________________
Canadharavada
Vada ] Aṇudaharaṇamabhāva eṣo'pi matirna tad yato niyataḥ! Kumbhavināśaviśisto bhāva eva pudgalamayaśca || 290 | ( 1833)]
339
Trans. – 289-290 "Like kumbha, moksa is not nitya on account of its artificiality etc. " It is not so. Because, indestructiblity is everlasting on this earth inspite of its (possessing) that property. " (But ) this negation is void of example also.” That is not true. Destruction of kumbha is definite and hence) (its) positiveness is distinguished by means of pudgalas. (1837-1838)
।
टीका - व्याख्या- ननु मोक्षो नित्यो न भवति, किन्त्वनित्यो विनाशी, कृतकत्वात्, आदिशब्दात् प्रयत्नानन्तरीयकत्वाऽऽदिमत्त्वादिपरिग्रहः । कुम्भवदिति दृष्टान्तः । अत्रोच्यते-अनैकान्तिकता हेतूनाम्, विपक्षेऽपि गमनात्, यस्मादिह घटादिप्रध्वंसाभावः कृतकादिस्वभावोऽपि नित्य एव तदनित्यत्वे घटादेस्तद्रूपतयैवोन्मज्जन प्रसङ्गादिति । अथैवं परस्य मतिः- न केवलं पूर्वोक्तः प्रागभावः किंन्त्वेषोऽपि प्रध्वंसाभावोऽभावत्वेनावस्तुत्वादनुद हरणमेव । तदेतद् न, यतो यस्माद् नियतो निश्चितः कुम्भविनाशविशेषेण विशिष्टः पुद्गलात्मको भाव एवायमपि मध्वंसाभावः । अतो युक्तमेतदुदाहरणमिति । एतच मोक्षस्य कृतकत्वमभ्युपगम्योक्तम् ॥ २८९-२९० ॥ ॥ (१८३७-१७३८) ॥
D. C. - Mandika-Moksa is not nitya but it is a- nitya like ghata as it is artificial and adiman in character like ghata.
Bhagavana--It is not SO The hétu advanced by you applies to the vipaksa as well, and hence it is anarkāntika. The pradhvamsābhāva, in case of ghata, for example, is nitya, inspite of its being kritaka. For, if it were a nitya, objects like ghata should have been born in the same form.
Mandika:-But since pradhvamsābhāva is negative in character, you will not be able to cite an example based on it.
Bhagavāna :--It is not negative, O Mandika | but positive ir character. The definite forms of pudgalas found at the
Jain Education International
For Private Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
