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 73

38
CRITIQUE OF AN AUTHORITY अर्थनिष्पत्तेरभावात् । उपचारमात्रं तु स्यात् । न चाग्निर्माणवक इत्युपचारात् पाकादौ उपयुज्यते । तदेकैकशः परस्परव्यावृत्तयोऽपि परिणामविशेषाः ।।३५।।
प्रमाणगोचरौ सन्तौ भेदाभेदौ न संवृती। तावेकत्राविरुद्धौ ते गुणमुख्यविवक्षया॥३६॥
Difference and non-difference that are taken cognizance of by the authentic sources of knowledge are verily real and no mere appearances. On your showing, they coexist in one and the same body without coming in conflict with each other while they become primary or secondary depending on the speaker's intention.
प्रमाणम् अविसंवादिज्ञानम्, अनधिगतार्थाधिगमलक्षणत्वात्। तदेवंसतिभेदमभेदंवा नान्योन्यरहितं विषयीकरोति प्रमाणम् । न हि बहिरन्तर्वा स्वलक्षणं सामान्यलक्षणं वा तथैवोपलभामहे यथैकान्तवादिभिराम्नायते, सूक्ष्मस्थूलाकाराणां स्थूलसूक्ष्मस्वभावव्यतिरेकेण प्रत्यक्षादौ अप्रतिभासनात्। तत्र स्वभावान्तरस्य प्राधान्यविवक्षायामाकारान्तरस्य गुणभावः स्यात्, घटोऽयं परमाणवो रूपादयो वेति ॥३६॥ ॥ इति आप्तमीमांसाभाष्यरूपायाम् अष्टशत्यां द्वितीयः परिच्छेदः॥
Comment on verses 33-36 In these verses Samantabhadra offers a positive formulation of the Jaina position on the question of identity and difference. His aim is to show (i) how certain phenomena constitute the different modes of the same substance, (ii) how certain phenomena constitute the different component parts of the same compsite whole, (iii) how certain mutually different phenomena are also mutually similar. And he feels that in none of these three cases is a proper demonstration possible unless the phenomena concerned are treated as somehow mutually different and somehow mutually identical; he further feels that in his explanation of each of these cases the transcendentalist is blind to the aspect of difference, the empiricist Buddhist to that of identity. However, it is very necessary for an impartial reader to distinguish between the nature of the Jaina's dissatisfaction with the transcendentalist and that of his dissatisfaction with the empiricist Buddhist. For the transcendentalist is interested in explaining away the facts under consideration while the empiricist Buddhist in offering in connection with them an alternative explanation to that acceptable to a Jaina - nay,