________________
Văda ]
Gaṇadharavāda
Bhagavana:--Your interpretation does not fit in properly. By interpreting 'a sariri' as one having no body, vidyamānatı of jiva in the muktavastha is clearly understood. It is 1101 proper, therefore, to interpret it in another way by prefixing "a".
Secondly, in the sentence "Sukha-duḥkhe na spriśalah" sparsana becomes the adjective of 'asarira'. If a-sarira' were meant to denote the negation of soul, the adjective would have lost its sense as found in the case of assertion like "Sukha-duḥkha do not affect the vandhyaputra. The adjective, therefore, is befitting a-sara' only if it
means
mukta-jiva ". Your interpreting the expression by dissolving it as * và a-vasantam is thus useless, while our interpretation is perfectly proper. This proves the existence of mokṣa, which separates jiva and karmana śarîza, and that oi mukta jivu also. If the existence of jiva were denied, Vėda-vaianas would prove worthless as shown above. | 473 || (2021)
86
6
ا,
The opponent said
एवं पि होज मुत्तो निस्सुह- दुक्खत्तणं तु तदवत्थं । तं नो पिय-ऽप्पियाई जम्हा पुणे-यरकयाई ||४७४ || (२०२२) trisहसणओ न फुसति वीयराग-दोसस्स । तस्स पियमप्पियं वा मुक्तसुहं को पसंगोऽत्थ १ || ४७५|| (२०१३)
Jain Education International
533
Evam pi hojja mutto nissuha-dukkhattanam tu tdaavattham I Tam no piya-'ppiyaim jamhā punné-yarakayaim | 474 (2022 Nāṇā'bāhattaṇaö na phusanti vīyarāya-dosassa i Tasya ppiyamppiyam vā muttasuham ko pasango'ttha ? | 475 [ एवमपि मवेद् मुक्तो निःसुख-दुःक्खत्वं तु तदवस्थम् ।
तद् नो प्रिया - प्रिये यस्मात् पुण्ये - तरकृते ॥ ४७४ ॥ (२०२२) ज्ञानाsनाबाधत्वतो न स्पृशतो वीतराग द्वेषस्य ।
axa fquafaá a gagå m: qaytsa ? 11804|| (2627) ||
For Private Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
