Gandharwad

SR No.: 011044
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ratnaprabhvijay, D P Thaker
Publisher: Jain Granth Prakashak Sabha
Publication Year: 1942
Total Pages: 579
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 63 MB

Page 292

Vada ]
Gañadharavada
.: 249 :
Driśyate Sāmagrimayam na cāņavaḥ santi nanu viruddhamidam i Kim vāņūnāmabhāve nişpannamidam khapuspaiḥ 1119011 (1738) ]
Trans.--190 It is really contradictory to believe ) that what is produced by materials is seen and that atoms do not exist. Or, is it that, in absence of atoms, ( all ) this is produced by means of ( mere ) khapuspa ? ( 1738 )
टीका-"सामग्रीमयं सर्व दृश्यते" इति भवतैव प्रागुक्तम् , "अणवश्च न सन्ति" इत्यधुना ब्रूषे, ननु विरुद्धमिदम् , यथा ' सर्वमप्यनृतं वचनम् । इति ब्रुवतः स्ववचनविरोधः, तथाऽत्रापीत्यर्थः । यदेव हि सामग्रीमयं किमपि दृश्यते भवता, तदेवाणुसंघातात्मकम् , अतः स्ववचनेनैव प्रतिपादितत्वात् कथमणवो न सन्ति ? इति भावः। किञ्च, अणूनामभाव इदं सर्वमपि घटादिकार्यजातं किं खपुष्पैनिष्पन्नम् , परमाण्वभावे तजनकमृत्पिण्डादिसामग्र्यभावात् ? इति भावः। तस्माद् यस्मात् सामग्रीमयं दृश्यत इति प्रतिपद्यते भवता,तद्वदेव परमाणव इति ॥ १९० ॥ (१७३८)॥
D. C.-If you are to state that those that are not sāmagrîjanya are not paramānus at all, your own statement will be contradicting itself. It has already been said that everything which is samagrîmaya is apprehensible. Again, all that you have accepted as sāmagrîmaya or sāmagrîjanya in this world, is nothing but a collection of atoms. Thus, when you establish the existence of atoms by your own words, you cannot call them non-existent, in any case. And, if you call those atoms non-existent, should the objects like ghata, pata etc, be taken to have been produced from the non-existent objects like khapuspa etc. ? Because if paramānu is absent, a sāmagrî like mritpinda would also be absent. So, when you assert that samagrîmaya is apprehended, the paramānus that form this sāmagrî are automatically established as existent.
Now, in reply to the argument prima facie that since
32