Anekantajay patakakhyam Prakaranam Part 2

Author(s): Haribhadrasuri, Munichandrasuri
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 379

248
NOTES
[P, 2, 1. 12
.. Haribhadra has noted on p. 9 the second type of connection.
- Amongst the Svetombara writers he is perhaps the first to mention the requisites, whereas Nyäyäcārya Yas'ovijaya Gani is practically the last celebrated writor to deal with this subject (vide his com. on Kammapayola).
In Minimsiis lokavcirtelu (v. 12-25) there is exposition of any.bandhas. For further details see Kamalas'ila's Pañjika (pp. 1-10) on Tattvasangraha and its English translation ( Vol. I, pp. 3-15) by Dr. Ganganath Jha, Has Arcata discussed this topic in his com. on Hetubindu?
P. 2, 1. 15. Here Haribhadra refers to himself in the third person for, it was a fashion of writers especially who elucidated their own work by means of a gloss or so. Kullūka Bhatta on Manusnyti (I, 4) has made the following observation :
"प्रायेण आचार्याणामियं शैली यत् स्वाभिप्रायमपि परोपदेशमिव वर्णयन्ति । अत एव 'कमीण्यपि जैमिनिः फलार्थत्वात्' इति जैमिनेरेव सूत्रम् । अत एव 'तदुपर्यपि बादरायणः सम्भवात्' इति बादरायणस्यैव mittai" Medhătithi on the same has said the same thing :
"1TT: RAY THAT and." P. 2. II. 17-18. The source of this quotation remains untraced. It occurs in Kotyācārya's com. (P. 2) on Visesa' and in various Jaina works of a later date than this. Some of them are noted by me in the article "The date of composition and authorship of a well-known verse in Sanskrit” published in “The New Indian Antiquary” (Vol. I, No. 5, pp. 340-341) and in "790.37797" published in JSP (Vol. III, No. 12.). In the svopajña com. (p. 2) on Utpādõdisiddhiprakarana Candrasena Súri has written the following line before giving this quotation :
“श्रेयोभूतं हि सम्भवद्विघ्नं भवति "न स्वयं श्रेयोभूतं तत्र वितः स्वत एव न सम्भवति"..
P. 2, 11. 23-24. Here a question is raised as to why the author praises his favourite deity. If the answer is that it is with a view to warding off obstacles, it may be argued that it is not correct; for, in spite of such an eulogy one meets with an obstacie, and at times even in its absence, there is no obstacle to be faced. This argument is refuted by saying that we should take into account the extent of the eulogy as comparod with the intensity of an obstacle or obstacles. Cf. Muktavali and Annambhatta's Dinila. The relevant portion froin the former is quoted by the late Prof, A. B. Dhruva in his “Notes" (P.2) to his edition of SM. Here he has
1 I use this word; for, I do not know the source of the following
quotation occurring in Maladkarin Hemacandra's com, (p. 4) on Visesa :
"सीसपवित्तिनिमित्त अभिधेयपओयणाई संबंधी।
2570475 HT a affett 11" Kotyācārya in his com. (pp. 2-5) on Viseaño has somewhat dealt with this topic but Jinadāsa Gani is silent in his Cwani on Āvassaya. Oat of four, adhikarin is not mentioned by hiin. Samo is the case with his com, on AJP and his com, (p. 9) on Nyāyapraveśaka,