Aptamimansa Critique of an Authority Bhasya

Author(s): Samantbhadracharya, Akalankadev, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Jagruti Dilip Sheth Dr

Page 80

PERMANENCE AND TRANSIENCE
45
showing) no relationship of cause-effect etc. between two entities that belong to two different series. Moreover, there is in fact nothing like a 'series' apart from the members constituting this series. (43)
विलक्षणानामत्यन्तभेदेऽपिस्वभावतः किलासंकीर्णाः सन्ततयः कर्मफलसम्बन्धादिनिबन्धनं शशविषाणस्येव वर्तुलत्वमारचितं कश्चेतनः श्रद्दधीत ? ||४३||
अन्येष्वनन्यशब्दोऽयं संवृतिर्न मृषा कथम्। मुख्यार्थः संवृतिर्न स्याद् विना मुख्यान संवृतिः ॥४४॥
It might be pleaded that 'series' is just a word which has been attributed in common to things that are in fact different and that therefore its employment is a case of mere usage. But why should a meaning yielded by mere usage be not a falsity ? Moreover, the chief meaning of a word cannot be dubbed as a meaning yielded by mere usage, while there can be no occasion for usage unless the word concerned has got a chief meaning.
सन्तानिभ्योऽनन्यः सन्तानः - अन्यथाआत्मनो नामान्तरकरणात्-,नित्यानित्यविकल्पानुपपत्तेः । अपि तु संवृत्या अन्येषु अनन्यव्यवहारात् एकत्वमुपचरितमिति । व्यलीक व्यवहारेऽपि विशेषानुपपत्तेः सम्बन्धनियमाभावस्तदवस्थः । उपचारस्तु न ऋते मुख्यात्, यथा 'अग्निर्माणवकः' इति । स्खलति हि तत्रानन्यप्रत्ययः, परीक्षाऽक्षमत्वात् । अत एवामुख्यार्थः प्रस्तुतासाधनम् ॥४४॥
चतुष्कोटेर्विकल्पस्य सर्वान्तेषूक्त्ययोगतः। तत्त्वान्यत्वमवाच्यं चेत् तयोः सन्तानतद्वतोः॥४५॥ अवक्तव्यचतुष्कोटिविकल्पोऽपि न कथ्यताम् । असर्वान्तमवस्तु स्यादविशेष्यविशेषणम् ॥४६॥
One might argue : “It is the case with any and every alleged characteristic of an entity that we are not entitled lo give verbal expression to any of the following four alternatives as to the relationship between this characteristic and this entity : (i) this characteristic belongs to this entity, (ii) this characteristic does not belong to this