________________
6:48.
Jinabhadra Gani's
| The first
is true, as it is my statement. Or, it is correct owing to its being a statement of an omniscient being, as is the case with the statement of one whom you look upon as omniscient. (1577)
टीका-"जीवोऽस्ति" इत्येतद् वचः सत्यम् , मद्वचनत्वात् , भवत्संशयविषयाद्यवशेषवचनवत् , यच्च सत्यं न भवति तद् मदीयवचनमपि न भवति, यथा कूटसाक्षिवचनम् । अथवा सत्यं “ जीवोऽस्ति" इति वचनम् , सर्वज्ञवचनत्वात् , भवदनुमतसर्वज्ञवचनवदिति ॥ २९ (१५७७ )॥
___D. C.-Just as my statement about your doubt is correct so this statement of mine that the soul exists is correct; for, it is my statement. The statement which is not correct, is not mine, e.g., the statement of a false witness. Or, the correctness of this statement can be also established as under:
The statement that the soul exists is correct, because it is the statement of an omniscient being, as is the case with a statement of one whom you look upon as sarvajía. भय-राग-दोस-मोहाभावाओ सच्चमणइवाइं च । सवं चिय मे वयणं जाणय मज्झत्थवयणं व ॥३०॥ (१५७८) Bhaya-rāga-dosa-mohābhāvāö saccamanaïvāim ca i Savvam ciya me vayanam janaya majjhatthavayanam va 30 (1578) [भय-राग-द्वेष-मोहाभावात् सत्यमनतिपाति च ।
सत्यमेव मे वचनं ज्ञायकमध्यस्थवचनमिव ॥ ३० ॥ (१५७८) Bhaya-rāga-dvesa-mohābhāvāt satyam anatipāti ca i Satyam éva me vacanamjnāyakamadhyasthavacanam iva |130 (1578)]
Trans.--30 Everything that I say, is certainly true and free from any fault, on account of the ( complete ) absence of fear, attachment, aversion and infatuation ( in me ) as is the case with the words of an intelligent and impartial person. (1578)
टीका-सर्वमपि मद्वचनं सत्यमनतिपाति च बोधव्यम् , भय-रागद्वेषा-ऽज्ञानरहितत्वात् , इह यद् भयादिरहितस्य वचनं तत् सत्यं दृष्टम् , यथा