________________
Vada ] Ganadharavāda
:205: justified only in the case of existent objects like sthāņu and puruşa. But if you raise any doubt as regards a non-existent object, the doubt will be raised in the case of kharavişāna also, which, too is non-existent in general.
को वा विसेसहे. सव्वाभावे वि थाणु-पुरिसेसु। संका न खपुप्फाइसु विवजओ वा कहं न भवे ? ॥१५०॥ (१६९८) Ko vā visdsahdū savvābhāvà vi thāņu-purisdsu i Sankā da khapupfāisu vivajjað yâ kaham na bhavd ? 150 (1698) [को वा विशेषहेतुः सर्वाभावेऽपि स्थाणु-पुरुषयोः ।
शङ्का न खपुष्पादिषु विपर्ययो वा कथं न भवेत् १ ॥१५०॥ (१६९८) Ko vā visdşahdtuḥ sarvābhāvè'pi sthāņu-puruşayoḥ i Sankā na khapuspadisu viparyayo va katham na bhavat ? 150]
Trans.-150 Or, what special reason can there be in (entertaining ) doubt about sthāņu and purusa and not about kha-puspa (flower of the sky) etc., even in (the midst of) allpervading non-entity? Or, why should not the reverse take place ? (1698)
टीका-को वाऽत्र विशेषहेतुरुच्यतां यत्-सर्वाभावे सर्वशून्यतायामविशिष्टायामपि स्थाण्वादिषु संशयो भवति। न खपुष्पादिषु । ननु. विशेषहेत्वभावादविशेषेण सर्वत्र संशयोऽस्तु, नियामकाभावाद् । विपर्ययो वा भवेत् खपुष्पादिषु संशयः स्याद् न स्थावादिष्विति भावः ॥१५०॥ (१६९८)
D. C.-Even when there was all-pervading negation, on what special ground could you entertain doubt about existent objects like sthāņu eto., and not about non-existent objeots like kha-puspa eto.? If there is no visesaheta on which your beliet is based, the samsaya, in general, may rise at all places. Or, in absence of clear explanation, reverse may be the case in e. The doubt may arise about non-existent objects like kha-puspa eto., and not about existent objects like sthānu etc.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
