________________
56
brought about by the stroke of a hammer applied to a jar-is a nonentity. The logical method here employed is that of a dilemma: Is the faarst one with the ad or distinct from it ? and so on; what is its relation to घट and so forth ( see Panjika P.50 b, 57. a). The Buddhist position is thus summed up in the Pañjikā :" तथाहि-यो यत्स्वभावः स स्वहेतोरवोत्पद्यमानस्तादशो भवति न पुनः सद्भाव हेत्वन्तरमपेक्षते । यथा प्रदीप: । तथाहि-प्रदीपः स्वयं प्रकाशस्वभावत्वाम स्वप्रकाशेऽपरं प्रदीपान्तरमपेक्षते तद्वत् क्षणधर्मा चेद्भावो न किंचित्राशहेतुना । अतो न लगुडादिना घटादेविनाशः क्रियते किंतु भिन्नमेव वस्तु स्वसामग्रीवशेनोत्पद्यते कपालादिकमिति ।" The Buddhist is a believer in lari as an essential nature of things, which is not produced or originated but simply accura every moment. आकाश or space, according to him, is nothing but light and darkness, and hence not a separate entity ( आकाशमप्यालोकतमसी एवेति सौगताः )-नेतर अवकाशदानादिस्वरूपं तन्त्रान्तरप्र. सिद्धम् । And the reason given is lack of प्रमाण-either प्रत्यक्ष or अनुमान, पुद्गल otherwise called आत्मन्=self is also nothing but चित्त and its effects, running as a stream of consciousness which by its very nature is not abiding but changing ( पुद्गलस्त्वात्मसंज्ञकश्चित्तचैत्तसंतानरूप एव न तु तदतिरिको नित्यत्वधर्मात्मकः कश्चिदस्ति ).
न्या प्र. वृ. असिद्धः स च द्विधा &c. Here are two more varieties of असिद्ध. Why P.23, 1. 22 are they not mentioned ? They are (1) प्रतिज्ञार्थंकदेशासिद्ध
and (2) अव्यापकासिद्ध. An example of (1):-शष्दः अनित्यः अनित्यत्वात्Here the ta is part of the wraai-being the predicate in the proposition. An example of (2):-तरवः सचेतनाः स्वापात्Rere the हेतु-स्वाप-although it is found in some trees is not found in all: तहषु पत्रसंकोचलक्षणः स्वापः एकदेशे न सिद्धः। न हि सर्वे वृक्षा रात्रौ पत्रसंकोचभाजः न्यग्रोधादावदर्शनात्तस्य ( पत्रसंकोचस्य-स्वापस्य ), किंतु कचिदेवेतिPanjika. Answer : Both of these can be included, says the Acarya, in उभयासिद्ध. As to the first, both parties are agreed that अनित्यत्व, being part (predicate-साध्य ) of the प्रतिज्ञा, is yet to be proved; congequently when the same is made the E. it is an unproved हेतु. (प्रतिज्ञाथेस्यासिद्धत्वाद् हेतुरपि तदेकदेशः सनसिद्धः-Pati fika P.57a). As regards the second also, both parties are agreed that Fly does not belong to all trees but only to some. Panjikā in explaining the word अव्यापकासिद्ध, says 'पक्षे' is understood: पक्षे अव्यापकः असिद्धा
