________________
126
Studies in Haribhadrasūri
saṁsāra-kşaya-hetur gurur ayam mametyevā-nubhūtaḥ kućalapariņāmas/tenānugataṁ guru-pāratantryaḥ, '31 by its commentator. From this it is evident that the thought content of these two passages is similar.
(iv) Now, let us compare the two passages given below:
(a) Nidaṁsanam etaṁ tu navaraṁsavva-sattu-kkhae savvavāhi-vigame savvattha-samjogeņaṁ savvicchā-sampattie jārisameyam etto ‘ņaṁta-gunaṁ khu ttam, bhāva-sattu-kkhayādito / Rāgādayo bhāava-sattū. Kammodayā vāhiņo, parama-laddhīo u atthā, aộicchecchā icchā/ Evaṁ suhumam eyam, na tattao iyareņa gammai, jai-suham-ivājaiņā, Ārugga-suhań na rogina tti. vibhāsā /M2 (b) Jaṁ savva-satttu taha savāhi savvattha savvam cchāṇaḥ
Khaya-vigama-joga-pattīhim hoi tatto anaṁtam inaṁ/3/1 Rāgāīyā sattā kammudayā vāhiņo ihaṁneyā / Laddhīo paramatthā icchā’ņicchecchamo ya tahā //4// Anuhava-siddham eyaṁ nārugga-suhaṁ varogin navaraṁ/
Gammai iyarena tahā sammaminaṁ cistiyavvaṁ tu/5/33 The similarity between the two references mentioned above is very much obvious, the first one of them is the fifth Sūtra of the Pañca-sūtra and the second one the verses of the 20th Siddhasukha-vimśikā.
(v) In the same way, the sentence of the fifth Sūtra 'Jatthā ego tatthā niyamā anaṁtā?34 can be compared favourably with the sentence 'Jatthā ya ego siddho tatthā anamtā”35 of the 18th verse of the 20th Vimśikā.
(vi) There is yet another sentence in the fifth Sūtra of the Pañca-sūtra, viz., ‘Na sattā sad-amtaram uvei."36 This is in the form of a general argument, and as it can easily fit in with different contexts, it can be freely employed elsewhere. And for this very reason, Haribhadrasūri has employed this very sentence in the 19th verse of the 20th Viņšikā, thus: “em eva bhavo iharā ņa jāu
