Book Title: Jaina Tarka Bhasha
Author(s): Dayanand Bhargava
Publisher: Motilal Barasidas Pvt Ltd

Previous | Next

Page 70
________________ 48 Jaina-Tarka-Bhāṣā Moreover, how can there be existence of gross-body of the Lord without the food of morsels? If its possibility without that be accepted on account of infinite energy, it would lead to the absence of taking of food even in the worldly state, because of the conviction of immeasurable power (in that state also); this all has been explained elsewhere. Thus perception has been described. [12. After defining and classifying non-perceptual into five, investigation of recollection]. *24. Now non-perceptual is described-non-perceptual is that which is not clear. And it is of five kinds : recollection, recognition, reasoning, inference, and verbal testimony. Recollection is the cognition generated only by experience as 'that is the image of the Tirthankara (Lord)'. This is not non-organ of knowledge, because of its coherency like perception etc. If it be said that it is non-organ of knowledge because it makes the part of the past indicated by 'that', as a subject of present; it is not so; because it is not a rule that the time of qualified be always felt in the qualification. If it be said that it is a non-organ of knowledge because of its dependence on the cognitive organ of experience; it is not so; because (in that case) even inference would not be organ of knowledge, on account of its dependence on the knowledge of necessary concomitance etc. If it be said that inference is dependent on the other only in its genesis, but it is independent in its cognition of the subject; it is not so; even recollection depends on experience in its genesis only, and as far as its cognition of the subject is concerned, it is also independent. If it be said that recollection, which knows only that which has already been a subject of experience, is not independent even in the cognition of the subject; then, as cognising the objects which have already been the subject of the knowledge of necessary concomitance etc., the inference also cannot be the cognitive organ in any case. If it be said that the inference invariably makes an uncognised object as its subject, then it is the same case with recollection which makes the object, hitherto unknown as 'this is that', as its subject.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198