________________
English translation by George Baumann
both constructions in their own way and the relevant doctrines form a part of the Avaśyakatradition whose turn will soon come after the preceding has been dealt with.
To begin with, Viś. IV 88 presents a Niryukti-draft of the doctrine of directions: the term diś "direction” has to be understood in a sevenfold manner, among other things, as matter and place. The material diś has to be understood as a diagram that illustrates the directions and the local diś as a system of space of the directions emanating from the middle of the world.
The dis-diagram contains, at least, thirteen atoms – the ancient Bhāşya-author teaches this in niry. VIII 121'. Jinabhadra changes this stanza (it becomes Viś. IV 89) and includes the traditional argumentation while rejecting an opposing opinion: 90a (The simplest diś-diagram is the following:) One (atom) each in the secondary directions
(NE SE SW NW) and (one) in the middle; two each in the main directions (NES W). [43] 90 Others say (the diagram) contains ten atoms, because they provide the ten directions
(i.e. the eight mentioned plus "above" and "below"), each with one (atom). 914 That is not (correct), because (the Anuyoga-experts teach) "what the ten directions
represent is square". (Therefore, that is not a (correct) dió-diagram.
Jinabhadra's explanation of this passage probably has been copied almost word for word by Silānka. With the latter it reads (Exc. p. 14°): [909) One atom each has to be placed toward the four secondary directions; furthermore, and
in the middle, (i.e.) and within the intermediary directions one has to be placed, means "in the middle, below and above". Then two atoms each have to be placed straight ahead, (i.e.) lengthwise in the four main directions. A conglomerate of thirteen atoms results in a
(simple) diś-diagram. [90] However, other interpreters call the dis-diagram a conglomerate containing ten atoms,
- by doing what? he (the author) says: - by providing the ten directions, each
with one, i.e. placing one atom each toward the ten directions. To this has to be replied: [91°) That is not (correct), this is not a (correct) dió-diagram,
1. because that (mentioned conglomerate) is round; 2. because, together with the central atom (in reality), it has eleven atoms (which create
a contradiction to the designation); 3. because if the central atom should not be accepted, nothing would be present to be
able (as a starting point) to determine the ten directions; 4. because, if (for that reason) one (of both atoms for "above" and "below” as middle
point) were to be placed there into the plane, one (i.e. the other) would have to
protrude; 5. because, if (in order to evade this objection, both atoms for "above" and "below")
were reduced to half, a logical error would be the result (since there cannot be half
atoms). For this reason, by assuming a central atom, another (total) number ("eleven" instead of "ten” has to be applied). But why does that (what has been said) not remain so (correct)? (The author) says: because (the Anuyoga-experts teach) "what the ten directions represent is square"; (i.e.) because the Anuyoga-teachers have perceived it (the conglomerate) that represents the ten directions to be square as it contains thirteen atoms. (The word) iti (i.e. in the translation the last quotation mark) should indicate the end of the citation. What remains (what yet follows in 91“) is a (closing argumentative) recapitulation'. (With this) a topic (closes) (namely, the one in 88 = niry. VIII 121 at the third passage with the words davie . .. disā of the material diś).
Cp. Das.-niry. 91 end (ZDMG. VLI 647).
117
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
