________________
BHATTACHARYA: HARIBHADRA'S SADDARSANA SAMUCCAYA
143
visiting the other world. 27 Mathara quotes the first line of the first verse (v. 81) in connection with his comments on the existence of the self independent of the body, senses, intelligence, etc.28
Thus the point of controversy in all cases where the two verses (or a part of them) are quoted has been the existence of the imperishable self and its abode called the other world, paralokin and paraloka. The Cārvākas' insistence on perception as the primary means of knowledge makes them deny both. It is against this heretical idea that the Jains, Buddhists and Brahminical philosophers have always been up in arms.
The parable, particularly the second verse that is attached to it as a part of the parabola docet, 'the parable teaches', is double-edged : it emphasizes the importance of perception without the support of which any conclusion arrived on the basis of inference or verbal testimony (sabda) remains suspect. Such conclusions include the whole world of unverifiable notions, such as the imperishable soul, the other world, God, an omniscient being, etc.29 At the same time, the moral of the story exposes the futility of following sastric injunctions regarding what is potable and what is not, what is edible and what is not. The second verse is not an exortation to heedless hedonism (as some readers take it to be); it merely exposes the unreliability of the sastric injunctions regarding food and drink. By implication, the verse also advises people not to be burdened with any sense of guilt for not being able to observe such injunctions.
S.'s alternative interpretation of the second verse is therefore improbable. But by following G.'s interpretation of the couple of verses we can better comprehend the intention of the author of these verses.
27. See SKSVṛ, p. 10.4-5; 49. 16-17.
28. MVṛ on SK, v. 17. p. 124.
29. See NM, Part 1, Ch. 2, p. 184; C/L, p. 140.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
