________________
:264
Jinabhadra Gani's
(The fourth
टीका-" सचेतनास्तरवः" इति प्रतिज्ञा । " जन्म-जरा-जीवनमरण-क्षतसंरोहणा-ऽऽहार-दौहृदा-ऽऽमय-तचिकित्सादिसद्भावात् " इति हेतुः । “नारीवत्" इति दृष्टान्तः । आह-नन्वनैकान्तिकोऽयम् , अचेतनेध्वपि जन्मादिव्यपदेशदर्शनात् ; तथाहि-"जातं तद् दधि" इति व्यपदिश्यते, न चैतत् सचेतनम् ; तथा, "जीवितं विषम्" "मृतं कुसुम्भकम्" इत्यादि । अत्रोच्यते-वनस्पती सर्वाण्यपि सचेतनलिङ्गानि जन्मादीन्युपलभ्यन्ते, अतो मनुष्येष्विव तानि तेषु निरुपचरितानि, दध्यादौ तु प्रतिनियत एव कश्चिजातादिव्यपदेशो दृश्यते, स चौपचारिक एव-जातमिव जातं दधि, मृतमिव मृतं कुसुम्भकमित्यादि ॥ २०५ ।। (१७५३) ।
D. C.-Trees are sa-cetana like woman. Because, like woman, they possess the living characteristics such as janmagara-jivana-marana etc. Some one might argue that this rule could be applied to the lifeless objects also. Because, several characteristics like life, death, etc. are very well applied to the lifeless objects as well, when it is said that "curds is produced” or “ ( effect of) that poison is still alive" or (intoxication of ) safflowert is dead ” and so on even though the objects mentioned there-in, are lifeless,
The argument mentioned above is not justified since all the characteristics of cetana are residing in the animate objects as their innate qualities. But in the case of lifeless objects, those characteristics are rarely applied and that too in a particular sense and not as a rule. छिकपरोइया छिक्कमेत्तसंकोयओ कुलिंगो छ। आसयसंचाराओ वियत्त ! वल्लीवियाणाई ॥२०६॥ (१७५४) सम्मादओ य साव-प्पबोह-संकायणाइओऽभिमया। बउलादओ य सदाइविसयकालोवलंभाओ ॥२०७॥ (१७५५)
+ Popularly known as Kusumbā in Käthrawar.