Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
(662)
The collection of perceptions is stable. So what? It is said that this yogic knowledge is false; if not, its non-false nature is true, due to the existence of a difference in states, it becomes provable.
The question was asked above, what is the proof, so the proponent says that yogic knowledge is the proof. The scholar replies that the yogic knowledge that you call proof is itself a transformation of the yogi. So the proponent says - So what? It is a transformation of the yogi, so what has happened? What are you trying to say from above? The scholar replies that this yogic knowledge is either false or non-false. How can you consider it as proof if it is false? And if it is non-false, then it becomes provable. That is, the existence of a difference in states that is non-false has been established, so you have accepted and proved what we wanted to prove! You were trying to escape, but you have fallen into the same trap! So now that you have accepted our opinion, we have nothing to say, because yogic knowledge is itself a transformation of the yogi. It was yogic knowledge before, and then it became, so it is a different state from the previous state. And this is non-false - you say it is proof, so you also accept that this transformation is non-false, proof. Thus, it is proved! Is there too much speculation? - Thus, the argument of the eternal one-sidedness has also been refuted here with proper reasoning.
Therefore, the object is neither only non-existent nor only existent, but is both existent and non-existent, thus the theory of anekanta is established here. The meaning is that the soul is eternal in terms of substance, and impermanent in terms of modification. From the perspective of dravyarthika nay, the soul is eternal, from the perspective of paryayaarthika nay, it is impermanent - it changes with modification. The knowledge of the three states of childhood, youth, and old age occurs to the same person.
The soul is eternal in terms of substance, it changes with modification; the knowledge of the three ages of childhood, youth, and old age occurs to the same person. - Shri Atmasiddhi.
| This is the eternal principle of anekanta!
The nature of the object
The momentarists say that "the object is non-existent in the previous and subsequent moments, and it is existent in the present moment." (1) This statement of theirs is inconsistent with logic, because according to their opinion, the one that is existent in the present moment is the one that is always existent, so it should be a one-sided, impermanent, present-moment existent. Because "the rule is that the side that is always existent is always existent." Thus, according to their belief, the object will be eternally present-moment existent, that is, eternally existent, by default. And that present-moment existence