________________
* 16:
Jinabhadra Gani's.
Katham pratipannamaham iti ca kimasmi
nasmīti samsayaḥ katham nu ? | Sati samśaye cayam kasyaham pratyayo. yuktaḥ? || 8. (1556)
[The first
99
Trans.-8 When there is no soul, how do you admit aham (the realization as 'I'))? How can there be a doubt as to whether it (the soul) is or not? Or, if there is a doubt, in whose case is this aham-pratyaya justifiable? (1556) टीका - हन्त ! कथमसति जीवे “ अहम् इति प्रतिपन्नं त्वया, विषयाभावे विषयिणोऽनुत्थानप्रसङ्गात्ः १ । देह एवास्य प्रत्ययस्य विषय इति चेत् । न, जीवविप्रमुक्तेऽपि देहे तदुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गात् । सति च जीवविषयेऽस्मिन्नहम्प्रत्यये ' किमहमस्मि नास्मि' इति भवतः संशयः कथं केन प्रकारेणोप जायते ? अहम्प्रत्ययग्राह्यस्य जीवस्य सद्भावात् " अस्म्यहम् " इति निश्चय एव युज्यत इति भावः । सन्ति वाऽस्मिन्नात्मास्तित्वसंशये कस्याय महम्प्रत्ययो युज्यते, निर्मूलत्वेन तदनुत्थानप्रसङ्गात् ? इति ।। ८ (१५५६) ।।
D. C.-Hallo! when the soul is non-existent, how is it that you admitaham'? For, it is a settled fact that in the absence of a visaya (an object), there is no scope for a visayin (one having an object). If your reply is that this aham-pratyaya has the body alone, for, visaya is confined simply to the body, this aham-pratyaya should be possible even in the case of the body which has been given up by the soul.
Moreover, if this aham-pratyaya associated with the soul arises, how can you have a doubt as to kim aham asmi (am I) or nasmi (am I not)? For, on the contrary, in such a case, you ought to be in a position to decide that I am ' owing to the sadbhava ( presence) of the soul realized by the ahampratyaya. When there is this doubt about the existence of the soul, is there no scope for such a pratyaya owing to its being baseless ?
If the non-existence of the soul is admitted, there is no possibility of a doubt regarding its existence.