________________
Vada ]
Ganadharavāda
: 253:
middle portions exist? And, if it is said so in the opinion of others, whence is the distinction between one's own opinion and another's opinion ? If the front, rear, and the middle portions are accepted as existing, there would be no sūnyatā at all. And, if they are not proved (to be existing), why alternatives about (non-existent objects like ) kharavisāna ? Or, in the midst of the negation of all objects, why is the front portion apprehended and why not the rear one? Or, why not absolute non-apprehension of both ? Or, why not the reverse ( apprehension ) also ? ( 1741-1743 ).
Also,
परभागदरिसणं वा फलिहाईणं ति ते धुवं संति । जइ वा ते विन संता परभागादरिसणमहेऊ १ ॥ १९६ ॥ (१७४४) सव्वादरिणउ चिय न भण्णइ कीस, भाई तन्नाम । पुव्वन्भुवगयहाणी पच्चक्खविरोहओ चेव ॥ १९७ ॥ ( १७४५)
Parabhagadarisaņam va phalihaiņam ti te dhuyam santi | Jai va te vi na santa parbbāgadarisanamahèū ? 196 ( 1744 ) Savvadarisaṇau cciya na bhaņņai kîsa bhaņai tannāma | Puvvabbhuvagayahāņt paccakkhavirohaö cdva_197 (1745 )
[ परभागदर्शनं वा स्फटिकादीनामिति ते ध्रुवं सन्ति ।
यदि वा तेऽपि न सन्तः परभागादर्शनमहेतुः ।। १९६ ।। (१७४४)
सर्वादर्शनत एव न भव्यते कस्मात्, भणति तन्नाम | पूर्वाभ्युपगतहानिः प्रत्यक्षविरोधतश्चैव ॥ १९७ ॥ (१७४५)
Parabhāgadarśanam va sphatikādināmiti te dhruvam santi | Yadi vā te 'pi na santah parabhāgādarśanamahdtuh 196 ( 1744 ) Sarvādarśanatā eva na bhaṇyate kasmāt, bhanati tannāma | Parvābhyugatahānib pratyaksavirodhataścaiva 197 (1745) ] Trans.-196-197 Or, since the rear portions of (objects
For Private & Personal Use Only
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
