________________
Vada ]
Gañadharavada
.: 209 :.
Santyeva te bhā vāḥ samsayatah Saumya ! sthāņu-purusāviva 1 Atha dạştäntamasiddham manyase nanu saņśayābhāvah|l15311(1701)]
____ Trans.-153 0 Saumya! Because of ( your ) doubt ( about them ), those objects do exist like sthānu and purusa, But, again, if you believe the example ( of sthānu and purusa ) to be asiddha (i. e. unaccomplished ), existence of the doubt will be denied. ( 1701 )
टीका-सौम्य ! सन्ति भवतोऽपि भावाः, संशयसमुत्थानात् , इह यत् संशय्यते तदस्ति, यथा स्थाणु-पुरुषो; यच्चासद् न तत् संशय्यते, यथा खपुष्प-खरविषाणे। अथ स्थाणु-पुरुषलक्षणं दृष्टान्तमसिद्धं मन्यसे त्वम् , सर्वेषामपि स्थाणु-पुरुषादिभावानामविशेषेणैवासत्त्वाभ्युपगमात् । तदयुक्तम् , यतो ननु सर्वभावासत्त्वे संशयाभाव एव स्यात् , इत्युक्तमेवेति ।।१५३॥ (१७०१)
D. C.-0 Saumya / The very doubt that you have raised against the objects proves that the objects are vidyamana like sthāru and purusa. For, there cannot exist any doubt about non-existent objects like akās'apuspa and kharavisāna.
Again, if you think that the above example of (the existent objects like ) sthānu and purusa is wrong, you are not justified. For, in that case, all objects whether vidyamana as sthanu etc, or a-vidyamann, as khapuspa etc. will have to be considered as a-vidyamāna according to your belief. So, when the existence of each and every object will be denied, naturally the existence of doubt will also be denied. सवाभावे वि मई संदेहो सिमिणए ब, नो तं च । जं सरणाइनिमित्तो सिमिणो न उ सबहाभावो ॥१५४॥(१७०२) Savvābhāve vi maî samdeho siminae vva, no tam ca 1 Jam saranāinimitto simiņo na u savvahābhāvo u 154 11 ( 1702 )
[सर्वाभावेऽपि मतिः संदेहः स्वमक इव, नो तच्च ।
यत् स्मरणादिनिमित्तः स्वमो न तु सर्वथाऽभावः॥१५४॥(१७०२)
