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 286

268 STUDIES IN JAIN LITERATURE tattvavritti hi) holds good. V. 9 MEI-W162-976 fasthith HTTafsi fazla-45 (? HE-)HTEPUTC fagtaspa fachmytt This verse may be translated as follows : "If you say that perception / knowledge (vijnana) is made up of two parts, viz., the apprehending or cognising part (grahaka assa) and the apprehended or cognised part (grahya amsa) then, as these two parts, according to you (vijnanavadin), are alike as vijnana (pure and simple), you will have to admit that your visesa (or svalaksana) is simply unreal (or that the difference between them will simply be conceptual)." V. 10. 379fara tinatia pafat fra: 1 अन्यथा घटविज्ञानमन्येन व्यपदिश्यते // The first half of this verse elucidates here the definition of perception formulated by Vasubandhu (when he was an adherent of the Vaibhasika school) in his tract called Vada-vidhi. This definition 'Tato'rthat' has been already stated in verse No. 6 above. The verse may be translated as follows : "Sense-perception is that knowledge which is produced by the (pure) object itself", the colour, etc. (ʻtato' 'rthat utpannam jnanam); by this emphasis of "itself" the ultimately real object, (the mere efficiency of a point-instant); is meant" and not from any other object (resembling it, say, for instance, the knowledge of silver from conchshell). It is certainly a fault (wrong) that the knowledge of the subject, say ghata, (a jar) which is gained through rupa, etc., (colour etc.) should be designated by another name (say, ghata jnana). The remarks of TH Stcherbatsky are very apposite on this definition : "Vasubandhu apparently had produced two definitions. The first is the inserted in his Vadavidhi. It states that sense-perception is that cognition which is produced from the object itself. By this emphasis of "itself" the ultimately real object, the mere efficiency of a point-instant, is meant. This definition has been severely criticised by Dignaga, since it too closely resembles the first part of the definition of realists, "Produced from a contact between object and sense-organ", and is apt to be misinterpreted in a realistic sense. In a subsequent Vada-Vidhana Vasubandhu probably corrected his definition and made it consonant with the one of Dignaga, but since the work is lost, we cannot know it exactly". 11 In conclusion, we may note that the KLV throws a flood of light on the