________________
Verse 90
Fault in accepting both, the accomplishment of objects is due only to fate and that it is due only to human-effort, without mutual relation:
विरोधान्नोभयैकात्म्यं स्याद्वादन्यायविद्विषाम् । अवाच्यतैकान्तेऽप्युक्तिर्नावाच्यमिति युज्यते ॥९०॥
सामान्यार्थ – जो स्याद्वाद - न्याय से द्वेष रखने वाले हैं उनके यहाँ दैव और पौरुष दोनों एकान्तों का निरपेक्ष अस्तित्व नहीं बन सकता है क्योंकि दोनों के सर्वथा एकात्म्य मानने में विरोध- दोष आता है। अवाच्यता (अवक्तव्यता) एकान्त भी नहीं बन सकता है क्योंकि अवाच्यतैकान्त में 'यह अवाच्य है' ऐसे वाक्य का प्रयोग करने से वह वाच्य हो जाता है।
Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (syādvāda) can also not maintain that the two attributes - viz. the accomplishment of objects is due only to fate (daiva) and the accomplishment of objects is due only to human-effort (paurusa)
describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints - ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikanta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational.
141
