Tarkatarangini

SR No.: 002581
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Gunratna, Vasant G Parikh
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 306
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Philosophy
File Size: 15 MB

Page 24

23
used frequently. 66 Gn. seems to be always a teacher in his treatment throughout whole of the Tt.
Sometimes after presenting several views, he winds up the discussion with an etc.,67 while sometimes he concludes the discussion like a learned professor in a class room, with a suggestion to refer to some scholarly work for further details. 68
While presenting several views in case of a particular problem, generally Gn. does not seem to be persistent in giving his own view. However
general drift of such discussions, it can be presumed that he may be sharing the last view. In spite of this attitude at times he does specifically put his own view discarding all other theories. E.g. in the discussion of
t
h e and other such points where he does not agree with the prevalent views.
Gn. is a faithful commentator. Though a Jainācārya, he shows considerable impartiality in his treatment. He never intermingle doctrine or theory with that of the Nyāya system. On the contrary, certain Nyāya principles that have met severe criticism in Jaina school of thought, are faithfully presented and justified by him. For instance, he criticises मध्यमपरिमाणत्व of आत्मा—a theory acceptable to Jainas, and proves विभुपरिमाणत्व of 317641—the Nyāya theory as valid. The concept of Jāti is yet another proof for Gn.'s honesty as a commentator.
In the same way his faithfulness to Gv. is also sometimes remarkable. Except the definition of Sāmkhya, where Gn. slightly differs from Gv. and the priority of the order of the discussion of samāsavāda and mokshavāda, Gn. accepts and justifies almost all the conclusions arrived at by Gv. Following Gv., he does not mention आपः, सपक्षः and निर्णयः. He prefers to discuss hetvābhāsas according to Gv.'s scheme. It seems, he is concerned more with Gv. than with Km., as he comments on Tpk. and not on Tbh. That is why, perhaps he agrees with Gv. in stating that the illustration given by Km. for अभ्युपगमसिद्धांत is improper and it should be placed under प्रतितन्त्र सिद्धान्त. Not only that but at least at one place, he is so concentrated on Tpk. that he does not even read Tbh. carefully. As a result, with reference to the destruction of the
9 6 Gn. subscribes a view to Km. which the later has presented as belonging to a pūrvapaksha !