Aptamimansa Critique of an Authority Bhasya

SR No.: 001124
Original Sutra Author: Samantbhadracharya
Author: Akalankadev, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Jagruti Dilip Sheth Dr
Publication Year: 1999
Total Pages: 140
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, & Devotion
File Size: 8 MB

Page 63

CRITIQUE OF AN AUTHORITY
forms of assertion.' Now so far as the first three 'forms of assertion' are concerned the defence can be well made but the same is not true of the remaining four forms. For certainly it is one thing to be told that an entity is of such and such a description, another thing to be told that it is not of such and such a description, and a third thing to be told that it is of such and such a description and not of such and such other description. But the forms of assertion attributing 'indescribability' to the entity described seem to serve no vital purpose and are on the whole technical.
28
Verse 23 एकानेकविकल्पादावुत्तरत्रापि योजयेत् ।
प्रक्रियां भङ्गिनीमेनां नयैर्नयविशारदः || २३ ||
While following our subsequent treatment of the contrasted characters-e.g. the characters 'one' and 'many' - one well-versed in the doctrine of naya (i.e. the Jaina doctrine of conditional assertion) should himself apply the technique of multi-formed assertion by offering suitable arguments. (23)
स्यादेकं पद्द्रव्यनयापेक्षया । यद्यपि ते विशेषाः परस्परव्यावृत्तपरिणामाः कालादिभेदेऽपि सद्रूपाविशिष्टाः, चित्रज्ञाननीलादिनिर्भासवत् । स्यादनेकत्वमास्कन्दन्ति । न हि सङ्ख्यासङ्ख्यावतोर्भेदेनादृष्टौ विशेषणविशेष्यविकल्पः कुण्डलिवत् क्षीरोदकवत् अतद्वेदिनि । न च भेदैकान्ते तद्वत्ता अस्ति, व्यपदेशनिमित्ताभावात् अनवस्थाप्रसङ्गात् च । तस्मादयं कथञ्चिदेव सङ्ख्यासङ्ख्यावतोः स्वभावभेदं पश्यति, तद्विशिष्टविकल्पनात्, क्वचित् निर्णयेऽपिं अन्यत्र संशयात् वर्णरसादिवत् इति ॥२३॥
॥ इत्याप्तमीमांसाभाष्यरूपायाम् अष्टशत्यां प्रथमः परिच्छेदः ॥ Comment on verse 23
In this verse Samantabhadra tells his reader that in the subsequent sections of his text he will show how different pairs of mutually contradictory characters are to be attributed to an entity but that he will not explicitly apply to his findings the doctrine of seven forms of assertion. This is a welcome revelation, for now the reader can expect Samantabhadra to concentrate his attention on points that are of really material importance. As for the task of explicitly applying to Samantabhadra's findings the doctrine of seven forms of assertion, it is rather mechanical and can be performed by an average reader for himself.