________________
DIFFERENCE AND IDENTITY
63
maintaining that a composite substance is absolutely identical with the atoms which go to constitute it. From the tenor of Samantabhadra's criticism we can plausibly surmise that his target is the empiricist Buddhist; but then let us also be clear that the position here attributed to the latter is not his real position. The empiricist Buddhist no doubt maintains that a composite substance is nothing over and above the atoms that go to constitute it, but since by 'atom' he understands a momentary event his position is virtually the same as that of the Jaina who maintains that a composite substance comes into existence as a result of its constituent atoms undergoing a new (momentary) modification.
Verse 70 विरोधानोभयैकात्म्यं स्याद्वादन्यायविद्विषाम्। अवाच्यतैकान्तेऽप्युक्तिर्नावाच्यमिति युज्यते ।।७९।।
The enemies of the logic of syādvāda can also not maintain that the two (viz. 'absolute distinctness' and 'absolute non-distinctness') characterize one and the same phenomenon, for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena that are there are absolutely indescribable, then even to say that a phenomenon is indescribable becomes an impossibility on their part. (70)
अवयवेतरादीनां व्यतिरेकाव्यतिरेकैकान्तौ न वै यौगपद्येन संभविनौ, विरोधात्। तथा अनभिलाप्यतैकान्ते स्ववचनविरोधः, तदभिलाप्यत्वात् । स्याद्वादाभ्युपगमे तु न दोषः, कथञ्चित् तथाभावोपलब्धेः ॥७०॥
Comment on verse 70 This verse literally repeats the verse 13 and serves in the persent section the same purpose as the latter does in the first.
Verses 71-72 द्रव्यपर्याययोरैक्यं तयोरव्यतिरेकतः। परिणामविशेषाच्च शक्तिमच्छक्तिभावतः ॥७१॥ संज्ञासङ्ख्याविशेषाच्च स्वलक्षणविशेषतः। प्रयोजनादिभेदाच्च तन्नानात्वं न सर्वथा ॥७२॥
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
