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 76

Vada ] Gañadharavada
: 33 :An object of enjoyment for which there is no enjoyer, does not exist, e. g. a horn of an ass. Body etc., exist as objects of enjoyment. So it follows that there is their enjoyer.
Just as a carpenter and others are svāmins of a house, etc., so there is a svāmin of body etc, since this body and the like are in the form of a collection, have a beginning, are mūrta, are objects of sense and are visible etc., A number of similar hetus as may be helpful in making this syllogism perfectly logical, may be mentioned:
One that has no svāmin, is not in the form of a collection etc. For instance, a flower in the sky which has no svāmin is not in the form of a collection etc. A body etc., are, on the contrary, in the form of a collection etc. So they have a svāmin viz., the soul.
Really, by saying that the body has a creator, one proves that there is a creator etc., for the body. But that is not the soul.
जो कत्ताइ स जीवो सज्झविरुद्धो त्ति ते मई होज्जा । मुत्ताइपसंगाओ तं न संसारिणो दोसो ॥ २२ ॥ (१५७०) Jo kattāi sa jīvo sajjhaviruddho tti te mai hojjā | Muttāipasangāö tam na sassārino doso 11 22 ( 1570 ) [.यः कादि स जीवः साध्यविरुद्ध इति तव मतिर्भवेत् ।
मूर्तादिप्रसङ्गात् तद् न संसारिणो दोषः ॥ २२ ॥ (१५७०) Yaḥ kartrādi sa jīvaḥ sadhyaviruddha iti tava matirbhavet | Mārtādiprasangāt tad na sansáriņo doṣaḥ || 22 ( 1570 )]
Trans.—22 You may be thinking that, that soul which is a doer etc., is opposed to what is to be established, owing to its having a chance of being proved mūrta etc. But this is not a fault in the case of the mundane soul. ( 1570 )
टीका-यश्चायमनन्तरं देहे-न्द्रियादीनां कर्ता, अधिष्टाता, आदाता, भोक्ता, अर्थी चोक्तः स सर्वोऽपि जीव एव, अन्यस्येश्वरादेर्युक्त्यक्षमत्वेन करी