Tulsi Prajna 1992 10

SR No.: 524572
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1992
Total Pages: 160
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 8 MB

Page 134

114
TULSI-PRAJNA, Oct.-Dec., 1992
explains that if the SB will be svasaṁvedanaśīla, then the words like ghata and pata should be svasamvedanašila, as these words are the vivarta of the SB. But this is not accepted, because all the words are not svasaṁvedanašila. Thus, the Jaina logicians argue that the SB is not perceived by svasaṁvedana-pratyakşa20. Now we may conclude that the existence of the SB is not proved by perception.
Like perception, the existence of SB is also not proved by inference, another means of the valid knowledge. Secondly, it is also a fact that the inference is not recognised by Sabdădvaitavādīs as a way of valid knowledge. In this connection, Vādideva says that: nāpyanumānena, tasya tatsadbhāvavedakasya kasyacidasambhavāt. 21 Ācārya Vidyānandi also explains vividly regarding this problem. According to him since in the Sabdădyaiat siddhānta, inference is not recognised as a means of valid-knowledge, how can we prove the existence of the SB by inference ?22
Again the Jain logicians ask that by which inference the Sabdādvaitavādins prove the existence of SB; either by Kāryalingānumana or by Syabhāvalinganumāna 723 This is also supported by Abhayadeva Sūri and Prabhācandra.24 According to Jaina scholars the first alternative is not justified here, because the eternal SB has no action; neither it has any action chronologically (arthakriyā), nor it has any action collectively if there is no action, then how can we say that the SB may be established through käryalirgānumāna. The second alternative also has no scope to prove the existence of the SB; because it is needed first to establish the existence of the dharmi SB and after that only we can prove it by inference, which is the Syarūpabhūtadharma of the SB. But when the dharmi, SB, has no existence, then its Svabhāvalinga is automatically regarded as nonexistence. Thus the SB is not established by inference, the second way of valid knowledge.
In the Tattvārtha-Sloka-vārttika, Vidyānandi refutes the possibility that the SB is proved by the means of Verbal Testimony. He says:
āgamādeva tat-siddhau bhedasiddhistathā na kim
nirbädhäd-eva cettavyam na pramānamatarād-rte //25 Further, he explains that the followers of the Śabdädvita concept say the existence of the SB is recognised by verbal testimony, which is free from any kind of obstacles (bādhārahita). Here Vidyānandi does not support the nirbàdhatva of the verbal testimony as there is no valid knowledge to prove this. 28
Again, an interesting doubt has been raised by Jaina logicians like Vidyānandi, Prabhācandra and Vādideva Sūri that the SB is