________________
CHAPTER II
97
34. The unity is regarding existence which is inherent (in everything) and the diversity is regarding the difference in dravya etc. This is like the uncommon hetu when one wishes to speak about unity or diversity.
COMMENTARY By the word hetu employed here, the hetu as employed in inference (anumāna) is to be understood. Such a hetu is of two kinds: jñāpaka (that which makes a thing known, viz., smoke leading to the knowledge of fire) or kāraka (that from which a thing is made, viz., clay from which a pitcher is manufactured). We have different intentions when we speak of these different kinds of hetu. So when we intend merely to speak of existence, all substances (jīva etc.) are the same, but when we wish to express the difference according to dravya, kşetra, kāla and bhāva (already explained before, they are different.
विवक्षा चाविवक्षा च विशेष्येऽनन्तधर्मिणि। Hat fastaRIE Hartfristeffy: 113501 vivakşā chāvivakşā cha viśeșye'nanta-dharmiņi, sato višeşaņasyātra nāsatastaistądarthibhiḥ.
35. Those wishing for it, want to speak or not about an existing quality of a substance possessing infinite qualities, and not of non-existing (qualities).
COMMENTARY
This verse attempts to refute the view of the Buddhists who say that unity and divergence cannot be established by one's desire to speak or not about a 1. “सत्सामान्यं विशेषणमाश्रित्य सर्वेषां जीवादीनामैक्यमिति नैकत्वप्रत्ययो निर्विषयः, तस्य
सत्सामान्यविशेषत्वात्, पृथक् सर्वं जीवादि द्रव्यादिपदार्थभेदमाश्रित्यानुभूयते। ततो न पृथक्त्वप्रत्ययोऽपि निर्विषयः, तस्य द्रव्यादिभेदविषयत्वादिति निवेदितं बोद्धव्यम्। हेतुरत्र $11905: 10.97 Joa" Astasahasri
