________________
Vada ] Gañadharavada
:: 409 : Trans.—358 He was, then, addressed by his name and lineage by the Tirthankara, who was entirely free from birth, old age, and death, who was omniscient, and who had complete darśana ( undifferentiated knowledge. ) ( 1906 )
The Tîrthankara then said :किं मण्णे पुण्ण-पावं अत्थि नत्थि त्ति संसओ तुज्झ । वेयपयाण य अत्थं न याणसी तेसिमो अत्थो ॥३५९॥ (१९०७) Kim manne punna-pāvam atthi natthi tti samsao tujiha | Veyapayana ya attham na yānasi tesimo attho ॥ 359 ॥ ( 1907) [किं मन्यसे पुण्य-पापे स्तो न स्त इति संशयस्तव ।
वेदपदानां चार्थ न जानासि तेषामयमर्थः ॥ ३५९ ॥ ( १९०७) Kim manyase puṇya-pape sto na sta iti samsayastava i Vedapadānām cārthany na janasi tesamayamarthah ||359॥(1907)]
Trans.—359 What are you thinking about? You entertain the doubt as to whether punya and pāpa exist or not. But, (ca) you do not understand the (real) meaning of the sentences of the Vedas. Here is their ( real. ) interpretation. ( 1907)
टीका-हे आयुष्मनचलभ्रातः ! त्वमेवं मन्यसे-किं पुण्य-पापे स्तो न वा ? इति । अयं चानुचितः संशयः, यस्माद् विरुद्धवेदपदनिबन्धनो विरुद्धदर्शनश्रुतिनिबन्धनश्च तव वर्तते । तत्र वेदपदानि तावत्-"पुरुष एवेदं ग्नि सर्वम् "---इत्यादि यथा द्वितीयगणधरे तथा वाच्यानि । तेषां चार्थ त्वं न जानासीत्याद्यपि तथैव व्याख्येयमिति ॥ ३५९ ॥ (१९०७)
D. C.-Your doubt about the existence of punya and pāpa is not justified. It is based on your hearing the sentences of Vedas bearing contradictory senses. The sentences are such as “Puruşa evedam gnim sarvam” etc. which have already been mentioned in the Second Ganadharavāda. You have not grasped the real interpretation of those sentences. I, therefore, give their real interpretation as under :- 11 359 (1907) 11
