________________
79: FTESAME Sifon kafa
In the Tattvartha-Sloka-varttika, Vidyanandi refutes the possibility that the SB is proved by the means of Verbal Testimony. He says:
āgamādeva tat-siddhau bhedasiddhistathā na kim. nirbadhād-eva cettacyam na pramanamatarad-rte.21
Further, the explains that the followers of the Sabdădvita concepts say the existence of the SB is recognised by verbal testimony, which is free from any kind of obstacles (badharanita). Here Vidyanandi does not support the nirbādhatva of the verbal testimony as there is no valid knowledge to prove this22.
Again, an interesting doubt has been raised by Jaina logicians like Vidyanandi, Prabhacandra and Vadideva Suri that the SB is identified with verbal testimony or the SB in separate from the verbal testimony? In the Case of former alternative the verbal testimony? In the case of former alternative the verbal testimony may not be a cause for the establishment of the SB due to the lack of the relation of cause and effect (Karya-karana bhava'). The second alternative is also impossible here, because if we accept two things like the SB and the verbal testimony, then the advaita "non-duality" character of the SB will no more exist. It is needless to say here again that the grammarians accept the SB as "nonduality", and says every thing is produced from it viz.:
tad-āgamasya niscetum sakyam jatu pariksakaith. nacāgamastato nginnaḥ samasti paramarthatan. 23
21. The Tattvarthasiokavarttika 1/3, Sutra - 20, Verse-99, p.241. 22. In the commentary the author opines that : na ni
bharantiriyamakhilabhedapratitir-ityaniscaye tadanyathanupapattya tadbijabhuttam sabdatattvam anadinidhanam brahma sidhyati/ etc.
Ibid, p. 241. 23. Ibid, verse 100; also the Prameyakamalamarttanda. IV/3, p.46, also
the suadvadratnakara 17, pp. 101.
Jain Education International 2010_03
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org