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 285

KALPALATAVIVEKA ON BHAMAHA'S KAVYALAMKARA 267 the visesa (-svalaksana) ? And how could you distinguish one svalaksana saya ghata' from another, say 'a pata' ? (We cannot account for the distinction between the two when both are vijnanas pure and simple.)" Here we have the refutation of the Sautrantikas, who accept visesa or svalaksana as an external existent (sat) from the point of view of the Yogacara School (or the Vijnanavadins). V 8. Gue a gent fH SI HI feet art ! अवस्तुकं चेद् वितथं प्रत्यक्षं तत्त्ववृत्ति हि // Naganatha Sastry (p. 92. V-8) reads 'na' in place of 'ca' in the first quarter. Tatacharya's text agrees with that of the Banaras edition. Naganatha Sastry understands by 'Sa' the vyakti whereas Tatacharya understands it to mean "Jati". These explanations are hardly convincing. Tatacharya might find support for his interpretation in the phrase "Jatyadyapohe" which occurs in the immediately preceding verse (No. 7). As the discussion centres round the proof 'perception' and its subject (visaya) asadharana (=visesa=svalaksana) there does not seem to be any scope for establishing the existence or non-existence of jati'. The text as it stands is indeed confounding. When we are faced with this obscure line the KLV comes to our help. It reads the line (p. 49 1 20) as follows : Tante a pena fater H [gres-] ritare: 1 Instead of emending 'buddha' to 'buddhi' as done by the Editors, if we emend it to 'buddhya', the line becomes intelligible : "With the exclusion of 'jati', etc., from the frupa, etc., (the object of cognition) there remains only 'tathata' (the true reality) and that reality does not become the object of cognition (buddhyagocarah=jnanagocarah)."10 The second half of this verse may be translated as follows : "Now, if this reality be only vijnana pure and simple, devoid of the perceiver (grahaka vijnanaamsa) and the perceived object (grahya vijnana-amsa), then it is futile (vitatham=asaram) or worthless for direct perception (pratyaksam) operates on what is real (a real object)." It is equally possible to interpret 'avastukam' as 'nirvastukam'-"sunyameva idam sarvam" i.e. 'void' or better still nissvabhavam' (without any nature, qualities). Even if avastukam' is thus interpreted, in accordance with the Sunyavada of the Madhyamikas, the same refutation (vitatham, pratyaksam,