________________
statements that) everything is seen to arise out of the causal apparatus and that atoms do not exist are mutually contradictory. And, if atoms do not exist, did everything arise out of sky-flowers?
27
(1739) That the fore-part of a thing is seen and that it does not exist are contradictory. Even while everything is nonexistent. why is that (fore-part) of ass's horn not seen?
(1740) 'As the hind-part is not perceived, the fore-part too does not exist' what sort of an Inference is this of yours? Why do you not argue that the existence of the hind part is established on the perception of the fore-part ?
-
(1741) When everything is non-existent, how can there be this division into a number of parts-fore, hind and middle. If it be said that it is from another's point of view, how can there be this specification as to one's own view and another's view?
(1742) If this distinction of fore, hind and middle parts is admitted, there can be no Void. Even it they are not admitted, there can be no as such distinctions as in the case of the ass's horn.
(1743) When everything is non-existent, how is it that the fore part is perceived and not the hind part? Why is there not the non-cognition of all, or just the opposite (perception of hind part and non-perception of fore part)?
(1744) The hind-part of crystals, etc. can be perceived, so they are certainly existent. If (it is said that) they too are not existent, then 'because the hind part is not seen' is no Reason at all.
Jain Education International
(1745) Why do you not say, 'Because nothing is perceived? If this latter be accepted, there would be the fault of giving up what was formerly accepted and contradicting direct perception (and it would not be justified).
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
