________________
Vada ] Gañadharavada
:: 525:. नित्यत्वं स्यात् । न हि घनपटलापगमे चन्द्रज्योत्स्नायाः सूर्यप्रभाया वा तिरोभावमात्रनिवृत्तौ कृतकत्वम् , अभूतप्रादुर्भावो वा वक्तुं युज्यत इति ।
अथ तेनाविर्भूतेन विशिष्ठेन रूपेण कृतकत्वादनित्ये सिद्धस्य ज्ञानसुखे प्रतिक्षणं च पर्यायरूपतया ज्ञेयविनाशे ज्ञानस्य विनाशात् , सुखस्यापि प्रतिसमयं परापररूपेण परिणामादेतयोरनित्यत्वंमुच्यते । तर्हि सिद्धसाध्यता, इति दर्शयति-"उप्पाय-ट्टिईत्यादि" इत्थमात्माऽऽकाश-घटादिरूपस्य सर्वस्यापि वस्तुस्तोमस्य स्थित्यु-त्पाद-प्रलयस्वाभाव्याभ्युपगमात् सिद्धसुख ज्ञानयोरपि कथञ्चिदनित्यत्वाद् नायं तदनित्यत्वापत्तिलक्षणो ऽस्माकं दोष इति ॥ ४६६ ।। (२९१४)
D. C.-Prabhāsa:--Jnana and sukha of a suddha being, are a-nitya firstly because they are produced by means of the painful observance of penances etc, and secondly, because they are susceptible to production like ghata.
Bhagavān:-Your argument is absolutely unfounded. O Prabhāsa' Jnāna and sukha of a muktātmā would be co-nitya only if they vanished. By means of jñanāvaranas, jnana would be obscured and hence destroyed and with the rise of sinful deeds, sukha would vanish. Both these obstructions jñānāvaranas and papa-karmas are bound by the hetus of muthyātva etc, muktātmā being free from such hetus it is free from jñānāvaraṇas and pāpa-karmas also. Consequently, its jnāna and sukha do not meet destruction and hence they are never called a-nitya.
Secondly, all the qualities of cetana are not a-nitya. Dravyatva and co-mūrtatva are nitya. Therefore, the argument that jñāna and sukha are a-nitya because they happen to be cetana-dharmas, is anekāntika Simularly, the hetu of kritakatva etc is also anekāntika. Indestructiblity of ghata is a-siddha inspite of its being kritaka This hetu is a-siddha also, because jñāna and sukha of a siddha being are natural. Since there is no reason for the existence of avaranas and bādhās, that which is in obscurity becomes manifest, Thus, they are not factitious
