________________
Vada ]
Gañadharavada
.
: 123 :
टीका-अथवा, यथेदं बाह्यं स्थूलशरीरं जीवोपनिवन्धनं जीवेन सह संबद्धं प्रत्यक्षोपलभ्यमानमेव तिष्ठति सर्वत्र चेष्टते, एवं भवान्तरं गच्छता जीवेन सह संयुक्तं कार्मणशरीरं प्रतिपद्यस्व । अथ ब्रषे-धर्माऽधर्मनिमित्तं जीवसंबद्धं बाह्यं शरीरं प्रवर्तते, तर्हि पृच्छामो भवन्तम्-तावपि धर्मा-ऽधमाँ मूतौ वा भवेताम् , अमूर्ती वा ? । यदि मूतौँ, तर्हि तयोरप्यमूर्तेनात्मना सह कथं संबन्धः । अथ तयोस्तेन सहासौ कथमपि भवति, तर्हि कर्मणोऽपि तेन सार्धमयं कस्माद् न स्यात् ? । अथामूर्ती धर्माऽधौं, तर्हि बाह्यमूर्तस्थूलशरीरेण सह तयोः संबन्धः कथं स्यात् , मूर्ताऽमूर्तयोर्भवदभिप्रायेण संबन्धा. योगात् । न चासंबद्धयोस्तयोर्बाह्यशरीरचेष्टानिमित्तत्वमुपपद्यते, अतिप्रसङ्गात् । अथ मूर्तयोरपि तयोर्बाह्यशरीरेण मूर्तेण सहेष्यते संबन्धः, तर्हि जीव-कर्मणोस्तत्सद्भावे कः प्रद्वेषः ? इति ॥ ८८ (१६३६ ) ॥
D. C.- This sthūla sarara, as it is pratyaksa and connected with jîva, moves its limbs here and there, in this world, while the Kārmaņa sarîra is connected with jîva in the next world.
Here again, if you think that it is the sthūla sarîra--with dharma and adharma as its nimittas—that exhibits all movements when conneced with jîva I would ask you to consider whether dharma and adharma are mūrta or amūrta.
In the first case, if you take dharma and adharma to be mūrta how could they be related to atman which is amūrta ? But, if their relation to ātman is, anyhow, approved of by you, why should you not approve of their relation to Karman also ? Secondly, if you believe that dharma and adharma are amūrta they could not have any relation with the bāhya and sthüla body which is murta. For, according to you, connection between mūrta and amūrta is improper. Thus, if dharma and adharma become the nimitta kāraṇas of all the gestures of body even though there is no mutual relation between them, the fault of atiprsanga would arise. Moreover, if these amūrta dharma and adharma have been believed as being connected with the external mūrta sarîra, what objection would there be to assume a similar relation between jîva and Karman ?