".
To be more clear, All that exists is capable of being known and as such is an object of knowledge and each substance is possessed of innumerable attributes. We sometimes take a partial view of reality and sometimes we apprehend the whole reality. The former view is known as the Naya or the theory of stand-points, whereas the latter is called the Pramāņa or complete comprehension4.
A Naya deals with only the particular aspect in view of the speaker but it does not deny the existence of the remaining attri
1. 'तत्र मूलनयौ द्वौ द्रव्यार्थिकपर्यायार्थिकभेदात् । तत्र द्रव्यार्थिकस्त्रेधा नैगम-संग्रहव्यवहारभेदात् । पर्यायार्थिकश्चतुर्धा ऋजुसूत्रसमभिरूद्वैवम्भूतभेदात् ॥" Prameya-ratnamālā. 2. FEICH arg viat: adeilagra,
anagfafgietserf 7759 faqat ha: ll" Nyāyāvatāra 29. . 3. Ibid. Note to the above by Dr. S. C. Vidyābhūşaņa.
4. "#29T: GATOTTA:, fapient terefta: \" Quotation in Tattvārtharājayārttika.

Page #256

200
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
butes. When we speak of the colour of gold, we make no mention of its weight, touch, taste, smell and other attributes but our statement does not mean that gold is devoid of all the other attributes besides colour. When speaking from a limited point of view, Jain scholars prefix the word Syat to every such predication to signify that the object is of a particular type from a particular stand point but it is not so from other points of view. 'Syat' suggests the existence of other attributes but does not give primary importance to them. This is the differentiating point which helps in accuracy of expression by a scholar of the Jain school of thought. One school of philosophy might say that all that exists is momentary and another school might say that reality is permanent. Jainism reconciles both these seemingly contradictory statements by pointing out that the first view is true from the stand point of modifications only which are subject to change every moment and the second view is also correct from the standpoint of elements of which the thing is composed. One sided systems of philosophy deny the existence of attributes other than what they adopt, whereas the Jain point of view admits their existence though these are not described being not of primary importance. This Nayavāda or Syadvāda system is the distinctive feature of Jain philosophy and logic1.
The Nayas have broadly been classified as Dravyarthika i.e. statements which refer only to the general attributes of a substance and not to the modifications which the substance is constantly undergoing and (2) Paryāyārthika i. e. statements which refer to the constantly changing conditions of a substance.
The Nayas are further classified into (1) Artha-naya and (2) Śabda-naya. The former deals with the objects and the latter
1. A detailed description of Nayas and Saptabhangi (seven modes of predication) has been given in Pages LII-LXXXV of the Introduction to Pañchastikāya-samayasara Vol. III of The Sacred Books of the Jainas,

Page #257

Parikṣāmukham
201 lays emphasis on the words and their grammatical significance.
The Nayas have again been classified as (1) Naigama, (2) Sangraha, (3) Vyavahāra, (4) Riju-sūtra, (5) Sabda, (6) Samabhirūờha and (7) Evambhūta. The first three are subdivisions of Dravyārthika because they deal with objects and the last four are the same of Paryāyārthika Naya because they are concerned with the modifications of substances.
I. Naigama ( Not literal or figurative). When we speak of a past or future event as a present one, we have an illustration of this Naya. It is of three kinds relating to past, present and future. If we say on the Diwali day “Lord Mahāvīra attained liberation to-day” we mean that this day is the anniversary day of the past event. Again, we see a man booking his passage and on our query, he says “I am going to England." This is a figurative way of speaking about a present event. Further, when we see a man making a fire and on our questioning him, he says “I am cooking”, he really speaks of a future event for which he is making only a preparation.
II. Samgraha (common or general ). When we use a word denoting a class to mean the whole, we have an example of this Naya. By using the word Dravya we take the six kinds of Dravyas, taking only the general attributes of Dravya ( substance ) and not considering the distinguishing features.
III. Vyavahāra ( distributive ). When we divide or separate a general term into its classes, orders, kinds or species, we have an example of this Naya. For example when we speak of Dravya ( substance ) implying its six subdivisions soul, matter, space, time, media of motion and rest, we have an example of this Naya.
By Sangraha Naya the generic properties alone are taken into consideration without any cognizance of the particular properties and by Vyavahāra Naya the particular properties alone are considered.
P-26

Page #258

202
The Sacred Books of the Jainas IV. Riju-sūtra ( the straight expression ). This Naya takes into account of (1) the actual condition at a particular moment and (2) the actual condition for a long time. The first variety is called Sūkşma (fine ) and the second Sthūla ( gross ). A soul with a momentary good thought is an example of the former while a man with a human condition for a life time is an example of the latter.
By this Naya a thing as it exists at present is considered without any reference to the past or future. The followers of this Naya say that 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.
V. Sabda ( descriptive ). This Naya includes grammatical correctness and propriety of expression. From this point of view we can use the present for the past tense, plural for the singular number, faminine for the masculine gender etc. An example of the first is when we speak "In 1066 A. D. we see the Normans attack the. Anglo-Saxons”. The second is illustrated by the use of "you" for one man. The third is exemplified by the use of a masculine name e. g. Lord Nelson for a vessel which is used in feminine gender.
VI. Samabhirūdha ( specific). . This Naya is employed when we give a word a fixed meaning out of several which it has. This is exemplified by the use of the word 'Nut to denote an extra smart man or “Dread nought” to denote a particular kind of warship.
VII. Evambhūta ( active). When we restrict the name to the very activity which is connoted by the name we have an example of this Naya e. g. when we call Stratford on Avon by that name only so long as the town stands on the banks of the river Avon.
1. "MTA - FinE SUETES FERTOGHES FA 721T: 1" Tattvārthādhigama Sutra I. 33. See The Sacred Books of the Jainas Vol. II. P, 45,

Page #259

Parikṣāmukham
208
Amongst these Nayas, the range of each becomes more and more fine according to their position in the list as mentioned abore1.
These Nayas deal with the various aspects of reality from their particular angles of vision, but they do not predicate the nonexistence of other points of views. When one point of view becomes primary, the others become of secondary importance. It is incorrect to suppose that only a particular Naya is correct and others are erroneous. As a matter of fact all these stand points are equally true and valid and lead to correct knowledge, provided that they do not deny the existence of the other points of view, for
"अनभिनिवृत्तार्थसंकल्पमात्रग्राही नैगमः। सजात्यविरोधेनैकध्यमुपनीय पर्यायानाक्रान्तभेदानविशेषेण समस्तग्रहणात् संग्रहः । संग्रहनयाक्षिप्तानामर्थानां विधिपूर्वक. मवहरणं व्यवहारः। ऋजु प्रगुणं सूत्रयति तन्त्रयत इति ऋजुसूत्रः। लिंगसंख्यासाधनादिव्यभिचारनिवृत्तिपरः शब्दनयः। नानार्थसमभिरोहणात् समभिरूढः । येनात्मना भूतस्तेनैवाध्यवसाययतीति एवंभूतः ।" Sarvārtha-siddhih.
The definition of Nayas with Nayābhāsas is thus given in Prameya-ratna-mālā :
"अन्योऽन्यगुणप्रधानभूतभेदाभेदप्ररुपणो नैगमः। नैकं गमो नैगम इति निरुक्तेः। सर्वथाभेदवादस्तदाभासः। प्रतिपक्षव्यपेक्षः सन्मात्राही संग्रहः । ब्रह्मवादस्तदाभासः। संग्रहगृहीतभेदको व्यवहारः। काल्पनिको भेदस्तदाभासः। शुद्धपर्यायग्राही प्रतिपक्षसापेक्ष ऋजुसूत्रः। क्षणिककान्तनयस्तदाभासः। कालकारकलिंगानां भेदाच्छब्दस्य कथंचिदर्थभेदकथनं शब्दनयः। अर्थभेदं विना शब्दानामेव नानात्वैकान्तस्तदाभासः। पर्यायभेदात् पदार्थनानात्वनिरूपकः समभिरूढः। पर्यायनानात्वमन्तरेणापीन्द्रादिभेदकथनं तदाभासः। क्रियाश्रयेण भेदप्ररुपणमित्थंभावः । क्रियानिरपेक्षत्वेन क्रियावाचकेषु काल्पनिको व्यवहारस्तदाभासः। इति नयस्तदाभासलक्षणं संक्षेपेणोक्तं विस्तरेण 'नय-चक्रा'त् प्रतिपत्तव्यम् ।।" Prameya-ratnamala.
. 1. "नैगमादयो नया उत्तरोत्तर-सूक्ष्मविषयत्वादेषां क्रमः, पूर्वपूर्वहेतुकत्वाच्च । एवमेते नयाः पूर्वपूर्वविरुद्धमहाविषया उत्तरोत्तरानुकूलाल्पविषयाः।"
Tattvārtha-rāja-vārttika,

Page #260

204
The Sacred Books of the Jainas
one will be wholly untrue without the existence of others. In other words, the valid Nayas are inter-dependent and when they become independent, the result is that their very nature is annihilated. For example, the inter-dependence of cotton threads is possessed of the potentiality of warding off cold and providing comfort to the body, but if each of these threads become independent of others, these will not be able to serve the aforesaid purpose. This pinciple is applied to the doctrine of Nayas. Acharya Amritachandra Sūri has mentioned that as a milk-maid draws part of the rope of the churning rod by one hand loosening the other part to get butter out of curd, so the Jain doctrine of Naya gives prominence to a particular attribute leaving aside the other views and by this means churns the nectar of reality (Tattva )1.
The harmonious combination of these co-ordinating Nayas paves the way to right faith ( Samyog-darśana).
This aphorism of Parikṣāmukham has been given an alternative explanation by Anantavirya. He says that besides being explained as above, we may take this aphorism to mean "Vadalakṣmaṇa or Patra-lakṣmaṇa which are mentioned elsewhere should be noted here"".
Vada has been defined as words which establish their import*. Patra is defined as a sentence the limbs of which are wellknown and which establish the import which it desires to convey
1. “ एकेनाकर्षयन्ती श्लथयन्ती वस्तुतत्वमितरेण । अंतेन जयति जैनी नीतिर्मथाननेत्रमिव गोपी ॥"
Purusartha-siddhyupaya, Verse 225.
2. “एते गुणप्रधानतया परस्परतंत्राः सम्यग्दर्शनहेतवः ।”
Tattvartha-raja-vārttika.
3. “ अथवा संभवद् विद्यमानं, अन्यद् वादलक्षणं पत्रलक्षणं वान्यत्रोक्तमिह
" Prameya-ratna-mālā.
4. " समर्थवचनं वादः " Ibid,

Page #261

Parikṣāmukham
205
and which consists of correct and unambiguous words having a deep significance1.
According to this interpretation the Aphorism will mean that Vada and Patra have not been described in this work, but these should be studied from other works where the same have been treated in detail.
परीक्षामुखमादर्श' हेयोपादेयतत्वयोः ।
संविदे मादृशो वालः परीक्षादक्षवद् व्यधाम् ॥
Parikṣāmukhamādarśam heyopādeyatattvayoḥ. Sanvide madriso valaḥ parikṣādakṣavad vyadham.
I, having little knowledge (like a child) have written as one who is conversant with Parikṣā, (this work) Parikṣāmukham (resembling) a mirror for understanding of realities to be accepted or discarded.
Commentary
The author Manikyanandi in this concluding verse of his work shows humility by describing himself as a child having little knowledge. This work is compared to a mirror. As good or bad looks of a person adorned with ornaments are seen in a mirror so things to be accepted or discarded will be determined by this work by means of Pramāņa. As a man conversant with Parikṣa"
1. “प्रसिद्धावयवं वाक्यं स्येष्टस्यार्थस्य साधकम् ।
साधुगूढपदप्रायं पत्रमाहुरनाकुलम् ॥” Ibid.
2. " यथैवादर्श आत्मनोऽलंकारमंडितस्य सौरुष्यं वैरूप्यं वा प्रतिविंवोपदर्शनद्वारेण सूचयति तथेदमपि हेयोपादेयतत्त्वं साधनदूषणोपदर्शनद्वारेण निश्चाययतीत्यादर्शत्वेन निरूप्यते ।”
3. Parikṣā is a full discussion used in finding out the strength and weakness of various arguments which are opposed to one another. 'Pari' means 'full' and 'Ikṣaṇam' means discussion of of subjects. Vide :

Page #262

The Sacred Books of the Jainas
completes the work undertaken by him, so the author also has completed this book1.
206
End of Samuddeśa VI.

FINIS.
**——
“अन्योन्यविरुद्ध-नानायुक्ति - प्रावल्यदौर्बल्यावधारणाय प्रवर्त्तमानो विचारः परीक्षा तर्क इति यावत् । परि समन्तादशेषनिःशेषत ईक्षणं विचारणं यन्न अर्थानामिति व्युत्पत्तेः । " Nyāyamani-dipika.
1. “ यथा परीक्षादक्षः स्वप्रारब्धशास्त्रं निरुढवांस्तथाहमपि ।"
Prameya-ratna-mālā.

Page #263

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Page
Early writers on Jaina Nyāya Umāsvāmi Kudakundāchārya Samantabhadra Siddhasena Divakara Haribhadra Akalanka Māņikyanandi Deva-Sūri Hemachandra Later works on Jaina Nyāya The goal of Nyaya philosophy Different systems of Indian Philosophy Āstika and Nāstika philosophies Nomenclature of Nyāya Essence of Nyāya-V sigesika principles of reasoning Pramāņas Jaina Nyāya before Manikyanandi Kunda-kunda Umāsvāmi Samanta-bhadra Siddhasena Akalanka Later writers The Buddhist views Meaning of the title 'Parīksāmukham' Māņikyanandi Manikynandi was later than Akalanka Time of Akalanka Commentaries on Parīkņāmukham
1. Prameyakamalamārtanda by Prabhāchandra
2. Prameyaratnamālā by Anantavirya Commentaries on Prameyaratna-malā
(a) Arthaprakāśikā (b) Prameyaratnamālalankārą.
xiii xiv xiv xvii xviii xix
xix xxiv XXV xxix xxix
XXX
xxxi
.xli xliii xlv xlv xly

Page #264

(c) Nyayamanidipikā 3. Prameyakanthika
Parikṣāmukham and Pramana-naya-tattvälokālaṁkāra Subject matter of Parikṣamukham
A GUIDE TO TRANSLITERATION
PARIKṢĀMUKHAM Opening Verse
a
Definition of Pramāṇa
Pramana cannot be anything but knowledge Pramana is characterised by definiteness
Meaning of Apurvārtha Meaning of Sva-vyavasaya Example of Sva-vyavasaya Four things in knowledge
SAMUDDESA I.
Understanding is independent of words
Validity of Pramaņa from itself or through another Pramāņa
SAMUDDESA II.
Two kinds of Pramāņa Definition of Pratyakṣa Pramāņa Meaning of Vaisadya (clearness) Sanvyavahārika Pratyakṣa Defined
Object & light are not instruments of Pratyakṣa
Mukhya Pratyakṣa defined
Hindrances may obstruct knowledge
I.

Definition of Parokṣa Pramāņa Five varieties of Parokṣa Pramāņa
Definition of Smriti Example of Smriti
2. Definition of Pratyabhijñānam Examples of Pratyabhijñānam 3. Definition of Uha or Tarka Examples of Uha
SAMUDDESA III.
Page
xlvii
xlviii
xlviii
1
lii
I
÷ ÷ 3 ∞ w w w z
30
32
36
38
39
40
41
44
48, 49
50
57
60
65
72
75
78
80
81
83
84
84 87 81

Page #265

Page
90
98
104
109 112
113
113
115
115
116
117 . 117
121
4. Definition of Anumāna 5. Definition of Hetu
Definition of Avinābhāva or Vyāpti Definition of Sahabhāva Definition of Kramabhāva Definition of Sadhya Paksa Udāharaṇa ( example ) is not a limb of Anumāna
Upanaya and Nigamana are not limbs of Anumāna Two kinds of Dristānta
1. Anvaya.Driştānta 2. Vyatireka-Dristanta
Definition of Upanaya
Definition of Nigamana Two kinds of Anumāna :
1. Svārtha Anumāna
2. Parartha Anumāna Two kinds of Hetu :
Upalabdhi and Anupalabdhi Two kinds af Upalabdhi Hetu
and two kinds of Anupalabdhi Hetu Six varieties of Aviruddha Upalabdhi :
I Aviruddha Vyapyopalabdhi ( Aphorism 65 ) 2. Kārya Hetu ( Aphorism 66 ) 3. Kāraṇa Hetu ( Aphorism 67 ) 4. Pūrvachara Hetu ( Aphorism 68 ) 5.' Uttarachara Hetu ( Aphorism 69 )
6. Sahachara Hetu ( Aphorism 70 ) Six varieties of Viruddha Upalabdhi
1. Viruddha Vyāpyopalabdhi (Aphorism 72 ) 2. Viruddha Karyopalabdhi ( Aphorism 73 ) 3. Viruddha Kāraṇopalabdhi ( Aphorism 74 ) 4. Viruddha Pārvacharopalabdhi ( Aphorism 75 ) 5. Viruddha Uttartcharopalabdhi (Aphorism 76 )
6. Viruddha Sahacharopalabdhi ( Aphorism 77 ) Seven varieties of Aviruddha Anupalabdhi :
1. Aviruddha Svabhāva Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 79 ) 2. Aviruddha Vyāpaka Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 80 ) 3. Aviruddha Kāryānupalabdhi (Aphorism 81 ) 4. Aviruddha Karaṇānupalabdhi ( Aphorism 82 )
121 122
127
128
128 128 129 129 129 129 130
130
130
130
131
132 132
132 132

Page #266

5. Aviruddha Purvachara Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 83) 6. Aviruddha Uttarachara Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 84 ) Aviruddha Sahachara Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 85) Three varieties of Viruddha Anupalabdhi :
7.
I. Viruddha Karya Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 87 ) 2. Viruddha Karana Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 88) 3. Viruddha Svabhava Anupalabdhi ( Aphorism 89) Hetus following one another
Definition of Agama
Words etc.
cause knowledge
Viṣaya (subject matter) of Pramāņa
Two varieties of Viṣaya: Samanya and Visesa
Tiryak and Urddhvatā Paryaya and Vyatireka
Two varieties of Samanya Two varieties of Viseṣa:
Results of Pramāņa
SAMUDDESA IV.
1. Fallacies of Pakṣa
Fallacies (Pramaṇābhāsa) Fallacy of Pratyakṣa Fallacy of Parokşa
Fallacy of Smriti
Fallacy of Pratyabhigñana Fallacy of Tarka
Fallacies of Anumana:
2. Fallacies of Hetu;
SAMUDDESA V.
(a) Asiddha

SAMUDDESA VI.
(a) Pratyakṣa-vadhita ( Aphorism 16) (b) Anumana-vadhita ( Aphorism 17) (c) Agama-vadhita (Aphorism 18) (d) Loka-vādhita ( Aphorism 19) (e) Svavachana-vadhita ( Aphorism 20)
(i) Svarupa Asiddha
(ii) Sandigdha Asiddha
Page
133
133
133
134
134.
134
135
137
140
55555555
146
146 150
150
152
156
158
159
160
161
161
162
162
163
163
163
163
165
166
168
168
169

Page #267

Page 172 173
173
174
176
77
188
190
(b) Viruddha (c) Anaikāntika
(i) Nischita-vipaksa-vritti
(ii) Sankita-vipaksa-vritti (a) Akiñchitkara 3. Fallacies of Driştānta
(a) Anvaya or Sadharmya
(b) Viparīta or Vaidharmya Fallacy of Bāla-prayoga Fallacy of Agama Fallacy of number ( of Pramāņas ) Fallacy of subject matter Fallacy of results Nayas (the seven categories ) Concluding verse PRAMEYARATNAMĀLĀ (Sanskrit commentary ) Alphabetical Index to Sūtras in Sanskrit Prameyaratnamālā Alphabetical Index to quotations in Prameyaratnamālā ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF APHORISMS TABLE OF WORKS CONSULTED GENERAL INDEX.
191
193 195
199
205 P-08
.
LIST OF CHARTS
Page
xxii xxiii
Pramāņas according te Akalanka Pramānas according to Umāsvāmi Pratyakşa Pramāna and its varieties Parokşa Pramāṇa and its varieties Hetu and its varieties Vişaya and its varieties
76
77
129 145

Page #268

Alphabetical List of Works Quoted and Consulted
Abhidharmakoşa (Vasubandhu). Kasi Vidyapitha Granthmālā, Benares. Acharanga-Sutra (Commentary on; by Silankacharya) Agamodaya Samiti, Surat. Adipurāņa (Jinasena )
Akalanka-charitra
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vols. II, XIII. Apta-mimāmsā (Samantabhadra) Jain Siddhanta Prakāgini Samsthā,
Calcutta, 1914.
Apta-parikṣā (Vidyananda) Jain Siddhanta Prakāśinī Samsthā. Calcutta,
1913.
Aradhana-Katha-Koşa
Aṣṭadhyayi (Pāṇiņi) Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Aşṭaśati (Akalanka) Nirṇaya Sagar Press, Bombay.
Aṣṭasahasri Vidyananda )
Do
Bhamati (Vachaspati Miśra) Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay.
Bhasya on Nyaya Sutras of Gautama ( Vatsyāyana) Bangiya Sahitya Parişat, Calcutta.
Bhasya on Vaiseṣika Sutras (Prasastapāda) Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares.
Bhāṣya on Vedanta Sutras (Sankaracharya) Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Brahmavidyabharaṇa
Brihadaraṇyak Upanisad Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Mss. in the Central Provinces and Berar (R. B. Hiralal, B. A.)
Chandraprabhacharitam (Viranandi) Ed. by Pandit Durgaprasad and V. L. Sastri, Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay 1912.
Chhandogya Upanisad Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Devapratiṣṭhātattva (Raghunandana)
Dharmasarmâbhyudayam Edited by Pandit Durgaprasad, Bombay, 1894. Dravya-Samgraha. Edited by S. C. Ghoshal. Sacred Books of the
Jainas Vol. I.
Dravya-samgraha-Vritti (Brahmaveva) Dvātrimśikā (Hemachandra)
Dvātrimśikā (Siddhasena ) Bhavanagar.
Early History of India (Vincent Smith) Oxford 1914.
Encyclopædia Brittannica Vol. XII.
Ephigraphia Carnatica ( Lewis Rice) Vol. II. Bangalore 1889.

Do

Page #269

Epitome of Jainism, An Nahar and Ghosh ) Calcutta. Guņakiraṇāvali. History of the Medieval School of Indian Logic ( S. C. Vidyabhusana ) Harivamsapurāņa ( Jinasena ) Harşa-charitam ( Bāṇabhatta ). Nirnaya Sāgar Press, Bombay. Hayasīrṣapancharātra, Introduction to the Science of Language ( Sayce ) London 1900, Jaina-tarka-bhāsā. Sindhi Jain Series. Calcutta. Jaina-tarka-vārttika. Lazarus and Company, Benares. Jainendra Vyakarana (Devanandi alias Pūyapāda) Srilal Jain, Benares,
1914. Jainism ( Herbert Warren ) Madras 1912 ; Arrah 1916. Kadambari ( Bana-bhatta ) Nirnaya Sāgar Press, Bombay. Karma-mīmāmsā ( A. B. Keith ) Heritage of India Series. London, 1921. Kašikā (Vāmana and Jayāditya ) Lazarus & Co., Benares. Kavya mīmāmsā ( Rajasekhar ) Gaekwad Oriental Series, Baroda. Kusumāñjali ( Udayanāchārya ) Laghīyastraya ( Akalanka ) Sindhi Jain Series, Calcutta. Mahābhāratam. Bangabasi Press, Calcutta. Mahābhāşya ( Patanjali ) Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Manusamhitā. Nirnaya Sāgar Press, Bombay. Meghadītam (Kālidāsa ) Nirnaya Sāgar Press, Bombay. Milinda Pasha. Pali Text Society. Mimāmsā Sūtras. ( Jaimini ). Muktāvali. Nirnaya Sāgar Press, Bombay. Nayachakram. Manikchandra Granthamālā, Bombay. Nayakarņikā (Ed. by M. D. Desai ) Arrah, 1915. Nayapradipa. Jaina-dharma-prasārak Sabhā, Bhāvanagar. Naya-rahasyam. Jain-dharma-prasarak Sabhā, Bhāvanagar. Nayopadeśaḥ. Jain-dharma-prasārak Sabhā, Bhāvanagar. Nemi-nirvāṇam (Ed. by Pandit Sivadatta) Bombay, 1896. Nisītha-sūtra-chūrņi ( Jinadas Gaņi Mahottar ) Niyama-sāra ( Kundakunda ) Nyāya-darśana Edited by Mahanahopadhyaya Phnibhusan Tarkabagis
Bangiya Sahitya Parisat, Calcutta. Nyāya-dipikā (Dharmabhūşaņa ) Srilal Jain, Calcutta, 1915 Nyāya-kosa. Nyāyakumudachandrodaya (Prabhāchandra) Nyāyamañjarī (Jayanta Bhatta ) Vijaynagaram Series, Benares. Nyāya-praveśa Dharmakirti ) Gaekwad Oriental Series, Baroda, Nyāya-Sära ( Bhāsarvajña)

Page #270

Nyāya-sūtras (Gautama ) Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares, Nyāya-vārttika ( Udyotkara ) Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares. Nyāyāvatāra (Siddhasena Divākara) Ed, by S. C. Vidyabhusan. Central
Jain Publishing House, Arrah 1915. Nyāyāvatāra-vivriti (Chandraprabha Sūri )
Do Nyāya-vindu ( Dharmakīrti) Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares. Nyāya-vinischaya ( Akalauka) Sindhi Jain Series, Calcutta. Nyāya-viniśchaya-vivaraņa (Vadiraja Sūri) Syadvādavidyālaya Benares,
(Mss. ) Pañchāstikāya-samaya-sāra (Kundakunda ) Rāyachandra Šāstramālā,
Bombay. Pārsvābhyudayam (Jinasena ) Bombay, Vira Nirvāna 1913. Patraparīksā (Vidyānanda) Jaina Siddhanta Prakasini Samsthā, Calcutta. Pramālakṣma (Vidyānandi ) Pramāņa-mīmāmsā (Hemachadra ) Sindhi Jain Series, Calcutta. Pramāņa-naya-tattvalokälankāra (Deva-sūri ) Jasovijaya Granthamālā,
Benares. Pramāņa-nirnayah. Manikchandra Granthmālā, Bombay. Pramāņa-parīksā (Vidyānanda) Jain Siddhanta Prakāśini Samstha,
Calcutta. Pramāņa-samgraha ( Akalanka ) Sindhi Jain Series, Calcutta, Pramāņa-samuchchaya ( Dignāga ) Mysore University Series. Pramāņa-vārttika ( Dharma-kirti) Ed. by Bhiksu Rahula Sankritya
yana ( Proofs ) Pramāņa-vinischaya (Dharma-kīrti) Prameyakamala-mārtanda (Prabhāchandra ) Nirnaya Sāgar Press,
Bombay. Pravachana-sāra (Kundakunda) Edited by Barrend Faddegon. Principal results of my last two years studies in Sanskrit Mss. Literature
(R. G. Bhandarkar ) Weir 1889. Puruşārthasiddhyupāyaḥ ( Amritachandra ) Ed. by Ajitprasāda. Rāmāyaṇa (Vālmīki ) Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Ratnakarāvatārikā. Yasovijaya Granthamala, Benares. Ratnakaranda-śrāvakāchāraḥ (Samantabhadra ) Tr. by C. R. Jain.
Central Jaina Publishing House, Arrah 1917. Sabdaśaktiprakāśika ( Jagadis ) Jivananda Vidyasagar, Calcutta. Sacred Books of the East Edited by Max Muller, Vol. XXXIV. Sacred Books of the Jainas Edited by S. C. Ghoshal Vols. II and III. Saddarśanasamuchchyaya (Haribhadra) Yasovijaya Granthamāla, Benares. Sadhanamālā Edited by B. Bhattacharya. Gaekwad's Oriental Series,
Baroda. Saktisadgama Tantra,
Do

Page #271

Samaya sāra (Kundakunda ) Brahmachari Sitalprasad, Surat. Sammati Tarka ( Siddhasena ) Purātattvamandir, Ahmedabad. Sanjīvani ( on Meghadātam ) (Mallinātha) Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Śankaravijaya ( Mādhava ) Sankhyakārikā (Isvarakrisna ) Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares. Sankhyapravachana Sūtra. Jivananda Vidyasāgar, Calcntta. Saptabhangitarangini ( Vimaladāsa ) Rayachandra Sastramala, Bombay. Sarvadarśanasamgraha (Madhavāchārya ) Ed. by V. S. Abhayankar. Sarvārtha-siddhiḥ (Pūjyapāda Devanandi) Kalāpa Sarmā, Kolhapur, 1903. Science of Thought, (C. R. Jain) Central Jain Publishing House. Arrah, 1916.
: Siddhi-vinischaya ( Akalanka ) Sloka-vārttika (Kumārila Bhatta ) Lazarus & Co., Benares. Srimadbhagavadgitā. Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Svayambhū-stotra (Samanta-bhadra ) Brahmachari Sitalprasad, Surat, Suvalopanişad. Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Syādvādaratnākara (Devasūri ) Arhat Prabhākara Kāryālaya, Poona. Syadvādaratnākarāvatārikā ( Ranaprabhasūri ) Tärkika-raksā (Varadarāja) Ed. by V. P. Dvivedi. Lazarus & Co., Benares, Tarkakaumudi (Laugākşi Bhaskara ) Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Tattva-chintāmaņi ( Gangesa ) Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra (Umāsvāmi) Sacred Books of the Jainas
Vol. II. Ta-Tang-Hsi-Yu-Chi ( Yuan Chwang ) Tr. by T. Watters. Tattvārtha-rāja-vārttika ( Akalanka ) Pandit Gajadharlal, Benares, 1915. Tattvārtha-sāra. Sanatan Jain Granthamala, Bombay, 1905. Tattvartha-śloka-vārttika ( Vidyānandi ) Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay. Vaiseşika Sūtras (Kaņāda ) Lazarus & Co. Benares. Vākyapadiya (Bhartihari ) Vasavadattā (Subandhu ) Ed. by Jibananda Vidyasagar, Calcutta. Vedānta-paribhāṣā Ed. by S. C. Ghoshal. White Lotus Publishing
House, Calcutta. Vedānta-Sūtras. Nirņaya Sāgar Press, Bombay. Visvakoşa ( First Edition ) Ed. by Nagendranath Basu, Calcutta. Vivekavilāsa (Jinadatta Sūri ) Yajñavalkya samhita. Anandasram Series, Poona. Yasodharacharitam. Yoga-Satras ( Patañjali) Anandasram Series, Poona. Yogavāśistha Rāmāyaṇa. Nirnaya Sagar Press, Bombay.

Page #272

10
Journals.
Anekanta (Hindi)
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Vols. II, XIII,
Jain Gazette, The
Jain Hitaisi (Hindi) Bhag II.
Jain Jagat (Hindi) Year IX, Vol. 15.
Jain Sahitya Samsodhaka ( Hindi ) Bhag 1 Anka 1.
Jain Siddhanta Bhaskar (Hindi) Bhag 2 Nos. 1, 4 Bhag 3. No. 4
Bhag 4 Nos. 1 and 3.
Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 31.

Manuscripts.
[Preserved in Jain Siddhanta Bhavan, Arrah ]
Arthaprakāśikā (Panditāchārya ? ) Nyayamaṇidīpikā ( Ajitasenācharya )
Prameyakanthikā (Santivarṇi ) Prameya-ratnamalinkara ( Charu-kirti ).

Page #273

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF THE APHORISMS.
Avaiếadye pratyakşam ( VI. 6) 158 Avidyamānaniśchayo ( VI. 25 ) 168 Avidyamānasattākaḥ (VI. 23) 168 Aviruddhānupalabdhiḥ (III. 78 ) 131 Aviruddhopalabdhi ( III, 59 ) 122
B
Bālaprayogābhāsaḥ ( VI. 46 ) Bālavyutpattyartham (III. 46 ) Bhābyatītayor (III. 62 ) Bhede tvātmāntara ( VI. 71)
188 111 125 195
134
36
Chakşū rasayor ( VI. 5)
D Darsana smaraṇa ( III. 5) Dhūmavānschāyam (VI. 48 ) Driştāntābhās (VI. 40 ) Dristānto dvedhā (III. 47 ) Dristo'pi samāropāt (1. 5)
189
Abhede tadvyavahārānupa
(VI. 67 ) Abhūdatra chakre (III. 91) Agnimānayam deśaḥ ( III. 31 ) 100 Agnimānayam deśastathaiva .
(III. 95 ) 136 Agnimānayam deso dhūmavatvāt
(VI. 47 ) 188 Ajñāna-nivritti (V, 1) Ākāśe nityepyasya (VI. 32 ) Anekāntātmakam (III. 89 ) Aigulyagre hasti ( VI. 53 ) 190 Aniśchito pārvārthaḥ (I. 4) Aniştādhyakşādi ( III, 22 ) Anisto mīmāmsaka ( VI. 13 ) Anumānādestadvişayatve
(VI. 58 ) 191 Anuvrittavyāvritta (IV. 2) 147 Anyathā tadaghatanāt (III. 33 ) 101 Aparīņāmi sabdaḥ ( VI. 17) Apauruşeyaḥ śabdo ( VI. 41 ) 178 Aptavachanadi (III. 99 ) 137 Arthāntaragato (IV.9) 151 Arthasyeva tadunmukhatayā
. .. (1.7) 39 Asambaddhe tajjñānam (VI. 10) 161 Asatsattāniśchayo ( VI. 22 ) Asti sarvajfio (III, 29 ) Astyatra chhāyā (III. 67 ) Astyatra dehini (III. 66 ) 128 Astytatra dehini ( III, 88 ) 134 Astyatra mātulinge (III. 70 ) Asvasamvidita (VI. 2) Atajjanyamapi (II. 8) Atasminstaditi (VI. 8) 160
178 112
150
Ekasmin dravye (IV.8) Etaddvayamevānumānārgam
(III. 37 )
104
Ghatamahamātmanā vedmi
(1.8) Gosadrišo gavayaḥ (III. 7). Govilakşaņo mahişaḥ (III. 8)
8
Η
129 156
136 115
Hetuprayoge hi ( III, 96) Hetorupasamhāra ( III. 50 ) Hetvābhāsā asiddha (VI. 21) Hitāhitaprāptiparihāra (I. 2)
68
Return
166
30

Page #274

І
Idamanumānābhāsam (III. 11 ) Idamasmāddūram (III. 9) Idamasmin satyeva (III. 12 ) Indriyanindriyanimittam ( II. 5) Istamavādhita ( III. 20 )
87 60 94
Nāstyatra samatulāyā (III. 85) 133 Nāstyatra simšapā (III. 80 ) 132 Nästyatra sītasparsa auşnyat
(III. 72 ) 129 Nāstyatra Sitasparso dhūmāt
(III. 73). 130 Nischitavrittiranityaḥ ( VI. 31 ) 173 Nodagād Bharaņi ( III. 84) 133 Nodagad bharanih (III. 76 ) 130 Nodesyati muhūrtānte ( III. 75 ) 130
K
.
P
Kāraṇasya cha ( II. 10 ) Karmavat kartrikaraṇa (1.9) 39 Kāryakāryamaviruddha (III. 92 ) 135 Kiñchidakaranāt (VI. 37). 176 Ko vā tatpratibhāsinam (I, JI) 41 Ko vā tridhā hetumuktvā
(III. 36 ) 102 Kuto'nyathopanaya ( III. 43) 108
Paksa iti yāvat (III. 26 ) : 98 Paramparayā sambhavat
(III. 90 ) 135 Parāparavivartta (IV.5) Parāpekşane ( VI: 64) . Praokşamitarat ( III. 1) 78 Parārtham tu tadartha
(III. 55.) 117 Paryāyavyatireka (IV. 7) 150 Parīkşāmukhamā (Concluding verse)
150 194
L
176
Lakşaņa evāsau ( VI. 39 ) Laukāyatikasya ( VI. 56 )
191
M
205
127
N
41
195
124
94
Mātā me bandhyā ( VI. 20 ) 165
Pariņāmi sabdaḥ (III. 65) Phalābhāsam ( VI. 66 )
Pradīpavat (I. 12 ) Na bhavisyati muhūrtante
Pramāņādabhinnam (V. 2)
(III. 83 ) 133 Pramāņādartha ( Opening verse ) Na cha pūrvottara (III. 61 )
Pramāņādvyā (VI. 69 ) Na chāsiddhayad (III. 23 )
Pramāṇatadābhāsau ( VI. 73. ) Na cha te tadange ( III. 44 ) 109 Pramāņobhayasiddhe (III. 30 ) Na hi tatsādhya (III. 38 ) 106 Prasiddho dharmi (III. 27) Nāpi vyāptismaraņa (III. 41 ) 107 Pratibhasabhedasya (VI. 60 ) Nārthālokau kāraṇam (II. 6) 65 Pratijñāyāstu (III. 51 ) Nasmin Saririni (III. 74) 130 Pratityantarāvyava ( II. 4) Nāstyatra bhittau ( III. 77 ) 131 Pratyakşādinimittam (III. 2) Nastyatra bhūtale (III. 79 ) 132 Pratyakşamevaikam ( VI. 55 ) Nastyatra dhūmo (III. 82) 132 Pratyaksetarabhedāt (II. 2) Nastyatra guhāyām (III. 93) 135 | Pratyāyanāya ( III. 24 ) Nastyatrā-pratibaddha ( III. 81 ) 132 Pretyāsukhaprado ( VI. 18)
154
1 195 197 Too 99 191 115
80 191
94 164

Page #275

16
R
S
T.
O2
116
Pārvottarachāriņoḥ (III. 18) 93 | Saugata-gāņkhya-yauga ( VI. 57 ) 191 Puruşāntarapūrvārtha ( VI. 4) 156 Siddhaḥ śrāvaṇaḥ ( VI 14) 162
Siddhaḥ śrāvaṇaḥ (VI. 36 ) 176 Siddhe pratyakşatvādi (VI. 35 ) 176
Spastatayā prakrita (VI. 50 ) 189 Rāgadveșamohākrānta ( VI. 51 ) 190
Suchi naraširaḥ (VI. 19) 164 Rasādekasāmagrya ( III. 60 ) 122
Svarthamuktalakṣaṇam (III. 54 ) 117 Svārthaparārthabhedāt ( III, 53 ) 117
Svāpārvārthavyavasāyā (I. 1) 12 Sabdanuchchāraņe'pi ( I. 10 )
Svarūpeṇāsatvāt ( VI. 24) 168 Sa Devadatto (III. 4 )
Svavişayopadarśaka (VI. 3) 156 Sadhanāt sādhyavijnanam
Svāvaraṇakşayo (II. 9)
68 (III. 14) 90 Svayamasamarthasya ( VI. 65 ) 194 Sādhyābhāve sādhanābhāvo
Svonmukhataya pratibhāsanam (III. 49) 113
(1.6) 38 Sadhyam dharmaḥ (III, 25 ) 98 Sadhyadharmādhāra (III. 34 ) Sadhyadharmiņi (III. 35 )
Tadanumānam (III, 52 ) Sādhyābinābhāvitvena (III. 15 ) 91 Tadavinābhāva (III. 39 ) 106 Sadhyavyāptam sādhanam
Tadanvayavytirekā ( II, 7 )
(III. 48 ) 113 Taddedha (II. 1 ) Sadrisapariņāma (IV. 4) 150 Tadvachanamapi (III. 53 ) Sadrise tadevedam (VI. 9) 161
161 Tadvyāpārāśritam (III. 63 ) Sahachariņorapi (III. 64 )
Tanniśchayātmakam (1.3) Sahachāriņorvyāpya (III. 16 )
Tarkāt tannirņayah ( III. 19) 93 Sahakramabhāva (IJI. 17 ) 92 Tarkasyeva vyāpti (VI, 59 ) Sahajayogyatāsamketa (III. 100 ) 140 i Tasmādagnimān ( VI. 49 )
189 Sa heturdvedho (III, 57 ) 121 Tasmādvāstavo ( VI. 70 ) 195 Samagrivišesā ( II. 11 )
72 Tasya vāşpādibhāvena ( VI. 26) 168 Samānyam dvedhā (IV.3) 750 Tathā pratibhāsanāt (VI. 62 ) 19.4 Sāmānyavigeşātmā (IV. 1) 146 Tatparamabhidhiya (III. 42 ) 108 Samarthanam vā varam (III. 45 ) 110 Tatprāmāṇyam svatah (I. 13 ) 44 Samarthasya karane (VI. 63 ) 194 Tatrāniştādi (VI. 12) . 162 Samavāyetiprasaigaḥ ( VI. 72 ) 195 Tatra pratyakşa (VI. 16)
163 Sambhavadanyad ( VI. 74) 198 Tato'nyat tadābhāsam ( VI-1) 156 Samskārodbodha (III. 3)
Tävatā cha sādhya (III. 97 ) 137 Sandigdhaviparyasta (III, 21 ). 94 | Tenājñātatvāt (VI. 28 ) Sankitavrittistu (VI. 33 ) 173 Tena pakşastadādhāra ( III, 98 ) 137 Sāökhyam prati (VI. 27) Sarvajñatvena (VI. 34 )
174 Sāvaraṇatve ( II, 12 )
75 Udagād Bhāraṇiḥ ( III. 69). 129
191
169
169
IT

Page #276

iv
193
150
106
179
Udeşyati sakatam ( III. 68) 128 Visamvādāt ( VI, 54)
190 Upalabdhirvidhi ( III. 58) 121
Vişayābhāsah (VI. 61 )
Višesascha ( IV. 6) Upalambhānupalambha ( III. 11 ) 87
Vriksoyamityādi (III. 10 ) 84 Vyaktirūpam cha (III. 40 )
Vyāptau tu sādhyam (III. 32 ) 101 Vādhitaḥ pratyakşā (VI. 15 ) 162 Vyatireke siddha ( VI. 44 )
162 Vaibadye'yi paroksam (VI, 7) 159 Vyavriltyapi na tat (VI. 68 ) 195 Vidyudādināti( VI. 43 ) 178 Vyutpannaprayogastu (III. 94) 136 Vikalpasiddhe (III. 28 )
99 Vipaksepyaviruddha (VI. 30 ) 173 Viparīta-niśchita ( VI. 29) 171 Yaḥ pramimite (V.3)
154 Viparītānvayaścha ( VI. 42 ) 178 Yathā anuşņo'gnir (VI. 38 ): 87 Viparītavyatirekaścha ( VI. 45 ) 179 Yathā mervādayaḥ (III. 101 ) : 140 Viruddhānupalabdhi (III. 86 ) 133 Yathāsmin prāņiņi (III, 87 ) 134 Viruddhatadupalabdhiḥ ( III. 71 ) 129 Yathā nadyāstire ( VI. 52 ) 190 Visadam pratyakşam (II. 3) 50 | Yathā sa evāyam (III. 6 )
84

Page #277

GENERAL INDEX.
96
26
xliii
29
1901
Anupalabdhi
48, 121 Anvaya
112, 121 Abadhita
94, 96 Anvyaya driştānta Abadhya
- 96
Anvaya-vyāpti-jñāna Abhāva
48, 157 Apavāda Abhaya-deva
Apramā Abheda
Apramanya Abhinibodhika
Aprasiddha Abhipreta
Apratīta Abhipsita
Āpta
138, 139, 144 Abhranta
xxxyi
Apūrva Abinābhāva
88, 92 Apārvārtha 12, 25, 28, 36, 37 Achakşu
68—70 Archata Agama 48, 79, 80, 137, 139 Arhat Agamabadhā
95
Artha Agamabādhita Anumāna 164 Arthāpatti
48 Agamābhāsa
Aristotle
109 Ajīva 3, 35 Asaiga
xxxix Ajñāna
- 27 Asiddha
94, 96 Akalanka i, ii, xix-xxiii, xxx—xlx
3, 35 Akşa 56 Atīndriya Pratyakşa
61, 75 Alayavijñāna xxvii, 29 Ativyāpti
24 Amukhya Pratyakşa
62 Avadhi 13, 14, 17, 18, 50, 53, 54, Anadhyavasāya 32, 33, 35, 157
56, 69, 70, 72-75 Anandagiri
xl Avagraha 14, 36, 59, 75, 82, 83 Ananta-vīrya ii, xxiv, xxx, xlii, xliii ! Avāya 14, 15, 59, 75, 82, 85 Anavasthā
Aviruddha
121 Anindriya
Vyāpyopalabdhi 127 Anindriya-nivandhana
Auupalabdhi
131 Anindriya-pratyakşa
Svabhāva Anupalabdhi 132 Anirākrita
Vyāpaka Anupalabdhi 132 Antaraya
73
Kāryānupalabdhi 132 36, 48, 57-59, 79, 80,
Kāraṇānupalabdhi 132 90, 91, 116, 117
Pūrvachara Anupalabdhi 133 Anumāna-badhā
Sahachara Anupalabdhi 133 Anumanabhāsa
192
Uttarachara Anupalabdhi 133 Anumiti 13901 Kāryopalabdhi
135
Āsrava
107
.
60, 62
61
95

Page #278

xxv, xxyi
95
XXV 188, 189 xxxviii
Do (Sadharmya or Anvaya) 179,
180, 181, 185, 186 Do (Vaidharmya or Vyatireka )
179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 187 Düşana
107
Bachaspati Mišra Badha Baibhāsika Bāla-prayogābhāsa Bāņa-bhatta Bandha Bhartrihari Bhāva Bhava-pratyaya Bhūşaņa Bimala-dāsa Buddha Buddhi-siddha
Gautama Gavaya Guņa Guņa-pratyaya Guņa-ratna Guņa-sthāna
vii 84, 85, 119 S. 157
74, 75
74, 75
197
.
suusana
73
xxxviii
· 99
H
C.
178
Haribhadra
ii, vi Chakşu
68, 69 | Hemachandra Chandraprabha Sari
i Hetu 88, 91, 105, 109, 110, 111, 113, Chārvāka
xli, 48
114-119, 121, 123, 169, 176 Hetvābhāsa
166, 167 D. Do Asiddha
166-168 Dantidurga
xxxii
Do Viruddha 166, 167, 172 Darsana
68, 69, 70, 72 Do Anaikāntika 166, 167, 173, Darsanāvaraṇīya Karmas 70
174, 175 Devanandi
i, xxxii Do Aki chitkara 166, 176, 177 Deva-Süri
Do Siddha-sadhana
178 Dhāraṇā 14, 16, 59, 75, 81, 82, 83 Do Vadhita-visaya Dhārāvāhika Jñāna 22, 23, 37 Do Kalātīta
167 Dharmabhūşaņa
Do Prakaraṇa sama
167 Dharmakīrti xxxiii, xxxiv xxxvi, Do Vadyasiddha 170, 171 xxxviii, xxxix, xl Do Prativādyasiddha
171 Dharmottara
xliii Do Ubhayāsiddha Dhrauvya
149 Do Višeşyāsiddha Dignāga xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix Do Višeşaņāsiddha
171 Dravya 72, 148, 149, 157 Do Bhāgāsiddha
171 Dravyārthika
146 Do Āśrayāsiddha
171 Dristānta 105, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115 Do Aśrayaikādeśāsiddha 171 Driştāntābhāsa
179, 181 Do Vyartha-visesyäsiddha 171 Do ( according to Hemachandra) Do Vyartha-višeşaņāsiddha. 171
158, 188 Do Sandigdha-visesyasiddha 171
171 170

Page #279

vii
72
Ida
88,91
vii, viii, xli
-
165
xxxvi
Hetvābhāsa, Sandigdha-višeşaņā
68, 69, 70, 74 siddha 171 Kevalin
55 Do Nischita-vipakşa-vritti 173 Kepala jñāna
72, 74 Do Sankita-vipaksa-vritti Kevala Pratyakşa
73, 75 174, 175 Krittikā
93 Kşayopasama
69 Kşetra 65 Kundakunda
i, xiv, xvii İhā 14, 36, 59, 75, 82, 83 Kumārasena
xxxiii Indriya
60, 62, 63
Kumārila Bhatta ix, xiv, xxxiv, xxxix Indriya-nivandhana
Kumati
14, 17 Indriya-pratyakşa
Kuśruta
14, 17 Işat-indriya It Sing
Linga Loka-badha
95 Jaimini
Loka-vādhita Anumāna Jāväli Jayanta Bhatta
ix, x
M Jinadās Gani Mahottar
Madhava
vi, xl Jinadatta
vi Madhyamika
xxv, 24 Jinasena
xxxiii, xli
Mahābhārata Jiva ::
35, 68, 70 Mahāvīra Jñana
28, 68.72
Maitreyi Jiānachandra
Mallinātha
xxxix Jūāyamana
Mallisena
iii Jrānāvaraniya Karmas
Manas
. 65 Jūānendriya :
64 Maigalācharaņa
Manahparyaya 13, 14, 17, 18, 50, 54, Kala
56, 65, 69, 72—75 Kalidasa
39 Māņikyanandi ii, xxiv, xxv, xxix, Kalpanāpodha
xli Kanada
Manaḥpratyakşa Kapila vii, viii Manoratha
xxxviii Karana
122, 123, 124 Mati
13, 14, 17, 18, 54, 55, Kārana-hetu 125, 128
56, 69, 81 Karma
69, 71, 157
Māyāvādin Karmendriya
Mechaka Kārya
122, 123 Meru Karya-hetu
124, 128 Mohanīya karmas Kevala' , 13, 14, 17, 18, 54, 56, Mokşa
90, 91
6
K
72
xxxті
vii
28
29
63, 64
4.
3, 35

Page #280

viii
70 31
31
Ν
12
156
31
28,35
95
Mukhya pratyakşa 54, 61, 62, 72, Prachalāprachala
73, 74, 75 Pradarśaka
Pradarsakatva Prajñakara
xliii Naya
Pramā 4, 6, 1994
12, 20, 25, 27 Nidrā
Pramāņa (definition) Nidrānidrā
Pramāņābhāsa Nigamana 108-I11, 113, 115,
Pramāņa-siddha
99 116, 119 Prāmāṇya
46 Nigraha-sthānas
Pramātā xxxiv
39, 40 Nirjarā
3, 35 Prameya
39, 40 Nirmala
Pramiti
. 27, 39, 40 Nirvikalpaka darśana
157
Prāpaka Nirvikalpa pratyakşa
Pratijñā 105, 109, 111, 115, 116, Nischaya 29, 146, 147
118, 119 Nişedha
Pratişedha 121
121 No indriya
62, 65 Prativādi
197 Nyāya-vaiseșika
xli
Pratiti-badhā Pratyabhijñāna 79, 80, 84, 85, 86 Pratyabhijñānābhāsa
(Ekatva and Sadriśya) 161 Paksa 88, 98, 102, 104, 111, Fratyaksa
Pratyaksa , xxxvi, 13, 48-55, 57, 116, 118, 176
66, 79, 80, 83, 89, 94 Pakşābhāsa.
162, 163, 165 Pratyakşa-bādhā
95 Pāņi
63 Pratyakşābhāsa
158, 159 Pāramārthika pratyaksa 54, 61, 62,
Pratyakşa-vādhita
163 Pravritti
72, 73, 75 Parārthānumāna 117, 118, 119
Pravrittivijñāna
xxvii, 29 Parokşa 49, 50-56, 58, 78
Pūrvachara
122, 124, 125, 128 81, 83, 115 Pūjyapāda
xxxii Parokşabhāsa
159, 160 Paryāya
149 Paryāyārthika 146 Rajasekhara
iii, vi, x Patanjali vii, x Rasa
123 Payu
63 Ratnaprabhasūri Phalabhāsa
195, 196 Right conduct Prabhāchandra ii, xxxi, xxxiii, xl, xli, Right faith
xliv Right knowledge Prabhākara
xiii, xl, xli, xlx Riju . Prachala
70 Ritvik
Pada
63
31
R

Page #281

xxvi
93 96
72
160
97
Rohini
93 Sanvyavahāra Rūpa
123 Sāävyavahārika Pratyakşa Rūpaskandha xxvii Sapta-bhangi Naya
xiv, Saptaparņa
Sarabha Sabda 13, 48, 50, 57, 138, 139 Sarvajñas
17 Sadhana 88, 90, 92, 97, 111, 113, | Sarvästitvavādin 117, 169 Satta
148 Sadharmya 113, 114, 128 Sautrantika
XXV Sadharmya Udharaņa 115 Seven Tattvas
3, 35 Sadhya 88, 90, 92, 94-98, 101, Siddharşi
ii IU, 113, 114, 118 Siddhasena
i, ii, xix, xxxv Sadhyābhāsa
97 Silanka
XXXV Sahabhāva
· 92, 93 Simšapā Sahachara
122, 129 Sisādhayisita Sahachari Hetu
1241
Sistachāra Sāhasatuiga
xxxi, xxxii
Smaraņa Sakala Jñāna
Smaraņābhāsa Sakala Pratyakşa 72, 73, 75 Smriti
79, 80, 83, 85 Sakya
Spaşta
50, 51 Sāmagri
Sruta 13, 14, 17, 18, 50, 51, 55, Samanta bhadra i, xviii, xxxiv, xl
. 56, 69, 81, 138 Sāmānya
146, 147, 157 Subandhu
xxxviii Samāropa 32, 37 Subhatunga
xxxi Samavaya
157 Svabhāva
I 22 Sambhāvanā
Svabhāva Hetu
124 Samjukta Samavāya
Svavachanabadhita Anumāna Samvara
Svārthānumana
117 Samsaya
32, 33, 35, 157 Svarūpasiddha.
168, 170 Samskāra
16,81
Svavyavasāya Samyak Charitra 3 Styānagriddhi
70 Samyak Darsana
sūnyavādin
29 Samyak Jūāna
3, 35 Samyaktva
3, 35 Sandigdhāsiddha 168-170
79, 80, 87, 89, 93
Tarka Saijāskandha
Tarkābhāsa
161 Sankara
Tiryaksāmānya . . iv, ix, xxv, xl
Trikāladarsi Sankhya Sankhyābhāsa
191 Sannikarsa
31, 158 | Udaharaṇa 104-108, III, 115, 116 Sanskāraskandha
xxvii Udyotkara
iv, xxxvii, xxxix
72
152
165
35
xxvii
150
.:
17
U

Page #282

75
121
130
68
130 130
150 149
55
134
13+
134
137
146
Uha 80, 87-89 Viparyaya
32, 34, 35, 157 Umāsvāmi
i, xiv, xvii Vipula Upalabdhi
121 Viruddha . Upamāna 48, 85, 86 , Vyāpya upalabdhi
129 Upamiti
Kārya »
130 Upastha
Kāraṇa , Upayoga
Pūrvachara , Urddhatā-sāmānya
Uttarachara , Utpada
Sahachara ,
131 Uttara-chara 122, 124, 125, 129 Anupalabdhi
133 Utsarga
Kārya Anupalabdhi Kāraṇa ...,
13+
„Svabhāva 1 Vada-nyāya
xxxiv , Vyāpaka 1 Vadi 197 ,, Sahachara ,
134 Vādideva Sūri
xlviii , Karyopalabdhi Vadiraja xliii Vişāda
50, 51 Vaidharmya :
114, 128 Vişaya Vaidharmya Udaharana 115 Vişayābhāsa
194 Vāk
Visesa
146, 147, 157 Vāko-vākya
Vītarāgakatha
111, 116 Vāsanā
Vyāpya
89, 92, 93, 112 Vasubandhu xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix Vyāpaka
88, 89, 92, 93 Vātsyāyana
Vyapti 88, 92, 106, 109, III, Vedas
114, 119, 172 xxvii Vyāptijāna Vedana-skandha
88 Vibha ngāvadhi 14, 17 Vyāsa
viii Vibhrama
Vyatireka
112, 121, 150, 151 Vidhi
121 Vyatireka dristānta
113 Vidyānanda
iii, xxxiii, xl Vyavahāra
146, 147 Vidyānandi
iii, xxiv Vyavasāya Vijigīşu kathā
112 Vyaya Vijñānaskandha Vijñānādvaitavadin Vikala Jñāna
72 Yājñavalkya Vikala Pratyaksa 72, 73, 75 Yogächāra
xxv, Vikalpa
99, 101
Yogipratyakşa Vikalpa-siddhi
100 Yogis Vimaladāsa
iii Yogyatā Vimoha
34 Yuan Chwang
Xxxviji, xl
65
ana
33
28, 29
xxvii
29

Page #283

PRAMEYA-RATNA-MĀLĀ
(PARĪKSĀMUKHA-LAGHU-VRITTI)
BY
, ANANTA VĪRYA.
अनन्तवीर्यरचिता
प्रमेयरत्नमाला - (परीक्षामुखलघुत्तिः )

Page #284

Page #285

yasidimaidolee
प्रमेयरत्नमाला
॥ ॐ नमः सिद्धेभ्यः ॥
नतामरशिरोरत्न - प्रभामोतनखत्विषे । नमोजिनाय दुर्वारमारवीरमदच्छिदे ।। १ ।। अकल चोऽम्भोधेरुदधे येन धीमता ।
न्यायविद्यामृतं तस्मै नमो माणिक्यनन्दिने ॥ २॥ प्रभेन्दुवचनोदारचन्द्रिकाप्रसरे सति ।
मादृशाः क नु गण्यन्ते ज्योतिरिङ्गणसन्निभाः ॥ ३ ॥ तथाऽपि तद्वचोऽपूर्वं रचनारुचिरं सताम् ।
चेतोहरं भृतं यद्वनद्या नवघटे जलम् ॥ ४ ॥ वैजेयप्रियपुत्रस्य हीरपस्योपरोधतः ।
शान्तिषेणार्थमारब्धा परीक्षामुखपश्चिका ॥ ५ ॥ श्रीमन्न्यायावारपारस्यामेयप्रमेयरत्नसारस्यावगाहनमव्युत्पन्नैः कर्तुं न पार्यत इति तदवगाहनाय पोतप्रायमिदं प्रकरणमाचार्यः प्राह । तत्प्रकरणस्य च सम्बन्धादित्रयापरिज्ञाने सति प्रेक्षावतां प्रवृत्तिर्नस्यादिति तत्रयानुवादपुर:सरं वस्तुनिर्देश परं प्रतिज्ञाश्लोकमाह
प्रमाणादर्थ संसिद्धिस्तदाभासाद्विपर्ययः ।
इति वदये तयोर्लक्ष्म सिद्धमल्पं लघीयसः ॥ १ ॥
इत्यस्यार्थः - अहं वच्ये प्रतिपादयिष्ये । किं तल्लक्ष्म, लक्षणम् । किं विशिष्टं लक्ष्म ? सिद्धं, पूर्वाचार्यप्रसिद्धत्वात् । पुनरपि कथंभूतं ? अल्पमल्पग्रन्थवाच्यत्वात् । ग्रन्थतोऽल्पमर्थतस्तु महदित्यर्थः । कान् लघीयसो विनेयानुद्दिश्य । लाघवं मतिकृतमिह गृह्यते न परिमाणकृतं नाऽपि कालकृतं तस्य प्रतिपाद्यत्वव्यभिचारात् । कयोस्तल्लक्ष्म तयोः प्रमाणतदाभासयोः ॥ कुतः यतोऽर्थस्य परिच्छेद्यस्य संसिद्धिः संप्राप्तिज्ञप्तिर्वा भवति ॥ कस्मात्प्रमाणात् । न केवलं प्रमाणादर्थ संसिद्धिर्भवति । विपर्ययो भवति । अर्थसंस
1

Page #286

प्रमेयरत्नमाला। द्धयभावो भवति । कस्मात्तदाभासात् प्रमाणाभासात् ॥ इतिशब्दो हेत्वर्थे इति हेतोः॥अयमत्र समुदायार्थः। यतः कारणात्प्रमाणादर्थसंसिद्धिर्भवति । यस्माच्च तदाभासाद्विपर्ययो भवति । इति हेतोस्तयोः प्रमाणतदाभासयोर्लचम लक्षणमहं वक्ष्ये इति ॥ ननु सम्बन्धाभिधेयशक्थानुष्ठानेष्टप्रयोजनवन्ति हि शास्त्राणि भवन्ति । तत्रास्य प्रकरणस्य यावदभिधेयं सम्बन्धो वा नाभिधी. यते न तावदस्योपादेयत्वं भवितुमर्हति । एष वन्ध्यासुतो यातीत्यादिवाक्यवत् । दशदाडिमादिवाक्यवच्च ॥ तथा शक्यानुष्ठानेष्टप्रयोजनमपि शास्त्रादाववश्यं वक्तव्यमेव । अशक्यानुष्ठानेष्टस्येष्टप्रयोजनस्य सर्वज्वरहरतक्षकचूडारत्नालङ्कारोपदेशस्येव प्रेक्षावद्भिरनादरणीयत्वात् ।। तथा शक्यानुष्ठानस्याप्यनिष्टप्रयोजनस्य विद्वद्भिरवधीरणान्मातृविवाहादिप्रदर्शकवाक्यवदिति ॥ सत्यं, प्रमाणतदाभासपदोपादानादभिधेयमभिहितमेव । प्रमाणतदाभासयोरनेन प्रकरणेनाभिधानात् ॥ सम्बन्धश्चार्थायातः प्रकरणतदभिधेययो
च्यवाचकभावलक्षणः प्रतीयत एव ॥ तथा प्रयोजनं चोक्त लक्षणमादिश्लोकेनैव संलच्यते, प्रयोजनं हि द्विधा भिद्यते । साक्षात्परम्परयेति । तत्र साक्षात्प्रयोजनं वक्ष्ये इत्यनेनाभिधीयते । प्रथमं शास्त्रव्युत्पत्तेरेव विनेयैरन्वे. षणात् ॥ पारम्पर्येण तु प्रयोजनमर्थसंसिद्धिरित्यनेनोच्यते शास्त्रव्युत्पत्त्यनन्तरभावित्वादर्थसंसिद्धेरिति ॥ ननु निःशेषविघ्नोपशमनायेष्टदेवतान. मस्कारः शास्त्रकृता कथं न कृत इति न वाच्यम् । तस्य मनःकायाभ्यामपि सम्भवात् ॥ अथवा वाचनिकोऽपि नमस्कारोऽनेनैवादिवाक्येनाभिहितो वेदितव्यः। केषाश्चिद्वाक्यानामुभयार्थप्रतिपादनपरत्वेनापि दृश्यमानत्वात् । यथा श्वेतो धावतीत्युक्ते श्वा इतो धावति श्वेतगुणयुक्तो धावति इत्यर्थद्वयप्रतीतिः । तत्रादिवाक्यस्य नमस्कारपरताभिधीयते । अर्थस्य हेयोपादेयलक्षणस्य संसिद्धिप्तिर्भवति । कस्मात्प्रमाणात् । अनन्तचतुष्टयस्वरूपान्तरङ्गलक्षणा, समवसरणादिस्वभावा बहिरङ्गलक्षणा लक्ष्मीर्मा इत्युच्यते । अणनमाणः शब्दः मा च आणश्च माणौ प्रकृष्टौ माणौ यस्यासौ प्रमाणः। हरिहरायसम्भावविभूतियुक्तो दृष्टेष्टाविरुद्धवाक्च भगवानहन्नेवाभिधीयत इत्यसाधारणगुणोपदर्शनमेव भगवतः संस्तवनमभिधीयते । तस्मात्ममाणाद. वधिभूतादर्थसंसिद्धिर्भवति तदाभासाच्च हरिहरादेरर्थसंसिद्धिर्न भवति । इति हेतोः सर्वज्ञतदाभासयोर्लचम लक्षणमहं वक्ष्ये-सामग्रीविशेषेत्यादिना ॥

Page #287

प्रमेयरत्नमाला अथेदानीमुपक्षिप्तप्रमाणतत्त्वे स्वरूपसंख्याविषयफललक्षणासु चतसृषु विपतिपत्तिषु मध्ये स्वरूपविपतिपत्तिनिराकरणार्थमाह
स्वापूर्वार्थव्यवसायात्मकं ज्ञानं प्रमाणमिति ॥१॥ प्रकर्षेण संशयादिव्यवच्छेदेन मीयते परिच्छिद्यते वस्तुतत्त्वं येन तत्पमाणम् ॥ तस्य च ज्ञानमिति विशेषणमज्ञानरूपस्य सनिकर्षादेर्नैयायिकादिपरिकल्पितस्य प्रमाणत्वव्यवच्छेदार्थमुक्तम् ॥ तथा ज्ञानस्यापि स्वसंवेदनेन्द्रियमनोयोगिप्रत्यक्षस्य निर्विकल्पकस्य प्रत्यक्षत्वेन प्रामाण्यं सौगतैः परि - कल्पितं तन्निरासार्थ व्यवसायात्मकग्रहणम् ॥ तथा बहिरापहोतॄणां विज्ञानाद्वैतवादिनां पुरुषाद्वैतवादिनां पश्यतोहराणां शून्यैकान्तवादिनां च विपर्यासव्युदासार्थमर्थग्रहणम् ॥ अस्य चापूर्वविशेषणं गृहीतग्राहिधारावाहिज्ञानस्य प्रमाणतापरिहारार्थमुक्तम् ॥ तथा परोक्षज्ञानवादिनां मीमांसकानामस्वसंवेदनज्ञानवादिनांसांख्यानां ज्ञानान्तरप्रत्यक्षज्ञानवादिनां यौगानांच मतमपाकर्तुं स्वपदोपादानमित्यव्याप्त्यतिव्याप्त्यसम्भवदोषपरिहारात्सुव्यवस्थितमेव प्रमाणलक्षणम् ॥ अस्य च प्रमाणस्य यथोक्कलक्षणत्वे साध्ये प्रमाणत्वादिति हेतुरत्रैव द्रष्टव्यः । प्रथमान्तस्यापि हेतुपरत्वेन निर्देशोपपत्तेः ॥ प्रत्यक्षं विशदं ज्ञानमित्यादिवत् ॥ तथाहि-प्रमाणं स्वापूर्वार्थव्यवसायात्मक ज्ञान भवति प्रमाणत्वात् ॥ यत्तु स्वापूवोथव्यवसायात्मक ज्ञानं न भवति न तत्पमाणम् । यथा संशयादिर्घटादिश्च । प्रमाणं च विवादापनम् । तस्मात्स्वापूर्वार्थव्यवसायात्मकं ज्ञानमेव भवतीति ॥ न च प्रमाणत्वमसिद्धम् । सर्वप्रमाणस्वरूपवादिनां प्रमाणसामान्य विप्रतिपत्त्यभावात् अन्यथा स्वेष्टानिष्टसाधनदूषणायोगात् । अथ धर्मिणं एव हेतुत्वे प्रतिज्ञार्थंकदेशासिद्धो हेतुः स्यादिति चेन्न। विशेष धर्मिणं कृत्वा सामान्य हेर्नु ब्रुवतां दोषाभावात् ।। एतेनापतधर्मत्वमपि प्रत्युक्तम् । सामान्यस्याशेषविशेषनिष्ठत्वात् । न च पक्षधर्मताबलेन हेतोर्गमकत्वमपि त्वन्यथानुपपत्तिबलेनेति। सा चात्र नियमवती विपक्षे बाधकप्रमाणबलानिश्चितैव । एतेन विरुद्धत्वमनैकान्तिकत्वं च निरस्तं बोद्धव्यम् । विरुद्धस्य व्यभिचारिणश्चाविनाभावनियमनिश्चयलक्षणत्वायोगादतो भवत्येव साध्यसिद्धिरिति केवलव्यतिरेकिणोऽपि हेतोर्गमकत्वात् । सात्मकं जीवच्छरीरं प्राणादिमत्वादितिवत् ।।

Page #288

मेयरत्नमाला
अथेदानीं स्वोक्तप्रमाणलक्षणस्य ज्ञानमिति विशेषणं समर्थयमानः प्राहहिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमर्थं हि प्रमाणं, ततो ज्ञानमेव तदिति ॥२॥
४
हितं सुखं तत्कारणं च । अहितं दुःखं तत्कारणं च । हितं चाहि च हिताहिते । तयोः प्राप्तिश्च परिहारश्च तत्र समर्थम् ।। हि-शब्दो यस्मादर्थे । तेनायमर्थः सम्पादितो भवति । यस्माद्धिताहितप्रातिपरिहारसमर्थ प्रमाणं । ततस्तत्प्रमाणत्वेनाभ्युपगतं वस्तुज्ञानमेव भवितुमर्हति । नाज्ञानरूपं सन्निकर्षादि ॥ तथा च प्रयोगः प्रमाणं ज्ञानमेव हिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमर्थत्वात् । यत्तु न ज्ञानं तन्न हिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमर्थम् । यथा घटादि । हिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहारसमर्थ च विवादापन्नम् । तस्मात् ज्ञानमेव भवतीति । नचैतदसिद्धं । हितप्राप्तयेऽहित परिहाराय च प्रमाणमन्वेषयन्ति प्रेक्षापूर्वकारिणो न व्यसनितया सकलप्रमाणवादिभिरभिमतत्वात् । अत्राह सौगतः - भवतु नाम सन्निकर्षादिव्यवच्छेदेन ज्ञानस्यैव प्रामाण्यं न तदस्माभिर्निषिध्यते । तत्तु व्यवसायात्मकमेवेत्यत्र न युक्तिमुत्पश्यामः । अनुमानस्येव व्यवसायात्मनः प्रामाण्याभ्युपगमात् । प्रत्यक्षस्य तु निर्विकल्पकत्वेऽप्यविसंवादकत्वेन प्रामाण्योपपत्तेरिति तत्राह - तन्निश्चयात्मकं समारोपविरुद्धत्वादनुमानवदिति ॥ ३ ॥
तत् प्रमाणत्वेनाभ्युपगतं वस्त्विति धर्मिनिर्देशः । व्यवसायात्मकमिति साध्यम् । समारोपविरुद्धत्वादिति हेतु: । अनुमानवदिति दृष्टान्त इति ॥ अयमभिप्रायः संशय विपर्यासानध्यवसायस्वभाव समारोपविरोधिग्रहणलक्षणव्यवसायात्मकत्वे सत्येवाविसंवादित्वमुपपद्यते । विसंवादित्वे च प्रमाणत्वमिति चतुर्विधस्यापि समक्षस्य प्रमाणत्वमभ्युपगच्छता समारोपविरोधिग्रहणलक्षणं निश्चयात्मकमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् ॥ ननु तथापि समारोपविरोधिव्यवसायात्मकत्वयोः समानार्थकत्वात् कथं साध्यसाधनभाव इति न मन्तव्यम् । ज्ञानस्वभावतया तयोरभेदेऽपि व्याप्यव्यापकत्वधर्माधारतया भेदोपपत्तेः । शिंशपात्ववृक्षत्ववत् ॥ अथेदानीं सविशेषणमर्थग्रहणं समर्थ - यमानस्तदेव स्पष्टीकुर्वन्नाह

Page #289

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
अनिश्चितोऽपूर्वार्थ इति ॥ ४ ॥ यः प्रमाणान्तरेण संशयादिव्यवच्छेदेनानध्यवासितः सोऽपूर्वार्थः ॥ तेनेहादिज्ञानविषयस्यावग्रहादिगृहीतत्वेऽपि न पूर्वार्थत्वम् । अवग्रहादिनेहादिविषयभूतावान्तरविशेषनिश्चयाभावात् ॥ अथोक्तप्रकार एवापूर्वार्थः किमन्योऽप्यस्तीत्याह
___ दृष्टोऽपि समारोपात्ताहगिति ॥ ५ ॥ दृष्टोऽपि गृहीतोऽपि-न केवलमानश्चित एवेत्यपि शब्दार्थः। तागपूर्वार्थों भवति । समारोपादिति हेतुः ॥ एतदुक्तं भवति-गृहीतमपि ध्यामलिताकारतया यन्निक्तुं न शक्यते तदपि वस्त्वपूर्वमिति व्यपदिश्यते प्रवृत्तसमारोपाव्यवच्छेदात् ॥ ननु भवतु नामापूर्वार्थव्यवसायात्मकत्वं विज्ञानस्य स्वव्यवसायं तु न विद्म इत्यत्राह
स्वोन्मुखतया प्रतिभासनं स्वस्य व्यवसाय इति ॥ ६ ॥ स्वस्योन्मुखता स्वोन्मुखता तया स्वोन्मुखतया स्वानुभवतया प्रतिभासनं स्वस्य व्यवसायः॥ अत्र दृष्टान्तमाह
.... अर्थस्येव तदुन्मुखतयेति ॥ ७॥ तच्छब्देनार्थोऽभिधीयते । यथार्थोन्मुखतया प्रतिभासनमर्थव्यवसायस्तथा स्वोन्मुखतया प्रतिभासनं स्वस्य व्यवसायो भवति । अत्रोल्लेखमाह
. घटमहमात्मना वेद्मीति ॥ ८॥ ननु ज्ञानमर्थमेवाध्यवस्यति न स्वात्मानम् । आत्मानं फलं वेति केचित् । कर्तृकर्मणोरेव प्रतीतिरित्यपरे । कर्तृकर्मक्रियाणामेव प्रतीतिरित्यन्ये । तेषां मतमखिलमपि प्रतीतिबाधितमिति दर्शयन्नाह____ कर्मवत्कर्तृ करणक्रियाप्रतीतेरिति ॥ ६ ॥
ज्ञानविषयभूतं वस्तु कर्माभिधीयते । तस्यैव ज्ञप्तिक्रियया व्याप्यत्वात् । तस्येव तद्वत् । कर्ता आत्मा । करणं प्रमाणम् । क्रिया प्रमितिः । कर्ता च करणं च क्रिया च तासां प्रतीतिः तस्या इति हेतौ का प्रागुक्तानुभवोल्लेखे यथाक्रमं तत्प्रतीतिर्द्रष्टव्या ॥ ननु शब्दपरामर्शसचिवेयं प्रतीतिर्न वस्तुत्वबलोपजातेत्यत्राह

Page #290

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
शब्दानुच्चारणेऽपि स्वस्यानुभवनमर्थवदिति ॥ १० ॥
यथा घटादिशब्दानुच्चारणेऽपि घटाद्यनुभवस्तथाऽहमहमिकया योऽयमन्तर्मुखाकारतयावभासः स शब्दानुच्चारणेऽपि स्वयमनुभूयत इत्यर्थः ॥ अमुमेवार्थमुपपत्तिपूर्वकं परं प्रति सोल्लुण्ठमाचष्टे— को वा तत्प्रतिभासनमर्थमध्यक्षमिच्छंस्तदेव तथा नेच्छेत् ॥ ११ ॥
को वा लौकिकः परीक्षको वा । तेन ज्ञानेन प्रतिभासितुं शीलं यस्य स तथोक्तस्तं प्रत्यक्षविषयमिच्छन् विषयिधर्मस्य विषये उपचारात् तदेव ज्ञानमेव तथा प्रत्यक्षत्वेन नेच्छेत्, अपि विच्छेदेव । अन्यथा अप्रामाणिकत्वप्रसङ्गः स्यादित्यर्थः ।। अत्रोदाहरणमाह
प्रदीपवदिति ॥ १२ ॥
इदमत्र तात्पर्यम् - ज्ञानं स्वावभासने स्वातिरिक्तसजातीयार्थान्तरानपक्ष गत्यचार्थगुणत्वे सति अदृष्टानुयायिकरणत्वात्प्रदीपभासुरराकारवत् ॥ अथ भवतु नामाक्वलक्षणलक्षितं प्रमाणं, तथापि तत्प्रामाण्यं स्वतः परतो वा । न तावत्स्वतः अविप्रतिपत्तिप्रसङ्गात् । नापि परतः - अनवस्थाप्रसङ्गादिति मतद्वयमाशंक्य तन्निराकरणेन स्वमतमवस्थापयन्नाह -
-
तत्प्रामाण्यं स्वतः परतश्चेति ॥ १३ ॥
सोपस्कारा हि वाक्यानि भवन्ति । तत इदं प्रतिपत्तव्यं - अभ्यासदशायां स्वतोऽनभ्यासदशायां च परत इति । तेन प्रागुक्तैकान्तद्वयनिरासः न चानभ्यासदशायां परतः प्रामाण्येऽप्यनवस्था समाना, ज्ञानान्तरस्याभ्यस्तविषयस्य स्वतः प्रमाणभूतस्याङ्गीकरणात् । अथवा प्रामाण्यमुत्पत्तौ परत एव । विशिष्टकारणप्रभवत्त्वाद्विशिष्टकार्यस्येति । विषयपरिच्छित्तिलक्षणे प्रवृतिलक्षणे वा स्वकार्ये अभ्यासेतरदशापेक्षया कचित्स्वत: परतश्चेति निश्रीयते । ननुत्पत्तौ विज्ञानकारणातिरिक्तकारणान्तर सव्यपेक्षत्वमसिद्धम् । प्रामाण्यस्य तदितरस्यैवाभावात् ।। गुणाख्यमस्तीति वाङ्मात्रं, विधिमुखेन कार्यमुखेन वा गुणानामप्रतीतेः ॥ नाध्यप्रामाण्यं स्वत एव प्रामाण्यं तु परत एवेति विपर्ययः शक्यते कल्पयितुम् || अन्वयव्यतिरे

Page #291

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
•
काभ्यां हि त्रिरूपाल्लिङ्गादेव केवलात् प्रामाण्यमुत्पद्यमानं दृष्टम् । प्रत्यक्षादिष्वपि तथैव प्रतिपत्तव्यं नान्यथेति । तत एवाऽऽतोक्नत्वगुणसद्भावेऽपि न तत्कृतमागमस्य प्रामाण्यम् । तत्र हि गुणेभ्यो दोषाणामभावस्तदभावाच्च संशयविपर्यासलक्षणामामाण्यद्वयासवेऽपि प्रामाण्यमौत्सर्गिकमनपादितमास्त एवेति । ततः स्थितं प्रामाण्यमुत्पत्तौ न सामग्रचन्तरसापेक्षमिति । नापि विषय परिच्छित्तिलक्षणे स्वकार्ये स्वग्रहणसापेक्षम् । अगृहीतप्रामाएयादेव ज्ञानाद्विषयपरिच्छित्तिलक्षणकार्यदर्शनात् ॥ ननु न परिच्छित्तिमात्रं प्रमाणकार्य तस्य मिथ्याज्ञानेऽपि सद्भावात् । परिच्छित्तिविशेषं तु नागृहीतप्रामाण्यं विज्ञानं जनयतीति । तदपि बालविलसितम् । नहि प्रामाण्यग्रहणोत्तरकालमुत्पत्त्यवस्थातः परिच्छित्तेर्विशेषोऽवभासते गृहीतप्रामाण्यादपि विज्ञानान्निर्विशेषविषय परिच्छेदोपलब्धेः ॥ ननु परिच्छितिमात्रस्य शुक्तिकायां रजतज्ञानेऽपि सद्भावात्तस्यापि प्रमाणकार्यत्वप्रसङ्ग इति चेत् - भवेदेवं, यद्यर्थान्यथात्वप्रत्यय स्वहेतूत्थदोषज्ञानाभ्यां तन्नापोद्येत ॥ तस्माद्यत्र कारणदोषज्ञानं बाधकप्रत्ययो वा नोदेति, तत्र स्वत एव प्रामायमिति । न चैवमप्रामाण्येऽप्याशङ्कनीयं, तस्यं विज्ञानकारणातिरिक्तदोषस्वभावसामग्री सव्यपेक्षतयोत्पत्तेः निवृत्तिलक्षणे च स्वकार्ये स्वग्रहणसापेचत्वात् । तद्धि यावन्न ज्ञानं न तावत्स्वविषयात्पुरुषं निवर्तयतीति ।। तदेतत्सर्वमनल्पतमोविलसितम् ॥ तथाहि - न तावत्प्रामाण्यस्योत्पत्तौ सामग्रचन्तरापेक्षत्वमसिद्धम् । श्राप्तप्रणीतत्वलक्षणगुणसन्निधाने सत्येवाप्तप्रणीतवचनेषु प्रामाण्यदर्शनात् । यद्भावाभावाभ्यां यस्योत्पत्यनुत्पत्ती तत् तत्कारणकमिति लोकेऽपि सुप्रसिद्धत्वात् । यदुक्तम् - "विधिमुखेन कार्य - मुखेन वा गुणानामप्रतीतिरिति" तत्र तावदातप्रणीतशब्दे न प्रतीतिर्गुणानामित्ययुक्तं प्रप्तप्रणीतत्त्वहानिप्रसङ्गात् ।। अथ चक्षुरादौ गुणानामप्रतीतिरित्युच्यते तदप्ययुक्तम् । नैर्मल्यादिगुणानामबलाबालादिभिरप्युपलब्धेः ॥ अथ नैर्मल्यं स्वरूपमेव न गुणः तर्हि हेतोरविनाभाववैकल्यमपि स्वरूपविकलतैव न दोष इति समानम् ॥ अथ तद्वैकल्यमेव दोषः तर्हि लिङ्गस्य चचुरादेव तत्स्वरूपसाकल्यमेव गुणः कथं न भवेत् १ प्राप्तोक्तेऽपि शब्दे मोहादिलक्षणस्य दोषस्याभावमेव यथार्थज्ञानादिलक्षणगुणसद्भावमभ्युपगच्छा त्र तथा नेच्छतीति कथमनुन्मत्तः १ अथोक्तमेव - शब्दे

Page #292

प्रमयरत्नमाला गुणाः सन्तोऽपि न प्रामाण्योत्पत्तौ व्याप्रियन्ते किन्तु दोषाभाव एवेति ॥ सत्यमुक्तं, किन्तु न युक्तमेतत् । प्रतिज्ञामात्रेण साध्यसिढेरयोगात् । नहि गुणेभ्यो दोषाणामभाव इत्यत्र किश्चिन्निबन्धनमुत्पश्यामोऽन्यत्र महामोहात् ॥ अथानुमानेऽपि त्रिरूपलिङ्गमात्रजनितप्रामाण्योपलब्धिरेव तत्र हेतुरिति चेन्न । उक्तोत्तरत्वात् ॥ तत्र हि त्रैरूप्यमेव गुणो यथा तद्वैकल्यं दोष इति नासमतो हेतुः । अपि चाप्रामाण्येऽप्येवं वक्तुं शक्यत एव । तत्र हि दोषेभ्यो गुणानामभावस्तदभावाच्च प्रामाण्यासत्वे अपामाएयमात्सर्गिकमास्त इत्यप्रामाण्यं स्वत एवेति तस्य भिन्न कारणप्रभवत्ववर्णनमुन्मत्तभाषितमेव स्यात् ॥ किश्च गुणेभ्यो दोषाणामभाव इत्यभिदधता गुणेभ्यो गुणा एवेत्यभिहितं स्यात् । भावान्तरस्वभावत्वादभावस्य । ततोमामाण्यसत्त्वं प्रामाण्यमेवेति नैतावता परपक्षप्रतिक्षेपः। अविरोधकत्त्वात् । तथा अनुमानतोऽपि गुणाःप्रतीयन्त एव, तथाहि-मामाण्यं विज्ञानकारणाति रिक्तकारणमभवं, विज्ञानान्यत्वे सति कार्यत्वात् अप्रामाण्यवत् । तथा प्रमाणमामाण्ये भिन्नकारणजन्ये, भिन्नकार्यत्वात् । घटवस्त्रवदिति च ॥ ततः स्थितं प्रामाण्यमुत्पत्तौ परापेक्षमिति ॥ तथा विषयपरिच्छित्तिलक्षणे प्रवृत्तिलक्षणे वा स्वकार्ये स्वग्रहणं नापेक्षत इति नैकान्तः कच्चिदभ्यस्तविषय एव परानपेक्षत्वव्यवस्थानात् ॥ अनभ्यस्ते तु जलमरीचिकासाधारणप्रदेशे जलज्ञानं परापेक्षमेव । सत्यमिदं जलं, विशिष्टाकारधारित्वात् घट चेटिकापेटकदर्दुरारावसरोजगन्धवत्त्वाच्च, परिदृष्टजलवादित्यनुमानज्ञानादर्थक्रियाज्ञानाच्च, स्वतः सिद्धप्रामाण्यात्माचीनज्ञानस्य यथार्थत्वमाकल्पमवकल्प्यत एव ॥ यदप्यभिहितं प्रामाण्यग्रहणोत्तरकालमुत्पत्त्यवस्थातः परिच्छित्तेर्विशेषो नावभासत इति । तत्र यद्यभ्यस्तविषयेनावभासत इत्युच्यते तदा तदिष्यत एव । तत्र प्रथममेव निःसंशयं विषयपरिच्छित्तिविशेषाभ्युपगमात् । अनभ्यस्तविषये तु तद्ग्रहणोत्तरकालमस्त्येव विषयावधारणस्वभावपरिच्छित्तिविशेषः। पूर्व प्रमाणाप्रमाणसाधारण्या एव परिच्छित्तेरुत्पत्ते ॥ ननु प्रामाण्यपरिच्छित्योरभेदात्कथं पौर्वापर्यमिति १ । नैवम् । नहि सर्वाऽपि परिच्छित्तिः प्रामाएयात्मिका, प्रामाण्यं तु परिच्छित्त्यात्मकमेवेति न दोषः।। यदप्युक्तम्-बाधकारणदोषज्ञानाभ्यां प्रामाण्यमपोचत इति-तदपि फल्गुभाषितमेव । अपामाएयेऽपि तथा वक्तुं शक्यत्वात् ॥ तथाहि-प्रथममप्रमाणमेव ज्ञानमुत्पद्यते

Page #293

मेयरत्नमालां
पश्चादबाधबोधगुणज्ञानोत्तरकालं तदपोयत इति । तस्मात्मामाण्यमप्रामाण्यं वा स्वकार्ये कचिदभ्यासानभ्यासापेक्षया स्वतः परतश्चेति निर्णेतव्यमिति ॥ देवस्य सम्मतमपास्तसमस्तदोषं
वीक्ष्य प्रपञ्चरुचिरं रचितं समस्य ।
माणिक्यनन्दिविभुना शिशुबोधहेतोमनस्वरूपममुना स्फुटमभ्यधायि ॥ १ ॥ इति परीक्षामुखलघुवृत्तौ प्रमाणस्य स्वरूपोद्देशः ॥ १ ॥
-
अथ प्रमाणस्वरूपविप्रतिपत्तिं निरस्येदानीं संख्याविप्रतिपत्तिं प्रतिक्षिपन्सकलममारणभेदसन्दर्भ संग्रहपरं प्रमाणेयत्ताप्रतिपादकं वाक्यमाद॥ तद्द्वेधेति ॥ १ ॥
तच्छब्देन प्रमाणं परामृश्यते । तत्प्रमाणं स्वरूपेणावगतं द्वेधा द्विप्रकारमेव । सकलप्रमाणभेदानामत्रैवान्तर्भावात् । तद्विवमध्यक्षानुमानमकारेणापि सम्भवतीति तदाशङ्कानिराकरणार्थ सकलप्रमाणभेद संग्रहशालिनीं संख्यi orataरोति

प्रत्यक्षेतरभेदादिति ॥ २॥
प्रत्यक्षं वच्यमाणलक्षणं, इतरत्परोक्षं, ताभ्यां भेदात्प्रमाणस्येति शेषः ।। न हि परपरिकल्पितैकद्वित्रिचतुःपञ्चषद्ममाणसंख्या नियमे निखिलप्रमाणभेदानामन्तर्भावविभावना शक्या कर्त्तुम् ।। तथाहि प्रत्यचैकप्रमाणवादिनश्वावस्य नाध्यते लैङ्गिकस्यान्तर्भावो युक्तः तस्य तद्विलक्षणत्वात् । सामग्रीस्वरूपभेदात् ॥ अथ नाप्रत्यक्षं प्रमाणमस्ति विसंवादसम्भवात् । निश्चिताविनाभावाल्लिङ्गाल्लिङ्गिनि ज्ञानमनुमानमित्यानुमानिकशासनं । तंत्र च स्वभावलिङ्गस्य बहुलमन्यथाऽपि भावो दृश्यते । तथाहि कषायरसोपेतानामामलकानामेतद्देशकालसम्बन्धिनां दर्शनेऽपि देशान्तरे कालान्तरे द्रव्यान्तरसम्बन्धे च अन्यथाऽपि दर्शनात्स्वभावहेतुर्व्यभिचार्येव लताच्यूतवल्लताशिंशपादिसम्भावनाच्च ॥ तथा कार्यलिङ्गमपि गोपालघटिकादौ धूमस्य शक्रमूर्धिन चान्यथाऽपि भावात्पावकव्यभिचार्येव । ततः प्रत्यक्षमेवैकं प्रमाणमस्यैवाविसंवादकत्वादिति । तदेतद्बालविलसितमिवाभात्युपपत्तिशून्यत्वात् ॥ तथाहि-- किमप्रत्यक्षस्योत्पादककारणाभावादालम्बनाभावाद्वा प्रामाण्यं
-

Page #294

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
निषिध्यते ? तत्र न तावत्माक्तनः पक्षः। तदुत्पादकस्य सुनिश्चितान्यथानुपपत्तिनियतनिश्चयलक्षणस्य साधनस्य सद्भावात् ।। नो खल्वप्युदीचीनः पतः । तदालम्बनस्य पावकादेः सकलविचारचतुरचेतसि सर्वदा प्रतीयमानत्वात् ॥ यदपि स्वभावहेतोर्व्यभिचारसम्भावनमुक्तम् तदप्यनुचितमेव स्वभावमात्रस्याहेतुत्त्वात् । व्याप्यरूपस्यैव स्वभावस्य व्यापकम्पति गमकत्वाभ्युपगमात् ॥ न च व्याप्यस्य व्यापकव्यभिचारित्वं व्याप्यत्त्वविरोधप्रसङ्गात् ॥ किश्च एवंवादिनो नाध्यक्षं प्रमाणं व्यवतिष्ठते । तत्राप्यसंवादस्यागौणत्वस्य च प्रामाण्याविनाभावित्वेन निश्चेतुमशक्यत्त्वात् । यच्च कार्यहेतोरप्यन्यथापि सम्भावनं तदप्यशिक्षितलक्षितं सुविवोचितस्य कार्यस्य कारणाव्यभिचारित्त्वात् । यादृशो हि धूमो ज्वलनकार्य भूधरनितम्बादावतिबहलधवलतया प्रसर्पन्नुपलभ्यते, न तादृशो गोपालघटिकादाविति ॥ यदप्युक्तम् "शक्रमूर्द्धनि धूमस्यान्यथापि भाव इति" तत्र किमयं शक्रमी अग्निस्वभावोऽन्यथा वा ? । यद्यग्निस्वभावस्तदाग्निरेवेति कथं तदुद्भूतधूमस्यान्यथाभावः शक्यते कल्पयितुम् ॥ अथानग्निस्वभावस्तदा तदुद्भवो धूम एव न भवतीति कथं तस्य तद्वयभिचारित्वमिति ॥ तथाचोक्तम्-अग्निस्वभावः शक्रस्य मुर्दा चेदग्निरेव सः। अथानग्निस्वभावोऽसौ धूमस्तत्र कथं भवेदिति ॥१॥ किञ्च प्रत्यक्षं प्रमाणमिति कथमयं परं प्रतिपादयेत् । परस्य प्रत्यक्षेण गृहीतुमशक्यत्त्वात् । व्याहारादिकार्यप्रदर्शनात्तं प्रतिपद्यतेति चेत्- आयातं तर्हि कार्यात्करणानुमानम् ॥ अथ लोकव्यवहारापेक्षयेष्यत एवानुमानमपि परलोकादावेवानभ्युपगमात्तदभावादिति । कथं तदभावोऽनुपलब्धेरिति चेत्तदाऽनुपलब्धिलिङ्गजनितमनुमानमपरमापतितमिति ॥ प्रत्यक्षप्रामाण्यमपि स्वभावहेतुजातानुमितिमन्तरेण नोपपत्तिमियर्तीति मागेवोक्तमित्युपरम्यते ॥ यदप्युक्तं धर्मकीर्तिना-प्रमाणेतरसामान्यस्थितेरन्यधियो गतेः । प्रमाणान्तरसद्भावः प्रतिषधाच्च कस्यचिदिति ॥ २ ॥ ततः प्रत्यक्षमनुमानमिति प्रमाणद्वयमेवेति सौगतः । सोऽपि न युक्तवादी । स्मृतेरविसंवादिन्यास्तृतीयायाः प्रमाणभूतायाः सद्भावात् ॥ न च तस्या विसंवादादप्रामाण्यम् । दत्तग्रहादिविलोपापत्तेः ॥ अथानुभूयमानस्य विषयस्याभावात् स्मृतेरमामाण्यं न तथापि अनुभूतेनार्थेन सालम्बनत्वोप

Page #295

मेयरत्नमाला
११
पत्तेः । अन्यथा प्रत्यक्षस्याप्यनुभूतार्थविपयत्वादप्रामाण्यमनिवार्य स्यात् स्वविषयावभासनं स्मरणेऽप्यवशिष्टमिति । किञ्च स्मृतेरप्रामाण्येऽनुमानवाऽपि दुर्लभा । तया व्याप्तेरविषयीकरणे तदुत्थानायोगादिति ॥ तत इदं वक्तव्यम् - " स्मृति: प्रमाणम्, अनुमानप्रामाण्यान्यथानुपपतेरिति" सैव प्रत्यक्षानुमानस्वरूपतया प्रमाणस्य द्वित्वसंख्या नियमं विघटयतीति किं नश्चिन्तया ॥ तथा प्रत्यभिज्ञानमपि सौगतीयप्रमाणसंख्या विघटयत्येव । तस्यापि प्रत्यक्षानुमानयोरनन्तर्भावात् ॥ ननु तदिति स्मरणमिदमिति प्रत्यक्षमिति ज्ञानद्वयमेव । न ताभ्यां विभिन्नं प्रत्यभिज्ञानाख्यं वयं प्रतिपद्यमानं प्रमाणान्तरमुपलभामहे । ततः कथं तेन प्रमाणसंख्याविघटनमिति तदप्यघटितमेव । यतः स्मरणप्रत्यक्षाभ्यां प्रत्यभिज्ञानविषयस्यार्थस्य गृहीतुमशक्यत्वात् । पूर्वोत्तर विवर्तवत्यैकद्रव्यं हि प्रत्यभिज्ञाविषयः । न च तत्स्मरणेनोपलभ्य ( दय ) - ते तस्यानुभूतविषयत्वात् । नापि प्रत्यक्षेण तस्य वर्तमानविवर्तवर्तित्वात् ॥ यदप्युक्तम् — “ ताभ्यां भिन्नमन्यत् ज्ञानं नास्तीति” । अभेदपरामर्शरूपतया भिन्नस्यैवावभासनात् । न च तयोरन्यतरस्य वा भेदपरामर्शकत्वमस्ति विभिन्नविषयत्वात् । नचैतत्प्रत्यचेऽन्तर्भवत्यनुमाने वा तयोः पुरोऽवस्थितार्थविषयत्वेनाविनाभूतलिङ्गसम्भावितार्थविषयत्वेन च पूर्वापर विकारव्याप्येकत्वाविषयत्वात् ।। नापि स्मरणे, तेनापि तदेकत्वस्याविषयी करणात् ।। अथ संस्कारस्मरणसह कृतमिन्द्रियमेव प्रत्यभिज्ञानं जनयतीन्द्रियजं चाध्यक्ष मेवेति न प्रमाणान्तरमित्यपरः । सोऽप्यतिबालिश एव । स्वविषयाभिमुख्येन प्रवर्त्तमानस्येन्द्रियस्य सहकारिशतसमवधानेsपि विषयान्तरप्रवृत्तिलक्षणातिशयायोगात् । विषयान्तरं चातीतसाम्प्रतिकावस्थाव्याप्येकद्रव्यमिन्द्रियाणां रूपादिगोचरचारित्वन चरितार्थत्वाच्च || नाप्यदृष्टसहकारिसव्यपेक्ष मिन्द्रियमेकत्वविषयं । उक्तदोषादेव || किश्वादृष्टसंस्कारादिसव्यपेक्षा देवात्मनस्तद्विज्ञानमिति किन्न कल्प्यते ? । दृश्यते हि स्वप्नसारस्वतचाण्डालिकादिविद्यासंस्कृतादात्मनो विशिष्टज्ञानोत्पत्तिरिति ॥ नन्वञ्जनादि संस्कृतमपि चतुः सातिशयमुपलभ्यते इति चेत् न तस्य स्वार्थानतिक्रमेणैवातिशयोपलब्धेर्न विषयान्तरग्रहणलक्षणातिशयस्य । तथाचोक्तम् — यत्राऽप्यतिशयो दृष्टः स स्वार्थानतिलङ्घनात् । दूरसूक्ष्मास्यामरूपे श्रोत्रवृत्तित इति ॥ ३ ॥ नन्वस्य वार्तिकस्य सर्वशप्रति -

Page #296

१२
प्रमेयरत्नमाला षेधपरत्वाद्विषमो दृष्टान्त इति चेन्न-इन्द्रियाणां विषयान्तरप्रवृत्तावतिशयाभावमात्रे सादृश्यात् दृष्टान्तत्वोपपत्तेः ॥ न हि सर्वो दृष्टान्तधर्मो दार्शन्तिके भवितुमर्हति । अन्यथा दृष्टान्त एव न स्यादिति । ततः स्थितं प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्यामर्थान्तरं प्रत्यभिज्ञान सामग्रीस्वरूपभेदादिति ॥ न चैतदप्रमाणं ततोऽर्थ परिच्छिद्य प्रवर्तमानस्यार्थक्रियायामविसंवादात् प्रत्यक्षवदिति । नचैकत्वापलापे बन्धमोक्षादिव्यवस्था अनुमानव्यवस्था वा । एकत्वाभावे बद्धस्यैव मोक्षादेहीतसम्बन्धस्यैव लिङ्गस्यादर्शनादनुमानस्य च व्यवस्थायोगादिति॥नचास्य विषये बाधकप्रमाणसद्भावादप्रामाण्यं तद्विषये प्रत्यत्तस्य लौङ्गिकस्य चामत्तेः । प्रवृत्तौ वा प्रत्युत साधकत्वमेव न बाधकत्वमित्यलमतिप्रसंगेन ॥ तथा सौगतस्य प्रमाणसंख्याविरोधिविध्वस्तबाधं तर्काख्यमुपढौकत एव ॥ नचैतत्सत्यक्षेऽन्तर्भवति । साध्यसाधनयोर्व्याप्यव्यापकभावस्य साकल्येन प्रत्यक्षाविषयत्वात् ॥ न हि तदियतो व्यापारान्कर्तुं शक्नोति । अविचारकत्वात् सन्निहितविषयत्त्वाच ॥ नाप्यनुमाने, तस्यापि देशादिविषयविशिष्टत्वेन व्याप्त्यविषयत्वात् । तद्विषयत्वे वा प्रकृतानुमानान्तरविकल्पद्वयानतिक्रमात् ॥ तत्र प्रकृतानुमानेन व्याप्तिपतिपत्तावितरतराश्रयत्वप्रसङ्गः । व्याप्तौ हि प्रतिपन्नायामनुमानमात्मानमासादयति । तदास्मलाभे च व्याप्तिपतिपत्तिारेति अनुमानान्तरेणाविनाभावप्रतिपत्तावनवस्थाचमूरी परपक्षचमं चश्चमीति इति नानुमानगम्या व्याप्तिः॥ नापि संख्यापरिकल्पितैरागमोपमानार्थापत्यभावैः साकल्येनाविनाभावावगतिः । तेषां समयसंगृहीतसादृश्यान्यथाऽनन्यथाभूताभावविषयत्वेन व्याप्त्यविषयत्वात् । परैस्तथाऽनभ्युपगमाच्च । अथ प्रत्यक्षपृष्ठभाविविकल्पात् साकल्येन साध्यसाधनभावप्रतिपत्तेने प्रमाणान्तरं तदर्थ मृग्यमित्यपरः । सोऽपि न युक्तवादी-"विकल्पस्याध्यतगृहीतविषयस्य तदगृहीतविषयस्य वा तद्वयवस्थापकत्वम्" । आये पक्षे दर्शनस्येव तदनन्तरभाविनिर्णयस्यापि नियतविषयत्वेन व्याप्त्यगोचरत्वात् ।। द्वितीयपक्षेऽपि विकल्पद्वयमुपढौकत एव । तद्विकल्पज्ञानं प्रमाणमन्यथा वेति ? प्रथमपने प्रमाणान्तरमनुमन्तव्यं, प्रमाणद्वयेऽनन्तर्भावात् ॥ उत्तरपक्षे तु न ततोऽनुमानव्यवस्था ॥ न हि व्याप्तिज्ञानस्यामामाण्ये तत्पूर्वकमनुमानं प्रमाणमास्कन्दति सन्दिग्धादिलिङ्गादप्युत्पद्यमानस्य प्रामाण्यप्रसङ्गात् । ततो व्याप्ति

Page #297

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
१३ ज्ञानं सविकल्पमविसंवादकं च प्रमाणं प्रमाणद्वयादन्यदभ्युपगम्यमिति न सौगताभिमतप्रमाणसंख्यानियमः ॥ एतेनानुपलम्भात्कारणव्यापकानुपलम्भाच कार्यकारणव्याप्यव्यापकभावसंवित्तिरिति वदन्नपि प्रत्युक्तः । अनुपलम्भस्य प्रत्यक्षविषयत्वेन कारणाद्यनुपलम्भस्य च लिंगत्वेन तज्जनितस्यानुमानत्वात् प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्यां व्याप्तिग्रहणपक्षोपक्षिप्तदोषानुषंगात् ॥ एतेन प्रत्यक्षफलेनोहापोहविकल्पज्ञानेन व्याप्तिपतिपत्तिरित्यप्यपास्तम् । प्रत्यक्षफलस्यापि प्रत्यक्षानुमानयोरन्यतरत्वे व्याप्तेरविषयीकरणात् । तदन्यत्वे च प्रमाणान्तरत्वमनिवार्यमिति ॥ अथ व्याप्तिविकल्पस्य फलत्वान्न प्रामाण्यमिति न युक्तम् । फलस्याप्यनुमानलक्षणफलहेतुतया प्रमाणत्वाविरोधात् ॥ तथा सन्निकर्षफलस्यापि विशेषणज्ञानस्य विशेष्यज्ञानलक्षणफलापेक्षया प्रमाणत्वमिति न वैशेषिकाभ्युपगतोहापोहविकल्पः प्रमाणान्तरत्वमतिवर्तते । एतेन त्रिचतुःपञ्चषटप्रमाणवादिनोऽपि सांख्यातपादप्रभाकरजैमिनीयाः स्वप्रमाणसंख्यां न व्यवस्थापयितुं क्षमा इति प्रतिपादितमवगन्तव्यम् । उक्तन्यायेन स्मृतिप्रत्यभिज्ञानतर्काणां तदभ्युपगतप्रमाणसंख्यापरिपंथित्वादिति प्रत्यक्षतरभेदात् द्वे एव प्रमाणे इति स्थितम् ॥ अथेदानीं प्रथमप्रमाणभेदस्य स्वरूपं निरूपयितुमाह
विशदं प्रत्यक्षमिति ॥ ३ ॥ ____ ज्ञानमिति वर्तते । प्रत्यक्षमिति धर्मिनिर्देशः। विशदज्ञानात्मकं साध्यम् । प्रत्यक्षत्वादिति हेतुः ॥ तथाहि-प्रत्यक्षं विशदज्ञानात्मकमेव प्रत्यक्षत्त्वात् । यन्न विशदज्ञानात्मक तन्न प्रत्यक्षं, तथा परोक्षम् । प्रत्यक्षं च विवादापन, तस्माद्विशदज्ञानात्मकमिति ॥ प्रतिज्ञार्थंकदेशासिद्धो हेतुरिति चेत् का पुनः प्रतिज्ञा तदेकदेशो वा ? धर्मिधर्मसमुदायः प्रतिज्ञा । तदेकदेशो धर्मों धर्मी वा ? हेतुः प्रतिज्ञार्थंकदेशासिद्ध इति चेन धर्मिणो हेतुत्वे असिद्धवायोगात् । तस्य पक्षप्रयोगकालवद्धतुप्रयोगेऽप्यसिद्धत्वायोगात् ॥धर्मिणो हेतुत्वे अनन्वयदोष इति चेत् न विशेषस्य धर्मित्वात् । सामान्यस्य च हेतुत्वात् तस्य च विशेषेष्वनुगमो विशेषनिष्ठत्वात्सामान्यस्य ॥ अथ साध्यधर्मस्य हेतुत्वे प्रतिज्ञार्थैकदेशासिद्धत्वमिति तदप्यसम्मतम् । साध्यस्य स्वरूपेणैवासिद्धत्वात् ॥ न प्रतिज्ञार्थंकदेशासिद्धत्वेन तस्यासिद्धत्वं, धर्मिणा व्यभिचारात् ॥ सपक्षे वृत्त्यभावाद्धेतोरनन्वय इत्यप्यसत् ।

Page #298

प्रमेयरत्नमाला सर्वभावानां क्षणभङ्गसङ्गममेवाङ्गशृङ्गारमङ्गीकुर्वतां तथागतानां सत्त्वादिहेतू. नामनुदयप्रसङ्गात् । विपक्षे बाधकप्रमाणाभावात् । पक्षव्यापकत्वाचान्वयवत्वं प्रकृतेऽपि समानम् ॥ इदानीं स्वोक्तमेव विशदत्वं व्याचष्टेप्रतीत्यन्तराव्यवधानेन विशेषवत्तया वा प्रतिभासनं वैशद्यमिति ॥४॥
एकस्याः प्रतीतेरन्या प्रतीतिः प्रतीत्यन्तरम् । तेनाव्यवधानं तेन प्रतिभासनं वैशद्यम् ॥ यद्यप्यवायस्यावग्रहेहाप्रतीतिभ्यां व्यवधानं, तथापि न परोक्षत्वं विषयविषयिणोर्भेदेनापतिपत्तेः ॥ यत्र विषयविषयिणोर्भेदे सति व्यवधानं तत्र परोक्षत्वम् । तानुमानाध्यक्षविषयस्यैकात्मग्राह्यस्याग्नेरभिन्नस्योपलम्भादध्यक्षस्य परोक्षतेति तदप्ययुक्तम् । भिन्नविषयत्वाभावात् ।। विसदृशसामग्रीजन्यभिन्न विषया प्रतीतिः प्रतीत्यन्तरमुच्यते नान्यदिति न दोषः॥ न केवलमेतदेव । विशेषणवत्तया वा प्रतिभासनं सविशेषवर्णसंस्थानादिग्रहणं वैशद्यम् ॥ "तच्च प्रत्यक्षं द्वधा मुख्यसंव्यवहारभेदादिति" मनसि कृत्य प्रथमं सांव्यवहारिकप्रत्यक्षस्योत्पादिकां सामग्री तद्भेदं च पाह
इन्द्रियानिन्द्रियनिमित्तं देशतः सांव्यवहारिकमिति ॥ ५॥ विशदं ज्ञानमिति चानुवर्तते । देशतो विशदं ज्ञानं सांव्यवहारिकमित्यर्थः समीचीनः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिरूपो व्यवहारः संव्यवहारः तत्र भवं सांव्यवहारिकम् । भूयः किंभूतमिन्द्रियानिन्द्रियनिमित्तम् । इन्द्रियं चक्षुरादि, अनिन्द्रियं मनः ते निमित्तं कारणं यस्य । समस्तं व्यस्तं च कारणमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् ॥ इन्द्रियप्राधान्यादनिन्द्रियबलाधानादुपजातमिन्द्रियपत्यतम् , अनिन्द्रियादेव विशुद्धिसव्यपेक्षादुपजायमानमनिन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षम् ॥ तन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षमवग्रहादिधारणापर्यन्ततया चतुर्विधमपि बहादिद्वादशभेदमष्टचत्वारिंशत्संख्यं प्रतीन्द्रियं प्रतिपत्तव्यम् । अनिन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षस्य चोक्तमकारेणाष्टचत्वारिंशद्भदेन मनोनयनरहितानां चतुर्णामपीन्द्रियाणां व्यञ्जनावग्रहस्याष्टचत्वारिंशद्भेदेन च समुदितस्यन्द्रियानिन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षस्य पत्रिंशदुत्तरा त्रिंशती संख्या प्रतिपत्तव्या ॥ ननु स्वसंवेदनभेदमन्यदपि प्रत्यक्षमस्ति, तत्कथं नोक्तमिति न वाच्यम् । तस्य सुखादिज्ञानस्वरूपसंवेदनस्य मानसप्रत्यक्षत्वात् । इन्द्रियज्ञानस्वरूपसंवेदनस्य चेन्द्रियसमक्षत्वादन्यथा तस्य

Page #299

१५
प्रमेयरत्नमाला स्वव्यवसायायोगात् ॥ स्मृत्यादिस्वरूपसंवेदनं मानसमेवेति नापरं स्वसंवेदनं नामाध्यक्षमस्ति ॥ ननु प्रत्यक्षस्योत्पादकं कारणं वदता ग्रन्थकारेणेन्द्रियानिन्द्रियवदर्थालोकावपि किं न कारणत्वेनोक्तो ? तदवचने कारणानां साकल्यस्यासंग्रहाद्विनेयव्यामोह एव स्यात् । तदियत्ताऽनवधारणात् । न च भगवतः परमकारुणिकस्य चेष्टा तव्यामोहाय प्रभवतीत्याशङ्कायामुच्यते
नार्थालोको कारणं परिच्छेद्यत्वात्तमोवत् ॥ ६ ॥ सुगममेतत् ॥ ननु बाह्यालोकाभावं विहाय तमसोऽन्यस्याभावात् साधनविकलो दृष्टान्त इति । नैवम् । एवं सति वा ह्यालोकस्यापि तमोभावादन्यस्यासम्भवात्तेजोद्रव्यस्यासम्भव इति विस्तरेणैतदलङ्कारे प्रतिपादितं बोद्धव्यम् । अत्रैव साध्ये हेत्वन्तरमाह--
तदन्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधानाभावाच ।
केशोण्डुकज्ञानवन्नक्तंचरज्ञानवच्च ॥ ७ ॥ अत्र व्याप्तिः । यद्यस्यान्वयव्यतिरेको नानुविदधाति न तत्तत्कारणकं, यथा केशोएडुकज्ञानं, नानुविधत्ते च ज्ञानमर्थान्वयव्यतिरेकाविति । तथा आलोकेऽपि । एतावान् विशेषस्तत्र नक्तंचरदृष्टान्त इति । नक्तंचरा मार्जारादयः ननु विज्ञानमर्थजनितमर्थाकारं चार्थस्य ग्राहकम् । तदुत्पत्तिमन्तरेण विषयं प्रति नियमायोगात् । तदुत्पत्तेरालोकादावविशिष्टत्त्वात्ताद्र प्यसहिताया एव तस्यास्तं प्रति नियमहेतुत्त्वात् भिन्नकालत्वेऽपि ज्ञानज्ञेययोर्ग्राह्यग्राहकभावाविरोधात्॥तथाचोक्तम्-भिन्नकालं कथं ग्राह्यमिति चेद् ग्राह्यतां विदुः। हेतुत्वमेव युक्तिज्ञास्तदाकारार्पणक्षमम् ॥ इत्याशङ्कायामिदमाह--
अतज्जन्यमपि तत्प्रकाशकं प्रदीपवत् ॥८॥ अर्थाजन्यमप्यर्थप्रकाशकमित्यर्थः । अतजन्यत्वमुपलक्षणम् । तेनातदाकारमपीत्यर्थः । उभयत्रापि प्रदीपो दृष्टान्तः । यथा प्रदीपस्यातज्जन्यस्याऽतदाकारधारिणोऽपि तत्प्रकाशकत्त्वं, तथा ज्ञानस्यापीत्यर्थः ।। ननु यद्यर्थादजातस्यार्थरूपाननुकारिणो ज्ञानस्यार्थसाक्षात्कारित्वं तदा नियतदिग्देशकालवर्तिपदार्थप्रकाशप्रतिनियमे हेतोरभावात्सर्व विज्ञानमप्रतिनियतविषयं स्यादिति शङ्कायामाह

Page #300

प्रमेयरत्नमाला ॥ स्वावरणक्षयोपशमलक्षणयोग्यतया हि
प्रतिनियतमर्थ व्यवस्थापयति ॥ ६ ॥ स्वानि च तान्यावरणानि च स्वावरणानि तेषां क्षय उदयाभावः । तेषामेव सदवस्था उपशमः तावेव लक्षणं यस्या योग्यतायास्तया हेतुभूतया प्रतिनियतमर्थ व्यवस्थापयति प्रत्यक्षमिति शेषः। हि यस्मादर्थे । यस्मादेवं ततो नोक्तदोष इत्यर्थः ॥ इदमत्र तात्पर्यम्- कल्पयित्वाऽपि ताद्र,प्यं तदुत्पत्तिं तदध्यवसायं च योग्यताऽवश्याऽभ्युपगन्तव्या । ताद्र प्यस्य समानाथै स्तदुत्पत्तेरिन्द्रियादिभिस्तद्वयस्यापि समानार्थसमनन्तरप्रत्ययस्तत्रितयस्यापि शुक्ले शंखे पीताकारज्ञानेन व्यभिचाराद्योग्यताश्रयणमेव श्रेय इति।।एतेन यदुक्तं परेण-"अर्थेन घटयत्येनां नहि मुक्त्वार्थरूपताम् । तस्मात्प्रमेयाधिगतेः प्रमाणं मेयरूपतेति" तन्निरस्तम् ॥ समानार्थीकारनानाज्ञानेषु मेयरूपतायाः सद्भावात् ॥ न च परेषां सारूप्यं नामास्ति वस्तुभूतमिति योग्यतयैवार्थप्रतिनियम इति स्थितम् ॥ इदानीं कारणत्वात्परिच्छेद्योऽर्थ इति मतं निराकरोति
कारणस्य च परिच्छेद्यत्वे करणादिना
व्यभिचार इति ॥१०॥ करणादिकारणं परिच्छेद्यमिति तेन व्यभिचारः । न ब्रमः कारणवात्परिच्छेद्यत्वमपि तु परिच्छेद्यत्त्वात्कारणत्वमिति चेन्न । तथापि केशोण्डुकादिना व्यभिचारात् ॥ इदानीमतीन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षं व्याचष्टे--
सामग्रीविशेषविश्लेषिताखिलावरणमतीन्द्रियमशेषतो मुख्यम् ॥ ११ ॥ सामग्री द्रव्यक्षेत्रकालभावलक्षणा, तस्या विशेषः समग्रतालक्षणः । तेन विश्लेषितानि अखिलान्यावरणानि येन तत्तथोक्तम् । किं विशिष्टं ? अतीन्द्रियमिन्द्रियाण्यातक्रान्तम् । पुनरपि कीदृशमशेषतः सामस्त्येन विशदम् । अशेषतो वैशये किं कारणमिति चेत्- प्रतिबन्धाभाव इति ब्रमः। तत्रापि किं कारणमिति चेत्-अतीन्द्रियत्वमनावरणत्वं चेति ब्रमः॥ एतदपि कुत इत्याह

Page #301

पमेयरनमाला सावरणत्वे करण जन्यत्वे च प्रतिबन्धसम्भवात् ॥ १२ ॥ नन्ववधिमनःपर्यययोरनेनासंग्रहादव्यापकमेतल्लक्षणमिति न वाच्यम् । तयोरपि स्वाविषयेऽशेषतो विशदत्वादिधर्मसम्भवात् । न चैवं मतिश्रुतयोरित्यतिव्याप्तिपरिहारः । तदेतदतीन्द्रियमवधिमनःपर्ययकेवलप्रभेदात्रिविधमपि मुख्यं प्रत्यक्षमात्मसनिधिमात्रापेक्षत्वादिति ॥ नन्वशेषविषयविशदावभासि ज्ञानस्य तद्वतो वा प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणपञ्चकाविषयत्वेनाभावप्रमाणविषमविषधरविध्वस्तसत्ताकत्वात् कस्य मुख्यत्वम् ? तथाहि- नाध्यक्षमशेषज्ञविषयं, तस्य रूपादिनियतगोचरचारित्वात् सम्बद्धवर्तमानविषयत्वाच ॥ न चाशेषवेदी सम्बद्धो वर्तमानश्चेति । नाप्यनुमानात्तत्सिद्धिः । अनुमानं हि गृहीतसम्बन्धस्यैकदेशदर्शनादसनिकृष्ट बुद्धिः ॥ न च सर्वज्ञसद्भावाविनाभाविकार्यलिङ्गं स्वभावलिङ्ग वा सम्पश्यामः । तद्ञप्तेः पूर्व तत्स्वभावस्य तत्कार्यस्य वा तत्स्वभावाविनाभाविनो निश्चेतुमशक्तः ॥ नाप्यागमातत्सद्भावः । स हि नित्योऽनित्यो वा तत्सद्भावं भावयेत् । न तावन्नित्यःतस्यार्थवादरूपस्य कर्मविशेषसंस्तवनपरत्वेन पुरुषविशेषावबोधकत्वायोगात् ॥ अनादेरागमस्यादिमत्पुरुषवाचकत्वाघटनाच ॥ नाप्यनित्य आगमः सर्वक्षं साधयति । तस्यापि तत्मणीतस्य तनिश्चयमन्तरेण प्रामाण्यानिश्चयादितरेतराश्रयत्वाच ॥ इतरमणीतस्य त्वनासादितप्रमाणभावस्याशेषज्ञमरूपणपरत्वं नितरामसम्भाव्यमिति सर्वज्ञसदृशस्यापरस्य ग्रहणासम्भवाच नोपमानम् । अनन्यथाभूतस्यार्थस्याभावान्नार्थापत्तिरपि सर्वज्ञावबोधिकेति धर्माधुपदेशस्य व्यामोहादपि सम्भवात् ॥ द्विविधो ह्यु पदेशः सम्यंमिथ्योपदेशभेदात् । तत्र मन्वादीनां सम्यगुपदेशो यथार्थज्ञानोदयवेदमूलत्वात् । बुद्धादीनां तु व्यामोहपूर्वकः तदमूलत्वात् तेषामवेदार्थनत्वात् ॥ ततः प्रमाणपञ्चकाविषयत्वादभावप्रमाणस्यैव प्रवृत्तिस्तेन चाभाव एव ज्ञायते । भावांशे प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणपञ्चकस्य व्यापारादिति ॥ अत्र प्रतिविधीयते । यत्तावदुक्तम्- प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणाविषयत्वमशेषज्ञस्येति तदयुक्तं, तद्ग्राहकस्यानुमानस्य सम्भवात् ॥ तथाहि- कश्चित्पुरुषः सकलपदार्थसाक्षात्कारी । तद्ग्रहणस्वभावत्वे सति प्रक्षीणप्रतिबन्धपत्ययत्वात् । यद्यद्ग्रहणस्वभावत्वे सति प्रक्षीणमतिबन्धप्रत्ययं तत्तत्साक्षात्कारि । यथाऽपगततिमिरं लोचनं रूपसाक्षात्कारि॥ तद्ग्रहणस्वभावत्वे सति प्रक्षीणपतिबन्धप्रत्ययश्च विवादा

Page #302

प्रमेयरत्नमाला पन्नः कश्चिदिति सकलपदार्थग्रहणस्वभावत्वं नात्मनोऽसिद्धं चोदनातः सकलपदार्थपरिज्ञानस्यान्यथायोगादन्धस्येवादर्शाद्र पप्रतिपत्तेरिति॥व्याप्तिज्ञानोत्पत्तिबलाचाशेषविषयज्ञानसम्भवः केवलं वैशये विवादः। तत्र चावरणापगम एव कारणं रजोनीहाराघातार्थज्ञानस्येव तद गम इति ॥ प्रक्षीणप्रतिबन्धप्रत्ययत्वं कथमिति चेदुच्यते-दोषावरणे कचिन्निर्मूलं प्रलयमुपव्रजतः प्रकृष्यमाणहानिकत्वात् । यस्य प्रकृष्यमाणहानिः स कचिन्निर्मुलं प्रलयमुपव्रजति । यथाऽग्निपुटपाकापसारितकिट्टकालिकाधन्तरङ्गबहिरङ्गमलद्वयात्मनि हेनि मलमिति निर्हासातिशयवती च दोषावरणे इति ॥ कथं पुनर्विवादाध्यासितस्य ज्ञानस्यावरणं सिद्धं १ प्रतिषेधस्य विधिपूर्वकत्वात् इति ॥ अत्रोच्यते-विवादापन्नं ज्ञानं सावरणं, विशदतया स्वविषयावबोधकत्वाद्रजोनीहाराधन्तरितार्थज्ञानवदिति ॥ न चात्मनोऽमर्त्तत्वादावारकावृत्त्ययोगः। अमूर्तीया अपि चेतनाशक्तर्मदिरामदनकोद्रवादिभिरावरणोपपत्तेः ॥ न चेन्द्रियस्य तैरावरणं, इन्द्रियाणामचेतनानामप्यनातप्रख्यत्वात् । स्मृत्यादिप्रतिबन्धायोगात्॥नापि मनसस्तैरावरणमात्मव्यतिरकेणापरस्य मनसो निषेत्स्यमानत्वात् । ततो नामूर्त. स्यावरणाभावः ॥ अतो नासिद्धं तद्ग्रहणस्वभावत्ये सति प्रक्षीणपतिबन्धमत्ययत्वम् । नापि विरुद्धं विपरीतनिश्चिताविनाभावात् । नाप्यनैकान्तिकं देशतः सामस्त्येन वा विपक्षे वृत्यभावात । विपरीतार्थोपस्थापकप्रत्यक्षागमासम्भवान कालात्ययापदिष्टत्वम् । नापि सत्पतिपक्षं प्रतिपक्षसाधनस्य हेतोरभावात् ॥ अथेदमस्त्येव विवादापन्नः पुरुषो नाशेषज्ञो वक्तृत्वात्पुरुषत्वात्पाण्यादिमत्वाच्च । रथ्यापुरुषवदिति ॥ नैतचारु वक्तस्वादेरसम्यग्घेतुत्वात् ॥ वक्तृत्वं हि दृष्टेष्टविरुद्धार्थवक्तृत्वं तदविरुद्धवक्तृत्वं वक्तृत्वसामान्यं वा गत्यन्तराभावात् ॥ न तावत् प्रथमः पक्षः सिद्धसाध्यतानुषङ्गात् । नापि द्वितीयः पक्षः विरुद्धत्वात् । तदविरुद्धवक्तत्वं हि ज्ञानातिशयमन्तरेण नोपपद्यत इति ॥ वक्तृत्वसामान्यमपि विपक्षाविरुद्धत्वान्न प्रकृतसाध्यसाधनायालं, ज्ञानप्रकर्षे वक्तृत्वापकर्षादर्शनात्मत्युत ज्ञानातिशयवतो वचनातिशयस्यैव सम्भवात् ॥ एतेन पुरुषत्वमपि निरस्तं-पुरुषत्वं हि रागादिदोषसितं, तदा सिद्धसाध्यता, तददृषितं तु विरुद्धं वैराग्यज्ञानादिगुणयुक्तपुरुषत्वस्याशेषज्ञत्वमन्तरेणायोगात ॥

Page #303

मेयरत्नमाला
पुरुषत्वसामान्यं तु सन्दिग्धविपत्तव्यावृत्तिकमिति सिद्धं सकलपदार्थसातात्कारित्वं कस्यचित्पुरुषस्य । अतोऽनुमानादिति न प्रमाणपञ्चकाविषयत्वमशेषज्ञस्य ।। अथास्मिन्ननुमानेऽर्हतः सर्ववित्त्वमनईतो वा १ | अनईतश्चेदर्हद्वाक्यप्रमाणं स्यात् । तथेत्सोऽपि न श्रुत्या सामर्थ्येन वाडवगन्तुं पार्यते । स्वशक्त्या दृष्टान्तानुग्रहेण वा हेतोः पक्षान्तरेऽपि तुल्यवृत्तित्वादिति । तदेतत्परेषां स्वववाय कृत्योत्थापनं, एवंविधविशेषप्रश्नस्य सर्वज्ञ सामान्याभ्युपगमपूर्वकत्वात् । अन्यथा न कस्याप्यशेषज्ञत्वमित्येवं वक्तव्यम् । प्रसिद्धानुमानेऽप्यस्य दोषस्य सम्भवेन, जात्युत्तरत्वाच्च ॥ तथाहि - नित्यः शब्दः प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वादित्युक्ते व्यापकः शब्दो नित्यः प्रसाध्यते व्यापको वा १ यद्यव्यापकः तदा व्यापकत्वे नोपकल्प्यमानो न कश्चिदर्थे पुष्णाति । अथ व्यापकः सोऽपि न । श्रुत्या सामर्थ्येन asard | स्वशक्त्या दृष्टान्तानुग्रहेण वा । पक्षान्तरेऽपि तुल्यवृत्तित्वादिति ॥ सिद्धमतो निर्दोषात्साधनादशेषज्ञत्वमिति । यच्चाभावप्रमाणकवलितसत्ता त्वमशेषज्ञस्येति तदयुक्तमेवानुमानस्य तद्ग्राहकस्य सद्भावे सति प्रमाणपञ्चकाभावमलस्याभावप्रमाणस्योपस्थापनायोगात् "गृहीत्वा वस्तुसद्भावं स्मृत्वा च प्रतियोगिनम् । मानसं नास्तिताज्ञानं जायतेऽज्ञानपेक्षया" इति च भावत्कं दर्शनम् । तथा च कालत्रयत्रिलोकलक्षणवस्तुसद्भावग्रहऽन्यत्रान्यदा गृहीतस्मरणे च सर्वज्ञनास्तिताज्ञानमभावप्रमाणं युक्तम् । नापरथा । न च कस्यचिदवग्दर्शिन खिजगत्रिकालज्ञानमुपपद्यते सर्वज्ञस्यातीन्द्रियस्य वा । सर्वतत्वं हि चेतोधर्मतयातीन्द्रियं तदपि न प्राकृतपुरुषविषयमिति कथमभावप्रमाणमुदयमासादयेत् । सर्वज्ञस्य तदुत्पाद सामग्रया असंभवात् । सम्भवे वा तथाज्ञातुरेव सर्वज्ञत्वमिति । अत्राधुना तदभावसाधनमित्यपि न युक्तं सिद्धसाध्यतानुषंगात् । ततः सिद्धं मुख्यमतीन्द्रियज्ञानमशेषतो विशदम् | सार्वज्ञज्ञानस्यातीन्द्रियत्वादश्रुत्यादिदर्शनं तद्रसास्वादनदोषोऽपि परिहृत एव ॥ कथमतीन्द्रियज्ञानस्य वैशद्यमिति चेत् । यथा सत्यस्वमज्ञानस्य भावनाज्ञानस्य चेति । दृश्यते हि भावना बलादतदेशवस्तुनोऽपि विशददर्शनमिति । पिहिते कारागारे तमसि च सूचीमुखाग्रदुर्भेद्ये ॥ मयि च निमीलितनयने तथापि कान्ताननं व्यक्तमिति बहुलमुपलम्भात् ॥ ननु च नावर्णविश्लेषादशेषज्ञत्वमपि तु तनुकरणभुवनादिनिमित्तत्वेन । न चात्र

१६

Page #304

भमेयरत्नमाला तन्वादीनां बुद्धिमद्धेतुकत्वमसिद्धमनुमानादेस्तस्य सुप्रसिद्धत्वात् । तथाहिविमत्यधिकरणभावापन्नं उर्वीपर्वततरुतन्वादिकं बुद्धिमद्धे तुकं कार्यत्वादचेतनोपादानत्वात्सन्निवेशविशिष्टत्वाद्वा वस्त्रादिवदिति । आगमोऽपि तदावेदकः श्रूयते- “विश्वतश्चक्षुरुत विश्वतोमुखो विश्वतोबाहुरुत विश्वत:पात् । सम्बाहुभ्यां धमति सम्पतत्रैवाभूमी जनयन्देव एकः" तथा व्यासवचनं च "अज्ञो जन्तुरनीशोऽयमात्मनः सुखदुःखयोः । ईश्वरपोरतो गच्छेस्वर्ग वा श्वभ्रमेव वा॥१॥" न चाचेतनैरेव परमाण्वादिकारणैः पर्याप्तवाद्बुद्धिमतः कारणस्यानर्थक्यम् । अचेतनानां स्वयंकार्योत्पत्ती व्यापारायोगात्तुर्यादिवत् । न चैवं चेतनस्यापि चेतनान्तरपूर्वकत्वादनवस्था । तस्य सकलपुरुषज्येष्ठत्वानिरतिशयत्वात्सर्वज्ञवीजस्य क्लेशकर्मविपाकाशयरपरामृष्टत्वादनादिभूतानश्वरज्ञानसम्भवाच्च ॥ यदाह पतञ्जलि:-- "क्लेशकर्मविपाकाशयैरपरामृष्टः पुरुषः सर्वज्ञः स पूर्वेषामपि गुरुः कालेनाविच्छेदादि" ति च "ऐश्वर्यमप्रतिहतं सहजो विरागस्तृप्तिर्निसर्गजनिता वशितेन्द्रियेषु ॥ आत्यन्तिकं सुखमनावरणा च शक्ति न च सर्वविषयं भगवंस्तवैव" इत्यवधूतवचनाच्च ॥ न चात्र कार्यत्वमसिद्धम् । सावयवत्वेन कार्यत्वसिद्धेः॥ नापि विरुद्धं, विपक्ष एव वृत्त्यभावात् ॥ नाप्यनक्रान्तिकं, विपक्षे परमाएवादावप्रवृत्तेः । प्रतिपक्षसिद्धिनिबन्धनस्य साधनान्तरस्याभावान्न प्रकरणसमम् ॥ अथ तन्वादिकं बुद्धिमद्धेतुकं न भवति दृष्टकर्तृकप्रासादादिविलक्षणवादाकाशवदित्यस्त्येव प्रतिपक्षसाधनमिति । नैतद्युक्तं, हेतोरसिद्धत्वात् । सन्निवेशविशिष्टत्वेन प्रासादादिसमानजातीयत्वेन तन्वादीनामुपलम्भात् ॥ अथ यादृशः प्रासादादौ सन्निवेशविशेषो दृष्टो न तादृशस्तन्वादाविति चेन्न सर्वात्मना सदृशस्य कस्यचिदप्यभावात् । सातिशयसनिवेशो हि सातिशयं कर्तारं गमयति प्रासादादिवत् । न च दृष्टकर्तृकत्वादृष्टकर्तृकत्वाभ्यां बुद्धिमनिमित्तेतरत्वसिद्धिः । कृत्रिमैमणिमुक्ताफलादिभिर्व्यभिचारात् ॥ एतेनाचेतनोपादानत्वादिकमपि समर्थितमिति सूक्तं बुद्धिमद्धतुकत्वं ततश्च सर्ववे. दित्वमिति ॥ तदेतत्सर्वमनुमानमुद्राद्रविणदरिद्रवचनमेव कार्यत्वादेरसम्य. ग्धेतुत्वेन तजनितज्ञानस्य मिथ्यारूपत्वात् । तथाहि- कार्यत्वं स्वकारण. सत्तासमवायः स्यादभूत्वाभावित्वमक्रियादर्शिनोऽपि कृतबुद्ध्युत्पादकत्वं कारणव्यापारानुविधायित्वं वास्याद्गत्यन्तराभावात् । अथायः पतस्तदा

Page #305

प्रमेयरनमाला
योगिनामशेष कर्मक्षये पक्षान्तःपातिनि तौ कार्यत्वलक्षणस्यामवृत्तेर्भागासिद्धत्वम् ।। न च तत्र सत्तासमवायः स्वकारणसमवायो वा समस्ति, तत्प्रक्षयस्य प्रध्वंसरूपत्वेन सत्तासमवाययोरभावात् सत्ताया द्रव्यगुणक्रियाधारत्वाभ्यनुज्ञानात् समवायस्य च परैर्द्रव्यादिपञ्चपदार्थवृत्तित्वाभ्युपगमात् || अथाभाव परित्यागेन भावस्यैव विवादाध्यासितस्य पक्षीकरणान्नायं दोषः प्रवेशभागिति चेत् तर्हि मुक्त्यर्थिनां तदर्थमीश्वराराधनमनर्थकमेव स्यात् । तत्र तस्याकिञ्चित्करत्वात् सत्तासमवायस्य विचारमधिरोहतः शतधा विशीर्यमाणत्वात् स्वरूपासिद्धं च कार्यत्वम् ॥ स हि समुत्पन्नानां भवेदुत्पद्यमानानां वा ? यद्युत्पन्नानां सतामसतां वा १ न तावदसतां खरविषाणादेरपि तत्प्रसङ्गात् । सतां चेत् सत्तासमवायात्स्वतो वा १ न तावत्सत्तासमवायादनवस्थाप्रसङ्गात् प्रागुक्तविकल्पद्वयाऽनतिवृत्तेः । स्वतः सतां तु सत्तासमवायानर्थक्यम् ।। अथोत्पद्यमानानां सत्तासम्बन्धो निष्ठासम्बन्धयोरेककालत्वाभ्युपगमादिति मतम् । तदा सत्तासम्बन्ध उत्पादाद्भिन्नः किं वा अभिन्न इति । यदि भिन्नस्तदोत्पत्तेरसत्वाविशेषादुत्पत्त्यभावयोः किं कृतो भेदः। अथोत्पत्तिसमाक्रान्तवस्तुसत्त्वेनोत्पत्तिरपि तथा व्यपदिश्यते इति मतम् । तदपि अति जाड्यवल्गितमेव । उत्पत्तिसत्त्वप्रतिविवादे वस्तुसच्वस्यातिदुर्घ टत्वात् । इतरेतराश्रयदोषश्च । इत्युत्पत्तिसत्त्वे वस्तुनि तदेककालीनसत्तासम्बन्धावगमस्तदवगमे च तत्रत्यसत्त्वेनोत्पत्तिसत्त्वनिश्चय इति । अथैतद्दोषपरिजिहीर्षया तयोरैक्यमभ्यनुज्ञायते, तर्हि तत्सम्बन्ध एव कार्यत्वमिति । ततो बुद्धिमद्धेतुकत्वे गगनादिभिरनेकान्तः । एतेन स्वकारणसम्बन्धोऽपि चिन्तितः ।। अथोभयसम्बन्धो कार्यत्वमिति मतिः सापि न युक्ता । तत्सम्बन्धस्यापि कादाचित्कत्वे समवायस्यानित्यत्वप्रसङ्गात् घटादिवत् अकादाचित्त्वे सर्वदोपलम्भप्रसङ्गः ॥ अथ वस्तूत्पादककारणानां सन्निधानाभावान्न सर्वदोपलम्भप्रसङ्गः ॥ ननु वस्तुत्पत्त्यर्थं कारणान्तं व्यापारः । उत्पादश्च स्वकारणसत्तासमवायः स च सर्वदाप्यस्ति इति तदर्थं कारणोपादानमनर्थकमेव स्यात् । अभिव्यक्त्यर्थं तदुपादानमित्यपि वार्त्त वस्तूत्पादापेक्षया अभिव्यक्रघटनात् । वस्त्वपेक्षयाऽभिव्यक्तौ कारणसम्पातात्प्रागपि कार्यवस्तुसद्भावप्रसङ्गात् । तल्लक्षणत्वाद्वस्तुसत्वस्य प्राक् सत एव हि केनचित् तिरोहितस्याभिव्यञ्ज केनाभिव्यक्तिस्तमस्तिरोहितस्य घटस्येव प्रदीपा

२१

Page #306

प्रमेयरत्नमाला दिनेति । तन्नाभिव्यक्त्यर्थं कारणोपादानं युक्तं, तन्न स्वकारणसत्तासम्बन्धः कार्यत्वम् । नाप्यभूत्वाभावित्वम् । तस्यापि विचारासहत्वात् । अभूत्वाभावित्वं हि भिन्नकालक्रियाद्वयाधिकरणभूते कर्तरि सिद्ध सिद्धिमध्यास्ते । क्त्वान्तपदविशेषितवाक्यार्थत्वाद्भुक्त्वा व्रजतीत्यादिवाक्यार्थवत् ॥ न चात्र भवनाभवनयोराधारभूतस्य कर्तुरनुभवोऽस्ति । अभवनाधारस्याविद्यमानत्वेन भवनाधारस्य च विद्यमानतया भावाभावयोरेकाश्रयविरोधात् । अविरोधे च तयोः पर्यायमात्रेणैव भेदो न वास्तव इति ॥ अस्तु वा यथाकथंचिदभूत्वाभावित्वं, तथापि तन्वादौ सर्वत्रानभ्युपगमाद्भागासिद्धम् । न हि महीमहीधराकूपारारामादयः प्रागभूत्वाभवन्तोऽभ्युपगम्यन्ते परैः। तेषां तैः सर्वदावस्थानाभ्युपगमात् ॥ अथ सावयवत्वेन तेषामपि सादित्वं प्रसाध्यते, तदप्याशिक्षितलक्षितम् । अवयवेषु वृत्तेरवयवैरारभ्यत्वेन च सावयवत्वानुपपत्तेः॥ प्रथमपक्षे सावयवसामान्येनानेकान्तात् । द्वितीयपक्षे साध्याविशिष्टत्वात् ॥ अथ सनिवेश एव सावयवत्वं तच्च घटादिवत् पृथिव्यादावुपलभ्यते इत्यभूत्वाभावित्वमभिधीयते तदप्यपेशलम् । सनिवेशस्यापि विचारासहत्वात् । स ह्यवयवसम्बन्धो भवेद्रचनाविशेषो वा । यद्यवयवसम्बन्धस्तदा गगनादिनानेकान्तः सकलमूर्तिमद्रव्यसंयोगनिबन्धनप्रदेशनानात्वस्य सद्भावात् । अथोपचरिता एव तत्र प्रदेशा इति चेत् तर्हि सकलमूर्तिमव्यसम्बन्धस्याप्युपचरितत्वात्सर्वगतत्वमप्युपचरितं स्यात् । श्रोत्रस्यार्थक्रियाकारित्वं च न स्यात् । उपचरितप्रदेशरूपत्वात् ॥ धर्मादिना संस्कारात्ततः सेत्ययुक्तम् । उपचरितस्यासद्र पस्य तेनोपकारायोगात् । खरविषाणस्येव ततो न किश्चिदेतत् ॥ अथ रचनाविशेषस्तदा परम्प्रतिभागासिद्धत्वं तदवस्थमेवति नाभूत्वाभावित्वं विचारं सहते ॥ नाप्यक्रियादर्शिनोऽपि कृतबुद्ध्युत्पादकत्वम् । तद्धि कृतसमयस्याकृतसमयस्य वा भवेत् ।। कृतसमयस्य चेत् गगनादेरपि बुद्धिमद्धेतुकत्वं स्यात् । तत्रापि खननोत्सेचनात् कृतमिति गृहीतसङ्केतस्य कृतबुद्धिसम्भवात् । सा मिथ्येति चेत् भवदीयापि किं न स्यात् । बाधासद्भावस्य प्रतिप्रमाणविरोधस्य चान्यत्रापि समानत्वात् । प्रत्यक्षेणोभयत्रापि कर्तुरग्रहणात् ॥ नित्यादिकं बुद्धिमहेतुकं न भवति अस्मदाद्यनवग्राह्यपरिमाणाधारत्वात् गगनादिवदिति प्रमाणस्य साधारणत्वात् । तत्र कृतसमयस्य कृतबुद्ध्युत्पादकत्वम् ॥ नाप्यकृत

Page #307

मेयरमाला
२३
समयस्याऽसिद्धत्वादविप्रतिपत्तिप्रसङ्गाच्च ।। कारणव्यापारानुविधायित्वं च कारणमात्रापेक्षया यदीष्यते तदा विरुद्धं साधनम् । कारणविशेषापेक्षया चेदितरेतराश्रयत्वम् । सिद्धे हि कारणविशेषे बुद्धिमति तदपेक्षया कारणव्यापारानुविधायित्वं कार्यत्वम् । ततस्तद्विशेषसिद्धिरिति सन्निवेशविशिष्टत्वमचेतनोपादानत्वं चोक्तदोषदुष्टत्वान्न पृथक् चिन्त्यते । स्वरूपभागासिद्धत्वादेस्तत्रापि सुलभत्वात् ॥ विरुद्धाश्वामी हेतवो दृष्टान्तानुग्रहेण सशरीरासर्वज्ञपूर्वकत्वसाधनात् । न धूमात्पावकानुमानेऽव्ययं दोषः । तत्र तारापार्णादिविशेषाधाराग्निमात्रव्याप्तधूमस्य दर्शनात् । नैवमत्र सर्वज्ञा सर्वज्ञकर्तृविशेषाधिकरणतत्सामान्येन कार्यत्वस्य व्याप्तिः सर्वज्ञस्य कर्तुरतोऽनुमानात्मागसिद्धत्वात् ॥ व्यभिचारिणश्वामी हेतवो बुद्धिमत्कारणमन्तरेणापि विद्यदादीनां प्रादुर्भाव सम्भवात् ।। सुप्तावस्थायामबुद्धिपूर्वकस्यापि कार्यस्य दर्शनात् ।। तदवश्यं तत्रापि भर्गाख्यं कारणमित्यतिमुग्धविलसितं तद्व्यापारस्याध्यसम्भवादशरीरत्वात् ॥ ज्ञानमात्रेण कार्यकारित्वाघटनादिच्छामयत्त्रयोः शरीराभावेऽसम्भवात्तदसम्भवश्च पुरातनैर्विस्तरेणाभिहित आप्तपरीक्षादौं । अतः पुनरत्र नोच्यते ॥ यच्च महेश्वरस्य क्लेशादिभिरपामृष्टत्वं निरतिशयत्वमैश्वर्याद्युपेतत्वं तत्सर्वमपि गगनाब्जसौरभव्यावर्णनमिव निर्विषयत्वादुपेक्षामर्हति । ततो न महेश्वरस्याशेषज्ञत्वम् । नापि ब्रह्मणः । तस्यापि सद्भावावेदक प्रमाणाभावात् ॥ न तावत्प्रत्यक्षं तदावेदकमविप्रतिपत्तिप्रसङ्गात् । न चानुमानमविनाभाविलिङ्गाभावात् । ननु प्रत्यक्षं तद्ग्राहक मस्त्येव, अक्षिविस्फालनानन्तरं निर्विकल्पकस्य सन्मात्रविधिविषयतयोत्पत्तेः । सत्तायाश्च परमब्रह्मरूपत्वात् ॥ तथाचोक्तम् - " अस्ति ह्यालोचनाज्ञानं प्रथमं निर्विकल्पम् । बालमुकादिविज्ञानसदृशं शुद्धवस्तुजम्।। " न च विधिवत् परस्परव्यावृत्तिरप्यध्यक्षतः प्रतीयत इति द्वैतसिद्धिः । तस्य निषेधाविषयत्वात् । तथा चोक्तम् - " आहुर्विधातृप्रत्यक्षं न निषेधृविपश्चितः । नैकत्वे आागमस्तेन प्रत्यक्षेण प्रबाध्यते ।।" अनुमानादपि तत्सद्भावो विभाव्यत एव । तथाहि ग्रामारामादयः पदार्थाः प्रतिभासान्तः प्रविष्टाः प्रतिभासमानत्वात् । यत्प्रतिभासते तत्प्रतिभासान्तः प्रविष्टम् । यथा प्रतिभासस्वरूपं प्रतिभासन्ते च विवादापन्ना इति ।। तदागमानामपि पुरुष एवेदं यद्भूतं यच्च भाव्यमिति बहुलमुपलम्भात् । " सर्व वै खल्विदं ब्रह्म नेह नानास्ति
।

Page #308

ममेयरवमाला
किश्चन ॥ आरामं तस्य पश्यन्ति न तं पश्यति कश्चन ।। " इति श्रुतेश्व ॥ ननु परब्रह्मण एव परमार्थसत्त्वे कथं घटादिभेदोऽवभासत इति न चोद्यम् । सर्वस्यापि तद्विवर्ततयावभासनात् । न चाशेषभेदस्य तद्विवर्तत्वमसिद्धं प्रमाणप्रसिद्धत्वात् । तथाहि -विवादाध्यासितं विश्वमेककारणपूर्वक मेकरूपान्वितत्वात् । घटघटीसरावोदञ्चनादीनां मृदूपान्वितानां यथा मृदेककारणपूर्वकत्वं सद्रूपेणान्वितं च निखिलं वस्त्विति । तथाऽगमोऽप्यस्ति" ऊर्णनाभ इवांशूनां चन्द्रकान्त इवाम्भसाम् । प्ररोहाणामिव सक्षः स हेतुः सर्वजन्मनामि" ति ॥ तदेतन्मदिरा रसास्वादगगदोदितमिव मदनकोद्रवाद्युपयोगजनितव्यामोहमुग्धविलसितमिव निखिलमवभासते विचा रासहत्वात् । तथा हि- यत्मत्यक्ष सत्ताविषयत्वमभिहितं तत्र किं निर्विशेष सत्ताविषयत्वं सविशेषसत्तावबोधकत्वम् वा १ । न तावत्पौरस्त्यः पक्षः । सत्तायाः सामान्यरूपत्वात् । विशेषनिरपेक्षतयाऽनवभासनात् । शाबलेयादिविशेषानवभासने गोत्वाऽनवभासनवत् ।। निर्विशेषं हि सामान्यं भवेच्छशविषाणवादित्यभिधानात् ॥ सामान्यरूपत्वं च सत्तायाः सत्सदित्यन्वयबुद्धिविषयत्वेन सुप्रसिद्धमेव ॥ अथ पाश्चात्यः पक्षः कक्षीक्रीयते, तदा न परमपुरुषसिद्धिः । परस्परव्यावृत्ताकारविशेषाणामध्यक्षतोऽवभासनात् । यदपि साधनमभ्यधायि प्रतिभासमानत्वं तदपि न साधु, विचारासहत्वात् ॥ तथाहि प्रतिभासमानत्वं स्वतः परतो वा १ न तावत्स्वतोऽसिद्धत्वात् । परतश्चेद्विरुद्धम् । परतः प्रतिभासमानत्वं हि परं विना नोपपद्यते प्रतिभासनमात्रमपि न सिद्धिमधिवसति । तस्य तद्विशेषणान्तरीयकत्वात्तद्विशेषाभ्युपगमे च द्वैतप्रसक्तिः || किश्च धर्मिहेतुदृष्टान्ता अनुमानोपायभूताः प्रतिभासन्ते न वेति । प्रथमपक्षे प्रतिभासान्तः प्रविष्टाः प्रतिभासबहिर्भूता वा । यद्याथः पक्षस्तदा साध्यान्तः पातित्वान्न ततोऽनुमानम् । तद्वहिर्भावे तैरेव हेतोर्व्यभि - चारः || अप्रतिभासमानत्वेऽपि सद्व्यवस्थाभावात् ततो नानुमानमिति || अथानाद्यविद्याविजृम्भितत्वात्सर्वमेतद् सम्बद्धमित्य नल्पतमो विलसितम् । श्रविद्यायामप्युक्तदोषानुषङ्गात् । सकलविकल्पविकलत्वात्तस्या नैष दोष इत्यप्यतिमुग्धभाषितम् । केनापि रूपेण तस्याः प्रतिभासाभावे तत्स्वरूपानवधारणात् ।। अपरमप्यत्र विस्तरेण देवागमालङ्कारे चिन्तितमिति नेह प्रतन्यते ।। यच्च परमब्रह्मविवर्त्तत्वमखिलभेदानामित्युक्तम् । तत्राप्येक रूपेणान्वि
1
२४

Page #309

प्रमेयरत्नमाला तत्वं हेतुरन्यत्रान्वीयमानद्वयाविनाभावित्वेन पुरुषाद्वैतं प्रतिबध्नातीति स्वेष्टविघातकारित्वाद्विरुद्धः । अन्वितत्वमेकहेतुके घटादावनकहतुके स्तम्भकुम्भाम्भोरुहादावप्युपलभ्यत इत्यनैकान्तिकश्च । किमर्थं चेदं कार्यमसौ विदधाति ? अन्येन प्रयुक्तत्वात् कृपावशात् क्रीडावशात् स्वभावाद्वा ? अन्येन प्रयुक्तत्वे स्वातन्व्यहानिद्वैतप्रसङ्गश्च । कृपावशादिति नोत्तरम् । कृपायां दुःखिनामकारुणपसङ्गात् । परोपकारकरणनिष्ठत्वात्तस्याःसृष्टेः प्रागनुकम्पाविषयमाणिनामभावाच न सा युज्यते । कृपापरस्य प्रलयविधानायोगाच्च ॥ अदृष्टवशात्तद्विधाने स्वातन्त्र्यहानिः कृपापरस्य पीडाकारणादृष्टव्यपेक्षायोगाच्च ॥ क्रीडावशात्मवृत्तौ न प्रभुत्वं क्रीडोपायव्यपेक्षणाबालकवत् । क्रीडोपायस्य तत्साध्यस्य च युगपदुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गश्च । सति समर्थे कारणे कार्यस्यावश्यम्भावात् ।। अन्यथा क्रमेणापि सा ततो न स्यात् ॥ अथ स्वभावादसौ जगनिर्मिनोति यथाग्निर्दहति वायुयंतीति मतं, तदपि बालभाषितमेव पूर्वोक्तदोषानिवृत्तेः ॥ तथाहि- क्रमवर्तिविवर्तजातमखिलमपि युगपदुत्पद्येत । अपेतणीयस्य सहकारिणोऽपि तत्साध्यत्वेन यौगपद्यसम्भवात् उदाहरणवैषम्यं च। वहयादेः कादाचित्कस्य हेतुजनितस्य नियतशक्त्यात्मकत्वोपपत्तेरन्यत्र नित्यव्यापिसमर्थैकस्वभावकारणजन्यत्वेन देशकालप्रतिनियमस्य कार्ये दुरुपपादात् ॥ तदेवं ब्रह्मणोऽसिद्धौ वेदानां तत्सुप्तप्रबुद्धावस्थात्वप्रतिपादनं परमपुरुषाख्यमहाभूतनि:श्वसिताभिधानं च गगनारबिन्दमकरन्दव्यावर्णनवदनवधेयार्थविषयत्वादुपेक्षामर्हति ॥ यच्चागमः प्रमाणं 'सर्व वै खाल्वदं ब्रह्मे"त्यादि "ऊर्णनाभ" इत्यादि च तत्सर्वमुक्तविधिना अद्वैतविरोधीति नावकाशं लभते ॥ न चापौरुषेय आगमोऽस्तीत्यग्रे प्रपञ्चयिष्यते । तस्मात्र पुरुषोत्तमोऽपि विचारणां पाश्चति ॥
प्रत्यक्षतरभेदभिन्नममलं मानं द्विधैवोदितं देवैर्दीप्तगुणैर्विचार्य विधिवत्संख्याततेः संग्रहात् । मानानामिति तद्दिगप्यभिहितं श्रीरत्ननन्याहयैस्तद्वयाख्यानमदो विशुद्धधिषणैर्बोद्धव्यमव्याहतम् ॥ १ ॥ मुख्यसंव्यवहाराभ्यां प्रत्यक्षमुपदर्शितम् । देवोक्तमुपजीवद्भिः सूरिभापितं मया ॥२॥
इति परीक्षामुखस्य लघुवृत्तौ द्वितीयः समुद्देशः ॥ २॥

Page #310

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
तृतीयः समुद्देशः। अथेदानीमुद्दिष्टे प्रत्यक्षतरभेदेन प्रमाणद्वित्वे प्रथमभेदं व्याख्याय, इतरद्वयाचष्टे
परोक्षमितरदिति ॥१॥ ___ उतपतिपक्षमितरच्छन्दो ब्रूते । ततः प्रत्यक्षादितरदिति लभ्यते, तच्च परोक्षमिति ॥ तस्य च सामग्रीस्वरूपे निरूपयन्नाहप्रत्यक्षादिनिमित्तं स्मृतिप्रत्यभिज्ञानतर्कानुमानागमभेदमिति ॥२॥
प्रत्यक्षादिनिमित्तमित्यत्रादिशब्देन परोक्षमपि गृह्यते । तच्च यथावसरं निरूपयिष्यते ॥ प्रत्यक्षादिनिमित्तं यस्य इति विग्रहः ॥ स्मृत्यादिषु द्वंद्वः ।। ते भेदा यस्य इति विग्रहः॥ तत्र स्मृति क्रमप्राप्तं दर्शयन्नाहसंस्कारोद्बोधनिबन्धना तदित्याकारा स्मृतिरिति ॥ ३ ॥
संस्कारस्योहाधः प्राकटयं स निबन्धनं यस्याः सा तथोक्ता तदित्याकारा तदित्युल्लेखिनी, एवम्भूता स्मृतिर्भवतीति शेषः॥ उदाहरणमाह
स देवदत्तो यथेति ॥ ४॥ प्रत्यभिज्ञानं प्राप्तकालमाह
दर्शनस्मरणकारणकं सङ्कलनं प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् । तदेवेदं तत्सदृशं तद्विलक्षणं तत्प्रतियोगीत्यादि ॥५॥
अत्र दर्शनस्मरणकारणत्वात् सादृश्यादिविषयस्यापि प्रत्यभिज्ञानत्वमुक्तम् । येषां तु सादृश्यविषयमुपमानाख्यं प्रमाणान्तरं तेषां वैलक्षण्यादिविषयं प्रमाणान्तरमनुषज्येत ॥ तथा चोक्तम्-॥ उपमानं प्रसिद्धार्थसाधात्साध्यसाधनम् । तद्वैधात्प्रमाणं किं स्यात्संज्ञिप्रतिपादनम् ॥ १॥ इदमल्पं महद्द रमासनं प्रांशु नैति वा । व्यपेक्षातः समतेऽर्थे विकल्पः साधनान्तरमिति ॥ २ ॥ एषां क्रमेणोदाहरणं दर्शयन्नाह
यथा स एवायं देवदत्तः ॥ ६ ॥ गोसदृशो गवयः ॥ ७॥ गोविलक्षणो महिषः ॥ ८ ॥ इदमस्मादूरम् ॥ ६ ॥ वृक्षोऽयमित्यादि॥१०॥ ___ आदिशब्देन पयोम्बुभेदी हंसः स्यात् षट्पादैर्भमरः स्मृतः ॥ समपर्णैस्तु तत्वहौर्विज्ञेयो विषमच्छदः॥१॥ पञ्चवर्ण भवेद्रनं मेचकाख्यं

Page #311

२७
प्रमेयरनमाला पृथुस्तनी ॥ युवतिकभृङ्गोऽपि गण्डकः परिकीर्तितः ॥ २ ॥ शरभोऽप्यष्टभिः पादैः सिंहश्चारुसटान्वितः ॥ इत्येवमादिशब्दश्रवणात्तथाविधानेव मरालादीनवलोक्य तथा सत्यापयति यदा तदा तत्सङ्कलनमपि प्रत्यभिज्ञानमुक्तं, दर्शनस्मरणकारणत्वाविशेषात् ॥ परेषां तु तत्ममाणान्तरमेवोपपद्यते उपमानादौ तस्यान्तीवाभावात् । अथोहोऽवसरमाप्त इत्याह
उपलम्भानुपलम्भनिमित्तं व्याप्तिज्ञानमूहः॥११॥ इदमस्मिन्सत्येव भवत्यसति न भवत्येवेति च ॥ १२॥ उपलम्भः प्रमाणमात्रमत्र गृह्यते । यदि प्रत्यक्षमेवोपलम्भशब्देनोच्यते तदा साधनेष्वनुमेयेषु व्याप्तिज्ञानं न स्यात् ॥ अथ व्याप्तिः सर्वोपसंहारेण प्रतीयते, सा कथमतीन्द्रियस्य साधनस्यातीन्द्रियेण साध्येन भवेदिति । नैवं प्रत्यक्षविषयेष्विवानुमानविषयेष्वपि व्याप्तेरविरोधात् ॥ तज्ज्ञानस्याप्रत्यक्षत्वाभ्युपगमात् ॥ उदाहरणमाह
यथाग्नावेव धूमस्तदभावे न भवत्येवेति च ॥ १३ ॥ इदानीमनुमानं क्रमायातमिति तल्लक्षणमाह
साधनात्साध्यविज्ञानमनुमानम् ॥ १४ ॥ साधनस्य लक्षणमाह- . .
साध्याविनाभावित्वेन निश्चितो हेतुः ॥१५॥ ननु त्रैरूप्यमेव हेतोर्लक्षणं, तस्मिन्सत्येव हेतोरसिद्धादिदोषपरिहारोपपत्तेः। तथा हि- पक्षधर्मत्वप्रसिद्धत्वव्यवच्छेदार्थमभिधीयते । सपक्षे सत्त्वं तु विरुद्धत्वापनोदार्थम् । विपक्षे चासत्वमेवानैकान्तिकव्युदासार्थमिति ॥ तदुक्तम् । “हेतोत्रिष्वपि रूपेषु निर्णयस्तेन वर्णितः। प्रसिद्धविपरीतार्थव्यभिचारिविपक्षतः" इति ॥ १ ॥ तदयुक्तं- अविनाभावनियमनिश्चयादेव दोषत्रयपरिहारोपपत्तेः । अविनाभावो ह्यन्यथानुपपन्नत्वं, तच्चासिद्धस्य न सम्भवत्येव । अन्यथानुपपन्नत्वमासिद्धस्य न सिद्ध्यतीत्यभिधानात् ॥ नापि विरुद्धस्य तल्लक्षणत्वोपपत्तिर्विपरीतनिश्चिताविनाभाविनि यथोक्तसाध्यविनाभावनियमलक्षणस्यानुपपत्तेविरोधात् ॥ व्यभिचारिण्यपि न प्रकृतलक्षणावकाशः । तत एव ततोऽन्यथाऽनुपपत्तिरेव

Page #312

२८
मेयरत्नमाला
श्रेयसी । न त्रिरूपता । तस्यां सत्यामपि यथोक्तलक्षणाभावे हेतोर्गमकत्वादर्शनात् ।। तथाहि - स श्यामस्तत्पुत्रत्वादितरतत्पुत्रवदित्यत्र त्रैरूप्य - सम्भवेऽपि न गमकत्वमुपलक्ष्यते । अथ विपक्षाद्वयावृत्तिर्नियमवती तत्र न दृश्यते । ततो न गमकत्वमिति । तदपि मुग्धविलसितमेव । तस्या एवाविनाभावरूपत्वात् ।। इतररूपसद्भावेऽपि तदभावे हेतो: स्वसाध्यसिद्धिम्प्रतिगमकत्वानिष्टौ सैव प्रधानं लक्षणमतुख्यमुपलक्षणीयमिति ।। तत्सद्भावे चेतररूपद्वयनिरपेक्षतया गमकत्वोपपत्तेश्च । यथा सन्त्यद्वैतवादिनोऽपि प्रमाणानिष्टानिष्टसाधनदूषणाऽन्यथाऽनुपपत्तेः । न चात्र पक्षधर्मत्वं सपक्षान्वयो वाऽस्ति । केवलमविनाभावमात्रेण गमकत्वप्रतीतेः।। यदप्य पर मुक्तं परैः पक्षधर्मताभावेऽपि काकस्य कायद्धवलः प्रासाद इत्यस्यापि गमकत्वापत्तिरिति तदप्यनेन निरस्तम् ॥ अन्यथानुपपत्तिबलेनैव पक्षधर्मस्यापि साधुत्वाभ्युपगमात् || न चेह साऽस्ति । ततोऽविनाभाव एव हेतोः प्रधानं लक्षणमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । तस्मिन्सत्यसति त्रिलक्षणत्वेऽपि हेतोर्गमकत्वदर्शनादिति न त्रैरूप्यं हेतुलक्ष
मव्यापकत्वात् ।। सर्वेषां क्षणिकत्वे साध्ये सत्वादेः साधनस्य सपक्षे सतोऽपि स्वयं सौगतैर्गमकत्वाभ्युपगमात् । एतेन पञ्चलक्षणत्वमपि यौगपरिकल्पितं न हेतोरुपपत्तिमियतीत्यभिहितं बोद्धव्यम् । पक्षधर्मत्वे सत्यन्वयव्यतिरेकावबाधितविषयत्वमसत्प्रतिपक्षत्वं चेति पञ्चलक्षणानि, तेषामप्यविनाभावप्रपञ्चतैवावाधितविषयस्याविनाभावायोगात् । सत्प्रतिपक्षस्येवेति साध्याभासविषयत्वेनासम्यग्धेतुत्वाच्च || यथोक्तपक्षविषयत्वाभावातदोषेणैव दुष्टत्वात् । अतः स्थितं साध्याविनाभावित्वेन निश्चितो हेतुरिति ॥ इदानीमविनाभावभेदं दर्शयन्नाह -
सहक्रमभावनियमो ऽविनाभावः ॥ १६ ॥
तत्र सहभावनियमस्य विषयं दर्शयन्नाह -
सहचारिणोर्व्याप्यव्यापकयोश्च सहभावः ॥ १७ ॥
सहचारिणो रूपरसयोर्व्याप्यव्यापकयोश्च वृक्षत्वशिंशपात्वयोरिति सप्तम्या विषयो निर्दिष्टः ।। क्रमभावनियमस्य विषयं दर्शयन्नाह - पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोः कार्यकारणयोश्च क्रमभावः ॥ १८ ॥ पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोः कृत्तिकोदयशकटोदययोः कार्यकारणयोश्च धूमधूम

Page #313

प्रमेयरत्नमाला ध्वजयोः क्रमभावः ॥ नन्ववम्भूतस्याविनाभावस्य न प्रत्यक्षेण ग्रहणं, तस्य सन्निहितविषयत्वात् ॥ नाप्यनुमानेन, प्रकृतापरानुमानकल्पनायामितरेतराश्रयत्वानवस्थावतारात् ॥ आगमादेरपि भिन्नविषयत्वेन सुप्रसिद्धत्वान्न ततोऽपि तत्मतिपत्तिरित्यारेकायामाह
तर्कात्तन्निर्णयः॥ १६ ॥ तांद्यथोक्तलक्षणादूहात्तनिर्णय इति ॥ अथेदानी साध्यलक्षणमाह
इष्टमबाधितमसिद्धं साध्यम् ॥ २० ॥ अत्रापरेदूषणमाचक्षते-आसनशयनभोजनयाननिधुवनादेरपीष्टत्वात्तदपि साध्यमनुषज्यत इति । तेऽप्यतिवालिशा अप्रस्तुतपलापित्वात् ॥ अत्र हि साधनमधिक्रियते । तेन साधनविषयत्वेनेप्सितमिष्टमुच्यते ॥ इदानीं स्वाभिहितसाध्यलक्षणस्य विशेषणनि सफलयनसिद्धविशेषणं समर्थयितुमाह
सन्दिग्धविपर्यस्ताव्युत्पन्नानां साध्यत्वं
यथा स्यादित्यसिद्धपदम् ॥२१॥ तत्र सन्दिग्धं स्थाणुर्वा पुरुषो वेत्येनवधारणेनोभयकोटिपरामाशिसंशयाकलितं वस्तु उच्यते ॥ विपर्यस्तं तु विपरीतावभासिविपर्ययज्ञानविषयभूतं रजतादि ॥ अव्युत्पन्नं तु नामजातिसंख्यादिविशेषापरिज्ञानेनानि गीतविषयानध्यवसायंग्राह्यम् ॥ एषां साध्यत्वमतिपादनार्थमासद्धपदोपादानमित्यर्थः ॥ अधुनेष्टाबाधितविशेषणद्वयस्य साफल्यं दर्शयन्नाह
- अनिष्टाध्यक्षादिबाधितयोः साध्यत्वं मा भू
. दितीष्टाबाधितवचनम् ॥ २२ ॥ अनिष्टो मीमांसकस्यानित्यः शब्दः प्रत्यक्षादिबाधितश्चाश्रावणत्वादिः। आदिशब्देनानुमानागमलोकस्ववचनबाधितानां ग्रहणम् । तदुदाहरणं चाकिश्चित्करस्य हेत्वाभासस्य निरूपणावसरे स्वयमेव ग्रन्थकारः प्रपञ्चयिष्यतीत्युपरम्यते ॥ तत्रासिद्धपदं प्रतिवाद्यपेक्षयैव,इष्टपदं तु वाद्यपेक्षयेति विशेषमुपदर्शयितुमाह

Page #314

प्रमेयरनमाला न चासिद्धवदिष्टं प्रतिवादिनः ॥ २३ ॥ अयमर्थः-न हि सर्व सर्वापेक्षया विशेषणमपि तु किश्चित्कमप्युद्दिश्य भवतीति । असिद्धवदिति व्यतिरेकमुखेनोदाहरणम् । यथा असिद्धं प्रतिवाद्यपेक्षया न तथेष्टमित्यर्थः । कुत एतदित्याह
प्रत्यायनाय हीच्छा वक्तुरेव ॥ २४॥ . इच्छायाः खलु विषयी कृतमिष्टमुच्यते । प्रत्यायनाय हीच्छा वक्तुरेवेति ॥ तच्च साध्यं धर्मः किं वा तद्विशिष्टो धर्मीति प्रश्ने तद्भेदं दर्शयन्नाह
साध्यं धर्मः कचित्तद्विशिष्टो वा धीति ॥ २५ ॥ सोपस्काराणि वाक्यानि भवन्ति । ततोऽयमों लभ्यते-व्याप्तिकालापेक्षया तु साध्यं धर्मः । कचित्प्रयोगकालापेक्षया तु तद्विशिष्टो धर्मी साध्यः ॥ अस्यैव धर्मिणो नामान्तरमाह
पक्ष इति यावत् ॥ २६॥ ___ ननु धर्मधर्मिसमुदायः पक्ष इति पक्षस्वरूपस्य पुरातनैनिरूपितत्वाद्धर्मिणस्तद्वचने कथं न राद्धान्तविरोध इति ॥ नैवं-साध्यधर्माधारतया विशेषितस्य धर्मिणः पत्तत्ववचनेऽपि दोषानवकाशात् । रचनावैचित्र्यमात्रेण तात्पर्यस्यानिराकृतत्वात्सिद्धान्ताविरोधात् ॥ अत्राह सौगतः भवतु नाम धर्मी पक्षव्यपदेशभाक् तथापि सविकल्पबुद्धौ परिवर्तमान एव न वास्तवः। सर्व एवानुमानानुमेयव्यवहारो बुद्धयाख्ढेन धर्मधर्मिन्यायेन बहिः सदसत्त्वमपेक्षत इत्यभिधानादिति तन्निरासार्थमाह
प्रसिद्धो धर्मीति ॥ २७ ॥ अयमर्थः- नेयं विकल्पबुद्धिर्बहिरन्तर्वा नासादितालम्बनभावा धर्मिणं व्यवस्थापयति । तदवास्तवत्वेन तदाधारसाध्यसाधनयोरपि वास्तवत्वानुपपत्तेस्तबुद्धः पारंपर्येणापि वस्तुव्यवस्थानिबन्धनत्वायोगात् । ततो विकल्पेनान्येन वा व्यवस्थापितः पर्वतादिर्विषयभावं भजन्नेव धर्मितां प्रतिपद्यत इति स्थितं प्रसिद्धो धर्मीति । तत्प्रसिद्धिश्च कचिद्विकल्पतः कचित्पमाणतः कचिचोभयत इति नैकान्तेन विकल्पाधिरूढस्य प्रमाणप्रसिद्धस्य वा धमित्वम्॥ ननु धर्मिणो विकल्पात्मतिपत्तौ किं तव साध्यमित्याशङ्कायामाह

Page #315

प्रमेयरत्नमाला विकल्पसिद्ध तस्मिन्सत्तेतरे साध्ये ॥ २८ ॥ तस्मिन्धर्मिणि विकल्पसिद्धे सत्ता च तदपेक्षयेतराऽसत्ता च ते द्वे अपि साध्ये सुनिर्णीतासम्भवाद्वाधकप्रमाणबलेन योग्यानुपलब्धिबलेन चेति शेषः।। अत्रोदाहरणमाह
अस्ति सर्वज्ञो नास्ति खरविषाणमिति ॥ २६ ॥ सुगमम् ॥ ननु धर्मिण्यसिद्धसत्ताके भावाभावोभयधर्माणामसिद्धविरुद्धानैकान्तिकत्वादनुमानविषयत्वायोगात् कथं सत्तेतरयोः साध्यत्वम् ? ॥ तदुकम्-असिद्धो भावधर्मश्चेव्यभिचार्युभयाश्रितः । विरुद्धो धर्मो भावस्य सा सत्ता साध्यते कथम् । इति ॥ तदयुक्तम्-मानसप्रत्यक्षे भावरूपस्यैव धर्मिणः प्रतिपन्नत्वात् ॥ न च तत्सिद्धौ तत्सत्त्वस्यापि प्रतिपन्नत्वाद्वयर्थमनुमानम् । तदभ्युपेतमपि वैययात्यायदा परो न प्रतिपद्यते तदाऽनुमानस्य साफल्यात् ॥ न च मानसज्ञानाद्गगनकुसुमादेरपि सद्भावसम्भावनाऽतोऽतिमसङ्गः । तज्ज्ञानस्य बाधकमत्ययव्यपाकृतसत्ताकवस्तुविषयतया मानसप्रत्यक्षासत्वात कथं तर्हि तुरगङ्गादेर्धर्मित्वमिति न चोद्यम्-धर्मिमयोगकाले बाधकमत्ययानुदयात्सत्त्वसम्भावनोपपत्तेः ॥ न च सर्वज्ञादौ साधकप्रमाणासत्त्वेन सत्वं प्रति संशीतिः सुनिश्चितासम्भवाद्वाधकप्रमाणत्वेन सुखादाविव सत्त्वनिश्रयात्तत्र संशयायोगात् । इदानीं प्रमाणोभयसिद्ध धर्मिणि किं साध्यमित्याशङ्कायामाह
प्रमाणोभयसिद्धे तु साध्यधर्मविशिष्टता ॥ ३० ॥ साध्ये इति शब्दः प्राक् द्विवचनान्तोऽप्यर्थवशादेकवचनान्ततया सम्ब ध्यते । प्रमाणं चोभयं च विकल्पप्रमाणद्वयं, ताभ्यां सिद्ध धर्मिणि साध्यधर्मविशिष्टता साध्या । अयमर्थः- प्रमाणप्रतिपन्नमपि वस्तु विशिष्टधर्माधारतया विवादपदमारोहतीति साध्यतां नातिवर्त्तत इति एवमुभयसिद्धेऽपि योज्यम् ॥ प्रमाणोभयसिद्धं धर्मिद्वयं क्रमेण दर्शयबाह
अग्निमानयं देशः परिणामी शब्द इति यथा ॥ ३१॥ . देशो हि प्रत्यक्षेण सिद्धः शब्दस्तुभयसिद्धः। नहि प्रत्यक्षेणाग्दिर्शिभिरनियतदिग्देशकालावच्छिनाः सर्वे शब्दा निधेतुं पार्यन्ते । सर्वदर्शिनस्तु

Page #316

प्रमेयरत्नमाला तनिश्चयेऽपि तं प्रत्यनुमानानर्थक्यात् ॥ प्रयोगकालापेक्षया धर्मविशिष्टधर्मिणः साध्यत्वमभिधाय व्याप्तिकालापेक्षया साध्यनियमं दर्शयन्नाह
व्याप्तौ तु साध्यं धर्म एवेति ॥ ३२ ॥ सुगमम् ॥ धर्मिणोऽपि साध्यत्वे को दोष इत्यत्राह
अन्यथा तदघटनादिति ॥ ३३ ॥ उक्तविपर्ययेऽन्यथाशब्दः। धर्मिणः साध्यत्वे तदघटनात् व्याप्त्यघटनादिति हेतुः॥ न हि धूमदर्शनात्सर्वत्र पर्वतोऽग्निमानिति व्याप्तिः शक्या कर्तुं प्रमाणविरोधात् ॥ नन्वनुमाने पक्षप्रयोगस्यासम्भवात् प्रसिद्धो धर्मीत्यादिवचनमयुक्तम् । तस्य सामर्थ्यलब्धत्वात् ॥ तथापि तद्वचने पुनरुक्ततापसङ्गात् । अर्थादापन्नस्यापि पुनर्वचनं पुनरुक्तमित्यभिधानादिति सौगतस्तत्राहसाध्यधर्माधारसन्देहापनोदाय गम्यमानस्यापि पक्षस्य
वचनम् ॥ ३४ ॥ ___ साध्यमेव धर्मस्तस्याधारस्तत्र सन्देहो महानसादिः पर्वतादिति । तस्यापनोदो व्यवच्छेदस्तदर्थ गम्यमानस्यापि साध्यसाधनयोाप्यव्यापकभावप्रदर्शनान्यथानुपपत्तेस्तदाधारस्य गम्यमानस्यापि पतस्य वचनं प्रयोगः ॥ अत्रोदाहरणमाहसाध्यधर्मिणि साधनधर्मावबोधनाय पक्षधर्मोपसंहारवत् ॥ ३५ ॥
साध्येन विशिष्टो धर्मी पर्वतादिस्तत्र साधनधर्मावबोधनाय पक्षधर्मोपसंहारवत् । पक्षधर्मस्य हेतोरुपसंहार उपनयस्तद्वदिति ॥ अयमर्थःसाध्यव्याप्तसाधनप्रदर्शनेन तदाधारावगतावपि नियतधर्मिसम्बन्धिताप्रदर्शनार्थ यथोपनयस्तथा साध्यस्य विशिष्टधर्मिसम्बन्धितावबोधनाय पक्षवचनमपीति ॥ किञ्च हेतुपयोगेऽपि समर्थनमवश्यं वक्तव्यम् । असमर्थितस्य हेतुत्वायोगात् ॥ तथा च समर्थनोपन्यासादेव हेतोः सामर्थ्यसिद्धत्वाद्धेतुप्रयोगोऽनर्थकः स्यात् । हेतुप्रयोगाभावे कस्य समर्थन मिति चेत्-पत्तप्रयोगाभावे क हेतुर्वर्ततामिति समानमेतत् ॥ तस्मात्कार्यस्वभावानुपलम्भमेदेम

Page #317

प्रमेयरत्नमाला पक्षधर्मत्वादिभेदेन च त्रिधा हेतुमुक्त्वा समर्थयमानेन पक्षप्रयोगोऽप्यभ्युपगन्तव्य एवेति ॥ अमुमेवार्थमाह
को वा त्रिधा हेतुमुक्त्वा समर्थयमानो न पक्षयति ॥ ३६॥
को वा वादी प्रतिवादी चेत्यर्थः । किलार्थे वा-शब्दः । युक्त्या पक्षप्रयोगस्यावश्यंभावे कः किल न पक्षयति ? पतं न करोत्यापितु करोत्येव ॥ किं कुर्वन्समर्थयमानः। किं कृत्वा हेतुमुक्त्वैव । न पुनरनुक्त्वेत्यर्थः । समर्थनं हि हेतोरसिद्धत्वादिदोषपरिहारेण स्वसाध्यसाधनसामर्थ्यप्ररूपणप्रवणं वचनम् । तच्च हेतुपयोगोत्तरकालं परेणाङ्गीकृतमित्युक्त्वेति वचनम् ॥ ननु भवतु पक्षप्रयोगस्तथापि पक्षहेतुदृष्टान्तभेदेन व्यवयवमनुमानमिति सांख्यः । प्रतिज्ञाहेतूदाहरणोपनयभेदेन चतुरवयवमिति मीमांसकः । प्रतिज्ञाहेतूदाहरणोपनयनिगमनभेदात्पश्चावयवमिति योगः। तन्मतमपाकुर्वन्स्वमतसिद्धमवयवद्वयमेवोपदर्शयन्नाह
___एतद्द्वयमेवानुमानाङ्ग नोदाहरणमिति ॥ ३७ ॥ एतयोः पक्षहेत्वोयमेव नातिरिक्तमित्यर्थः । एवकारेणैवोदाहरणादि व्यवच्छेदे सिद्धेऽपि परमतनिरासार्थ पुनर्नोदाहरणमित्युक्तम् । तद्धि किंसाध्यप्रतिपत्त्यर्थमुतस्विद्धतोरविनाभावनियमार्थमाहोस्विव्याप्तिस्मरणार्थमिति विकल्पान् क्रमेण दूषयन्नाहन हि तत्साध्यप्रतिपत्यङ्गं तत्र यथोक्तहेतोरेव व्यापारात् ॥ ३८ ॥
तदुदाहरणं साध्यप्रतिपत्तेरङ्गं कारणं नेति सम्बन्धः । तत्र साध्यप्रतिपत्तौ यथोक्तस्य साध्याविनाभावित्वेन निश्चितस्य हेतोापारादिति ॥ द्वितीयविकल्पं शोधयन्नाह
तदविनाभावनिश्चयार्थं वा विपक्षे बाधकादेव तत्सिद्धेः ॥ ३६॥
तदिति वर्तते । नेति च । तेनायमर्थः तदुदाहरणं तेन साध्येनाविनाभावनिश्चयार्थं वा न भवतीति । विपक्षे बाधकादेव तत्सिद्धरविनाभावनिश्चयसिद्धेः ॥ किश्च व्यक्तिरूपं निदर्शनं तत्कथं साकल्येन व्याप्तिं गमयेत् । व्यक्त्यन्तरेषु व्याप्त्यर्थं पुनरुदाहरणान्तरं मृग्यम् । तस्यापि व्यक्तिरूपत्वेन सामान्येन व्याप्तेरवधारयितुमशक्यत्वादपरापरतदन्तरापेक्षायामनवस्था स्यात् ॥ एतदेवाह--

Page #318

प्रमेयरत्नमाला व्यक्तिरूपं च निदर्शनं सामान्येन तु व्याप्तिस्तत्रापि तद्विप्रतिपत्तावनवस्थानं स्यात् दृष्टान्तान्तरापेक्षणात् ॥ ४०॥ तत्रापि उदाहरणेऽपि। तद्विप्रतिपत्तौ सामान्यव्याप्तिविप्रतिपत्तावित्यर्थः ॥ शेष व्याख्यातम् ॥ तृतीयविकल्पे दूषणमाह
नापि व्याप्तिस्मरणार्थ तथाविधहेतुप्रयोगादेव तत्स्मृतेः॥४१॥
गृहीतसम्बन्धस्य हेतुमदर्शनेनैव व्याप्तिसिद्धिरगृहीतसम्बन्धस्य दृष्टान्तशवेनापि न तत्स्मरणमनुभूतविषयत्वात्स्मरणस्यति भावः ॥ तदेवमुदाहरणप्रयोगस्य साध्यार्थ प्रति नोपयोगित्वं प्रत्युत संशयहेतुत्वमेवेति दर्शयतितत्परमभिधीयमानं साध्यधर्मिणि साध्य
साधने सन्देहयति ॥ ४२ ॥ तदुदाहरणं परं केवलमभिधीयमानं साध्यधर्मिणि साध्यविशिष्टे धर्मिणि साध्यसाधने सन्देहयति सन्देहवती करोति । दृष्टान्तधार्माण साध्यव्याप्तसाधनोपदर्शनेऽपि साध्यधर्मिणि तनिर्णयस्य कर्तुमशक्यत्वादिति शेषः ॥ अमुमेवार्थ व्यतिरेकमुखेन समर्थयमानः प्राह
कुतोऽन्यथोपनयनिगमने ॥ ४३ ॥ अन्यथा संशयहेतुत्वाभावे कस्माद्धेतोरुपनयनिगमने प्रयुज्यते ॥ अपरः प्राह-उपनयनिगमनयोरप्यनुमानाङ्गत्वमेव, तदप्रयोगे निरवकरसाध्यसंवित्तेरयोगादिति । तनिषेधार्थमाहन च ते तदङ्गे । साध्यधर्मिणि हेतुसाध्ययो
वचनादेवासंशयात् ॥ ४४ ॥ ते उपनयनिगमने अपि वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणे तस्यानुमानस्याने न भवतः । साध्यधर्मािण हेतुसाध्ययोर्वचनादेवेत्येवकारेण दृष्टान्तादिकमन्तरेणेत्यर्थः ॥ किश्चाभिधायापि दृष्टान्तादिकं समर्थनमवश्यं वक्तव्यमसमर्थितस्याहेतुत्वादिति तदेव वरं हेतुरूपमनुमानावयवो वाऽस्तु साध्यसिद्धौतस्यैवोपयोगानोदाहरणादिकमेतदेवाह

Page #319

प्रमेयरत्नमाला समर्थनं वा वरं हेतुरूपमनुमानावयवो
बाऽस्तु साध्ये तदुपयोगात् ॥ ४५ ॥ प्रथमो वाशब्द एवकारार्थे । द्वितीयस्तु पक्षान्तरसूचने । शेष सुगमम् ॥ ननु दृष्टान्तादिकमन्तरेण मन्दधियामवबोधयितुमशक्यत्वात्कथं पक्षहेतुपयागमात्रेण तेषां साध्यविप्रतिपत्तिरिति तत्राह
बालव्युत्पत्त्यर्थं तत्रयोपगमे शास्त्र एवासौ
न वादेऽनुपयोगादिति ॥ ४६॥ बालानां अल्पप्रज्ञानां व्युत्पत्त्यर्थं तेषामुदाहरणादीनां त्रयोपगमे शास्त्र एवासौ तत्रयोपगमो न वादे नहि वादकाले शिष्या व्युत्पाद्याः । व्युत्पन्नानामेव तत्राधिकारादिति ॥ बालव्युत्पत्त्यर्थ तत्रयोपगम इत्यादिना शास्त्रेऽभ्युपगतमेवोदाहरणादित्रयमुपदर्शयति
___ दृष्टान्तो द्वेधा । अन्वयव्यतिरेकभेदादिति ॥४७॥ . दृष्टावन्तौ साध्यसाधनलक्षणो धर्मावन्वयमुखेन व्यतिरकद्वारेण वा यत्र स दृष्टान्त इत्यन्वर्थसंज्ञाकरणात् । स द्वेधैवोपपद्यते ॥ तत्रान्वयदृष्टान्तं दर्शयन्नाह
साध्यव्याप्तं साधनं यत्र प्रदर्श्यते सोऽन्वयदृष्टान्तः ॥४८॥ साध्येन व्याप्तं नियतं साधनं हेतुर्यत्र दर्श्यते व्याप्तिपूर्वकतयेति भावः ॥ द्वितीयभेदमुपदर्शयतिसाध्याभावे साधनाभावो यत्र कथ्यते स व्यतिरेकदृष्टान्तः ॥ ४६॥
असत्यसद्भावो व्यतिरेकः । तत्प्रधानो दृष्टान्तो व्यतिरेकदृष्टान्तः । साध्याभावे साधनस्याभाव एवेति सावधारणं द्रष्टव्यम् ॥ क्रममासमुपनयस्वरूपं निरूपयति
हेतोरुपसंहार उपनयः ॥ ५० ॥ - पक्षे इत्यध्याहारः । तेनायमर्थः-हेतोः पतधर्मतयोपसंहार उपनय इति ॥ निगमनस्वरूपमुपदर्शति

Page #320

प्रमेयरत्नमाला - प्रतिज्ञायास्तु निगमनमिति ॥५१॥ उपसंहार इति वर्तते । प्रतिज्ञाया उपसंहारः साध्यधर्मविशिष्टत्वेन प्रदर्शनं निगमनामित्यर्थः ॥ ननु शास्त्रे दृष्टान्तादयो वक्तव्या एवेति नियमानभ्युपगमात्कथं तत्त्रयमिह सूरिभिः प्रपश्चितमिति न चोद्यम् । स्वयमनभ्युपगमेऽपि प्रतिपाद्यानुरोधेन जिनमतानुसारिभिः प्रयोगपरिपाट्याः प्रतिपन्नत्वात् । सा चाज्ञाततत्स्वरूपैः कर्तुं न शक्यत इति तत्स्वरूपमपि शास्त्रेऽभिधातव्यमेवेति॥ तदेवं मतभेदेन द्वित्रिचतुःपञ्चावयवरूपमनुमानं द्विप्रकारमेवेति दर्शयनाह
___ तदनुमानं द्वेधा ॥ ५२ ॥ तद्वैविध्यमेवाह
स्वार्थपरार्थभेदादिति ॥ ५३॥ स्वपरविप्रतिपत्तिनिरासफलत्वाद्विविधमेवेति भावः स्वार्थानुमानभेदं दर्शयन्नाह
___ स्वार्थमुक्तलक्षणम् ॥५४ ॥ साधनात्साध्यविज्ञानमनुमानमिति मागुक्तं लक्षणं यस्य तत्तथोक्तमित्यर्थः॥ द्वितीयमनुमानभेदं दर्शयन्नाह___ परार्थं तु तदर्थपरामशिवचनाजातमिति ॥ ५५ ॥
तस्य स्वार्थानुमानस्यार्थः साध्यसाधनलक्षणः । तं परामृशतीत्येवं शीलं तदर्थपरामार्श । तच्च तद्वचनं च तस्माज्जातमुत्पन्न विज्ञानं परार्थानुमानमिति ॥ ननु वचनात्मकं परार्थानुमानं प्रसिद्धं, तत्कथं तदर्थपतिपादकवचनजनितविज्ञानस्य परार्थानुमानत्वमभिदधता न संगृहीतमिति न वाच्यम् । अचेतनस्य साक्षात्ममितिहेतुत्वाभावेन निरूपचरितप्रमाणभावाभावात् । मुख्यानुमानहेतुत्वेन तस्योपचरितानुमानव्यपदेशो न वार्यत एव ॥ तदेवोपचरितं परार्थानुमानत्वं तद्वचनस्याचार्यः माह
___ तद्वचनमपि तद्धेतुत्वादिति ॥ ५६ ॥ उपचारो हि मुख्याभावे सति प्रयोजने निमित्ते च प्रवर्तते । तत्र वचनस्य परार्थानुमानत्वे निमित्तं तद्धेतुत्वम् । तस्य प्रतिपाद्यानुमानस्य हेतुस्तद्ध

Page #321

प्रमेयरत्नमाला तुस्तस्य भावस्तत्त्वम् । तस्मानिमित्तात्तद्वचनमपि परार्थानुमानप्रतिपादकवचनमपि परार्थानुमानमिति सम्बन्धः । कारणे कार्यस्योपचारात् ॥ अथवा तत्सतिपादकानुमानं हेतुर्यस्य तत्तद्धेतुस्तस्य भावस्तत्त्वं ततस्तद्वचनमपि तथेति सम्बन्धः॥ अस्मिन्पो कार्ये कारणस्योपचार इति शेषः॥ वचनस्यानुमानत्वे च प्रयोजनमनुमानावयवाः प्रतिज्ञादय इति शास्त्रे व्यवहार एव ॥ ज्ञानात्मन्यनंशे तद्वत्यवहारस्याशक्यकल्पनत्वात् ॥ तदेवं साधनात् साध्यविज्ञानमनुमानमित्यनुमानसामान्यलक्षणम् ॥ तदनुमानंद्वेधेत्यादिना तत्पकारं च सप्रपश्चमभिधाय साधनमुक्तलक्षणापेक्षयकमप्यातिसंक्षेपेण भिद्यमानं द्विविधमित्युपदर्शयति
स हेतुढेधोपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धिभेदादिति ॥ ५७ ॥ सुगममेतत् ॥ तत्रोपलब्धिर्विधिसाधिकैव । अनुपलब्धिः प्रतिषेधसाधिकैवेति ॥ परस्य नियमं विघटयन्नुपलब्धेरनुपलब्धेश्चाविशेषेण विधिपतिषेधसाधनत्वमाह... उपलब्धिर्विधिप्रतिषेधयोरनुपलब्धिश्चेति ॥ ५८ ॥
गतार्थमेतत् ॥ इदानीमुपलब्धेरपि संक्षेपेण विरुद्धाविरुद्धभेदात् द्वैविध्यमुपदर्शयन्नविरुद्धोपलब्धेर्विधौ साध्ये विस्तरतो भेदमाहअविरुद्धोपलब्धिर्विधौ षोढा व्याप्य कार्यकारणपूर्वोत्तरसहचर
... भेदादिति ॥५६॥ पूर्व च उत्तरं च सह चेति द्वंद्वः। पूर्वोत्तरसह इत्यतेभ्यश्चर इत्यनुकरणनिर्देशः॥ द्वन्द्वात् श्रूयमाणश्चरशब्दः प्रत्येकमभिसम्बध्यते । तेनायमर्थः पूर्वचरोत्तरचरसहचरा इति । पश्चाद्व्याप्यादिभिः सह द्वन्द्वः ॥ अत्राह सौगतः-विधिसाधनं द्विविधमेव । स्वभावकार्यभेदात् । कारणस्य तु कार्याविनाभावाभावादलिङ्गत्वम् । नावश्यं कारणानि कार्यवन्ति भवन्तीति वचनात् ॥ अप्रतिबद्धसामर्थ्यस्य कार्यम्पति गमकत्वमित्यपि नोत्तरम् । सामर्थ्यस्यातीन्द्रियतया विद्यमानस्यापि निश्चेतुमशक्यत्वादिति ॥ तदसमीतिताभिधानमिति दर्शयितुमाह

Page #322

३८
प्रमेयरत्नमाला रसादेकसामग्यनुमानेन रूपानुमानमिच्छद्भिरिष्टमेव किञ्चित्कारस
हेतुयंत्रसामर्थ्याप्रतिबन्धकारणान्तरावैकल्ये ॥ ६ ॥ आस्वाद्यमानाद्धि रसात्तज्जानका सामग्रयनुमीयते । ततो रूपानुमानं भवति । प्राक्तनो हि रूपक्षणः सजातीयं रूपक्षणान्तरलक्षणं कार्य कुर्वनेव विजातीयं रसलक्षणं कार्य करोतीति रूपानुमानमिच्छद्भिरिष्टमेव किश्चिकारणं हेतुः प्राक्तनस्य रूपलक्षणस्य सजातीयरूपक्षणान्तराव्यभिचारात् । अन्यथा रससमानकालरूपमतिपत्तेरयोगात् ॥ नह्यनुकूलमात्रमन्त्यक्षणमाप्त वा कारणं लिङ्गमिष्यते । येन मणिमन्त्रादिना सामथ्र्यप्रतिबन्धात्कारणान्तरवैकल्येन वा कार्यव्यभिचारित्वं स्यात् ॥ द्वितीयक्षणे कार्यप्रत्यक्षीकरणेनाऽनुमानानर्थक्यं वा । कार्याविनाभावितया निश्चितस्य विशिष्टकारणस्य छत्रादेर्लिङ्गत्वेनाङ्गीकरणात् ॥ यत्र सामर्थ्याप्रतिवन्धः कारणान्तरावैकल्यं निश्चीयते तस्यैव लिङ्गत्वं नान्यस्येति नोक्तदोषप्रसङ्गः ॥ इदानीं पूर्वोत्तरचरयोः स्वभावकार्यकरणेष्वनन्तर्भावाद्भेदान्तरत्वमेवेति दर्शयति--
न च पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोस्तादात्म्यं तदुत्पत्तिर्वा काल
व्यवधाने तदनुपलब्धेरिति ॥ ६१ ॥ तादात्म्यसम्बन्धे साध्यसाधनयोः स्वभावहेतावन्तर्भावः, तदुत्पत्तिसम्बन्धे च कार्ये कारणे वान्तर्भावो विभाव्यते । न च तदुभयसम्भवः कालव्यवधाने तदनुपलब्धः। सहभाविनोरेव तादात्म्यसम्भवादनन्तरयोरेव पूर्वोत्तरक्षणयोर्हेतुफलभावस्य दृष्टत्वात् । व्यवहितयोस्तदघटनात् ॥ ननु कालव्यवधानेऽपि कार्यकारणभावो दृश्यत एव । यथा जाग्रत्मबुद्धदशाभाविप्रबोधयोमरणारिष्टयोर्वेति ॥ तत्परिहारार्थमाह
भाव्यतीतयोमरणजाग्रद्बोधयोरपि नारि
ष्टोद्रोधौ प्रति हेतुत्वम् ॥ ६२॥ सुगममेतत् । अत्रैवोपपत्तिमाह
तद्व्यापाराश्रितं हि तद्भावभावित्वम् ॥ ६३ ॥ हिशब्दो यस्मादर्थे । यस्मात्तस्य कारणस्य भावे कार्यस्य भावित्वं

Page #323

मेयरत्नमाला
तद्भावभावित्वं तच्च तद्वयापाराश्रितं तस्मान प्रकृतयोः कार्यकारणभाव इत्यर्थः ॥ अयमर्थ:- अन्वयव्यतिरेकसमधिगम्यो हि सर्वत्र कार्यकारणभावः । तौ च कार्यम्प्रति कारणव्यापारसव्यपेक्षा वेवोपपद्येते कुलालस्येव कलशम्प्रति । न चातिव्यवहितेषु तद्व्यापाराश्रितत्वमिति ॥ सहचरस्याप्युकहेतुष्वनन्तर्भावं दर्शयति
1
सहचारिणोरपि परस्परपरिहारेणावस्थानात्सहोत्पादाच्च ॥ ६४ ॥
हेत्वन्तरत्वमिति शेषः । अयमभिप्रायः परस्परपरिहारेणोपालम्भात्तादात्म्यासम्भवात्स्वभावहेतावनन्तर्भावः । सहोत्पादाच्च न कार्ये कारणे वेति ।। न च समानसमयवर्तिनोः कार्यकारणभावः सव्येतरगोविषाणवत् । कार्यकारणयोः प्रतिनियमाभावप्रसङ्गाच्च । तस्माद्धेत्वन्तरत्वमेवेति ॥ इदानीं व्याप्यहेतुं क्रमप्राप्तमुदाहरन्नुक्तान्वयव्यतिरेकेपुरस्सरं प्रतिपाद्याशयवशात्मतिपादितप्रतिज्ञाद्यवयवपञ्चकं प्रदर्शयति
परिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वात् । य एवं स एवं दृष्टो, यथा घटः, कृतश्चायं तस्मात्परिणामीति, यस्तु न परिणामी स न कृतको दृष्टो यथा वन्ध्यास्तनन्धयः,
कृतकश्चायं तस्मात्परिणामीति ॥ ६५ ॥
स्वोत्पत्तौ अपेक्षितव्यापारो हि भावः कृतक उच्यते । तच्च कृतकत्वं न कूटस्थ नित्यपक्षे नापि क्षणिकपक्षे किन्तु परिणामित्वे सत्येवेत्यग्रे वक्ष्यसे ॥ कार्यहेतुमाह—
अस्त्यत्र देहिनि बुद्धिर्व्याहारादेः ॥ ६६ ॥
कारणहेतुमाह
अस्त्यत्र च्छाया छत्रात् ॥ ६७ ॥
अथ पूर्वचरहेतुमाह

उदेष्यति शकटं कृत्तिकोदयात् ॥ ६८ ॥
मुहूर्तान्ते इति सम्बन्धः ॥ अथोत्तरचरः
३६.
--

Page #324

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
उदगारणिः प्राक्तत एव ॥ ६६ ॥
अत्रापि मुहूर्तात्प्रागिति सम्बन्धनीयं तत एव कृत्तिकोदयादेवेत्यर्थः ॥ सहचर लिङ्गमाह -
श्रस्त्यत्र मातुलिङ्ग रूपं रसात् ॥ ७० ॥
४०
विरुद्धोपलब्धिमाह -
विरुद्धतदुपलब्धिः प्रतिषेधे तथेति ॥ ७१ ॥
प्रतिषेधे साध्येऽप्रतिषेध्येन विरुद्धानां सम्बन्धिनस्ते व्याप्यादयस्ते - षामुपलब्धय इत्यर्थः । तथेति षोढेति भावः ॥ तत्र साध्यविरुद्धव्याप्यो - पलब्धिमाह
नास्त्यत्र शीतस्पर्श श्रष्ण्यात् ॥ ७२ ॥
शीतस्पर्शप्रतिषेधेन हि विरुद्धोऽग्निस्तद्वयाप्यमौष्ण्यमिति ॥ विरुद्धकार्योपलम्भमाह
नास्त्यत्र शीतस्पर्शे धूमात् ॥ ७३ ॥
अत्रापि प्रतिषेध्यस्य साध्यस्य शीतस्पर्शस्य विरुद्धोऽग्निस्तस्य कार्य धूम इति ॥ विरुद्धकारणोपलब्धिमाह
नास्मिन् शरीरिणि सुखमस्ति हृदयशल्यात् ॥ ७४ ॥ सुखविरोधि दुःखं, तस्य कारणं हृदयशल्यमिति ॥ विरुद्धपूर्वचरमाहनोदेष्यति मुहूर्तान्ते शकटं रेवत्युदयात् ॥ ७५ ॥ शकटोदयविरुद्धो ह्यश्विन्युदयस्तत्पूर्वचरो खेत्युदय इति ॥ विरुद्धो - त्तरचरं लिङ्गमाह
मुहूर्तात्पूर्वं पुष्योदयात् ॥ ७६ ॥
भरण्युदयविरुद्धो हि पुनर्वसूदयस्तदुत्तरचरः पुष्योदय इति ॥ विरुद्ध
सहचरमाह
नास्त्यत्र भित्तौ परभागाभावोऽर्वाग्भागदर्शनादिति ॥ ७७ ॥
परभागाभावस्य विरुद्धस्तद्भावस्तत्सहचरोऽर्वाग्भाग इति ॥ अविरुद्धा
नुपलब्धिभेदमाह–

Page #325

प्रमेयरत्नमाला अविरुद्धानुपलब्धिःप्रतिषेधे सप्तधा स्वभावव्यापककार्यकारण
पूर्वोत्तरसहचरानुपलम्भभेदादिति ॥ ७८ ॥ स्वभावादिपदानां द्वन्द्वः तेषामनुपलम्भ इति पश्चाच्छष्ठीतत्पुरुषः समासः॥ स्वभावानुपलम्भोदाहरणमाह
नास्त्यत्र भूतले घटोऽनुपलब्धेः॥ ७९ ॥ अत्र पिशाचपरमावादिभिर्व्यभिचारपरिहारार्थमुपलब्धिलक्षणप्राप्तत्वे सतीति विशेषणमुन्नेयम् ॥ व्यापकानुपलब्धिमाह
नास्त्यत्र शिशपा वृक्षानुपलब्धेः॥८० ॥ शिंशपात्वं हि वृक्षत्वेन व्याप्तम् । तदभावे तद्व्याप्यशिंशपाया अप्यभावः । कार्यानुपलब्धिमाह
नास्त्यत्राप्रतिबद्धसामथ्यो ऽग्नि मानुपलब्धेः ॥८१॥ अप्रतिबद्धसामर्थ्य हि कार्य प्रत्यनुपहतशक्तिकत्वमुच्यते । तदभावश्च कार्यानुपलम्भादिति ॥ कारणानुपलब्धिमाह
नास्त्यत्र धूमोऽनग्नेः ॥८२॥ पूर्वचरानुपलब्धिमाह
न भविष्यति मुहूर्तान्ते शकटं कृत्तिकोदयानुपलब्धेः॥ ८३ ॥ उत्तरचरानुपलब्धिमाह
.. नोदगाद्भरणिमुहूर्तात्प्राक्तत एव ॥८४ ॥ तत एव कृत्तिकोदयानुपलब्धेरेवेत्यर्थः ॥ सहचरानुपलब्धिः प्राप्तकालेत्याह
नास्त्यत्र समतुलायामुन्नामो नामानुपलब्धेः ॥८५ ॥ विरुद्धकार्याद्यनुपलब्धिार्वधौ सम्भवतीत्याचक्षाणस्तद्भेदात्रय एवेति तानेव प्रदर्शयितुमाहविरुद्धानुपलब्धिविधौ त्रेधा । विरुद्धकार्यकारणस्वभावा
नुपलब्धिभेदात् ॥ ८६ ॥ विरुद्धकार्याद्यनुपलब्धिर्विधौ सम्भवतीति विरुद्धकार्यकारणस्वभावा. नुपलब्धिरिति ॥ तत्र विरुद्धकार्यानुपलब्धिमाह

Page #326

मेयरत्नमाला
यथाऽस्मिन्प्राणिनि व्याधिविशेषोऽस्ति निरामयचेष्टानुपलब्धेरिति ॥ ८७ ॥
व्याधिविशेषस्य हि विरुद्धस्तद्भावस्तस्य कार्य निरामयचेष्टा तस्या अनुपलब्धिरिति ॥ विरुद्धकारणानुपलब्धिमाह -
श्रस्त्यत्र देहिनि दुःखमिष्टसंयोगाभावात् ॥ ८८ ॥ दुःखविरोधि सुखं, तस्य कारणमिष्टसंयोगस्तदनुपलब्धिरिति ॥ विरुद्धस्वभावानुपलब्धिमाह
४२
अनेकान्तात्मकं वस्त्वेकान्तस्वरूपानुपलब्धेः ॥ ८६ ॥ अनेकान्तात्मकविरोधी नित्याद्येकान्तः । न पुनस्तद्विषयविज्ञानम् । तस्य मिथ्याज्ञानरूपतयोपलम्भसम्भवात् । तस्य स्वरूपं वास्तवाकारस्तस्यानुपलब्धिः । ननु च व्यापकविरुद्धकार्यादीनां परम्परया विरोधिकार्यादिलिङ्गानां च बहुलमुपलम्भसम्भवात्तान्यपि किमिति नाचार्यैरुदाहृतानी
त्याशङ्कायामाह —
परम्परया सम्भवत्साधनमत्रैवान्तर्भावनीयम् ॥ ६०॥ तेषु कार्यादिष्वित्यर्थः । तस्यैव साधनस्योपलक्षणार्थमुदाहरणद्वयं प्रदर्शयति-
भूद चक्रे शिवकः स्थासात् ॥ ६१ ॥
एतच्च किं संज्ञिकं कान्तर्भवतीत्यारे कायामाह - कार्यकार्यमविरुद्ध कार्योपलब्धौ ॥ ६२ ॥ अन्तर्भावनीयमिति सम्बन्धः । शिवकस्य हि कार्य छत्रकं, तस्य कार्य स्थास इति । दृष्टान्तद्वारेण द्वितीयहेतुमुदाहरति
नास्त्यत्र गुहायां मृगक्रीडनं मृगारिसंशब्दनात् । कारणविरुद्धार्यं विरुद्धका 'पलब्धौ यथेति ॥ ६३ ॥
मृगस्य हि कारणं मृगस्तस्य विरोधी मृगारिस्तस्य कार्य तच्छबदनमिति । इदं यथा विरुद्ध कार्योपलब्धावन्तर्भवति तथा प्रकृतमपीत्यर्थः । । बालव्युत्पत्यर्थं पञ्चावयवमयोग इत्युक्तं व्युत्पन्नं प्रति कथं प्रयोगनियम इति
शङ्कायामाह -

Page #327

मेयरत्नमाला
व्युत्पन्नप्रयोगस्तु तथोपपत्त्याऽन्यथानुपपत्त्यैव वा ॥ १४ ॥
व्युत्पन्नस्य व्युत्पन्नाय वा प्रयोगः क्रियते इति शेषः । तथोपपत्या तथा साध्ये सत्येवोपपत्तिस्तया अन्यथानुपपत्त्यैव वा अन्यथा साध्याभावे - Sनुपपत्तिस्तया । तामेवानुमानमुद्रामुन्मुद्रयति
श्रग्निमानयं देशस्तथैव धूमवत्वोपपत्ते ममत्वान्यथानुपपत्तेर्वेति ॥ ६५ ॥
ननु तदतिरिक्तदृष्टान्तादेरपि व्याप्तिप्रतिपत्तावुपयोगित्वात् । व्युत्पन्ना - पेक्षया कथं तदप्रयोग इत्याह
हेतुप्रयोगा हि यथाव्याप्तिग्रहणं विधीयते सा च तावन्मात्रेण व्युत्पन्नैरवधार्यत इति ॥ ६६॥
४ ३
हिशब्दो यस्मादर्थे, यस्माद्यथाव्याप्तिग्रहणं व्याप्तिग्रहणानतिक्रमेणैव हेतुप्रयोगो विधीयते । सा च तावन्मात्रेण व्युत्पन्नैस्तथोपपत्त्याऽन्यथानुपपया वाऽवधार्यते दृष्टान्तादिकमन्तरेणैवेत्यर्थः ॥ यथा दृष्टान्तादेर्व्याप्तिप्रतिपत्तिम्प्रत्यनङ्गत्वं तथा प्राक् प्रपञ्चितमिति नेह पुनः प्रतन्यते ॥ नापि दृष्टान्तादिप्रयोगः साध्यसिद्धयर्थं फलवानित्याह
तावता च साध्यसिद्धिः ॥ ६७ ॥
चकार एवकारार्थे । निश्चितविपक्षासम्भवहेतुप्रयोगमात्रेणैव साध्यसिद्धिरित्यर्थः । तेन पक्षप्रयोगोऽपि सफल इति दर्शयन्नाह -
तेन पक्षस्तदाधारसूचनायोक्तः ॥ ६८ ॥
यतस्तथोपपत्त्यन्यथानुपपत्तिप्रयोगमात्रेरेण व्याप्तिप्रतिपत्तिस्तेन हेतुना पक्षस्तदाधारसूचनाय साध्यव्याप्त साधनाधारसूचनायोक्तः । ततो यदुक्कं परेण सद्भावहेतुभावौ हि दृष्टान्ते तदवेदिनः ॥ ख्याप्येते विदुषां वाच्यो हेतुरेव हि केवलः ॥ १ ॥ इति तन्निरस्तम् ॥ व्युत्पन्नं प्रति यथोक्तहेतुप्रयोगोsपि पक्षप्रयोगाभावे साधनस्य नियताधारतानवधारणात् ॥ अथानुमा नस्वरूपं प्रतिपाद्येदानीं क्रमप्राप्तमागमस्वरूपं निरूपयितुमाह

Page #328

प्रमेयरत्नमाला प्राप्तवचनादिनिबन्धनमर्थज्ञानमागमः ॥ ६ ॥ यो यत्रावञ्चकः स तत्राप्तः । आप्तस्य वचनम् । आदिशब्देनांगुल्यादिसंज्ञापरिग्रहः । आप्तवचनमादिर्यस्य तत्तथोक्तं तन्निबन्धनं यस्यार्थज्ञानस्येति ॥ आप्तशब्दोपादानादपौरुषेयत्वव्यवच्छेदः। अर्थज्ञानमित्यनेनान्याप्तेहज्ञानस्याभिप्रायसुचनस्य च निरासः ॥ नन्वसम्भवीदं लक्षण, शब्दस्य नित्यत्वेनापौरुषेयत्वादाप्तपणीतत्वायोगात् । तनित्यत्वं च तदवयवानां वर्णानां व्यापकत्वान्नित्यत्वाच ॥ न च तद्वयापकत्वमसिद्धम् । एकत्र प्रयुक्तस्य गकारादेः प्रत्यभिज्ञया देशान्तरेऽपि ग्रहणात् ॥ स एवायं गकार इति नित्यत्वमपि तयैवावसीयते । कालान्तरेऽपि तस्यैवं गकारादेनिश्चयात् ॥ इतो वा नित्यत्वं शब्दस्य सङ्केतान्यथानुपपत्तेरिति । तथाहि गृहीतसङ्केतस्य शब्दस्य प्रध्वंसे सत्यगृहीतसंकेतः शब्द इदानीमन्य एवोपलभ्यते इति तत्कथमर्थप्रत्ययः स्यात् ? न चासौ न भवतीति स एवायं शब्द इति प्रत्यभिज्ञानस्यात्रापि सुलभत्वाच्च ॥ न च वर्णानां शब्दस्य वा नित्यत्वे सर्वैः सर्वदा श्रवणप्रसङ्गः । सर्वदा तदभिव्यक्तरसम्भवात् । तदसम्भवश्चाभिव्यञ्जकवायूनां प्रतिनियतत्वात् ॥ न च तेषामनुपपन्नत्वम् । प्रमाणपतिपत्नत्वात् ॥ तथाहि-वक्तृमुखनिकटदेशवर्तिभिः स्पर्शनेनाध्यक्षेण व्यञ्जका वायवो गृह्यन्ते । दूरदेशस्थितेन मुखसमीपस्थिततूलचलनादनुमीयन्ते । श्रोतृश्रोत्रदेशे शब्दश्रवणान्यथानुपपत्तेरापत्यापि निश्चीयन्ते ॥ किञ्चोत्पत्तिपक्षेऽपि समानाऽयं दोषः । तथाहि वाय्वाकाशसंयोगादसमवायिकारणादाकाशाच्च समवायिकारणादिग्देशाघविभागेनोत्पद्यमानोऽयं शब्दो न सर्वैरनुभूयते । अपि तु नियतदिग्देशस्थैवे तथाऽभिव्यज्यमानोऽपि ॥ नाप्यभिव्यक्तिसांकर्यमुभयत्रापि समानत्वादेव । तथाहि-अन्यैस्ताल्वादिसंयोगैर्यथान्यो वर्णो न क्रियते तथा ध्वन्यन्तरसारिभिस्तावादिभिरन्यो ध्वनि रभ्यते इत्युत्पत्त्यभिव्यक्त्योः समानत्वनैकत्रैव पर्यनुयोगावसर इति सर्व मुस्थम् ॥ मामूद्वर्णानां तदात्मकस्य वा शब्दस्य कौटस्थानित्यत्वम् । तथाप्यनादिपरम्परायातत्वेन वेदस्य नित्यत्वात्मकृतलक्षणस्याव्यापकत्वम् ॥ न च प्रवाहनित्यत्वमप्रमाणकमेवास्येति युक्तं वक्तुम् ॥ अधुना तत्कर्तुरनुपलम्भादतीतानागतयोरपि

Page #329

मेयरत्नमाला
कालयोस्तदनुमापकस्य लिङ्गस्याभावात्तदभावोऽपि सर्वदाप्यतीन्द्रियसाध्यसाधन सम्बन्धस्येन्द्रियग्राह्यत्वायोगात् ॥ प्रत्यक्षप्रतिपन्नमेव हि लिङ्गम् । अनुमानं हि गृहीतसम्बन्धस्यैकदेशसन्दर्शनाद सन्निकृष्टेऽर्थे बुद्धिरित्यभिधानात् || नाप्यर्थापत्तस्तत्सिद्धिः । अन्यथाभूतस्यार्थस्याभावादुपमानोपमेययोरप्रत्यक्षत्वाच्च नाप्युपमानं साधकम् || केवलमभावप्रमाणमेवावशिष्यते तच्च तदभावसाधकमिति । न च पुरुषसद्भाववदस्यापि दुःसाध्यत्वात्संशयापत्तिस्तदभावसाधकप्रमाणानां सुलभत्वात् || अधुना हि तदभावप्रत्यक्षमेवातीतानागतयोः कालयोरनुमानं तदभावसाधकमिति । तथा च - श्रतीतानागतौ कालौ वेदकारविवर्जितौ । कालशब्दाभिधेयत्वादिदानीन्तन कालवत् ।। १ ।। वेदस्याध्ययनं सर्वं तदध्ययनपूर्वकम् | वेदाध्ययनवाच्यत्वादधुनाध्ययनं तथेति ॥ २ ॥ तथा अपौरुषेयो वेदः अनवच्छिन्नसम्प्रदायत्वे सत्यस्मर्यमारणकर्तृकत्वादाकाशवत् ॥ अर्थापत्तिरपि प्रामाण्यलक्षणस्यार्थस्यानन्यथाभूतस्य दर्शनात्तदभावे निश्चीयते || धर्माद्यतीन्द्रियार्थविषयस्य वेदस्यावग्दर्शिभिः कर्तुमशक्यत्वात् । प्रतीन्द्रियार्थदर्शिनश्चाभावात्मामाण्यमपौरुषेयतामेव कल्पयतीति ।। अत्र प्रतिविधीयते — यत्तावदुक्तं वर्णानां व्यापित्वे नित्यत्वे च प्रत्यभिज्ञाप्रमाणमिति, तदसत् । प्रत्यभिज्ञायास्तत्र प्रमाणत्वायोगात् || देशान्तरेऽपि तस्यैव वर्णस्य सत्त्वे खण्डशः प्रतिपत्तिः स्यात् । नहि सर्वत्र व्याप्त्या वर्तमानस्यैकस्मिन्प्रदेशे सामस्त्येन ग्रहणमुपपत्तियुक्तम् । अव्यापकत्वप्रसङ्गात् ।। घटादेरपि व्यापकत्वप्रसङ्गः । शक्यं हि वक्तुमेवं घटः सर्वगतश्चचुरादिसन्निधानादनेकत्र देशे प्रतीयत इति ॥ ननु घटोत्पादकस्य मृत्पि एडादेरनेकस्योपलम्भादनेकत्वमेव । तथा महदणुपरिमाणसम्भवाच्चेति || तच्च वर्णेष्वपि समानम् । तत्रापि प्रतिनियतताल्वादिकारणकलापस्य तीव्रादिधर्मभेदस्य च सम्भवाविरोधात् । तात्वादीनां व्यञ्जकत्वमत्रैव निषेत्स्यत इत्यास्तां तावदेतत् ।। अथ व्याप्तित्वेऽपि सर्वत्र सर्वात्मना वृत्तिमत्वान दोषोऽयमिति चेन्न । तथा सति सर्वथैकत्वविरोधात् । नहि देशभेदेन युगपत्सर्वात्मना प्रतीयमानस्यैकत्वमुपपन्नं प्रमाणविरोधात् । तथा च प्रयोगःप्रत्येकं गकारादिवर्णोऽनेक एव युगपद्भिन्नदेशतया तथैव सर्वात्मनोपलभ्यमानत्वात् घटादिवत् ॥ न सामान्येन व्यभिचारः । तस्यापि सदृशपरिणा

४५
-

Page #330

४६
प्रमेयरत्नमाला
मात्मकस्यानेकत्वात् । नापि पर्वताद्यनेकप्रदेशस्थतया युगपदनेकदेशस्थित पुरुषपरिदृश्यमानेन चन्द्रार्कादिना व्यभिचारः । तस्यातिदविष्ठतयैकदेशस्थितस्यापि भ्रान्तिवशादनेकदेशस्थत्वेन प्रतीतेः । न चाभ्रान्तस्य भ्रान्तेन व्यभिचारकल्पना युक्तेति । नापि जलपात्रप्रतिबिम्बेन । तस्यापि चन्द्रार्कादिसन्निधिमपेक्ष्य तथापरिणममानस्यानेकत्वात् । तस्मादनेकप्रदेशे युगपत्सर्वात्मनोपलभ्यमानविषयस्यैकस्यासम्भाव्यमानत्वात्तत्र प्रवर्त्तमानं प्रत्यभिज्ञानं न प्रमाणमिति स्थितम् ॥ तथा नित्यत्वमपि न प्रत्यभिज्ञानेन निश्चीयत इति । नित्यत्वं हि एकस्यानेकक्षणव्यापित्वम् । तच्चान्तराले सत्तानुपलम्भेन न शक्यते निश्चेतुम् । न च प्रत्यभिज्ञानबलेनैवान्तराले सत्तासम्भवः । तस्य सादृश्यादपि सम्भवाविरोधात् । न च घटादावप्येवं प्रसङ्गः । तस्योत्पत्तावपरापरमृत्पिण्डान्तरलक्षणस्य कारणस्यासम्भाव्यमानत्वेनान्तराले सत्तायाः साधयितुं शक्यत्वात् । अत्र तु कारणानामपूर्वाणां व्यापारसम्भावनातो नान्तराले सत्तासम्भव इति ॥ यच्चान्यदुक्तं संकेतान्यथानुपपत्तेः शब्दस्य नित्यत्वमिति । इदमप्यनात्मज्ञभाषितमेव । अनित्येऽपि योजयितुं शक्यत्वात् । तथा हि गृहीतसंकेतस्य दण्डस्य प्रध्वंसे सत्यगृहीतसंकेत इदानीमन्य एव दण्डः समुपलभ्यत इति दण्डीति न स्यात् । तथा धूमस्यापि गृहीतव्याप्तिकस्य नाशे अन्यधूमदर्शनाद्वह्निविज्ञानाभावश्च ।। अथ सादृश्यात्तथाप्रतीतेर्न दोष इति चेदत्रापि सादृश्यवशादर्थ - प्रत्यये को दोषः ? । येन नित्यत्वेऽत्र दुरभिनिवेश श्रीयते । तथा कल्पनायामन्तराले सत्त्वमप्यदृष्टं, न कल्पितं स्यादिति । यच्चान्यदभिहितं व्यञ्जकानां प्रतिनियतत्वान्न युगपत् श्रुतिरिति तदप्यशिक्षितलक्षितम् समानोन्द्रयग्राह्येषु समानधर्मसु समानदेशेषु विषयिविषयेषु नियमायोगात् ।। तथाहि श्रोत्रं समानदेशसमानेन्द्रियग्राद्य समानधर्मापचानामर्थानां ग्रहरणाय प्रतिनियतसंस्कारक संस्कार्यं न भवति । इन्द्रियत्वात् चक्षुर्वत् ॥ शब्दा वा प्रतिनियतसंस्कारक संस्कार्या न भवन्ति । समानदेश समानेन्द्रियग्राह्यसमानधर्मापन्नत्वे सति युगपदिन्द्रियसम्बद्धत्वात् । घटादिवत् ॥ उपपत्तिपत्रे - scrयं दोषः समान इति न वाच्यं मृत्पिण्डदीपदृष्टान्ताभ्यां कारकव्यञ्जकपक्ष योर्विशेषसिद्धेरित्यलमतिजल्पितेन ।। यच्चान्यत्प्रवाहनित्यत्वेन वेदस्या१ उत्पत्तिपचे, इत्यपि पाठभेदः ॥

-

Page #331

मेयरत्नमाला
पौरुषेयत्वमिति तत्र किं शब्दमात्रस्यानादिनित्यत्वमुत विशिष्टानामिति १ आद्यपक्षे य एव शब्दा लौकिकास्त एव वैदिका इत्यल्पमिदमभिधीयते वेद एवापौरुषेय इति । किन्तु सर्वेषामपि शास्त्राणामपौरुषेयतेति ॥ अथ विशिटापूर्विका एव शब्दा अनादित्वेनाभिधीयन्ते तेषामवगतार्थानामनवगतार्थानां वा अनादिता स्यात् ? यदि तावदुत्तरः पक्षस्तदाऽज्ञानलक्षणमप्रामाएयमनुषज्यते ।। अथ आद्यः पक्ष आश्रीयते तद्व्याख्यातारः किञ्चिज्ज्ञाभवेयुः सर्वज्ञा वा ? प्रथमपते दुरधिगमसम्बन्धानामन्यथाप्यर्थस्य कल्पयितुं शक्यत्वात् मिथ्यात्वलक्षणमप्रामाण्यं स्यात् । तदुक्तम् — श्रयमर्थो नायमर्थ इति शब्दा वदन्ति न । कल्य्योऽयमर्थः पुरुषैस्ते च रागादिविप्लुताः ॥ १ ॥ किञ्च किञ्चिज्ज्ञव्याख्यातार्थाविशेषात अग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात् स्वर्गकाम इत्यस्य खादेच्छवमांसमित्यपि वाक्यार्थः किं न स्यात् संशयलक्षणमप्रामाण्यं वा ॥ अथ सर्वविद्विदितार्थ एव वेदोऽऽनादिपरंपराज्यात इति चेत् । हन्त धर्भे चोदनैव प्रमाणमिति हतमेतत् ।। अतीन्द्रियार्थप्रत्यक्षीकरणसमर्थस्य पुरुषस्य सद्भावे च तद्वचनस्यापि चोदनावत्तदवबोधकत्वेन प्रामाण्याद्वेदस्य पुरुषाभावसिद्धेस्तत्प्रतिबन्धकं स्यात् ॥ अथ तद्व्याख्यातृणां किञ्चिज्ज्ञत्वेऽपि यथाव्याख्यानपरम्पराया अनवच्छिन्नसन्तानत्वेन सत्यार्थ एव वेदोऽवसीयत इति चेन्न । किंचिज्ज्ञानामतीन्द्रियार्थेषु निःसंशयव्याख्यानायोगादन्धेनाकृष्यमाणस्यान्धस्यानिष्टदेश परिहारेणाभिमत पथप्रमाणानुपपत्तेः ।। किश्वानादिव्याख्यानपरम्परागतत्वेऽपि वेदार्थस्य गृहीतविस्मृतसम्बन्धवचनाकौशलदुष्टाभिप्रायतया व्याख्यानस्यान्यथैव करणादविसंवादायोगादप्रामाण्यमेव स्यात् । दृश्यन्ते ह्यधुनातना अपि ज्योतिःशास्त्रादिषु रहस्यं यथार्थमवयन्तोऽपि दुरभिसंधेरन्यथा व्याचक्षाणाः । केचिज्जानन्तोऽपि वचनाकौशलादन्यथोपदिशन्तः । केचिद्विस्मृतसम्बन्धा अयाथातथ्यमभिदधाना इति ॥ कथमन्यथा भावनाविधिनियोगवाक्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिर्वेदे स्यान्मनुयाज्ञवल्क्यादीनां श्रुत्यर्थानुसारिस्मृतिनिरूपणायां वा ? तस्मादनादिप्रवाहपतितत्वेऽपि वेदायथार्थत्वमेव स्यादिति स्थितम् ॥ यच्चोकमतीतानागतावित्यादि तदपि स्वमतनिर्मूलन हेतुत्वेन विपरीतसाधनात्तदाभासमेवेनि । तथाहि"अतीतानागतौ कालो वेदार्थज्ञविवर्जितौ । कालशब्दाभिधेयत्वादधुनातनकालवदिति” ।। १ ।। किश्च कालशब्दाभिधेयत्वमतीतानागतयोः काल

४७
-

Page #332

४८
प्रमेयरत्नमाला
योहणे सति भवति । तद्ग्रहणं च नाध्यक्षतस्तयोरतीन्द्रियत्वात् ॥ अनुमानतस्तद्ग्रहणेऽपि न साध्येन सम्बन्धस्तयोनिश्चेतुं पार्यते । प्रत्यक्षगृहीतस्यैव तत्सम्बन्धाभ्युपगमात् ॥ न च कालाख्यं द्रव्यं मीमांसकस्यास्ति । प्रसङ्गसाधनाददोष इति चेन । परम्पति साध्यसाधनयोाप्यव्यापकभावाभावादिदानीमपि देशान्तरे वेदकारस्याष्टकादेः सौगतादिभिरभ्युपगमात् ।। यदप्यपरं वेदाध्ययनमित्यादि तदपि विपक्षेऽपि समानम्-"भारताध्य. यनं सर्व गुर्वध्ययनपूर्वकम् । तदध्ययनवाच्यत्वादधुनाध्ययनं यथे"ति ॥१॥ यच्चान्यदुक्तम्-अनवच्छिन्नसम्पदायत्वे सत्यस्मयमाणकर्तृत्वादिति । तत्र जीर्णकपारामादिभिर्व्यभिचारनिवृत्यर्थमनवच्छिन्नसम्प्रदायत्वविशेषणेपि विशेष्यस्यास्मर्यमाणकतैकत्वस्य विचार्यमाणस्यायोगादसाधनत्वम् ॥ कतुरस्मरणं हि वादिनः प्रतिवादिनश्च सर्वस्य वा ? वादिनश्चेदनुपलब्धेरभावाद्वा ? । आये पक्षे पिटकत्रयेऽपि स्यादनुपलब्धेरविशेषात् ॥ तत्र परैः कर्तुरङ्गीकरणान्नो चेत् । अत एवात्रापि न तदस्तु । अभावादिति चेदस्मात्तदभावसिद्धावितरेतराऽऽश्रयत्वम् । सिद्धे हि तदभावे तन्निबन्धनं तदस्मरणमस्माच्च तदभाव इति ॥ प्रामाण्यान्यथानुपपत्तेस्तदभावान्नेतरेतराश्रयत्वमिति चेन्न । प्रामाण्येनाप्रामाण्यकारणस्यैव पुरुषविशेषस्य निराकरणात पुरुषमात्रस्यानिराकृतेः॥ अथातीन्द्रियार्थदार्शनोऽभावादन्यस्य च प्रामाण्यकारणत्वानुपपत्तेः सिद्ध एव सर्वथा पुरुषाभाव इति चेत् कुतः सर्वज्ञाभावो विभावितः । प्रामाण्यान्यथानुपपत्तेरिति चेदितरेतराश्रयत्वम् । कर्तुरस्मरणादिति चेचक्रकप्रसङ्गः अभावप्रमाणादिति चेन्न । तत्साधकस्यानुमानस्य प्राक्प्रतिपादितत्वादभावप्रमाणोत्थानायोगात् प्रमाणपञ्चकाभावेऽभावप्रमाणप्रवृत्तेः-"प्रमाणपञ्चकं यत्र वस्तुरूपण जायते । वस्तुसत्तावबोधार्थ तत्राभावप्रमाणते"ति परैरभिधानात् । ततो न वादिनः कर्तुरस्मरणमुपपन्नम् ॥ नापि प्रतिवादिनोऽसिद्धेः । तत्र हि प्रतिवादी स्मरत्येव कर्तारमिति ॥ नापि सर्वस्य, वादिनो वेदकर्तुरस्मरणेऽपि प्रतिवादिनः स्मरणात् ॥ ननु प्रतिवादिना वेदेऽष्टकादयो बहवः कर्तारः स्मर्यन्तेऽतस्तत्स्मरणस्य विवादविषयस्यामामाण्याद्भवेदेव सर्वस्य कर्तुरस्मरणमिति चेत् न । कर्तृविशेषविषय एवासौ विवादो न कर्तृसामान्ये ॥ अतः सर्वस्य कर्तुरस्मरणमप्यसिद्धम् । सर्वात्मज्ञानविज्ञानराहतो वा कथं सर्वस्य कर्तुरस्मरणमवैति ।

Page #333

प्रमेयरत्नमाला तस्मादपौरुषयत्वस्य वेदे व्यवस्थापयितुमशक्यत्वान्न तल्लक्षणस्याव्यापकत्वमसम्भवितत्वं वा सम्भवति ॥ पौरुषेयत्वे पुनः प्रमाणानि बहूनि सन्त्येव सजन्ममरणर्षिगोत्रचरणादिनामश्रुतेरनेकपदसंहतिप्रतिनियमसंदर्शनात्फलार्थिपुरुषप्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिहेत्वात्मनां श्रुतेश्च मनुसूत्रवत् पुरुषककैव श्रुतिरिति वचनात् ॥ अपौरुषेयत्वेऽपि वा न प्रामाण्यं वेदस्योपपद्यते तद्धेतूनां गुणानामभावात् ।। ननु न गुणकृतमेव प्रामाण्यं किन्तु दोषाभावप्रकारेणापि, स च दोषाश्रयपुरुषाभावेऽपि निश्चीयते न गुणसद्भाव एवेति । तथाचोक्तम्-शब्दे दोषोद्भवस्तावद्वक्त्रधीन इति स्थितम् । तदभावः कचित्तावद्गुणवद्वक्तृकत्वतः॥१॥ तद्गुणैरपकृष्टानां शब्दे संक्रान्त्यसम्भवात् । यद्वा वक्तुरभावेन न स्युर्दोषा निराश्रयाः॥२॥ इति ॥ तदप्ययुक्तम् । पराभिप्रायापरिज्ञानात् ॥ नास्माभिवक्तुरभावे वेदस्य प्रामाण्याभावः समुद्भाव्यते । किं तु तव्याख्यातॄणामतीन्द्रियार्थदर्शनादिगुणाभावे । ततो दोषाणामनपोदितत्वान्न प्रामाण्यानेश्चय इति । ततोऽपौरुषेयत्वेऽपि वेदस्य प्रामाण्यनिश्चयायोगान्नानेन लक्षणस्याव्यापित्वमसम्भावित्वं वेत्यलमतिजल्पितेन ॥ ननु शब्दार्थयोः सम्बन्धाभावादन्यापोहमात्राभिधायित्वादाप्तप्रणीतादपि शब्दात् कथं वस्तुभूतार्थावगम इत्यत्राहसहजयोग्यतासङ्कतवशाद्धि' शब्दादयो वस्तुप्रतिपत्तिहेतवः ॥१०॥
सहजा स्वभावभूता योग्यता शब्दार्थयोर्वाच्यवाचकशक्तिः तस्यां सङ्केतस्तद्वशाद्धि स्फुटं शब्दादयः मागुक्ता वस्तुप्रतिपत्तिहेतव इति ।। उदाहरणमाह
यथा मेर्वादयः सन्ति ॥१०१॥ ननु य एव शब्दाः सत्यर्थे दृष्टास्त एवार्थाभावेऽपि दृश्यन्ते तत्कथमर्थाभिधायकत्वमिति । तदप्ययुक्तम्-अनर्थकेभ्यः शब्देभ्योऽर्थवतामन्यत्वात् ।। न चान्यस्य व्यभिचारेऽन्यस्यासौ युक्तोऽतिप्रसङ्गात् ॥ अन्यथा गोपालघटिकान्तर्गतस्य धूमस्य पावकस्य व्यभिचारे पर्वतादिधूमस्यापि तत्प्रसङ्गात् ।। "यत्नतः परीक्षितं कार्य कारणं नातिवर्तते" इत्यन्यत्रापि समानम् । सुपतितो हि शब्दोऽर्थे न व्यभिचरतीति ॥ तथा चान्यापोहस्य शब्दार्थत्वकल्पनं प्रयासमात्रमेव ॥ न चान्यापोहः शब्दार्थो व्यवतिष्ठते प्रतीतिविरो

Page #334

५०
प्रमेयरत्नमाला
धात् ॥ न हि गवादिशब्दश्रवणादगवादिव्यावृत्तिः प्रतीयते । ततः सास्नादिमत्यर्थे प्रवृत्तिदर्शनादगवादिबुद्धिजनकं तत्र शब्दान्तरं मृग्यम् ॥ अथैकस्मादेव गोशब्दादर्थद्वयस्यापि सम्भावनान्नार्थः शब्दान्तरेणेति चेन्नैवम् । एकस्य परस्परविरुद्धार्थद्वयप्रतिपादनविरोधात् ॥ किश्च गोशब्दस्यागोव्यावृत्तिविषयत्वे प्रथममगौरित प्रतीयेत न चैवमतो नान्यापोहः शब्दार्थः॥ किश्च अपोहाख्यं सामान्यं वाच्यत्वेन प्रतीयमानं पर्युदासरूपं प्रसज्यरूपं वा ? प्रथमपक्षे गोत्वमेव नामान्तरेणोक्तं स्यात् । अभावाभावस्य भाषान्तरस्वभावेन व्यवस्थितत्वात् ।। कश्चायमश्वादिनिवृत्तिलक्षणो भावोऽभिधीयते ? न तावत्स्वलक्षणरूपस्तस्य सकलविकल्पवाग्गोचरातिक्रान्तत्वात्।। नापि शाबलेयादिव्यक्तिरूपस्तस्यासामान्यत्वप्रसङ्गात् ।। तस्मात् सकलगोव्यक्तिष्वनुवृत्तप्रत्ययजनकं तत्रैव प्रत्येक परिसमाप्त्या वर्तमानं सामान्यमेव गोशब्दवाच्यम् । तस्यापोह इति नामकरणे नाममात्र भिघेत नार्थ इति । अतो नाद्यः पक्षः श्रेयान् ॥ नापि द्वितीयो गोशब्दादेः कचिबालेऽर्थे प्रत्ययोगात् । तुच्छाभावाभ्युपगमे परमतप्रवेशानुषंगाच ॥ किश्च गवादयो ये सामान्यशब्दा ये च शावलेयादयस्तेषां भवदभिप्रायेण पर्यायता स्यात् । अर्थभेदाभावावृक्षपादपादिशब्दवत् ॥ न खलु. तुच्छाभावस्य भेदो युक्तो वस्तुन्येव संसृष्टत्वैकत्वनानात्वादिविकल्पानां प्रतीतेः ॥ भेदे वा अभावस्य वस्तुतापत्तिः तल्लक्षणत्वाद्वस्तुत्वस्य ॥ न चापोह्यलक्षणसम्बन्धिभेदानेदः। प्रमेयाभिधेयादिशब्दानामप्रवृत्तिप्रसङ्गात् ॥ व्यवच्छेद्यस्यातद्र पेणाप्यप्रमेयादिरूपत्वे ततो व्यवच्छेदायोगात्कथं तत्र सम्बन्धिभेदानेदः ? किश्च शाबलेयादिष्वेकोऽपोहो न प्रसज्येत किन्तु प्रतिव्यक्ति भिन्न एव स्यात् ॥ अथ शाबलेयादयस्तन्न भिन्दन्ति तवश्वादयोऽपि भेदका माभूवन् । यस्यान्तरङ्गाः शावलेयादयो न भेदकास्तस्याश्वादयो भेदका इत्यतिसाहसम् ॥ वस्तुनोऽपि सम्बन्धिभेदा दो नोपलभ्यते किमुतावस्तुनि ॥ तथाटेक एव देवदत्तादिः कटककुण्डलादिभिरभिसम्बन्ध्यमानो न नानात्वमास्तिघ्नुवानः समुपलभ्यत इति ॥ भवतु वा सम्बन्धिभेदा दस्तशापि न वस्तुभूतसामान्यमन्तरेणान्यापोहाश्रयः सम्बन्धी भवतां भवितुमर्हति । तथाहि यदि शाबलेयादिषु वस्तुभूतसारूप्याभावोऽश्वादिपरिहारेण तत्रैव विशिष्टाभिधानप्रत्ययौ कथं स्याताम् । ततः सम्बन्धिभेदाझेदमिच्छतापि सामान्य वास्त

Page #335

प्रमेयरत्नमाला वमङ्गीकर्तव्यमिति ॥ किश्चापोहशब्दार्थपचे संकेत एवानुपपन्नस्तद्ग्रहणोपायासम्भवात् ॥ न प्रत्यक्षं तद्ग्रहणसमर्थ तस्य वस्तुविषयत्वात् । अन्यापोहस्य चावस्तुत्वात् ॥ अनुमानमपि न तत्सद्भावमवबोधयति तस्य कार्यस्वभावलिङ्गसम्पाद्यत्वात् ॥ अपोहस्य निरुपाख्येयत्वेनानर्थक्रियाकारित्वेन च स्वभावकार्ययोरसम्भवात् । किञ्च गोशब्दस्यागोपोहाभिधायित्वे गौरित्यत्र गोशब्दस्य किमभिधेयं स्यादज्ञातस्य विधिनिषेधयोरनधिकारात् ।। अगोवृत्तिरिति चेदितरेतराश्रयत्वमगोव्यवच्छेदो हि अगोनिश्चये भवति स चागौर्गोनिवृत्त्यात्मा गौश्चागोव्यवच्छेदरूप इति ॥ अगौरित्यत्रोत्तरपदार्थोऽप्यनयैव दिशा चिन्तनीयः ॥ नन्वगौरित्यत्रान्य एव विधिरूपो गोशब्दाभिधेयस्तदाऽपाहः शब्दार्थ इति विघटेत । तस्मादपोहस्योक्तयुक्त्या विचार्यमाणस्यायोगान्नान्यापोहः शब्दार्थ इति, स्थितं सहजयोग्यतासङ्केतवशाच्छब्दादयो वस्तुमतिपत्तिहेतव इति ॥
स्मृतिरनुपहतेयं प्रत्यभिज्ञानवज्ञा
पमितिनिरतचिन्ता लैङ्गिक सङ्गतार्थम् । प्रवचनमनवचं निश्चितं देववाचा
रचितमुचितवाग्भिस्तथ्यमेतेन गीतम् ॥ १॥ इति परीक्षामुखस्य लघुवृत्तौ परोक्षप्रपञ्चस्तृतीयः समुहशः ॥ ३॥..
अथ स्वरूपसंख्याविप्रतिपत्तिं निराकृत्य विषयविप्रतिपत्तिनिरासाथेमाह
सामान्यविशेषात्मा तदर्थो विषयः॥१॥ तस्य प्रामाण्यस्य ग्राखोऽर्थो विषय इति यावत् । स एव विशिष्यते सामान्यविशेषात्मा । सामान्यविशेषौ वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणौ तावात्मानौ यस्येति विग्रहः॥ तदुभयग्रहणमात्मग्रहणं च केवलस्य सामान्यस्य विशेषस्य तद्भयस्य वा स्वतन्त्रस्य प्रमाणविषयत्वप्रतिषेधार्थम् । तत्र सन्मानदेहस्य परब्रह्मणो निरस्तत्वात्तदितरद्विचार्यते ॥ तत्र सांख्यैः प्रधानं सामान्यमुक्तं "त्रिगुणमविवेकिविषयः सामान्यमचेतनं प्रसवधर्मिव्यक्तं तथा प्रधानं तद्विप

Page #336

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
रीतस्तथा च पुमानिति" वचनात् ॥ तच्च केवलं प्रधानं महदादिकार्यानिष्पादनाय प्रवर्तमानं किमप्यपेक्ष्य प्रवर्तते निरपेक्ष्य वा ? प्रथमपक्षे तन्निमित्तं वाच्यं यदपेक्ष्य प्रवर्तते ॥ ननु पुरुषार्थ एव तत्र कारणं, पुरुषार्थेन हेतुना प्रधानं प्रवर्तते । पुरुषार्थश्च द्वेधा, शब्दाधुपलब्धिर्गुणपुरुषान्तराववकेदर्शनं चेत्यभिधानादिति चेत् सत्यम् । तथा प्रवर्तमानमपि बहुधानकं पुरुषकृतं कश्चिदुपकारं समासादयत्प्रवर्तेतानासादयद्वा ? प्रथमपक्षे स उपकारस्तस्माद्भिन्नोऽभिन्नो वा ? यदि भिन्नस्तदा तस्येति व्यपदेशाभावः । सम्बन्धाभावात्तदभावश्च समवायादेरनभ्युपगमात् । तादात्म्यं च भेदविरोधीति ॥ अथाभिन्न उपकार इति पक्ष आश्रीयते तदा प्रधानमेव तेन कृतं स्यात् ॥ अथोपकारनिरपेक्षमेव प्रधानं प्रवर्तते तर्हि मुक्तात्मानम्प्रत्यपि प्रवर्त्तताविशेषात् ॥ एतेन निरपेक्षप्रतिपक्षोप प्रत्युक्तस्तत एव ॥ किश्च सिद्धे प्रधाने सर्वमेतदुपपन्नं स्यात् न च तत्सिद्धिः कुतश्चिन्निश्चीयत इति ॥ ननु कार्याणामेकान्वयदर्शनादेककारणमभवत्वं भेदानां परिणामदर्शनाचेति । तदप्यचारुचर्वितं सुखदुःखमोहरूपतया घटादेरन्वयाभावादन्तस्तत्वस्यैव तथोपलम्भात् ॥ अथान्तस्तत्वस्य न सुखादिपरिणामः किन्तु तथापरिणममानप्रधानसंसर्गादात्मनोऽपि तथा प्रतिभास इति तदप्यनुपपन्नम् । अप्रतिभासमानस्यापि संसर्गकल्पनायां तत्त्वेयत्ताया निश्चेतुमशक्तः । तदुक्तम्संसर्गादविभागश्चेदयोगोलकवह्निवत् ॥ भेदाभेदव्यवस्थैवमुत्पन्ना सर्ववस्तुषु ॥ १ ॥ इति । यदपि परिणामाख्यं साधनं, तदप्येकप्रकृतिकेषु घटघटीशरावोदञ्चनादिष्वनेकप्रकृतिकेषु पटकुटमकुटशकटादिषु चोपलम्भादनैकान्तिकमिति न ततः प्रकृतिसिद्धिः। तदेवं प्रधानग्रहणोपायासम्भवासम्भवे वा ततः कार्योदयायोगाच्च ॥ यदुक्तं परेण--प्रकृतेमहान् ततोऽहंकारस्तस्माद्गणश्च षोडशकः॥ तस्मादपि षोडशकात्पश्चभ्यः पंचभूतानीति ॥ सृष्टिक्रमे, "मूलप्रकृतिरविकृतिर्महदाद्याः प्रकृतिविकृतयः सप्त । षोडशकश्च विकारो न प्रकृतिर्न विकृतिः पुरुष ॥” इति स्वरूपाख्यानं च वन्ध्यासुतसौरूप्यवर्णनमिवासद्विषयत्वादुपेक्षामर्हति ॥ अमूर्तस्याकाशस्य मूर्तस्य पृथिव्यादेश्चैककारणकत्वायोगाच्च ॥ अन्यथा अचेतनादपि पंचभूतकदम्बकाच्चैतन्यसिद्धश्चार्वाकमतसिद्धिप्रसङ्गात् सांख्यगन्ध एव न भवेत् ॥ सत्कार्यवादप्रतिषेधश्चान्यत्र विस्तरणोक्त इति नेहोच्यते संक्षेपस्वरूपादस्येति ॥ तथा

Page #337

प्रमेयरत्नमाला विशेषा एव तत्त्वं तेषामसमानेतरविशेषेभ्योऽशेषात्मनो विश्लेषात्मकत्वात्सामान्यस्यैकस्यानेकत्र व्याप्त्या वर्तमानस्य सम्भवाभावाच ॥ तस्यैकव्याक्तिनिष्ठस्य सामस्त्येनोपलब्धस्य तथैव व्यक्त्यन्तरेऽनुपलम्भप्रसङ्गात् ॥ उपलम्भे वा तन्नानात्वापत्तर्युगपत् भिन्नदेशतया सामस्त्येनोपलब्धस्तव्याक्तिवदन्यथा व्यक्तियोऽपि भिन्ना माभूवानिति ॥ ततो बुद्ध्यभेद एव सामान्यम् । तदुक्तम्-एकत्र दृष्टो भावो हि कचिन्नान्यत्र दृश्यते । तस्मान्न भिन्नमस्त्यन्यत्सामान्यं बुद्ध्यभेदतः ॥ १ ॥ इति ॥ ते च विशेषाः परस्परासम्बद्धा एव, तत्सम्बन्धस्य विचार्यमाणस्यायोगात् ॥ एकदेशेन सम्बन्धे अणुषटकेन युगपद्योगादणोः षडंशतापत्तेः ॥ सर्वात्मनाभिसम्बन्धे पिण्डस्याणुमात्रकत्वापत्तेः ॥ अवयविनिषेधाचासम्बद्धत्वमेषामुपपद्यत एव ॥ तनिषेधश्च वृत्तिविकल्पादिबाधनात् । तथाहि अवयवा अवयविनि वर्तन्त इति नाभ्युपगतम् । अवयवी चावयवेषु वर्तमानः किमेकदेशेन वर्तते सर्वात्मना वा ? एकदेशेन वृत्ताववयवान्तरप्रसङ्गः । तत्राप्येकदेशान्तरेणावयविनो वृत्तावनवस्था । सर्वात्मना वर्तमानोऽपि प्रत्यवयवं स्वभावभेदेन वर्तेत, आहोस्विदेकरूपेणेति ? प्रथमपक्षे अवयविबहुत्वापत्तिः ॥ द्वितीयपक्षे तु अवयवानामेकरूपत्वापत्तिरिति । प्रत्येकं परिसमाप्त्या वृत्तावप्यवयविबहुत्वमिति ॥ तथा यत् दृश्यं सन्नोपलभ्यते तन्नास्त्येव यथा गगनेन्दीवरं नोपलभ्यते चावयवेष्ववयवीति ॥ तथा यदग्रहे यबुद्ध्याभवस्तत्ततो नार्थान्तरम् । यथा वृक्षाग्रहे वनमिति ॥ ततश्च निरंशा एवान्योन्यासंस्पर्शिणो रूपादिपरमारणवस्ते च एकक्षणस्थायिनो न नित्या, विनाशं प्रत्यन्यानपेक्षणात् ॥ प्रयोगश्च यो यद्भावं प्रत्यन्यानपेतः स तत्स्वभावनियतो यथान्त्या कारणसामग्री स्वकार्ये ॥ नाशो हि मुद्गरादिना क्रियमाणस्ततो भिन्नोऽभिन्नो वा क्रियते ? भिन्नस्य करणे घटस्य स्थितिरेव स्यात् ॥ अथ विनाशसम्बन्धानष्ट इति व्यपदेश इति चेत्, भावाभावयोः कः सम्बन्धः १ न तावत्तादात्म्यं तयोर्भेदात् । नापि तदुत्पत्तिरभावस्य कार्याधारत्वाघटनात् । अभिनस्य करणे घटादिरेव कृतः स्यात् । तस्य च प्रागेव निष्पन्नत्वाद्यर्थ करणमित्यन्यानपेक्षत्वं सिद्धमिति, विनाशस्वभावनियतत्वं साधयत्येव ॥ सिद्धे चानित्यानां तत्स्वभावनियतत्वे तदितरेषामात्मादीनां विमत्यधिकरणभावापन्नानां सत्त्वादिना साधनेन तदृष्टान्ताद्भवत्येव क्षणस्थितिस्वभावत्वम् ॥

Page #338

प्रमेयरत्नमाला तथा हि यत्सत्तत्सर्वमेकक्षणस्थितिस्वभावं यथा घटः सन्तश्चामी भावा इति ॥ अथवा सत्त्वमेव विपक्षे बाधकप्रमाणवलेन दृष्टान्तनिरपेक्षमशेषस्य वस्तुनःक्षणिकत्वमनुमापयति । तथाहि सत्त्वमर्थक्रियया व्याप्यम् । अर्थक्रिया च क्रमयोगपद्याभ्यां, ते च नित्यान्निवर्तमाने स्वव्याप्यामर्थक्रियामादाय निवर्तेते । सापि स्वव्याप्यं सत्वमिति, नित्यस्य क्रमयोगपद्याभ्यामक्रियाविरोधात्सत्त्वासम्भावनं विपक्षे बाधकप्रमाणमिति ॥ नहि नित्यस्य क्रमेण युगपद्वा सा सम्भवति । नित्यस्यैकेनैव स्वभावेन पूर्वापरकालभाविकार्यद्वयं कुर्वतः कार्याभेदकत्वात्तस्यैकस्वभावत्वात् । तथापि कार्यनानात्वे अन्यत्र कार्यभेदात् कारणभेदकल्पना विफलैव स्यात् । तादृशमेकमेव किश्चित्कारणं कल्पनीयं, येनैकस्वभावेनैकेनैव चराचरमुत्पद्यत इति ॥ अथ स्वभावनानात्वमेव तस्य कार्यभेदादिष्यत इति चेत्तर्हि, ते स्वभावास्तस्य सर्वदा सम्भविनस्तदा कार्यसाङ्कर्यम् । नो चेत्तदुत्पत्तिकारणं वाच्यम् । तस्मादेवमित्येकस्वभावात्तदुत्पत्तौ तत्स्वभावानां सदा सम्भवात्सैव कार्याणां युगपत्माप्तिः।। सहकारिक्रमापेक्षया तत्स्वभावानां क्रमेण भावान्नोक्तदोष इति चेत्तदपि न साधुसङ्गतम् । समर्थस्य नित्यस्य परापेक्षायोगात् ॥ तैः सामर्थ्यकरणे नित्यताहानिः ॥ तस्माद्भिन्नमेव सामर्थ्य तैर्विधीयत इति न नित्यताहानिरिति चेत्तर्हि नित्यमकिंचित्करमेव स्यात् । सहकारिजनितसामर्थ्यस्यैव कार्यकारित्वात्तत्सम्बन्धात्तस्यापि कार्यकारित्वे तत्सम्बन्धस्यैकस्वभावत्वे सामर्थ्य नानात्वाभावान्न कार्यभेदः । अनेकस्वभावत्वे क्रमवत्वे च कार्यवत्तस्यापि साकर्यमिति सर्वमावर्तत इति चक्रकमसङ्गः ॥ तस्मान्न क्रमेण कार्यकारित्वं नित्यस्य । नापि युगपत् अशेषकार्याणां युगपदुत्पत्ती द्वितीयक्षणे कार्याकरणादनर्थक्रियाकारित्वेनावस्तुत्वमसंगादिति नित्यस्य क्रमयोगपद्याभावः सिद्ध एवेति सौगताः प्रतिपेदिरे । तेऽपि न युक्तवादिनः-सजातीयेतरव्यावृत्तात्मनां विशेषाणामनशानां ग्राहकस्य प्रमाणस्याभावात् । प्रत्यक्षस्य स्थिरस्थूलसाधारणाकारवस्तुग्राहकत्वेन निरंशवस्तुग्रहणायोगात् । न हि परमाणवः परस्परासंबद्धाश्चक्षुरादिबुद्धौ प्रतिभान्ति तथा सत्यविवादप्रसंगात् ॥ अथानुभूयन्त एव प्रथमं तथाभूताः क्षणाः पश्चात्तु विकल्पवासनाबलादान्तरादन्तरालानुपलम्भलक्षणाबाह्याच्चाविद्यमानोऽपि स्थूलाद्याकारो विकल्पबुद्धौ चकास्ति ॥ स च तदाकारेणानुर

Page #339

प्रमेयरत्नमाला

ज्यमानः स्वव्यापारं तिरस्कृत्य प्रत्यक्षव्यापारपुरःसरत्वेन प्रवृत्तत्वात्प्रत्यक्षायत इति । तदप्यतिबालविलसितम् || निर्विकल्पकबोधस्यानुपलक्षणात् । गृहीते हि निर्विकल्प के तरयोर्भेदे अन्याकारानुरागस्यान्यत्र कल्पना युक्ता स्फटिकजपाकुसुमयोरिव नान्यथेति ॥ एतेन तयोर्युगपट्ट तेलघुवृत्तेर्वा तदेकत्वाध्यवसाय इति निरस्तं तस्यापि कोशपानप्रत्येयत्वादिति । केन वा तयोरेकत्वाध्यवसायः १ न तावद्विकल्पेन, तस्य विकल्पवार्तानभिज्ञत्वात् ॥ नाप्यनुभवेन, तस्य विकल्पा गोचरत्वात् । न च तदुभयाविषयं तदेकत्वाध्यवसाये समर्थमतिप्रसङ्गात् । ततो न प्रत्यक्षबुद्धौ तथाविधविशेषावभासः ॥ नाप्यनुमान बुद्ध सदविनाभूतस्वभावकार्यलिङ्गाभावादनुपलम्भोऽसिद्ध एव । अनुवृत्ताकारस्य स्थूलाकारस्य चोपलब्धेरुक्तत्वात् ॥ यदपि परमाणूनामेकदेशेन सर्वात्मना वा सम्बन्धो नोपपद्यत इति तत्रानभ्युपगम एव परिहारः ॥ स्निग्धरूक्षाणां सजातीयानां च व्यधिकगुणानां कथञ्चित्स्कन्धाकार परिणामात्मकस्य सम्बन्धस्याभ्युपगमात् ॥ यच्चावयविनि वृत्तिविकल्पादि बाधकमुक्तं तत्रावयविनो वृत्तिरेव यदि नोपपद्यते तदा न वर्तत इत्यभिधातव्यम् || नैकदेशादिविकल्पस्तस्य विशेषान्तरान्तरीयकत्वात् ॥ तथा हि नैकदेशेन वर्त्तते नापि सर्वात्मनेत्युक्ते प्रकारान्तरेण वृत्तिरित्यभिहितं स्यात् । अन्यथा न वर्त्तत इत्येव वक्तव्यमिति विशेषप्रतिषेधस्य शेषाभ्यनुज्ञानरूपत्वात् कथश्चित्तादात्म्यरूपेण वृत्तिरित्यवसीयते ॥ तत्र यथोक्तदोषाणामनवकाशाद्विरोधादिदोषश्चाग्रे प्रतिषेत्स्यत इति नेह प्रतन्यते ॥ यचैकक्षणस्थायित्वे साधनं 'यो यद्भावं प्रती' त्याद्युक्तं, तदप्यसाधनमसिद्धादि - दोषदुष्टत्वात् । तत्रान्यानपेक्षत्वं तावदसिद्धं घटाद्यभावस्य मुद्गरादिव्यापारान्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधायित्वात् तत्कारणत्वोपपत्तेः । कपालादिपर्यायान्तराभावो हि घटादेरभावस्तुच्छाभावस्य सकलप्रमाण गोचरातिक्रान्तत्वात् ॥ किञ्च अभावो यदि स्वतन्त्रो भवेत्तदाऽन्यानपेक्षत्वं विशेषणं युक्तम् । न च सौगतमते सोऽस्तीति हेतुप्रयोगानवतार एव, अनैकान्तिकं वेद शालिनीजस्य कोद्रवांकुरजननम्प्रति अन्यानपेक्षत्वेऽपि तज्जननस्वभावानियतत्वात् ।। तत्स्वभावत्वे सतीति विशेषणान्न दोष इति चेत्-न सर्वथा पदार्थानां विनाशस्वभावासिद्धेः । पर्यायरूपेणैव हि भावानामुत्पादविनाशावङ्गीक्रियेते न द्रव्यरूपेण || समुदेति विलयमृच्छति भावो
1
५५

Page #340

प्रमेयरत्नमाला नियमेन पर्ययनयस्य । नोदेति नो विनश्यति भावनया लिङ्गितो नित्यम् ॥ १॥ इति वचनात् ॥ नहि निरन्वयविनाशे पूर्वक्षणस्य ततो मृताच्छिखिनः केकायितस्येवोत्तरक्षणस्योत्पत्तिर्घटते । द्रव्यरूपेण कथश्चिदत्यक्तरूपस्यापि सम्भवात् न सर्वथा भावानां विनाशस्वभावत्वं युक्तम् ॥ न च द्रव्यरूपस्य गृहीतुमशक्यत्वादभावस्तद्ग्रहणोपायस्य प्रत्यभिज्ञानस्य बहुलमुपलम्भात्तत्मामाण्यस्य च मागेवोक्तित्वादुत्तरकार्योत्पत्त्यन्थानुपपत्तेश्च सिद्धत्वात् ।। यच्चान्यत्साधनं सत्त्वाख्यं तदपि विपक्षवत्स्वपक्षेऽपि समानत्वान्न साध्यसिद्धिनिबन्धनम् ।। तथा हि सत्त्वमर्थक्रियया व्याप्तमर्थक्रिया च क्रमयोगपद्याभ्यां ते च तणिकानिवर्तमाने स्वव्याप्यामर्थक्रियामादाय निवर्तेते । सा च निवर्तमाना स्वव्याप्यं सत्त्वमिति नित्यस्येव क्षणिकस्यापि खरविषाणवदसत्त्वमिति न तत्र सत्त्वव्यवस्था ॥ न च क्षणिकस्य वस्तुनः क्रमयोगपद्याभ्यामर्थक्रियाविरोधोऽसिद्धस्तस्य देशकृतस्य कालकृतस्य वा क्रमस्यासम्भवात् ॥ अवस्थितस्यैकस्य हि नानादेशकालकलाव्यापित्वं देशक्रमः कालक्रमश्चाभिधीयते ॥ न च तणिके सोऽस्ति, 'यो यत्रैव स तत्रैव यो यदैव तदैव सः॥ न देशकालयोयोप्तिर्भावानामिह विद्यत' इति स्वयमेवामिधानात् ॥ न च पूर्वोत्तरक्षणानामेकसन्तानापेक्षया क्रमः सम्भवति, सन्तानस्य वास्तवत्वे तस्यापि क्षणिकत्वेन क्रमायोगादक्षणिकत्वेऽपि वास्तवत्वे तेनैव सत्त्वादिसाधनमनैकान्तिकम् । अवास्तवत्वे न तदपेतः क्रमो युक्त इति ॥ नापि योगपद्येन तत्रार्थक्रिया सम्भवति, युगपदेकेन स्वभावन नानाकार्यकरणे तत्कायकत्वं स्यात् ।। नानास्वभावकल्पनायां ते स्वभावास्तेन व्यापनीयाः। तत्रैकेन स्वभावेन तद्वयाप्तौ तेषामेकरूपता, नानास्वभावेन चेदनवस्था ॥ अथैकत्रैकस्योपादानभाव एवान्यत्र सहकारिभाव इति न स्वभावभेद इष्यते । तर्हि नित्यस्यैकरूपस्यापि वस्तुनः क्रमेण नानाकार्यकारिणः स्वभावभेदः कार्यसाथै वा माभूत् ।। अक्रमात क्रमिणामनुत्पत्तेनैवमिति चेदेकानंशकारणाधु गपदनेककारणसाध्यानेककार्यविरोधादक्रमिणोऽपि न क्षणिकस्य कार्यकारित्वमिति । किश्च भवत्पने सतोऽसतो वा कार्यकारित्वम् ? सतः कार्यकर्तृत्वे सकलकालकलाव्यापिक्षणानामेकक्षणवृत्तिप्रसङ्गः। द्वितीयपक्षे खरविषाणादेरपि कार्यकारित्वमसत्त्वाविशेषात् सत्त्वलक्षणस्य व्याभिचारश्च, तस्मान्न विशेषकान्तपक्षः

Page #341

प्रमेयरत्नमाला श्रेयान् ॥ नापि सामान्यविशेषौ परस्परानपेक्षाविति योगमतमपि युक्तियुक्तमवभाति, तयोरन्योन्यभेदे द्वयोरन्यतरस्यापि व्यवस्थापयितुमशक्तेः ॥ तथा हि-विशेषास्तावत् द्रव्यगुणकर्मात्मनः सामान्यं तु परापरभेदाद्विविधं, तत्र परसामान्यात्सत्तालक्षणाद्विशेषाणां भेदे सत्त्वापत्तिरिति । तथाच प्रयोगः। द्रव्यगुणकर्माण्यसद्रपाणि सत्त्वादत्यन्तं भिन्नत्वात्मागभावादिवदिति ॥ न सामान्यविशेषसमवायैर्व्यभिचारः। तत्र स्वरूपसत्त्वस्याभिन्नस्य परैरभ्युपगमात् ॥ ननु द्रव्यादीनां प्रमाणोपपन्नत्वे धर्मिग्राहकप्रमाणवाधितो हेतुर्येन हि प्रमाणेन द्रव्यादयो निश्चीयन्ते तेन तत्सत्त्वमपीति ॥ अथ 'न प्रमाणप्रतिपन्ना द्रव्यादयस्तर्हि हेतोराश्रयासिद्धिरिति' तदयुक्तम् । प्रसङ्गसाधनात्मागभावादौ हि सत्त्वाद्भेदोऽसत्त्वेन व्याप्त उपलभ्यते ततश्च व्याप्यस्य द्रव्यादावभ्युपगमो व्यापकाभ्युपगमनान्तरीयक इति प्रसङ्गसाधने अस्य दोषस्याभावात् ॥ एतेन द्रव्यादीनामप्यद्रव्यादित्वं द्रव्यत्वादेर्भेदे चिन्तितं बोद्धव्यम् । कथं वा षण्णी पदार्थानां परस्परं भेदे प्रतिनियतस्वरूपव्यवस्था ? द्रव्यस्य हि द्रव्यमिति व्यपदेशस्य द्रव्यत्वाभिसम्बन्धाद्विधाने ततः पूर्व द्रव्यस्वरूपं किश्चिद्वाच्यं, येन सह द्रव्यत्वाभिसम्बन्धः स्यात् ॥ द्रव्यमेव स्वरूपमिति चेन्न, तद्व्यपदेशस्य द्रव्यत्वाभिसम्बन्धनिबन्धनतया स्वरूपत्वायोगात् ॥ सत्त्वं निजं रूपमिति चेन्न, तस्यापि सत्तासम्बन्धादेव तव्यपदेशकरणात् ॥ एवं गुणादिष्वपि वाच्यम् ॥ केवलं सामान्यविशेषसमवायानामेव स्वरूपसत्त्वेन तथाव्यपदेशोपपत्तेस्तत्रयव्यवस्थैव स्यात् ॥ ननु जीवादिपदार्थानां सामान्यविशेषात्मकत्वं स्याद्वादिभिरभिधीयते तयोश्च वस्तुनोर्भेदाभेदाविति ॥ तौ च विरोधादिदोषोपनिपातान्नैकत्र सम्भविनाविति ॥ तथाहि-भेदाभेदयोविधिनिषेधयोरेकत्राभिन्ने वस्तुन्यसम्भवः शीतोष्णस्पर्शयोर्वेति ॥ भेदस्यान्यदधिकरणमभेदस्य चान्यदिति वैयधिकरण्यम् । यमात्मानं पुरोधाय भेदो यं च समाश्रित्याभेदः तावास्मानौ भिन्नौ चाभिन्नौ च तत्रापि तथा परिकल्पनादनवस्था । येन रूपेण भेदस्तेन भेदश्चाभेदश्चेति सङ्करः । येन भेदस्तेनाभेदो येनाभेदस्तेन भेद इति व्यतिकरः। भेदाभेदात्मकत्वे च वस्तुनोऽसाधारणाकारेण निश्चेतुमशक्तेः संशयः । ततश्चापतिपत्तिस्ततोऽभावः । इत्यनैकान्तात्मकमपि न सोस्थ्यमाभजतीति केचित् । तेऽपि न पातीतिकवादिनः। विरोधस्य प्रतीयमान

Page #342

५८
प्रमेयरत्नमाला योरसम्भवादनुपलम्भसाध्यो हि विरोधः, तत्रोपलभ्यमानयोः को विरोधः ॥ यच शीतोष्णस्पर्शयोर्वेति दृष्टान्ततयोक्तं तच्च धूपदहनायेकावयविनः शीतोरणस्पर्शस्वभानस्योपलब्धेरयुक्तमेव ॥ एकस्य चलाचलरकारक्ताहतानावृतादिविरुद्धधर्माणां युगपदुपलब्धेश्च प्रकृतयोरपि न विरोध इति । एतेन वैयधिकरण्यमप्यपास्तम् । तयोरेकाधिकरणत्वेन प्रतीतेः । अत्रापि प्रागुक्तनिदर्शनान्येव योद्धव्यानि । यच्चानवस्थानं दूषणं तदपि स्याद्वादिमतानभिज्ञैरेवापादितम् । तन्मतं हि सामान्यविशेषात्मके वस्तुनि सामान्यविशेषावेव भेदः। भेदध्वनिना तयोरेवाभिधानात् । द्रव्यरूपेणाभेद इति । द्रव्यमेवाभेद एकानेकात्मकत्वाद्वस्तुनः।। यदि वा भेदनयप्राधान्येन वस्तुधर्माणामानन्त्यामानवस्था । तथा हि- यत्सामान्यं यश्च विशेषस्तयोरनुवृत्तव्यावृत्ताकारेण भेदस्तयोश्वार्थक्रियाभेदाझेदश्च शक्तिभेदात् । सोऽपि सहकारिभेदादित्यनन्तधर्माणामङ्गीकरणात् कुतोऽनवस्था ॥ तथा चोक्तम् । मलक्षतिकरीमाहुरनवस्थां हि क्षणम् । वस्त्वानन्त्येप्यशक्तौ च नानवस्था विचार्यते ॥ १॥ इति ॥ यौ च सङ्करव्यतिकरौ तावपि मेचकज्ञाननिदर्शनेन सामान्यविशेषदृष्टान्तेन च परिहतौ ।। अथ तत्र तथा प्रतिभासनं परस्यापि वस्तुनि तथैव प्रतिभासोऽस्तु तस्य पक्षपाताभावानिर्णीते संशयोऽपि न युक्तः। तस्य चलितप्रतिपत्तिरूपत्वादचलितप्रतिभासे दुर्घटत्वात् । प्रतिपन्ने वस्तुन्यप्रतिपत्तिरित्यतिसाहसम् । उपलब्ध्यभिधानादनुपलम्भोऽपि न सिद्धस्ततो नाभाव इति दृष्टेष्टाविरुद्धमनेकान्तशासनं सिद्धम् । एतेनावयवावयविनोर्गुणगुणिनोः कर्मतद्वतोश्च कथंचिद्भेदाभेदौ प्रतिपादितौ बोद्धव्यौ । अथ समवायवशाद्भिन्नेष्वप्यभेदप्रतीतिरनुपपन्नब्रह्मतुलाख्यज्ञानस्येति चेत् न, तस्यापि ततोऽभिन्नस्य व्यवस्थापयितुमशक्तः । तथा हि- समवायवृत्तिः स्वसमवायिषु वृत्तिमती स्यादत्तिमती वा ? वृत्तिमत्वे स्वनैव वृत्त्यन्तरेण वा ? न तावदाद्यः पक्षः समवाये समवायानभ्युपगमात् । पश्चानां समवायित्वमिति वचनात् ॥ वृत्यन्तरकल्पनायां तदपि स्वसम्बन्धिषु वर्तते न वेति कल्पनायां वृत्त्यन्तरपरम्परामाप्तेरनवस्था ॥ वृत्त्यन्तरस्य स्वसंबन्धिषु वृत्त्यन्तरानभ्युपगमानानवस्थेति चेत्, तर्हि समवायेऽपि वृत्त्यन्तरं माभूत् ॥ अथ समवायो न स्वाश्रयवृत्तिरङ्गीक्रियते, तर्हि पएणामाश्रितत्वमिति ग्रन्थो विरुध्यते ॥ अथ समवायिषु सत्स्वेव समवाय

Page #343

प्रमेयरत्नमाला प्रतीतेस्तस्याश्रितत्वमुपकल्प्यते तर्हि मूर्तद्रव्येषु सत्स्वेव दिग्लिङ्गस्येदमतः पूर्वेण इत्यादिज्ञानस्य काललिङ्गस्य च परापरादिप्रत्ययस्य सद्भावात्तयोरपि तदाश्रितत्वं स्यात् । तथा चायुक्तमेतदन्यत्र नित्यद्रव्येभ्य इति ॥ किश्च समवायस्यानाश्रितत्वे सम्बन्धरूपतैव न घटते । तथा च प्रयोगः- समवायो न सम्बन्धः । अनाश्रितत्त्वादिगादिवदिति ॥ अत्र समवायस्य धर्मिणः कथंचित्तादात्म्यरूपस्यानेकस्य च परैः प्रतिपन्नत्वाधर्मिग्राहकप्रमाणबाध आश्रयासिद्धिश्च न वाच्येति ॥ तस्याश्रितत्वेऽप्येतदभिधीयते न समवाय एकः सम्बन्धात्मकत्वे सत्याश्रितत्वात् संयोगवत् । सत्तयाऽनेकान्त इति सम्बन्धविशेषणम् ॥ अथ संयोगे निबिडशिथिलादिप्रत्ययनानात्वानानात्वं नान्यत्र विपर्ययादिति चेत् न, समवायेऽप्युत्पत्तिमत्वनश्वरत्वात्ययनानात्वस्य सुलभत्वात् ॥ सम्बन्धिभेदाभेदोऽन्यत्रापि समान इति नैकत्रैव पर्यनुयोगो युक्तः ॥ तस्मात्समवायस्य परपरिकल्पितस्य विचारासहत्वान्न तद्वशाद्गुणगुण्यादिष्वभेदप्रतीतिः ॥ अथ भिन्नतिभासादवयवायवयव्यादीनां भेद एवेति चेन्न, भेदप्रतिभासस्याभेदाविरोधात् । घटपटादीनामपि कथञ्चिदभेदोपपत्तेः ॥ सर्वथा प्रतिभासभेदस्यासिद्धेश्च ।। इदमित्याद्यभेदप्रतिभासस्यापि भावात्ततः कथंचिद्भेदाभेदात्मकं द्रव्यपर्यायात्मकं सामान्यविशेषात्मकं च तत्त्वं तीरादर्शिशकुनिन्यायेनायातमित्यलमतिप्रसङ्गेन ॥ इदानीमनेकान्तात्मकवस्तुसमर्थनार्थमेव हेतुद्वयमाहअनुवृत्तव्यावृत्तप्रत्ययगोचरत्वात्पूर्वोत्तराकारपरिहारावाप्तिस्थिति
लक्षणपरिणामेनार्थक्रियोपपत्तेश्चेति ॥ २ ॥ अनुवृत्ताकारो हि गोगौरित्यादिमत्ययः । व्यावृत्ताकारः श्यामः शवल इत्यादिप्रत्ययः । तयोर्गोचरस्तस्य भावस्तत्त्वं तस्मात् । एतेन तिर्यक्सामान्यव्यतिरेकलक्षणविशेषद्वयात्मकं वस्तु साधितम् । पूर्वोत्तराकारयोयथासंख्येन परिहारावाप्ती, ताभ्यां स्थितिः, सैव लक्षणं यस्य, स चासो परिणामश्च, तेनार्थक्रियोपपत्तेश्चेत्यनेन तूर्वतासामान्धपर्यायाख्यविशेषद्वयरूपं वस्तु समर्थितं भवति ।। अथ प्रथमोद्दिष्टसामान्यभेदं दर्शयन्नाह-.
सामान्यं द्वेधा तिर्यगवंताभेदात् ॥ ३ ॥ प्रथमभेदं सोदाहरणमाह

Page #344

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
सदृशपरिणामस्तिर्यक्, खण्डमुण्डादिषु गोत्ववत् ॥ ४ ॥ नित्यैकरूपस्य गोत्वादेः क्रमयोगपद्याभ्यामर्थक्रियाविरोधात् । प्रत्येकं परिसमाप्त्या व्यक्तिषु नृत्ययोगाच्चानेकं सदृशपरिणामात्मकमेवेति तिर्यक्सामान्यमुक्तम् || द्वितीयभेदमपि सदृष्टान्तमुपदर्शयतिपरापरविवर्त्तव्यापिद्रव्यमूर्ध्वता मृदिव स्थासादिष्विति ॥ ५ ॥
सामान्यमिति वर्तते तेनायमर्थः - ऊर्ध्वता सामान्यं भवति । किं तत् १ द्रव्यम् । तदेव विशिष्यते परापरविवर्तव्यापीति पूर्वापरकालवतिंत्रिकालानुयायीत्यर्थः । चित्रज्ञानस्यैकस्य युगपद्भाव्यनेकस्वगतनीलाद्याकारव्यासिवदेकस्य क्रमभाविपरिणामव्यापित्वमित्यर्थः ।। विशेषस्यापि द्वैविध्यमुपदर्शयति
६०
विशेषश्चेति ॥ ६ ॥
द्वेधेत्यधिक्रियमाणेनाभिसम्बन्धः । तदेव प्रतिपादयतिपर्यायव्यतिरेकभेदादिति ॥ ७ ॥
प्रथमविशेषभेदमाद
एकस्मिन्द्रव्ये क्रमभाविनः परिणामाः पर्याया श्रात्मनि हर्षविषादादिवदिति ॥ ८ ॥
तत्र
अत्रात्मद्रव्यं स्वदेहप्रमितिमात्रमेव न व्यापकम् । नापि वटकणिकामात्रम् । न च कायाकारपरिणतभूत कदम्बकमिति, व्यापकत्वे परेषामनुमानमात्मा व्यापकः द्रव्यत्वे सत्यमूर्तत्वादाकाशवदिति । तत्र यदि रूपादिलक्षणं मूर्तत्वं तत्प्रतिषेधोऽमृतत्वं तदा मनसाऽनेकान्तः ॥ अथासर्वगतद्रव्यपरिमाणं मूर्तत्वं तन्निषेधस्तथा चेत्परं - प्रति साध्यसमो हेतु: ।। यच्चापरमनुमानम् - आत्मा व्यापकः अणुपरिमारणानधिकरणत्वे सति नित्यद्रव्यत्वादाकाशवदिति । तदपि न साधुसाधनम् । अणुपरिमाणानधिकरणत्वमित्रत्य किमयं नञर्थः पर्युदासः प्रसज्यो वा भवेत् ? तत्राद्यपते अणुपरिमाण प्रतिषेधेन महापरिमाणमवान्तरपरिमाणं परिमाणमात्रं वा ? महापरिमाणं चेत् साध्यसमो हेतुः । श्रवान्तरपरिमाणं चेत् विरुद्धो हेतुरवान्तरपरिमाणाधिकरणत्वं व्यापकत्वमेव साधयतीति ॥

Page #345

मेयरत्नमाला
1
परिमाणमात्रं चेत् तत्परिमाणसामान्यमङ्गीकर्तव्यम् । तथाचाणुपरिमाणप्रतिषेधेन परिमाणसामान्याधिकरणत्वमात्मन इत्युक्तम् । तच्चानुपपन्नं, व्यधिकरणासिद्धिप्रसङ्गात् । न हि परिमाणसामान्यमात्मनि व्यवस्थितं किन्तु परिमाणव्यक्तिष्वेवेति || न चावान्तरमहापरिमाणद्वयाधारतयाऽऽत्मन्यप्रतिपन्ने परिमाणमात्राधिकरणता तत्र निश्चेतुं शक्या । दृष्टान्तश्च साधनविकलः । श्राकाशस्य महापरिमाणाधिकरणतया परिमाणमात्राधिकरणत्वायोगात् || नित्यद्रव्यत्वं च सर्वथाऽसिद्धम् । नित्यस्य क्रमाक्रमाभ्यामर्थक्रियाविरोधादिति । प्रसज्यपक्षेऽपि तुच्छा भावस्य ग्रहरणोपायासम्भवात् न विशेषणत्वम् । न चागृहीतविशेषणं नाम न चागृहीतविशेषणविशेष्ये बुद्धिरिति वचनान्न प्रत्यक्षं तद्ग्रहरणोपायः सम्बन्धाभावादिन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षजं हि प्रत्यक्षं तन्मतेऽप्रसिद्धम् || विशेषणविशेष्यभावकल्पनायामभावस्य नागृहीतस्य विशेषणत्वमिति तदेव दूषणम् । तस्मान्न व्यापकमात्मद्रव्यम् । नापि वटकणिकामात्रं कमनीयकान्ताकुचजघनसंस्पर्शकाले प्रतिलोमकूपमाह्लादनाकारस्य सुखस्यानुभवनात् । अन्यथा सर्वाङ्गीणरोमाश्चादिकार्योदयायोगात् ॥ आशुवृत्यालातचक्रवत् क्रमेणैव तत्सुखमित्यनुपपन्नम् ।। परापरान्तःकरणसम्बन्धस्य तत्कारणस्य परिकल्पनायां व्यवधानप्रसङ्गात् । अन्यथा सुखस्य मानसप्रत्यक्षत्वायोगादिति । नापि पृथिव्यादिचतुष्टयात्मकत्वमात्मनः सम्भाव्यते । अचेतनेभ्यश्चैतन्योत्पत्ययोगाद्धाररणद्रवोष्णतालक्षणान्वयाभावाच्च । तदहर्जातबालकस्य स्तनादावभिलाषाभावप्रसङ्गाच्च । अभिलाषो हि प्रत्यभिज्ञाने भवति, तच्च स्मरणे स्मरणं चानुभवे भवतीति पूर्वानुभवः सिद्धः । मध्यदशायां तथैव व्याप्तेः । मृतानां रक्षोयक्षादिकुलेषु स्वयमुत्पन्नत्वेन कथयतां दर्शनात् ॥ केषाञ्चित् भवस्मृतेरुपलम्भाच्चानादिश्चेतनः सिद्ध एव ॥ तथा चोक्तम् — तदहर्जस्तने हातो रक्षोदृष्टेर्भवस्मृतेः । भूतानन्वयनात्सिद्धः प्रकृतिज्ञः सनातनः ॥ १ ॥ इति । न च स्वदेहप्रमितिरात्मेत्यत्रापि प्रमाणाभावात् सर्वत्र संशय इति वक्तव्यं तत्रानुमानस्य सद्भावात् । तथाहि देवदत्तात्मा तदेह एव तत्र सर्वत्रैव च विद्यते तत्रैव तत्र सर्वत्रैव च स्वासाधारणगुणाधारतयोपलम्भात् । यो यत्रैव यत्र सर्वत्रैव च स्वासाधारणगुणाधारतयोपलभ्यते स तत्रैव तत्र सर्वत्रैव च विद्यते यथा देवदत्तगृहे एव तत्र सर्वत्रैव चोपलभ्यमानः स्वा
I

६१

Page #346

प्रमेयरत्नमाला
साधारणभासुरत्वादिगुणः प्रदीपः तथा चायं तस्मात्तथेति । तदसाधारणगुणा ज्ञानदर्शन सुखवीर्यलक्षणास्ते च सर्वाङ्गीणास्तत्रैव चोपलभ्यन्ते || सुखमाहादनाकारं विज्ञानं मेयबोधनम् । शक्तिः क्रियानुमेया स्याद्यूनः कान्तासमागमः || १ || इति वचनात् ॥ तस्मादात्मा देहप्रमितिव स्थितः ॥ द्वितीयं विशेषभेदमाह
६२
श्रर्थान्तरगतो विसदृश परिणामो व्यतिरेको
गोमहिषादिवत् ॥ ८ ॥
सादृश्यं हि प्रतियोगिग्रहणे सत्येव भवति । न चापेक्षिकत्वादस्यावस्तुत्वमवस्तुन्यापेक्षिकत्वायोगात् । अपेक्षाया वस्तुनित्वात् ॥
स्यात्कारलाञ्छितमबाध्यमनन्तधर्मसंदोहवर्मितमशेषमपि प्रमेयम् ॥ देवैः प्रमाणबलतो निरचायि यच्च
संक्षिप्तमेव मुनिभिर्विष्टतं मयैतत् ॥ १ ॥
इति परीक्षामुखस्य लघुवृत्तौ विषयसमुद्देशश्चतुर्थः ॥ ४ ॥
अथेदानीं फलविप्रतिपत्तिनिरासार्थमाहज्ञाननिवृत्तिनोपादानोपेक्षाश्च फलम् ॥ १ ॥
द्विविधं हि फलं साक्षात्पारम्पर्येति । साक्षादज्ञाननिवृत्तिः पारम्पये हानादिकमिति, प्रमेयनिश्चयोत्तरकालभावित्वात्तस्येति ॥ तद्द्द्विविधमपि फलं प्रमाणाद्भिन्नमेवेति यौगाः । श्रभिन्नमेवेति सौगताः । तन्मतनिरासेन स्वमतं व्यवस्थापयितुमाह
1

--
प्रमाणादभिन्नं भिन्नं च ॥ २ ॥
कथञ्चिदभेद समर्थनार्थं हेतुमाह
यः प्रमिमीते स एव निवृत्ताज्ञानो जहात्यादत्त उपेक्षते चेति प्रतीतेः ॥ ३ ॥
अयमर्थः – यस्यैवात्मनः प्रमाणाकारेण परिणतिस्तस्यैव फलरूपतया

Page #347

प्रमेयरत्नमाला परिणाम इत्येकप्रमात्रपेक्षया प्रमाणफलयोरभेदः। करणक्रियापरिणामभेदाढ़ेद इत्यस्य सामर्थ्यसिद्धत्वानोक्तम् ॥
पारम्पर्येण साक्षाच्च फलं द्वेधाऽभिधायि यत् । देवभिन्नमभिन्नं च प्रमाणात्तदिहोदितम् ॥ १ ॥
इति परीक्षामुसलघुवृत्तौ फलसमुद्देशः पञ्चमः ॥ ५ ॥
अथेदानीमुक्तप्रमाणस्वरूपादिचतुष्टयाभासमाह
___ ततोऽन्यत्तदाभासमिति ॥ १॥ तत उक्तात प्रमाणस्वरूपसंख्याविषयफलभेदादन्यद्विपरीतं तदाभासमिति ॥ तत्र क्रमप्राप्तं स्वरूपाभासं दर्शयतिअस्वसंविदितगृहीतार्थदर्शनसंशयादयः प्रमाणाभासाः ॥ २ ॥
अस्वसंविदितश्च गृहीतार्थश्च दर्शनश्च संशय आदिर्येषां ते संशयादयश्चेति सर्वेषां द्वंद्वः॥ आदिशब्देन विपर्यानध्यवसाययोरपि ग्रहणम् ।। तत्रास्वसंविदितं ज्ञानं ज्ञानान्तरमत्यत्तत्वादिति नैयायिकाः । तथाहि ज्ञानं स्वव्यतिरिक्तवेदनवेद्यं वेद्यत्वात् घटवदिति । तदसङ्गतम्- धर्मिज्ञानस्य ज्ञानान्तरवेद्यत्वे साध्यान्तःपातित्वेन धर्मित्वायोगात् ॥ स्वसंविदितत्वे तेनैव हेतोरनेकान्तात् ॥ महेश्वरज्ञानेन च व्यभिचाराद्व्याप्तिज्ञानेनाप्यनेकान्तादर्थप्रतिपत्ययागाच ॥ नहि ज्ञापकमप्रत्यक्ष ज्ञाप्यं गमयति शब्दलिङ्गादीनामपि तथैव गमकत्वप्रसङ्गात् ॥ अनन्तरभाविज्ञानग्रयात्वे तस्याप्यगृहीतस्य पराज्ञापकत्वात्तदनन्तरं कल्पनीयम् । तत्रापि तदनन्तरमित्यनवस्था ।। तस्मान्नायं पक्षः श्रेयान् ॥ एतेन करणज्ञानस्य परोक्षत्वेनास्वसंविदितत्वं ब्रुवन्नपि मीमांसकः प्रत्युक्तः । तस्यापि ततोऽर्थप्रत्यक्षत्वायोगात ॥ अथ कमेत्वेनाप्रतीयमानलादप्रत्यक्षत्वे तर्हि फलज्ञानस्याप्रत्यक्षता तत एव स्यात् ॥ अथ फलत्वेन प्रतिभासनं नो चेत् करणज्ञानस्यापि करणत्वेनावभासनात् प्रत्यक्षत्वमस्तु । तस्मादर्थपतिपत्त्यन्यथाऽनुपपत्तेः करणज्ञानकल्पनावदर्थप्रत्यक्षत्वान्यथाऽनुपपत्ते नस्यापि प्रत्यक्षत्वमस्तु ॥ अथ करणस्य चक्षुरादेरमत्यतत्वेऽपि रूपमाकटयावयभिचार इति चेन्न, भिन्नकर्तृककरणस्यैव तद्वयभिचारात् ॥ अभिनकर्टके करणे

Page #348

प्रमेयरत्नमाला सति कर्तृप्रत्यक्षतायां तदभिन्नस्यापि करणस्य कथञ्चित्मत्यतत्वेनाप्रत्यक्षतैकान्तविरोधात्मकाशात्मनोऽप्रत्यक्षत्वे प्रदीपप्रत्यक्षत्वविरोधरदिति ॥ गृहीतग्राहिधारावाहिज्ञानं, गृहीतार्थ दर्शनं, सौगताभिमतं निर्विकल्पकं, तच्च स्वविषयानुपदर्शकत्वादप्रमाणं व्यवसायस्यैव तज्जनितस्य तदुपदर्शकत्वात् ॥ अथ व्यवसायस्य प्रत्यत्ताकारणानुरक्तत्वात्ततः प्रत्यत्तस्यैव प्रामाण्यं व्यवसायस्तु गृहीतग्राहित्वादप्रमाणमिति तन सुभाषितंदर्शनस्याविकल्पकस्यानुपलक्षणात्तत्सद्भावायोगात् सद्भावा वा नीलादाविव तणक्षयादावपि तदुपदर्शकत्वमसङ्गात् ॥ तत्र विपरीतसमारोपान्नेति चेत्तर्हि सिद्धं नीलादौ समारोपविधिग्रहणलक्षणो निश्चय इति तदात्मकमेव प्रमाणमितरत्तदाभासमिति ॥ संशयादयश्च प्रसिद्धा एव । तत्र संशयउभयकोटिसंस्पर्शी स्थाणुर्वा पुरुषो वेति परामर्शः॥ विपर्ययः पुरस्तस्मिस्तदिति विकल्पः। विशेषानवधारणमध्यवसायः।। कथमेषामस्वसंविदितादीनां तदाभासतेन्यत्राह
___ स्वविषयोपदर्शकत्वाभावात् ॥ ३ ॥ गतार्थमेतत् । अत्र दृष्टान्तं यथाक्रममाह
पुरुषान्तरपूर्वार्थगच्छत्तृणस्पर्शस्थाणुपुरुषादिज्ञानवत् ॥ ४ ॥ पुरुषान्तरं च पूर्वार्थश्च गच्छत्तणस्पर्शश्च स्थाणुपुरुषादिश्च तेषां ज्ञानं तद्वत् ॥ अपरं च सन्निकर्षवादिनं प्रति दृष्टान्तमाह
चक्रसयोर्द्रव्ये संयुक्तसमवायवच्च ॥ ५॥ अयमों यथा चतूरसयोः संयुक्तसमवायः सन्नपि न प्रमाणं तथा चक्षुरूपयोरपि । तस्मादयमपि प्रमाणाभास एवेति ॥ उपलक्षणमेतत् अतिव्याप्तिकथनमव्याप्तिश्च । सन्निकर्षप्रत्यक्षवादिनां चक्षुपि सन्निकर्षस्याभावात् ॥ अथ चतुःप्राप्तार्थपरिच्छेदकं व्यवहितार्थाप्रकाशकत्वात् प्रदीपवदिति तत्सिद्धिरिति मतं तदपि न साधीयः। काचाभ्रपटलादिव्यवहितार्थानामपि चक्षुषा प्रतिभासनादेतोरसिद्धः। शाखाचन्द्रमसोरेककालदर्शनानुपपत्तिप्रसक्वेश्च ॥ न च तत्र क्रमेऽपि योगपद्याभिमान इति वक्तव्यम् । कालव्यवधानानुपलब्धेः॥ किश्च क्रमप्रतिपत्तिः प्राप्तिनिश्चये सति भवति । न च क्रमप्राप्तौ प्रमाणान्तरमस्ति । तैजसत्वमस्तीति चेन्न तस्यासिद्धेः॥ अथ चतुस्तै

Page #349

मेयरत्नमाला
असं रूपादीनां मध्ये रूपस्यैव प्रकाशकत्वात् प्रदीपवदिति । तदप्यपर्यालोचिताभिधानं मण्यञ्जनादेः पार्थिवत्वेऽपि रूपप्रकाशकत्वदर्शनात् ॥ पृथिव्यादिरूपप्रकाशकत्वे पृथिव्याद्यारब्धत्वप्रसङ्गाच्च । तस्मात्सन्निकर्षस्याव्यापकत्वान्न प्रमाणत्वं करणज्ञानेन व्यवधानाच्चेति । प्रत्यक्षाभासमाह - अवैशद्ये प्रत्यक्षं तदाभासं बौद्धस्या कस्माद्धूमदर्शनाद्वह्निविज्ञानवदिति ॥ ६ ॥
परोक्षाभासमाह -
वैशद्येऽपि परोक्षं तदाभासं मीमांसकस्य करण ज्ञानवत् ॥ ७ ॥ प्राक् प्रपश्चितमेतत् । परोक्षभेदाभासमुपदर्शयन् प्रथमं क्रमप्राप्तं स्मरणा
भासमाह
तस्मिंस्तदिति ज्ञानं स्मरणाभासं जिनदत्ते स देवदत्तो यथेति ॥ ८ ॥
अतस्मिन्नननुभूत इत्यर्थः शेषं सुगमम् || प्रत्यभिज्ञानाभासमाह - सदृशे तदेवेदं तस्मिन्नेव तेन सदृशं यमलकवदित्यादि प्रत्यभिज्ञानाभासम् ॥ ६ ॥
吳業
द्विविधं प्रत्यभिज्ञानाभासमुपदर्शितं, एकत्व निबंधनं सादृश्यनिबंधनं चेति । तत्रैकस्बे सादृश्यावभासः सादृश्ये चैकत्वाभासस्तदाभासमिति || तर्काभासमाह—
असम्बद्धे तज्ज्ञानं तर्काभासम् ॥ १० ॥
यात्राँस्वत्पुत्रः स श्याम इति यथा । तज्ज्ञानमिति व्यातिल तयसम्बन्धज्ञानमित्यर्थः ॥ इदानीमनुमानाभासमाइ
इदमनुमानाभासम् ॥ ११ ॥
इदं वच्यमाणमिति भावः । तत्र तदवयवाभासोपदर्शनेन समुदायरूपानुमानाभासमुपदर्शयितुकामः प्रथमावयवाभासमाह - तत्रानिष्टादिः पक्षाभासः ॥ १२ ॥

Page #350

प्रमेयरत्नमाला इष्टमबाधितमित्यादि तल्लक्षणमुक्तमिदानीं तद्विपरीतं तदामासमिति कथयति
अनिष्टो मीमांसकस्यानित्यः शब्दः ॥१३॥ असिद्धाद्विपरीतं तदाभासमाह
सिद्धः श्रावणः शब्द इति ॥१४॥ अबाधितमविपरीतं तदाभासमावेदयन् स च प्रत्यक्षादिवाधित एवेति दर्शयबाह
बाधितः प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमलोकस्ववचनैः ॥ १५ ॥ - एतेषां क्रमेणोदाहरणमाह
तत्र प्रत्यक्षबाधितो यथा अनुष्णोऽग्नि
व्यत्वाजलवत् ॥१६॥ स्पर्शनप्रत्यक्षण हुष्णस्पर्शात्मकोग्निरनुम्यते ॥ अनुमानबाधितमाह
. अपरिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वात् घटवत् ॥ १७ ॥ अत्र पक्षोऽपरिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वादित्यनेन बाध्यते ॥भागमबाधितमाह
प्रेत्यासुखप्रदो धर्मः पुरुषाश्रितत्वादधर्मवत् ॥ १८॥ आगमे हि पुरुषाश्रितत्वाविशेषेऽपि परलोके धर्मस्य मुखहेतुत्वमुक्तम् । लोकबाधितमाह
शुचि नरशिरःकपालं प्राण्यंगत्वाच्छंखशुक्तिवत् ॥१६॥ लोके हि प्राण्यंगत्वेऽपि कस्यचिच्छुचित्वमशुचित्वं च । तत्र नरकपालादीनामशुचित्वमेवेति लोकबाधितत्वम् । स्ववचनबाधितमाह
माता मे वन्ध्या पुरुषसंयोगेऽप्यगर्भत्वात्प्र
सिद्धवन्ध्यावत् ॥२०॥ इदानी हेत्वाभासान् क्रमापभानाह

Page #351

अमेयरनमाला - हेत्वाभासा प्रसिद्धविरुद्धानकान्तिकाकिश्चित्कराः ॥२१॥ एषां यथाक्रमं लक्षणं सोदाहरणमाह. असत्सत्तानिश्चयोऽसिद्धः ॥२२॥ सत्ता च निश्चयश्च सत्तानिश्चयो, असन्तौ सत्तानिश्चयो यस्य स भवत्यसत्सत्तानिश्चयः । तत्र प्रथमभेदमाह
अविद्यमानसत्ताकः परिणामी शब्दश्चानुषत्वात् ॥ २३ ॥ कथमस्यासिद्धत्वमित्याह
__स्वरूपेणासत्त्वात् ॥ २४॥ द्वितीयासिद्धभेदमुपदर्शयतिअविद्यमाननिश्चयो मुग्धबुद्धिं प्रत्यग्निरत्र धूमादिति ॥ २५॥ अस्याप्यसिद्धता कथमित्यारेकायामाह
तस्य वाष्पादिभावेन भूतसंघाते संदेहात् ॥ २६ ॥ वस्येति मुग्धबुद्धिं प्रतीत्यर्थः । अपरमपि भेदमाह
सांख्यम्प्रति परिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वादिति ॥ २७ ॥ अस्यासिद्धतायां कारणमाह
तेनाज्ञातत्वादिति ॥ २८॥ तेन सांख्येनासातत्वात्तन्मते याविर्भावतिरोभावावेव प्रसिद्धौ नोत्पत्यादिरिति ॥ अस्याप्यनिश्चयादसिद्धत्वमित्यर्थः ॥ विरुद्धं हेत्वाभासमुपदर्शयबाह
विपरीतनिश्चिताविनाभावो विरुद्धोऽपरिणामी शब्दः
कृतकत्वात् ॥ २६॥ कृतकत्वं सपरिणामविरोधिना परिणामेन व्यासमिति ॥ भनेकान्तिकं हेत्वाभासमाह
विपनेऽप्यविरुद्धवृत्तिरनैकान्तिकः॥३०॥

Page #352

प्रमेयरनमाला अपिशब्दानं केवलं पक्षसपतयोरिति द्रष्टव्यम् । स च द्विविधा विपक्षे निश्चितवृत्तिः शङ्कितवृत्तिश्चेति ॥ तत्राचं दर्शयन्नाह- र
निश्चितवृत्तिरनित्यः शब्दः प्रमेयत्वात् घटवदिति ॥ ३१ ॥ कथमस्य विपक्षे निश्चिता वृत्तिरित्याशङ्कयाह
आकाशे नित्येऽप्यस्य निश्चयात् ॥ ३२ ॥ .. शङ्कितवृत्तिमुदाहरति• शङ्कितवृत्तिस्तु नास्ति सर्वज्ञो वक्तृत्वादिति ।। ३३ ॥ ... अस्यापि कथं विपक्षे वृत्तिराशंक्यत इत्यत्राह
__ सर्वज्ञत्वेन वक्तृत्वाविरोधादिति ॥ ३४ ॥ . भविरोधश्च ज्ञानोत्कर्षे वचनानामपकर्षादर्शनादिति निरूपितमायम् ॥ अकिश्चित्करस्वरूपं निरूपयति
सिद्धे प्रत्यक्षादिबाधिते च साध्ये हेतुरकिञ्चित्करः ॥ ३५॥ तत्र सिद्धे साध्ये हेतुरकिश्चित्कर इत्युदाहरति
सिद्धः श्रावणः शब्दः शब्दत्वात् ॥ ३६॥ कथमस्याकिश्चित्करत्वमित्याह- .
किञ्चिदकरणात् ॥ ३७॥ अपरं च भेदं प्रथमस्य दृष्टान्तीकरणद्वारेणोदाहरतियथाऽनुष्णोऽग्निद्रव्यत्वादित्यादैर्किश्चित्कर्तु मशक्यत्वात् ॥ ३८ ॥
अकिश्चित्करत्वमिति शेषः ॥ अयं च दोषो हेतुलक्षणविचारावसर एव, न वादकाल इति व्यक्तीकुर्वन्नाहलक्षण एवासौ दोषो व्युत्पन्नप्रयोगस्य पक्षदोषेण व दुष्टत्वात् ३६ ॥ दृष्टान्तोऽन्वयव्यतिरेकभेदाद्विविध इत्युक्तं तत्रान्वयदृष्टान्ताभासमाह
दृष्टान्ताभासा अन्वयेऽसिद्धसाध्यसाधनोभयाः ॥ ४॥ साध्यं च साधनं च उभयं च साध्यसाधनोभयानि असिद्धानि तानि येष्विति विग्रहः॥ एतानेकत्रैवानुमाने दर्शयति- .

Page #353

प्रमेयरनमाला अपौरुषेयः शब्दोऽमूर्तत्वादिन्द्रियसुखपरमाणुघटवत् ॥ ४१॥ इन्द्रियमुखमसिद्धसाध्यं तस्य पौरुषेयत्वात् । परमाणुरसिद्धसाधनं तस्य मुर्तत्वात् । घटश्चासिद्धोभयः पौरुषेयत्वान्मूर्तत्वाच्च ॥ साध्यव्याप्तं साधनं दर्शनीयमिति दृष्टान्तावसरे प्रतिपादितं तद्विपरीतदर्शनमपि तदाभासमित्याह
विपरीतान्वयश्च यदपौरुषेयं तदमूर्तम् ॥ ४२ ॥ कुतोऽस्य तदाभासतेत्याह
विद्युदादिनाऽतिप्रसङ्गात् ॥ ४३ ॥ तस्याप्यमूर्ततामातेरित्यर्थः । व्यतिरेकोदाहरणाभासमाहव्यतिरेके सिद्धत व्यतिरेकाः परमाण्विन्द्रियसुखाकाशवत्॥४४॥
अपौरुषेयः शब्दोऽमूर्तत्वादित्यत्रैवासिद्धाः साध्यसाधनोभयव्यतिरेका योति विग्रहः । तत्रासिद्धसाध्यव्यतिरकः परमाणुस्तस्यापौरुषेयत्वात् इन्द्रिमसुखमसिद्धसाधनव्यतिरकम् ॥ आकाशं त्वसिद्धोभयव्यतिरकमिति । साध्याभावे साधनव्यावृत्तिरिति व्यतिरेकोदाहरणप्रघट्टके ख्यापितं तत्र तद्विपरीतमपि तदाभासमित्युपदर्शयति
विपरीतव्यतिरेकश्च यन्नामूर्त तन्नापौरुषेयम् ॥ ४५ ॥ बालव्युत्पत्यर्थं तत्रयोपगम इत्युक्तमिदानी तान्मत्येव कियद्धीनतायां प्रयोगाभासमाह
बालप्रयोगाभासः पञ्चावयवेषु कियद्धीनता ॥ ४६॥ तदेवोदाहरति
अग्निमानयं देशो धूमवत्वात् यदित्थं तदित्थं यथा
महानस इति ॥ ४ ॥ इत्यवयवत्रयप्रयोगे सतीत्यर्थः । चतुरवयवपयोगे तदाभासत्वमाह
धूमवांश्चायमिति वा ॥४८॥ .. अवयवविपर्ययेऽपि तत्त्वमाह

Page #354

प्रमेयरत्नमाला तस्मादग्निमान् धूमवांश्चायमिति ॥ ४६॥ कथमवयवविपर्यये प्रयोगाभास इत्यारेकायामाह
स्पष्टतया प्रकृतप्रतिपत्तेरयोगात् ॥ ५० ॥ इदानीमागमाभासमाह
रागद्वेषमोहाक्रान्तपुरुषवचनाजातमागमाभासम् ॥५१॥ उदाहरणमाहयथा नद्यास्तीरे मोदकराशयः सन्ति, धावध्वं माणवकाः ॥५२॥
कश्चिन्माणवकैराकुलीकृतचेतास्तत्सङ्गपरिजिहीर्षया प्रतारणवाक्येन नद्या देशं तान् प्रस्थापयतीत्यात्सोक्तेरन्यत्वादागमाभासत्वम् । मथमोदाहरणमात्रेणातुष्यन्नुदाहरणान्तरमाह
अंगुल्यो हस्तियूथशतमास्त इति च ॥ ५३ ॥ अत्रापि सांख्यपशुः स्वदुरागमजनितवासनाहितचेता दृष्टेष्टविरुदं सर्व सर्वत्र विद्यत इति मन्यमानस्तथोपदिशतीत्यनाप्तवचनत्वादिदमपि तथेत्यर्थः ॥ कथमनन्तरयोर्वाक्ययोस्तदाभासत्वमित्यारेकायामाह
_ विसंवादात् ॥ ५४॥ अविसंवादरूपप्रमाणलक्षणाभावान तद्विशेषरूपमपीत्यर्थः ॥ इदानीं संख्याभासमाह
प्रत्यक्षमेवैकं प्रमाणमित्यादि संख्याभासम् ॥ ५५॥ प्रत्यक्षपरोक्षभेदात् द्वैविध्यमुक्तं तद्वैपरीत्येन प्रत्यक्षमेव प्रत्यक्षानुमाने, एवेत्यायवधारणं संख्यामासम् ॥ प्रत्यक्षमेवैकमिति कथं संख्याभासमित्याहलौकायतिकस्य प्रत्यक्षतः परलोकादिनिषेधस्य परबुद्धया
देश्चासिद्धरतद्विषयत्वात् ॥५६॥ अतद्विषयत्वात् अप्रत्यक्षविषयत्वादित्यर्थः । शेषं सुगमम् ॥ मपश्चितमेवैतत्संख्याविप्रतिपत्तिनिराकरण इति नेह पुनरुच्यते ॥ इतरवादिप्रमाणे

Page #355

प्रमेयरनमाला यत्तावधारणमपि विघटत इति लोकायतिकदृष्टान्तद्वारेण तन्मतेऽपि संख्याभासमिति दर्शयतिसौगतसांख्ययोगप्राभाकरजैमिनीयानां प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमो
पमानार्थापत्यभावैरेकैकाधिकैर्व्याप्तिवत् ॥ ५७ ॥ यथा प्रत्यक्षादिभिरेकैकाधिकाप्तिः प्रतिपत्तुं न शक्यते सौगतादिभिस्तथा प्रत्यक्षेण लौकायतिकैः परबुद्धयादिरपीत्यर्थः ॥ अथ परबुद्धयादिपतिपत्तिः प्रत्यक्षेण माभूदन्यस्माद्भविष्यतीत्याशङ्कयाह
अनुमानादेस्तद्विषयत्वे प्रमाणान्तरत्वम् ॥ ५ ॥ तच्छन्देन परबुद्ध्यादिरभिधीयते । अनुमानादेः परबुद्ध्यादिविषयत्वे प्रत्यकममाणवादो हीयत इत्यर्थः ॥ अत्रोदाहरणमाह
तर्कस्येव व्याप्तिगोचरत्वे प्रमाणान्तरत्वम् ।
अप्रमाणस्याव्यवस्थापकत्वात् ॥ ५६ ॥ सौगतादीनामिति शेषः॥ किश्च प्रत्यक्षकप्रमाणवादिना प्रत्यक्षायेकैकाधिकप्रमाणवादिभिश्च स्वसंवेदनेन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षभेदोऽनुमानादिभेदश्च पतिभासमेदेनेव वक्तव्यो गत्यन्तराभावात् । स च त दो लोकायतिकं प्रति प्रत्यक्षानुमानयोरितरेषां व्याप्तिज्ञानप्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणेष्विति सर्वेषां प्रमाणसंख्या विघटते ॥ तदेव दर्शयति
प्रतिभासभेदस्य च भेदकत्वात् ॥ ६॥ इदानीं विषयाभासमुपदर्शयितुमाह
विषयाभासः सामान्यं विशेषो द्वयं वा स्वतंत्रम् ॥६१ ॥ कथमेषां तदाभासतेत्याह
तथाप्रतिभासनात्कार्याकरणाच ॥ ६२ ॥ किश्च तदेकान्तात्मकं तत्त्वं स्वयं समर्थमसमर्थ वा कार्याकारि स्यात् ! मथमपने क्षणमाह
समर्थस्य करणे सर्वदोत्पत्तिरनपेक्षत्वात् ॥ ६३॥ ..

Page #356

प्रमेयरनमाला सहकारिसान्निध्यात् तत्करणानेति चेदत्राह
परापेक्षणे परिणामित्वमन्यथा तदभावात् ॥ ६४ ॥ वियुक्तावस्थायामकुर्वतः सहकारिसमवधानवलायां कार्यकारिणः पूर्वोतराकारपरिहारावाप्तिस्थितिलक्षणपरिणामोपपत्तरित्यर्थः । अन्यथा कार्यकारणाभावात् । प्रागभावावस्थायामेवेत्यर्थः । अथ द्वितीयपक्षदोषमाह
स्वयमसमर्थस्य प्रकारकत्वात्पूर्ववत् ॥ ६५ ॥ अथ फलाभासं प्रकाशयन्नाह
फलाभासं प्रमाणादभिन्नं भिन्नमेव वा ॥६६॥ , कुतः पक्षद्वयेऽपि तदाभासतेत्याशङ्कायामाद्यपक्षे तदाभासत्वे हेतुमाह
. अभेदे तद्व्यवहारानुपपत्तेः॥ ६७ ॥ फलमेव प्रमाणमेव वा भवेदिति भावः । व्यावृत्त्या संवृत्यपरनामधेयया तत्कल्पनाऽस्त्वित्याह
व्यावृत्त्याऽपि न तत्कल्पना फलान्तराव्या
वृत्त्याऽफलत्वप्रसङ्गात् ॥ ६८॥ ___ अयमर्थ:-यथा फलाद्विजातीयात् फलस्य व्यावृत्त्या फलव्यवहारस्तथा फलान्तरादपि सजातीयाव्यावृत्तिरप्यस्तीत्यफलत्वम् । अत्रैवाभेदपचे दृष्टान्तमाह
प्रमाणाव्यावृत्त्येवाप्रमाणत्वस्येति ॥६६॥ अत्रापि प्राक्तन्येव प्रक्रिया योजनीया ॥ अभेदपक्षं निराकृत्य प्राचार्य उपसंहरति
तस्मादास्तवोऽभेद इति ॥ ७० ॥ भेदपत्रं क्षयन्नाह
भेदे त्वात्मान्तरवत्तदनुपपत्तेः॥ ७१ ॥ अब मत्रैवात्मनि प्रमाणं समवेतं फलमपि तत्रैव समवेतमिति समवायलक्षणप्रत्यासत्त्या प्रमाणफलव्यवस्थितिरिति ॥ नात्मान्तरे तत्मसङ्ग इति चेचदपि न नित्याह

Page #357

मेयरमाला
समवायेऽतिप्रसङ्ग इति ॥ ७२ ॥
समवायस्य नित्यत्वाद्व्यापकत्वाच्च सर्वात्मनामपि समवायसमानधर्मिकत्वान्न ततः प्रतिनियम इत्यर्थः ॥ इदानीं स्वपरपक्षसाधनदूषणव्यवस्थामुपदर्शयति
प्रमाणतदाभासौ दुष्टतयोद्भावितौ परिहृतापरिहृतदोषौ वादिनः साधनतदाभासौ प्रतिवादिनो दूषणभूषणे च ॥ ७३ ॥
वादिना प्रमाणमुपन्यस्तं तच्च प्रतिवादिना दुष्टतयोद्भावितं पुनर्वादिना परिहृतं तदेव तस्य साधनं भवति प्रतिवादिनश्च दूषणमिति ॥ यदा तु वादिना प्रमाणाभासमुक्तं प्रतिवादिना तथैवोद्भावितं वादिना चापरिहृतं तदा तद्वादिनः साधनाभासो भवति प्रतिवादिनश्च भूषणमिति ॥ अथोक्तप्रकारेणाशेषविप्रतिपत्तिनिराकरणद्वारेण प्रमाणत्वं स्वप्रतिज्ञातं परीचय नयादितवमन्यत्रोक्तमिति दर्शयन्नाह -
सम्भवदन्यद्विचारणीयमिति ॥ ७४ ॥
सम्भवद्विद्यमानमन्यत्प्रमाणतत्त्वान्नयस्वरूपं शास्त्रान्तरप्रसिद्धं विचारणीयमिह युक्त्या प्रतिपत्तव्यम् । तत्र मूलनयौ द्वौ द्रव्यार्थिक पर्यायार्थिकभेदात् । तत्र द्रव्यार्थिकस्त्रेधा नैगमसंग्रहव्यवहारभेदात् । पर्यायार्थिकश्च - तुर्धा ऋजुसूत्र शब्दसमभिरूढैवम्भूतभेदात् । अन्योऽन्यगुणप्रधानभूतभेदाभेदप्ररूपणो नैगमः नैकं गमो नैगम इति निरुक्तेः ॥ सर्वथाऽभेदवादस्तदाभासः || प्रतिपक्षव्यपेक्षः सन्मात्रग्राही संग्रहः ॥ ब्रह्मवादस्तदाभासः ॥ संग्रहहीतभेदको व्यवहारः ।। काल्पनिको भेदस्तदाभासः ॥ शुद्धपर्यायग्राही प्रतिपक्षसापेक्ष ऋजुसूत्रः ।। क्षणिकैकान्तनयस्तदाभासः ॥ कालकारकलिङ्गानां भेदाच्छन्दस्य कथञ्चिदर्थभेदकथनं शब्दनयः ॥ अर्थभेदं विना शब्दानामेव नानात्वैकान्तस्तदाभासः ॥ पर्यायभेदात्पदार्थनानात्वनिरूपकः समभिरूढः || पर्यायनानात्वमन्तरेणापीन्द्रादिभेदकथनं तदाभासः ॥ क्रियाश्रयेण भेदप्ररूपणमित्थम्भावः ॥ क्रियानिरपेक्षत्वेन क्रियावाचकेषु काल्पनिको व्यवहारस्तदाभास इति ।। इति नयतदाभासलक्षणं सङक्षेपेणोक्तं विस्तरेण नयचक्रात्प्रतिपत्तव्यम् | अथवा सम्भवद्विद्यमान
1

-

Page #358

प्रमेयरत्नमाला मन्यद्वादलक्षणं पत्रलक्षणं वाऽन्यत्रोक्तमिह द्रष्टव्यं तथा चाह ॥ समर्थवचनं वाद इति । प्रसिद्धावयवं वाक्यं स्वेष्टस्यार्थस्य साधकम् । साधुगूढपदपायं पत्रमाहुरनाकुलम् ॥ १ ॥ इति ॥
परीक्षामुखमादर्श हेयोपादेयतत्त्वयोः।
संविदे मादृशो बालः परीक्षादक्षवद्व्यधाम् ॥१॥ व्यधामकृतवानस्मि । किमर्थं संविदे । कस्य मादृशः । अहं च कथंभूत इत्याह बालो मन्दमतिः अनौद्धत्यसूचकं वचनमेतत् । तत्त्वज्ञत्वञ्च प्रारब्धनिर्वहणादेवावसीयते ॥ किं तत् परीक्षामुखम् । तदेव निरूपयति
आदर्शमिति । कयोः हेयोपादेयतत्त्वयोः यथैवादर्श आत्मनोऽलङ्कारमण्डितस्य सौरूप्यं वैरूप्यं वा प्रतिबिम्बोपदर्शनद्वारेण सूचयति तथेदमपि हेयोपादेयतत्त्वं साधनदूषणोपदर्शनद्वारेण निश्चाययतीत्यादर्शत्वेन निरूप्यते क इव परीक्षादक्षवत् परीक्षादक्ष इव, यथा परीक्षादक्षः स्वपारब्धशास्त्र निरूढवाँस्तथाऽहमपीत्यर्थः ॥
अकलङ्कशशांकैर्यत्प्रकटीकृतमखिलमाननिभनिकरम् । तत्संक्षिप्तं सूरिभिरुरुमतिभिर्व्यक्तमेतेन ॥१॥
इति परीक्षामुखलघुवृत्तौ प्रमाणाद्याभाससमुद्देशः षष्ठः ॥ ६ ॥
श्रीमान् वैजेयनामाभूदग्रणीर्गुणशालिनाम् ।
बदरीपालवंशालिव्योमधुमणिरूजितः ॥ १ ॥ तदीयपत्नी भुवि विश्रुतासीनाणाम्बनाम्ना गुणशीलसीमा । यां रेवतीति प्रथिताम्बिकेति प्रभावतीति प्रवदन्ति सन्तः ॥ २ ॥ तस्यामभूद्विश्वजनीनवृत्तिर्दानाम्बुवाहो भुवि हीरपाख्यः । स्वगोत्रविस्तारनभोऽशुमाली सम्यक्त्वरत्नाभरणार्चिताङ्गः ॥३॥ तस्योपरोधवशतो विशदोरुकीर्तेर्माणिक्यनन्दिकृतशास्त्रमगाधबोधम् । स्पष्टीकृतं कतिपयैर्वचनरुदारैर्बालपबोधकरमेतदनन्तवीर्यैः ॥ ४ ॥
इति प्रमेयरत्नमालापरनामधेया परीक्षामुखनवृत्तिः समाप्ता ॥

Page #359

प्रमेयरत्नमालायां परीक्षामुखसूत्राणामकारादिवर्णानुक्रमेण
सूचीपत्रम्
wr
पृष्ठाङ्कः
पृष्टाङ्कः अग्निमानयं देशो धूमवत्वात् , ६६ | इदमनुमानाभासं अग्निमानयं देशः परिणामी .... ३१ इदमस्मादूरम् अग्निमानयं देशस्तथैव ... ४३ इदमस्मिन् सत्येव
.... २७ अङ्गाल्यग्रे हस्तियूथशतमास्त इति .... ७० इन्द्रियानिन्द्रियनिमित्तं अज्ञाननिवृत्तिर्हानो
इष्टमबाधितमसिद्धं साध्यम् अतजन्यमपि ततप्रकाशक
उदगाद् भरणिः प्राक्तत एव .... अतस्मिस्तदिति ज्ञानं ....... ६५ उदेष्यति शकटं
.... ३६ अनिश्चितोऽपूर्वार्थ
उपलब्धिः विधिप्रतिषेधयोः अनिष्टाध्यक्षादिबाधितयोः
उपलंभानुपलंभनिमित्तं अनिष्टो मीमांसकस्य
एकस्मिन् द्रव्ये अनुमानादेस्तद्विषयत्वे
एतद्वयमेवानुमानाङ्गं अनुवृत्तव्यावृत्तप्रत्यय
कर्मवत् कर्तकरण क्रियाप्रतीतेः .... अनेकान्तात्मकं
कारणस्य च परिच्छेद्यत्वे अन्यथा तदघटनात्
कार्यकार्यमविरुद्ध अपरिणामी शब्दः
किंचिदकरणात् अपौरुषेयः शब्दोऽमूर्त्तत्वात्
कुतोऽन्यथोपनयनिगमने अभेदे तद्व्यवहारा
को वा तत्प्रतिभासनमर्थ अभूदत्र चक्रे शिवकः
को वा त्रिधा हेतु क्त्वा अर्थस्येव तदुन्मुखतया
गोविलक्षणो महिषः अर्थान्तरगतो विसदृश .. .... ६२ गोसदृशो गवयः अविद्यमाननिश्चयो
.... ६७
घटमहमात्मना वेद्मि अविद्यमानसत्ताक
.... ६७ चक्षुरसयोर्द्रव्ये अविरुद्धानुपलब्धिः
ततोऽन्यत्तदाभासम् अविरुद्धोपलब्धिर्विधौ पोढा .... ३७ तत्परमभिधीयमानं अवैशये प्रत्यक्षं
तत्प्रामाण्यं स्वतः परतश्च असत्सत्तानिश्चयो
तत्रानिष्टादिः पक्षाभासः असम्बद्धे तज्ज्ञानं
| तत्र प्रत्यक्षबाधितो यथा अस्ति सर्वज्ञो नास्ति खरविषाणम् ३१ | तथा प्रतिभासनात् अस्स्यत्र छाया छत्रात्
तदन्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधाना अस्त्यत्र देहिनि दुःखम्
४२ तदनुमानं द्वेधा अस्त्यत्र देहिनि बुद्धिः .... ३६ तदविनाभावनिश्चया) अस्त्यत्र मातुलिगे रूपं रसात् .... ४० तवेधा अस्वसंविदितगृहीतार्थ ..... ६३ तद्वचनमपि तद्धेतुत्वात् श्राकाशे नित्येऽप्यस्य
तव्यापाराश्रितं
.... ३८ श्राप्तवचनादिनिबंधन .... ४४ | तनिश्चयात्मकं समारोप
..momxe Muck m Mmmm kGGEल

Page #360

( २ )
पृष्ठाङ्क:
पृष्ठाङ्क:
m mm 6
MM 60 6 0 ० ०
marururrm
Cm Cm
W००
W
तत्तिनिर्णयः
परापरविवर्त्तव्यापि तर्कस्येव व्याप्तिगोचरत्वे
परापेक्षणे परिणामि .... ७२ तस्मादग्निमान् धूमवांश्चायम् .... ७० | परार्थं तु तदर्थपरामर्शि तस्माद् वास्तवोऽभेदः ।
परिणामी शब्दः कृतकत्वात् .... ३६ तस्य वाष्पादिभावेन
परीक्षामुखमादर्श
.... तावता च साध्यसिद्धिः
परोक्षमितरद्
.... २६ तेनाज्ञातत्वात्
| पर्यायव्यतिरेकभेदात् तेन पक्षस्तदाधार
| पुरुषान्तरपूर्वार्थ दर्शनस्मरणकारणकम्
पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोः . दृष्टान्ताभासा अन्वये
पूर्वोत्तरसहचरानुपलंभ दृष्टान्तो द्वेधा
प्रतिज्ञायास्तु निगमनम् दृष्टोऽपि समारोपात्ताहक
| प्रतिभासभेदस्य च
.... ७१ धूमवांश्चायमिति वा
प्रत्यक्षादिनिमित्तं स्मृतिप्रत्यभि .... २६ न च ते तदंगे
प्रत्यक्षतरभेदात् न च पूर्वोत्तरचारिणोः
प्रत्यक्षमेवैकं प्रमाणमित्यादि न चासिद्धवदिष्टं
प्रत्यायनाय हीच्छा धारेव न भविष्यति मुहूर्तान्ते
प्रदीपवत् न हि तत्साध्यप्रतिपत्त्यंगं
प्रमाणतदाभासौ नापि व्याप्तिस्मरणार्थ
| प्रमाणादभिन्न भिन्नं च नास्त्यत्र गुहायां
प्रमाणादर्थसंसिद्धि नास्त्यत्र धूमोऽनग्न
प्रमाणाद् व्यावृत्त्ये वा नास्त्यत्र भित्तौ
प्रमाणोभयसिद्धे तु साध्यधर्म नास्त्यत्र भूतले घटः
प्रसिद्धो धर्मी नास्त्यत्र शिशपा
प्रेत्यासुखप्रदो धर्मः नास्त्यत्र शीतस्पर्श औष्ण्यात्
फलाभासं प्रमाणाद् नास्त्यत्र शीतस्पर्शो धूमात्
बाधितः प्रत्यक्षानुमाना नास्त्यत्र समतुलाया
बालव्युत्पत्त्यर्थ नास्त्यत्राप्रतिबद्धसामर्यो
बालप्रयोगाभासः नालोको कारणं
भाव्यतीतयोमरणजाग्रबोधो नास्मिन् शरीरिणि
भेदे त्वात्मान्तरवत् निश्चितवृत्तिरनित्य
माता मे वन्ध्या नोदगाद भरणिर्मुहूर्तात्प्राक्कत एव.... यथाग्नावेव धूमस्तदभावे नोदगाद् भरणिर्मुहूर्तात् पूर्व . यथा नद्यास्तीरे पुष्योदयात्
यथाऽनुष्णोऽग्निः नोदेष्यति मुहूर्तान्ते
यथा मेर्वादयः सन्ति पक्ष इति यावत्
यथा स एवायं देवदत्तः परंपरया संभवत्
यथास्मिन् प्राणिनि
m m m0 m ००००००००
००
urrw४०Frur . Fr

Page #361

(
३ )
पृष्टाङ्कः।
पृष्ठाङ्क:
६८
GM
m mr
३१
यः प्रमिमीते स एव .... ६२ समवायेऽतिप्रसंगः
.... ७३ रसादेकसामग्यनुमानेन
सर्वज्ञस्वेन वकृत्वाविरोधात् रागद्वेषमोहाक्रान्त
सहक्रमभावनियमो
.... २८ लक्षण एवासौ दोषो
सहचारिणोाप्य
.... २८ लोकायतिकस्य प्रत्यक्षत
सहचारिणोरपि विकल्पसिद्धे तस्मिन् सत्तेतरे सहजयोग्यतासंकेत साध्ये
स हेतुढेधोपलब्ध्य विद्युदादिना
सांख्यं प्रति परिणामी विपक्षेऽप्यविरुद्ध
साधनात् साध्यविज्ञानं .... २७ विपरीतनिश्चिताविनाभावो
साध्यं धर्मःक्वचित्तद्विशिष्टो वा धर्मी.... विपरीतव्यतिरेकश्च
साध्यधर्माधारसंदेहा विपरीतान्वयश्च
साध्यमिणि साधनधर्मावबोध .... विरुद्धतदुपलब्धिः
साध्याविनाभावित्वेन
२७ विरुद्धानुपलब्धिर्विधौ षोढा
साध्यव्यातं साधनं यत्र विशदं प्रत्यक्षम्
साध्याभावे साधनाभावो विशेषश्च
सामग्रीविशेषविश्लेषित विषयाभास: सामान्य
सामान्यं द्वेधा विसंवादात्
सामान्य विशेषात्मा तदर्थो विषयः.... वृक्षोऽयम्
सावरणस्वे करणजन्यत्वे वैशद्येऽपि परोक्षम्
सिद्धः श्रावणः शब्दः व्यक्तिरूपं च निदर्शनं
सिद्धः श्रावणः शब्दः शब्दत्वात् .... ६ व्यतिरेके सिद्धतद्ध्यतिरेका .... सिद्धे प्रत्यक्षादिबाधिते व्याप्तौ तु साध्यं धर्म एव .... | सौगतसांख्ययोगप्राभाकर व्यावृत्त्यापि न
| स्पष्टतया प्रकृतप्रतिपत्तेरयोगात् .... ७ व्युत्पन्नप्रयोगस्तु
स्वयमसमर्थस्य शब्दानुच्चारणेऽपि स्वस्यानुभवन .... स्वरूपेणासत्वात् शंकितवृत्तिस्तु नास्ति
स्वविषयोपदर्शक शुचि नरशिरः कपालं
स्वापूर्वार्थव्यवसाया स देवदत्तो यथा
स्वार्थपरार्थभेदात् संभवदन्यद् विचारणीयम्
स्वार्थमुक्कलक्षणम् संस्कारोबोधनिबन्धना
स्वावरणक्षयोपशम संदिग्धविपर्यस्ताव्युत्पन्नानां
स्वोन्मुखतया प्रतिभासनं सदृशपरिणामस्तिर्यक्
हिताहितप्राप्तिपरिहार सदृशे तदेवेदं तस्मिन्नेव ६५ | हेतुप्रयोगा हि यथाव्याप्ति समर्थनं वा वरं
३५ | हेत्वाभासा प्रसिद्ध समर्थस्य करणे
..... ७१ | हेतोरुपसंहार उपनयः
:
:
:
:
:
२६
*Gen

Page #362
20 प्रमेयरत्नमालायामुद्धृतकारिकावचनानामकाराद्यनुक्रमः / / पृष्टाङ्कः अग्निस्वभावः शक्रस्य मूर्द्धा चेदग्निरेव सः अज्ञो जन्तुरनीशोऽयमात्मनः सुखदुःखयोः अतीतानागतौ कालो वेदकारविजितौ अतीतानागतौ कालौ वेदार्थज्ञविवर्जितौ अनवच्छिन्नसम्प्रदायस्वे सत्यस्मर्यमाणकत्तत्वात् .... श्रयमों नायमर्थ इति शब्दा वदन्ति न अर्थेन घटयन्त्येनां नहि मुख्यार्थरूपताम् अस्ति ह्यालोचनाज्ञानं प्रथमं निर्विकल्पकम् आहुर्विधातृप्रत्यक्षं न निषेधविपश्चितःइदमल्पं महदूरमासन्नं प्रांशु नैति वा उपमानं प्रसिद्धार्थसाधात् साध्यसाधनम् ऊर्णनाभ इवांशूनां चन्द्रकान्त इवाम्भसाम् एकत्र दृष्टो भावो हि क्वचिन्नान्यत्र दृश्यते ऐश्वर्यमप्रतिहतं सहजो विरागः .... क्लेशकर्मविपाकाशयैरपरामुष्टः पुरुषः सर्वज्ञः गृहीत्वा वस्तुसद्भावं स्मृत्वा च प्रतियोगिनम् तदहर्जस्तनेहातो रक्षोदृष्टर्भवस्मृतेः .... तद्गुणैरपकृष्टानां शब्दे संक्रान्त्यसंभवात् तद्भावहेतुभावौ हि दृष्टान्ते तदवेदिनः त्रिगुणमविवेकिविषयः सामान्यमचेतनम् पंचवर्ण भवेद् रत्नं मेचकाख्यं पृथुस्तनी पयोंबुभेदी हंसः स्यात् षट्पादैः भ्रमरः स्मृतः पिहिते कारागारे तमसि च सूचीमुखाग्रदुर्भेये प्रकृतेर्महान् ततोऽहंकारस्तस्माद् गणश्च षोडशक..... प्रमाणेतरसामान्यस्थितेरन्यधियो गते..... प्रमाणपञ्चकं यत्र वस्तुरूपेण जायते .... भारताध्ययनं सर्व गुर्वध्ययनपूर्वकम् .... भिन्नकालं कथं प्र'ह्यमिति चेद्ग्राह्यतां विदुः मुजप्रकृतिरविकृतिर्महदाद्याः प्रकृतिविकृतयः सप्त .... मूलक्षतिकरीमाहुरनवस्थां हि दूषणम् .... यत्नतः परीक्षितं कार्य कारणं नानिवर्तते यत्राप्यतिशयो दृष्टः स स्वार्थानतिलंघनात् यो यत्रैव स तत्रैव यो यदैव तदैव सः.... विधिमुखेन कार्यमुग्वेन वा गुणानामप्रतीतिः विश्वतश्चक्षुरुत विश्वतोमुखो .... वेदस्याध्ययनं पूर्व तदध्ययनपूर्वकम् .... .... शक्रमूर्द्धनि धूमस्यान्यथापि भावः .... .... शरभोऽप्यष्टभिः पादैः सिंहश्चारुसटान्वितः शब्दे दोषोद्भवस्तावद् वक्त्रधीन इति स्थितम् .... समुदेति विलयमृच्छति भावो नियमेन पर्ययनयस्य संसर्गादविभागश्चेदयोगोलकवह्निवत् .... सर्व वैखल्विदं ब्रह्म नेह नानास्ति किंचन सुखमालादनाकारं विज्ञानं मेयबोधकम् .... हेतोस्त्रिज्वपि रूपेषु निर्णयस्तेन वर्णितः 4.520 MM X mmarr00 0 0 0 0 0 mm r " MMM 99rM - 00 -440 -2 ur wr. 4 rU0 rur . . 20 - . . 04 For Personal & Private Use Only