________________
Vada ]
Gaṇadharavada
about even if the external causes were present because nonexistence is innate in them by their very svabhāva.
.: 229 :.
In reply to the question whether astitva and ghata are one or different, the Acarya argues thus:
अत्थित्त - घडेगाणेगया य पज्जायमेत्तचितेयं ।
अस्थि घडे पडिवन्ने, इहरा सा किं न खरसिंगे ? ॥ १७१ ॥ (१७१९ )
Atthitta-ghaḍegāṇegaya ya pajjāyamettacinteyam Atthi ghade padivanne, iharā sā kim na kharasinge ? ॥171॥ (1719)
[ अस्तित्व - घटैकानेकता वा पर्यायमात्रचिन्तेयम् ।
अस्ति घटे प्रतिपन्ने, इतरथा सा किं न खरशृङ्गे ।। १७१ ।। (१७१९ ) । Astitva-ghaṭaikanekatā vā paryāyamātracinteyam | Asti ghate pratipanne, itarathā sā kim na kharaśrige ॥ 171 ॥ ]
Trans. – 171 ( The question ) whether ghata and astitva are one or different is (nothing but the question) of synonym when ghata is existent. (For,) otherwise why should it not arise in case of kharaśrnga ( also ) ? ( 1719 )
टीका - इह " अस्ति घटो न तु नास्ति " इत्येवं पतिपन्ने सति तदनन्तरमेवास्तित्व- घटयोः " किमेकता, अनेकता वा ? " इत्यादिना घटास्तित्वयोरकत्वाऽनेकत्वलक्षणपर्याय मात्रचिन्तैव भवता कृता भवति, न तु तयोरभावः सिध्यति । अन्यथा ह्यभावरूपाविशेषाद् यथा घटा -ऽस्तित्वयोः, एवं खरविषाण - वन्ध्यापुत्रयोरप्येकत्वा - ऽनेकत्वचिन्ता भवतः किं न प्रवर्तते इति ।। १७१ ( १७१९ ) ॥
66
D. C.-After having asserted that ghata exists" the question whether ghata and astitva are identical or not is reduced to the consideration of both as being mere synonyms of each other. Moreover, this question should arise only in case of the existent ghata. For, if it were not so, the question of ekata-anekata would arise in case of non-existent objects like kharasṛnga and vandhyaputra also.
