________________
Vala) Nihnavavārla
:119: D. C.
Acārya :--If the object is perishable at every moment, destruction ought to have been apprehended in the beginning, and in the middle, just as it is apprehended at the end.
Aśvamitra :---It is apprchcnded neither in the beginning, nor in the midille, but any how at the end.
Acārya:--Though we believe that destruction (i. c. negation of an object) is equal in the beginning, as well as in the middle, how is it that it is apprehended only at the end, when beaten by hammer etc., and neither in the beginning nor at the middle ? 117 (2412)
Also, अंते व सव्वनासो पडिवणणो केण जदुवलद्धीओ। कप्पेसि क्खणविणासं नणु पन्जायंतरं तं पि ॥११८॥२४१३॥ 118. Ante va. savvanāso padivanno kena. jaduvaladdhio |
___Kappesi kkhanavinasam nanu pajjayantaram tam pi (2413) [अन्ते वा सर्वनाशः प्रतिपन्नः केन यदुपलब्धेः । कल्पयसि क्षणविनाशं ननु पर्यायान्तरं तदपि ॥११८॥२४१३॥ 118. Ante vā sarvanasah pratipannah kena yadupalabdheh । Kalpayasi kşaņavināśam nanu paryāyāntaram tadapi 118
(2413)] Trans. 118. Or, who has established (the theory of) entire destruction that you believe in transitariness (of an object ) by the apprehension (of destruction ) at the end ? In fact, that is nothing but another form (of the object) 2413.
टीका-११८ यदि वा, भोः क्षणभङ्गवादिन् ! अन्ते पर्यन्तेऽपि मुद्गरादिसंनिधाने घटादिवस्तुनः सर्वनाशः सर्वथा विनाशः केन प्रतिवादिना जैनेनाभ्युपगतः? यदुपलब्धेर्यदर्शनावष्टम्भेन त्वं क्षणभङ्गरूपं प्रतिक्षणविनाशं कल्पयसि घटादेः ? । यदि मुद्गरादिसंनिधाने सर्वविनाशस्तस्य जैनेनाभ्युपगम्यते, तहिं तदवस्थायां घटो न दृश्यते, कपालान्येव च दृश्यन्त इत्येतत् किमिष्यते ?
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
