________________
Vada ] Ganadharavada
: 256: किन्तु परभागदर्शनम् , यथा क्क ? इति भवतः सर्वासद्वादिनो व्यतिरेका afaela a fersofà, eratsegtarefalà 11899-884911 (8088-81984)
D. C.—Non-existence of each and every object could not be proved by virtue of the non-apprehension of rear parts. The rear portions of transparent objects like crystal and mica are apprehended. Existence of those objects has therefore undoubtedly been established. Consequently, non-apprehension of all objects can never be proved by means of the hetu that rear portions are not seen,
Here, again, if you contend that sphatika etc. also do not exist, your argument that rear portion is not seen, will fail and hence be invalid, as the rear portions of those objects are clearly apprehended. In spite of this faulty argument, if you attempt to establish śūnyatā by means of a widely applicable statement that “ Nothing could be proved to exist as nothing is perceived" then also, the previous hetu that rear part could not be seen, would be violated. Secondly, since village, town, river, sea, ghata, pața etc, are directly apprehensible, the hetu will be evidently invalid in that way also.
The opponent may contena again, that a reason which is not applicable to all the instances on the same side, can be called a logical reason if it is absolutely inapplicable to the opposite side, e. 9., sabda is a-nitya, because it is not produced without effort. But this does not mean that all a-nitya objects like lightning, cloud eto, though produced without effort, are a-nitya. Similarly, here also, rear parts of all the objects are not non-apprehensible, but as the rear parts of several objects are not apprehensible, this hetu leads us to prove $ūnyatā in them, and that is why it is called & correot or logical reason !
But, that is not proper. O Vyakta 1 In the hetu mentioned above, perversion of difference is found. Take, for example, the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org