Anekantajay patakakhyam Prakaranam Part 2

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

Page 392

P. 13, 1. 307 NOTES
261 In the intro. to Jayadhavalā (pt. I, p. 108) five views about dharma and dharmin are noted. They are:
(1) Dharmin is real, whereas its dharma or dharmas are unreal.
The latter appear to be in dhurmin on account of avidya
(ignorance). (ii) Dharmin is unreal but dharma is real. (iii) Both dharmin and dharma are real but they are distinct. On
account of samaväya, dhurmas are realized in the diarmin. (iv) Both dharmin and dharma are unreal. (v) Diarmin is somehow identical with its dharma.
These views are respectively held by (a) the Vedāntins, (b) the Bauddhas, (c) the Naiyāyikas and the Vais'esikas, (d) the TattvopaplavaVādins and the Sünyavādins and (c) the Jainas, the Sankhyas, the followers of Kumārila, and those of the Yoga school.
P. 12, 11. 4-5. See p. 65.
P. 12, 1, 5. Ahosvit' is a particle implying doubt, alternative. This word as well as "äho' are usually the correlatives of • kim' (whether).
Ahostvit' occurs on p. 201 (11.7-8), p. 221 (1. 11), p. 275 (1. 12), p. 276 (1. 10), p. 347 (1. 12) and in Vol. II, on p. 11, (1. 5), and in the Bhāşya (p. 121) on TS (I, 35), in Abhijñānasākuntala (act V) etc. • Utasvit', its synonym, is met with on p. 72, 1. 26 of AJP.
P. 12, 1. 10. This is refuted on p. 65, 1. 12. P. 13, II. 3-4. This is refuted on pp. 66-67. P. 13, II. 5-6. This is refuted on p. 68. P. 13, 11. 6-7. This is refuted on pp. 70-71.
P. 13, 1. 17. Pravrtti-nimitta' elsewhere means 'reason for the use of any word in & particular sense' i. e. connotation of a term while vyutpattinimitta means its denotation. See p. 25, I. 16 and p. 48, 11. 5-6.
P. 13, 1. 28. This Abhayadeva seems to be pone else but the wellknown commentator of Sammai payarana; for, in its com. (p.5) named as Tattvabodhavidhāyini and identified with Vādamahārnaud we come across this very explanation of cakraka'. He had a title of Tarka-pañcā. nana'. He flourished in the period ranging from the latter half of the tenth century of Vikrama era to the first half of the eleventh.
P. 13, 11. 28-30 & p. 14, 11. 22–29. The two faults viz. 'cakraka' and 'anavasthā' are here explained. The first is an argument in a circle, and the second is regressus ad infinitum. The word cakraka' occurs on p. 57,
1 This may remind one of Vadamahārrava from whose work one and
the same verse is quoted both in TRD (p. 42a) and SM (com. on v. 18). Sāstri Jagadiscandra takes this to be the name of a Sankhya work, and not that of an author, but I think it is his slip. Prof. Dhrcva ig silent except that he has included this game under Sankhya'.
.
. .