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

Previous | Next

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] Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308