________________
"Dasarūpaka-Vicara"
1681 As it were "iti nirnayah" are words used to reject the view of the N.D. Or, perhaps Śā. had no access to the ND. Šā. further observes :
athā’rtha-prakrtīnām tad avasthā-pañcakasya ca, anvayo hy upasamhāra kramā"rambha-kramāśrayah." pancā'vasthā-sametā'rthaprakstīnām yathā-kramam, yathā samkhyena jāyante
mukhā”dyāḥ pañca-sandhayaḥ. In B.P., Sandhi is defined under the influence of the D.R. as -
"antaraikā'rtha-sambandhah sandhir ekā'nvaye sati, anvitānām kathāmśānām parame tu prayojane. sambandhas sandhir ityuktaḥ avāntaraika-prayojanah,
eka-kāryā’nviteşv atra · kathāmseșu prayogataḥ. avántaraika-kāryasya
sambandhah sandhir isyate. But for a moment, as it were, śā. also seems to accepts the lead of the ND., when he observes that -
“mukham pratimukham garbhaḥ sā’vamarío'pa-samhṛtiḥ,
vivakṣitóyam uddeśa-kramaḥ avasthā-kramo yatha..." This is, because the observation on the part of the ND. was absolutely logical. We, however, still feel that Sä. did not have an access to the ND. and by and large it follows the dictum of the DR., it being the representative of the Mālava tradition. We have observed earlier how indebted Sā. is to Bhoja, the mentor of the Mālava tradition.
Śā. has not treated the sandhyangas.
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
