Laghutattvasphota

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

Page 192

लघुतत्त्वस्फोटः
143 स्यात्कारः किमु कुरुतेऽसती सती वा शब्दानामयमुभयात्मिकां स्वशक्तिम् ।। यद्यस्ति स्वरसत एव सा कृतिः किं नासत्याः करणमिह प्रसह्य युक्तम्॥१७॥
syātkāraḥ kimu kurute 'satim satim vā
śabdānām ayam ubhayātmikām svašaktim / yady asti svarasata eva să krtiḥ
kim näsatyāḥ karaṇam iha prasahya yuktam 1/17//
Does this expression “may be" [syāt), which (supposedly) produces dual power in words (i. e. the power to express both positive and negative aspects simultaneously, actually) produce (a power) that was not there (in the words), or (does it bring out one) that was already there ? If that (dual) power is innate to words, then what has been produced by the qualifying expression “syāt”) ? In this world it is not proper (to imagine that) what does not already exist can be forcibly produced. (17) [417]
शब्दानां स्वयमुभयात्मिकाऽस्ति शक्तिः शक्तस्तां स्वयमसती परो न कर्तुम् । न व्यक्तिर्भवति कदाचनापि किन्तु स्याद्वादं सहचरमन्तरेण तस्याः ॥१८॥
šabdānām svayam ubhayātmikä 'sti śaktiḥ
saktas tām svayam asatim paro na kartum / na vyaktir bhavati kadācanāpi kintu
syâdvādam sahacaram antareņa tasyāḥ 1/18/1
The dual power of words is innate (to them); no external thing can produce (a power) in something else which does not already exist there. But the manifestation of that (dual) power (of words) never takes place without the accompaniment of the expression “maybe" [syät]. (18) [418]
एकस्मादपि वचसो द्वयस्य सिद्धौ किन्न स्याद् विफल इहेतरप्रयोगः । साफल्यं यदि पुनरेति सोऽपि तत् किं क्लेशाय स्वयमुभयाभिधायितेयम् ॥१९॥
ekasmās api vacaso dvayasya siddhau
kim na syād viphala ihetaraprayogah / sāphalyam yadi punar eti so 'pi tat kim
klešāya svayam ubhayābhidhāyiteyam 1/19/1
If in this world both aspects are established by only one word, would the use of another word) not be redundant ? (i. e. Is there any need for "syāt ?'') But if the use of the other is considered to be meaningful, then why bother with the theory that one) word by itself has the power to express both aspects ? (19) [419]