Rushibhashit Sutra

Author(s): Vinaysagar, Sagarmal Jain, Kalanath Shastri, Dineshchandra Sharma
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy

Page 474

of them is ‘he who, under the example of a staff, by showing its beginning, middle and end speaks of ‘mere concretum' (samudaya), moreover asserts that the soul does not live longer than its body, and thus represents the negation (vyavaccheda) of the migration through the forms of existence' (vadati, to be sure, has to be mentally added to abhidhānāni, just so 1, 9). The second is ‘he who, under the example of a rope, by demonstrating that this is only a concretum, speaks of a ‘mere aggregate of the five elements', and thus represents the negation of the course through the profusion of existences'. samsāra and samsști are synonymous; perhaps samtati is to be read instead of samsati, cp. 21, 3. The third utkața is a 'borrower' (stena). Thus it called 'he who, with the help of examples which he picks out (grāhaiḥ) from other texts of instruction, is fond of extolling his own point of view, and, insisting on it, represents the negation (cheda) of tolerance'. Fourthly, an utkața is named from the fact that ‘after the existence of a soul (independent of the body) (asti nv eșa) has been proved to him he denies it (at least) partially (deśa), by far-fetched (arguments) (grāhaiḥ), according to which e.g. it does not act (akarty). In the fifth place finally stands the absolute disavower, who denies every possibility (sambhava) that a soul exists. The third' (tacca), which does not come in question, seems to be the partial affirmation, lying between positive and negative, which is contained in 4.
As elsewhere the motto, thus here the assertion is provided with an exposition (1.21 ff.). If already the nom. jīvo 1.5, and the five elements 1.8 recalled the Suyagaļa (anno jīvo annam sarīram Suy. II 1.15, pance-mahabbhūiya ibid. 20), literal reminsences of the former passage follow here. From the preceding (1.17) comes sambhavâbhāvā (1.32), but the application is a different one. The meaningless eya (1.29 can perhaps be interpreted as a misunderstanding of the abbreviation-syllables pa and ka. In case of the former, this has no difficulty.
21.
Purā and puuvam are combined with the pres. tense in conformity with the syntax of Sanskrit, and this present-tense
W. Schubring, Isibhāsiyāim, Commentary 473