________________
geta fargsta
in the Tattavārthaslokavārtika, Vidyanandi opines that the Sabdabrahman is not proved by Perception, Inference and verbal Testimony. This standpoint of Vidyanandi is also supposed by Sataraksita, Abhayadeva, Prabhacandra and Vadideva. However, Prabhacandra and Vadideva ask the grammarians during their discussion that the Sabdabrahman is recognised by indriyajanya pratyakṣa or by atindriya pratyaksa or by Svasamvedanasila pratyaksa? The first alternative is not qualified enough to recognise the Sabdabrahman as it is not recognised by the Jaina Logicians. They argue that this type of pratyakşa is illusary like the perception durint dream.* Thus the sensual perception may not be taken as a cause of the perception of the Sabdabrahman. In the Sanmatitarka Prakarana it has been argued that a sense perceives that which is present and which is also large (sthuta) in nature. Therefore the Sabdabrahman is not perceived by the sense organs. This is also supported by Prabhacandra in his Prameyakamalamărtanda. During the discussion, both Prabhācandra and Vadideva Suri raise the same question - by which sense organ do we receive the Sabdabrahman? either by Srotrendriya or by any other indriya. Since the Sabdabrahman is beyond the subject of the Srotrendriya that may not be a cause to know the Sabdabrahman. If we accept that this is subject of the Srotrendriya, then we have to accept that everything should
3. Cf. brahmano na vyavasthanam-aksajnanit kutacara. 4. Cf. brahmano na vyavasthanam-aksajnanit kutacara. svapnadaviva
mithyatvattasya sakalpatah svayam. The Tattvarthaslakavarttika 1/3, sutra 20, Kanike-97, p.240. Also Tattvarna sutra (with explanation)
Bombay, I am 1940, p.21. 5. Cf. na khaly yathopavarnitasvarupam sabdabrahma pratyaksath praciyate, sanvada pratiniyatartha svarupayradaktvenaivasua pratieh.
The Prameyakamala-marttanda, 1/3, Bombay, 1941, p. 45. 6. Ref. the nyayakumudacandra, 1/3, p. 142.
Jain Education International 2010_03
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
