Laghutattvasphota

Author(s): Amrutchandracharya, Padmanabh S Jaini, Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 187

138
श्रीमदमृतचन्द्रविरचितः
.
tasyästamgamanam anicchatā (vayaiva
syātkārāśrayanaguņād vidhānasaktim/ sāpeksyam pravidadhată niședhaśaktir
dattā 'sau svarasabharena valgatiha 1/311
You did not desire the "going-to-rest" (i.e. the failure of words like "ātman" to express the negative aspects of their referents), and so you resorted to the term "maybe" [syat] (i. e. you set forth this term as a necessary qualification of all words). Thus you have rendered the power of expressing (the positive aspects) relative to (i. e. always conjoined with the negative. (i. e. The term "syāt” itself indicates the presence of the negative aspects, which a positive assertion ignores.) This power of expressing the negative, which you have bestowed (upon words ), is active in the world through the force of its own majesty. (3) [403]
तद्योगाद् विधिमधुराक्षरं बुवाणा अप्येते कटुककठोरमारटन्ति । स्वस्यास्तंगमनभयानिषेधमुच्चैः स्वाकूतादवचनमेव घोषयन्तः ॥४॥
tadyogād vidhimadhurākşaram bruvānā
apy ete kațukakashoram ārațanti / svasyāstamgamanabhayān nişedham ucсaih
svākütād avacanam eva ghoṣayantah 1/41/
Because of that power to express negative aspects, which is bestowed upon words by the term "syāt"), these words, although they speak with sweet syllables in expressing the positive (aspects), fear, (as it were), that they may be exhausted (by only that one aspect, and so, although) using no words (i. e. merely relying on "syāt"), they loudly proclaim, (as if) with nothing but gestures, the harsh and bitter negative (aspects). (4) [4041
त्रैलोक्यं विधिमयतां नयन्न चासौ शब्दोऽपि स्वयमिह गाहतेऽर्थरूपम् । सत्येवं निरवधिवाच्यवाचकानां भिन्नत्वं विलयमुपैति दृष्टमेतत् ॥५॥
trailokyam vidhimayatām nayan na cāsau
sabdo 'pi svayam iha gāhate ‘rtharūpam/ saty evam niravadhivācyavācakänām
bhinnatvam vilayam upaiti drstam etat 1/5/1
Although a word (functions to render the three worlds an embodiment of positive aspects, it does not itself attain to the nature of (i. e attain to identity with the object (referred to). If this were to happen, then the obvious distinction (which exists) between words and their innumerable objects would disappear. (5) [405]