________________
128
F.W. Thomas, Mallisena's Syâdvādamañjari on the ground of the non-divergence from practice approved in regard to inference and scripture also, which are evoked by way of words for marks connected with objects? If it is said, They are without provedness because they are seen to be also divergent (sc. mistaken)'; - since on the part of perception also we see failure of authority when through the defect of faulty vision, etc., it attaches to a pair of moons, there follows an universal want of authority. If it is said, "That is an illusion of perception', the same can be said in the other cases also, except for partiality. And, as thus a systematizing of entities by mere perception is unaccountable, the contentions thereon based, negating soul, merit and demerit, a future world, etc., are simply without provedness. Likewise must be rejected also the contention, approved by the Nāstikas, concerning thought as physical. And to this effect the author of the Dravyālamkāra) in the description of attention (upayoga) says 19): "Nor is this an attribute of the physical, like strength and hardness, etc., or like the power in the parts of intoxicants of causing dizziness, etc.; because it is not observed in each separately !). And, if it is not manifested, there is establishment of a self. If it is said that 'It (attention) arises from them when evolved in the form of (living) bodies', the evolution as body also, if it is merely in those (physical) elements (166), is not occasional; but, if other, it would be simply the self. If it had not cause, there would be no restriction of place, etc., and it would take place even from a dead man. The accessory condition of blood, etc., is present also in a sleeper, etc.; nor is there origination of that, if it is existent 12), because of the consequence of again and again; and, if not actualised, there is contradiction of the recognized practical efficacy'13). And, if it does not exist, being void of all potency, how can it be the agent of its origination, because of the consequence of another also (doing the same)14)? Therefore attention is not a product of the physical. 'Whence then is its arising when one rises from sleep? Because on account of non-self-consciousness there is (in sleep) no intelligence'. No! because of recollection of what has been experienced in the waking state, while the non-consciousness is through the impediment of sleep. - 'How then is there injury to the intelligence upon injury to the body?' - That is not unequivocal, because there is purity of intelligence even on the part of one who has a body infected by leprosy, etc., and with absence of injury there is variety of mental state, since we see differences of pleasure, etc.; and in case of mental injury by sorrow, etc., we do not see bodily injury. And without an evolving thing there is not the origination of the effect. Nor is it merely the physical elements that so evolve, because they belong to a different species, since we do not observe hardness, etc. (in the soul). Only atoms are liable to a gross state, in the form of being apprehendible by the sense-organs; and genus, etc., of such are observed. Therefore attention is not an attribute of the physical, or a fruit of it. Also that Your Worship criticises is a mark of it 15); and this self is self-conscious. If physical things were so, 'I am fair, etc.' would be extravert, but not introvert, because of being begotten by external organs. And on the part of one who does not admit the validity of inference even a negation of the self is unattainable.
If attention should be an attribute and a fruit of physical things,
There would be observation (of it) in every case; or else origination from a dissimilar". This is the meaning of the verse. (167)
9) Ramacandra and Gunacandra, disciples of Hemacandra: an (unpublished) Jain work on philosophy. 10) On repayoga see note VIII 43). 11) Sc. each physical element. 12) It cannot then be created again. 13) So long as it is doing nothing it is non-existent. 14) Any other non-existent could do the like. 15) The fact of your own criticism is proof of mind.
