Studies in Jain Literature

SR No.: 001868
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: V M Kulkarni
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 114
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Story
File Size: 14 MB

Page 283

KALPALATAVIVEKA ON BHAMAHA'S KAVYALAMKARA 265 knowledge : 1. Perception and, 2. Inference. These two sources of knowledge have settled and clear limits (Pramanavyavastha), the one never acting in the sphere of the other. The opposite theory of the realists (the Vaisesikas and the Naiyayikas) receives the name of a mixture or duplication theory (Pramanasamplava), since according to that theory every object can be cognised in both ways either directly in sense-perception or indirectly in an inference. In other words, according to the Buddhist view, and what is cognised by inference can never be subject to cognition by the senses. Thus svalaksana (asadharana, visesa, ksana, paramartha-sat) or the only real object, the extreme particular, the thing in itself, is the province of perception and samanya (class, species, genus, universal) is the province of Inference. According to the realists (the Vaisesikas and the Naiyayikas), every object can be cognised in both ways either directly, e.g., when a fire is present in the ken and cognised by the sense of sight, it is a case of sense perception. When the same fire is beyond the ken and its existence is cognised only indirectly through the perception of its product, the smoke, through its mark, it is cognised indirectly by inference." V. 6 G 441 Gils effcfa gol कल्पनां नामजात्यादियोजना प्रतिजानते / / Naganatha Sastry emends the words 'tato' rthat to 'Sato' rthat' and in support of the emendation he says in his Notes :......... Thus in the definition of pratyaksa of the Bauddhas the epithet given is "Abhrantam". This means 'devoid of illusion'. What is devoid of illusion is what is real, i.e., Sadartha. So I have corrected the printed text from tato'rthai' into 'sato'rthat'. This emendation appears justifiable also from the use of the word 'sadarthalambanam' in the verse following'. (pp. 91-92), The emendation however is absolutely uncalled for. In this verse Bhamaha presents two definitions of Pratyaksa : one given by Dinnagas and the other by Vasubandhu.The KLV (p 47, 11 15-16) unambiguously and clearly says that the second definition is given by Vasubandhu : वैभाषिकमतानुसारि वसुबन्धूक्तलक्षणं प्रत्यक्षस्य दर्शयितुमाह ततोऽर्थादिति / / Elsewhere (p. 51 11 18-21) it informs us : वासुबन्धवेऽपि मार्गे इति वैभाषिकमत इत्यर्थः / तदेवं वैभाषिकसौत्रान्तिक-योगाचार-माध्यमिक-दर्शनेषु प्रत्यक्षलक्षणस्यानुपपत्तिरुक्ता / वैभाषिकदर्शने खलु "ततोऽर्थादिति केचन" इति प्रत्यक्षलक्षणम् / शिष्टेषु च दर्शनेषु "प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढम्" इति तदुभयं निराकृतम् / So we may translate the karika as it is : According to some (Dinnaga and others) Perception is devoid of "kalpana"; according to some others (Vasubandhu Stud.-34