Shraman Bhagvana Mahavira Part 4

Author(s): Ratnaprabhvijay, D P Thaker
Publisher: Parimal Publication
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/008005/1

Page #1

ŚRAMANA BHAGAVĀN

MAHĀVİRA
HIS LIFE AND TEACHING
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #2

The Universities Commission Ministry of Education Snowdon Government of India:
Snowdon,
Simla I 27th July 1949.
My dear Sir,
I thank you very much for your letter of the 21st July, and the set of books you sent to me.
I am sorry to say that I have not been able to read them with the care and attention that they deserve. But I have seen enough to know that they must be of great value to students of religious thought.
With regards,
Your Sincerely sd (Radhakrishanan)

Page #3

SRAMAŅA BHAGAVĀN
MAHĀVİRA HIS LIFE AND TEACHING
BY MUNI RATNA-PRABHA VIJAYA
VOLUME IV NIHNAVA--VADA
PARIMAL PUBLICATIONS DELHI
INDIA
LIVI

Page #4

We would like to put on record our heart felt gratitude to Muni Shilchandra Vijaya Ganı, a family member of the author, for arranging the permission to publish the present volumes
Price Rs 2000/- for set of six volumes
First Published, 1948-50 Reprint Edition, 1989
Published by K. L. Joshi
For Parimal Publications
27/28 Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 Distributed by
Radha Publications
4378/4B, Murari Lal Street, Ansari Road
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002
Phone 261839
Printer:
Delux Offset Printers
Old Rohtak Road, Daya Basti Delhi-110035.

Page #5

PREFACE
The Text of Nihnavavada.
Sources.
It is now & welkgon a fact that Rişabhadeva Swāmi, the first Tirthankara of the present series, was the founder of the Jaina Canon. It was during his regime that the Sacred Works of the Jaidas came into existence. After him, the Sacred Works increased in number and quality when the religion was exalted to high rank, but they were reduced considerably in times of disorder and anarchy. Generally speaking, preachings of all the Tirthankaras happened to be of the same kind, and their lives were almost similar to each other in principal characteristics.
Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahavira, the elder contemporary of Gautama Buddha, was the last, but Supreme Tirthankara in their whole dy'pasty. Like His predecessors, He too had got his preachings composed in books. His Ganadharas or principal disciples arranged those preachings in twelve Angas, the last one being divided into fourteen Parvas. The Absolute Knowledge of these Poryas began to fade gradually till at last it was totally extinct. Arya Jambo Swami was the last Kövalin. After him there were half a dozen Pattadharas designated as ŚrutaKavalins. Then there were ten Dasaporvins, possessing the knowledge of ten Parvas only. Arya Vajra Swami was the last Dasaparvin, after whom the knowledge of Parvas began to fade quickly. Devarddhigani Kşamāśramaņa was the last of the type which possessed the knowledge of one Parva only.
Thus, when the knowledge of the original preaching of śramaņa Bhagavan Mahavira was fast disappearing, it wa rightly felt by some of his successors to commit those preachings to writings. As a result of such efforts, forty-five Sacred Works

Page #6

came into existence : 11 Angas, 12 Upāngas, 10 Prakirņas, 6 Cheda-Sotras, 2 Sotras, and 4 Mola-Sotras.x Of these, the four Mala-Satras arc considered as the Original Satras or Commandn ents, because they are primarily needed to guide the Jaina Monks in their religious practices. Avasyaka, Daśavaikālika, Uttarādhyayana and Piņda Niryukti (or Ogha Niryukti) are the four Mala Satras. According to Weber, the order or compa sition of these Sotras is this —-(1) Uttaradhyayana (2) Avaśyaka (3) Daśavaikālika and (4) Pinda Niryukti.
Though Āvasyaka Satra is not the oldest of the four Mola Satras, it is the most important of all, as its name suggests. Sāmāyika (Sãmāiya), Caturvimšati Stava (Cauvisattho), Vandanaka (Vandaņayam), Pratikramaņa (Padikkamaņa), Kāyotsarga (Kā. ussayga) and Pratyākhyāna (Paccakkhāņa) are the six divisions of the Avaśyaka Sutra. It should be noted that though all these Satras were dedacted into books by Ganadharas they were originally preached by śramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvira.*
Bhadrabāhu Swāmi had already written a Niryukti on tho Avaśyaka Sotras and a number of Cornis were also composed by several authors as detailed commentaries on the Avaśyaka Sotra. Still, however, Jinabhadra-gaại Ksamāśramana felt the need of ellucidating the Original Niryukti; hence he wrote & Bhasya or Commentary in gathās or verse on the Niryukti. Since this was an additional Bhāsya to the Niryukti, which itself was a Commcntary on the Avaśyaka Sotra, it was known as Visesāvaśyaka Bhāsya. The whole work runs into 3603 gāthās or verses. It could further be divided into several sub-sections such as Pithikā,
* In addition to these, some enumerate 20 more Prakirņas, 12 Niryuktis, and several more arriving at the total number of 84. Again in order to supplement the information supplied by thosc 84 āgamas, there are several other works known as Nigamas or Upanişads which, in turn, are 36 in all and bring the total number to 120.
Vide mot i fa T TART for foreo TUTETTE TI तस्सामिणा उ निच्छयनयस्स तत्तो जओऽणण्णं ॥३३८२॥
(at fainaFTE 12)

Page #7

Varavarikā, Upasargas, Samācāri (of ten varieties ), Cana dhara-vāda, Gañadharas, Nihnavas, Nihnava-vada, sesa Upod ghata, Niryukti and a-svādhyāya Nir yukti. Of these. Ganadhara vāda and Nihnayavāda are the most important of all, because they viscuss, both positively and negatively, several philosophical topics that are vitally connected with the Jaina ayamas.
Gañadharavāda and Nihnavavāda. Although both the Vādas ultimately point to the comme goal of the realisation of truth there is a great contrast between Canadhara-vāda and Nilnavavada in so far as their subject, method of discussion, debators, and the consequences of clobato are concerned. These points of contrast could bc explained briefly as follows:--
Gañadharavāda leals with positive type of discussion" while Nihnavavāda deals with negative type of discussion. Because Ganadharavāda strengthens the hands of Jaina Agamas hy asserting certain cardinal virtues of the Jaina Religion, while Nihnava. vāda tries to repudliate the principle of Jainism in one way or the other weakening thereby its influence amongst the people. Discussions in G. V. are based on the interpretations of certain Vodavacanas, while those in N. V. are based on the interpretations of the Jaina Agamas. Gañadharas enjoy the proud privi. lege of entering into debate with śramana Bhagavan Malāvira Ilimself, while Nihnavas enter into controversy with the Precept or of one Gaccha or the other. Gañadharas entertain honest doubts in their minds from the beginning and hence accept the principles of Tirthankara as soon as they are convinced; while Nihnavas, in most cases, do not leave their rigid beliefs in spite of any number of solid arguments advanced by their opponents. Debates of Gañadharas, therefore, seem to have generated for the realisation of truth, while those of Nihnavas are caused out of jealousy, anger, vanity or infatuation in many cases. Thus, love of truth is at the root of G. V., while insinuation of truth seems to be the root of N. V. It will, therefore, be seen that all the Ganadharas argue with their Celebrated l'rcceptor frankly

Page #8

4
with true desire for knowledge, and hence they do not hesitate in accepting the Dikṣā ultimately when all their doubts are dispelled; while Nihnavas deliberately try to hide the truth in order to refute the theory of the Tirthankara, as they want to establish their own theory amongst the monks and create disruption in the Gaccha.
Faith in Agamas is the guiding spirit of Gaṇadharas, while scepticism is the main characteristic of Nihnavas. In G. V., the debators are non-Jaina persons who are initiated into Jainism at the end, while in N. V. the debators are not only Jainas but the learned Jaina monks themselves who abandon the Jaina church and try to establish their own School. Logic, pure and simple, brings the debators to the right path in G. V., while physical punishment brings the debators to the right path in many cases in N. V.
In G. V., the discussions are held on a very high level as they treat philosophical subjects from beginning to end; while in N. V., the discussions sometimes fall to the level of mere logical tricks employed for refuting a small argument related to a certain statement of agama. Gaṇadharas never went against the Jaina canon; on the contrary they sponsored the movement of establishing its influence over the masses by dedacting the principles of preachings of Śramaņa Bhagavan Mahavira into books. It was not so with Nihnavas. Since they were prominent monks holding strong influence over the public, the Nihnavas actually propagated their wrongly-based theories amongst the dull-witted monks and defiled certain portions of the Giaccha by dragging some of its members on their sides. Rohagupta and Śivabhati are the glaring instances of this type. In short, the tendency of being at perfect agreement with the preachings of Śramana Bhagavan Mahāvira signifies the character of Ganadharas; while that of being at disagreement with the same, either in part or in toto, reflects the character of Nihnavas.
Utility of Nihnavavāda—
It will appear from the points of contrast stated above that

Page #9

Nihnavavada has proved detrimental to the cause of Jainism. Although there is very little sympathy for Nihnavas amongst Jainas, it should be remembered that these intellectual outlaws have indirectly helped to strengthen the ground of Jainism by their apparent harsh activities. Nihnayavāda is not a mere quarrel. But it is an intellectual debate in which the real essence of the religious precepts are to test. After having passed through the hard rest of the fire of Nihnavavāda, lustre of the precep. ts of the Jaina Canon has become brighter instead of becoming faint. Secondly, Nihnavas and their thoughts have clone gooil turn to the followers of Jainism by holding a torch-light in the form of their plight as Nihnnvas and warning them thereby of the disastrous consequences of running the risk that they had undertaken. Thirdly, Nihnavavāda draws our attention to one intrinsic weakness that is more or less inherent in every human being that of not putting into practice that we actually believe. Eventually such instances remind us of our own hypocrisy which is but another form of Nihnavavāda and make us introvert for a while to think if we could ever overcome the inconsistency of behaviour. Fourthly, the study of Nihnavavāda helps to cultivate intellectual robustness. Like Nihnavas one should learn to accept nothing without being convinced of it. Leaving aside their prejudicial temperament, Nihnavas possessed a remarkable quality of not accepting truth as it comes but only after intellectual test and direct experience. Their defeats teach us that there is one universal standard of testing truth and that is anèkāntavária, or all-embracive point of view. Fifthly, the story of each one of the Nihnavas is very interesting and provides literary flavour in between philosophical discussions. Being more realistic, it appeals to the common reader much more than mere enumeration or ellucidation of religious precepts. Thus the study of Nihnavavāda Lears importance from various sides. Slimmary of the text
A brief summary of the life-events and thoughts of different Nihnavas could be drawn as follows:--

Page #10

Jamuli was the first Nihnava. He was the son-in-law of Śramuoa Bhagavān Mahāvira on the one hand and his nephew on the other. He was conversant with eleven Angas. 1 [e was the heard of a retinue of 500 monks while luis wife was the chef of 1000 nuns. Once, after having separatoil from Śramaņa Bhaguvän Malāvira withont his consent, as he was laul own with high fever, he crdered his followers to preparo a bed for him. While the monks were spreading the bed for him, he questiones them as to whether the band was really. The monks said 'yes'. But, in the heat of fever, Jamali assorted that what was being spread could not be said tv have been actually spreard. Eventually le retised to accept the welkroun «loctrine of Kriyamanam Kritau', 'caliyamāņam calitam etc, found in the Bhagavati Sutra. Accoriling to him, actual prorluction of an object is achieved after (lirghakāla or long time. The sthaviras trical to refute his theory of 'bahurata' which advanced the faults of nityakritatva, mithyākriyā etc. by puttig forth various sound counter-arguments. But Jamāli did not listen to them. Consequently, some of the sthaviras left his side and returned to Sramaņa Bhagavan Mahāvīra, while a few stuck to him and followed the theory of Bahuratas'. Jamali boasted about his Kèvalitva even before the Tirthaikara. Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahăvīra explained to him the transitoriness of Jiva like loka and asked him to mnounce his theory. But Jamali dil not even put faith in him. Thereafter le led the life of a staunch śramaņa and met death without repenting for his wisbelief. His wife, however, renounced the Bahuruta theory after having graspel the truth on experiencing the burn of a 'charcoal thrown on her by a potter named Dhanka.
Tişyagupta was the second Nihnava. He happened to be the student of Acārya Vasu who was a Sruta-Kèvalin. In course of his study of Parva, Tisyagupta came across a conversation between the Tirthankara and his pupil (discussing the definition of Jiva, where-in the Tirthankara asserts that not a portion or two but all the portions combineil together, form Jiva. Tisyagıpta misinterpretes this ālāpaka and propounds a new theory that the last portion of a living being by which it becomes complete in

Page #11

form can alone be called Jiva. The preceptor tries to remove his inisbelief by repeated assertions that it is not the last portion that brings about the completion of a living being, but each and every constituent of it, helps to do so, as cach part of an ubject can never be taken as different from the object according to Evanbhata Naya. Tisyagupta does not feel convinced and hence is expelled from the Gaccha. Thereafter he begins to wander here and there propagating his theory of 'Antya-praule. śatva' and finally arrives at the city of Amalakalpă, where he is invited for dinner by a śrāvaka called Mitraśrī, who, by offer ing him the last portions of various articles of food, drink etc. opens his eyes and compels him to come to the riglic path.
Arya Āsādhācārya was the pioncer of a third type of Nilnavas known as Avyaktas. He happened to be a preceptor in the Paulāşādha church of the city of Sveta vikā. While teaching the practice of āgāụha yoga to his pupils, Āsādhācārya Jied on account of acute pain in heart and attained dirvvine form in tho Nalinigulma region of Saudharma deva-luka. But when he know by means of Avadhi jnāna that his pupils were engrossed in the study of yoga, he condescended to return to his original hunan furm anel proceeded with his work. So, the god in dis. guise of a preceptor taught the aims, explanations, anil commanl. wents of the Holy Writ. Ultimately, at the tinic of departure he informed the sādhús of his asamyata-idvatva and beggel their apology.
The young sädhus became sceptical at this instance. They began to doubt their own fellow brothers on the plea that one could never ascertain whether one was samyata or asamyata. They decided, therefore, not to respect anyone. The sthaviras tried to persuade these young sceptics in several ways but it was all in vain. Consequently the Ayaktavā'lins had to be expelled from the gaccha. Thereafter, on their arrival at Rājagriha, King Balabhadra scot for these Nihnavas and orilercel them to be killed under the feet of elephants. For, the king argued, it could not be ascertained as to whether they were sādhus or

Page #12

thieves. The Nihnavas then pleaded that they were real pådhus. The king replied that if they were real sādhus they ought to have respected their own sthaviras as real sādhus. This made the Avyaktas leave their false belief and join the gaccha after tendering due apology.
Ārya Aśvamitra was the fourth Nihnava. He was the pupil of Acārya Mahagiri of the yaksa temple in the city of Mithila. While studying the Naipuņika chapter of the Aņupravāda Parva, Aśvamitra came across a statement dealing with the discussion of Chinna and chedanaka, which asserted that "all the Narakas of the present convention will perish and so will all the deities." On reading this, Aśvamitra conjectured that if all the Nārakas were to perish, all other living beings would as well meet destruction as soon as they were born. Consequently, he thought, they would not be able to attain the rewards of good and evil deeds. In this way, he began to draw several conclusions on false conjectures. The preceptor proved the absurdity of his theory by pointing out various in-consistencies in accepting the entire deotrution of an abject at the end of a particular condition of time, asserted by the Kṣaṇikakşaya vada of Asvamitra from the point of view of Rijustūtra Naya. Aśvamitra, however, did not give up his false notion, and was subsequently expelled from the Gaccha. Thereafter, in the city of Rājagriha, the watchmen caught hold of Aśvamitra and hit him and his retinue alleging them to be burglars. Aśvamitra pleaded that they were none but śravakas helonging to a particuler gaccha. But the watchmen refused to believe on the strength of their own theory and retorted that those śramaņas and the gaccha had already perished there and then only. This brought Aśvamitra to senses and he joined the original church by tendering due apology.
Arya Gaigācārya was the fifth Nihnava. He propounded the theory of Dvaikriyās viz. that of two processes taking place simultaneously. In a village on the bank of river Ullūka, there lived a monk named Dhanagiri who had a pupil called Gangacārya. Once, while crossing the river, Gangācārya, bald-headed as he was, felt the heat of sunshine on his head, and the cold of

Page #13

9
river-water on his feet. At this time, he formed a wrong notion that both the experiences took place simultaneously, and contradicted thereby the precept of Agamas which had laid down that two processes of feeling could never take place simultaneously. He reported the theory to his preceptor and quoted his personal experience in support of it. The preceptor replied that the processes of undergoing two different feelings seem to work simulta neously on account of one's own inability to mark the subtle gap of time between the two as well as the quickness of mind. He established the validity of Āgamas and refuted the nis-belief of Dvaikriya by proving an important principle of perception that there can never be more than one upayoga or application of mind, at one time, explaining the difference between general and definite types, of knowledge. Eventually, he was compelled by Maninaga to give up his false notion, and Gaṇgācārya had to do so out of fear. Ultimately, he resorted to his original school after tendering the apology.
Rohagupta, the pioneer of Vaiśesika System, was known as the Sixth Nihnava. He entered into controversy with a mendicaut ascetic in the court of king Balaśri of the city of Antaranjikā and defeated him by establishing the theory of three categories successfully. The defeated mendicant was expelled from the city, while victorious Rohagupta went to his preceptor and narrated the whole incident before him. Acārya Śrīgupta inquired about the theory of Trairāśikas. So, Rohagupta explained that he had established the existence of three categories of Jiva viz. Jiva, Ajiva and Nojiva, by means of various tricks and examples. The Acarya congratulated him on the success, but at the time he advised Rohagupta to declare before the people that although he had proved the validity of the Trairāśika theory, they should not follow the same, as it went against the Jaina Agamas. Rohagupta declined to do so. Consequently, Acārya had to enter into controversy with him in the Royal court. They discussed the principle of Trairāśikas at length for six months. Ultimately, it was agreed by both the parties to approach the kutrīkāpaņa (Universal Shop) where all the objects existing in
same

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #14

10
three lokas were available. Accordingly, the Ācārya asked for nojiva at the Kutrikäpana but it was not available. Consequeutly, Rohagupta was declared as Nihnava and was expelled from the gaccha in a humiliating condition. He attracted a number of followers by propagating the Trairāśika theory and started a separate school of Vaišeşikas which, unlike Jaina Ayamas, esta blished the principle of sıx entities viz. Dravya, Guņa, Karma, Sāmānya, Viseșa and Samavāya.
Gosthá-Māhila was the Seventh Nihnava. He belonged to the Iksugriha Gaccha of Daśapura Nagara. He was angry with the preceptor Rakṣitasari for having appointed Durbalika Puspamitra as the head of the Gaccha after him. So, when Puspawitra gave sermons on the eighth and ninth Porvas, Gustha -Māhila did not even care to listen to him. He heard the same from Vindhya who had carefully attended and understood the sermons. In course of discussion of the Karmapravada parva, when he heard from Vindhya that Karman is tied, attached and infused with all the regions of Jiva, he contradicted that principle of āgama and tried to assert that Karman was attached to Jiva only on the surface like the skin of a snake. He did not accept the relation of Jiva, and Karnan as that of milk and water or that of fire and iron. Further, he objected to the predicament which laid down that the practice of pratyākhyāna is to be followed by all the monks in mind, speech, and action till the end of their life, and asserted that the sanctity of the vow could be preserved only if it were to be practised without a time-linit. Vindhya tried to explain the purport of the āgama, but GosthăMāhila: did not listen to him. The matter was then reported to Acārya Durbalıkā Puspamitra. The Acārya repudiated the viewpoint of Goștha Māhila by means of various pramaņas and pro. pounded the commandment of Scriptures that pratyākhyāna could never continue after (leath on the ground that Muktātmā is free from duty of observing vow after leaving the mundane workl. But Gosthā Māhila arrogantly rejected the Acārya's view-point and quoted the authority of Sramàņa Bhagavān Mahavira in support of his own. Eventnally it was decided in the assembly

Page #15

11
of sthaviras to refer the matter to Tirthankara Simandara Swāmi And it was done so through a goddess, who brought the verdict of the Tirthankara in favour of the Acarya, Goṣthā Māhila, who refused to accept even the authority of Tirthankara Bhagavan, was then declared as Seventh Nihnava, and was immediately expelled from the Gaccha. He remained as a Nihnava till the end of his life.
Botika is a peculiar type of Nihnavas which gave rise to the sect of Digambaras. Śivabhuti was the pioneer of that sect. Originally, he happened to be a Royal attendant in the city of Rathavirapura, He was very irregular in his habits. He used to come home after midnight. So, his wife was very much unhappy. Once when he came home late at night his mother rebuked him and did not allow him to enter the house. Śivabhuti left the home in pride and anger. He came near an Upāśraya where he found the Jaina Sadhus engrossed in their study at that late hour. Acarya Krisṇasuri was the head of the gaccha. Sivabbuti approached the ascetics and requested them to initiale him into asceticism. The ascetics refused to give him dikṣā at the first instance, but subsequently Śivabhuti got himself initiated into gaccha.
Once, when all the Sadhus were on Vihāra, Sivabhūti received a blanket as present from a king. Śivabhūti was so much fascinated towards the new blanket that he kept it with him in spite of the preceptor forbidding him to do so. Once, when Śiva bhuti was away, the preceptor took out his blanket, cut it into pieces and distributed the same amongst the sadhus. Šivabhuti's mind was greatly perturbed at this. He then heared the discourse of preceptor on Jinakalpika, and the apparel of a sadhu. Śivabhūti boasted to become Jinakalpika by complete renunciation. Accordingly, he gave up all his clothes and stayed in the garden without clothes. The Acarya and several other sthaviras tried to disuade him from giving up clothes by explaining the true spirit of nisparigraha in various ways. But out of vanity and passion, Śivabhūti did not listen to him. His sister also followed

Page #16

12
the brother in this respect but she was subsequeutly asked to put on garments. Thus Sivablūci sponsored the sect of Digambaras, He had initiate I two pupils viz. Kauņdinya and Kottayira, who prolonged the sect by tradition. Commentaries--
Three cowmentaries are said to have been written on the text of Sri Viseşāvaśyaka Bhāsya. The author himself is said to have written a commentary on his own work, but unfortunately, his commentary is not available at present. The second commentary has been written by Kotyācārya (or Silánkācārya) the manuscript of which dated 1136 V. S. is presereved in the Bhāulārkar Research Institute, Poona, in a tattered condition. This commentary has not been published as yet. The only commentary that has been published and popularly accepted at present is that of Maladhāri Hemacandrācārya.
Malaihāri Hewacancrācārya. is different form Kali-kālasarvajña Hemacandrācārya, the welknown author of Dvyāśraya. Originally, he was known as Svetānıbarācārya Bhattāraka. His workelly name was Pralyumina and in the prime of his youth, it is said, he was a minister. By the advice of Sri Ambayalèva sori he renounced the worldly life and having left his four wives, he entered the ascetic life. Siddharāja Jayasimha, the great monarch of Gujarat, of the twelfth century V. S., was highly impressed by his great personality and wide-spread wellversedress.
The Author-His Life, Works, and Date. Life
Jinabhadragani Kşamāśramaņa is the author of this splendid work. Very little is known about his life. Yet, there is no doubt that the author was a highly-esteemed scholar of his aget
† Here are the tributes paid to him by several commentators:(i) francutför FA NAINHUATTHETI यः श्रुताजीतमुहः शौरिः सिन्धोः सुधामिव ॥१॥
-- Tilakācārya in his Avasayaka Vritti.

Page #17

13
He was the first Jaina writer and preacher who had consis. tently attempted to interprete and explain the principles of the Jaina Canon in such a manner as to appeal to the intellect of the people. That is to say, he did not instruct his pupils or followers only in a traditional way without caring for the inner motive or spirit of the preachings. Though he preached the same old traditional principles of the Jaina Canon, he interpreted and explained them in a logical way so as to appeal to their intellect. He was, therefore, accepted by the people as an unparalleled preacher and scholar of the ago, and hence was awarded the title of "yugapradhāna".
His knowledge was not confined to the religious lore, but he was well-versed in the sciences of mathematics, etymology, prosody, and phonology also.t
Still, however, Ācārya Jinabhadragaņi was the staunch and orthoclox upholder of the traditional Jaina Canon. Though he knew many sciences, his extensive knowledge and intelligence were taken advantage of only for establishing the authenticity (ii) वाक्यैर्विशेषातिशयैर्थिश्वसन्देहहारिभिः । जिनमुदं जिनभद्र किं क्षमाश्रमणं स्तुवे ।
-Muni-Candra Sūri in Amara Caritra, (iii) जिनवचननतं विषमं भावार्थ यो विविच्य शिष्येभ्यः ।
इत्थमुपादिशदमलं परोपकारेककृतचेताः ।। तं नमत बोधजलधि गुणमंदिरमखिलवाग्मिनां श्रेष्ठम् ।
चरणश्रियोपगूढं जिनभद्रगणिक्षमाश्रमणम् ॥ -Malayagiri Sūri in his Commentary on Brihat Ksetra Samāsa. $ Vide नमह य अणुओग-धरं जुगप्पहाणं पहाणनाणायमयं ।
सव्व-सुइ-सत्थ-कुसलं दसण-नाणोवओगमग्गम्मिठियं ॥
-Siddhasona Sari in his Carņi on Jitakalpasatra, + Vide स-समय पर-समयाग:-लिवि-गणिय-छन्द-सहनिम्माओ। दससु वि दिसासु जस्स य अणुभोगो (अणुवमो) भणह जसपडहो।
(Ibid)

Page #18

anil validity of the Jaina Ayamas. He is therefore, taken as one of the pioneer agama-pradhāna or orthodox Acāryas
He used to take the support of logical illustrations and inferences only partially in the sense that such illustrations or inferences were quoted only if they strengthened the view-point of the tra litional Jaina Ayamas, and were rejected if they went against the trarlitional preachmgs. The example of his predecessor Sidihasèna Divākara is welknown. Swihasèna was it freewindled but logical interpreter. His works are full of original thoughts and independent ideas irrespective of their being different from or similar to the traditional Jaina Agamay. The theory that Absolute Knowledige anl Absolute Perception do not tuke place simultaneouly but one after the other, has been proved by him by the help of logical inferences and concrete illustra tiuns. Sid lhasena thus went against the traditional view of the Jaina Aganas acoording to which the Kèvala-Jrāna and the Kèvali-Darsana took place simultaneously. Jinabhaciragani Ksuunāśraniana repudiates the theory of Siddhasèna Diväkara in his Višeşāvasyaka Bhāśya and re-establishes the original theory of the Jaina Āgamas that Kévala Darśana and Kavala Jrāna take place simultaneously. Jinabhadragani is, thus, well-renowned us the up-holder of the Jaina traditions.
That Jinabhadrayaņi Kşamāśramaņa was an orator of established reputation is known from several sources. The commentatur Hèwcandrácārya Malarlhāri refers to Jinabha lragani us“ Upa Jinabhadra Kşamaśramaņāh Vyākhyātarah ". Another commentatur named Kotyācārya, who has written a commentary on the Visesavaśyaka Bhāsya, pays him a tribute to the same offect in the last verse of his commentary. He says. * Vide TTEHTITA-Faso gaf-TRA-FATEHTITUTAII जिणभद्दखमासमणं खमासमणाणं निहाणमिव एकं ॥
**(Ibid) Also vile Jitakalpasatra Elitor's Preface, p 7. § Vide uratorias (TITTER ) fooi
Vide " Short History of Jaina Literature" Ed, by M, D, Desai, p. 152, foot-note.

Page #19

15
भाष्यं सामायिकस्य स्फुटविकट पदार्थोपगृढ बृहचश्रीमत्पूज्यैरकारि क्षतकलुषधियां भूरिसंस्कारधारि । तस्य ब्याख्यानमात्र किमपि विवधता यम्मया पुण्यमाप्त
प्रेत्याहं द्वाग् लभेयं परमपरिमितां प्रीतिमत्रय तेन ॥
No more information is available about the life of this great Acārya. Works--
Jinabhastragaại Kşamāśramaņa is said to have composed the following works :
(i) Višesā vaśyaka Bhăşya This welknown work has been ranked as one of the most important and highly esteemed works of Jainism. The auther himself wrote a commentary on this Bhāsya in Sanskrit. Jinabhadrayani has earned the reputation as a commentator mainly from this work. For, wherever he has been referred to as Bhāsyakāra, the references have been quoted from Višesāvaśyaka Bhásya. But as has been suggested in the Preface to the Jîta Kalpa Sotra* it is not improbable if Jinabhadragani Kşamaśramaņa had composed other bhāsyas as well. Take, for example, the following verse from the Višesāvasayaka Bhásya
पोग्गल-मोदय-दन्ते फरुसगवडसालभंजने चेव ।
थीणाद्धियस्स ए ए दिहता होंति नायब्वा ॥ २३५ ॥
In this verse, the examples of poggala ( flesh ) modaya (sueet-balls ) lanta (teeth ) pharusaga (a potter) and vadasala (the branch of a tree ) have not been explained in details by the commentators. Ācārya Hemacandra Maladhāri suggestively remarks that “ एतान्युदाहरणानि विशेषतो निशीथादवसेयानि" (These examples should be understood in cletails from Niseetha ).
Kotyācāryat also leaves the remark unexplained merely by saying “farsftet aTTA: " (We shall explain this in Niśeetha ).
* Vide Jita Kalpa Sūtra, Preface, Page 9.
Whose commentary has not been published, but is preserv. ed in the Bhāndārkar Research Institute, Poona.

Page #20

The question arises as to who is the author of Niserth. The trailition does not give the credit of authorship cither to Hopacandrácārya Malalhāri or t. Koțyācīrya. So, it is probable that the conumentary must have been written by Jwabharracrani and the sentence "fagftet TTH: " found in the commentary of Kot vācārya, might have originally belonged to the comincntary written by Sri Jual,hailrayaņi Kșamāśramaņa limself.
(ii) Brihat Saingralani-- This work runs in almost 500 verses. Acārya Malayagiri Sari has written a commentary on this work in Sanshrit The work along with the Commentary has already been publisher.
(iii) Bribat Kshtra-Samāsa--This is also a simular work. Acārya Sri Malayayiri Sori ancı others have written commentaries and the work along with the cornmentaries is publisherl.
(iv) Jita Kalpa Satra --This work lays down various roli. glous practices to be followed by the Jaina mvuks. The work is also dealmg with the ten types of remonstration. The subject of remonstration has alrearly buen treated in the Chela-sotra and other works. Jnabhadragani scerns to have composait this work with a view to treat the subject in a precise and compretiensive manner.
The oldest commentary arailable on this work at present is the corņi of Sid.Thasena in Prākrit. In his Corni, Sid.lhasena reinarks at one place that thero existed sine other corns also, before he comp.scd his one, but that is not available at present. On this Carņi of Sildhascna, Šri Can Ira Sari has written explanatory notes in Sanskrit.
Besides the corni of Siddhagena, there is one moro cūrni available m Prākrit verses. It is difficult to say whether it is the saine cirņi that he refers to or it is different from his own. Nothing is known about the author and the late of composition
६ अहवा बितियचुन्निकरा-भिप्पारण चत्त्वारि वि सुत्तेण व गहिया।

Page #21

17
either from the portion in the beginning or one at the end.
(v) Visesaņavah:--This book is a miscellaneous work comprised into nearly 400 Prakrit verses and is not published as yet.
In al lition to the above-luentioned five works, soine people consider Dhyāna-śataka which has been incorporated by Acarya Mahārāja Harıbhadra Suri in his commentary on the Avasyaka Sūtras, als to be the composition of Jinabhadragaņi Ksama-sra maņı. But there are not sufficient evidences to convince us of his authorship of Dhayān:!-Sataka.
Date
There are no definite mcans that help us to fix the exact late of Jmabhadragani ksawā-śramaņa. Still, however, the tradition of various Pattāvalis throws considerable light on the problem. The trulition of the Pattāvalis written after the sixteenth century (V. S.) tells us that Jinabhabragasi kşamāśramaņa flourished 1115 years after the Nirvāṇa of Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahīvira. This fixes the date somewhere about 645 V. S.
There is another theory which assigns to Jina bhallragani 500 years carlier than his commentator Maladhāri Hemacandrācārya who is said to have flourished in 1175 V. S. according to this theory also, Jipabhadragani Ksamā-śramaņa must have Anurisheit somewhere about 650-675 V. S.
The author of Tapāgaccha Pattāvali places Jinabharlragari ksamā-śramaņa as the contemporary of Ācārya Srivián Haribhadra Sari who is said to have written a commentary on Dhyāna Sataka. According to this view, Jinabhadra Gaņi had lived a long life of 104 years and though Ācārya Haribhadra Sūri was senior to him by 60 or 65 years, both of them : * At the end of this bhāsya the only reference is this:
सं. १७२० वर्षे मार्गशीर्ष शुदि १ शुक्रवासरे अद्यहे श्रीपत्तजे लि. श्री मोढ झातिना काशीदासात्मेजन अंबादत्तेन । शुभं भवतु । शिवमस्तु ।
(Jita Kalpa Satra, Preface P. 17)

Page #22

18
happened to be contemporaries on account of the long life of Jinabha lragaại.' This view is not sound because Haribhadra Sari vid not, in fact, flourish in 530 V. S. or 580 V. S. but he Hourisherl between 757 and 875 V. S. as has been suggestel. Secondly, Srimāu Haribhadrat Sori bas frequently yhotel Jirabhaclrag'ani's satis in his Āvasyaka Vritti. It is, therefirre, Jear that Jinabhadragani diil not in any case fourish after Haribhair. Sūri.
According to other Pattāvalis, all of Jinabharlragaņi, Haribhadra Sīri, Devardılhigaại Ksanāśramana, Silānkācārya and Kāla kācārya happened to be contemporaries. But the history of the development of Jamism shows that the theory is wrongly based. The date of Srimān Haribhadra Sīri has been fixel as the latter halt of the eighth and the first half of the 9th century V. S. Jinbhadrayaņi las been placed in the latter half of the 7th and the first half of the 8th century V. S. Devarkhiyani ksainā śrumiņi and Kālakācārya are said to have fourished in the beginning of the 6th century V. S.
Leaving others sile, let us consiler if Jinabhadrayani anul Silaikācārva lappened to tourislı at the same time. The tradition says that Šikukācārya has the priest of Vanarāja, the king of Anahillapura Pátııņd. If this is true, the date of Silankācārya falls somewhere near 800 V. S. This places Silānkācārya undoulbteille its the contemporary of Acārya Sree Hariblaclra Súriji. Now some of the Pattāvalis refer to silankācārya as the pupil of Jinabhalay ni Ksimmāśrumam. If this silaikācāryd is the same is the commentator Kotyācārya, several references about Jinabhaulragari found in his commentary on the Visesăvaśyaka Bhāsya, do not in any way lear? us to believe that silankācārya was the pupil of Jinabhadrayaņi. Unfortunately, the first and last portions of this commentary are torn out, but in coursc of liis commentary the commentator refers tu Jinabladragani Ksamă. sraniuma at several places. e. So
* Vice Śri Tapāgachchha Pattāvali, Vol I. page 98. į Vile Sitakalpa Sūtra, Preface, pp. 14-15.

Page #23

(i) जिनभद्रगणिक्षमाभ्रमणपूज्यपादैस्तु नोकम् । (ii) अत एव पूज्यपादैः स्वटीकायां प्रायोपग्रहणं कृतम् । (iii) क्षमाश्रमणटीका त्वीयम् । (iv) क्षमाश्रमणटीकापीयम् ।
(v) श्रीमत्क्षमाश्रमणपूज्यपादानामभिप्रायो लक्षणीय :
19
Although these references show how much respect the commentator had for Jinabhadragaṇi Kṣamāśramana, they do not in any way lead us to believe that Jinabhadragani was his preceptor. On the contrary, we find a reference which shows a considerable gulf of time between the dates of Jinabhadragaṇi and Silankācārya.
The reference is this:
भाष्याननुयायि पाठान्तरमिदं अग्रतः, एवमनेनैव वृद्धिक्रमेणेत्यादेरर्वाक्, न चेदं भूयसीषु प्रतिषु दृश्यते ॥
This reference shows that there were various readings of Viseṣāvasyaka Bhāṣya in the time of Śilaikācārya, which means that a considerable period of time must have elapsed after the composition of the Viseṣāvasyaka Bhāṣya. This, therefore, prevents us from accepting the view that Jinabhadragani Kṣamäśramaṇa was the preceptor and hence the contemporary of Silaṁkācārya.
Thus there are many difficulties in accepting Jinabhadragani as the contemporary of Silānkācārya or even that of Haribhadra sûriji and others.
It is, therefore, proper to believe that unless and until there is no evidence against the belief of the tradition, there is no objection in accepting the date of Jinabhadragani Kṣamāśramaņa as roughly about the second half of the seventh century V. S.
It is hoped that transltiteration, translation, and the digest of Sanskrit commentary attached to each verse will prove useful to the students of Jaina Philosophy.
Gujarat College,
}
AHMEDABAD. 27th October 1947.
Ibid p. 15.

For Private Personal Use Only
D. P. Thaker

Page #24

CONTENTS
66
92
1. Chapter I Introductory 2. Chapter II Discussion with the First Nihnava. 3. Chapter III Discussion with the Second Nihnava. 4. Chapter IV Discussion with the Third Nihnava. 5. Chapter V Discussion with the Fourth Nihnava 6. Chapter VI Discussion with the Fifth Nibnava. 7. Chapter VII Discussion with the Sixth Nihnava. 8. Chapter VIII Discussion with the Seventh Nihnava. 9. Chapter IX Discussion with Boţika Nihnava. 10. Chapter X Summary of Claims and Interallegations
of Nihnavas.
129
159
219
269
829-340

Page #25

भमाश्रमण श्रीजिनभद्रगणिसन्हन्ध :
॥निहववाद ॥ श्रीमलधारिहेमचन्द्रसूरिकृतटीकासमलकृतः।
Musta
UnrTGS
kşamāśrumaņa Jirubhudra Gani's NIHNAVA-VADA
Along with Maladhārin Hemchandra Sari's Commentary
Chapter I.
Introductory
Before proceeding with the actual निभववाद Nihnava-vada (i. e, the discussions of the Nihnavas) it is encuinbent to note in short, the life-history of each of the different types of Nihnavas and also to lay down the contest to which those discussions have been related. एवं विहियपुहत्तेहिं रकिखयजेहिं पूसमित्तेहिं । ठविए गणिम्मि किर गोहमाहिलो पडिनिवेसेणं ॥१॥२२९६॥ सो मिच्छत्तोदयओ सत्तमओ निण्हवो समुप्पण्णो। के अनेछ भगिए पसंगओ निण्हउप्पत्ती ॥२॥२२९७॥ 1. Evam vihiya puhattehim Rakkhiyajjehim Pasamittehim 1
Tihvie ganimmi kira Gotthanāhito padinivesenam 2296,

Page #26

Jinabhadra Gani's .
The first 2. So micchattodayao sattamao Niñhavo samuppaņņo i ___Ke anne cha bbhanie pasanigato ninha-uppatti. 2297. [एवं विहितपृथक्त्वै रक्षिताः पुष्पमित्रे । स्थापितेगणिनि किल गोष्ठामा हलः प्रतिनिवेशेन ॥१॥२२९६॥ स मिथ्यात्वोदयतः सप्तमको निर्दवः समुत्पन्नः । केऽन्ये षड् भणिताः प्रसङ्गतो निह्मवोत्पत्तिः ॥२॥२२९७॥ 1. Evam vihitaprithaktve Raksittaryaih Puspamitre ।
Sthāpite ganini kila Gosthāmahilah pratinivesena, 2296. 2. Sa mithyā-tvodayatah saptamako nihnavah samutppannaḥ. ____Ke' anye sad bhanittah prasangto ninhnavotpattih 2, 2297 ]
Trans 1-2. Thus, indeed, when (Durbalikā) Puşpamitra was appointed to the post of a preceptor by Arya-Rakṣita sūri who had instructed his pupils in the use of the different Anuyogas. Gosthāmāhila through a wrong impression became the seventh Nihnava on account of the pre loninence of Mithyātva (Wrong Belief). (The pupil asks ): -- Who are the other six ? ” Incidentally the origins of the Nihnavas are described. 2296–2297.
टीका १ २ एवमुक्तप्रकारेण विहितानुयोयोगपृयकत्वैरायरक्षित मिावं यियासुभित-तैल-वल्लघटादिप्ररूपणां सकलगच्छसमक्षं विधाय दुर्वलिकापुष्पमित्रे गणिन्याचार्य स्थापिते यो मथुरानगयामून्यतीर्थकेन सह "वचस्वी" इति कृत्वा वाददानाथं सुरिभिनिजमातुलको गोष्ठामाहिला प्रेषित आसीत्, स यशः शेषेषु सूरिषु प्रति वादिनं जित्वा समागतः सन् "मामवंभूतं वचस्विनं परितज्यान्योऽयमृषिमूककल्पः सूरिभिराचार्य उपवेशितः, तत्पश्य कीदृशं तैः कृतम्" इत्यभिप्रायतः, तथा ततंरच घृतघटादिप्ररूपणां श्रुत्वा प्रतिनिवेशेन गाढानुशयेन यो मिथ्यात्वादयो जातस्तस्माद । स गोष्ठामाहिलः सप्तमो निमवः समुत्पनः । ननु यद्ययं सप्तमः, तर्हि केन्ये षड् ? इत्याशङ्कय प्रसङ्गतो निसवोत्पत्तिभंण्यते । इत्येका प्रस्तावना ॥
२२९६+२२९७. Digest of CommentaryThe Context in short, runs as follows:--

Page #27

Vada ]
Nihanavavāda
: 3:
Having explained to his pupil Durbalikā Puspamitra ( दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्र ) the various rs Nayas (or philosophical systems through which the objects are perceived) and Anuyogas -the different methods of exposition of various subjects in details, Acarya Arya-Rakṣitasūri anand andzfuraeft appointed him as his successor to the post of preceptorship at Mathurā (Muttrā).
66
At this time, Goṣṭhāmāhilang, the seventh Nihnavawho, in his wordly life happened to be the maternal uncle of Acārya Maharaja Arya Rakṣitasūriji and who was one of the most learned pupils of the Acarya,-c -comes to him after having defeated a non-Jain adversary in a controversial discussion to which he was sent by the Acarya, and remarks with vanity Why should the preceptor appoint a shy and weak person like Durbalikā Puspamitra, as an Acārya, leaving aside a smart and eloquent person like me?" Being incidentally impelled by personal hatred and vanity, he further tries to hide and refute the Truth propagated by all the Tirthankaras and the Preceptor, and as a result of that, he turns out to be a Nihnava. For, one who tries to deny and disbelieve the truthful theories merely by hiding the truth out of sheer vanity is called a fa Nihnava.
Goṣṭhāmāhila was the seventh Nihnava. In connection with the story of this Nihnava, the author describes in details, the life-history as well as the discussions of each of the other six types of Nihnavas, in regular order. 1-2 (2296-2297.) अहवा चोएह नयाणुओगनिण्हवणओ कहं गुरवो ।
a fe faogafa, wung ant a áifa afufa ||3||239611 a a fasymqung aufa sì yo qúfa faugaş | मिच्छाभिनिवेसाओ स निण्हवो बहुरयाइ व्य ||४|| २२९९|
3. Ahava cöei Nayāņuoganinhavaṇao kaham guravo i Na hi niņhavati, bhaņņai jao na jampanti natthi tti 2298 4. Na ya micchabhāvaṇāe vayanti jo puņa payam pi niņhavai | Micchābhinivesão sa nihhavo Bahurayai vva | 2299

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #28

Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The first [अथवा चोदयति नयानुयोगनिमवतः कथं गुरवः । न हि निलवा इति,भण्यते यतो न जल्पन्ति न सन्तीति
॥३॥२२९८॥ न च मिथ्याभावनया वदन्ति य पुनः पदमपि निनुते । भिध्याभिनिवेशात् स निमवो बहुरतादिरिव ॥४॥२२९९॥ 3. Athava codayati nayanuyoganihnavatah, katham guravah |
Na hi nihnavā: iti, bhanyate yato na jalpanti na santîti 3 (2298) 4. Na ca mithyābhāvanayā vadanti ya punah padampi nihnutel
Mithyābhinivesat sa nihnavo Bahuratadiriva 4 (2299) ].
Trans. 3-4. Or, (if one asks) “Why are not the gurus nihnavas, on account of their hiding the nayas and anuyogas? ( The reply is )-" They do not say that the nayas and anuyogas are not (existing ). They do not also say so, on account of feelings of Mithyātva. He, who hides even a syllable by obstinately insisting on through Mithyātva, is a Nihnava like Bahuratas eto.
टीका ३-४ अथवेति प्रस्तावनान्तरसूचकः। पर: प्रेरयति-ननु नयानुयोगनिहवात् कथमार्यरक्षितगुरवो न निहवा भण्यन्ते ? अत्रोत्तरम्-यतो "न सन्ति नयानुयोगाः” इति ते न जलपन्ति, नापि मिथ्यात्वभावनया मिथ्यामिनिवेदेन ते किश्चिद् वदन्ति । किन्तु प्रवचनहितार्थमेव नयानुयोगगोपनं तैर्विहितम् । यः पुनर्मिथ्याभिनिवेशादेकमपि जिनोक्तं पदं निहनुते स बहुरनादिवजमालयादिवद् निहब एवेति ।। २२९८॥२२९९ ॥
The author, then, ennumerates the various types of nihnavas as follows:बहुरय पएस अन्वत्त सामुच्छा दुग तिग अबद्धिआ चेव। . एएर्सि निग्गमणं वोच्छामि अहाणुपुल्वीए ॥५॥ ॥२३००॥
Bahuraya paesa avvata sāmucchā duga tiga abaddhiā ceva
Edsim niggamaņam vocchāni ahāņupuvvid 5. (2300). बहुरता प्रदेशा अव्यक्ता सामुच्छेदा द्वैक्रियास्त्रैराशिका अबद्विकाव। एतेषां निर्गमनं वक्ष्येऽथानुपुर्ध्या ॥ ५ ॥ २३००॥

Page #29

Vada ]
Bahurata pradeśā avyaktā sāmucchedā dvaikriyā strairāśika abaddhikaścaiva |
Nihnavavāda
Etesām nirgamanam vaksye' aahānupurvyā 5 (2300) ].
Trans. 5 Bahuratas (or those who uphold the theory of the Long Range of time); Pradeāśs (or those who attribute consiousness to the last pradeśa only ); Avyaktās (or those having dubious and unfirm opinions); Samucchedās (or those who believe in the utter im-permanence of everything ); Dvaikriyās (or those who attribute two actions to one object at the same time); Trairāśikās or those who uphold the theory of three categories. viz-Jīva is free from the bondage of Karma). Now, I shall describe the production ( of each one) of them in serial order (2300).

: 5:
46
46
66
टीका ५ ' बहुरय सि' एकस्मिन् क्रियासमये वस्तु नोत्पद्यते, किन्तु बहुभिः क्रियासमयैः इत्यभ्युपगमाद् बहुषु समयेपु रताः सका बहुरता दीर्घकालवस्तु प्रभवप्ररूपका इत्यर्थः । पएस ति" पूर्वपदलोपाजीवप्रदेशा इति द्रष्टव्यम्, यथा वीरो महावीर इति । एक एव चरमप्रदेशो जीव इत्यभ्युपगमाज्जीवः प्रदेशो येषां ते जीवमदेशा निह्मवाश्चरमप्रदेशजीवप्ररूपिण इति हृदयम् । अव्यत्त चि" उत्तरपदलोपादव्यक्तमता यथा भीमो भीमसेन इति । न ज्ञायतेऽत्र कोऽपि संयतः कोऽप्यसंयत इत्यव्यक्तस्यैव सर्वस्या · युपगमाद् न व्यक्तमव्यक्तमस्फुटम्, अव्यक्तं मतं येषां तेऽव्यक्तमताः संयत । संयताद्यवगमे संदिग्धबुद्धय इत्यर्थः । समुच्छत्ति " एकदेशेन समुदायस्य गम्यमानत्वादुत्पत्त्यनन्तरमेव सामस्त्येन प्रकर्षतश्छेदः समुच्छदो वस्तुविनाशः, समुच्छेदमधीयते, तद्वेदिनो वा, इत्यण्प्रत्यये सामुच्छेदाः क्षणक्षयिभावप्ररूपका इत्यर्थः । 'दुग ति' उत्तरपदलोपादेकस्मिन्नपि समये क्रियाद्वयानुभवाभ्युपगमाद् द्विक्रियाः, एकसमये द्वे क्रिये समुदिते द्विक्रियम्, तदधीयते तद्वेदिनो वा दौक्रियाः कालभेदेन क्रियाद्वयानुभवप्ररूपिण इति भावः । " तिग चि” त्रैराशिकाः, जीवाsजीवनोजीव भेदात् त्रयोराशयः समाहृतास्त्रिराशि तत्प्रयोजन मेषां ते त्रैराशिका जीवाऽजीवनोजीवराशित्रयख्यापका इति तात्पर्यम् । " अबद्विअति" स्पृष्टं जीवेन कर्म न स्कन्धवद् बद्धमबद्धमेव येषामस्ति वदन्ति बेत्यबद्धिकाः स्पृष्टकर्मविपाकप्ररूपका इत्यर्थ इति । एते सप्त निहवाः । एतेषां निर्गमनमुत्पत्ति मानुपूर्व्या यथाक्रमं वक्ष्ये ॥ ५ ॥ २३०० ॥
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #30

Jinabhadra Gani's
( The first The author now gives the names of persons with whom theories originated. बहुरय जमालिपभवा जीवपएसा य तीसगुत्ताओ । अव्वत्ताऽऽसाढाओ सामुच्छेआ असमित्ताओ॥६॥ २३०१ ॥ गंगाओ दोकिरिया छलुगा तेरासिआण उप्पत्ती।
थेरा य गोट्ठमाहिल पुहमबद्धं परुविंति ॥ ७ ॥ २३०२ ॥ 6. Bahuraya Jamāli pabhavā, Jivapaesā ya Tīsaguttão |
Avvattā” sādhão samuccheā Asamittão 2801. 7. Gangão dokiriyā Ghhalugā Terāsiāņa uppatti /
___Thera ya Gotthamahila puttha-mabaddham paravinti 2302. बहुरता जमालिप्रभवा जीवप्रदेशाश्च तिष्यगुप्तात् । अव्यक्ता आषाढात् सामुच्छेदा अश्वमित्रात् ॥ ६ ॥ २३०१॥ गादू ट्रैक्रियाः षडलूकात् त्रैराशिकानामुत्पत्तिः। स्थविराश्च गोष्ठामाहिला स्पृष्ठमबद्धं च प्ररूपयन्ति ॥७॥॥२३०२॥ 6. Bahuratā Jamāliprabhavā Jivapradeśāśca Tisyaguptāt.
Avyaktā aşādhat Samucchedā Aśvamitrāt (2301).
Gangād dyaikriyāh Sadulūkāt trairāśikānāmutpattiḥ. 7. Sthavirāśca Goșthāmāhila sprşthamabaddham ca prarūpayanti 7 (2302)]
Trans 6-7. Bahuratis had been led by Jamali and Jivapradesās by Tisyagupta. Avyaktās (originated) from Asadha. Sāmucchedas from Aśvamitra, Dvaikriyas from Ganga and Trairasikas from Sadulūka. While the Sthaviras who describe the Jiva to be free from (the boundages of) Karma happen to be the followers of Gostahila. (2301-2302.)
टीका. ६-७ बहुरता जमालिप्रभवाः, जमालेराचार्यतः प्रभव उत्पत्तिपेषां ते जमालिमभवाः । जीवप्रदेशाः पुनस्तिष्यगुप्तादुत्पमाः । अव्यक्ता आषाढात् । सामुच्छेदा अश्वमित्रादिति । गङ्गाद् द्वैक्रियाः । षडलूकात् त्रैराशिकानामुत्पतिः । स्थविराश्च गोष्ठामाहिलाः स्पृष्टमबद्धं प्ररुपयन्ति 'कर्म' इति गम्यते । परविंस

Page #31

Vāda
Nihnava-vada वा इति पाठान्तरं वा । ततो गोष्ठामाहिलादावद्वका जाता इति सामथ्याई गम्यत इति ॥ २३०१-२३०२ ॥
Place and time as regards their coming into existence are now described. सावत्थी उसमपुरं सेअम्बिआ मिहिल उल्लुगातीरं । पुरमंतरंजि दसउर रहवीरपुरं च नयराइं ॥ ८॥ २३०३ ॥ चोदस सोलस वासा चोदा-वीसुत्तरा य दुण्णि सया। अट्ठावीसा य दुवे पंचेव सयाय चोआला ॥९॥ २३०४ ॥ पंचसया चुलसीओ छचव सया नवुत्तरा हुति। नाणुप्पत्तीए दुवे उप्पन्ना निव्वुए सेसा ॥ १० ॥ २३०५ ॥ 8. Savatthi Usabhapuram Seambia Mihila Ullugātīram í
__Puramantaranji Dasaura Rahavirapuram ca nayaraim 2308. 9. Coddasa solalsa vasa codda-visuttara ya dunni saya |
Atthāvisā ya duvé panceva sayāa ya coā 2304. 10. Pancasayā culasło cchacceva sayā navuttarā huntil
Nāņuppattie duve uppannā nivvue sesā 2305. श्रावस्ती ऋषमपुर श्वेतविका मिथिलोल्लुकातीरम् । पुरमन्तरञ्जिका दशपुरं रथवीरपुरं च नगराणि ।॥८॥॥ २३०३॥ चतुर्वश षोडश वर्षाणि चतुर्दश-विंशत्युत्तरे च द्वे शते । अष्टाविंशत्या चद्वे पश्चैव शतानिच च तुश्चत्वाारशती॥९॥२३०४॥ पशशतानि चतुरशीत्या षडेव शतानि नवोत्तराणि भवन्ति । ज्ञानोत्पत्तौ द्वाबुत्पन्नौ निवृते शेषाः ॥ १० ॥ २३०५ ॥ 8. Śrāvasti Rişabhapuram Svetavikā Mithilollu’Rātiram.
Puramantaranjikā Daśapuram Rathavirapuram ca naga
rani 8. (2303) 9. Caturdasa sodasa. varsani caturdasa-vinsatyuttare ca dve sate |
Astāvinsatyā ca ve pancaiva satani ca catuścatvärinsapā 9 (2804).

Page #32

18:
Jinabhadra Gani's
( The first 10. Panca śatāni caturasītyă şałeva satāni navottrāni bhavantt i
Jninatpattau dvavutpannau nirvrite sesah. 10 (2305) ]
Trans-3-9-10. Srivasti, Risabhapura, Sretavika, Mithila, Ullukātīra Antarajjika, Dasap'ıra, an! Rithavirapira (are) the (respective) plases ( where they cans into existence as Nihnavas Fourteen, sixteen, two hundred and fourteen, two hundred and twenty, two hun tred and twenty eight, five hundred and forty four, five hundred and-eighty tour, and six hundred and Nine ( are respectively ) the n'imbers of years (alter Sramını 'Bhagavān Mahavira obtainel Kevala Jnāna. So, two of the Nihnavas came into existence during the period of) Kevala Jnana of Sraminu Bhagavan Mahāvīra and the rest appeared after his Nirvana (2303-2305).
टीका-८ श्रावस्ती, ऋषभपुरम् , श्वतविका, मिथिला, उल्लुकातीरम् , पुर• मन्तरञ्जिका, दशपुरम् , रथवीरपुरं चोते । एतान्यष्टौ नगराणि निहवानां यथायोगमुत्पत्तिस्थानानि बोद्धव्यानि । अष्टमं नगरं द्रव्यालेगमात्रेणापि भिमानां सर्वापलापिनां महामिथ्यादशां वक्ष्यमाणानां बोटेकनिहवानां लापवार्थमुत्पत्तिस्थानमुक्तमिति ॥ ॥ ८॥ २३०३ ॥
टीका ९-१० चतुर्दश वर्षाणि । तथा षोडश वर्षाणि । तथा " चोदा वीसु. तराय दुण्णि सय त्ति" चतुर्दशाषिके द्वे शते, किंशत्युत्तरे च द्वे शते वाणाम् इति गम्यते । तथा, अष्टाविंशत्यधिके च द्वे शते, तथा पञ्चेव शतानि चतुबत्वारिंशदधिकानि, पश्च शतानि चतुरशीत्यधिकानि, षट् चैव शतानि नवोत्तराणिभवन्ति । एतावता व्यवधान-कालेन ज्ञानोत्पत्तरारभ्यायो द्वौ निहवौ समुत्पभो । शेषास्तु षड् भवन्ति श्रीमन्महावीर निवृते निर्वाणकालादारभ्य उक्तशेषेण यथोतेन व्यवधानकालेनोत्पना । इदमुक्तं भवति-श्री मन्महावीरस्य केवलोत्पचेचतुदेशभिवरतिक्रान्तबहुरता : समुत्पन्नाः, षोडशामवषतिक्रान्तीवप्रदेशाः समुत्पन्नाः, भगवत एव निर्वाणकालात् शेषेण चतुर्दशाधिक वर्षशतद्वयादिना काले. नातिकान्तेन शेषा अव्यक्तादयो निहवाः समुत्पमा इति ॥ २३०४-२३०५॥
Foot-note 1. It should be noted that while ennurnerating the types and the names of the leaders, the author has considered seven types only. These seven types of Nihnavas are called

Page #33

Vada ]
Nihnayavāda
:9:
estfattend Deśavisamvālī, because they have disagreement in certain minor portions of the Sidilhāntas. But here he has given the place and time as regards Botikas, also. The Butikas are called preferat Sarvavisamvādi as they have entire total (lis. agreement with the Siddhāntas.
D. C. The following Table shows the above-inentioned details about Nihnavas in a precise way:
TABLE Name of tho Pioneer's
Place
Time Nihnava- name type
Deśavisamvādi (ar farsianet)
1 Bahurata Jamāli Śrāvasti
14 years after the attainment of Kevala Jnāna by Sramaņa
Bhagavān Mahāvira 2 Jivapradeśa Tișyagupta Riṣabha | 16 years Do
pura 3 Avyakta Āsādhācā- | Svetavikā 24 years after the гуа
Nirvăņa of Śramaņa
Bhagavān Mahāvīra 4 Sāmucche-Asvamitrā-l Mithila 220 years Do
dikā cāryā 5 Dvaikriya Gangācārya Ullukātîra 228 , 6 Trairāśika Sadulūkā. Antaranjikā 544 ,
cārya 7 Abaddhika Gosthā Daśapura 584 , DO
māhila
Sarvavisamvādi (Fifa caret) Botika
Rathavira
| 609 years Do
pura The life-history of each of the above-mentioned Nihnavas will be describer in the following chapters just hefore the commencement of their respective discussions.

Page #34

Chapter II प्रथम निह्नव वक्तव्यता
Discussion with the First Nihnava चोइस वासाणि तया जिणेण उपाडियस्स नाणस्स । तो बहुरयाण दिट्ठी सावत्थीए समुप्पन्ना ॥११॥२३०६॥
11. Coddasa vāsāņi tayā Jiņeņa uppādiyassa nāṇassa 1
To Bahurayāna ditthi Savatthie samuppanna || (2306) [चतुर्दश वर्षाणि तदा जिनेनोत्पादितस्य ज्ञानस्य । ततो बहुरतानां दृष्टिः श्रावस्त्यामुत्पन्ना ॥११॥२३०६॥
11. Caturdaśa varşāņi tadā Jine-not-pāditasya jnānasya. Tato Bahuratānām dristi Śrāvastyāmutpannā 11 (2306). ]
Trans. 11. Then, after fourteen years (had passed) since the Tirthankara (Sramana Bhagavān Mahavira) had attained Absolute Knowledge, the theory of Bahuratas came into existence in Sravasti 2306.
टीका ११ चतुर्दश वर्षाणि तदा जिनेन श्रीमन्महावीरेणोत्पादितस्य केवलज्ञानस्य ततोऽत्रान्तरे बहुरतनिह्ववानां दर्शनं दृष्टिः श्रावस्त्यां नगयों समुत्पन्नेति
॥२३०६॥ The origin of the theory :जिहा सुदंसण जमालिणोज सावत्थीतिंदुगुजाणे । पंच सया य सहस्सं ढंकेण जमालि मोत्तूणं ॥१२॥२३०७॥
12 Jitthā Sudamsaņa Jamāliņojja Sāyatthītindugujjāņe i Pancasayā ya sahassam Dhankeņa Jamāli mottīņam 2307

Page #35

:11:
Vada]
Nihnavavada [ज्येष्ठा सुदर्शना जमालिरनवद्या श्रावस्तीतेन्दुकोद्याने। पञ्चशतानि च सहस्रं ढङ्केन जमालि मुक्त्वा ॥१२॥२३०७॥ 12. Jyesthā Sudarśanā Jamaliranavadyā Śrūvasti-Taindukodyāne i
Pancaśatāni ca sahasram Dhankena Jamālim muktvā (2307)]
TRANS. 12. Jyesthā (alias) Sudarśanā (alias) Anavadyā and Jamāli ( developed the theory of Bahuratas ) in the Tainduka garden of Sravasti. Five hundred (monks) and one thousand (nuns) excepting Jamali (were advised) by Dhanika (2307)
, टीका १२ व्याख्या--अत्र भावार्थस्तावत् कथानकेनोच्यते-इहैव भरतक्षेत्रे कुण्डपुरं नाम नगरम् । तत्र भगवतः श्रीमन्महावीरस्य भागिनेयो जमालिर्नाम राजपुत्र आसीत् । तस्य च भार्या श्रीमन्महावीरस्य दुहिता । तस्याश्च ज्येष्ठेति वा, सुदर्शनेति वा, अनवद्याङ्गीति वा नामेति । तत्र पञ्चशतपुरुषपरिवारो जमालिभगवतो महावीरस्यान्तिके प्रव्रज्यां जग्राह । सुदर्शनापि सहलस्त्रीपरिवारा तदनु प्रबजिता । ततश्चैकादशस्वङ्गेष्वधीतेषु जमालिना भगवान् विहारार्थमुत्कलापितः । ततो भगवता तूष्णीमास्थाय न किञ्चित् प्रत्युत्तरमदायि । तत एवममुत्कलितोऽपि पञ्चशतसाधुपरिवृतो निर्गतः श्रीमन्महावीरान्तिकात् । ग्रामानुग्राम च पर्यटन् गतः श्रावस्तीनगर्याम् । तत्र च तैन्दुकाभिधानोद्याने कोष्टकनानि चैत्ये स्थितः । ततश्च तत्र तस्यान्त-प्रान्ताहारैस्तीवो रोगातङ्कः समुत्पनः । तेन च न शक्रोत्युपविष्टः स्थातुम् । ततो बभाण श्रमणान्-“मनिमित्तं शीघ्रमेव संस्तारकमास्तृणीत येन तत्र तिष्ठामि” । ततस्तैः कर्तुमारब्धोऽसौ । बाढंच दाहज्वराभिभूतेना जमालिना पृष्टम् “संस्तृतः संस्तारको न वा ?" इति । साधुभिश्च संस्तृतप्रायत्वादर्धसंस्तुतेऽपि प्रोक्तम् "संस्तृतः” इति । ततोऽसौ वेदनाविह्वलितचेता उत्थाय नत्र तिष्ठासुरर्धसंस्तृतं तद् दृष्ट्वा क्रुद्धः "क्रियमाणं कृतम्" इत्यादि सिद्धान्तवचनं स्मृत्वा मिथ्यात्वमोहनीयो दयतो वक्ष्यमाणयुक्तिवितिथमिति चिन्तयामास । ततः स्थविरैर्वक्ष्यमाणाभिरेव युक्तिभिः प्रतिबोधितो यदा कथमपि न प्रविबुध्यते तदा गतास्तं परित्यज्य भगवत्समीपे । अन्ये तु तत्समीप एव स्थिताः । सुदर्शनापि तदा तत्रेव श्रावक ढङ्ककुम्भकारगृह आसीत् । जमाल्यनुरागेण च तन्मतमेव प्रपन्ना ढङ्कमपि तद् ग्राहयितु प्रवृत्ता। ततो ढक्केन 'मिथ्यात्वमुपगतेयम्' इति ज्ञात्वा प्रोक्तम्-" नेदृशं किमपि वयं

Page #36

:12: Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The first जानीमः'। अन्यदा चापाकाग्निमध्ये मृद्भाजनोद्वर्तन-परावर्तने कुर्वताऽङ्गारकमेकं प्रक्षिप्य तत्रैव प्रदेशे स्वाध्यायं कुर्वत्याः सुदर्शनायाः संघाट्यश्चलो दग्धः। ततस्तया प्रोक्तम्-"श्रावक ! किं त्वया मदीयसंघाटी दग्धा ?' । तेनोम्-ननु दह्यमानमदग्धम् 'इति भवतां सिद्धान्तः, ततः क्व केन त्वदीया संघाटी दग्धा ?' इत्यादि तदुक्तं परिभाव्य संबुद्धाऽसौ " सम्यक् प्रेरिताऽस्मि" इत्यभिधाय मिथ्यादुष्कृतं ददाति । जमालिं च गत्वा प्रज्ञापयति । यदा चासौ कथमपि न प्रज्ञाप्यते तदासौ सपरिवारा, शेषसाधवश्चैकाकिनं जमालिं मुक्त्वा भगवत्समीपं जग्मुः । • जमालिस्तु बहुजनं व्युद्ग्राह्यानालोचितप्रतिक्रान्तः कालं कृत्वा किल्बिषिकदेवेषूत्पनः । व्याख्याप्रज्ञप्त्यागमा चैतचरितं विस्तरतोऽवसेयमिति । एष संग्रहगाथाभावार्थः । अक्षरार्थस्त्वयम्-"जेट्ठा सुदंसण जमालिणो
जत्ति" ज्येष्ठा, सुदर्शना, अनवद्योङ्गीति जमालिगृहिणीनामानि । अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते-'ज्येष्ठा महती सुदर्शना नाम भगवतः श्रीमन्महावीरस्य भगिनी तस्याः पुत्रो जमालिः, अनवद्याङ्गी नाम भगवतो दुहिता जमालिगृहिणी' इति । श्रावस्त्यां नगर्या तैन्दुकोद्याने 'जमालिनिवदृष्टिरुत्पना' इति वाक्यशेषः । तत्र पञ्चशतानि साधूनां, सहस्रं चार्यिकाणाम् , एतेषां मध्ये यः स्वयं न प्रतिबुद्धस्तं जमालि मुक्तत्वा ढङ्कन प्रतिबोधितः। इति नियुक्तिगाथासप्तकार्थः ॥२३०७।।
1 Or, it may be interpreted thus :--The elder (sister) Sudarsanā. Jamāli and (his wife) Anavadyā (developed) the theory of Bahuratas (vide Acāranga Sūtra 1005)
Digest of Commentary. The following story illustrates the full details of this verse -
In this Bharata-kşetra there was a city named Kundapura. Jamali, the nephew (i. e. sister's son) of Sramana Bhagavān Māhāvīra was a prince of that city. His wife happened to be the daughter of Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra. She had three different names viz- Jyesthā, Sudarśanā and Anavadyāngi.
Jamāli accompanied by five hundred males and Sudarsanā along with one thousand females accepted Diksā at the hands of Śramaņa Bhagavān Māhāvīra. After finishing the study of eleven Angas, Jamāli requested the Tîrthankara to grant him permission to go on vihāra (alone), Bhagavān remained silent and did not

Page #37

Vada ] Nihnavavada
:13: respond to it. In spite of that, Jamāli left the company of) Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra and went out for Vihāra alone with his five hundred sthaviras. Wandering from place to place Jamāli Muni at last, came to the city of Śrāvasti, where in the garden of Tainduka, he stayed in a Caitya named Kosthaka.
There, on account of dry and stale food that he was taking, Jamāli Acārya, was laid down with high fever. He, being unable to sit, asked his followers to prepare a bed for him immediately.
The bed was being prepared by the monks. In the mean while, due to excessive heat of fever, Jamāli Ācārya, repeatedly questioned the monks “Is the bed prepared or not?” The monks, who had already prepared half the bed, and were busy preparing the whole of it, replied “ Yes, it is prepared.”
But Jamāli, whose mind was not stealy, on account of exoessive pain, was enraged at the sight of the half-spreal bed that was being spread fully. At that very moment, he denied the truth of the theory of “ Kriyamāņam kritama which was already preached by great Tírthankaras and asserted that Kriyamāna or that which is being produced is not krita or actually produced.
Some of the old sthaviras tried to persuade him not to do so, but it was of no avail. Consequently, some of them, went back to Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra, while others stuck to Jamāli's theory and stayed with him. Sudarsanā, too, stayed with him, in the house of the potter Dhanka who also happened to be a Srāvaka. She being attached to Jamāli, followed Jamali's theory, and further attempted to persuade Dhanka to follow Jamāli. But Dhanka was shrewd enough to know that Sudarśanā was under the influence of mithyatva of vanity like Jamāli. So, he cleverly escaped by saying, “ We cannot compre hend such things." २ प्रश्नः-से गूणं भंते ! चलमाणे चलिए ? उदीरिजमाणे उदीरिए ? वेइजमाणे
वेदए ? पहीजमाणे पहीणे! छिजमाणे छिन्ने ? भिजमाणे भिन्ने ?
डझमाणे दड्ढे ? मिजमाणे मडे ? निजरिजमाणे निजिण्णे? उत्तरः-हंता, गोयमा! चलमाणे चलिए, जाव निजरिजमाणे निजिण्णे। (भगवतीसूत्र (पञ्चम अन] प्रथम खण्डं प्रथम शतक, प्रथमोहेशक.)

Page #38

:14:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first
One day while arranging the earthen pots in the kiln (āpāka) Dhanka threw a piece of burning coal on Sudarśanā, who was sitting nearly engrossed in her studies. As a result of that, a border of Sudarsanā's garment was burnt. Immediately she remarked “O, Śrāvaka ! why did you burn my garment ?" Dhanka replied “That which is burning, is not actually burnt according to you. So, who burnt your garment and when?” When told like this, by Dhanka, Surlarśanā realised the truth and said apologetically “Really Śrāvaka! you have ied me to the Right Path, I was under a disillusion." Repenting, thus, she went to Jamāli and expressed her realisation to him and tried her best to bring him to the right path. But Jamāli did not listen to her. Consequently, Sudarśanā had to leave Jamāli alone and join Šramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra along with her retinue of nuns. Gravlually, all the monks returned to śramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra, and Jamāli was left out alone at the end. Finally, without repenting for the sins that he had committed by leading a number of persons astray, Janāli passed away from this world (died) and assumed the form of Tejamāli Kilbişika, a low type of god thereafter3.
3. The Kilbişika gods are of three types: (1) Those enjoying duration of three palyopamas (2) Those of the category of three Sāgaropanıs; and (3) Those of the category of thirteen Sāgaropanas.
Those of the First type would stay above the luminary gods and below the regions of Saudharma and lśāna deva-lokas.
Those of the Second type rrside above the regions of Saudharma and Iśāna deva-lokas and below the regions of Sanat Kumāra and Mahendra deva-lokas.
Those of the Third Type reside above the regions of Brahma and below the region of Lāntaka deva-loka. Jivas, who oppose or defame a preceptor, teacher, family or a group of persons and those who preach a lot of falsehood out of sheer vanity, deceiving themselves as well as others by leading the life of a saint, but do not repent of their misdeeds till death,

Page #39

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
:15
This story has been described in details in the Vyākhyāprajnapti. The reader may refer to it for more details.
The reference of the story of Jamāli is also found in other works such as Āvaśyaka Sūtra with the commentaries of Kotyācārya, Haribhadra Sūrji, and Malayagiri Sūrīji also. But there is no vital difference between the various descriptions given in those works except a few details here and there. The standard story related by the Vyākhyāprajnapti almost covers up all the accounts of Jamālis life and theory. It is therefore, essential , give a brief summary of the story related therein. It runs as follows:--
Jamāli was a Ksatriya by caste. He was born in Ksatriya Kundagrāma. He was rich, and had an impressive personality. He had eight wives, all of whom were of equal charm. When he came to know one day that Šramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra had come to the Brāhmaṇa Kundagrāma and was preaching the truthful principles of Jainism and that many people had been there to listen to him and to pay their respects. Jamāli also went to listen to the preachings of the great Tirthankara, and was immediately induced to accept the Dikşā. His parents though distressed by his decision, could not prevent him. Then the ceremony of the acceptance of Dikşā was performed with proper care and dignity. After taking Diksā, Jamali Muni studied eleven Angas under Bhagvān Mahāvira Swāmiji. assume the form of one of the three type of Kilbișika ( or low ) category of gods.
Kilbişika gods have to take four or five more turns in the categoriesof Nārakas, Tiryancas Manusyaş and Devas before attaining Siddhatva or Buddhatva. But, at the same time, several of them have to wander in this beginningless and endless mundane world also. Vide Bhagavati Sutra, Fifth Anga, Third Khanda, Ninth Sataka, Uddeśaka 33 Sutras 38-43. ]
4. Vide Bhagavati Satra Anga 5. Khanda HI Śataka IX. Uddleśaka XXXIIT..Sa. 8-46.

Page #40

Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first
Then, on one day, Jamāli requested Śramana Bhagavāu Mahavira to grant him permission to go on vihāra also. But Śramana Bhagavan Mahāvīra remained silent and did not speak a single word of assent or refusal. As a result of that, Jamāli goes out for vihara with a number of sthaviras, and comes to the city of Śrāvasti, where living in a caitya named Koṣṭhaka in the Tain luka garden, he falls ill on account of taking dry and stale food. Being unable to sit, he orders for a bed, to be prepared for him. When he asked the sthaviras as to whether the bed was ready or not; the sthaviras who had already spread half the bed and were actually spreading the whole of it, replied that the bed was prepared. Jamāli seeing that the whole bed was not prepared, gets angry, and refuses the theory of "Kriyamāņam kritam” which was already preached by Śramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra.
:16:
He starts his own theory of Bahuratas and argues that since a thing which is being done (Kriyamāņa) has to pass through the process of production until it is completely done (Krita). So, he says, it is not proper to assert that Kriyamāņa is krita.
Some of the old sthaviras tried to dissuade him from this wrong path but Jamāli did not yield. Consequently some of them left him, while others including his wife Sudarsana stuck to him for some time and ultimately, they too, went back to Śramaņa Bhagavan Mahāvīra, leaving Jamāli alone.
goes to
Then, after recovery, Jamāli the city of Campā where Śramaņa Bhagavan Mahāvīra was staying in a caitya called Puranabhadra. Coming to Śramana Bhagavān Mahāvīra, Jamāli says, "I do not move in cognito like many of your Śramņas. But I move like a Kevalin with my own knowledge and perception. The Tirthankara replies. If you are a real Kevalin, answer, these questions :--
Ques. I. Is the Loka eternal or not?
Ques. II. Is Jiva eternal or not?

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #41

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:17: Jaunāli was confused at these questions and he could not utter a single word.
Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra, then, remarked :- 'I have a number of pupils, who are incognito), and who can easily answer these questions. But none of them boasts like you, that he is a Sarvajna, or a Jina or a Kevalin.” Explaining the questions Bhagavān says :- “ Loka is eternal because it is not possible to say that there was no loka in the past, there is no loka at present and will be no loka in future. On the other hand, since loka suffers destruction and creation in turn, it is अशाश्वत a-sasvata or im-permanent also.
The same is the case with Jiva.” Jamāli does not put faith in the explanation offered by the Tirthankara anil goes away from him. Leading the life, however, of a strict Sramana for a long time and preaching his own doctrine, wherever he went Jamāli at last met with death, without repenting for his misdeeds and attained the life of the third type of Kilbişika-deva in the Lāntaka region. He will be able to attain Siddhatva after passing through four or five bhavas of tiryancas, manusyas and devas.
Jyesthā, Sudarşanā and Anavadyāngi are the three names of Jamāli's wife. Others interpret that Sudarśayā was the Jeştha or elder sister of Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra and she happened to be the mother of Jamāli. Anavadyāngī, the daughter of Sramana Bhagavān Mahavira was Jamali's wifes.
५. समणस्स णं भगवओ महावीरस्स पित्तियए सुपाते कासवगोत्तेण । समणस्स णं भगवओ महावीरजेडे भाया गंदिवद्धणे कासवगोत्तेणं । समणस्स णं भगवओ महावीरस्सजेट्ठा भइणी सुदंसणा कासवगोत्तेणं !......समणस्स गं भगवओ महावीरस्स धूया कासवगोत्तेणं, तीसे णं दो णामधेजा एवमाहिजंति तां जहा-अणोजा ति वा पियदंसणा ति वा । समणस्स गं भगवओ णतुई-कोसिय गोत्तेणं, तीसे णं दो णामधेजा एवमाहिजंति, तं जहा सेसवइ ति वा, जसवती ति वा ॥१००५॥
श्री आचाराङ्गसूत्र

Page #42

:18: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first Now Jamāli explains his Bahurata theory :सक्खं चिय संथारो न कञ्जमाणो कउ त्ति मे जम्हा। बेइजमालि सव्वं न कजमाणं कयं तम्हा॥१३॥२३०८॥
13. Sakkham ciya santhāro na kajjamāņs kan tti me jamha 1
Bei Jjamāli sarvam na kajjamāņam kayam tauha 2308 [साक्ष देव संस्तरोन क्रियमाणः कृत इति मम यस्मात् । ब्रवीति जमालिः सवैन क्रियमाणं कृतं तस्मात् ॥१३॥२३०८॥ 13. Sākşādeva samstaro na kriyamāṇah krita iti mana yasmāti Bravīti Jamalih sarvam na kriyamāṇam kritam tasmāt 13 2303]
Trans 13. Jamāli says that . Since the bal which is being prepared, does not (actually) happen to have been prepared in my presence, everything that is being prepared cannot be said to have been (actually) prepareul” (2308)
(Thus, according to Actrānga Sūtra, Sudarśana was the name of Bhagavān's elder sister ant Bhagavān's daughter ( who was married to Jamāli) had two names viz Anavalyā ani Priyadarsanā. In other words, Sudarśanā was the name of Jamāli's mother and Anavadyā an! Priyadarśanā were the two names of his wife according to the second story.
The first theory asserts, as mentioned befors, that Jyestha, Sudarśanā and Anavadyă are the three names of Javiāli's wife, who also happened to be Bhagavān's daughter.
The commentators of the Avašyaka Satra viz Sriman Hari. bhadra Soriji, Malayagiriji, and Maladharin Hemacandra Sari interpret the verse in the light of this theory and merely quote the second interpretation as the theory of others. But they do not discuss the validity of them. Bhagavati Sūtra is completely silent on this point. Hence it is very difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion about the names of Jamāli's wife and mother.
However, we think it better to take Jyesthā' as an adjective than take it as a proper noun and thus follow the view of Acārānga Sūtra. It is not improbable, if the author of Avaśyaka Sūtra had confounded Sudarśanā with Priyadarśanā -Tr. 1

Page #43

Vada ]
Nihnavavada
:19:
टीका:- १३ ' मे जम्ह ति' यस्माद् मम साक्षात् प्रत्यक्षमेवेदं वृत्तं यदुतकम्बलास्तरणरूपः संस्तारकः क्रियमाणं कृतं न भवति, किन्तु कृतमेव कृतमुच्यते । ततो भगवत्यादिषु यदुक्तम्-चलमाणे चलिए, उईरिजमाणे उईरिए, बेहजमाणे वेइए (चलयमाने चलितम्, उदीर्यमाणे उदीरितम्, वेद्यमाने वेदितम् ) भगवत्यां प्रथमशतके प्रथमोद्वेशे । इत्यादि, तत् सर्वं मिथ्येत्यभिप्राय इति ॥ २३०८||
D. C.
Jamāli :—It is clearly evident that the bed (of blankets etc.) which is being spread at present, has not actually been spread. We can, therefore, easily remark that all objects that are being prepared or that are under the process of preparation, cannot be said to have been actually prepared, but those that have been already prepared could alone be said to have been prepared.
The doctrine of Caliyamāņe calitam, Udiryamāņe udiritam etc. explained in the Bhagavati Sūtra® will therefore prove invalid. 13 (2308)
There are other faults, also, in accepting Kriyamaņam
kritam”—
"2
जस्सेह कज्ज़माणं कयं ति तेणेह विजमाणस्स । करणकिरिया पवना तहा य बहुदोस पडिवत्ती ||१४|| २३०९ ॥
14 Jasseha kajjamānam kayam ti teneha vijjamānassa Karana kiriya pavannā tahā ya bahudosapadivatti 2309. [यस्येह क्रियमाणं कृतमिति तेनेह विद्यमानस्य । करणक्रिया प्रपन्ना तथा च बहुदोषप्रतिपत्तिः ॥१४॥२३०९॥ 14. Yasyeh kriyamānam kritamiti teneha vidyamānasya.
Karanakriyā prapannā tathā ca bahudosa pratipattih 14 (2309) ]
८८
Trans. 14 (He who accepts) that which is being done (kriyamāna) has already been done (krita ) ( shall accept ) the process of accomplishment (in case) of an object (which) already exists, and thus (will give rise to ) numerous faults. 2309.
Sūtra Anga V Khanda I Sataka I
6. Vide Bhagavati Satra L

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #44

:20:
Jinabhadra Gaņi's
[ 'The first टीका-१४ इह यस्य वादिनः “क्रियमाणं वस्तु कृतम्" इत्यभ्युपगमः, तेनेह विद्यमानस्य सतः करणरूपाः । क्रियाः करणक्रियाः प्रतिपमा अङ्गीकृता । तथा च सति वक्ष्यमाणानां बहूनां दोषाणां प्रतिपत्तिरभ्युपगमरूपा कता भवतीति ॥२३०९॥
D. C. One who accepts the principle of kriyamānam kritam' will accept Karaņa kriyā or the process of preparation in case of a vidyamāna object as well. And this will involve a number ef difficulties 14 (2309)
Because, कयमिह न कजमाणं सम्भावाओ चिरंतनघडोव्व । अहवा कयं पि कीरह कीरउ निचं न य समत्ती ॥१५॥२३१०॥
15. Kayamiha na kajjamāņam sabbhāvāo cirantana ghado vva |
Ahava kayam pi kirai kirau niccam ya samatti 2310. [कृतमिह न क्रियमाणं सद्भावाचिरन्तन घट इव । अथवा कृतमपि क्रियते क्रियतां नित्यं न च समाप्तिः ॥१५॥२३१०॥
Kritaniha na kriyamáņam sadbhāvāccirantana ghata ival Athavā kritamapi kriyate kriyatām nityam na ca samāptiḥ
___ 15. (2310)] Trans. 15. That which has (already) been prepared (krita) could not be said as being prepared (kriyamāņa) on account of its being existent like a ghata (which is) prepared since long. Or (if it is said that) What has already been prepared (krita) is also prepared, let it be prepared (for ever) and there would be no end (of it) 2310.
टीका-१५ इह क्रियमाणं कृतं न भवतीति प्रतिज्ञा। सद्भावात्-कृतस्य विद्यमानत्वादिति हेतुः । चिरन्तनवटवदिति दृष्टान्तः । विपर्यये वाधकमाह-अथ कृतमपि क्रियत इत्यभ्युपगम्यते, तर्हि नित्यमनवरतमेव क्रियतां, कुतत्वाविशेषात् । एवं च सति न कदाचिदपि कार्यक्रियापरिसमाप्तिरिति ॥२३१०॥
D. C. What is krita cannot be said as kriyamana. For, an object which is krita is always ridyamāna like a ghata prepar

Page #45

Vada] Nihuavavāda
:21: ed since long. In spite of that, an object which is already krita is also accomplished; it ought to be accomplished for ever and the process of accounplishment will never cease to operate 15 (2310).
And, किरियावेफल्लं ति य पुवमभूयं च दीसए होतं । दीसइ दीहो य जओ किरियाकालो घडाईणं ॥१६॥२३११॥
16. Kiriyāvèphallam ti ya puvvamabhūyam ca dīzno hontam ||
Disai dîho ya jaö kiriyá kālo ghadaiņam 2311 || [क्रियावैफल्यमिति च पूर्वमभूतं च दृश्यते भवत् । दृश्यते दीर्घश्च यतः क्रियाकालो घटादीनाम् ॥१६॥२३११॥
16. Kriyāvaiphalyamiti ca pūrvamablūtam driśyate bhavatı Drisyate dirghasca yatah kriyākālo ghadainam 16 (2311)]
Trans. 16. If kriyamāna is taken as kritu, the process (of accomplishment) will be useless. And that which did not exist before, will appear as comming into existence. Besides, on the other hand, the time of production of the objects like) ghata etc. will appear long. 2311.
टीका-१६-यदि च क्रियमाणं कृतमिष्यते, तर्हि घटादि कार्यार्थ या मृन्मर्दन-चक्रभ्रमणादिका क्रिया तस्या वैफल्यं प्रामोति, तत्काले कार्यस्य कृतत्वाभ्युपगमात् । प्रयोग:-इह यत् कृतम्, तक्रिया विफलैव, यथा चिरनिपनघटे, कृतं चाभ्युपगम्यते क्रियाकाले कार्यम्, ततो विफला तत्र क्रियेति । किन्न, क्रियमाण-कृतवादिना कृतस्य विद्यमानस्य क्रियेति प्रतिपादितं भवति । एवं च प्रत्यक्ष-विरोधः, यस्मादुत्पत्तिकालात् पूर्वमभूतमविद्यमानमेव कार्य भवजायमानं दृश्यत उत्पत्तिकाले, तस्मात् क्रियमाणमकृतमेवेति । किञ्च, आरम्भक्रियासमय एव कार्यमुत्पद्यत इति तवाभ्युपगम । एतचायुक्तम् । कुतः ?। यस्माद् घटादिकार्याणामुत्पद्यमानानां दीर्घ एव निर्वर्तनक्रियाकालो दृश्यते इति ॥२३११॥
D. C. If Kriyamāņu is taken as kritul, there would be no utility of processes like grindling of clay, the rotating of wheel etc. for the production of ghata etc. Because, even at the time

Page #46

:22: Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The first when the process of production is going on, it is already taken for granted that ghata has been produced.
Secondly, the followers of the theory of “ Kriyamáņam hritam accept the Kārya (which is a-ridyamāna ) as existing as it thus gives rise to self contradiction. For, in such a case, a. kārya which was a-vidyamāna before the time of production, appears as being produced. And hence, the theory of Kriyamāna kritam is not correct.
Thirdly, those who believe in ' Kriyamānam kritam' believe that the Kārya is produced at the very beginning of the process of production. But it is not correct to believe like that. Because, the period of production of the objects like ghata etc. appears very long, 16. (2311)
And, नारंभे चिय दीस न सिवादद्धाए दीसइ तदंते। तो नहि किरियाकाले जुत्तं कजं तदंतम्मि ॥१७॥२३१२॥
17. Narambhe cciya disai na sivadaddhāe disai tadantd |
To nahi kiriyākāld juttam kajjam tadantammi. 2312. [नारम्भ एव दृश्यते न शिवाघद्धायां दृश्यते तदन्ते । ततो नहि क्रियाकाले युक्तं कार्य तदन्ते ॥१७॥२३१२॥ 17. Nārambha eva driśyate na śivādyaddhāyām driśyate tadante
Tato nahi kriyākāle yuktam kāryam taçlante. 17 (2312)]
Trans. 17. An object like ghata is not seen just in the beginning, nor is it seen at the time of (production of forms such as) 'sivaka' etc; (but) is seen only at the end of that. It is, therefore, not proper to accept the (existence of) Kar. ya during the period of its production, but only at the end
(2312) ____टीका-१७ नारम्भक्रियासमय एव घटादि कार्य भवद् दृश्यते, नापि शिवाघद्धायां-शिवक-स्थास-कोश-कुशूलादि समयेष्वपि न दृश्यत इत्यर्थः । कतर्हि दृश्यते ? इत्याह-"तदंते" दीर्घकालस्यान्ते घटादिकार्य भवद् दृश्यते ।

Page #47

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:23: तस्माद् न क्रियाकाले कार्य युक्तम्, तस्य तदानीमदर्शनात् । तदन्ते तु दीकियाकालस्यान्ते युक्तम् कार्यम् , तदानीमेव तस्य दर्शनादिति सकलजनस्य प्रत्य. क्षमिद्धमेवेदम् । इति जमालिपूर्वपक्षाः ॥२३१२॥
D. C. An object like ghata is not seen as existing just in the beginning of the process of its pro-luction nor does it appear at the time of production of its intermediate forins such as sivaka-sthāra kosa anil kusula-prior to the final form of ghata. It is seen only at the end of that long period of time which it takes during its process of proluction.
It is therefore, not proper to aceept the existence of an object either in the beginning of the process of its production or in the intermediate stages of pro luction. A Karya is cxistent only at the end of the dirghakāla or the long period of production.
This is the end of the arguments of Jamāli. 17 (2312).
The old monks refute these arguments as follows :थेराण मयं नाकयमभावओ कीरए खपुप्फ व। अह व अकयं पि कीरइ कीरउ तो खरविसाणं पि ॥१८॥२३१३॥
18. Therāņa mayam nākayamabhavan kirae khapuppham var
Aha va akayam pi kīrai kīrau to kharavisāņam pi (2313) [स्थविराणां मतं नाकृतमभावतः क्रियते वपुष्पमिव । अथवाऽकृतमपि क्रियते क्रियतां ततः खरविषाणमपि ॥१८॥२३१३॥ 18. Sthavirāņām matam nākrutamabhavatah kriyate khapuşpamiva Athavā: 'kritamapi kriyate kriyatām tatah kharavişāņamapi
18 (2313)] Trans. 18. It is the belief of sthaviras that what is not be produced on account of its being non-existent like a khapuspā. Or, (if) an a-Krita (unaccmplished) object is even made, let the horn of an ass, also, be made 2313.
टीकाः-१८ स्थविराः श्रुतवृद्धा गीतार्थाः साधवस्तेषां मतंकुप्ररूपणां

Page #48

:24: Jinabha:Ira Gani's
[The first कुर्वन्तं जमालि त एवं प्रज्ञापयन्तीत्यर्थः-नाकृतमविद्यमानं धादिकार्य क्रियते, असतश्चात्, आकाशकुसुमवत् । अथाकृतमविद्यमानमपि क्रियते, क्रियतां तर्हि खरविषाणमपि, अकृतत्वाविशेषादिति ॥२३१३॥
D. C. Sthaviras: --An a-krita hārya like that of a ghata is never done because it is a-ridyamāna like hhapiispa. Still, however if an a-ridijamāna object is also prolucel, a non-existent object like kharaviśāņa should also be ma le on account of its having the common element of a-kritatra. 18 (2323)
Refuting the possibility of the fault of "nitya kritatva? advanced by Jamāli, the sthaviras continue :निच्चकिरियाइदोसा नणु तुल्ला असइ कहतरगा वा। पुव्वमभूयं च न ते दीसइ किं खरविसाणं पि? ॥१९॥२३१४॥
19. Niccakiriyāi dosā naņu tullā asai katthataragā vāl
Puvvamabhūyam ca na te disai kim kharavisānam pi ? 2314 [नित्यक्रियादिदोषा ननु तुल्या असति कष्टतरका वा। पूर्वमभूतं च न तव दृश्यते किं खरविषाणमपि ? ॥१९॥२३१४॥
19. Nitya kriyarli dosā nanı tulyā asati kastatarakā vål Parvamabhatam ca na tava drusyate kim kharavisānamapi?
19 (2314)] Trans. 19. The faults of nitya-kriyā, etc. are in fact, equally possible in ( case of) a non-existent object also. Or say, they are more obstructive. And, (when) an object which is not produced at all, is seen by you, why should not the horn of an ass also be seen by you? (2314)
टीकाः-१९ नन्बसत्यऽविद्यमाने वस्तुनि कारणक्रियाभ्युपगमे नित्यक्रियादिदोषाः, आदिशब्दात क्रियाऽपरिसमाप्ति-क्रियावैफल्यपरिग्रहः, आवयोस्तुलयाः समाः, यथा कृतपक्षे त्वया दत्तास्तथाऽकृतपक्षोऽप्यापतन्तीत्यर्थः । किं तुलया एव ? । नेत्याह-कष्टतरका वा । विद्यमाने हि वस्तुनि पर्याय विशेषाधानद्वारेण कथञ्चित् करणक्रियाधुप पंद्यत एव, यथा “आकाशं कुरु, पादौ कुरु,
7, Vidle verse 2310.

Page #49

(Vada Nihnavavāda
:25: पृष्ठं कुरु" इत्यादि । अविद्यमाने तु सर्वथा नायं न्यायः संभवति, सर्वथाऽसचात्, खरविषाणवदिति । यदि च पूर्व कारणावस्थायामभूतमसत् कार्य जायते, तर्हि मृत्पिण्डाद् घटवत् खरविषाणमपि जायमानं किं न दृश्यते, असञ्चाविशेषात् । अथ खरविषाणं भवद् न दृश्यते, तर्हि घटोपि तथैवास्तु, विपर्ययो वेति ॥२३१४॥
____D. C. Sthaviras :-Possibility of the faults such as nitya kriyatra (Continuous process of doing ) Kriya-aparisamāptti (Imperfection of the process of production) and kriyā-vaiphalyam (Futility of the process of production), shown by yous are not only equally possible, but all the more possible if you believe in the production of a non-existent object. In case of an existent object, it is possible that the Kriyā or process of production may decrease comparatively owing to its taking another form. For example- when we say “Do the sky (i. e. keep the space ), “Do the legs " “ Do the back” etc. the Kriyā seems to slow down owing to its taking another form. This does not happen in case of an a-vidyamāna object owing to its being non-existent like a khara-rişāņa.
Moreover, if an a-ridyamāna Kārya is produced during the condition of Karana etc. in the beginning, then, instead of ghata why should kharavisāņa be not seen as being produced from the lump of earth ? For, the quality of being non-existent is common with the khara-vişāņa also. But this does not happen in reality. Your theory is not valid. (2314).
In reply to the argument that the period of production of the objects like ghata etc. is long', the sthaviras explain that.पइसमयउप्पन्नाणं परोप्परविलक्खाण सुबहूणं । दीहो किरियाकालो जइ दीसह किं स्थ कुंभस्स ? ॥२०॥२३१५॥
20. Paisamayauppannāņam paropparavilakkhāņa subahūņam ___Diho kiriyākālo jai disai kim ttha kumbhassa ? 2315. [प्रतिसमयोत्पन्नानां परस्परविलक्षणानां सुबहूनाम् । दीर्घः क्रियाकालो यदि दृश्यते किमत्र कुम्भस्य ? ॥२०॥२३१५॥
8. Vitle verse 2310. 9. Vidle verse 2311.

Page #50

:26: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first 20. Pratisamayotpannānām parasparavilaksaņānām subahūnām 1 Dirghaḥ kriyākālo yadi driśyate kimatra kumbhasya ?
(2315)]. Trans. 20. If the period of the process of production of the numerous (kāryas) that possess mutually distinct characteristics (and) that are (being) produced at every moment, appears to be long, how is ghata affected ( by that)? 2315.
टीका:-२० यदि नाम प्रतिसमयोत्पन्नानां परस्परविलक्षणस्वरूपाणां सुबड्वानां शिवक-स्थास-कोश-कुशूलादिकार्यकोटीनां क्रियाकाल-निष्ठा-कालयोरेकत्वेन प्रतिप्रारम्भसमयनिष्ठाप्राप्तानां दीर्घक्रियाकालो दृश्यते, तर्हि कुम्भस्य घरस्य किमत्रायातम् ? । इदमुक्तं भवति-मृदानयन-मर्दन-पिण्ड विधानादिकाल: सर्वोऽपि घटनिर्वर्तनक्रियाकाल इति तवाभिप्रायः । अयं चायुक्त एव । यतस्तत्र प्रतिसमयमन्यान्येव कार्याण्यारभ्यन्ते, निष्पाद्यन्ते च, कार्यस्य कारणकालनिष्ठाकालयोरेकत्वात् । घटस्तु पर्यन्तसमय एवारभ्यते, तत्रैव च निष्पद्यते, इति कोऽस्य दी| निर्वर्तनक्रियाकालः इति ॥२०॥२३१५॥
___D. C. Sthaviras :-If the period of production of the numerous Karyas such as Sivaka, sthāsa, kosa and kusula10 etc. that are being prepared from time to time, is to be long, how is the period of production of ghata taken as long ? According to you, the period of processes such as that of collecting earth, pounding it, and forming a lump etc. is the same. But it is not so. For, the production of ghata starts only at the last moment. It is, therefore, not proper to believe that the kriyā-kāla of ghata is dirgha or long.
Jamāli:- Why is ghata not seen at the production of other Kāryas, which are produced just prior to that? (2315)
The answer is :अन्नारंभे अनंकिह दीसउ जह घडो पडारंभे । सिकादजो न कुंभो किह दीसए सो तदद्धाए ? ॥२१॥२३१६॥ _____10. Various forms of earth before the actual form of ghata is produced.

Page #51

Vada ] Nihnavavada
:27: 21. Annārambhe annam kiha disau jaha. ghado padarambhe |
Sivakādao na kumbho kiha disae so tadaddhāe ? (2316) [अन्यारम्भेऽन्यत् कथं दृश्यतां यथा घटापटारम्भे । शिवकादयो न कुम्भः कथं दृश्यते स तदद्धायाम् १ ॥२१॥२३१६॥
21. Anyārambhe'nyat katham drisyatām yathā ghatah paţārambhe Sivakādayo na kumbhaḥ katham driśyate sa tadaddhāyam?
21 (2316)] Trans. 21. Just as ghata (is not seen) in the beginning of (the production of) pata how could a different Kārya be found at the time of the production of a (totally) different Karya? Sivaka etc. are not ghata. Hence how could ghata be found at (the time of) their production ? 2316.
टीका:-२१ अन्यस्य शिवकादेरारम्भेऽन्यद् घटलक्षणं कार्य कथं दृश्यते । न हि पटारम्भे घटः कदाचिदपि दृश्यते । अतः किमुच्यते-'नारंमे चिय दीसइ ति' । शिवकादयोऽपि कुम्भरूपा न भवन्ति, किन्तु ततोऽन्य एवेति कथं तदद्धायामप्यसौ कुम्भो दृश्यते । अत एव तदप्यज्ञतया प्रोच्यते "न सिवादद्धार" इति ॥२३१६॥
D. C. Just as a Karya like ghata is not seen at the time of the production of a Karya like pata, so also, a Karya like ghata etc. is not seen at the time of production of the Kāryas like sivaka, eto, which are totally different from them 21 (2316).
With regard to Jamāli's contention that a Karya is seen only at the end of the long range of “ Kriyā-Kālali ", the sthaviras' explanation is this— अंते चिय आरद्धो जइ दीसह तम्मि चेव को दोसो। अकयं व संपइ गए कह कीरउ कह व एस्समि ? ॥२२॥२३१७॥
22. Ante cciya āraddho jai disai tammi ceva ko doso ? |
Akayam va sampai gae kaha kīrau kaha va essammi 2317. [अन्त एवारब्धो यदि दृश्यते तस्मिन्नेव को दोषः। अकृतं वा संप्रति गते कथं क्रियतां कथं वैष्यति ? ॥२२॥२३१७॥
11. Vide v 2312.

Page #52

:28: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first 22. Anta evārabho yadi drisyate tasminneva ko dosah ?
Akritam vā samprati gate katham kriyatām katham vais yati ? 22 (2317)]
Trans. 22. If a kārya started at the end, appears at that time only what objection (is there)? ( For ) otherwise ( va) how could (that which ) is not produced at the present time, possibly have been produced in the past or in future ? 2317
टीका-२२. अन्त एव क्रियाक्षणे प्रारब्धो घटो यदि तत्रेव दृश्यते तर्हि को दोषः १-न कश्चिदित्यर्थः । यदुक्तम्-तो न हि किरियाकाले " इत्यादि । तत्राह-'अकयं वेत्यादि । यदि च संपति वर्तमानक्रियाक्षणे न कृतं कार्यमितीप्यने तदा गतेतिक्रान्ते एष्यति-अनागते च क्रियाक्षणे कथं नाम तत् कार्य क्रियताम् ? ।-न कथश्चिदित्यर्थः । तथाहि-नातीत-भविष्यक्रियाक्षणी कार्यकारको, विनष्टानुत्पन्नत्वेनासत्त्वात् , खरविषाणवत् । अतः कथं क्रियान्ते कार्य स्यात् । तस्मात् क्रियमाणेव कृतमिति । यदि च क्रियमाणमपि न कृतम् , क तहिं कृतमिति वक्तव्यम् । क्रियाविगम इति चेत् । तदयुक्तम् , तदानीं क्रियाया असवात् । तदसत्वेऽपि च कार्योत्पत्ताविष्यमाणायां क्रियारम्भात् प्रागपि कार्योत्पत्तिः स्यात् , क्रियासचाविशेषात् । अथ संप्रतिसमयः क्रियमाणकालः, तदनन्तरस्तु कृतकालः, न च क्रियमाणकाले कार्यमस्ति, इत्यतः खलवकृतं क्रियते न तु कृतमित्यभिधत्से । नन्वेतदिह प्रष्टव्योऽसि किं भवतः कार्य क्रियया क्रियते उत तामन्तरेणापि भवति । यदि क्रियया, तहिं कथं सोऽन्यत्र समये अन्यत्र तु कार्यम् ? । न हि खदिरे च्छेदनक्रियायां पलाशे च्छेदःसमुपजायते । किञ्च, "क्रियोपरमे कार्य भवति, न तु क्रियासद्भावे" इति वदता प्रत्युतकार्योत्पत्तेविघ्नहेतुः क्रियेति प्रतिपादितं भवति । ततश्च कारणमप्यकारणमिति प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधः। अथ क्रियामन्तरेण कार्यमुपजायत इत्यभ्युपगम्यते, तर्हि घटादिकार्यार्थिना निरर्थकः सर्वोऽपि मृन्मर्दन-पिण्डविधान-चक्रारोपणभ्रमणादिक्रियारम्भः । अतो न कर्तव्यं मुमुक्षुभिरपि तपः-संयमादिक्रियानुष्ठानम् , तदन्तरेणापि मुक्तिसुखसिद्धेः । न चैवम् । तस्मात् क्रियाकाल एव कार्यम्, न पुनस्तदुपरम इति ॥२३१७॥ ____D. C. There is no harm if a ghata which is being produced at the final moment, is believed to have appeared only at

Page #53

Vada]
Nihnavavāda
that time. Here if it is believed that a Karya is not produced during the process of its production at the present time, it could neither have been produced at any time in the past nor at any time in future. For, the kriyā-kāla of the past or future is either perished or unproduced as the case may be. It is therefore, a-vidyamana like the horn of an ass. This shows that what is being done (Kriyamāņa) has alone been done (krita). For if Kriyamāņa is not krita, where is it done?
Again, it is not proper to assert that Karya is produced after the Kriya is over. In spite of the absence of Kriya, if the production of a Karya is accepted, the Kārya should have as well been produced before the beginning of Kriya, since there is Kriyābhāva at that time also.
:29
The present tense is known as Kriyamāṇa-Kāla and the period following it, is Krita-Kāla or say Kārya-Kāla. If you say here that a Kārya which was undone (till now) has been done but that which has already been done is not done, we ask you this question: Is the Karya produced with or without the help of kriya? If it is produced with the help of kriyā, how could Kriya and Karya take place at different times? By putting a cut into the Khdira tree, a palāsa tree is never cut off.
It is also not true to say that Kārya takes place after the Kriya is over, and is not actually produced in presence of Kriyā. For, by saying so, Kriya will prove to be an obstruction rather than an instrument in the accomplishment of Karya and this will give rise to a number of self-contradictions.
Lastly, if it is held that Karya is produced without the help of Kriya, the trouble undergone by a potter desirous of ghata, by way of bringing earth, pounding it, moulding it into a lump, placing the lump on the wheel and moving the wheel in a circle, would entirely turn futile. Following your ideology, one can say that those desirous of Final Emancipation, should not perform penances or observe self-control etc12.
12. The sentences of Veda such as अग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात् स्वर्गकार्मः,

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #54

Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The first
Because, according to you, the attainment of Mokṣa should follow without any Kriya. But it does not happen so. So, Kārya comes into being during the process of production, and not after the process is over.
:30:
Jamāli:-Right from the time of collecting earth to the time of its transformation into the form of ghata, the whole period is the time of production of ghata. The kriyā-kāla of ghata is therefore dirgha, according to me. It is not correct to say that a Karya is produced just from the time when the process of production has been started.
The sthaviras reply as follows:-- पइसमयका कोडीनिरवेक्खो घडगयाहिलासो सि । पइसमयकज्जकालं थूलमई घडम्मि लाएसि ||२३|| २३१८||
23. Paisamaya kajja kodi niravekkho ghadagayāhilāso si Pai samaya kajja kalam thūlamai! ghadammi lāesi 2318. [प्रतिसमयकार्यकोटीनिरपेक्षो घटगताभिलाषोऽसि । प्रतिसमयकार्यकालं स्थूलमते ! घटे लगयसि ||२३|| २३१८ ॥
23. Prati samaya kārya koti nirapekso ghata gatābhilaso ' sit Prati samaya kārya kālam sthu lamate! ghate lagayasi 23 (2318)].
Trans. 23. Ignoring the numerous Kāryas ( which are being) produced from time to time, you have been desirous of ghata. (And hence ) O dull-witted (Jamāli) ! You are fusing the period (of production ) of the Kāryas ( produced ) from time to time with (that of) ghata 2318.
con
टीका - २३ हन्त ! यद्यपि प्रतिसमयमन्यान्यरूपाः कार्यको व्यस्तत्रोत्पद्यन्ते, तथापि तन्निरपेक्षस्त्वं - निष्प्रयोजनत्वेनाविवक्षितत्वादुत्पद्यमाना अपि तास्त्वं न गणयसीत्यर्थः । कुतः । यस्माद् घटगताभिलाषोऽसि, सप्रयोजनत्वेन तस्यैव प्रधानतया विवचितत्वात् । "बट इहोत्पत्स्यते" इत्येवं तत्रैव तवाभिलाषः, अतः एकया पूर्ण याहूत्या सर्वान् कामानवाप्नोति and पुण्यः पुण्येन कर्मणा, पापः पापेन कर्मणा etc.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #55

Vāda ]
Nihnavavada
:31:
प्रतिसमय कार्यको टीनामदर्शकत्वेन स्थूलमते ! प्रतिसमयकार्यसंबन्धिनमपि कालं सर्वमपि घटे लगयसि - " सर्वोऽप्ययं घटोत्पत्तिकालः " इत्येवमध्यवस्यसि त्वमत्यर्थः, अतो मिथ्यानुभवोऽयं तवेत्यभिप्रायः, एकसामयिक एव घटोत्पत्तिकाले बहुसामयिकत्वग्रहणेन प्रवृत्तेः । अत्राह - ननु प्रतिसमयं कार्यकोट्य उत्पद्यमानास्तत्र न काश्चन संवेद्यन्ते, किन्त्वपान्तराले शिवक-स्थास - कोशादीनि कानिचिदेव कार्याणि संवेद्यन्ते । सत्यम्, किन्तु स्थूलान्येव शिवकादिकार्याणि, यानि तु प्रतिसमयभाकीनि सूक्ष्मकार्याणि तानि च्छद्मस्थो व्यक्त्या नावधारयितुं शक्नोति, परं प्रतिसमयकार्याणां ग्राहकाण्यनन्तसिद्ध केवलिनां ज्ञानान्युत्पद्यन्ते तान्यपि तत्रापान्तराले कार्याण्येव, इति घटन्त एव प्रतिसमयं कार्यकोट्य इति ॥ २३१८॥
D. C.
Sthaviras--A series of different Karyas are produced from time to time during the process of production. But, you being desirous of ghața alone, do not look to these Karyas and give importance to ghata only. All the while during the process of production, you think that “ ghata will be produced here.”
Since, O dull-witted Jamāli, you do not apprehend the time during which the intermediate forms of ghata are prepared, you are confusing the full lengh of time (during which different Kāryas are produced) with the period of production of gnate and therefore, you assert that "This whole period of time is the period of production of ghața alone. But your assertion is totally false, as the period of production of ghata is only a part of the whole period of the process of production. Jamali:-The whole series of Karyas produced from time to time is not seen but the Karyas like sivaka and sthāsa alone are seen.
"3
Sthaviras :——Kāryas like sivaka etc. are sthala but those that are produced from time to time are sukṣma which could not be apprehended by a sthūlamati (dull-witted) like you. The cognizance of ananta Siddha Kevali (who has attained Absolute Perception) alone can recognize these sakṣma Kāryas.
It should also be noted that the various Jnanas that apprehend these Kāryas are themselves produced at various times

Page #56

:32:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first
and therefore they are also Kāryas. Hence, the theory that a series of Karyas is produced from time to tima, is valid and proper. 23 (2318).
Jamāli says:--
को चरमसमयनियमो पढमे चिय तो न कीरए कज्जं ? | नाकारणं ति कळं तं चेवं तम्मि से समए ||२४|| २३१९॥
24. Ko caramasamayaniyamo padhame cciya to na kirae kajjam ? |
Nākāraṇam ti kajjam tam cevam tammi se samaye 2319. [कश्चरमसमयनियमः प्रथम एवं ततो न क्रियते कार्यम् ? | नाकारणमिति कार्य तदेव तस्मिंस्तस्य समये ||२४|| २३१९॥
24. Kaścaramasamayaniyamaḥ prathama eva tato na kriyate Kāryam ?
Nākāranamiti kāryam tadeva tasminstasya samaye 24 (2319) ]
Trans. 24. If the Kriyā Kāla is not taken as long" what is the utillty of the rule of the final instant? (In that case) why is Karya not done in the first instant (only)? (The answer is ) :- “ Since Kārya (cannot exist ) without Kārana, tnat (i. e. the final moment ) itself is its ( ghatasya) Kārana at that time. " 2319.
टीका - २४ ननु यदि कार्यस्य दीर्घः क्रियाकालो नेष्यते, किन्त्वेकसामयिक एव, तर्हि कोऽयं चरमसमयनियमो येन तत्रैवोत्पद्यते घटादिकार्यम् - न घटत एवायं नियम इत्यर्थः । तत एतन्नियमाभावात् किं प्रथमसमय एव कार्यं न क्रियते ? - अपि तु क्रियत एवेति का का नीयते । अत्रोत्तरमाह-अकारणं कार्य न भवति, तच्चान्त्य समय एव 'से' तस्य घटस्य कारणमस्ति न तत्प्रथमसमये, अतः कथं तत्रोत्पद्यते ? | अन्वय-व्यतिरेकसमधिगम्यो हि कार्य -- कारण भात्रः, अन्वय-व्यतिरेकाभ्यां चान्त्यसमय एवं घटादेः कारणं लक्ष्यत इति तत्रैव तदुत्पद्यत इति युक्त एव चरमसमयनियम इति ॥ २३१९ ॥
D. C.
Jamāli:-If you do not believe that the Kriyā-Kāla of ghața

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #57

[Vada
Nihnavavāda
:33:
is dirgha, why, should you make the rule that ghata is produced only at the last moment and not at the first?
Sthaviras:-Kārya cannot exist without Kāraṇa. Wherever there is no kāraṇa there is no kārya also. The kāraṇa in case of karyas like ghata etc. is always found in the final instant and not in the first one. The kārya, therefore, does not come into being in the first moment. The proposition that the production of karya takes place at the end is justified in this way. 24 (2319) Summarising the arguments,
तेणेह कज्जमाणं नियमेण कथं कथं तु भयणिज्जं । किंचिदिह कज्ज माणं उवरयकिरियं च हुज्जा हि ||२५|| २३२०||
25. Teneha kajjamānam niyamena kayam kayam tu bhayanijjam.।
Kimcidiha kajjamāṇam uvarayakiriyam ca hujjā hi (2320) [तेनेह क्रियमाणं नियमेन कृतं कृतं तु भजनीयम् । किञ्चिदिह क्रियमाणमुपरतक्रियं चं भवेत् ||२५|| २३२०॥
25. Teneha kriyamānam niyamena kritam kritam tu bhajanīyam Kimcidiha kriyamānamuparatakriyam ca bhavet 25 (2320) ]
Trans. 25. That is why Kriyamāna is ( said to be ) krita as a rule; while krita is alternately (so). Here some of it may be (described) as being done, while some would have the process stopped. 232.0.
टीका - २५ तेनोक्तप्रकारेण क्रियमाणं वर्तमानक्रियाक्षणभावि कार्य नियमेन कृत्तमेवोच्यते, यत्तु कृतं तद् भजनीयं विकल्पनीयम् । कथम् ? इत्याह - किञ्चिदिह कृतं क्रियाप्रवृतकालभावि क्रियमाणमुच्यते, अन्यत् तूपरतक्रियं चापाकाद्युत्तीर्ण कृतं घटादिकार्यं न क्रियमाणमुच्यते, उपरतक्रियत्वादिति
॥२३२०॥
D. C. On account of the reasons stated above, the Kārya which is being done at present, should certainly be called as krita. But that which has already been done, should be taken so only alternately. For, in that case, some of the work which

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #58

:34:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first
is done, could be said to have been done at the time of its process of being done, while the rest of the work as in the case of ghata which is taken down from the cakra etc. could not be taken as Kriyamāņa on account of its process of produetion being already ceased. 25 (2320).
Now, applying all the views of Sthaviras to the case of bed, Jamāli argues :
जं जत्थ नभोदेसे अत्थुव्वइ जत्थ जत्थ समयम्मि | तं तत्थ तथ्यमत्थुयमत्युव्वंतं पि तं चैव ॥ २६ ॥ २३२१ ॥
26. Jam jattha nabhodese atthuvvai jattha jattha samayammi Tam tattha tatthamtthuyamatthuvvantam pi tam ceva (2321) [ यद् यत्र नभोदेश आस्तीर्यते यत्र यत्र समये । तत् तत्र तत्रास्तीर्णमास्तीर्यमाणमपि तदेव ||२६||२३२१॥ 26. Yad yatra nabhodeśa āstiryate yatra yatra samaye r Tat tatra tatrāstirnamāstiryamānamapi tadeva 26 ( 2321 ) ]
Trans. 26. That which is spread in whatever space at whatever time, is (said to have been) spread and is also (said to be under the process of) being spread at that time and in that space. 2321.
64
टीका - २६ आस्तीर्यमाणसंस्तारकस्य यद् यावन्मात्रं नभोदेशे यत्र यत्र समये " 'अत्थुव्वह" आस्तीर्यते तत् तावन्मात्रं तस्मिन् नभोदेशे तत्र तत्र समय आस्तीर्णमेव भवति, आस्तीर्यमाणमपि च तदेवोच्यते । इदमुक्तं भवति - सर्वोऽपि संस्तारक आस्तीर्यमाणो नास्तीर्ण इति “ क्रियमाणं कृतम्" इत्यादि महावीरबचनं व्यलीकमेव जमालिर्मन्यते । एतच्चायुक्तम्, भगवद्वचनाभिप्रायापरिज्ञानात् । सर्वनयात्मकं हि भगवद्वचनम् । ततश्च " क्रियमाणमकृतम्” इत्यपि भगवान् कथश्चिद् व्यवहारनयमतेन मन्यत एव परं “चलमाणे चलिए, उईरिज्जमाणे उईरिए " इत्यादिसूत्राणि निश्चयनयमतेनैव प्रवृत्तानि । तन्मतेन च क्रियमाणं संस्कृतम्, इत्यादि सर्वमुपपद्यत एव । निश्चयो हि मन्यते - प्रथमसमयादेव घटः कर्तुं नारब्धः, किन्तु मृदानयनमर्दनादीनि प्रतिसमयं परापरकार्याण्यारभ्यन्ते, तेषां च मध्ये यद् यत्र समये प्रारभ्यते वत् तत्रैव निष्पद्यते, कार्यकाल-निष्ठा

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #59

:35:
Vada ]
Nihnavavāda कालयोरेकत्वात्, अन्यथा पूर्वोक्तदोषप्रसङ्गात् । ततःक्रियमाणं कृतमेव भवति । एवं प्रस्तुतः संस्तारकोऽपि नाघसमयात् सर्वोऽपि संस्तरीतुमारभ्यते, किन्त्वपरापरे तदवयवाः प्रतिसमयमास्तीर्यन्ते, तेषां च मध्ये यो यत्र समयेऽवयवः संस्तरीतुमारभ्यते, तत्रैव च निष्पद्यत इति संस्तीर्यमाणं संस्तीर्णमेव भवतीति ॥२३२१॥
D. C. When a particular bed is spread on & particular place at a particular time, it is said to have been spread at that time and place to a particular extent, and is also said to be under the process of being spread. That is to say, while some part of the bed has already been spread, another part is being spread. So, it is pointless to say that the whole bed has been spread. And, the theory of “ Kriyamānam kritam” preached by Šramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra seems wrong to me.
Sthaviras :-0 Jamāli! You have not been able to grasp the real purport, of the Bhagavan's doctrines and that is why it seems wrong to you. The words of Bhagavan are propera sarvanayātmaka13 and hence it is possible to believe from the point of view of vyavahāra 14 that kriyamāņa is not krita. But according to niscaya naya, 18 satras like “calamāṇe calite" are preached and from this point of view, axions like kriyamāņam kritam” and “samstīryamāņam samstīrņam” are justified.
It should be carefully noted that the production of ghata does not start from the very first moment, but since Kriya-kåla (period of production) and niştha-kala (period of completion) are the same, different kāryas are produced at different times and each one of them is completed at the same tiine when it has started being produced. Otherwise,the faults mentioned before, would certainly arise. Taking the case of bed, we can say that the bed itself is not being spread in the beginning, but its different parts are spread one after the other. Each one of those parts is being spread at one moment as has also been spread at the same moment according to our theory “ Kriyamānam kritam.” The bed, as a whole, is said to
13. Containing all the points of view. 14. Practical point of viow. 15. Definite view-point.

Page #60

:36: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first have been spread only at the final moment, for, then and then only, the work of spreading is completely finished. So, it is perfectly true to assert that “What is being spread is already spread." 26 (2321)
Moreover, बहुवत्थत्तरणविभिण्णदेसकिरियाइकनकोडीणं । मण्णसि दीहं कालं जइ, संथारस्स किं तस्स ? ॥२७॥२३२२।। 27. Bahuvatthattarana vibhinnadesakiriyaikajjakodinam |
Mannasi diham kālam jai, samtharassa kim tassa ? (2322) [बहुवस्त्रास्तरणविभिन्नदेशक्रियादिकार्यकोटीनाम् । मन्यसे दीर्घ कालं यदि, संस्तारस्य किं तस्य ? ॥२७॥२३२२॥ 27. Bahuvastrastarana vibhinna desa kriyadi karyakotinām | Manyase dīrgham kālam yadi, samstārasya kim tasya ?
27. (2322)] Trans. 27. If you think that the period ( of production ) of the series of Kāryas such as that of spreading many clothcoverings at various places etc. is long, how is the bed ( as a whole ) concerned by that ? 2223.
टीका-२७ यदि नाम बहुवस्खास्तरणविभिन्न देशक्रियादिकार्यकोटीनां संबन्धिनं दीर्घकालं मन्यसे जानासि त्वम्, ततः संस्तारकस्य तस्य किमायातम् ? इत्यक्षरघटना । विभिन्नो देशो यासां ता विभिन्न देशास्ताश्च ताः क्रियाश्च विभिभदेशक्रियाः, वस्त्रस्योपलक्षणत्वात् कम्बलानां चास्तरणं वस्त्र-कम्बलास्तरणं तस्य विभिनदेशक्रिया वस्त्रकम्बलास्तरणविभिन्नदेशक्रियाः, तदादयश्च ताः कार्यकोट्यश्च बहुवस्त्रकम्बलास्तरणविभिनदेशक्रियादिकायकोव्य इति समासस्तासामिति । आदिशब्दास्वगतानेकभेदख्यापकः । कार्याणां च कोटिसंख्यत्वमिहापि पूर्ववद् भावनीयमिति ॥२३२२॥ D.C.
Sthaviras :—If you take the period of production of the Kāryas such as that of spreading a number of blankets, clothcoverings eto, to be long, it does not follow at all that the period of production of the bed, as a whole, should also be long.

Page #61

:37:
Vada ]
Nihnavavāda Jamāli:- According to you, various hāryas take place in the beginning, while the actual bed is begun being spread only at the last moment and it is finished also at that moment according it you. Now, if the hārya-hála and nithā-kāla are the same, what makes me apprehend the kriyā-käla of the bed as dirgha ? 27 (2332).
Sthaviras reply-- पइसमयकज्जकोडीविमुहो संथारयाहिकयकत्रो। पइसमयकज्जकालं कथं संथारम्मि लाएसि ? ॥२८॥२३२३॥ 28. Pai samaya kajja kodi vimuho samthārayāhihikayakajjo i
Pai samaya kajja kālam katham samthārammi lõesi ? (2313) [प्रतिसमयकार्यकोटिविमुखः संस्तारकाधिकृतकार्यः। प्रतिसमयकार्यकालं कथं संस्तारके लगयसि ? ॥२८॥२३२३: 28. Prati samaya kārya -koți vimukhah saņstārakadhikrita
kāryah Pratisamaya kāryakālam katham samstārake lagayasi ?
(2323)] Trans. 28. Being mainly careful of (the preparation of ) bed and indifferent to (the production of ) numerous Kāryas ( that are produced) from time to time, why do you confuse the period ( of production ) of the Kāryas produced from time to time, with that of the bed ? 2323.
टीका-२८ गतार्था, नवरं संस्तारकेणाधिकृतं प्रस्तुतं कार्य यस्यासौ संस्तार. काधिकृतकार्य इनि समासः ॥२३२३॥
What happened when Jamālī was thus addressed with arguments? सो उज्जुसुयनयमयं अमुणंतो न पडिवजए जाहे । ताहे समणा केइ उवसंपण्णा जिणं चेव ॥२९॥२३२४॥ पियदसणा वि पइणोऽणुरागओ तम्मयं चिय पवण्णा। ढंकोहियागणिदड्ढवत्थदेसा तयं भणइ ॥३०॥२३२५॥ सावय ! संघाडी मे तुमए दड्ढ त्ति सो वि य तमाह । नणु तुज्झ डज्झमाणं दडं ति मओ न सिद्धंतो ॥३१॥२३२६॥

Page #62

: : Jinabhadra Gani's
[The firsi बझं न रममाणं जइ बिगएऽणागए व का संका । काले तयभावाओ संघाडी कम्मि ते दड्ढा १ ॥३२॥२३२७।। 29. So Ujjusuyanayamayanr amuranto na padivajjae jahe |
Tāhe samaņā kei uvasampamā Jiņam ceva (2324) 30. Piyadamsaņā vi paiņo’murāgaö tammayam ciya pavannā i
Dhaikovahiyāgamidaddhavatthadesā tayam bharai (2325) Sāvaya samghādi me tumae dađờha tti so vi ya tanaha |
Naru tujjha dajjhanayam daddhan ti mao na siddhanto (2326) 32. Daddham na dajjhankāņam jai vigae' māgae va kā sankā
Kale tayabhāvāo samghādi kammi te daddhā? (2327) [स ऋजुसूत्रनयमतमजानन् न प्रतिपद्यते यावत् । तावत् श्रमणाः केप्युपसंपन्ना जिनमेव ।।२९॥२३२४॥ प्रियदर्शनापि पत्युरनुरागतस्तन्मतेव प्रपन्ना। डकोपहितामिदग्धवस्त्रदेशा तं भणति ॥३०॥२३२५।। श्रावक ! संघाटी मे त्वया दग्धेति सोऽपि च तामाह । ननु तव दयमानं दग्धमिति मतो न सिद्धान्तः ॥३शा२३२६॥ दग्धं न दह्यमानं यदि विगतेऽनागते वा का शङ्का । काले तदभावात् संघाटी कस्मिंस्ते दग्धा ? ॥३२॥२३२७॥ 29. Sa Rijusūtranayamatamajānan na pratipadyate yāvat i
Tăvat śramanāḥ ke'pyupasam pannā Jinameva (2324) 30. Priyadarśanāpi patyuranurāgatastanniateva prapannā /
Dhankopahitägni dagdha vastra deśā tam bhanati (2325) 31. Śrāvaka i samghāti me tvayā dagdheti so'pi ca tāmaha
Nanu tava dahyamānam dagdhamiti mato na siddhāntah (2326) 32. Dagdham na dahyamānam yadi vigate' nāgate vā kā šankā |
Kāle tadabhāvāt samghāti kasminste dagdhā ? (2327)]
Trans. 29-30-31-32. Being ignorant of the Rijusatrass point of view, when he does not accept (the principle of
16. According to the Naya theories of the Fainas, there are seven points of view for the comprehension of an object. Rijusū

Page #63

Vāda
Nihnavavada
kriyamāņam kritam) several of the monks returned to the Tirthankara.
Priyadarsanā1 along with others follows his doctrine on account of her love for him.
When she gets a border of her garment burnt by (a spark of) fire thrown by Dhanka, she says "O śrāvaka! you have burnt my garment. He replies "You do not believe in (the principle of) dahyamāna dagdha.
:39:
"
Thus, when a burning (object) is not (said to have) burnt, how could you suspect that your garment is burnt in past or future on account of its being absent (then)? (2324-2327).
टीका - २९-३०-३१ - ३२ चतखोप गाथा गतार्थाः नवरमृजुसूत्रो निश्चयनयविशेषः । “ पियदंसणा वित्ति" आह- ननु पूर्वे " सुदर्शना " इति tra Naya is one of them. The seven nayas could be briefly explained as follows:
(1) Naigama Naya-enables the combined comprehension of sāmānya and visesa.
(2) Sangraha Naya offers only a samanya or general outlook. (3) Vyavahāra Naya gives only a viseṣa or practical point of view. (4) Rijusūtra Naya means a direct or straight-forward outlook of an object in its present condition. From this view-point, an object is directly perceived in its present condition. (5) Šabda Naya recognizes an object only on etymological strength. (6) Samabhiraḍha Naya explains numerous interpretations of the same word by virtue of different paryayas.
(7) Evambhūta Naya explains the meaning of a word by means of vyutpatti or derivation.
It should be noted that the first four nayas are padarthagrahi, while the remaining are Śabdarthagrāki.

17. According to Bhasyakara, Priyadarśana, Jyeṣṭhā, Sudarśanā and Anavadyangi are the different names of Jamali's wife. (For more details Vide Foot Note 4.)
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #64

Jinabhadra Gani's
:40:
[ The first
तस्या नाम प्रोक्तम्, कथमिदानीं “प्रियदर्शना" इत्युच्यते ? | सत्यम्, किन्त्विदमपि तस्या नाम द्रष्टव्यम् । तथा चोक्तम् - "तेयसिरिं च सुरूवं जणइ य पियदंसणं धूयं" इति । " ढंकोवहियेत्यादि " - स्वाध्यायपौरुषीं कुर्वत्यास्तस्या आपाकाद् गृहीत्वा ढंङ्केनोपहितः क्षिप्तो योऽग्निस्तेन दग्धो वस्त्रदेशो यस्याः सा ढङ्कोपहिताग्निदग्धवस्त्र देशा सती तं ढङ्कं भणति । सोऽपि तां प्रियदर्शनामाह-दड्ढमित्यादिचतुर्थ गाथायां अयं भावार्थः ननु यदि दद्यमानं दाहक्रियाक्षणे वर्तमाने वस्त्रं न दग्धमिति भवद्भिरुच्यते, ततो विगत उपरते, अनागते वा भविष्यति दाइक्रियाकाले का शङ्का वस्त्रदाहविषया, तदभावान दाहक्रियाया विनष्टानुत्पन्नत्वेन सर्वथाऽभावादित्यर्थः । अतो वर्तमानाऽतीतानागतलक्षणे कालत्रयेऽप्युक्तितोऽदग्धत्वात् कस्मिन् काले आये ! ते तव संघाटी मया दग्धेत्युच्यताम् ? इति || २३२४|| २३२५ ।।
D. C. Rijusūtra Naya is characterised by niscaya naya and it helps us to comprehend an object clearly as it happens to be at present.
·
Priyadarśana is also the name of Jamali's wife in addition to Sudarśana which has already been referred to above.
In reply to her querry, as to why Dhaňka burnt her gar. ment, Dhanka asserts that "dahyamāna is not dagdha" according to the Bahurata school of thought.
So, according to your theory, your garment which is dahya māna or burning at present, could not be said to have been burnt. Nor should you take it to have been burnt in past or future. For, in the past as well as in future, the process of burning would be absent. Then, at what time did I burn your garment, O respectable lady ? ( 2324 - 2327).
अहवा न उज्झमाणं दड्ढं दाहकिरियासमत्तीए ।
किरिया भावे दडढं जइ दड्ढं किं न तेलुकं ? ||३३|| २३२८||

33. Ahavā na dajjhamānam daddham dāhakiriyāsamattie | Kiriyā'bhāve dadcham jai daddham kim na telukkam ? ( 2328)
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #65

:41.
[ Vada
Nihnavavāda [अथवा न दह्यमानं दग्धं दाहक्रियासमाप्तौ ।। क्रियाऽभावे दग्धं यदि दग्धं किं न त्रैलोक्यम् ॥३३॥॥२३२८।। 33. Athavā na dahyamānam dagdham dāhakriyásamāptau 1 Krıyā’bhāve dagdham yadi dagdham kim na trailokyain.
(2328)] ___ Trans. 33. Or, (if you say that) a burning object is is burnt at the end of the process of burning. If it is burnt in absence of the process ( of burning ), why is the Universe not burnt ? 2328.
टीका-३३ अथवैवं ब्रूषे-दह्यमानं न दग्धम् , किन्तु दाहक्रियासमाप्तौ दग्धम् । नन्वेवं सति दाहक्रियाऽभावे दग्धमित्युक्तं भवति । एतच्चायुक्तम्, यतो यदि दाहक्रियाऽभावे दग्धम् , तर्हि त्रैलोक्यमपि किं न "दग्धम्" इत्यत्रापि संबध्यते, यथा वस्ने तथा त्रैलाक्येऽपि दाह क्रियाऽभावस्य तुलयत्वादिति ॥२३२८॥
__D. C. If you argue that "an object which is being burnt, is not burnt now, but it is burnt only when the process of burning has ceased, that is not proper. For, if it burns in absence of dahakriyā, why should not the whole Universe be taken as burnt on necount of the absence of daha-kriya common therein ? 33 (2328) उज्जुसुयनयमयाओ वीरजिणिंदवयणावलंबीणं । जुन्जेज उज्झमाणं दड्ढं वोत्तुं न तुज्झ त्ति ॥३४॥२३२९॥ १. Ujjusuyanayamayai Vira-jinindavayanāvalambinam | ____ Jujjejja dajjhamānam daddham vottum na tujjha tti. (2:329) [ऋजुसूत्रनयमताद् वीरजिनेन्द्रवचनावलम्बिनाम् । युज्यते दमानं दग्धं वक्तुं न तवेति ॥३४॥२३२९।। 34. Rijusatranayamnatâd Víra-jinendravacanăvalambinām
Yujyate dahyamānam dagdham vaktum na taveti. (2329) ]
Trans. 34. The followers of the great Tirthankara Sramaņa Bhagavār. Mahāvira, are fit to say, that dahyamāna is dagdha from the point of view of Rijusūtra system. But you cannot say so. 2329.

Page #66

:42:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The first
टीका-उत्तानार्था ॥२३२९॥
Because,
समए समए जो जो देसोऽगणिभावमेइ डज्झमाणस्स । तं तम्मि डज्झमाणं दर्दू पि तमेव तत्थेव ॥३५॥२३३०॥ 35. Samae samae jojo jojo deso'ganibhavamei dajjhanmānassa |
Tam tammi dajjhamānam daddham pi tameva tattheva (2330) [समये समये यो यो देशोऽग्निभावमेति दह्यमानस्य । तत् तस्मिन् दह्यमानं दग्धमपि तदेव तत्रैव ॥३५॥२३३०॥ 35. Samaye samaye yo yo deso'gnibhāvameti dahyamānasyal __Tat tasmin dahyamānam dagdhamapi tadeva tatraiva (2330)]
Trans. 35. According to Rijusūtra naya, whatever part of the burning (object) is being burnt at whatever time, is said to have been burnt. Hence that which is burnt in it, is said to have been burnt there and at that moment only. 2330.
टीका-३५ यो यो दाह्यस्य पटादेर्देशस्तन्त्वादिः समये समयेऽग्निभावमेतिदह्यत इत्यर्थः, तत्तद्देशरूपं वस्तु तस्मिन् समये दह्यमानं भण्यते तथा दग्धमपि तदेव वस्तु तस्मिन्नेव समये भण्यते । अतो दह्यमानमेव दग्धम् । यत्तु देशमात्रेऽपि दग्धे संघाटी मे "दग्धा" इति त्वं वदसि, तत् संघाट्येकदेशेऽपि संघाटी शब्दोपचारादिति मन्तव्यमिति ॥२३३०॥
D. C. From the point of view of the Rijusūtra system, au object is comprehended only in its present condition. So, when a. particular part, say, thread of the • garment is burning at a particular time, it is said to have burnt actually. Dahynāna is said as dagdha in this sense. When only a part of your garment is burnt, you say that your garment is burnt, and thus you take the part of the garinent as the (whole) garument itself.
We can therefore, say that-- नियमेण डज्झमाणं दड्डे दड्ढं तु होइ भयणिज्जं । किंचिदिह डज्झमाणं उवरयदाहं च हुज्जा हि ॥३६॥२३३१॥

Page #67

Vāda
Nihnavavada
:43:
36. Niyamena dajjhamānam laddham daddham tu hoi bhaya
nijjam
Kimeidiha dajjhamāņamuvarayadāham ca hujjā hi (2331) [नियमेन दह्यमानं दग्धं दग्धं तु भवति भजनीयम् । किञ्चिदिह दह्यमानमुपरतदाहं च भवेत् ॥३६॥२३३१॥ :36. Niyamena dahyamānam dagdham lagrlham tu bhavati
bhajaniyanı i Kimcidiha dahyamānamuparatadāham ca bhavet (2331)]
Trans. 36. As a rule, dahyamāna is dagdha. But a dagdha is said to have been burnt ( only ) alternately. ( Because ) here, some (part) is (actually ) burning while some is ( actually ) void of (the process of ) burning. 2331.
टीका-व्याख्या प्रागुक्तानुसारेण कार्येति ॥२३३१॥ This has already been explained before 18.
Thus explained by Dhankaइच्छामो संबोहणमजो! पियदसणादओ ढंक। वोत्तुं जमालिमेकं मोत्तूण गया जिणसगासं ॥३७॥२३३२।। 37. Icchāmo sambohaṇamajjo ! Piyadaņsaņādao Dhankam i
Vottum Jaunālimekkam mottoņa gayá Jiņasagāsam 2332. [इच्छामासंबोधनमार्य ! प्रियदर्शनादयो ढङ्कम् । उक्त्वा जमालिमेकं मुत्त्वा गता जिनसकाशम् ॥३७॥२३३२॥ 3'. Icchāmah sambodhanamārya ! Priyadarsanādayo Dhaikam |
Uktvă Jamālimekam muktvá gatā Jina-sakāśam (2332) ]
Trans 37. Priyadarsanā and others said ( apologetically), . () Revered Sir, we follow your advice" and leaving Jamāli! alone, (they) went to the Tirthankara. 2332.
End of the Discussion with the First Nihnava.
18. Vide verse 2320.

Page #68

Chapter III
द्वितीय निह्नव वक्तव्यता Discussion with the Second Nihnava.
सोलसवासाणि तया जिणेण उप्पाडियस्स नाणस्स । जीवपएसियदिट्ठी.तो उसभपुरे समुप्पण्णा ॥३८॥२३३३॥ रायगिहे गुणसिलए वसु चउदसपुब्वि तीसगुत्ते य । आमलकप्पा नयरी मित्तसिरी कूर-पिउडाई ॥३९॥२३३४॥ 38. Solasavāsani taya Jinena. uppadiyassa nānassa |
Jivapaesiyaditthi to Usabhapure samuppannā (2333) 39. Rayagihe Gunasilae Vasu caudasapuvvi Tisagutte ya | ___ Amalakappā nayari Mittasiri kāra-piudai (2334) [षोडशवर्षाणि तद जिनेनोत्पादितस्य ज्ञानस्य । जीवप्रदेशिकदृष्टिस्तत ऋषभपुरे समुत्पन्ना ॥३८॥२३३३॥ राजगृहे गुणशिलके वसुश्चतुर्दशपूर्वी तिष्यगुप्तश्च । आमलकल्पा नगरी मित्रधीः कूर-सिक्थादिना ॥३९॥२३३४॥ 38. Sodasavarsani tada Jinenotpāditasya jnānasya |
Jivapradesikadrististata Risabhapure samutpannā (233:3) 39. Rājagrihe Guņaśilake Vasuścaturdaśaparvi Tişyaguptaśca |
Āmalakalpā nagari Mitraśrīḥ kura-sikthādinā (2334) ]
Trans. 38-39. When sixteen years ( had passed ) since the Tirthankara had attained the Absolute Perception, the theory of Jivapradeśikas came into existence in Risabliapura.

Page #69

i Vāda Nihnavavāda
:45. Tisyagupta ( the pupil of) caturdasapurvi Vasu of the GunaSilaka caitya in (the city of ) Rajagriha ( was convinced ) by Mitraśrı in tlie city of Amalakalpā by (offering himi) lumps of boiled rice etc. 12333-2334).
टीका-३८-३९ व्याख्या-श्रीमन्महावीरजिनेन तदा षोडशवर्षाणि केवलज्ञानस्योत्पादितस्याभूवन् । ततश्च राजगृहापरनाम्नि ऋषभपुरे नगरे जीवप्रदेशिकदृष्टिःसमुत्पनेति । कथमुत्पन्ना ?। इत्याह-राजगृहे नगरे गुणशिलके चैत्ये चतुर्दशपूर्विणो वसुनामान आचार्याः समागताः, तेषां च तिष्यगुप्तो नाम शिष्यः। स च तत्र पूर्वगतमालापकं वक्ष्यमाणस्वरूपमधीयानो वक्ष्यमाणयु भिर्विप्रतिपन्नोऽसंबुद्धःपरिहृतो गुरुभिर्विहरनामलकल्पायां नगर्या गतः। तत्र मित्र श्रीनाम्ना श्रावकेण कूर-पिउडादिना कूर-सिक्थादिदानेन प्रतिबोधित इत्यर्थः ॥२३३३ -२३३४॥
D. C. Sixteen years had passed since the Tirthankara ( Śramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra) had attained Kevala Jõāna.
1. Like his predecessors, śramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvīra also had got his preachings composed in books. His Gaņa dharas or principal pupils arranged his preachings in twelve Angas. Of these twelve Angas, the twelfth Anga waa divided into fourteen Parvas. Both the sects of the Jainas-the Svetambaras as well as Digambaras-accept these Purvas as the oldest Sacred Works of the Jaina Canon.
The tradition of the Svetambaras about these Purvas is this :-The fourteeu Pūrvas had been incorpotated in the Twelfth Ainga (the Dristivada) which was lost before 1000 A. V. But a detailed Table of its contents and consequently of the Parvas has survived in the Fourth Anga-the Samavāyānga and in the Nandi Sūtra. (Vide Weber. Indisch Studien XVI p. 341 ).
We are further told by the tradition that Sthavira Arya Jambù Swami was the last Kevali and Sthavira Sthūlabhadraji was the last śruta-kerali who knew all the twelve Angas along with the fourteen Parvas with their meanings and cxplanations of intricate subjects in his memory.

Page #70

-46.
Jinabhadra Gani's a Gani's
[The second There was a preceptor named Vasusūri in the Guñasilaka caitya of Rājagriha. He was well-versed in all the fourteen Purvas. He had a pupil named Tișyagupta. During the course of his study of the Pūrvas, Tisyagupta was once overcome by vanity, as a result of which, he left the caitya and came to the city of Amalakalpā. There, he was convinced (of the validity of the Acārya's view) by a Śrāvaka named Mitraśri who offered him lumps of boiled rice etc. 38–39 (2333-2334).
The whole story is told in details as follows:आयप्पवायपुवं अहिजमाणस्स तीसगुत्तस्स । नयमयमयाणमाणस्स दिहिमोहो समुप्पण्णो ॥४०॥२३३५।। 40. Ayapparāyapurvam ahijjamāṇassa Tisaguttassa i
Nayamayamayāŋamānassa dițghimoho samuppaņņo (2335) [आत्मप्रवादपूर्वमधीयानस्थ तिष्यगुप्तस्य । नयमतमजानतो दृष्टिमोहः समुत्पन्नः ॥४०॥२३३५॥ 40. Ātnapravādaparvamadhiyānasya Tisyaguptasya |
Nayamatamajānato dristimobaḥ samutpannaḥ (2335)]
Trans. 40. While studying a Parva named Ātma-pravāda (Ayappavāya )Tisyagupta not knowing the (real purport of) a particular school of thought, was disillusioned. 2335.
2. Ātma-pravāda (Āyappavāya) is one of fourteen Porvas incorporated in the Pūrvagata section of Dristivāda.
Parikrama, Satra, Anuyoga, Parvagata and Colikā are the five sections of Dristivāda.
Parvagata forms the inost important part of Driștivāda, on account of its containing the following fourteen Parvas viz :-- 1. Utpāda parva (Uppāya-parva). 2. Agrāyaṇīya-parva (Aggeanatha-puvva) 3. Viryapravāda-parva (Viriyappavāya puvva) 4. Atthinastippavāyapuvva (Astināstipravāda pūrva)

Page #71

Į Vida
Nahnavavāda
टीका-४० आत्मप्रवादनामकं पूर्वमधीयानस्य विष्यगुप्तस्यायं सूत्रालापकः सामायातस्तद्यथा-" एये भंते ! जीवपएसे जीवे सि वत्तव्वं सिया । नो इणढे समढे। एवं दो, तिनि जाव दस, संखेना असंखेजा भंते ! जीवपएसा जीव त्ति वत्त सिया । नो इणढे समढे, एगपएसूणे वि पं जीवे नो जीवे त्ति वत्तव्यं सिया, से केणं अढगं १ । जम्हा णं कमिणे पडिपुग्ने लोगागासपएसतुल्ले जीवे जीवे चि वत्तवं सिया, से तेणं अटेणं" इति । (एको भगवन् ? जीवपदेशो जीव इति वक्तन्यं स्यात् । नो अयमर्थः समर्थः । एवं द्वौ, त्रयो यावद् दश, संख्येयाः, असंख्येया भगवन् ? जीवप्रदेशा जीव इति वक्तव्य स्यात् ? । नो अयमर्थः समर्थः, एकपदेशोनोऽपि जीवो नो जीव इति वक्तन्यं स्यात् । अप केनार्थेन ? । यस्मात् कृत्वः परिपूर्णो लोकाकाशप्रदेशतुल्यो जीवो जीव इति वक्तव्यं स्यात् तेनार्थेन)। अमुं चालापकमधीयानस्य “कस्यापि नयस्येदमपि मतम् , न तु सर्वनयानाम्" इत्येवमजानतस्तिष्यगुप्तस्य मिथ्यात्वोदयाद् दृष्टदर्शनस्य मोहो विपर्यासः संजात इति ॥२३३५॥
D. C. During his study of a Parva, named Ayappavaya, Tisyagupta came across the following conversation :
___ "O Lord, could one portion of a living being be calledJiva?
“ No, that is not the correct view”.
“Then, O Lori' could the two, threc, ten or many portions of a living baing be called Jiva ? 5. Jńānapravāda porva (Nāņappavāya puvva) 6. Satya pravāda pūrva (Saccappavāya puvva) 7. Atnjapravāda purva (Ayappavāya puvva) 8. Karmapravada purva (Kammappavaya puvva) 9. Pratyākhyāna pradada parva (Paccakkhānappavāya puvva) 10. Vidyāpravādapūrva (Vijjappavaya puvva) 11. Avandhya purve (Avanjjha puvva) 12. Prāņavāda purva (Pāņavāya puvva) 13. Kriyā viśāla purva (Kiriyā visāla puvva) 14. Lokabindu sāra (Logabindu sāra)

Page #72

:18: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The second “No, that is not the correct viuw. A living being even one portion less, cannot be said to be Jiva. It could be called Jīva only if it is complete (in form) like Loka and Akasa."
Tasyagupta did not know that this statement was true only from one point of view, and not from all points of view. He, therefore, misinterpreted the above-mentioned ālāpaka and formed a wrongly-based theory as a result of that. 40 (2335)
His theory is explaineri thus :-- एगादओ पएसा नो जीवो नो पएसहीणो धि। जं तो स जेण पुण्णो स एव जीवो पएसो त्ति ॥४१॥२३३६॥ 41. Egādao paesā no Jivo no paesahino vil
Jam to sa jena purno sa eva Jivo paeso tti (2336) [एकादयः प्रदेशा नो जीवो नो प्रदेशहीनोऽपि । यत् ततः स येन पूर्णः स एव जीवः प्रदेश इति ॥४१॥२३३६॥ 41. Ekādayah pradeśā no Jivo no pradeśahino’pi
Yat tatah sa yena purnah sa eva Jivah pradesa iti (2336)]
Trans. 41. One or more parts (of a living being ) cannot be said as Jiva. That which lacks ( some) part, is also not (Jiva). So, that ( part ) by which it becomes complete (in form), is alone called Jiva 2336
टीका-४१ यद् यस्मादेकादयः प्रदेशास्तावजीवो न भवति, एगे भंते ! जीवपएसे इत्याद्यालापके निषिद्धत्वात् ; एवं यावदेकेनापि प्रदेशेन हीनो जीवो न भवति, अत्रैवालापके निवारितत्वात् । ततस्तस्माद् येन केनापि चरमप्रदेशेन स जीवः परिपूर्ण:क्रियते स एव प्रदेशो जीवो न शेष प्रदेशाः एतत्सूत्रालापक प्रामाण्यादिति । एवं विप्रतिपन्नोऽसाविति ॥२३३६॥
D. C, Since the above-mentioned alapaka does not admit of one or more pradeśas of a living being to be Jiva and since it does not allow a living being lacking in some part or the other, to be called as Jiva, we are led to believe that the last

Page #73

(Vada Nihuavavāda
: 49: pradeśa should alone be called Jiva, because it makes the whole being complete in forin.
Tisyagupta misinterprets the ālāpaka in this way and gets hiinself confused. 41 (2336).
Then, गुरुणाऽभिहिओ जह ते पढमपएसो न संमओ जीयो। तो तप्परिणामो चिय जीवो कहमंतिमपएसो ? ॥४२॥२३३७॥ 42. Guruņā’bhihio jai te pad hamapaeso na sanmaö Jivo i
To tapparinamo cciya Jivo kahamantimapaeso ? 2337 [गुरुणाऽभिहितो यदि तव प्रथमप्रदेशो न संमतो जीवः । ततस्तत्परिणाम एष जीवः कथमन्तिमप्रदेशः ? ॥४२॥२३३७॥ 42. Guruna'bhihito yadi tava prathamapradeso na sammto Jivah |
Tatastatparināma eva Jivah kathamantimapradesah ? (2337)]
Trans. 42. He was told by the preceptor that “ If you do not take the first part (of a living being) to be Jiva, how could the last portion which happens to be of the same consequence as that of the first one, be called Jiva ? 2337.
टीका-४२ "एकोन्त्यप्रदेशो जीवः तद्भावभावित्वाज्जीवत्वस्य" इत्यादि ब्रुवाणस्तिष्यगुप्तो गुरुणा वसुसूरिणाऽभिहितः-हन्त ! यदि ते तव प्रथमो जीवप्रदेशो जीवो न संमतः, ततस्तन्तिमो जीवपदेशः कथं केन प्रकारेण जीव: ?न घटत एव सोऽपि जीव इत्यर्थः । कुतः १ तत्परिणाम इति कृत्वा । इदमुक्तं भवति-भवदभिमतोऽन्त्यप्रदेशोऽपि न जीवः, अन्यपदेशैस्तुल्यपरिणामत्वात् , प्रथमावन्यप्रदेशवदिति ॥२३३७।।
D. C. In reply to the belief of Tisyagupta that the last portion-and not the other portions-alone should be taken as Jiva, Ācārya Vasusuri explains :
"0 Tisyagupta, if you do not take the first part (of a living being) as Jiva, it is not worthy of you to take the last part also as Jiva. Because, the last portion is of the same pari

Page #74

: 50: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The second ņāma as that of the first one, and hence, is in no way different from the first one. 12 (2337) अहव स जीवो कह नाइमो त्ति को वा विसेसहेऊ ते ?। अह पूरणो त्ति बुद्धी एकेको पूरणो तस्स ॥४३॥२३३८॥ 43. Ahava sa jivo kaha nāimo tti ko vā visesaheu te ?
Aha porano tti buddhi ekkekko purano tassa (2338) [अथवा स जीव कथं नादिम इति वा विशेषहेतुस्तव ।
अथ पूरण इति बुद्धिरेकैकः पूरणस्तस्य ॥४३॥२३३८॥ 43. Athavā sa jīvah katham nādima iti vā viśeşahetustava? I
Atha purana iti buddhirekaikah puranastasya (2338)]
Trans. 43. “Or, if that (portion) is Jiva, why not the first (one) also? Or, what is the distinctive purpose for holding such a view? Here, if the contention (is) that it is complete (in form) due to the last portion, ( The reply is that ) "It is complete (in form) by each and every portion”
2338. टीका-४३ अथवा, सोऽन्तिमप्रदेशःकथं जीवस्त्वयाऽभ्युपगम्यते, कथं च ननैकादिमः प्रथमस्तद्रूपतयेष्यते १ । नन्वाद्योऽपि प्रदेशो जीव एवेष्यताम् , शेषप्रदेशतुल्यपरिणामत्वात्, अन्त्यप्रदेशवदिति । को वाऽत्र विशेषहेतुस्तव येन प्रदेशत्वे तुल्येऽप्यन्तिमो जीवो न प्रथमः ? इति । अथ विवक्षितासंख्येयप्रदेशराशेरन्त्यः प्रदेशः पूरण इति विशेषसद्भारतः स जीवो न प्रथम इति तब बुद्धिः। तदयुक्तम् , यतो यथाऽन्त्यः प्रदेशः पूरणस्तथैकैकप्रथमादिप्रदेशस्तस्य विवक्षितजीवप्रदेशराशेः पूरण एव, एकमपि प्रदेशमन्तरेण तस्यापरिपूर्तिरिति ॥२३३८॥ D C.
The Ācārya:-According to you, the last portion is jīva in spite of its being similar, on what particular ground do you hold this belief ?
Tisyagupta :-Since the last portion completes the range of innumerable portions of which a living being is composed, and the first portion does not do that, I hold the last pradeśa to have jivatva.

Page #75

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 51: The Acārya :-You are labouring under a great disillusion by doing so. For, it is not the last pradesa alone, but each and every pradeśa of which a living being is composed, that helps to compose and complete the perfect form of a living being. So, either each and every portion of the living being, shall have to be taken as Jiva, if we accept your views; or there would be nothing like jivatva in the last portion like other portions resulting in the absolute negation of jīvatva 43 (2338)
If we accept Jivatva in every single portion of a living being, there are other difficulties also -
एवं जीवबहुत्तं पइजीवं सव्वहा व तदभावो। इच्छाविवजओ वा विसमत्तं सव्वसिद्धी वा ॥४४॥ 44. Evam jīvabahuttam paijivanı savvaha va tadabhāvo i
Icchävivajjaö vā visamattam savvasiddhi vā. (2339)
[एवं जीवबहुत्वं प्रतिजीवं सर्वथा वा तदभावः । इच्छाविपर्ययो वा विषमत्वं सर्वसिद्धिर्वा ॥४४॥२३३९॥ 44. Evam jivabahutvam pratijivam sarvathā vā tadabhāvah |
Icchaviparyayo vā vişamattvam sarvasiddhirvā (2339) ]
Trans. 44. In that case, every jiva will have to be taken as composed of numerous jīvas. Or, there would be absolute negation of it If it is left to your free will, there would be reverse or ambiguous (statements) as well. Or, all the alternatives (will be proved ) 2339.
टीका-४४ एवं सर्वजीवप्रदेशानां विवक्षितप्रदेशमानपूरणत्वेऽन्त्यप्रदेशवत् प्रत्येकं जीवत्वात् प्रतिजीवं जीवबहुत्वमसंख्येयजीवात्मकं प्रामोति । अथवा प्रथमादिप्रदेशवदन्त्यप्रदेशस्याप्यजीवत्वे सर्वथा तदभावो जीवाभावः प्रसजति । अथ पूरणत्वे समानेऽप्यन्त्यप्रदेश एव जीवः, शेषास्तु प्रदेशा अजीवा इत्याग्रहो न मुच्यते, तर्हि राजादेरिवेच्छा भवतः, यत् प्रतिभासते तदेव हि जलप्यत इति । तथा च सति विपर्ययोऽपि कस्माद् न भवति, आद्यो जीवः अन्त्यस्तु प्रदेशोऽजीव

Page #76

: 52:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The second इति ? | विषमत्वं वा कुतो न भवति-केचनापि प्रदेशा जीवाः, केचित्तु अजीवा इति ? अनियमेन सर्वविकल्पसिद्धिर्वा कस्माद् न भवति, स्वेच्छया सर्वपक्षाणामपि वक्तुं शक्यत्वात् इति ।।२३३९॥
D. C. If you take all the pradeśas as having jivatva along with the last prrdeśa, every jīva will have to be taken as composed of a number of other jivas. If you do not take them as jīvas, there would be absolute negation of jīvatva. Still, however, ignoring the fact that the last pradesa is, in no way, different from other pradesas, so far as purnatva is concerned, if you insist with your own sweet will that the last portion is jiva, and the rest are a-jīvas, then, like the free will of kings etc. you could, as well, insist upon the reverse statement viz-that the first etc. are jivas and the last is a-jiva. Or, why not say vaguely that some of them are jivas and some are a jivas ? Or, you could prove the validity of all the possible alternatives. For, being dependent upon your free will, you can opine on all sides, 44 (2339) जं सव्वहा न वीसुं सम्वेसु वि तं न रेणुतेल्लं व । सेसेसु असन्भूओ जीवो कहमंतिमपरसे १ ॥४५॥२३४०॥ 45. Jam savvahā na visum savvesu vi tam na reņutellam vai
Sesesu asabbhao jivo kahamantimapaese? (2340) [यत् सर्वथा न विष्वक् सर्वेष्वपि तद् न रेणुतैलमिव ।
शेषेष्वसद्भूतो जीवः कथमन्तिमप्रदेशे ? ॥४५॥२३४०॥ 45. Yat sarvathā na visvak sarvesvapi tad na reņutailamivai
Sesesyasadbhuto jivah kathamantimapradese ? (2340)]
Trans 45. That which does not entirely exist separately, does not even exist in all parts (combined together ) like the (drop of) oil in sands. Similarly, when jiva is not present in other pa is, how could it exist in the last portion ? 2340.
टीका-४५ यद् विष्वगेकैकस्मिन्नवयवे नास्ति तत् सर्वेष्वप्यवयवेषु समुदि

Page #77

Vada ] Sihnawavārla
: 53: तेषु न भवति, यथा रेणुकणेषु प्रत्येकमसत् तत्समुदाये बैलम्, नास्ति च प्रथमादिक एकैकस्मिन् प्रदेशे जीवत्वम्, ततःशेषेषु प्रथमादिप्रदेशेषसजीवत्वं परिणामादिना तुल्ये कयमकस्मादेवास्मिन्बेवान्त्यप्रदेशे समायातम् । इति ॥२३४०॥
D. C Like the drop of oil in the particles of sand, that which is not present in each of the portions separately, does not even exist in all the portions combined together,
Since you do not admit the existence of jivatva in portions such as the first one etc., how could jivatva be present in the last portion aocidentally in spite of its being siviilar to other portions in rispect of parivāma etc. ? 15 (23-10).
अह देसओऽवसेसेसु तो वि किह सव्वहंतिमे जुत्तो। अह तम्मि व जो हेऊ स एव सेसेसु वि समाणो ॥४६॥२३४१॥ 46. Aha desury' vasesesu to vi kiha. savvahantime jutton ____Aha taumm va jo hed sa eva sesesu vi samāno 2341. [अथ देशतोऽवशेषेषु ततोऽपि कथं सर्वथान्तिमे युक्तः ।
अथ तस्मिन् वा यो हेतुः स एव शेषेष्वपि समानः॥४६॥२३४१॥ 46. Atha desato'vasesesu tato'pi katham sarvathāntime yuktah |
Atha tasmin vā yo hetuh sa eva seşeşyapi samānah (2341) ]
Trans. 46. If it is said that in the remaining portions jivatva exists partially, then also, how could it be wholly present in the last portion ? The same reason for jivatva as it is present in it ( the last portion), is present in other particles as well. 2341.
टीका-४६ अथान्त्यादवशेषेषु प्रथमादिपदेशेषु देशतो जीवः समस्त्येव, अन्त्यप्रदेशे तु सर्वात्मनाऽसौ समस्तीति विशेषः । ततो "जं सबहा न वीसुं" इत्येतदसिद्धमिति भावः । अत्रोत्तरमाह-तथापि कथमन्त्यप्रदेशे सर्वात्मना जीवो युक्तः ? । ननु तत्रापि देशत एवासौ युज्यते, तस्यापि प्रदेशत्वात् , प्रथमादिप्रदेशवत् । अथान्त्यप्रदेशे संपूर्णो जीव इष्यते, तर्हि तत्र वद्भावे यो हेतुः स

Page #78

: 54:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The second!
शेषेष्वपि प्रथमादिप्रदेशेषु समान एव, तुल्यधर्मकत्वात् । अतस्तेष्वपि प्रतिप्रदेशं संपूर्ण जीवत्वमन्त्यप्रदेशवत् किं नेष्यते ? इति ॥ २३४१॥
D. C.
Tisyagupta :-In all the portions except the last one of the living being, jivatva exists partially, while in the last portion it exists wholly.
The Acarya:-That is not possible on grounds mentioned above. How could jiva exist in the last portion wholly, and in the rest of them partially? There also, it is proper to admit its existence partially as in the case of other portions. Hence, if the whole of jiva is taken as existing in the last portion, it should also be taken as existing wholly in other portions as well. 46. (2341 ).
नेह परसत्तणओ अन्तो जीवों जहाइमपएसो |
आह सुम्मि निसिद्धा सेसा न उ अन्तिमपएसो || ४७||२३४२॥
47. Neha paesattanao anto jivo jahaimapaeso
āhra suyammi risiddha sesā na u antimapaeso. (2342)
[नेह प्रदेशत्वतोऽन्त्यो जीवो यथादिमप्रदेशः । आह श्रुते निषिद्धाः शेषा न त्वन्तिमप्रदेशः ||४७||२३४२॥
47. Neha pradeśatvato 'ntyo jivo yathādimapradeśah |
Aha śrute nisiddhāh śesā na tvantimapradeśah 47 (2342 ) } नणु एगो त्ति निसिद्धो सो वि सुए जइ सुयं प्रमाणं ते । सुत्ते सव्वपएसा भणिया जीवो न चरिमो ति ॥४८॥२३४३ ॥
48. Natu ego tti nisiddho so vi sue jai suyam pamānam te Sutte savvapaesā bhaniyā jīvo na carimo tti. (2343)
[ नन्वेक इति निषिद्धः सोऽपि श्रुते यदि श्रुतं प्रमाणं तव ॥ सूत्रे सर्वप्रदेशा भणिता जीवो न चरम इति ॥ ४८|| २३४३ ||
3. Vide verse 2340.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #79

Wada] Nihnavavāda
: 55: 48. Nanveka iti nisiddhah so'pi srute yadi srutam pramānam taval
Sutre sarvapradeśa bhaạitā jīvo na carama iti (2313) ]
Trans. 47-48. Just as the first portion is not jiva on account of its (quality of ) being pradesa, the last portion is also not jīva (for the same reason ). If it is said that the remaining portions are excluded from the (said ) cornmandment, but the last portion is not excluded, (The answer is this )- If the coinmandment is accepted as an authority (by you), that (the last portion ) is, also, in fact, excluded from the commandment by virtue of its being one. In the (said; commandment all the pradeśas (combined together ) have been stated as having jiva. Jiva does not, therefore, exist in the last portion alone (2342-2343).
____टीका-४७ इहान्त्यप्रदेशोऽपि न जीवः, प्रदेशत्वात् , यथा प्रथमादिप्रदेश इति । आह-नन्वागमबाधितेयं प्रतिज्ञा, यतःपूर्वोक्तालापकरूपे श्रूते शेषाः प्रथमादिप्रदेशा जीवत्वेन निषिद्धाः, न पुनरन्त्यप्रदेशः, तस्य तत्र जीवत्वानुज्ञानात् । अतःकथं प्रथमादिप्रदेशवदन्त्यस्य जीवत्वनिषेधं मन्यामहे ? इति ॥ ३४२
टीका-४८ ननु सोऽप्यन्त्यप्रदेश श्रुते जीवत्वेन निषिद्धः । कुतः ? । इत्याह-एक इति कृत्वा । तथाहि-तत्रेवेत्थमुक्तम्-“एगे भन्ते ! जीवपएसे जीवे त्ति वत्तव्यं सिया ?। नो इणढे समढे" इति । ततो यदि श्रुतं तव प्रमाणम् , ततोऽन्त्यप्रदेशस्यापि जीवत्वं नेष्टव्यम् , एकत्वात् , प्रथमाद्यन्यतर प्रदेशवत् । किञ्च, यदि श्रुतं हन्त ! प्रमाणीकरोषि, तदा सर्वेऽपि जीवप्रदेशाः परिपूर्णा जीवत्वेन श्रुते भणिताः, न त्वेक एव चरमप्रदेशः । तथा च तत्रैवाभिहितम्-"जम्हाणं कसिणे पडिपुग्ने लोगागासपएसतुल्ले जीवे त्ति वत्तव्यं सिया"। अतः श्रुतप्रामाण्यमिच्छता भवता नैक एवान्त्यप्रदेशो जीवत्वेनैष्टव्य इति ॥२३४३
D. C. Ācārya -Like the first portion, the last portion also has no jīvatva on account of its quality of being a pradeśa.
Tisyagupta :-But that does not go against the main śruta or commandment. Because, the śruta excludes pradeśas such as the first one etc. from having jīvatva, where as the last pradeśa

Page #80

: 56: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The second is not exeluded like that. So, why should we not take the last pradleśa as having jīvatva ?
The Acārya :-The last portion is also excluded from the śruta on account of its being a single pradeśa. I would also like to draw your attention to the statement therin, that all the pradleśas combined together would form jwa, while one single last pradesa cannot do so. It has been stated, therefore, that “ Jamha ņam kasiņo padipanne Logāgāsapaesa-tulle jivotti vattavyany siyā.”
Since you take this śruta as an authority, you cannot take the last portion alone as jīva. 47-48 (2342–2343).
The same idea is then illustrated as follows :
तंतू पडोवयारी न समत्तपडो य समुदिया ते उ। सम्वे समत्तपडओ सव्वपएसा तहा जीवो॥४९॥२३४४॥
49. Tanta padovayāri na samattapaļo ya samudiyā te u
Savve samattapağaö savvapaesā tahā jīvo (2344).
इतन्तुः पटोपकारी न समस्तपटश्च समुदितास्ते तु। सर्वे समस्तपटकः सर्वप्रदेशास्तथा जीवः ॥४९॥२३४४॥
49. Tantun patopakāri na samastapatasca samuditāste tut
Sarve samasta patakah sarvapradeśāstathā jīvah (2344) ]
Trans, 49. Thread is a (helping ) constituent of pata, but it is not the whole pata itself. They are said to be pața (only) when they (i. e all the threads) are combined to. gether The same is the case with jiva and (its) constitu. ents. 2344.
टीका-४९ एकस्तन्तुर्भवति समस्तपटोपकारी, तमप्यन्तरेण समस्तपटस्यामावात् । परंस सकतन्तुः समस्तपटो न भवति किन्तु ते तन्तका सर्वेऽपि समुदिताः समस्तपटव्यपदेश लभन्त इति प्रतीतमेव । तथा जीवप्रदेशोऽप्येको

Page #81

Vāda ]
Nihnavavāda
: 57:
जीवो न भवति, किन्तु सर्वेऽपि जीवप्रदेशाः समुदिता जीव इति ॥ २३४४ ||
D. CA thread of a pata is only a constituent of the pata as a whole. It cannot be said to be the whole pata. All the threads combined together form the pata Similarly, one single pradeśa cannot be taken as jiva, but all the prodeśas combined together form jiva. 49 (2344)
एवं भूयनयमयं देस - पएसा न वत्थुणो भिन्ना ।
णावत् ति मया कसिणं चिय वत्थुमि से || ५० ||२३४५ ॥
जइ तं पमाणमेवं कसिणो जीवो अहोवयाराओ । देसे वि सब्वबुद्धी पवज सेसे वि तो जीवं ॥५१॥२३४६॥
50. Evambhūyanayamayam desa - paesā na vatthuno bhinnā i Tenāvatthu tti mayā kasinam ciya vatthumittham se (2345 )
51. Jai tam pamānamevam kasino jivo ahovayārāö । Dese vi savvabuddī pavajja sese vi to jivam (2346)
[ एवं भूतनयमतं देश-प्रदेशौ न वस्तुनो भिन्नौ । तेनावस्त्विति मतौ कृत्स्नमेव वस्त्विष्टं तस्य ॥५०॥ | २३४५ ॥
यदि तत् प्रमाणमेवं कृत्स्नो जीवोऽथोपचारात् । देशेऽपि सर्वबुद्धिः प्रपद्यस्व शेषानपि ततो जीवम् ॥ ५१ ॥ २३१६ ॥
50. Evambhūtanayamatam deśa-pradeśau na vastuno bhinnaut Tenāvastviti matau kritsnameva vastvistam tasya (2345 )
51. Yadi tat pramānamevam kritsno jivo'thopacārāt ।
Deśe'pi sarvabuddhih prapadyasva śesānapi tato jivam (2346) |
Trans. 50-51. According to the Evambhūta naya, various portions (of an object) are not different from the object. Hence, they are known as a--vastu (or non-objects). The whole (of an object) is alone accepted as vastu according to that (point of view ). If that is accepted by you, jiva too,

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #82

: 58: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The second is a whole ( being ). Still however, if the part is metaphorically understood as a whole, then, the remaining parts should also be taken as jiva 2345-2346.
टीका-५०-५१ एवंभूतनयस्येदं मतं यदुत-देश -प्रदेशा न वस्तुनो भिन्नाः, तेन ताववस्तुरूपौ मतौ । अतो देश-प्रदेशकल्पनारहितं कृत्स्नं परिपूर्णमेव वस्तु "से" तस्यैवंभूतनयस्येष्टम् । ततो यदि तदेवंभूतनयमतं प्रमाणं जानासि त्वम् एवं तर्हि कृत्स्नः परिपूर्णो जीवो, न त्वन्त्यप्रदेशमात्रमिति प्रतिपद्यस्व । अथ "ग्रामो दग्धः," "पटो दग्धः," इत्यादिन्यायादेकदेशेऽपि समस्तवस्तूपचारादन्त्यप्रदेशलक्षणे देशेऽपि समस्तजीवबुद्धिस्तत्र प्रवर्तते, तर्हि शेषे प्रथमादिप्रदेश उपचारतो जीवं प्रतिपद्यस्व, न्यायस्य समानत्वादिति ॥२३४५-२३४६॥
D. C. According to the Evambhuta point of view, various parts of an object are not taken as different from the object. But a part is not taken as a whole by it. Deśa-pradeśas are, therefore, a-vastus according to this naya. The whole of an object without the consideration of deśapradeśas is alone taken as vastu. From this point of view, therefore, you should take jiva, existing in a whole and not in a part like the last pradeśa. If, at this point, you take the point as a whole metaphorically, as in the case of an expressiou such as “A village is burnt" " A cloth is burnt " etc, you shall have to take jiva as existing in other pradeśas also in the metaphorical sense. 50-51 (2345-2346).
जत्तो व तदुवयारो देसूणे न उ पएसमेत्तम्मि । जह तंतूणम्मि पडे पडोवयारो न तंतुम्मि ॥५२॥२३४७॥
52. Jatto va taduvayāro desūņe na u paesamettainmi!
Jaha tantunammi pade padovayaro na tantummi (2317)
4. Evambhūta naya is a sabdārtha-grāhi naya and explains the meaning of a word from the point of view of vyutpatti or derivation. In other words, this naya interprets an object in the light of its strict etymological derivation.

Page #83

Vada] Nihnayavada
: 59: [यतो घा तदुपचारो देशोने न तु प्रदेशमात्रे । यथा तन्तू न पटे पटोपचारो न तन्तौ ॥५२॥२३४७॥ 52. Yato vā tadupacaro desone na tu pradesamātre |
Yathā tantù na pate patopacāro na tantau (2347)]
Trans. 52. Or, that ( sort of ) metaphorical interpretation is applicable ( to an object ) having less parts and not to a single part, just as a metaphorical interpretation is applicable to a pața having less threads but not to the thread itself 2347.
टीका-५२ अथवा, उपचारादप्येक एवान्त्यप्रदेशो जीवो न भवति, किन्तु देशोन एव जीवे जीवोपचारो युज्यते, यथा तन्तुभिः कतिपयैरुने पटे पटोपचारो दृश्यते, न त्वेकस्मिंस्तन्तुमात्र इति ॥२३४७॥
D. C. Even by means of a metaphorical interpretation, the last portion does not become jīva, because the metaphorical interpretation is applicable to a jíva lacking in some parts, and not to one single portion. Take the example of tantu and pața. The metaphorical sense of pata could only be transposed to a pata having less parts, but it could not in any case be applied to a tantu. 52 (2347 ).
The Acārya explained Tisyagupta in this way, but, इय पण्णविओ जाहे न पवजइ सो कओ तओ बज्झो। ततो आमलकप्पाए मित्तसिरिणा सुहोवायं ॥५३॥२३४८॥ भकखण-पाण-घंजण-वत्धंतावयवलाभिओ भणइ । सावय ! विधम्मिया म्हे कीस त्ति तओ भणइ सड्ढो॥५४॥२३४९।। नणु तुझं सिद्धंतो पजंतावयवमित्तओऽवयवी । जह सच्चमिणं तो का विहम्मणा मिच्छमिहरा भे ॥५५॥२३५०॥
53. Iya paņņaviö jāhe na pavajjai so kao tao bajjho 1
Tato Amalakappãe Mittasiriņā suhovāyai (2348)

Page #84

: 60 : Jinabhadra Gani's
[The second 54. Bhakkhaņa -pāņa-vanjaņa-vatthantāvayavalābhio bhaņai i
Sāvaya ! vidhammiyā mhe kisa tti tao bhaņai saddho (2319)
55. Naņu tujjham siddhanto pajjantāvayavamittao'vayavi/
Jai saccamiņam to kā vihammaņā micchamiharā bhe (2350). [इति प्रज्ञापितो यावद् न प्रपद्यते स कृतस्ततो बायः। तत आमलकल्पायां मित्रश्रिया सुखोपायम् ॥५३॥२३४८॥ भक्षण-पान-व्यञ्जन-वस्त्रान्तावयवलाभितो भणति । श्रावक ! विधर्मिता वयं कस्मादितिततो भणनि श्राद्धः॥५४॥२३४९ ननु तव सिद्धान्तःपर्यन्तावयवमात्रतोऽवयवी । यदि सत्यमिदं तताका विधर्मता मिथ्यात्वमितरथा भवताम्
॥५५॥२३५०॥
53. Iti prajnāpito yāvad na prapadyate sa kritastato bāhyah 1
Tata Amala-kalpāyām Mitraśriyā sukhopāyam ( 23.18 )
54. Bhakşaņa-pāna-vyanjana-vastrāntāvayavalābhito bhanati 1.
Śrāvaka! vidharmitā vayam kasmāditi tato bhanati śrārlihah 54 (2349)
55. Nanu tava siddhāntaḥ paryantāvayavamátrato'vayavi,
Yadi satyamidam tatah kā vidharmatā mithyātvanitarathā bhavatām 55 (2350)]
Trans. 53-54-55. In spite of his being, thus, instructed by (his) preceptor, when he was not convinced, he was excluded (from the Order of Monks ). Then, in (the city of) Āmalakalpā, (he was invited ) by Miśraśrī for dinner ete. When offered the last portions of food, drinks, condiments and clothes, he said "O Sravakal why did you insult us by doing so ? The host replied “According to your theory, the last portion is the whole object. If it is true, how is the insult (made)? Otherwise, your theory is false."

Page #85

| Vāda Nihnavavāda
:61: टीका ५३-५४-५५ गतार्था एव । नवरमिति पूर्वोक्तप्रकारेण गुरुभिः प्रज्ञापितस्तिष्यगुप्तो यावद् न किञ्चित् प्रतिपद्यते तत उद्घाटय बाह्यः कृतो विहरनामलकल्पां नगरी गत्वाऽऽम्रसालवने स्थितः । तत्र मित्रश्रीश्रावकेण "निहवोऽयम्" इति ज्ञात्वा तत्प्रतिबोधनार्थ गत्वा निमन्त्रितः-"यद् मदीयगृहे प्रकरणमद्य तत्र भवद्भिःस्वयमागन्तव्यम् ।" ततो गतास्ते तद्गृहे । तेन च तत्र तिष्यगुप्तमुपवेश्य महान्तं संभ्रममुपदर्शयता तत्पुरतो भक्ष्य-भोज्याऽन-पानच्यञ्जन-वस्खादिवस्तुनिचया विस्तारिताः । ततस्तेषां मध्ये सर्वत्रान्त्यावयवान् गृहीत्वा प्रतिलाभितोऽसौ कूर-सिक्थादिना प्रतिलाभित इत्यर्थः । ततो भणत्यभिधत्ते-“हे श्रावक! विधर्मिताः किमति त्वया वयमित्थम ?"। ततःश्राद्धो भणति-"नणु तुज्झमित्यादि"। "मिच्छमिहरा भे चि" अन्यथा यदि नेदं सत्यम् , तदा सर्वमपि मिथ्या भवतां भाषितमिति ॥२३४८॥२३४९॥२३५०॥
D. C. When Tisyagupta did not accept the explanation offered by the Acārya, as mentioned alove, he was turned out of the gaccha. Then, while wandering here and there, Tisyagupta came to the city of Amala-Kalpā where he lodged himself in the forest named Amrasāla. There Mitraśrī, a śrāvaka, apprehending that he was a nihnava, invited him to his place for dinner etc. in order to make him conscious of his error.
After Tisyagupta entered his house, he placerl a pile of objects for food, drinks, condiments and clothes, in front of him. Then, from the midst of all those objects, the host took out the last portions of all the items and offered them to Tisyagupta. Being enraged at this act of the host, Tisyagupta said “ () śrā. vaka! what do you mean by insulting me like this? The host replied “It is, in fact, your theory that the last portion of an object means the object as a whole, how are you offended in that case ? For, otherwise, your theory would be false" 53 - 54-55. (2348-2349-2350)
And, अंतोऽवयवो न कुणइ समत्तकलं ति जइन सोऽभिमओ। संववहाराईए तो तम्मि कओऽवयविगाहो ॥५६॥२३५१॥

Page #86

: 62: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The secondi 56. Anto’vayavo na kuņai samattakajjam ti jai na so'bhimaöl
Samvavabāräie to tapini kao'vayavigāho ? (2351) [अन्त्योऽवयवो न करोति समस्तकार्यमिति यदि न सोऽभिमतः । संव्यवहारातीते ततस्तस्मिन् कुतोऽवयविग्रहः ? ॥५६॥२३५१॥ 56. Antyo'vayavo na karoti samastakāryamti yadi na so’bhi
matah | Samvyavahārātīte tatastasmin kuto’vayaviyrahah ? (2351) ]
Trans. 56. The last portion does not do the work of the whole. And, therefore, if it is not acceptible to you, how did you apprehend the object as a whole in that part in absence of dealing together ? (2351).
टीका-५६ यदि नामान्त्याक्यवः समस्तस्याप्यवयविनो यत् साध्यं कार्य तद् न करोति, इत्यतोऽसौ नाभिमतो भवताम्-कूर-पक्वान्न-वस्त्रादीनां सिक्थसुकुमारिकादिसूक्ष्मखण्डतन्त्वादिरूपोऽन्त्यावयवो यदि न परितोषकगे भवतामित्यर्थः, तहिं संव्यवहारातीते तस्मिन्नन्त्यावयवे कुतः किल समस्तात्रयविग्रहो भवताम् ? इति ॥२३५१॥
D. C. On the ground that the last portion does not do the work of the whole, if the last portions of food, drink, clothes etc. do not satisfy you, (then), how is it that you apprehend the whole body of all the avayavas combined together into one avayava only ? 56 (2351). अंतिमतंतू न पडो तकज्जाकरणओ जहा कुंभो। अह तयभावे वि पडो सो किं न घडो खपुप्फ व ॥५७॥२३५२॥
va
57. Antimatantā na pado takkajjakaranao jaha kumbho |
Aha tayabhāve vi paço so kim na ghaço khapuppham
(2352). [अन्तिमतन्तुर्न पटस्तत्कार्याकरणतो यथा कुम्भः । अथ तदभावेऽपि पटास किं न घटःखपुष्पं वा १ ॥५७॥२३५२॥

Page #87

Nihnavavāda
:57. Antiatantura patastatkāryākaranato yathā kumbhah Atha tadabhāve'pi patah sa kim na ghatah khapuspam vā ? (2352)
Vala
Trans. 57. Like ghata, the last thread also could not be called pata in absence of its doing the work of pata. An in spite of that, if it is (taken as ) pata, why should that not 'be taken as ghata or khapuspa ? 2352
टीका- ५७ अन्त्य तन्तुमात्रं न पटः, तस्य पटस्य कार्यं शीतत्राणादिकं तत्कार्यं तस्याकरणं तत्कार्याकरणं तस्मादिति । यथा कुम्भो घटः । अथ तदभावेऽपि कार्याभावेऽपि तन्तुः पट इष्यते, तर्हि किमित्यसौ पटो घटः खपुष्पं वा न भवति, पटकार्याकतृत्वस्याविशेषादिति ||२३५२॥
D. C. Just as a ghata could not be called a pata, the last thread of a pata also could never be called pata on account of its inability to do the work of pata. Now, even in spite of its inability to do the karya of pata, if the last thread is pata, why should Khapuspa not be taken as pața on ground ? 57 (2352).
taken as
the same
And,
उवलं भव्ववहारा भावाओ नत्थि ते खपुष्कं व । अंतावयवेऽवयवी दिहंताभावओ वावि ॥ ५८ ॥ २३५३ ||
58. Uvalambhavvavahārābhāvão natthi te khapuppham val Antāvayave'vayavi ditt hantābhāvao vāvi (2353)
[ उपलम्भव्यवहाराभावाद् नास्ति तव खपुष्पमिव । अन्त्यावयवेऽवयवी दृष्टान्ताभावतो वापि ॥ ५८ ॥ २३५३ ॥
: 63
58. Upalambhavyavahārābhāvād nāsti tava khapuspamiva Antyāvayave'vayavi dristāntabhāvato vāpi (2353 ) ]
Trans. 58. Like khapuspa, the whole is not ( present) in the last portion, in absence of perception, practical utility, and (apt) illustration. 2353.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #88

: 64 : Jinabhadra Gari's
[The second टीका-५८ तवाभिमतोऽवयवी अन्त्यावयवे नास्ति, उपलब्धिलक्षणप्राप्तस्यानुपलब्धेः, व्यवहाराभावाच, खपुष्पवदिति । अथवा, "अन्त्यावयवमात्र अवयवी, अवयविसंपूर्णहेतुत्वात्" इत्यत्र तावद् दृष्टान्ताभावाद् न साध्यसिद्धिरिति ॥२३५३
D, C. Since the whole of an object is neither perceived, nor utilized in the last avayava, it cannot be taken as existing in the last portion. And, there is no illustration to prove your theory. 58 (2353)
For. पञ्चक्खओऽणुमाणादागमओ वा पसिद्धी अत्थाणं । सव्वप्पमाणविसयाईयं मिच्छत्तमेवं मे ॥५९॥२३५४॥ 39. Paccakkhao’rumaņādāgamaö vā pasiddhi atthanam
___Savvappamānavisayaiyam micchattamevam bhe (2354) [प्रत्यक्षतोऽनुमानादागमतो वा प्रसिद्धिरर्थानाम् । सर्वप्रमाणविषयातीतं मिथ्यात्वमेवं भवताम् ॥५९॥२३५४॥ 59. Pratykșato’numānādāgamato va prasiddhirarthānām 1 Sarvapramāņavişayātitam mithyātvamevam bhavatām
(2354)] Trans. 59. Establishment of (various ) interpretations is (possible ) either by means of direct proof or inference or by nieans of agamas. Your theory is thus worthless in absence of all (such.) authenticities 2354.
टीका-५९ प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणैरर्थानां सिद्धिः, तानि च त्वत्पक्षसाधकेन न प्रवर्तन्ते । अतः सर्वप्रमाणविषयातीतं “मे” भवतामभिमतं मिथ्यात्वमेवेति ॥२३५४॥
D. C. Various interpretations are established on the strength of pratyaksa pramāņas or āgamas. Your theory being devoid of all such pramāṇas becomes utterly baseless. इय चोइय संबुद्धो खामियपडिलाभिओ पुणो विहिणा। गंतुं गुरुपायमूलं ससीसपरिसो पडिकंतो ।।५९॥२३५५॥

Page #89

(Vada
Nihlavavāda
: 65
60. Iya coiya sambuddho khāmiya padilābhiö puņo vihiņā i
Gantum gurupāyamalam sa-sisapariso padikkanto (2355)
[इति चोदितः संबुद्ध क्षामितप्रतिलाभितः पुनर्विधिना । गत्वा गुरुपादमूलं सशिष्यपरिषत् प्रतिक्रान्तः ॥६०॥२३५५॥ 60. Iti coditah sambuddhah kşāmitapratilabhitah punarvidhinā i
Gatva gurupādamalam sa-sisyaparisat pratikrāntah (2355)]
Trans. 60. Being thus inspired and instructed, he was pardoned (for his errors ), and awarded presents by Mitraśri according to regular custom; (then), having gone near the soles of the preceptor's feet (and having) saluted, he returned along with his retinue of pupils. 2355.
टीका-६० इति प्रेरितः संबुद्धोऽसौ विहितक्षमितक्षामितेन मित्रत्रीत्रावरचा संपूर्णानप्रदानादिविधिना पुनरपि प्रतिलाभितो गुरुपादमूलं गत्वा शिष्यपरिषसमेतो विधिना प्रतिक्रान्तः सम्यग मार्ग अपनो गुन्तिके विजहार ॥२३५५॥
D. C. When Tişyagupta was thus inspired and instructed by the Srāvaka Mitraśri he was forgiven and awarded the full lumps of bhojana etc. by Mitrasri. Tisyagupta, then, saluted the preceptor, and returned with his pupils.
End of the Discussion with the Second Nihnava.

Page #90

Chapter IV
॥ तृतीयनिह्नववक्तव्यता ॥
Discussion with the Third Nihnava.
अथ तृतीयनिह्नववतव्यतामाह
दस दो वाससया तहआ सिद्धिंगयस्स वीरस्स । तो अब्बत्तयदिट्ठी सेयविआए समुप्पण्णा ॥ ६१ ॥ २३५६ ॥
61. Caudasa do vāsasayā taiā siddhim gayassa Virassa | To Avvattayaditthi Seyaviãe samuppannā. (2356).
[ चतुर्दश द्वे वर्षशते तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य वीरस्य । ततोऽव्यक्तदृष्टिः श्वेतविकायां समुत्पन्ना ॥ ६१ ॥ २३५६ ॥
61. Caturdaśa dve varsaśate tadā siddhim gatasya Virasya । ‘Tato’vyaktakadristib Svetavikāyām samutpannā (2356) ]

Trans. 61. When two hundred and fourteen years ( had passed) since the Nirvana of Śramana Bhagavan Mahāvīra, the theory-of Avyaktas came into existence in (the city of) Svetavikā. 2356.
टीका- ६१ चतुर्दशाधिकवर्षशतद्वयं तदा श्रीमन्महावीरस्य सिद्धिगतस्यासीत् । ततोऽव्यक्ताभिधाननिह्नवानां दृष्टिर्दशनरूपा श्वेतविकायां नगर्या समुत्पन्नेति ॥२३५६॥
Here is the story of the production of this theory.सेयविपोलासाठे जोगे तद्द्विसहिययसूले य । सोहम्मनलिणिगुम्मे रायगिहे मूरियबलभद्दे ||६२||२३५७||
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #91

[ Vāda Nihnatavāda
67: 62. Seyavipolāsāļhe joge taddivasahiyayasūle ya i
Sohamma Nalinigumme Rayagihe Mariyabalabhadde (2357) [श्वेतविकापौलाषाढे योगे तदिवसहृदयशूले च । सौधर्मनलिनीगुल्मे राजगृहे मौर्यबलभद्रः॥६२॥२३५७॥
62. Svetavikāpaulasadhe yoge taddivasahridayasule cal
Saudharma Nalinigulme Rajagrihe MauryaBalabhadrah (2357)]
____ Trans. 62. While teaching (the practice of ) yogas in the Paulasādha ( church) of (the city of) Svetavika, when the preceptor passed away to the Nalinīgulma (region) of the Saudharmās? (as a result of ) acute pains in his heart on the same day, Maurya Balabhadra brought them to the right path) in (the city of ) Rājagriha. 2357.
टीका-६२ श्वेतविकाया नगर्याः पौलाषाढचैत्य आर्याषाढनामान आचार्याः स्थिताः । तेषां च बह्वः शिष्या आगाढयोगान् प्रपन्नाः । अपरवाचनाचार्यासचे च त एवार्याषाढसूरयस्तेषां वाचनाचार्यत्वं प्रतिपनाः । तथाविधकर्मविपाकतचं ते तत्रैव दिवसे रजन्यां हृदयशूलेन कालं कृत्वा सौधर्मदेवलोके नलिनीगुल्मविमाने देवत्वेनोत्पन्नाः । न च विज्ञाताः केनापि गच्छमध्ये । ततोऽवधिना प्राक्तनन्यतिकरं विज्ञाय साध्वनुकम्पया समागत्य तदेव शरीरमधिष्ठाप्योत्थाप्य च मोक्तास्तेन साघवः-यथा-वैरात्रिककालं गृहणीत । ततः कृतं साधुभिस्तथैव । श्रुतस्योद्देश-समुद्देशा-ऽनुज्ञाश्च तदग्रतः कृताः । एवं दिव्यप्रभावतस्तेन देवेन तेषां साधूनां कालभङ्गादिविघ्नं रक्षता शीघ्रमेव निस्तारिता योगाः। ततोऽनेन तच्छरीरं मुक्त्वा दिवं गच्छता प्रोक्ता साधवो; यथा-क्षमणीयं सदन्तैयदसंयतेन सता मयाऽऽत्मनो वन्दनादिकारिताश्चारित्रिणो यूयम् । अहं ह्यमुकदिने कालं कृत्वा दिवं गतो युष्मदनुकम्पयाऽत्रागतः, निस्तारिताश्च भवतामागाढयोगाः। इत्याधुक्त्वा क्षमयित्वा च स्वस्थानं गतः । ततस्ते साधवस्तच्छरीरकं परिष्ठाप्य चिन्तयन्ति अहो ! असंयतो बहुकालं वन्दितः। तदित्थमन्यत्रापि शङ्का, को
1. Region of the highest types of deities known as Saudharmas (For more details vide foot-note 3. verse 2807 Chapter II).

Page #92

:08: jinabhadra Gani's
[The third जानाति-"कोऽपि संयतः, कोऽप्यसंयतो देवः ? इति" । सर्वस्याप्यवन्दनमेव श्रेयः, अन्यथा घसंयतवन्दनं मृषावादश्वस्यात् । इत्थं तथाविधगुरुकर्मोदयात् तेऽपरिणतमतयः साधनोऽन्यतामतं प्रतिपमाः परस्परं न वन्दन्ते । ततःस्थविरैस्तेऽभिहिता: यदि परस्मिन् सर्वत्र भवतां संदेहः, तहिं येनोक्तम्-"देवोऽहम्" इति तत्रापि भवतां कथं न संदेहः ? ।-किं स देवोऽदेवो वा ? इनि । यदि तेन खयमेव कथित-"अहं देवः" तथा, देवरूपं च प्रत्यक्षत एव दृष्टम् , इति न तत्र संदेहः । हन्त ? यद्येवम् , तहिं य एवं कथयन्ति "वयं साधवः" तथा, साधुरूपं प्रत्यक्षत एव दृश्यते, ते कः साधुत्वसंदेहः, येन परस्परं यूयं न वन्दध्वे ? । न च साधुक्चनात् देवक्यनं सत्यमिति शक्यते वक्तुम् । देववचनं हि क्रीडाद्यर्थमन्यथापि संभाव्यते, न तु साधुवचनम् , तद्विरतत्वात् तेषामिति । एवं च युक्तिभिर्यावद् न प्रज्ञाप्यन्ते तावदुद्धाटय बाह्याः कृताः । पर्यटन्तश्च राजगृहनगरं गताः । तत्र च मौर्यवंशसंभूतो बलभद्रो नाम राजा । स च श्राद्धः। ततस्तेन ते विज्ञाता यथाऽव्यक्तवादिनो निहवा इह समायाता गुलशिलकचैत्ये तिष्ठन्ति । तताखपुरुषान् प्रेष्य राजकूल आनायितास्तेन ते कटकमद्देन मारणार्थ चानुज्ञाताः । ततो हस्तिनि कटकेषु च तन्मर्दनार्थमानीतेषु तैः प्रोक्तम्-"राजन् ? वयं जानीमः श्रावकस्त्वम्" तत् कथमस्मान् श्रमणानित्थं मारयसि । ततो राज्ञा पोकम्-"युष्मसिद्धान्तेनैव को जानाति किं श्रावकोऽहं न वा ।" भवन्तो. ऽपि कि चौराः, चारिकाः, अमिमरा वा ? इत्यपि को वेत्ति ?।" तैः प्रोक्तम्"साधवी वयम् ।' यद्येवम् , अव्यक्तवादितया किमिति परस्परमपि यथाज्येष्ठं बन्दनादिकं न कुल्थ ? । इत्यादिनिष्ठुरैर्मुभिश्च वचनैः प्रोक्तास्ते नरपतिना। ततः संवृद्धा लजिताच निकिताः सन्मार्ग प्रतिपमाः । ततो राज्ञा प्रोक्तम्"भवतां संवोधनार्थमिदं मया सर्वमपि विहितम्" इति क्षमणीयमिति ॥२३५७।।
D. C. Ārya Āsādhācārya was the preceptor of the Paulā. şadha church in the city of Svetavika. Many of his pupils learnt the practice of Āgādha yogasa under him. Āşāļbācārya was
2. In order to attain a highly-esteemed position of a perfect ascetic, the Jaina sādhus practise a peculiar type of penances known as " Yogodrahana." Agadha yoga is one of the various processes of " Yogodvahana".

Page #93

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 69: thus their preceptor. On account of excessive strain taken by him in reading and teaching the practice of Agādha yoga, Arya Aşadhācārya suffered from acute pain in his heart and he died on the same night. Consequently, he attained divine form in the Nalinigulma viman (region) of Saudharma deva-loka.
This was not known to any one in the temple. Then having known the past incident by Avadhi Jnāna3, Arya Aşāļhācārya took compassion on the sādhus who were practising yogas and entered the same body. Immediately after that, he got up and asked the sādhus to proceed with their lessons of the second half of the night. Thus, the god in disguise of a preceptor taught the Uddeśa (ains ) Samuddeśa (explanations ) and Anujnā. (Commandment) of the Holy writ. Practices of all the stages
According to Patanjali, yoga is defined to be “the preventing of the modifications of Citta or the thinking principle (which modifications arise through the three Pramāṇas-Perception, Inference, and Verbal testimony-as well as through incorrect ascertainment, fancy, sleep, and recollection) by abhyāsa or the constant practice of keeping the mind in its unmodified state (clear as crystal when uncoloured by contact with other substances) and by vairāgya or dispassion.” This dispassion being obtained by praạidhāna or devotedness to the Supreme Being, who is defined as a particular puruşa or spirit unaffected by afflictions, works etc. The eight means or stages of Yoga or Mental Concentration are : -1. Yama (forbearance ) 2. Niyama (religious observances ) 3. Asana (postures ) 4. Prāņāyama (regulation of the breath) 5. Pratyāhāra (restraint of the senses) 6. Dhāraṇā ( steadying of the mind ) 7. Dhyāna (contemplation) 8. Samādhi (profound meditation, which according to the Bhagwad Gitā VI B. is to be practised by fixing the eyes on the tip of the nose. True Liberation is the cessation of matter and spirit or Kaivalya (isolation ) the self-mortification and asceticism connects it closely with Buddhism and Jainism (Vide pp. 821822 Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Sir Monier Williams ).
3. Perception attained by means of concentraction of attention,

Page #94

:70: Jinabhadra Gaņi's
[ The third of yogas were completely taught in that way, saving thereby all the sādhus from the interruptions of time etc. by virtue of divine power. Finally, while going to heaven, after leaving the human body, he said to the sādhus “ A-samyata (unrestrained) as I happen to be, I made you, who happen to be of high moral character, bow to me. Please pardon me for that act of mine. On the other day, I happened to meet with death and pass away to the heavenly regions, from where I condescended to come here out of sympathy for you and taught you all the practices of yoga.” Having said so, he returned to his heavenly abode after being pardoned.
After his departure, sitting around his borly, the sādhus began to think like this:- “Ohi an a-samyata (unrestrained ) deity has been respected for a long time. The same could be doubted in the case of others as well. For, who knows whether one is samyata or a-samyata? It is better, therefore, not to respect any body. By respecting an unrestrained deity, we would become liars.” Consequently, short-witted as they were, all the sādhus resorted to indiscretion and did not even bow to each other as sādhus.
Then, some of the old and wise sthaviras tried to explain them the right thing. The following conversation took place between them and the Nihnavas.
. STHAVIRAS:-If you entertain such a doubt with regard to each and every one in this world, then, why not doubt the asceticism of the deity himself, when he introduced himself as a deity to you?
Nihnavas :-There is no doubt about his being a deva, firstly because, he himself said that “I am a deity” and secondly because he was directly perceived as a deva.
Sthaviras :-The same will be the case with sādhus also. Those who say that, “ We are sādhus ” and those who are recognized as sādhus directly from their appearance, should also

Page #95

[Vāda
Nihnavavāda
: 71:
be taken as sãdhus and so, you should not refrain from respecting each other as sådhus.
And, you cannot assert that the word of a deva is more trust-worthy than that of a sadhu. A deva might tell a lic even for the sake of fun etc., but a sādhu being completely averted from falsehood, would never tell a falschood.
Sthaviras tried to persuade them in many other ways, but they were not convinced. Those Avyakta-vā·lins were, therefore, expelled from the Gaccha. Then, wandering here and there, they came to Rājagriha Nagara in course of time and stayed the re in the Guiñasila caitya (temple of an yaksa). King Balabhadra of the Maurya Dynasty was a devotee of Jaina Dharma. So, as soon as he came to know of the arrival of the Nihnavas of the Sceptical Type, he called them with a view to bring them to the right path. When they were brought to his palace, the king ordered them to be killed by crushing them under the feet of elephants. When the retinue of elephants was brought there, in order to crush them, the king was thus told by the nihnavas “O king ' you are a devotee of Jaina Dharma. We are also Jaina śramaņas. Then, why do you kill us ?” The king replied: “According to your principle, who knows whether I am a śrāvaka or not? And who knows if you are not thieves, spies or burglars ?” The Nihnavas said “We are certainly Sadhus and none else.” The king replied :-If you are real Sadhus why do'n't you respect the elderly sādhus in your group?"
On hearing such harsh and tender words of the king, the Nihnavas were roused and brought to the right path with all their doubts removed.
Finally, the king said apologetically that he had to do all that for the benevolent purpose of rousing them from ignorance and hence he craved their pardon, which was duly awarded. 62. (2357).
The same story is now described by the author in details :

Page #96

:72
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The third गुरुणा देवीभूएण समजरूवेण वाइया सीसा । सम्भावे परिकहिए अव्वत्तयदिहिणो जाया ॥६३।।२३५८॥ 63. Guruna devibhuena samanaravena vaiya sisa.
Sabbhave parikahie Avvattayaditthino jāyā. 2358. [गुरुणा देवीभूतेन श्रमणरूपेण वादिताः शिष्याः । सद्भावे परिकथितेऽयक्तकदृष्टयो जाताः ॥६३॥२३५८॥ 63. Guruņā devibhutena śramañarupeņa vāditāh śisyāh |
Sadbhave parikathite'vyaktaka drstayo jatah 63 (2358)]
Trans. 63. The pupils were taught by the preceptor in disguise of a monk after he had attained divinity. When the fact was told (by him), they became sceptical. 2358.
They began to raise doubts in this way :को जाणइ कि साहू देवो वा तो न वंदणिज्जो त्ति । होजाऽसंजयनमणं होज मुसावायममुगो त्ति ॥६४॥२३५९।। 64. Ko jāņai kim sāhū devo vā to na vandanijjo tti i
Hojjá’samjayanamaņam hojja musāvāyamamugo tti (2359). [को जानाति किं साधुर्देवो वा ततो न वन्दनीय इति । भवेदसंयतनमनं भवेद् मृषावादोऽमुक इति ॥६४॥२३५९।। 64. Ko jánāti kim şadhurdevo vā tato na vandaniya iti
Bhavedasamyatanamanam bhaved mrişāvādo’muka iti (2359) ]
Trans. 64. Who knows whether a (particular) person is a sadhu or a deity ? He is, therefore, not worthy of bowings. (Because otherwise) either there would be bowing to an unrestrained (person) or there would be false presumption. (2359 ).
टीका-६४ को जानाति-किमयं साधुवेषधारी साधुदेवो वा ? नास्त्येवात्र निश्चय इत्यर्थः । न च वक्तव्यम्-साधुरेवायम् , तद्वेष-समाचारदर्शनात् , भवानिव । आषाढदेवेऽपि साधुवेष-समाचारदर्शनेनानैकान्तिकत्वात् । तस्माद् न

Page #97

Vada] Nihnavarāda
:73: कोऽपि वन्दनीयः, संशयविषयत्वात् । यदि पुनर्वन्द्यते, तदाऽऽर्याषाढदेववन्दनं स्यात् । तदमुको बवीति-भाषणे च मृषावादः स्यादिति ॥२३५९॥
D. C. On seeing a person bearing the attire of a sādhu, one cannot decide whether he is a real monk or a deity in disguise of sālbu. It is, therefore, not proper to bow to any one on acco unt of his being the object of doubt. For, if he is respected, it would turn out to be a bowing to an a-saymata (unrestrained) person like Asadha-dera; otherwise, while saying that “ he is an ascetic, we would resort to falsehood 64 (2359).
The sthaviras reply to the arguments of the Avyakta Nihnavas as follows:
थेरवयणं जइ परे संदेहो किं सुरो त्ति साहु त्ति । देवे कहं न संका किं सो देवो न देवो त्ति ? ॥६५॥२३६०॥ तेण कहियं ति व मई देवोऽहं रूववारिसणाओ य । साहु त्ति अहं कहिए समाणरूवम्मि का संका ? ॥६६॥२३६१॥ देवस्स व किं वयणं सच्चं ति न साहुरूवधारिस्स । न परोप्परं पि वन्दह जं जाणन्ता वि जयउ त्ति ॥६७।२३६२।। 65. Theravayanam jai pare sandeho kim suro tti sahu tti ? |
Deve kaham na sankā kim so devo na devo tti (2360) 66. Tena kahiyam ti va mai devo'ham rāvadarisanāo yal
Sābu tti aham kahie samānarūvammi kā sankā ? 67. Devassa va kim vayaņam saccam ti na sāhuravadhārissa 1
Na paropparam pi vandlaha jam jāņantā vi jayau tti (2362) [स्थविरवचनं यदि परे सन्देहः किं सुर इति साधुरिति । देवे कथं न शङ्का किं स देवो न देव इति ? ॥६५॥२३६०॥ तेन कथितमिति वा मतिर्देवोऽहं रूपदर्शनाच । साधुरिति कथं कथिते समानरूपे का शङ्का ? ॥६६॥२३६१॥ देवस्य वा किं वचनं सत्यमिति न साधुरूपधारिणः। न परस्परमपीह वन्दध्वे यनानन्तोऽपि यतय इति ॥६७॥२३६२॥

Page #98

Jinabhadra Gani's
[The third 65. Sthavira vacanaın yadi pare sandehah kim sura iti sādhuriti?!
Deve katham na sankā kim sa devo na deva iti ? (2360) 66. Tens kathitamiti vā matirdevo'ham ropadarśanácca
Sādhuriti katham kathite samānarūpe kā sankā ? (2361) 57. Devasya và kim v0eanam satyaiti na sādhuropahārirah! Na parasparamapiha vanda lhve yajjánanto’pi yataya iti.
(2362)]
Trans. 65-66-67. Sthaviras say that (if you entertain doubt about another person ) as to whether he is a deity or a sādhu, why not question the genuinity of a deity (also) as to whether he is a genuine deity or not? If it is your belief that since he himself says that "I am a deity" and since we saw the form of a deity, we did not doubt its validity; why should you raise the doubt when it is said that "I am a sādhu' and when the same body is (directly ) perceived? Or, is it, because, the word of a deity is true and that of an ascetic not so that you do not salute each other in spite of your knowing that “ this is an ascetic." 2360-2361
2362.
If you entertain doubts even about ascetics, who are pratyakşa, then, there is all the more reason for your doubt about jiva etc. that are paruksa :
जीवाइपयत्थेसु य सुहुम-व्ववहिय-विगिट्ठरूवेसु।
अपंतपरोक्खेसु य किह न जिणाइसु भे संका ? ॥६८॥२३६३॥ 68. Jivāipayatthesu ya suhuma-vvavahiya-vigittharūvesu i
Accantaparokkhesu ya kiha na Jiņāisu bhe sankā ? (2363) [sitaifacering **-grafia-fenced
अत्यन्तपरोक्षेषु च कथं न जिनादिषु भवतां शङ्का ? ॥६८॥२३६३।। 68. Jīvādipadártheşu ca sakşma-vyavahita-vikristarapeșu 1 Atyantaparukșeșu ca katham na Jinādişu bhavatām sanka ?
( 2363 ) ]

Page #99

Vada]
Nihnavavada Trans. 68. And, why should there be no doubt about objects such as jīva etc. whose bodies are subtle, obscute and drawn asunder, as well as, about Tirthankaras etc.. that are extremely remote (from the physical sight)? 68 (2363)
Here if it is argued that there cannot be any doubt about Jiva etc. on the authority of the words of Jinas, the same will be the case with ascetics also
तव्वयगाओ व मई नणु तव्वयणे सुसाहुवित्तो ति।
आलय-विहार-समिओ समणोऽयं वंदणिनीति ॥६९॥२३६॥ 69. Tavvayaņão va mai naņu tavvayaņe susāhuvitto tti,
Alaya-vihāra--sanio samaņo'yam vandaņijjo tti (2364) [तद्वचनाद् वा मतिर्ननु तद्वचने सुसाधुवृत्त इति ।
आलय-विहारसमेतः श्रमणोऽयं वन्दनीय इति ॥६९।२३६४॥ 69. Tadvacanād vā matirnanu tadvacane susādhuvritta iti
Alaya-vihārasametah Sramano'yam vandaniys. Iti (2364)]
Trans. 69. Or, if this belief is held (on the authority of) His words*, then according to his words, a devotee having (proper) dwelling and monastic establishment, and possess. ing right conduct of a (real) saint, is definitely worthy of bowings. 2364.
टीका-६९ अथ तद्वचनाजिनवचनाद् न जीवाद्यर्थेषु शका । ननु ययेवम् , तद्वचन इदमप्यस्ति यदुत-शोभनं साधुवृत्तं श्रमणशील यस्यासौ सुसाधुवच इति हेतोः "श्रमणोऽयम्" इति निश्चयाद् वन्दनीयः। सुसाधुपत्तोऽपि स कथं ज्ञायते ? इत्याह-"आलय-विहार-समिओ" इति कृत्वा । उक्तंच
आलयेणं विहारेणं ठाणा चंकमणेण य । सका सुविहियं नाउं भासावेणइएण य॥१॥
इति ॥२३६४॥
4. i. e. Tirthankara's.

Page #100

:76 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The third D. C. If you say that you do not entertain doubt about the validity of jiva etc. on the authority of the words of Jinas, then, according to the Tirthankaras, one who possesses right conduct of an ascetic, is a real sādhu worthy of respect. Here, if it is asked “ How is a person of right conduct of a saint, recognized ? The answer is- “ By means of proper dwelling and monastic establishments, a real śramaņa is at once recognized.
It is said “Alayeņam vihāreņam thāņā cankamaņeņa ya 1 Sakkā suvihiyam nāum bhāsāveņaieņa ya #111
A real śramaņa (saint) is known from his ālaya (dwelling) vihāra (monastic establishments) movements from one place to another and courteous language ]. 69 (2364)
जह वा जिणिदपडिमं जिणगुणरहियं ति जाणमाणा वि । परिणामविसुद्धत्थं वंदह तह किं न साधु पि ? ॥७०॥२३६५॥ हुन्ज न वा साहुत्तं जहरूवे नत्थि चेव पडिमाए । सा कीस वंदणिजा जइसवे कीस पडिसेहो ? ॥७१॥२३६६॥ 70. Jaha vā Jiņindapaạimam Jiņagunarahiyam ti jāņamāņā vil Pariņāmavisuddhattham vandaha taha kim na sādhum pi ?
(2365) 71. Hujja na vā sāhuttam jairûve natthi ceva padimāc
Sa kisa vandanijji jairave kisa padiseho ? (2366) [यथा वा जिनेन्द्रप्रतिमां जिनगुणरहितामिति जानन्तोऽपि । परिणामविशुद्धयर्थ वन्दध्वे तथा किं न साधुमपि ? ॥७॥२३६५॥ भवेद् न वा साधुत्वं यतिरूपे नास्त्येव प्रतिमायाम् । सा कस्माद् वन्दनीया यतिरूपे कस्मात् प्रतिषेधः ॥७॥२३६६॥
5. This verse is taken from the Avasyaka-niryukti Vide Verse 80. Vandanaka Niryukti in the Avaśyaka-Niryukti. Also vide p. 529 v. 1148. Avasyaka sutra with the commentary of Haribhadra Suri Part II. Agamodaya Samiti Edition)

Page #101

Vada ] Nihnayavāda
:77: 70. Yathā vā Jinendrapratimam Jinagunarahitāmiti jananto'pil
Pariņāmavisuddhyartham vandadhve tathā kim na sādhu
mapi ? (2365) 71. Bhaved na vā sādhutvam yatirape nāstyeva pratimāyām i
Sa kasmail. vandaniya, yatirape kasmat pratisedhah (2366)]
Trans. 70-71. Or, just as you worship the image of a Tirthankara for the sake of blissful result in spite of your knowing that the image of Tirthankara has no qualities of the Tirthankara, in the same way, why (should you) not respect a sadhu also? In the form of an ascetic, (real) qualities of a sadhu may or may not be (found ). But thats is altogether absent in the image. Why is the image, then, taken as worthy of worship, and what makes the form of an ascetic unworthy of respects? 2365-2366.
टीका-७०-७१ सुगमे, नवरं प्रथमगाथायां प्रतिमायाः साधुरूपेण सह वन्दनीयत्वे साम्यमुक्तम् । द्वितीयगाथायां तु साधुरूपे विशेष दर्शयति-यतिरूपे पाणिनि साधुत्वं भवेद् न वा ? इति संदिग्धमेव । प्रतिमायां तु जिनत्वं नास्त्येवेति निश्चयः । ततः किमिति सा वन्दनीया ?, यतिरूपे च किमिति वन्दन प्रतिषेधः १ ॥२३६५-२३६६॥
The opponent's answer isअसंजयजहरूवे पावाणुमई मई न पडिमाए । नणु देवाणुगयाए पडिमाए वि हुन सो दोसो ॥७२॥२३६७॥ 72. Asaijayajairave pavanumai mai na padimāe |
___Nanu devanugayse padimae vi hujja so doso (2367) [असंयतयतिरूपे पापानुमतिर्मतिर्न प्रतिमायाम् । ननु देवानुगतायां प्रतिमायामपि भवेत् स दोषः ।।७२॥२३६७॥ 72. Asamyatayatirūpe pāpānumatirmatirna pratimāyām |
Nanu devāņugatāyām pratimāyāmapi bhavet sa doşah (2367)] 6. Quality of a Tirthankara.

Page #102

: 78:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The third
टीका- ७२ - अथैवंभूता मतिः परस्य भवेत् - असंयत देवाधिष्ठिते यतिरूपे वन्द्यमाने तद्गवासंयमरूपपापानुमतिर्भवति, न त्वसौ प्रतिमायाम् । अत्रोच्यतेननु देवताधिष्ठितप्रतिमायामप्ययमनुमतिलक्षणो दोषो भवेदेवेति ॥ २३६७॥
D. C.
Nihnavas.—While bowing to an a-samyata ( unrestrained ) deity in disguise of an ascetic, the fault of assenting to the sin of unrestraint would be committed. But that does not happen in case of worshipping an image of 8 Tirthankara.
Sthaviras: -Even in case of an image inspired by a god or a Tirthankara, the same fault of assenting to the sin would certainly be committed. 72 (2367)
अह पडिमाए न दोसो जिणबुद्धीए नमओ विसुद्धस्स । तो जइरूवं नमओ जइबुद्धीए कहं दोसो १ ॥७३॥२३६८॥ 73. Aha padimāe na doso Jinabuddie namao visuddhassa | To jairavam namao jaibuddhie kaham doso? ( 2366 ) [ अथ प्रतिमायां न दोषो जिनबुद्धया नमतो विशुद्धस्य । ततो यतिरूपं नमतो यतिबुद्धधा कथं दोषः ॥७३|| २३६८ ।।
73. Atha pratimāyām na doso Jinabuddhyā namato viśuddhasya 1 Tato yatirūpam namato yatibuddhyā katham dosah (2368 ) ]
Trans. 73. If there is no fault in case of one who bows to an image taking it sincerely as a Tirthankara, then, how would a fault arise in case of one who bows to an ascetic taking him sincerely as an asectic ? 2368.
टीका- ७३ अथ प्रतिमायां नायमनुमतिलक्षणो दोषः । किं कुर्वनः १ । नमस्यतः । कया ? | जिनबुद्धया । कथंभूतस्य १ । विशुद्धस्य - विशुद्धाध्यवसायस्यं । यद्येवम्, ततो यतिबुद्धया यतिरूपं विशुद्धस्य नमस्यतः को दोपः, येन भवन्तः परस्परं न वन्दन्ते ? । अत्रापरः कश्चिदाह - यद्येवम्, लिङ्गमात्रधारिणं पार्श्वस्थादिकमपि यतिबुद्धया विशुद्धस्य नमस्यतो न दोषः । तदयुक्तम्- पार्श्वस्थादीनां सम्यग्यतिरूपस्याप्यभावात् । तदभावश्च " आलएणं बिहारेण "

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #103

Vāda 1
Nibnavavāda
:79:
इत्यादिय तिलिङ्गस्यानुपलम्भात् । ततः प्रत्यक्षदोषवतः पार्श्वस्थादीन् बन्दमानस्य तत् सावद्यानुज्ञालक्षणो दोष एव । उक्तं च
जइचेलं बगलिंगं जाणंतस्स नमओ हवइ दोसो । निर्द्धधर्स य नाऊण वंदमाणे धुको दोसो ॥ १ ॥
इत्यादि । प्रतिमायास्तु दोषा चरणाभावात् तद्वन्दने सावधानुज्ञाऽभावतो न दोष इति ॥ २३६८ ॥
D. C.
Nihnavas :-The fault of assenting to the evil quality will not arise in case of bowing to an image of a Tirthankara with sincere apprehension of a Tirthankara in the image.
Sthaviras: -If it is so, what harm is there in case of one bowing to a ascetic with the sincere apprehension of a sādhu in him, that you do not even respect each other as ascetics?
Nihnavas :-If it is so, there would be no harm even in bowing to his own companion etc. with the sincere apprehension of an ascetic in him.
Sthaviras :-That is not proper, companions etc. to not actually bear even a proper appearance of an ascetic. Nor are the actual symbols such as alaya, vihāra etc. apprepended in him. Hence, one who bows to companions etc. that are clearly unworthy, commits the fault of assenting to the savadya' (censurable) resolution of an ascetic in them. It is said
Jaicelam bagalingam jāṇantassa namao havai doso Niddhamdhasam ya nāuṇa vandamāņe dhuvo dosc 19
7. Savadya (censurable) Niravadya (blameless)
8. This verse is also quoted from Avasyaka Niryukti vide verse 65, Vandanka-niryukti in the Avasyaka Niryukti. Also vide page 526 verse 1137, Avaśyaka Satra with the commentary of Srimad Haribhadra Sari Part II.
There seems to be a slight alteration in the text of this

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #104

:80: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The third And, 377 visi foaie Ihrs at a hall
आहारो-वहि-सज्जा मा देवकया भवेज ण्हु ॥७४॥२३६९।। 74. Aha padimam pi na vandaha devāsankāi to na ghettavvā i
Ahāro-vahi-sajjā mā devakayā bhavejja Ņhu (2369) [ Squaftaraf TeraTETTA A TESTT: 1
आहारो-पधि-शय्या मा देवकृता भवेयुर्नु ॥७४॥२३६९।। 74. Atha pratimānapi na vandadhve devāśankayā tato na grahi
tavyāḥ Ābaro-padhi-sayyā mā devakritā bhaveyurnu (2369).
Trans. 74. If you do not respect an image (also) thinking it to be that of ) a deva, then, thinking that food, accessory articles, bed etc. might have been created by gods, they should not be taken (at all). 2369.
GR-18 37 CFTATA a pesa 144, Era! Tela 11910 भवान्, तहिं मा देवकृता भवेयुरित्याहारो-पधि-शय्यादयोऽपि न ग्राह्या इति ॥२३६९॥
D. C. If you become sceptical to the extent of not bowing even to an image, you should not tako food, accessory articles, bed etc. as they, too, might have been created by gols. 74 (2369) verse. Original reading of the verse found in the niryukti is this
Jaha velambagalingam jānantassa namao havai doso Niddhamdhasam iya náðna vandamāne dhuvo dosoa, Instead of " Jaicelam bagalingam b, Instead of "ya."
[One who bows to a wicked and hypocrite ascetic, in spite of his knowing him to be such, would commit a fault. Having once known the breach of trust, if one bows to him, he is definitely at fault. ]
But in case of worshipping an image, no such fault would arise in absence of sāvadyānujnā. 73 (2368)

Page #105

(Vāda
Nihnayavāda
:81:
And too much of sceptical attitude will result in the negation of the whole vyavahāra in this way
को जाणइ किं भत्तं किमओ किं पाणयं जलं मद्यम। किमलाबु माणिकं किं सप्पो चीवरं हारो ? ॥७५॥२३७०।। को जाणइ किं सुद्धं किमसुद्धं किं सजीवं निजीवं । किं भक्खं किमभावं पत्तमभक्खं तओ सव्वं ॥७६॥२३७१॥ 75. Ko jāņai kim bhattam kimao kim pāņayam jalam madyam |
Kimalābu māņikkam kim sappo cīvaram bāro ? (2370) 76. Ko jāņai kim suddham kimasuddham kimi sajivam nijjivamı
Kim bhakkham kimabhakkham pattanabhakkham tao
savvam (2371) [को जानाति किं भक्तं कृमयः किं पानकं जलं मघम् । किमलाबु माणिक्यं किं सर्पश्चीवरं हारः १ ॥७५॥२३७०॥ को जानाति किं शुद्धं किमशुद्धं किं सजीवं निर्जीवम् । किं भक्ष्यं किमभक्ष्यं प्राप्तमभक्ष्यं ततःसर्वम् ।।७६॥२३७१॥ 75. Ko jānāti kim bhaktam krinayah kim pānakam jalamı
madyam
Kimalābu māņikyam kim sarpaścīvaram hārah? (2370) 76. Ko janāti kim suddham kimasuddham kim sajivam nirjivam |
Kim bhaksyam kinabhakşyam prāptamabhaksyam tatah sarvam (2371)
Trans 75-76. Who knows whether a particular thing is food or a worm? Whether a drinking substance is water or wine ? Whether one thing is a bottlegourd or a jewel? Whether (one thing is a serpent, a (piece of) garment or a necklace ?
Who knows what is pure (and) what is impure, what is animate and what is inanimate, what is eatable and what is uneatable ? Everything turns out to be uneatable in that respect. 2370-2371.

Page #106

:82: Jinablalra Gani's
[The third टीका-७५-७६ को जानाति किमिदं भक्त कमयो वा.? इत्याद्याशहाया भक्तादावपि कृम्यादिभ्रान्त्यनिवृत्तेः सर्वमभक्ष्यमेव प्राप्तं भवतः । तथा, अलाबुचीवरादौ मणि-माणिक्य-सादिभ्रान्त्य-निवृत्तेः सर्वमभोग्यं च प्राप्तमिति ॥२३७०-२३७१॥
D. C. Since you are not able to remove illusions of worms jewels, serpents etc in an article of food, bottle-gourd, garments etc. everything would become forbidden to you 75-76 (2370-71)
And, जहणा वि न संवासो सेओ पमया-कुसीलसंकाए । होज गिही वि जइ त्ति य तस्सासीसा न दायव्वा १७७॥२३७२॥ न य सो दिक्खेयवो भव्वोऽभव्वो त्ति जेण को मुणइ ? । चोरु त्ति चारिउ त्ति य होइ जओ परदारगामि त्ति? ॥७८॥२३७३॥ को जाणइ को सीसो को व गुरू तो न तब्विसेसो वि। गझो न चोवएसो को जाणइ सचमलियं ति ? ॥७९॥२३७४॥ किं बहुणा सव्व चिय संदिद्धं जिणमयं जिर्णिदा य । परलोय-सग्ग-मोक्खा दिक्खाए किमस्थमारंभो ? ॥८॥२३७५।। अह संति जिणवरिंदा तव्वयणाओ य सव्वपडिवत्ती। तो तव्वयणाउ चिय जइवंदणयं कहं न मयं ? ॥८१॥२३७६॥ 77. Jaiņā vi na samvāso seo pamayā-kusilasankāe i
Hojja gihi vi jai tti ya tassasisa na dayavva. (2372) 78. Na ya so dikkheyavvo bhavvo'bhavvo tti jeņa ko muņai? |
Coru tti cāriu tti ya hoi jao paradāragāmi tti? (2373) 79. Ko jaņai ko sīso ko va gurū to na tavviseso vil
Gajjho na. covaeso ko janai saccamaliyam ti ? (2374) 80. Kim bahuņā savvam ciya sandiddham Jiņamayam Jiņindā ya 1
Paraloya-sagga-mokkhā dikkhāe kimatthamārambho? (2375) 81. Aha sarti Jiņavarindā tavvayaņão ya savvapadivatti |
To tavvayaņāu ceiya jaivandaņayan kaham na mayam ? (2376)

Page #107

[ Vada
[ यतिनापि न संवासः श्रेयः प्रमदा-कुशीलशङ्कया । भवेद् गृह्यपि यतिरिति च तस्माआशीर्न दातव्या ॥७७॥२३७२ ॥
Nihnavaváda
न च स दीक्षितव्यो भव्योऽभव्य इति येन को जानाति ? । चौर इति चारिक इति च भवति यको परदारगामीति १ ॥७८॥२३७३॥
:83:
को जानाति कः शिष्यः को वा गुरुस्ततो न तद्विशेषोऽपि । ग्राह्यो न चोपदेशःको जानाति सत्यमलीकमिति १ ॥ ७९ ॥ २३७४॥ किं बहुना सर्वमेव संदिग्धं जिनमंतं जिनेन्द्राश्च । परलोक - स्वर्ग- मोक्षा दीक्षायाः किमर्थमारम्भः १ ||८०|| २३७५॥ अथ सन्ति जिनवरेन्द्रास्तद्वचनाच्च सर्वप्रतिपत्तिः । ततस्तद्वचनादेव यतिवन्दनकं कथं न मतम् ? ॥ ८१ ॥२३७६ ॥
77. Yatināpi na samvāsah śreyah pramadākuśilasaikayā। Bhaved grihyapi yatiriti ca tasmā āśirna dātavyā (2372) 78. Na ca sa dīksatavyo bhavyo' bhavya iti yena ko jānāti ? | Caura iti cārika iti ca bhavati yako paradāragāmīti ? (2373)
79. Ko jānāti kah sisyah ko va gurustato na tadviseso'pir Grāhyo na copadeśah ko jānāti satyamalikamiti ? (2374)
80. Kim bahunā sarvameva sandigdham jinamatam jinendrāsca। Paraloka-Svarga - Moksā diksāyāb kim arthamārambhah ? (2375)
81. Atha santi jinavarendrāstadvacanācca sarvapratipattih |
Tatastad vacanādeva yati vandanakam katham na matam? (2376)

Trans. 77-78-79-80-81. Doubting the misconduct of woman, it is not advisable even for an ascetic to associate (with them). Presuming that a householder may even happen to be an ascetic, blessing should not be conferred ( upon him ). Nobody should be (allowed to be) initiated as a pupil. For, who knows whether one is meritorious or wicked, a thief, a spy or a burgler? (And) who knows as to who is a pupil
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #108

:84:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The third
and who is the preceptor? So, there is no distinction between them also, His sermon is also not acceptable, because, who knows whether it is true or false? What more (should be said)? Tirthankaras, their principles, the other (future) world, heaven, Final Emancipation-all this is uncertain according to you. Then, what is the use of accepting diksā ( at all ) ? If you believe in the Tirthankara and if you take everything as existing on the authority of His words, why should bowing to an ascetic oe not accepted on the same authority ? (2372-2376)
टीका-७७–७८-७९-८०-८१ सर्वा अपिप्रकटार्थाः । नवरं “ जइणा वि न संवासो" इत्यादिनाऽभ्युपगमविरोधो दर्शितः । अथ सन्ति जिनवरेन्द्राः, तद्ववचनसिद्धत्वात् तेषां तद्वचनादेव च सर्वस्यापि परलोक - स्वर्ग - मोक्षादेः प्रतिपत्तिर्भवति; एवं तर्हि तद्वचनादेव यतिवन्दनमपि कस्माद् न संमतम् ? इति ||२३७२||२३७३।२३७४॥२३७५॥२३७६॥
D. C. If according to you, Tirthaikara exists, and if you' believe that the existence of all objects including, paraloka (future world ) Svarga ( heaven ) Moksa ( Final Emancipation) ete. is approved by him, there is no reason why the act of bowing to ascetics be not approved by him. 77-81 (2372-2376).
Moreover,
जई जिणमयं पमाणं मुणि त्ति तो बज्झकरणपरिसुद्धं । देवं पि वन्यमाणो विसुद्धभावो विसुद्धो ति ॥ ८२॥२३७७॥
2. Jai Jinamayam pamānam muni to bajjhakarana-parisuddhami ! Devan pi vandanāno visuddhabhāvo visuddho tti (2377) [ यदि जिनमतं प्रमाणं मुनिरिति ततो बाह्यकरणपरिशुद्धम् । देवमपि वन्दमानो विशुद्धभावो विशुद्ध इति ||८२||२३७७||
82. Yadi jinamatam pramānam muniriti tato bāhyakarana pari
suddham |
Devamapi vandamāno visuddhabhāvo viśuddha iti (2377 ) ]

Page #109

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
Trans. 82 If you take the principles of the Tirthankaras as authentic, then even, he who bows to a god (appearing as ) purified by external means apprehending him sincerely as a sage, will be guiltless (2377).
टीका- ८२ यदि जिनमतं भवतां प्रमाणम्, तर्हि (C 'मुनिः" इत्यनया बुद्धया आलय - विहारादि बाह्यकरणपरिशुद्धं देवमपि - अमरमपि वन्दमानो, विशुद्धभावो भवेद् दोषरहितो विशुद्ध एव । उक्तं चागमे
परमरहस्समिसीणं समत्तगणिपिडगभवियसाराणं । परिणामियं पमाणं निच्छयमवलंबमाणाणं ॥ १ ॥
इत्यादि ||२३७७||
D. C. If you really follow the principles of the Tirthankaras, you shall have to accept even those who bow to a god who appears purified only externally on account of ālaya, vihāra etc. taking him to be a sage with a sincere heart, as guiltless.
For, it is said in the Agamas-~
"Parama rahassamisiņam samatta ganipidaga bhaviya sārāṇam Pariņāmiyam pamāṇam nicchayamavalambamāṇāṇam
:85:
39
[ It is a great secret of sages who ( look upon ) the ( gomlike ) treasure-box of the preceptor (the entire (collection) of the twelve Angas as auspicious wealth, and a trust worthy authority for ascetics who depend on Niścaya ] 82 (2377)
Or,
जह वा सो जरू वो दिट्ठो तह कित्तिया सुरा अन्ने ? | तुम्भेहिं दिट्ठपुष्वा सव्वस्थापचओ जं भे ॥ ८३॥ २३७८ ॥
83. Jaha vā so jairūvo dittho taha kittiyā surā anne ? | Tubbhehim ditthapuvvā savvatthāpacçao jam bhe ( 2378)

[ यदि वा स यतिरूपो दृष्टस्तथा कियन्तः सुरा अन्ये ? युष्माभिर्दृष्टपूर्वाः सर्वनाप्रत्ययो यद् भवताम् ||८३||२३७८||
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #110

: 85 :
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The third
83. Yadi vā sa yatirūpo drist astatha kiyantah surā anye ? Yusmabhirdristapurvān sarvatrapratyayo yad bhavatām (2374)
Trans. 83. Like that ( god ) in the form of an ascetic seen by you, how many more gods were seen by you in the past, that you did not put trust in anything ? (2378)
टीका- ८३ 'वा' इत्यथवा, यथाऽऽर्याषाढदेवो यतिरूपधरोऽत्र दृष्टस्तथा कियन्तः सुरास्ततोऽन्ये भवद्भिर्दृष्टपूर्वाः, यदेतावन्मात्रेणापि सर्वत्राप्रत्ययो " मे " भवताम् १ । न हि कदाचित् कथञ्चित् कचिदाश्चर्यकल्पे कस्मिंश्चित् तथाविधे दृष्टे सर्वत्र तथा भावाशङ्का युज्यत इति भावः । तस्माद् व्यवहारनयमाश्रित्य युक्तं भवतामन्योन्यवन्दनादिकम् । उक्तं च
निच्छयओ दुभेयं को भावे कम्मि वट्टए समणो । संववहारो य जुज्जह जो पुव्वहिओ चरितम्मि ॥ १ ॥
इत्यादि ॥ २३७८ ||
D. C. In addition to the preceptor Asādha-deva seen by you, in disguise of an ascetic, how many more gods did you see in the past that you entertain doubt about everything?
It is not really worthy of you to entertain doubt like that when some one is seen like that at some time, in some way. Even from practical point of view, it is worthy of you to respect each other.
For, it is said -
Nicchayao dunneyam ko bhāve kammi vaṭṭae samano Samvavaharo ya jujjai jo puvvaṭṭhio carittammi ||
[It is difficult to know definitely as to which ascetic lives in which Bhāva (inclination of mind). But, one who is preeminent in character, is fit from practical point of view. ] 83 (2378)
In support of the same argument, the author continuesछउमत्थसमयचज्जा बबहारनयाणुसारिणी सव्वा ।
तं तह समायरंतो सुज्झइ सब्बो बिसुद्ध मणो ||८४|| २३७९ ॥

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #111

Vada]
Nihinavavāda
:87:
संववहारो वि बली जमसुद्धं पि गहियं सुयविहीए । कोवेइन सव्वणू वंदइ य कयाइ छउमत्थं ॥८५॥२३८०॥ निच्छयववहारनओवणीयमिहं सासणं जिणिदाणं । एगयपरिचाओ मिच्छं संकादओ जे य ॥८६॥२३८१॥ जह जिणमयं पवजहं तो मा ववहारनयमयं मुयह । ववहारपरिचाए तित्थुच्छेओ जओऽवस्सं ॥८७॥२३८२॥ 84. Chaumattha samaya cajjā vavahāranayāņusāriņī savvāl
Tam taha samāyaranto sujjhai savvo visuddhamaņo (2379) 85. Samvavahāro vi bali jamasuddham pi gahiyam suyavihie i
Kovei na. savvannu vandai ya kayai chaumattham (2380) 86. Nicchaya vavahāra naovaņiyamiha sāsaņam Jiņindāņam 1
Egayapariccao niiccham sankadao je ya (2381) 87. Jaha Jiņamayam pavajjaha to mā vavahāra naya mayam
muyaha i
Vavahārapariccāe titthuccheo jao' vassam. (2382) [छमस्थसमयचर्या व्यवहारनयानुसारिणी सर्वा । तां तथा समाचरन् शुध्यति सर्वो विशुद्धमनाः ॥८४२३७९॥ संव्यवहारोऽपि बली यवशुद्धमपि गृहीतं श्रुतविधिना । कोपयति न सर्वज्ञो वन्दते च कदाचिच्छमस्थम् ॥८५॥२३८०॥ निश्चयव्यवहारनयोपनीतमिह सासनं जिनेद्राणाम् । एकतरपरित्यागो मिथ्यात्वं शङ्कादयो ये च ॥८६॥२३८१॥ यदि जिनमतं प्रपद्यध्वं ततो मा व्यवहारनयमतं मुञ्चत । व्यवहारपरित्यागे तीर्थोच्छेदो यतोऽवश्यम् ।।८७॥२३८२॥ 84. Charlmasthasamaya caryā vyavahāranayānusāriņi sarvā i
Tām tathā samācaran sudhyati sarvo viśndahamanāḥ (2379)

Page #112

: 88:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The third
85. Samvyavahāro'pi bali yadaśuddhamapi grihitam śrutavidhinā | Kepayati na sarvagno vandate ca kadācicchadmastham (2380) 86. Niścayavyavahāra nayopanītamiha sāsanam Jinendrånām। Ekatara parityāgo mithyātvam śañkādayo ye ca (2381)
87. Yadi Jinamatam prapadyadhvam tato mā vyavahāramaya
matam muncata |
Vyavahāra parityāge Tirthocchelo yato'vaśyam (2382) ]
Trans 84-85-86-87. The whole routine of the engagements of an ascetic incognito is based upon practical point of view One who follows it sincerely becomes entirely pureminded. Mutual intercourse (of respecting each other) is also practicable. For, in case an impure (object) is apprehended by the commandment of holy writ, or in case if one bows to an ascetic incognito, the Omniscient does not disallow it. The commandment of Tirthankaras is based upon both the positive and practical view-points. It is useless to leave either of them and entertain doubts etc. (So), if you accept the commandment of Tirthankaras, then do not abandon the theory based upon practical point of view. Because, in abandoning the practical point of view, the authority of the Tirtha (Śrī Sangha) itself will be exterminated (2379-2382 )
टीका-८४-८५-८६-८७ - चतखोऽपि सुगमाः । नवरं " कोवेईत्यादि न कोपयति नाममाणीकरोति न परिहरति भुङ्क्त इत्यर्थः । “संकादउ इत्यादि" येsपि शङ्का - काङ्क्षादयस्ते हि मिथ्यात्वमिति संबन्धः ॥ २३७९॥२३८०॥ २३८१॥२३८२॥
Then,
इय ते नासग्गाहं मुयंति जाहे बहुं पि भण्णंता ।
ता संघपरिचत्ता रायगिहे निवतिणा नाउं ||८८|| २३८३||
बलभद्देणग्याया भणंति सावय त्रं तवस्सि त्ति ।
मा कुरु संक्रमसंकारुहेसु भणिए भणइ राया ||८९|| २३८४||

For Private Personal Use Only
""

Page #113

:89:
Vada ]
Nihnayavāda को जाणइ के तुब्भे किं चोरा चारिआ अभिमर त्ति। संजयरूवच्छण्णा अजमहं मे विवाएमि ॥९०॥२३८५॥ नाण-चरियाहिं नज्जइ समणोऽसमणो व कीस जाणतो। तं सावय ! संदेहं करेसि भणिए निवो भणइ ॥११॥२३८६॥ तुम्भं चिय न परुप्परं वीसंभो साहयो त्ति कह मजसं । नाण-चरियाहिं जायइ चोराण वि किं न ता संति ? ॥९॥२३८७॥ उवउत्तिओ भयाच य पव्वण्णा सव्वमयमसग्गाहे । निवखामियाभिगंतुं गुरुमूलं ते पडिकंता ॥९॥२३८८॥
88. Iya te nāsaggaham muyanti jahe bahum pi bhannantar
Tā sanghapariccattā Rāyagihe nīvatiņā nāum (2383) 89. Balabhaddenagghāya bhananti savaya vam tavassi ttis
Mā kuru sankamasankāruhesu bhaạie bhaņai rāyā (2384) 90. Ko jāņai ke tubbhe kim corā cāriā abhimara tti
Sanjayaravacchanna ajjamaham bhe vivāemi (2385) 91. Nana-cariyahim najjai samano'samano va kisa jananto |
Tam savaya! sandeham karesi bhanie nivo bhanai (2386) 92. Tubbham ciya na parupparam visambho sāhavo tti kaha
majjhami
Nāņa-cariyāhim jāyai corāņa vi kim na tā santi (2387) 93. Uvauttio bhayācca ya payvannā savvamayamasaggāhe
Nivakhāmiyābhigantum gurumūlam te paạikkantā (2388)
[इति ते नासद्ग्रहं मुश्चन्ति यावद् बह्वपि भण्यमानाः । तावत् संघपरित्यक्ता राजगृहे नृपतिना ज्ञात्वा ॥८॥२३८३॥ बलभद्रेणाघ्राता भणन्ति श्रावक ! वयं तपस्विन इति । मा कुरु शङ्कामशङ्कारुहेषु भणिते भणति राजा ॥८९॥२३८४॥ को जानाति के यूयं किं चौराश्चारिका अभिमरा इति । मंयमरूपच्छन्ना अद्याहं भवतो व्यापादयामि ॥९०॥२३८५॥

Page #114

• 90: Jinabhadra Gani's
The third ज्ञान-चर्याभ्यां ज्ञायते श्रमणोऽश्रमणो वा कस्माजानन् । त्वं श्रावक ! संदेहं करोषि भणिते नृपो भणति ॥९१॥२३८६॥ युष्माकमेव न परस्परं विस्रम्भः साधव इति कथं मम । ज्ञान-चर्याभ्यां जायते चौराणामपि किं न ते स्तः १ ॥९२॥२३८७॥ उपपत्तितो भयाच्च प्रपन्नाः सर्वमतमसद्ग्राहे । नृपक्षामिता अभिगत्य गुरुमूलं ते प्रतिक्रान्ताः॥१३॥२३८८॥ 88. Iti te nāsadgraham muncanti yāvad bahvapi bhaṇyamānāḥ 1
Tāvat sanghaparityaktā Rājagrihe nripatinā jnätvā (2383) 89. Balabhadrenāghrātā bhaṇanti sravaka! vayam tapasvina iti i
Ma kuru sankāmasaiikāruheșu bhaņite bhaņati rājā (2384) 90. Ko jānāti ke yayam kim caurāścărikā abhimarā iti i
Samyamarapacchannā arlyāhanı bhavato vyspadayāmi (2385) 91. Jnāna-caryābhyām jnāyate śramaņo'śramaño vā kasmajjānan I
Tvam Srāvaka ! sandebam karosi bhanite nripo bhanati (2386) Yuşmākameva na parasparam visrambhah sādhava iti katham mama l Jnāna-caryābhyām jāyate caurāņānapi kim na te stah?
(2387) 93. Upapattito bhayācca prapannāh sarvamatamasadgrāhe 1
Nripakşāmitā abhigatya gurumālam te pratikrāntāh (2388)] Trans. 88-89-90-91-92-93. When they did not give up their mischievous belief in spite of their being persuaded in many ways, as stated above, they were expelled from the Sangha (Congregation ). When called by king Balabhadra, who had come to know (of their arrival) at Rājagriha, they said "O Sravaka! We are ascetics. Please do not suspect things that are beyond suspicion.” The king replied-“Who knows as to who you are ? Who knows whether you are thieves, spies or burglars, in disguise of ascetics? I shall kill you to-day." " In spite of your knowing that an ascetic or otherwise, is known by (his ) knowledge and character, Ośrāvaka! why

Page #115

Vada ]
Nihnavavada
:91:
do you suspect us ?" When thus told, the king replied :"When you yourselves do not rely upon each other that you are (ascetics ), how can I trust you merely from knowledge and character ? Could they not be (found ) in thieves also ? (Thus persuaded) by means of trick and fear, (at last) they resorted to the right belief. Having abandoned their wrong belief, and having forgiven the king ( for his apparently harsh act), all of them returned to the original (school) of their preceptor (2383-2388 ).
frefil-66-68-80-88-82-83 Haf spreytiraf:, ATAT I gari नृपतिना बलमद्रेण "ते आगताः" इति ज्ञात्वाऽऽघ्राता आहूताः “के यूयम् ?" इति पृष्टाश्च भणन्ति-हे श्रावक ! इत्यादि । “नाण-चरियाहिं ति" ज्ञान-क्रियाभ्यां यो भवतामपि “साधवः" इति विखम्भः परस्परं नास्ति स ताभ्यां कथं मम जायते । अपि च, किं ते कृत्रिमे ज्ञान-क्रिये चौराणामपि न स्तो-न भवतः। इति ॥२३८३॥२३८४॥२३८५॥२३८६॥२३८७॥२३८८॥
D. C. When king Balabhadra came to know that the Nihnavas had come to Rajagriha, he called them, and asked them" Who are you?" "O Śrāvaka ! We are ascetics etc.” was the reply. With the threatening of killing them by crushing under the feet of elephants, the king said “Since you do not trust each other as ascetics on the standards of jnāna and kriyā, how can I take you to be ascetics on those standards ? Outward jnā. na and kriyā could be found in thieves as well.”
On hearing such words, they came to know their mistake and resorted to their original school of thought, abandoning their wrong theories for ever.
End of the Discussion with the Third (type of) Nihnava,

Page #116

Chapter V चतुर्थ निह्नव वक्तव्यता
Discussion with the Fourth Nihnava. बीसा दो वाससया तइया सिद्धिं गयस्स वीरस्स । सामुच्छेदयविही मिहिलपुरीए समुप्पन्ना ॥१४॥२३८९॥ 94. Visa do vāsasays taiya Siddhim gayassa. Virassa |
Sāmuccheiyadiţthi Mihilapurie samuppannā (2389) [विंशत्या द्वे वर्षशते तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य वीरस्य ।
सामुच्छेदिकदृष्टिमिथिलापुर्या समुत्पन्ना ॥१४॥२३८९॥ 94. Vimsatya dve varsasate tada Siddhim gatasya Virasya |
SamucchedikadristirMithilapuryām samutpannā (2389)]
Trans. 94. Theory of Samucchedikas came into existence in ( the city of) Mithila, two hundred and twenty years after Sramana Bhagavān Mahavira had attained Nirvana 2389.
टीका-९४ विंशत्युत्तरं वर्षशतद्वयं तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य वीरस्थासीत् । ततोऽ. त्रान्तरे सामुच्छेदिकदृष्टिमिथिलापुर्या समुत्पन्नेति ॥२३८९॥
Here is the story of the production of this theoryमिहिलाए लच्छिघरे महगिरि कोडिन्न आसमित्ते य । नेउणियाणुप्पवाए रायगिहे खंडरक्खा य ॥९५॥२३९०॥ 95. Mihilae Lacchighare Mahagiri Kodinna Asamitte yat
Neuniyānupparāe Rayagihe khandarakkha ya (2390)

Page #117

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:98: [मिथिलायां लक्ष्मीगृहे महागिरिः कौण्डिन्य अश्वमित्र। नैपुणिकमनुप्रवादे राजगृहे खण्डरक्षाश्च ॥९५॥२३९०॥ 95. Mithilayam Laksmigrihe Mahagirih Kaundinya Asvamitrascal
Naipuņikamanupravāde Rājagrihe khandaraksāśca (2890)]
Trans. 95. There was (an Acārya named) Mahagiri in ( the caitya-temple of an Yaksa-named ) Laxmigriha in (the city of) Mithila. There were Kaundinya, and Asvamitra also. (While studying) the Naipunika (portion) of Anupravadal they. resorted to the principle of Samucchedas. And, Khandaraksās brought them to the right path in (the city of) Rājagriha. 2390.
टीका-९५ मिथिलानगयां लक्ष्मीगृहे चैत्ये महागिरिसूरीणां कौण्डिन्यो नाम शिष्यः स्थितः। तस्याप्यश्वमित्रो नाम शिष्योऽनुप्रवादाभिधानपूर्वे नैपुणिक नाम वस्तु पठति स्म । तत्र च्छिाच्छेदनकनयवक्तव्यतायामालापका:समायावाः, तद्यथा-"पडप्पनसमयनेरइया सव्वे वोच्छिजिस्संति, एवं जाव वेमाणिय चि, एवं बीयाइसमएसु वि वत्तव्वं"। अत्र तस्य चिकित्सा जाता, तद्यथा-प्रत्युत्पबसमयनारकाः सर्वेऽपि तावद् व्यवच्छेदं प्राप्स्यन्ति, ततश्च कुतः सुकृत-दुष्कृत कर्मफलवेदनाम् , उत्पादानन्तरं सर्वजीवानां नाशात् ? इति । एवमादिखमति. कल्पितं प्ररूपयन् वक्ष्यमाणभाष्ययुक्तिभिर्गुरुणा प्रज्ञाप्यमानोऽपि यावत् कथमपि न प्रज्ञाप्यते तत उद्धाय्य संघनायः कृतः समुच्छेदवादं प्ररूपयन् काम्पिल्यपुरनगरं राजगृहापरनामकं गतः । तत्र च खण्डरक्षाभिधानाः श्रावकाः आसन, ते शुलकपालाः । तैश्च ते निहवाः समागता विज्ञाता मारयितुं चारन्धाः। ततो मीतैरश्चमित्रादिमिस्ते प्रोक्ताः-"वयं न जानीम:-श्रावका यूयम् तरिकमस्मान् श्रमणान् सतो मारयथ ?"। ततस्तैरुक्तम्-"ये श्रमणास्ते युष्मसिदान्तेन
1. Like purvas, such as Virya-pravāda, Asti-Nāsti pravāda, Jnāna-pravāda, Satya-pravāda, Atma-pravāda etc., Anu-pravāda seems to belong to one of them. It is an independent parva, treating of Kriya, Jnana etc...
2. Neuniya or Naipuņika is the name of a chapter in the said Anu-pravāda pūrva.

Page #118

: 94:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth
Hypoat, mi a TREAT: Harala ARATH: " | Tarital mit निजाग्रहः, संबुद्धाश्च दत्तमिथ्यादुष्कृता गता गुरुपादमूल इति ॥२३९०॥
D. C. Mahāgiri-sari the preceptor of the Lakşmīgriha caitya in Mithilā, had a pupil named Kaundinya, who, in turn had a pupil named Aśvamitra. While studying the Naipuņika chapter of the Anu-pravāda parva, Aśvamitra came across the following statement in course of a discussion of the principles of chinna and chedanaka ( Destroyed and destroyer):
“ Paduppanna samayaneraiyā savve vocchijjissanti Evam jāva Vemāņiya tti, evam biyāisamayesu vi vattavvam."
[ All the Nārakas (inhabitants of hell) of the present convention will perish, and so will all the deities. The same should be understood of those of other conventions as well. ]
On reading this, Aśvamitra conjectured that if all the Nārakas of the present convention were to perish, all other living beings would also meet destruction, as soon as they were born. Consequently, they would not be able to attain the rewards of good and evil deeds. In this way, Aśvamitra began to draw conclusions on false conjectures. His preceptor (Kauņdinya) tried to persuade him by means of various tricks ( which will be told hereafter ), but Aśvamitra was not convinced at all. He was, then, expelled from the Sangha ( Congregation). He, then, came to the city of Rājagriha (or Kāmpilyapuri). There the śrāvakas khan. darakṣās, who were posted as customs watchmen, began to beat Aśvamitra and his fellow-Nihnavas all of a sudden. “Do you not know us? Why do you beat us even though you are śrāvakas " said the Nihnavas. “Those that are śramaņas have already perished according to your theory. You may be some other people like thieves etc. and hence, we are beating you," was the reply. Being afraid of this, they gave up their false notion, came to the right path and returned to the original school of their preceptor, after having excused the khandarakşas for the apparently harsh act. 95 (2390).

Page #119

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 95:
Now, the author explains the above-mentioned account of Niryukti in details
-
नेउण मणुप्पवाए अहिज्जओ वत्थुमास मित्तस्स । एगसमयाइवोच्छेय सुत्तओ नासपडिवत्ती ॥९६॥२३९१ ॥ उपायानंतरओ सव्वं चिय सव्वहा विणासि त्ति । गुरुवयणमेगनयमयमेयं मिच्छं न सव्वमयं ॥९७॥२३९२ ॥
96. Neunamanuppavāe ahijjao vatthumāsamittassa | Egasamayāi-voccheyasuttao nāsapadivatti (2391) 97. Uppāyānantarao savvam ciya savvahā vināsi tti | Guruvayanameganayamayameyam miccham na savvamayam (2392)
[ नैपुणमनुप्रवादेऽधीयानस्य वस्त्वश्वमित्रस्य । एकसमयादिव्यवच्छेदसूत्रतो नाशप्रतिपत्तिः ॥ ९६ ॥२३९१ ॥ उत्पादानन्तरतः सर्वमेव सर्वथा विनाशीति ॥ गुरुवचनमेकनयमतमेतद् मिथ्या न सर्वमतम् ॥९७॥२३९२ ॥
96. Naipunamanupravāde'dhiyānasya vastvaśvamitrasya । Ekasamayādi-vyavacchedasutrato nāśapratipattih (2391) 97. Utpādānantaratah sarvameva sarvathā vināśiti।
Guruvacanamekanayamatametad mithyā na sarvamatam (2392)
Trans. 96–97. While studying the Naipunika chapter in the Anupravāda (parva). Asvamitra derived the theory of (entire) destruction viz-that everything is entirely perishable after its production from the rule (laying down) the destruction (of an object) at one time etc. It is the opinion of the preceptor that it is false, because it is approved only by one point of view but not by all. ( 2391-2392 ).
टीका - ९६-९७ अनुप्रवादपूर्वमध्यगतं नैपुणं वस्त्वधीयानस्याश्वमित्रस्य पूर्वोक्तादेकसमयादिव्यवच्छेदसूत्राद् नाशप्रतिपत्तिरुत्पन्ना । कोऽर्थः १ । इत्याह"उत्पादानन्तरमेव सर्व वस्तु सर्वथा विनश्वररूपम्" इत्येवंभूतो बोधः समुत्पन्नः ।

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #120

:98
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth
अत्र प्रति-विधानार्थ गुरुवचनम्- ननु प्रतिसमयविनाशिवं वस्तूनाम् इत्येतदेकस्यैव क्षणक्षयवादिन ऋजुसूत्रनयस्य मतम् , न तु सर्वनयमतम् , ततो मिथ्यात्वमेवेति ॥२३९१॥२३९२॥
D. C. While studying the Naipuņika portion of the Anupravāda parva, Aśvamitra derived a theory from the rule laying down the theory of destruction of objects of one convention that all objects of one convention vanish entirely-in all respects-as soon as they are produced. The preceptor persuaded him not to form such a wrong notion, and said “The theory of destructibility of objects at every moment, is laid down by the kşaņaksaya-vādins only from one point of view viz-Rijusūtra nayas, but it is not true from all points of view. So, it is false.
Why is it Mithatva? न हि सव्वहा विणासोद्धापज्जायमेत्तनासम्मि । स-पर-पजायाणंतधम्मणो वत्थुणो जुत्तो ॥९८॥२३९३॥ 98. Na hi savvaha vinaso'ddhapajjayamettanasammil
Sa-para-pajjāyāṇantadhammaņo vatthuņo jutto (2393) [न हि सर्वथा विनाशोऽद्धापर्यायमात्रनाशे। स्व-पर-पर्यायानन्तधर्मणो वस्तुनो युक्तः ॥९८॥२३९३॥ 98. Na hi sarvathā vināšo’ddhāparyāyamātranāśe i
Sva-para-paryāyānantadharmaṇo vastuno yuktah (2393) ] ___ Trans. 98. Merely at the end of a ( particular) condition of time, it is not proper to admit entire destruction of an object that has innumerable qualities on account of its own, as well as, of other's. paryaya (form) 2393.
टीका-९८ न हि सर्वथैव वस्तुनो विनाशो युक्तः । क सति ? । इत्याहअहापर्यायमात्रनाशे । तत्रेहाद्धा नारकादीनामुत्पत्ति-प्रथमादिसमयः, स एव
3. According to this system of philosophy an object is perceived in its present condition only.

Page #121

Vāda ] Nihnavavāda
: 97 : पर्यायमानं तस्य नाशोऽपगमस्तस्मिन् सति । कथंभूतस्य वस्तुनः ? इत्याहख-पर-पर्यायानन्तधर्मकस्य । इदमुक्तं भवति-यस्मिन्नेर समये तद्नारकवस्तु प्रथमसमयनारकत्वेन समुच्छिद्यते तस्मिन्नेव समये द्वितीयसमयनारकत्वेनोत्पद्यते, जीवद्रव्यतया त्ववतिष्ठते । अतो यदि नामाद्धापर्यायमात्रमुच्छिन्नम्, ततःसर्वस्यापि वस्तुनः समुच्छेदे किमायातम् , अनन्तपर्यायात्मकस्य वस्तुन एकपर्यायमात्रोच्छेदे सर्वोच्छेदस्य दूरविरुद्धत्वात् ? इति ॥२३९३॥
D. C. It is not at all proper to accept the entire destruction of an object merely because a particular condition ( say, bhata paryaya or past condition) of timeis over. Every object is possessed of innumerable qualities, say for example, whenever the Nārakas perish as Nārakas of the first condition (paryāya ) of time, they do not perish entirely but they are produced immediately as Nārkas of the second condition of time, and thus continue to stay on as living matter.
It is not proper, therefore, to believe that an object which has innumerable paryāyas or forms at different conditions of time, vanishes entirely as soon as a particular paryāya or condition of time is over. 98 (2393) अह सुत्ताउ त्ति मई सुत्ते नणु सासयं पि निदि8 । वत्थु दव्वहाए असासयं पज्जयहाए ॥९९॥२३९४॥ 99. Aha suttāu tti mai sutte naņu sāsayam pi nidittham |
Vatthum davvatthae a-sāsayam pajjayatthāe (2394) [अथ सूत्रादिति मतिः सूत्रे ननु शाश्वतमपि निर्दिष्टम् । वस्तु द्रव्यार्थतयाऽशाश्वतं पर्यायार्थतया ॥९९।२३९४॥ 99. Atha sutrāditi matih satre nanu śasvatamapi nirdistami
Vastu.dravyārthatayā’śāśvatam paryāyārthatayā (2394)).
4. According to Jaina Terminology, the word 'Addha' signifies Time. Acldhāparyāya signifies the paryāya or condition of time. e. g. Varlanıāna paryāya ( Present condition) Bhūta paryāya (Past condition ) anil Bhavisya paryāya (Future condition).

Page #122

:98: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth ____ Trans. 99 If your belief is based upon (the afore-said) rule, it is also laid down in the rule that an object is imperishable by (virtue of its ) form 2394.
टीका-९९ अर्थ पूर्वोक्तालापकरूपात् सूत्रात् सूत्रप्रामाण्यात् प्रतिसमयं सर्वथा वस्तूच्छेदः प्रतिपाद्यत इति तव मतिः । ननु यदि सूत्रं तव प्रमाणम् , तर्हि सूत्रे द्रव्यार्थतया शाश्वतमपि वस्त्वन्यत्रोक्तमेव, पर्यायार्थतयैव चाशाश्वतम् , तथा च सूत्रम्-"नेरइयाणं भंते ! किं सासया, असासया ? । गोयमा ! सिय सासया, सिय असासया। से केण?णं । गोयमा ! दव्बट्टयाए सासया, भावछायाए असासया" इति ॥२३९४॥
D.C. According to you, an, object should be taken as entirely perished at every moment on the authority of the rule referred to befores.
Now, if you take the sūtra as an authority on this point there is another sūtra also which describes an object as śāśvata or imperishable by virtue of its being matter, and vinaśvara or perishable by virtue of its form
The satra runs as follows :Q. “Neraiyāņam bhante ! kim sāsaya a-sāsayā ? A. Goyamā ! siya sāsayā, siya a-sāsaya..
5. Vide verse 2390.
6. The following ālāpaka is from Bhagvati Sūtra :Q.“ Neraiyā ņam bhante ! kim sāsayā a-sāsayā ? A. Goyamā ! siya sāsaya siya a-sāsayā. Q. Se kenatthenam bhante ! javaevam vuccai " Neraiya siya
sāsaya, siya a-sāsayā ? A. Goyamā! Avvocchitti nayatthāyāe sāsayā, vocchittinayatt ha
yae asasaya. Se tena-atthenam java siya sasaya siya a-sasayā.

Page #123

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:99: Q. Se kenatthenam ? A. Goyamā ! Davvatthāe sāsayā, Bhāvatthāe 8-sāsayā. [Q. O Lord ! are the Narakas perishable or imperishable ? A. O Gautama ! they might be perishable, as well as, imperish
able also.
Q. How could that be ? A. O Gautama ! they are imperishable on account of their __matter, and perishable so far as their form is concerned.]
And, इत्थ पि न सव्वनासो समयाइविसेसणं जओऽभिहियं । इहरा न सव्वनासे समयाइविसेसणं जुत्तं ॥१००॥२३९५।। को पढमसमयनारगनासे बितिसमयनारगो नाम । न सुरो घडो अभावो व होइ जह सव्वहा नासो?॥१०१॥२३९६।। 100. Ittha vi na savvanāso samayāivisesaņam jao'bhihiyamı
Iharā na savvanáse samayaivisesaņam juttam (2395) 101. Ko padhamasamayanāraganāse bitisanayanārago nāma l
Na suro ghado abhāvo va hoi jai savvahā nāso ? (2396) [अत्रापि न सर्वनाशः समयादिविशेषणं यतोऽमिहितम् । इतरथा न सर्वनाशे समयादिविशेषणं युक्तम् ॥१००॥२३९५॥ काप्रथमसमयनारकनाशे द्वितीयसमयनारको नाम । न सुरो घटोऽभावो वा भवति यदि सर्वथा नाशः ॥१०॥२३९६॥
[ Bhagavati Satra Sataka 7 Udeśaka 3, last portion] Gujarāti Translation page 15 Part III. ]
It will be noted on comparision that though both the alapakas differ slightly in readings, there is not the slightest difference between the two, so far ar the meanings of both the ala. pakas are concerned. ]

Page #124

: 100
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth
100. Atrāpi na sarvanāśah samayādiviseṣaṇam yato’bhihitani i
Itarathā na sarvanase samayādivisesanam yuktam (2395) 101. Kah prathamasamayanārakanase dvitiyasamayanārako nāma | Na suro ghato'bhāvo vā bhavati ya li sarvathā nāśaḥ ?
(2396)] Trans. 100-101. Here also, since adjectives like samaya etc. are told, entire destruction could not (fit in). (For) otherwise, the adjectives like samaya etc. would be useless in (case of) entire destruction. How could a nāraka of the second moment come into existence when the nāraka of the first moment has (entirely) perished ? If there were entire destruction, there would be nothing like god, ghata or a-bhāva (non-existence ) 2395-2396.
टीका-१००-१०१ अत्रापि “प्रथमसमयनारका व्यवच्छेदं यास्यन्ति" इति सूत्रे न सर्वनाशः सर्वात्मना नाशो गम्यते । कुतः ? इत्याह यतो यस्मात् समयादिविशेषणमिहितम्, ततो न सर्वथा नाशोऽत्र गम्यते, किन्तु प्रथमसमयनारका व्यवच्छेत्स्यन्ति । कोऽर्थः। प्रथमसमयनारकत्वेन विनश्यन्ति । एवं द्वितीयादिसमयनारका अपि द्वितीयादिसमयनारकत्वेनैव विनङ्ख्यन्ति न तु सर्वथा, द्रव्यार्थतया शाश्वतत्वात् । इतरथा सर्वनाशेऽभियते प्रथमसमयादिविशेषणं न युक्तं स्यादिति । कथमयुक्तम् ? इत्याह-"को पढमेत्यादि" प्रथमसमयोत्पभानां हि नारकाणां सर्वथा विनाशे को नाम द्वितीय-तृतीयादिसमयनारकः ?! अवस्थितस्यैव हि कस्यचित् प्रथम-द्वितीय-तृतीयादिसमयोत्पन्नविशेषणं युज्यते। यदि तु सर्वथा नाशः तर्हि प्रथमसमयोत्पननारकस्य निरन्वयनाशेन नष्टत्वाद् द्वितीयसमयोत्पनो नारक इति व्यपदेष्टुं कथं युज्यते, यन्नारकात् सर्वथा विलक्षत्वादसौ सुरो घटोऽभावो वा नोच्यते ? । सुरादिव्यपदेशे च न द्वितीयादिसमयनारकाः। तस्मात् प्रथम-द्वितीय-तृतीयादिसमयोत्पन्ना इति विशेषणं कथश्चिदवस्थितस्यैव नारकायुज्यत इत्यस्मिन्नपि सूत्रे न नारकादेः सर्वोच्छेदः प्रतिपाद्यते । इति निर्मूल एव निजाशुभकर्मविपाकजनितस्तवैष व्यामोह इति ॥२३९॥२३९६॥
D, C. In the satra laying down that the nārakas of the first moment will meet destruction, entire destruction is not, at

Page #125

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:101: all, implied. Adjectives viz first moment, second moment eto. mentioned therein are significant." By the expression that "Nārakas of the first nioment will iaeet destruction," entire destruction of the nārakas is not meant but it only means that the nārakas of the first moment lose the property of being närakas at that time. Similarly those of the second moment lose the property of being närakas at the second moment and so on.
But nārakas would never perish entirely on account of their matter being indestructible, Thus, if the theory of entire destruction is admitted, adjectives such as prathama samaya, dvitiyasamaya eto. would not be justified. If the nārakas that were produced at previous moments had perished entirely along with those moments, how could nārakas of the second moment, and those of the third moment etc. come into existence? So, the adjectives viz prathama samayotpanna ( produced in the first moment) dvitiya samayotpanna (produced in the second moment) eto. would be justified only if the nārakas were taken as the existent beings.
In spite of all this, if you hold the theory of entire destruction, å nāraka produced at the first moment, would perish entirely, and it would not leave any scope for the production of a nāraka of the second moment. And if a náraka perishes entirely with the first moment, that which is produced at the second moment would be definitely different from the nāraka ( itself ), and hence it would never be possible to recognize, a sura, a ghata or a-bhava from it. This proves that adjectives such as prathama samayutpanna, dvitiya samayotpanna eto. could be attributed only to an existing being and to none else.
Thus, the sotra mentioned before, does not, in any way, imply entire destruction of nārakas, at the end of a particular period of time. It is only due to futile embarassment produced in you, on account of your (past) misdeeds, that you are led to hold suoh wrong notions. 100-101 (2895-2396).

Page #126

: 102:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The fourth
अहब समाणुप्पत्ती समाणसंताणओ मई होखा । को सव्वा विणासे संताणो किं व सामण्णं ? ||१२|| २३९७॥
102.
Ahava samāṇuppatti samāṇasantāṇao mai hojjā |
Ko gavvahā vināse santāno kim va sāmarnam ? ( 2397).
[ अथवा समानोत्पत्तिः समानसंतानतो मतिर्भवेत् । कः सर्वधा विनाशे संतानः किं वा सामान्यम् ? || १०२ || २३९७॥
102.
Athavā samanotpattiḥ samanasantānato matirbhavet | Kah sarvatha vināśe santānah kim vā sāmāyam ? ( 2397 ) ]
Trans. 102. Or, the belief may be that (there is) production of similar (nārakaṣ) on account of similar offsprings. (But) in (case of ) absolute destruction, what is the utility of (even) an offspring or similarity? (2397).
टीका - १०२ अथवैवंभूता मतिः परस्य भवेद्, यदुत - नारकादीनां प्रतिसमयमपरापरसमानक्षणोत्पत्तिर्भवति । ततस्तया समानक्षणोत्पस्या यः समानक्षणसंततिरूपः संतानस्तस्मात् संतानात् संतानमाश्रित्य नारकादेः कथञ्चिद् धौम्यमन्तरेणापि प्रथमद्वितीयादिसमयोत्पन्नविशेषणमुपपद्यत एव । अत्रोत्तरमाह " को सम्वहेत्यादि ” । ननु सर्वथा विनाशे समुच्छेदेऽङ्गीक्रियमाणे कः कस्य संतानः, किं वा कस्य समानम् । इति निर्निबन्धनमेवेदमुच्यते । न हि निरन्वयविनाशेऽवस्थिताः केचनापि नारकादिक्षणाः सन्ति, यानाश्रित्येदमुच्यते - " अयमेषां सन्तानः, इदं चास्य समानम्" इति ||२३९७॥
D. C.
Asvamitra :-Since narakas etc. are created at similar moments one after the other, their santanas are also created in the form of productions of similar moments, and by virtue of those santanas, adjectives such as prathama samayotpanna etc. would be justified even without any object being taken as existent.

Acarya:-When you accept the theory of entire destruction, who would be taken as whose offspring? And what would be

Page #127

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:103: similar to what ? For, in case of entire destruction, there would not exist any moment of production of nārakas etc. by virtue of which, we can say that "This is their offspring or that is similar to this." 102 (2397)
Because, संताणिणो न भिण्णो जइ संताणो न नाम संताणो। अह भिण्णो न कखणिओ खणिओ वा जइ न संताणो॥
१.३॥२३९८॥ 103. Santānino na bhinno jai santano na nāma santanor
Aha bhinmo na kkhanio khanio vā jai na santāno. (2398) [संतानिनो न भिलो यदि संतानो न नाम संतानः । अथ भिन्नोन क्षणिकः क्षणिको वा यदि न संतानः॥१०॥२३९८॥
103.
Santānino na bhinno yadi santano na nāma santanaḥI Atha bhinno na kşaņikah kşaņiko vã yadi na santānaḥ
(2398)]
Trans. 103. If an offspring is not different from (its ) generator, it is not an offsping. And, if (it is) different, it would not be momentary; (for) if it is momentary, it would not be an offspring. 2398,
टीका-१०३ यदि संतानिभ्यो न भिन्नः किन्त्वभिन्नः संतानः, सहि न नामासौ संतानः, संतानिभ्योऽनान्तरभूतत्वात् , तत्खरूपवत् । अय संतानिम्यो मिनः संतानः, तर्हि क्षणिकोऽसौ नेष्टव्यः, अवस्थितत्वाम्युपगमात् । अब क्षणिकोऽसाविष्यते तर्हि नासौ संतानः, संतानिवत् । ततस्त एव संतानामावपक्षोक्ता दोषा इति । तदेव सर्वथोच्छेदेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने संतान उत्पचत इति भावितम् ॥२३९८॥
D. C. If a santāna is not different from a santānin (generator) it would not be called a santāna, as it wonld not possess a form independent of santānin. And if it is different from Santa

Page #128

• 104:
Jinablıalra Gani's
[The fourth
nin, it would not be taken as kşaņika or transitory, because by accepting it as kşaņika, its state of retention would be accepted.
On the other hand, if a santāna is taken as kşaņika, it will no longer be existent like santānin anıl difficulties arising from the state of non-existence of santāna would crop up. So, there is no scope for the santāna to exist in the milst of absolute destruction. 103 (2398)
Continuing the same argument, the author states :--- पुव्वाणुगमे समया हुन्न न सा सव्वहा विणासम्मि । अह सा न सव्वनासो तेण समं वा नणु खपुप्फ ॥१०४॥२३९९।। 104. Puvvāņugame sanayā hujja na sā savvahā viņāsamimi Aha să na savvanāso toņa samam vā naņu khapuppham
(2399) [पूर्वानुगमे समता भवेद् न सा सर्वथा विनाशे । अथ सा न सर्वनाशस्तेन समं वा ननु खपुष्पम् ॥१०४॥२३९९॥ 104. Porvānugame samatābhaved na sā sarvathā vināśe i Atha sä na sarvanāśastena samam vā nanu khapuspam
(2399)] Trans. 104. Similarity is (possible ) only in (case of) its connection with the former (moment ), but not in the midst of) all-pervading destruction. And if it exists, there would be nothing like all-pervading destruction. Or else, even khapuspa would become similar to it. 2399.
टीका-१०४ यदि पूर्वक्षणस्योत्तरक्षणे केनापि रूपेणानुगमोऽन्वयो भवेत् तदा तत्रानुगमे पूर्वोत्तरक्षणयोः समता समानरूपता भवेत् । सर्वथा तु सर्वात्मना पूर्वक्षणस्य निरन्वयविनाशे न सा समतोत्तरक्षणस्य युज्यते । सा समता तयोरभ्युपगम्यते, तहिं तद्रूपस्य कथश्चिदवस्थितत्वाद् न पूर्वक्षणस्य सर्वथा विनाशः। अथ सर्वथा विनाशेऽपि तस्या समताऽभ्युपगम्यते, हन्त ! तर्हि तेन सर्वथाऽभावीभूतेन पूर्वक्षणेन समं तुल्यं युज्यते यदि, परं खपुष्पम् , सर्वथाभावरूपतया द्वयोरपि तुल्यत्वादिति ॥२३९१॥

Page #129

Vada ]
Nihnavavada
:105:
D. C. If the former moment is connected in any way with the later moment, there would be some sort of similarity between the former and later moments. But when there is absolute negation of the former moment, its similarity with the later moment has no place And, if there is any similarity between the two, the former moment will have to be taken as existing, awl hence, there would be no possibility of absolute negation.
Still however, if this sort of similarity is accepted by you, in spite of there being absolute destruction, why should a nonexistent object like khapuspa, also, be not taken as similar to it as the property of being non-existent is comm on to both ? 104
(2399 ).
For,
अण्णविणासे अण्णं जइ सरिसं होइ होउ तेलु । तदसंबद्धं व मई सो नि कओ सव्वनासम्मि? ॥१०५॥२४००॥ 105. Annavinase annam jai sarisam hoi hou telukkam |
Tarlasambaddham va mai so vi kao savvanāsammi ? (2400)
[अन्यविनाशेऽन्यद् यदि सदृशं भवति भवतु त्रैलोक्यम् । तदसंबद्धं वा मतिः सोऽपि कुतः सर्वनाशे ? ॥१०५॥२४००॥ 105. Anyavinase'nyad yadi sadrisam bhavati bhavatu trailokyam | Tarlasambaddham vā matih s’opi kutah sarvanāśe ? 105
(2400)]
Trans. 105. If at the destruction of one thing, something else becomes similar (to it), even (the group of) three worlds would become similar to it. Or, if it is (accepted ) on account of its being urconnected-how is that even possible in the midst of all- pervading negation. 2400.
टीका-१०५ सर्वथा निरन्वयविनाशे घटात् पट इवोत्तरक्षणात् । सर्वथाऽन्य एव पूर्वक्षणस्तस्माच्चान्य एवोत्तरक्षणः । ततः सर्वथाऽन्यस्य पूर्वक्षणस्य विनाशे तस्मात् सर्वथान्यदुत्तरक्षणरूपं यदि सदृशं भवतीत्यभ्युपेयने, नहिं भवतु त्रैलोक्य

Page #130

: 106 Jinabhastra Guni's
[The fourth मपि ततस्तत्सदृशम् , अनन्वयित्वेऽयत्वस्य सर्वत्र तुल्यत्वात् । अथ तत् त्रैलोक्यं प्रस्तुतपूर्वक्षणेन सह देशादिव्यवहितत्वादसंबद्धमिति न तत्सदृशम्, उत्तरक्षणस्तु तेन सह संबद्ध इति तत्सदृश इति परस्य मतिः स्यात् । ननु सोऽपि पूर्वोत्तरक्षणयोः संवन्धः पूर्वस्य सर्वथा विनाशे कुतः ?-न कुतश्चिदित्यर्थः, तत्संबन्धाभ्युपगमेऽन्यसंबन्धायोगेनानन्वयाभ्युपगमप्रसङ्गादिति भावः ॥२४००॥ D. C.
Ācārya :-Just as a pața is totally different from a ghaţa, the former moment is different from later moment and vice versa. Now, even when the former moment is taken to have perished entirely, if it is held that the later moment which is absolutely different from it, is similar to the former moment, the group of the Three Worlds should also be taken as similar to it, because the property of being absolutely different (from the later moment) is common there also.
Aśvan) itra :-The group of the Three Worlds, could not be taken as similar to the former moment in question, because that is not connected with it by means of time, place etc., while later moment is taken as sinuilar to the former moment, because it is connected with the former moment by means of time.
Acārya :—But how can the relation between former and later moments exist in spite of the former moment having entirely perished ? Such a relation can never exist without accepting the context, and hence, the state of retention or existence of the former moment in question, 105 (2400)
Besides, किह वा सव्वं खणियं विण्णायं जइ मई सुयाउ ति। तदसंखसमयसुत्तत्थगहणपरिणामओ जुत्तं ॥१०६॥२४०१॥ न उ पइसमयविणासे जेणिकिक्सक्खरं चिय पयस्स । संखाईयसामइयं संखिज्जाइं पयं ताई ॥१०७॥२४०२॥ संखिजपयं वकं तदत्थग्गहणपरिणामओ हुज्जा । मन्वकम्बणभंगनाणं तदजुत्तं समयनहस्स ॥१०८॥२४०३॥

Page #131

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 107: 106. Kiha vā savvam khaniyam viņņāyam jai mai suyāu til
Tadasankhasamayasuttatthagahanaparināmao juttam (2401) 107. Na u paisamayaviņāse jeņikkikkakkharam ciya payassa 1
Sankhāiyasāmaiyam sunkhijjāim payam táim (2402) 106. Sankhijjapayam vakkam tadatthaggahaņapariņāmao hujjā. 1 Savvakkhaṇabhanganāņam tadajuttam samayanaţthassa.
(2403) [कथं वा सर्व क्षणिकं विज्ञातं यदि मतिः श्रुतादिति । तदसंख्यसमयसूत्रार्थग्रहणपरिणामतो युक्तम् ॥१०६॥२४०१॥ न तु प्रतिसमयविनाशे येनैकैकाक्षरमेव पदस्य । संख्यातीतसामयिक संख्यातानि पदं तानि ॥१०७॥२४०२॥ संख्यातपदं वाक्यं तदर्थग्रहणपरिणामतो भवेत् । सर्वक्षणभङ्गज्ञानं तदयुक्तं समयनष्टस्य ॥१०८॥२४०३॥ 106. Katham vā sarvam kşaņikam vijnātam yadi natiḥ śrutā
ditin Tadasankyasamayasutrārthagrahaņapariņāmato yuktam
106 (2401) 107. Na tu pratisarnayavināśe yenaikaikāk arameva padasyal
Sankhyātītasāmayikam sankhyātāni padam tāni 107 (2402) 108. Sankhyātapadam vākyam taclarthagrahaņapariņāmato bhavet Sarvakṣaṇabhangaznānam tarlayuktam samayanastasya
___108 (2403)]. Trans. 106-107-108. Or, if it is asked “How is everything recognized as momentary?" (The answer is) "From the Holy writ." It is proper (to take it ) as a result of the comprehension of the meanings of innumerable sūtras, but not (as a result of) the destruction (taking place ) at every
moment. Each syllable of a word (is produced) at an incalcu. lable portion of time. A word consists of a definite number of those ( syllables ), and a sentence is composed of certain

Page #132

: 108: Jinabhaira Gani's
[The fourth number of words. At the comprehension of its meaning, knowledge of all-pervading transitoriness (is attained). (But) that is misfitted to one (whose mind) perishes (soon after) the time of production 2401-2402-2403.
टीका-१०६-१०७-१०८ "वा" इत्यथवा, पर्यनुयुज्यते भवान् । ननु "सर्व वस्तु क्षणिकम्” इत्येतत् कथं भवता विज्ञातमिति वक्तव्यम् ? । श्रुतादिति चेत् । ननु तत् श्रुतादर्थविज्ञानमसंख्येयममयनिष्पन्नो यः सूत्रार्थग्रहणपरिणामस्तस्मादेव युक्तम् , न तु पतिसमयविनाशे। इदमुक्तं भवति-असंख्येयानेव समयान् यावच्चित्तस्यावस्याने "सर्व क्षणिकम्" इति विज्ञानोपयोगो युज्यते, न तु पतिसमयोच्छेदे । अत्र कारणमाह-येन यस्मात् कारणात् पदस्य सावयवत्वात् वत्संबध्येकैकमप्यक्षरं संख्यातीतसामयिकमसंख्यातः समयैर्निष्पद्यत इत्यर्थः, तानि चाक्षराणि संख्यातानि समुदितानि पदं भवति । संख्यातैश्च पदैर्वाक्यं निष्पद्यते, तदर्थग्रहणपरिणामाच वाक्यार्थग्रहणपरिणामादित्यर्थः, सर्वक्षणभङ्गज्ञानं भवेत् । तच्चोत्पत्तिसमयानन्तरमेव नष्टस्य समुच्छिन्नस्य मनसोऽयुक्तमेवेति ॥ २४०११॥२४०२॥२४०३१॥
D. C.
Aśvamitra :-How coull you apprehend that everything is kșanika ?
Ācārya :-From the Holy writ. Apprehension of ksanikatā from the Holy writings, is justifiable only as a result of the apprehension of the meanings of sutras, but not as a result of destruction taking place at every moment. Every syllable of a word is produced at an incalculable moment. A word consists of a number of such syllables and a sentence is made up of a number of words. When the meaning of such sentences is comprehended, knowledge of all-pervailing transitoriness is attained. But it should be noted that such a knowleilge is not attainable to one whose mind perishes soon after the time of its pruiluction. 106 - 108. (2401-2403)
And,

Page #133

:109:
Vada]
Nihnavavāsia तित्ती समो किलामो सारिक्ख-विवक्ख-पच्चयाईणि । अज्झयणं शाण भावणा य का सव्वनासम्नि? ॥१०९॥२४०४॥ 109. Titti samo kilāmo sārikkha-vivakkha-paccayāīņi 1
Ajjhayaņam jhāņa bhāvaņā ya kā savvanásammi? (2404) [तृप्तिः श्रमः क्लमः सादृश्य-विपक्ष-प्रत्ययादीनि । __ अध्ययनं-ध्यानं भावना च का सर्वनाशे १ ॥१०९॥२४०४॥
109.
Triptih śramaḥ klamah sādrisya-vipakşa-pratyayādīni i Adhyayanam dhyānam bhāvanā ca kā sarvanāśa ? 109 (2404)].
Trans. 109. And, in (the midst of) absolute destruction, ___how could satiety, exertion, languor, similarity, distinction,
etc; as well as, study, meditation, and imagination exist ? (2404).
___टीका-१०९ तृप्तिर्धाणिः, मार्गगमनादिप्रवृत्तस्य खेदः श्रमः, क्लमो ग्लानिः, सादृश्यं साधर्म्यम् , विपक्षो वैधर्म्यम्, प्रत्ययः प्रत्यभिज्ञानादि, आदिशब्दात् स्वनिहितप्रत्यनुमार्गण-स्मरणादिपरिग्रहः। अध्ययनं पुनःपुनर्ग्रन्थाभ्यासः, ध्यानमेकावलम्बने मनास्थैर्यम् , भावना पौनः पुन्येनानित्यत्वादिप्रकारतो भवनर्गुण्यपरिभावनरूपा । एतानि सर्वाण्यप्युत्पत्त्यनन्तरमेव वस्तुनः सर्वनाशेऽङ्गी क्रियमाणे कथमुपपद्यन्ते ? इति ॥२४०४॥
D. C. If the theory of entire destruction of an object (at every moment ) is accepted, everything will be destroyed immediately after its production. Consequently, there will be no place for feelings like those of satiety, exertion or fatigue. There will be nothing like similarity, dissimilarity, belief or remembrance, and there will be no scope for study, meditation or imagination 109 (2404).
अण्णण्णो पइगासं भुत्ता अंते न सो वि का तित्ती। tan: गंतावो वि एवं इय संववहारवुच्छिती ॥११॥२४०५॥

Page #134

: 110:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth
110. Aņņaņņo paigāsam bhuttā ante na so vi kā titti ?
Gantadao vi evam iya samvavahāravucchitti (2405) [अन्योऽन्यः प्रतिग्रासं भोक्ताऽन्ते न सोऽपि का तृप्तिः । गन्त्रादयोऽप्येवमिति संव्यवहारव्युच्छित्तिः ॥११०॥२४०५॥ 110. Anyo'nyan pratigrāsam bhoktā'nte na so’pi kā triptih ?!
Gantrāılayo'pyevamiti samvyavahāravy ucсhittih (2405))
Trans. 110. (In case of entire destruction) an eater would be different at every mouthful, (and) at the end (he would exist ) no more. (Hence) how could there be (the feeling of) satisfaction at all? The same will be the condition of those who move, ect. In this way, there would be violation of the (whole of ) vyavahāra. 2405.
टीका-११० "ग्रसु ग्लसु अदने" असनं ग्रासः कवलक्षेपः, अस्यत इति या ग्रासः कवलः। ततश्च प्रतिग्रासं प्रतिकवलं भोक्ता देवदत्तः क्षणिकत्वादन्यशान्यश्च भवति, भोजनक्रियायाश्चान्ते पर्यन्ते सोऽपि भोक्ता सर्वथा न भवति, भजिक्रियाविशेषणस्याभावे तद्विशिष्टस्य देवदत्तस्यापि सर्वथोच्छेदात् । ततश्चैकस्मिनन्त्यकवलप्रक्षेपे का तृप्तिः, भोक्तुश्चाभावात् कस्यासौ तृप्तिः। एवमुक्तानुसारेण मन्त्रादीनामपि श्रमायभावः स्वबुद्धया भावनीय इति । एवं समस्तलोकव्यवहारोच्छेदप्रसक्तिरिति ॥२४०५।।
__D. C. In case of there being entire destruction (at every moment ), one who eats would be different at every mouthful of food on account of his being kşaņika. In absence of the process of eating, the eater will also perish at the end. Hence, how could there be a feeling of satisfaction at the last mouthful, and in absence of eater, who will experience the feeling of satisfaction?
In the same way, those who move would not feel exertion, and so on. Ultimately this would lead the entire vyavahāra to nothing.
Here the opponent would sayजेणं चिय पहगासं भिन्ना तित्ती अओ चिय विणासो। तित्तीए तित्तस्स य एवं चिय सव्वसंसिद्धी ॥१११॥२४०६॥

Page #135

Vācla] Nilma vavā la
: 111: 111. Jenam ciya paigāsam bhinnā titti ao ciya viņaso 1
Tittie tittassa ya evan ciya savvasamsiddhi (2106) येनैव प्रतिग्रासं भिन्ना तृप्तिरत एव विनाशः। तृप्तेस्तृप्तस्य-चैवमेव सर्वसंसिद्धिः॥१११॥२४०६॥ 111. Yonaiva pratigrāsam bhinnā triptirata cva vināśah !
Triptostriptasya caivameva sarvalsavisildhih (2406) ] __Trans. 1|| On the ground on which ( feeling of ) satisfaction is different from each mouthful, (the feeling of) satis. faction and the one who is satisfied attain destruction. The same will be the condition of everything. 2406.
टीका-१११ येनैव यत एव प्रतिग्रासमन्योऽन्यश्च भोक्ता भवति, अपरापरा च तृप्तिमात्रा भवति, अत एव तृप्तः, तृप्तस्य च प्रतिक्षणं विनाशोऽभ्युपगम्यतेऽ स्माभिः, विशेषणभेदे विशेष्यस्याप्यवश्यं भेदात् , अन्यथा विशेषणभेदस्याप्ययोगात् । प्रतिक्षणविनाशित्वे तृप्त्याद्ययोगोऽभिहित एवेति चेत् । तदयुक्तम् । कुतः ? इत्याह-"एवं चिय सबसंसिद्धि ति" एवमेव प्रतिक्षणविनाशित्व एव सर्वस्यापि तृप्ति-श्रम-क्लमादेर्लोकव्यवहारस्यसंसिद्धिः । इदमुक्तं भवति-तृप्त्यादिवासनावासितः पूर्वपूर्वक्षणादुत्तरोत्तरक्षणः समुत्पद्यते तावत् यावत् पर्यन्त उत्कर्ष. वन्तस्तृप्त्यादयो भवन्ति । एतच क्षणिकत्व एवोपपद्यते, न नित्यत्वे । नित्यस्थाअच्युता-ऽनुत्पन्न-स्थिरैकस्वभावत्वेन सर्वदेव तृप्त्यादिसद्भावात्, सर्वदैव तदभावादवेति ॥२४०६॥ D. C.
Aśvamitra :- Just as an cater of each monthful differs from another, so also, every portion of the feeling of satisfaction differs from another. This makes both the satisfaction and the satisficr, ksanika (destructible) at every moment. If the visesana. ( adjective ) is different, the viścsya (the object which is qualified by it) should alse be different; otherwise there would be no justification of visesaņa.
Here it is not proper to advance the argument that feelings of satisfaction etc. could not exist in case of momcntariness

Page #136

: 112 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth taking place at every moment. Because, it is only in that condition (i. e. only in case of there being destructibility at every
moment) that the worldly feelings of satisfaction, exertion, gloorminess etc., would be established. The later moments that are filled with feelings of satisfaction etc. are produced from the corresponding former moments, one after the other, until feelings of satisfaction etc. become extremely powerfal. All this is possi. ble only, if the object is perishable, instearl of its being imperishable or nitya. That which is nitya is nevet produced or destroyed but is always retained steadily, in one condition. In such a case, feelings of satisfaction etc. would either be wholly accepted or wholly rejected. 111 (2406)
The answer is पुग्विल्लसदनासे वुडढी तित्ती य किंनिमित्ता तो?। अह सा वि तेऽणुवत्तइ सव्वविणासो कहं जुत्तो ? ॥११२॥२४०७।। 112. Puvvillasavvanāse vuddhi titti ya kimnimittā to ? |
Aha sā vi te’ņuvattai savvaviņāso kahan jutto ? (2407)
[पूर्वसर्वनाशे वृद्धिस्तृप्तिश्च किंनिमित्ता ततः ।
अथ सापि तेऽनुवर्तते सर्वविनाशः कथं युक्तः ॥११२॥२४०७॥ 112. Parvasarvanase vriddhistriptisea kim-nimittā tatah ? |
Atha sāpi te’nuvartate sarvavināsah katham yuktah? 112 (2407)].
Trans 112 If there is entire destruction of the previous moments, how are the (gradual) rise, as well as, the (feeling of) satisfaction accounted for? And, if they, too, follow (the later moments) how will (the theory of) entire destruction be justified ? 2407.
टीका-११२ "तो ति" यद्येवम्, ततः पूर्वक्षणस्य सर्वथा विनांश उत्तरोत्तरक्षणेषु तृप्त्यादीनां या क्रमेण वृद्धिरुत्कर्षवती पर्यन्ते तृप्तिः श्रमादिसंभूतिश्च सा किंनिमित्ता किंकारणा ? इति वक्तव्यम् ? । पूर्वपूर्वक्षणेनोत्तरोत्तरक्षणस्य या

Page #137

:113:
Vāda ]
Nihnavavāda तृप्त्यादिवासना जन्यते तन्निमित्तेति चेत् । न, तस्यास्तदनन्तरत्वे पूर्वपूर्वक्षणनाशे नाशात् । अथोत्तरोत्तरक्षणेषु सानुवर्तत एवेति ते तवाभिप्रायः, तहिं पूर्वपूर्वक्षणस्य सर्वविनाशः कथं युक्तो वक्तुम् , तदनन्तरभूततृप्त्यादिवासनाया समनुवर्तनात् ? इति ॥२४०७॥
D. C.
Acārya:-If it is so, how woull tho graulual development of the feelings of satisfaction etc. that are found during the respective later moments, and the production of the feelings of satisfuction etc. be accounted for ?
Asvamitra :--Feelings of satisfaction etc. are produced by the instincts of satiety etc. produced in the later moments by means of former ones,
Acārya :-That is not so. Since those instincts are similar to the corresponding former moments, they would perish along with those moments.
Aśvamitra :-Feelings of satisfaction etc., are produced in later moments, in as much as they are continued in the later moments after their production during the respective former moments.
Acārya :- In believing so, as you assume the continuation of the feelings of satisfaction etc., that are similar to the former moments, you will not be able to justify the theory of entire destruction of an object along with the former moments during which it is produced. 112 (2407)
Also, दिक्खा व सव्वनासे किमत्थमहवा मई विमोक्खत्थं । सो जइ नासो सव्वस्स तो तओ किं व दिखाए ? ॥११३॥२४०८॥
113.
Dikkha ra savvanase kimatthamahava mai vimokkhattham| So jai nāso savvassa to taö kim va dikkhãe ? (2408)

Page #138

: 114: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth [दीक्षा वा सर्वनाशे किमर्थमथवा मतिर्विमोक्षार्थम् ।
स यदि नाशः सर्वस्य ततः सकः किं वा दीक्षया ? ॥११३॥२४०८॥ 113. Diksa vā sarvanaśc kimarthamathavā matirvinokşārtham | Sa yadi nāśaḥ sarvasya tataḥ sakah kim v. dikşayā ?
___]13 (2408)] Trans. 113. Or, in (case of) entire destruction, what is the utility of diksā ? Or, it may be) your belief that it is for the sake of Final Emancipation. If that (mokşa) itself is (susceptible to) destruction, then, it would be (attainable) to all. And hence, what (would be) the purpose of dikşā ? 2408
टीका-११३ दीक्षा वा क्षणानां सर्वनाशे किमर्थमिति वाच्यम् ? निरथिकेयमिति भावः । अथ मोक्षार्थ दीक्षेति परस्य मतिः, तद्यत्रापि वक्तव्यम्-स मोक्षो नाशरूपो वाऽभ्युपगम्यते, अनाशरूपो वा ? । तत्र “सो जइ नासो ति" स मोक्षो यदि नाशरूप इति पक्षः, "सव्वस्स तो त उ ति" ततस्तहिं तकोऽसौ मोक्षः सर्वस्यापि वस्तुनः स्वरसतः प्रयत्नमन्तरेणापि त्वदभिप्रायेण सिद्ध एव, किं दीक्षाप्रयत्नेन इति ॥२४०८॥
D. C. According to your theory of entire destruction, diksa has no utility. If you argue that dikşā is useful for the attain. ment of moksa, then, is that moksa. perishable or imperishable ? If it is perishable, it would become accessible to all living beings without any effort on their part, and then, it would lose its importance. 113 (2408).
And, अह निचो, न क्खणियं तो सव्वं अह मई ससंताणो। अहउ त्ति तओ दिक्खा निस्संताणस्स मुक्खो त्ति ॥११४॥२४०९।। 114. Aha niceo, na kkhaniyam to savvam aha mai sa-santānot
Ahau tti taö dikkha nissantāṇassa mukkho tti. (2409) [अथ नित्यो, न क्षणिकं ततः सर्वमथ मतिः स्वसंतानः । अहत इति ततो दीक्षा निःसंतानस्य मोक्ष इति ॥११४॥२४०९॥

Page #139

Vada]
Nihnavavāda
:115:
114.
Atha nityo, na ksanikam tatah sarvamatha. matih svasantanahi Ahata iti tato diksa nihsantānasya moksa iti 114 (2409)]
___ Trans. 114. If it is imperishable, you cannot hold that everything is transitory. Here, it might be said that since one's own continuous range ( santati) does not break off, dikşā becomes necessary (for the purpose of breaking it off.) (For) Final Emancipation (moksa) is attainable (only) to a niḥsantāna being (i e. one who does not possess the conti nuous range of birth, death etc. any more.) 2409
टीका-११४ अथ नित्यो मोक्षः “तो ति" ततस्तर्हि "सर्ववस्तु क्षणिकम्" इत्येतद् न भवति, मोक्षेणैव व्यभिचारात् । अथ स्व आत्मीयो विज्ञान-वेदनासंज्ञा-संस्कार-रूपात्मकस्कन्धस्य संतानो नाद्यापि हतः, निःसंतानस्यैव च मोक्षः, अतो निःसंतानार्थ दीक्षा विधीयत इति ॥२४०९॥ D. C.
____Acarya :-If noksa is nitya, you cannot assert that everything is ksaņika.
Aśvamitra :--Since mokṣa is attainable only to one who is nihsantāna, diksă is useful for one to become nihsantāna (One is said to be niņsantāna when the continuous range of the moments of cognition, sentiments, consciousness, and perfection etc. with regard to an object, is cut off)
The Acārya answers this argument as follows :छिण्णेणाछिण्णेण व किं संताणेण सव्वनदृस्स । किंचाभावीभूयस्स स-पर-संताणचिंताए ? ॥११५॥२४१०॥ 115. Chinnenachinnena va kim santānena savvanatthassa |
Kincābhāvībhuyassa sa-para-santāṇacintāe ? (2410) [छिन्नेनाच्छिन्नेन वा किं संतानेन सर्वनष्टस्य । किश्चाऽभावीभूतस्य स्व-पर-संतानचिन्तया ? ॥११५॥२४१०॥

Page #140

: 116:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth
115. Cohinnenacchinnena vā kim santānena sarvapastasyai
Kinca'bhavibhutasya sva-para-santānacintaya ? 115 (2410)]
Trans. 115. What is the use of santāna being broken or unbroken to one who has perished entirely ? And, what is the good of worrying as to whether it is one's own santāna or some one else's, when one is entirely reduced to nothing ? 2410.
___ टीका-११५ सर्वनष्टस्य सर्वप्रकारैविनाशमापत्रस्य च्छिन्नेन, अच्छिन्भेन वा, संतानेन किं प्रयोजनम् , येन संतानहननार्थ दीक्षां गृहणीयात् । किन, सर्वथाऽभावीभूतस्य क्षणभङ्गुरतया सर्वथा विनष्टस्य किमनया चिन्तया-अयं वसंतानः, अयं तु परसंतानः, अयं तु न हतः, येनोच्यते-“ससंताणो अहउ ति तो दिक्खा" इति ? ॥२४१०॥ D. C.
Ācārya :--It is no use discussing as to whether santāna is broken or unbroken, when one has entirely perished. And hence, what is the good of dikşā also ? There is no sense in worrying that, " This is my santana" " That is another's santana" "This is broken" That is not broken" etc. when there is entire negation of everything. So, the expression that “ Diksā is useful to one who is nihsantana," also proves futile. 115 (2410) सव्वं पायं व खणियं पवते नासवरिसणाउ ति। नणु इत्तो चिय न खणियमंले मासोवलद्धीओ ॥११६॥२४११॥ 116. Savvam payam va khaniyam pajjante nāsadarisaņāu tti
Naņu itto cciya na khaniyamante nāsovaladdhiö. (2411) [सर्व पय इव क्षणिकं पर्यन्ते नाशदर्शनादिति । नन्वित एव न क्षणिकमन्ते नाशोपलब्धेः ॥११६।२४११॥ 116. Sarvam paya iva ksanikam paryante nāsadarsanaditil
Nanvita eva na ksanikamante nasopalabdheh 116 (2411)]
Trans. 116. Everything is momentary like milk on account of the apprehension of destruction at the end. On the same

Page #141

Vada] Nihnavavada
: 117: ground, it is not momentary, because of the apprehension of destruction at the end." 2411.
टीका-११६ सर्व वस्तु क्षणिकम् , पर्यन्ते नाशदर्शनात् , पयोवदिति । आह -ननु यदि वस्तूनां पर्यन्ते नाशो दृश्यते, तर्हि प्रतिक्षणविनाशित्वे किमायातम् , येन सर्व क्षणिकमुच्यते । सत्यम् , किन्त्वयमिह तदभिप्रायः-पर्यन्तेऽमि घटादीनां विनाशस्तावद् निर्हेतुक एव भवति, मुद्रादेविनाशहेतोरयोगात्, तथाहि-मुद्रादिना किं घट एव क्रियते, कपालानि वा, तुच्छरूपोऽभावो वा ? इत्यादियुक्तितो विनाशस्य नितुकत्वं प्रागौव दर्शितम् । ततो निर्हेतुकोऽसौ भवनादित एव भवतु, अन्यथा पर्यन्तेऽपि तदभवनप्रसङ्गादिति पर्यन्ते नाशदर्शनाद् हेतोः क्षणिकत्वसिद्धिः।
अत्र सूरिः प्राह-नन्वेतस्मादेव पर्यन्ते नाशदर्शनलक्षणाद्धेतोरस्माभिरेतन्छक्यते वक्तुम् । किम् ? इत्याह-न क्षणिकं न प्रतिक्षणं वस्तु विनश्यतीत्यर्थः, पर्यन्त एव तमाशोपलब्धेः, घटादिवत् । न च युक्तिबाधितत्वाद् प्रान्तेयमुपलब्धिरिति शक्यते वक्तुम् , सर्वेषां सर्वत्रेत्थमेव प्रवर्तनात्, युक्तीनामेवानया बाधनात् , शून्यवादियुक्तिवदिति ॥२४११॥ D. C.
Aśvamitra :--Everything is transitory, like milk, because of the apprehension of destruction at the end.
Ācārya :--If the destruction of an object is apprehended at the end, how could that, and hence everything, be said to be momentary?
Aśvamitra :--The main purport of my argument is this. Destruction of objects like ghata etc. apprehended at the end, is causeless in absence of destructive instruments like hammer etc. If the instruments like hammer etc. work as the causes, causelessness of destruction could easily be established by arguments like this :- When an object is destroyed by means of hammer etc. What is produced ? Ghata, its fragments or the non-existence (itself)? This being causeless, destruction takes place in the beginning and is apprehended at the end. Thus, momentariness

Page #142

: 118: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth of an object is established, because of the apprehension of destruction at the end.
Ācārya :-We establish indestructibility of an object on the same ground on which you try to prove its transitariness. Since destruction of an object is apprehended at the end, it does not perish entirely at every moment like ghata etc. It is, also, not possible for you to say that such an apprehension is nothing but an illusion, because it is bound by logical limits. Because, the condition of all objects is the same everywhere. 116 (2411)
And, इहराइड चिय तओ दीसेजंते व्व कीस व समाणो। सव्वविणासे नासो दीसइ अंते न सोऽन्नत्थ ? ॥११७॥२४१२॥ 117. Iharāiu cciya taö disejjante vya kisa va samāņo
Savvaviņāse nāso disai ante na so'nnattha ? (2412) [इतरथादित एव सको दृश्येतान्ते इव कस्माद् वा समानः । सर्वविनाशे नाशो दृश्यतेऽन्ते न सोऽन्यत्र ? ॥११७॥२४१२॥ 117. Itarathādita eva sako drişyetānte iva kasmād vā samānaḥ 1
Sarvavinase naso drisyate'nte na so'nyatra ? (2412)]
Trans. 117. Otherwise, it would be seen right from the beginning, just as (it would be seen) at the end. Or, why would destruction be not seen anywhere else, but at the end, when the entire destruction (of an object) applies equally everywhere ? 2412.
टीका-११७ इतरथा यदि प्रतिक्षणं नाशो भवेत् तदा यथा पर्यन्ते सर्वेणापि भवनसौ दृश्यते, तथा आदित एवादि-मध्येषु सर्वत्र तकोऽसौ नाशो दृश्येत । अथ पर्यन्तेऽसौ दृश्यते नादि-मध्येषु, किं कुर्मः ?। तहिं प्रष्टव्योऽसि । किम् ? इत्याह-"कीस वेत्यादि" किमिति चासो नाशो वस्त्वभावरूपतया सर्वत्र समानो निरवशेषस्वरूपोऽपि सन् सर्वविनाशे मुद्गरादिना विहिते दृश्यत उपल. क्ष्यतेऽन्ते पर्यन्ते, न पुनरन्यत्रादि-मध्येषु सर्वत्र भवताऽभ्युपगतोऽप्यसो भवनपलक्ष्यत इत्यत्र कारणं वाच्यम् ?, न पुनः पादप्रसारिका श्रेयस्करीति भावः ॥२४१२॥

Page #143

Vala) Nihnavavārla
:119: D. C.
Acārya :--If the object is perishable at every moment, destruction ought to have been apprehended in the beginning, and in the middle, just as it is apprehended at the end.
Aśvamitra :---It is apprchcnded neither in the beginning, nor in the midille, but any how at the end.
Acārya:--Though we believe that destruction (i. c. negation of an object) is equal in the beginning, as well as in the middle, how is it that it is apprehended only at the end, when beaten by hammer etc., and neither in the beginning nor at the middle ? 117 (2412)
Also, अंते व सव्वनासो पडिवणणो केण जदुवलद्धीओ। कप्पेसि क्खणविणासं नणु पन्जायंतरं तं पि ॥११८॥२४१३॥ 118. Ante va. savvanāso padivanno kena. jaduvaladdhio |
___Kappesi kkhanavinasam nanu pajjayantaram tam pi (2413) [अन्ते वा सर्वनाशः प्रतिपन्नः केन यदुपलब्धेः । कल्पयसि क्षणविनाशं ननु पर्यायान्तरं तदपि ॥११८॥२४१३॥ 118. Ante vā sarvanasah pratipannah kena yadupalabdheh । Kalpayasi kşaņavināśam nanu paryāyāntaram tadapi 118
(2413)] Trans. 118. Or, who has established (the theory of) entire destruction that you believe in transitariness (of an object ) by the apprehension (of destruction ) at the end ? In fact, that is nothing but another form (of the object) 2413.
टीका-११८ यदि वा, भोः क्षणभङ्गवादिन् ! अन्ते पर्यन्तेऽपि मुद्गरादिसंनिधाने घटादिवस्तुनः सर्वनाशः सर्वथा विनाशः केन प्रतिवादिना जैनेनाभ्युपगतः? यदुपलब्धेर्यदर्शनावष्टम्भेन त्वं क्षणभङ्गरूपं प्रतिक्षणविनाशं कल्पयसि घटादेः ? । यदि मुद्गरादिसंनिधाने सर्वविनाशस्तस्य जैनेनाभ्युपगम्यते, तहिं तदवस्थायां घटो न दृश्यते, कपालान्येव च दृश्यन्त इत्येतत् किमिष्यते ?

Page #144

• 120
Jinabhadra Gani's [The fourth इत्याह-"नवित्यादि" नन्वहो ! मृदूपतयाऽवस्थितस्यैव घटद्रव्यस्य भूतभविष्यदनन्तपर्यायापेक्षया तदपि पर्यायान्तरं पर्यायविशेष एव कपालानि, न पुनस्तदानी घटस्य सर्वथा विनाशः, मृदूपतया अप्यभावप्रसङ्गात् , तथा च कपालानाममुद्रूपतापत्तेरित्यसिद्धिः पर्यन्ते सर्वनाशस्येति ॥२४१३॥ D. C.
Acārya :--Who has almitted the theory of entire destruction of an object that you establish transitariness (of an object) like ghata by apprehending its destruction at the end when beaten by ( an instrument like ) hammer ?
Ašvamitra :--If you do not believe in entire destruction fo an object like ghata when beaten by an instrument like hammer, how is it that instead of ghata, its fragments are seen ?
Acărya:-Fragments of ghata are nothing but one of the various paryayas (forms) of ghata itself, existing primarily as earth. Ghata, therefore, does not vanish entirely at that time. If it vanished entirely at the first moment, when struck by hammer, it ought to vanish as earth also. Fragments of the vessel will also cease to exist as a paryāya of earth as a result of that.
Thus, the theory that entire destruction is apprehended at the end, is proved to be logically false. 118 (2413)
Besides, जेसि व न पळते विणासदरिसणमिहंबराईणं । तत्रिचन्भुवगमओ सव्वक्वणविणासिमयहाणी ॥११९॥२४१४॥ 119. Jesim va na pajjante vināsadarisanamihambarainam।
___ Tanniccabbhuvagamay savvakkhanavināsimayahani. (2414) [येषां वा न पर्यन्ते विनाशदर्शनमिहाम्बरादीनाम् । तनित्याभ्युपगमतः सर्वक्षणविनाशिमतहानिः ॥११९॥२४१४॥ 119. Yeşām va na paryante vināšadarśanamihāmbarādinām i Tannityābhyupagamataḥ sarvaksaņavinasimatahāniḥ 119
(2414)]

Page #145

:121
Vada]
Nihnavavada Trans. 119. Or, by apprehending sky etc., whose destruction is not apprehended at the end, as it is imperishable, (your) theory of entire destruction of everything would be refuted. 2414.
टीका-११९ घटादीनां तावत् पर्यन्ते सर्वनाशदर्शनात् प्रसङ्गेनादित एव प्रतिक्षणनश्वरतां साधयति भवान् , ततो येषामम्बरादीनां व्योम-काल-दिगादिनां पर्यन्ते विनाशदर्शनं कदाचिदपि नास्ति, तेष्वस्मात् प्रसङ्गसाधनात् प्रतिसमयनश्वरत्वं न सिध्यति । ततस्तेषां नित्यत्वमेवाभ्युपगन्तव्यम् । तनित्यत्वाभ्युपगमे च "सर्व क्षणिकम्" इति व्याप्तिपरं यद् मतं भवतस्तस्य हानिरघटमानतैव प्रामोतीति ॥२४१४॥
___D. C. By the example of ghata etc. you try to establish the theory that everything is kşaņika. But elements like sky, time, space etc., are never apprehended as perishing at the end. You cannot apply your theory of entire destruction to them. On the contrary, you shall have to accept them as nitya or imperishable, refuting your own theory of sarva-ksanikata (all-pervading transitoriness ). 119 (2414)
Also, पज्जायनयमयमिणं जं सव्वं विगम-संभव-सहावं । दव्वट्टियस्स निचं एगयरमयं च मिच्छत्तं ॥१२०॥२४१५॥ 120. Pajjāyanayamayamiņam jam savvam vigama-sambhava
sahāvami
Davvatthiyassa niccam egayaramayam ca micchattam (2415) [पर्यायनयमतमिदं यत् सर्व विगम-संभव-स्वभावम् । द्रव्यार्थिकस्य नित्यमेकतरमतं च मिथ्यात्वम् ॥१२०॥२४१५॥ 120. Paryāyanayamatamidam yat sarvam vigama-sambhava
svabhăvam | Dravyārthikasya nityamekataramatam ca Mithyātvam
(2415)] Trans. 120. That everything is susceptible to destruction and production, is the opinion of the (followers) of the Paryāya

Page #146

: 122:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth naya (school). (But) according to a Dravyarthika it is imperishable. Either of the two view-points is wrong. 2415.
8
टीका - १२० पर्यायवादिन एवं नयस्येदं मतं यत् त्वं ब्रूषे:- सर्वमेव त्रिभुव नान्तरर्गतं वस्तु विगम - संभव - स्वभावं प्रतिक्षणमुत्पद्यते विनश्यति चेत्यर्थः । द्रव्यमेवार्थो यस्य न पर्याया स द्रव्यार्थिकस्तस्य तु द्रव्यार्थिकनयस्य तदेव सर्व वस्तु नित्यं मतम् । एवं च स्थिते यद् भवानेकतरस्यैव पर्यायनयस्य प्रतिक्षणविनश्रात्वलक्षणं मतमभ्युपगच्छति तद् मिध्यात्वमेवेति मुश्चेदमिति भावः ॥२४१५॥
D. C. Your view-point is like that of a follower of the Paryaya-naya school, which takes every object in this Universe as susceptible to production and destruction at every moment by its very nature.
But according to the school of Dravyarthikas, dravya or the elementary substance, of which an object is made, (and not the paryāyas or forms which an object exhibits at different times), is given importance. So, according to them, everything is nitya or eternal.
7. According to the followers of the Paryaya naya school or the school of Rotation, various forms that an object holds at various times, are taken as the object itself, rendering the object thereby as susceptible to production and destruction.
the
8. Dravyarthika is one who takes dravya (matter) as artha (object; itself, that is to say, dravya or the elementary substance, of which an object is actually composed (and not the paryaya or form), is the object itself according to this school rendering it imperishable.
In the Nyaya Philosophy, there are nine kinds of dravya viz Prithvi, Ap, Tejas, Vāyu, Ākāśa, Kāla, Diś, Atman, and Manah. But according to the Jainas, there are only six types of dravya viz- Dharmasti Kaya, 2. A-dharniästi Kāya, 3. Ākāśāsti Kaya, 4. Pudgalāsti Kaya, 5. Jivāsti Kaya, and 6. Kala.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #147

Vāda ] Nihnavavāda
:123: According to you, everything is kşaạika or destructible at every moment, as the paryāya vanishes soon after its production.
Now, both these view-points are extreme and exclusive so far as entire Truth is concerned. As you cling to one of them exclusively, your argument is not true wholly, but partially only. And hence, it cannot be accepted as a general principle. 120 (2415). जमणंतपज्जयमयं वत्थु भुवणं व चित्तपरिणामं । ठिइ-विभव-भंगरूवं निचानिचाइतोऽभिमयं ।।१२१॥२४१६॥ 121. Jamaņantapajjayamnyam vatthum bhuvaņam va cittapari
nāmam 1
Thii-vibhava-bhangaruvam niceāniccāito’bhimayam (2416) [यदनन्तपर्यवमयं वस्तु भुवनमिव चित्रपरिणामम् । स्थिति-विभव-भङ्गरूपं नित्यानित्यादिततोऽभिमतम् ।।१२१॥२४१६ 121. Yadanantaparyavamayam vastu bhuvanamiva citrapari
namam | Sthiti-vibhava-bhangarapam nityānityāditatu'bhimatam,
____121 (2416)] Trans. 121. Since (every) object is possessed of innumerable forms like the Universe, it should be taken as possessed of variegated forms, perishable and imperishable, susceptible to retention, production, and destruction. 2416.
टीका-१२१ यद् यस्माद् नैकान्ततः पर्यायमयं, नाप्येकान्तेन द्रव्यरूपम् , किन्त्वनन्तपर्यायं स्थित्यु-त्पाद-विनाशरूपत्वादभू-भवन-विमान-द्वीप-समुद्रादिरूपतया त्रिभुवनमिव समस्तमपि वस्तु नित्यानित्यादिरूपतया विचित्रपरिणाममनेकस्वरूपं भगवतामभिमतम् । अतोऽस्यैकान्तविनश्वरलक्षणैकरूपाभ्युपगमो मिथ्यात्वमेवेति ॥२४१६॥
____D. C. Since an object is not exclusively paryaya-maya (or formed of external forms alone ) nor is it exclusively dravyamaya (or formed of mere matter), but it possesses innumerable

Page #148

: 124: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fourth forms that are nitya, as well as a-nitya, and that are susceptible to retention, production, and destruction like thsoe such as earth, sea, and planets etc, of the Universe. Hence, your assumption of an object as being exclusevely perishable is wrongly based. 121 (2416)
Moreover, सुह-दुक्ख-बंध-मुक्खा उभयनयमयाणुवट्टिणो जुत्ता। एगयरपरिचाए सव्वव्ववहारवोच्छित्ती ॥१२२॥२४१७॥ 122. Suha-dukkha-bandha-mukkhă ubhayanayamayāņuvattiņo
juttā i
Egayarapariccāe savvavvavahāravocchitti. (2417) [सुख-दुःख-बन्ध-मोक्षा उभयनयमतानुवर्तिनो युक्ताः। एकतरपरित्यागे सर्वव्यवहारव्युच्छित्तिः ॥१२२॥२४१७॥ 122. Sukha-duhkha-bandha-mokşā ubhayanayamatānuvartino
yuktāḥ 1 ___Ekataraparityage sarva-vyavahāravyucchittih 122 (2417)]
Trans. 122. (Existence of) pleasure, pain, bondage, and Final Emancipation, is justifiable (only) to those who follow both the theories. By rejecting either of the two, there could be (absolute) destruction of all worldly affairs (vyavahāra) 2417
टीका-१२२ भाविताथैवेति ॥२४१७॥
Now, explaining the above proposition in details, the author states :-- न सुहाइ पज्जयमए नासाओ सव्वहा मयस्सेव । न य दव्वट्टियपक्खे निश्चत्तणओ नभस्सेव ॥१२३॥२४१८॥ 123. Na suhāi pajjayamae nāsāö savvahā mayasseva |
Na ya davvatthiyapakkhe nicoattanao nabhasseva (2418) [न सुखादि पर्यवमते नाशात् सर्वथा मृतस्येव । न च द्रव्यार्थिकपक्षे नित्यत्वतो नभस इव ॥१२३॥२४१८॥

Page #149

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 125:
123. Na sukhadi paryavamate nāsat sarvatha mritasyeva |
Na ca dravyarthikapakse nityatvato nabhasa iva 123 (2418)]
Trans. 123. According to the theory of paryāyas, pleasure etc. do not (actually) exist on account of (their) entire destruction, like that of a dead being. And, that is not (acceptible) according to the theory of Dravyārthikas also, on account of their (their) being imperishable like sky. 2418.
टीका-१२३ एकस्मिन्नेव पर्यायनयमतेऽङ्गीक्रियमाणे न सुखादि जगतो घटत इति प्रतिज्ञा, सुख-दुःख-बन्ध-मोक्षादयो न घटन्त इत्यर्थः । उत्पत्यनन्तरं सर्वथा नाशादिति हेतुः। मृतस्येवेति दृष्टान्तः । न च द्रव्याथिकनयपक्षे केवले समाश्रीयमाणे मुखादि घटते, एकान्तनित्यत्वेनाविचलितरूपत्वात् नभस इवेति । तस्माद् द्रव्य-पर्यायोमयपक्ष एव सर्वमिदमुपपद्यत इत्ययमेव ग्रायः, केवलैकनयपक्षस्तु दोषलक्षकक्षीकृतत्वात् त्याज्य एवेति ॥२४१८॥
D.C. The proposition is that, worldly pleasure, pain, bondage, Final Emancipation etc., could never exist if the theory of paryāya naya is exclusively accepted. For, according to that theory, everything perishes completely like a dead being, immediately after its production.
And pleasure etc., could not exist if the theory of Dravyārthikas is exclusively accepted. Because, according to that theory, everything would be imperishable like sky. All this is possible only if both the theories are accepted as supplementing each other. Resorting exclusively to either of the two, will result in a number of difficulties. 123 (2418)
Then, again, the Sthaviras tried to persuade him from another point of view :
जह जिणमयं पमाणं तो मा दव्वढियं परिचयसु । सफरस व होइ जओ तन्नासे सव्वनासो त्ति ॥१२४॥२४१९॥ 124. Jai Jinamayam pamānam to ma davvatthiyam pariccayasur
Sakkassa va hoi jað tannāse savvanāso tti. (2419)

Page #150

: 126: Jinabhadra Gaņi's
[The fourth [यदि जिनमतं प्रमाणं ततो मा द्रव्यार्थिकं परित्याक्षीः।
शाक्यस्येव भवति यतस्तन्नाशे सर्वनाश इति ॥१२४॥२४१९॥ 124. Yadi Jinamatam pramānam tato ma dravyārthikam . pari
tyaksihl
Sakyasyeva bhavati yatastannase sarvanasa iti. (2419)]
Trans. 124. If the principle of the Tirthankaras is (taken as) authentic by you, then, do not reject the theory of Dra. vyārthikas. For, in case of your believing in its destruction, like a Bauddha, all-pervading destruction will be attained 2419.
टीका-१२४ पूर्वदर्शितसूत्रालापकभावार्थमजाननापि विभ्रमितचित्ततया तत्प्रामाण्यं पूत्कुर्वाणः किल जिनवचनप्रामाण्यावलम्बिनमात्मानं मन्यते भवान् । तद् यदि हन्त ! सत्यमेव जिनमतं भवतः प्रमाणम् , ततः केवलपर्यायवादितया जिनमताभिमतमपि द्रव्यास्तिकनयं मा परित्याक्षीः । द्रव्यास्तित्वं मा प्रतिषेधयेत्यर्थः, यतो यस्मात् शाक्यस्य बौद्धस्येव तव तमाशे द्रव्यस्य सर्वथा विनाशे स्वीक्रियमाणे “सन्धनासो ति" सर्वस्यापि तृप्ति-श्रमादेवन्ध-मोक्षादेच व्यत्रहारस्य नाशो भवति विलोपः प्रामोतीत्यर्थः ॥२४१९॥
D. C. In spite of your ignorance of the meaning of the statements of the aforesaid satra, if you really consider yourself as a follower of the Tīrthankaras, and hence take the words of the Tirthankaras as authentic, then, by inclining yourself exclusively to the Paryāya-vāda, do not reject the theory of Dravyárthikas, which is approved by the Tirthankaras, and do not try to refute the existence of dravya in vain.
Because, like a Bauddha monk, if you take dravya as absolutely perishable, everything such as feelings of satisfaction, exertion etc., as well as, bondage, and Final Emancipation, will have no scope of existence.
What happened, when Aśvamitra was not convinced although he was persuaded with arguments-- इय पण्णविओ विजओ न पवजह कओ तओ बज्झो । विहरंतो रायगिहे नाउं तो खंडरक्खेहिं ॥१२५॥२४२०॥

Page #151

: 127
Vada ]
Nilnavavāda गहिओ सीसेहिं समं एए हिमर त्ति जंपमाणेहि । संजयवेसच्छण्णा सज्झं सवे समाणेह ॥१२६॥२४२१॥ अम्हे सावय ! जयओ कत्थुप्पण्णा कहिं च पब्वइया । अमुगत्थ बेंति सड्ढा ते वोच्छण्णा तया चेव ॥१२७॥२४२२॥ तुब्भे तब्वेसधरा भणिए भयओ सकारणं च त्ति । पडिवण्णा गुरूमूलं गंतूण तओ पडिकन्ता ॥१२८॥२४२३॥ 125. Iya paņnavio vi jao na pavajjai kao tao bajjho I
___ Viharanto Rayagihe naum to khandarakkhehim. (2420) 126. Gahiö sīschim samam ee’himara tti jampamāņehim !
Sanjayavesacchaņņā sajjham savve samāṇcha. (2421) 127. Amhe ! sāvaya! jayav katthuppaņņā kahim ca pavvaiyā !
Amugattha benti saddhā te vocchaņņā tayā ceva. (2422) 128. Tubbhe tavvesadharā bhanie bhayao sakāraṇam ca tti i
Padivannā gurumālam gantāna tai padikkantā (2423) [इति प्रज्ञापितोऽपि यतो न प्रपद्यते स कृतस्ततो बाह्यः। विहरन् राजगृहे ज्ञात्वा ततःखण्डरक्षः ॥१२५॥२४२०॥ गृहीतःशिष्यैःसममेतेऽभिमरा इति जलपद्भिः। संयतवेषच्छन्नाः, सद्यःसर्वान् समानयेह ॥१२६॥२४२१॥ वयं श्रावक ! यतयः कुत्रोत्पन्नाः कदा च प्रव्रजिताः । अमुन्त्रक ब्रुवन्ति श्राद्धास्ते व्युच्छिन्नास्तदैव ॥१२७॥२४२२॥ यूयं तद्वेषधरा भणिते भयतः सकारणं चेति । प्रतिपन्ना गुरुमूलं गत्वा ततः प्रतिक्रान्ताः ॥१२८॥२४२३॥ 125. Iti prajnapito'pi yato na. prapadyate sa kritastato bāhyah।
Viharan Rajagrihe jnatvā tatah khandaraksaih. (2420) 126. Grihitah sisyaih samamete'bhimara iti jalpadbhih |
Samyatavesacchannāh, sadyah sarvān samānayeha (2421) 127. Vayam śrāvaka! yatayah kutrutpannāh kadā ca pravrajitāḥ 1
Amutrakn brius anti sraddhaste vyucchinnastadaiva. (2422)

Page #152

: 128 :
Jinabbarlra Gaņi's (The fourth 128. Yüyam tadveşadharā bbaạite bhayatah sakāraṇam ceti!
Pratipannā gurumalam gatvā tataḥ pratik rántāh. (2423) ]
Trans. 125-126-127-128. Although persuaded in this way by the preceptor as well as by Sthaviras, when he was not convinced, Aśvamitra was expelled from the Sangha.x Then having apprehended his arrival at the city of Rājagriha, the khaņda-raksakas (watchmen) caught him along with his pupils, saying that " These are burglers, in disguise of ascetics." “ They should be brought here immediately." "O śrāvaka ! we are ascetics" said Aśvamitra. "Whom do you belong to ?' and when were you initiated ? We belong to such and such a place and we were initiated at such and such a time.” was the reply. They, being dead, have perished there and then only. You seem to be imposters (and hence should be punished. )
When thus told, they resorted to their original (school of) preceptor and got themselves re-initiated. 2420-2423.
टीकाः-१२५-१२६-१२७-१२८ उक्तार्था एव, नवरं “भणिए भयओ सकारणं च ति" तै खण्डरक्षश्रावकैरेवं पूर्वोक्ते भणिते सति भयतो भयात् सकारणं च सयुक्तिकं च समाकानुशास्तिरूपं तद्वचः प्रतिपन्नास्तेऽश्वमित्रप्रमुखा निहवसाधवः ॥२४२३॥
End of the Discussion with the Fourth Nihnava.
-99
* Congregation.

Page #153

Chapter VI ॥ पञ्चमनिह्नववक्तन्यता॥
-
Discussion with the Fifth Nihnava. अट्ठावीसा दो वाससया तइआ सिद्धिं गयस्स वीरस्स । दो किरियाणं दिट्ठी उल्लुगतीरे समुप्पण्णा ॥१२९॥२४२४ 129. Atthāvīsā do vāsasayā taiā Siddhim gayasya Virassa i
Do-kiriyānam ditthi Ullugatire samuppanna. (2424) [अष्टाविंशत्या द्वे वर्षशते तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य वीरस्य । द्वैक्रियाणां दृष्टिरुल्लुकातीरे समुत्पन्ना ॥१२९॥२४२४॥ 129. Astavimsatya dve varsasate tauda Siddhim gatasya Virasyal
Dvaikriyāņām drstir Ullukātire samutpannā. (2424)]
Trans. 129. Then, was originated the theory of Dvaikriyāsa, on the bank of the river Ullukā), two hundred and twentyeight years after (the Tirthankara) śramana Bhagavān Mahā. vira had attained Nirvana. 2424. ___टीका-१२९ अष्टाविंशत्यधिके द्वे वर्षशते तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य श्रीमन्महावीरस्यात्रान्तरे द्वैक्रियानिहवानां दृष्टिरुल्लुकातीरे समुत्पमेति ॥२४२४॥
नइखेडजणवउल्लुग महागिरि धणगुत्त अवगंगे य । किरिया दो रायगिहे महानवोतीर मणिनाए ॥१३०॥२४२५॥
1. Who hold that two processes of feeling, work simultaneously.
2. Or in the city of Ullukātīra according to another interpretation.

Page #154

:130:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth 130. Nai kheda jaņava Ulluga Mahāgiri Dhaņagutta Ajjagange ya
Kiriyā do Rayagihe Mahatavotira Manināe. (2425) [नदीखेटजनपदोल्लुके महागिरिर्धनगुप्त आर्यगङ्गश्च । क्रिये दो राजगृहे महातपस्तीर मणिनागः ॥१३०॥२४२५॥ 130. Nadikhetajanapadollukc MahagirirDhanagupta Aryagain
gascal
Kriye do Rajagrihe Mahatapastira Manināgah. (2425)]
Trans. 130. In the village named after (river) Ullukā, (there lived ) Mahāgiri, Dhanagupta, and Arya-ganga (who upheld the theory of) two processes (taking place at one time ). Mani-naga (brought him to the right path) in Rajagriha near the stream (of) Mahātapastira. 2425.
टीका-१३० उल्लुका नाम नदी तदुपलक्षितो जनपदोऽप्युल्लुका । उल्लुकानद्याश्चैकस्मिस्तीरे धूलिपाकारावृतनगरविशेषरूपं खेटस्थानमासीद, द्वितीये तूल्लुकातीरं नाम नगरम् । अन्ये त्वाहुः एतदेवोल्लुकातीर धूलिप्राकारकृतत्वात् खेटमुच्यते । तत्र च महागिरिशिष्यो धनगुप्तो नाम । अस्यापि शिष्य आर्यगङ्गो नामाचार्यः । अयं च नद्याः पूर्वतटे, तदाचार्यस्त्वपरतटे । ततोऽन्यदा सरत्समये सरिवन्दनार्थ गच्छन् गङ्गो नदीमुत्तरति । स च खल्वाटः। तत्स्तस्योपरिष्टादुष्णेन दखते खल्ली । अधस्तात्तु नद्याः शीतलजलेन शैत्यमुत्पद्यते। ततोऽत्रान्तरे कथमपि मिथ्यात्वमोहनीयोदयादसौ चिन्तितवान्-अहो ! सिद्धान्ते युगपत्क्रियाद्वानुभवः किल निषिद्धः, अहंत्वेकस्मिन्नेव समये शैत्यमोष्णं च वेदयामि, अतोऽनुभवविरुद्धत्वाद् नेदमागमोक्तं शोभनमाभाति । इति विचिन्त्य गुरुभ्यो निवेदयामास । ततस्तैवक्ष्यमाणयुक्तिभिः प्रज्ञापितोऽसौ । यदा च स्वाग्रहग्रस्तबुद्धित्वाद् न किश्चित् प्रतिपद्यते । तदोद्धाय्य बाघ कृतो विहरन् राजगृहनगरमागतः तत्र च महातपस्तीरप्रभवनाग्नि प्रश्रवणे मणिनागनानो नागस्य चैत्यमस्ति । तत्समीपे च स्थितो गङ्गः पर्षत्पुरस्सरं युगपत्क्रियाद्वयवेदनं प्ररूपयति स्म । तच्च श्रुत्वा प्रकुपितो मणिनागस्तमवादीत्-अरे दुष्ट शिक्षक ! किमेवं प्रज्ञापयसि, यतोऽत्रेव प्रदेशे समवसृतेन श्रीमद्वर्धमानस्वामिनैकस्मिन् समये एकस्या एव क्रियाया वेदनं

Page #155

Vada ] Nihrravavāda
: 131: प्ररूपितम् । तच्चेह स्थितेन मयापि श्रुतम् । तत् किं ततोऽपि लष्टतरः प्ररूपको भवान् , येनैवं युगपत्कियाद्वयवेदनं प्ररूपयसि ? । तत्परित्यजैतां कूटपरूपणाम् , अन्यथा नाशयिष्यामि त्वाम् । इत्यादि-तदुदितभयवाक्यैर्युक्तिवचनैश्च प्रबुद्धोऽसौ मिथ्यादुष्कृतं दत्वा गुरुमूलं गत्वा प्रतिक्रान्त इति ॥२४२५।।
Digest of Commentary :
D. C. 130. Ullukātīra is interpreted in three ways :(1) On one of the banks of the river Ullukā, there was a place
surrounded by a fort of dust.
There was a city named Ullukātīra. (3) Since Ullukātīra was surrounded by heaps of dust, it was
known as a Kheta; also*.
There lived a sādhu named Dhanagiri in the above-mentioned city. He was the pupil of Acārya Mahāgiri and he had a pupil named Gangācārya.
Once upon a time, Arya Gangācārya was crossing the river Ullukā while going to pay his homage to his preceptor, who was staying on the opposite side of the river. Arya Gangācārya was bald-headed. It was autumn and the water of the river was cold. So, while crossing the river his bald head felt heat from sunshine, and his feet felt cold due to the river-water being cold.
At this time, under the influence of Mithyātva Mohanīya (wrong belief caused by delusion), Gangācārya disbelieved the principle of Agamas that two processes of sensation could never take place simultaneously and thought that he felt the sensations of heat and cold at the same time. He reported the view-point to his preceptor and declared) that the principle of the Āgamas was false on the ground that it was contrary to the actual experience which he had undergone.
3. Kheta=Village.
4. Of the three iuterpretations mentioned here, the commentator seems to have chosen the first one.

Page #156

: 132: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth The preceptor tried to convince him of the validity of the religious principle of the Agamas, but he dill not change his belief. Consequently, he was expelled from the Sangha.
Then, during the course of his wanderings from place to place, he went to the city of Rājagriha. There, in the midst of an assembly gathered near the temple of a serpent-god named Manināga situated on the bank of a spring named Mahātapastira, he preached his theory of dvikriyā. Maņināga was highly enraged at the arguments of Gangācarya, anıl he sail, “O wicked monk ! Why do you try to preach such an ignoble principle here? Do you claim yourself to be even a greater preacher the Great Tirthankara śrīman Vardhamana Swāni who laid down, in this city of Rājagriha, the principle that one and only one process of experience could take place at one time? What do you mean by preaching a false theory of two processes of experience working at one time? Give up holding such falsc notions or clse you will ruin yourself.”
Being afraid of Maņināga, and becoming cnlightened by sound reasoning, Ārya Ganyācārya gave up his false belief and at last resorted to the school of his old preceptor after having excused Maņināga for his apparently harsh deed. 2425.
Now, the whole story is narrated in detail. नामुल्लुगमुत्तरतो सरए सीयजलमजगंगस्स । सूराभितत्तसिरसो सीउसिणवेयणोभयओ ॥१३१॥२४२६।। लग्गोऽयमसग्गाहो जुगवं उभयकिरियोवओगो त्ति । जं दो वि समयमेव य सीउसिणवेयणाओ मे ॥१३२॥२४२७॥ 131. Naimullugamuttarato sarae siyajalamajjagangassa
Sūrābhitattasiraso si-usiņaveyaņobhayaö. (2426) 132. Laygo'yamasaygāho jugavam ubhayakiriyoyavaögo tti
Jam do vi samayaineva ya si-usiņuveyaņāö me. (2427)

Page #157

Nihnavavāda
Vada]
:133: [नदीमुल्लुकामुत्तरतः शरदि शीतजलमार्यगङ्गस्य । सूराभितप्तशिरसः शीतोष्णवेदनोभयतः ॥१३१॥२४२६॥ लग्नोऽयमसद्ग्रहो युगपदुभयक्रियोपयोग इति । यद् द्वे अपि समकमेव च शीतोष्णवेदने मे ॥१३२॥२४२७॥ 131. Nadimullukāmuttaratah śaradi šītajalamāryagangasya i
Surabhitaptasirasah sitosnavedanobhayatah. (2426) 132. Lagno'yamasadgraho yugapadubhayakriyopayoga iti 1
Yad dve api samakameva ca sitosnavedane me. (2427)]
Trans. 131-132. While crossing the cold waters of river Ullukā in Autumn, as he felt the sensations of cold as well as of heat, due to his head being heated by Sushine, Arya Ganga drew a false conclusion that “Since I have felt both the sensations-that of cold as well as of heat-at one time, the two processes of experience work simultaneously.” (2426-2427)
टीका-१३१-१३२ गतार्थे, नवरमार्यगङ्गस्य लमोऽयमसद्ग्रहो यदुतयुगपत्क्रियाद्वयसंवेदनोपयोगोऽस्ति, यद् यस्माद् मे मम द्वे अपि शीतोष्णवेदने समकालमेव स्तः। प्रयोगश्चात्रयुगपदुभयक्रियासंवेदनमस्ति, अनुभवसिद्धत्वात् , मम पादशिरोगतशीतोष्णक्रियासंवेदनवदिति ॥२४२६॥२४२७॥
D. C. In support of his theory, (which is really speaking nothing but misapprehension ) Gangācārya argues as follows:---- “ Since my head felt hot due to sunshine, and my feet felt cold at the same time due to cold waters running beneath, I felt both the sensations simultaneously. It is clear, therefore, that the processes of undergoing both the feelings are working simultaneously. This is supported by my practical experience.”
Then, तरतमजोगेणायं गुरुणाऽभिहिओ तुमं न लक्खेसि । समयाइसुहमयाओ मणोऽतिचलसुङमयाओ य ॥१३॥२४२८॥

Page #158

: 134:
[The fifth
Taratamajogeṇāyam guruṇā'bhihio tumam na lakkhesiĮ Samayāisuhumayão mano 'ticalasuhumayaö ya. (2428 ) [ तरतम योगेनायं गुरुणाऽभिहितस्त्वं न लक्षयसि । समयादि सूक्ष्मतातो मनोऽतिचलसूक्ष्मतातश्च ॥ १३३॥२४२८ ॥
133.
133.
Jinabhadra Gani's
Taratamayogenayam guruṇā'bhihitastvam na lakṣayasi Samay ādisūkşmatāto mano 'ticalasuksmatātasca. (2428) ]
Trans. 133. The ācārya replied : "That takes place in ( regular) turn. You are (not able) to mark (it) due to exquisite unstability and subtlety of mind, as well as, subtlety of time etc. 2428.
"
टीका- १३३ गुरुणाऽभिहितोऽसौ - हन्त ! योऽयं युगपत्क्रियाद्वयानुभवस्त्वया गीयते स तरतमयोगेन क्रमेणैव भवतः संपद्यते, न युगपत् परं सदपि क्रमभवनमस्य त्वं न लक्षयसि, समया -ऽऽवलिकादेः कालस्य सूक्ष्मत्वात्, तथा मनसश्रातिचलत्वेनातिसूक्ष्मत्वेन चाशुसंचारित्वादिति । तस्मात् " अनुभवसिद्धत्वात् ' इत्यसिद्धोऽयं हेतुरिति ॥२४२८||
D. C.
Acārya Dhanagupta-Feeling of two sensations does not actually take place simultaneously as you represent, but both the sensations are felt one after the other. You are not able to mark such a process, because the period of interval between the two different experiences is extremely short, and the mind, which feels the two sensations one after the other, is fickle and subtle by its very nature. Your apprehension of the practical experience undergone by your own self, is therefore wrong and hence your theory is baseless. 133 (2428)

सुहुमासुचरं चित्तं इंदियदेसेण जेण जं कालं । संबज्झइ तं तम्मूत्तनाणहेउ ति नो तेण ॥१३४॥२४२९॥ उवलभए किरियाओ जुगवं दो दूरभिण्णदेसाओ । पाय - सिरोंगय-सी उपहवेयणाणु भवरुवाओ ॥ १३५॥२४३०॥
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #159

Vāda ]
134.
: 135:
Suhumăsucaram cittam indiyadeseņa jeņa jam kālam | Sambajjhai tam tammattanānaheu tti no tena ( 2429) 135. Uvalabhae kiriyāö jugavam do darabhinnadesāö | Paya-sirogaya-siunhaveyanānubhavarūvā. (2430)
[सूक्ष्माशुचरं चित्तमिन्द्रियदेशेन येन यस्मिन् काले । संबध्यते तत् तन्मात्र ज्ञानहेतुरिति नो तेन ॥ १३४ ॥२४२९ ॥ उपलभते क्रिये युगपद् द्वे दूर- भिन्नदेशात् । पाद - शिरोगतशीतोष्णवेदनानुभवरूपे ॥१३५॥२४३० ॥
134.
Nihnavavāda
135.
Saksmäsucaram cittamindriyadesena yena yasmin kāle ! Sambadhyate tat tanmātrajñānaheturiti no tena. (2429 ) Upalabhate kriye yugapad dve dara-bhinnadeśat | Pada-śirogataśīto-snavedanānubhavarape. (2430) ]
Trans. 134-135. Mind, subtle and quick (as it is ), becomes the cause of perception, only with regard to those senseorgans with which it is connected and that (period of) time (only) during which (the perception takes plase). So, two processes in the form of feeling heat and cold at head and feet ( respectively ), could not take place simultaneously, owing to the two places being extremely remote 2429-2430.

टीका - १३४ - १३५ सूक्ष्ममाशुचरं च चित्तं मनः, तत्र सूक्ष्मं सूक्ष्मातीन्द्रि यपुद्गलस्कन्धनिर्वचत्वात्, आशुचरं च शीघ्रसंचरणशीलत्वात् । ततश्च तदेवंभूतं चित्तं येन येन कायाद्याकारस्पर्शनादिद्रव्येन्द्रियसंबन्धिना देशेन सह यस्मिन् काले संबध्यते संयुज्यते तस्मिन् काले तन्मात्रज्ञानहेतुर्भवति येन स्पर्शनादिद्रव्येन्द्रियदेशेन संबध्यते तज्जन्यस्यैव शीतादिविषयस्योष्णादिविषयस्य वैकतरविज्ञानस्य हेतुर्जायते, न तु येनेन्द्रियदेशेन सह सत्काले स्वयं तद न संबद्धं तज्जन्यज्ञानस्यापि हेतुरित्यर्थः । इति शब्दो वाक्यसमाप्त्यर्थः । येनैवम् तेन कारणेन नो नैव दूरभिन्नदेशे द्वे क्रिये कोऽपि युगपदुपलभते संवेदयत इति संबन्धः । कथंभूते द्वे क्रिये ? इत्याह- पाद - शिरोगतशीतोष्णवेदनयोरनुभवनमनुभवस्तद्रूपे तदात्मिके । अत्र प्रयोगः - इह पाद - शिरोगतशीतोष्णवेदने युगपद् न कोऽपिसंवे
,
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #160

: 136 : Jinalliatra Gani's
[ The fifth दयते, भिन्नदेशत्वात् , विन्ध्य-हिमवच्छिखरस्पर्शनक्रियाद्वयवदिति “अनुभव सिद्धत्वात्" इत्यसिद्धोऽयं हेतुरिति ॥२४२९॥२४३०॥
___D. C. Mind is subtle, because it is beyond the perception of senses, and quick, because it moves swiftly. Such a mind becomes the cause of feeling heat, coll cte, as a result :of its contact with sense-organs, like that of touch ete; for a particular period of time during which the contact is maintainol. When it is not connected with the proper sense-organ, it does not work as the cause of perception by means of that seusc-organ. It is, thereforc, utterly impossible for anyone to un'lergo sensations of heat and cold simultaneously, at two extremely repote sense-organs like head and foet. Your arriment of personal experience is baseless from this view point also. 13-1:35 (2129--2-130)
Morecver, उपओगमओ जीवो उवउजइ जेण जम्मि जं कालं। सो तम्मओवओगो होइ जहिंदोवओगम्मि ॥१३६॥२४३१॥ 136. Uvaögamaö jivo uvaujjai jena jamui jam kālam i
So tamınaovaogo hoi jahinduvaö jammi. (2431) [उपयोगमयो जीव उपयुज्यते येन यस्मिन् यस्मिन् काले।
स तन्मयोपयोगो भवति यथेन्द्रोपयोगेन ॥१३६॥२४३१॥ 136. Upayogamayo jiva upayujyate yena yasmin yasmin kale /
Sa tanmayopayogo bhavati yathendropayogena (2431) ]
Trans. 136. Whenever the soul which is upayoga-mayas, is engaged (with a particular sense-organ), it becomes applicable to that ( sense-organ) only, as in the case of (one under the ) employment of Indra. 2431.
टीका-१३६ उपयोगेनैव केवलेन निवृत्त उपयोगमयो जीवः । ततः म येन केनापि स्पर्शनादीन्द्रियदेशेन करणभूतेन यस्मिन् शीतोष्णाद्यन्यतरविषये "जं
5. i. c. Complete hy application to or engagement with a sense-organ.

Page #161

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 137: कालं ति" यस्मिन् काल उपयुज्यते सावधानो भवति तन्मयोपयोगी भवतियत्र शीताधन्तरार्थउपयुक्तस्तन्मयोपयोग एव भवति नान्यथोपयुक्त इत्यर्थः । उदाहरणमाह-"जहिं दोवओगम्मि ति" यथेन्द्रोपयोगे वर्तमानो माणवकस्तन्मयोपयोग एव भवति, न पुनरर्थान्तरमयोपयोगः। इदमत्र तात्पर्यम्-एकस्मिन् काल एकत्रैवार्थउपयुक्तो जीवः संभवति, न त्वर्थान्तरे, पूर्वोक्तसांकर्यादिदोषप्रसङ्गात् । ततश्च युगपत्क्रियाद्वयोपयोगानुभवोऽसिद्ध एवेति ॥२४३१॥
___D. C. Jiva is upayoga-maya by nature. So, when it applies itself to a particular sense-organ, say, that of touch, and feels the sensation of, say, heat and cold, it is completely devoted to that sense-organ, and to those subjects of sensations at that time and is not utilized elsewhere.
As for example, when a person, say, Māņavaka is employed in the service of Indra, he is entirely at the disposal of Indra, and does not work for anyone else. Similarly, when the Soul is employed for the perception of a particular object, it remains entirely at the disposal of that indriya and the object concerned, so long as it is connected with them.
In short, Jiva is applicable to one sense-organ at one time, and never to two at the same time. For, otherwise, faults like that of Sankarya etc. would arise.
Thus, the theory of two kriyās taking place at one time, is invalid. सो तदुवओगमेत्तोवउत्तसत्ति त्ति तस्समं चेव । अत्यंतरोवओगं जाउ कहं केण वंसेण ? ॥१३७॥२४३२॥ 137. So taduvaögamettovauttasatti tti tassamam ceva
Atthantarovaögam jāu kaham keņa vatnseņa ? (2432) [स तदुपयोगमात्रोपयुक्तशक्तिरिति तत्सममेव ।
अर्थान्तरोपयोगं यातु कथं केन वांशेन ? ॥१३७॥२४३२॥ 137. Sa tadupayogamātropayuktasaktiriti tatsamamevat
Arthāntaropayogam yātu katham kena vāmsena ? (2432) ]

Page #162

:138:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth Trans. 137. How could that (Soul) with all its energy utilized at the disposal of one object, be utilized for another (either ) wholly or (even ) partially exactly along with it ? 2432.
टीका-१३७ स जीवः “तदुवओगमेत्तोवउवसत्ति ति" तस्य विवक्षितैकार्थस्योपयोगस्तदुपयोगः स एव तन्मात्रं तत्रोपयुक्ता व्यापृता निष्ठां गता शक्तिर्यस्य स तदुपयोगमात्रोपयुक्तशक्तिरिति कृत्वा कथं तत्समकालमेवार्थान्तरं उपयोगं यातु १-न कथञ्चिदित्यर्थः, सांकर्यादिप्रसङ्गात् । किञ्च, सर्वैरपि वप्रदेशैकस्मिन्नर्थउपयुक्तो जीवः केनोद्वरितेनांशेनार्थन्तरोपयोगं व्रजतु १ । नास्त्येव हि स कश्चिदुद्वरितांशो येन तत्समकमेवार्थान्तरोपयोगमसौ गच्छेदिति भावः ॥२४३२॥
D. C.
Acārya:-When the Soul employs all its energy in the perception of one (object), it is not possible for it to work for the perception of another at the same time. And, since all the parts of Jiva are applied together at one place, it is not even possible to apply itself even partially at another place simultaneously.
Ganga :-If two processes of perception do not work simultaneously, as you say, what makes me feel like that ? 137 (2432)
The answer isसमयाइसुहुमयाओ मनसि जुगचं च भिन्नकालं पि । उप्पलदलसयवेहं व जह व तदलायचकं ति ॥१३८॥२४३३॥ 138. Samayāisuhumayāö mannasi jugavam ca bhinnakālam pii
Uppaladalasayaveham va jaha va tadalāyacakkam ti (2433)
[समयादिसूक्ष्मतातो मन्यसे युगपच भिन्नकालमपि । उत्पलदलशतवेधमिव यथा वा तदलातचक्रमिति ॥१३८॥२४३३॥
138.
Samayādisūkṣmatāto manyase yuga pacca bhinnakālamapi | Utpaladalasatavedhamiva yathā vā tadalatacakramiti (2433)]

Page #163

Vada ] Nihnavavada
:139: ___ Trans. 138. On account of acute subtlety of time etc. you take an action taking place at different times as simultaneous as in the case of boring a hole into hundred petals of lotus or (rotating of) a circular series of (burning) coal. 2433.
टीका-१३८ समयावलिकादिकालकृतविभागस्य सूक्ष्मत्वाद् भिन्नकालमपि कालविभागेन प्रवृत्तमपि क्रियाद्वयसंवेदनमुत्पलपत्रशतवेधवद् युगपत् प्रवृत्तमिव मन्यसे त्वम् । न हि उत्पलपत्रशतमौत्तराधर्येण व्यवस्थापितं सुतीक्ष्णयापि सूच्या छेकेन समर्थेनापि च वेधकर्ता समकालमेव विध्यते, किन्तु कालभेदेन, उपर्युपरितनेऽविद्धेऽधोधोवर्तिनः पत्रस्य वेधायोगात् , अथ च वेधकर्ता युगपद् विहितमेव वेधं मन्यते, तद्वेधनकालभेदस्य सूक्ष्मत्वेन दुर्लक्षत्वात् । यथा वा वत् प्रसिद्धमलातचक्रं कालभेदेन दिक्षु भ्रमदपि भ्रमणकालभेदस्य सूक्ष्मत्वेन दुरवगमत्वाद् निरन्तरभ्रमणमेव लक्ष्यते । एवमिहापि शीतो-ष्णक्रियानुभवकालभेदस्य सूक्ष्मत्वेन दुरवसेयत्वाद् युगपदिव तदनुभवं मन्यते भवानिति ॥२४३३॥ D. C.
Acārya:-When a strong person bores a hole into a hundred petals of lotus with a small needle after arranging the one over the other, he thinks that all the petals are pierced through simultaneously. But really speaking, that is not so. A petal beneath is not pierced unless and until the one above it is actually pierced through. Thus, really, every petal is pierced through one after the other, and hence, at different times. This difference in tine is so minute that the person boring the hole, is not able to mark it.
So, also, when a circular series of burning coal is rotated, it does rotate in different directions at different times. But the timegap between every two directions is so small due to its quick speed, that one apprehends it only as moving constantly in one direction. The same is the case here also.
Sensations of heat and cold are definitely felt at different times, but they are not so apprehended because of subtlety of time eto.

Page #164

: 140: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth Thus, you are wrong in believing that the two processes of perception take place simultaneously. 138 (2433)
And, चित्तं पि नेंदियाई समेइ सममह य खिप्पचारि त्ति । समयं व सुक्कसक्कुलिदसणे सव्वोवलद्धि त्ति ॥१३९॥२४३४॥ सब्दिओवलंभे जइ संचारो मणस्स दुल्लक्खो। एगेंदिओवओगंतरम्मि किह होउ सुलकखो ? ॥१४०॥२४३५॥ 139. Cittam pi nendiyaim samei samamaha ya khippacāri ttis
Samayam va sukkasakkulidasaņe savvovaladhi tti. (2434) 140. Savvendiövalambhe jai sancāro manassa dullakkho ,
Egendiövaögantarammi kiha hou sulakkho? (2435) [चित्तमपि नेन्द्रियाणि समेति सममथ च क्षिप्रचारीति । समकमिव शुष्कशष्कुलीदशने सर्वोपलब्धिरिति ॥१३९॥२४३४॥ सर्वेन्द्रियोपलम्भे यदि संचारो मनसो दुर्लक्षः। एकेन्द्रियोपयोगान्तरे कथं भवतु सुलक्षः ॥१४०॥२४३५॥ 139. Cittamapi nendriyani sameti samamatha ca ksipracāritis
Samakamiva suskasaskulidasane sarvopalabdhiriti (2434) 140. Sarvendriyopalambhe yadi sancāro manaso durlakṣaḥ
Ekendriyopayogāntare katham bhavatu sulakṣaḥ. (2435)]
Trans. 139-140. Mind also does not combine itself with ( all the) sense-organs at the same time; ( but) since it is quick in movement, its connection with the sense-organs is apprehended as simultaneous, just as there is apprehension of (all) tastes at ( the time of ) eating dry sesamum cake. (And ), if the movement of mind is difficult to be traced at the (time of) perception of all sense-organs, how could it be easily apprehended in (case of) engagement with one sense-organ? (2434-2435)
टीका-१३९-१४० चित्तमपि च नैवेन्द्रियाणि सममेव समेति मनोऽपि नैवेन्द्रियैः सह युगपत् संबध्यत इत्यर्थः । उपलक्षणत्वाद् नापि शिरः-पादादिभिः

Page #165

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 141: स्पर्शनेन्द्रियदेशैर्युगपत् संबध्यते, अथ च क्षिप्रचारि शीघ्रसंचरणशीलं तदिति कृत्वा समकमिव युगपदिव "सर्वत्र संबद्धं लक्ष्यते" इति शेषः। दृष्टान्तमाह"समयं वेत्यादि"। "समयं वा" इत्येतदन्तरं योजितमप्याच्या पुनरपीह योज्यते । तत्र वाशब्दो यथार्थे । यथाशब्दश्च दृष्टान्तोप-यासार्थे । यथा शुष्क शष्कुलिकादशने सर्वेषामपि शष्कुलिकागतरूप-रस-गन्ध-स्पर्श-शब्दानामुपलब्धिः सर्वोपलब्धिरसमकं प्रवृत्तापि समकं लक्ष्यते, तथाऽत्रापि मनः-शिरः-पाक्षदिभिः स्पर्शनेन्द्रियदेशैरिन्द्रियान्तरैश्च क्रमेण संबध्यमानमपि युगपत् संवध्यमानं लक्ष्यत इत्यर्थः । इदमत्र हृदयम्-इह दीर्घा शुष्कां च शष्कुलिकां कस्यचिद् भक्षयवस्तद्रूपं चक्षुषा वीक्षमाणस्य रूपज्ञानमुत्पद्यते, तद्गन्धं च घ्राणेनाऽऽजिघ्रतो गन्धज्ञानम्, तद्रसं च रसनयाऽऽखादयतो रसज्ञानम् , तत्स्पर्श च स्पर्शनेन वेदयतः स्पर्शज्ञानम् , चर्चणोत्थं तच्छब्दं च श्रृणवतः शब्दज्ञानमुपजायते। एतानि च पश्चापि ज्ञानानि क्रमेणैव जायन्ते, अन्यथा सांकर्यादिदोषपसङ्गात्, मत्यादिज्ञानोपयोगकाले चावध्याधुपयोगस्यापि प्राप्तेः, एकं च घटादिकमर्थ विकल्पयतोज्जन्तानामपि घटाद्यर्थविकल्पानां प्रवृत्तिप्रसङ्गाच । न चैतदस्ति । ततःक्रमेण जायमानान्यप्येतानि ज्ञानानि प्रतिपत्ता "युगपदुत्पद्यन्ते" इति मन्यते, समपाऽऽबलिकादिकालविभागस्य सूक्ष्मत्वात् । एवमिहापि शिरः पादादिमिः स्पर्शनेन्द्रियदेशैरिन्द्रियान्तरैश्च क्रमेण संबध्यमानमपि मनः प्रतिपत्ता युगपत् संवध्यमानमध्यवस्यति । न तु तत्त्वतोऽसौ मनसः स्वभावः, तथा चोक्तम्"-युगपज्ज्ञानानुत्पचिर्मनसो लिङ्गम्" इति । यदि चोक्तन्यायेन सर्वेन्द्रियद्वारेणोत्पद्यमान उफ्लम्मे क्रमेण संचरतो मनसः संचारो दुर्लक्षः, तर्हि कथमेकस्यैद स्पर्शनेन्द्रियमात्रस्य शीतवेदनोपयोगादुष्णवेदनोपयोगरूपउपयोगान्तरे जन्ये तत्संचारसुलक्षास्यात् , अलक्ष्यमाणे च तत्क्रमसंचारे शीतोष्णक्रियाद्वयोपयोगविषयौ युगपदध्यवसायौ भवतः ? इति ॥२४३४॥ न्याख्याताथैव ॥२४३५॥
D. C. Mind does not come in contact with all sense-organs at the same time. So, it is not possible for it to come in contact with the senses of touch at feet and head simultaneously. Since the movement of mind is extremely quick, mind appears as if it is connected with all the indriyas simultaneously. As for example, a person eating a sesamum cake, perceives form by morns

Page #166

: 142:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth
of the sense of sight (eye), smell by the sense of smell (nose), taste by the sense of taste (tongue), touch by the sense of touch (skin), and sound by the sense of hearing (ear) while seeing, smelling, eating, touching, and, hearing the sound of chewing.
All the five kinds of perception are attained, when the mind comes in contact with the respective five indriyas one after the other and not simultaneously. It is only due to the fact that mind is extremely quick in movement that it appears as if it is connected with all the indriyas simultaneously, but really speaking, that is not true. For, in that case, faults like sankarya would arise, while in course of perception of mati jnāna etc; avadhi jnana would work with it simultaneously and while considering an object like ghata, innumerable ghatas would come up alternately without fail. But this does not actually happen in real life.
""
Although the afore-mentioned perceptions are attained one after the other, the observer being unable to mark the subtle differences in time etc, apprehends all of them as produced simu. ltaneously. Here also, mind is employed in the senses of touch at head and feet respectively at different times. Still, however, one who feels the sensations of heat and cold, thinks that, mind is employed at both the places simultaneously. Really speaking, 'Non-production of many cognitions at one time is the (essential) quality of mind." Still, however, since the movement of mind passing from one object to another is difficult to be traced, the movement of mind from the cognition of heat to that of cold, becomes more difficult to be traced. In this way, it is only due to your inability to apprehend the movement of mind, that you seem to feel two sensations to-gether at one time that you labour under such misapprehensions. For, when it is not detected in case of perception of all the indriyas, it is much more difficult to detect in case of its applications to one indriya. 140 (2435)
6. For, it has already been said " Yugapajjñānanutpattir-manas lingam.
"

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #167

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 143:
Again the author states a mumber of difficulties in case of accepting the mind as applicable to more than one object at a
time :
अन्नविणिउत्तमण्ण विणिओगं लहइ जइ मणो तेणं । हस्थिपि द्वियं पुरओ किमण्णचित्तो न लक्खेह १ ॥ १४१ ॥ २४२६ ॥
141.
[ अन्यविनियुक्तमन्यविनियोगं लभते यदि मनस्तेन । हस्तिनमपि स्थितं पुरतः किमन्यचित्तो न लक्षयति ? || १४१ || २४३६॥
141.
Annaviņiuttamaṇṇaviņiögam lahai jai mano teņam I Hatthim pi tthiyam purao kimannacitto na lakhei ? (2436)
Anyaviniyuktamanyaviniyogam labhate yarli manastena | Hastinamapi sthitam purataḥ kimanyacitto na lakṣayati?
(2436)]
Trans. 141. If the mind engaged (already ) in (a particular) object, could be engaged in some other object at the same time, why could a person with his mind concentrated elsewhere, not observe an elephant standing in front of him ? 2436
"
टीका - १४१ अन्यस्मिन् शीतवेदनादिकेऽर्थे विनियुक्तमुपयुक्तमन्यविनियुक्तं मनो यदि “ अण्णं ति " अन्य उष्ण वेदनादिको ऽर्थस्तद्विषयोपयोगोऽन्यस्तमन्यं विनियोगमुपयोगं लभते, " तेणं ति ” तर्हि किमित्यन्यचित्तोऽन्यार्थोपयुक्तचित्तो देवदत्तादिर्हस्तिनमपि पुरतो व्यवस्थितं न लक्षयति । तस्मादेकस्मिन्नर्थउपयुक्तं मनो न कदाचिदन्यार्थोपयोगं लभत इति ॥ २४३६॥

D. C. If the mind engaged in the process of feeling the sensation of cold is taken to have, been engaged in the process of feeling the sensation of heat at the same time, there is no reason why a person with his mind concentrated in a particular object, be not able to observe even an elephant standing in his very front. The main reason for this, is that the mind of the person being totally concentrated in some other object, it will not be able to recognize even objects like an elephant etc; standing even in his very front. 141 (2436).

Page #168

: 144 : Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth विणिओगन्तरलाभे व किं त्थ नियमेण तो समं चेव । पइवत्थुमसंखेजाऽणंता वा जं न विणिओगा ? ॥१४२॥२४३७॥ 142. Viniigantaralabhe va kim tthu niyamena to samau ceval
Paivatthumasaiikhejjā’ņantā vā jam na viņiogā ? (2437) [विनियोगान्तरलाभे वा किमत्र नियमेन ततः सममेव । प्रतिवस्त्वसंख्येया अनन्ता वा यद् न विनियोगा:?॥१४२॥२४३७॥ 142. Viniyogānturalābhe vā kimatra niyamena tataḥ samameval
Prativastvasamkheyā anantā vā yad na viniyogāh ? (2437) 1 Trans. 142. Or, if the (simultaneous ) application (of mind ) in another object (is accepted ), what is the use of the rule (of the application of two processes )? ( And ) then, why should innumerable or endless applications taking place simultaneously in (case of) each object be not accepted ? 2437.
टीका-१४२ एकोपयोगकाले विनियोगान्तरस्योपयोगान्तरस्य लाभे वेष्यमाणे "तो ति" ततःकिमत्र क्रियाद्वयोपयोगलक्षणेन नियमेन, “जं ति" यत् प्रतिवस्त्वसंख्येया अनन्ता वा सममेव युगपदेव विनियोगा नेष्यन्ते । इदमुक्तं भवति-यदि शीतवेदनोपयोगकाले उष्णवेदनोपयोगोऽपीष्यते, तर्हि किमत्रानेन क्रियाद्वयोपयोगनैयत्येन, यदसंख्यया अनन्ता वा प्रतिवस्तु युगपदुपयोगा न भवन्ति, यथैककाले द्वितीयोपयोगस्तथा बहवोऽपि भवन्त्विति भावः । इह च "दवाओ असंखेजे संखेने यावि पज्जवे लहइ” इति वचनादेकस्मिन्नर्थे समकालमवधिज्ञानिनः किलोत्कृष्टतोऽसंख्येया उपयोगाः प्राप्नुवन्ति, शेषज्ञानिनांत्वनन्ता इत्यभिप्रायवता प्रोक्तम्-"पइवत्थुमसंखेज" इत्यादि ॥२४३७॥
D. C. If it is accepted that the mind is engaged in another object at the same time when it is engaged in one, the rule regarding the employment of two different processes becomes useless. For, in that case, why not to accept innumerable applications of mind in case of (perception of ) each object ?
It has already been said before that every object attains 7. Vide v. 760

Page #169

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
:145:
countable or even uncountable paryāyas. One possessing avadhi jñānas is able to observe a-samkhyeya oc innumerable forms at a time, while those possessing the remaining two kinds of knowledge', are able to apprehend ananta or endless paryāyas at one time. 142 (2437)
Now the author states the opponent's argument and refutes it :बहु-बहुविहाइगहणे नणुवओगबहुया सुएभिहिआ। तमणेगग्गहणं चिय उवओगाणेगया नस्थि ॥१४३३।२४३८॥ 143. Bahu-bahuvihāigahaņe naņuvaögabahuya sue'bhihiă i
Tamanegaggahanam ciya uva_ganegaya natthi. (2438) [बहु-बहुविधादिग्रहणे ननूपयोगबहुता श्रुतेऽभिहिता ।
तदनेकग्रहणमेवोपयोगानेकता नास्ति ॥१४३॥२४३८॥ 143. Bahu-bahuvidhadigrahane nanapayogabahuta Srute'bhihital
Tadanekagraharamevopayogānekatā nāsti. (2438)]
Trans. 143. “ Plurality of applications has already been sanctioned by the Holy Writ, in case of ) apprehension of numerous varieties etc." It is only the comprehension of numerous forms in general ( that is meant), (and) not the plurality of apprehensions." 2438.
टीका-१४३ ननु बहु-बहुविध-क्षिप्रा-ऽनिश्रिता-ऽसंदिग्ध-ध्रुव सेतरवस्तुग्रहणे पूर्वमिहैवावग्रहादीनामनुज्ञाने एकस्मिन्नुपयोगबहुता श्रुतेऽभिहितैव, इति “पइवत्थुमसंखेज" इत्यादि सिद्धसाधनमेव, इति परेणोक्ते सत्याह-"तमणेगेत्यादि । तद् बहुविधादिरूपं वस्तुनोऽनेकपर्यायाणां सामान्यरूपतया ग्रहण
8. Visual knowledge; direct knowledge of matter limited as to subject, place, time, and nature, i, e. without the help of the senses.
9. Viz. Manah-paryaya (Mental Knowledge),-the state of mental perception which preceds the attainment of Kevala Jñāna (Perfect Knowledge) and Kevala Darsana. (Absolute Perception).

Page #170

: 146: Jinabhattra Gari's
[The fifth मात्रमेव ज्ञाने उपयोगयोग्यतामात्रव्यवस्थापनमेव, एकस्मिस्तु वस्तुन्येककाल - पयोगानेकता कापि नास्ति, क्रमेणैवोपयोगानां भावादिति ॥१४॥२४३८॥ D. C.
Ārya Ganga -While describing the process of avagraha (general apprehension ) etc, apprehension of plenty of paryāyas, has already been laid down by the Holy Writ. Then, what harm is there if we accept innumerable or endless applications (of mind) at the same time ?
Acarya:--That is not proper. For, in that rule, general apprehension of innumerable paryāyas of an object (with regard to the perception of an object ) is meant; but plurality of the application of mind in one object at one time is not at all meant. Applications of mind are always made one after the other. 143 (2438) समयमणेगरगहणं जइ सीओसिणदुगम्मि को दोसो ?। केण व भणियं दोसो उवओगदुगे वियारोष्यं ॥१४४॥२४३९॥ 144. Samayamaņegaggahaņam jai siösiņadugammi ko doso ? |
Keņa va bhaniyam doso uvaögaduge viyaro'yam. (2439) [समकमनेकग्रहणं यदि शीतोष्णद्विके को दोषः । केन वा भणितं दोष उपयोगद्विके विचारोऽयम् ॥१४४॥२४३९॥ 144. Samakamanekagrahaņam yadi śītoşņadvike ko doşaḥ? 1
Kena va bhanitam doşa upayogadvike vicāro'yam (2439) ]
Trans. 144. “ If the simultaneous apprehension of many paryayas (is acceptible), what harm is there (in accepting) sensations of heat and cold (being felt ) simultaneously." Who says that there is any harm (in accepting so )? Here the question is of two upayogas or applications ( being simultaneous" 2439.
टीका-१४४ यद्याचार्य ! समकं युगपदनेकेषामर्थानां ग्रहणं त्वयाप्यनुज्ञायते तदा शीतोष्णद्वये गृह्यमाणे को दोषः येन गङ्गाभ्युपगमो प्यते ? । सूरिराह

Page #171

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 147:
“ केण वेत्यादि ” केन पुनर्भणितम् - हन्त ! यत् समकमनेकार्थग्रहणे दोषः ? गृह्यन्ते युगपदपि सामान्यरूपतया सेना-वन-ग्राम-नगरादिवदने केर्ध्या इति, एतद् न निवारयामो वयमित्यर्थः, केवलमिहोपयोगद्वये विचारोऽयं प्रस्तुतः । स च उपयोग एकदा एक एव भवति, न त्वनेक इति ।। २४३९||
D. C.
Arya Ganga-If you have no objection in admitting apprehension of numerous objects together at a time, what harm is there in accepting apprehension of the sensations of heat and cold together ?
Acarya:- If you say like that, you have not understood the relevent point under consideration. There is no harm in admitting the apprehension of a number of objects at a time. Generally, objects like army, forests, villages etc. could be apprehended together. We do not doubt that view-point. What we object to, is the theory of accepting numerous upayogas or applications being made simultaneously. There can never be more than one upayoga or application at one time 144 (2439)
Arya Ganga, then puts another question and Acārya replies :समयमणेगग्गहणे एगाणेगोवओगभेओ को १ । सामण्णमेगजोगो खंधावारोवओगो व्व ॥ १४५॥२४४० ॥
खंधावारोऽयं सामण्णमेत्तमेगोवओगया समयं । पश्वत्थुविभागो पुण जो सोऽणेगोवओग ति ॥ १४६ ॥ २४४ ॥
145.
146.
Samayamanegaggahane egānegovaögabheö ko? Sāmanņamegajogo khandhāvārovaögo vva. (2440)

Khandhāvāro'yam samaņṇamettamegovaögayā samayam | Paivatthuvibhāgo puna jo so negovaöga tti (2441)
[ समकमनेकग्रहण एकानेकोपयोग भेदः कः ? ॥
. सामान्यमेकयोगः स्कन्धावारोपयोग इव ॥ १४५ || २४४० ||
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #172

: 148:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth
स्कन्धावारोऽयं सामान्यमात्रमेऽकोपयोगता समकम् । प्रतिवस्तुविभागः पुनर्यः सोऽनेकोपयोग इति ॥१४६॥२४४१॥ 145. Samakamanekagrahaņa ekānekopayogabhedah kah ? |
Sāmānyamekayogaḥ skandhāvāropayoga iva. (2440) 146. Skandhāvāro'yam sāmānyamātrame’kopayogatā samakamı
Prati-vastuvibhāgaa punaryah so'nekopayoga iti (2441) ]
Trans. 145-146. “While admitting the apprehension of many objects at a time, what is the sense in believing in distinction of one and many applications at a time. " General apprehension (constitutes ) one application as in the case of the apprehension of a retinue of army. (While apprehending that ) " This is a retinue of army " there is general apprehension only (constituting ) one application at a time. But that which is (contained in ) every portion of an object (gives rise to) plurality of application. (2440-2441)
टीका-१४५-१४६ ननु समकं युगपदनेकार्थग्रहणेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने कोऽयमेकानेकोपयोगमेदो नाम, येनोच्यते-"उवओगाणेगया नत्थि" इति ? । अत्रोत्तरमाह-"सामण्णमेगजोगो ति" यासामान्योपयोगः स एकोपयोगोऽभिधीयते, स्कन्धावारोपयोगवदिति दृष्टान्तः। अमुमेवार्थ स्पष्टयति-"खंधावारोऽयमित्यादि" समकं युगपदेव 'स्कन्धावारोऽयम्' इत्येवं यत् सामान्यं सामान्यमात्रग्राहको य उपयोग इत्यर्थः, स एकोपयोगता भण्यते । यः पुनः प्रतिवस्तु "एते हस्तिनः, अमी अश्वाः, इमे रथाः, एते पदातयः, एते खड्ग-कुम्भादयः, शिरस्त्राणकवचादयः, पट-कुटिकाः, ध्वजाः, पताकाः, ढक्का-सज-काहलादयः, करम-रासभादयश्च इत्यादिको विभागो भेदाध्यवसायः सोऽनेकोपयोग इति ॥२४४०॥२४४१॥ D. C.
Arya Ganga :- Apprehension of numerous objects is acceptible to you, as you say. Then, what is the sense in distinguishing between one and many upayogas working at one time?
Ācārya :-General apprehension of many objects at a time, constitutes only one application (of mind). After apprehending

Page #173

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:149: a retinue of army, when we say that “ This is a retinue ot army," there is only one application of mind at a time.
But when we apprehend each individual portion of it, by saying that “Those are the elephants," "Those are the horses", " These are chariots", " Here is infantry", " These are swords, pots etc." “ Those are helmets, armours, tents, flags, banners, drums, conches, camels etc. the apprehension of each individual portion requires a separate application of mind, giving rise to plurality of application. 145-146 (2440-2441) ते चिय न संति समयं सामण्णाणेगगहणमविरुद्धं । एगमणेगं पि तयं तम्हा सामण्णभावेणं ॥१४७॥२४४२॥ 147. Te cciya na santi samayam sāmaņņāņegagahaṇamaviru
ddham |
Egamaņegam pi tayam tamhā samaņņabhāveņam. (2442) [त एव न सन्ति समकं सामान्यानेकग्रहणमविरुद्धम् । एकमनेकमपि तत् तस्मात् सामान्यभावेन ॥१४७॥२४४२॥ 147. Ta eva na santi samakam sāmānyānekagrahaņamaviru
ddham |
Ekamanekamapi tat tasmāt sāmānyabhāvena. (2442)]
Trans. 147. They do not come into existence simultane. ously. General apprehension of many objects is not objectionable. For, in that way, even numerous objects become one in general. 2442.
टीका-१४७ त एवानेकोपयोगाः समकं युगपद् न सन्ति न भवन्तीति निषिध्यन्तेऽस्माभिः । यचु सामान्येनानेकेषामर्थानां युगपद् ग्रहणं तदविरुद्धमेव 'तम्ह त्ति' तस्माद् युगपदनेकोपयोगनिषेधेन किमुक्तं भवति ? इत्याह-एगमणेगं पीत्यादि' यदिदं स्कन्धावारादुपयोगे युगपदनेकार्थग्रहणमस्माभिरनुज्ञायते 'तयं ति' तदनेकमप्यनेकार्थग्रहणमपि सदित्यर्थः । “एगंति" एकमेव तत्त्वत एकार्थग्रहणमेवेत्यर्थः । केन ? इत्याह-" सामण्णभावेणं ति” सामान्यरूपतयेत्यर्थः । अयमत्र तात्पर्यार्थः-यदनेकार्थग्रहणमनुज्ञायते तत् सामान्यमेव रूपमाश्रित्य,

Page #174

: 150: Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The fifth विशेषरूपतया त्वनेकार्थग्रहणं नास्त्येव एकस्मिन् काल एकस्यैव विशेषोपयोगस्य सद्भावादिति ॥२४४२॥ D. C.
Acārya:-Our objection is against taking many upayogas to work siin ultaneously. But we do not contradict the acceptance of the general apprehension of numerous objects at a time. In case of examples such as “This is the retinue of army” etc. although we propose to apprehend numerous objects at a time, really speaking, it becomes the general apprehension of one aggregate object only. Thus, since there is only one application of mind in case of general apprehension, inany objects are perceived simultaneously.
Bit simultaneous apprehension of many objects in particular is not possible, because there cannot be more than one upayoga in particular at one time. 147 (2442)
Applying the same principle to the sensations of heat and cold, the author states, उसिणेयं सीयेयं न विभागो नोवओगदुगमित्थं । होज समं दुगगहणं सामण्णं वेयणा मे त्ति । १४८॥२४४३॥ 148. Usiņeyam siyeyain na vibhāgo novaögaduganittham |
Hojja samam dugagahaņam sāmaņņam veyaņā mc tti. (2443) [उष्णेयं शीतेणं न विभागो नोपयोगद्विमित्यम् ।
भवेत् समं द्विकग्रहणं सामान्यं वेदना ममेति ॥१४८॥२४४३।। 148. Uşmeyam śīteņam na vibhāgo nopayogadvikamittham ! Bhavet samam dvikagrahaņam sāmānyam vedanā maneti.
(2443) ] Trans. 148. (It is not possible) to divide it separately as “ This is the sensation of heat, and “This is the sensa. tion of) cold ", and causing thereby two separate applications (of mind) to work simultaneously. Simultaneous apprehension

Page #175

:151:
Vada ]
Nihnavavāda of the two is possible (only', if it is in the general form expressed as " I feel two sensations." 2443.
टीका-१४८ "उष्णेयं शीतेयं वेदना' इत्येवं योऽसौ विभागो मेोऽसौ नेष्टः-शीतोष्णविभागे शीतोष्णविशेषरूपतया युगपद् ग्रहणं नेष्टमित्यर्थः । अत एव तद्विषयमुपयोगद्वयं युगपद् नेष्टम् । किं युगपद् वस्तुद्वयग्रहणं सर्वथा नेष्टम् । नैवम् । कुतः ? इत्याह-भवेत् समं युगपद् वस्तुद्वयग्रहणम् । किं विशेषरूपतया ?। न, इत्याह-सामान्यं सामान्यरूपतयेत्यर्थः । कथम् ? । “वेदना मे मम वर्तते" इत्येवं युगपद् द्वयग्रहणं भवेत् , न तु शीतोष्णवेदनाविशेषरूपतयेत्यर्थः, युगपदु. पयोगद्वयमसङ्गात् , तत्र च दोषाणामुक्तत्वादिति ॥२४४३॥
D. C. It is not desirable to make two separate divisions and remark that “This is the sensation of heat” and “This is the sensation of cold” and thereby give rise to the simultaneous apprehension of both the sensations which is absolutely impossible. For, two separate upayogas of mind, which relate to both the sensations, could not take place simultaneously. Two sensations could be experienced only by saying in a general tone that “I feel two sensations." But the two sensations of heat and cold. could never be experienced simultaneously. 148 (2443)
Now, explaining the difference between sāmānya or generad cognition and visesa or particular cognition, the author states :
जं सामण्णविसेसा विलक्खणा तन्निबंधणं जं च । नाणं जं च विभिन्ना सुदूरओवग्गहा-ऽवाया ॥१४९॥२४४४॥ जं च विसेसन्नाणं सामननाणपुव्वयमवस्सं । तो सामण्णविसेसन्नाणाइं नेगसमयम्मि ॥१५०॥२४५५॥ 149. Jam samanmavisesa vilakkhana tannibandhanam jam cal
Nāņam jam ca vibhinna sudūraövaggahā'vāyā. (2444) 150. Jam ca visesannāņam sāmannanāņapuvvayamavassami
To sāvaņņavisesannāņāim negasamayammi. (2445)

Page #176

• 152:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth [यत् सामान्यविशेषौ विलक्षणौ तन्निवन्धनं यच्च । ज्ञानं यच्च विभिन्नौ सुदूरतोऽवग्रहाऽवायौ ॥१४९।२४४४॥ यच्च विशेषज्ञानं सामान्यज्ञानपूर्वकमवश्यम् । ततः सामान्य-विशेषज्ञाने नैकसमये ॥१५०॥२४४५॥ 149. Yat sāmānyu-visesau vilaksunau tannilyandlhunam yacca l
Jnānanı yacca vibhinau sudūratu’vagrahā’vāyau (2444) 150. Yacca višesa-jnānam sāmānya-jnānapūrvakamavasyam 1
Tatah samānya-visesa-jnanc naika samaye. (2445)]
Trans. 149-150. Since general (apprehension) and particular (apprehension) are mutually distinct, the respective cog. nitions, viz avagraha (or general cognition ) and avāya (or definite cognition ) are also widely different (from each other), and since, definite cognition certainly follows the general cognition, the two cognitions (could not take place ) simultaneously (2444-2445)
टीका-१४९-१५० “तो ति" तस्मात् सामान्यग्राहकं विशेषग्राहकं च ज्ञानं द्वे अपि नैकसमये नैककालं भवत इति द्वितीयगाथायां संबन्धः । कुतः? इत्याह -"जं सामण्णेत्यादि" यद् यस्मात् सामान्य-विशेषौ परस्परमतीवविभिन्नलक्षणौ भिन्नजातीयौ, अतः कथं तावेककालमेकज्ञाने प्रतिभासेते, एकत्वप्रसङ्गात् , सामान्यतत्स्वरूपवत् विशेषतत्स्वरूपवद् वा ?। माऽभूत् तत्प्रतिभासः, तथापि तज्ज्ञाने युगपद् भविष्यत इत्याह-यस्माच्च तनिवन्धनं सामान्यविशेषहेतुकं सर्वमपि ज्ञानं, तत् कथं तत्प्रतिभासमन्तरेणोत्पद्येत ? सामान्यविशेषज्ञानयोरेकत्वादेककालं ते भविष्यत इति चेत् । तदयुक्तम् । कुतः ? इत्याह-यस्माच सुदूर विभिनौ सामान्य-विशेषज्ञानरूपाववग्रहा-ऽवायौ, इति कथं समकालं भवतः ?। यद् यस्माचावश्यकं सामान्यग्राहकज्ञानपूर्वकमेव विशेषग्राहकं ज्ञानम् , “नानवगृहीतमीह्यते, नानीहितं निश्चीयते" इत्यादिवचनात् । अतः कथं तयोर्युगपत् सम्भवः ? इति ॥२४४४॥२४४५।। D. C.
Acārya :--Sámānya and visesa types of knowledge could

Page #177

Vada]
: 153:
never be attained simultaneously, because they are extremely distinct from each other.
Nihnavavāda
Arya Ganga :-Since both happen to be jñānas, what harm in there if both are accepted to have been attained simultaneously?
Acarya :--That is not possible. Sāmānya and visesa types of knowledge represent avagraha and apaya types of knowledge respectively. Both these types are extremely different from each other as avagraha results in general cognition while apaya results in definite or particular cognition.
The general cognition always precedes the particular or definite cognition. For, it has already been said that "Without general apprehension, there is no definite apprehension, without which there is no definite ascertainment."
For all these reasons, it is not possible to take both the processes of jñānas to operate simultaneously. 149-150 (24442445)
Again, the opponent would ask-
होज न विलक्खणाई समयं सामण्ण-भेयनाणाई । बहुयाण को विरोहो समयम्मि विसेसनाणाणं १ || १५१ ।। २४४६ ||
151. Hojja na vilakkhaṇāim samayam samaņṇa-bheyanāṇāim | Bahuyāņa ko viroho samayammi visesanāṇāņam ? (2446)
[ भवेतां न विलक्षणे समकं सामान्य-भेदज्ञाने । बहुकानां को विरोधः समये विशेषज्ञानानाम् ? ॥ १५१ ॥२४४६ ॥ 151. Bhavetām na vilakṣaṇe samakam sāmānya-bhedajñāne i
Bahukanan ko virodhaḥ samaye viśesajñānānām? (2446) ]
Trans. 151. There may not be simultaneous (applications) when there is wide difference between the general and definite types of knowledge. (But) what is the objection in (accepting) numerous knowledges of definite type, (being attained ) simuItaneously? 2446.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #178

: 154: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The fifth ____टीका-१५१ नन्वाचार्य ! एवं तहिं अस्ति यदुत-सामान्य वेदनामात्रग्राहक सामान्यज्ञानं, शीतोष्णवेदनाविशेषग्राहकं विशेषज्ञानरूपं भेदज्ञानं च, इत्येते द्वे अपि सुदूरविलक्षणत्वात् समकं युगपद् न भवतः, बहूनां तु शीतोष्णादिविशेषज्ञानानां समय एकस्मिन् काले जायमानानां विशेषज्ञानरूपतया तेषां बहूनामपि तुल्यत्वेन वैलक्षण्याभावात् को विरोधः, येन शीतोष्णवेदनाविशेषज्ञाने युगपद् गङ्गस्य निषिध्यते ? इति ॥२४४६॥ D. C.
Arya Ganga :-Since there is a wide difference between sāmānya-jñāna or general knowledge which apprehends simple sensations only, and visesa-jinana or definite knowledge which apprehends a definite sensation like that of heat or cold, they may not be taken to have been attained simultaneously. But since there is no difference in various visesa-jñānas, what harm is there in accepting a number of viścșa-jñanas to have been attained simultaneously ? 151 (2446)
The Acārya replies:-- लक्खणभेयाउ चिय मामण्णं च जमणेगविसयं ति । तमघेत्तुं न विसेसन्नाणाई तेण समयम्मि ॥१५२॥२४४७॥ तो सामनग्गहणाणंतरमीहियमवेइ तम्भेयं । इय सामनविसेसावेक्खो जावंतिमो मेओ ॥१५३॥२४४८॥ 152. Lakkhanabheyau cciya samannam ca jamanegavisayam til
Tamaghettum na visesannāņāim teņa samayammi. (2447) 153. To sāmannaggahaņāṇantaramīhiyamavei tabbheyam |
Iya sāmannavisesāvekkho jāvantimo bheö. (2448) [लक्षणभेदादेव सामान्यं यदनेकविषयमिति । तदगृहीत्वा न विशेषज्ञानानि तेन समये ॥१५२॥२४४७॥ ततःसामान्यग्रहणानन्तरमीहितमवैति तद्भेदम् । इति सामान्यविशेषापेक्षा यावदन्तिमो भेदः ॥१५३॥२४४८॥

Page #179

Vada] Nihnavavada
: 155: 152. Laksanabhedadeva sannānyam yadanekavisayamitis
Tadagrihitvā na visesa-jhānāni tena. samaye. (2447) 153. Tatah sāmānyagrahananantaramihitamavaiti tadbhedam |
Iti samanyavisesapeksa yavadantimo bhedah. (2448)]
Trans. 152-153. Since sāmānya or general apprehension (constitutes) a number of subjects on account of various distinctive characteristics, (there is) no (possibility of) visesa jha. ņas or definite cognitions (being attained) at the same time without attaining it. Then, definite apprehension attained after general apprehension, recognizes their distinction. Such an inter-dependence of sämānya and višesa continues till final distinction. (2447-2448) ___टीका-१५२-१५३ तेन कारणेन समय एकस्मिन् काले बहूनि विशेषज्ञानानि न भवन्ति । कुतः ? इत्याह-लक्षणं शीतोष्णादिविशेषणस्वरूपं तस्य परस्परं मेदा भिन्नत्वाद् न तद्ग्राहकाणि ज्ञानानि समकं भवन्ति, यस्माचानेकविषयमनेकाधारं सामान्यं, इत्यतस्तदगृहीत्वा न विशेषज्ञानसंभूतिरस्तीति, अतोऽपि न युगपद् विशेषज्ञानानि । इदमुक्तं भवति-पूर्व वेदनासामान्यं गृहीत्वा तत ईहां प्रविश्य "शीतेयं पादयोवेदना" इति वेदनाविशेषं निश्चिनोति । शिरस्यपि प्रथम वेदनासामान्यं गृहीत्वा तत ईहां प्रविश्य " उष्णेयमिह वेदना" इत्यध्यवस्यति । न हि घटविशेषज्ञानादनन्तरमेव पटाश्रयसामान्यरूपेऽगृहीते पटविशेषज्ञानमुपजायते " उग्गहो ईह अवाओ य” इत्यमुनैव क्रमेण घटादिविशेषज्ञानोत्पत्यमिधानात् । एवं च सति विशेषज्ञानादनन्तरमपि विशेषज्ञानं नोत्पद्यते, आस्तां पुनः समकालम् , सामान्यस्यानेकविशेषाश्रयत्वात् । तच्च पूर्वमगृहीत्वा विशेषज्ञानस्या. प्रसवादिति ।
यतथैवं सामान्येऽगृहीते नास्ति विशेषज्ञानम् , 'तो ति' ततः सामान्यग्रहणान्तरमीहितं तद्भेदं सामान्यभेदं घटत्वादिसामान्याश्रयं घटादिविशेषमित्यर्थः, अवैति-"घटादिरेवाऽयम्" इत्येव निश्चिनोतीत्यर्थः । तत उत्तरभेदापेक्षया घट एव सामान्यम् । तस्मिश्च गृहीते ईहित्वा “धातुजोऽयम्, न मातः" इत्येवं निश्चिनोति । ततो धातुजोऽप्युत्तरभेदापेक्षया सामान्यम् । तस्मिंश्च गृहीते ईहित्वा 'ताम्रोऽयं न राजतादिः" इतीत्थं निश्चिनोतीति । एवं सामान्य-विशेषापेक्षा वाषद् कर्तव्या यावदन्तिमो भेदः स कश्चित् यदनन्तरमीहा न प्रवर्तते । ततवं

Page #180

: 156: Jinabhadra Gaņi's
[The fifth न कचिद् विशेषज्ञानानां युगपत्प्रवृत्तिसंभवः, सामान्यरूपतया तु समकालमपि विशेषाणां ग्रहणं भवेत् , यथा सेना, पनमित्यादि न तु युगपदुपयोग इत्युक्तमेव ।
तथा च भित्रकाले एव शीतोष्णविशेषज्ञाने । ततो भ्रान्तमेव समकालं शीतोष्णक्रियाद्वयवेदनं भवत इति ॥२४४७॥२४४८॥
D. C. A number of visesa jñānas could never be attained simultaneously. There are various reasons for this.
Firstly, because there is a clear distinction between various characteristics such as those of heat, cold etc, their respective jñanas could not be attained simultaneously.
Secondly, general apprehension contains a number of subjects. So, without its apprehension, the višesa-jñāna or cognition in particular, could never be attained. On account of this reason also, many visesa jñānas are not attained at the same time.
After apprehending a general sensation, one ascertains it as particular by saying that “There is a sensation of cold on my feet.” Even in (case of) head, after apprehending a general sensation, one ascertains it in particular by saying that "Here I feel the sensation of heat."
One cannot attain visesa jñāna of pața even after the apprehension of the visesa jñāna of ghata without apprehending the general form of pața. Thus, when visesa jñāna is not produced even after a visesa jñāna, how could that be attained at the same time? Sâmānya is full of many višeşas, and without apprehending sāmānya at first, the višesa is not apprehended in any case,
Since the attainment of višeşa jñāna is not possible without that of sāmānya, the definite apprehension attained after general apprehension, recognizes the various characteristics like ghata etc. contained in the general form of ghatatva etc. and then ascertains it as ghata. One more distinction of ghata is recognized after this. With regard to a further characteristic, ghata becomes sāmānya, after the apprehension of which, one ascertains it as "made of metal and not of earth” This form of metal

Page #181

Vadal
Nihnavavada
:15:
apprehended as a višeşa or distinct form of ghata again becomes & sāmanya form with regard to further distinction. After the apprehension of this, one ascertains it as “ made of copper and not of silver,” Such an inter-relation of sāmānya and visesa continues upto the last distinction, further than which, the definite apprehension becomes impossible.
So, there is no possibility of many visesa jõānas to be attained simultaneously, as stated above, but a simultaneous apprehension of a number of particular objects, such as an army, forest etc. is possible. Their upayogas cannot be simultaneous.
Similarly, the višeşa jñānas of the sensations of heat and coll are attained only at different times, and not simultaneously.
Thus, your theory of accepting the processes of undergoing both the sensations at the same time, proves to be absolutely unfounded. 152-153 (2447-2448)
Then, इय पण्णविओ विजओ न पवजह तो तओ को बझो । तो रायगिहे समयं किरियाओ दो परूवंतो ॥१५४॥२४४९।। मणिनागेणारद्धो भओववत्तिओ पडियोहिओ वोत्तुं । इच्छामो गुरुमूलं गंतूण तओ पडिकंतो ॥१५५॥२४५०॥ 154. Iya paņņaviö vi jaö na pavajjai to taö kaö bajjho 1
To Rāyagihe samayam kiriyāö do paravanto. (2449) 155. Maņināgeṇāraddho bhaövavattiö padibohiö vottumi
___Icchamo gurumalam gantuna tai padikkanto. (2450) [इति प्रज्ञापितोऽपि यतो न प्रपद्यते ततःसको कृतो बाधः । ततो राजगृहे समकं क्रिये द्वे प्ररूपयन् ॥१५४॥२४४९।। मणिनागेनारब्धो भयोपपतितः प्रतिबोधित उक्त्व ॥ इच्छामो गुरुमूलं गत्वा ततः प्रतिक्रान्तः ॥१५५॥२४५०॥ 154. Iti prajñāpito'pi yato na prapadyate tataḥ sako krito bāhyahi
___Tato Rajagrihe samakam kriye ave prarapayan. (2449)

Page #182

: 158:
Jinabhadra Gani's (The fifth 155. Maņināgenārbdho bhayopapatitaḥ pratibodhita uktva i
Icchamo gurumdlam gatvā tataḥ pratikrāntaḥ. (2450) ]
Trans. 154-155. Although persuaded in this way, when (Arya Ganga) was not convinced, he was expelled from the Gaccha (Order of Monks). Then, while asserting ( his ) theory of two processes (of feeling ) being simultaneous, in Rājagriha he was threatened by Maņināga, and brought to the right path by means of threat Finally, he declared that “We wish to return to ( the school of our original preceptor and having eturned ( to him), at last he was re-initiated.
End of the Discussion with the Fifth Nihnava.

Page #183

Chapter VII
॥ षष्ठनिह्नववक्तव्यता॥
Discussion with the Sixth Nihnava.
पंचसया चोयाला तइआ सिद्धिं गयस्स वीरस्स। पुरिमंतरंजियाए तेरासियदिट्ठी उप्पन्ना ॥१५६॥२४५१॥ 156. Pancasayā coyālā taiā Siddhin gayassa Virassa 1
Purimantaranjiyāe terasiya ditthi uppannā (2451) [पञ्चशतानि चतुश्चत्वारिंशता तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य धीरस्य । पुर्यामन्तरञ्जिकायां त्रैराशिकहष्टिरुत्पन्ना ॥१५६॥२४५१॥ 156. Pañcaśatānicatuścatvārimśatā tada Siddhim gatasya
Virasya / Puryāmantarañjikāyām trairāśikadrsțirutpannā. (2451)]
Trans. 156. The theory of Trairasikas (upholders of the principle of three categories ) was founded in the city of Antaranjika, five hundred and forty-four years after the Tir. thankara Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāyira Swāmi had attained Niravāņa. 2451.
टीका-१५६ पञ्चवर्षशतानि चतुश्चत्वारिंशदधिकानि तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य श्रीमन्महावीरस्य, अत्रान्तरेऽन्तरञ्जिकायां पुर्या त्रैराशिकदृष्टिरुत्पनेति ॥२४५१॥
D. C. Easy. 156 (2451)
The story of the production of the theory of Trairāśikas is narrated in detail as follows :

Page #184

: 160: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth पुरिमंतरंजि भूयगिह बलसिरी सिरिगुत्त रोहगुत्त य । परिवायपोहसाले घोसणपडिसेहणा वाए ॥१५७।२४५२॥ 157. Purimantaranji Bhayagiha, Balasiri, Sirigutta Rohagutte yal
Parivāyapoțțasāle ghosaņa paņisehaņā vāe. (2452) [पुर्यन्तरञ्जिका भूतगृहं बलश्रीः श्रीगुप्तो रोहगुप्तश्च । परिव्राजकपोशालो घोषणप्रतिषेधना वादः ॥१५७॥२४५२॥ 157. Puryantaranjika Bhutagriham Bulasrih Srigupto Roha
guptaśca |
ParivrajakaPottasalo ghosanapratisedhanā valah. (2452)]
Trans. 157. ( There was ) a city (named ) Antarañjikā. Bhotagriha (was a temple ). Balasri ( was the king ), Srigupta ( was the Acārya), and Rohagupta ( his pupil). Discussion (took place ) with a parivrājaka (a mendicant ascetic ) named Pattsala (as a result of ) taking up (his) challenge. 2452.
टीका-१५७ संग्रहगाथेयम् । अस्याश्च कथानकादर्थोऽवसेयः । तदम्अन्तरञ्जिका नाम नगरी । तस्याश्च बहिर्भूतगृहं नाम चैत्यम् । तत्र च श्रीगुप्तनामाचार्यः स्थितः। तस्यां च नगर्या बलश्री म राजा । श्रीगुप्ताचार्याणां च रोहगुप्तो नाम शिष्योऽन्यत्र ग्रामे स्थित आसीत् । अतोऽसौ गुरुवन्दनार्थमन्तरझिकायामागतः। तत्र चैकः परिव्राजको लोहपटकेनोदरं बद्धवा जम्बूवृक्षशाखया च हस्ते गृहीतया नगयो भ्राम्यति । किमेतत् ? इति च लोकेन पृष्टो वदति"मदीयोदरमतीवज्ञानेन पूरितत्वात् स्फुटतीति लोहपट्टेन बद्धम् , जम्बूद्वीपमध्ये च मम प्रतिवादी नास्ति" इत्यस्यार्थस्य सूचनार्थ जम्बूवृक्षशाखा हस्ते गृहीता। ततस्तेन परिव्राजकेन सर्वस्यामपि नगर्यां "शून्याःसर्वेऽपि परप्रवादाः, नास्ति कश्चिद् मम प्रतिवादी" इत्युद्घोषणापूर्वकः पटहको दापितः । लोहपट्टबद्धपोट्टजम्बूवृक्षशाखायोगाच्च तस्यलोके "पोट्टशाल" इति नामजातम् । ततस्तत्पटहको नगरी प्रविशता रोहगुप्तेन दृष्टः, उद्घोषणा च श्रुता । ततो “अहं तेन साधं वादं दास्यामि" इत्यभिधाय गुरूनपृष्ट्वापि निषिद्धस्तेनासौ पटहकः । गुरुसमीपं चागत्यालोचयता कथितोऽयं व्यतिकरस्तेषाम् । आचार्यैःप्रोक्तम् न युक्तं त्वयाऽनुष्ठितम् , स हि परिव्राजको वादे निर्जितोऽपि विद्याखतिकुशलत्वात् ताभिरुपतिठति । तस्य चैताः सप्तविद्या बाढं स्फुरन्ति ॥२४५२।।

Page #185

Vada ] Nihnayavāda
: 161: D. C. Outside the city of Antarað jikā there was a temple known as Bhūtagriha. There lived a preceptor named Sri Gupta. Sri Gupta had a pupil named Rohagupta, who stayed in some other village from where he usually came to pay his homage to the preceptor every now and then.
Once upon a time when Rohagupta was coming to the city of Antaranjikā in order to pay his usual homage to the preceptor, he saw a parivrājaka (a wandering ascetic) with an iron belt tied around his belly, and with a branch of the Jamba tree in his hand signifying thereby that his stomach was filled to the brim with knowledge, and that there was no body in the whole of Jambad| vīpa who could defeat him. This mendicant was known as Potta
sala in the city as his stomach was tide with an iron-belt. This Pottaśāla wandered throughout the city announcing his challenge with the beating of drum that ”All my opponents have failed. There is no body who can return my challenge. On hearing this, Rohagupta took up the challenge even without consulting his preceptor. When he narrated the whole incident to his preceptor afterwards, the preceptor said, “You have incurred a risk by doing so." For, though defeated, Pottaśāla will harass you with various magical spells. 157 (2452)
Because, विच्छू य सप्पे मूसग मिगी वराही य काग पोयाई। एयाहिं विजाहिं सो य परिवायगो कुसलो ॥१५८॥२४५३॥ 158. Viccha ya sappe mosaga migi varāhi ya kāga poyai i
Eyāhim vijjāhim so ya parivāyago kusalo. (2453) [वृश्चिकी सी मूषकी मृगी वराही काकी पोताकी। एताभिर्विद्याभिः स च परिव्राजकः कुशलः ॥१५८॥२४५३॥ 158. Vriściki sarpi mūşakī mrigi varāhi kāki potāki |
Etābhirvidyābhiḥ sa ca parivrăjakaḥ kuśalah. (2453) ]
Trans. 158. That parivrājaka (mendicant) has achieved the magical spell of scorpion, serpent, mouse, deer, boar, crow and parrot. 2453.

Page #186

:162:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth टीका-१५८ "विच्छू यत्ति" वृश्चिकप्रधाना विद्या गृह्यते । “ सप्पे ति" सर्पप्रधाना विद्या । "मूसगे ति" मूषकप्रधाना । तथा मृगी नाम विद्या मृगी. रूपेणोपघातकारिणी । एवं वराही च । “काग पोयाइ ति' काकविद्या, पोताकीविद्या च । पोताक्याशकुनिकाः एतासु विद्यासु, एताभिर्वा विद्याभिः स परिव्राजकः कुशल इति । ततो रोहगुप्तेनोक्तम्-" यद्येवम्, तत किमिदानीं नष्टुं कापि शक्यते ?, निषिद्धस्तत्पटहकः, यद् भवति तद् भवतु" । ततःसूरिभिःप्रोक्तम्यद्येवम् , तहिं पठितसिद्धा एवैताः सप्त तत्प्रतिपक्षविद्या गृहाण ॥२४५३॥
D. C.
Acārya :--That parivrājaka (men licant) is proficient in magical spells of scorpions, serpents, mice, hoars, crows and parrots.
Rohagupta :- If it is so, is there, now, any way to defeat him, any how? Since I have accepteil the challenge, let things happen as they do."
Acārya:-If you desire so, you shall have to achieve the various counteracting spells that would overpower the abovenamed tricks successfully. 158 (2453)
The counter-acting spells areमोरी नउली बिराली वग्घी सिही य उलुगि उवाई। एआओ विजाओ गिण्ह परिव्यायमहणीओ ॥१५९॥२४५४॥ 159. Mori nauli birali vagghi sihi ya ulugi uvai |
Eāö vijjáö giạna parivyāyamahaņiö (2454) [मोरी नकुली बिडाली व्याघी सिंही चोलुकी उलावकी। एता विद्या गृहाण परिव्राजकमथनी: ॥१५९॥२४५४॥ 159. Mori nakuli bidali vyāghri simhi coluki ulāvaki |
Etā vidyā grihāņa parivrājakamathanīh. (2454) ]
Trans 159. Achieve the under-mentioned (counter-acting) spells that (would ) vanquish the parivrajaka (mendicant) viz that of peacock, mangoose, cat, tiger, lion, owl and hawk. 2454.

Page #187

Vada] Nihnavavada
: 16: टीका-१५९ वृश्चिकाणां प्रतिपक्षभूता मोरीविद्या । सर्पाणां तु प्रतिपक्षभूता नकुली । मूषकाणां बिडाली । एवं व्याघ्री, सिंही, उलूकी। "उवाइ ति" पोताकीप्रतिपक्षभूता उलावकाधाना विद्येत्यर्थः। एताः परिव्राजकमथनीविद्या गृहाण त्वम् । इति सूरिणा प्रोक्ते गृहाति रोहगुप्तः । तथा रजोहरणं चाभिमन्य सूरिभिस्तस्य समर्पितम् । अभिहितश्च यथा यद्यन्यदपि किश्चित् तत्मणीतक्षुद्रविद्याकृतमुपसर्गजातमुपतिष्ठते तदा तनिवारणार्थमेतद् मस्तकस्योपरि भ्रमणीयम् । ततश्चैन्द्राणामप्यजेयो भविष्यसि, किमुत मनुष्यमात्रस्य तस्येति । ततश्च गतो राजसभां रोहगुप्तः । प्रोक्तं च तत्र तेन-"किमेष दुमक परिव्राजको जानाति । करोत्वयमेव यदृक्षया पूर्वपक्षम् , येनाहं निराकरोमि ।" ततः परिव्राजकेन चिन्तितम्-निपुणाःखल्वमी भवन्ति, तदमीषामेव संमतं पक्षं परिगृह्णामि, येन निराकतुं न शक्नोति । विचिन्त्य चेदमभ्यधायि-" इह जीवाश्चाजीवाश्चेति द्वावेव राशी, तथैवोपलभ्यमानत्वात्, शुभा-ऽशुभादिराशिद्वयवत्" इत्यादि । ततो रोहगुप्तेन तद्बुद्धिपरिभवनार्थ स्वसंमतोऽप्पयं पक्षो निराकृतः। कथम् ? इति चेत् । उच्यते-असिद्धोऽयं हेतुः, अन्यथोपलम्भात् , जीवा अजीवा नोजीवाश्चेति राशित्रयदर्शनात् । तत्र जीवा नरकतिर्यगादयः, अजीवास्तु परमाणु-घटादयः, नोजीवास्तु गृहकोलिकापुच्छादयः । ततो जीवा-ऽजीव-नोजीवरूपास्त्रयो राशयः, तथैवोपलभ्यमानत्वात् , अधम-मध्यमो-त्तमादिराशित्रयवत्, इत्यादियुक्तिंभिनिष्प्रश्नव्याकरणः कृत्वा जितः परिव्राजको रोहगुप्तेन । ततोऽसौ क्रुद्धो वृश्चिकविद्यया रोहगुप्तविनाशार्थ वृश्चिकान् मुञ्चति, ततो रोहगुप्तस्तत्प्रतिपक्षभूतमयूरीविद्यया मयूरान् मुश्चति । तैश्च वृश्चिकेषु हतेषु परिव्राजकासान् मुश्चति । इतरस्त.
प्रतिघातार्थ नकुलान विसृजति । एवं मूषकाणां बिडालान्, मृगीणां व्याघ्रान् , शूकराणां सिंहान् , काकानामुलूकान्, पोतकीनामुलावकान् मुञ्चति । ततो गर्दभी मुक्ता । तां चागच्छन्तीं दृष्टा रोहगुप्तेन रजोहरणं मस्तकस्योपरि भ्रमयित्वा तेनैव रजोहरणेन ताडिता सती परिवाजकस्योपरि मूत्र-पुरीपोत्सर्ग कृत्वा गतासौ। ततः सभापतिना, सभ्यैः, समस्तलोकेन च निन्द्यमानो, नगराद् निर्वासितः परिव्राजकः ॥२४५४॥
D. C The spells of scorpions, serpents, mice deer, boars, cro ws, and parrots are respectively nullified by those of pea-cocks, mangeese, cats, tigers, lions, owls, and hawks. You should pick up all those spells properly if you want to defeat the parivrājaka.

Page #188

Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth
UT
Thus advised by the preceptor, Rohagupta studied all the methods. In addition to that, he was also supplied with a consecrated with a spell by his preceptor with instructions that he should wave it over his own head for the prevention of any other trouble created by parivrājaka.
Rajoharana*
: 164:
Rohagupta, then, went to the Royal Assembly, and said "What does this poor mendicant know? Let him open any topic he likes, I will refute it. The shrewd parivrājaka knew that Rohagupta was very clever, and so, he thought of opening the tropic with the acceptance of Rohagupta's own principles, so that, Rohagupta would not be able to refute the same.
He, then, opened the topic with this remark:- Like the two categories of good and evil, there are only two categories of (1) Jivas or animate beings and (2)A-jïvas or in-animate ones in this world. This theory is acceptable to the Jainas, but for the sake of defeating the mendicant, Rohagupta refuted it by saying that all the objects in the Universe, could be divided into three categories :-Jiva, A-jīva and No -jiva. Hellish denizens, tiryancas manusyas etc come under the category of Jiva. Atoms, and ghata, pata etc are Ajivas and the dissected limbs such as a tail etc. of animals like house- lizard etc would come under the category of No-jiva. He argued that, like the three categories of best, medium, and the lowest, found in this world, there were three categories, of Jivas. A-Jīvas, and No-jívas in the Universe.
The parivrjaka was defeated' by such an unexpected argument. So, being naturally enraged at Rohigupta, the parivrajaka, let loose his scorpions upon him. Rohagupta removed them with the help of his pea-cocks. In this way, the mendicant tried to defy Rohagupta by means of serpent, mice, deer, boars, crows and parrots, while Rohagupta over-powered all of them by means of mangeese, cats, tigers, lions, owls, and hawks respectively.
* Rajoharara a sacred broom of wool-threads always carried by Jaina Monks and Nuns for the purpose of cleaning beds, seats, etc. without inflicting any injury to vermin and insects which may happen to be there.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #189

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 165:
Finally the parivrājaka released a she-ass to kill Rohagupta. But, on seeing the she-ass coming towards him, Rohagupta waved the Rajoharaṇa (which his preceptor had given him) over his own head, and beat the she-ass with it, as a result of which, the she-ass ran away from him after passing urine and foeces etc. upon the parivrajaka.
The parivrājaka, who was thus vanquished in all ways, was then, driven away from the city with great humiliation. 159 (2454)
Now, the author proceeds to narrate the next incident in this connection-
जेऊण पोहशालं छलूओ भणइ गुरुमूलमागंतुं । वायम्मि मए विजिओ सुणह जहासौ सहामज्झे || १६० || २४५५ ॥ रासिदुगगहियपक्खो तइयं नोजीवरासिमादाय । गिहकोलिकाइपुच्छच्छेओदाहरणओऽभिहिए || १६१॥२४५६॥ भइ गुरू सुटु कय किं पुण जेऊण कीस नाभिहियं । अयमवसिद्धंतो णे तहओ नोजीवरासि त्ति ॥ १६२ || २४५७॥ एवं गए वि गंतुं परिसामज्झम्मि भणसु नायं णे । सिर्द्धतो किंतु मए बुद्धिं परिभूय सो समिओ || १६३ || २४५८|| बहुसो स भण्णमाणो गुरुणा पडिभणइ किमवसिद्धतो । जइ नाम जीवदेसो नोजीवो हुज्ज को दोसो ? ॥ १६४ ॥ २४५९ ॥
160.
Jeana Poṭṭasālam chalaö bhaṇai gurumūlamāgantum | Vayammi maè vijiö suņaha jahāsau sahāmajjhe. (2455) 161. Rāsidugagahiyapakkho taiyam no-jivarāsimādāya | GihakolikāipucchaccheÖdāharanao 'bhihie. (2456)
Bhanai guru suṭṭhu kayam kim puņa jeaņa kisa nābhihiyan Ayamavasiddhanto ne taiö nojīvarāsi tti. (2457)
162.
163.

Evam gae vi gantum parisāmajjhammi bhaṇasu nāyam ņe Siddhanto kintu mae buddhim paribhaya so samiö. (2458)

Page #190

:166:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth
164.
Bahuso sa. bhannamāno guruna padibhanai kimavasiddhantos Jai nāma jiva-deso no-jiva hujja ko doso ? (2459)
[जित्वा पोट्टशालं षडुलूको भणति गुरुमूलमागतः। वादे मया विजितः शृणुत यथा स सभामध्ये ॥१६०॥२४५५।। राशिद्विकगृहीतपक्षस्तृतीयं नोजीवराशिमादाय । गृहकोलिकादिपुच्छच्छेदोदाहरणतोभिहिते ॥१६१॥२४५६॥ भणति गुरुः सुष्टु कृतं किं पुनर्जित्वा कस्माद् नाभिहितम् । अयमपसिद्धान्तो नस्तृतीयो नोजीवराशिरिति ॥१६२।।२४५७॥ एवं गतेऽपि गत्वा परिषन्मध्ये भण नाऽयं नः। सिद्धान्तः किन्तु मया बुद्धिं परिभूय स शमितः ॥१६३।।२४५८॥ बहुशः स भण्यमानो गुरुणा प्रतिभणति किमपसिद्धान्तः। यदि नाम जीवदेशे नोजीवो भवेत् को दोषः १ ॥१६४॥२४५९॥ 160. Jitvā Pottasalam Sadulako bhanati gurumulamāgatahi
Vāde mayā vijitaḥ śruņuta yathā sa sabhāmadhye. (2455) 161. Rāśidvikagrihītapakşastritiyam nojivarāśimādāya ||
Grihakolikādipuccacchedodāharaṇato’bhihite. (2456) Bhaŋati guruh sușthu kritam kim punarjitvā kasmād nā. bhihitam |
Ayamapasiddhānto nastritiyo nojivarāsiriti. (2457) 163.
Evam gate'pi gatvā parişanmadhye bhaņa nā’yam nah! Evam oats,
Siddhantah kintu mayā buddhim paribhūya sa samitaḥ. (2458)] 164. Bahuśaḥ sa bhaṇyamāno guruņā pratibhaṇati kimapasindhānth ||
Yadi nama. jivadese no-jivo bhavet kinm dosah. (2459)] Trans. 160-161-162-163.164 Having defeated Pattasala, Sadu loka approached the preceptor, and said " (Please) hear how he is defeated by me in discussion in the Royal Assembly. (His) theory of two categories was refuted by me, resor ting to a third category of no-jiva with an illustration of the dis
162.

Page #191

vada] Nihvaravāda
: 167: sected tail of a house-lizard,” “You have done a good deed by defeating hiin" said the preceptor, (but), then, why did you not declare that this principle of the third category (of) no-jiva was not acceptible to us? Even now, you may go to the Royal Assembly, and declare that, "That is not our principle, but (that was resorted to by me only temporarily ) in order to defy his talents, and bring down (his pride )." When persuaded by the preceptor in niany such ways, Rohagupta said "How (can you call it) a bad principle? What harm is there if we take a particular part of a living being to be No-jiva or slightly animate? (2455-2459).
टीका-१६०-१६१-१६२-१६३-१६४ व्याख्या-पोट्टशालपरिव्राजकं जित्वा गुरुचरणमूलमागत्य रोहगुप्तोऽपरनाम्ना तु षडुलूको भणति-स परिव्राजकाधमः समस्तनृपसभामध्ये यथा वादे मया विजितस्तथा शृणुत यूयं कथयामीति । तदेवाह-राशिद्वयगृहीतपक्षः स परिव्राजको मया वादे विजित इति प्राक्तनेन संबन्धः । किं कृत्वा ? इत्याह-तृतीयं जीवराशिमादाय पक्षीकृत्य । कुतो दृष्टान्तादसौ पक्षीकृत्य ? इत्याह-गृहकोलिकादीनां पुच्छमेव छिन्नत्वाच्छेदस्तदुदाहरणतस्तदृष्टान्तादित्यर्थः । एवं रोहगुप्तेनाभिहिते गुरुर्भणति-सुष्टु कृतं त्वया यदसौ जितः, किन्तु तत्रोत्तिष्ठता त्वया किमेतद् नाभिहितम् १ । किम् ? इत्याह-तृतीयो नोजीवराशिरत्ययं "णे ति" नोऽस्माकमपसिद्धान्तः जीवाऽजीवलक्षणराशिद्वयस्यैवाऽस्मसिद्धान्तेऽभिहितत्वादिति । तस्मादेवं गतेऽप्येतावत्यपि गत इत्यर्थः, तत्र परिषन्मध्ये गत्वा भण प्रतिपादय "नायं णे ति" नोऽस्माकं नायं सिद्धान्तः, किन्तु स परिव्राजकस्तबुद्धिं परिभूय तिरस्कृत्य शमित उपशमं नीतो दर्प त्याजित इत्यर्थः । एवं बहुशोऽनेकधा गुरुणा भण्यमानः स रोहगुप्तः प्रतिभणति प्रत्युत्तरयति-आचार्य ? किमयमपसिद्धान्तः ? । यदि हि नोजीवलक्षण तृतीयराश्यभ्युपगमे कोऽपि दोषः स्यात् तदा स्यादयमपसिद्धान्तः, न चैतदस्ति । कुतः १ इत्याह-यदि नाम गृहकोलिकापुच्छादिजीवदेशो नोजीव भवेत्-नोजीवत्वेनाभ्युपगम्येत, तर्हि को दोषःस्यात् ? न कमपि दोषमत्र पश्याम इत्यर्थः । ततःकिमित्यपसिद्धान्तत्वे दोषपहिराथं पुनमा तत्र प्रेषयसि ? इति भावः॥ २४५५।।२४५६॥२४५७॥२४५८॥२४५९॥
D. C. Having defeated the parivrajaka known as Pottasala,

Page #192

: 168: Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The sixth in discussion in the Royal Assembly, Rohagupta, who was also known as *Saduūlka, came to the preceptor and requested him to hear the whole incident of his success. “His theory of two categories' he said” was refuted by me by advancing a third category of no-jiva supported by the example of a house lizard with its tail dissected."
Acārya :-You have done a good deed by defeating him But while leaving the ass.lmbly at the end, why did you not declare that the theory of the third cacegory of No-jiva is not acceptable to us? Even, now, you may go to the assembly and declare that this is not our theory but it was advanced hy us only for the sake of bringing down the pride of Pottaśāla.
Robagupta --Revered sir, how can we take as an unacceptable theory? What difficulty does it give rise to? For, if a dissected part like the tail of an animal like house-lizard were apprehended as no-jiva or slightly animate. I do not see any harm in holding the theory of three categories. 160-164 (2455-2459)
Rohagupta, now tries to justify his theory in this way:जं देसनिसेहपरो नोसबो जीवदव्वदेसो य। गिहकोइलाइपुच्छं विलक्खणं तेण नोजीवो ॥१६५॥२४६०॥ 165. Jam desanisehaparo nosa do jivadavvarleso ya !
Gihaköilāipuccham vilakkhaṇam teņa no-jivo. (2460) (1 dalit t37067 fagsteam गृहकोलिकादिपुच्छं विलक्षणं तेन नोजीवः ॥१६५॥२४६०॥ 165. Yad deśanised haparo nosabdo jivadravyadeśaśca |
Grihakolikādipuccham vilakṣaṇam tena no-jīvah. (2460) ]
Trans. 165. As the term 'no' suggests the removal of a portion and that (too) a portion of the animate body, the tail of a house-lizard etc. being separated (from the animate
* Sadulaka- A believer in six substances with Ulūka as his gotra, ie Rohagupta, who belonged to Ulūka gotra.

Page #193

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
body of house-lizard etc.) should be taken as no-jiva (slightly animate) 2460.
"
टीका- १६५ यद् यस्माद् “नोजीवः इत्यत्र नोशब्दो देशनिषेधपरो न तु सर्वनिषेधपरः, नोजीवो जीवैकदेशो, न तु सर्वस्यापि जीवस्याभाव इत्यर्थः । भवत्वेवं देशनिषेधको नोशब्दः, परं गृहकोलिकादिपुच्छं जीवदेशो न भविष्यतीत्याशङ्कयाह - जीवद्रव्यैकदेशश्च गृहकोलिकादिपुच्छ, आदिशन्दाच्छिन्नपुरुषादिहस्तादयः परिगृह्यन्ते । कथंभूतं तद् गृहकोलिकादिपुच्छम् ? इत्याह-विलक्षणं " जीवा - ऽजीवेभ्यः " इति गम्यते; तथाहि न तावंद गृहकोलिका दिपुच्छं जीवत्वेन व्यपदेष्टुं शक्यते, तत्कार्यैकदेशत्वेन तद्विलक्षणत्वात् । नाप्यजीव इत्यभिधातुं पार्यते, स्फुरणादिभिस्तेभ्योऽपि विलक्षणत्वात् । येनैवम् तेन कारणेन पारिशेष्याद् नोजीव एतदुच्यत इति || २४६०॥
"
D. C. Since ‘no’1 signifies dissection of a particular portion and not of the whole body, negation of the whole jiva is not implied thereby. Such dissected portions being different from jiva (animate body) as well as from a-jiva ( inanimate body), should be taken as no-jiva. Since a tail dissected from the body of a house-lizard and a hand dissected from the body of a man, are only the portions of the respective jīvas, they cannot be taken as jivas. They cannot be taken even under the category of a-jivas, because they move even after they are cut off from the animate bodies.
: 169:
Thus, being different from jiva and a-jiva, they are known as no-jiva or slightly animate bodies by the method of elimination. 165 (2460)
It has also been sanctioned by the Holy Writ viz:धम्माइदसविहादेसओ य देसो वि जं पिहुं वत्युं । अपिहृन्भूओ किं पुण च्छिन्नं गिहकोलियापुच्छं १ ॥ १६६ ॥२४६१ ॥
166.
Dhammaidasavihädesaö ya deso vi jam pihum vatthum | Apibubbhūö kim puna cchinnam gihakoliyāpuccham ? (2461) इच्छइ जीवपएसं नोजीवं जं च समभिरूढो वि । तेण त्थि तओ समए घडदेसो नोघडो जह वा ॥ १६७॥२४६२॥

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #194

: 170:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The sixth
167. Icchai jivapaesam no-jivam jam ca samabhirūḍho vi| Tena tthi taö samae ghada-deso no-ghado jaha vā. (2462) [ धर्मादिदशविधादेशतश्च देशोऽपि यत् पृथग् वस्तु । अपृथग्मृतः किं पुनरिछन्नं गृहकोलिकापुच्छम् ? ॥१६६॥२४६१ ॥ इच्छति जीवप्रदेशं नोजीवं यच समभिरूढोऽपि । तेनास्ति सकः समये घटदेशो नोघटो यथा वा ॥१६७॥२४६२||
166.
Dharmadidaśavidhādeśatasca deśo'pi yat prithag vastu A-prithagbhritaḥ kim punaśchinnam grihakolikāpuccham?
167.
(2461)
Icchati jivapradeśam no-jīvam yacca samabhiruḍho'pi t Tenāsti sakah samaye ghata-deśo no-ghato yathā vā. (2462 ) ]
Trans. 166-167. By the commandment of the ten varieties of the category of Dharmastikāya and others, when even a portion (actually) combined ( with the body ), is ( taken as) a separate entity, what to talk of the tail of a house-lizard that has already been cut off ( from the body ) ? The samabhiraḍha view-point also admits jīvapradeśa or a part of jīva as no-jiva. So, just as a portion of ghata is no ghata, a part of jiva should be taken as no-jīva, as a (matter of) principle. (2461-2462)
टीका - १६६-१६७ व्याख्या - चकारस्य भिन्नक्रमत्वाद् यद् यस्मात् कारणाद् देशोऽपीत्यपिशब्दस्यापि भिन्नक्रमत्वाद् धर्मास्तिकायादिदेशिनः "अपिहुन्भूओ ति" अपृथग्भूतोऽप्येकत्वमापन्नोऽपि देशः " पिहं वत्युं ति" सिद्धान्ते पृथग् वस्तु " भणितः " इति शेषः, पृथग्वस्तुत्वेन निर्दिष्ठ इत्यर्थः । किंपुनर्यच्छिन्नमात्मनः पृथग्भूतं कृतं तद् गृहकोलिकादिपुच्छं पृथग्वस्तु न भविष्यति ? भविष्यत्येवेति । तच्च जीवच्छिन्नत्वेन पृथग्भूतत्वात्, स्फुरणादिना चाजीवविलक्षणत्वात् सामर्थ्याद् नोजीव एवेति भावः । कुतः पुनर्वचनादेष सिद्धान्ते पृथग्
1. For, 'no' means slight or little, and hence it does not signify the negation of the whole body, but only a portion of the whole.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #195

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
वस्तु भणितः ? इत्याह-“ धम्माइदसविहादेसउ त्ति" धर्मास्तिकायादिनाममूर्ता जीवानां दशविधादेशतो दशविधत्वभणनात् । एतदुक्तं भवति - अजीवप्ररूपणां कुर्वद्भिरुक्तं परममुनिभिः - " अजीवा दुबिहा पण्णत्ता, तं जहा- रूवि अजीवा य, अरूवि अजीवा य । रूवि अजीवा चउत्रिहा पण्णत्ता, तं जहा -खंधा, देसा, परसा, परमाणुपोग्गला । अरूवि अजीवा दसविहा पण्णत्ता, तं जहा-धम्मत्थिकाए, धम्मत्थिकायस्स देसे, धम्मत्थिकायस्स पएसे, एवमधम्मत्थिकाए वि, आगासतिथकाए वि, अद्धासमए " । तदेवं धर्मास्तिकायादीनां दशविधत्वभणनेन तद्देशस्य पृथग्वस्तुत्वमुक्तमेव, अन्यथा दशविधत्वानुपपत्तेः । यदा च धर्मास्तिकायादीनां देशस्तेभ्योऽपृथग्भूतोऽपि पृथग्वस्तूच्यते, तहा गृहको लिकापुच्छादिकं छिन्नत्वेन जीवात् पृथग्भूतं सुतरां वस्तु भवति । तच जीवा - ऽजीवविलक्षणत्वाद् नोजीव इत्युक्तमेवेति । अपि च, यद् यस्मात् कारणाज्जीवन देशं नोजीवं समभिरूढनयोऽपीच्छति, तेन तस्मात् तकोऽसौ नोजीवः समये सिद्धान्तेऽप्यस्ति न पुनर्मयैव केवलेनोच्यते, तथा चानुयोगद्वारेषु प्रमाणद्वारान्तर्गतं नयप्रमाणं विचारयता प्रोक्तम् - " समभिरूढो सहनयं भणइ - जर कम्मधारएण भणसि तो एवं भणाहिजीवेय से पसे यसे सपए से नोजीवे " इति । तदनेन प्रदेशलक्षणो जीवैकदेशो नोजीव उक्तः, यथा घटैकदेशो नोघट इति । तस्मादस्ति नोजीवलक्षणस्तृतीयराशिः, युक्तया -ऽऽगमसिद्धत्वात् जीवा-जीवादितच्चवदिति ॥ २४६१-२४६२॥
1
D. C. It has been laid down in Siddhāntas that
'A-jīvā duvihā paņṇattā, tam jahā-Rūvi a-jīvā ya, a-ravi a-jīvā ya. Ravi a-jīvā cauvvihā paņṇattā, tam jahā-Khandā, desā, paesā, paramāņu poggalā. A-ravi a-jīvā dasavihā paņņattā, tam jahā 1. Dhammatthikāe, 2. dhammatthikāyassa dese, 3. dhammatthikāyassa paese, 4. a-dhammatthi-kāye, 5, a-dhammatthikāyassa deśe, 6. a-dhammatthikāyassa paese, 7. āgāsatthikāe, 8. āgāsatthikāyassa dese, 9. āgāsatthikāyassa paese and 10. addhāsamae. '
99
66
[The a-jīvas or inanimate objects are divided into two types: Corporeal (rupi) and in-corporeal (a-rapi). The corporeal a-jivas are of four types : -- 1. Elements ( Skandha ) 2. their parts-desas 3. their pradeśas (bodies) and 4. their atoms (Paramānu pudgalas).
The in-corporeal a- jivas (a-rapi a-jivas) are of ten types

: 171:

Page #196

: 172: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth viz 1. *Dharmastikāya, 2. Dharmāstikāya deśa (part of Dharmā stikāya), 3. Dharmāstikāya pradeśa (Body of Dharmastikāya) 4. A-dharmāsti kāya, 5. A-dharmāstikāya deśa (part of A-dharmā. sti kāya), 6. A-dharmāsti kāya pradeśa (body of a-dharmāsti kāya), 7. Ākāśāstikāya (predicament of space), 8. Ākāśāsti kāya deśa (part of Ākāśāsti kāya), 9. Akāśāsti kāya pralesa ( body of Ākāśāsti kāya, 10. Addhā samaya (kāla) the preilicament of time.]
While describing the ten varieties of Dharmāstikāya etc. mentioned above, although the deśas or various portions of each one of them, are one with them, they are necessarily taken as completely different entities. So, there is all the more reason for taking parts like tail etc. of house-lizard etc, that have already been cut off from the main boilies of jīvas as separate entities, which being naturally different from jivas, as well as a-jīvas, may again be taken under the category of no-jīvas.
According to Samabhirūdha nayas a part of the whole jiva is taken as no-jiva. Thus, the category of no-jiva is not only my conception, but it is laid down by the religious principles, as well. It has also been said in Anuyogadvāra Sūtra “Samabhira. dho saddanayam bhaņai jai kammadhāraeņa bhaņasi to evam bhaņāhi. Jive ya se paese, ya se sa-paese no-jīve."
* Dharmāstikāya. There is no English equivalent for the Jaina terms -Dharmāstikāya and A-dharmāstikāya. Dharmāstikāya may be rendered as the cosmic principle which upholds (or simply conditions), the order of simultaneous (or consentaneous ) movements in the world answering somewhat to Leibneitz's Preestablished harmony. Dharmāstikāya is not simply the accompanying cause of movements -it is something more-it is the cause (or condition) of the system of movements-the fact of an order in movements of Jiva and Pudgala. (-Dr. Seal.) A-dharmāstikāya is the reverse of Dharmastikāya,
2. For detailed explanation of Samabhirūdha naya. See Chapter I.

Page #197

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
:113:
[ The samabhiradha naya explains the etymological interpre. tation. So, if you interprete it according to the Karmadhāraya compound, dissolve it as follows:-Jivaśca sa pradeśaśca tasya svapradeso no-jivah-a part of the animate body is no-jiva or slightly animate.] Thus one portion of jiva is called no-jiva, just as one part of ghata is no-ghata. So, there is a third category of no-jiva like jiva and a-jīva supported by the commandments of agamas.
The Ācārya replies to all these arguments in this way:जइ ते सुयं पमाणं तो रासी तेसु तेसु सुत्तेसु । दो जीवाऽजीवाणं न सुए नोजीरासि त्ति ॥१६॥२४६३॥ 168. . Jai te suyain pamáņam tu rāsi tesu tesu suttesu !
___Do jivajivānam na-sue nojivarāsi tti. (2463) [यदि ते श्रुतं प्रमाणं ततो राशी तेषु तेषु सूत्रेषु। दो जीवाजीवानां न श्रुते नोजीवराशिरिति ॥१६८॥२४६३॥ 168. Yadi te śrutain pramāņam tato rāśī teşu teșu satreşu
Do jivā'jivānām na śrute no-jívarāśiriti. (2463)]
Trans. 168. If the Holy Writ is authentic (according) to you, then (only) two categories-of jivas and a-jivas-are laid down by the various commandments in the Siddhāntas, (but) not the category of no-jīvas. 2463.
टीका-१६८ "धम्माइदसविहादेसओ य' इत्याद्युपन्यासात् सूत्रप्रामाण्यवादी किल लक्ष्ये भवान् । तद् यदि सत्यमेव तव सूत्रं प्रमाणम् , ततस्तहिं ते तेषु सूत्रेषु जीवा-ऽजीवरूपी द्वावेव राशी प्रोक्तो, तथा च स्थानांगसूत्रम्-“दुवे रासी पण्णत्वा तं जहा-जीवा चेव अजीवा चेव" । तथा, अनुयोगद्वारस्त्रेऽप्युक्तम्"कइविहा णं भन्ते ! दवा पण्णत्ता । गोयमा ! दुविहा पण्णता, तं जहा"जीवदव्वा य अजीवदव्वा य" । तथा, उत्तराध्ययनसूत्रे चाभिहितम्-"जीवा घेव अजीवा य एस लोए वियाहिए" इत्यायन्येष्वपि सूत्रेषु द्रष्टव्यम् । नोजीवराशिस्तु तृतीय: श्रुते न कचिदप्यभिहितः, तत् कथं तत्सवः प्ररूपणा न भुवा

Page #198

: 174: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth शातना ? इति । न च धर्मास्तिकायादीनां देशस्तेभ्यो भिन्नः कोऽप्यस्ति, विवक्षामात्रेणैव तस्य मिन्नवस्तुत्वकल्पनात् ॥२४६३॥ D. C.
Ācārya :--Since you quot expressions like “dhammāi dasa vihāi etc., you seem to be a follower of the Holy Writ. If you really believe in the authenticity of its sūtras, you should note that they are in favour of the two categories of jīvas and a-jivas only.
It is said in Sthānānga Sūtra3 that “Duve rāsī paņņattû tam jahá-Jivā ceva, A-jīvā ceva.”
[Only two categories are taught; the category of Jivas and that of A-jīvas. ]
It has also been mentionerl in the Annyogadvāra Satra “ Kaivihā ņam bhante 1 davvā paņņattā ? | Guyamā I duvihā paņnattā, tam jahā-Jiva-davvā ya, A-jīva davvā ya.”
[ Of how many types are the elements, O Lord I known ? O Gautama ! They are of two types-Jivas and A-jivas. ]
It is also said in the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra* that “Jivā ceva A-jīvā ya esa loe viyānie.”
[They (i. e. objects of the Universe) are known as Jivas and A-jivas in this world. ]
We can quote similar instances from other Satras, but there is no reference of the third category of no-jīvas in any part of the Holy Writ. So, if you try to establish its existence, you defy the authority of the Siddhāntas.
The deśas of dharmāstikāya etc. mentioned before, are not different from the bodies of those elements actually. They are merely imagined as different entities for the sake of argument.
3. Vide Sthānanga Satra, Adhyayana 2. Uldeśa 4. Sūtra 95. page 81. (Āgamodaya Samiti edition. )
4. Vide Uttarādhyayana Sūtra, Adhyayana 36 (Jivā-jiva vibhatti) Gâthā 2.

Page #199

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 175:
Similarly, tail etc. are also one with the bodies of animals like house-lizard etc. on account of their intimate connection with each other. 168 (2463)
And hence, they are taken under the category of jīva and not of no-jiva ( as you say ), in the following way,
गिहकोलियाइपुच्छे छिन्नम्म तदंतराल संबंधो । सुत्तेऽभिहिओ सुहुमामुत्तत्तणओ तदग्गहणं ॥ १६९॥२४६४ ॥ 169. Gihakoliyaipucche chinnammi tadantarālasambandho | Sutte’bhihiö suhumānuttattanaö tadaggahanam. (2464)
[गृहको लिकादिपुच्छे छिन्ने तदन्तरालसम्बन्धः । सूत्रेऽभिहितः सूक्ष्मा मूर्तत्वतस्तदग्रहणम् ॥ १६९॥२४६४॥ Grihakolikadipucche chinne tadantarālasambandhaḥ | Satre’bhihitah suksmā'mortatvatastadagrahanam. (2464) ]
169.
Trans. 169. With regard to the tail of house-lizard etc. being cut off, the rule lays down their internal connection; (But) that is not apprehended on account of its being subtle and formless. 2464.
टीका - १६९ गृहको लिकादीनां पुच्छादिकेऽवयवे छुरिकादिना छिनेऽपि तयोर्गृहकोलिक पुच्छादिवस्तुनोर्यदन्तरालं विचालं तत्र जीवप्रदेशानां संबन्धः संयोगस्तदन्तरालसम्बन्धः सूत्रेऽभिहित एव । तथा च भगवतीसूत्रम् - अह भंते ! कुम्मा कुम्मावलिया, गोहा गोहावलिया, गोणे गोण । वलिया, मणुसे मणुसावलिया, महिसे महिसावलिया, एएसिं णं दुहा वा, तिहा वा, संखेअहा असंखेअहा वा छिन्नाणं जे अंतरा ते वि णं तेहिं जीवपएसेहिं फुडा | हन्ता फुडा । पुरिसे णं भंते ! अंतरे हत्थेण वा, पाएण वा, अंगुलियाए वा, कट्ठेण वा, किलिंचेण वा, आमुसमाणे वा, संमुसमाणे वा, आलिहमाणे वा विलिहमाणे वा, अण्णयरेण वा तिक्खेणं सत्थजाएणं आछिंदमाणे वा, विछिंदमाणे वा अगणिकाएणं समोदुहमाणे तेसिं जीवपएसाणं किंचि आबाहं विवाहं वा उप्पाएइ, विच्छेयं वा करे ? | नो इण समट्ठे । नो खलु तत्थ सत्थं संकमइ " इति । यदि नामैवं सूत्रे जीवप्रदेशानां | तदन्तरालसंबन्धोऽभिहितः, तहिं तदन्तराले ते जीवप्रदेशाः किमिति नोपल

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #200

: 176: Jinabhalra Gani's
[The sixth भ्यन्ते ? इत्याह-"सुहुमेत्यादि" कार्मणशरीरस्य सूक्ष्मत्वात् , जीवप्रदेशानां चामूर्तत्वादन्तराले तेषां जीवप्रदेशानां सतामप्यग्रहणं तदग्रहणमिति ॥२४६४॥
D. C. Even when parts like tail etc. of animals like houselizard etc. have been dissected by means of instruments like knife ctc., the Satra, un loubtedly provides for the internal connection of atoms of jivas in the interincciary region between body and its parts.
The Bhagavati Sūtra speaks of the same principle:--
Aha bhante ! kummā kummāvaliyā, gohā gohávaliyā, goạo goñāvaliyā, maņuse maņusãvaliyā, mahise mahisā valiyā, èèsim sam duhā vā, tihā vā, asamkhejjahā vā, chinnāņain je antarā te vi ņam telim jivapaese him phudā (Hantā phuda ) Purise nam bhante ! antare hattheņa vā, pāeņa vā, anguliyā vā, kaţtheņa vā, kilinceņa vā, āmusamāņevā, samm'ışamāņu vā, ālihamāņe vá, vilihamāņe vā, aņņayareņa vā tikkheņam satthajāeņam achimlamāņe vå, vichinlamāņevā, aganikācņun samo luhamāņe tesim jīvapaesāņam kimci ābāham vi-bāham vā uppādi viccheyam vā karèi? (No iņaţthe sanatthe) No khalı tattha sattham samkamai.”
[ And, O Lord ! are the tortoise, lizard, bullock, man, and buffalo respectively taken as ) their parts also ? Are they divided into two, three or innumerable particles of jīva, so that, they are ex. hibited as the particles of jīva, even in their intermediary regions ? Or, can a person commit any harm or obstruction or complete (lestruction by means of rubbing, crasing, licking, sucking, or even destroying it with a sharp weapon, or by means of his hand, foot, wrist etc?
“No, that is not the right implication. A weapon does not go beyond that.” ]5
5. Hai Fegrafeer Tenfor fa mal न चैन क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः॥
---( fTHE recurtat)

Page #201

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 177: Thus, the Satra lays down the principle of the internal relation between the jiva and its pradeśas in the intermediary regions between soul and body.
But since Kārmaņa body is incorporeal, the atoms of Jiva are not apprehended in spite of their being present in the intermediary regions
These are not apprehended even from movements etc. as in the case of body, tail etc. 169 (2464)
Because, गज्झा मुत्तिगयाओ नागासे जहा पईवरस्सीओ। तह जीवलक्खणाई देहे न तदंतरालम्मि ॥१७०॥२४६५॥ 170. Gajjhā muttigayāö nāgāse jahā paivarassió i
Taha jīvalakkhaņāim dehe na tadantaralammi. (2465) [ग्राह्या मूर्तिगता नाकाशे यथा प्रदीपरश्मयः। तथा जीवलक्षणानि देहे न तदन्तराले ॥१७०॥२४६५॥ 170. Grāhyā martigatā nākāse yathā pradīparaśmayaḥ |
Tathā jīvalakşaņāni dehe na tadantarāle. (2465) ]
Trans. 170. Just as rays of a lamp (become) apprehensible (only when ) accompanied by a concrete object, and not (when spread) in sky, so also, the characteristics of a living being, (become apprehensible) (only) in body, and not in (its) intermediary space. 2465. ____टीका-१७० इह भू-कुडय-वरण्डका-ऽन्धकारादीनि वस्तुन्येव मूर्तियोगाद् मूर्तिरूच्यन्ते। ततश्च यथा मूर्तिगता यथोक्तवस्तुगता एवेत्यर्थः, प्रदीपरश्मयो ग्राद्या भवन्ति, न तु केवल आकाशे प्रसृताः, तथा तेनैव प्रकारेण जीवो लक्ष्यते यैस्तानि जीवलक्षणानि भाषणो-च्छवास-निःश्वास-धावन-वल्गन-स्फुरणादीनि देह एव गृह्यन्ते न तु तदन्तराल इति ॥२४६५॥
D. C. The rays of lightni proceeding from a lamp are perceived only when they come in contact with a concrete object like ground, a wall, verandah, or darkness, but not when spread in sky.

Page #202

Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The sixth
Similarly, various characteristics of a living being such as its speech, breathing in, breathing out, running, galloping, vibrating movements etc. are recognized only on body and not in its intermediary space 170 (2465 )
: 178:
देहरहियं न गिves निरतिसओ नातिसुहुमदेहं व । न य से होइ विवाहा जीवस्स भवन्तराले व्व ॥ १७९॥२४६६॥
171. Deharahiyam na ginhai niratisa nātisuhumadeham vat Na ya se höi vibāhā jivassa bhavantarale vva. (2466)
[ देहरहितं न गृह्णाति निरतिशयो नातिसूक्ष्मदेहमिव । न च तस्य भवति विबाधा जीवस्य भवान्तराल इव ॥ १७१ ॥२४६६॥
171.
Deharahitam na grihṇāti niratiśayo nātisakṣmade hamiva1 Na ca tasya bhavati vibādhā jivasya bhavāntarāla iva.
(2466)]
Trans. 171. Just as the soul is not able to apprehend a body having an extremely minute form, so also, a person who does not possess superhuman powers, is not able to perceive (a soul) without body. That soul is not damaged (in any way ) as in ( the case of its state) intermediary between (two) lives. 2466.
टीका- १७१ देहाभावे जीवलक्षणानामभावाद् देहरहितं मुक्तात्मानं छिन्नपुच्छाद्यन्तरालवर्तिनं वा जीवं निरतिशयः केवलज्ञानाद्य विशयरहितो जन्तुर्न गृह्णाति । तथा, अतिसूक्ष्मो देहो यस्य तमतिसूक्ष्मदेहं निगोदादिजीवं कार्मणकाययोगिनं वा जन्तुं नासौ गृह्णाति । न च "से" तस्य जीवस्यान्तरालवर्तिषु प्रदेशेष्वनन्तरदर्शितसिद्धान्तसूत्रोक्तयुक्त्या कुन्सा - ऽसि - सेल्लादिशस्त्रैरग्नि-जलादिमिर्वा विबाधा पीडा काचिद् भवति, भवान्तराले कार्मणशरीरवर्तिजीवप्रदेशवदिति ॥२४६६॥
D. C A jiva is not perceptible, if it is not accompanied by body. So, a person who has not attained an excellenoe like Ab. solute Knowledge, is not able to perceive the soul unaccompanied by body.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #203

Vada ] Nihnavavada
: 179: ____On the other hand, the soul is, also, not able to apprehend an object which is suksma or extremely minute in form.
Like the atoms of jiva in the Kārmaņa state, Jiva itself is not affected by spear, sword etc. or by fire, water etc. on the strength of the Satras mentioned before.
Rohagupta :-Just as a separate piece of ghata fallen in the street, is known as no-ghata (or a part of ghata), why should tails etc of jivas like house-lizard etc. be.not taken as no-jivas (parts of Jīva ) when they have already been cut off from the respective main body?
Acārya :—No. It is not proper to do so. 171 (2466)
For,
दव्यामुत्तत्ताकयभावादविकारदरिसणाओ य ।
अविणासकारणाहि य नभसो व्व न खंडसो नासो॥१७२॥२४६७.। 172. Davvānuttattākayabhavādavikáradarisaņāö yai
Aviņāsakāranāhi ya nabhaso vya na khandaso nāso. (2467) [द्रव्यामूर्तत्वावकृतभावादविकारदर्शनाच। अविनाशकारणाच नभस इव न खण्डशो नाशः ॥१७२॥२४६॥ 172. Dravyāmurtatvādakritabhāvādavikāradarśanācca 1
Avinasakaranācca nabhasa iva na khandaso nasah. (2467)]
Trans. 172. Since the matter (of which jīva is formed ) is abstract, and since it is immutable, indestructible, and sport taneous, like sky, it could not be destroyed by part. (2467)
टीका-१७२ खण्डशो जीवस्य नाशो न भवतीति प्रतिज्ञा, अमूर्तद्रव्यवाद, अकृतकभावात्-अकृतकवादित्यर्थः, तथा घटादेः कपालादिवद् विकारदर्शनाभावात्, अविनाशकारणत्वाच; विनाशकारणानामनि-सादीनाममावात्पर्य इत्येते हेतवः । सर्वेषु “नमस इव" इति दृष्टान्त इति ॥२४६७॥ 6. Vide verse 2464. Again, ॥ अच्छेद्योऽयमदायोऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च
(श्रीमद् भगवद् गीता)

Page #204

: 180 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth D. C. Like sky, it is not possible to destroy soul, by means of dividing it, into various parts. Because, jīva is maile of ab stract matter, and it is immutable, indestructible, and spontaneous, like sky. 172 (2467)
And if the theory of destruction by parts were acceptedनासे य सवनासो जीवस्स नासो य जिनमयच्चाओ। तत्तो य अणिमुकखो दिकखावेफल्लदोसा य ॥१७॥२४६८॥ 173. Nāse ya savvanāso jīvassa nāso ya Jinamayacció i
Tatto ya animukkho dikkhavephalladosā ya. (2468) [नाशे च सर्वनाशो जीवस्य नाशश्च जिनमतत्यागः। ततश्चानिर्मोक्षो दीक्षावैफल्यदोषाश्च ॥१७३॥२४६८॥ 173. Nase ca sarvanaso jivasya nasasen Jinumatatyāgah |
Tatascānirmokso diksavaiphalyadosasea. (2468)]
Trans. 173. And in case of accepting this sort of destruction, there would also be entire destruction of jiva, (resulting in) the rejection of Jina mata (the Siddhāntas of the Tirthankaras). Then, there would be nothing like Final Emancipation and faults such as the futility of the observance of Diksa (asceticism) etc. (would arise) 2468,
टीका-१७३ शस्त्रच्छेदादिना जीवप्रदेशस्य नाशे चेष्यमाणे क्रमशः सर्वनाशोऽपि कदाचित् तस्य भवेत् । तथाहि-यत् खण्डशो नश्यति तस्य सर्वनाशो दृष्टः, यथा घटादेः, तथा च त्वयेष्यते जीवः, तंतः सर्वनाशस्तस्य प्रामोति । भवत्वेतदपि, किं न थूयते ? इति चेत् । तदयुक्तम् । कुतः १ इत्याह-"नासो येत्यादि" स च जीवस्य सर्वनाशो न युक्तः, यस्माजिनमतत्यागहेतुत्वाजिनमतत्यागोऽसौ। जिनमते हि जीवस्य सतः सर्वथा विनाशोऽसतश्च सर्वथोत्पादःसर्वत्र निषिद्ध एव । यदाह-"जीवा णं-भंते । किं वड्डंति हायंति, अवढिया। गोयमा? नो वड्दंति, नो हायंति, अत्रट्टिया" इत्यादि । अतो जीवस्य सर्वथा नाशेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने जिनमतत्याग एव स्यात् । तथा ततस्तत्सर्वनाशादनिर्मोक्षो मोक्षाभावः मामोति, मुमुक्षोः सर्वथा नाशता । मोक्षाभावे च दीक्षादिकष्टानुष्टानवैफल्यम्, ।

Page #205

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 181: क्रमेण च सर्वेषामपि जीवानां सर्वनाशे संसारस्य शून्यतामाप्तिः, कृतस्य च शुभाशुभकर्मणो जीवस्य सर्वनाश एवमेव नाशात् कृतनाशप्रसङ्ग इत्यादि वाच्यमिति, न जीवस्य खण्डशो नाशः । गृहकोलिकादीनां पुच्छादिखण्डस्य पृथग्भूतत्वेन प्रत्यक्षत एव नाशो दृश्यत इति चेत् । तदयुक्तम् । औदारिकशरीरस्यैव हि तत् खण्डमध्यक्षतो वीक्ष्यते, न तु जीवस्य, तस्यामूर्तत्वेन केनापि खण्डयितुमशक्यत्वादिति ॥२४६८॥ D. C.
Ācārya :-If a jiva were taken to have been damager by the blows of weapons ctc. it woull gradually meet with complete destruction. For, that which is partially destroyed, is naturally susceptible to complete clestriction, as in the case of ghata. So, if you take jiva to bc susceptible to partial clestruction, it would naturally become susceptible to completo destruction also.
But looking to the Jaina Scriptures, this is entirely improper. According to them, neither complete destruction nor complete production of an existent being, is achieved.
It is said, “Jivā ņam bhanto 1 kim vaddhanti hāyanti avaţthiyā ? etc.
TO Lord ! are the jivas susceptibe to increase or destruction ? Or, do they, remain what they are ? "O Gautama! they neither increase, nor perish, but they remain what they are.”]
Thus, by accepting the view of complete destruction of jiva, you will chiefly violate the principle of the Jinas (Tirthankaras).
Secondly, in that case, there would be nothing like Mokşa. For, in absence of Jiva, who would attain Mokşa ? And, when Moksa does not exist, nobody would see any sense in observing dikşî and such other religious rites.
Thirdly, with the destruction of all jīvas one by one, the whole world will be deserted.
Fourthly, in case of all pervadliny negation, since all the actions, good or cvil, will perish without yielding fruit, the fault of krita-nāša? will arise.

Page #206

: 182: Jinabhadra Gaņi's
[The sixth Thus, it is utterly improper to believe in entire destruction of Jiva.
Rohagupta :-Parts such as tail etc, of animals like houselizard etc., that have already been separated from their bodies, are apprehended as perished directly. Then, why do you refuse to take such parts as no-jvas ?
Ācārya-Such parts do not actually belong to Jiva, but they belong to the gross body which invests the soul.
Since Jiva is a-marta, it is not possible to divide it into parts. 173 (2468)
Again, Rohagupta raises a question and the Ācārya replies - अह खंधो इव संघाय-भेयधम्मा स तो वि सम्वेसिं। अवरोप्परसंकरओ सुहाइगुणसंकरो पत्तो ॥१७४॥२४६९॥ 174. Aha khandho iva sanghāya-bheyadhammā sa to vi savresim
Avaropparasankaraö suhāiguņasankaro patto. (2469) [su fira a pyra- A e antsto Hänni परस्परसंकरतः सुखादिगुणसंकरः प्राप्तः ॥१७४॥२४६९॥ 174. Atha skandha iva sanghāta-bhedadharmā sa tato'pi sar.
vesām
Parasparasankarataḥ sukhādigunasankaraḥ prāptaḥ. (2469) ]
Trans. 174. And, if that is (taken as) susceptible to association and dissociation, like a concrete object, then also, on account of their inter-combination (with each other), all objects will attain inter-combination of the properties like happiness etc. 2469.
टीका-१७४ अथ पुद्गलस्कन्ध इव सावयवत्वात् स जीवः संघात-भेदधर्माऽभ्युपगम्यते, तथा क्वचिद् विवक्षितपुद्गलस्कन्धेऽन्यस्कन्धगतं खण्डं समागत्य
7. Apprehension of an object as destroyed, in spite of its being existent.

Page #207

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 18: संहन्यते संबध्यते, तद्गतं च खण्डं भित्वाऽन्यत्र गच्छति, एवं जीवस्याप्यन्यजीवखंडं संहन्यते, तद्गतं तु भिद्यत इत्येवं संघातमेदधर्मा जीव इष्यत इति । अतः खण्डशो नाशेऽपि संघातस्यापि सद्भावाद् न तस्य सर्वनाश इति परस्याभिप्रायः । अत्र क्षणमाह-"तो वि सव्वेसिं इत्यादि" एवमपि च सति सर्वेषामपि सर्वलोकवर्तिनां जीवानां परस्परसंकरतः सुखादिगुणसंकरः प्राप्तः । इदमुक्तं भवति-यदैकं जीवसम्बन्धिशुभाशुभकान्वितं खण्डमन्यजीवस्य संवध्यते, अन्यसम्बन्धि तु खण्डं तस्य संबध्यते, तदा तत्सुखादयोऽन्यस्य प्रसजन्ति, अन्यसुखादयस्तु तस्य, इत्येवं सर्वजीवानां परस्परं सुखादिगुणसांकयं स्यात् । तथैकस्य कृतनाशः अन्यस्याकृताभ्यागम इत्यादि वाच्यमिति ॥२४६९॥ D. C.
Rohagupta :--Since Jiva appears as a borly of parts like a concrete object, there would be no harm if we take it as susceptible to association and dissociation. Just as a part of one pudgala-skandha is united with another, and sometimes dissa ciates itself from it, so also, some portion of a jīva combines itself wiih another jīva, while some other portion may dissociate itself from the jīva. Thus, since jīva is susceptible to association and dissociation, it will always be in contact with some portion or the other, even when some of its portions have already been dissociated from it. Thus, jiva will never perish entirely.
Ācārya :--In that case, jīvas of the whole Universe, will attain inter-combination of properties like sukha etc., on account of their own inter-combination with each other. For, when a certain portion of one jiva, accompanied by good or evil action, is combined with some other jiva, its own properties of happiness or misery, etc., would be attached to another jīva, whose properties, in turn, would be attached to the first jiva.
In this way, all jīvas will undergo inter-combination of properties like sukha etc, resulting in the destruction of an action that has already been performed and attainment of another that was never performed. In order to stop such confusions, we should not take jiva to be susceptible to association and dissociation also, 174. (2469)

Page #208

: 184: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth ___Here there is another lifficulty also :--- अह अविमुको वि तओ नोजीवो तो पइप्पएसं ते । जीवम्मि असंखेजा नोजीवा नत्थि जीवो ते ॥१७५॥२४७०॥ 175. Aha avimukko vi taö no-jivo to paippresam te i
Jivammi asamkhejjā no-jivā natthi jīvo to. (2470) [अथाविमुक्तोऽपि सको नोजीवस्ततः प्रतिप्रदेशं ते। जीवेऽसंख्येया नोजीवा नास्ति जीवस्ते॥१७५॥२४७०॥ 175. Athavimukto'pi sako no-jivastatan pratipradesam te।
Jive'samkhyeyê no-jīvā nāsti jīvaste. (2470) ]
Trans. 175. And if Jiva is taken as no-jiva, in spite of its being unseparated (from its parts), then they, (no-jivas) would pervade every small atom, there would be innumerable no-jīvas in a jiva, and (ultimately) there would be nothing like jiva. 2470.
टीका-१७५ अथैतद्दोषभयाद् न जीवस्य च्छेदोऽभ्युपगम्यते, किन्त्वविमुक्तोऽप्यविच्छिनोऽपि जीवसंबद्धोऽपि तकोऽसौ जीवदेशो नोजीवस्त्वयेष्यते, यथा धर्मास्तिकायायेकदेशो नोधर्मास्तिकायादिः । ततस्तर्हि प्रतिप्रदेशं ते तव नोजीवसद्भावादेकैकस्मिन्नात्मन्यसंख्येया नोजीवाः प्राप्ताः, ततस्ते तव नास्ति कापि जीवसंभवः, सर्वेषामपि जीवानां प्रत्येकमसंख्येयनोजीवत्वमाप्तरिति ॥२४७०॥ D. C.
Rohagupta :--In order to prevent the difficulties mentioned before, you may not take jiva as lifferent from its sinall regions. But, just as a small part of Dharmāstikāya, which is not actually different from dharmāstikaya, is said to be no-dharınāstikāya (a slight predicament of dharmāstikaya ); what harm is there in taking a small 'region of jiva associated with jiva itself, as nojiva (or slightly animate )? .
___Acārya :--In that case, every small particle of the jiva being occupied by a number of no-jivas, there would be plenty of nojīvas in one single jīva. And as the entire soul will be pervaded

Page #209

Vada]
Nihnavavāda
:185:
completely hy no-jivas, there would be nothing like jiva at the end. 175 (2470)
Pointing out the possibility of one more difficulty, the auth-or states--
एवमजीवा वि पइप्पएसभेएण नोअजीव त्ति। नथि अजीवा केइ कयरे ते तिन्नि रासि त्ति ? ॥१७॥२४७१।। 176. Evamajivā vi paippacsabhèèņa no-ajiva tti
Natthi a-jivā kòi kayare to tinni rāsi tti? (2471) [एवमजीवा अपि प्रतिप्रदेशभेदेन नोअजीवा इति । न सन्त्यजीवाः केचित् कतरे ते त्रयो राशय इति ? ॥१७६॥२४७१॥ 176. Evamajívā api pratipraveśabhè lèna no-ajīvā iti i
Na santyajivāh kècit katare te trayo rāśaya iti ? (2471)]
Trans. 176. Similarly, a-jivas (or in-animate beings) will also become no-ajivas or slightly inanimate) by virtue of (there being ) distinction of every single particle. There would be nothing like a-jiva (or inanimate beings) left (in that case). ( And hence ), how would three categories be possible according to you? 2471.
टीका-१७६ एवमजीवा अपि धर्मास्तिकायादयो द्वयणुकस्कन्धादयो घटादयश्च प्रतिप्रदेशभेदतोऽजीवैकदेशत्वाद् नोअजीवाः, घटैकदेशनोघटवदिति, अतोऽजीवाः केचनापि न सन्ति, परमाणूनामपि पुद्गलास्तिकायलक्षणाजीवैकदेशत्वेन नोअजीवत्वात् सर्वत्र नोअजीनामेवोपपद्यमानत्वात् । ततश्च कतरे ते त्रयो राशयः-त्वया ये राजसभायां प्रतिष्ठिताः, उक्तन्यायेन नोजीव नोअजीवलक्षणराशिद्वयस्यैव सद्भावात् ? इति । तस्माद् बहुदोषप्रसङ्गाद् न जीवश्छिद्यत इति स्थितम् ॥२४७१॥
D. C. The same will be the case with a-jīvas or the inanimate objects. A-jivas such as dharmāstikāya etc., objects with aggregation of two atoms and gbața etc., would be known as no-jivas (or slightly inanimate objects) by virtue of their being

Page #210

:186: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth one or the other portions of a-jīvas. Further, even atoms that are actual portions of an a-jiva object, woull be known as noajivas. Thus, in the whole of an a-jiva or inanimate object, noajívatva will be found in every atom, and there would be nothing like a-jivatva left at the end.
Consequently, the thcory of three categories (viz Jiva, Ajiva and No-jiva) advanced by you in the Royal Assembly, will be refuted. For, according to this view of yours, there would be two categories only :-viz No-jivas and No-a-jivas which proves to be self-contradictory.
So, all these difficulties drive us to the conclusion that jiva never perishes entirely, and that there can never exist a category of no-jiva in addition to those of Jiva anl A-jiva. 176 (2471)
However, no-jiva cannot be said to exist. Because, छिन्नो व होउ जीवो कह सो तल्लकखणो वि नोजीवो १ । अह एवमजीवस्स वि देसो तो नोअजीवो त्ति ॥१७७॥२४७२॥ एवं पि रासओ ते न तिन्नि चत्तारि संपसज्जंति ।
जीवा तहा अजीवा, नोजीवा नो-अजीवा य ॥१७८॥२४७३॥ 177. Chinno va hāu jivo kaha. so tallakkhane) vi no-jive) ? |
Aha evamajivassa vi deso to no-a-jivo.tti. (2472) 178. Evam pi rāsaö te na tinni cattāri sampasajjanti
Jivā tahā a-jīvā, no-jīvā no-a-jivā ya. (2473) [छिन्नो वा भवतु जीवः कथं स तल्लक्षणोऽपि नोजीवः । अथैवमजीवस्यापि देशस्ततो नोअजीव इति ॥१७७||२४७२॥ एवमपि राशयस्ते न त्रयश्चत्वारः संप्रसजन्ति । जीवास्तथाऽजीवा नोजीवा नोअजीवाश्च ॥१७८॥२४७३।। 177. Chinno vā bhavatu jivah katham sa tallaksano'pi no-jivah |
Athaivamajivasyāpi desastato no-a-jiva iti. (2472) 178. Evamapi rasayaste na trayascatvārah samprasajanti |
Jivāstathā'jīvā no-jívā no-a-jívāśca. (2473) ]

Page #211

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 187:
Trans. 177-178. Or, let jiva be ( taken as) dissected. How could that be (called ) no - jiva in spite of its being characterized by it? And if ( it is) so, then, a portion of a jiva will also become no-a-jīva. (But) even in that case, there would not be three categories (as proposed) by you. (There would be) four categories viz : 1. Jivas ( animate beings ) 2. A - jivas (in-animate beings) 3. No- jivas ( slightly animate) and 4. Noa-jīvas (slightly inanimate). 2472-2473.
46
टीका- १७७-१७८ पुच्छाद्यवयवच्छेदेन च्छिन्नोऽपि भवतु गृहकोलिकादिजीवः, केवलं तस्य जीवस्य लक्षणानि स्फुरणादीनि यस्यासौ तल्लक्षणोऽपि सन्नसौ पुच्छादिदेशः कथं केन हेतुना नोजीवो भण्यते ? । इदमुक्तं भवति - संपूर्णोऽपि गृहकोलिक जीवः स्फुरणादिलक्षणैरेव जीवो भण्यते, स्फुरणादीनि च लक्षणानि च्छिन्ने तदवयवेऽपि पुच्छादिके दृश्यन्ते, अतस्तल्लक्षणयुक्तोऽप्यसौ किमिति जीवो न भण्यते येन नोजीवकल्पनाऽत्र विधीयते ? इति । 'अह एवमिति " अथैवं जीवलक्षणैः सद्भिरपि पुच्छादिकस्तदवयवो नोजीव एवैष्यते, न पुनः स्वाग्रह - स्त्यज्यत इत्यर्थः । अत्र सूरिराह - " तो त्ति " ततस्तर्हि अजीवस्यापि घटादेर्देशो नोअजीवः प्राप्नोति, जीवैकदेशनोजीववदिति । अस्त्वेव न किञ्चिद् मम विनश्यतीति चेत् । नैवम् । कुतः इत्याह- एवं "पीत्यादि " एवमन्यभ्युपगम्यमाने ये भवता त्रय एव राशय इष्यन्ते ते न घटन्ते, किन्तु चत्वारो राशयः सप्रसजन्ति तद्यथा - जीवाः, तथाऽजीवाः, नोजीवाः, नोअजीवाचेति || २४७२ - २४७३॥
D. C.
Acarya :--House-lizards etc. come under the category of jīvas by virtue of their movements etc. in spite of their movements etc. in spite of their tail etc., being dissected. The parts like tail etc., that are cut off from the body, should also be known as jivas by virtue of their movement etc. It is absurd to know them as no jivas.
Rohagupta:--Parts like tail etc., should definitely be called no-jīvas in spite of their having characteristics of jīvas.
Acārya ::--In that case, a portion of an a-jiva object like ghata would be known as a-jiva.

Page #212

Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The sixth
Thus, according to this theory of yours, there would be four categories-viz Jiva, A- jiva, No-jiva and No-ajiva in stead of three mentioned by you in the Royal Assembly. 177-178 (24722473).
: 188:
Also,
अह ते अजीवदेसो अजीवसामण्णजाइ-लिङ्गो त्ति ।
भिन्नो वि अजीवो चिय न जीव देसो वि किं जीवो १ ।। १७९ || २४७४॥
179. Aha te ajivadeso ajīvasāmaṇṇajāi-lingo tti |
Bhinno vi a-jivo cciya na jivadeso vi kim jivo ? (2474)
[ अथ तेऽजीवदेसोऽजीवसामान्यजाति-लिङ्ग इति । भिन्नोऽप्यजीव एव न जीवदेशोऽपि किं जीवः १ ।। १७९ ।। २४७४ ॥
179. Atha te'jivadeśo'jīvasāmānyajāti-linga iti Bhinno'pyajiva eva na jīvadeśo 'pi kim jīvah ? ( 2474) ]
Trans. 179. And, if a portion of a jiva, though separated (from it), is a-jīva according to you by virtue of its species and gender being common to a-jiva, why not a portion of jiva also be taken as jiva ? 2474.
टीका - १७९ अथ ते तवाजीवस्य जीवस्कन्धादेर्देश एकदेशो भिन्नोऽपि स्कन्धात् पृथग्भूतोऽप्यजीव एव न तु नोअजीवः । कुतः ? इत्याह- अजीवेन सामान्ये जाति-लिङ्गे यस्यासावजीवसामान्यजातिलिङ्ग इति कृत्वा । तत्राजीवत्वं जातिः, पुंलिङ्गलक्षणं च लिङ्गम् । एतच्च द्वयमप्यजीव - तद्देशयोः सामान्यमेव, ततस्तदेवोऽप्यजीव एव । हन्त ! यद्येवम्, तर्हि जीवदेशोऽपि किमिति जीवो नेष्यते, तस्यापि जीवेन समानजाति - लिङ्गत्वादिति ॥ २४७४ ॥
D. C.
Acarya :-When you take a part of a living being, though separated from its main body as a-jiva, and not as no-ajīva because its jāti (species) and linga (gender) are common to a- jiva you have all the more reason to take a portion of jīva as jïva on account of their jāti and linga being common. 179 (2474)

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #213

:189:
Vada]
Nihnavavāda In support of the same argument, the author oontinues छिन्नगिहकोलिया वि हु जीवो तल्लक्खणेहिं सयलो व । अह देसो त्ति न जीवो अजीवदेसो त्ति नोऽजीवो ॥१८०॥२४७५।। 180. Chinnagihakoliyā vi hu jivo tallakkhaņebim sayalo vya |
Aha deso tti na jivo a-jivadeso tti no-a-jivo. (2475) [छिन्नगृहकोलिकापि खलु जीवस्तल्लक्षणैः सकल इव ।
अथ देश इति न जीवोऽजीवदेश इति नो-अजीवः ॥१८॥२४७५॥ 180. Chinnagrihakolikāpi khalu jīvastallaksanaiḥ sakala iva i
Atha desa iti na jivo'jivadesa iti no-a-jivah. (2475)]
Trans 180. Even a dissected house-lizard is, in fact, jwa (or an animate being) like the whole (house-lizard) by virtue of its characteristics (as a living being). And if it is not jīva because it happens to be a part (of jīva), a part of a-jiva will (probably) become no-a-jiva. 2475.
टीका-१८० छिन्नगृहकोलिकापिछिन्नःपुच्छादिको गृहकोलिकादिजीवा. वयवोऽपीत्यर्थः । किम् ? इत्याह-जीवः, इति प्रतिज्ञा । हेतुमाह-"तल्लक्खणेहिं ति तल्लक्षणैर्हेतुभूतैः-स्फुरणादितल्लक्षणयुक्तत्वादित्यर्थः । ? “सयलो व ति" यथा सकलः परिपूर्णोऽच्छिन्नो गृहकोलिकादिजीव इत्यर्थः, एष दृष्टान्तः । अथ गृहकोलिकादेनीवस्य पृच्छादिकस्तदवयवो देश एवेति कृत्वा न बीब इल्यते, संपूर्णस्यैव जीवत्वात् । यद्येवम् , अजीवस्यापि घटादेदेखो नो न वावीयः प्रामोति, संपूर्णस्यैवाजीवत्वात् । ततोऽयमजीवदेशोऽपि नो अजीव एव सात्, न त्वबीवः । तथा च सति स एव राशिचतुष्टयप्रसा इति ॥२४७५॥ D. C.
___Acārya :-Like the whole of house-lizard, its part (say . tail) cut off from the body, is also jiva, on acconnt of its movements etc.
___Rohagupta :-Since tail happens to be only a part of houselizard, it cannot be called jīva. Jivatva exists only in the whole of jiva.

Page #214

: 190: Jinabhadra Gaņi's
[The sixth Acarya :-Then, a part of an a.jiva (or inanimate) object like ghata will also cease to be a-jiva and thus be probably called no-a-jiva, in which case again, there would be four categories : Jiva, A-jiva, No-jiva and No-a-jiva. 180 (2475)
In reply to the argument that the system of samabhiradha naya accepts the jīva pradeśa as no-jiva, नोजीवं ति न जीवादण्णं देसमिह समभिरूढो वि । इच्छइ बेइ समासं जेण समाणाहिगरणं सो ॥१८१॥२४७६॥ जीवे य से पएसे, जीवपएसे एव नोजीवो। इच्छइ न य जीवदलं तुमं व गिहकोलियापुच्छं ॥१८२॥२४७७॥ न य रासिभेयमिच्छइ तुमं व नोजीवमिच्छमाणो वि ।
अन्नो वि नओ नेच्छइ जीवाजीवाहियं किं पि ॥१८३॥२४७८॥ 181. No-jtvam ti na jivadannam desamiha. samabhiradho vil
Icchai bdi samāsam jena samanahiyaranam so. (2476) 182. Jive ya se padse jivapudse eva no-jivon
Icchai na ya jîvadalam tumam va yihakoliyūpucchan. (2477) 183. Na ya rāsibheyamicchai tumam va no-jîvamicchamāṇo vil
Anno vi naö necchai jivājî váliiyam kim pi. (2478) [नोजीवमिति न जीवादन्यं देशमिह समभिरूढोऽपि । इच्छति ब्रवीति समासं येन समानाधिकरणं सः ॥१८१॥२४७६॥ जीवश्च स प्रदेशो जीवप्रदेश एव नोजीवः । इच्छति न च जीवदलं त्वमिव गृहकोलिकापुच्छम् ॥१८२॥२४७७॥ न च राशिभेदमिच्छति त्वमिव नोजीवमिच्छन्नपि ।
अन्योऽपि नयो नेच्छति जीवाजीवाधिकं किमपि ॥१८३॥२४७८॥ 181. No-jivamiti na jivadanyam desamiha samabhirudho'pil
____ Icchati braviti sanmasam yena samānādhikaranam sah. (2476) 182. Jivasca sa pradeso jivapradesa eva no-jivah ।
Icchati na ca jivadalam tvamiva grihakolikāpuccham. (2477)

Page #215

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:191: 183. N. ca rāsibherlamicchati tvamiva no-jivamicchannapil
Anyo'pi nayo necchati ji vājivālhikam kimapi. (2478) ]
Trans. 181-182-183. Even the system of Samabhirudha naya (does) not ( take ) a part ( that is) different from jiva as no-jiva, but mentions it merely as a compound (laying down both of them) in the same case. According to that ( system ), the portion of that which is animate (jiva-pradesa) is no-jiva. (But) this does not accept a part of jiva like the tail of a house-lizard (which is separate from the body ) as no-jiva as you (assert ). Although admitting (the category of) no-jiva, this does not allow for difference in categories as you (allow). Other systems also do not admit anything beyond jiva and a-jiva (2476-2478)
टीका-१८१-१८२-१८३ व्याख्या-इह "जीवे य से परसे य से सपएसे नोजीवे" इत्यत्रानुयोगद्वारोक्तसूत्रालापके समभिरूढ नयोऽपि नोजीवमिति नेच्छतीति सम्बन्ध-नोजीवत्वेन नेच्छ तीत्यर्थः । कं कर्मतापनम् ? । देशम् । कथंभूतम् ?। जीवादन्यं जीवाद् व्यतिरिक्तं देशं नोजीव समभिरूढनयोऽपि नेच्छति-किन्त्वव्यतिरिक्त मेव तं तस्मादिच्छतीत्यर्थः। कुत एतद् विज्ञायते ? इत्याह-येन कारणेन देश-देशिनोः कर्मधारणलक्षणं समानाधिकरणमेव समासमसौ समभिरूढनयो ब्रवीत्यभ्युपगच्छति, न पुनर्भेगमादिरिव तत्पुरुषमित्यर्थः । समानाधिकरणसमासश्च नीलोत्पलादीनामिव विशेषण-विशेष्याणाममेद एव भवति । अतो ज्ञायते जीवादनन्यरूपमेव देशं नोजीव मिच्छति समभिरूढ इति, एवं कथं तृतीयराशिःस्यात् ? इति । तदेव समभिरूढाभिमतं समानाधिकरणसमासं दर्शयति-"जीवे य से इत्यादि । जीवश्चासौ प्रदेशश्च जीवप्रदेशः स एव “नोजीवो त्ति" स एव जीवादव्यतिरिक्तो जीवप्रदेशो नोजीव इत्येवमिच्छति समभिरूढनयः, न पुनर्जीवदलं जीवात् पृथग्भूतं तत्खण्डं नोजीवमिच्छत्यसो, यथा गृहकोलिकादीनां पुच्छादिखण्डं नोजीवं त्वमिच्छसीति । अपि च, नोजीवमिच्छन्नपि समभिरूढनयो यथा त्वं तथा नोजीवाजीवराशिदयाद् मेदं नेच्छति, किन्तु जीवाजीवलक्षणं राशिद्वयमेवेच्छति, नोजीवस्यात्रैवान्तर्भावात् । तथाऽन्योपि नैगमादिनयोजीवा-ऽजीवेभ्योऽधिकं किमपि नोजीववस्तु नेच्छत्येव । ततस्त्वदीय एवायं नूतनःकश्चिद् मार्ग इति ॥२४७६।।२४७७॥२४७८॥

Page #216

: 192:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth
D. C. Even in the statement-viz Jive ya ye pose, ya se sapaese no-jive" of Anuyogadvāra Sūtra, the samabhiradha naya does not admit a part separated from jiva as no-jiva but only that which is intimately connected with jiva. This naya interpretes the statement thus:-A part of the animate region is no-jiva. Jiva-pradeśa is here explained as a karmadhāraya compound and not as a Tat-puruṣa one. Jiva therefore becomes the adjective of pradleśa, meaning thereby “ Animate region.” Thus, according to the samabhiradha naya, a part of the animate region is no-jiva, and it does not take anything different from the animate region as no-jiva as you take.
How would the third category be found in such il case ? For, although, considering the existence of no--jîva, there is no difference between jiva and no-jîva according to the Samabhirūdha naya. No-jîva is nothing but a part of jîva and hence there are only two categories viz jîva and a-jiva. (which naturally includes no-jî va.) Other nayas, also, do not admit anything like no-jiva as different from jiva anit a-jiva. The category of no-jîva therefore, seems to be an original conception of none but yourself. 181-183 (2476-2478)
Even further than that, the Ācārya argues :इच्छउ व समभिरूढो देसं नोजीवमेगनइयं तु । मिच्छत्तं सम्मत्तं सव्वनयमयोवरोहेणं ॥१८४॥२४७९॥ तं जइ सम्वनयमयं जिणमयमिच्छसि पवन दो रासी। पयविप्पडिवत्तीए वि मिच्छत्तं किं नु रासीसु ? ॥१८५।।२४८०॥ 184. Icchau va samabhiradho desam no-jivameganaiyam tu !
Micchattam sammattam savvanayamayovarohenam. (2479) 185. Tam jai savvanayamayam Jiņamayamicchasi pavajja do
rāsi
Payavippaļivattie vi micchattam kim nu rāsisu? (2480) (39 a haftast ei alustainaperti di मिथ्यात्वं सम्यक्त्वं सर्वनयमतोपरोधेन ॥१८४॥२४७९॥

Page #217

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:193 तद् यदि सर्वनयमतं जिनमतमिच्छसि प्रपद्यस्व द्वौ राशी। पदविप्रतिपत्त्याऽपि मिथ्यात्वं किं नु राशिषु ॥१८५॥२४८०॥ 184. Icchatu va Samabhirudho desam no-jtvamaikanayikam tun
Mithyātvam samyaktvam sarvanayamatoparodhena. (2479) 185. Tad yadi sarvanayamatum Jinamatamicchasi prapadya.
sva dvau rāsí i
Padavipratipattya'pi Mithyatvam kim nu rasisu. (2480)]
Trans. 184--185. Or, let the system of Samabhirudha (philosophy) admit (the existence of) no-jiva. ( But ) that being supported by one system (of philosophy) (alone), turns out to be false. That which is supported by all the (philoso'phical) systems, is accepted as true. So if you (really) wish (to follow) the principle of Tirthankaras, then accept (the theory of) two categories. For, even by twisting a syllable, (you are led to accept ) falsehood; what (to say ) about the theory of) categories. (2479-2480).
टीका-१८४-१८५ इच्छतु वा समभिरूढनयस्त्वमिव जीवाद् भित्रमपि तद्देशं नोजीवम् । तथाप्येकनयस्येदं मतमैकनयिकम् , मिथ्यात्वं चैतन्छाक्यमतवत् , इत्यतो न तत् प्रमाणीकर्तव्यम् । सम्यक्त्वं तु सर्वनयमतावरोधेन समस्तनयमतसंग्रहेणैव भवति । ततो यदि सर्वनयमयं जिनमतं प्रमाणमिच्छसि तदा प्रतिपद्यस्व जीवाऽ-जीवलक्षणो द्वावेव राशी, अन्यथा
पयमक्खरं पि एक पि जो न रोएइ सुत्तनिद्दिटुं।
सेसं रोयन्तोऽवि हु मिच्छट्टिी मुणेयव्वो ॥१॥ इति वचनात् पदविपतिपत्यापि मिथ्यात्वमापद्यते, किमुत सकलेषु राशिषु विप्रतिपत्त्या तद् न भविष्यति ? इति ॥२४७९॥२४८०॥ D. C.
Acārya :--Or, let the Samabhirūdha naya itself accept a part of jiva as no--jiva, like you. But that theory being supported by only one naya, will become utterly unacceptible like the theory of Sākyas. For, a principle which is jointly supported by all the

Page #218

:194: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth philosophical systems, is alone taken as acceptible. So, if you really want to follow the doctrine of the Tirthankaras which is supported by all the philosophical systems, you shall have to admit only two categories: 1. The catogory of jîvas or animato beings and 2. The category of a-jivas or inanimate objects.
Otherwise, Payamakkharam pi ekkam pi jo na röời suttaniddiţtham Sèsam royanto'vi hu micchaddiţthi muñeyavvo II
(If one dislikes only one syllable of a word in a satra, and likes the rest of the sūtra, then also, his view-point should be recognized as false belief. ]
According to this rule, if misinterpretation of even one sy llable results in acceptance of falschood, what to talk of misinterpreting the whole theory of categories ? 184-185 (2479-2480)
एवं पि भण्णमाणो न पवजह सो जओ तओ गुरुणा। चिंतियमयं पणट्ठो नासिहई मा बहुं लोगं ॥१८६॥२४८१॥ तोणं रायसभाए निग्गिण्हामि बहुलोगपञ्चक्खं । बहुजणनाओऽवसिओ होही अगेज्मपक्खो त्ति ॥१८७॥२४८२॥ तो बलसिरिनिवपुरओ वायं नाओवणीयमग्गाणं । कुणमाणाणमईया सीसा-ऽऽयरियाण छम्मासा ॥१८८॥२४८३॥ एको वि नावसिज जाहे तो भणइ नरवई नाहं। सत्तो सोउ सीयंति रजकजाणि मे भगवं! ॥१८९॥२४८४॥ गुरुणाभिहिओ भवओ सुणावणथमियमेत्तियं भणियं । जह सिन सत्तो सोउं तो निग्गिण्हामि णं कल्लं ॥१९॥२४८५॥ 186. Evam pi bhannamāņo na pavvajjai so jao tao guruņā i
Cintiyamayam panattho nāsi hai mā bahuin logam. (2481) 187. To nam rāyasabhāe niggiņhāmi bahulogapaccakkham |
Bahujananāö'vasiö hohi agejjhapakkho tti. (2482) 188. To Balasirinivapuraö vāyam nāövaniyamaggāņam 1
Kunamānānamalya sisa"yariyana chammasa. (2483)

Page #219

Vada ]
189
Nihnavavada
Ekko vi nāvasijjai jāhe to bhaṇai naravat näham Satto söum styanti rajjakajjāni me bhagavam. (2484) 190. Gurunā'bhihi bhava sunāvanatthamiyamettiyam bhaniyam Jai si na satto söum to nigginhāminam kallam. (2485 )
[ एवमपि भण्यमानो न प्रपद्यते स यतस्ततो गुरुणा । चिन्तितमयं प्रनष्टो नाशयतु मा बहुं लोकम् ॥१८६॥२४८१॥ ततो राजसभायां निगृह्णामि बहुलोकप्रत्यक्षम् । बहुजनज्ञातोऽवसितो भवेदग्रायपक्ष इति ॥ १८७॥२४८२ ॥ ततो बलश्रीनृपपुरतो वादं न्यायोपनीतमार्गाणाम् । कुर्वतामतीताः शिष्याचार्याणां षड् मासाः ॥ १८८॥२४८३॥ एकोऽपि नावसद्यते यदा ततो भणति नरपतिर्नाहम् । शक्तः श्रोतुं सीदन्ति राज्यकार्याणि मे भगवन् ! ॥ १८९॥२४८४॥ गुरुणाऽभिहितो भवतः श्रावणार्थमिदमियद् भणितम् । यद्यसि न शक्तः श्रोतुं ततो निगृह्णामि कल्ये ॥ १९०॥२४८५ ॥
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
: 195:

Evamapi bhanyamāņo na prapadyate sa yatastato guraņā! Cintitamayan pranasto nāśayatu ma bahum lokam. (2481) Tato rājasabhāyām nigrihṇāmi bahulokapratyakṣam ı Bahujanajñāto’vasito bhavedagrāhyapaksa iti. (1482) Tato Balaśrinripapurato vādam nyāyopanîtamārgāṇām | Kurvatāmatitāb sisyācāryānām sadmāsāh. (2483)
Eko'pi nāvasadyate yadā tato bhaṇati narapatirnāham | śaktah śrotum sīdanti rājyakāryāni me - Bhagavan1 (2484) Guruna'bhihito bhavataḥ śrāvañārthamidamiyad bhaṇitam | Yadyasi na śaktah śrotum tato nigrihnāmi kalye. (2485 )
Trans. 186-187-188-189-190. Though persuaded in this way, when he was not convinced, the preceptor thought "This (man) has been corrupted, but let him not corrupt the world. I shall, therefore defeat him in the midst of many people in the Royal Assembly. He will be known to many people as

Page #220

: 196:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth
defeated, (and hence) his theory will be unacceptible." Consequently, the preceptor and the pupil passed six months in discussion of (the various) systems of philosophy before the King Balaśrī. When neither of the two was defeated, the king said " Revered Sir, I cann't witness this any more. (My) stateaffairs are getting delayed." The preceptor replied " All this was told for your guidance. If you are not able to hear (any more), I shall defeat him to-morrow. (2481-2485)
टीका-१८६-१८७–१८८ - १८९ - १९० प्रकटार्था एवैताः, नवरं "बहुजणनाओऽवसित्ति" बहुजनस्य ज्ञातो विदितोऽवसितो मया जितः सन्नग्राह्य| वचनः सर्वस्यापि भविष्यति । " तो बलसिरिनिवपुरउ चि” ततो बलश्रीनाम्नो राज्ञः पुरत इत्यर्थः । " नाओवणीयमम्गाणं ति " नीयते संवित्ति प्राप्यते वस्त्वनेन इति न्यायः प्रस्तुतार्थसाधकं प्रमाणं, येनोपन्यस्तेन संतोपनीतो ढौकितः प्रसङ्गेनागतः सकलस्यापि तर्कस्य मार्गो येषां ते तथा तेषां न्यायोपनीतमार्गाणां रोहगुप्त - श्रीगुप्तसूरीणामिति ॥२४८१|| २४८२|| २४८३||२४८४||२४८५॥
D. C. The meaning is clear. Thinking that Rohapupta will not be listened to by any one if he is defeated in the public assembly, the preceptor discussed with him openly in the Royal Assembly of king Balaśri, the principles of various philosophical systems constantly for six months. But when King Balaśrī showed his inability to witness the controversy anymore as this state-affairs were being delayed, the Acarya promised to defeat Rohagupta on the next day. 186-190 (2481-2485)
Then,
बीयदिणे बेह गुरू नरिंद ? जं मेहणीए सन्भूयं । तं कुत्तियावणे सव्वमत्थि सव्वप्यतीयमियं ॥ १९९॥२४८६ ॥
तं कुत्तियावणसूरो नोजीवं देहि जइ न सो नत्थि । अह भणइ नत्थि तो नत्थि किंव हेउप्पबघेणं ॥ १९२ || २४८७ ॥
8. The tracks of discussion of both were based upon Nyāya and hence their syllogism consisted of Pratijñā, hetu, udāharaṇa, upanaya and nigamana.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #221

:197:
Väda]
Nihnavayāda तं मग्गिजउ मुल्लेण सव्ववत्थूणि कित्थ कालेन। इय होउ त्ति पवणे नरिंद-पइवाइ-परिसाहिं ॥१९३॥२४८८॥ सिरिगुत्तेणं छलुगो छम्मासा विकट्टिऊण वाए जिओ।
अहरण कुत्तिआवण चोयालसएण पुच्छाणं ॥१९४॥२४८९।। 191. Biyadine bdi gurā narinda ? jam meinte sabbhayam |
Tam kattiyāvaņe savvamatthi savvappatîyamiyam. (2486) 192. Tamkuttiyavanasāro no-jivam dehi jai na so natthit Aha bhāņai natthi to natthi kimva hèu ppabunddoņam.
(2487) 193. Tam maggijjau mullena savvavatthuni kintha kālenat
Iya höu tti pavaņņe narinda-paivāî-parisāhim. (2488) 194. Sirigutteņam Chalugo chammāsā vikațțiūņa vāe jiöl
Aharaṇa kuttiāvaņa coyālasaèņa pucchānam. (2489) ] [द्वितीयदिने ब्रवीति गुरुनरेन्द ! यद् मेदिन्यां सद्भुतम् । तत् कुत्रिकापणे सर्वमस्ति सर्वप्रतीतमिदम् ॥१९१।२४८६॥ तत् कुत्रिकापणसुरो नोजीवं देहि यदि न स नास्ति। अथ भणति नास्ति ततो नास्ति किं वा हेतु-प्रवन्धेन ?॥१९२।।२४८७ तद् मार्यन्ता मूल्येन सर्ववस्तूनि किमत्र कालेन ? । एवं भवत्विति प्रपन्ने नरेन्द्र प्रतिवादि-परिषद्भिः ॥१९॥२४८८॥ भीगुप्तेन षडलूकः षड्मासान् विकृष्य वादे जितः। उदाहरणानां कृत्रिकापणे चतुश्चत्वारिंशताशतेन पृच्छानाम् ॥
॥१९४॥२४८९॥ 191. Dvittyadine braviti gurur-narendral yad medinyam and
bhatam
Tat kutrikāpaņe sarvamasti sarvapratîtamidam. (2486) 192. Tat kutrikapanasaro no-jivam dehi yadi na ss nāstil Atha bhanati nāsti tato nāsti kim vā betu-prabandhena ?
(2487)

Page #222

: 198:
193.
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth
Tad märgyantām mulyena sarvavastani kimatra kālena ? | Evam bhavatviti prapanne narendra-prativādi-pariṣadbhiḥ.
(2488)
194. Sriguptena Saḍulūkaḥ ṣaḍmāsān vikriṣya vāde jitaḥ Udaharāṇānām kutrikāpaņe catuścatvārimśatāśatena pricchānam. (2489)]
Trans. 191-192-193-194. On the next day, the preceptor said "It is known to all that everything that exists on the earth is included in the Universal Shop (Kutrikāpaņa)". Hence, if the deity (in charge) of the Universal shop supplies no-jîva (then), it is not (correct to assert that) no-jîva does not exist. And if he says that it is not (available), then (it should accepted that) no-jiva does not exist. What is the use of logical arguments? So, demand all things at (various) prices. Why waste time? When it was agreed upon by the Royal Assembly as well as the opposite party (with the words) "Let it be so." Saḍulūka was defeated by Srigupta with the questions of one hundred and fortyfour illustrations (set) at the Universal Shop after having passed six months in discussion. (2486 - 2489)
टीका - १९१-१९२-१९३ - १९४ व्याख्या - द्वितीय दिने ब्रवीति गुरुः श्रीगुप्तसूरिः- नरेन्द्र ! पृथिवीपते !-इह मेदिन्यां पृथिव्यां यत् किमपि सद्भूतं विद्यमानं वस्तु तत् सर्वमपि कुत्रिकापणेऽस्तीति सर्वजनस्य भवतां च प्रतीतमेवेदम् । तत्र कूनां स्वर्ग - पाताल - मर्त्यभूमीनां त्रिकं कुत्रिकं तात्स्थ्यात् तद्वयपदेश इति कृत्वा तत्स्थलोका अपि कुत्रिकमुच्यते, कुत्रिकमापणयति व्यवहरति यत्र esसौ कुत्रिकापणः । अथवा, धातु - जीव-मूल- लक्षणेभ्यस्त्रिभ्यो जातं त्रिजं सर्वमपि वस्त्वित्यर्थः, कौ पृथिव्यां त्रिजमापणयति व्यवहरति यत्र हट्टे स कृत्रि
9. Kutrikāpaṇa could be interpreted in this way :-Ku= Prithivi-Earth, world. Trika=Three, Trio-Kutrika-The three worlds (viz. Svarga, Mritya and Pātāla) Āpaṇa-Shop. Kutrikapaṇa could thus conveniently be called Universal Shop where from all objects of the three words could be had.

Page #223

Vada]
Nihnavavāda
: 199:
"
जापणः । अस्मिथ कुत्रिकापणे वणिजः कस्यापि मन्त्राद्याराधितः सिद्धो व्यन्तरसुरः क्रायकजनसमीहितं सर्वमपि वस्तु कुतोऽध्यानीय संपादयति । तन्मूल्यद्रव्यं तु वणिगेव गृह्णाति । अन्ये तु वदन्ति - " वणिग्रहिताः सुराधिष्ठिता एव त आपणा भवन्ति । ततो मूल्यद्रव्यमपि स एवं व्यन्तरसुरः स्वीकरोति " । एवं च कुत्रिकापणाः प्रतिनियतेष्वेवो अथिनी - भृगुकच्छनगरादिस्थानेषु क्वापि कियन्तोऽप्यासन् इत्यागमेऽभिहितम् । ततस्तस्मात् कुत्रिकापणसुरो यदि मूल्येन याचितः सन् नोजीवं जीवाजीवव्यतिरिक्तवस्तुरूपं कमपि ददाति तदाऽसौ न नास्त्यपि तु निर्विवादमस्त्येव । अथायमेव वदति - नास्ति तद्वयतिरिक्तः कोऽपि नोजीवस्तदा नास्त्येवासौ, किं तत्रास्तित्वसाधनाय युष्मद्राज्यप्रयोजनक्षतिकारिणा क्लेशफलेन हेतु प्रबन्धोपन्यासेन १ इति । तत् तस्माद् याच्यन्तां मूल्येन सर्ववस्तुनि कुत्रिकापरणसुरः, किमत्र कालेन कालविलम्बेन ? इत्यर्थः । एवं गुरुभिरुक्ते बलश्रीनरेन्द्रेण प्रतिवादिना रोहगुप्तेन सभ्यपर्षदा च युक्तियुक्तत्वात्, “एवं भवतु " इति प्रविपत्रे श्रीगुप्ताचार्येण षडुलूको रोहगुप्तं पूर्व षड् मासान् विकृष्यातिवाद्य वादे जितो निगृहीतः । केन ? इत्याह- कुत्रिकापणे यानि वक्ष्यमाण भू-जल - ज्वलनाद्याहरणान्युदाहरणानि तद्विषयपृच्छानां चतुश्चत्वारिंशेन शतेन, प्राकृतशैल्या छन्दोवन्धानु लोम्पादार्षत्वादत्र व्यत्ययेन निर्देश इति || २४८६|| २४८७||२४८८॥२४८९ ॥
D. C. Next day, the preceptor Srt Guptācārya said "Oking 1 it is welknown that Kutrikäpaņa supplies everything that exists in the three worlds. So, it will supply all that exists on the earth also. For ku means " world" and the three worlds are heaven-earth and-the nether-world, Apaņa means a shop. A shop where objects existing in the three worlds are sold is known as Kutrikāpana. Or, it may be called Kutrijāpana also. Since everything is produced from dhātu or primary substance, jiva or consciousness and mala or root, they could also be said to be trija (product of the three). A place on earth where all such objects are sold, is known as Kutrikāpaņa. Such Kutrikapaņas or Universal Shops, were usually managed by merchants who used to propitiate a Vyantara or semi-god 10 who would bring for them
10. There are eight classes of Vyantaras:-Piśāca. Bhata, Yaksa, Rāksasa, Kinnara, Kimpurusa, Mahoraga and Gandharva.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #224

:200 Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The sixth ang object required from anywhere in the three worlds. The maney procured by sale, was appropriated by the merchants concerned.
According to another theory, these shops were managed by Vyantaras themselves and not by merchants. And hence, the money procured happened to be their property. It has been mentioned in the Agamas that such Universal Shops were situated at Ujjain and Broach.
It was proposed :--"Let us approach such a shop and demand no-jiva as distinguished from jiva and a-jiva. If the god in charge supplies us the same, the existence of no-siva will be accepted. But if he refuses to believe in such an entity as "mo-jiva" we shall have to believe unanimously that no-jiva does not exist. Why waste time? Let us approach the Universal Shop and settle the dispute.”
King Balasri, Rohagupta and all the members of the Royal Assembly, consented to this proposal and proceeded to the Ku. trikāpaņa. They demanded one hundred and forty-four objects by means of a number of questions but they could not get, no-siva as distinguished from " jiva" and "a-jiva." Consequently, Ror hagupta was defeated. 191-194 (2486-2489)
The one hundred and forty-four questions referred to above are counted as follows:--
मू-जल-जलपानिल-नह-काल-दिसा-ऽऽया मणो य दबई । भण्णंति नदेयाइं सत्तरस गुणा इमे अण्णे ॥१९५॥२४९०॥ रूप-रस-गंध-फासा संखा परिमाणमहमह-पुहत्तं च । संजोग-विभाग-परा-ऽपरत्तबुद्धी सुहं दुक्खं ॥१९६॥२४९१॥ इच्छा-दोस-पयत्ता एत्तो कम्मं तयं च पंचविहं । उक्लेवण-वक्खेवण-पसारणाऽऽकुंचणं-गमणं ॥१९७॥२४९२॥ सत्ता-सामाणं-पिय-सामण्णविसेसया-विसेसो य । समबानो य पयस्था छ छत्तीसप्पमेया य ॥१९८॥२४९३॥

Page #225

Vada] Nihnavavāda
: 201: पमईए अगारेण य नोमारोभयनिसेहओ सव्वे । गुणिआ ओयालसयं पुच्छाणं पुच्छिओ देवो ॥१९९॥२४९४॥ 195. Bhû-jala-jalaņā-nila-naha-kula-disā--āyā-maño ya davvāim i
Bhannanti naveyāim sattarasa gunā ime aņņe. (2490) 196. Rūva-rasa-gandha-phāsā-samkhā parimāṇamamaha-puhu
ttam ca ! Sanjoga-vibhaga-para-'paratta-buddhi-suham-dukkham.
(2491) 197. Iccha-dosa-payattā etto kammam tayam ca pancavihami
Ukkhevana-vakkhevana-pasārana"kuncanam gamanam.(2492) 198. Satta-samannam piya-sāmanmavisesays-viseso yat
Samavāö ya payatthā cha chattisappabheyā ya. (2493) 199. Pagaid agāreņa ya nogārobhayanisehaö savvel
Guņiya öyālasayam pucchāņam pucchio devo. (2494)
[भू-जल-ज्वलना-ऽनिल-नभः-काल-दिगा-ऽऽत्मानो-मनश्च द्रव्याणि । भण्यन्ते नवैतानि सप्तदशगुणा इमेऽन्ये ॥१९५॥२४९०॥ रूप-रस-गंध-फासा-संखा-परिणाम-महत्-पृथक्त्वं च । संयोग-विभाग-परा-ऽपरत्व-बुद्धयः-सुख-दुःखम् ॥१९६॥२४९१॥ इच्छा-द्वेष-प्रयत्नावितः कर्म तच्च पञ्चविधम् । उत्क्षेपणाऽ-वक्षेपण-प्रसारणा-ऽऽकुश्चनानि-गमनम् ॥१९७॥२४९२॥ सत्ता सामान्यमपि च सामान्य-विशेषका-विशेषश्च । समवायश्च पदार्थाः षट् षट्त्रिंशत्प्रभेदाश्च ॥१९८॥२४९३।। प्रकृत्याऽकारेण च नोकारोभयनिषेधतः सर्वे । गुणितास्त्वेकचत्वारिंशताशतं पृच्छानां पृष्टो देवः ॥१९९॥२४९४॥
195.
Bha--jala-jvalana-nila-nabhah-kala-diga-"tmāno manasoa. dravyanis Bhanyante navaitani saptadasaguna ime'nye. (2490)

Page #226

: 202 : Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth 196. Rupa-rasa-gandha-phasa-samkha-parināmatha-mahat-pri
thaktvam ca Samyoga-vibhāga-parā -'paratva-buddhayaḥ -sukhain - duḥ
kham. (2491) 197. Iccbā-dveşa - prayatnāvitaḥ karma tacca pañcavidham
Utksepaņā'vakşepaņa-prasāraņā-"kuncanāni-gamanaın. (2492) 198. Satta sāmānyamapi ca sāmányavisèşaka-viseșaśca 1
Samavāyaśca-padārthāḥ șaț șaț trimsat prabhedāśca. (2493) 199. Prakritya’kāreņa ca nokārobhayanişedhatah sarve Gunitastvekacatvārimśatāśatam pricchānām pristo devaa.
(2494) Trans. 195-196-197-198-199. The deity (in charge ) was asked one hundred and forty-four questions as follows :-Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Sky, Time, Direction, Soul, and Mind are called the nine main substances. Porm, Taste, Odour, Touch, Number, Shape, Length, Distinction, Combination, Separation, Remoteness, Vicinity, Intellect, Happiness, Misery, Desire, Aversion, and Effort--these are seventeen Guņas or properties. And there is Karman or Action which is of five varieties viz Those of 1. Throwing up, 2. Throwing down, 3. Expanding, 4. Contracting and 5. Moving. The sāmānya or Genus (divided into) generality of existence, general property, and (generality of) particular (elements). There are višeşa (particularity ), and sámānya (co-inherence). (Thus there are ) six (categories of) elements 11, of which there are thirty-six varieties. On multiplying these (thirty-six) by prakriti or the root-form, a-kāra (i. e. prefixing 3 to the word ), no-kāra (i. e prefixing at to the word), and both together (i. e. prefixing and at both to-gether), there will be one hundred and forty-four questions. (2490 - 2494 )
11. According to Vaišeşikas there are seven elements : Dravya (substance) Guņa (quality ) Karman (action ) Sāmánya (Genus ) Viseşa (partioularity) Samavāya (co-inherence and Abhāva (Nonexistence Tainas do not admit abhāva.

Page #227

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 203:
टीका-१९५-१९६-१९७-१९८-१९९ इह द्रव्य-गुण-कर्म- सामान्यविशेष- समवायलक्षणाः षड् मूलपदार्थास्तेन षडुलूकेन कल्पिताः । तत्र द्रव्यं नवधा । कथम् ? इत्याह- " भू-जलेत्यादि " भूमिः, जलम्, ज्वलनः, अनिलः, नभः, कालः, दिक्, आत्मा, मनचेतानि नवद्रव्याणि भण्यन्ते । गुणाः सप्तदश भवन्ति, तद्यथा - रूपं, रस, गन्धः, स्पर्शः, संख्या, परिमाणम्, महस्वम्, पृथकत्वम्, संयोगः, विभागः, परा -ऽपरत्वे, बुद्धिः, सुखम्, दुःखम्, इच्छा, द्वेषः, प्रयत्नश्चेति । इतः कर्म तत् पुनः पञ्चविधम्, तद्यथा - उत्क्षेपणम्, अवक्षेपणम्, आकुञ्श्चनम्, प्रसारणम्, गमनमिति । सामान्यं त्रिविधम्, तद्यथा सत्ता, सामान्यम्, सामान्यविशेषश्चेति । तत्र द्रव्य-गुण-कर्मलक्षणेषु त्रिषु पदार्थेषु सद्बुद्धिहेतुः सत्ता, सामान्यं द्रव्यत्व - गुणत्वादि, सामान्यविशेषस्तु पृथिवीत्व, - जलत्व. - कृष्णत्व - नीलत्वाद्यवान्तरसामान्यरूप इति । अन्ये त्वित्थं सामान्यस्य त्रैविध्यमुपवर्णयन्ति - अविकल्पं महासामान्यम्, त्रिपदार्थसद्बुद्धिहेतुभूता सत्ता, सामान्यविशेषो द्रव्यत्वादि । महासामान्य - सत्तयोर्विशेषणव्यत्यय इत्यन्ये । द्रव्य-गुणकर्मपदार्थत्रय सद्बुद्धिहेतुः सामान्यम्, अविकल्पा सत्तेत्यर्थः । सामान्यविशेषस्तु द्रव्यत्वादिरूप एव । इत्यलं प्रसङ्गेनेति । विशेषश्चान्त्यः । समवायपदार्थश्रेति ।
9
तदेवमेते द्रव्यादयः षट् पदार्थाः षट्त्रिंशत्प्रमेदा:-नवानां द्रव्याणां सप्तदशानां गुणानां पञ्चानां कर्मणां त्रयाणां सामान्यानाम्, विशेष - समवाययो मीलने पर त्रिंशद् विकल्पा भवन्तीत्यर्थः । एते च सर्वे प्रकृत्या, अकारेण, नोकारेण, उभयनिषेधतश्चत्येतश्रेतुभिः प्रकारैर्गुणिताः सन्तो यच्चतुश्चत्वारिंशं शतं पृच्छानां भवति तत् पृष्टः कुत्रिकापणदेवः । इदमत्र हृदयम् - नरहितं शुद्धं पदमिह प्रकृतिरुच्यते, तया शुद्धपदरूपया प्रकृत्या पृथिव्यादयः पदार्थाः पृच्छयन्ते, तद्यथा - " पृथिवीं देहि " इत्यादि । तथा, लुप्तस्य नञः स्थाने योऽकारस्तेन चाकारेण संयुक्तया प्रकृत्या पृच्छा विधीयते, यथा “ अपृथिवीं देहि " इत्यादि । तथा नोकारेण संयुक्तया प्रकृत्या पृच्छा यथा-" नोपृथिवीं देहि” इत्यादि । तथा, नोकाराsकारलक्षणं तदुभयं तेन योऽसौ प्रकृत्या निषेधस्तस्माच्च पृष्टः सुरो यथा - " नोअपृथिवीं देहि " इत्यादि । एवं जलादिष्वपि प्रत्येकमेते प्रकृत्य-कारनोकारो भयनिषेधलक्षणाश्चत्वारः पृच्छाप्रकारा वक्तव्या इति । एतदभिप्रायवता प्रोक्तम् - " सव्वे गुणिओ" इति । आह- ननु पृथिवीं देहि" इत्यादिका याचना एव कथं पृच्छाः प्रोच्यन्ते १ । सत्यम्, किन्तु " पृथिवीं देहि ” इत्यादि
८८
"

Page #228

: 204: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth पाचगवारेम पृथिव्यायस्तित्वमेवासो देवः पृच्छयते, “नोजीच याचितो यद्यसौ जीवा-उजीकव्यतिरिच तं दास्यति तदाऽयमस्ति, नान्यथा इत्येवमेव प्रतिज्ञातत्यात् । ततो याचना अप्येतास्तत्वतः पृच्छा एवेत्यदोषः ॥२४९०॥२४९१॥ २४९२॥२४९३।२४९४॥
D. C. 1. Dravya (substance), 2. Guņa (quality), 3. Karman (action), 4. Samānya (genus), 5. Višesa (particularity) and 6. Sāmavāya (cominherhace) are the six main categories under which all the objects are classed. There are nine kinds of dravya: 1. Earth, 2. Water, 3. Fire, 4. Wind, 5. Sky, 6. Time, 7. Space, 8. Soul and 9. Mind
There are seventeen types of Guña :-1. Form, 2. Taste, 3. Odour, 4. Touch, 5. Number, 6. Shape, 7. Length, 8. Distinction, 9. Combination, 10. Separation, 11. Remoteness, 12. Vicinity, 13, Intellect, 14. Pleasure or Pain, 15. Desire, 16. Hatred and 17. Effort.
Karman is divided into five types :—the acts of 1. Throwing up, 2. Throwing down, 3. Expanding, 4. Contracting and 5. Moving
Sāpānga is three-fold :- 1. Existence, 2. General Property and 3. Generality in particular. Three types of sāmānya are explained in two ways viz (1) Sattā or existence means acceptance of dravya, guna and karman as existing. Sāmānya means quality of being dravya and guna etc. while sāmānya-višeşa constitutes qualities of being prithvi, jala etc. (2) The general case of generality (mabāsāmānya ) covers everything and hence has no alternative. Sattā or existence admits the various substances as dravya while dravyatva, guŋatva etc. constitute sāmānya-viseșa.
According to others, makāsămânya and sattā are exactly opposite to each other.
Viseşa is final distinction and samavāya is co-inherence or intimate connection,

Page #229

Vada]
: 208:
Thus, there are six main categories of substances of which there are thirty-six varieties in all. Each one of these, was demanded at the Kutrikāpaṇa (a) in its original form (b) with the prefix . (c) with the prefix (d) and with both the prefixes (and) together, one after the other. In this way, one hundred and forty-four questions in all, were put before the said Kutrikāpaṇa. Take for example the case of prithivi. While demanding prithivi, firstly, the element of prithivî is demanded, in its original form. Then the demands of A-prithivi (a-ft) Noprithivi (-qraft) and No-a-prithivi (-a-feft) are respectively made.
-अ
Nihnavavāda
On demand of prithivi, its existence is inquired. Similarilyty, on demanding "no-jiva" if the deity in charge satisfies the demand, it is taken for granted that " no-jiva" exists. But if the demand is not fulfilled, the existence of no-jiva will be denied. It is, therefore, better to settle this dispute by putting such demands and save time. 195-199. (2490-2494)
Now, explaining how the various demands were made and fulfilled, the author states
gefa fa ty d¿ż żeì fa erameng-föût fa | पुढवित सोऽपुढवीं देहि त्ति देह तोयाई || २०० || २४९५ ||
200. Puḍhavi tti dèi lèṭṭhum deso vi samāṇajāi-liñgo tti | Pudhavi tti so'puḍhavim dehi tti dei toyaim. (2495) [ पृथिवीति ददाति लेष्टुं देशोऽपि समानजाति - लिङ्ग इति । पृथिवीति सोऽपृथिवीं देहीति ददाति तोयादि ॥ २०० ॥ २४९५ ॥ 200. Prithivîti dadāti leṣṭum deso'pi samānajāti-linga iti | Prithivîti so'prithivim dehîti dadāti toyādi. (2495) ]
Trans. 200. (On demanding) "earth he gives a lump of earth. (For), even a part is of the same genus and gender, (and hence) is nothing (but) prithivi. But when asked that "Give us a-prithivi" he supplies water etc. (2495)

""

Page #230

: 206: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth ___टीका-२०० पृथिवीं याचितः कुत्रिकापणसुरो लेष्टुं ददाति । आह-अप्रस्तुत. - मिदम्, अन्यस्मिन् याचितेऽन्यस्य प्रदानात् । नैवम् । कुतः इत्याह-" देसो
वीत्यादि" देशोऽपि लेष्टुलक्षणः "पुढवि ति" पृथिव्येव मन्तव्या, पृथिवीत्वलक्षणाया जातेःस्त्रीलिङ्गलक्षणस्य लिङ्गस्य च समानत्वात् । इह यत्र पृथिवीत्व. जातिःस्त्रीलिङ्गं च वर्तते तत् 'पृथिवी' इति व्यवहवर्तव्यम् , यथा रत्नप्रभादि, तथा च लेष्टुः, तस्मात् पृथिवीति । “अपृथिवीं देहि" इत्येवं याचितोऽसौ देवस्तोयादि प्रयच्छति ॥२४९५।।
___D. C. On demand of "prithivi", the deity in charge of the Kutrikāpaņā supplies a lump of earth. Here, if it is objected that on demand of one thing, something else is given, it is not so. The clod which is but a portion of prithivî is nothing but prithivi as the genus and gender of both are common.
On the demand that “Give (us) u-prithivî” the deity supplies water etc. 200 (2495)
And in case of no-prithiviदेसपडिसेहपक्खे नोपुढवी देइ लेट्टुदेसं सो। लेढुद्दव्वावेकखो कीरइ देसोवयारो से ॥२०१॥२४९६॥ इहरा पुढवि चिय सो लेटु व्व समाणजाइलकवणओ। लेटुवलं ति व देसो जइ तो लेटू वि भूदेसो ॥२०२॥२४९७॥ 201. Desapadisehapakkhd no-pudhavim ddi letthudesam sol
Letthuddavavekkho kirai desovayaro se. (2496) 202. Ihara pudhavi cciya so letthu vva samannjailakkhanail
Letthudalam ti va deso jai to letthū vi bhūdeso. (2497) [देशप्रतिषेधपक्षे नोथिवीं ददाति लेष्टुदेशं सः। लेष्टुद्रव्यापेक्षः क्रियते देशोपचारतस्तस्य ॥२०११॥२४९६॥ इतरथा पृथिव्येव स लेष्टुरिव समानजातिलक्षणतः । लेष्टुदलमिति वा देशो यदि ततो लेष्टुरपि भूदेशः॥२०२॥२४९७॥

Page #231

Vada ] Nihnavavada
: 207: 201. Desapratisedhapakse no-prithivi m dadati lestudesam sahi
Lestudravyāpcksah kriyate desopacāratastasya (2496) 202. Itarathā prithivyeva sa lasturiva samānajatilaksanatah |
Lestudalamiti vā deśo yadi tato leșturapi bhūdeśaḥ. (2497)]
Trans 201-202. (On demanding ) “no-prithivi" in case of (interpreting it as ) the nagation of a part, he supplies a piece of clod on account of its usage as a portion with regard to clod as dravya. Otherwise, that (also) will be nothing but prithivî on account of its ( being characterised by the ) same genus and gender. Or, if the piece of clod is (taken ) merely (as) a portion then clod is also nothing but a portion of earth. (2496-2497)
टीका-२०१-२०२ नोशब्दस्य देशप्रतिषेधपक्षे नोपृथिवीं याचितोऽनन्तरं मेव समस्तपृथिवीत्वेनोपचरितस्य लेप्टोरेव देशं तत्खण्डरूपं ददात्यसौ देवः । आह-ननु देशनिषेधपक्षे नोपृथिवी तद्देश एव गृह्यते, यस्तु लेष्टुदेशः स पृथ्वीदेशस्यापि देश एव, न तु पृथ्वीदेशः, तत् कथं नोपृथ्वीं याचितस्तं ददाति ? इत्याह-"लेट् ठुदव्वेत्यादि" लेष्टुद्रव्यापेक्षः "से" तस्य लेष्टुदेशस्य देशोपचारः क्रियते । इदमुक्तं भवति-लेष्टौ तावदनन्तरोक्तयुक्तेः संपूर्णपृथ्वीद्रव्यत्वमारो. पितम् , ततो लेष्टुलक्षणपृथ्वीद्रव्यापेक्षया तद्देशस्यापि पृथ्वीदेशत्वमुपचर्यते, इतरथाऽन्यथा पुनः परमार्थतो लेष्टुवत् समानजात्यादिलक्षणत्वादिति पूर्वोक्तहेतोः सोऽपि लेष्टुदेशः पृथ्व्येव मन्तव्या। अथ पराभिप्रायमाविष्कृत्य परिहारार्थमाह"लेठुदलं ति व देसो जइ ति" यदि तु भोः पर ! त्वं मन्यसे-योऽयं लेष्टो देशःसदलं लेप्टोरेव खण्डमात्रम् , ततः समानजातिलक्षणत्वेऽपि नासौ पृथ्वीति । अत्र परिहारमाह-"तो लेटू वि भूदेसो त्ति" ततस्तहिंपुढवीत्ति देइ लेटुं देसो वि " इत्यादौ यः पूर्व लेष्टुः पृथ्वीत्वेनोक्तः सोऽपि भुवः पृथिव्या देश एव । ततस्त्वदभिप्रायेण सोऽपि पृथ्वीदलरूपत्वाद् न पृथ्वी, लेष्टुदेशवदिति ॥२४९६।२४९७॥ ___D. C. When " no-prithivi is demanded, the deity-in-charge interpretes it as a negation of part and accordingly he supplies a portion of clod which was firstly taken as earth in general.

Page #232

: 208:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth
Here, if it is objected that by the word "no-prithivi a part of prithivi would be understood, but since a piece of clod is the portion of a portion of earth, how could that be called "noprithvi? The reply is this:-Just as the substance of prithvi has been transposed upon clod as stated before, the sense of portion has been transposed upon a piece of clod. In other words, clod represents 'prithvi' and a piece of clod represents a portion of "prithvi" in this case; otherwise, really speaking, the portion of clod is nothing but "prithvi" as jāti etc. of prithvi' are found in it also. The objection that a portion of clod could not be called 'prithvi' in spite of their jati etc. being common, is not proper. For, in that case, even clod which has already been taken as prithvi' before, will not be called prithvi' as it happens to be only a portion of prithvi'. 201-202 (2496-2497)
6
"
"
This argument is explained with illustrations—
देहि भुवं तो भणिए सव्वाणेया न यावि सा सव्वा । सक्का सकेण वि याणेउ किमुय. वसेसेणं १ || २०३ || २४९८ ॥
203. Dehi bhuvam to bhanie savvāņèya na yāvi sā savvā | Sakkā Sakkèņa vi yāṇeum kimuyāvaseseṇam? (2498) [ देहि भुवं ततो भणिते सर्वानेया न चापि सा सर्वा । शक्या शक्रेणापि चानेतुं किमुतावशेषेण १ ॥ २०३ ॥ २४९८ ॥
203. Dehi bhuvam tato bhanite sarvānèyā na cāpi sā sarvāl Sakya Sakrèṇāpi canòtum kimutāvašeṣeņa? (2498)]
Trans. 203. On the demand that "Give (us) prithvî "the whole of earth should be brought. But (ca) since the whole of it could not brought even by Indra, what, then, to talk of the rest (of gods) 2498.
टीका - २०३ यदि लेष्टुर्न पृथ्वी, ततस्तर्हि “भ्रुवं देहि" इत्युक्ते सर्वापि संपूर्णा सा ऽऽनेया प्रसज्यते, न च सा सर्वा शक्रेणाप्यानेतुं शक्या, किमुतावशेपेण कुत्रिकापणदेवादिमात्रेण १ इति । तर्हि किमत्र तच्वम् ? इति भवन्त एव कथयन्तु इति ॥ २४९८ ॥

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #233

Vāda ] Nihnavavāda
: 209: ___D. C. If clod is not taken as earth, then, on saying that "Give (us) earth" the whole of earth should be supplied by him. But that is impossible. Even Indra will not be able to bring the whole of earth; what, then, to talk of the capacity of ordinary deities such as the one at the Kutrikāpana etc. ? 203 (2498)
Hence, जह घडमाणय भणिए न हि सव्वाणयसंभवो किंतु । देसाइविसिह चिय तमत्थवसओ समप्पेइ ॥२०४॥२४९९॥ पुडवि ति तहा भनिए तदेगदेसे वि पमरणक्साओ। लेटुम्मि जायइ मई जहा तहा खेट्छुदेसे वि ॥२०५३२५००। 204. Jaha ghadamāņaya bhanic na hi savvānayasamblaavo kintu 1
Desaivisittham ciya tamatthavasai samappdi. (2499) 205. Pudhavi tti tahā bhaạiè tadegadèsè vi pagaraṇavasāö 1
Letthummi jāyai mat jaha taha letthudesd vi. (2500) [यथा घटमानय भणिते न हि सर्वानयनसंभवः किन्तु । देशादिविशिष्टमेव तमर्थवशतः समर्पयति ॥२०४॥२४९९॥ पृथिवीति तथा भणिते तदेकदेशेऽपि प्रकरणवशात् । लेष्टौ जायते मतियथा तथा लेष्टुदेशेऽपि ॥२०५॥२५००॥ 204. Yathā ghatamānaya bhaạite na hi sarvānayanasambhavaḥ
kintul
Desadivisistameva tamarthavasatah samarpayati. (2499) 205. Prithiviti tathā bhanite tadekadosd'pi prakaranavasati
Lestau jāgate mati-r-yathā tathā lestudòśò'pi. (2500) ]
Trans. 204–205. Just as, on saying “Bring ghata ", there is no possibility of bringing all (ghats ) but he gives (only ) that one (which is) characterised by place etc. by means of usage, so also, on demand of 'prithvi', the purpose being attached to one of its parts, (the deity ) is inclined (to give) the ciod and consequently a piece of clod. (2499–2500)

Page #234

:210:
Jinabhadra Gaņi's [The sixth टीका-२०४-२०५ यथा सामान्येन "घटमानय" "पटमानय" इत्युतेऽपि न खलु सर्वस्यापि घटस्य सामान्यतयैवानयनसंभवोऽस्ति, किन्तु सर्वस्यानेतुमशक्यत्वात् प्रायः सर्वेण प्रयोजनाभावाच, अर्थवशात् सामर्थ्यत एव नियत. देशकालाधवच्छिनं विशिष्टमेव कश्चिद् घटमानीय समर्पयति, तथाऽत्रापि "पृथिवीं देहि" इति भणिते सर्वस्यानेतुमशक्यत्वात् , प्रायस्तया प्रयोजनाभावाच्च यथा तदेकदेशेऽपि पृथिव्येकांशेऽपि लेष्टौ देवस्य समर्पणमतिर्जायते । कुतः ? इत्याह-प्रकरणवशात् , “अनेनापि तदेकदेशेन लेष्टुना प्रस्तुतार्थः सेत्स्यति" इत्येवं प्रस्ताववशादित्यर्थः। प्रकृतमाह-"तहा लेठ्ठदेसे वित्ति" यथा “पृथिवीं देहि” इत्युक्ते सति प्रतिपादितन्यायेन तदेकदेशेऽपि लेष्टौ समर्पण. मतिर्जायते तथा तेनैव प्रकारेण "नोपृथ्वीं देहि" इत्युक्ते तत्खण्डरूपे तदेकदेशेऽपि समर्पणबुद्धिरुत्पद्यत इति ।।२४९९।२५००॥
D. C. Ordinarily when a ghata or pata is demanded, by saying “ Bring ghata” or “ bring pata", all the ghatas or patas are not supplied. Nor is it meant so. Only a particular ghata belonging to a definite deśa, kāla etc. is supplied.
Similarly, when it is said that “Give (us) prithvi ”, the whole of prithvi is not asked for, and that is not physically possible also. Hence the deity is naturally inclined to give a lump of earth anticipating that the object of demand will be satisfied by it.
The same is the case with the demand of “no-prithvi ”. Just as, on demand of “prithvi”, its portion-a lump of earthis given, on demand of “no-prithvi” a portion of the lump of earth is supplied with a view that the object of demand will be satisfied by it. 204-205 (2499-2500).
Explaining how a portion of clod could be taken to serve the purpose of " no-prithvi", the author states
लेट्छुदवावेक्खाए तह वि तद्देसभावओ तम्मि । उवयारो नोपुढवि पुढवि चिय जाइलरूणओ ॥२०६।२५०१॥ 206. Letthudavvăvekkhāè taha vi taddèsabhavaö tammi i
Uvayāro no-pudhavi pudhavi cciya jāilakkhaņaö. (2501)

Page #235

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:211: [लेष्टुद्रव्यापेक्षया तथापि तद्देशभावतस्तस्मिन् । उपचारो नोथिवी पृथिव्येव जातिलक्षणतः ॥२०६॥२५०१॥ 206. Lestudravyāpèkṣayā tathāpi taldèśabhāvatastasmini
Upacaro no-prithivi prithivyeva jatilaksanatah. (2501)]
___ Trans. 206. “ No-prithvi " is nothing but “ prithvi" from (the point of view of) general characteristics. Still, however, with regard to clod (as a) substance, the application (of no-prithvitva ), is made on that, because of its being a portion (of clod ). 2501.
टीका-२०६ यद्यपि लेष्टेकदेशः पृथिव्येव, तथापि “उवयारो ति" तस्मिन लेष्टुकदेशे नोपृथिवीत्वस्योपचारः क्रियतेः इत्यर्थः । कया ? इत्याह-लेष्टुद्रव्या पेक्षया लेष्टोः प्रागुक्तन्यायेन यत् पृथिवीद्रव्यत्वमारोपितं तदपेक्षयेत्यर्थः । कुतः ? इत्याह-तद्देशभावतो लेष्टुद्रव्यैकदेशत्वादित्यर्थः । प्रागुक्तन्यायेन तावल्लेष्टुरेवेह पृथ्वीद्रव्यं तदपेक्षया च तदेकदेशे नोपृथ्वीत्युपचर्यत इति भावः । परमार्थतःखियं लेष्ट्रकदेशलक्षणं नोपृथ्व्येव मन्तव्यम् , समानजातिलक्षणत्वादिति को वै न मन्यते, अस्माभिरेव प्रागुक्तत्वात् , इदानीमपि च स्मर्यमाणत्वात् ? इति ॥२५०१॥
___D. C. Although a portion of clod is nothing but “ prithvi", an upacāra of the property of no-prithivi' could be made to it. Since clod was a portion of prithvī, the property of prithvi was attributed to it. Now, taking clod as prithvi, the property of 'no-prithvi' will further be attributed to the portion of clod on the same ground. (2501)
With regard to the implications of negation by prefixes art and 24, the author explains पडिसेहदुगं पगई गमेइ जं तेण नोअपुढवि त्ति ।
भणिए पुढवि त्ति गईदेसनिसेहे वि तद्देसो ॥२०७॥२५०२॥ 207. Padisehalugam pagaim gamdi jam teņa no-a-pudhavi tti
Bhanie pudhavi tti gaidesanisdhd vi taddeso. (2502)

Page #236

• "212 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth [प्रतिषेधद्विकं प्रकृतिं गमयति यत् तेन नोअपृथिवीति ।
भणिते प्रथिवीति गतिर्वेशनिषेधेपि तदेशः ॥२०७॥२५०२॥ 207. Pratisedhadvikan prakritim gamayati yat tena no-a-pri
thivītil
Bhanite prithiviti gatirdèsaniļèdhè'pi taddeśaḥ. (2502)] ___Trans. 207. Since two negatives bring about the original sense, when no-a-prithvi' is uttered, prithvi is asserted. (So) even in (case of) negation of a portion, (the existence of) that portion (is implied ). 2502.
टीका-२०७ “द्वो नौ प्रकृतमर्थ गमयतः" इति वचनाद् नोकाराकारलक्षणं प्रतिषेधद्वयं यस्मात् प्रकृतिं गमयति-प्रकृतमेवार्थ प्रतिपादयतीत्यर्थः । तेन कारणेन "नोअपृथ्वी” इति भणिते नोशब्दस्य सर्वनिषेधपरत्वात् पृथिवीगतिर्मवति-पृथिव्याः प्रतिपत्तिर्भवतीत्यर्थः । “देसनिसेहे वि तद्देसो ति" देशनिषेषवाचके तु नोशब्दे तस्या जलादिरूपाया अपृथिव्या एवोत्तरपदे श्रूयमाणाया देशस्तद्देशो गम्यते, देशनिषेधके नोशन्दे नोअपृथिवीति याचिते जलादिरूपापृथिव्येकदेशं देवो ददातीत्यर्थः ॥२५०२॥
D. C. Two negatives viz #1 and 3 would make one affirmative. No-a-prithvi' would, therefore, mean prithvi.
Taking opt no to signify negation, of only a portion, no-aprithvi would mean a portion of a prithvī, i, e. a portion of water etc., as a consequence of which, the deity would give a portion of water etc. 207 (2502)
Thus, उवयाराओ तिविहं भुवमभुवं नोभुवं च सो देइ । निच्छयओ भुवमभुवं तह सावयवाई सव्वाइं ॥२०८॥२५०३।। 208. Uvayārāö tiviham bhuvamabhuvam no-bhuvam ca so dei 1
Nicohayai bhuvamabhuvam taha savayavaim savvaim. (2503) [उपचारात् त्रिविधं भुवमभुवं नोभुवं च स ददाति । निश्चयतो भुवमभु तथा सावयवानि सर्वाणि ॥२०८॥२५०३॥

Page #237

Vada ]
208.
Nihnavavāda
Upacārāt trividham bhuvamabhuvam no-bhuvam
dadāti
Niścayato bhuvamabhuvam tathā sāvayavāni sarvāni. (2503 ) ]

: 213:
Trans. 208. By ( way of ) formality, he supplies three types: prithvi, a-prithvi and no-prithvi, but practically prithvi and a-prithvi In that manner, all objects having portions (are arranged). 2503.
"
टीका - २०८ स कुत्रिकापणदेवो याचितः सन् वस्तु ददाति । कतिविधम् १, किंवा तत् इत्याह-त्रिविधं त्रिमकारम्, चतुर्थस्य नोअभूपक्षस्य प्रथमपक्ष एवान्तर्भावात् । तत्र भुवं लेष्टुम् अभुवं जलादि, नोभुवं भूम्येकदेशं ददाति । कुतः ? इत्याह-उपचारात् व्यवहारनयमताश्रायणादित्यर्थः स एव हि देशदेशिव्यवहारं मन्यते, न तु निश्चय इति भावः । अत एवाह - "निच्छयउ इत्यादि" निश्चयतस्तु भुवमभुवं चेत्येवं द्विविधमेव वस्तु ददाति तृतीयस्य नोभूपक्षस्य देश - देशिव्यवहारएवोपपद्यमानत्वात् तस्य च निश्चयन येनानभ्युपगमादिति । तदेवं " भू-जल - जलण" इत्यादौ पृथिव्याः प्रथमं निर्दिष्टत्वात् तामधिकृत्योक्तम् । अथ शेषाणि जलादिवस्तून्यधिकृत्याह " तह सावयवाई वि" न केवलमित्थं वं ददावि, तथा शेषाण्यपि जलादिवस्तूनि - "पगईए अगारेणं" इत्यादि प्रकारेण विशेष्ययाचितः सन् व्यवहारनयमतेन यथोक्तविधिना त्रिप्रकाराणि ददाति । कुतः ? इति चेत् । उच्यते-यतः सावयवानि सदेशान्येतानि सर्वाण्यपि जलादिवस्तूनि । अतस्तृतीयोऽपि देशविषयो दानप्रकार एतेषु संभवतीति भावः । निश्रयनयमतेन तु देशदेशिव्यवहाराभावादेतान्यपि जलादीनि द्विप्रकाराण्येव ददातीति । तदेवं सावयवे वस्तूनि प्रकारत्रयेण प्रकारद्वयेन च यथोक्तरीत्या दानं संभवति || २५०३॥
,
ca sa
D. C. The deity in charge of Kutrikapaņa satisfies demands of all objects in this way. On demand of prithvi', he supplies a lump of earth. On demand of a-prithvi, water etc., and on demand of ' no-prithvi' a portion of earth. Since “ no-a-prithvi " either signifies ' prithvi' or water, as seen before, it would not be classed separately. Thus according to Vyavahāra-naya which apprehends an object with the detailed apprehension of all its
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #238

:214: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth parts, all objects coming under the categories of 'prithvi', 'aprithvi' and 'no-prithvi' are apprehended and hence supplied.
___ While, from the point of view of the Niseaya-naya, the objects are supplied either in the form of prithvi' or in the form of 'a-prithvi '.
This leads us, therefore, to an important conclusion that the objects that have parts could be supplied either in two ways or in three ways, but those that have no parts could be given only in two ways. 208 (2503)
Objects that have no parts could be given only in two ways. Because, जीवमजीवं दाउं नोजीवं जाइओ पुणरजीवं । देइ चरिमम्मि जीवं न उ नोजीवं स जीवदलं ॥२०९॥२५०४॥ 209. Jivamajivam daum no-jivam jaio punarajivam |
Dai carimammi jivam na u no-jivam sa jivadalam. (2504) [जीवमजीवं दत्त्वा नोजीवं याचितः पुनरजीवम् । ददाति चरमे जीवं न तु नोजीवं स जीवदलम् ॥२०९॥२५०४॥ 209. Jivamajivam dattva “ no-jivam" yacitah punarajivam |
Dadati caramd jivam na tu no-jivam sa jivadalam. (2504)] ___ Trans. 209. After having given 'jiva' and 'a-jiva', he was requested (to give) no-jiva. He gives a-jiva again. In (case of) the last one, he supplies jīva but he does not give a part of jiva as no-jiva. 2504.
टीका-२०९ 'जीवं देहि' इति याचितः सुरो जीवं शुक-सारिकादिकं दत्त्वा 'अजीवं देहि' इति याचितस्त्वजीवमुपलखण्डादिकं दत्त्वा कृतार्थो जायते । नोजीवं याचितः पुनरजीवमुपलखण्डादिकमेव ददाति, नोशब्दस्य सर्वनिषेधपरत्वात् । 'चरमे उ' नोअजीवलक्षणे विकल्पे जीवमेव शुकादिकं ददाति, द्वयोनजोः प्रकृतार्थगमकत्वात् , नोशब्दस्य च सर्वनिषेधकत्वादिति, न तु स कुत्रिकापणदेवो जीवं जीवदलं जीवखण्डरूपं वापि विकल्पे ददाति । इति जीवा-जीवलक्षणी दावेव राशी, न तु तृतीयः, असत्त्वात् , खरविषाणवदिति ॥२५०४॥

Page #239

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:215: D. C. When 'jiva' is demanded, the deity-in-charge supplies birds like parrots etc. On demand of a-jiva, he gives a piece of earth or stone. On demand of no-jiva he again gives a piece of stone, interpreting नो (no), to signify absolute negation. In case of no-a-jiva boing asked for, the deity supplies jiva liko parrot, taking 'no' and 'a' to-gether, signifying affirmation. But the deity does not supply a portion of jiva in any case. He does not interpret 'no-jiva' as a portion of jiva and supply the same accordingly.
It will be noted here that on demand of four entities (jiva, a-jiva, no-jiva and no-a-jiva ), only two were supplicd in fact. The third was considered as non-existing like the horn of an ass, and hence was not supplied. 209. (2504)
Then, तो निग्गहिओ छलुओ, गुरू वि सकारमुत्तमं पत्तो। धिद्धिकारोवहओ छलुओ वि सभाहिं निच्छूढो ॥२१०॥२५०५॥ 210. To nigga hiö Chaluö gura vi sakkāramuttamam patto i
Dhiddhikkārovahaö Chaluö vi sabhā him nicchodho. (2505) [ततो निगृहीतः षडलूको गुरुरपि सत्कारमुत्तमं प्राप्तः । घिधिकारोपहतः षडुलूकोऽपि सभातो लिष्कासितः॥२१०॥२५०५ 210. Tato nigrihitah Sadulako gururapi satkāramuttamam pra
ptah!
Dhig dhikkāropahatah Şaquluko’pi sabhāto nişkasitah. (2505)]
Trans. 210. Hence Şaduloka was defeated, and the preceptor was accorded the best of reception. And Sadulaka overcome with many humiliations, was (consequently) driven away from the Assembly. 2505.
टीका-२१० ततो यदा कुत्रिकापणसुरेण जीवव्यतिरिक्तो नोजीवो न दत्तः, असत्त्वात् , तदा निगृहीतो निर्जितः षडुलूकः । गुरुरपि श्रीगुप्ताचार्यो नरनाथाल्लोकाच सत्कारमुत्तमं प्राप्तः । षडुलूकोऽपि गुरुप्रत्यनीकत्वावनपयुक्तधिकारोपहतो राजसभातो निष्कासित इति ॥२५०५॥

Page #240

:216: Jinabhadra Gam's
[The sixth D. C. When the deity-in-charge of the Kutrikāpaņa did not supply no-jina' on grounds of non-existence, Rohagupta was declared as defeated. The preceptor Śrī Guptācārya was greatly honoured by the King and the people. Rohagupta was eventually driven away from the Royal Assembly, with great humiliation. 210 (2505)
Then, वाए पराजिओ सो निविसओ कारिओ नरिंदेण । घोसावियं च नयरे जयइ जिणो वद्धमाणो त्ति ॥२११॥२५०६॥ तेणभिनिवेसाओ समइविगप्पियपयत्थमादाय । वहसेसियं पणीयं फाईकयमण्णमण्णेहिं ॥२१२॥२५०७॥ 211, Vāè parājiö so nivvisaö kāriö narindeņa i
Ghosāviyam ca nayare jayai Jiņo Vaddhamāṇo tti. (2506) 212. Tenābhinivesai samaivigappiyapayatthamādaya |
Vaisesiyam paniyam phaikayamannamannehim. (2507) [वादे पराजितः स निर्विषयः कारितो नरेन्द्रेण । घोषितं च नगरे जयति जिनो वर्धमान इति ॥२११॥२५०६॥ तेनाभिनिवेशात् स्वमतिविकल्पितपदार्थमादाय । वैशेषिकं प्रणीतं स्फातीकृतमन्यान्यैः ॥२१२॥२५०७॥ 211. Vāde parājitah sa nirvişayah kārito narendreņa i
Ghositam ca nagare jayati Jino Vardhamāna iti. (2506) 212. Tenābhini veśāt svamativikalpitapadárthmādáya
Vaisesikam pranitam sphatikritamanyānyaih. (2507)]
Trans. 211-212. Defeated in discussion, as he was, the King discarded lim And, it was announced in the city that the Tîrthankara Vardhamāna (Swāmi) succeeds. Then taking (the six ) entities which were recognized by his own intellect and propagated by various followers of his, an alto-getter

Page #241

Vāda 7
Nihnavarāda
:217:
different theory was established by him, out of his (strong) adherence (to his own conviction ). (2506-2507)
टीका-२११-२१२ स रोहगुप्तो गुरुणा वादे पराजितः सन् नरपतिना निर्विषयः समाज्ञातः, पटहकेन च वाद्यमानेन घोषापितं समस्तनगरे "जयति जिनः श्रीमान् वर्धमानः" इति । रोहगुप्तस्य च वादे निर्जितस्यापि प्रत्यनीकतोद्वेजितेन गुरुणा खेलमल्लकः शिरसि स्फोटितः । ततो भस्मखरण्डितवपुषा तेनाभिनिवेशात् स्वमतिकल्पितान् द्रव्यादिपदार्थानाश्रित्य वैशेषिकमतं प्रणीतम् । तच्चान्यान्यैस्तच्छिष्यादिभिरियन्तं कालं यावत् ख्यातिमानीतमिति ॥२५०६॥ २५०७॥
D. C. When Rohagupta was defeated by the preceptor, the king discarded his authority, and it was announced in the city with a beating of drum, that the great Tirthankara Vardhamāna (Swami) succeeds.
Although Rohagupta was defeated in discussion, the preceptor Sri Guptācārya was so much cnraged at him that he dashed an carthen pot ( full of ashes) against Rohagupta's head. Rohagupta went away with his body besmeared with ashes etc., and out of sheer adherence to his own convictions, he set out to propound an absolutely different theory (known as the Vaišeşika system of philosophy ) which was spread by his followers after hiim. 211--212 (2506-2507)
Finally explaining how Rohagupta came to be known as Suduldka, the author saysनामेण रोहगुत्तो गुत्तेण लप्पए स चोलूओ। दवाइछप्पयत्थोवएसणाओ छलूउ त्ति ॥२१३॥२५०८ 213. Namena Rohagutto guttena lappad sa Colaod
Davvāichappayatthovaèsaņāo Chalūu tti. (2508)
[नाना रोहगुप्तो गोत्रेण लप्यते स चोलूकः । द्रव्यादिषट्पदार्थोपदेशनात् षडुलूक इति ॥२१३॥२५०८॥

Page #242

:218:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth
213. Nāmnā Rohagupto gotreņa lapyate sa Colūkaḥ |
Dravyādisatpadarthopadesanāt Sadulaka iti. (1508)]
Trans. 213. He was known as Rohagupta by name, and Uloka by lineage. He was called Sadulūka because he preached (the theory of) six entities, such as Dravya etc. 2508.
टीका-२१३ नामाऽसौ रोहगुप्तो गोत्रेण पुनरुलूकगोत्रसंभूतत्वाइसावुलूक (त्यालप्यते-द्रव्य-गुण-कर्म-सामान्य-विशेष-समवाय-लक्षणषट्पदार्थप्ररूपणेन सिदार्थप्रधान उलूक बड्डुलूक इत्ययं व्यपदिश्यते ॥२५०८॥
D. C. His name was Rohagupta and his gotra was Ulaka. Since he preached the theory of six entities viz Dravya, Guņa, Karman, Samanya, Visesa, and Samavaya, he was known as Saduloka.
End of the Discussion with the Sixth Nihnava.
-ee

Page #243

Chapter VIII ॥ अथ सप्तमनिह्नववक्तव्यता॥
Discussion with the Seventh Nihnava. पंचसयाचुलसीया तइया सिद्धिं गयस्स वीरस्स ।
तो अबद्धियदिट्ठी दसउरनयरे समुप्पन्ना ॥२१४॥२५०९।। 214. Pañcasayāculasīyā taiyā Siddhin gayassa Virassa |
To Abaddhiyadiţthi Dasaura nayarè saniuppannā. (2509) [पञ्चशतानि चतुरशीत्यधिकानि तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य वीस्था। ततोऽवद्धिकदृष्टिदशपुरनगरे समुत्पन्ना ॥२१४॥२५०९॥ 214. Pascasatāni caturasītyadhikāni tadā Siddhim gatasya Virasya /
Tato baddhikadristir-Dasapura nagard samutpannā (2509) ]
Trans. 214. Then, the theory of the Abaddhika Nihnava came into existence in the city of Dasapura, five hundred, and eighty-four years, after Vira (Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvira) had attained Final Emancipation. 2509. ___टीका-२१४ पञ्चवर्षशतानि चतुरशीत्यधिकानि तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य महावीरस्य ततोऽवद्धिकनिह्नवदृष्टिदशपुरनगरे समुत्पन्नेति ॥२५०९॥
D. C. Clear. दसउरनगरुच्छुघरे अजरक्खिय पूसमित्ततिगयं च । गोट्ठामाहिल नवम-छमेसु पुच्छा य विंझस्स ॥२१५॥२५१०॥ 215. Dasauranagarucchugharè Ajjarakkhiya Pīsamittatigayam ca i
Gutthāmāhila navama-ıthamesu puccha ya Vinjhassa. (2510)

Page #244

: 220 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The seventh [दशपुरनगर इक्षुगृहे आर्यरक्षितः पुष्पमित्रत्रिकं च । गोष्ठामाहिलोऽष्टम-नवमयोः पृच्छा च विन्ध्यस्य.॥२१५॥२५१०॥ 215. Dasapuranagara Iksugrihe Arya-Raksitah Puspamitratrikam cal Gosthāmāhilo'stama-Navamayoh pricchā ca Vindhyasya.
(2510)] Trans. 215. Arya Raksita-sūri was (a preceptor) in (a (a monastery named ) Iksugriha in (the) city (of) Dasapura. He had three (pupils named) Puspamitra (Ghiita-Puspamitra, Vastra Puspamitra, and Durbalika Puspamitra). Costha-Mahila had a discussion with (an ascetic named) Vindhya about the Eighth and Ninth ( Pūrvas ). 2510.
टीका-२१५ दशपुरनगर इक्षुगृहे आर्यरक्षितः "दीक्षां जग्राह " इति शेषः । तस्य च घृतपुष्पमित्र-वस्त्रपुष्पमित्र-दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रलक्षणं शिष्यत्रयं बभूव । गोष्ठामाहिलश्च तच्छिष्योऽष्टमे कर्मप्रवादपूर्वे नवमे च प्रत्याख्यानपूर्वे व्याख्यायमाने कर्मबन्धविचारे प्रत्याख्यानविचारे च विप्रतिपन्नो विधिप्रेरितवानिति ॥२५१०॥
D. C. Arya Raksitasūri was conducting a monastery named Ikşugriha in the city of Daśapura. He had three pupils named Ghrita-Puspamitra, Vastra-Puspamitra and Durbalika Puspamitra, respectively.
Another prominent pupil-Gostha-Mahila ( who also happened to be the maternal uncle of AryaRakṣitasari ) had a discussion with an ascetic named Vindhya on the Eighth and Ninth Pūrvas (viz Karmapravāda-parva and Pratyākhyānapravāda-pūrva respectively ).1
The whole story is narrated as follows :सोऊण काल धम्मं गुरुणो गच्छम्मि पूसमित्तं च । ठावियं गुरुणा किल गोहमाहिलो मच्छरियभावो ॥२१६॥२५११॥ 216. Sooņa kaladhammam guruņo gacchammi Pasamittam ca i Thāviyam guruņā kila Gottha-māhilo macchariyabhāvo.
(2511) 1. For details about Parvas, Vide Introduction and also Chapter II Foot note 2.

Page #245

:221:
Vada]
Nihnavavāda [श्रुत्वा कालधर्म गुरोर्गच्छे पुष्पमित्रं च । स्थापितं गुरुणा किल गोष्ठामाहिलो मत्सरितभावः ॥२१६॥२५११॥ 216. Srutvā kāladharmam guro-r-gacche Puspamitram ca | Sthāpitam guruņā kila Gusthā-Māhilo matsaritabhāvah.
(2511)] ____Trans. 216. Having heard, that the preceptor (Arya Raksitasūri) had attained nirvāṇa and that (Durbalikā) Puşpamitra had ( already ) been appointed by the preceptor (as an Ācārya) in the accha ( Congregation-Saigha ), Gostha-Mahila was really excited with jealousy. 2511.
टीका-२१६ इह च सर्वासामपि गाथानां. भावार्थ आर्यरक्षितकथानकादवसेयः । तच विस्तरतो मूलावश्यकादवगन्तव्यम् । संक्षेपतस्त्विहापि किश्चिदुच्यते । तद्यथा
दशपुरं नाम नगरम् । तत्र च सोमदेवो नाम ब्राह्मणः । तस्य च रुद्रसोमा नाम भार्या । सा च जिनवचनप्रतिबुद्धाश्राविका । तयोश्च रक्षितो नाम चतुदेशविद्यास्थानपारगः पुत्रो बभूव । तेन च मातृप्रेरितेन तोसलिपुत्राचार्याणां समीपे दीक्षा प्रतिपमा । एकादशाङ्गानि दृष्टिवादोऽपि यावान् गुरुसमीप आसीत् तावान् सर्वोऽपि गृहीतः। शेषस्त्वार्यवैरस्वामिनः समीपेऽधीतो यावद् नव पूर्वाणि, तथा चतुर्विंशतियविकानि । ततः फल्गुरक्षितो नाम तद्वन्धुकारणार्थ मात्राप्रेषितः प्रवाजितश्च । ततो द्वावपि मातापित्समीपे समायातौ । ततश्चार्यरक्षितेन मातापितरौ तथा मातुलगोष्ठामाहिलपमुखः सर्वोऽपि स्वजनवर्गः प्रवाजितः । एवमपरापरांश्च प्रवाजयत आर्यरक्षितसूरेर्महान् गच्छो जातः । तत्र च गच्छे दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्र-घृतपुष्पमित्र-वस्त्रपुष्पमित्रसंज्ञात्रयः पुष्पमित्रा आसन् । तत्र दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रेण नवपूर्वाण्यधीतानि । इह च गच्छे चत्वारः पुरुषाः प्रधानतराः, तद्यथा-दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रः, विन्ध्यः, फल्गुरक्षितः, गोष्ठामाहिलश्चेति । तत्र रिभिलिकापुष्पमित्रो विन्ध्यस्य वाचनां दापितः। तस्य च तां प्रयच्छतो गुणनाभावादात्मनो नवमपूर्व गलति। ततः सूरिभिरेवंभूतस्यापि प्राज्ञस्स यदित्थंसूत्रार्थविस्मृतिः संपद्यते तदाऽशेषाणां सूत्राणां दुरुद्धरः सूत्रार्थः संपत्स्यते, इति विचिन्त्य पूर्वोतक्रमेणानुयोगः पार्थक्येन व्यवस्थापितः। नयाश्च प्रायो

Page #246

: 222 :
Jinabhadra Gaņi's [The seventh निगहितविभागाः कृता इति । अन्यदा च ते आर्यरक्षितसूरयो विहारक्रमेण मथुरानगरी गताः । तत्र च भूतगुहायां व्यन्तरगृहे स्थिताः ।
इतश्च शक्रो महाविदेहे सीमन्धरस्वामितीर्थकरसमीपे निगोदवक्तव्यतां श्रुत्वा विस्मितः। पृष्ठवान्-" किं भगवन् ? भरतक्षेत्रेऽपि सांप्रतममुमतीवसूक्ष्म निगोदविचारं कोऽपि बुध्यते प्ररूपयति च ? । ततो भगवता प्रोक्तम्-प्ररूपयन्त्यार्यरक्षितसूरयः "। एतच्च श्रुत्वा विस्मय-कौतुक-भक्तिभरपूर्यमाणमानसो देवेन्द्रः स्थविरब्राह्मणरूपं कृत्वा साधुषु भिक्षाचर्या गतेष्वार्यरक्षितसमीपमुपययौ । ततस्तेनार्यरक्षितसूरयो वन्दित्वा पृष्टाः-'भगवन् ? महान् व्याधिर्वर्तते, तेनाहमनशनं कर्तुमिच्छामि, तत् कथयत मम कियदायुष्कम् ? इति । ततो यविकेष्वायुःश्रेणावुपयोगं दत्त्वा सूरिभिातम्-नायं मनुष्यो व्यन्तरादिर्वा किन्तु द्विसागरोपमस्थितिकोऽसौ सौधर्माधिपतिः। ततश्च वार्धक्येनाधः पतिते करेण ध्रुवावुत्क्षिप्य निरीक्ष्य च प्रोक्तम् शको भवान् । एवं चाभिहिते तुष्टेन देवाधिपतिना निवेदितः सर्वोऽपि तीर्थकरसमीपनिगोदश्रवणादिव्यतिकरः । ततः पृष्टाः शक्रेण निगोदजीवाः । प्ररूपिताश्च विस्तरतः । ततस्तुष्टमानसेन सुरपतिना प्रणम्य "ब्रजामि" इति प्रोक्तेऽमिहितं गुरुभिः-'तिष्ठत क्षणमेकं, यावत् साधवः समागच्छन्ति येन युष्मामिदृष्टैरिदानीमपि देवेन्द्रागमनमस्तीति विज्ञाय स्थैर्यमुत्पद्यते तेषामिति । ततखिदशपतिना प्रोक्तम्-"भदन्त ! करोम्येवम् , केवलं स्वाभाविकं मत्स्वरूपं दृष्वाऽल्पसत्वा निदानं करिष्यन्ति"। ततो गुरुणा प्रोक्तम्-'तर्हि निजागमनसूचकं किमपि चिह्नं कृत्वा व्रजत' । ततस्तस्योपाश्रयस्यान्यतोऽभिमुखं द्वारं कृत्वा गतस्त्रिदशपतिः। आगतैश्च साधुभिारान्यत्वदर्शनविस्मितैः पृष्टैः कथितं सर्व सूरिभिरिति । अन्यदा च ते विहरन्तो दशपुरनगरमागताः ।
इतश्च मथुरानगयां मातापित्रादिकमपि नास्ति इत्यादिनास्तिकवादं प्ररूपयन् वादी समुत्थितः । तत्र च प्रतिवादिनः कस्यचिदभावात् संधेनार्यरक्षितसूरयः एव सांपतं युगप्रधाना इति कृत्वा तत्समीपे प्रस्तुतव्यतिकरकथनाय साधुसङ्घाटकं प्रेषितम् । स्वयमतीववृद्धत्वाद् गन्तुमशक्तैः "वादलब्धिसंपन्नः" इति कृत्वा गोष्ठामाहिलो निरूपितः । तत्र च तेन गत्वा निगृहीतोऽसौ वादी । श्रावकैश्चायं तत्रैव वर्षाकालं कारितः। ___ इसश्चार्यरक्षितसूरिभिर्निजपट्टे दुर्चलिकापुष्पमित्रः स्थापयितुमध्यवसितः । शेषस्तु स्वजमभूतः साधुवर्गो गोष्ठामाहिलं, फल्गुरक्षितं वा, तमीहते । तत्तथ

Page #247

Vāda ]
: 223:
सर्वमपि गच्छमुपवेश्य सूरयः संबोधयन्ति, तद्यथा - " इह किल त्रयो घटा भृताः । तत्रैको वल्लानाम्, द्वितीयो तिलस्य, तृतीयस्तु घृतस्य । एतेषु चावाङ्मुखेषु कृतेषु वल्लाः सर्वेऽपि निर्गच्छन्ति । तैलं तु किञ्चिद् घटेऽपि लगति । घृतं तु बहुतरं तत्र लगति । तदहं दुर्बलिका पुष्पमित्रं प्रति सूत्राथ समाश्रित्य वल्लघटकल्पः संजातः सद्गतयोः समस्तयोरपि तयोस्तेन ग्रहणात् । फल्गुरक्षितं तु प्रति तिलघटकल्पोऽहं संपन्नः सर्वयोरपि सूत्रार्थयोस्नेनाग्रहणान् । गोष्ठामाहिलं तु प्रति घृतघटकल्पोऽहमभूवम्, बहुतरयोः सूत्रार्थयोर्ममापि पार्श्वेऽवस्थानात् । तस्माद् मद्गताशेषसूत्रार्थ संपन्नत्वाद् दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्र एव भवतां सूरिर्भवतु " । 'इच्छामः" इति भणित्वा तैः सर्वेरपि प्रतिपन्नमिदम् । सूरिभिरण्यभिहितो दुर्बलिका पुष्पमित्रा " यथाऽहं वर्तितः फल्गुरक्षिते गोष्ठामाहिले च तथा भवता - मपि वर्तितव्यम् " । गच्छोऽप्यभिहितः - " यथा मया सार्धं भवद्भिर्वर्तितं तथाऽनेनापि सार्धं वर्तितव्यम् । अपि च, अहं कृतेऽकृते वा नारूष्यम्, अयं तु न सहिष्यति, ततः सुतरामस्य विनयेन वर्तितव्यम् " । इत्याद्यनुशास्तिं दत्त्वा भक्तं प्रत्याख्याय देवलोकमुपगताः सूरयः ।
ततः “
Nihnavavāda
गोष्ठा माहिलेन च श्रुतमिदं यथा - " गुरवः परलोकं गताः । ततो मथुरातः समागतेन पृष्टमनेन यथा - " को गणधरः स्वपदे सूरिभिनिवेशित: ? । " ततः सर्वोsपि वल्लादिघटप्ररूपणादिको व्यतिकरः समाकर्णितो 'लोकात् । तच्छ्रवणाश्चातीवदूनोऽसौ स्थित्वा पृथक् प्रतिश्रये, दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रोपाश्रये तच्चर्योपलम्भार्थं - गतः । तैश्च सर्वैरप्यभ्युत्थितोऽसौ भणितश्च यथा - ' तिष्ठत यूयमत्रेवोपाश्रये, किमिति पृथग् व्यवस्थिताः ? । तच्च नेच्छत्यसौ । पृथगुपाश्रयव्यवस्थितश्च दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रापवादग्रहणादिना व्युद्ग्राहयति साधून्, न च व्युद्ग्राहयितुं शक्नोति । दुर्बलिकापुप्पमित्रसमीपे चाभिमानतो न किञ्चित् शृणोति किन्तु व्याख्यानमण्डलिकास्थितस्य चिन्तनिकां कुर्वतो विन्ध्यस्यान्तिके समाकर्णयति । अन्यदा अष्टम- नवमपूर्वयोः कर्म - प्रत्याख्यानविचारेऽभिनिवेशाद् विप्रतिपन्नो वक्ष्यमाणनीत्या निवो जातः इति ॥
अथ प्रकृतगाथाक्षरार्थोऽनुश्रीयते - कालो मरणं तल्लक्षणो धर्मः पर्यायः कालधर्मस्तं गुरोरार्यरक्षितस्य श्रुत्वा, तथा पुष्पमित्रं च गच्छेऽधिपतिं स्थापितमाकर्ण्य गोष्ट माहिलो मत्सरितभावः संजातः || २५११ ॥

Page #248

: 224 : Jinabhadra Gani's
[The seventh D, C. Before proceeding to the story of the Seventh Nihnava, and his theory, it is necessary to narrate briefly the story of Arya Raksitācārya as told by the Original Āvaśyaka Satras :
There was a Brahmin named Somadova in Dasapura nagara. His wife Rudrasomā, of whom Somadèva had a son named Rakṣita, was a devoted follower of the Tirthankaras. Raksita was proficient in all the fourteen lores. On the advice of his mother, he accepted dīkņā at the hands of Acărya Tosaliputra, under whose guidance he studied all the eleven Angas and whatever he could of the Twelfth Anga. In addition to that, he learnt nine pūrvas and twenty-four yavikās from Arya Vajraswāni, His brother Falgurakṣita was also initiated as an ascetic when he came to Rakṣitasari. Then gradually both of them made all their relatives including their father, mother, and maternal uncle Gosthā-Mahila accept dikşā. Since a number of persons were initiated in this way, Arya Rakṣitasuri got his gaccha established.
In the gaccha, there were three disciples named Puşpamitra: Ghrita Puşpamitra, Vastra Puşpamitra, and Durbalikā Puspamitra, of whom Durbalikā Puşpamitra was conversant with the nine Purvas. Durbalikā Puspamitra, Vindhya, Falgurakṣita and Gosthāmāhila were the four chief ascetics in the gaccha. Durba likā Puspamitra was entrusted with the work of teaching parvas to Vindhya. In course of his teaching the ninth parva he found that he forgot his own study. Knowing this, the preceptor thought that if such an able disciple forgets the part of satras,
2. According to some, these fourteen vidyās are the Four Vedas, the six Vedāngas, the Puranas, the Mimānsā, Nyāya, and Dharma. Others add four Upavėdas to these and take the vidyās to be eighteen in all.
According to Manu Smriti they are five: (1) Trayi, the Triple Vedas. (2) Anvikșiki, Logic and Metaphysics. (3) Daņdanīti, the science of Government. (4) Vārttā, practical arts such as Agriculture, Commerce, Medicine etc. and (5) Atma-vidyāKnowledge of Soul or Sublime Theological Truth.
Vide Manu VIL. 43 !

Page #249

Vada ]
Nihnayavāda
: 225:
there is no wonder if all the sūtras could not be committed to memory by anyone. Consequently, he divided all the sütras into four anuyogas3 as mentioned beforc. Then, Arya Rakṣitasari proceeded on vihāra and stayed in a Vyantara griha in Bhūtaguphā at Mathurā.
In the mean time, once upon a time, while returning after paying his homages to Sri Sīmandhara Swāmi, in the regions of Mahāvidè ha, Indra (Saudharmendia) astonished at his wonderful discourse on “nigoda ”4 asked the Tirthankara “ O worthy Lord I docs anyone in the whole of Bharata-kşetra understand and explain the subtle form of 'nigoda' at present ?” "Arya Rakșitasuri teaches it” was the reply. Saudharmendra impelled by surprise, curiosity, and devotion approached Arya Raksitasari in the attire of an old Brāhmin, at the time when all the sādhus had retired for their meals. Having paid his respects, the Indra said “ Revered Sir, I am suffering fron a fatal disease. So, I wish to observe fasts from to-morrow. Will you kindly tell me how long is the rest of my life?” Then, concentrating his mind on the category of age in yavikās, the Acārya recognized at once that he was neither a human being nor a Vyantara etc. but he was Saudharmendra-the lord of the Saudharna dėva-loka-with an age-limit as long as two Sāgaropams. He up-raised his lifted eye-brows, which werd bent down due to old age, looked at the Brahmin and said :--“You are none but Saudharmendra. Being pleased at this, Indra narrated the whole incident of Tirthankara Sri Simandhara Swami, from whom he had studied the forms of “nigoda beings.” Indra asked the Acarya about the nature of nigoda' living beings also. The Acărya
3. These are (1) Dravyānuyoga, (2) Caraña-karaṇānuyoga, (3) Gaạitānuyoga and (4) Kathānuyoga.
4. The division of the Sotras into four anuyogas was done by Arya Raksitasari. But with reference to the knowledge of
nigoda' some attribute superior knowledge of nigoda' to Arya Raksitasari, while others attribute it to Kālikācārya. For a detailed explantion of Nigoda', Vide Sranana Bhagavān Mahāvīra Vol. I Part I page 12.

Page #250

: 226 :
Jinabhadra Gani's [The seventh explained the same in full details exactly in the same way as the Tirthankara had done. Indra said “ Worthy sir ! you have told the same thing as the Tirthankara Sri Sīmandhara Swāni did. Now I shall take your leave." The Acarya replied “But, O Lord of Deities ! Kindly wait till tbe inmates of the gaccha return. They will stick to the gaccha more firmly at your sight” The Indra replied “I will do like that, but what if the lower type of jivas humiliated me on sccing me in such an ordinary attire? Then the Acārya said . You are right. In that case, you may leave something as e token of your visit. Accordingly, Saudharmendra shifted the main-door of the upāśraya from one direction to another, and went away,
When the ascetics returned and found the main-door of the upāśraya in the opposite direction, they were surprised. The Acārya, explained the whole incident, and satisfied their curiosity. Then, moving about from one place to another, the Acārya at last came baok to Daśapura nagara. :. In the mean-time, a great atheist rose up in Mathūrā, deny. ing even the existence of father and mother. When a competent combatant was not available, taking Acārya Raksitasari as Yuga pradhana' a deputation of ascetics was sent to him, to inform him of this incident. Due to his old age, he could not go there himself. So, he appointed Gosthā-Māhila for the task. The atheist was defeated by Goșthā-Māhila who passed his monsoon season at Mathūrā
. On the other side, in Dasapura nagara Arya Rakṣitsari decided to appoint Durbalikā Puşpamitra as an Acārya after him, Many of his disciples were in favour of Goşthā-Māhila and Phalgurakṣita. So, in order to convince them of his right choice, he called a meeting all the monks of the gaccha, and showing three pots full of different things, he said, “These are three pots. One is full of Valla (beans of winnowing corn), another is full of oil, and a third one is full of ghee (clarified butter ). When all of them are up-turned, all the beans from one will come out, oil contained in another pot will stick to the pot only to some

Page #251

Vāda ) Nihnatarāda
: 227 : extent, while in the third pot a large quantity of ghee will be stuck. My tendency towards Durbalikā Puspanitra is like that of the pot containing beans. That is to say, I have poured out all my knowledge into him and he has grasped the same very well. Since Phalgurakşiţa has not been able to grasp the mean ing of all the sütras my tendency towards him is like that of the pot full of oil, and as most of the knowledge has stuck to me instead of being grasped by Goșthā-Māhila, my behaviour towards him will be corresponding to that of the ghee-pot. Thus, since Durbalikā Puspamitra has grasped all the knowledge that I possess, you shall have to honour him as an Acārya (preceptor) after me. The monks agreed upon this proposal saying "We all accept him as our Ācārya.” The Acārya, then, asked Durbalikā Puşpamitra to behave with Gosthā-Māhila and Phalgumitra with the same respect as he did. On the other side, instructing the inmates of the gaccha to respect Durbalikā Puspanitra in the same way, as they used to respect himself, he warned them that they should behave with him more humbly than they did with himself, as Durbalikā Puşpamitra would not tolerate a slight immodesty on their part as he himself used to tolerate at times.
Having advised both the parties, in this way, Arya Rakṣitsari departed to heaven..
On hearing that Ārya Raksitasari had departed to the other world, Gosthā-Māhila returned to Daśapura nagara immediately. He inquired and came to know about the appointment of Durbalikā Puşpamitra as the Acārya of the gaccha. He was vitally afflicted by the news. So, he did not stay in the gaccha but he stayed outside and then he went to the gaccha-upāśraya in order to see his fellow-asoetios. The ascetics at once received him with great warmth, and earnestly requested him to stop with them in the gaccha-upasraya. But Gosthā-Māhila did not acoede to their request.
Durbalikā Puşpamitra was giving sermons on the Eighth Parva (Pratyā-khyāna pūrva). Gosthā-Māhila did not even care to listen to his sermons out of jealousy and impudence. He heard

Page #252

Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The seventh
the same from Vindhya who carefully attended and understood
the sermons.
228:
Once in course of discussion of the eighth and ninth parvas, Goṣṭhā-Mahila contradicted the Truth, laid down by the Original sūtras, and hence he became a nihnava. 216 (2511)
बीसुवसहिए ठिओ छिन्नेसणपरो य स कयाए । विंझस्स सुणइ पासेऽणुभासमा णस्स वक्खाणं ॥ २१७॥२५१२ ॥
217.
Visuvasahie thiö chiddannesaṇaparo ya sa kayael Vinjhassa sunai pāse'nubhāsamānassa vakkhānam ( 2512) [विष्वग्वसतौ स्थितरिछद्रान्वेषणपरच स कदाचित् । विन्धस्य शृणोति पार्श्वेऽनुभाषमाणस्य व्याख्यानम् ॥ २१७||२५१२॥
217. Visvagvasatau sthitaschidrānvesanaparaśca sa kadācit | Vindhasya Srinoti pārśvè'nubhāsamānasya vyākhyānam. (2512)]
Trans. 217. He, stopping at a separate place, and (always) bent on finding faults, sometimes heard the sermon from Vindhya who used to repeat (what Durbalikā Puṣpamitra had said ) 2512.
टीका - २१७ विष्वग्वसतौ स्थित छिद्रान्वेषणपरः स गोष्ठामाहिलः कदाचिद् विन्ध्यस्यानुभाषमाणस्य चिन्तनिकां कुर्वतः पार्श्वे व्याख्यानं शृणोतीति ॥२५१२ ॥
D. C. Clear.
Then,
कम्मपदायपुब्वे बद्धं पुढं निकाइयं कम्मं । जीव एसेहिं समं सूईकलावोवमाणाओ ॥२१८॥२५१३॥
उट्टणमुक्केरी संथोमो खवणमणुभवो बावि ।
अणिकाइयम्मि कम्मे निकाइए पायमणुभवणं ॥ २१९ ॥ २५१४ ॥ सोउं भणइ सदोसं वकखाणमिणं ति पावइ जओ मे । मोक्लाभाषो जीवप्पएस कम्माविभागाओ ||२२०२५१५॥

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #253

Vasta] Nihnavavada
1229 218. Kammappavāya purve baddham puţtham nikäiyam kapamami
Jivapadsèhim samam saikalāvovamänãö. (2413) 219. Uvvattaņamuk koro santhomo ķhavaṇamanubhavo vāvi/
Aņikāiyammi kamme nikāie pāyamapubhavaṇam, (2514) 220. Soum bhagai sadosam vakkhāņaminam ti pāvại jaö bhe
Makkhābhavo Jivappaesakammāvibhāgāö. (2515) [कर्मप्रवावपूर्षे बद्धं स्पृहं निकाचितं कर्म। जीवप्रदेशैः सयं सूचीबलापोपमानात् ॥२१८॥२५१६॥ अपवर्तनमुत्करः संस्तोमः क्षपणममुभवो वापि । अनिकाचिते कर्मणि निकाचिते प्रायोऽनुभवनम् ॥२१९॥२५१४॥ श्रुत्वा भणति सदोषं व्याख्यानमिदमिति प्राप्नोति यो भवन मोक्षाभाबो जीवप्रदेशकर्माविभागात् ।।२२०॥२५१५॥ 218. Karmapravădapūrve baddham spriştam pikāeitam karma
Jivapradeśaiḥ samam sacīkalāpopamānāt. (2513) 219. Apavartanamutkaraḥ samstomaḥ kṣapanamanubhara vapit
Anikācitè karmaṇi nikācite prāyo'nubhavanam. (2514) 220. Śrutvā bhanati sa-dosam vyakhyānamidamiti prāpnoti yato
bhavatām Mok şābhavo jivapradeśakarmāvibhāgat. (2515)
Trans 218-219-220. In (course of discussion of the ) Karmapravāda parva when he heard that Karman is tied (baddha) touched (sprisţa ) and infused (gikāçda) with (a) the regions of jiva, like a bond of needles and that reduction, exaltation, transformation, destruction, or even perceptiga (of the final consequence) (could be worked ) upon an inde. pendent Karman, while that which has already been infused (with Jiva ) is probably suscoptible to the perception of final consequence only, he said “This sermon is faulty, For in case of Karman and the (various ) regions of siva being intimately connected ( with each other), there would be no thing like noksa.” (2513-2515)

Page #254

:230:
Jinabhadra Gaņi's [The seventh टीका-२१८-२१९-२२० इह कर्मप्रवादनाम्न्यष्टमे पूर्व कर्मविचारे प्रस्तुते दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्र एवं व्याख्यानयति, तद्यथा-जीवप्रदेशै समं बद्धं बद्धमात्रमेव कर्म भवति, यथाऽकषायस्येर्यापथप्रत्ययं कर्म । तच्च कालान्तरस्थितिमवाप्यैव जीवप्रदेशेभ्यो विघटते, शुष्ककुडयापतितचूर्णमुष्टिवदिति । अन्यत्तु 'पुढे ति' "बद्धम्" इत्यत्रापि संबध्यते । ततश्च बद्धं स्पृष्टं चेत्यर्थः। तत्र बद्धं जीवेन सह संयोगमात्रमापनम् , स्पृष्टं तु जीवप्रदेशैरात्मीकृतम् । एतच्चेत्थं बद्धं सत् कालान्तरेण विघटते, आद्रलेपकुड्ये सस्नेहचूर्णवदिति । "निकाइयं ति" "बद्धं" "स्पृष्टं" "च" इत्यत्रापि संबध्यते । ततश्चापरं किमपि कर्म बद्धं स्पृष्टं निकाचितं भवतीत्यर्थः । तत्र तदेव बदस्पृष्टं गाढतराध्यवसायेन बद्धत्वादपवर्तनादिकरणायोग्यतां नीतं निकाचितमुच्यते । इदं च कालान्तरेऽपि विपाकतोऽनुभवमन्तरेण प्रायो नापगच्छति, गाढतरबद्धत्वात् , आद्रकुड्याश्लेषितनिबिडचेटिकाहस्तकवदिति । अयं च त्रिविधोऽपि बन्धः सूचीकलापोपमानाद् भावनीयः, तद्यथागुणाऽऽवेष्टितसूचीकलापोपमं बद्धमुच्यते, लोहपट्टबद्धसूचीसंघातसदृशं तु बद्धस्पृमित्यभिधीयते, बद्धस्पृष्टनिकाचितं त्वग्नितप्तधनाहतकोडीकृतसूचीनिचयसंनिभं भावनीयमिति । नन्वनिकाचितस्य कर्मणः को विशेषः १ इत्याह-'उबट्टणेत्यादि' इह कर्मविषयाण्यष्टौ कारणानि भवन्ति । उक्तं च
बंधण-संकमणु-बट्टणा य उवट्टणा उईरणया ।
उवसावणा निवत्ती निकायणा च त्ति करणाई ॥१॥ तत्र निकाचिते कर्मणि स्थित्यादिखण्डनरूपा "उबट्टणं ति" अपवर्तना प्रवर्तते । तथा “उक्केरो ति" स्थित्यादिवर्धनरूप उत्कोच उद्वर्तना । तथा "संथोमो ति" असातादेः सातादौ क्षेपणरूपः संक्रमः । तथा "खवणं ति" प्रकत्यन्तरसंक्रमितस्य कर्मग प्रदेशोदयेन निर्जरणं क्षपणम् । तथा "अणुभवो ति" स्वेन स्वेन रूपेग प्रकृतीनां विपाकतो वेदनानुभाः । इदं चोपलक्ष गादीरणादीनाम् । तदेतान्यपवर्तनादीनि सर्वाण्यनिकाचिते कर्मगि प्रान्ति, निकाचिते तु प्रायो विपाकेनानुभव एस प्रवर्तते, न पुनरपवर्तनादीनि, इत्यनयोविशेषः । समाकीविकृष्टतपसामुत्कटाध्यवसायबलेन "तवसा उ निकाइयाणं पि" इति पचना निकाचितेऽपि कर्मण्यपवर्तनादिकरणप्रवृत्तिर्भवतीति प्रायोग्रहणम् ।
तदत्र व्याख्याने क्षीरनीरन्यायेन वह्नितप्तायोगोलकन्यायेन वा जीवप्रदेशैः सह कर्म संबद्धमिति पर्यवसितं विन्ध्यसमीपे श्रुत्वा तथा विधकर्मोदयादभिनिवेशेन

Page #255

Vada]
Nihnavavada
: 231:
विप्रतिपन्न गोष्ठामा हिलः प्रतिपादयति- " ननु सदोषमिदं व्याख्यानम्, यस्मादेवं व्याख्यायमाने भवतां मोक्षाभावः प्राप्नोति, जीवप्रदेशैः सह कर्मणामधिभागेन तादात्म्येनावस्थानादिति || २५१३|| २५१४ || २५१५
D. C. In course of his lecture on Karma-pravāda parva, Durbalika Puspamitra explains the relation between jiva and Karman as follows:
Karman is attached to the jivapradeśas only externally e. g. Karman constituting the observances of religious mendicant is tied to the holy regions of the jiva, only externally. It is separated from jiva soon after it comes in contact, like a handful of powder separating itself from a dry wall. Such a type of Karman is known as "badaha karman."
There are some karmans which are connected with jiva pradeśas more closely. They could be separated from the jiva pradesas after a long time, like a moist powder from a wet wall. These are known as 66 baddhasprista Karmans".
Again, there are some which are completely infused into the jivapradesas. They have almost become one with the jivapradeśas, and so, they could not be separated from the jiva pradeśas without undergoing a change in their original condition. Such a type of Karman is known as baddha-sprista-nikācita
""
Karman.
66
All the three types are better explained with the help of an illustration of a band of needles. Karman is baddha' like a band of needles with a piece of string tied round it. It is 'baddha sprista' like the same with a strap of iron fastened round it, and the condition of "baddha-spriṣṭa and nikācita, is like that of a band of needles heated red-hot and hammered in such a way, that all the needles are completely infused with one another. None of them could be separated from each other without undergoing a change in its original condition.
The distinctive characteristics of an independent or anikācita karman, are described as follows:

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #256

: 282:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The seventh Bandhana-sankanjaņu-vvattaņa ya uvattaņā tiranaya Uvasāvaņā nivatti nikayaņā ca tti karaņāim II
[ It is susceptible to the processes of combination, transformation, division, exaltation, liberation, reduction, determination and even infusion. ]
Thus, it is seen that an a-nikācita Karman which is separated from the Soul, is susceptible to processes of division, transformation, exaltation, and even the experience of undergoing a change in the original condition. But that which is nikacita is not susceptible to any such process except perhaps that of undergoing change of state. Śtill however, processes of division etc. could also be made to work upon nikacita Karman by the capas city of high penances.
In the discourse as regard Karman, it is pointed out that the relation between jíva and karman resembles that of mik and water or fire and iron. When Gosthă-Māhila heard this from Vindhya he contradicted this view in the light of the above theory of Karman. He said "This discourse is faulty. For, if jiva and karman were inseparable as said above, there would be nothing like theksa.
In support of his belief, Gosthā-Māhila proceeds :न हि कम्मं जीवाओ अवेह अविभागओ पएसो व्व । तवणवगमावमुक्खो जुत्तर्मिणं तेण वक्खाणं ॥२२॥२५१६॥ 221. Na hi kammam jāvdö avèi avibhāgaö padso vrat
Tadanavagamādamukkho juttamiñana tena vakkhānam. (2516) न हि कर्म जीवादपैखविभागतः प्रदेश इव । तदनपगमाद्रमोक्षो युक्तमिदं तेन व्याख्यानम् ॥२२१॥२५१६॥ 221. Na hi karma jīvādapaityavibhāgataḥ pradega ivas
Tadanapagamādamokṣo yuktamidam tena vyākhyanam. (2516)]
Trans. 221. Karman is not inseparable from Soul like its portion. In case of its ) being inseparable, there would be no Moksa. This discourse of mine is (thus) justified. 2516.

Page #257

:233:
Vada ]
Nihnavavāda टीका-२२१ "न हि-नैव कर्म जीवादपैति" इति प्रतिज्ञा । अविभागादवययोगोलकन्यायेन जीवेन सह तादात्म्यादित्यर्थः, एष हेतुः। “पएसो ब्य त्ति" जीवप्रदेशराशिवदित्यर्थः, एष दृष्टान्तः । इह यद् येन सहाविभागेन व्यवस्थितं न तत् ततो वियुज्यते, यथा जीवात् तत्प्रदेशानिकुरम्बम् , इष्यते चाविभागो जीव-कर्मणोर्भवद्भिः, इति न तत् तस्माद् वियुज्यते । ततस्तदनपगमात् तस्य कर्मणो जीवादनपगमादवियोगात् सर्वदैव जीवानां सकर्मकत्वाद् मोक्षाभावः । तेन तस्मादिदमिह मदीयं व्याख्यानं कतुं युक्तमिति ॥२५१६।।
D. C. According to you, Karman is intimately connected with jiva. Karman, in that case, will invariably be accompanying jiva and there will be no scope for jīva to attain Mokşa. I shall therefore be justified in giving a discourse about it. (2516)
The discourse is पुट्ठो जहा अबद्धो कंचुइणं कंचुओ समन्नेइ । एवं पुट्ठमषद्धं जीवं कम्मं समन्नेइ ॥२२२॥२५१७॥ 222. Puttho jahā abaddho kañcuiņam kuñcuö samanndil
____Evam putthamabaddhain jivam kammam samanndi. (2517) [स्पृष्टो यथाऽबद्धः कनुकिनं कश्रुका समन्वेति। एवं स्पृष्टमबद्धं जीवं कर्म समन्वेति ॥२२२||२५१७॥ 222. Spristo yathā'baddhah kañcukinam kañcukaḥ samanveti
Evam spristamabaddham jivam karma. samanveti. (2517)]
Trans. 222. Just as, the cast-off skin of a snake goes along with the snake even with a slight touch, so also, Karman though separate, goes with jiva (even) with a (slight) touch 2517.
टीका-२२२ यथास्पृष्टः स्पर्शनमात्रेण संयुक्तोऽबद्धः क्षीरनीरन्यायादलोलीभूत एव कञ्चुको विषधरनिर्मोकः कञ्चुकिनं विषधरं समन्वेति समनुगच्छति, एवं कर्मापि स्पृष्टं सर्पकचुकवत् स्पर्शनमात्रेणैव संयुक्तमबद्धं वययः पिण्डादिन्यायादलोलीभूतमेव जीवं समन्वेति, एवमेव मोक्षापपत्तेरिति ॥२५१७॥

Page #258

:234: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The seventh D. C. The cast-off skin of a snake though separate but touched by the snake, is always accompanying the serpent. The same is the case with Karman, Although considered as external, Karman accompanies jīva everywhere even by slight touch giving rise thereby to the complete denial of Moksa. 222 (2517)
Controversy about the Ninth Pūrva (Pratyākhyāna pūrva ) is this :सोऊण भन्नमाणं पञ्चक्खाणं पुणो नवमपुव्वे । सो जावजीवविहियं तिविहं तिविहेण साहूणं ॥२२३।।२५१८॥ जंप पचरखाणं अपरिमाणाए होइ सेयं तु । जेसिं तु परिमाणं तं दुहें आससा होइ ।।२२४॥२५१९॥ 223. Sooņa bhannamāņam paccakkhāṇam puņo navamapuvve i
So jāvajjivavihiyam tivibam tiviheņa sāhūņanı, (2518) 224. Jampai paccakkhāņam a-parimāņāè hoi seyain tu
Jesim tu parimanam tam duttham āsasa hoi. (2519) [श्रुत्वा भण्यमानं प्रत्याख्यानं पुनर्नवमपूर्वे ।। स यावज्जीवविहितं त्रिविधं त्रिविधेन साधूनाम् ॥२२३॥२५१८॥ जलपति प्रत्याख्यानमपरिमाणतया भवति श्रेयस्तु । येषां तु परिमाणं तद् दुष्टमाशंसा भवति ॥२२४॥२५१९॥ 223. Srutvā bhanyamānam pratyākhyānam puna-r-navamapürve
Sa yāvajjīvavihitam trividham trividhena sādhānām. (2518) 224. Jalpati pratyākhyānamaparimāṇatayā bhavati śrèyastu |
Yeşām tu parimāņam tad dustamāśamsā bhavati. (2519) ]
Trans. 223-224. Having heard the discourse of the religious vow laid down in the Ninth Parva, to be observed, trividham (acting, commanding, consenting, either in the past, or the present, or the future) trividhena (in mind, speech and body ) by the ascetics till the end of their life, he objects that the vow becomes excellent by (virtue of ) its (being)

Page #259

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:235: limitless. Those that are limited are spoiled by (the rise of) temptation. (2518-2519)
टीका-२२३ स गोष्ठामाहिलः कर्मविचारे विप्रतिपनः पुनरन्यदा नवमपूर्वे "करेमि भन्ते ! सामाइयं सव्वं सावजं जोगं पच्चक्खामि" इत्यादि यावज्जीवा. वधिकं साधूनां संबन्धिप्रत्याख्यानं भण्यमानं विन्ध्यसमीपे विचार्यमाणं शृणोति ॥२५१८॥
टीका-२२४ गोष्ठामाहिलो जल्पति-ननु प्रत्याख्यानं सर्वमप्यपरिमाणतयाऽवधिरहितमेव क्रियमाणं श्रेयोहेतुत्वात् श्रेयः शोभनं भवति । येषां तु व्याख्याने यावजीवादिपरिमाणमवधिविधीयते, तेषां मतेन तत् प्रत्याख्यानमाशंसादोषदुष्टत्वाद् दुष्टं सदोषं प्रामोति ॥२५१८॥२५१९॥
D. C. In course of his listening to the Ninth parva from Vindhya, Gosthā Māhila comes across the expression “Karèmi bhantè i sāwāiyam savvam sāvajjam jogam paccakkhāmi etc., which lays down that the practice of pratyakhyana is to be followed trividham (by means of acting, commanding, or consenting) trividhena (in niind, speech and body ) by all the monks till the end of their life. He objects to this predicament and says that the religious vow appears excellent only if it is practised without a time-limit Those who preach the pratice of vow to be followed only till the end of lifc, spoil the sanctity of the same by giving rise to temptation. 223-224 (2518-2519)
It is explained in details as followsआसंसा जा पुण्णे सेविस्सामि त्ति दूसियं तीए । जेण सुयम्मि वि भणियं परिणामाओ असुद्धं तु ॥२२५॥२५२०॥ 225. Asamsā jā punne sevissami tti dasiyam tie |
Jena suyammi vi bhaniyam parinamai asuddham tu. (2520) [आशंसा या पूर्णे सेविष्य इति दूषितं तया।
येन श्रुतेऽपि भणितं परिणामादशुद्धं तु ॥२२५॥२५२०॥ 225. Āśamsā yā parne sevisya iti duşitam tayā i
____Yena Srute'pi bhanitam parinamadasuddham tu. (2520)]

Page #260

Jinabhadra Grani's
[ The seventh
Trans. 225. It is defiled by the expectation that “I shall (be able to) enjoy at the end (of life)" That is why it is laid down in the Scriptures also, that (a vow) is (said to be) unholy on account of consequence. 2520.
: 236:
"
टीका - २२५ " आशंसातः प्रत्याख्यानं दुष्टम्" इत्युक्तम् । तत्राशंसा का ? इत्याह- 'जत्ति यैवंविधपरिणामरूपा । कथंभूतः परिणामः ? इत्याह- पूर्णे प्रत्याख्याने देवलोकादौ सुराङ्गनासंभोगादिभोगानहं सेविष्ये " इत्येवंभूतपरिणामरूपा च याऽऽशंसा तया प्रत्याख्यानं दूषितं भवति । कुतः ? इत्याहह-मेन श्रुतेऽप्यागमेऽपि भणितम् - दुष्टपरिणामाशुद्धेः प्रत्याख्यानमशुद्ध भवति । तथागमःसोही सरहणा जाणणा य विणएऽणुभासणा चेव । अणुपालणा विसोही भावविसोही भवे छट्टो ॥ १ ॥
तत्र " पच्चक्खाणं सव्वन्नुदेसियं" इत्यादिना श्रद्धानादिषु व्याख्यातेषु भावविशुद्धे यद् व्याख्यानं तत् प्रकृतोपयोगीति दर्शते
रागेण व दोसेण व परिणामेन व न दूसियं जं तु ।
वं खलु पचक्खाणं भावविसुद्धं मुणेयव्वं ॥ १ ॥ इति ।
तदेवं विप्रतिपन्नेवं गोष्ठामा हिलेन यत् पूर्वपक्षीकृतं तद् विन्ध्येन गत्वा गुरोर्दुर्बलिका पुष्पमित्रस्य निवेदितम् । गुरुणा चोत्तरपक्षभूतं सर्वमपि प्रतिविधानं तस्योपदिष्टम्, तेनापि गत्वा गुरूपदेशेन सर्व गोष्ठामाहिलस्य प्रतिपादितम् । स च मिध्याभिमानाद् गाढमाविष्टो यावद् न किश्चित् प्रतिपन्नवान् तावद् गुरुणा स्वयमाभिमुख्येनोक्त इति ॥ २५२०॥
D. C. The practice of pratyākhyāna is defiled by means of expectation or desire in this way:-A person practising a religious vow during this life, would be cherishing a desire throughout that "When the pratyākhyana will be over at the end of this life, I shall be able to enjoy pleasures with damsels etc., in the divine world. "The practice of pratyākhyāna is blotted by means of such motives. It is forbidden in the Agamas also.
The Agama says—
Sohi saddahaņā jāņaṇā ya viņae'ņu bhāsaņā ceva | Anupalana visohi bhavavisohi bhave chattho it

Page #261

Vada ] Nihnavavada
: 237: [There are six types of purity:-1. Freedom from defilement, 2. (observance of) purificatory rites, 3. right knowledge, 4-5. modest speech and action and 6. purity of motive. ]
Then explaining the purity of motive by means of expressions like pacchakkhāņam savvannudesiyam.”
( Religious vow is directed by Oniniscient) etc., it has been laid down that--
“Rāgeṇa va doseņa va pariņāmena va na dūsiyam jam tu ! Tam khalu paccakkhāņam bhāvavisuddhau muñeyavvam II
(That which is not blotted by passion, prejudice or (evil) consequence is, in fact known to have been (goaded by ) pure motive. ]
When Gosthā Mahila opposed the establishment of predicament of pratyākhyāna, the matter was reported to the preceptor, Dur. balikā Puşpamitra, who sent a reply though Vindhya. But when Gosthā Māhila was not convinced even by that, the preceptor himself had to come to the spot to defeat him. 225. (2520)
विंझपरिपुच्छियगुरूवएसकहियं पि न पडिवन्नो सो। जाहे ताहे गुरुणा सयमुत्तो पूसमित्तेणं ॥२२६॥२५२१॥ 226. Vinjjhaparipucchiyaguruvaesakahiyam pi na padivanno so i
Jāhe tāhe guruņā sayamutto Pasamitteņam. (2521) [विन्ध्यपरिपृष्टगुरूपदेशकथितमपि न प्रतिपन्नः सः। यदा तदा गुरुणा स्वयमुक्तः पुष्पमित्रेण ॥२२६॥२५२१॥ 226. Vindhyaparipristagurūpadeśakathitamapi na pratipannaḥ saḥ
Yadā tada guruņā svayamuktah Puşpamitreņa. (2521)]
Trans. 226. When he was not convinced even by the argument advanced by Vindhya advised by the preceptor, the preceptor (Durbalikā) Puspamitra himself had to argue (with him). 2521.

Page #262

:238: Jinabhadra Gani's
The seventh He asks-- किं कंचुओ व्व कम्मं पइप्पएसमह जीवपज्जते । पइदेसं सव्वगयं तदंतरालाणवत्थाओ ॥२२७॥२५२२॥ अह जीववहिं तो नाणुवत्तए तं भवंतरालम्मि । तदणुगमाभावाओ बज्झंगमलो व्व सुव्वत्तं ॥२२८॥२५२३।। एवं सव्वविमुक्खो निक्कारणउ व्व सव्वसंसारो। भवमुक्काणं च पुणो संसरणमओ अणासासो ॥२२९॥२५२४॥ 2:27. Kim kañcuo vya kanımam paippaèsamaha jīvapajjante il
Paidèsam savvagayam taclantarālānavatthāö. (2522) 228. Aha jīvabahin to nāņuvattāc tam bhavantarālammil
Tadanugamabhavao bajjhangamalo vva suvvattam. (2528) 229. Evam savvavimukkho nikkāranau vva savva samsaron .
Bhavamukkāņam ca puņo samsaranamaö aņāsāso. (2524) [किं कझुक इव कर्म प्रतिप्रदेशमथ जीवपर्यन्ते । प्रतिदेशं सर्वगतं तदन्तरालानवस्थातः ॥२२७॥२५२२॥ अथ जीव यहिस्ततो नानुवर्तते तद् भवान्तराले । तदनुगमाभावाद् बाह्याङ्गमल इव सुव्यक्तम् ॥२२८॥२५२३॥ एवं सर्वविमोक्षो निष्कारणको वा सर्वसंसारः।
भवमुक्तानां च पुनः संसरणमतोऽनाश्वासः ॥२२९॥२५२४॥ 227. Kim kañcuka iva karma pratideśamatha jivaparyante
Pratideśam sarvagatam tadautarālānavasthātah. (2522) 228. Atha jivabahistato nanuvartate tad bhavāntarale |
Tadanugamābhāvād bāhyāngamala iva suvyaktam. (2523) Evam sarvavimokso niskāraṇako vā sarvasainsāraḥı Bhavamuktānām ca punaḥ samsaraṇamatn'nāśvāsah. (2524) ).
Trans. 227-228-229. Is Karman (attached to) every por. tion of jiva like the cast-off skin of a snake or ) only) to the (out-ward) extreme of a jiva? If it is ( attached to)

Page #263

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:239: every portion it would be pervading the whole (of ¡iva) on account of (its) intermediary portions not being raised. And if it is (attached to) the external surface of jiva, it is clear that it does not follow (jiva ) to the next world on account of its inability to accompany (soul ) like the filth on the exterior limb. In that case, there would be attainment of mundane world by all without any reason. And those who have already been finally emancipated from this mundane world, will have to come down to the mundane world again (proving) thereby futility ( of righteous deeds ) (2522-2524)
टीका-२२७-२२८-२२९ व्याख्या-"पुट्ठो जहा अबद्धो कंचुइणं" इत्यादिगाथायां कचुकवत् स्पृष्टमेव जीवे कर्म न तु बद्धमिति यदुच्यते भवता, तद् विचार्यते-किं कञ्चुकवत् स्पृष्टं कर्म जीवस्य प्रतिप्रदेशं वृत्तं सदुच्यते, आहोस्विजीवपर्यन्ते त्वक्पर्यन्त एव वृत्तं स्पृष्टमिष्यते ? इति द्वयीगतिः। तत्र यदि पतिदेशं वृत्त्वत्वात् स्पृष्टमिष्टम् , तहिं जीवे सर्वगतं कर्म मामोति, नभोवत् । कुतः सर्वगतम् ? इत्याह-" तदन्तरालेत्यादि” तस्य जीवस्यान्तरालं मध्यं तदन्तरालं तस्यानवस्थातः तस्य कर्मव्याप्तस्यानवस्थानादनुद्धारणादित्यर्थः । न हि पतिप्रदेशं वृत्ते कर्मणि जीवस्य कोऽपि मध्यप्रदेश उद्धरति । येन कर्मणस्तत्रासर्वगतत्वं स्यात् । तस्मादाकाशेनेव कर्मणा जीवस्य प्रतिदेशं व्याप्तत्वात् तस्य जीवे सर्वगतत्वं सिद्धमेव । एवं च सति साध्यविकलत्वात् क क दृष्टान्तोऽसंबद्ध एव प्रामोति, साध्यस्य यथोक्तस्पर्शनस्य कञ्चुकेऽभावादिति । द्वितीयविकल्पमधिकृत्याह-'अहेत्यादि' अथ जीवस्य बहिस्स्वपर्यन्ते वृत्तत्वात् कञ्चुकवत् स्पृष्टं कर्मेष्यते, तर्हि भवाद् भवान्तरं संक्रामतोऽन्तराले तद् नानुवर्तते तदनुवत्तिर्न प्रामोति त्वपर्यन्ते वृत्तत्वेन तदनुगमाभावात् , बाह्याङ्गमलवदिति सुव्यक्तमेव, बालानामपि प्रतीतत्वादिति । भवत्वननुवृत्तिः कमों भवान्तराले को दोष ? इत्याह-" एवमित्यादि" एवं कर्मोऽननुवृत्तौ सत्यां सर्वेषामपि जीवानां विमोक्षः संसाराभावः प्राप्नोति, संसारकारणस्य कर्मणोऽभावात् । अथ निष्कारणोऽपि संसार इष्यते, तर्हि ये व्रततपो-ब्रह्मचर्यादिकष्टानुष्ठानानि कुर्वन्ते तेषामपि सर्वेषां संसार एव स्यात् , निष्कारणत्वाविशेषात् । निष्कारणं च जायमानं भवमुक्ताना. मपि सिद्धानामपि पुनरपि संसरणं संसारः स्यादिति मुक्तावप्यनाश्वास इति ॥ २५२२॥२५२३॥२५२४॥

Page #264

: 240: Jinabhadra Gani's
The seventh D. C.
Acărya : If you believe that the relation between jiva and Karman is like that of cast-off skin and a snake, and not like that of water and milk, I put this question : Is Karman attached to jīva at all portions of jiva or is it attached only to the skin at the outward extreme of jīva ?
If Karman were attached to jīva at all portions, none of the regions would be spared from the influence of Karman. This proves that the relation between Karman and jīva does not exist like that of a cast-off skin and snake. For, if Karman were to be connected like the cast-off skin to a snake on the surface of jiva, it would not be able to follow the soul to the other life.
Now, when Karman does not go with jiva, all jīvas will attain Mokşa rendering samsāra to nothing thereby. Thus, if the Samsāra is accepted as existing without reason, persons observing celebacy, penances, and other religious rites etc., will have to come down to the mundane world. And, if the attainment of samsāra takes place without any reason, even Muktātmās or free souls will have to come down to samsāra indicating the futility of Mokşa. 227-229 ( 2522-2524).
There is another difficulty also, in taking Karman as existing on the surface of jiva :देहंतो जा वेयणा कम्माभावम्मि किंनिमित्ता सा ? निक्कारणा वा जइ तो सिद्धो वि न वेयणारहिओ॥२३०॥२५२५।। जइ बज्झनिमित्ता सा तदभावे सा न हुन्ज तो अंतो। विट्ठा य सा सुबहुसो बाहिं निव्वेयणस्सावि ॥२३१॥२५४६॥ जह वा विभिण्णदेसं पि वेयणं कुणइ कम्ममेवं तो। कहमण्णसरीरगयं न वेयणं कुणइ अण्णस्स ? ॥२३२॥२५२७॥ 230. Dobanto jā vəyaņā kammabhāvammi kimnimittä sã ? 1
Nikkāraṇā vá jai to Siddho vi na vəyaņārahiö. (2525)

Page #265

Vada 1 Nihnavavāda
:241 231. Jai bajjhanimitta sa tadabhāve sa na hujja to anton
Ditthā ya sa subahuso bahimnivveyarassavi. (2526) 232. Jai vā vibhiņņadèsampi veyaņām kuņai kammamevam to 1
Kahamaņņasariragayam na vdyaņām kuņai annassa ? (2527) [देहान्तर्या वेदना कर्माभावे किंनिमित्ता सा । निष्कारणा वा यदि ततः सिद्धोऽपि न वेदनारहितः ॥२३०॥२५२५॥ यदि बानिमित्ता सा तदभावे सा न भवेत् ततोऽन्तः । दृष्ट्वा च सा सुबहुशो बहिर्निवेदनस्यापि ॥२३१॥२५२६॥ यदि वा विभिन्नदेशामपि वेदनां करोति कर्मेवं ततः। कथमन्यशरीरगतां न वेदनां करोत्यन्यस्य ? ॥२३२॥२५२७॥ 230. Dehāntaryā vedanā karmābhāve kimnimittā sā?!
____Niskāranā vā yadi tataa Siddho'pi na vddanārahitah. (2525) 231. Yadi bahyanimittă sā tadabhāve sā na bhavet tato'ntah |
Dristvā ca sb subahuso bahirnivedanasyāpi. (2526) 232. Yadi va vibhinnadeśāmapi vedanāmı karoti karmaivam tataḥ
Kathamanyaśariragatām na vedanām karotyanyasya ? (2527)]
Trans. 230-231-232. Or, in absence of Karman, what is the cause of ailments (produced) in the body? If it is causeless, then, even the Accomplished (Soul) will not be free from ailment. If it is (due to) (some) external cause, then, internal ailment would not have been produced in its absence. But that wretched ( ailment) (is) frequently (experienced) even by one who is free from external ailment. Or, if Karman gives rise to ailment even at a different place, why should Karman of one body not produce ailment to an (absolutely) different body ? (2525-2557)
टीका-२३०-२३१-२३२ व्याख्या-यदि कचुकवद् बहिरेव वर्तते कर्म, तदा देहस्यान्तर्मध्ये या शूल-नालगुल्मादिवेदना सा किंनिमिचेति वक्तव्यम् , मध्ये तत्कारणभूतस्य कर्मणोऽभावात् ? । अथ निष्कारणापि देहान्तर्वेदनाऽभ्यु

Page #266

:242
Jinabhadra Gani's [The seventh पगम्यते, ततस्तहि सिद्धोऽपि न वेदनारहितः स्यात् निष्कारणत्वाविशेषादिति । अथ बाह्यवेदनानिमित्ता साऽन्तर्वेदनाऽभ्युपगम्यते, बहिर्वेदना हि लगुडघातादिजन्या प्रादुर्भवन्ती मध्येऽपि वेदनां जनयत्येवेति यदि तवाभिप्रायः, तर्हि तदमावे लगुडघातादिजन्यवेदनाविरहे साऽन्तर्वेदना न भवेद् न जायेत । अस्त्वेवमिति चेत् । तदयुक्तम् , यतो दृष्टाऽसौ बहुशः शूलादिप्रभवान्तवेदना । कस्य ? इत्याह "बाहिमित्यादि" बहिनिवेदनस्यापि बहिल गुडादिघातजन्य वेदनारहितस्यापी. त्यर्थः । यदि ह्ययं नियमः स्याद् यदुन-बहिर्लगुडघातादिवेदनासद्भाव एवान्त. वेदना प्रादुरस्तीति, तदा स्यादपि त्वदभिप्रेतम् । न चैवम् , यतोऽनुभूयते दृश्यते च बहिर्वेदनाऽभावेऽपि यथोक्तान्तवेदना, ततस्तत्कारणभूतेन मध्ये कर्मणापि भाव्यमिति सिद्धोऽस्मत्पक्ष इति । अथैवं मन्यसे-हिस्त्वपर्यन्तवर्त्यपि कर्म मध्येऽपि शूलादिवेदनां जनयति न पुनर्मध्ये कर्मास्ति । तदयुक्तम् , यतो यदि बहिर्वतिविभिनदेशस्थितमपि कर्मान्यस्मिन् मध्यलक्षणे देशान्तरे वेदना करोतीत्यभ्युपगम्यते. एवं तर्हि कथं केन हेतुनाऽन्यशरीरगतं कर्मान्यस्य यज्ञदत्तादेवेदनां न करोति ?-ननु करोतु नाम, एवमपि देशान्तरत्वाविशेषादिति भावः २५२५॥२५२६॥२५२७॥ D. C.
Acārya :-If Karman is taken as existing only on the surface and not inside jiva, what is the cause of ailments such as gripe, tympanitis etc. experienced inside the human body! If the body is taken as susceptible to such ailments without any cause, like Karman etc., even Siddhātmās or Accomplished Souls, will not be taken as free from such ailments.
Gosthā Māhila :-Inner ailments are caused by outer ones such as those produced by blows of stick etc.
Acārya :-In that case, there would be no possibility of inner ailment in absence of external ailment. But that is not so. Even if there is no external ailment, the inner ailment of gripe etc. is positively experienced. This shows that there is no such rule to the effect that inner ailment is caused only by the external ailment. It follows, therefore, that there does exist something like Karman which decidedly works as the cause of inner ail

Page #267

Vada] Nihnavaváda
:243 ment as well. So, it is not proper to believe that Karman does not exist in the body.
Gosthā Māhila :--Karman which is attached to the exterior surface (viz skin etc.) of body, causes the ailment inside the body and hence that is taken as the cause of interior ailment.
Acārya :- This view of yours is also not correct. Karman existing outside the body (1. e. residing in a totally different body ) should not be taken as causing ailment inside the body, For, according to that rule, Karman residing in one's body would be the cause of ailment in another's body, as the distinction of place is common in both. 230-232 (2525-2527)
अह तं संचरइ मई न बहिं तो कंचुगो व्व निश्चत्यं । जं च जुगवं पि वियणा सव्वभि वि दीसई देहे ॥२३३॥२५२८॥ 233. Aha tam saicarai mai na bahim to kaicago vva niccatkhami ____Jam ca jugavam pi viyana savvammi vi disai dahd. (2528) [अथ तत् संचरति मतिर्न बहिस्ततः कञ्चक इव नित्यस्थम् ।
या युगपदपि वेदना सर्वस्मिन्नपि दृश्यते देहे ॥२३३॥२५२८॥ 233. Atha tat sancarati matirna bahistataḥ kañcuka iva nityastham |
Yacca yugapadapi vedanā sarvasminnapi driśyate dèhè. (2528)]
___Trans. 233. If it is said that it (i. e. Karman) moves (in and out), then, it would not be permanently existing outside (the body ) like a cast-off skin of a serpent. For, the ailment is experienced all over the body at one and the same time. (2528)
टीका-२३३ अथ भवतो मतिः-एकस्य देवदत्तशरीरस्य बहिरन्तश्च संचरति तत्कर्म, ततस्तत्र बहिरन्तश्च वेदनां जनयति, न शरीरान्तरे स्वाधारशरीरे बहिरन्तश्च संचरणात् , अन्यशरीरे त्वसंचरणादिति । अत्रोच्यते-"न बहिमित्यादि" ततस्तहि सर्पस्य कञ्चकवजीवस्य बहिरेव कर्म नित्यं तिष्ठतीति नित्यस्थितमिति यद् भवतो मतं तद् न प्रामोति, किन्तु कदाचिद् बहिः कदाचि त्वन्तः कर्मणः

Page #268

: 244 :
Jinabhadra Gaņi's [The seventh संचरणाम्युपगमात् , कञ्चुकवद् बहिरेव तिष्ठति इति नियमस्याघटनात् प्लवनी एव तदिति भावः । किञ्च, कर्मणः संचरणमुपपद्यत इति ॥२५२८॥ D. C.
Goştha Māhila :-Karman of one person, say Devadatta, moves inside and outside the body producing ailment both inside and outside the body (by his movements ). Karman of one person does not enter or affect the body of another in any way.
Ācārya :--In that case, the principle that Karman exists on the surface of body like the cast-off skin of a serpent, will be null and void. The principle of accepting Karman as moving inside at one time and outside at another, is not consistent with that of accepting it as existing only on the surface like the castoff skin of a snake.
Secondly, if Karman moves in and out, the ailment should be felt one after the other. But that is not so. For, the ailments og used outside, as well as, inside the body as a result of striking a stick are felt simultaneously. So, it is not proper to take Karman as moving inside and outside the body. 233 (2528)
There is another difficulty in taking Karman as movingन भवंतरमण्णेइ य सरीरसंचारओ तदनिलो छ । चलियं निजरियं चिय भणियमकम्मं च जं समए ॥२३४॥२५२९॥ 234. Na bhavantaramaņņei ya sarīrasancāraö tadanilo vval Caliyam nijjariyam ciya bhaniyamakammam ca jam samad.
(2529) [न भवान्तरमन्वेति च शरीरसंचारतस्तदनिल इव ।
चलितं निर्जीर्णमेव भणितमकर्म च यत् समये ॥२३४॥२५२९॥ 234. Na bhavāntaramanveti ca śarīrasañcāratastadanila iva i
Calitam nirjirņameva bharitamakarma oa yat samayè. (2529) ]
Trans. 234. Like the wind, moving in the body, it does not depart to the other world. For, it is said in the Scriptures

Page #269

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:245: that the moving (Karma ) is a nullified (Karman) or NonKarman. 2529.
टीका-२३४ किञ्च, यदि संचरिष्णुकर्माभ्युपगम्यते, तर्हि मृतस्य तद् भवान्तरं नान्वेति-भवान्तरे तस्यानुगमनं न प्रामोतीत्यर्थः । शरीरे संचरणादिति हेतुः । अनिलवदिति दृष्टान्तः । इह यत् शरीरे बहिरन्तश्च संचरति न तद् भवान्तरमन्वेति, यथोच्छवास-निःश्वासानिलः, तथा च कर्म, तस्माद् न भवान्तरमन्वेतीति । आह-नन्वागमेऽपि "चलमाणे चलिए" इति वचनात् कर्मणश्चलनमुक्तम् , चलनं च संचरणमेवोच्यते, तत् किमिति तदिह निषिध्यते । तदयुक्तम् , अभिप्रायापरिज्ञानादित्याह-"चलियमित्यादि” “नेरईए जाव वेमाणिए जीवाउ चलियं कम्मं निजरइ" इत्यादिवचनात् , तथा 'निर्जीयमाणं निर्जीर्णम्' इति वचनाञ्च यद् यस्मात् समये आगमे चलितं कर्म निर्जीर्णमुक्तं तदकर्मैव भणितम्, तच्च मध्ये गतमपि न वेदनां जनयितुमलम् , अकर्मणो नभः परमाग्वादेरिव तत्सामर्थ्याभावात् । तस्मादित्थमनेकदोषदुष्टत्वादयुक्तं कर्मणः संचरणमिति । अतो मध्ये व्यवस्थितं कर्मास्तीति स्थितम् ॥२५२९॥ D. C.
Acārya : If Karman is taken as dyamic, it would not accompany the Soul to the other world. Because, like inhalations and exalations, that which is moving in and out, cannot depart to the other world.
Gosthā-Māhila :--The assertion “Calamāņè calid "5 in the Agamas speaks for the dynamic character of Karman. Why do you attempt to deny it?
Acārya :--You have not grasped the real sense of that assertion. "Calamand calid" etc. and Neraie java Veminie jivāo caliyam kammam nijjarai" etc. indicate that all jīvās right from the category of Nārakās or hellish denizens to the Vaimānika divine beings, tend to nullify or destroy the (bondage of) dynamic karman. " Nirjiryamānam nirjiryam" implies that, that which is being destroyed, has already been destroyed. The āgamas thus imply the dynamic character of Karman as a nullified
5. Vide Bhagawati Sutra, Sataka I Uddesaka I.

Page #270

: 246:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The seventh
Karman or Non-karman. You are not justifiied in holding the view of dynamic karman. (2529)
Establishing the position of Karman, he says-अंतो वि अस्थि कम्मं वियणासन्भावओ तयाए व्व । मिच्छत्ताई पच्चयसम्भावओ य सव्वत्य ॥ २३५॥२५३० ॥ 235. Anto vi atthi kammam viyanāsabbhāvaö tayāe vvai Micchattāīpaccayasabbhāvaö ya savyattha. (2530) [ अन्तरप्यस्ति कर्म वेदनासद्भावतस्त्वचीव । मिथ्यात्वादिप्रत्यय सद्भावाच्च सर्वत्र || २३५॥२५३०॥ 235. Antarpyasti karma vè lanāsadbhāvatastvacīva | Mithyātvādipratyayasadbhavācca sarvatra. (2530) ].
Trans. 235. Karman exists in the interior, as well as on the surface, because of the ( feeling of ) ailment. And, it exists all over the body on account of the motives like vanity etc. (2530)
टीका - २३५ अन्तर्मध्येऽप्यस्ति कर्मेति प्रतिज्ञा । वेदनासद्भावादिति हेतुः । त्वचीवेति दृष्टान्तः । इह यत्र वेदनासद्भावस्तत्रास्ति कर्म, यथा त्वक्पर्यन्ते, अस्ति चान्तर्वेदना, ततः कर्मणापि तत्र भवितव्यमेवेति । किञ्च मिथ्यात्वादिभिः प्रत्ययैः कर्म बध्यते, ते च जीवस्य यथा बहिस्तनप्रदेशेषु तथा मध्यमदेशेष्वपि यथा मध्यप्रदेशेषु तथा बहिष्प्रदेशेष्वपि सर्वत्र सन्ति तेषामध्यवसायविशेषरूपत्वात्, अध्यवसायस्य च समस्तजीव गतत्वादिति । तस्माद् मिथ्यात्वादीनां कर्मबन्धकारणानां जीवे सर्वत्र सद्भावात् तत्कार्यभूतं कर्मापि सर्वत्रैव तत्रास्ति, न पुनर्बहिरेव । तस्माद् वहन्ययः पिण्ड-क्षीरनीरादिन्यायाज्जीवेन सहाविभागेनैव स्थितं कर्मेति प्रतिपद्यतां सत्पक्षः, त्यज्यतां मिथ्याभिमान इति ॥२५३० ॥
D. C. The proposition is that Karman exists in the interior, as well as, exterior regions of the body on account of the sensa tion of ailment felt inside, as well as, outside the body. Wherever there is ailment, there is Karman. So, Karman should exist all over the body, because ailment is felt by the body inside out.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #271

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:247: Karman is bound by motives such as Mithyātva eto. also. These motives exist on the inner, as well as, outer side of the body. Their kārya viz Karman shoull, therefore, exist on the surface, as well as, inside the body. Hence, O Gostha Mahila, leave aside your vanity, and accept the truc principle that Karman is united with jīva like fire and iron-bar or water and milk. 235. (2530)
Now, in reply to the argument that there would be negation of Mokşa, if Karman were inseparably united with jiva, the Acārya says
अविभागत्थस्स वि से विमोयणं कंचणो-वलाणं व । नाण-किरियाहिं कीरइ मिच्छत्ताईहिं चायाणं ॥२३६॥२५३१॥ 236. Avibhāgatthassa vi se vimoyaņam kancaņo-valāņam va 1
Nāņa-kiriyāhim kirai micchattāihim cāyāņam. (2531) [अविभागस्थस्यापि तस्य विमोचनं काञ्चनो-पलयोरिव । ज्ञान-क्रियाभ्यां क्रियते मिथ्यात्वादिभिश्चादानम् ॥२३६॥२५३१॥ 236. Avibhāgasthasyāpi tasya vimocanam kañcano-palayoriva i
Jñāna-kriyābhyām kriyate mithyātvādibhiścādānam. (2531) ).
Trans. 236. Like (that of ) gold and stone ( united together), its separation (from jiva) is brought about by means of cognition and action in spite of its close contact (with jiva), while its re-union (with jiva) is (brought about) by ( means of ) vanity cut. 2531.
टीका-२३६ 'से' तस्य कर्मणो जीवेन सहाविभागेन स्थितस्यापि कानो -पलयोरिव विमोचनं वियोगो ज्ञान-क्रियाभ्यां क्रियते । तथा, तस्यैव कर्मणो मिथ्यात्वादिभिरादानं ग्रहणं जीवेन सह संयोगो विधीयत इत्यर्थः । इदमत्र हृदयम्-इह जीवस्याविभागेनावस्थानं द्विधा विद्यते-आकाशेन सह, कर्मणा च । तत्राकाशेन सह यदविभागावस्थानं तद् न वियुज्यत एव, सद्धिमवस्थानात् । यत्तु कर्मणा सहाविभागावस्थानं तदप्यभव्यानां न वियुज्यते । भव्यानां तु कर्मसंयोगस्तथाविधज्ञान-दर्शन-चारित्र-तपः-सामग्रीसद्भावे वियुज्यते, वहन्यो

Page #272

Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The seventh
1
षध्यादिसामग्रीसचे काञ्चनो - पलसंयोगवदिति । तथाविधज्ञानादिसा मध्यभावे तु भव्यानामपि कर्मसंयोगः कदापि न निवर्तते, " नो चेत्र णं भवसिद्धियविरहिए लोए भविस्स" इतिवचनात् । तर्हि भव्याः कथं ते व्यपदिश्यन्ते ? इति चेत् । उच्यते - योग्यतामात्रेण । न च योग्यः सर्वोऽपि विवक्षितपर्यायेण युज्यते, प्रतिमादिपर्याय योग्यानामपि तथाविधदारु - पाषाणादीनां तद्विधसामग्र्यभावे केषाञ्चित् तदयोगादित्यलं विस्तरेण प्रागेव गणधरवादेऽस्यार्थस्य विस्तरेणोक्तस्वात् । तस्मात् " कर्म जीवाद् न वियुज्यते, अन्योन्याविभागेनावस्थितत्वात्, इत्यनैकान्तिकम्, उपायतो दृश्यमानवियोगैः क्षीरनीरकाञ्चनोपलादिभिर्व्यभिचारात् । ननु प्रस्तुतो जीव - कर्माविभागः केनोपायेन विघटत इति चेत् । नवभिहितमेव "ज्ञान-क्रियोपायतः" इति । मिथ्यात्वादिभिहिं जीव-कर्म संयोगः क्रियते, मिध्यात्वादिविपक्षभूताश्च सम्यग्ज्ञानादयः अतस्तैस्तद्वियोगो युक्तियुक्त एव, अनभोजनादिविपक्षभूतैर्लङ्घनादिभिस्तज्जनिताजीर्ण संयोगवदिति ॥ २३६।२५३१॥
•
: 248:
D. C.
Acārya:--Jiva and Karnian are united together like gold and stone. They could be separated from each other by mcans of jñāna and kriyā.
Jiva is inseparably united with two things:- (1) Akāśa or space and (2) Karman or action. The contact of jiva with ākāśa is so intimate that it is never separated. In case of contact with Karma, that with the lower types of jivas is always inseparable, while that with the excellent ones, is bro..n off by means of excellent qualities such as knowledge, philosophy, character, penances etc. In case of these excellent qualities being absent, the bhavya or excellent jivas will not be separated from the bondage of Karman.
Goṣṭhā Mahila :--Then, how could they be recognized as "bhavya?".
Acarya:--They are known as bhavya by virtue of their fitness for the attainment of Mokṣa. But this does not mean that all attain a certain spiritual form only by virtue of their fitness.

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #273

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:249: Just as, an idol could not be constructed without the necessary materials such as wood, stone etc., the excellent souls also could never be created in absence of certain necessary qualities. This leads us to the conclusion that Jiva and Karman are inseparably united with each other. Just as, water and milk and gold and stone, united together, are separated from each other with the help of proper means, Jiva and Karman are also separated from cach other with the help of jñāna, darśana and cāritra.
Gosthā Mahila :-Karman is attached to Jiva only on account of actions like those of bowing to false gods, as real ones, committing violence etc. But they are not separated from cach other by virtue of qualities such as sympathy, generosity selfrestraint etc. 236. (2531)
The .Acārya replies :कह वादाणे किरियासाफलं नेह तविधायम्मि । किं पुरिसगारसज्झं तस्सेवासज्झमेगं तो ॥२३७॥२५३२॥ असुभो तिव्वाईओ जह परिणामो तदजणेऽभिमओ। तह तश्विहो चिय सुभो किं नेहो तस्विओगे वि ? ॥२३८॥२५३३॥ 237. Kaha vadane kiriyasaphallam ndha tavvidhāyammil
Kim purisagarasajjham tassèvāsajjamègam to. (2532) 238. Asubho tivväiö jaha pariņāmo tadajjaņe'bhimao
Taha tivviho cciya subho kim nettho tavviogd vi? (2533) [कथं वाऽऽदाने क्रियासाफल्यं नेह तद्विधाते। किं पुरुषकारसाध्यं तस्यैवासाध्यमेकं ततः ॥२३७॥२५३२।। अशुभस्तीवादिको तथा परिणामस्तदर्जनेऽभिमतः । यथा तद्विध एव शुभः किं नेष्टस्तद्वियोगेऽपि ? ॥२३८॥२५३३॥ 237. Katham vā”dāne kriyāsāphalyam nè ha tadvighāte
___Kim purusakārasadhyam tasaivāsādhyamekam tatah. (2532) 238. ASubhastivrailiko tatha parinamastadarjane' bhimatahi
___Yathā tadvidha eva Subhah kin nestastadviyogopi ? (2533)]

Page #274

Jinabhadra Gani's
[The seventh
Trans. 237-238. Or how is ( it that the ) success of action ( is accepted) in ( case of ) admitting Karman and not in ( case of ) its destruction ? (How is it that ) one action is inaccessible to an effort which achieves another? So, why don't you expect beneficial result in separating (Karman from jiva), just as you apprehend an extremely inauspicious result in ( case of ) accepting ( the existence of ) Karman ? (2532-2533).
: 250:
टीका-२३७-२३८ वाशब्दो युक्तेरभ्युच्चये । कथं वा हन्त ! कर्मण आदाने ग्रहणे हिंसादिक्रियाणां साफल्यमिह त्वयेष्यते १ न तु दया दानादिक्रियाणां तद्विघाते साफल्यमभिप्रेयते, किमत्र राज्ञामाज्ञा प्रभवति, न तु युक्तिः ? | किया, इदमपि प्रष्टव्योऽसि किं पापस्थानव्यापृतपुरुषकारसाध्यं " एवं " इतीहापि संबध्यते, एकं कर्मण आदानमिष्यते, एकं तु यत् तस्य निर्जरणं तत् तस्यैव संयमादिस्थानविहित पुरुषकार स्यासाध्वमिष्यते ? इत्येतदपि व्यक्तमेवेश्वर चेवितं भवतः, स्वेच्छाप्रवृत्तेः । उपसंहारचाह -" तो ति" तस्माद् यथा येन प्रकारेण तीव्र - मन्द - मध्यम मेदभिन्नोऽशुभः परिणामस्तदर्जने तस्य कर्मणोऽर्जन सुपादानं ग्रहणं तत्र हेतुर्भवतोऽभिमतः तथा तेनैव प्रकारेण तद्विष एव तीव्रादिमेदमित्रः शुमपरिणामोऽशुभविपक्षत्वात् कर्मार्जनविपक्षभूतैतद्वियोगेऽपि हेतुः किं नेष्टः १ननु युक्तियुक्तत्वादेष्टव्य एवेति भावः । तस्माजीवेन सहाविभागेन स्थित स्थापि कर्मणः सिद्धो वियोग इति । तदेवं निराकृता कर्मविचारविषयाचित्रतिपतिः ॥२५३२||२५३३॥
D. C. What is the definite purpose in accepting the validity of actions like committing violence etc., when the bondages of Karman are accepted, and why don't you accept the validity of actions such as expressing charity, sympathy etc. when the bondages of Karman are being destroyed? According to you, a sinful effort brings about the accomplishment of the bondages of Karman, while a meritorious deed such as that of charity or sympathy, does not bring about the destruction of bondages of Karman. This belief of yours is absurd. The whole view-point of yours about Karman is based upon such absurdity. Really speaking, the auspicious consequence of meritorious deeds des

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #275

Vada ] Nihnavaváda
:231: troys the bondages of Karman, in the same way, as an inauspicious consequence of sinful deeds ) brings about the accomplishment of the bondages of Karman. This shows that Jiva and Karman though united intimately with each other, could be separated from each other by the help of proper means. 237238. (2532-2533).
Now refuting the argunients advanced by Gosthā Mābila, as regards the Pratyākhyāna Parva, the Ācārya statesकिमपरिमाणं सत्ती अणागयद्धा अहापरिच्छेओ?। जह जावदत्थि सत्ती तो नणु सच्चेव परिमाणं ॥२३९॥२५३४॥ सत्ति-किरियाणुमेओ कालो सूरकिरियाणुमेो व्य । नणु अपरिमाणहाणी आसंसा चेव तदपत्था ॥२४०॥२५३५।। 239. Kimaparimāņam satti aņāyayaddhā ahāpariccheö 1
Jai jāvarlatthi satti to naņu saccèva parimāņam. (2534) 240. Satti-kiriyāņuuèö kālo surakiriyāņuuèö vva |
Naņu a-parimāņahāņi āsamsā ceva tadavatthā. (2535) [किम परिमाणं शक्तिरनागताद्धाऽथापरिच्छेदः ? । यदि यावदस्ति शक्तिस्ततो ननु सैव परिमाणम् ॥२३९॥२५३४॥ शक्ति-क्रियानुमेयः कालः सुरक्रियानुमेय इव । नन्वपरिणामहानिराशंसा चैव तदवस्था ॥२४०॥२४३५॥
239. Kimaparināņam saktiranāgatāddha' thāparicchedah ?
Yadi yavadasti saktistato nanu saiva parimānam. (2534) 240. Sakti-kriyānumèyaḥ kālaḥ sūrakriyānumèya ival
Nanvapariņāmahānirāśamsā caiva tadavasthā. (2535) 1
Trans. 239-240. What is (meant by ) a-parimana (imme asurable)? Is it (immeasurable) capacity, (or) the (immeasu rable) time that is not (yet) come, (or) the (unlimited).con. tinuance ? If (it means to exert) the capacity till it is finally exhausted, then, that itself becomes a limit. (The observan

Page #276

: 252:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The seventh
ce of vow) is measured by the limits of energy and actions, just as, Time is measured by the movements of the Sun. (The principle of ) a-parimāna is ( therefore ) violated, and in ( case of ) its acceptance, the (fault of ) desire will be produced. (2534-2535)
टीका - २३९ - २४० यदुक्तम्- " प्रत्याख्यानपरिमाणमेव विधीयमानं श्रेयो भवति इति । तत्र प्रतिविधीयते - किमिदं नामापरिमाणं ? - किं शक्तिर्यावच्छक्रोमीत्यपरिमाणम् ? उत सर्वाप्यनागताद्धा, आहोस्विदपरिच्छेदः १ इति त्रयी गतिः । तत्र यदि " यावदस्ति शक्तिस्तावदहमिदं न सेविष्ये" इत्यपरिमाण मिष्यते, ततस्तर्हि ननु सैव शक्तिः परिमाणमापन्नम्, अतो यदेव निषिध्यते तदेवाभ्युपगतमिति । कुतः ? इत्याह- " सतीत्यादि" " यावच्छक्रोमि तावदिदं न से विध्ये" इत्येवंभूतया हि शक्तिक्रियया प्रत्याख्यानस्यावधिभूतः काल एवानुमीयते - यावन्तं कालं शक्तिस्तावन्तं कालमिदं न सेविष्य इत्यर्थः । दृष्टान्तमाह-यथा सूर्यादिगति क्रियया समयाऽऽवलिकादिः कालोऽनुमीयते, तथाऽत्रापि शक्तिक्रियया प्रत्याख्यानावधिकाल इत्यर्थः । अस्त्वेवमिति चेत् । तदयुक्तम्, यतो नन्वेवं सति त्वया प्रतिज्ञातस्यापरिमाणपक्षस्य हानिः प्राप्नोति, शक्तिक्रियानुमितकाल परिमाणस्येदानीं स्वयमेवाभ्युपगमादिति । यदुक्तम्
ܪ
" तं दुद्वं आसंसा होइ " इति, तत्राह - " आसंसेत्यादि " ननुशक्तिरूपेऽपरिमाणेऽपि त्वयेष्यमाणे आशंसादोषस्तदवस्थ एव, " शक्तेरूत्तरकालमिदं सेवि - ष्ये " इत्याशंसायास्तदवस्थत्वादिति || २५३४॥२५३५॥
D. C.
Goṣṭhā Mahila :-The pratyäkhyana accomplished without any time-limit or the limit of energy is the most beneficial of all.
Acārya :—What is a-parimāna according to you ? Does it imply exerting till the last drop of energy? Or, is the whole of future time included in a-parimāņa? Or, is it that a-paricchèda or continuance without break, is a-parimāņa according to you?
When you say that "I shall refrain from enjoying a particular pleasure till I have the capacity to do so," the pratyākhyāna does not become a-parimāņa or limitless, but parimāņa or limited by the bounds of capacity expressed by means of actions.

Page #277

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:253: Just as, the measurement of time is ascertained by the help of movements of the Sun etc., that of the limit of pratyākhyāna is ascertained by the help of actions exerted by capacity. Thus, your theory of a-parimāņa or immeasurable pratyākhyāna is refuted, and the fault of āśamsā or expectation is all the while retai. ned therein, For, the person observing pratyākhyāna would all the while be cherishing a desire in his heart tbat "after the whole of my energy is over in observing this vow, I shall be able to enjoy the objects of pleasure in the other world.” 239– 240 (2534-2535)
Not only that your theory is self-contradictory in this way, but there are other difficulties also जह न वयभंगदोसो मयस्स तह जीवओ वि सेवाए। वयभंगनिम्भयाओ पञ्चक्खाणाणवत्था य ॥२४।।२५३६॥ 241. Jaha na vayabhangadoso niayassa taha jivaö vi sèvāèt
Vayabhanganibbhayāö paccakkhāņāņavatthā ya. (2536) [यथा न व्रतभङ्गदोषो मृतस्य तथा जीवतोऽपि सेवायाम् । व्रतभङ्गनिर्भयात् प्रत्याख्यानानवस्था च ॥२४१॥२५३६॥ 241. Yathā na vratabhangadoso mritasya tathā jivato'pi sèvāyām |
___Vratabhanganirbhayāt pratyakhyānānavastha ca. (2536)] इत्तियमित्ती सत्ति त्ति नाइयारो न यावि पच्छित्तं । न य सव्वव्वयनियमो एगेण वि संजयत्त त्ति ॥२४२॥२५३७॥ 242. Ittiyamitti satti tti naiyāro na yāvi pacchittami
Na ya sayvavvayaniyanio èyèņa vi sañjayatta tti. (2537) [एतावन्मात्रा शक्तिरिति नातिचारो न चापि प्रायश्चित्तम् । न च सर्वव्रतनियम एकेनापि संयतत्वादिति ॥२४२॥२५३७॥ 242. Etāvanmātrā saktiriti nāticāro na sāpi prāyaścittami
Na ya sarvavrataniyama dkenāpi samyatatvāditi. (2537)] ___ Trans. 241-242. In cherishing (a desire) just as there is no fault of violation of a vow to a dead (being ), the living

Page #278

: 254:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The seventh
(being) will also be free from fear of violating the vow, in (case of) enjoyment. And (thus), there would be confusion as regards observance of the vow. (On saying that) This much is my capacity", there would be neither excessive practice nor remonstration. And there would be no (necessity of) observing the rule of practising all vows, as (according to you) asceticism could be attained even by (observing) one vow. (2536 - 2537 ) .
" इत्य
"
टीका - २४१ - २४२ यथा मृतस्य पञ्चत्वमुपगतस्य सुरलोकादौ सुरका मिनीसंभोगादिभोगान् भुञ्जतोऽस्मत्पक्षे दोषो न भवति तथा शक्तिरूपमपरिमाणमभ्युपगच्छतस्तव मते जीवतोऽपि भोगोपसेवायां न दोषः प्राप्नोति, “ एतावत्येव मम शक्तिः, अतो मत्प्रत्याख्यानस्य पूर्णत्वाज्जीवन्नपि भुनज्मि भोगान् ” भिप्रायवतस्तदभ्युपगमेन जीवतोऽपि भोगानासेवमानस्य दोषानुषङ्गो न स्यादित्यर्थः । न चैतद् दृष्टमिष्टं वा जिनशासने । किञ्च, इत्थमभ्युपगमे “ एतावती मम शक्तिः" इत्यवष्टम्भवतो व्रतभङ्गनिर्भयत्वात् प्रत्याख्यानानवस्थैव स्यात्, " एतावती मम शक्तिः" इति भोगासेवनात् पुनः प्रत्याख्यानात् पुनरप्यासेवनात् पुनः प्रत्याख्यानादितिं । किश्व, व्रतानामतिचारः, तदाचरणे च प्रायश्चितम्, एकत्रतभङ्गे सर्वव्रत भङ्गनियमेन सर्वाण्यपि व्रतानि पालनीयानि, इति यदागमरूढं तत् सर्वमपि भवदभिप्रायेण न प्राप्नोतीति सयुक्तिकं दर्शयन्नाहं“ इत्तियमित्तीत्यादि " " एतावत्येव मम शक्तिर्नाधिका" इत्यध्यवसायेन प्रतिसेवां कुर्वतोऽपि साधोः शक्त्यपरिमाणवादिनो भवतोऽभिप्रायेण नातिचारः, न चापि व्रतभङ्गः, न चापि प्रायश्चित्तम्, तथा सर्वव्रत परिपालननियमश्च न स्यात्, शक्त्यवष्टम्भात्, एकव्रतपरिपालनेनापि त्वदभिप्रायेण संयतत्वादिति ॥२५३६ ॥२५३७॥
""
D. C. According to us, there is no objection if a person enjoys pleasures with damsels in the heavenly regions after death. Similarly, there is no objection in accepting that a living being also could enjoy pleasure etc., according to you, who apprehend the limit of energy to be immeasurable. For, by plainly saying that" This much is my capacity and at the end of that much energy, my pratyākhyāna will be over. So, there is no

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #279

Vāda ) Nihnavavāda
:255 : harm if I enjoy pleasures ", one would think that his duty was over, and you, too, would find no objection in accepting that view. But according to the Jaina Scriptures, that is not permissible.
Moreover, on the plain assertion that “only this much-anı! nothing more-is my capacity” there would be no fear of violating the vow. But this would create confusion in the observance of vow. For, at first, one would enjoy pleasure by saying that, “my capacity is this much" and after some time, he would again accept the observance of pratyākhyāna, and again, he would start enjoying on the same excuse, and so on, leading ultimately the observance of vow to confusion.
Thus, according to you, those who act contrary to the roligious vow on the ground of a parimāņa pratyākhyāna, will not be bound by excessive enjoyment, transgression of vow, or even remonstration.
Nor, will they be required to abide by the lary of observance of all vows on the same ground. For according to you, the observance of one vow is enough for the attainment of asceticism. 241-242 (2536-2537).
Taking the alternative interpretation of a-parimāņa as the Future Time or continuance, the Acārya states--
अहवा सव्वाणागयकालग्गहणं मयं अपरिमाणं । तेणापुण्णपइण्णो मओ वि भग्गवओ नाम ॥२४॥२५३८॥ सिद्धो वि संजओ चिय सव्वाणागयद्धसंवरधरो त्ति ।
उत्तरगुण-संवरणाभावो चिय सम्वहा चेव ॥२४४॥२५३९॥ 243. Ahavā savvānāgayakālaggahanam mayam a--parimāņam
Teņāpuņņapaiņņo nao vi bhaggavaö nāma. (2538) 244. Siddho vi sanjao coiya savrānāgayaddhasamvaradharo tti
Uttaraguņa-samvaraņābhāvo cciya savvabā cdva. (2539) [ apuar palata STEVİ TATRATI तेनापूर्णप्रतिज्ञो मृतोऽपि भगवतो नाम ॥२४३॥२५३८॥

Page #280

:256:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The seventh सिद्धोऽपि संयत एव सर्वानागताद्धासंवरधर इति । उत्तरगुणसंवरणाभाव एव सर्वथा चैवम् ।।२४४॥२५३९।। 243. Athava sarvānāgatakālagrahaŋam matamaparimāņam |
Tenāporņapratijño mrito'pi bhagnavrato nāma. (2538) 244. Siddho'pi samyata è va sarvānāyatāddhäsamvaradhara iti
Uttaraguyasamvaranābhāva dva sarvathā caivam. (2539)]
Trans. 243-244 Or, ( let ) the a-parimana be taken to imply) all the ( Future) Time, that has not yet come. By (doing ) so, even a dead being with his pledge unfulfilled, will be definitely violating ( his ) vow. Moreover, a Siddha - being will be called a ( mere ) ascetic on account of (his ) holding the religious vow for all the time that has not come. And (thus), there would be entire negation of the subsidiary qualities. (2538-2539)
टीका-२४३-२४४ व्याख्या-अथ सर्वस्याप्यनागतकालस्य ग्रहणमपरिमाणं भवतः, तेन तहिं मृतोऽपि देवलोकादौ भोगानासेवमानाः, 'नाम' इत्यामन्त्रणे, अहो ? भगवत एव साधुः, अपूर्णप्रतिज्ञत्वात् , सर्वमप्यनागतकालं तदपरिपालनादिति सुव्यक्तमेवेति । अपि च, एवं सिद्धोऽपि संयत एव प्रामोति, सर्वाना
गताद्धासंवरधरत्वात् । अस्यापि सर्वाद्धागृहीतप्रत्याख्यानकालाभ्यन्तरवर्तित्वादि। त्यर्थः । यावजीवगृहीत विरतिकालाभ्यन्तरवतिसाधुवदिति दृष्टान्तः स्वयमेव
द्रष्टव्यः । भवतु सिद्धः संततः, को दोषः १ इति चेत् । तदयुक्तम् , “सिद्धे नो संजए नो असंजए, नो संजयासंजए" इति वचनादिति । अपि च, अन्योऽपि दोषः। कः ? इत्याह-"उत्तरगुणेत्यादि" उत्तर गुणः पौरुषी-पुरिमार्धे-कासनाको-पवासादितपोरूपः, संवरणं बहुभिराकारैगृहीतस्यैकासनादिप्रत्याख्यानस्य भोजनानन्तरमाकारसंक्षेपेण स्वरूपम् , उत्तरगुणश्च संवरणं चोत्तरगुण-संवरणे तयोरेवं. सर्वानागताद्धापत्याख्यानपक्षेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने सर्वथैवाभावः प्रामोति, पौरुष्यादिषु सर्वानागताद्धाप्रत्याख्यानत्वानुपपत्तेः, एकासनादिषु पुनस्तदभिप्रायेण सर्वाद्धाप्रमाणेषु संवरणं कदाचिदपि न घटत इति व्यक्तमेवेति ॥२५३८॥२५३९॥
___D. C. If, according to the second interpretation, you take a-parimāņa to mean all the future time that is to come, the

Page #281

Váda )
Nihnayavāda
:257 : pratyākhyāna will naturally be said to have been observed in Future Time. In such a case, a person enjoying pleasures eto. in places like heavenly regions after death, will be said to have violated the vow. Because, he being engrossed in pleasures after his life is finished, will not be said to have observed the pratyā. khyāna for all the future time. According to this interpretation of a-parimāņa pratyākhyāna, even Muktātmā will be said to be holding the vow and hence will be called an ascetio. But that is against the practice of the agamas.
For, it is said “Sidhę no sanjaè, no a-sanjad, no sanjayāsañjayo"
[A Siddha being is not restrained, nor unrestrained, nor between the two. ]
There will be another difficulty also. The subsidiary quality formed of penances such as pauruși (traoft) purimārdha (FCAT), èkāsanaka, upavāsa etc., as well as, the samvaraṇa would not be found at all during the whole of Future Period. For, according to you, the apprehension of pratyakhyāna does not fit in pauruşi etc. and samvaraņa does not fit in ekāsanā etc. 243-244 (2538– 2539 ).
Taking the third interpretation, the Acārya replies as followsअपरिच्छेए वि समाण एस दोसो जओ सुए तेण । वयभंगभयाउ चिय जावज्जीवं ति निदिळें ॥२४५॥२५४०॥ 245. Aparicchèè vi samāņa esa doso jao suè teņam
Vayabhangabhayau cciya jāvajjīvam ti niddittham. (2540) [अपरिच्छेदेऽपि समान एष दोषो यतः श्रुते तेन । व्रतभङ्गभयादेव यावजीवमिति निर्दिष्टम् ॥२४५॥२५४०॥ 245. Aparicchède’pi samāna èșa doṣo yataḥ śrutè tena i
Vratabhangabhayāddva yāvajjīvamiti nirdistam. (2540) ]
Trans. 245. In (case of taking) continuance without break also, the same fault (arises) That is why for fear

Page #282

:258:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The seventh of violation of vow, (the words ) “ yāvajsivam ( till the end of life)" are mentioned in the Scriptures. 2540.
टीका-२४५ यतोऽपरिच्छेदरूपेऽप्यपरिमाणेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने एष सर्वानागताद्धाप्रत्याख्यानोक्तदोषः समान एव तथाहि-कालापरिच्छेदेनापि प्रत्याख्याने कृते किं घटिकादिमानं किश्चित् कालं प्रतीक्ष्य प्रतिसेवां करोतु, आहोस्वित् सर्वमप्यनागताद्धाप्रत्याख्यानं पालयतु ? । यद्याद्यः पक्षः, तानवस्था, यावद् हि घटिका प्रतीक्षते तावद् द्वे घटिके किं न प्रतीक्षने, यावच्च द्वे प्रतीक्षते तावत् तिस्रोऽपि किं न प्रतीक्षते ? इत्यादि । अथ द्वितीयपक्षः, तर्हि मृतस्यापि भोगानासेवमानस व्रतभङ्ग एव, सिद्धस्यापि संयतत्वम्, उत्तरगुणसंवरणाभावश्चोत त एव दोषाः । उपसंहारनाह-"सुए तेणेत्यादि" तेनैतानपरिमाणप्रत्याख्यानदोषानभिवीक्ष्य व्रतभङ्ग भयादेव त्रिपक्षपरिहारेण श्रुत आगमे “सव्वं सावजं जोगं पञ्चक्रवामि जावजीवाए" इत्यत्र साधुपत्याख्यानस्य "यावजीवम्" इति परिमाणमादिष्टम् । अतो मुच्यतामपरिमाणताग्रह इति ॥२५४०॥
D. C. Even if a-parimāņa is interpreted as a-paricched or continuance, the same difficulty (as in the case of the first two interpretations ), will arise.
When there is no time-limit, should a person observing pratyākhyāna enjoy pleasure after a definite period of time, say ghaţikā or should he observe the same for the whole of anāgatakāla (future time)? If it is said that one should enjoy pleasure after a definite time, say a yhatikā, there would be a lot of confusion, on account of questions contending as to why not after two ghatikās, three gbahkās or even more ghaţikas, and so on.
Secondly, if it is said that one should observe pratyākhyāna for the whole of "anagata kāla" or the period of time that is yet to come, then those in the pra-loka will be said to have broken the vow on account of their enjoying pleasure etc., after death. The Muktātmans will be called ascetics and there would be absolute negation of uttara-guna and samvaraña.
Thus, a number of difficulties arises, if the theory of a-parimāņa pratyākhyāna is accepted.

Page #283

Vadal Nihnavavada
:259: It is, therefore, said in the agamas that-- “Savvain sāvajjan jogam pacoakkhāmi jāvajjīvād" [I abandon all the disgraceful contact till the end of my life.]
The commandment of the Holy Writ clearly indicates that the limit of observing vow for an ascetic is the end of his life. So, give up your false persistence for a-parimāņa pratyākhyāna and abide by the commandment of the āgamas. 245. (2540)
The Ācārya now proceeds to show that the fault of asaņsā or expectation does not arise in case of sa-parimāņa pratyākhyāna etc. नासंसा सेविस्सामि किंतु मा मे मयस्स वयभंगो। होही, सुरेषु को वा वयावगासो विमुक्कस्स ? ॥२४६॥२५४१॥ 246. Nāsaņsă sevissāmi kintu mā me mayassa vayabhangaḥ |
___Hohi, suresu ko vā vayāvagāso vimukkassa ? (2541) [नाशंसां सेविष्ये किन्तु मा मे मृतस्य व्रतभङ्गः।
भूत् सुरेषु को वा व्रतावकाशो विमुक्तस्य ? ॥२४६॥२५४१।। 246. Nasamsanm sevisye kintu ma me mritasya vratabhangah |
Bhut suresu ko vā vratāvakāso vimuktasya ? (2541)]
Trans. 246. I do not cherish any desire, but ( while observing the vow, I only expect that) let there be no violation of vow after death in (the regions of) gods. And, where is the scope of (observing) a vow to a Siddha or Accomplished Soul ? 2541.
टीका-२४६ यावजीवावधिना प्रत्याख्यानं कुर्वतः "मरणानन्तरमहं भोगान् सेविष्ये" इत्येवंभूता हन्त ! न कचिदाशंसा वर्तते-नैवंभूतेन परिणामेन सावधिकं प्रत्याख्यानं करोतीत्यर्थः, किन्तु “मा मे मृतस्य"-सुरेपूत्पन्नस्य सतो भोगानासेवमानस्य व्रतभङ्गो भविष्यात " इत्यध्यवसायेन मा मे व्रतमा स्तत्र भूयात्" इत्येवंभूतेनैव शुभपरिणामेनेत्थंभूतं प्रत्याख्यानं करोतीत्यर्थः । अतस्तत्र काऽऽशंसा ?। स हि विरत्यावारककर्मणः क्षयोपशमावस्थत्वादन

Page #284

:260:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The seventh स्वायत्तः, सुरलोके त्ववश्यं तदुदयात् परायत्त इत्यतः शक्यत्वाद् यावज्जीवावधिना प्रत्याख्याति, परतस्त्वशक्यत्वाद् न प्रत्याख्याति, इति कथमाशंसादोषवानयम् ? इति । अथैवं बूयास्त्वम्-किमितीत्थं व्रतभङ्गाद् विभेत्यसौ ? । अयं हि मृतो मुक्तिं यास्यति, तत्र च कामभोगाभावाद् व्रतभङ्गासंभव एव, इति कस्तस्य व्रतभङ्ग संक्षोभः । तदयुक्तम् , सांप्रतमिह मुक्तिगमनासंभवात् , महाविदेहेष्वपि सर्वस्यापि तद्गमननिश्चयायोगादिति । अथ कोऽपि तावद् मुक्ति गच्छति, तस्य च विमुक्तस्य मदभिमतेऽपरिमाणे प्रत्याख्याने गृह्यमाणे मुक्तावपि महाव्रतानुगमादपरिमाणप्रत्याख्यानस्य सफलता भविष्यतीति चेदित्यत्राह-"को वा वयेत्यादि" योऽपि मुक्तिं गच्छति तस्यापि विमुक्तस्य निष्ठितार्थस्य को व्रतानामवकाश ? किं व्रतानां साफल्यम् ? तत्कार्यस्य सिद्धत्वाद् न किश्चिदिति भावः । तस्माद् मुक्तिगामिनमपि प्रत्यसंगतमेवापरिमाणप्रत्याख्यानमिति । तदेवं मुग्धमभिज्ञं वा व्यक्त्याऽनपेक्ष्य सामान्येनैवापरिमाणप्रत्याख्याने क्षणान्युक्तानि ॥२५४१॥ D. C.
Acārya:--One who observes pratyākhyāna till death, never cherishes a desire to enjoy pleasures after death. That is to say, his pratyākhyāna is not defiled by means of any desire. On the contrary, he attaches good intention to his pratyākhyāna, when he desires that his vow may not be violated after death while enjoying pleasures in the divine regions. On account of good intention, the fault of āśamsā does not arise.
It should be noted that the observance of vow is limited to this life, only with a definite purpose. The condition of the observer of pratyākhyāna in the heavenly regions is different from his condition in this life. During his life, he being a vratadhārin will be free from the bondages of Karman by virtue of his dispassion etc., but while enjoying in the heavenly regions, bondages of Karman will definitely arise and that will obstruct the observance of vow. This shows that the pratyākhyāna is limited only to this life, and it is not possible to follow its practice in the next world. The theory of a-parimāņa or unlimited pratyākhyāna is impracticable in this way.

Page #285

Vada ] .Nibnavavāda
: 261: Gostha Mabila :-Why should one be afraid of the violation of vow in the other world, while following the practice of pratyākhyāna. It is likely that an observer of pratyākhyāna pay attain Mokşa after death, and thus he may not violate his vow in absence of enjoying.
Ācārya :-Your a. gunient is not valid. There is no possibility for any one to attain Mokşa au this time. There is no rule even in a heavenly abode like Mahāvidèha-ksetra that all its inhabitant creatures will attain Mokşa.
Gosthā Māhila :--Since great vows are already included in moksa, the theory of a-parimana pratyakhyāna wil succeed without doubt.
Acārya :-Even that is not correct. How could one who has already attained mokşa, have any scope for the ubservance of vows ? As he has fulfilled all the metaphysical aims, he does not need the practice of pratyākhyana in any way.
Thus, your theory of a-parimāņa pratyakhyāna is not beneficial even to those who have been attaining Mokşa. 246 (2541)
Moreover, जो पुणरव्ययभावं मुणमाणोऽवस्सभाविन भणइ । षयमपरिमाणमेवं पञ्चक्खं सो मुसावाई ॥२४७॥२५४२॥ 247. Jo puñaravyayabhāvam muņamāņo'vassabhāvinam bhaņai i
Vayamnaparināņamevam paccakkham so musāvāi. (2542) [यः पुनरवतभावं.जानन्नवश्यंभाविनं भणति । व्रतमपरिमाणमेवं प्रत्यक्षं स मृषावादी ॥२४७॥२५४२॥ 247. Yaḥ punaravratabhāvam jānannavaśyambhāvinam bhanatil
Vratamaparimāṇamevam pratyakşam saḥ mrişāvādi. (2542)]
Trans. 247. One who accepts a vow, as a-parimāņa (to be observed permanently) in spite of his knowing the possibility of breaking the vow as certain (in future ), is an evident liar. 2542.

Page #286

: 262 :
Jinabhadra Gaņi's [The seventh टीका-२४७ यः पुनरग्रेऽपि किश्चित् शास्त्रपरिकर्मितमतिर्विज्ञो व्रतं गृह्णाति, विज्ञत्वादेव च " चीर्णवतः सुरलोकमेव गच्छति" इत्यवबुध्यमानः सुरेषु चावतभावमविरतिभावमवश्यं भाविनं मुणन् जाननोऽपि व्रतं प्रत्याख्यानमपरिमाणं यावज्जीवपरिमाणरहितं भणत्युचरति, स एवं ब्रुवाणः प्रत्यक्षं साक्षादेवं मृषावादी, अन्यथाभणित्वाऽन्यथाकरणादिति ॥२५४२॥
D. C. When a person well-versed in Scriptures, says that the practice of pratyākhyāna should be continued even after death for ever, in spite of his knowing that it will be certainly obst ructed while enjoying pleasures in the heavenly regions, he should be called a perfect liar. For, he says something else than what he actually bears in his mind, 247 (2542)
Also, भाको पञ्चक्रवाणं सो जइ मरणपरओ वि तो भग्गं ।
अह नत्थि न निहिस्सइ जावजीवं ति तो कीस ? ॥२४८॥२५४३॥ 248. Bhavo paecakkhānam so jai maranaparao vi to bhaggam |
Aba natthi na niddissai jāvajjīvam ti to kisa ? (2543) [भावः प्रत्याख्यानं स यदि मरणपरतोऽपि ततोभनम् । अथ नास्ति न निर्विश्यते यावज्जीवमिति ततः कस्मात् ? ॥२४८॥
॥२५४३॥ 248. Bhavah pratyakhyānam sa yadi maranaparato'pi tato bha
gmama
Atha nāsti na nirdiśyate yāvajjīvamiti tatah kasmāt? (2543) ___Trans. 248. Pratyākhyāna is (nothing but) a dispassionate inclination (of mind ). If that (persists) even after death, the violation (of vows) certainly takes place. And if it is not so, why is it not mentioned as limited to this life? 2543.
टीका-२४८ भावश्चैतसिको विरातिपरिणामः प्रत्याख्यानमुच्यते, स च प्रत्याख्यातुर्यावज्जीवावधिमेवास्ति, उत मरणपरतोऽपीति वक्तव्यम् । यद्यनन्तरपक्षः, वर्हि भमं तस्य प्रत्याख्यानम्, सुरलोकादौ भोगसेवनादकायंमाकी

Page #287

Vada ] Nibnavavāda
:268 तनङ्ग इत्यर्थः । अथाघः पक्षः, तहिं वचनेनापि "यावज्जीवम्" इति परिमा प्रगुणेन न्यायेन किं न निर्दिश्यते-किं न क्रियते, येनान्यचेतस्यन्य तु पचनेनोच्यते ? इति ॥२५४३॥
D. C. Inclination of mind tending to dispassion constitutes pratyākhyāna. Does such a dispassionate tendency continue ever after (leath? Or, is it limited only upto the end of this life? If it is taken to persist even after death it is certain that the pra. ctice of pratyākhyāna will be defiled by the enjoyment of pleasures in the divine regions. But if such a dispussionate inclination is taken to exist only in this life, there will be no fear of self-contradiction (as in the first case ), why not accept, then, that pratyākhyāna is limited upto the end of life ? 248 (2543)
जड अन्नहेव भावो चेयओ वयणमनहा माया । किं वाभिहिए दोसो भावाओ किं वओ गुरुयं ॥२४९॥२५४४॥ 249. Jai annaheva bhavo cdyai vayanamannahā māyā।
Kim vā'bhihiè doso bhāvāö kim vaö guruyam. (2544) [यद्यन्यथैव भावश्चेतयतो वचनमन्यथा माया। किं वाऽभिहिते दोषो भावात् किं वचो गुरुकम् ? ॥२४९॥२५४४॥ 249. Yadyanyathaiva bhavascetayato vacanamanyathā māyā |
Kim vabhihite doso bhāvāt kim vaco gurukam ? (2544)]
Trans. 249. When the inclination of mind is different and the (actual ) statement is different (that is nothing but) fraud. Or, what harm is there in making a statement ? Is word (even taken as) greater than feeling? 2544.
टीका-२४९ हन्त ! यद्यन्यथैव यावज्जीवावधिक एव चेतसि भावः प्रत्याख्यानपरिणामः, अन्यथैव च यावज्जीवावधिपरिणामरहितमेववचनम् , तोतो. तयतो जानतः केवलैव माया निश्चीयते नान्यत् फलं दृश्यते, अन्यथा विचिन्त्यान्यथा भाषणादिति । अथवा, प्रष्टव्योऽसि त्वम्-किं भावे तथास्थितेऽपि "यावज्जीवाए" इत्यभिहिते दोषः कश्चिद् वीक्ष्यते भवता, येन वचनेनापि नेदममि

Page #288

• 264
Jinabhadra Gani's [The seventh घीयते । यदि वा, किं भावात् सकाशाद् “वउ ति" वचनं गुरुकं प्रधानं पश्यसि त्वं, येन भावेऽन्यथास्थितेऽपि वचनमन्यथाऽभिदधासि ?। एतच्चायुक्तम् , आगमे मावस्यैव प्रामाण्येन, वचनस्य स्वप्रामाण्येनाभिधानादिति।।२५४४॥
D. C. Although you feel that the practice of pratyāklyāna is limited to this life, you do not actually say so. On the contrary, you try to assert something different when you say that pratyākhyāna is a-parimita or limitless. Why don't you say, without hesitation, that pratyākhyāna is sa-parimāņa or limited Is it because you believe that words are greater than Truth? The āganas do not take vacana as authentic but bhāva or actual feeling. 249 (2544).
The agamas stateअन्नत्थ निवडिए वंजणम्मि जो खलु मणोगओ भावो । तं खलु पञ्चक्खाणं, न पमाणं वंजणं छलगा ॥२५०॥२५४५॥ 250. Annattha nivadie vanjaạmmi jo khalu maņogaö bhāvo i Tam khalu paccakkhāṇam, na pamāņam vañjaṇam chalaņā.
(2545) [अन्यत्र निपतिते व्यञ्जनं यः खलु मनोगतो भावः। तत् खलु प्रत्याख्यानं, न प्रमाणं व्यञ्जनं छलना ॥२५०॥२५४५।। 250. Anyatra nipatite vyanjanam yah khalu manogato bhāvahy
Tat khalu pratyakhyānam, na pramāsam vyañjanam chalanā. (2545)]
Trans. 250. When a statement is (made) with. regard to something else (than the real feeling ), that which is.the real feeling of mind ( should be taken as) real vow. Word is no standard on account of its being susceptible to deception. 2545
टीका-२५०-इह केनापि त्रिविधाहारादिप्रत्याख्यानं कर्तुमध्यवसितम् , अधिकतरसंयमकरणाक्षिप्तचेतसा पुनः " चतुर्विधमाहारं प्रत्याख्यामि” इत्यादि व्यञ्जनं शन्दे उच्चरितः। एवं च मानसभावाननुवृत्त्या व्यजने शन्देऽन्यत्र

Page #289

Vada] Nihnayavāda
:265: निपतितेऽन्यविषये समुचारिते यः खलु प्रत्याख्यानविषयाने कम्पषिक्षातिक्रान्तः स्पष्टः प्रत्याख्यातुर्मनोगतो भावस्तदेव प्रत्याख्यानं प्रमाणं-स एव प्रत्याख्यातृविवक्षितप्रत्याख्यानविषयो मनोगतो भावः प्रमाणम् , न तु व्यञ्जनं शब्द इत्यर्थः । कुतो न व्यञ्जनं प्रमाणम् ? । यतश्छलना छलमात्रं तद् व्यञ्जनमतोऽप्रमाणम् , मावाननुरोधेन प्रवृत्तत्वात् । तदेवमागमेऽपि वचनस्याप्रामाण्येनोक्तत्वाद् यदि यावजीवावधिको मनसो भावस्त्वयेष्यते तदा वचनेनापि “यावजीवम्" इत्युच्चार्यताम् , किं मिथ्याग्रहेण ? इति ॥२५४५॥
D. C. Suppose somebody has decided in his mind to observe the vow of relinquishing three kinds of food and declares through mistake that “I relinquish four kinds of food.' In such a case, where the statement made is not consistent with the real object of mind, a wrong utterance of words should not be considered, but the real purpose formed in his mind should be given importance. Since such utterances are made without any fixed consideration of the real object of mind, they become (at times ) deceitful. Therefore, the agamas do not take vacana or verbal statement as really ) authentic but the true feeling in mind. Leaving aside your false persistence of verbal statement, you should, therefore, accept the true principle of sa-parimāna pratyakhyāna. 250 (2545).
Then, इय पण्णविओ विन सो जाहे सद्दहई पूसमित्तेण । अन्नगणत्थेरेहि य काउं तो संघसमवायं ॥२५१॥२५४६॥ आहूय देवयं बेइ जाणमाणो वि पच्चयनिमित्तं । वच जिणिंदं पुच्छसु गयाऽऽगया सा परिकहेइ ॥२५२॥२५४७॥ संघो सम्मावाई गुरूपुरोगो त्ति जिणवरो भणइ । इयरो मिच्छावाई सत्तमओ निह्नवोऽयं ति ॥२५३॥२५४८॥ एईसं सामत्थं कत्तो गंतुं जिणिंदमूलम्मि । बेई कडपूयणाए संघेण तओ कओ षज्झो ॥२५४॥२५४९॥ 251. Iya pannavis vi na so jahd saddahai Pasamittena |
Annagaṇatthèrèhi ya kāum to sanghasamavāyam. (2546)

Page #290

: 266:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The seventh
252. Ahaya devayam bei jānamāno vi paccayanimittam | Vacca Jinindam pucchasu gayā”gayā sā parikahei. (2547) 253. Sangho sammāvāī gurapurogo tti Jinavaro bhanai | Iyaro micchāvāī sattamaö nihnavo'yam ti. (2548). 254. Eisam sāmattham katto gantum Jinidamalammi |
Bai Kadapūyanād, sanghèna ta ka bajjho (2549 ) . [ इति प्रज्ञापितोऽपि न स यावत् श्रद्धत्ते पुष्पमित्रेण । अन्यगणस्थविरैश्च कृत्वा ततः संघसमवायम् || २५१||२५४६|| आहूय देवतां बवीति जानन्नपि प्रत्ययनिमित्तम् । व्रज जिनेन्द्रं पृच्छ गताऽऽगता सा परिकथयति ॥ २५२ || २५४७|| संघः सम्यग्वादी गुरुपुरोग इति जिनवरो भणति । इतरो मृषावादी सप्तमको निहवोऽयमिति ॥ २५३ ॥ २५४८ ॥
ईदृशं सामर्थ्य कुतो गन्तुं जिनेन्द्रमूले । ब्रवीति कडपूतनायाः संघेन ततः कृतो बाह्यः || २५४ || २५४९||
251. Iti prajñāpito'pi na sa yāvat śraddhatt) Puspamitrena |
Anyaganasthaviraiśca kritvā tatah sanghasamavāyam. (2546) 252. Ahūya devatām braviti jānannapi pratyayanimittam |
Vraja Jinendram priccha gatā"gatā sā parikathaýati. (2547) 253. Sanghah samyagvādī gurupuroga iti Jinavaro bhanati { Itaro_mrisāvādī saptamako nihnavo 'yamiti. (2548) 254. Īdriśam sāmarthyam kuto gantum Jinèndramūlè |
Braviti Kadaputanayān, sanghena tatah krito bahyah. (2549) ]
Trans. 251-252-253-254. Although persuaded in many such ways by Puspamitra and also by the old monks of other gacchas, when he did not put faith (in truth ), then, having gathered, to-gether, the whole Sangha (of Jaina monks), they called a goddess, and in spite of their knowing the real cause of faith they told her to go to Mahāvidèha and inquire of the Tirthaikara as to who was right. She went (to the Tir

Page #291

:267
Vadaj
Nihnavavāda thankara), came back, and declared that the gaccha led by the preceptor was right, the opponent was a liar, and she further said that, he was the Seventh Nihnava. “Whence could this wretched demons have this much capacity to go to the Tirthankara ? Gostha Mahila replied. As a result of this, he was expelled from the gaccha. 2546-2547-2548-2549.
टीका-२५१-२५२-२५३-२५४ चतसृणामप्यासामक्षरार्थः सुगम एव भावार्थस्तु कथानकशेषादवसेयः तच्चेदम्-एवं युक्तिभिः प्रज्ञाप्यमानो यावदसौ न किमपि श्रद्धत्ते, तावत् पुष्पमित्राचार्यैरन्यगच्छगतबहुश्रुतस्थविराणामन्तिके नीतः। ततस्तैरप्युक्तोऽसौ यादृशं सूरयः प्ररूपयन्ति, आर्यरक्षितसूरिभिरपि तादृशमेव प्ररूपितम् , न हीनाधिकम् । ततो गोष्ठामाहिलेनोक्तम् “किं यूवमृषयो जानीथ ? तीर्थकरैस्तादृशमेव प्ररूपितम् यादृशमहं प्ररूपयामि । ततः स्थविरैरुक्तम्-मिथ्याभिनिविष्टो मा कार्षीस्तीर्थकराशातनाम्, न किमपि त्वं जानासि । ततः सर्वविप्रतिपन्ने तस्मिन् सर्वैरपि तैः संघसमवायः कृतः । सर्वेणापि च संघेन देवताहानार्थ कायोत्सर्गो विहितः। ततो भद्रिका काचित् देवता समागता । सा वदति संदिशत, किं करोमि ? । ततः संघः प्रस्तुतमर्थ जानबपि सर्वजनमत्ययनिमित्वं ब्रवीति-महाविदेहे गत्वा तीर्थकरमापृच्छख,-कि दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रप्रमुखः यद् भणति तत् सत्यम् , उत यद् गोष्ठामाहिलो वदति ? । ततस्तया प्रोक्तम्-मम महाविदेहे गमनागमनं कुर्वत्याः प्रत्यूहप्रतिघातार्थमनुग्रहं कृत्वा कार्योत्सर्ग कुरुत, येनाहं गच्छामि । ततस्तथैव कृतं संघेन । गता च सा । पृष्ट्वा च भगवन्तं प्रत्यागता कथयति यदुत-तीर्थकरः समादिशति-"दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रपुरस्सरः संघः सम्यग्वादी, गोष्ठामाहिलस्तु मिथ्यावादी, सप्तमश्चायं निहवः” इति । तदेतत् श्रुत्वा गोष्ठामाहिलो ब्रवीति-नन्वल्पर्धिकेयं वराकी, का नामैतस्याः कडपूतनायास्तीर्थकरान्तिके गमनशक्तिः ? इति । एवमपि यावदसौ न किञ्चिद् मन्यते तावत् संघेनोद्धाह्य बाह्यः कृतः । अनालोचितप्रतिक्रान्तश्च कालं गतः ॥२५४६॥ २५४७॥२५४८॥२५४९॥
6. Katapatanā is a kind of demon. It is believed that a Ksatriya not performing his duties well, is born after his death as such a goblin. It is a kind of preta or inhabitant of lower regions.

Page #292

: 268:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The seventh
D. C. When Goṣṭhā Mahila did not put faith in the words of Acarya Durbalikā Puspainitra, sthaviras of the gaccha tried to convince him of the Truth exposed by the preceptor. But Gosthā Mahila replied arrogantly You ascetics, what do you know?" The Tirthankaras have preached the same principle that I hold." The sthaviras said "Do not degrade the Tirthankaras by such words. You do not know the Truth.
66
Ultimately, the sthaviras called an assembly of all the monks, who propitiated a goddess with the help of Kayotsarga. The goddess came to them and asked them as to what she could do for them. The monks though knowing the truth requested her for convincing other people, to go to Mahāvidèha and ask the Tirthankara there, as to who was right. The goddess returned with a message within a short time, and declared that the gaccha led by the preceptor Durbalikā Puspamitra was right and Gosṭhā Mahila who had turned out as the Seventh Nihnava was a liar.
19
On hearing the message, Gostha-Mahila said" How could this wretch of a demon go to the Tirthankara?
Then, when he refused to believe even in this, he was expelled from the gaccha. Finally, without returning to his original school, Gostha-Mahila wandered here and there, and died as a Nihnava without expiating himself for his sinful acts.

End of the Discussion with the Seventh Nihnava.
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #293

Chapter IX ulemy alfomfangererate
Discussion with the Boţika Nihnava.
After dealing with the stories of the Seven nihnavas who contradicted the current religious ideals of Jainism as mentioned in the foregoing pages, the aụthor now proceeds to give the story of another type of nihnavas ( viz Boţika ) implied by the word (ca) in “ Baburaya pacsa avvatta, samucchā duga tiga abaddhiyā ceva"i eto,
छन्वाससयाई नवुत्तराई तइआ सिद्धिं गयस्स वीरस्स। तो बोडियाण विट्ठी रहवीरपुरे समुप्पण्णा ॥१॥२५५०॥ 1. Chhavvāsasayāim navuttarāim tajā Siddhim gayassa Virassa |
To Bodiyāņa ditthi Rahavirapure samuppaņņā. (2550) [षड्वर्षशतानि नवोत्तराणि तदा सिद्धिं गतस्य वीरस्य। ततो बोटिकानां दृष्टी रथवीरपुरे समुत्पन्ना ॥११॥२५५०॥ 1. Şaļvarşaśātáni navottarāņi tadā Siddhim gatasya Virasya | . Tato Botikānām driști Rathavīrapurd samutpannā. (2550)]
Trans. I. Then was produced a doctrine of Boţikasa in Rathavirapura, six hundred and nine years after the Tīrthan. kara ( Sramaņa Bhagavān Mahāvira Swāmi) had attained nirvāņa. 2550.
1. Vide Chapter I. p. 9 (v. 2300). 2. Popularly known as Digambaras.

Page #294

:270:
finabhadra Gani's [The Botika The story of the rise of Botika is given as follows :
रहवीरपुरं नगरं दीवगमुज्जाणमन्जकण्हे य। सिवभूहस्सुवहिम्मि पुच्छा थेराण कहणा य ॥२॥२५५१॥ बोडियसिवभूईओ बोडियलिंगस्स होइ उप्पत्ती। कोडिन्न-कोट्टवीरा-परंपराफासमुप्पन्ना ॥३॥२५५२॥ 2. Rahavirapuram nagaram Divagamujjāņamajjakaṇhè ya i
Sivabhaissuvahimmi pucchā thèrāņa kahaņā ya. (2551) 3. Bodiya Sivabhaiö Bodiyalingassa höi uppatti || ___Kodinna-Kottavirā paramparaphasamuppanna. (2552) [रथवीरपुरं नगरं दीपकमुद्यानमार्यकृष्णश्च । शिवभूतेरुपधौ पृच्छा स्थविराणां कथना च ॥२॥२५५१॥ वोटिकशिवभूते?टिकलिङ्गस्य भवत्युत्पत्तिः। कौण्डिन्य-कोट्टवीरात् परम्परास्पर्शमुत्पन्ना ॥३॥२५५३॥ 2. Rathavírapuram Nagaram Dīpakamudyānamārya Krişņaśca |
___ sivabhaterupadhau priechā sthavirānām kathanā ca. (2551) 3. Botikasivabhite-r-Botikalingasya bhavatyutpattih | ____Kaundinya-Kotta-Virat paramparasparsamutpannā. (2552) ]
टीका-२-३ एतद्भावार्थः कथानकगम्यः, तच्चेदम्-रथवीरपुरं नाम नगरम् । तद्धहिश्च दीपकाभिधानमुद्यानम् । तत्र चार्यकृष्णनामानः सूरयः समागताः । तस्मिश्च नगरे सहस्रमल्लः शिवभूतिर्नामराजसेवकः समस्ति । स च राजप्रसादाद् विलासान् कुर्वन् नगरमध्ये पर्यटति । रात्रेश्च प्रहरद्वयेऽतिक्रान्ते गृहमागच्छति । तत एतदीयभार्या तन्मातरं भणति-निर्वेदिताऽहं त्वत्पुत्रेण, न खल्वेष रात्री वेलायां कदाचिदप्यागच्छति । तत उजागरकेण बुभुक्षया च बाध्यमाना प्रत्यहं तिष्ठामि । ततस्तया प्रोक्तम्-"वत्से ! यद्येवं, तर्हि त्वमद्य स्वपिहि, स्वयमेवाई जागरिष्यामि"। ततः कृतं वध्वा तथैव, इतरयास्तु जाग्रत्या रात्रिप्रहरद्वयेऽतिक्रान्ते समागत्य शिवभूतिना प्रोक्तम्-"द्वारमुद्घाटयत"। ततः प्रकुपितया मात्रा प्रोक्तम्-"दुर्नयविधे! यत्रतस्यां वेलायां द्वाराण्युद्घाटितानि भवन्ति तत्र गच्छ,

Page #295

Vada ]
Nihnavavāda
: 271:
46
न पुनरेवं तव पृष्टलग्नः कोऽप्यत्र मरिष्यति " । ततः कोपाऽहङ्काराभ्यां प्रेर्यमाणो sit निर्गतः । पर्यटता चोद्घाटितद्वारः साधूपाश्रयो दृष्टः । तत्र च साधवः कालग्रहणं कुर्वन्ति । तेषां च पार्श्वे तेन वन्दित्वा व्रतं याचितम् । तैथ राजवल्लभः, मात्रादिभिरमुत्कलितश्च ” इति न दत्तम् । ततः खेलमल्लकाद् दीक्षां गृहीत्वा स्वयमेव लोचः कृतः । साधुभिर्लिङ्गं समर्पितम् । विहृताथ सर्वेऽप्यन्यत्र । कालान्तरेण पुनरपि च तत्रागताः । ततो राज्ञा शिवभूतेर्बहुमुल्यं कम्बलरत्नं दत्तम् । तत आचार्यैः शिवभूति रुक्तः - किमनेन तव साधूनां मार्गादिष्वनेकानर्थहेतुना गृहीतेन ? ततस्तेन गुर्वप्रतिभासेनापि संगोप्य मूर्च्छया तद् विधृतम् । गोचरचर्याभिश्चागतः प्रत्यहं तदसौ संभालयति, न तु काचिदपि व्यापारयति । ततः " गुरुभिर्मूच्छितोऽयमत्र " इति ज्ञात्वाऽन्यत्रदिने तमनापृच्छयैव बहिर्गतस्य परोक्षे तत् कम्बलरत्नं पाटयित्वा साधूनां पादग्रोञ्छनकानि कृतानि । ततो ज्ञातव्यतिकरः कषायितोऽसौ विष्टति । अन्यदा च सूरयो जिनकल्पिकान् वर्णयन्ति,
तद्यथा
जिणकप्पिया य दुविधा पाणिपाया पडिग्गहधरा य । पाउरण पाउरणा इक्किका ते भवे दुविहा ॥१॥
दुग तिग चउकं पणगं नव दस एकारसेत्र बारसगं । एए अट्ठ विगप्पा जिणकप्पे होंति उवहिस्स ||२||
इह केषाञ्चिज्जिन कल्पानां रजोहरणं, मुखवस्त्रिका चेति द्विविध उपधिः, अन्येषां तु कल्पेन सह त्रिविधः, कल्पद्वयेन तु सह चतुर्विधः, कल्पत्रयेण सह पञ्चविधः । केषाञ्चित्तु मुखवस्त्रिका, रजोहरणं च, तथा,

पत्तं पत्ताबंधी पायट्टवणं च पायकेसरिया ।
पटलाई रत्ताणं च गोच्छओ पायनि जोगो ॥ १ ॥
इति सप्तविधः पात्रनिर्योग इति, एवं च नवविधः । कल्पेन तु सह दशविधः कल्पद्वयेन सहैकादशविध, कल्पत्रयेण तु समं द्वादशविधउपधिः केषाश्चिज्जिनकल्पनामिति । तदेतत् श्रुत्वा शिवभूतिना प्रोक्तम् - " यद्येवम्, तर्हि किमिदा नीमौधिक औपग्रहिकश्चैतावानुपधिः परिगृह्यते १ । स एव जिनकल्पः किं न क्रियते ? । ततो गुरुभिरुक्तम् - जम्बूस्वामिनि व्यवच्छिन्नोऽसौ संहननाद्यभावात्, सांप्रतं न शक्यत एव कर्तुम् ” । ततः शिवभूतिना प्रोक्तम् - " मयि जीवति
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #296

: 272:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika स किं व्यवच्छिद्यते ?, नन्वहमेव तं करोमि, परलोकार्थिना स एव निष्परिग्रहों जिनकल्पः कर्तव्यः, किं पुनरनेन कषाय-भय- मृच्छदिदोष विधिना परिग्रहा
? | अतएव श्रुते निष्परिग्रहत्वमुक्तम्, अचेलकाय जिनेन्द्राः, अतोऽचेलतैव सुन्दरेति" । ततो गुरुणा प्रोक्तम्- हन्त १ यद्येवम्, तर्हि देहेऽपि कषायभय-मूर्च्छादयो दोषाः कस्यापि संभवन्ति इति सोऽपि व्रतग्रहणानन्तरमेव त्यक्तव्यः प्राप्नोति । यच श्रुते निष्परिग्रहत्वमुक्तं तदपि धर्मोपकरणेष्वपि मूर्च्छा न कर्तव्या, मूर्च्छाभाव एव निष्परिग्रहत्वमवसेयम्, न पुनः सर्वथा धर्मोपकरणस्यापि त्यागः | जिनेन्द्रा अपि न सर्वथैवाचेलका : " सव्वे वि एगदूसेण निग्गया जिणवरा चउव्वीसं " इत्यादि वचनात् । तदेवं गुरुणा स्थविरैश्व यथोक्ताभिर्वक्ष्यमाणामिव युक्तिभिः प्रज्ञाप्यमानोऽपि तथाविधकषाय मोहादिकर्मोदयाद् न स्वाग्रहाद् निवृतोऽसौ, किन्तु चीवराणि परित्यज्य निर्गतः । तत बहिरुद्याने व्यवस्थितस्यास्योत्तरा नाम भगिनी वन्दनाथं गता । सा च त्यक्तचीवरं सं भ्रातरमालोक्य स्वयमपि चीराणि त्यक्तवती । ततो भिक्षार्थं नगरमध्ये प्रविष्टां गणिका दृष्टा । तत इत्थं विवस्त्रां बीभत्सामिमां दृष्ट्वा मा लोकोऽस्मासु विराङ्गीत् ” इत्यनिच्छन्त्यपि तया वस्त्रं परिधापिताऽसौ । तत एष व्यतिकरो - saया शिवभूतेर्निवेदितः । ततोऽनेन “ विवस्त्रा योषिद् नितरां बीभत्साऽतिलज्जनीया च भवति " इति विचिन्त्य प्रोक्ताऽसौ - " तिष्ठत्वित्थमपि, न त्यक्तव्यं त्वयैतद् वस्त्रम् । देवतया हि तवेदं प्रदत्तमिति । ततः शिवभूतिना कौण्डिन्य- कोट्टवीरनामानो द्वौ शिष्यौ दीक्षितौ ।
46
गाथाक्षरार्थोऽपि किञ्चिदुच्यते - " कौण्डिन्येत्यादि कौण्डिन्य व कोट्टवीरश्रेति “ सर्वो द्वन्द्वो विभाषयैकवद् भवति " इति वचनात् कौण्डिन्य- कोट्टवीरम्, तस्मात् कौण्डिन्य- कोट्टवीरात् परम्परास्पर्शमाचार्य-शिष्यसंबन्धलक्षणमधिकृत्योत्पन्ना संजाता । " बोटकदृष्टिः ” इत्यध्याहारः । इत्येव बोटिकाः समुत्पन्नाः ||२५५१॥२५५२॥
D. C. A detailed account of the rise of the Boțika type of Nihnavas is given below:
Once upon a time an Acarya named Arya Krisņasari had come to the city of Rathavirapura, and put up in the Dipaka garden outside the city. In the city, there lived a Royal atten

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #297

Vada ] Nihnavavada
: 273: dant named Sahasramalla Sivabhūti, who being the king's favo urite, wandered in the city till late at night. His wife was very much annoyed by his irregular conduct. She once complained of his irregularities to her mother-in-law saying that she had to wait for her husband till late after midnight, without taking food and sleep. The mother-in-law asked her to go to sleep, and she herself waited till her son returned. After midnight, Sivabhoti returned and asked her to open the door. The mother being enraged at his behaviour, replied “O impudent boy ! go wherever the doors are open for you at this hour. Nobody is going to die after you.” Overwhelmed with anger and pride, he went away. In course of his wanderings, he found the doors of a Jaina Upāśraya open at such a late hour. The Jaina sādhus were studying their lessons at that time. He approached them and requested them to initiate him into asceticism, The ascetics refused to give him diksā as he was a Royal attendant and the permi. ssion to do so was not sanctioned by his mother etc. Conse quently, Sivabhūti accepted diksā by himself from an earthen spittoon lying there. The ascetics supplied him with the necessary apparel of an ascetic, and subsequently he entered the Jaina gaccha, as a Jaina Sadhu. Next day, all the sādhus proceeded on vihāra (going about from place to place ).
In course of time, it so happened that they returned to the same place. The king received them with great respect, and gave Sivabhati a kambalaratna (a costly woollen shawl). The preceptor asked Sivabhūti to renounce it, as it would create trouble in several ways. Still, however, Sivabhūti kept the shawl secretly with him without the consent of the preceptor. Being very much attached to the shawl, Śivabhati used to see it carefully every day after returning from his begging tour etc. But he never used the same for fear of being detected. The preceptor knew that Sivabhati was deeply attached to the woollen shawl, so, once he took the shawl in Sivabhati's absence, tore it into several small pieces and gave each piece of the shawl to every sadhu for the purpose of cleaning his feet. When sivabhoti came to know of this, his mind was greatly perturbed.

Page #298

Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Boţika
Then, once in course of his lecture on Jinakalpikas", the Acārya said:
:274:
Jinakappiya ya duvihā pāṇipāyā padiggahadharā ya | Pāuraṇamapāuraņā ikkiks te bhave duvihā (1)
Duga tiga caukka panagam nava dasa ekāraseva bārasangam | Ed attha vigappa jinakappe honti uvahissa. (2)
[There are two types of Jinakalpikas (1) One of these having their hands (to be used) as a vessel, and (2) the other of those who actually possess vessels of alms. Each one of these is again of two types :-(1) Those (covering their bodies) with garments, and (2) Those (going) without garments. A jinakalpika has an upadhi (a combination of articles) of two, three, four, five, nine, ten, and twelve varieties, (serviceable in the performance of his religious duties)]
There are some ascetics who have only two upadhis: viz. a Rajoharana (a wollen chowry and a mukhavastrikā (a piece of cloth folded to be kept before the mouth). With an addition
"
3. Jinakalpikas are a variety of Jaina Sadhus who were strictly undergoing the principles of religious practices followed by the Tirthankaras irrespective of bodily discomforts and hardships. Before adopting these rigid religious practices, a Jinakalpi sādhu is required to undergo the following five tests-viz. (1) With regard to knowledge, he must have a thorough knowledge of at least nine-parvas from the beginning to the end, and also to repeat them from the end to the beginning. (2) With regard to austerities, he must have the strength to observe fasting lasting from one to several days at a time, and upto six months duration at a time, without any resulting weakness. (3) With regard to mental courage, he must remain in Kayotsarga in deserted depilitated buildings, public squares, burning places (for dead bodies) etc. and be undaunted by several difficult sufferings and hardships. (4) He should think that he is alone, none else is his companion, and (5) With regard to bodily strength, he must balance his entire body on his toe.

Page #299

řádaj Nihnayavāda
: 273 : of one, two, and three kalpas (articles ) to the above-stated two upadhis or paraphernalias respectively.
Again, there are some who in addition to rajoharana and muhapatti possess seven kinds of pātras in this way :
Pattam, pattābandho, payaţthavaṇam ca pāyakesariya | Patalāim rayattāṇam ca goochaö pāyq-nijjogo. (1)
[Pātram (alms-bowls, utensils etc.); pātrabandhan (a square piece of cloth for fastening the pātras together when cot in use and which can also be utilized for carrying them as in a sling, on a begging tour) Vern: Host; pātrasthapanam (a square piece of woolen cloth abou 11x11 inches with pieces of cord attached at four corners for tying up the patras ); patrakesarita (a small woollen showrie, Vern: ġsturt); patalakani ( oblong pisces of fine cloth 52" x 24". Three such pieces are to be used for the summer, four for winter, and five for the rainy season Vorn Tat); rajastrāṇam ( a piece of cloth to be placed between each patra ); gucchakam (a square piece of woollen cloth similar to pātrasthās pana, with a hole in the centre, but without cord useful for tying the pātras together) are useful for Pātras. ]
This shows that there are nine kinds of upadhi. When one, two, and three types of Kalpa are respectively added to these nine varieties, there are ten, eleven and twelve upadhis in all, in case of several ascetics.'
On hearing this, sivabhati said “If that is so, how is it that aughika (for daily use ) upadhi, and aupagrahika (for occa sinal use ) upadhi alone are apprehended? Why is not Jinakalpa itself attained." ? The preceptor replied :-Jinakalpa has disappeared with Jambu Swāmie. And it is not possible to attain the game in absence of sufficient strength" eto.
4. Who died in Vira Samvat 64. The following ten precepts are said to have disappeared with Arya Jamba Swāmi-(1) Manahparyava Jrāna, (2) Paramāvadhi Jñana, (3) Pulāka Labdhi, (4) Ahāraka Sarīra labdhi, (5) Ksapakaśroni, (6) Upasamasreni, (7)

Page #300

: 276: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Bofika Sivabhūti :-“How could that be when I am alive? I shall accomplish that. One who really desires to attain Moksa should observe the vow of Jinakalpa without any parigraha (possession) what-80-ever. What is the use of accepting objects that cause passions, fear, attachment etc ? This is the reason why the Soriptures have preached ideal nisparigraha (complete renouncement). The Tirthankaras have moved about without any garment or covering. It is, therefore, advisable to go without any covering what-so-ever.
Acārya :- In that case, one should also abandon his body immediately after he undertakes to observe the vow. Because, vioes of passion, fear, and attachment eto. lie in the body as well. The principle of nisparigraha (complete renouncement) preached by the Scriptures, means to assert that one should not cherish attachment even in religious observances. Complete negation of attachment is itself nothing but a state of nisparigahatā or complete abandonment of property. It should also be borne in mind that entire abandonment of religious observances, does not necessarily mean nişparigraha. The Tirthankaras do not really happen to be completely naked. This is seen from the statements like “ Savve vi egadaseña niggayā Jinavarā cauvigam” etc., which prove that all the twenty-four Tirthankaras had come out with one divine garment.
Sivabhati was persuaded by the preceptor and several other old Sådhus in many such ways, but out of vanity and passion, he did not give up his false notion of giving up garments etc. He stayed in the garden without a single garment to cover bis body. His sister, Uttarā, who came to pay her respects to her brother found him in the naked condition. She, too, therefore, gave up her clothes. Then, while going about in the city for Jinakalpa, (8) The three kinds of samyama-(viz 1. Paribāra vişuddhi, 2. Sakşmasamparāya and 3. Yathākhyata cāritram) 9. Kovala Jhāna and 10. Siddhi pada. Vide Sri Tapägacoha Pattāvali p. Du 22. also Vide verse 2098.

Page #301

Vida ] Nihnavavāda
:27.7: alms :in that condition, a whore saw her. Thinking that she would affect her profession, the whore gave her a cloth to cover her body, in spite of her reluctance. Eventually she narrated the whole incident before her brother. Sivabboti thought at last, that & woman would look obscene and disgustful if she did not wear saloth, and asked her not to give up clothing.
Then, after some days, Śivabbati initiated two of his pupils viz. Kaundinya and Kottavīra who prolonged the sect by tradition.
The whole account is disoussed in details as follows:उवहिविमागं सोउं सिवभूई अज्जकण्हगुरुमूले। जिणकप्पियाइयाणं मणइ गुरुं कीस नेयाणि ॥२॥२५५३॥ जिणकप्पोऽणुचरिजाइ मोच्छिनो ति मणिए पुणो भणइ ।
तत्सत्तस्मोन्छिन बुच्छिज्जा किं समत्यस्स ? ॥५॥२५५४॥ 'पुच्छम्म पुश्वमणापुच्छछिण्णकंवलकसायकलसिओ चेव ।
सो परिग्गहओ कसाय-मुच्छा-भयाईया ॥६॥२५५५॥ बोसा जो सुबहुया सुए य भणियमपरिग्गहतं ति। जमचेला य जिणिवा तदभिहिओ जं च जिणकप्पो ॥७॥२५५६॥ जंपजियावेलपरिसहो मुणी जं च तीहिं ठाणेहिं । अल्पं धरिख मेगंलओ तमोऽवेलया सेया २५५७॥ 4. Urahivibhāgam söum Sivabhūi AjjaKarhagurumale i
Jinakappiyaiyanam bhanai gurum kisa. ney anim? (2553) 5. Jiņakappo’nucarijjai nocohinno tti bhanid puņo bhaņail
Tadasattassocohijjau vucchijjai kim samatthassa? (2554) 6. Puodhassa puvvamaņāpuochachiņņakambalakasāyakalusio
ceval
So bdi pariggahai kasaya-mucobh-bhayaiya. (2555) 7. Doss jas subahuya sud ya bhaniyamapariggahattam ttin
Januaoblaya Jininda tadabhihiz jam ca Jinakappo. (2656,

Page #302

:218:
finabhadra Gani's [The Botika 8. Jam ca jiyācelaparisaho muni jam ca tihim thanehim।
Vattham dharijja negantaö taö'cèlajā sèyā. (2557) [उपधिविभागं श्रुत्वा शिवभूतिरार्यकृष्णगुरुमूले। जिनकल्पिकादिकानां भणति गुरुं कस्माद् नेवानीम् ? ॥४॥२५५३॥ जिनकल्पोऽनुचर्यते नोछिन्न इति भणिते पुनर्भणति । तदशक्तस्योच्छिद्यता व्युच्छिद्यते कथं समर्थस्य १ ॥५॥२५५४॥ पृष्टस्य पूर्वमनापृष्टच्छिन्नकम्बलकषायकलुषित एव । स ब्रवीति परिग्रहतः कषाय-मूर्छा-भयादिकाः ॥६॥२५५५॥ दोषा यतः सुबहुकाः श्रुते च भणितमपरिग्रहत्वमिति । यदचेलाश्च जिनेन्द्रास्तदभिहितो यच जिनकल्पः ॥णा२५५६।। यञ्च जिताचेल परिषहो मुनिर्यच्च त्रिभिः स्थानेः । वस्त्रं धारयेद् नैकान्ततस्ततोऽचेलता श्रेयसी ॥२५५७॥ 4. Upadhivibhāgam śrutvā ŚivabhatirāryaKrisņagurumole i
Jinakalpikādikānām bhanati gurum kasnad nedānim ? (2543) 5. Jinakalpo'nucaryate nocchinna iti bhanite puna-r-bhanatil Tadaśaktasyocchidyatām vyucchidyate katham samarthasya ?
(2554) 6. Pristasya purvamanāpristacchina kanubala kasāya kaluşita eva
Sa bravīti parigrahatah kaşāya-mūrccha-bhayādikāḥ. (2555) 7. Doşā yataḥ subahukāḥ śrute ca bhanitamaparigrabatvamitil
Yadacelasca Jinendrastadabhihito yacca Jinakalpaḥ. (2556) 8. Yacca jitācelaparisaho muni-r-yacca tribhih sthānains
Vastram dhārayed naikantatastato celata srdyasi. (2557)
Trans. 4-5-6-7-8. Having heard from the preceptor the section on upadhis (possession of necessary articles) of Jina kalpika etc. he (i. e. Sivabhati) puts the question before the preceptor “ Why is Jinakalpa (rites of a Tirthankara) not accomplished now ? “ It has died away” (was the reply). He said again :- Let it be dead to weak persons; why is it :

Page #303

Vada Nihnaravāda
:279 dead to a capable person?" He (i. e. Sivabhati), who was previously asked by the preceptor ( to renounce the woollen shawl) and whose mind was perturbed with passion as his ( costly) shawl was cut (into pieces) without his consent, says that “ many faults such as passion, fear, attachment etc. (arise) from parigraha (possession of property ). That is why even in Scriptures, the doctrine of a-parigrahatva (renunciation of all worldly objects ) has been preached, the Tirthankaras (have moved about) without clothes, and they themselves have preached the Jinakalpa. Thus, one who has overcome the distress of naked condition, is (called). an ascetic, and since he would put on a garment at three places (i. e. on account of three reasons viz. out of shame, out of censure, and out of distress ! but not in solitude, it is, therefore, better to remain in the state of being without garments. (2553-2557)
टीका-४-५-६-७-८ सर्वा अप्युक्तार्था एव, नवरं "जं च जिणाचेलेत्यादि" यस्माच्च “जिताचेलपरिषहो मुनिः" इत्यागमेऽभिहितम् । जिताचेलपरिषहत्वं च किल त्यक्तवस्त्रस्यैव भवतीत्यभिप्रायः । यस्माच त्रिभिरेव स्थानैर्वखधरणमनुज्ञातमागमे नैकान्ततः, तथा चागमवचनम्-"तिहिं ठाणेहिं वत्थं धरिजा हीरिवत्तियं, दुगंच्छावत्तियं, परीसहवत्तियं" । तत्र हीर्ला संयमो वा प्रत्ययो निमित्तं यस्य धारणस्य तत् तथा, जुगुप्सा लोकविहिता निन्दा सा प्रत्ययो यस्य तत्तथा, एव परीषहाः शीतोष्णदंशमशकादयः प्रत्ययो यत्र तत्तथा । उपसंहरबाह-तस्मादुक्तयुक्तिभ्योऽचेलतैव श्रेयस्करीति पूर्वपक्षः ॥२५५३॥ २५५४॥२५५५॥२५५६॥२५५७॥
D. C. An ascetic could be called " jitācela parisan" only if he has abandoned clothes. As regards wearing clothes on account of three reasons, the āgamas say that
" Tihim thanehim vattham dharijja hirivattiyam, dugamchavattiyam, parisahavattiyam.
[One should put on garment at three places : where shame, censure and torture ( are counted ).

Page #304

:2801 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika The agamas, thus, allow the wearing of clothes on three grounds :-(1) If an ascetic requires (it) for maintaining restraint, or out of shame. (2) if he needs it for saving himself from public censure, and (3) If he wants to protect himself from phy. sical pain arising from exposure to heat, cold, or mosquitoes eto. Sivabhati says that he does not require clothes for any of tho three purposes mentioned here. Hence, he preferred absolute nakedness, to wearing even one garment. (2553-2557)
Then, गुरुणाभिहिओ जा कसायहेऊ परिग्गहो सो ते । तो सो देहो चिय ते कसायउप्पत्तिहेउ त्ति ॥९॥२५५८॥ 9. Guruna bhihis jai jam kasayahdu pariggaho so td।
To so deho cciya tè kasayauppatti heu tti. (2558) [गुरुणाऽभिहितो यदि यत् कषायहेतुः परिग्रहः स ते। ततः स देह एव ते कषायोत्पत्तिहेतुरिति ॥९॥२५५८॥ 9. Guruņā'bhihito yadi yat kaşāyahètuh parigrahaḥ sa te i ____Tatah sa deha dva te kasayotpattihdturiti. (2558)]
Trans. 9. He was told by the preceptor that “If the cause of passion were said to be ) parigraha according to you, then your body itself would become the same, as that too happened to give rise to passions." 2558.
टीका-९ गुरुणाऽर्यकृष्णेनाभिहितः शिवभूतिः-यदि हन्त ! यद् यत् कषायहेतुः, तत् तत् ते तव परिग्रहः, स च मुमुक्षुणा परिहर्तव्य एवोत्येकान्तः । "तो सो इत्यादि" ततस्तर्हि स्वकीयो देह एव ते तव स्वस्थात्मनोऽपि कषायोत्पत्तिहेतुरिति परिग्रहः परिहरणीयश्च प्रामोति । अतोऽपरिग्रहत्वस्य परिग्रहाणां चोत्सबा कथेति ॥२५५८॥ D. C.
Acārya :-If O Sivabhati I everything that happens to be the cause of passion is parigraha according to you, then, one who desires Moksa should renounce the body also, as the body gives rise to passions, and thus becomes parigraha. (2558)

Page #305

Vada ] Nihnsvarāda
:281 Or, why say about body alone अस्थि व किं किंचि जए जस्सव तस्स व कसायकीय । वत्युं न होज एवं धम्मो वि तुमे न घेतव्यो ॥१०॥२५५९n जेण कसायनिमित्तं जिणो वि गोसाल-संगमाईणं । धम्मो धम्मपरा वि य पडिणीयाणं जिणमयं च ॥११॥२५६०॥ 10. Atthi va kim kinci jad jassa va tassa va kassyabiyaam jaml
Vatthum na hojja evanı dhamwo vi tume na ghdtavyo. (2569 11. Jeņa kasāyanimittam Jiņo vi Gosāla-Sangamāīņain: Dhammo dhammaparā vi ya paļiņiyánam Jiņamayam ca.
(2560) [अस्ति का किं किचिजगति यस्व वा तस्य वा कपाचवीनं यत्। वस्तु न भवेदेवं धर्मोऽपि त्वया न ग्रहीतव्यः ॥१०॥२५५९॥ येन कषायनिमित्तं जिनोऽपि गोशाल-संगमादीनाम् । धर्मो धर्मपरा अपि च प्रत्यनीकानां जिनमतं च ॥११॥२५६०१॥ 10. Asti vā kim kiñcijjagati yasya vā tasya va kaşāyabījam yati
___Vastu na bhavedevam dharno'pi tvayā na grahitavyah. (2559) 11. Yena kaşāyanimittam Jino'pi Gośāla-Sangamādinām Dharmo dharmaparā api ca pratyanikāpām Jinamatam ca.
(2560)] Trans. 10-11. Is there any object in (this) world that would not become the object of passion to one person or the other ? In that way, even religion should not be acceptable to you. Even a Jina becomes the cause of kagaya to Qośála and Sangama etc. Thus, religion, devotees of religion, and even doctrines (preached) by Tirthankaras ( would become ) the cause of evil motives to their opponents. (2559-2560)
टीका-१०-११ किं हि नामैतापति जगति तद् वस्तु, पन् त्यस्य वा तस्य या कषायाणां बीजं कारणं न भवेत् १ । एवं च सति श्रुत-पाविमेदमिनो

Page #306

: 282:
Jinabhadra Grani's
[ The Botika
धर्मोऽपि त्वया न ग्रहीतव्यः, तस्यापि कस्यचित् कषायहेतुत्वात् । कुतः ? इत्याह- ' जेणेत्यादि' येन यस्मादास्तां तत्प्रणीतो धर्मः, किन्तु स त्रिभुवनबन्धुनिष्कारणवत्सलः सर्वसच्चानां जिनोऽपि भगवांस्तीर्थकरोऽपि क्लिष्टकर्मणां गोशालक - संगमकादीनां कषायनिमित्तं संजातः । एवं धर्मस्तत्प्रणीतः, तदुक्तधर्मपरा अपि तदेकनिष्ठाः साधवः, जिनमतं च द्वादशाङ्गीरूपम्, सर्वमप्येतद् गुरुकर्मणां दुःखैकरूपदीर्घभव भ्रमणभाजां प्रत्यनीकानां जिनशासनप्रतिकुलवर्तिनां कषायनिमित्तमेव इत्येतदप्यग्राह्यं प्राप्नोति न चैतदस्ति । तस्मात् 'यत् कषायहेतुस्तत् परिहर्तव्यम्" इत्यनेकान्त एवेति ॥२५५९॥२५६०॥
46.
D. C.
Acārya :- Is there any object in this world that would not happen to be a root of sin or stupidity to one person or the other? From that view-point, even religion will not be acceptable to you. Because, that would act as the cause of evil motive to somebody or the other. Even the Tirthankara himself happens to be the cause of kaṣāya to Gośālaka and Sangamaka etc. Thus, religion, its followers, and the doctrine of the Jinas along with twelve Angas, would become the cause of kaṣaya to those who oppose the Tirthankara and His doctrine.
According to you, all this would be parigraha and hence should be renounced. But that does not actually happen. And, the principle that everything that gives rise to kaṣāya should be renounced, is not valid. 10-11 (2559-2560 )
Now, the Acarya tries to remove the doubt in the opponent's mind, and assert his own principles as follows :
अह ते न मोक्खसाहणमईए गंथो कसायहेऊ वि । वत्थाइ मोक्खसाहणमईए सुद्धं कहं गंथो ? ।।१२।। २५६१ ।।
12. Aha te na Mokkhasāhanamais gantho kasāyahea vi Vatthāi Mokkhasāhanamaiè suddham kaham gantho? ( 2561 ) [ अथ ते न मोक्षसाधनमत्या ग्रन्थः कषायहेतवोऽपि । वस्त्रादिमोक्षसाधनमत्या शुद्धं कथं ग्रन्थः ? || १२ || २५६१ ॥

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #307

Vada J
12. Atha to na Moksasādhanamatyā granthah kasāyahdtavo'pi | VastrādiMokṣasādhanamatyā śuddham katham grantha ?
(2561)]
Nihnavaváda
:
Trans. 12. If they are not proved to be parigraha in spite of their being the cause of passion by virtue of their being the accessory means of (attaining) Mokṣa, how could pure clothes etc also be taken as parigraha from the point of view of their being recognized as the implements for (the attainment of) Moksa ? 2561.
283:
टीका - १२ अथ मन्येथाः - ते देहादयो जिनमतान्ताः पदार्थाः कषायहेतवोsपि सन्तो न ग्रन्थो न परिग्रहः, मोक्षसाधनमत्या गृह्यमाणत्वादिति । हन्त ! यद्येवम्, तर्हि वस्त्र - पात्रादिकमप्युपकरणं शुद्धमेषणीयं मोक्षसाधनबुद्धया गृझमाणं कथं ग्रन्थः १ - न कथञ्चिदित्यर्थः, न्यायस्य समानत्वादिति ॥२५६१॥
D. C. When we have not accepted dèha etc. as parigraha in spite of their being the cause of kasaya on the ground that they happen to be the necessary implements for attaining Mokṣa, we should also accept clean clothes etc., as the implements required for the attainment of Mokṣa, and hence they should not be renounced by taking them as parigraha. 12. (2561)

In reply to the argument that clothes etc. should be abandoned on account of their being the object of murccha or attachment, the Acārya says
मुच्छाहेऊ गंथो जइ तो देहाइओ कहमगंथो । मुच्छावओ, कहं वा गंथो वत्थादसंगस्स ? ||१३|| २५६२ ॥ अह देहा-ऽऽहाराइसु न मोक्खसाहणमईए ते मुच्छा । का मोक्स्खसाहणेसुं मुच्छा वत्थाइएसुं तो ? || १४ || २५६३॥ अह कुणसि थुल्लवत्थाइएस मुच्छं धुवं सरीरे वि । अजदुल्लभयरे काहिसि मुच्छं विसेसेणं ॥ १५ ॥ २५६४ || बस्था इगंधरहिया देहा-ऽऽहाराहमित्तमुच्छाए । तिरिय - सबरादओ नणु हवंति निरओवगा बहुसो ॥१६॥२५६५॥
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #308

• 284 : Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika अपरिग्गहा वि परसंतिएसु मुच्छा-कसाय-दोसेहिं । अविणिग्गहियप्पाणो कम्ममलमगंतमज्जति ॥१७॥२५६६॥ देहत्थवत्थ-मल्ला-ऽणुलेवणा-ऽऽभरणधारिणो केइ । उषसग्गाइसु मुणओ निस्संगा केवलमुर्विति ॥१८॥२५६७॥ 13. Mucchāhea gantho jai to dehaii kahamaganthon
Mucchāvaö, kabam vā gantho vatthādasangassa ? (2562) 14. Aha-deha"hāraisu na Mokkhasahanamaid te muccha |
Ka Mokkhasahandsum mucchā vatthaiesum to ? (2563) 15, Aha kınasi thullavatthāiosu muccbam dhuvam sarire vil
Akkejjadullabhayare kāhisi muccham visèsèņam. (2564) 16. Vatthāigantharahiyā dehā-"hārāimittamucchāè i
Tiriya-sabarādaö nanu havanti niraovagā bahuso. (2565) 17. A-pariggahā vi parasantiesu mucchā-kasāya-dosehim!
Aviņiggahiyappāņo kammamalamanatamajjanti. (2566) 18. Dahatthavattha-Mallā-'nulevaņā-”bharaṇadhāriņo kei ___Uvasaggaisu munai nissanga Kevalamuvinti. (2567)
[मूछोहेतुर्ग्रन्यो यदि ततो देहादिकः कथमग्रन्थः । मूच्छावता, कथं वा ग्रन्थो वस्त्रायसहस्य ? ॥१॥२५६२॥ अथ देहा-हाराविषु न मोक्षसाधनमत्या ते मूछी। का मोक्षसाधनेषु मूर्छा वचाविवेषु ततः ? ॥१४॥२५६३॥ अथ करोषि स्थूलवस्त्रादिकेषु मूच्छी ध्रुवं शरीरेऽपि । अक्रेयदुर्लभतरे करिष्यसि सूर्छा विशेषेण ॥१५॥२५६४॥ वनादिग्रन्थरहिता देहा-ऽहारादिमात्रमूर्छया। तिर्यक्-शवरादयो ननु भवन्ति निरयोपगा बहुशः ॥१६॥२५६५॥ अपरिग्रहा अपि परसत्केषु मूर्ण-कपाय-बोषः। भविविग्रहीतात्मना कर्ममलमनन्तमर्जयन्ति ॥१७॥२५६६॥

Page #309

Vada ] Nihnavavada
: 285: arpraa-aru- Tar-552770turfo: f i उपसर्गादिषु मुनयो निःसङ्गाः केवलमुपयन्ति ॥१८॥२५६७॥ 13. Mūrcchā hetu-r-grantho yadi tato dehādikaḥ kathamagranthah /
Marcoāvatah, katham vã grantho vastrādyasangasya ? (2562) 14. Atha dehā"hārādişu na Mokşasādhanamatyā tè marcchā i
Kā Moksasadhanèşu marcoba vastridikėsi tataḥ ? (2563) 15. Atha karoşi sthalavastrādikèşu marcchām dhruvan sarire'pi
Akreya durlabhatarè karişyasi morcchām visesèna. (2564) 16. Vastrādigrantharahitā ddhā”hārādimātra marcchayā i
Tiryak-śabarādayo nanu bhavanti uirayopagā bahuśah. (2565) 17. A-parigrahā api parasatkeşu morcchākasāya dosaini
Avinigrihitātmāṇaḥ karmamalamanantamarjayanti. (2566) 18. Dahasthavastra-mālyā-'nulepanā,"bharanad hariņah kecit ,
Upasargādişu munayo niņsangāh Kèvalampayanti. (2567) ]
Trans. 13-14-15-16-17-18. If the cause of attachment is parigraha, then, how could body etc. not become parigraha to one who has already got attachment, and how could clothes etc. become parigraha to a lonely ascetic ? If you do not bear attachment towards body, food etc., on the ground that they are necessery (instruments ) for the attainment of Mokşa, then, what attachment is there on garments etc., that are equally necessary for the attainment of Moksa ? And, if you attach desire to external objects like garments etc, you will be doing so all the more to body, which is more precious (than clothes etc. ). The tiryancas (i. e. beasis, birds etc.) and savage people though without parigraha of clothes etc, very often go to hell only out of their attachment for body and food etc.. ( There are some, who though a-parigrali ( or not possessing anything whatso-ever ) by theniselves, earn a lot of (bondages of) Karman, because of their vices such as desire, passion, etc., while other ascetics with their bodies decorated with garments, garlands, besmearings, and orna.

Page #310

:286 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika ments etc. on the occasion of upasarga etc, attain the Absolute State of Existence unaccompanied (by anyone).. (25622557).
टीका-१३-१४-१५-१६-१७-१८ एताः सुगमा एव, नवरं यदि यो मूछोहेतुः स ग्रन्थः परिग्रहः, परिग्रहत्वादेव च त्याज्यः, ततस्तर्हि "मुच्छावउ त्ति" मूर्छावतो वक्ष्यमाणयुक्त्या मूछायुक्तस्य देहा-ऽऽहारादिकस्तव हन्त ? कथमग्रन्थः । अपि तु ग्रन्थ एव, ततः सोऽपि परित्याज्यः प्रामोति । कथं वा ममत्वमूर्छारहितत्वेनासङ्गस्य सङ्गविप्रमुक्तस्य साधोर्वस्त्रादिकं ग्रन्थो गीयते भवता ?-न भवत्येव तयाभूतस्य तद् ग्रन्थ इति । अथ देहा-ऽऽहारादिषु ते तव मूर्छा नास्ति, मोक्षसाधनमत्या तेषां ग्रहणात् , तर्हि मोक्षसाधनत्वेन तुल्येप्वपि वस्त्रादिषु तव हन्त ! का मूर्छा ? इति । अथ स्थूलेषु बाह्यत्वात् , क्षणमात्रेणैवाग्नि-तस्करायुपद्रवगम्यत्वात् , मुलभत्वात् , कतिपयदिनान्ते स्वयमेव विनाशधर्मकत्वात् शरीराद् नितरां निःसारेषु वस्त्रादिषु मूछों करोषि त्वम्, तर्हि ध्रुवं निश्चितं शरीरेऽपि विशेषतो मूछों करिष्यसि । कुतो विशेषेण तत्र तत्करणमित्याह-"अक्केज्ज दुल्लभयरे ति" विभक्तिव्यत्ययात् शरीरस्याक्रय्यत्वात् क्रयेणालभ्यत्वात् । न हि वस्त्रादिवत् शरीरक्रयेण क्वापि लभ्यते । अत एव वस्त्राधपेक्षया दुर्लभतरत्वात् , तथा, तदपेक्षयैवान्तरङ्गत्वात् , बहुतरदिनावस्थायित्वात् , विशिष्टतरकार्यसायकत्वाच विशेषेण शरीरे मूच्र्छा करिष्यसीति । अथ देहादिमात्रे या मूर्छा सा स्वल्पैव, वस्त्रादिग्रन्थमूर्छा तु बह्वी, ततो देहादिमात्रमूर्छासंभवेऽपि नमश्रमणकाः सेत्स्यन्ति, न भवन्तः, बहुपरिग्रहत्वादित्याह"वत्थाइ" इत्यादि गाथात्रयम् । अयमिह संक्षेपार्थ:-तिर्यक्-शबरादयोऽल्पपरिग्रहा अपि, तथा शेषमनुष्या अपि महादारियोपहताः क्लिष्टमनसोऽविद्यमानतथाविधपरिग्रहा अप्यनिविगृहीतात्मानो लोमादिकषायवर्गवशीकताः परसत्केष्वपि विमवेषु मूर्छाकषायादिदोषैः कर्ममलमनन्तमर्जयन्ति, तद् बहूशो निरयोपगा भवन्ति, न मोक्षप्रापकाः । अन्ये तु महामुनयः केनचिदुपसर्गादिबुद्धया शरीरासञ्जितमहामुल्यवत्रा-ऽऽमरण-माल्य-विलेपनादिसंयुक्ता अपि सर्वसङ्गविनि
का निगृहीतात्मानो जितलोभादिकषायरिपकः समासादितविमलकेवलालोकाः सिद्विमुपगच्छन्ति । तस्मादवश्यात्मनां क्लिष्टमनसां नाग्न्यमात्रमिदमकिश्चित्करमेवेति ॥२५६२।।२५६शा२५६॥२५६५।।२५६६।२५६७॥

Page #311

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 287 : D. C. When you believe that whatever happens to be the cause of morcchā is parigraha, and hence should be renounced, how is it that body and food etc. of one attacked by delusion is considered as a-parigraha according to you ? For, if they happen to be parigraha they should be abandoned. But garments etc. of an ascetic, absolutely alone by himself, are not as causes of parigraha to him. If you say that there is no attachment for body etc. as they happen to be the necessary instruments for attaining Moksı, then clothes etc. should also be taken as instruments for attaining Mokşa. There is no reason to take them as objects of morcchā. When you attach delusion into clothes etc. that are far less important and that are easily susceptible to the attacks of fire, thief etc , and that are destructible in a short time, there is certainly all the more reason to attach delusion into body etc., that are more precious and more lastirg than clothes etc.
* Secondly, if you say that delusion with regard to body etc. is very slight, and that with regards to clothes etc., is great, and therefore naked ascetics will attain Moksa in spite of their attachment into body etc., while those like us having clothes etc. will not attain Mokşa, then, you should note that the tiryancas ( beasts and birds ) and the savage tribes of Bhils etc., who do not put on clothes etc. but who are attached only to body, and food etc., frequently attain hell. Persons suffering from poverty have to undergo ceaseless chain of Karman, on account of their souls being unrestrained due to their vices in the past life.
On the other hand, great ascetics etc , attain Mokşa of Ab solute Perception in spite of their being adorned by costly ornaments on the occasion of upasarga (a natural phenomenon supposed to forbode future evil). It should, therefore, be borne in mind, that mere renunciation of clothes does not help if the soul is impure. 13-18. (2562–2567)
Then, in reply to the assertion that the wearing of clothes etc., should be given up as that, sometimes, causes fear eto., the Acarya states---

Page #312

:288:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The Botika जइ भयहेक गंथो तो नाणाईण तदुवघाईहिं । भयमिह ताई गंथो, देहस्स य सावयाईहिं ॥१९॥२५६८॥ अह मोक्खसाहणमईए न भयहेऊ वि ताणि ते गयो। वत्थाइ मोक्खसाहणमईए सुद्धं कहं गंथो ? ॥२०॥२५६९।। 19. Jai bhayahea gantho to nāņāiņa taduvaghāihimi ___Bhayaniha taim gantho, ddhassa ya savayaihim. (2568) 20. Aha Mokkhasāhanamaièna bhaya hèo vi tāṇi tè gantho i
___VatthaiMokkhasahana maid suddham kaham gantho ? (2569) [यदि भयहेतुर्ग्रन्थस्ततो ज्ञानादीनां तदुपघातिभ्यः । भयमिति तानि ग्रन्थो देहस्य च श्वापदादिभ्यः॥१९।।२५६८॥ अथ मोक्षसाधनमत्या न भयहेतवोऽपि तानि ते ग्रन्थः । वस्त्रादिमोक्षसाधनमत्या शुद्धं कथं ग्रन्थः १ ॥२०॥२५६९॥ 19. Yadi bbayahetu-r-granthastato jñānādinám tadupaghātibhyah
Bhayamiti tāni grantho dehasya ca śvapadádibhyaḥ. (2568) 20. Atha Mokṣasādhanamatyā na bhayahètavo'pi tāni tè granthaḥ VastrādiMokşasādhanamatyā śuddham katham granthah.
(2569)] Trans 19-20. If that which causes fear is (known as ) parigraha, then, knowledge etc., being susceptible to fear from the opponents, and the body ( being susceptible to fear) from wild beasts etc., should be known as parigraha. And, if they are not object of parigraha in spite of their being causes of fear, because they act as the instruments for attaining Moksa, how could clothes etc., also be ( recognized as) objects of parigraha inspite of their being instruments for attaining Moksa? (2568-2569)
टीका-१९-२० यदि यद् भयहेतुस्तद् ग्रन्थः, तहिं ज्ञान-दर्शन-चारित्रा नामपि तदुपपातकेभ्यः, देहस्य च श्वापदादिभ्यो भयमस्ति, इति तान्यपि अन्य प्राप्नुवन्ति । शेष व्याख्यातप्रायम् ॥२५६८॥२५६९॥

Page #313

Vada ] Nihnaravāda
:289: D. C. If you believe that whatever becomes the cause of fear is parigraha, then, those having Knowledge, Perception and Character etc., would be susceptible to fear from their respective opponents, and body is susceptible to fear from beasts of prey. So, they should, also, be taken as objects of parigraha. (The remaining portion is clear ) 19-20. (2568-2569)
In reply to the assertion that clothes etc., arc the causes of inauspicious or fierce meditation, and hence, they should be abandoned, the Acārya saysसारक्खणाणुबंधो रोदज्झाणं ति ते मई हुज्जा। तुल्लमियं देहाइसु पसथमिह तं तहेहावि ॥२१॥२५७०॥ जे जत्तिया पगारा लोए भयहेअवो अविरयाणं । ते चेव य विरयाणं पसत्यभावाण मोक्खाय ॥२२॥२५७१।। 21. Sārakkhaṇāņubandho roddajjhāņam ti tò mai hujjā i
Tullamiyam dèhāisu pasatthamiha tam tahəhāvi. (2570) 22. Je jattiyā pagārā löd bhayahdavo a-virayāṇani |
Tè cova ya virayāņam pasatthabhāvāņa Mokkháya. (2571) [संरक्षणानुबन्धो रौद्रध्यानमिति ते मतिर्भवेत् । तुल्यमिदं देहादिषु प्रशस्तमिह तत् तथेहापि ॥२१॥२५७०॥ ये यावन्तः प्रकारा लोके भयहेतवोऽविरतानाम् । त एव च विरतानां प्रशस्तभावानां मोक्षाय ॥२२॥२५७१॥ 21. Samraksanānubandho raudradhyānamiti te mati-r-bhavet |
Tulyamidam dehadisu prasastaraiha tat tathdhāpi. (2570) 22. Yo yávantāḥ prakārā lokè bhayahètavo'viratānāın i
Ta dva ca viratānām praśastabhāvānām Mokşāya. (2571) ]
Trans. 21-22. (Utility of clothes etc. ) in connection with preservation (of body etc.) may be considered as (inspired by) evil motive according to you. But this is common in body etc. also, (and hence ) it is desirable there, in the same

Page #314

:290 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika way, as it is here. (For), the various types of deeds that are causes of fear to unrestrained persons, are (helpful) for the (attainment of) Moksa to real ascetics having lofty ideals. (2570-2571).
टीका-२१-२२ व्याख्या-इहागमे रौद्रध्यानं चतुर्विधमुक्तम्-तद्यथा-"से किं तं रोद्दज्झाणं ?। रोद्दज्झाणे चउविहे पन्नत्ते; तं जहा-हिंसाणुबंधी, मोसाणुबंधी, तेयाणुबंधी, सारक्खाणुबंधी" तत्र हिंसायाः सत्त्ववधादिरूपाया अनुबन्धः सातत्येन चिन्तनं यत्र तद् हिंसानुबन्धि । मृषाऽसत्यं तस्यानुबन्धो यत्र तत् तथा । स्तेयं चौर्य तस्यानुवन्धो यत्र तत् तथा । संरक्षणं सर्वैारणाद्युपायैस्तस्करादिभ्यो निजवित्तस्य संगोपनं तस्यानुबन्धः सातत्येन चिन्तनं यत्र रौद्रध्याने तत् तथा । एवं च सति संरक्षणानुबन्धो रौद्रध्यानस्य चतुर्थो भेदः । स च वस्त्रादौ गृहीते किलावश्यंभावी, रौद्रध्यानभेदत्वाच रौद्रध्यानमिति । एवं रौद्रध्यानहेतुत्वाइ वस्त्रादिकं दुर्गतिहेतुः, शस्त्रादिवत् , ततो न ग्राह्यमिति तव बुद्धिभवेत् तहिं यदुक्तयुच्या रौद्रध्यानं तदिदं देवानां प्रिय ! देहादिष्वपि तुल्यम् , तेष्वपि जल-ज्वलन-मलिम्लुच-श्वापदा-अहि-विष-कण्टकादिभ्यः संरक्षणानुपन्धस्य तुल्यत्वात् । अतस्तेऽपि परित्याज्याः प्राप्नुवन्ति । अथेह देहादेर्मोक्ष साधनाङ्गत्वाद् यतनया तत्संरक्षणानुबन्धविधानं प्रसस्तं, न दोषाय । यद्येवम् , तर्हि तथा तेनागमप्रसिद्धेन यतनाप्रकारेणेहापि वस्त्रादौ संरक्षणानुबन्धविधानं कथं न प्रशस्तम् ? । ततः कथं वस्त्रादयोऽपि परित्याज्याः ? इति । अयैवं ब्रूषेवस्त्रादिपरिग्रह एव मूर्छादिदोषहेतुत्वाल्लोकस्य "भवभ्रमणकारणम्" इत्येतदतिप्रतीतं वस्त्रादिपरिग्रहवतः साधोरपि कथं न स्यात् ? इत्याह-"जे जत्तियेत्यादि" । इह ये यावन्तः शयन-पान-भोजन-गमना-ऽवस्थान-मनो-वाक्कायचेष्टादयः प्रकारा अविरतानामसंयतानामप्रशस्ताध्यवसायवतां लोके भयहेतवो जायन्ते, त एव तावन्तः प्रकारा विरतानां संयतानां प्रसस्ताध्यवसायानां मोक्षायैव संपद्यन्ते । तस्माद् वस्त्रादिखीकारेऽपि नेतरजनवत् साधूनां मूलोच्छेदितलोमादिकपाय-भय-मोहनीयादिदोषाणां तदुद्भावितदोषः कोऽप्यनुषज्यत इति २५७०॥२५७१॥ D.C.
Śivabhūti :-There are four types of Raudradhyāna (evil moditation) mentioned in the āgamas. They are deeds concerning

Page #315

Vada ] Nihnavavåda
: 291: (1) Violence (2) Falsehood (3) Theft, and (4) (Self) Preservation. Meditation in which violence by way of killing beasts and birds etc., is always thought of, is known as himsā-nubandhi raudradhyāna. That in which falsehood is resorted to, is known as mrişānubandhi raudradhyāna, while meditation wherein preseration of one's property from thieves etc. is invariably aimed at, is known as saņraksaņānubandhi raudradhyāna. Acceptance of clothes etc., will also become the cause of raudradhyāna. Like weapons etc., clothes etc., will, also, become the cause of satisfying evil motives, and that is why they should be renounced without hesitation.
Acārya :--That sort of raudra-dhyāna is common in body also, as the preservation of body from water, fire, robber, serpent, wild animals, poison, and thorns etc., is always sought. In that case, body too, shall have to be abandoned.
Sivabhati :-Since body etc. happen to be the necessary instruments for attaining Mokşa, it is commendable to preserve them carefully.
Acārya :--Why not apply the same principle to clothes eto., as well ? As in the case of body etc., preservation of clothes eto; should, also, be commendable.
Sivabhati :--Since clothes etc. become the cause of attachment, they are.objects of parigraha without doubt. I'hey, thus, become causes of many bhavas to ordinary poople, and consequently affect asectics having parigraha of clothes etc. It is, therefore, advisable to give them up.
Acārya :--This belief of yours is exclusively one-sided, and hence should not be accepted. Various acts of sitting, sleeping, eating, drinking, going, stopping, and various movements of mind, speech, and body, become causes of fear to an unrestrained person who has low motives. But the same acts become belpful for the attainment of Moksa to real ascetics who have high ideals One who has subdued evil instincts from the beginning, is not liable

Page #316

:292:
Jinabhadra Gani's [:The Botika to any faults what-so-ever, if he accepts clothes. 21-22 (25702571).
Moreover, if you try to prove, with the help of the example of gold, that clothes etc. are parigraha, as they happen to be the causes of morechā, we prove gold etc. as a-purigraha on the same ground :
आहारो व्व न गंथो देहत्थं विसघायणहाए । कणगं पि तहा जुवईधम्मंतेवासिणी मे त्ति ॥२३॥२५७२।।
23. Ahāro vva na gantho de hattham visaghāyaṇatthāci
Kanagampi tahā juvaīdhammantèvāsiņi me tti. (2572) [आहार इव न ग्रन्थो देहाथै विषघातनार्थतया। कनकमपि तथा युवतिधर्मान्तेवासिनी ममेति ॥२३॥२५७२॥ 23. Ahāra iva na grantho dehārtham visaghātanārthatayā i
Kanakamapi tathā yuvati-r-dharmāntèvāsini mamèti. (2572)]
Trans. 23. Like food, gold is not (the object of) parigraha as it is helpful to body, in as much as it is the antidote of poison. Similarly, young woman (is) also not an object of parigraha (to me ), when (1 take her to be) my pupil in the observance of religious duties. 2572.
टीका २३-कनकं तथा युवतिश्च धर्मान्तेवासिनी मे ममेति बुद्धथा परिगृहणतो न ग्रन्थ इति संबन्धः, एषा किल प्रतिज्ञा । कुतः ? इत्याह-देहार्थमिति कृत्वा, अयं च हेतुः, देहार्थत्वात्-देहप्रयोजनत्वात्-देहोपकारित्वादित्यर्थः । ननु युवतेदेहोपकारित्वं किल प्रतीतम् , कनकस्य तु तत कथम् ? इत्याह-"विसघायणढाए ति” विषघातकत्वादित्यर्थः, उक्तं च
विसघाय-रसायण-मंगल-च्छवि-णया-पयाहिणावत्ते । गुरुए अ ढज्झकुढे अट्ठ सुवण्णे गुणा होति ॥१॥
आहारवदिति दृष्टान्तः । कनक-युवत्यादयोऽपि न ग्रन्था, देहार्थत्वात् आहारवदिति तात्पर्यम् ॥२५७२॥

Page #317

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:293 D, C. Like food, gold and young woman, do not become parigraha, when they prove themselves helpful to the body. Gold is beneficial to body in as much as it acts as an antidote of poison. It has been said that --
Visaghaya-rasayana-mangala-cchavi-nayā payāhinavatte | Gurud a dhajjhakutthe attha suvanne guna honti. (1)
[ Capacity as an antidote of poison, alchemic character, auspiciousness, brilliance, polity, property of turning clock-wise (from left to right), weight, and capacity of undergoing heat-these are the eight qualities of gold.]
When a young woman is looked upon with a lofty ideal that she is a companion in performing religious rites, she does not, in any way, become the object of parigraha but she becomes helpful in the attainment of Moksa. 23 (2572).
Finally, the Acārya explains the distinction between parigraha and a-parigraha and tries to remove the confusion from the opponent's mind:-- तम्हा किमत्थि वत्थु गंथोऽगंथो व सव्वहा लोए ?। गंथोऽगंथो व मओ मुच्छममुच्छाहिं निच्छयओ ॥२४॥२५७३।। वत्थाई तेण जं जं संजमसाहणसराग-दोसस्स । तं तमपरिग्गहो चिय परिग्गहो जं तदुवघाइं ॥२५॥२५७४॥ 24. Tamhá kimatthi vatthum gantho'gantho va savvhā löd?! Gantho'gantho va mai mucchamamucchāhim nicchayaö.
(2573) 25. Vatthāim teņa jam jam sanjamasāhaņasarāga-dosassa |
Tam tampariggaho cciya pariggaho jam taduvaghāim. (2574) [तस्मात् किमस्ति वस्तु ग्रन्थोऽग्रन्थो वा सर्वथा लोके । ग्रन्थोऽग्रन्थो वा मतो मूर्छा-ऽमूर्छाभ्यां निश्चयतः॥२४॥२५७३॥ वस्त्रादि तेन यद् यत् संयमसाधनसराग-द्वेषस्य । तत् तदपरिग्रह एव परिग्रहो यत् तदुपघाति ॥२५॥२५७४॥

Page #318

: 294:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika
24. Tasmāt kimasti vastu grantho 'grantho vā sarvathā loke ? Grantho'grantho va mato marccha'murechābhyam niscayataḥ. (2573)
25. Vastrādi tena yad yat samyamasādhanasarāga-dveśasya | Tat tadaparigraha èva parigraho yat tadupaghāti. (2574)
Trans. 24-25. “ Then, what objeci is there in this world that should be known as parigraha or a-parigraha in all respects? ” Really speaking, parigraha or otherwise, is ascertained according to attachment or aversion. Hence, whatever like clothes etc. that happens to be useful in the observance of austerities to one who is devoid of passion and prejudice, should be recognized as a-parigraha. That which acts against it, is parigraha ( 2573-2574).
टीका - २४-२५ व्याख्या - तस्मात् किं नाम तद् वस्त्वस्ति लोके यदात्मस्वरूपेण सर्वथा ग्रन्थोऽग्रन्थो वा ? नास्त्येवैतदित्यर्थः । ततश्च " मुर्च्छा परिग्गहो तो इइ वृत्तं महेसिणा" इत्यादिवचनाद् यत्र वसु - देहा - SSहार-कनकादौ मूर्च्छा संपद्यते तद् निश्चयतः परमार्थतो ग्रन्थः । यत्र तु सा नोपजायते तदग्रन्थ इति । एतदेव व्यक्तीकरोति - " वत्थाई तेणेत्यादि ” तेन तस्मात् । शेषं सुगममिति ॥ २५७३ ॥ २५७४ ॥
"
D. C. There is not a single object in this world which can be recognized as parigraha or a-parigraha entirely by its own virtue. But by means of statements such as-" Muccha pariggaho vuitto ii vuttam mèsia" etc. parigraha is ascertained on the standard of attachment to wealth,-body,-food-gold etc. Wherever such an attachment does not exist, there is a parigraha. We can, therefore, conclude that whenever clothes etc. help to attain Mokṣa, they should be known as a-parigraha, and whenever they act contratry, there is parigraha. 24-25. (2573-2574). किं संजमोवयारं करेह वत्थाई जइ मई सुणसु । सीयत्ताणं ताणं जलण-तणगयाणं सत्ताणं ||२६|| २५७५ ॥ तह निसि चाउकालं सज्झाय - झाण- साहणमिसीणं । महि-महिया - वासो -सा-रयाइ रक्खानिमित्तं च ||२७|| २५७६ ||

For Private
Personal Use Only

Page #319

:295:
Vāda ]
Nihnavavāda मयसंवरुज्झणत्थं गिलाणपाणोवगारि वाभिमयं । मुहपुत्तियाइ चेवं परूवणिजं जहाजोगं ॥२८॥२५७७॥ संसत्तसत्तु-गोरस-पाणय-पाणीयपाणरक्खत्थं । परिगलण-पाणघायण-पच्छाइकम्माइयाणं च ॥२९॥२५७८॥ परिहारत्थं पत्तं गिलाण-यालादुवग्गहत्थं च । दाणमयधम्मसाहणं समया चेवं परुष्परओ ॥३०॥२५७९॥
26. Kim samyamovayāram karèi vatthāim jai mai suņasu i
Siyattānam tānam jalana-tanagayanam sattānam. (2575) 27. Taha nisi cāukkālam sajjhāya-jhāņa-sāhanamisīnam i
Mahi-mahiyā-vāso-sā-rayāi rakkhā-nimittam ca. (2576) 28. Mayasamvarujjhaņattham gilāņapaņovagāri vabhimayam |
Muhaputtiyai cdvam parlivanijjam jahajogam. (2577) 29. Samsattasattu-gorasa-pānaya-piniyapānarakkhattham |
Parigalaņa-pāņaghāyaṇa-pacchāikammāiyāṇam ca. (2576) 30. Parihārattham pattam gilāņa-balăduvaggahattham ca 1 Dāņamayadhanımasāhaņam samayā cevam parupparaö.
(2579, [किं संयमोपकारं करोति वस्त्रादि यदि मतिः शृणु । शीतत्राणं त्राणं ज्वलन-तृणगतानां सत्त्वानाम् ॥२६॥२५७५॥ तथा निशि चतुष्कालं स्वाध्याय-ध्यान-साधनमृषीणाम् । मही-महिका-वर्षो-र-रजआदिरक्षानिमित्तं च ॥२७॥२५७६॥ मृतसंवरोज्झानार्थ ग्लानपाणोपकारि चाभिमतम् । मुखवस्त्रिकादि चैवं प्ररूपणीयं यथायोगम् ॥२८॥२५७७॥ संसक्तसक्तु-गोरस-पानक-पानीय-प्राणिरक्षार्थम् । परिगलन-प्राणघातन-पश्चात्कर्मादिकानां च ॥२९॥२५७८१ परिहारार्थ पात्रं ग्लान-वालाद्युपग्रहार्थं च । दानमयधर्मसाधनं समता चैवं परस्परतः ॥३०॥२५७९।।

Page #320

: 296: Jinabhadra
[The Botika 26. Kim samyamopakāram karoti vastrā'li ya li znatiḥ śruņu i
Sitatrāņam trāņam jvalana-triņagatānām sattvānām. (2575) 27, Tathā nisi catuṣkālanı svādhyāya-lhyāna-sādhanamrişiņām ,
Mahi-mahikā-varso-sra-rajaā'liraksānimittam ca. (2576) 28. Mritasamvarojjhānārtham glānaprāṇopakāri cābhimatami
Mukhavastrikādi caivam prarūpaņīyam yathāyogam. (2577) 29. Samsaktasaktu-gorasa-pānaka-pāniya-prāņi raksārtham !
Parigalana-prāņaghātana-paścātkarmā likānām ca. (2578) 30. Parihārārtham pātram glāna-bālā lyupayrahārthan cai Dānamayadharmasādhanam samatā caiva parasparatah.
(2579) ]
Trans. 26-27-28-29-30. If you ask as to how clothes etc. are useful in the practice of ) austerity, (then) listen (to nie). (They render) protection from cold (to ascetics ), and pro. tect creatures found in fire, and grass. (A garment) is also
(necessary means of (conducting) study and meditation to the ascetics during all hours of night. It renders (them ) protection from clods of earth, rain, fog, and dust particles. (It is used ) in covering and carrying the corpse. (It is ) considered as useful to sick persons in that way, muhapatti. (a piece of cloth held between the nose and mouth to prevent dust, insects etc.) should, also, he (given) proper importance. Hence, a devoted ascetic ought to hold a vessel for the purpose of protecting insects found in milk, water, and such other drinks, in order to prevent it being spilt down, prevent killing of insects, and (avoid) faults like paścāt Karman, and for the benefit of the sick and young. Mutual tolerance is cultivated only in this way. (2575-2579).
टीका-२६-२७-२८-२९-३० व्याख्या-कं नाम संयमोपकारं करोति वस्त्रादिकम् ? इति यदि तव मतिः, तर्हि कथ्यते शृणु-सौत्रिकौर्णिककल्पैस्तावत् शीतार्तानां त्राणं साधूनामार्तध्यानापहरणं क्रियते । तथा ज्वलन-तृणादीन्धन गतानां सचानां त्राणं रक्षणं "क्रियते” इतीहापि दृश्यते । इदमुक्तं भवति,

Page #321

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:297: यदि कल्पा न भवेयुः, तदा शीतार्ताः साधवोऽग्नि-तृणादीन्धन-ज्वलन्तं कुर्युः । तत्करण चावश्यभावा तद्गसत्वोपघातः। कल्पैस्तु प्रावृतैरेष न भवत्येव, अमितृणादिज्वलनमन्तरेणापि शीतार्तिनिवृत्तेरिति । तथा "कालचउकं उकोसए जहने तियं तु बोधव्वं" इत्यादिवचनात् समस्तरात्रिजागरणं कुर्वद्भिः साधुभिश्चत्वारः काला ग्रहीतव्याः । तच्च हिमकणमवर्षिणि शीते पतति चतुष्कालं गृह्णतां तेषामृषीणां । कल्पाः प्रावृताः सन्तो निर्विघ्नं स्वाध्यायध्यानसाधनं कुर्वन्ति, शीतार्त्यपहरणादिति । तथा “महि ति" महाराबाक्षिप्ता सचिता पृथिवी तस्याः पतन्त्या रक्षानिमित्तं प्रावृताः कल्पाः संजायन्ते, महिका धूमिका, “वास त्ति" वर्षा वृष्टिः, 'उस त्ति' आवश्याय: प्रतीतः रजोऽपि सचित्तमीषदाताम्रनभसः पततीति प्रतीतमेव, आदिशब्दात् प्रदीप-तेजः प्रभृतीनां परिग्रहः । एतेषां च महिकादिगतानां सच्चानां रक्षानिमित्तं कल्पाः संजायन्त इति । तथा, मृतस्य संवरणं संवरं आच्छादनम् , उज्झनं बहिर्नयन तदर्थ वा श्वेतोज्ज्वलप्रच्छादनपटिकादिवसमभिहितम् । ग्लानप्राणोपकारि च तदमिमतं परमगुरूणाम् । एवं मुख. वत्रिका-रजोहरणादि चोपकरणं समयानुसारतः संयमोपकारित्वेन योज्यं भणनीयम् । तथा चोक्तं कल्पभाष्यादिषु -
कप्पा आयप्पमाणा अड्डाइज्झाइवित्थडा हत्था । दो चेव सोत्तिया उनिओ य तइओ मुणेयव्वो ॥१॥ तणगहणाणलसेवानिवारणा धम्मसुक्कज्झाणट्ठा । दिटुं कप्पग्गहणं गिलाण-मरणट्टया चेव ॥२॥ संपाइमरयरेणुपमजणट्ठा वयंति मुहपत्तिं । नासं च मुहं च बंधइ तीए वसहिं पमजंतो ॥३॥ आयाणे निक्खेवे ठाणनिसीए सुयपट्टसंकोए । पुव्वं पमजणट्ठा लिंगट्ठा चेव स्यहरणं ॥४॥ वेउव्वोऽवायेज्वाइए हीखद्दे पजपणे चेव । तेसिं अणुग्गहट्ठा लिंगुदयट्ठा य पट्टो य ॥५॥
तत्र प्रजनने मेहने "वेउवि ति" वैक्रिये विकृते, तथा, अप्रावृतेऽनावृते वातिके चोत्सूनत्वभाजने, हिया लज्जया सत्या खड्डे बृहत्प्रमाणे “लिंगुदयट्ठ ति" स्त्री दर्शर्ने लिङ्गोदयरक्षणार्थं च पटोलपट्टो मत इति ।

Page #322

• 298
Jinabhadra Gani's (The Botika अथ पात्रस्य मात्रकस्य च संयमोपकारित्वं दर्शनाह-"संसत्तेत्यादि" । संसक्तसक्तु-गोरस-द्राक्षादिपानक-पानीयगतसत्वमाणरक्षणार्थ पात्रमिति संबन्धः । पात्राभावे हि संसक्तगोरसादयो हस्तएवानाभोगादिकारणाद् गृहीताः क क्रियेरन् ? तद्गतसचानां प्राणविपत्तिरेव स्यात् । पात्रे तु सति समयोक्तविधिना ते परिस्थाप्यन्ते । तथा च सति तद्गतसत्त्वप्राणरक्षा पात्रेण सिध्यतीति । तथा पात्राभावे पाणिपुट एव गृहीतानां घृत-गोरसादिरसानां परिगलने सति यत् कुन्थु-कीटकादिप्राणघातनम् , ये च भाजन-धावनादिभिः पचात्कर्मादयो दोषास्तेषां परिहारार्थ च पात्रमिष्यते जगद्गुरुभिः । तथा, ग्लान-बाल-दुर्बलवृद्धाद्युपग्रहार्थं च तदिष्यते । पात्रे हि सति गृहस्थेभ्यः पथ्यादिकं समानीय ग्लान-बालादीनामुपग्रह उपष्टम्भः क्रियते, तदभावे पुनरसौ न स्यादेवेति । अपरश्च, पात्रे सति भक्तपानादिकं समानीयान्यस्य प्रयच्छतां साधूनां दानमय धर्मस्य साधनं सिद्धिर्भवति, पात्राभावे चैतद् न स्यात् । तदसत्त्वे कस्यापि केनचिद् भक्त-पानादिदानासंभवात् । “समया चेवं परुप्पर उ ति" एवं च पात्रे परिग्रहे सति लब्धिमतामलब्धिमतां च शक्तानामशक्तानां च वास्तव्यानां प्राघूर्णकानां च सर्वेषामपि साधूनां परस्परं समता स्वास्थ्यं तुल्यता भवति । पात्रे हि सति लब्धिमान् भक्त-पानादिकं समानीयालब्धिमते ददाति । एवं शक्तोऽशक्ताय, वास्तव्यः प्राघूर्णकायं तत् प्रयच्छति । इति सर्वेषां सौस्थ्यम् , पात्राभावे तु नैतत् , स्यादिति। .
इह च पात्रग्रहणस्य गुणकथनेन मात्रकस्यापि तत्कथनं कृतमेव द्रष्टव्यम् , प्रायः समानगुणत्वात् , उक्तं च- .
छकायरक्खणट्ठा पायग्गहणं जिणेहि पलतं । जे य गुणा संभोए हवंति ते पायगहणे वि ॥१॥ अतरंत-बाल-वुड्ढा-सेहाएसा गुरू अ सहुवग्गा । साहारणुग्गहा अलद्धिकारणा पायगहणं तु ॥२॥ आयरिए य गिलाणे पाहुणए दुल्लहे सहसदाणे । संसचमत्चपाणे मत्तगपरिमोगणुण्णा उ ॥३॥ इति ॥२५७५॥२५७६॥२५७७॥२५७८।२५७९॥

Page #323

: 299:
Vada ]
Nihnavavada D. C.
Sivabhati :-In what ways, are the garments and vessels useful to the practice of austerities?
Acārya :--A cotton or woollen piece of cloth protects the mendicant from cold. It protects the life of small creatures abo. unding in fire, grass and food. If a mendicant does not wear a garment, he lits up fire for the purpose of protecting himself from cold, and by doing so, he kills small insects abounding there-in.
On the other hand, if he has a piece of cloth to cover his body, he woulil prevent cold with it, without killing a single life.
Secondly, if an ascetic wears a garment, he is liable to pass the whole night in study and meditation without any hindrance by cold, dust, rain, and fog etc. He will also be able to save insects flocking round the lawp with his garment.
Thirdly, it has been laid down by the great preceptors that in covering or taking out a corpse, a white piece of cloth should be used. Such a piece of cloth is beneficial to sick persons also.
In this way, muhapatti and rajoharaņa are useful in the practice of austerity and the same should be preached by you wherever you go.
It has been said in the Kalpa-Bhāsya that Kappā ayappamāņā addhāi jjhāivitthada hattha | Do cèva sottiyā unniö ya taið muneyavvo. (1) Tanagabaņāņalasevānivaraņā dhammamsukkajjbánattbā Diţtham kappaggahaŋam gilāna-maraŋaçthayā ceva. (2) Sampāyamarayareņupamaijaŋatthā vayanti muhapattimi Nāsam ca muhamo ca bandhai tie vasabim pamajjanto, (3) Ayāṇe nikkbeve thāṇa nisīe suyapatta sankoei Puvvam pamajjaratthā lingațýbā cdva rayaharaṇam. (4)

Page #324

:300:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Boţika
Veuvve'vayade vāie hikhadde pajaņaņe ceva Tesim aņuggahatthā lingudayaţthā ya patto o. (5)
[For the purpose of refraining from the use of fire produced by collecting straw, and for the observance of dharma-dhyāna and śukla-dhyāna, and also for the benefit of the sick, as well as (as a covering) for the dead, one should use a garment. The garments should be-two of cotton, and one woollen-as one's own self, and 21 hands broad. A sadhu' carries a muhapatti with the object of removing collected particles of dust and he ties it over his mouth and nostrils, while cleaning the upāśraya. While taking an object, while removing it, while replacing it, while rearranging a bed-sheet disturbed from a bedding prepared for the night, and as an emblem of asceticism one should use a rajoharaṇa. For the purpose of covering the exposed sexual organ of the male as well as of the female out of decency, and for covering the male organ excited by the sight of the female, a cola-patta a loin-cloth is necessary. All these garments are very useful for the preservation of samyama-dharma-duties of an ascetic. ]
Uses of pātra and mātraka are now explained. If an ascetic possesses pātra he can save the life of so many creatures found in milk, grapes etc. For if milk etc, is received in hands, the small insects abounding there-in will perish without doubt. But if milk etc. is received in some vessel insects etc. would be placed inside the vessel in stead of falling down.
Secondly, when milk is received in hands the same would flow down on the ground, and give rise to small gernis resulting in the loss of more lives.
Thirdly, in absence of vessels, faults like that of bondage of Karman eto, would arise.
Fourthly, good turns like that of distributing food etc. to the sick and poor, could only be done with the help of a pātra; in the absence of a pātra it is not possible to do so.

Page #325

Vada ] Nihnavavada
: 301: Thus, a pātra becomes a necessary means of discharging charitable duty to ascetics who receive food from rich persons and distribute the same among the poor. Moreover, if there is a pātra, it would be beneficial to mendicants of all categoriesthose who possess and who do not possess, the able as well as disabled ones, those staying in upāśraya and those coming as guests. If a mendicant possussesa pātra he can receive food into it, and impart the same to one who has not received food. Simi. larly, able-bodied monks would serve the disabled ones and church-inmate would treat a guest. In absence of pātra, no such convenience is enjoyed.
The same should be understoorl of wātraka also, It has been said
Chakkāyarakkhaṇatthā pāyaggbhananam Jiņehim pannatam | Je ya guna sambhöc havanti te pāyagahane vi. (1) Ataranta-bāla-viddhā-sehāesā gura a sāhuvaggā 1 Sāhāraņuggaha aladdhikāraṇā pāya-gahaņam tu. (2)
[The Tirthankara has deemed fit the acceptance of pātra, fit for the purpose of protecting the bodies of the six varieties of living beings. Merits abounding in enjoyment are found in acceptance of pātra also. But the pātra should be accepted for (the benefit of) weak, young, old, new desciple, guests, and sick persons being advised by the preceptor on the grounds of security (of food etc.) in absence of a-labdhi, And, the acceptance of wātra is allowed in case of preceptor being sick, an outsider being rare, and food and drink of real mendicant being given away in charity. ] 26-30. (2575–2578).
In reply to the assertion that "sud bhaņiyamapariggahattham" etc, the Acārya states— अपरिग्गहया सुत्ते त्ति जा य मुच्छा परिग्गहोऽभिमओ। सव्वदन्वेसु न सा कायव्वा सुत्तसम्भावो ॥३१॥२५८०॥ 31. A-pariggahayā sutte tti jāya mucchā pariggaho' bhimaö
Savvadavvèsu na sā kāyavvā suttasabbhāvo. (2580)

Page #326

: 302 :
Jinabhadra Gani's (The Boţika [अपरिग्रहता सूत्रे इति या च मूर्छा परिग्रहोऽभिमतः ।
सर्वद्रव्येषु न सा कर्तव्या सूत्रसद्भावः ॥३१॥२५८०॥ 31. A-parigrabatā satre iti yā ca marccha parigraho'bhimatah |
Sarvadravyesu na sā kartavyā satra-sadbhāvaḥ. (2580) ]
Trans. 31. Non-acceptance implied in the sūtra has taken mūrcchā (attachinent) as parigraha. That it should not be practised in (case of) all objects, is the main purport of the sutra. 2580.
टीका-३१ या च "सव्वाओ परिग्गहाओ वेरमणं" इत्यादिनाऽपरिग्रहता सूत्रे प्रोक्तेति त्वया गीयते, तत्रापि मूच्र्छव परिग्रहतीर्थकृतामभिमतो नान्यः, सा च मूर्छा यथा वस्त्रे तथा सर्वेष्वपि शरीरा-ऽऽहारादिषु द्रव्येषु न कर्तव्येति सूत्रसद्भावः सूत्रपरमार्थः, न पुनस्त्वदभिमतः सर्वथा वस्त्रपरित्यागोऽपरिग्रहतेति सूत्रामिप्रायः। तस्मादपरिज्ञातसूत्रभावार्थो मिथ्यैव खिद्यसे त्वमिति हृदयम् ॥२५८०॥
D. C. The theory of a-parigrahatā advocated by you with regard to assertions like "Savvão pariggabão vèramaṇam ” etc. laid down in the Satra is obtained only when mūrcchā or attachmcnt has been completely removed. In other words, there is no parigraha without attachment. Attachment with regard to clothes etc. works in case of all objects including body, food, driņk etc. The main purport of the Sotra is that one should abandon attachment. But it should be noted that the above-mentioned satra in no way, leads to establish that complete renunciation of clothes is a-parigraha. 31. (2580)
___In reply to " Jamacdla ya Jininda's etc. the Acārya saysनिरुपमधिसंघयणा चउनाणाइसयसत्तसंपण्णा। अच्छिद्दपाणिपत्ता जिणा जियपरिसहा सव्वे ॥३२॥२५८१॥ तम्हा जहुत्तदोसे पावंति न वत्थ-पत्तरहिया वि । तदसाहणं ति तेसिं तो तग्गहणं न कुव्वंति ॥३३॥२५८२॥
5. Vide v 2556.

.

Page #327

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:303: तह वि गहिएगवत्था सवथतित्थोवएसणत्थं ति।
अभिनिक्खमंति सत्वे तम्मि चुएऽचेलया हुंति ॥३४॥२५८३॥ 32. Nirupamadhiisanghayaņā caunāņāisayasattasampaņņā i
A-cchiildapāņipattā Jiņā jiyaparisahā savve. (2581) 33. Tamhā jahuttarlosò pāvanti na vattha-pattarahiyā vi 1
Talasahanium ti tesim to tagguhanam na kuvvanti. (2582) 3.1. Taha vi vahidyavatthiä savatthatitthovaesaņattham til
Abhinikkhamanti savve tammi cuc'cclayã hunti. (2583) [निरुपमधृतिसंहननाश्चतुर्माना अतिशयसत्त्वसंपन्नाः ।
अच्छिद्रपाणिपात्रा जिना जितपरिषहाः सर्वे ॥३२॥२५८१॥ तस्माद् यथोक्तदोषान् प्राप्नुवन्ति न वस्त्र-पावरहिता अपि । तदसाधनमिति तेपां ततस्तद्ग्रहणं न कुवन्ति ॥३३॥२५८२॥ तथापि गृहीतैकयात्रा सवस्त्रतीर्थोपदेशनार्थमिति ।
अभिनिष्क्रामन्ति सर्वे तस्मिंश्युतेऽचेलका भवन्ति ॥३४॥२५८३॥ 32. Nirupama dhriti samhananāścatı-r-jñānā atiśaya sattvasa m
pannahi
Acchidrapāņipātrā Jinā jitaparişahāḥ sarve. (2581) 33. Tasmād yathoktarlosān prāpnuvanti na vastra-pātrarahitā api,
Tarlasādhanauniti teşām tatastad grahaņam na kurranti. (2582) 34. Tathapi grihitaikavastra sa-vastratirthopadesanārthamitin
Abhinișkrānanti sarve tasmimścyute'cèlakā bhavanti. (2583)
Trans. 32-33-34. All the Tirthankaras possess exceptional fortitude, strength, and knowledge, with their compact hands as vessels, and since they are victorious over all sorts of strain, they are not susceptible to the afore-mentioned faults even though they (go) without a garment or vessel. These being useless to them are not accepted by them. Still however, in order to show that the inmates of the Church shall have to bear the garment for a long time, the Tirthankaras renounce (the world ) with one garment. When that is dro. pped automatically they go naked. (2581-2583).

Page #328

:304:
Jinabhadra Gaji's [The Botiks टीका-व्याख्या-यस्माजिनास्तीर्थकराः सर्वेऽपि निरुपमधृतिसंहननाश्यस्थावस्थायां चतुर्थानाः अतिशयसत्त्वसंपन्नाः, तथाऽच्छिद्रः पाणिरेव पात्रं येषां तेच्छिद्रपाणिपात्रा जितसमस्त-परिषहाच "तम्ह ति" तस्माद् वस्त्राभावे ये संयमविराधनादयो दोषाः प्रोक्तास्तान् यथोक्तान् दोषांस्ते वस्त्र-पात्ररहिता अपि न प्राप्नुवन्ति, इत्यतस्तस्त्रादिकं न साधनं न साधकं संयमस्य तेषां तीर्थकराणाम् । "तो ति” तस्मादकिश्चित्करत्वात् तस्यात्मगतसंयमस्यानुपकारिणो वस्त्रादिग्रहणं न कुर्वन्ति तीर्थकरा इति । ननु यदि ते वस्त्रादिग्रहणं न कुवन्तीत्यु. च्यते, तर्हि " सव्वे वि एगदूसेण निग्गया" इत्यादि विरुध्यत इत्याशंक्याह"तह वीत्यादि” यद्यपि तत्संयमस्यानुपकारिवस्त्रम्, तथापि सवस्त्रमेव तीर्थ "सवस्त्रा एव साधवस्तीर्थे चिरं भविष्यन्ति" इत्यस्यार्थस्योपदेशनं ज्ञापनं तदर्थ गृहीतैकवस्त्राः सर्वेऽपि तीर्थकृतोऽभिनिष्क्रामन्तीति । तस्मिंश्च वस्त्रेच्युते कापि पतितेऽवेलका वस्त्ररहितास्ते भवन्ति, न पुनः सर्वदा । ततः “अचेलकाश्च जिनेन्द्राः" इत्यैकान्तिकं यदुक्तं तद् भवतोऽनभिज्ञत्वसूचकमेवेति भावः ॥२५८१।।२५८२॥२५८३॥
D. C. Your idea about Tirthankaras as absolutely acelaka is not quite correct. Even during their life incognito Tirthankaras are unusually bold, strong, and full of knowledge. Since they have subdued all the evil instincts they do not keep pātra or vastra, and go with their compact hands as pātra, and still they are not defiled by faults that would come in the way of the practice of austerities.
Sivabhati :--Then, how do you say that all the Tirthankaras had renounced the world with one garment ?
Acārya :--Although garment was not helpful to them in the practice of austerities etc, they, foreseeing that all the ascetios of the Church shall have to bear garments and vessels for a long time, accepted dikşā with one garment. In course of time, if the garment drops down by itself, they become uncovered. But that does not mean that they were uncovered for all the time. This, your belief that Tīrthankaras were absolutely uncovered for all the time exhibits nothing but ignorance on your part. 32–34. (2581-2583).

Page #329

Vāda ] Nihnavavāda
:305: जिणकप्पियादओ पुण सोवहओ सव्वकालमेगंतो।
उवगरणमाणमेसिं पुरिसाविक्खाए बहुभेयं ॥३५॥२५८४॥ 35. Jiņakappiyādaö puņa sovahaö savva-kālamdganto i ____Uvagaranamānamesim purisavikkhas bahubhdyam. (2584) [जिनकल्पिकादयः पुनः सोपधयः सर्वकालमेकान्तः । उपकरणमानमेषां पुरुषापेक्षया बहुभेदम् ॥३५॥२५८४॥ 35. Jinakalpikadayah punah sopadhayah sarvakālamdkāntah |
Upakaranamānamdsam purusapdksayā bahubhedam. (2584)]
Trans. 35. And Jinakalpikas etc. are always exclusively full of (some ) instrument (or the other ). The standard of (their possessing) the instruments, depends upon the persons concerned, in various ways. 2584.
टीका-३५ अयमत्राभिप्रायः-तीर्थकर दृष्टान्तावष्टम्मेन, जिनकल्पिकोदा हरणावष्टम्मेन च त्वमचेलकत्वं प्रतिपद्यसे । एतच्च सर्व भवतो दुर्बोधविलसितमेव यतस्तीर्थकरा अपि पूर्वोक्तन्यायेन न तावदेकान्ततोऽचेलकाः । जिनकल्पिकस्वयंबुद्धादयः पुनः सर्वकालमेकान्तेन सोपधय एवेति । अत एव “दुग तिग चउक पणगं" इत्यादिना पूर्वमेतेषामुपकरणमानं पुरुषापेक्षया बहुमेदमुक्तम् , न पुनः सर्वथा निरुपकरणता । तदयं यस्त्वया सर्वथोपकरत्यागः कृतः स दृष्टान्तीकृतानां तीर्थकर-जिनकल्पिकादीनामपि न दृश्यते, केवलं नूतनः कोऽपि त्वदीय एवायं मार्ग इति ॥२५८४॥
D. C. It has already been shown above that you cannot preach the doctrine of going without clothes by advancing the example of Tirthankaras.
Jinakalpikas and svayambuddhas etc. have always been possessing some material or the other as an upakaraņa to the observance of samyama. The standard of accepting such upakaraņas varies with different persons. But it is important to note that entire negation of upakaraṇa has never been referred to. Thus, the Tirthankaras, by whose examples you have formed your belief, have also never been without upakarana. 35 (2584). .

Page #330

: 306:
Jinabhadra Gani's
Also,
अरहंता जमेचेला तेणावेलत्तणं जइ मयं ते । तो तव्वयणाउ चिय निरतिसओ होहि माऽचेलो ||३६||२५८५॥
36. Arahantā jamacèlā tenācdlattanam jai mayam tel To tavvayaṇāu cciya niratisaö hohi ma'cèlo. (2585) [ अर्हन्तो यदचेलास्तेनाचेलत्वं यदि मतं ते । ततस्तद्वचनादेव निरतिशयो भूर्माऽवेलः ||३६||२५८५॥ 36. Arhanto yadacèlastènacèlatvam yadi matam tè I Tatastadvacanādèva niratiśayo bhu-r-mā'cèlaḥ. (2585)
[The Botika
Trans. 36. If naked condition is acceptable to you because Tirthankaras were naked, then, on their own words, do not become absolutely uncovered as you are devoid of that excellence. (2585).
टीका-३६ यद् यस्मादईन्तोऽवेलाबेलरहिता नाग्न्यधारिणाहर्तेन तस्मात् कारणादलत्वं नवं यदि तब मतं संगतम्,
आरिसयं गुरुलिंग सौसेण वि तारिग होयवं । न हि होइ बुद्धसीसी सेयवडो नग्गखवबों वा ॥१॥
इति वचनादिति । ततस्तर्हि तद्वचनादेव तीर्थंकरोपदेशादेव निरुपमधृतिसंहननाद्यतिशय रहितोऽचेलों नमो मा भूस्त्वम् । इदमुक्तं भवति यदि तीर्थंकरशिष्यत्वात् तद्वेषस्तव प्रमाणम्, तर्हि तत एव हेतोस्तदुपदेशोऽपि भवतः प्रमाणमैव । न हि गुरूपदेशमतिक्रम्य वर्तमानः शिष्योऽमीटार्थसाधको भवति । परमगुरूपदेश चैवं वर्तते - निरुपमष्टति संहननाद्यक्शियरहितेनाचेलकेम नैव भवितव्यम् । तत् किं त्वमित्थं गुरूपदेशबाह्येन नाग्नेनात्मानं विगोपसीति ॥२५८५॥
D. C.

Acārya ::-O Śivabhati! you have accepted naked condition, Because Tirthankaras were such. For, it has already been said that-~~~
Jārisayam gurulingam sisèna vi tarisèņa hoyavvam | Na hi hoi Buddhasiso seyavado naggakhavano vā. (1)
For Private Personal Use Only

Page #331

Vada]
Nihnavarāda (A pupil should bear the same dress as (big) precaptar bears. A follower of Buddha would never be found with a white garment or naked. ]
It is, therefore, in the fitness of things to follow the foot. steps of Tirthankaras. But if you don't possess the qualities such as full restraint and spiritual strength as they possess, do not accept nakedness on their own words. Being the follower of the Tirthařkara, if you initiate His dress and manners, you should behave according to his advice as well. Orre who behaves contrary to the advice of his preceptor, does not attain the fulfilment of his cherished desire. The great preceptors say that ono should never accept acelakatva, unless and until he has developed the necessary qualities of unequalled fortitude and strength. By accepting a-cèlakatva, why do you transgress the advice of the preceptors ?
Sivabhati :- Just as it is necessary to behave according to the advice of the preceptor, one should certainly follow him in dress and manners also. 36 (2585).
The Acārya says:रोगी जहोवएस करेइ वैजस्स हो अरोगी य । •न उबेसं अरियं का करेह न य पउणइ करंनो ॥३७॥२५८६॥ तह जिणवेनाएसं कुणमाणोऽबेइ कम्मरोगाओ। न उ तन्नेवत्थधरो तेसिमाएसमकरंतो ॥३८॥२५८७॥ 37. Rogi jahovadsam karèi vèjjassa hö arogo ya i
Na u vèsam cariyam vā karèi na ya pauņai karanto. (2586) 88. Taha Jinavejjadsam kunamānd'vdi kammarogat
Na u tannavatthadharo tesimaesamakaranto. (2587) [रोगी यथोपदेशं करोति वैद्यस्य भवस्यरोगश्च । न तु वेषं चरितं वा करोति न च प्रकरोति कुर्वन् ॥३७॥२५८६॥ तथा जिमवैद्यादेशं कुर्वाणोऽपैति कर्मरोगात् । न तु तन्नेपथ्यधरस्तेषामादेशमकुर्वन् ॥३८॥२५८७॥

Page #332

:308: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika 37. Rogi yathopadesam karoti vaidyasya bhatyarogasca |
Na tu veşam caritam vā karoti na ca prakaroti kurvan. (2586) 38. Tathā Jinavaidyāddsam kurvāņo'paiti karmarogāti ___Na tu tannepathyadharastesamadesamakurvan. (2587)]
Trans. 37-38. A sick person behaves according to the advice of a physician and cures himself, but (he) does not imitate him in dress and manners. Por, doing so does not cure him.
Similarly, one who follows the advice of the Tirthankaraphysician, is cured from the disease of Karman, while one who imitates him in dress but does not behave according to his commandments, is not (cured) (of the malady of Kar. man). 2586-2587.
टीका-३७-३८ व्याख्या-इह यथा रोगी वैद्यस्योपदेशं करोति, तत्करणमात्रेणैव च रोगाद् विमुच्यते, न पुनरसौ तद्वेषं करोति, नापि तच्चरितमाचरति, न च तत् कुर्वाणोऽप्यसौ प्रगुणीभवति, प्रत्युतक्षपणकादौ वैये नाग्न्यादिकं तद्वेष कुर्वन् सर्वरसांश्च स्वेच्छया तद्वद् भुजानस्तचरितानुष्ठायी संनिपातस्यैव म्रियते । तस्माद् वैद्योपदेशानुष्ठानमेव रोगिणो रोगापगमहेतुः । प्रस्तुतयोजनामाह "तहेत्यादि" तथा तेनैव प्रकारेण जिनवैद्यस्यादेशं कुर्वाणस्तद्वेषचरिते अनाचरमपि कर्मरोगादपैति वियुज्यते, न पुनस्तेषामादेशमकुर्वाणस्तभेपथ्य-चरिते विमाणोऽपि तस्माद् वियुज्यते, केवलं तद्योग्यतारहितत्वात्तपथ्य-चरिताभ्यां प्रवर्तमान उन्मादादिभाजनमेव भवतीति ॥२५८६॥२५८७॥ D. C.
Acārya :- A sick person is cured of his illness only if he behaves according to the instructions of the physician. Imitating the physician in dress and manners (without following his instructions), does not help him in any way. By doing so, he would, on the coutrary, become the victim of delirium.
Similarly, one who follows the instructions of the Tirthankara, without imitating his dress or external manners, is relieved of his bondages of Karman, while one wbo imitates the dress

Page #333

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:309: and external manners without putting into practice the instruotions given by the Tirthankaras, is not able to escape from the clutches of Karman. On the contrary, such a person gives an impression of a mad man. 37-38 (2586-2587).
And, if you claim to be the follower of Tirthankara's dress and manners, is your imitation similar to the behaviour of the Tirthankara wholly or partly? If it is so wholly, then you should note that-- न परोवएसवसया न य छउमत्था परोवएस पि । दिति, न य सीसवग्गं दिक्खंति जिणा जहा सव्वे ॥३९॥२५८८॥ तह सेसेहि वि सव्वं कजं जह ते हिं सव्वसाहम्मं । एवं च कओ तित्थं न चेदचेलो त्ति को गाहो ? ॥४०॥२५८९॥ 39. Na parovadsavasaya na ya chaumatthā parovadsam pil ____Dinti, na ya sisavaggam dikkhanti Jina jaha savve. (2588) 40. Taha sdsdhi vi savvam kajjam jai tehim sarvasāhammam |
____Evam ca kao tittham na cedacblo tti ko gāho ? (2589) [न परोपदेशवशगा न च च्छमस्थाः परोपदेशंपि । ददति, न च शिष्यवर्ग दीक्षन्ते जिना यथा सर्वे ॥३९॥२५८८॥ तथा शेषैरपि सर्व कार्य यदि तैः सर्वसाधर्म्यम् । एवं च कुतरतीर्थ न चेदचेल इति को ग्रहः ? ॥४०॥२५८९॥ 39. Na paropadesavasaga na ca cchadmasthāh paropadesam |
Dadati, na ca sisyavargam diksante Jinā yathā sarve. (2588) 40. Tathā še şaira pi sarvam kāryam yadi taiḥ sarvasādharmyam
Evam ca kutastirtham na cedacdla iti ko grahah ? (2589)]
Trans. 39-40. Tirthankaras do not follow the instructions of others; nor do they give instructions during their chadmstha life (i. e. Eefore the acquisition of Kavala Jinana); nor do 1 hey initiate fupils. All this should be practised by their followers if 11:6) claim equality (with the Tithankaras) in

Page #334

:310:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika
all respects. And, in that case, where is the scope for the existence of Tirth (the Jaina Church)? And, if there is no (church), where is the scope for insisting upon acèlakatva (or nakedness)? (2588-2589).
टीका-३९-४० व्याख्या-यदि तैर्जिनस्तीर्थकरेः सह लिङ्ग-चरिताभ्यां सर्वसाधम्यम् , तहिं यथा ते स्वयंबुद्धत्वाद् न परोपदेशवशगा:-न परोपदेशेन वर्तन्ते, न च च्छद्मस्थावस्थायां प्रतिबोधार्थ परस्याप्युपदेशं ददति, न च शिष्यवर्ग दीक्षन्ते, तथा शेरैरपि तच्छिष्य-प्रशिष्यः सर्वमेतत् त्वदभिप्रायेण कार्य करणीयं प्रामोति । भवत्वेवं नहिं, को दोष ? इति चेत् । इत्याह-एवं च सति कुतस्तीर्थम् , कस्यापि प्रतिबोधाभावाद् दीक्षाद्यभावाच्च ? । “न चेदिति" अथ न तैः सह सर्वसाधम्यमित्युच्यते, तर्हि "अचेलो भवाम्यहम्” इति कस्तव ग्रहः ? अचिन्त्यत्वात् तच्चरितस्येति ॥२५८८॥२५८९॥
D. C. If you claim equality with Tirthankaras in all respects by following them in dress, panners etc., you must be able to practise everything that Tirthankaras were doing. In other words, like Tīrthankaras, you should not accept instructions from others, should not give instructions to others as Tīrthaikaras do during their chadmastha life, and should not initiate pupils as Tirthankaras do, except when they have acquired Kovala Timina. And, if such a thing happens there would be nothing like lıksä etc, and ultimately the entire Jaina Church woull cease to exist in absence of imparting or receiving instructions etc..
On the other hand, if you accept that you are not in cquality with the Tirthankaras in all respects, you shall have to give up insisting upon accepting acelakatva in vain. 39-40 (2588-2589).
Besides, जह न जिणिंदेहि समं सेसाइसएहिं सव्वसाहम्मं । तह लिंगेणाभिमयं चरिएण वि किं चि साहम्मं ॥४१॥२५९०॥ 41. Jaha na Jiņindehim samam sèsāisaèhim savvasāhammami
Taha lingeņābhimayam carièņa vi kimci sāhaumam. (2590)

Page #335

:311:
Vada]
Nihnavavada [यथा न जिनेन्द्रैः समं शेषातिशयैः सर्वसाधर्म्यम् । तथा लिङ्गेनाभिमतं चरितेनापि किश्चित् साधर्म्यम् ॥४१॥२५९०॥ 41. Yatha na Jinondrain samam sdsatisayaih sarvasādharmyam।
Tathā lingènābhimataw caritònăpi kiñcit sădharmayam. (2590)]
Trans. 41. (You have not acquired) equality with Tirthankaras in all respects, including the rest of their excellent qualities. But, you have accepted equality (only) to some extent so far as (their external) dress and manners are concerned. 2590.
टीका-४१ यथा जिनेन्द्रैः सह “निरुत्रमधिइसंघयणा चउनाणाइ सयसत्तसंपण्णा” इत्यादिना ग्रन्थेन प्रतिपादितैलिंगाचरिताचशेषैरतिशयैः सर्वसाधर्म्य नाभिमतं भवतः, किं तहिं ? किश्चित् साधर्म्यमेव, तथा तेनैव प्रकारेण लिङ्गेन चरितेन च किश्चित् साधर्म्यमेव तैः सहाभिमतमस्माकम् , न तु सर्वसाधर्म्यम् , तच किञ्चित् साधर्म्य लिङ्गतो लोचकरणमात्रेण न पुनरचेलत्वेन , चरित्रेण त्वेषणीयाहारपरिभोगा-ऽनियतवासादिना, न तु पाणिभोजित्वेन, निरतिशयत्वेन तदयोग्यत्वादस्मदादीनाम् । तस्मात् किश्चित् साधर्म्यस्योक्तन्यायेनान्यथापि सिद्धेः कोऽचेलताद्याग्रहो भवतः ? इति ॥२५९०॥
D. C. If you do not claim cquality with Tīrthankaras in all respects but aclmit the same to some extent, it is admissible to us. If you accept loca (plucking out of hair ) etc., you attain similarity to some extent, but you do not attain the same with the principle of acelakatva. You follow the Tirthankaras in dress an external behaviour when you renounce the dress and take food in hands or stay at undecided places, but since you do not possess the excellent qualities of a Tirthankara, you cannot be said to have attained complete equality with them. While nonsimilarity with the Tirthankaras could be proved in many other ways. So, why do you insist upon a-celakatva unnecessarily ? 41. (2590).
Then, in reply to " Tadabhihis jam ca Jinakappo" ete, the Acārya admits that Jinakalpa has been laid by the Tīrthankaras

Page #336

: 812 Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika but explains as to how that Jinakalpa has been said and with regard to which persons
उत्तमधिहसंघयणा पुत्वविदोऽतिसइणो सयाकालं। जिणकप्पिया वि कप्पं कयपरिकम्मा पवजंति ॥४२॥२५९१॥ तं जइ जिणवयणाओ पवनसि, पवन तो स छिनो त्ति । अस्थि त्ति कहं पमाणं कह वुच्छिन्नो त्ति न पमाणं? ॥४३॥२५९२॥ 42. Uttamadhiisanghayaņā puvvavido'tisaiņo sayākalam |
Jiņakappiyā vi kappam kayaparikammā pavajjanti. (2591) 43. Tam jai-Jiņavayaņāö pavajjasi, pavajja to sa chinno tti Atthi tti kaham pamāṇam kaha vucchinno tti na pamāṇam ?
(2592) [उत्तमधृतिसंहननाः पूर्वविदोऽतिशयिनः सदाकालम् । जिनकल्पिका अपि कल्पं कृतपरिकर्माण प्रपद्यन्ते ॥४२॥२५९१॥ तद् यदि जिनवचनात् प्रपद्यसे, प्रपद्यस्व ततः स च्छिन्न इति । अस्तीति कथं प्रमाणं कथं व्युच्छिन्न इति न प्रमाणम् ॥४३॥२५९२॥ 42. Uttamadhritisamhananah purvavido'tisayinah sadakalam |
___Jinakalpika api kalpam kritaparikramanah prapadyante. (2591) 43. Tad yadi Jinavacanāt prapadyase, prapadyasva tatah sa cchi
nna iti Astīti katham pramāņam katham vyucchinna iti na pramā. nam. (2592).
Trans. 42-43. Even Jinkalpikas who prossess excellent fortitude, and (bodily) constitution, and who are conversent with (Nine) parvas, and who possess excellent qualities in Kalpa, and who have also undergone the (five) tests, always accept Jinakalpa. Following the words of the Tirthařkaras, if you accept it, then, (you should ) admit it to have been (already) perished. (For), what is the proof for establishing that it exists, and where is the proof (to show that) it has not perished ? (2591-2592).

Page #337

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
:318: टीका-४२-४३ । व्याख्याउत्तमतिसंहननाः पूर्ववेदिनो जघन्यतोऽपि किञ्चिन्यूननवपूर्वपाठका इत्यर्थः सर्वदेव निरुपमशक्त्याधतिशयसंपमा जिनकल्पिका अपि “तवेण सुत्तेण सत्तेण" इत्यादि पूर्वोक्तविधिना कृतपरिकमाण एव जिनकल्पं प्रतिपद्यन्ते, नान्यथेति न रथ्यापुरुषकल्पानां भवादृशां जिनकल्पस्तीर्थकरैरनुज्ञात इति । तत् तस्माद् यदि जिनवचनादर्हदुपदेशान्जिनकल्पं प्रतिपद्यसे त्वम्, ततस्तहिं "स जिनकल्पो व्यवच्छिन्नः" इतीदमपि प्रतिपद्यख । अथैतद् न प्रतिपद्यसे, तहिं “जिनकल्पोऽस्ति" इति कथं तीर्थकरवचनं तव प्रमाणम् ? । कथं च "व्यवच्छिन्नोऽसौ" इति न प्रमाणम् ? । नन्वाग्रहपिशाचिकाग्रस्तचेष्टितमिदम् ? स्वेच्छामात्रप्रवृत्तत्वादिति ॥२५९१॥२५९२॥
D. C. Jinakalpikas, who possess the virtuous qualities like excellent fortitude and bodily constitution, who are conversent with Nine Pūrvas, and who possess excellent qualities, and who have also undergone the usual five tests, always admit the validity of Jinakalpa. The Tirthankaras have allowed the practice of Jinakalpa for such worthy persons, and not for unworthy persons like you. If you, therefore, believe in Jinakalpa, you should also admit the same to have already perished. For, otherwise, how could the words of the Tirthankaras laying down that Jinakalpa existed, be authentic to you? And, how could the view that it has not perished, bę authentic on the other hand ?
Śivabhati :-Existence of Jinakalpa has already been admitted in the āgamas, but by which pramāņa (authoritative statement) is the destruction of Jinakalpa laid down by the Tirthankara? 42-43 (2591-2592).
The Acārya replies :मण-परमोहि-पुलाए-आहारग-खवग-उवसमे-कप्पे । संयमतिय-केवल-सिज्मणा य जंबुम्मि बुच्छिण्णा ॥४४॥२५९३॥ 44. Maņa-Paramohi-Pulād-Abāraga-Kbavaga-Uvasamd-Rappel
Samyamatiya-Kdvala-Sijjhaņā ya Jambummi vucchiņņā. (2593) [मन:-परमावधि-पुलाका-आहारक-क्षपको-पशमा:-कल्पः । संयमत्रिक-केवल-सिद्धयश्च जम्बो व्युच्छिन्नाः ॥४४॥२५९३॥

Page #338

:814:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The Botika 44. Manah-Paramāvadhi-Pulākā-Abāraka Ksapako-pašamāḥ
Kalpaḥ 1 Samyamatrika-Kerala-Siddhayaśca Jambau vyucchindāḥ. (2593)
Trans. 44. (1) Manaḥ paryāya Jäāna (the intermediary stage of mental perception-the highest stage of concentration, (2) Paramāvadhi Jätäna (attainment of high visual knowledge, (3) Pulāka Labdhi (supernatural power possessed by a Pulāk variety of ascetics of crushing the army of a cakravartin, (4) Ahāraka sarira (one of the five kinds of body, formed of very fine ahāraka molecules assumed only by highly advanced ascetics, which enables them to approach a Master, for the purpose of solving their doubts, (5) Ksapaka-śreni ( spiritual advancement in which destruction of right conduct-deluding Karmas takes place, (6) Upaśama-Śrèņi, (spiritual advancement in which subsidence of such Karmas takes place), (7) Jinakalpa ( the religious rites of a Tirthankara ), (8) Samyama trika ( trio of restraint consisting of parihāra viśuddhi (removal of evil instincts), sokşma samparāya (experience of subtle conflicts ), and yathākhyāta cāritra (attainment of the prescribed conduct ), (9) Kèvala ( the state of having attained Perfect Knowledge) and (10) Siddhipada-Moksa ( Final Emancipation-these ten precepts. disappeared after Jambu Swāmie.
टीका-४४ मनः पर्यायज्ञानम् , परमावधिः, पुलाकलब्धि, आहारकशरीरम् , क्षपकश्रेणिः, उपशमश्रेणिः, जिनकल्प, परिहारविशुद्धिक-सूक्ष्मसंपराय-यथाख्यातलक्षणं संयमत्रिकम् , केवली, मोक्षगमनलक्षणा सिद्धिश्चेति सर्वेऽप्येते पदार्था जम्बूस्वामिनि व्यवच्छिमा जम्बूस्वामिनं यावत् प्रवृत्ताः, न तूत्तरत्रेति ॥२५९३॥
D. C. The ten precepts that have been mentioned above existed only upto the days of Arya Jamba Swāmi, (who died in Vira Samvat 64). After him, all these precepts are said to have vanished. 44 (2593).
In reply to "a-cèlaka parişaha" the Acārya proceeds to say6. Vide vs 2551-2552 (foot note 4)

Page #339

:313:
Vada ]
Nibnavavada जह चेलभोगमेत्तादजिआचेलयपरिसहो तेण । अजियदिगिछाइपरीसहो वि भताइभोगाओ ॥४५॥२५९४॥ एवं तुह न जियपरीसहा जिणिंदा व सव्वहावनं । अहवा जो भत्ताइसु स विही चेले वि किं नेहा ? ॥४६॥२५९५॥ जह भत्ताईविसुद्धं राग-दोसरहिओ निसेवंते । विजियदिन्छिाइपरीसहो मुणी सपडियारो वि ॥४७॥२५९६॥ तह चेलं परिसुद्धिं राग-दोसरहिओ सुयविहीए । होइ जियाचेलपरिसहो मुणी सेवमाणो वि ॥४८॥२५९७॥ 45. Jai cèlabhogamèttādajiācèlayaparisaho tena 1
Ajiyadiginchāiparīsaho vi bhattāibhogão. (2594) 46. Evam tuha na jiyaparisahā Jiņindā vi savvahāvannam
___Ahava jo bhattaisu sa vihi cels vi kim netthā ? (2595) 47. Jaba bhattāivisuddham rāga-dosarahio nisevanto I
Vijiyadiginchaiparisaho muni sa-padiyaro vi. (2596). 48. Taha cèlam parisuddhim rāga-dosarahiö suyavihid i
Höi jiyācèlaparisa ho muni sevamāṇo vi. (2597). [यदि चेलभोगमात्रादजिताचेलकपरिषहस्तेन । अजितक्षुदादिपरीषहोऽपि भक्तादिभोगात् ॥४५॥२५९४॥ एवं तव न जितपरीषहा जिनेन्द्रा अपि सर्वथापन्नम् । अथवा यो भक्तादिषु स विधिश्चेलेऽपि किं नेष्टः १ ॥४६॥२५९५॥ यथा भक्तादिविशुद्धं राग-द्वेषरहितो निषेवमाणः । विजितक्षुवादिपरीषहो मुनिः सप्रतिकारोऽपि ॥४७॥२५९६॥ तथा चेलं परिशुद्धं राग-द्वेषरहितः श्रुतविधिना । भवति जिताचेलपरीषहो मुनिः सेवमानोऽपि ॥४८॥२५९७॥ 45. Yadi cdlabhogamātrādajitacdlakaparisaha stena |
Ajitakşudādiparişaho’pi bhaktādi-bhogāt. (2594)

Page #340

3316: Jinabhadra Grani's
[The Botika 46. Evam tava na jitaparişahā Jinèndrā api sarvathāpannam |
Athavá yo bhaktādişu sa vidhiścèlè'pi kim nestaḥ ? (2595)
47. Yathā bhaktādiviếuddham rāga-dvèśarahito nişèvamāṇaḥ 1
Vijitaksudādiparişaho muniḥ sa-pratikāro'pi. (2596). 48. Tathā cèlam parisuddham rāga-dvèşarahitaḥ śrutavidhinā|
Bhavati jitācèlaparīşaho muniḥ sèvamāno'pi. (2597)
Trans. 45-46-47-48. By putting on a garment, if one is said to have been unable to overcome the strain of uncovered state, then, in taking food etc. he would as well be said to have been unable to overcome the distress of hunger etc. It would, therefore, follow according to you, that even Tirthankaras are not able to overcome the distress of hunger etc. Or, has the rule applied to the case of (accepting) food etc. disappeared in case of (accepting) the garment? Just as, a true ascetic is said to have conquered the strain of hunger etc. in spite of his taking the prescribed food on account of the lack of passion or aversion (towards the same), in the same way, an ascetic who accepts the garment according to his religious commandment, is said to have conquered the distress of naked condition (as he does so without any passion or aversion. (2594-2297).
टीका-४५-४६-४७-४८ व्याख्या-जिताचेलपरीषहो मुनिर्भवतीति वयमपि मन्यामहे । केवलमिदं प्रष्टव्योऽसि-किं चेलभोगमात्रेणाप्यजिताचेलपरीषहत्वं भवति येन भवता सर्वथा वनपरित्यागः क्रियते, आहोस्विदनेषणीयादिदोषदुष्टवस्त्रपरिभोगेण ? । तत्राद्यपक्षे दूषणमाह-"जईत्यादि" यदि चेलभोगमात्रादपि तेन साधुनाऽऽचेलक्यपरीषहो न जित इति त्वया प्रोच्यते, तर्हि भक्तादिपरिभोगमात्रादजितंदिगिंछादिपरीषहोऽपि त्वदभिप्रायेणैव साधुः स्यात् । एतदुक्तं भवति --इह देशीवचनत्वाद् दिगिञ्छाशब्देन क्षुत् प्रोच्यते, आदिशब्दात् पिपासादिपरिग्रहः, । ततश्च यद्येषणीयादिगुणोपेतवस्त्र-पात्र-परिमोगाजिताचेलपरीषहो नेष्यते, तसेषणादिगुणसंपनमक्तपानादिपरिभोगाजितक्षुत्-पिपासादिपरिषहोऽपि न कश्चिजागति स्यात् । भवस्वम्, न किश्चिद् नः क्षयत इति चेत् । अत्राह-"एवमि.

Page #341

Vada ] Nihnávavāda
:317: त्यादि" एवं सति त्वदभिप्रायेण जिनेन्द्रा अपि भगवन्तो निरुपमतिसंहननाः सत्त्वैकनिधयो न जितपरीपहा इति सर्वप्रकारैरापनम् । अर्कोद्गमादिदोषविप्रमुक्तं विशुद्धमेषणीयं राग-द्वेषरहितो भक्त-पानादिकं सेवमानोऽपि जितक्षुत्-पिपासादिपरीषहो मुनिर्भवति, तर्हि योऽयं भक्तादिषु विधिरुच्यते स चेलेपि वनेऽपि भण्यमानः किं नेष्टः कापि ?-ननु तदप्येषणीयं रागादिदोषरहितः परिशुञ्जानो जिताचेलपरीषहो मुनिः स्यादेवेति भावः। एतदेव व्यक्तीकुर्वभाह-"जह" इत्यादि गाथाद्वयं स्पृष्टम् । नवरं "सपडिवारो वित्ति" बुभुक्षा-पिपासा-शीतोष्णादिनां भक्त-पान-वस्त्रादिभिः सूत्रोक्तयतनया कृतः प्रतीकारः प्रतिविधानं येन स तथा । इदं च डमरुकमणिन्यायेन गाथाद्वयं संवध्यते । तस्मादनेषणीयादिदोषदुष्टवस्त्रपरिमोगेणैवाजिताचेलपरीषहत्वं भवति, न तु सूत्रविधिना तदुपभुञ्जत इति ॥२५९४॥२५९५॥२५९६॥२५९७॥ D. C.
___Acarya:-We fully agree with you, in believing that a person who overcomes the distress arising from naked condition, should be known as a true ascetio. But in connection with the same, I ask you this question : Are you in favour of completely renouncing the garment, because according to you, one cannot be said to have overoome acelaka parişaha if he puts on a gar. ment? Or, do you hold the above-mentioned view in order to prevent the wearing of undesirable garments by the ascètics ?
Taking the first alternative, if you are of the opinion of abandoning the garments on the ground that'"acelaka parişaha" could be said to bave been overcome only if the clothes are completely renounced, you are mistaken. According to this standard, even Tirthankaras will be said to have failed in overcoming the parişaha of hunger etc. in spite of their having the best qualities of courage and strength.
Sivabhati :-An ascetic who takes the pure prescribed food and drink, etc., without any desire or aversion on his part, would be said to have subdued the pangs of hunger etc.
Acārya :—The same standard should be applied to those who accept the presoribed garments without desire breversion

Page #342

: 318:
Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika
on their parts. Why should they not be recognized to have overcome the pangs of being in an uncovered state? In short, we can plainly say that one who resists hunger, thirst, cold, and heat etc. with the help of food, water, garments etc., as directed by the religious rules, should be known to have overcome the respective pariṣaha. This shows that an ascetic is defeated by a-cèlaka pariṣaha only if he wears undesirable garments, but not if he accepts the same as directed by the religious rules.
Śivabhūti:- If an ascetic accepts a garment, how could he be said to have undergone the strain of acèlakatva? For, he is said to have endured the same only in absence of the garment. Acārya:--Your theory is wrong. 45-48 (2594-2597).
Because,
सदसंतचेलगोऽचेलगो य जं लोग-समयसंसिद्धो । तेणाचेला मुणओ संतेहिं, जिणा असंतेहि ||४९|| २५९८|| 49. Sadasantacèlago'cèlayo ya jam loga-samayasamsiddho । Tènācèlā munaö santèhim, Jina asantèhim. (2598)
[सदसचेलकोऽचे लकश्च यल्लोक - समयसंसिद्धः । तेनाचेला मुनयः सद्भिः, जिना असद्भिः ||४९॥२५९८॥
49. Sadasaccèlako’cèlakśca yalloka-samayɛsamsiddhaḥ | Tenācèlā munayah sadbhin Jinā asadbhib. (2598) ]
1
Trans. 49. Naked condition with, as well as, without clothes is welknown in the world, as well as, in Scriptures. The ascetics are ( accepted as ) naked with garments, (while) Tirthankaras ( are naked ) without garments. 2598.
टीका- ४९ सच्चासच्च सदसती चेले यस्यासौ सदसच्चेलो यद् यस्माल्लोके समये चाचेलकः संसिद्धः प्रसिद्धः । च शब्दः प्रस्तावनायाम् । सा च कृतैव । तेन तस्मादिह मुनयः सामान्यसाधवः सद्भिरेव चैलैरुपचारतोऽचेला भण्यन्ते, जिनास्तु तीर्थकरा असद्भिवेलैर्मुख्यवृत्त्याऽचेला व्यपदिश्यन्ते । इदमुक्तं भवति-इहाचेलत्वं द्विविधम् - मुख्यम्, उपचरितं च । तत्रेदानीं मुख्यमचेलत्वं संयमो -

Page #343

Vāda) Nihnavavāda
: 319: पकारि न भवति, अत औपचारिकं गृयते, मुख्यं तु जिनानामेासीदिति ।।२५९८॥
D. C. Acèlakatva or uncovered state is recognized in two ways : (1) By actual abandonment of clothes, and (2) By custom. Tirthankaras are called a-cèlaka, on account of their complete abandonment of clothes. Ascetics who accept garments dispassionately on the ground that complete nakedness would not be beneficial to asceticism, are called acelaka hy custom, in spite of their putting on garments. 49 (2598).
Also, परिसुद्ध-जुण्ण-कुच्छिय-थोवानिययनभोगभोगेहिं । मुणओ मुच्छारहिया संतेहिं अचेलया होंति ॥५०॥२५९९॥ 50. Parisuddha-junna-kucchiya--thovă’niyayannabhogabhogèhim 1 • Muņao mucchārahiyā santèhim acèlayā honti. (2599). [परिशुद्धजीणेः कुत्सितः स्तोकैरनियतान्न भोग भोगैः । मुनयो मूर्छारहिताः सद्भिरचेलका भवन्ति ॥५०॥२५९९॥ 50. Parisud Thai-r-jīrņih kutsitaih stokaira-niyatānnabhogabhogaiḥ |
Munayo mūrcchārahitāh sadbhiracèlakā bhavanti. (2599) ]
Trans. 50. The dispassionate ascetics become acelaka in spite of their putting on, a few clean, but old, and cheap clothes in a disorderly manner 2599.
टीका-५० मुनयः साधवो मूर्छारहिताः सद्भिरपि चेलैरुपचारतोऽचेलका भवन्ति । कथंभूतैश्चेलः ? इत्याह-"परिसुद्ध त्ति" लुप्तविभक्तिदर्शनात् परिशुद्धैरेषणीयैः, तथा जीर्णैर्बहुदिवसः, कुत्सितैरसारैः स्तोकैर्गणनाप्रभावतो हीनैस्तुच्छैा "अनिययनभोगभोगेहिं ति" अनियतभोगेन कादाचित्कासेवनेन भोगः परिभोगो येषां तानि तथा तैः। एवंभूतैश्चेलैः सद्भिरप्युपचारतोऽचेलका मुनयो भण्यन्ते । तथा, “अन्नभोगभोगेहि ति” एवमपि योज्यते । ततश्च लोकरूढप्रकारान्यमकारेण भोग आसेवनम् , प्रकारलक्षणस्य मध्यपदस्य लोपात्, अन्यभोगस्तेनान्यभोगेन भोगः परिभोगो येषां तानि तथा तैरप्येवंभूतैश्चेलैरवेलकत्वं

Page #344

:3201
Jinabhadra Gani's [The Botika लोक प्रसिदमेक, यथा कटीवस्त्रेण वेष्ठितसिरसो जलावगाढपुरुषस्य । साधोरपि कच्छावन्धामावाद , कूर्पराभ्यामग्रभाग एव चोलपट्टकस्य धरणात् , मस्तकसोपरि प्रावरणाधभावाच लोकरूढप्रकारादन्यप्रकारेण चेलभागो द्रष्टव्यः । तदेवं "परिसुद्ध-जुण्ण-कुच्छिय" इत्यादिविशेषणविशिष्टैः सद्भिरपि चेलैस्तथाविधवस्त्राकार्याकरणाद् तेषु मूर्छाऽभावाच मुनयोऽचेलका व्यपदिश्यन्त इतीह तात्पर्यम् ॥२५९९॥
D. C. Ascetics who put on a few clean but old, and worthless clothes, dispassionalely and in a disorderly manner, are recognized as acelaka out of custom. 50. (2599).
Besides, जहजलमवगाहंतो बहुचेलो वि सिरवेट्ठियकडिलो। भण्णइ नरो अचेलो तह मुणओ संतचेला वि ॥५१॥२६६०॥ 51. Jaha.jalamaragshanto bahucdlo vi sirvetthiyakadillo।
Bhaņņai naro acelo taha muņað santacèlā vi. (2600). [यथा जलमवगाहमानो बहुचेलोऽपि शिरोवेष्टितकटिकः ।
भण्यते नरोऽचेलस्तथा मुनयः सचेला अपि ॥५१॥२६००॥ 51. Yatha jalamavagāhamāno bahucdlo'pi sirovestitakatikah ।
Bhanyate naro'cèlastathā munayaḥ sacèlā api. (2600)).
Trans. 51. Just as a person plunging into water with his lower garment turned round (his) head, is called naked in spite of his possessing many clothes, so also, the ascetics (are recognized ) as acelaka in spite of their possessing several garments. 2600.
टीका-गतार्था
Also, तह थोष-जुन्न-कुच्छियचेलेहि वि भन्नए अचेलो त्ति । जहत्तर सालिय! लहुं दो पोति नग्गिया मा त्ति ॥५२॥२६०१॥ 52. Aha thova-junna-kucchiyaodldhi vi bhannad acdlo ttis ___ Jahattara saliya lahum do pottim naggiyā mā tti. (2601)

Page #345

Vada ]
Nihnayavāda
: 321:
Trans. 52. Similarly, one is said to be acela even with small, tattered, and worthless clothes, as in the case of a woman saying “O) weaver ! make haste, give me a sāree; 1 (look) almost naked " 2601.
टीका-५२ इयमपि सुगमा, नवरं “जहत्तरेत्यादि" दृष्टान्तः, यह कापि योषित् कटीवेष्टितजीर्णबहुच्छिद्रेकसाटिका कश्चित् कोलिकं वदति-" त्वरस्व भोशालिक ! शीघ्रो भूत्वा मदीयपोत्ती शाटिकां निर्वाप्य ददस्व समर्पय, ननिका वर्तेऽहम्" तदिह सवस्त्रायामपि योषिति नाग्न्यवाचक शब्दप्रवृत्तेः "जस्सट्ठा कीरइ नग्गभावो मुंडभावो अहायं, अदत्तवणयं" इत्याद्यपि न विरुभ्यत इति ॥२६०१॥
D. C. The " acdlakatva " attributed to the ascetics through tradition, could be understood from another example also. A wonian putting on a very old and tattered sāree with many holes inside, would go to the weaver and say "O weaver! make haste in preparing my garment, because I look (almost) naked without it." Here the word 'naked' is used in spite of the woman putting on a garment; in the same way, ascetics are called acelaka even though they put on a garment. 52 (2601).
Lastly, in reply to " Jam ca tihim thāndhim vattham dhardjja" etc., the Acārya saysविहियं सुए चिय जओ धरेज तिहिं कारणेहिं वत्थं ति। तेणं चिय तदवस्सं निरतिसएणं धरेयव्वं ॥५३॥२६०२॥ जिणकप्पाजोग्गाणं ही-कुच्छ-परीसहा जओऽवस्सं । ही लज्ज त्ति व सो संजमो तवत्थं विसेसेणं ॥५४॥२६०३॥ 53. Vihiyam sud cciya jao dharejja tihim karandhiin vattham til
Tèņam ciya tadavassam niratisaèņam dhardyavvanz. (2602) 54. Jinakappājogganam hi-kuccha-parisahā jas vassame
Hi lajja tti va so samjamo tadattham visèsèņam. (2603). [विहितं श्रुत एव यतो धरेत् त्रिभिः कारणैर्वस्त्रमिति । तेनैव तदवश्यं निरतिशयेन धर्तव्यम् ॥५३॥२६०२॥

Page #346

: 322:
Jinabhadra Gani's [The Botika जिनकल्पायोग्यानांही-कुत्सा-परीषहा यतोऽवश्यम् । हीर्लज्जेति वा स संयमस्तदर्थ विशेषेण ॥५४॥२६०३।। 53. Vihitam śruta dva yato dhardt tribhiḥ kāraṇai-r-vastramiti i
Tenaiva tadavasyam niratisayena dhartavyam. (2602). 54. Jinakalpayogyauam hri-kutsa-parisahā yato'vasyam |
Hrirlajjdti vã sa samyamastadartham viśèşèņa (2603) ].
Trauis. 53–54. Since it is laid down in the Scriptures, that (an ascetic ) should wear a garment on account of three reasons, he must certainly put it on in his own way. For, those who are unfit for (the practice of) Jinakalpa, should put on garments undoubtedly, for (the sake of) shame, (public) censure, and physical pain. For the sake of shame or restraint (one should do so) all the more. (2602-2603).
टीका-५३-५४ व्याख्या-ननु “त्रिभिः कारणैर्वस्त्रं धरणीयम्" इत्यागमोक्तं दर्शयता भगवताऽस्मत्पक्ष एव समर्थितो भवति, परं शुन्यहृदयत्वाद् भवान न लक्षयति । तथाहि-इदानीं वयमपि वक्तुं शक्नुमः-"त्रिभिः कारणैर्वस्त्रं घरेत्" इति सूत्रेऽपि विहितं प्रतिपादितं यतो यस्मात् तेनैव प्रकारेण तद् वस्त्रं निरतिशयेन तथाविधधृतिसंहननादिरहितेन साधुनाऽवश्यं धरणीयमिति । कुतः इत्याह-यतो यस्माद् निरतिशयत्वेन जिनकल्पायोग्यानां साधूनां ही-कुत्सापरीषह-लक्षणं वस्त्रधरणकारणं पूर्वाभिहितस्वरूपमवश्यमेव संभवति । ततो धरणीयमेव वस्त्रम् । यदि वा, कुत्सा-परीषहार्थं तद् न ध्रियते तथापि हीर्लज्जा, सच संयमस्तदर्थ सावद् विशेषेणैव वस्त्रं धरणीयम्, अन्यथाऽमिज्वलनादिना बृहदसंयमापत्तेरिति ॥२६०२॥२६०३॥ D. C.
Acárya:---By saying that an ascetic should put on clothes for three reasons, you strengthen our case. You are not able to see that on account of the confusion in your mind. The sotra implies that an ordinary ascetic who does not possess the necessary fortitude and strength of a Tirthankara, and hence is unfit

Page #347

Vada ] Nihnavayada
: 323: ( for the practice of) Jinakalpa, should put on garments for the sake of shame, (public) censure, and distress. He may not probably care for reproach and physical distress, but he should be very careful for shame or decency in order to practise perfect restraint. And, that is all the more reason why he should put on garments. Otherwise, there would be violence of austerity by means of litting up fire etc. 53-54 (2602-2603).
Concluding his arguments, the Ācārya explains-- जइ जिणमयं पमाणं तुह तो मा मुयसु बत्थ-पत्ताई। पुन्वत्तदोसजालं लम्भिसि मा समिइघायं च ॥५५॥२६०४॥ अणुवालेउमसत्तोऽपत्तो न समत्तमेसणासमिइं। वत्थरहिओन समिओ निक्खेवादाणवोसग्गा ॥५६॥२६०५॥
55. Jai Jinamayam pamānam tuha to mā muyasu vattha-pattaims
Puvvuttadosajālam labbhisi mā samiighāyam ca. (2604) 56. Anuvaleumasatto'patto na samatta-mdsanāsamiim |
Vattharahiö na samiö nikkhèvā-dāņavosaggā. (2605) [यदि जिनमतं प्रमाणं तब ततो मा मुश्च वस्त्र-पात्रादि । पूर्वोक्तदोषजालं लब्धा मा समितिघातं च ॥५५॥२६०४॥ अनुपालयितुमशक्तोऽपात्रो न समस्तामेषणासमितिम् । वस्त्ररहितो न समितो निक्षेपादानव्युत्सर्गः ॥५६॥२६०५॥ 55. Yadi Jinamatam pramāņam tava tato mā muñica vastra-pātrādi 1
Pūrvoktadoşajālam labdhā mā samiti-ghātam ca. (2604) 56. Anupālayitumaśakto'pātro na samastāmèşaņāsamitim i
Vastrarahito na samito niksepādāñavyutsargaiḥ. (2605) ]
Trans. 55--56. If the theory of the Tirthankaras is acceptable to you, then, do 11ot (certainly) leave off clothes and vessels etc. Do not become susceptible to the faults mentioned before, and do not undergo violation of samiti' thereby.
7. The fules of irreproachable conduct as an ascetio.

Page #348

:324: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The Botika Without vessel etc., (you) will not be able to practise the whole of Eşaņā samitis, and without garment, (you will) not (be able) to practise niksopa ( careful placing), adana (accepling with care ), and vyutsarga (throwing away with due care). (2604-2605).
टीका-५५-५६ यदि जिनमतं तव प्रमाणम् , ततो वस्त्रपात्रादि मा मुश्च मा त्याक्षीः । कुतः ? इत्याह-"नेणगहणानलसेवा" इत्यादिना पूर्वमुक्तं दोषजालं मा लब्धाः । तथा, समितिघातं च तत्परित्यागे माऽऽप्नुहि त्वमिति । कस्याः पुनः समितेः पात्राद्यभावे विघातः १ इत्याह-"अणुवाले उमित्यादि" अशक्तोऽसमर्थो भवेत् । किं कर्तुम् १ । समस्तां परिपूर्णामेषणासमितिमनुपालयितुम् । कथंभूतः ? अपात्रः पात्ररहितः। पुननिक्षेपादानसमित्या व्युत्सर्गसमित्या च समितो न भवेत् , उपलक्षणत्वाद् भाषासमित्यापि समितो न भवेत् , वस्त्राघमावे रजोहरणमुखवत्रिकाधभावात् । तदभावे च यथोक्तसमितित्रयासिद्धेरिति ॥२६०४॥२६०५॥
D. C. If the theory of Tirthankaras is acceptable to you, then, do not really abandon clothes, vessels etc; otherwise, you will be susceptible to faults that have already been mentionedo. You will also be violating the Samiti (Main Rule of an Ascetic's conduct) thereby. In absence of pātra, you will not be able to follow the whole of dşaņā samiti and being unable to practise niksepa, adana and vyutsarga, you will not be able to per- . form bhāşā samiti as well. In absence of vastra etc. like mukhaVastrikā, rajoharaṇa etc. you will be leaving a part of an ascetio's duties unperformed.
Thus, without pātra and vastra, you will be violating the principles of an ascetic's life. 55-56 (2604-2605).
Then,
8. The rule of moderation in desires.
9. Vide verses 2575-2579 particularly the extracts taken from Kalpa Bhāsya etc. beginning with " Kappa ayappamāna."

Page #349

Vada] Nihnavavāda
:325: इय पण्णविओ वि पहुं सो मिच्छत्तोक्याकुलियभावो। जिणमयमसद्दहंतो छड्डियवत्थो समुज्जाओ ॥५७॥२६०६॥ तस्स भगिणी समुझियवस्था तह चेव तवणुरागेणं । संपत्थिया नियत्था तो गणियाए पुणो मुयई ॥५८॥२६०७॥ तीए पुणो वि बद्धोरसेगवस्था पुणो विछंड़िती। अच्छड ते तेणं चिय समुणुण्णाया धरेसी य ॥५९॥२६०८॥ कोडिन-कोहवीरे पज्जावेसी य दोणि सो सीसे। तत्तो परंपराफासओऽवसेसा समुप्पन्ना ॥६०॥२६०९॥ 57. Iya paņņavjö vi bahum so micchattodayākuliyabhāvo i
Jinamayamasaddahanto chaddiyavattho samujjas. (2606). 58. Tassa bhagiņi samujjbiyavatthā taha odva tadaņurāgenami
Sampatthiya niyatthā to ganiyāè puņo muyai. (2607) 59. Tid puņo vi baddhorasegavatthā puņo vi vichanddinti i
Acchau tè tèņam ciya samaņuņņāyā dharòsi ya. (2608) 60. Kodinna-Kottavird pajjavdsi ya domi so sisd |
Tatto paramparāphāsaö'vasèsā samuppannā. (2609). [इति प्रज्ञापितोऽपि बहु स मिथ्यात्वोदयाकुलितभावः। जिनमतमश्रद्दधानश्छर्दितवस्त्रः समुद्यातः ॥५७॥२६०६॥ तस्य भगिनी समुज्ञितवस्त्रा तथैव तदनुरागेण । संपस्थिता निवसिता ततो गणिकया पुनर्मुश्चति ॥५८॥२६०७॥ तया पुनरपि बद्धोरसेकवस्त्रा पुनश्छर्दयन्ती। तिष्ठतु ते तेनैव समनुज्ञाताऽधार्षीच ॥५९॥२६०८॥ कौण्डिन्य-कोहवीरौ प्रावाजयच द्वौ स शिष्यो। ततः परम्परास्पदवशेषाः समुत्पन्नाः ॥६०॥२६०९॥ 57. Iti prajnapito'pi bahu sa mithyatvo-dayākulitabhavani
Jinamatamasraddhānascharditavastraḥ samudyätah. (2606)

Page #350

:326: Jinabhadra Gami's
[The Botika 58. Tasya bhagini samujjhitavastrā tathaiva tadanurāgèņa 1
Samprasthitā nivasita tato ganikayā puna-r-muficati. (2607) 59. Tayā punarapi baddborasèkavastrā punaschardayanti |
Tisthtu tè tènaiva samanujñātā'dhārşicca. (2608) 60. Kaundinya-Kottavirau pravrajayacca dvau sa sisyaun
Tatah paramparasparsadavasesāh samutpannāh. (2609)
Trans. 57-58-59.-60. Although persuaded in many such ways, he, with his mind obsessed with vanity, did not put faith in the words of Tirthankaras, and went away, abandoning clothes. Following him, his sister also put off her clothes and went out. She was given a garment by a whore, but she put off the same again. She was again covered with a gar. ment on the breasts by that (whore), and again, she was (on the point of) leaving the same. (But) at the advice of Sivabhuti " Let it be worn by you,” she accepted it. He, then, initiated two pupils, named Kaundinya and Kottavira, by whose tradition, the sect of the Digambaras was produced. (2606-2609).
टीका-५७-५८-५९-६०-एताश्चतसोऽपि गतार्थाः, नवरं 'समुज्जाउ त्ति' त्यक्तवस्त्र उपाश्रयात् समुद्यातो मिर्गतः। “नियत्था त्ति" ततो गणिकया निवसिता वस्त्रं परिधापितेत्यर्थः । “तीए त्ति”.तया गणिकया "बद्धोरसेगवत्य ति" बद्धमुरस्येकं वस्त्रं यस्याः सा तथेति। "ततो परंपरेत्यादि" ततः परम्परया योऽसौ स्पर्शो गुरुशिष्यसंबन्धस्तस्माद् बोटिकसंतानवर्तिनोऽवशेषा बोटिकाः समुत्पमा इति । एतासां च बोटिकव्यतिकरसंबद्धानां सर्वासामपि गाथानामर्थ संक्षिप्य "इह यो यदर्थी न स तन्निमित्तोपादानं प्रत्यनादृतः, यथा घटार्थी मृत्पिण्डोपादानं पति, चारित्रार्थिनश्च यतयः, तन्निमित्तं च चीवरमिति, न चास्यासिद्धत्वम्” इत्यादिना सूत्र-वस्त्र-पात्रपारग्रहविषयं वादस्थानकं वृद्धैर्विरचितमास्ते, तबोत्तराध्ययनेषु द्वितीये परीषहाध्ययने आचेलक्यपरीषहे बृहट्टीकायां तदथिनान्वेषणीयम् । तथा, इह खलु यस्य यत्रासंभवो न तस्य तत्र कारणवैकल्यम् , यथा शुद्धशिलायां शाल्यकुरस्य, अस्ति च तथाविधस्त्रीषु मुक्तेः

Page #351

Vada ] Nihnavavāda
: 327: कारणावैकल्यम्, न चायमसिद्धो हेतुः” इत्यादिना विरचितं स्त्रीनिर्वाणविषय - मपि वादस्थानकं तत्रेव षशित्तमाध्ययने द्रष्टव्यमिति ॥२६०६॥२६०७॥ 128 °C11780Q11
D. C. Sivabhati went out of the upasraya in the naked condition. He was followed by his sister in the same condition. A whore gave her a garment to cover her body but she did not bear the same. The whore again covered her breasts with a garment, which, too, was being rejected by her. But at last Sivabhati asked her to put on a garment and she did so.
Śivabhūti had initiated two pupils named Kauņdinya and Kottavīra, who in their turn initiated others, and thus a chain of Botikas was continued till the whole of the sect (of Digambaras) was produced.
Concluding the explanation of all the verses in connection with the discussion with Boţika, the author says “Iha yo yadarthi na sa tannimittopādānam pratyanādritaḥ yathā ghatārthi mritpiņdopādānam prati, cāritrarthinasca yatayah tannimittam ca cīvaramiti, na cāsyāsiddhatvam" etc.
[He who is desirous of any particular object, is not indifferent towards the employment of cause of production, just as any one desirous of a ghata is not (indifferent) to the employment of a lump of clay, and also just as ascetics desirous of right conduct are not indifferent to clothes which are instruments (in the careful observance of vows.) It is not that this has not been proved ( beyond doubt) ].
A discussion on the subject of sutra-vastra-pātra-parigraba composed etc. by, old eminent, experienced Acāryas can be found in the Parişaha Adhyayana of Uttaradhyayana Satra.
Besides “Tha khalu yasya yatrā-sambhavo na tasya tatra kāranāvaikalyam, yathā śuddhasilāyām salyankurasya, astica tathāvidhastrīşu mukteḥ kāranáraikalyam, na cāyamasiddho he tuh" eto.

Page #352

• 328 : Jinabhadra Gani's
(The Botika (Whatever is really impossible here, has not lack of absence of cause of production, just as there is absence of cause of budding of rice-grains on a clean slab of stone. But there is an existence of cause of production in case of mukti to females. This hetu is also not unproved.
A discussion on the subject of Nirvāņa for females can be seen in the thirty-sixth Adhyayana of Uttarādhyayana Satra.

Page #353

Chapter X
Summary of Claims and interallegations of Nihnavas. एवं एए भणिया उसप्पिणीए उ निण्हगा सत्त । वीरवरस्स पक्यणे सेसाणं पवयणे न स्थि ॥१॥२६१०॥ 1. Evam dd bhaniya Usappinid u ninhaga satta |
Viravarassa pavayaņà sesāņam pavayaņd na tthi. (2610) [एवमेते भणिता अवसर्पिण्यां तु निहवाः सप्त । वीरवरस्य प्रवचने शेषाणां प्रवचने न सन्ति ॥१॥२६१०॥ 1. Evamètè bhanitā Avasarpiņyām tu nihnavāḥ sapta | ____Viravarasya pravacand sesānām pravacand na santi. (2610)]
Trans. I In this way, Seven Nihnavas are said to have existed in the Avasarpiņi age, during the regime of Vira Tirthaikara (Sramana Bhagavān Mahavira). No more (Nihnavas ) are said to have existed during the regime of other Tirthankaras. 2610.
टीका-१ एवमुक्तेन प्रकारेणैतेऽनन्तरोक्ताः कथिताः प्रतिपादिता अवसपिण्यामेव निवाः सप्त, अष्टमस्तु बोटिकश्वशन्दसमुचितादिकारणाद् न विवक्षितः। वीरवरस्य प्रवचने तीर्थे । शेषाणामहतां प्रवचने "न स्थिति" न सन्ति, या नास्ति, “निहवसत्ता" इति शेषः ॥२६१०॥
___D. C. As mentioned in the foregoing pages, there have existed Seven Nihnavas in the Avasarpiņi age, during the regime

Page #354

:330:
Jinabhadra Gani's of Sramaya Bhagavān Mahavira. Still however, the word cal expressed in the verse which ennumerated their names is interpreted by the author, as well as, commentator to include another type of Nihnavas, known as Botikas or Digambaras. Excepting these types, there has never been a single type more. 1. (2610)
मोत्तूणेत्तो एक सेसाणं जावजीविया दिट्ठी। एकेकस्स व एत्तो दो दो दोसा मुणेयव्वा ॥२॥२६११॥ 2. Mottandtto akkam sesānam javajiviya ditthit
Ekkdkkassa ya dtto do do dosā muņèyavvā. (2611) [मुक्त्वेत एकं शेषाणां यावजीविका दृष्टिः । एकैकस्य चैतस्माद् द्वौ द्वौ दोषौ ज्ञातव्यौ ॥२॥२६११॥ 2. Muktvdta dkam sesanām yarajjivikā dristihi .
Ekaikasya caitasmād dvau dvau doșau jñātavgau. (2611).
Trains. 2. Of them, barring one, all the rest believed in (observing austerities ) till the end of (their) life, each one of whom has been recognized as susceptible to two faults. 2611.
टीका-२ मुक्त्वैषामेकं गोष्ठामाहिलं निहवाधर्म शेषाणां जमालिप्रभृतीनां प्रत्याख्यानमगीकृत्य यावजीविका दृष्टिः, नापरिमाणं प्रत्याख्यानं ते मन्यन्त इति भावना।
__ आह-ननु पूर्वोक्तानुसारत एवेदमवसीयते, किमर्थमस्योपन्यासः ? इति । उच्यते-प्रत्यहमवश्यंकरणीयत्वेन प्रत्याख्यानस्योपयोगित्वाद् मा कश्चित् तथैव प्रतिपद्येत, ततो ज्ञाप्यते-निहवानामपि प्रत्याख्याने यावज्जीविकैव दृष्टिः, अतो नापरिमाणं प्रत्याख्यानं विधेयमिति । "एनो ति" अतोऽमीषां मध्य एकैकस्य निहवस्य द्वौ द्वौ दोषौ मुणितव्यौ ज्ञातव्यौ, सदोषस्यापि स्वमतस्याभ्युपगमः, परमतस्य पुनरनभ्युपगम इति । इह च भावार्थ भाष्यकार एव वक्ष्यति । इति नियुक्तिगाथाद्वयार्थः ॥२६११॥
1. Vide verse 2300.

Page #355

Nihnatavāda
:331: D. C. Excepting Gostha Mahila (who believed in unlimited practice of pratyākhyāna ) all the Nihnavas have accepted the principle of observing pratyākhyāna or vow till the end of his life. This is clearly understood from the original Niryukti, but in order to prevent people from following the wrong theory of Gosthā Māhila, we beg to draw their attention to the fact that pratyākhyāna should be always limited to this life, and it never extends to the next life.
There is mutual allegation of faults to each one of thom in this way. One blames the other firstly because he sticks to his own misbelief, and secondly, because he does not accept the right belief of the other. 2. (2611)
This is explained in details as follows :मोत्तूण गोहमाहिलमन्नसिं जावजीवसंवरणं । कम्मं च बद्धपुढें खीरोदवदत्तणा समयं ॥३॥२६१२।। मोत्तुं जमालिमन्ने बेंति कडं कजमाणमेवं तु । एकेको एकेक नेच्छइ अबद्धिओ दोन्नि ॥४॥२६१३॥ अवरोप्परं समेया दो दोसे देति एकमेकस्स । परमयसंपडिवत्तिं विपडिवात्तं च समयम्मि ॥५॥२६१४॥ 3. Mottuna Gottha Māhilamannèsim jāvajivasaņvarņam |
Kammam ca baddhaputthan khirodavadattanā samayam.(2612) 4. Mottum Jamalimannd bènti kadam kajjamāṇamevam tu!
Ekkekko ekkekkam nècchai abaddhiö donni. (2613) 5. Avaropparam samdya do dose detim okkamdkkassa |
Paramayasampadivattim vipadivattim ca samayammi. (2614) [मुक्त्वा गोष्ठामाहिलमन्येषां यावज्जीवसंवरणम् । कर्म च बद्धस्पृष्टं क्षीरोदकवदात्मना समकम् ॥३॥२६१२॥ मुक्त्वा जमालिमन्ये ब्रुवन्ति कृतं क्रियमाणमेवं तु। एकैकं एकैकं नेच्छत्यवद्धिको दो ॥४॥२६१३॥

Page #356

: 332:
Jinabhadra Gani's
परस्परं समेता द्वौ दोषी ददति एकैकस्य । परमतसंप्रतिपतिं विप्रतिपतिं च स्वमते ॥५॥२६१४॥
3. Muktvā Gosthā Māhilamanyesām yāvajjīvasamvaraṇam 1 Karma ca baddhaspristam kşirodakavadātmanā samakam.
(2612) Muktvā Jamalimanyè bruvanti kritam kriyamāṇamevam tu !
Ekaika èkaikam nècchatyabaddhiko dvau. (2613) 5. Parasparamı sametā dvau doşau dadati dkaikasya i
Paramatasampratipattim vipratipattim ca svamatd. (2614)]
Trans. 3-4-5. All the Nihnavas excepting Gosthā Māhila hold the observance of vow (to be limited till the end of this life, and (believe that) Karman is intimately united with Soul, like milk and water. Excepting Jamali, all believed that what is being done, has already been done (and so on). Each one of them disbelieves the other's principle, while the abaddhika misbelieves two (principles). So, when they meet, each one attributes two faults to the other by way of his disbelief of the other, and by way of his misbelief in his own principle. (2612-2614).
टीका-३-४-५ व्याख्या-एतेषां मध्ये गोष्ठामाहिलं मुक्त्वा शेषाणां यावजीवं संवरणं यावज्जीवं प्रत्याख्यानं ' विधेयमित्यभ्युपगम इत्यर्थः । तथा, गोष्ठामाहिलादन्येषां कर्म च संमतम् । कथंभूतम् ? आत्मना समकं जीवेन सहबद्धस्पृष्टम् । किंवत् १ क्षीरोदकवदिति । गोष्ठामाहिलस्त्वेतद् द्वितयमपि न मन्यत इति । जमालिप्रभृतयस्तर्हि किं मन्यन्ते ? किं वा न मन्यन्ते ? इत्याह-"मोत्तुं जमालिमित्यादि" जमालि मुक्त्वाऽन्ये तिष्यगुप्तादयः क्रियमाणं कृतं मन्यन्ते, जमालिस्त्वेतद् न मन्यते, किन्तु कृतमेव कृतमभ्युपगच्छति । एवं तिष्यगुप्तं मुक्त्वा शेषाः परिपूर्ण जीवमिच्छन्ति, तिष्यगुप्तस्तु चरमेव प्रदेशं जीवं मन्यन्त इत्यायग्रेतनेष्वपि सुधियाऽभ्यूह्य वाच्यम् । एवं “तु ति" तुशब्दस्य चशब्दार्थस्वादेवं च सति किं सिद्धम् ? इत्याह-"एकेको इत्यादि" एकैको निहवः श्रीमज्जिनोक्तपदार्थानां मध्ये दर्शितन्यायेनैकैकं पदार्थ नेच्छति । अबदिकस्तु

Page #357

Nihnavavāda
: 333:
गोष्ठा माहिल: पूर्वदर्शितौ द्वौ पदार्थों नेच्छति, उक्तशेषांस्तु पदार्थान् सर्वानपीच्छतीति । ततः किम् ? इत्याह - " अवरोप्परमित्यादि ” एवं च सत्येकत्रसमेता मिलिताः सर्वेऽपि निहवा विवदन्तः परस्परमेकैकस्य द्वौ द्वौ दोषौ ददति प्रयच्छन्ति । तत्र बहुरतादेः प्रादेशिकादि: परस्तस्य परस्य यद् मतं निजोऽभिप्रायस्तदभ्युपगमरूपा या संप्रतिपत्तिः सा परमतसंप्रतिपत्तिस्तां परस्परं दूषयन्ति । तथा, बहुरतादेः स्वस्यात्मनो यद् मतं तत्र या तदनभ्युपगमरूपा परस्य प्रादेशिकादेर्विप्रतिपत्तिस्तां दूषयन्ति । एवं च सन्येकैकस्य द्वौ द्वौ दोषौ संचध्येते ।
अयमत्र भावार्थ:- बहुरतः प्रादेशिकं वक्ति, तत्र द्वौ दोषौ - एकं तावत् " कृतमेव कृतम्” इति मदीयमतं निर्दोषमपि न मन्यसे, " चरम एव प्रदेशो जीवः" इत्यात्मीयमतं तु सदोषमपि मन्यस इति । एवं प्रादेशिकोऽपि बहुरतस्य व्यत्ययेन द्वौ दोषौ ददाति । तथा, अयमेव प्रादेशिकोऽव्यक्तवादिनं वदति, तत्र द्वौ दोषौ - सदोपखमताभ्युपगमः, निर्दोषमदीयमतानभ्युपगमचेति । एवमव्यaise प्रादेशिकस्य व्यत्ययेन द्वौ दक्षेषौ ददाति । एवं तावद् नेयं यावत् त्रैराशिकोsद्धिकं वक्ति द्वौ दोषौ - सदोषस्वमताभ्युपगमः, निर्दोषमदीयमतानभ्युपगामश्रेति एवमबद्धिकोऽपि त्रैराशिकं व्यत्ययेन द्वौ दोषौ ददातीति । एवं एवं बहुरतादयोऽव्यक्तादिभिरपि सह द्विक्योगेन क्रमशश्चारणीयाः, सर्वत्र च द्विक्योगे यथोक्तदोषद्वयप्रदानं परस्परतो वक्तव्यम् ।
1
आह- नन्ववद्धिकः स्पृष्टाबद्धं कर्म, परिमाणरहितं च प्रत्याख्यानमिति द्वौ पदार्थों नेच्छतीति प्रागुक्तम् । ततश्चासौ प्रतियोगिनो निह्नवस्य त्रीन् दोषान् ददाति, प्रतियोग्यप्यस्य त्रीनेत्र दोषान् प्रयच्छतीति प्राप्नोति । तथाहि - अबद्धिको बहुरतं वक्ति-तव त्रयो दोषाः एकं तावद् निर्दोषमपि मदभ्युपगतपदार्थद्वयं नेच्छसि, अपरं च स्वयं सदोषमपि स्वाभिमतं पदार्थ कल्पयसीति । एवं बहुरतोऽप्यवद्विकस्य व्यत्ययेन दोषत्रयं ददातीति । एवमवद्धिकेन सह प्रतियोगिनां विचारे सर्वत्र दोषत्रयं प्राप्नोति, तत् कथं एकैकस्य द्वौ द्वौ दोषौ इति व्याप्त्या प्रोच्यते १--1 सत्यम्, यद्यबद्धिकस्य व्यक्तिविवक्षया पदार्थद्वयभेदेन भिन्नं मतं विवक्ष्यते, तदा यत् त्वं वदसि तत् तथैव मन्यामहे । यदा तु पदार्थद्वय मेदेन मनमपि तस्य सामान्येनैकं मतमात्रं विवक्ष्यते तदा दर्शितन्यायेनैकैकस्य द्वौ द्वौ दोषाविति सर्वत्र न विरुध्यत इत्यलं विस्तरेणेति ॥२६१२||२६१३||२६१४॥ D. C. All the Nihnavas excepting Goṣṭhā Māhila have acce

For Private Personal Use Only

Page #358

: 334 :
Jinabhadra Gani's pted the doctrine of sa-parimāņa pratyākhyāna. They also admit the relation of Karina and Soul as intimate as that of water and milk. Gosthā Mahila tries to refute both these theories.
All the Nihnavas except Jamāli hold the view that “ kriyamaņa is krita while Jamāli believes that krita alone could be recognized as krita.
Those excepting Tisyagupta rightly believe that the whole region of Jiva is Jiva, while according to Tisyagupta, the last portion alone is Jiva.
In this manner, when Gosthā Māhila disbelieves two dootrines of the Tirthankara, each one of the rest disbelieves one. Since, each one of them holds a belief different from another, he attributes two faults to the other, For example, Jamāli the Bahurata Nihnava, accuses Tişyagupta first of 'disbelieving his own doctrine of “ krita is krita” and secondly of holding a wrong theory of “no-jīva”. The pradeśika nihnava (Tisyagupta) un the other hand, makes counterallegations on Jamali on the same grounds. Tisyagupta further attributes two faults of accepting a wrong belief and rejecting the right one to Avyaktavādin, who in his turn, accuses pradeśika of similar faults. The same is the case with Trairāśikas and others.
It should be noted here that since the abaddhika Nihnava believes in sprista-baddha karman and a-parimāņa pratyākhyāna he has to preach two doctrines. If these two doctrines are taken separately, he attributes three faults to the opponent who also in turn makes three allegations on him.
On the other hand, if the two doctrines are taken together as one, the allegation and counter-allegation will be based on two faults only. This is explained by the author clearly on the consideration that the abaddhika blames the opponent in as much as he (i. e, the opponent ) disbelieves the two doctrines laid down by abaddhika and wrongly asserts his own theory which is not acceptable to anyone else. The opponent, too, blames the abaddhika on the same grounds. 8–5 (2612-2614).

Page #359

Nihnavavada
:385
Also, अबद्धियस्स दोसे दिति तओ सो वि तिनि अन्नस्स। तिप्पभिइ तु समेया दोसे तिप्पभिइए दिति ॥६॥२६१५॥ 6. Abaddhiyassa dosè dinti taö so vi tinni annassa |
Tippabhii tu samdya dosd tippabhid dinti. (2615) [अवद्धिकस्य दोषान् ददति ततः सोऽपि त्रीनन्यस्य । त्रिप्रभृतयस्तु समेता दोषांन्त्रिप्रभृतीन् ददति ॥६॥२६१५॥ 6. Abaddhikasya dosan dadati tatah so'pi trinanyasyal
Triprabhritayastu samdta dosanstriprabhratin dadati. (2615)]
Trans. 6. (The opponents) blame abaddhika. Therefore, he, too, attributes three faults to each one of them). When three or more Nihnavas meet (together ), each one of them tries to attribute three or more faults to the other. (2615)
टीका-६ 'तउत्ति' व्यक्तिविवक्षारूपेण पूर्वदर्शितविधिना त्रीन् दोषानवद्धिकस्य बहुरतादयः प्रत्येकं ददाति, सोऽप्यबद्धिकस्खीन् दोषानन्यस्य बहुरतादेः प्रत्येकं ददाति । तदेवं द्वयोः समुदितयोरेप विधिदर्शितः । यदा तु त्रिप्रभृतयः समुदिता भवन्ति तदा को विधिः १ इत्याह-"तिप्पभिईत्यादि” त्रिप्रभृतयस्तु समुदितास्त्रिप्रभृतीन् दोपान ददाति । इदमत्र हृदयम्-बहुरतादिषु त्रिषु समुदितेषु बहुरतः शेषान् वक्ति-ननु भवतस्त्रयो दोषाः-कुत्सितनिजनिजमतप्ररूपणाकृती द्वौ, निर्दोषमदीयमतविप्रतिपत्तिकृतस्त्वेक इति । एवं सर्वत्र त्रियोगे उपयुज्य वक्तव्यम् । केवलमबद्धिकेन सह यस्त्रियोगस्तत्र व्यक्तिविवक्षायामेकदोषवृद्धेश्वत्वारो दोषा वक्तव्याः । तथा प्रभृतिग्रहणाचतुष्क-पञ्चक-षष्ठक-सप्तकयोगेष्वपि यथासंख्यं चतु-पञ्च-पट-सप्तदोषा उक्तानुसारतो भणनीयाः । केवलमवद्धिकेन सह चतुष्कादियोगे व्यक्तिविवक्षायामेकदोषवृद्धथा पश्चादयो दोषा वाच्याः। इति गाथा चतुष्ठयार्थः ॥२६१५॥
D. C. When the first three Nihnavas meet to-gether, each one of them alleges the other of three faults. Say, when Bahurata and the other two (excepting the abaddhikas) meet, each one of thens attributes three faults to the other, because each

Page #360

:386:
Jinabhadra Gani's one preaches wrong ideals ( according to the other) and rejects the right belief (held by him). Thus, all these Nihnavas, barring abaddhikas, become susceptible to three faults,
Now, when abaddhika joins the other two Nihnavas, he attributes four faults to either of the two, and becomes susceptible to four faults. In a group of four, five, six, and seven Nihnavas, each Nihnava attributes four, five, six, and seven faults respectively on the other. But whenever there is abaddhika in the above-mentioned group, one more fault is added. So, in case of four, tive, six, and seven Nihnavas ( including the abaddhika) each one alleges the other of five, six, seven, and eight faults respectively. 6. (2615).
Explaining the purpose of Nihnavas' theories, the author proceedsसत्तेया दिट्ठीओ जाइ-जरा-मरण-गम्भवसहीणं। मूलं संसारस्स उ हवंति निग्गंथरूवेण ॥७॥२६१६॥ 7. Satteya ditthis jai-jara-marana gabbhavasahinam | ___Malam samsārassa u havanti niggantharavena. (2616) [सप्तैता दृष्टयो जाति-जरा-मरण-गर्भवसतीनाम् ।
मूलं संसारस्य तु भवन्तिं निर्ग्रन्थरूपेण ॥७॥२६१६॥ 7. Saptaita dristayo jati-jara-marana-garbhavasatinām |
Mūlam samsarasya tu bhavanti nirgrantkarapèņa. (2616)).
Trans. 7. (Theories of) all the seven Nihnavas happen to be the root-cause of birth, old age, death, and rebirth, and also of mundane world, even with an attire of an ascetic. 2616.
टीका-७. सप्तेता दृष्टयः सप्तनिह्नवदर्शनानि, बोटिकास्तु पूर्वोक्तकारणाद् न विवक्षिताः, मूलं कारणं भवतीति संबन्धः। कासाम् ? इत्याह-जाति-जरामरण-गर्भवसतीनाम् । जाति नारकादिषु यत् प्रसूतिमात्रं तद्रूपा गृह्यते, गर्भवसतिस्तु पञ्चेन्द्रिय-तिर्यग्-मनुष्येषु गर्भावास इति न पौनरुत्यम् । तथा, संसरणं

Page #361

Nihnavavāda
: 337: नारकादिषु पुनः पुनर्धमणं संसारस्तस्य च मूलमेताः सप्तनिवदृष्टयो निर्ग्रन्थरूप मात्रेण । इतिनियुक्तिगाथार्थः ॥२६१६॥
D. C. Theories of all the Seven Nihnavas do not, in any way, lead to the attainment of Mokşa, but they become the rootcause of the sainsāra and its cycle of birth, old age, death, and re-birth. They happen to be mendicants only outwardly.
Then the questiun arises as to whether Nihnavas should be considered as nicndicants, or as followers of some other religion, or as householders. The author explains that they are real mendicants. Really speaking, food meant for a mendicant is not acceptable to another mendicant. Nihnavas do not follow this rule.
And, पवयणनिहूयाणं जं तेसिं कारियं जहिं जत्थ । भजं परिहरणाए मूले तह उत्तरगुणे य ॥८॥२६१७॥ 8. Pavayaņawihayāņam jam tèsim kāriyam jahim jattha |
Bhajjanm pariharanād muld taha uttaragund ya. (2617) [प्रवचनाकिश्चित्करणां यत् तेषां कारितं यदा यत्र ।
भाज्यं परिहरणेन मूले तथोत्तरगुणे च ॥८॥२६१७॥ 8. Pravacanākincitkarāņām yat teşām kāritam yadā yatra |
Bhājyam pariharanèna mald tathottaragunè ca. (2617) ).
Trans. 8. Whenever and wherever whatever is prepared for the (Nihnavas) who transgress the prescribed rules, should be alternatively given up, (as they affect) the original, as well as, the subsidiary predicaments. 2617.
टीका-८ 'निहूय त्ति' देशीवचनमकिश्चित्करार्थे, प्रवचने यया भणित क्रियाकलापं प्रत्यकिञ्चित्कराणां यदशनादि तेषां निवानां कारितं यस्मिन् काले यस्मिन् क्षेत्रे, तद् भाज्यं विकल्पनीयम् । कया ?। परिहरणया वर्जनया। कदाचित् परिहियते वळते, कदाचिद् नेति । यदि लोको न जानाति यथैते निवा साधुभ्यो भिनास्तदा परिहियते । अथ तु जानाति तदा न परिहियत इति । अयना,

Page #362

:338:
Jinabhadra Gani's परिहरणा परिभोगोऽभिधीयते । यत उक्तम्-"धारणया उवभोगो परिहरणा वस्स होइ परिभोगो" इति । ततश्च कदाचिद् परिहियते परिभुज्यते, कदाचिद् न, इत्येवं परिहरणा । किं पुनरित्थं भाज्यम् ? इत्याह-मूले मूलगुणविषयमाधाकमौदि, तथा उत्तरगुणे चोत्तरविषयं क्रीत-कृतादि । ततो नेते निवाः साधवः, सदायकृतस्यैकान्तेनाकल्प्यत्वात् । नापि गृहस्थाः न वा तीर्थान्तरीयाः, तद
यकृतस्यासाधूनामेकान्तेन कल्प्यत्वात् । तस्मादव्यक्ता एवैति ॥ इति निर्युतिगाथार्थः ॥२६१७॥
D. C. It has already been said above that Nihnavas are not real mendicants, because they do not satisfy the rule as. regards food etc. prescribed for the mendicants. Food etc. meant. for mendicants should never, as a rule, be accepted by others. While in case of Nihnavas, the same may or may not be accepted by others. When people do not know that these Nihnayas are different from real mendicants, food etc. prepared for them, must not be accepted by other mendicants, but when thay happen to realize the fact that Nihnavas are not real merdicants, foods etc. meant for them should be abandoned. Right from the original predicament like that of taking pledge etc. to the minor predicament like that of kritākrita etc. alternative acceptance (of food eto. meant for Nihnavas) is prescribed.
In such a case, the Nihnavas are neither called sādhus nor.. grihasthas ( house-holders), nor the followers of some other religion, because their food etc. happen to be neither wholly acceptable nor wholly unacceptable, but somewhat acceptable to some other mendicants. So, they are known as avyaktas or indistinct. 8. (2617).
The reason of placing them under this new category. is repeated, when the author again states that जत्थ विसेसं जाणइ लोगो तेसिं च कुणइ भत्ताई। तं कप्पइ साहूणं सामनकयं पुनरकप्पं ॥९॥२६१८॥ 9. Jattha visèsam jāņai logo tèsim oa kuņai bhattaim i
Tam kappai sahāpam samannayam punarakappam. (2618)

Page #363

:339:
Nihnavavāda [यन्त्र विशेष जानाति लोकस्तेषां च करोति भक्तादि। सत् कल्पते साधूनां सामान्यकृतं पुनरकल्प्यम् ॥९॥२६१८॥ 9. Yatra visèsam jānāti lokastèşam ca karoti bhaktādi !
Tat kalpatè sādhanām sāpānyakritam punarakalpyam. (2618)]
Trans. 9. Wherever people know in particular (that they are not real mendicants ), their food etc. become acceptable to other mendicants. But ordinarily that is not acceptable. 2618.
टीका-९. गतार्था, नवरं “सामनकयं ति" निह्नवरूपता विशेषेण तेषामज्ञात्वा सामान्येन यत् कृतं तदकल्प्यमित्यर्थः ॥२६१८॥
Lastly, with regard to food etc., prepared for Botikas the author says-- मिच्छादिट्टीयाणं जं तेसिं कारियं जहिं जत्थ।
सव्वं पि तयं सूद्धं मूले तह उत्तरगुणे य ॥१०॥२६१९॥ भिन्नमय-लिंग-चरिया मिच्छदिहित्ति बोडियाऽभिमया। जं ते कयमुद्दिसिउं तं कप्पड़ जं च जइजोग्गं ॥११॥२६२०॥ 10. Micchāddiţthiyāṇam jam tesim kāriyam jahim jattha i ___Savvam pi tayam suddhan mule taha uttaragune ya. (2619) 11. Bhinnamaya-linga-cariya-micchadditthi tti bodiya'bhimayan
Jam te kayamuddisium tam kappai jam ca jai joggam. (2620) (मिथ्याष्टिकानां यत् तेषां कारितं यदा यत्र। सर्वमपि तत् शुद्धं मूलं तथोत्तरगुणे च ॥१०॥२६१९॥ भिन्नमत्त-लिंग-चर्या-मिथ्यादृष्टय इति बोटिका अभिमताः। यत् तान् कृतमुद्दिश्य तत् कल्पते यच यतियोग्यम् ॥११॥२६२०॥ 10. Mithyadristikānām yat tesam karitam yada yatra |
Sarvamapi tat suddham malam tathottara gure ca. (2619) 11. Bhinnamata-linga-carya-mithyadristaya iti Botika abhi
matāḥi Yat tan kritamuddisya tat kalpate yacca yatiyogyam. (2620)]

Page #364

:340:
Jinabhadra Gani's
Trans. 10-11. Whenever and where, whatever is prepared for mendicants preaching false doctrines, (snouid) entirely ( be taken) as pure according to original, as well as, accessory predicaments. Boţikās are known as mithyadristikas on account of their doctrine, dress, and character being different. (Hence), whatever is meant for them becomes acceptable to other mendicants. (2619-2620)
टीका-१० मिथ्यादृष्टीनां बोटिकानां यदशनादि तेषां कारितं यस्मिन्काले यत्रक्षेत्रे तद् मूलगुणविषयम् , उत्तरगुणविषयं च सर्वमपि शुद्धं साधूनां कल्पनीयम् ॥ इतिनियुक्ति गाथार्थः
टीका-११ मतं च लिङ्गं च भिक्षाग्रहणादिविषया चर्या च मत-लिङ्गचर्याः, भिन्ना मत-लिंग-चर्या येषां ते तथाभूताः सन्तो बोटिका मिथ्यादृष्टयोऽभिमताः, भिन्नमतत्वादिकारणात् ते नियुक्तिकृता मिथ्यादृष्टित्वेन निर्दिष्टा इत्यर्थः । यचाशनादि तानुद्दिश्य कृतं तत् साधूनां कल्पते । आह-ननु बोटिकानुद्दिश्य सचितं कर्कटिका-दाडिमाद्यपि क्रियते, अचितं चानन्तकाय-वृन्ताकाद्यपि संस्कृत्य विधीयते, तत् किं सर्वमपि साधूनां कल्पते । न, इत्याह-"जं च जइजोग्गं ति" तानुद्दिश्य कृतमपि यदेव यतीनां साधूनां योग्यमुक्तं प्राशुकमेकणीयं, समये चानुज्ञातं, तदेव कल्पते नान्यत् ॥ इति गाथार्थः ॥२६१९।२६२०॥
---D. C. Everything prepared for mithya-dristikas is suddha. Boţikas with their doctrine, dress, and behaviour in asking for alms etc., different from the real mendicants are, known as mith ya dristikas or false preachers. Hence whatever (food eto.) is prepared for them, becomes acceptable to other mendioants. Still however, it should be noted carefully that if the food happened to be raw vegetable like karkatika or cooked cucumber-pomegra nate etc, or ananta kāya like vrintāka (brinjal) the same would not be acceptable to other mendicants. Only that which is acon ptable to ascetics according to the prescribed rules, should be accepted by other mendicants and not anything else. 10-11. (2619-2620).
2. False preachers.

Page #365

Page
3
6
11
E2E 22 2
12
15
20
29
52

Line
2224. ∞ ~ 5
23
29
23
15
21
CORRECTIONS
Incorrect
describces
अव्य
मिथ्यात्व मोहनीयो दयतो
मध्ये
. O
ef
khdira
prrdeśa
For Private Personal Use Only
Correct
describes
अव्यक्ताः
मिथ्यात्व मोहनीयोदयतो
मध्ये
to
of
khadira
pradeśa

Page #366

Page #367

ÍNDEX. Abaddhikas, 5, 9, 332, 334, 335, Acārya Arya Jambī Swāmi-314 936.
,
Krisņa Sūri-272. Acelaka- 304, 319, 320, 321. » » Mabāgiri-93, 130, Acelakatva- 307, 311, 318, 319,
131. 321.
Raksita Sūri–2, 3, Acelaka Parīşaha- 317, 318.
224, 225, 226, 227 Addhā-paryāya- 97..
Adāna Samiti-324. Adharmāsti-kāga- 122, 172. Agamas-280. A-jīva- 52, 164, 171, 185, 187, Ākāśāstikāya- 122, 188, 200.
Ähāraka Saríra Labdhi-275, 314. Anavadyā- 11, 12, 17.
Āmla Kalp.-45, 46, 60, 61. Antaranjikā, 8, 9, 160, 161. Anupravāda Pūrva- 93, 94, 95,
Āmrasāla-61. 96.
Asādha-deva-73. Anuyogas, 2, 3, 4.
Avaśyaka Sūtra-15. A-parigraha-287, 292, 293, 294, Āvaśyaka Niryukti 76. 302.
Baburatas-4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16, 40. A-prithvi-205.
Balaśrī–160, 196, 200. Ašvamitra- 6, 9, 93, 94, 95, 96,
Bhagavati Sūtra-15, 19, 99, 166, 106, 108, 112, 113, 117, 199,
174. 120, 126, 128.
Bhavisya Paryāya- 97. Avadhi Jñána- 6, 9, 69, 142,
Bhaşā Samiti- 324. 145.
Bhūta Paryāya-97.
Boţikas-9, 269, 327, 330, 339, Avagraha- 146, 152, 153, 158.
340, Avyaktas-5, 6, 9, 66, 73, 75.
Calamānam Calitam–19, 245. Avyakta-vādin–324.
Chadmastha-310. Acarya Arya Aşadhācārya-6, 9,
Chaluga-6. 68, 69.
Dahyamanam dagdham-39, 40, » » Dhanagupta- 130,
41, 43. 134. Ganga-6, 9, 130, Daśapura- 8, 9, 130, 131, 133, 147, 153 Desā-pradeśas-58.

Page #368

: 344 :
Jinabhdra Gani's
Daśa-visavādi-9. Dhanagupta- 13, 130. Dhanka-11, 13, 14, 39, 40. Dharma-dhyāna-300. Dharmāstikāya-122, 170, 172. Digambaraş-326, 330. Dravyas-122, 126, 204. Dravyastikāya Naya-122, 125,
126. Durbalikā Puşpamitra-2, 3, 220,
226, 227, 228, 237, 268. Dvaikriyas-5, 6, 9, 129, Dvitīya Samaya-101. Esaņā Samiti-324. Evambhūta Naya-57, 58. Gangācārya-6, 9, 131, 133, 138. Gośála-281, 282. Gosthā Māhila-2, 3, 9, 220, 221,
224, 226, 227, 235, 237, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 252, 261, 267, 268, 331, 332,
333, 334. Gucchakan-275. Guņaśılaka-45. Guptācārya-216. Haribhadra Sūriji–15, 18. Hètu-328. Isana deva-loka-14. Jamāli-6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
17, 18, 23, 30, 31, 34, 37, 43. Jamāli Acārya- 13, 19, 23, 30,
31, 32.
Jamali Muni-13, 13. Jina-17, 73, 281. Jina Kalpikas-274, 275, 303, 305,
312, 313, 322, 323. Jiva-14, 17, 43, 48, 49, 56, 73,
76, 164, 187, 248, 249, Jive-pradeśas-9, 44, 170, 192,
231. Jivāstikāya-122. Jyosthā-11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 39, Kalpa-312. Karman-332, 333. Karma Pravāda Pūrva-229, 231. Karaŋa Kriya-20. Kaşāya-281, 282. Kauņdinya-93, 277, 326, 327. Kalikācārya-225. Kāraņa-25, 32, 33. Kārmaņa-177, 179. Kārya-22, 23, 27, 31, 32, 33, 36. Kāyotsarga-274. Kèvala Jñāna-8, 45, 145, 309. Kdvalins-16, 17. Khadira Tree-29. Khaņņa Raksas-128. Kha-puspa-23, 24, 63, 104, 105. Khara-vişāņa-25. Kośa-26. Kosthaka-13, 16. Kattavīra-326, 327. Kotyācārya-15.

Page #369

Nibnayavāda
: 345: Kriyamāņa-13, 16, 19, 20, 21, Nārakas-88, 97, 100, 101, 102, 22, 39, 33, 35, 334.
103, 245. Kriyā-25, 29, 30, 133, 137. Niḥsantāna-115. Kundapura-12.
Nikācita-232. Kusula-26.
Nikşöpa-324. Kutrikāpaņa-199, 200, 205, 209. Nirvāṇa-8, 129, 269. Kșanika-103, 104, 110, 115, 121. Niscaya Naya-85. Ksapaka-śrèni-273, 314. Nisparigraha-276. Laxmigraha-93.
Nitya-112, 115, 121, 124. Lāntaka deva-loka-14, 17. No-a-jiva-164. Malayagiri Sūriji - 15, 18. No-a-prithivi-205, 206, 210. Mahāgiri-130.
No-jiva-164, 166, 167, 168, 169, Manināga-130, 132, 275.
172, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, Manaḥ-paryāya Jilāna-145, 275,
192, 193, 200, 205, 214, 216. 314.
No-prithvi-212. Mathura-3, 225.
Paramāvadhi Jiāna- 205, 206, Mati Jäāna-142.
210, 212. Maurya Balabhadra-67, 71, 91. Parigraba-280, 282, 283, 284, Māņavaka-137.
288, 289, 291, 293, 294, 296, Mithilā-8, 9, 91, 94.
301, 302. Mithyātva-4, 13, 96, 247.
Parimāņa-252. Mithyā-drsţikas-340.
Pariņāma-53, 252. Mitraśr1-45, 60, 61, 65.
Parisaba-317, 318. Mokşa-233, 234, 240, 247, 248.
Paryāya-96, 97, 120, 121, 125,
155, 146. Muhapatti-275, 276, 283, 287,
Patalakāni-275. 288, 293, 296, 299, 301. Mukhavastrikā-91, 95, 324.
Paulasādha-67. Mukti-328.
Pátra-275, 301, 312. Mūrcchā-287, 292.
Pātra-bandhana-275. Naipuņikā-93, 96.
Pātra-kèsaritā-275. Nalinigulma-67, 69.
Pātra-sthāpana-275.

Page #370

: 346:
Jinabhadra Gani's Pradèśas-5, 9, 46, 48, 49, 50, Sivaka-26, 27.
51, 52, 55, 101, 177, 231. Sramana Bhagavān Mahāvira-8, Pramāņa-313.
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Prathama Samaya-51, 52, 53, 41, 91, 129, 269, 327, 330. 55, 101.
Śrāvastī-8, 9, 10, 11, 16. Pratyakşa-64.
Sri Guptācārya-160, 161, 198. Pratyākhyāna-235, 236, 237, 252, Śrī Sangba-88, 90, 94, 128, 266.
253, 254, 257, 260, 261, 262, Śūkla-dhyāna-300. 264, 331.
Svetavikā-8, 9, 67, 68, Pratyākhyāna Pūrva-251.
Şaquluka-6, 9, 168, 198, 218. Prithvi-205, 206, 208, 209, 210,
Şaqulukācārya-9, 198. 212, 213.
Sanganaka-281, 282. Priyadarśanā-8, 9, 18, 39, 40,
Samabhirūdha Naya-170, 172, 43.
191, 192, 193. Pudgalāstikāya-122, 172 Pulāka Labdhi-275, 314.
Samavāya-218. Pūrnabhadra-16.
Santāna-104, 116. Rajastrāņam-275.
Sa-parimāņa-264, 265. Rajoharana-274, 275, 299, 324,
Sarvajna-17. 327.
Sarva-visamvādi-9. Rathavīra pura-8, 9, 269.
Saudharama dėva-loka-14. Raudra-dhyāna-290, 291. Rājagriha-45, 67, 71, 90, 91, 93,
Sāmānya-153, 155, 204, 218. 94, 128, 132.
Sāmucchedikā-6, 9, 92. Riju Sūtra Naya-38, 39, 40, 41,
Sāree-321. 42, 96.
Siddha-256, 257, 259. Risabhapura-8, 9, 45.
Siddhānta-9. Rohagupta-160, 161, 162, 168, Siddhātma-276.
179, 182, 194, 196, 200, 216, Siddhi-pada-276, 314. 217.
Sprista-baddha-334. Śārkarya-142.
Sthāṇānga Sūtra-174. Sivabhūti-273, 276, 291, 299, Sthasa-26, 31.
304, 306, 307, 313, 318, 326, Sudarsanā-11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 327.
39, 40.

Page #371

Nihnayavāda
: 347:
Sūkşma samparāya Cāritra-276. Ullukā-tira-131. Svayambuddhas-305. Upadhis-274, 275. Tainduka-11, 13, 16.
Upakarana-305. Tirtha-88.
Upaşama śreņi-275, 314. Tirthankara-77 78, 79, 88, 126, Upayoga-146, 147, 148, 150, 151.
129, 194,225, 267, 268, 274, Uttarādhyana Sūtra-174, 327. 275, 281, 283, 304, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 318,319, Vartamāna Paryāya-97.
322, 324, 326, 329. Vastra-304, 324. Tirthankara Bhagavān
Vastu-57. Simandara Swami-225. Vasu Sūri-45, 46, 49. Tisyagupta-6, 9, 45, 46, 47, 48,
Visèsa-111, 153, 155, 204. 49, 50, 54, 59, 61, 65, 333, 334.
Visèşa Jñāna-154, 155, 156. Trairāśikas-5, 6, 9, 334.
Vyakhya Prajñapti-15. Udiryanānè Udíritam-19. Vyutsarga-354. Ullukā-129.
Yathā-khyāta Cāritram-276.
End.