________________
: 248 :
Jinabhadra Gani's
[ दृश्यते सामग्रीमयं न चोणवः सन्ति ननु विरुद्धमिदम् ।
किं वाणूनामभावे निष्पन्नमिदं खपुष्पैः ? ॥ १९०॥ (१७३८) Drisyatè samagrimayam na cāṇavaḥ santi nanu viruddhamidam ! Kim vānūnāmabhāve nispannamidam khapuspaih. 190 ( 1738 ) ]
Trans. – 190 It is really contradictory ( to believe ) that what is produced by materials is seen and that atoms do not exist. Or, is it that, in absence of atoms, (all) this is produced by means of ( mere ) khapuspa ? (1738 )
[ The fourth
"
टीका- “सामग्रीमयं सर्व दृश्यते" इति भवतैव प्रागुक्तम्, 66 अणवश्व न सन्ति " इत्यधुना ब्रूषे, ननु विरुद्धमिदम्, यथा ' सर्वमप्यनृतं वचनम् इति ब्रुवतः स्ववचनविरोधः, तथाऽत्रापीत्यर्थः । यदेव हि सामग्रीमयं किमपि दृश्यते भवता, तदेवाणुसंघातात्मकम्, अतः स्ववचनेनैव प्रतिपादितत्वात् कथमणवो न सन्ति ? इति भावः । किञ्च, अणूनामभाव इदं सर्वमपि घटादिकार्यजातं किं खपुष्पैर्निष्पन्नम्, परमाण्वभावे तज्जनकमृत्पिण्डादिसामग्रयभावात् ? इति भावः । तस्माद् यस्मात् सामग्रीमयं दृश्यत इति प्रतिपद्यते भवता, तद्रदेव परमाणव इति ॥ १९०॥ (१७३८)
D. C - If you are to state that those that are not sāmagrtjanya are not paramāņus at all, your own statement will be contradicting itself. It has already been said that everything which is sāmagrimaya is apprehensible. Again, all that you have accepted as sāmagrimaya or sāmagrijanya in this world, is nothing but a collection of atoms. Thus, when you establish the existence of atoms by your own words, you cannot call them non-existent, in any case. And, if you call those atoms non-existent, should the objects like ghata, pata.ete, be taken to have been produced from the non-existent objects like khapuspa eto. ? Because if paramānu is absent, a samagri like mritpinḍa would also be absent. So, when you assert that sămagrîmaya is apprehended, the paramāņus that form this sāmagri, are automatically established as existent.
Now, in reply to the
Jain Education International
argument prima facie that since
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org