Ācārya Samantabhadra's ĀptamīmāÚsā (Devāgamastotra) Deep Reflection On The Omniscient Lord vkpk;Z leUrHkae fojfpr vkIrehekalk (nsokxeLrks=k)

fodYi Vijay K. Jain Divine Blessings: Ācārya 108 Vidyānanda Muni Ācārya Samantabhadra's ĀptamīmāÚsā (Devāgamastotra) Deep Reflection On The Omniscient Lord vkpk;Z leUrHkae fojfpr vkIrehekalk (nsokxeLrks=k) (iv) Non-Copyright This work may be reproduced, translated and published in any language without any special permission provided that it is true to the original and that a mention is made of the source. ISBN 81-903639-8-0 Rs. 500/Published, in the year 2016, by: Vikalp Printers Anekant Palace, 29 Rajpur Road Dehradun-248001 (Uttarakhand) India www.vikalpprinters.com E-mail: vikalp_printers@rediffmail.com Tel.: (0135) 2658971 Printed at: Vikalp Printers, Dehradun Vijay K. Jain Front cover: Ācārya Samantabhadra's ĀptamīmāÚsā (Devāgamastotra) Deep Reflection On The Omniscient Lord This beautiful black idol of the twentysecond Tīrthaôkara, Lord Neminātha, is installed in Old Jain Temple, Hastinapur, Uttar Pradesh. Conch shell (śaôkha) is the symbol of the Lord. (v) eaxy vk'khokZn & ijeiwT; vkpk;ZJh fo|kuUn th eqfujkt lokZUroÙkñxq.keq[;dYia lokZUr'kwU;a p feFkks¿uis{ke~ A lokZinkeUrdja fujUra loksZn;a rhFkZfena roSo AA & vkpk;Z leUrHkae] ;qDR;uq'kklue~] xkFkk 62 vkpk;Z fo|kuUn eqfu uoEcj 2015 dqUndqUn Hkkjrh] ubZ fnYyh (vi) vFkZ & vkidk rhFkZ] 'kklu lokZUroku~ gS vkSj xkS.k rFkk eq[; dh dYiuk dks lkFk esa fy, gq, gSA tks 'kklu&okD; èkeks± esa ikjLifjd vis{kk dk izfriknu ugha djrk] og loZ/eks± ls 'kwU; gSA vr% vkidk gh ;g 'kklurhFkZ loZ nq%[kksa dk vUr djus okyk gS] ;gh fujUr gS vkSj ;gh lc izkf.k;ksa ds vH;qn; dk dkj.k rFkk vkRek ds iw.kZ vH;qn; dk lkèkd ,slk loksZn;&rhFkZ gSA vkpk;Z leUrHknz iz.khr vkIrehekalk dk vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa vuqokn ,oa foospu djds èkekZuqjkxh Jh fot; dqekj th us cgqr gh egÙoiw.kZ dk;Z fd;k gSA blls lEiw.kZ fo'o dks vkpk;Z leUrHknz ds vuqie opuksa dks le>us dk lkSHkkX; izkIr gksxkA os igys Hkh blh izdkj ds vusd mRÑ"V xzUFkksa dks 'kq1⁄4rk ,oa lqUnjrk ds lkFk izdkf'kr dj pqds gSaA esjk mudks cgqr&cgqr eaxy vk'khokZn gSA ĀptamīmāÚsā CONT ENT S eaxy vk'khokZn & vkpk;ZJh fo|kuUn th eqfujkt ----- (v) PREFACE ----- (viii) ACKNOWLEDGMENT ----- (xxi) VIJAY K. JAIN – BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ----- (xxiv) Section 1 Verses 1 23 ----3 Section 2 Verses 24 36 ----47 Section 3 Verses 37 60 ----67 Section 4 Verses 61 72 ----103 Section 5 Verses 73 75 ----119 Section 6 Verses 76 78 ----125 Section 7 Verses 79 87 ----129 Section 8 Verses 88 91 ----139 Section 9 Verses 92 95 ----143 Section 10 Verses 96 114 ----149 GENERAL INDEX ----177 INDEX OF VERSES ----189 GUIDE TO TRANSLITERATION ----200 (vi) Ā cārya Samantabhadra was a great Digambara ascetic endowed with exceptional knowledge of the Jaina doctrine. He preached and propagated, far and wide, core principles of the doctrine by visiting many places in India. His literary and philosophical talents are not open to dispute; many inscriptions and works by subsequent Jaina Ācāryas have extolled his virtues as well as his works in superlative terms. A case in point is the assertion by Ācārya Jinasena 1in Ādipurāõa : ue% leUrHkaek; egrs dfoos/ls A ;}pksotzikrsu fu£HkUuk% dqerkae;% AA 43 AA I bow to Ācārya Samantrabhadra, the ultimate creator (Brahmā) among all poets, whose words are like a stroke of lightning which tears apart mountains of misconceptions. dohuka xedkuka p okfnuka okfXeukefi A ;'k% lkeUrHkaeh;a ew£èu pwMke.kh;rs AA 44 AA Ācārya Samantrabhadra's glory reigned supreme among all poets, scholars, disputants, and preachers; he was like a jewel on their heads. Four exceptional qualities of Ācārya Samantabhadra have been mentioned: 1) poetic skill (kavitva) which made his compositions excellent in terms of profoundness of content and grandiosity of expression; 2) intellectual authority (gamakatva) because of which he was able to explore and expound deep meanings of profound religious texts; 3) debating skill (vāditva) which made him capable of reasoning out the most difficult philosophical disputes; and 4) charming P R E FA C E Ācārya Samantabhadra – the embodiment of right faith, knowledge, and conduct (vii) eloquence (vāgmitva) that engendered admiration for his truthfulness and straightforwardness even in the minds of his adversaries. 2Ācārya Narendrasena in SiddhāntasārasaÉgraha , a widely read Sanskrit text dealing with the seven substances (tattvas), avers that only the most fortunate human beings get access to the words of Ācārya Samantabhadra: JheRleUrHkaeL; nsoL;kfi opks¿u?ke~ A izkf.kuka nqyZHka ;}Uekuq"kRoa rFkk iqu% AA 11 AA Just as the attainment of human birth is difficult, it is extremely rare to get access to the incontrovertible words of the Most Learned Ācārya Samantrabhadra. lqnqyZHkefi izkIra rRdeZiz'kekfng A u ;s /eZjrk eksgk1⁄4k grk gUr rs ujk% AA 12 AA Only when the inauspicious (aśubha) karmas of a man get to quiescence is he able to come face-to-face with the holy words of Ācārya Samantrabhadra. Those who fail to adopt the path of piety even after exposure to his words can only be said to have been overwhelmed by delusion. Ācārya Samantabhadra has not only been termed a brilliant grammarian, logician and philosopher, he has been recognized as an unmatched disputant and great preacher of the Jaina doctrine. Ācārya 3Śubhacandra in JðānārõavaÍ has likened the poetic compositions of Svāmi Samantabhadra to the bright rays of the sun. 4Ācārya Jinasena, author of Harivaôśapurāõa , has likened the expositions of Ācārya Samantabhadra to the words of Lord Mahāvīra: thoflf1⁄4fo/k;hg Ñr;qDR;uq'kklue~ A op% leUrHkaeL; ohjL;so fot`EHkrs AA 29 AA The words of Ācārya Samantabhadra, the composer of Jīvasiddhi (ix) Preface (discourse on the path to liberation) and Yuktyanuśāsana (discourse on the merits and demerits of different standpoints), carry the same glory as the words of Lord Mahāvīra. 5It is mentioned in Jaina literature that Ācārya Samantabhadra once introduced himself to the king of Vārāõasī as: vkpk;ksZ¿ga dfojgega okfnjkV~ if.Mrks¿ge~] nSoKks¿ga fHk"kxgega ekfU=kdLrkfU=kdkss¿ge~ A jktUuL;ka tyf/oy;kes[kyk;kfeyk;k& ekKkfl1⁄4% fdfefr cgquk fl1⁄4lkjLorkss¿ge~ AA O king ! I am a preceptor (ācārya), a poet (kavi), foremost among the interpreters of the sacred scriptures (vādī), a scholar (paõçita), an astrologer (jyotiÈī), a practitioner of medicine (vaidya), a reciter of spells (māntrika), and skilled in mystical incantations (tāntrika). Do I need say more? My utterances become inviolable commands (ājðāsiddha), and I have subjugated the goddess of learning Sarasvatī (sārasvatasiddha). The personality of Ācārya Samantabhadra was a rare combination of the Three Jewels (ratnatraya) of Jainism – pristine faith, knowledge, and conduct – that are empirically considered essential to the attainment of liberation. He was one of the most impelling proponents of the Jaina doctrine of anekāntavāda – a philosophical system which maintains that reality has multifarious aspects and that a complete apprehension of it must necessarily take into account all these aspects. Non-appreciation of this doctrine has caused the other philosophical systems fall into the trap of one-sided, incomplete, and unsustainable dogmas that fail to explain the Truth. The words of Ācārya Samantabhadra are incontrovertible as these are guarded by the Jaina doctrine of conditional predications (syādvāda) – a system of scientific safeguards that aims at maintaining proper consistency in metaphysical thought. (x) ĀptamīmāÚsā 6Several Jaina scriptures have mentioned that Ācārya Samantabhadra was destined to attain the highest and supreme status of a Tīrthaôkara (a ford-maker for the others to cross the ocean of worldly cycle of births and deaths – saÉsāra). Tīrthaôkara he will propagate Truth for the welfare of all living beings and will be Tīrthaôkara. The time when Ācārya Samantabhadra flourished cannot be 7ascertained with great precision. Jugalkishore Mukhtar , after due research and detailed analysis as presented in his Preface to Ratnakaraõçaka-śrāvakācāra, has arrived at the conclusion that Ācārya Samantabhadra must have lived after Ācārya Kundakunda and Ācārya Umāsvāmi but before Ācārya Pūjyapāda. Broadly, he has fixed Ācārya Samantabhadra's time as the second or the third century, Vikram SaÚvata (VS). As Gregorian Year 2000 CE corresponds to Year 2057 in the VS calendar, Ācārya Samantabhadra's time can be fixed around the second century CE. Ācārya Samantabhadra is known to have authored the following profound treatises: As a worshipped by the lords of the devas and the men during the five most auspicious events (paðca kalyāõaka)* that must take place in the life of a *The five most auspicious events in the life of the Tīrthaôkara are: 1. garbha kalyāõaka: when the soul of the Tīrthaôkara enters the Mother's womb. 2. janma kalyāõaka: on the birth of the Tīrthaôkara. 3. ī Èā kalyāõaka (or tapa-kalyāõaka): when the Tīrthaôkara renounces all worldly possessions and becomes an ascetic. 4. jðāna kalyāõaka: when the Tīrthaôkara attains omniscience (kevalajðāna). 5. mokÈa-kalyāõaka (or nirvāõa-kalyāõaka): when the Tīrthaôkara finally attains liberation (mokÈa or nirvāõa) and becomes a Siddha. (paðca kalyāõaka) d k (xi) Preface ĀptamīmāÚsā or Devāgamastotra Ratnakaraõçaka-śrāvakācāra Svayambhūstotra Yuktyanuśāsana Stutividyā or Jinaśataka or Jinastutiśataka or Jinaśatakālaôkāra Jīvasiddhi GandhahastimahābhāÈya Uncertainty prevails about the existence of the last two treatises. ĀptamīmāÚsā, known also as Devāgama or Devāgamastotra, is a treatise of 114 verses which discusses in a philosophical-cum-logical manner the Jaina view of Reality, starting with the concept of omniscience and the attributes of the Omniscient. Devotion to a deity without proper assessment and understanding of its praiseworthiness leads to naught in terms of utility. Blind faith based on traditional values and without the use of own power of discrimination leads to superstitions. Superstitions arise from ignorance and keep the worshipper overwhelmed with expectations and fear, just the opposite of the very purpose of adoration. Adoration is laudable only if it renders tranquility and equanimity to the mind of the worshipper. In the opening verse of ĀptamīmāÚsā, Ācārya Samantabhadra questions the validity of the attributes that are traditionally associated with a praiseworthy deity and goes on to establish, in Verse 6, the logic of accepting the Omniscient as the most trustworthy and praiseworthy Supreme Being: You only are such an Omniscient, free from all defects, because your words are not in contradiction with either the reason or the scripture. The proof of non-contradiction of your words lies in the fact that your tenets (about liberation etc.) are unopposed to what has been established through the known sources of knowledge. After having established that it was certainly possible to attain omniscience, and employing the doctrine of conditional predications (xi) ĀptamīmāÚsā (syādvāda), Ācārya Samantabhadra faults certain prevailing conceptions that were based on absolutism: existence (bhāvaikānta) and non-existence (abhāvaikānta), non-dualism (advaita-ekānta) and separateness (pÃthaktva-ekānta), and permanence (nityatva-ekānta) and momentariness (kÈaõika-ekānta). He asserts that the entity (dharmī) and its attribute (dharma) are neither absolutely dependent (āpekÈika) nor absolutely independent (anāpekÈika). Only an entity which has general (sāmānya – concerning the substance, dravya) and particular (viśeÈa – concerning the mode, paryāya) attributes can be the subject of knowledge. Substance without its modification and modification without its substance cannot be the subject of valid knowledge; only their combination can be the subject of knowledge. He goes on to clarify certain other burning issues and misconceptions. In Verse 91 he asserts that both fate and human-effort are jointly responsible for desirable and undesirable effects. The desirable and undesirable effects that one begets without premeditation should be understood due primarily to one's fate (daiva). The desirable and undesirable effects that one begets in consequence of premeditation should be understood due primarily to one's human-effort (pauruÈa). In Verse 95 the Ācārya asserts that our auspicious (viśudhi) or inauspicious (saÚkleśa) kinds of dispositions cause the influx of meritorious (puõya) or demeritorious (pāpa) karmas. In Verse 98 we are told that bondage (bandha) is caused due to ignorance (ajðāna) accompanied by delusion (moha), and bondage is not caused due to ignorance (ajðāna) not accompanied by delusion (moha). Highlighting the indispensability of syādvāda, in Verse 105, it is asserted that syādvāda, the doctrine of conditional predications, and kevalajðāna, omniscience, are both illuminators of the substances of reality. The difference between the two is that while kevalajðāna illumines directly, syādvāda illumines indirectly. Three profound commentaries in Sanskrit on ĀptamīmāÚsā are available: AÈÇaśatī (known also as ĀptamīmāÚsābhaÈya) of Ācārya Akalaôkadeva comprising 800 verses, AÈÇasahsrī (known also as (xi) Preface ĀptamīmāÚsālaôkāra or Devāgamālaôkāra) of Ācārya Vidyānanda comprising 8000 verses, and a comparatively brief treatise ĀptamīmāÚsāvÃtti (known also as DevāgamavÃtti) of Ācārya Vasunandi. Ratnakaraõçaka-śrāvakācāra is a celebrated and perhaps the earliest Digambara work on the conduct required of a Jaina householder (śrāvaka) for the acquisition and safekeeping of the Three Jewels (ratnatraya) comprising right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. Svayambhūstotra is a fine composition in Sanskrit dedicated to the adoration of the Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara, the Most Worshipful Supreme Beings. Through its 143 verses Svayambhūstotra not only enriches reader's devotion, knowledge, and conduct but also frees his mind from blind faith and superstitions. Rid of ignorance and established firmly in the right faith, the reader's mind experiences ineffable tranquility and equanimity. Yuktyanuśāsana, comprising 64 verses, evaluates in a logical manner the beliefs that lead to the attainment of the state of Supreme Bliss as against those that lead to the continuous wandering in the three worlds. Stutividyā (Jinaśataka), as the name suggests, is the adoration of the Supreme Beings (Tīrthaôkara). Ācārya Samantabhadra has skillfully used highly ornamental language in this work; for instance, the first half of the line of a verse becomes its second half by using the same letters in reverse order*. Notwithstanding the floridity of language, each of the 116 verses of the treatise carries profound * Verse 10 reads as under: Hkklrs foHkqrk¿Lrksuk uk Lrksrk Hkqfo rs lHkk% A ;k% fJrk% Lrqr xhR;k uq uqR;k xhrLrqrk% fJ;k AA In both lines, the latter half is the reverse arrangement of letters used in the first half. (xiv) ĀptamīmāÚsā meaning; when assimilated properly it leads to the destruction of inimical karmas. There is a story that finds mention in several Jaina texts about the hardship that Ācārya Samantabhadra had to endure while he was an ascetic. Although there are variations in some elements of the story, the essential gist is as follows: Svāmi Samantabhadra, in his early stage of asceticism, was attacked with a disease known as bhasmaka which refers, in Āyurveda, to the condition of insatiable hunger or appetite. The stomach has digestive power or "fire" (jaÇharāgni) that drives all digestion and when it becomes very strong, food digests very quickly and produces hunger and desire for more food. As food gets digested very quickly, the throat remains dry and a burning sensation prevails. According to Āyurveda, air (vāta), bile (pitta) and phlegm (kapha) are essential elements in human body and a distortion in their balance gives rise to health problems. When kapha becomes weak and vāta and pitta become strong, any food eaten gets immediately reduced to ashes (bhasma). The complications include jaundice, anemia, yellow skin, diarrhoea, urine anomalies, colic, unconsciousness, hemorrhage, hyperacidity and burning pain. The body progressively gets emaciated and weak. The only way to cure the disease is to eat in profuse quantity rich and stodgy food. It is impossible for a Jaina (Digambara) saint to eat more than once a day or in excess of his customary intake which is less than the fill. Not deviating in the least from such restrictions, Svāmi Samantabhadra tried to endure the affliction through strong resolve. Finding the disease intractable, he ultimately thought of embracing passionless death by resorting to the vow of sallekhanā, as allowed in Jainism. Svāmi Samantabhadra approached his Preceptor to get his approval for the proposed vow of sallekhanā. The Preceptor, an accomplished visionary, foresaw that Svāmi Samantabhadra had many more years still left in his life, and that he was destined to be a (xv) Preface great exponent of Jainism. He, therefore, forbade Svāmi Samantabhadra from undertaking the vow of sallekhanā and asked him to free himself from the symbols and restrictions of Jaina sainthood till the time his disease got cured. Svāmi Samantabhadra made obeisance to his Preceptor and, with a heavy heart, took leave of him. Discarding nakedness and smearing his body with ash, he adopted the exterior of a Hindu saint. He started taking food that would cure him of his disease. He reached the town of Kāôcī, ruled by Śivakoti, a staunch follower of Lord Śiva. Śivako i had built a Śiva temple in Kāôcī where large amount of food was being offered daily to the deity (Śivaliôga). Saint Samantabhadra told the king that he had the power to make the deity consume food being offered. The king accepted the offer. Closing the doors of the temple, Saint Samantabhadra ate the heap of food offering. When the doors were opened, everyone was highly impressed with the so-called divine feat of the saint. This continued for a few days. As the disease of Saint Samantabhadra got mitigated with the passage of time, he was no longer able to eat all food being offered to Lord Śiva. The king became suspicious of the purported divine power of the saint and ordered his actions to be watched, keeping the doors of the temple open. Saint Samantabhadra grasped the gravity of the situation and took it as an external calamity (upasagra) befalling him. Vowing not to take any food until the end of the calamity and discarding all attachment to his body, he started the adoration of the Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara. As Saint Samantabhadra reached the adoration of the eighth Tīrthaôkara, Lord Candraprabha, and as he gazed at the idol of the reigning deity (Śivaliôga), due to some divine intervention, it burst, revealing a beautiful and magnificent image of Lord Candraprabha, to the wonder and astonishment of all present. Saint Samantabhadra finished the adoration of the remaining sixteen Tīrthaôkara. This miracle led King Śivako i and his younger brother Śivāyana fall at his feet. After completing the adoration of the Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara, Ç Ç (xvi) ĀptamīmāÚsā Saint Samantabhadra gave his blessings to the two brothers. This story portrays the environment in which the composition of the most sacred text Svayambhūstotra took place. As Saint Samantabhadra got cured of his disease, he reinitiated himself into the order of holy Jaina asceticism. King Śivako i and his brother Śivāyana, highly impressed with the Jaina doctrine and the power of true adoration, left their worldly pursuits and became Ācārya Samantabhadra's disciples. I make obeisance humble at the worshipful feet of Ācārya Samantabhadra who had unmatched intellect to discern the right from the wrong and illumined, through profound compositions, the right path that leads to Supreme Bliss. Ç Fifty-two years ago, in 1963, Ācārya Vidyānanda (b. 1925) took to the arduous path of Digambara asceticism (muni). "I do not belong to others nor do others belong to me; there is nothing that is mine here." Thus determined and conquering his senses he took to the excellent form in which he was born (renouncing all clothes, naked). A featherwhisk (picchī) – the implement of compassion, a water-pot (kamaõçalu) – the implement of purity, and the Scripture (śāstra) – the implement of knowledge, became his only material companions. Abandoning all attachment and aversion, and having grasped the reality of the substances (tattvas), including the soul and the non-soul, Ācārya Vidyānanda is ever engaged in the realization of the supreme status of the Self. This is the only path available to the bhavya* souls striving to attain liberation. His pious figure, turned golden by the fire of austerities (tapas) and rid of all encumbrances, external and Ācārya Vidyānanda – the worthy Supreme Being to meditate on (xvi) * endowed with inherent capacity to attain liberation Preface internal, personifies and propagates the teachings of Lord Jina. 8Ācārya Nemicandra has asserted in DravyasÉgraha that the Chief Preceptor (Ācārya) is worthy of meditation: nal.k.kk.kigk.ks ohfj;pkfjÙkojrok;kjs A vIia ija p tqatb lks vk;fjvks eq.kh >svks AA52AA Those who themselves practise the five-fold observances in regard to faith (darśanācāra), knowledge (jðānācāra), power (vīryācāra), conduct (cāritrācāra), and austerities (tapācāra), and guide disciples to follow these observances, are the Chief Preceptors (Ācāryas), worthy of meditation. Believing that the pure Self is the only object belonging to the Self and all other objects, including the karmic matter (dravyakarma and nokarma), are alien is the observance in regard to faith (darśanācāra). Reckoning that the pure Self has no delusion, is distinct from attachment and aversion, knowledge itself, and sticking to this notion always is the observance in regard to knowledge (jðānācāra). Being free from attachment etc. is right conduct. Getting always engrossed in the pure Self, free from all corrupting dispositions, is the observance in regard to conduct (cāritrācāra). Performance of penances with due control of the senses constitutes the observance in regard to austerities (tapācāra). Carrying out the above mentioned four observances with full vigour and intensity, without digression and concealment of true strength, constitutes the observance in regard to power (vīryācāra). 9Ācārya Pūjyapāda has expounded in IÈÇopadeśa : bPNR;sdkUrlaokla futZua tfurknj% A futdk;Zo'kkfRdf×pnqDRok foLejfr aeqre~ AA40AA The Yogī longs for solitude and distances himself from interaction with men. If due to some reason he has to communicate with them, he soon puts it out of his mind. (xvii) ĀptamīmāÚsā November 2015 Dehradun, India Vijay K. Jain Ācārya Pūjyapāda goes on to explain: ij% ijLrrks nq%[kekReSokRek rr% lq[ke~ A vr ,o egkRekuLrfÂfeÙka Ñrks|ek% AA45AA An alien object is always alien and is the cause of suffering; the soul is always own and is the cause of happiness. All great sages, therefore, have exerted themselves only for the sake of the soul. Ācārya Vidyānanda has established himself firmly in own nature. Engaged incessantly in Self-realization, he has no time or inclination to interact with the external environment. External objects generally remain unnoticed by him as he pays no attention to these. His interaction with the people is minimal and without passions. For the few people he has to interact with occasionally, he engenders no lasting emotions of attachment or aversion. A Yogī of few words, he chooses words that are sweet, positive and helpful. As soon as his interaction with the outside world is over, he presents himself again to the service of the pure Self. I repeatedly salute Ācārya Vidyānanda, the light to guide me on the path that leads to true happiness, here and hereafter, by prostrating in front of him with great devotion. I meditate on his virtues in order to wash away impurities – attachment, aversion and delusion – of my wavering mind, and to reach that stage of spiritual excellence where the faults and obstructions associated with my soul are destroyed. References: 1. MkWiUukyky tSu (2004)] vkpk;Z ftulsu fojfpr vkfniqjk.k (izFke Hkkx)] nlok¡ laLdj.k] Hkkjrh; KkuihB] ubZ fnYyh&110003] ioZ 1] xkFkk 43&44] ì"B 10- (xi) Preface 2. MkW- ,- ,umikè;s] MkWghjkyky tSu (1972)] ujsUaelsukpk;Zfojfpr% fl1⁄4kUrlkjlaxzg%] Jh ykypan fgjkpUn nks'kh] lksykiqj] f}rh;k vkòfÙk%] ì"B 33. iaiUukyky okdyhoky (1913)] Jh'kqHkpUaefojfpr% Kkuk.kZo%] JhijeJqr izHkkod e.My] cEcbZ&2] f}rh;kòfÙk%] ì"B 84. MkWiUukyky tSu (2003)] vkpk;Z ftulsu fojfpr gfjoa'kiqjk.k] vkBok¡ laLdj.k] Hkkjrh; KkuihB] ubZ fnYyh&110003] izFke% lxZ%] xkFkk 29] ì"B 3&45. izksmn;pUnz tSu (1993)] vkpk;Z leUrHkae fojfpr Lo;EHkwLrks=k dh rÙoiznhfidk O;k[;k] Jh x.ks'k o.khZ fntSu ('kks/) laLFkku] okjk.klh&221005] izLrkouk] ì"B 186. See iatqxyfd'kksj eq[rkj (fola1982)] JhleUrHkaeLokfefojfprks jRudj.Md&Jkodkpkj%] ef.kdpUae fntSuxzUFkekyklfefr%] cEcbZ] izkDdFku] ì"B 62&727. ibid., p. 196. 8. Jain, Vijay K. (Ed.) (2013), "Ācārya Nemichandra's DravyasaÉgraha – with Authentic Explanatory Notes", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun, p. 189190. 9. Jain, Vijay K. (2014), "Ācārya Pūjyapāda's IÈÇopadeśa – The Golden Discourse", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun, p. 104, 114. (x) ĀptamīmāÚsā 1. txnh'kpUnz tSu (MkW-) (1992)] JhefYy"ks.klwfjiz.khrk L;k}kne×tjh] Jh ijeJqr izHkkod e.My] Jheñ jktpUae vkJe] vxkl&388130] iapekòfÙk2. iadSyk'kpUnz 'kkÐh (2010)] tSu U;k;] Hkkjrh; KkuihB] 18 bULVhV~;w'kuy ,fj;k] yksnh jksM] ubZ fnYyh&1100033. iatqxyfd'kksj eq[rkj (1978)] JheRLokfe&leUrHkaekpk;Zo;Z&fojfpr nsokxe vijuke vkIrehekalk] ohj lsok efUnj VaLV izdk'ku] okjk.klh&2210054. iaeuksgjyky (fola1969)] JheRdqUndqUnkpk;Zfojfpr% izopulkj%] Jh ijeJqr izHkkod e.My] cEcbZ&25. iaeksguyky 'kkÐh (2005)] Jhekf.kD;ufUnLokfe fojfpr ijh{kkeq[k] Hkkjro"khZ; vusdkUr fo}r~ifj"kñ6. izksmn;pUnz tSu (2012)] vkpk;Z leUrHkae }kjk fojfpr vkIrehekalk dh rÙonhfidk uked O;k[;k] Jh x.ks'k o.khZ fntSu laLFkku] okjk.klh&2210057. Jh euksgj th o.khZ ^lgtkuUn th* egkjkt (1970)] vkIrehekalk izopu] lgtkuUn 'kkÐekyk] j.kthriqjh] lnj] esjB8. fl1⁄4kUrkpk;Z iaIkwQypUae 'kkÐh (2010)] vkpk;Z iwT;ikn fojfpr lokZFkZflf1⁄4] Hkkjrh; KkuihB] 18 bULVhV~;w'kuy ,fj;k] yksnh jksM] ubZ fnYyh&110003] lksygok¡ laLdj.kACKNOWL ED GMENT A ll that is contained in this book has been excerpted, translated or adapted from a number of authentic Jaina texts. Due care has been taken to conserve the essence of ĀptamīmāÚsā (Devāgamastotra) – the Holy Scripture composed by Ā ā . Contribution of the following publications in the preparation of the present volume is gratefully acknowledged: c rya Samantabhadra (xi) 9. Chakravarti Nayanar, A. (Prof.) (2009), " c rya Kundakunda's Pa c stik ya-S ra", Bharatiya Jnanpith, 18 Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi, Third Edition. 10. Chakravarti, A. (Prof.) (2008), " c rya Kundakunda's Samayas ra", Bharatiya Jnanpith, 18 Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi, Fifth Edition. 11. Ghoshal, Saratchandra (2010), " pta-m s of ch rya Samantabhadra", Bharatiya Jnanpith, 18 Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi. 12. 15. Jain, S.C. (Dr.) (2003), "Vimalad sa's Saptabha g Tara gi ", Bharatiya Jnanpith, 18 Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi. 16. Jain, S.C. (Dr.) (2003), "Yogas ra Pr bh ta", Bharatiya Jnanpith, 18 Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi. Ā ā ô ā ā ā Ā ā ā Ā īmāÚ ā Ā ā Jain, Champat Rai (1916), "Nyāya – The Science of Thought", The Central Jaina Publishing House, Arrah (India). 13. Jain, Champat Rai (1975), "The Key of Knowledge", Today & Tomorrow's Printers & Publishers, New Delhi, Fourth Edition. 14. Jain, S.A. (1960), "Reality : English Translation of Shri Pūjyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi", Vira Sasana Sangha, Calcutta-37. ā ô ī ô õī ā ā Ã 17. Jain, Vijay K. (2014), "Ācārya Pūjyapāda's IÈÇopadeśa – The Golden Discourse", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. 18. Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra – Adoration of The Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. 19. Jain, Vijay K. (Ed.) (2011), "Āchārya Umāsvāmi's Tattvārthsūtra – with Hindi and English Translation", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. 20. Jain, Vijay K. (Ed.) (2012), "Shri Amritchandra Suri's PuruÈārthasiddhyupāya – with Hindi and English Translation", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. 21. Jain, Vijay K. (Ed.) (2012), "Āchārya Kundkund's Samayasāra – with Hindi and English Translation", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. (xi) ĀptamīmāÚsā V.K.J. 22. Jain, Vijay K. (Ed.) (2013), "Ācārya Nemichandra's DravyasaÉgraha – with Authentic Explanatory Notes", Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Ā īmāÚ ā 25. Shastri, Devendra Muni (1983), "A Source-book in Jaina Philosophy", Sri Tarak Guru Jain Granthalaya, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Rajasthan). 26. Thomas, F.W. (1968), "The Flower-Spray of the Quodammodo Doctrine – Śrī MalliÈeõa Surī's Syādvāda-Maôjarī", Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi-Varanasi-Patna. 27. Upadhye, A.N. (1935), "Śrī Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasāra – A Pro-canonical Text of the Jainas", Shetha Manilal Revashankar Jhaveri – for the Parama-Śruta-Prabhavaka-Maõçala, Bombay. ā ā ā ā 23. Jaini, Jagmanderlal (1916), "Outlines of Jainism", Jain Literature Society, Cambridge University Press, London. 24. Shah, Nagin J. (1999), "Samantabhadra's ptam s – Critique of an Authority", Dr. Jagruti Dilip Sheth, Nehru Nagar Char Rasta, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015. 28. Vidyabhusana, Satis Chandra (1909), "Ny y vat ra : The Earliest Jaina Work on Pure Logic by Siddha Sena Div kara", The Indian Research Society, Calcutta. Prof. (Dr.) Veer Sagar Jain, Head, Department of Jaina Philosophy (Jaina Darśana), Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha (Deemed University), New Delhi, has very willingly, swiftly and, as he himself conveyed to me, very joyfully, undertook the task of proofreading this work. His deep knowledge of the Sanskrit language as well as the subject matter has led to the removal of many flaws attributable to my inadequacy and inadvertence. I acknowledge with utmost gratitude his magnanimous contribution. In the final stage, the non-English portion of the work was voluntarily proofread, with great intent, by a group of learned celibates who happened to visit Dehradun on a short visit. My thanks to each member of the group for removing certain infelicities that still remained in the work. (xi) Acknowledgment VIJAY K . JAIN – B IOGRA PHI CAL NOT E Having had his schooling from Mhow and Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh, Vijay K. Jain (b. 1951) did his graduation in Electronics Engineering from Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, and Post-Graduation in Management from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Mr. Jain had been associated, as a visiting faculty teaching marketing management and entrepreneurship, with several institutions including National Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development (NIESBUD), Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), and University of Roorkee (now IIT Roorkee). He is an Ex-President of Dehradun Management Association. He has written/edited several books: Marketing Management for Small Units (1988), Management Publishing Co., Dehradun. tSu /eZ % eaxy ifjp; (1994), Management Publishing Co., Dehradun. From IIM-Ahmedabad to Happiness (2006), Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Āchārya Umāsvāmi's Tattvārthsūtra – with Hindi and English Translation (2011), Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Āchārya Kundkund's Samayasāra – with Hindi and English Translation (2012), Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Shri Amritchandra Suri's PuruÈārthasiddhyupāya – with Hindi and English Translation (2012), Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Ācārya Nemichandra's DravyasaÉgraha – with Authentic Explanatory Notes (2013), Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Ācārya Pūjyapāda's IÈÇopadeśa – The Golden Discourse (2014), Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra – Adoration of the Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara (2015), Vikalp Printers, Dehradun. Mr. Jain is the proprietor of Vikalp Printers, a high-end printing and publishing firm, based in Dehradun, India. (xiv) Ācārya Samantabhadra's ĀptamīmāÚsā (Devāgamastotra) Deep Reflection On The Omniscient Lord vkpk;Z leUrHkae fojfpr vkIrehekalk (nsokxeLrks=k) ¬ ue% fl1⁄4sH;% Jain, Vijay K. (Ed.) (2011), "Āchārya Umāsvāmi's Tattvārthsūtra – with Hindi and English Translation", p. 146. Attendance of the heavenly beings, movement in the sky, waving of the flywhisks (c mara) and other symbols of majesty are found even in jugglers; it is not owing to these that thou art great [supreme preacher (guru), worthy of adoration (stutya) and Omniscient (sarvajða or āpta)]. ā nsokxeuHkks;kupkejkfnfoHkwr;% A ek;kfo"ofi n`';Urs ukrLRoefl uks egku~ AA1AA lkekU;kFkZ & gs Hkxou~ ! nsoksa dk vkxeu] vkdk'k esa xeu vkSj pkej vkfn foHkwfr;k¡ tks vki esa ik;h tkrh gSa] bu dkj.kksa ls vki gekjs Lrqfr djus ;ksX; & xq#] LrqR;] vkIr & ugha gSaA ;s foHkwfr;k¡ rks ek;koh iq#"kksa esa Hkh ns[kh tkrh gSaA Insignia like the attendance of heavenly beings do not make you great: izFke ifjPNsn Section 1 The aforesaid symbols of majesty do not establish greatness; these are found in jugglers too who do not possess real greatness and, therefore, not worthy of our adoration. If it be said that the symbols of majesty are artificial in case of jugglers but real in your case then on what basis can we distinguish between the real and the counterfeit? On the basis of the scripture? The others too have their own scripture which, according to them, is a valid source of knowledge. 3 The superior excellence of your body etc. – both internal and external – which though is real and divine can be found even in celestial beings who are swayed by impurities like attachment. Therefore, this too does not make thou great. vè;kRea cfgjI;s"k foxzgkfnegksn;% A fnO;% lR;ks fnokSdLLoI;fLr jkxkfneRlq l% AA2AA lkekU;kFkZ & vki esa 'kjhj vkfn dk tks vUrjax vkSj cfgjax vfr'k; ik;k tkrk gS og ;|fi fnO; vkSj lR; gS] fdUrq jkxkfn;qDr LoxZ ds nsoksa esa Hkh mDr izdkj dk vfr'k; ik;k tkrk gSA vr% mDr vfr'k; ds dkj.k Hkh vki esjs LrqR; ugha gks ldrs gSaA Bodily and other distinctions do not make you great: The Arhat, the World Teacher or 'Jina', is free from eighteen imperfections, and possessed of forty-six distinctive attributes. The divine attributes and splendours of the Arhat are described thus in the Scripture: The Arhat is free from these eighteen imperfections: 1. janma – (re)birth; 2. żarā – old-age; 3. tÃÈā – thirst; 4. kÈudhā – hunger; 5. vismaya – astonishment; 6. arati – displeasure; 7. kheda – regret; 8. roga – sickness; 9. śoka – grief; 4 ĀptamīmāÚsā *10. mada – pride ; 11. moha – delusion; **12. bhaya – fear ; 13. nidrā – sleep; 14. cintā – anxiety; 15. sveda – perspiration; 16. rāga – attachment; 17. dveÈa – aversion; and 18. maraõa – death. Forty-six divine attributes of the Arhat comprise four infinitudes (ananta catuÈÇaya), thirty-four miraculous happenings (atiśaya), and eight splendours (prātihārya). The four infinitudes (ananta catuÈÇaya) comprise: 1. ananta jðāna – infinite knowledge; 2. ananta darśana – infinite perception; 3. ananta sukha – infinite bliss; and 4. ananta vīrya – infinite energy. Of the thirty-four miraculous happenings (atiśaya), ten appear naturally at the time of birth, ten on attainment of infinite knowledge (kevalajðāna), and the remaining fourteen are fashioned by the celestial devas. * Pride is of eight kinds: pride of knowledge (jðāna mada), veneration (pūjā mada), lineage (kula mada), caste (jāti mada), strength (bala mada), accomplishments (Ãddhi mada), austerities (tapa mada), and beauty (śarīra mada). ** Fear is of seven kinds: fear relating to this life (ihaloka bhaya), of the life beyond (paraloka bhaya), of death (maraõa bhaya), of pain and suffering (vedanā bhaya), of being without protection (atrāõa bhaya), of divulgence of one's deeds (agupti bhaya), and of the unexpected (ākasmika bhaya). 5 Verse 2 The eight splendours (prātihārya) are: 1. aśoka vÃkÈa – the Ashoka tree; 2. siÉhāsana – bejeweled throne; 3. chatra – three-tier canopy; 4. bhāmaõçala – halo of unmatched luminance; 5. divya dhvani – divine voice of the Lord without lip movement; 6. puÈpa-varÈā – shower of fragrant flowers; 7. cāmara – waving of sixty-four majestic flywhisks; and 8. dundubhi – dulcet sound of kettle-drums and other musical instruments. Jain, Vijay K. (2014), "Ācārya Pujyapāda's IÈÇopadeśa – The Golden Discourse", p. 2-4. The aforesaid symbols of establish real greatness; these symbols can be found in celestial beings too who are swayed by passions like anger, pride, deceitfulness and greed. It may be claimed that your symbols of superior excellence appear on the destruction of the four inimical (ghātiyā) karmas – deluding (mohanīya), knowledge-obscuring (jðānāvarõīya), perception-obscuring (darśanāvarõīya), and obstructive (antarāya) – but it is not so in the case of the celestial beings. What is the basis of this assertion? Scripture? Let us wait till we are able to establish which scripture among many is a valid source of knowledge. superior excellence fail to 6 ĀptamīmāÚsā There are mutual contradictions in the teachings of the founders of different sects; this should not have happened if all of them were trustworthy. It is clear, therefore, that only one of them, at most, could be worthy of our trust. rhFkZÑRle;kuka p ijLijfojks/r% A losZ"kkekIrrk ukfLr df'pnso Hkosñxq#% AA3AA lkekU;kFkZ & ( ds dkj.k lc rhFk±djksa esa vkIrRo dk gksuk laHko ugha gSA mu rhFk±dj dgs tkus okyksa esa ls dksbZ ,d gh gekjk LrqR; (vkIr) gks ldrk gSA lqxrkfnd) rhFk±djksa ds vkxeksa esa ijLij fojks/ ik;s tkus The fact that you are a sect-founder does not make you great: 7 Verse 3 In some individuals extensive destruction of imperfections and their causes is seen; there must be a case where a particular individual, owing to his supremacy, attains complete destruction of imperfections and their causes. It is akin to the complete removal of external and internal impurities (of a substance like gold ore) on the availability of appropriate means. nks"kkoj.k;ksgkZfu£u%'ks"kk¿LR;fr'kk;ukr~ A Dofp|Fkk LogsrqH;ks cfgjUreZy{k;% AA4AA lkekU;kFkZ & (nks"kksa ds dkj.kksa) dh lkfr'k; gkfu ns[kus esa vkrh gSA nks"kksa vkSj vkoj.kksa dh iw.kZ gkfu mlh izdkj laHko gS ftl izdkj [kku ls fudys gq, lqo.kZ esa ey&fojks/h dkj.kksa ds }kjk dhV vkfn cfgjax ey vkSj dkfyek vkfn vUrjax ey nksuksa izdkj ds eyksa dk vR;Ur uk'k fd;k tk ldrk gSA fdlh iq#"k&fo'ks"k esa nks"kksa (jkx&}s"kkfnd) vkSj vkoj.kksa It is possible for someone to attain complete destruction of imperfections: Imperfections (called do a), like attachment, aversion and passions, are dispositions of the soul (bhāvakarma) and these are due to the prior envelopment of the soul (called āvaraõa) by material karmas (dravyakarma), like knowledge-obscuring karmas. There is cause and effect relationship between the material karmas (āvaraõa) and the imperfections (doÈa). Due to appropriate exertion, extensive destruction of imperfections and their causes is possible in some individuals. Ācārya Nemicandra's DravyasaÉgraha: tgdkys.k ros.k ; HkqÙkjla dEeiqXxya ts.k A Hkkos.k lMfn .ks;k rLlM.ka psfn f.kTtjk nqfogk AA36AA È 8 ĀptamīmāÚsā Dispositions of the soul to get rid of the karmic matter already bound with it, either when it falls off by itself on fruition, or when it is annihilated through asceticism (tapas), constitute the subjective shedding of karmas (bhāva nirjarā). The actual dissociation of the karmic matter from the soul is the objective shedding of karmas (dravya nirjarā). Thus nirjarā should be known of two kinds. Jain, Vijay K. (2012), "Ācārya Nemichandra's DravyasaÉgraha", p. 129. Ācārya Kundakunda's Pańcāstikāya-Sāra: laojtksxs g tqnks ros g tks fpênò s cgqfogs g A dEek.ka f.kTtj.ka cgqxk.ka dq.kfn lks f.k;na AA144AA That mighty personality which after closing the springs of karmas, good and evil, and equipped with the faculty of pure thought, controls its life according to manifold forms of tapas, will undoubtedly be able to rid itself of karmas manifold. Chakravarti Nayanar, A. (2009), "Ācārya Kundakunda's Pańcāstikāya-Sāra", p. 118. On the destruction of inimical karmas, called the ghātiyā karmas, it is possible for a person to attain unhindered, infinite and pure knowledge, i.e., omniscience. A single substance is endowed with infinite modifications and there are infinite classes of substances. To know one substance fully is to know the whole range of the object of knowledge and that is possible only in omniscience. 9 Verse 4 Objects that are minute (like atoms), past (like Lord Rama), and distant (like Mount Meru), being the objects of inference (anumeya – and, therefore, also objects of knowledge – prameya), must be perceivable directly by someone; like the fire on the hill is an object of inference for a distant person but is perceived directly by the one who is in its proximity. The one who perceives directly the objects of knowledge that are minute, past, and distant is the Omniscient (sarvajða); this way the existence of the Omniscient is truly and firmly established. lw{ekUrfjrnwjkFkkZ% izR;{kk% dL;fp|Fkk A vuqes;Rorks¿XU;kfnfjfr loZKlafLFkfr% AA5AA lkekU;kFkZ & vUrfjr&inkFkZ (dky&foizÑ"V jke vkfnd) rFkk nwjorhZ (ns'k&foizÑ"V es# vkfnd) fdlh dks izR;{k vo'; gksrs gSa D;ksafd mudks ge vuqeku ls tkurs gSaA tks Hkh inkFkZ vuqeku ls tkus tkrs gSa dksbZ u dksbZ mudks izR;{k ls tkurk gSA ioZr esa vfXu dks nwjorhZ iq#"k vuqeku ls tkurk gS fdUrq ioZr ij jgus okyk iq#"k mlh dks izR;{k ls tkurk gSA bl izdkj lw{e] vUrfjr rFkk nwjorhZ leLr inkFkks± dks tkuus okys loZK dh flf1⁄4 gksrh gSA lw{e&inkFkZ (LoHkko&foizÑ"V ijek.kq vkfnd)] The attainment of omniscience is established: Ācārya Kundakunda's Pravacanasāra: tfn iPPD[ketkna iTtk;a iybna p .kk.kLl A .k gofn ok ra .kk.ka fnOoa fr fg ds i:osafr AA1&39AA If that omniscience would not directly visualize the future and past modifications (of an object of knowledge), who then would call that knowledge divine and supernatural? 10 ĀptamīmāÚsā vRFka vD[kf.kofnna bZgkiqOos g ts fotk.kafr A rs l ijksD[kHkwna .kknqelDda fr i..kÙka AA1&40AA It is declared that for those who (are accustomed to) know the objects of knowledge by means of discrimination and 1other stages (of perception ) it is impossible to know the objects, past and future, that are not within the range of the senses. Upadhye, A.N. (1935), "Śrī Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasāra", p. 52-53. Sensory knowledge ascertains, in stages, the nature of an object through the use of the senses. The past and the future modes of the object remain beyond the scope of such knowledge as these do not reach the senses. Besides, minute objects like the atoms, distant objects like the heaven and Mount Meru, and non-material objects like the soul, virtue and vice, also remain beyond the scope of sensory knowledge. Only the gross objects like the pot and the board are known by the senses and, therefore, sensory knowledge is indirect, inadequate, and fit to be discarded. Those possessing sensory knowledge, to whatever degree, cannot be called the Omniscient (sarvaj a). Things which are minute and remote in space or time are directly perceived by the Arhat, since these are cognizable, just as the objects of our perception that are well ascertained. The reason assigned here is not fallacious because these are made the subject of the minor premise. In AÈÇasahasrī, Ācārya Vidyānanda employs anumeya and ð 1. Sensory knowledge, being not immediate, has four sequential stages: outlinear grasp or apprehension – avagraha; discrimination or speculation – īhā; judgement – avāya; and retention of the judgement – dhāraõā. Such stages are not present when omniscience is functioning. 1 Verse 5 prameya as synonymous terms; all objects of inference (anumeya) are objects of knowledge (prameya). It follows that the minute, past, and distant objects are perceived directly (pratyakÈa) by the Arhat, because these are anumeya. Only omniscience (kevalajðāna) – the self-born, perfect, pure, and non-sequential super-sensuous knowledge – embraces the knowledge of all objects and their infinite modes, making its possessor the Omniscient (sarvajða). 12 ĀptamīmāÚsā You only are such an Omniscient, free from all defects, because your words are not in contradiction with either the reason or the scripture. The proof of non-contradiction of your words lies in the fact that your tenets (about liberation etc.) are unopposed to what has been established through the known sources of knowledge*. l Roesokfl funksZ"kks ;qfDr'kkL=kkfojksf/okd~ A vfojks/ks ;fn"Va rs izfl1⁄4su u ckè;rs AA6AA lkekU;kFkZ & fd;k x;k gS og vki gh gSaA vkids funksZ"k gksus dk izek.k ;g gS fd vkids opu ;qfDr vkSj vkxe ls vfojks/h gSaA vkidk tks b"V (eks{kkfn rÙo&:i vfHker) gS og izfl1⁄4 ls (izek.k vFkok ij&izfl1⁄4 ,dkUr ls) ckf/r ugha gSA (bl dkj.k ls vkids opu ;qfDr vkSj vkxe ls vfojks/h gSaA) gs Hkxou~ ! iwoZ esa ftls funksZ"k & ohrjkx rFkk loZK & fl1⁄4 You (Lord Jina) are such an Omniscient: In the first three verses Samantabhadra spells out certain qualities belonging to the Arhat, which are also found in jugglers, celestial beings, and the founders of sects. These Ācārya 13 Verse 6 * dharm , the entity or abode of the s dhya (that which is to be proved), is known through: 1) pramāõa prasiddha, i.e., that which is known by pramāõa – 'This hill is full of fire because it is full of smoke'; 2) vikalpa prasiddha, i.e., that which is taken for granted being utterly distinct – 'The horns of a hare are non-existent'; and 3) pramāõa-vikalpa prasiddha, i.e., that which partakes of the nature of pramāõa and vikalpa both – 'Man is the master of his destiny because he has the power to control his actions'. ī ā qualities cannot establish the omniscience of the Arhat. In the next two verses the Ācārya establishes that it is possible for someone to attain complete destruction of imperfections which cause obstruction to infinite knowledge. And as the soul attains omniscience, it is able to perceive things which are minute, past and distant. Omniscience is attained through the destruction of imperfections, i.e., the deluding (mohanīya), knowledgecovering (jðānāvarõīya), perception-obscuring (darśanāvarõīya) and obstructive (antarāya) classes of karmas. Omniscience images, as it were in a mirror, all substances and their infinite modes, extending through the past, the present, and the future. Being a possessor of omniscience – perfect knowledge and perception of unimaginable splendour and magnificence – the Arhat comprehends all objects of knowledge in their entirety, from all possible angles. His exposition of Reality is for the benefit of all living beings and non-controvertible by any known sources of knowledge. His words are the Holy Scripture. Ācārya Samantabhadra's Ratnakaraôçaka Śrāvakācāra: vkIrksiKeuqYya?;en`'s'fojks/de~ A rÙoksins'kÑRlko± 'kkL=ka dkiFk?kêuð e~ AA9AA That alone is true scripture which is the word of the Omniscient, inviolable, not opposed to the two kinds of valid knowledge – direct (pratyakÈa) and indirect (parokÈa) – reveals the true nature of reality, universally helpful to living beings, and potent enough to destroy all forms of falsehood. 14 ĀptamīmāÚsā Those who are unfamiliar with your nectar-like doctrine and adopt absolutist (ek nta) views are the victims of conceit as they erroneously claim themselves to be Omniscient and trustworthy. What they seek to establish is contradicted by the direct (pratyakÈa) sources of knowledge. ā RoUerkèrckákuka loZFkSdkUrokfnuke~ A vkIrkfHkekunX/kuka Los"Va n`"Vsu ckè;rs AA7AA lkekU;kFkZ & izfrikfnr oLrq&rÙo & dk Lokn ugha fy;k gS] tks loZFkk ,dkUroknh gSa] vkSj tks  ge vkIr gSa* bl izdkj ds vfHkeku ls nX/ gSa] mudk tks b"V rÙo gS mlesa izR;{k izek.k ls ck/k vkrh gSA ftUgksaus vkids er&:ih vèr & vusdkUr 'kklu }kjk The absolutist view is in contradiction with the sources of valid knowledge: Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra: ,dkUrn`f"Vizfr"ksf/ RkÙoa izek.kfl1⁄4a rnrRLoHkkoe~ A Ro;k iz.khra lqfo/s Lo/kEuk uSrRlekyh<ina RonU;S% AA (9-1-41) O Lord Suvidhinātha ! With the light of your omniscience you had promulgated the nature of reality in a manner which contradicts the absolutistic point of view, wellfounded, and incorporates the principle of predication involving both the affirmation and the negation, depending on the point of view. Others have not been able to view the nature of reality in such light. Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra", p. 58. 15 Verse 7 O Lord ! Those saturated with prejudice to their own absolutist views (such as describing a substance absolutely permanent or absolutely transient) harm themselves as well as others. Such absolutist, standalone and non-equivocal views fail to establish the existence of virtuous ( ubha) and wicked (a ubha) activities (karma) and consequently of things like rebirth (acquisition of another abode after death – paraloka). ś ś dq'kykdq'kya deZ ijyksd'p u Dofpr~ A ,dkUrxzgjDrs"kq ukFk LoijoSfj"kq AA8AA lkekU;kFkZ & dks Lohdkjrs gSa ,sls ,dkUr&:i xzg ds jax esa jaxs (o'khHkwr) yksx vius Hkh 'k=kq gSa vkSj nwljs ds Hkh 'k=kq gSaA muds ;gk¡ 'kqHk&deZ ,oa v'kqHk&deZ rFkk ijyksd vkfn dqN Hkh ugha curk gSA gs Hkxou~ ! tks oLrq ds vuUr /eks± esa ls fdlh ,d gh /eZ In the absolutist view, division of activities into virtuous and wicked is unsustainable: Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra: ; ,o fuR;{kf.kdkn;ks u;k feFkks¿uis{kk% Loijiz.kkf'ku% A r ,o rÙoa foeyL; rs equs% ijLijs{kk% Loijksidkfj.k% AA (13-1-61) O Unblemished Lord Vimalanātha ! Those who hold the one-sided, standalone points of view such as describing a substance absolutely permanent (nitya) or transient (kÈaõika), harm themselves and others, but, as you had proclaimed, when the assertions are understood to have been made only from certain standpoints, these reveal the 16 ĀptamīmāÚsā true nature of substances, and, therefore, benefit self as well as others. Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra", p. 86. Śrī MalliÈeõa Surī's Syādvāda-Maôjarī highlights the faults associated with the absolutist (ekānta) doctrine: uSdkUrokns lq[knq%[kHkksxkS u iq.;ikis u p cUèkeks{kkS A nquhZfroknO;lukfluSoa ijS£oyqIra txnI;'ks"ke~ AA27AA With the non-equivocal doctrine there are not experiences of pleasure and pain; not merit and sin, also not bondage and liberation. By the sword of the vice of contentions of bad reasoning the promulgators of such a doctrine abolish the world without residue. With the non-equivocal (ekānta) doctrine, expressions of pleasure and pain, merit and sin, and bondage and liberation do not fit. A soul which is non-equivocally eternal the two experiences of pleasure and pain are not appropriate, for the mark of the eternal is 'having a single permanent form without loss and without origination'. If the eternal soul, having experienced pleasure, feels pain through the force of the apparatus of its karma, then, due to the difference in its own nature, non-eternalness follows; there is the consequence of loss of its having a single permanent form. The same is to be said of it when, having experienced pain, it enjoys pleasure. Furthermore, experience of pleasure and pain are to be brought about by merit (to be obtained by good karma) and sin (to be obtained by evil karma), and the bringing about of them is the practical efficacy. That on the part of eternal isolated is not appropriate, either successively or not successively. Bondage is the mutual interlacing of the self in its several infinitesimal parts (pradeśa) with atoms of karma, like a mass 17 Verse 8 of metal and fire. Liberation is waning of all karma. In the nonequivocally eternal these two also would not be. For bondage is a particular conjunction, and is defined as "the meeting of things which had not met"; non-meeting, belonging to a prior time is one state, and meeting, belonging to a later time, is another. Thus in the case of these two also the fault of difference of state is hard to get over. And how the self, having one-formness, has impromptu conjunction with bondage? And before conjunction with bondage, why was it not liberated? Moreover, by that bondage, does it experience alteration, or not? If it experiences, it is non-eternal. If it does not experience alteration, because of the fruitlessness of the bondage, it would be simply eternally liberated. In case of non-appropriateness of bondage there is also non-appropriateness of liberation; because the word 'liberation' is a synonym for the cleaving apart of bonds. Likewise also, in the doctrine of non-equivocal non-eternal there is no appropriateness of pleasure and pain etc. What is non-eternal has the attribute of absolute annihilation; and if the soul is such, since the performer of the action of acquiring merit has perished without continuance, to whom does the experience of the pleasure which is the fruit thereof belong? Likewise, upon the total destruction also of the performer of action for acquiring sin, to whom does the consciousness of pain belong? Excerpted, with modifications, from: Thomas, F.W. (1968), "The Flower-Spray of the Quodammodo Doctrine – Śrī MalliÈeõa Surī's Syādvāda-Maôjarī", p. 149-151 18 ĀptamīmāÚsā If it be accepted that the objects of knowledge have 'absolute existence' character, their 'non-existence' (abhāva) character is denied. And then (by denying the four aspects of their non-existence) each object will pervade in every other object, will become without a beginning, without an end, and devoid of the form of its own. (bhāvaikānta) HkkoSdkUrs inkFkkZukeHkkokukeiÉokr~ A lokZRedeuk|UreLo:ierkode~ AA9AA lkekU;kFkZ & lr~&:i gh gS & ,slk HkkoSdkUr ekuus ij vHkko inkFkks± (izkd~&vHkko vkfn) dk yksi Bgjrk gS vkSj bu pkj izdkj ds oLrq /eks± dk yksi djus ls oLrq&rÙo lc&:i (lokZRed)] vukfn] vuUr vkSj vLo:i gks tkrk gS tks vkidk er ugha gSA inkFkks± ds Hkko (vfLrRo) dk ,dkUr & inkFkZ loZFkk Fault in considering objects of knowledge as having 'absolute existence' (bh vaik nta) character:ā ā Affirmation is the aspect of existence ; negation of nonexistence (abhāva). The abhāva or non-existence of a substance – object of knowledge (artha) – is of four kinds: 1. Prior (antecedent) non-existence (prāgabhāva): The non-existence of the effect (the jar) in the cause (the lumpof-clay) previous to its production is the prior (antecedent) non-existence. It is expressed in the knowledge 'a thing will be'. Due to prior (antecedent) non-existence (prāgabhāva) the effect comes into existence. The lump-of-clay signifies the prior non-existence (prāgabhāva) of the pitcher which is (bhāva) 19 Verse 9 formed on the lump-ofcessation to exist. Non-existence of 'pitcher' before it is made is the prāgabhāva of the pitcher. The clay that was transformed into pitcher did not possess the attribute 'pitcher' before the pitcher was made. All substances will become 'without beginning (defect – anādi)' if prior (antecedent) non-existence (prāgabhāva) is not accepted. The absence of which, as a rule, accompanies the completion of an activity (e.g., making of a jar) is the prior non-existence (prāgabhāva). 2. Posterior (emergent) non-existence (pradhvaÚsābhāva): The non-existence of the jar, consequent to its destruction by a pestle is the posterior (emergent) non-existence. Due to posterior (emergent) non-existence (pradhvaÚsābhāva) the effect comes to an end. The collection of pitcher-pieces signifies the posterior non-existence (pradhvaÚsābhāva) of the pitcher which is necessarily destroyed on the rise of the pitcher pieces. Non-existence of 'pitcher' after it is broken is pradhvaÚsābhāva of the pitcher. The collection of pitcher-pieces no more possess the attribute 'pitcher' after the pitcher has been broken. All substances will become 'without end (defect – ananta)' if posterior (emergent) non-existence (pradhvaÚsābhāva) is not accepted. The absence of which, as a rule, accompanies the destruction of an activity (e.g., destruction of a jar) is the posterior (emergent) non-existence (pradhvaÚsābhāva). 3. Reciprocal non-existence (anyonyābhāva or itaretarābhāva): Reciprocal non-existence is expressed in the clay's 20 ĀptamīmāÚsā consciousness 'this is not that'. Reciprocal non-existence implies the non-pervasion of the nature of a thing in the nature of another thing; for instance the non-pervasion of the nature of a pitcher in the nature of a pillar. There is reciprocal non-existence of a pitcher in a pillar, as these exist. Reciprocal non-existence focuses on the present, i.e., on the present form of substances. The jar and the board are mutually non-existent in each other but the possibility of conversion of one into the other cannot be ruled out. It is possible that after a jar gets destroyed and takes the form of clay, the clay then gets transformed into a board at some point of time. All substances will become 'pervading in everything or allpervading (defect – sarv tmaka)' if reciprocal nonexistence (anyonyābhāva or itaretarābhāva) is not accepted. There is no rule which suggests that either the presence or absence of reciprocal non-existence (anyonyābhāva or itaretarābhāva) will bring about the accomplishment or destruction of an activity. There is reciprocal non-existence (anyonyābhāva or itaretarābhāva) in water and fire but there is no rule that in the absence of water there is fire and in the presence of water there is destruction of fire. 4. Absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva): Absolute nonexistence is the non-existence of something in a substrate through the three times (past, present and future). Thus there is absolute non-existence of colour in air. Absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) denies the existence, in all the three times, of an attribute of a substance in another substance – for instance the animate nature of the soul (jīva) cannot be found in the non-soul ā 21 Verse 9 ( ī non-soul a soul. There is absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) between the soul (jīva) and the matter (pudgala); these two can never become one in the three times. Soul is existent with respect to its own characteristic of consciousness but exhibits absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) with respect to the inanimate nature of matter. All six substances (dravya) exhibit absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) with respect to each other; for example, there is absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) between matter (pudgala) and medium of motion (dharma), and between space (ākāśa) and the substance of time (kāla). These substances may mingle like milk and water, give room to others, but still retain their individual identity. While the time-frame of reciprocal non-existence (anyonyābhāva or itaretarābhāva) is the present, that of absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) is the past, present and future. All substances will become 'devoid of the form of their own (defect asvarūpa)' if absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) is not accepted. aj va); never ever can the soul become a non-soul and the 2 ĀptamīmāÚsā If prior (antecedent) non-existence is not accepted, a produced entity (for example, a jar or a word) will become 'without beginning' (an di). If posterior (emergent) non-existence (pradhvaÚsābhāva) is not accepted, a produced entity will become 'without end' (ananta). (prāgabhāva) ā dk;ZaeO;eukfn L;kr~ izkxHkkoL; fuÉos A izèoalL; p /eZL; izP;os¿uUrrka oztsr~ AA10AA lkekU;kFkZ & vukfn & mRifÙk&foghu & gks tkrk gS vkSj ;fn izèoalkHkko dk yksi fd;k tk, rks og dk;Z&:i nzO; vuUr & fouk'k&foghu & gks tkrk gSA izkxHkko dk ;fn yksi fd;k tk, rks ?kV vkfn dk;Z&:i nzO; Fault in non-acceptance of prior (antecedent) non-existence (prāgabhāva) and posterior (emergent) non-existence (pradhvaÚsābhāva): 23 Verse 10 If reciprocal non-existence is not accepted, the substance under consideration will become 'pervading in everything or all-pervading' (sarv tmaka). If absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva) is not accepted, the substance will become 'devoid of the form of its own' (asvarūpa) and distinction between different substances (e.g., the animate soul and the inanimate matter) will not be maintained. (anyonyābhāva or itaretarābhāva) ā lokZReda rnsda L;knU;kiksgO;frØes A vU;=k leok;s u O;ifn';sr loZFkk AA11AA lkekU;kFkZ & ;fn O;frØe fd;k tk, vFkkZr~ vU;ksU;kHkko ds u ekuus ij fdlh dk tks ,d b"V rÙo gS og vHksn:i lokZRed gks tk,xkA rFkk vR;UrkHkko ds u ekuus ij ,d aeO; dk nwljs aeO; esa leok;&lEcU/ (rknkRE;) LohÑr gksrk gSA ,slk gksus ij fdlh Hkh b"V rÙo dk loZFkk Hksn:i ls dksbZ O;ins'k (dFku) & tSls ;g psru gS] vkSj ;g vpsru gS & ugha gks ldsxkA vU;kiksg & vU;ksU;kHkko vFkok brjsrjkHkko & dk Fault in non-acceptance of reciprocal non-existence (anyonyābhāva or itaretarābhāva) and absolute non-existence (atyantābhāva): 24 ĀptamīmāÚsā If it be accepted that the objects of knowledge have 'absolute non-existence' (abh vaik nata) character and their 'existence' (bhāva) character is denied, cognition (bodha) and sentence (vākya) can no longer remain the sources of valid knowledge (pramāõa). And in the absence of the sources of valid knowledge (pramāõa), how can the proposed thesis ('absolute nonexistence' character of an object of knowledge) be established, and that of the rivals repudiated? ā ā vHkkoSdkUri{ks¿fi HkkokiÉookfnuke~ A cks/okD;a izek.ka u dsu lk/unw"k.ke~ AA12AA lkekU;kFkZ & dgus okys & vHkkoSdkUrokfn;ksa ds er esa Hkh b"V rÙo dh flf1⁄4 ugha gks ldrh gS D;ksafd ogk¡ u cks/ (Kku) dk vfLrRo gS vkSj u okD; (vkxe) dk vkSj blfy, izek.k Hkh ugha curk gSA izek.k ds vHkko esa Loer dh flf1⁄4 rFkk ijer dk [k.Mu fdl izdkj laHko gS\ Hkko dks ugha ekuus okys & lHkh inkFkks± dks loZFkk vlr~&:i Fault in considering objects of knowledge as having 'absolute non-existence' (abh vaik nta) character – nyav da:ā ā śū ā 25 Verse 12 Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. 'absolute existence' (bhāvaikānata) and 'absolute nonexistence ' (abhāvaikānata) – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be selfcontradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA13AA lkekU;kFkZ & vHkko nksuksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ Hkko vkSj Fault in accepting both, 'absolute existence' ( ) and 'absolute non-existence' (abhāvaikānta), without mutual dependence: bhāvaikānta 26 ĀptamīmāÚsā O Lord ! In your reckoning, the object of knowledge is in a way existing (sat); in a way non-existing (asat); in a way both existing and non-existing (sat as well as asat – ubhaya); and in a way indescribable (avaktavya) [further, as a corollary, in a way existing (sat) and indescribable (avaktavya); in a way nonexisting (asat) and indescribable (avaktavya); and in a way existing (sat), non-existing (asat), and indescribable (avaktavya)]. These assertions are made in accordance with the speaker's choice of the particular state or mode of the object – naya. dFkf×pr~ rs lnsos"Va dFkf×pnlnso rr~ A rFkksHk;eokP;a p u;;ksxkUu loZFkk AA14AA lkekU;kFkZ & gs ohj ftu ! gh gS] dFkf×pr~ vlr~&:i gh gSA blh izdkj vis{kkHksn ls og oLrq&rÙo dFkf×pr~ mHk;&:i vkSj dFkf×pr~ voDrO;&:i gh gSA (dFkf×pr~ lr~ vkSj voDrO;&:i] dFkf×pr~ vlr~ vkSj voDrO;&:i rFkk dFkf×pr~ lr~] vlr~ vkSj voDrO;&:i gh gSA) u; dh vis{kk ls oLrq&rÙo lr~ vkfn :i gS] loZFkk ughaA vkids 'kklu esa oLrq&rÙo dFkf×pr~ lr~&:i Flawless depiction of reality through the 'seven-nuance system' (saptabha g ):ô ī A thing or object of knowledge has infinite characters (i.e., it is anek nt tmaka); each character can be analyzed and grasped individually. Each individual character is called a naya. A naya thus reveals only a part of the totality, and should not be mistaken for the whole. A synthesis of different viewpoints is ā ā 27 Verse 14 achieved by the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) wherein every viewpoint is able to retain its relative importance. Syādvāda consists in seven vocal statements adorned by the qualifying clause 'in a way' – syāt. When in regard to a single entity – soul etc. – an enquiry is made relating to its attribute – existence etc. – with all-round examination, there is a possibility of seven statements, 1adorned with the term 'quodammodo' or 'in a way' (syāt). This is called the 'seven-nuance system' (saptabhaôgī). It embraces the seven limbs (saptabhaôga) of assertion, the onesided but relative method of comprehension (naya), and also the acceptance and rejection of the assertion. Syādvāda, which literally signifies assertion of possibilities, seeks to ascertain the meaning of things from all possible standpoints. Its chief merit is the anekānta, or manysided view of logic. This, it would be seen at once, is most necessary in order to acquire full knowledge about anything. Things are neither existent nor non-existent absolutely. Two seemingly contrary statements may be found to be both true if we take the trouble of finding out the two points of view from which the statements are made. For example, a man may be a father with reference to his son, and he may be a son with reference to his father. Now it is a fact that he can be a son and a father at one and the same time. A thing may be said to be existent in a way and to be non-existent in another way, and so forth. Syādvāda examines things from seven points of view, hence the doctrine is also called saptabhaôgī naya (sevenfold method of relative comprehension). It is stated as follows: ā ā 1. The Latin word quodammodo has many meanings, mainly: 'in a certain way', and 'in a certain measure'. 28 ĀptamīmāÚsā 1. L;kñ vfLr ,o ( In a way it simply is; this is the first 'nuance', with the notion of affirmation. 2. L;kñ ukfLr ,o (syād-nāsti-eva) In a way it simply is not; this is the second 'nuance', with the notion of negation. 3. L;kñ voDrO; ,o (syād-avaktavya-eva) In a way it is simply indescribable; this is the third 'nuance', with the notion of simultaneous affirmation and negation. 4. L;kñ vfLr ukfLr ,o (syād-asti-nāsti-eva) In a way it simply is, in a way it simply is not; this is the fourth 'nuance', with the notion of successive affirmation and negation. 5. L;kñ vfLr voDrO; ,o (syād-asti-avaktavya-eva) In a way it simply is, in a way it is simply indescribable; this is the fifth 'nuance', with the notion of affirmation and the notion of simultaneous affirmation and negation. 6. L;kñ ukfLr voDrO; ,o (syād-nāsti-avaktavya-eva) In a way it simply is not, in a way it is simply indescribable; this is the sixth 'nuance', with the notion of negation and the notion of simultaneous affirmation and negation. 7. L;kñ vfLr ukfLr voDrO; ,o (syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavya-eva) In a way it simply is, in a way it simply is not, in a way it is simply indescribable; this is the seventh 'nuance', with the successive notions of affirmation and negation, and the notion of simultaneous affirmation and negation. syād-asti-eva) 29 Verse 14 The primary modes of predication are three – sy d-asti, syād-nāsti and syād-avaktavya; the other four are obtained by combining these three. The phrase 'in a way' (syāt) declares the standpoint of expression – affirmation with regard to own substance (dravya), place (kÈetra), time (kāla), and being (bhāva), and negation with regard to other substance (dravya), place (kÈetra), time (kāla), and being (bhāva). Thus, for a 'jar', in regard to substance (dravya) – earthen, it simply is; wooden, it simply is not. In regard to place (kÈetra) – room, it simply is; terrace, it simply is not. In regard to time (kāla) – summer, it simply is; winter, it simply is not. In regard to being (bhāva) – brown, it simply is; white, it simply is not. And the word 'simply' has been inserted for the purpose of excluding a sense not approved by the 'nuance'; for avoidance of a meaning not intended. The phrase 'in a way' is used to declare that the 'jar' exists in regard to its own substance etc. and not also in regard to other substance etc. Even where the phrase is not employed, the meaning is conceived by knowers of it in all cases from the sense; just as the word eva, having the purpose of cutting off the non-application. The seven modes of predication may be obtained in the case of pairs of opposite attributes like eternal and non-eternal, one and many, and universal and particular. These pairs of opposites can very well be predicated of every attribute of reality. In the case of contradictory propositions, we have two opposite aspects of reality, both valid, serving as the basis of the propositions. Hence there is neither doubt nor confusion; each assertion is definite and clear. To the existence of an entity non-existence is indispensable; and to its non-existence the former. And the primariness and secondariness of the two depends on the standpoint or intent. ā 30 ĀptamīmāÚsā When a single entity is designated by the two attributes, existence and non-existence, applied simultaneously as primary, from the impossibility of such a word, the entity is indescribable. The pair of qualities, existence and nonexistence, cannot be stated together, as one thing, by the term 'existent' because that is incompetent for the expression of non-existence. Similarly, the term 'non-existent' cannot be used because that is incompetent for the expression of existence. Nor can a single conventional term express that since it can cause presentation of things only in succession. From lack of all forms of expression the entity is indescribable, but it stands out – overpowered by simultaneous existence and non-existence, both applied as primary. It is not in every way indescribable because of the consequence that it would then be undenotable even by the word 'indescribable'. It only refers to the impossibility of finding an idea which could include both, the thesis and the antithesis, at the same time. The remaining three are easily understood. That the complex nature of a real object or dravya is amenable to description by the seven and only seven propositions is made clear by Ācārya Kundakunda in Pańcāstikāya-Sāra: fl; vfRFk .kfRFk mg;a vOoÙkOoa iq.kks ; rfÙkn;a A nOoa [kq lÙkHkaxa vknslols.k laHkofn AA14AA According as dravya is viewed from different aspects of reasoning it may be described by the following propositions: 1) in a way it is; 2) in a way it is not; 3) in a way it is both (is and is not); 4) in a way it is indescribable; 5) in a way it is and is indescribable; 6) in a way it is not and is indescribable; and 7) in a way it is and is not and is indescribable. 31 Verse 14 O Lord ! Who will not agree that the objects of knowledge exhibit the quality of existence (sat) with regard to their ownquaternion (svacatuÈÇaya) [own-substance (svadravya), ownplace (svakÈetra), own-time (svakāla), and own-being (svabhāva)], and the quality of non-existence (asat) with regard to other-quaternion (paracatuÈÇaya) [other-substance (paradravya), other-place (parakÈetra), other-time (parakāla), and other-being (parabhāva)]? Without such a method of analysis of reality, no object of interest can be systematically established. lnso lo± dks usPNsr~ Lo:ikfnprq"V;kr~ A vlnso foi;kZlkÂ psÂ O;ofr"Brs AA15AA lkekU;kFkZ & dh vis{kk ls lc inkFkks± dks lr~&:Ik rFkk ij:ikfn prq"V; & ijaeO;] ij{ks=k] ijdky rFkk ijHkko & dh vis{kk ls vlr~&:Ik dkSu ugha vaxhdkj djsxk\ oLrq&rÙo ds fo"k; esa ;gh O;oLFkk gS_ ,slk u ekuus ij fdlh Hkh rÙo dh O;oLFkk ugha cu ldrh gSA Lo:ikfn prq"V; & LoaeO;] Lo{ks=k] Lodky rFkk LoHkko & The first two standpoints of – affirmation and negation: saptabhaôgī The positive predicate refers to the object's own-quaternion (svacatu aya) and the negative predicate refers to otherquaternion (paracatuÈÇaya). Consider this: 'as per the scripture, consciousness (upayoga) is the own-being (svabhāva) of the soul (jīva).' The positive predicate will be: 'the soul is existent (sat) with regard to consciousness (upayoga) which is its own-being (svabhāva).' The negative ÈÇ 32 ĀptamīmāÚsā predicate will be: 'the soul is non-existent (asat) with regard to non-consciousness (anupayoga) which is its other-being (parabhāva).' As another illustration, the world is eternal with regard to its substance (dravya); it is non-eternal with regard to the forms (paryāya) of substances that are seen one day and gone the next. If the object be considered existent (sat) with regard to its other-quaternion too, the difference between an animate object (jīva soul) and an inanimate object (ajīva non-soul, matter) will vanish. If the object be considered non-existent (asat) with regard to its own-quaternion too, everything will become null and void (śūnya). 3 Verse 15 An object can exhibit, in a way, the dual character of existence as well as non-existence (sat and asat – ubhaya) when asserted successively in regard to the elements of the quaternion; the same character (existence as well as non-existence), when asserted simultaneously, leads to a proposition that is indescribable (avaktavya) due to the limitation of our expression. The remaining three forms of assertion [existing (sat) and indescribable (avaktavya); non-existing (asat) and indescribable (avaktavya); and existing (sat), non-existing (asat), and indescribable (avaktavya)] arise from their own causes depending on the particular state or mode of the object – naya. Øek£ir};kñ }Sra lgkokP;e'kfDrr% A voDrO;ksÙkjk% 'ks"kkL=k;ks HkÄk% Losgrqr% AA16AAõ lkekU;kFkZ & ls mHk;kRed (}Sr) gS rFkk Lo&ij&prq"V; dh vis{kk ls ;qxir~ foo{kk gksus ls dFku dh vlkeF;Z ds dkj.k voDrO; gSA blh izdkj lr~] vlr~ rFkk mHk; ds lkFk voDrO; dks fy, gq, tks 'ks"k rhu Hkax gSa os Hkh vius&vius dkj.kksa ds vuqlkj lq?kfVr gSaA oLrq&rÙo Lo&ij&prq"V; dh vis{kk ls Øe ls foo{kk gksus Successive affirmation and negation (ubhaya), simultaneous affirmation and negation (avaktavya), and the remaining three limbs of saptabhaôgī: When the object is seen successively from the two points of view – substance (dravya) and form (pary ya) – there is simple summing up only of the results. We can assert, without fear of contradiction, that soul is both eternal and non-eternal. It is ā 34 ĀptamīmāÚsā eternal from the substance (dravya) point of view and noneternal from the form (paryāya) point of view. When we think of the object from both the substance (dravya) and the form (paryāya) points of view simultaneously, it presents existence as well as non-existence at once, and as there is no word in our language except indescribability that can represent the idea that arises in the mind at that time, we express this by the word 'indescribable' (avaktavya). 35 Verse 16 Existence (astitva), being a qualifying attribute (vi e a a) of an entity (dharmī), has invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with its opposite, non-existence (nāstitva). It is like presence-inhomologue (sādharmya), a qualifying attribute (viśeÈaõa) of the middle term (hetu), will have invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with its opposite, absence-in-heterologue (vaidharmya), used to highlight distinction (vyatireka). ś È õ vfLrRoa izfr"ksè;sukfoukHkkO;sd/£ef.k A fo'ks"k.kRokr~ lk/E;± ;Fkk Hksnfoo{k;k AA17AA lkekU;kFkZ & (fo/s;) dk ukfLrRo /eZ (izfr"ksè;) ds lkFk vfoukHkko lEcU/ gS] tSls fd gsrq iz;ksx esa lkèkE;Z (vUo;&gsrq) Hksn foo{kk ls oS/E;Z (O;frjsd&gsrq) ds lkFk vfoukHkko lEcU/ fy, jgrk gSA ,d gh oLrq (/ehZ) ds fo'ks"k.k gksus ds dkj.k vfLrRo /eZ Existence has invariable togetherness (avin bh va) with nonexistence: ā ā The middle term (hetu) has both – the association (anvaya) and the distinction (vyatireka) – with the major term (sādhya). Association (anvaya) establishes the homogeneousness (sādharmya), and distinction (vyatireka) the heterogeneousness (vaidharmya) with the major term (sādhya). Association (anvaya) establishes the logical connection (vyāpti) by positivity: "The hill is full of fire (major term) because it is full of smoke (middle term), as a kitchen," – the presence of the major term (sādhya) is attended by the presence of the middle term (hetu or sādhana) – presence-inhomologue (sādharmya). 36 ĀptamīmāÚsā Distinction (vyatireka) establishes the logical connection by contrariety: "The hill has no smoke (major term) because it has no fire (middle term), as a lake," – the absence of the major term (sādhya) is attended by the absence of the middle term (hetu or sādhana) – absence-in-heterologue (vaidharmya). Homogeneousness (sādharmya) and heterogeneousness (vaidharmya) are relative to each other and always go together. The middle term (hetu) is qualified by both – homogeneousness (sādharmya) and heterogeneousness (vaidharmya). Smoke has invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with fire: smoke means existence of fire, and there is no smoke without fire. Fire, on the other hand, has no invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with smoke as there can be fire without smoke. It cannot be said that fire must have smoke, and that without smoke there is no fire. But existence and non-existence have mutual (ubhaya) invariable togetherness (avinābhāva); non-existence is always accompanied by existence and existence is always accompanied by non-existence. This is because existence and non-existence, both, are qualifying attributes (viśeÈaõa) of the same substratum, i.e., the entity (dharmī). 37 Verse 17 Non-existence (n stitva), being a qualifying attribute of the entity (dharmī), has invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with its opposite, existence (astitva). It is like absence-inheterologue (vaidharmya), a qualifying attribute (viśeÈaõa) of the middle term (hetu), will have invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with its opposite, presence-in-homologue (sādharmya), used to highlight association (anvaya). ā (viśeÈaõa) ukfLrRoa izfr"ksè;sukfoukHkkO;sd/£ef.k A fo'ks"k.kRok}S/E;± ;Fkk¿Hksnfoo{k;k AA18AA lkekU;kFkZ & izfr"ksè; vfLrRo /eZ ds lkFk vfoukHkko lEcU/ fy, jgrk gS] tSls fd gsrq iz;ksx esa oS/E;Z (O;frjsd&gsrq) vHksn foo{kk ls lkèkE;Z (vUo;&gsrq) ds lkFk vfoukHkko lEcU/ fy, jgrk gSA ,d gh oLrq (/ehZ) esa fo'ks"k.k gksus ls ukfLrRo /eZ vius Non-existence has invariable togetherness with existence: (avinābhāva) 38 ĀptamīmāÚsā The entity qualified ( ya), being expressible by word, must possess the characters existence (astitiva or vidheya – affirmative) as well as non-existence (nāstitva or pratiÈedhya – negative). This is akin to the fact that depending on what is to be proved of the major term (sādhya), a reason can be a legitimate middle term (hetu) and also not a legitimate middle term (ahetu). viśeÈ fo/s;izfr"ksè;kRek fo'ks";% 'kCnxkspj% A lkè;/eksZ ;Fkk gsrqjgsrq'pkI;is{k;k AA19AA lkekU;kFkZ & D;ksafd og 'kCn dk fo"k; gksrk gSA tSls fd lkè; dk /eZ vis{kk Hksn ls gsrq&:i (lk/u) Hkh gksrk gS vkSj vgsrq&:i (vlk/u) Hkh gksrk gSA fo'ks"; (/ehZ ;k i{k) fo/s;&:i vkSj izfr"ksè;&:i gksrk gS An entity, expressible by word, possesses both the characters – existence and non-existence: When the hill is full of fire, smoke is a hetu, able to establish the particular attribute of the sādhya. But when the hill is full of snow, smoke is an ahetu, unable to establish the particular attribute of the sādhya. Thus, smoke has both the attributes – hetu and ahetu – depending on the attribute of the major term (sādhya) under consideration. In the same way, an entity, expressible by word, possesses both the characters – existence and non-existence – depending on the point of view. Existence is from one point of view (substance – dravya), and non-existence from another point of view (mode – paryāya). Existence and non-existence are the qualifying attributes (viśeÈaõa) of the entity qualified (viśeÈya). 39 Verse 19 The remaining nuances of – simultaneous affirmation and negation (indescribability); affirmation and indescribability; negation and indescribability; and affirmation, negation and indescribability – should also be understood in respect of appropriate state or mode of the object (naya). O Lord of the Sages ! There are no contradictions in your doctrine [of non-absolutism (anekāntavāda)]. saptabhaôgī 'ks"kHkÄk'p usrO;k ;FkksDru;;ksxr% Aõ u p df'pf}jks/ks¿fLr equhUae ro 'kklus AA20AA lkekU;kFkZ & dFkf×pr~ lr~ vkSj voDrO;] dFkf×pr~ vlr~ vkSj voDrO;] rFkk dFkf×pr~ lr~] vlr~ vkSj voDrO; & dks Hkh yxk ysuk pkfg,A gs equhUae ! (oLrq&rÙo vusdkUrkRed gksus ds dkj.k) vkids 'kklu esa fdlh izdkj dk fojks/ ugha gSA ;FkksDr u; ds vuqlkj 'ks"k Hkaxksa & dFkf×pr~ voDrO;] The remaining nuances (limbs) of also fit appropriately in the naya scheme: saptabhaôgī It has been established that existence is not contradictory to non-existence and existence as well as non-existence are possible in a single entity. In the same manner, indescribability also, consisting of simultaneous affirmation and negation, has no mutual contradiction. The whole seven-nuance view, a combination of the triad of nuances defined as existence, nonexistence, and indescribability, has no contradictions whatsoever when viewed in light of the doctrine of nonabsolutism (anek ntav da). How is the association of these seemingly contradictory ā ā 40 ĀptamīmāÚsā attributes – existence and non-existence, one and many, eternal and non-eternal, universality and particularity, etc. – possible in a single entity? This is possible when the statement is conditioned by differences of conditions – delimitants or part-aspects. Non-existence in existent things is not contradictory when conditioned by differences of conditions. In the same way, existence and indescribability are not contradictory. Existence does not occur with avoidance of nonexistence, nor does non-existence occur with avoidance of existence. Contradiction would be if existence and nonexistence were to be with one (same) condition. Existence has one condition, and non-existence another. Existence is with respect to own form and non-existence with respect to the form of another. 41 Verse 20 An object (artha) which is either absolutely existent ( – sat, vidhi) or absolutely non-existent (negation – asat, niÈedha) is incapable of performing activity (artha-kriyā); only with the relative presence of both, existence and non-existence, it becomes capable of performing activity. It is not possible for an absolutely existent or absolutely non-existent object to perform activity even on the availability of appropriate extrinsic and intrinsic causes. affirmation ,oa fof/fu"ks/kH;keuofLFkreFkZÑr~ A usfr psUu ;Fkk dk;± cfgjUr#ikf/fHk% AA21AA lkekU;kFkZ & ugha gS & vFkkZr~ mHk;&:i tks oLrq gS (loZFkk vfLrRo&:i ;k loZFkk ukfLrRo&:i ls fu/kZfjr ugha gS) & ogh vFkZ&fØ;k dks djus okyh gksrh gS] vU;Fkk ughaA ,slk u ekuus ij cfgjax vkSj vUrjax dkj.kksa ls tks dk;Z dk fu"iUu gksuk ekuk x;k gS og ugha curkA bl izdkj fof/ vkSj fu"ks/ ds }kjk tks oLrq (vFkZ) vofLFkr Relative existence of both, affirmation and negation, make it possible for an object to perform activity: The activity of an object is called the artha-kriy . The loss of its previous form and emergence of the new form, together, is called the pariõāma. The artha-kriyā is possible only in objects which exhibit both, the general (sāmānya – dravya) as well as particular (viśeÈa – paryāya), attributes. It cannot exist only in dravya or only in paryāya. An object must have both, the general as well as the particular attributes; without dravya there is no paryāya and without paryāya there is no dravya. Without any of these two, the object becomes a non-object (avastu) and hence not a subject of valid knowledge (pramāõa). ā 42 ĀptamīmāÚsā Each individual attribute (dharma) of an entity (dharm ), having innumerable attributes, carries with it a particular meaning. When one attribute is treated as the primary attribute, the other attributes stay in the background as the secondary attributes. ī /esZ /esZ¿U; ,okFkksZ /£e.kks¿uUr/eZ.k% A vfÄRos¿U;rekUrL; 'ks"kkUrkuka rnÄrk AA22AAõ õ lkekU;kFkZ & fy, gq, gksrk gSA vkSj mu /eks± esa ls ,d /eZ ds iz/ku gksus ij 'ks"k /eks± dh izrhfr ml le; xkS.k&:i ls gksrh gSA vuUr&/eZ okys /ehZ dk izR;sd /eZ ,d fHkUu gh iz;kstu dks Each attribute of the entity is different from the other; the point of view determines the primary or secondary nature of the attribute: Objects possess innumerable attributes and may be conceived from as many points of view; i.e., objects truly are subject to allsided knowledge (possible only in omniscience). What is not composed of innumerable attributes, in the sphere of the three times, is also not existent, like a sky-flower. To comprehend the object from one particular standpoint is the scope of naya (the one-sided method of comprehension). Naya comprehends one specific attribute of the object but pramāõa comprehends the object in its fullness. Pramāõa does not make a distinction between substance and its attributes but it grasps the object in its entirety. But naya looks at the object from a particular point of view and gives emphasis to a particular aspect of the object. Both pramāõa and naya are forms of knowledge; pramāõa 43 Verse 22 is sakalade a – comprehensive and absolute, and naya is vikaladeśa – partial and relative. A naya looks at the object from a particular point of view and presents the picture of it in relation to that view; the awareness of other aspects is in the background and not ignored. A naya is neither pramāõa nor apramāõa (not pramāõa). It is a part of pramāõa. A drop of water of the ocean cannot be considered the ocean nor the non-ocean; it is a part of the ocean. Similarly, a soldier is neither an army, nor a non-army; but a part of the army. The same argument goes with naya. A naya is a partial presentation of the nature of the object, while pramāõa is comprehensive in its presentation. A naya does neither give false knowledge nor does it deny the existence of other aspects of knowledge. There are as many naya as there are points of view. ś 4 ĀptamīmāÚsā Those proficient in the scheme of the naya (viewing an object from a particular point of view) should apply the seven-nuancesystem (saptabhaôgī) to other dual attributes like one (eka) and many (aneka). ,dkusdfodYiknkoqÙkj=kkfi ;kst;sr~ A izfØ;ka HkfÄuhesuka u;SuZ;fo'kkjn% AA23AAõ lkekU;kFkZ & tks u;&fuiq.k ( izfØ;k dks vkxs Hkh ,d&vusd vkfn /eZ&;qxyksa esa u; ds vuqlkj ;kstuk djuk pkfg,A u;&fo'kkjn) gSa mudks bl lkr Hkax okyh The seven-nuance system ( should also be applied in case of other duals like one and many: saptabhaôgī) Objects of knowledge exhibit the quality of one (eka) as well as the quality of many (aneka). Oneness (ekatva), being a qualifying attribute (viśeÈaõa) of an entity (dharmī), has invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with manyness (anekatva). Manyness (anekatva), being a qualifying attribute (viśeÈaõa) of the entity (dharmī), has invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with oneness (ekatva). An object can exhibit, in a way, the dual character of oneness (ekatva) as well as manyness (anekatva) when asserted successively in regard to the elements of the quaternion; the same character (oneness as well as manyness), when asserted simultaneously, leads to a proposition that is indescribable (avaktavya) due to the limitation of our expression. The remaining three forms of assertion [oneness (ekatva) and indescribable; manyness (anekatva) and indescribable; and oneness (ekatva), manyness (anekatva), and indescribable)] arise from their own causes 45 Verse 23 depending on the particular state or mode of the object – naya. The naya scheme, applied to a pitcher: the pitcher is, in a way, one (as a substance), and also, in a way, many (as modes). The substance of clay runs through all its modes but the modes keep on changing due to origination and destruction. 46 ĀptamīmāÚsā The doctrine of absolute non-dualism (advaita-ek nta) suffers from contradiction as it denies the duality of factors-of-action (kāraka) and action (kriyā), as ascertained directly by cognition; it is not possible for an object to get produced out of itself. ā v}SrSdkUri{ks¿fi n`"Vks Hksnks fo#è;rs A dkjdk.kka fØ;k;kÜp uSda LoLekr~ iztk;rs AA24AA lkekU;kFkZ & fl1⁄4 (Li"V fn[kkbZ nsus okyk lR;) gS og fojks/ dks izkIr gksrk gSA D;ksafd tks Hkh dksbZ ,d loZFkk vdsyk (vlgk;) gS og Lo;a vius ls mRiUu ugha gks ldrk gSA v}SrSdkUr i{k esa dkjdksa vkSj fØ;kvksa dk Hksn tks izR;{k Fault in the doctrine of absolute non-dualism (advaita-ek nta):ā f}rh; ifjPNsn Section 2 In this verse we come to the Advaita-Ved nta doctrine which holds that Brahma, often described as 'Existence-ThoughtBliss' (sat-cidnanda) is the sole reality, the world being a product of illusion (māyā) or ignorance (avidyā). All different things are manifestations of Brahma; only the one eternally undivided Brahma exists. The doctrine justifies an ultimate non-reality of the world of things (vastu-prapa ca) found in the triple universe as being appearance (pratibhāsa) through the power of illusion (māyā) or ignorance (avidyā). Factors-of-action (kāraka) comprise the doer (kartā), the ā ā ô 47 activity (karma) and the instrument (kara a) etc. Action (kriyā) consists in changes that are termed as coming and going, motion and stillness, origination and destruction, eating and drinking, contraction and expansion etc. Duality between the factors-of-action (kāraka) and the action (kriyā) is seen in everyday experience. This universally observable cognition goes against the doctrine of absolute nondualism (advaita-ekānta). Without the instrumentality of the factors-of-action (kāraka) and the action (kriyā), it is also not possible to account for the production of an absolutely non-dualistic object; it can certainly not get produced by itself. If illusion (māyā) is something 'existent', distinct from Self-Brahma, then reality is established as dual, setting an axe at the root of the Advaita doctrine. If illusion (māyā) is something 'non-existent' but capable of producing effects, there is contradiction within own statement, as in the phrase 'a barren mother'. A woman who gives birth to a child is a mother and barren is the opposite thereof; if mother, how barren? Ācārya AmÃtcandra's commentary on Ācārya Kundakunda's 1Pravacanasāra , explains the sixfold factors-of-action (kāraka) from the empirical as well as the transcendental points of view: Factors-of-action (kāraka) are of six kinds: 1) the doer (kartā), 2) the activity (karma), 3) the instrument (kara a), 4) the bestowal (saÚpradāna), 5) the dislodgement (apādāna), and the substratum (adhikaraõa). Each of these is of two kinds: empirical sixfold factors-of-action (vyavahāra ÈaÇkāraka) and transcendental sixfold factors-of-action õ õ 1. See iaeuksgjyky (fola1969)] JheRdqUndqUnkpk;Zfojfpr% izopulkj%] vè;k; 1] xkFkk 16] ì"B 21&2248 ĀptamīmāÚsā (ni caya ). When the accomplishment of work is through external instrumental causes (nimitta kāraõa) it is the empirical sixfold factors-of-action (vyavahāra È ā ) and when the accomplishment of work is for the self, in the self, through the self as the material cause (upādāna kāraõa), it is the transcendental sixfold factors-of-action (niścaya ÈaÇkāraka). The empirical sixfold factors-of-action (vyavahāra ÈaÇkāraka) is based on what is called as upacāra asadbhūta naya and, therefore, untrue; the transcendental sixfold factors-of-action (niścaya ÈaÇkāraka) is based on the self and, therefore, true. Since every substance (dravya) is independent and is not a cause of either the creation or the destruction of other substances, the empirical sixfold factors-of-action (vyavahāra ÈaÇkāraka) is untrue. And since the transcendental sixfold factors-of-action (niścaya ÈaÇkāraka) accomplishes the work of the self, in the self, through the self, it is true. An illustration of the empirical sixfold factors-of-action (vyavahāra ÈaÇkāraka) can be as under: the independent performer of the activity, the potter, is the doer (kartā); the work that is being performed, the making of the pot, is the activity (karma); the tool used for the performance of the action – the wheel – is the instrument (karaõa); the end-use of the work performed – the storage vessel – is the bestowal (saÚpradāna); the change of mode from one state to the other, from clay to pot, is the dislodgement (apādāna); and the bedrock of activity, the clay, is the substratum (adhikaraõa). In this case, the doer (kartā), the activity (karma), the instrument (karaõa), the bestowal (saÚpradāna), the dislodgement (apādāna), and the substratum (adhikaraõa) are different entities and, therefore, the empirical sixfold factors-of-action (vyavahāra ÈaÇkāraka) is established only from empirical point of view and not true. The transcendental sixfold factors-of-action (niścaya ś ÈaÇkāraka atk raka 49 Verse 24 ÈaÇkāraka) established in its Pure Self (through uddhopayoga) attains omniscience (kevalajðāna) without the help of or reliance on any outside agency (such a soul is appropriately termed selfdependent or svayambhū). Intrinsically possessed of infinite knowledge and energy, the soul, depending on self, performs the activity of attaining its infinite knowledge-character and, therefore, the soul is the doer (kartā). The soul's concentration on its own knowledge-character is the activity; the soul, therefore, is the activity (karma). Through its own knowledgecharacter the soul attains omniscience and, therefore, the soul is the instrument (karaõa). The soul engrossed in pure consciousness imparts pure consciousness to self; the soul, therefore, is the bestowal (saÚpradāna). As the soul gets established in its pure nature at the same time destruction of impure subsidential knowledge etc. takes place and, therefore, the soul is the dislodgement (apādāna). The attributes of infinite knowledge and energy are manifested in the soul itself; the soul, therefore, is the substratum (adhikaraõa). This way, from the transcendental point of view, the soul itself, without the help of others, is the sixfold factors-of-action (niścaya ÈaÇkāraka) in the attainment of omniscience through pure concentration (śuddhopayoga). takes place in the self and, therefore, true. The soul ś 50 ĀptamīmāÚsā (If this doctrine of absolute non-dualism be accepted –) There will be no duality of activities (karma) – virtuous (śubha) and wicked (aśubha), of fruits of activities (phala) – merit (puõya) and demerit (pāpa), of abodes of existence (loka) – this world (ihaloka) and the other world (paraloka), of knowledge (vidyā) and ignorance (avidyā), and of bondage (bandha) and liberation (mokÈa). (advaita-ekānta) deZ}Sra iQy}Sra yksd}Sra p uks Hkosr~ A fo|k¿fo|k};a u L;kñ cU/eks{k};a rFkk AA25AA lkekU;kFkZ & iq.;&:i vkSj iki&:i iQy] yksd&}Sr & bgyksd vkSj ijyksd ugha curs gSaA blh rjg fo|k vkSj vfo|k dk }Sr rFkk cU/ vkSj eks{k dk }Sr Hkh fl1⁄4 ugha gksrs gSaA v}Sr ,dkUr esa deZ&}Sr & 'kqHk vkSj v'kqHk deZ] iQy&}Sr & Absolute non-dualism cannot explain dualities like virtuous and wicked activities, and their fruits like merit and demerit: The duals which are mentioned in the above verse negate the doctrine of absolute non-dualism. The doctrine of non-dualism itself expounds dualism as in the two statements, 'All this is the primeval Person', and 'All this surely in truth is Brahman'. So, even the scripture does not establish non-dualism. Non acceptance of one component of any of these duals entails the negation of the other component too since one cannot exist without the other. An entity defined as a non-dual Person in the doctrine is not within the range of demonstration. (advaita) 51 Verse 25 If we undertake to establish this doctrine of absolute nondualism (advaita-ekānta) with the help of the middle term [also called reason (sādhana) or mark (li ga)], there is bound to be duality because the middle term (hetu) will have a predicate – the major term (sādhya or liôgī). If it be established without the help of the middle term (hetu) by mere speech, in that case, can the contrary view (absolute dualism) too not be established by mere speech? (hetu) ô gsrksj}Srflf1⁄4'psñ }Sra L;k1⁄4srqlkè;;ks% A gsrquk psf}uk flf1⁄4}SZra okÄ~ek=krks u fde~ AA26AA lkekU;kFkZ & ;fn dgk tk, fd gsrq (lk/u) vkSj lkè; ds lñHkko ls }Sr dh flf1⁄4 dk izlax vkrk gSA vkSj ;fn gsrq ds fcuk v}Sr dh flf1⁄4 dh tkrh gS rks D;k opuek=k ls }Sr dh Hkh flf1⁄4 ugha gks ldsxh\ v}Sr dh flf1⁄4 gsrq ds }kjk dh tkrh gS rks There is obvious contradiction if non-dualism is established with the help of a middle term (hetu): The minor term, locus or abode (pak a) is that with which the reason or middle term (hetu) is connected, and whose connection with the major term (sādhya) is to be proved. The minor term (pakÈa) is related to the major term (sādhya) through their common relation to the middle term (hetu). In a proposition (pratijðā) the subject is the minor term (pakÈa), and the predicate the major term (sādhya or liôgī). In an inference for the sake of others, the minor term (pakÈa), etc., must be explicitly set forth. The following is an inference for the sake of others: 1. This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term). – È 52 ĀptamīmāÚsā pratijðā be proved. 2. Because it is full of smoke (middle term). – hetu : statement of reason. 3. Whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, as a kitchen. – dÃÈÇānta or udāharaõa : statement of a general rule supported by an example. 4. So is this hill full of smoke. upanaya : application of the rule to this case. 5. Therefore the hill is full of fire. nigamana : conclusion. The hetu or the reason consists in the statement of the mark or the sign (liôga) which being present in the subject or the minor term (pakÈa) suggests that the latter possesses a certain property predicated of it. It is the assertion of the middle term (hetu) by which the relation or not of the minor term (pakÈa) to the major term (sādhya) is known. While the pratijðā is a proposition of two terms, the hetu is a one-term proposition. There is inseparable connection (vyāpti) between the major term (sādhya) and the middle term (hetu). In other words, there is inseparable presence of one thing in another, e.g., no smoke without fire. Absolute non-dualism loses its essential characteristic the instant a middle term is employed to establish it as there is inseparable connection between the major term (sādhya) and the middle term (hetu). If from the middle term (hetu) there should be establishment of nonduality, there would be duality of the middle and major terms. If non-duality is established without the middle term why not establish it by mere speech? And, if established by mere speech, without the middle term, there is no problem in establishing its opposite too, i.e., dualism, likewise. : proposition; statement of that which is to 53 Verse 26 As there can be no non-reason (ahetu) without the presence of a middle term or reason (hetu), similarly there can be no nondualism (advaita) without the presence of dualism (dvaita). The denial of a word-denoted-entity (saÚjðī) is nowhere seen without the real existence of the thing that is used for denial. v}Sra u fouk }Srkngsrqfjo gsrquk A lafKu% izfr"ks/ks u izfr"ksè;kn`rs Dofpr~ AA27AA lkekU;kFkZ & }Sr ds fcuk v}Sr ugha gks ldrk gSA dgha Hkh laKh (ukeokys) dk izfr"ks/ (fu"ks/) izfr"ksè; ds fcuk ugha curk gSA ftl izdkj ls gsrq ds fcuk vgsrq ugha gksrk gS mlh izdkj ls Non-dualism is inseparably connected (avin bh v ) with dualism:ā ā ī The existence of a reason (hetu) is necessarily accompanied by the existence of a non-reason (ahetu). Smoke is a reason (hetu) for establishing the existence of fire but a non-reason (ahetu) for establishing the existence of water. Also, for establishing the existence of fire, smoke is a reason (hetu) and water is a non-reason (ahetu). The word dualism (dvaita), which is countered or denied by non-dualism (advaita), must have real connotation to be able to fit the task. Even when we express non-existence with the phrase 'sky-flower' it clearly connotes the existence of the entity 'flower'. 54 ĀptamīmāÚsā If one maintains that objects are possessed of the character 'absolute separateness' (p thaktva-ek nta) – declaring every object as absolutely different from all other – the question arises as to whether, in light of the character of absolute separateness, the substance and its qualities are considered non-separate or separate. If these be held as non-separate then the character of absolute separateness gets repudiated. If these be held as separate then too the character of absolute separateness cannot be maintained since such so-called 'separate' qualities are seen to reside in many objects making them 'non-separate'. Ã ā ìFkDRoSdkUri{ks¿fi ìFkDRoknìFkd~ rq rkS A ìFkDRos u ìFkDRoa L;knusdLFkks álkS xq.k% AA28AA lkekU;kFkZ & ekuuk) iz'u mBrk gS fd D;k  aeO;* vkSj  xq.k* ìFkd~ gSa vFkok vìFkd~A ;fn vìFkd~ gSa rks ìFkDRo dk ,dkUr gh ugha jgkA vkSj ;fn ìFkd~ gSa rks Hkh ìFkDRo uke dk xq.k ugha curk gS D;ksafd ^xq.k* ,d gksrs gq, Hkh vusd inkFkks± esa fLFkr ekuk x;k gS vkSj rc ìFkd~Hkwr inkFkZ ,d nwljs ls vìFkd~ gks tk;saxsA ìFkDRoSdkUr i{k esa (oLrq&rÙo dks ,d nwljs ls loZFkk fHkUu The doctrine of 'absolute separateness' is faulted: 5 Verse 28 If the reality of oneness (ekatva) – different units of a substance forming a composite – is absolutely denied (and thus subscribing to the doctrine of absolute separateness) then authentic phenomena like series of successive events (santāna), aggregate of qualities in a single object (samudāya), similarity between two objects (sādharmya), and birth following death or transmigration (pretyabhāva), would become untenable. larku% leqnk;'p lk/E;± p fujadq'k% A izsR;Hkko'p rRlo± u L;knsdRofuÉos AA29AA lkekU;kFkZ & tks lUrku] leqnk;] lk/E;Z vkSj izsR;Hkko fujadqq'k gSa (fuckZ/&:i ls ekus tkrs gSa) mu lc dk Hkh vHkko gks tk;sxkA ,dRo ds vHkko esa (;fn ,dRo dk loZFkk yksi fd;k tk,) If oneness (ekatva) is denied absolutely, phenomena like series of successive events (santāna) become untenable: The Buddhists do not accept oneness (ekatva) – they subscribe to the doctrine of momentariness (kÈaõikatva) – but believe in the four phenomena mentioned in the verse. The term 'series of successive events' (santãna) is used by the Buddhist maintainers of momentariness to account for the continuity constituting the substance. However, just as the tree has no existence without the root, the above mentioned four phenomena cannot exist without accepting the reality of oneness (ekatva). 56 ĀptamīmāÚsā If the knowledge or cognition (j na) be considered absolutely different, even in terms of its nature of 'being' (sat), from the object of knowledge (jðeya) then both, the knowledge (jðāna) and the object of knowledge (jðeya) turn out to be 'non-beings' (asat); the knowledge (jðāna) becomes a 'non-being' being different from the object of knowledge (jðeya) which is accepted to be a 'being' (sat), and without the instrument of knowledge (jðāna) the object of knowledge (jðeya) too becomes a 'non-being' (asat). O Lord ! In the absence of knowledge (jðāna) how can the existence of any external or internal objects of knowledge (jðeya) be proved by those opposed to your views? ðā lnkReuk p fHkUua psTKkua Ks;kñ f}/k¿I;lr~ A KkukHkkos dFka Ks;a cfgjUr'p rs f}"kke~ AA30AA lkekU;kFkZ & (loZFkk lr~&Lo:i dh vis{kk ls Hkh Ks; ls ìFkd~ ekuk tk, rks Kku vkSj Ks; nksuksa vlr~ gks tk;saxs vFkkZr~ nksuksa dk gh vHkko Bgjrk gSA gs Hkxou~ ! vkils }s"k djus okyksa ds ;gk¡ Kku ds vlr~ gksus ij (Kku ds vHkko esa) cfgjax vkSj vUrjax fdlh Hkh Ks; dk vfLrRo dSls cu ldrk gS\ ìFkDRoSdkUr dks ekudj &) ;fn Kku dks Fault in considering the knowledge (j na) as absolutely different from the object of knowledge (jðeya): ðā 57 Verse 30 In the doctrine of others, words can describe only the general (s m nya) attributes of a substance and not the specific attributes. [In the absence of the specific (viÈeśa) attributes, the general (sāmānya) attributes too become nonentity; therefore, words, which can describe only the nonentity, too become nonentity.] Upon accepting the general (sāmānya) attributes as nonentity, all words become false. ā ā (viśeÈa) lkekU;kFkkZ fxjks¿U;s"kka fo'ks"kks ukfHkyI;rs A lkekU;kHkkorLrs"kka è"kSo ldyk fxj% AA31AA lkekU;kFkZ & (mudh ekU;rkuqlkj) 'kCnksa ds }kjk fo'ks"k dk dFku ugha curk gSA fo'ks"k ds vHkko esa lkekU; dk Hkh vfLrRo ugha curk gS vkSj lkekU; ds feF;k gksus ls lkekU;&izfriknd leLr opu vlR; gh Bgjrs gSaA dqN yksxksa ds er esa 'kCn lkekU; dk dFku djrs gSa D;ksafd Fault in considering words as capable of describing only the general (s m nya) attributes of a substance:ā ā Just as the two mutually supportive causes, the substantial cause (upādāna kartā) and the instrumental cause (nimitta kartā), result in the accomplishment of the desired objective, in the same way, two kinds of attributes in a substance – general (sāmānya) and specific (viśeÈa) – ascertain its particular characteristic (naya) depending on what is kept as the primary consideration for the moment while keeping the other attributes in the background, not negating their existence in any way. All objects have two kinds of qualities – the general (sāmānya), and the specific (viśeÈa). The general qualities 58 ĀptamīmāÚsā express the genus (jāti) or the general attributes, and the specific qualities describe the constantly changing conditions or modes. In a hundred pitchers, the general quality is their jar-ness, and the specific quality is their individual size, shape or mark. Dravya refers to a general rule or conformity. That which has the dravya as the object is the general standpoint (dravyārthika naya). Paryāya means particular, an exception or exclusion. That which has the paryāya as the object is the standpoint of modifications (paryāyārthika naya). Whatever condition or form a substance takes, that condition or form is called a mode. Modes partake of the nature of substance, and are not found without the substance. 59 Verse 31 (Upon realization of the flaws of the two views individually –) The enemies of your doctrine of sy dv da can also not maintain that the two views – viz. 'absolute non-dualism' (advaita-ekānta) and 'absolute separateness' (pÃthaktva-ekānta) – describe one and the same phenomenon; it is impossible since the two views are self-contradictory (like 'the child of a barren woman'). If (upon realization of the flaw of this position) they proclaim that the phenomenon is absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then, having described reality as 'indescribable', it becomes describable and their stand gets refuted (only a non-reality can be said to be indescribable). (Syādvāda characterizes a phenomenon as 'indescribable' only in the sense of inexpressibility of the state of simultaneous affirmation and denial of the proposition; the phenomenon is a reality but due to the limitation of the language it cannot be expressed.) ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA32AA lkekU;kFkZ & (v}Sr&,dkUr vkSj ìFkDRo&,dkUr nksuksa esa vyx&vyx nks"k ns[kdj) tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ v}Sr vkSj ìFkDRo nksuksa dk mHk;SdkRE; (,dkUr) ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA Fault in accepting both, absolute 'non-dualism' (advaita-ek nta) and absolute 'separateness' (pÃthaktva-ekānta), without mutual dependence: ā 60 ĀptamīmāÚsā Considered independent of each other, the two views of separateness ( ) and non-dualism or oneness (ekatva) become fictitious or non-reality. [Separateness (pÃthaktva) becomes a non-reality without it being considered in relation to non-dualism (ekatva), and non-dualism becomes a non-reality without it being considered in relation to separateness (pÃthaktva)]. In fact, an object is characterized by oneness as well as separateness just as a single reason (sādhana, hetu) is characterized by one as well as many attributes. pÃthaktva vuis{ks ìFkDRoSD;s áoLrq };gsrqr% A rnsoSD;a ìFkDRoa p LoHksnS% lk/ua ;Fkk AA33AA lkekU;kFkZ & (ìFkDRo voLrq gS ,dRo&fujis{k gksus ij_ ,dRo voLrq gS ìFkDRo&fujis{k gksus ij)A ,dRo vkSj ìFkDRo lkis{k&:i esa fojks/ ds u gksus ls mlh izdkj oLrq&rÙo dks izkIr gSa tSls fd lk/u (gsrq) ,d gksus ij Hkh vius Hksnksa ds }kjk vusd Hkh gSA ijLij fujis{k ìFkDRo vkSj ,dRo nksuksa gsrq}; ls voLrq gSa With mutual dependence, separateness ( ) and nondualism or oneness (ekatva), become reality: pÃthaktva The reason or middle term (s dhana, hetu) is defined as that which cannot exist except in connection with that which is to be proved, the major term (sādhya). Thus, it has invariable togetherness (avinābhāva) with the major term (sādhya). But it has other attributes too. Consider this: "This hill (minor term, locus or abode – pakÈa) is full of fire (major term – sādhya) because it is full of smoke (middle term or reason – sādhana or hetu), as in the kitchen (homogeneous example – ā 61 Verse 33 s pak a)". Here smoke (hetu) exists in relation to the hill – pakÈa-dharmatva – and it also exists in relation to the kitchen – sapakÈa-sattva. Consider another example where the absence of the major term (sādhya) is established by the absence of the middle term (hetu): "This hill (minor term, locus or abode – pakÈa) has no fire (major term – sādhya) because it has no smoke (middle term or reason – sādhana or hetu), as in the lake (heterogeneous example – vipakÈa)". Here smoke (hetu) does not exist in relation to the lake (vipakÈa-vyāvÃtti). According to Buddhist logicians, the true hetu should possess the following three characteristics: i) it should be present in the pakÈa, ii) it should also exist in the sapakÈa, and iii) it should not be found in the vipakÈa. The pakÈa has already been explained to mean the sādhya and its abode, the dharmī; but sapakÈa is the place where the sādhana and sādhya are known to abide in some already familiar instance, while vipakÈa embraces all other places where the very possibility of the existence of the sādhya is counter-indicated. Illustration: This hill (pakÈa) is full of fire, because it is full of smoke; Whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, as a kitchen (sapakÈa); Whatever is not full of fire is also not full of smoke, as a pond (vipakÈa). Excerpted from: Jain, Champat Rai (1916), "Nyāya – The Science of Thought", p. 50. a È 62 ĀptamīmāÚsā With reference to the attribute of universal character of 'being or existence' (sat, astitva) all substances exhibit oneness or unity while with reference to their specific root-substance etc. [substance (dravya), place (kÈetra), time (kāla) and manifestation (bhāva)] these exhibit separateness or distinction; this is just as a specific reason (sādhana, hetu) is one when it is employed in entirety and many when its divisions are emphasized by the speaker. lRlkekU;kÙkq loSZD;a ìFkXaeO;kfnHksnr% A HksnkHksnfoo{kk;kelk/kj.kgsrqor~ AA34AA lkekU;kFkZ & ,d gSa vkSj nzO; vkfn ds Hksn ls vusd (ìFkd~) gSaA tSls vlk/kj.k gsrq Hksn dh foo{kk ls vusd&:i vkSj vHksn dh foo{kk ls ,d&:i gksrk gS] mlh izdkj lc inkFkks± esa Hksn dh foo{kk ls ìFkDRo vkSj vHksn dh foo{kk ls ,dRo lq?kfVr gSA lr~&vfLrRo esa lekurk gksus dh vis{kk ls lc thokfn inkFkZ Flawless establishment of separateness as well as non-dualism or oneness (ekatva) in an entity: (pÃthaktva) Reason (s dhana, hetu) is one but inference (anumāna) it can be used in two ways: as an agent (kāraka – that from which a thing is made, like clay from which a pitcher is made), or as a source of knowledge (jðāpaka – that which makes a thing known, like smoke leading to the knowledge of fire). Reason (hetu) can also be classified as exhibiting pakÈa-dharmatva, sapakÈa-sattva or vipakÈavyāvÃtti depending on the intention of the speaker (see explanatory note – Verse 33). ā when employed in an 63 Verse 34 The object of knowledge possesses infinite attributes and the speaker expresses a distinguishing attribute while choosing not to express other attributes; he does not speak of an attribute that is non-existent (like kharavi a the 'horns of a hare', or gaganakusuma – the 'sky-flower'). Èāõ foo{kk pkfoo{kk p fo'ks";s¿uUr/£ef.k A lrks fo'ks"k.kL;k=k uklrLrSLrn£FkfHk% AA35AA lkekU;kFkZ & esa fo|eku (lr~) fo'ks"k.k dh gh foo{kk vkSj vfoo{kk djrs gSa] vfo|eku (vlr~) dh ughaA ml fo'ks"k.k dk vFkhZ foo{kk djrk gS vkSj vuFkhZ vfoo{kkA loZFkk vlr~ rks x/s ds lhax ([kjfo"kk.k) ;k xxudqlqe ds leku vFkZ&fØ;k ls 'kwU;] voLrq gksrk gSA foo{kk vkSj vfoo{kk djus okys O;fDr vuUr /eZ okyh oLrq Only the 'existent' (sat) forms the subject of expression or no-expression: 64 ĀptamīmāÚsā Being objects of valid knowledge (pram a) both, unity (abheda, ekatva, advaita) and diversity (bheda, pÃthaktva), in a single substance are real, and not imaginary. Depending on the speaker's intention, these become primary or secondary, without there being any conflict in their coexistence in the same substance. āõ izek.kxkspjkS lUrkS HksnkHksnkS u laòrh A rkosd=kk¿fo#1⁄4kS rs xq.keq[;foo{k;k AA36AA lkekU;kFkZ & v}Sr) nksuksa izek.k ds fo"k; gksus ls okLrfod (ijekFkZHkwr) gSa] laòfr ds fo"k; (dkYifud vFkok mipkjek=k) ughaA ;s nksuksa xkS.k vkSj iz/ku dh foo{kk dks fy, ,d gh oLrq esa vfojks/ :Ik ls jgrs gSaA gs Hkxou~ ! vkids er esa Hksn (ìFkDRo) vkSj vHksn (,dRo] Both can coexist in a single substance: unity (abheda, ekatva) and diversity (bheda, pÃthaktva) 65 Verse

If the objects of knowledge are supposed to be absolutely permanent (nityatva-ek nta) then there cannot be any modifications in them; when already there is the absence of the agent (kāraka) for a modification how can one have the possibility of a valid source of knowledge (pramāõa) and its fruit (pramāõa-phala i.e., correct notion – pramiti)? ā fuR;RoSdkUri{ks¿fi fofØ;k uksii|rs A izkxso dkjdkHkko% Do izek.ka Do rRiQye~ AA37AA lkekU;kFkZ & (;fn ;g ekuk tk, fd inkFkZ loZFkk fuR; gS rks &) fuR;RoSdkUr i{k esa fofØ;k dh mRifÙk ugha gks ldrh gSA tc igys gh dkjd dk vHkko gS (voLFkk u cnys rks dkjdksa dk lñHkko curk gh ugha gS) rc izek.k vkSj izek.k dk iQy (izfefr) ;s nksuksa dgk¡ cu ldrs gSa\ Fault in accepting the objects of knowledge as absolutely permanent (nityatva-ek nta):ā r`rh; ifjPNsn Section 3 Only an object which has general (s m nya – dravya) as well as particular (viśeÈa – paryāya) attributes can be the subject of knowledge. The general (dravya) without its modification (paryāya) and modification (paryāya) without its general (dravya) cannot be the subject of valid knowledge; only their combination can be the subject of valid knowledge. The conception of pramā or valid knowledge implies three ā ā 67 necessary factors, namely the subject of knowledge (pram t ), the object of knowledge (prameya) and the method of knowledge (pramāõa). The subject (pramātā) and the object (prameya) are strictly correlative factors involved in all knowledge. They are distinguishable, no doubt, as the knower and the known, but not separable in any act of knowledge. All true knowledge must be connected with some method of knowledge. In Western philosophy it is customary to analyze the knowledge-relation into the three factors of subject, object and process of knowledge. These correspond respectively to pramātā, prameya and pramā in Indian philosophy. What is the fruit of pramāõa – pramāõa-phala or pramiti? The aim of pramāõa is to make the object of knowledge clear. It is to illuminate the object. Most importantly, pramāõa removes ignorance and enables one to make distinction between what is true and what is false and between what needs to be accepted and what needs to be discarded. The Omniscient, however, who enjoys infinite knowledge and bliss, has complete detachment for the worldly objects of knowledge. ā ā 68 ĀptamīmāÚsā [It is held (by the S khya system) that although unmanifest (avyakta) causes (k ra a) – source of knowledge and agent (kāraka) – are absolutely permanent but the manifest (vyakta) effects (kārya) – like the Great or Intellect (Mahat or Buddhi) and its consequence the I-ness or Ego (AhaÚkāra) – are non-permanent and, therefore, transformation is possible –] It is held that just as sense-organs reveal an object, manifest (vyakta) objects are revealed by the source of knowledge (pramāõa) and the agent (kāraka). But when both, the source of knowledge (pramāõa) and the agent (kāraka), considered absolutely permanent, are employed to make a non-manifest (avyakta) into a manifest (vyakta), what kind of modification could be predicated? O Lord ! There is no possibility of any modification taking place outside your doctrine of manifold points of view. Note: In absolute permanence, manifestation of any kind is not possible; there must be some change of mode to warrant manifestation. āÚ ā õ (pramāõa) izek.kdkjdSO;ZDra O;Dra psfnfUae;kFkZor~ A rs p fuR;s fodk;±  d lk/ksLrs 'kklukñcfg% AA38AA lkekU;kFkZ & (lka[;er okfn;ksa ds er esa &) vfHkO;Dr gksrk gS mlh izdkj ;fn izek.k vkSj dkjdksa ds }kjk vO;Dr dks O;Dr gqvk cryk;k tkrk gS] vkSj tc izek.k vkSj dkjd nksuksa fuR; ekus x, gSa rc muds }kjk fofØ;k dSls cu ldrh gS\ vkids vusdkUr 'kklu ls ckgj (fuR;Ro ds ,dkUr 'kklu esa) dksbZ Hkh fofØ;k ughsa gks ldrh gSA tSls fd bfUnz;ksa ds }kjk vFkZ No modification is possible if the source of knowledge (pram a) and the agent (kāraka) are considered absolutely permanent: āõ 69 Verse 38 The main tenets of the 1. Dualism of (a) entirely inactive Spirit (PuruÈa) or Intelligence (Cit) and (b) a material, non-intelligent nature (PrakÃti) of triple constitution, from which emerges, and into which is dissolved, the entire universe of things experienced. 2. An evolution of PrakÃti in the presence of Spirit by stages of which the first is an instrument of determinate awareness (Buddhi, Reason), and the second a simultaneous origination of Egoity (AhaÚkāra, principle of individuality) and of Sense-faculties. Thence come the essences of the Five Elements and through their composition the gross material elements and the general physical universe. 3. An unreal connection of Spirit and PrakÃti and its evolutes in consequence of a failure on the part of Spirit to realize his actual detachment and of a false semblance of intelligence in the mechanism of PrakÃti through reflection from the light of Spirit. 4. Liberation of Spirit from the unreal connection and bondage when, having seen the work of PrakÃti through 1and through, he realizes his own absolute aloofness. The Reals (tattvas) are 25 as follows: the unmanifested (avyakta, PrakÃti in its unevolved quiescence); and the manifested (vyakta) – 24-fold by reason of the distinction of the 'great principle' (Mahat, Buddhi), ego (AhaÚkāra), the 5 pure principles (śabda, sparśa, rūpa, rasa, gandha), the 11 senseorgans including mind, the 5 gross elements (ākāśa, vāyu, teja, jala, pÃthvī), and the Spirit of the form of intelligence. SāÚkhya system are: 1. See Thomas, F.W. (1968), "The Flower-Spray of the Quodammodo Doctrine – Śrī MalliÈeõa Surī's Syādvāda-Maôjarī", p. 93-94. 70 ĀptamīmāÚsā In the system, it is the function of the intellect (buddhiv tti) that is regarded as or the specific cause of true knowledge. The self knows an object through a mental modification that corresponds to the impression produced in the sense-organ by the object in question. The object having impressed its form on the sense organ, the mind presents it to the self through a corresponding modification of itself. Hence the mental function is pramāõa or the source of our knowledge of the object. I or Ego (AhaÚkāra), which is the ground of our personal identity, merely means further modification of the subtle Buddhi which itself is a modification of acetana PrakÃti. PrakÃti is otherwise called avyakta or the unmanifest or Pradhāna or the primary basis of existence. The intelligent PuruÈa is inactive by nature and hence is incapable of being the architect of his own destiny. Acetana – the unenlightened – PrakÃti has all activity and force in itself and is quite blind by nature. The PuruÈa is intelligent but inert and PrakÃti is all activity but blind. The union of the two – the 1blind and the cripple – leads to living. Human volition and consequent human conduct are said to be the effects of acetana PrakÃti; virtue and vice are alien to the PuruÈa. These are associated with the non-spiritual PrakÃti and hence these do not affect the soul and yet with a strange inconsistency it is the fate of PuruÈa to enjoy the fruits – pleasurable and painful – of the karmas directly and immediately due to the activity of PrakÃti. Why it is the fate of PuruÈa that he should vicariously suffer the consequences of an alien being in life is entirely unexplained. As per the SāÚkhya ontology, PuruÈa being ever free can SāÚkhya Ã pramāõa 1. See Prof. A. Chakravarti (2008), "Ācārya Kundakunda's Samayasāra", Introduction, p. 106. 71 Verse 38 1. See Upadhye A.N. (1935), "Śrī Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasāra – A Pro-canonical Text of the Jainas", Introduction, p. XLVIII. never be bound; it is the that is bound and liberated. The question can be raised, if there is no bondage why talk of liberation; and if there is no real connection between PuruÈa and PrakÃti, how the false conception of such connection can rise? It is these points such as PrakÃti does everything and PuruÈa is neutral without doing anything, that are attacked. The Jaina position is that the soul or spirit is the agent of various bh va or psychic states whereby there is the influx of karmas leading to further bondage; when the karmas are destroyed, with their causes rooted out and the existing stock evaporated, the soul attains its natural purity constituted of 1eternal bliss and omniscience. PrakÃti ā 72 ĀptamīmāÚsā If the effect (k rya) be considered as having eternal existence (sat), like the intelligent PuruÈa of the SāÚkhya philosophy, it cannot be a produced entity. And to imagine the process of transformation in an entity which cannot be produced goes against the doctrine of 'eternal existence'. ā ;fn lRloZFkk dk;± iqaoUuksRiÙkqegZfr A ifj.kkeizDy`fIr'p fuR;RoSdkUrckf/uh AA39AA lkekU;kFkZ & mldh mRifÙk ugha gks ldrh gSA vkSj mRifÙk u ekudj dk;Z esa ifj.kke dh dYiuk djuk fuR;RoSdkUr dh ck/d gSA ;fn dk;Z dks loZFkk lr~ ekuk tk, rks pSrU; iq#"k ds leku When the effect (k rya) has eternal existence (sat), the idea of a produced entity is untenable: ā 73 Verse 39 O Lord ! Those who do not accept the superiority of your leadership and believe in absolute permanence of objects are incapable of explaining the phenomena of acts involving merit (pu ya) and demerit (p pa), of birth following death (pretyabhāva), of fruits of activities (phala), of bondage (bandha), and liberation (mokÈa). õ ā iq.;ikifØ;k u L;kr~ izsR;Hkko% iQya dqr% A cU/eks{kkS p rs"kka u ;s"kka Roa ukfl uk;d% AA40AA lkekU;kFkZ & fuR;RoSdkUr&okfn;ksa ds er esa iq.;&iki dh fØ;k ugha curh gS] vkSj (fØ;k ds vHkko esa) izsR;Hkko (ijyksd&xeu)] lq[k&nq%[k&:i fØ;k dk iQy] cU/ rFkk eks{k Hkh ugha curs gSaA gs Hkxou~ ! ftuds vki uk;d ugha gS] mu Phenomena involving merit (pu ya) and demerit (p pa) etc. cannot be explained in the doctrine of absolute permanence (nityatva-ekānta): õ ā 74 ĀptamīmāÚsā (On the other hand –) When viewed from the point of view of 'absolute momentariness' (kÈaõika-ekānta) then also it is impossible to explain phenomena like birth following death (pretyabhāva). [Since the soul, according to this view, is characterized by momentariness, therefore, memory (smÃti) and recognition (pratyabhijðāna) etc. are not possible.] In the absence of the sources of knowledge, like recognition (pratyabhijðāna), the production of an effect (kārya) is not possible and consequently how can the fruit (phala) of that effect be imagined? {kf.kdSdkUri{ks¿fi izsR;Hkkok|laHko% A izR;fHkKk|HkkokUu dk;kZjEHk% dqr% iQye~ AA41AA lkekU;kFkZ & ( }kjk izfrikfnr vfuR;Ro&:i ,dkUr) dk i{k fy;k tk, rks mlesa Hkh izsR;Hkkokfnd laHko ugha gSaA izR;fHkKkukfn tSls Kkuksa dk vHkko gksus ls dk;Z dk vkjEHk laHko ugha gS vkSj tc dk;Z dk vkjEHk gh ugha rc mldk iQy dSls laHko gks ldrk gS\ fuR;RoSdkUr esa nks"k dks tkudj) ;fn {kf.kdSdkUr (ckS1⁄4ksa Fault in the doctrine of 'absolute momentariness' (k a ikaekānta): È õ The Buddhists hold the self to be merely a succession of moments of awareness; and not like a single thread running through a collection of pearl drops, one permeating them all. On their view the moment of cognition whereby the carrying out of good or carrying out of evil has been effected, has not, because it perishes without residue, the enjoyment of the fruit thereof; and that which has the enjoyment of the fruit was not 75 Verse 41 the doer of that deed. Thus on the part of the former moment of cognition there is 'loss of deed', because it does not experience the fruit of the deed done by itself, and on the part of the latter moment of cognition there is 'enjoyment of a deed not done', because of enjoyment of fruit of deed not done by itself, but by 1another. In regard to an object experienced by a prior awareness, a memory on the part of later awareness is not possible because they are other than it; like awareness on the part of another series. For a thing seen by one is not remembered by another; otherwise a thing seen by one person would be remembered by all. And, if there is no recollection, whence in the world comes the begetting of recognition? Recognition (pratyabhijðāna) arises from both recollection and (original) experience; it is the valid cognition that we get through the synthesis of pratyakÈa and smaraõa (memory). For the maintainers of momentary destruction, memory does not fit in. 1. See Thomas, F.W. (1968), "The Flower-Spray of the Quodammodo Doctrine – Śrī MalliÈeõa Surī's Syādvāda-Maôjarī", p. 119. 76 ĀptamīmāÚsā If the effect (k rya) be considered absolutely non-existent (asat) then it can never be produced just as it is an impossibility to produce the 'sky-flower' (ākāśapuÈpa or gaganakusuma). If production of the non-existent (asat) be accepted, the rule of the availability of a substantial cause (upādāna kartā) for the accomplishment of an effect (kārya) cannot be applied with confidence. ā ;|lRloZFkk dk;± rUektfu [kiq"ior~ A eksiknkufu;keks¿HkwUek¿¿'okl% dk;ZtUefu AA42AA lkekU;kFkZ & mldh mRifÙk ugha gks ldrhA ;fn vlr~ dk Hkh mRikn ekuk tk, rks dk;Z dh mRifÙk esa miknku dkj.k dk dksbZ fu;e ughsa jgrk vkSj u gh dksbZ fo'okl cuk jg ldrk gSA ;fn dk;Z dks loZFkk vlr~ ekuk tk, rks vkdk'kiq"i dh rjg When the effect (k rya) is considered absolutely non-existent (asat), the idea of a produced entity is untenable: ā Kundakunda, following the tradition of Jaina metaphysics, speaks of two different causes, up d na k ra a and nimitta kāraõa – material cause and instrumental cause. For example, clay is the material out of which the jar is made. In this case the material out of which the thing is made is the upādāna kāraõa. For transforming the clay into the jar you require the operating agent, the potter, the potter's wheel on which the clay is moulded, and the stick with which he turns the wheel and so on. All these come under the nimitta kāraõa or the instrumental cause. This distinction is considered very important in Jaina metaphysics. The upādāna kāraõa or the ā ā ā õ 7 Verse 42 material cause must be identical with its effect. There can be no difference in nature and attributes between the material cause and its effect. From clay we can only obtain a mud-pot. 1Out of gold you can only obtain a gold ornament. The relation between the material cause and its effect is that wherever the cause is present the effect would be present, and wherever the effect would be present the cause must have been present. Again, negatively, if the cause is absent the effect must also be absent and conversely if the effect is absent the cause must also be absent. 1. See Prof. A. Chakravarti (2008), "Ācārya Kundakunda's Samayasāra", Introduction, p. 171. Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra: ckásrjksikf/lexzrs;a dk;sZ"kq rs aeO;xr% LoHkko% A uSokU;Fkk eks{kfof/'p iqalka rsukfHkoU|LRoèf"kcqZ/kuke~ AA (12-5-60) ā ā ā Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra", p. 83-84. The accomplishment of a task (k rya – the making of a pitcher, for example) depends on the simultaneous availability of the internal (up d na – substantial) and the external (nimitta – auxiliary) causes; such is the nature of the substance (dravya)*. In no other way can liberation be achieved and, therefore, the learned men worship you, O Adept Sage! *To give a familiar example, when a potter proceeds with the task (kārya) of making a pitcher out of clay, the potter is the external or instrumental cause (nimitta kartā) and the clay is the internal or substantial cause (upādāna 78 ĀptamīmāÚsā kartā). The task necessarily means the destruction of clay in its original form but the inherent qualities of clay still remain in the pitcher. There is the origination (utpāda) of the new form of clay, the disappearance (vyaya) of its old form, and still the existence (being or sat) of the substance itself continues (dhrauvya). In other words, existence is accompanied by origination (utpāda), disappearance (vyaya), and permanence (dhrauvya). As there is no destruction of the inherent nature of clay, it is lasting. Permanence is the existence of the past nature in the present. From a particular point of view, the indestructibility of the essential nature of the substance is determined as its permanence. Qualities reside permanently in the substance but the modes change. Modes like the pitcher are not permanently associated with clay but the qualities reside permanently. So, utpāda, vyaya and dhrauvya cannot be said to be non-existent like 'a flower in the sky'. 79 Verse 42 In the doctrine of 'absolute momentariness' a logical connection (agreement in association – anvaya) between two entities cannot be established and, therefore, relationship of cause (kāraõa) and effect (kārya) – hetu-phala-bhāva etc. – is not possible. The cause remains utterly distinct from the effect as there is no commonality between entities belonging to different series of successive events (santāna). Moreover, (if each event is really momentary and perishes utterly, as the Buddhists assert) there is no existence of a 'series' apart from the individual elements that are believed to constitute the series. (kÈaõika-ekānta) u gsrqiQyHkkokfnjU;HkkoknuUo;kr~ A lUrkukUrjoUuSd% larkuLr}r% ìFkd~ AA43AA lkekU;kFkZ & gsrqHkko o iQyHkko vkfn ugha cu ldrs gSa D;ksafd mu iwoksZÙkj&{k.kksa esa lUrkukUrj ds leku loZFkk ìFkd~ (vU;Hkko) gksrk gSA lUrkfu;ksa ls ìFkd~ dksbZ ,d lUrku Hkh ugha gksrk gSA {kf.kdSdkUr esa loZFkk vUo; ds vHkko esa iwoksZÙkj&{k.kksa ds Relationship of cause (k ra a) and effect (k rya) is not possible in the doctrine of 'absolute momentariness' (kÈaõika-ekānta): ā õ ā The Buddhists assert that a n ideas (sant na), impressed each by the former, gives man the semblances which we regard in ordinary life as the outer world and the soul. If each idea is really momentary, and perishes utterly, how can it affect the subsequent idea, contemporaneity of ideas being negated by the Buddhist theory? ever-ceasing series of momentary ā 80 ĀptamīmāÚsā (If each successive event is really momentary, and perishes utterly, as the Buddhists assert –) To use the word sant na or 'series' – implying unity – for successive momentary events which have no unity among themselves can only be fictional (saÚvÃti) and, therefore, is the word not misleading? The real meaning of a word can never be called fictional and there cannot be an occasion for fiction unless the word has a real meaning. ā vU;s"ouU;'kCnks¿;a laòfruZ è"kk dFke~ A eq[;kFkZ% laòfruZ L;kñ fouk eq[;kUu laòfr% AA44AA lkekU;kFkZ & 'kCn (lUrku) dk tks O;ogkj gS og laòfr (dkYifud] vkSipkfjd) gS rks loZFkk laòfr gksus ls og 'kCn feF;k D;ksa ugha gS\ ;fn 'kCn (lUrku) dks eq[; vFkZ ds :i esa ekuk tk, rks eq[; vFkZ loZFkk laòfr&:i ugha gksrk gS vkSj eq[; vFkZ ds fcuk laòfr ugha gksrh gSA (ckS1⁄4ksa }kjk ;fn dgk tk, &) ìFkd~&ìFkd~ {k.kksa esa vUkU; Using fiction without associated real meaning leads to deception: According to the Buddhists concept of sant na (lit. child, meaning 'series' of successive events) no permanent parts exist in an entity which are carried forward as unchanged from one momentary mode to the next. Santāna, at any particular moment, is the material cause of the entity's mode the next moment and not of any other object of same or different class. ā offspring or 81 Verse 44 (The Buddhists argue –) Since it is not possible to give verbal 1expression to the fourfold causal relations (catu ko ivikalpa) that can exist between the characteristic and the entity, similarly we can also not describe whether a series of successive events (santāna) is one with its members or different from them (or both, or neither); it is indescribable. (See next verse.) È Ç prq"dksVs£odYiL; lokZUrs"kwDR;;ksxr% A rÙokU;RoeokP;a psÙk;ks% lUrkur}rks% AA45AA lkekU;kFkZ & pkj izdkj dk fodYi (prq"dksfVfodYi) ugha gks ldrk gS] vr% mu lUrku vkSj lUrkuh dk Hkh rÙo&/eZ (,dRo&vHksn vkSj vU;Ro&Hksn) vokP; Bgjrk gSA (vxyh dkfjdk ns[ksaA) (ckS1⁄4ksa dh vksj ls ;fn dgk tk, &) lÙo vkfn lc /eks± esa The Buddhists argument that it is not possible to give verbal expression to the relation between a 'series' and its members: 1. (a) this characteristic belongs to this entity; (b) this characteristic does not belong to this entity; (c) this characteristic both belongs and does not belong to this entity; (d) this characteristic neither belongs nor does not belong to this entity. The Buddhists say that there is one thing only, the cognition, but as the result of impressions left by previous cognition there appears the distinction of cognizer, cognized, and cognition, in place of the unity. Each idea is momentary, but it can and does impress its successor; there is no substantial reality like the soul but a never-ceasing series of momentary ideas, each impressed by the former, gives man the semblances which we regard in ordinary life as the outer world and the soul. 82 ĀptamīmāÚsā (The reply is –) It cannot be said that the fourfold causal relation (catuÈkoÇivikalpa) is indescribable. (Firstly, just by uttering these words it somehow becomes describable, and secondly, cognition by others of the fourfold causal relation has been made possible through description only.) Moreover, an entity devoid of all characteristics will be a nonentity like the 'sky-flower' since it will neither have qualifying attributes (vi eÈaõa) nor the substance to be qualified (viśeÈya). ś voDrO;prq"dksfVfodYiks¿fi u dF;rke~ A vlokZUreOkLrq L;knfo'ks";fo'ks"k.ke~ AA46AA lkekU;kFkZ & rc rks ( izdkj ds fodYi) dks voDrO; Hkh ugha dguk pkfg, (loZFkk voDrO; dk i{k ysus ij  prq"dksfVfodYi voDrO; gS* ;g dguk Hkh ugha curk gS)A tks vlokZUr (loZ&/eZ jfgr) gS og voLrq (vkdk'k&iq"i ds leku) gS D;ksafd mlesa fo'ks";&fo'ks"k.k&Hkko ugha curk gSA ckS1⁄4ksa dks) prq"dksfVfodYi (oLrq esa lr~ vkfn pkj Fault in the Buddhist argument: 83 Verse 46 Only a named (sa j ), existing entity (sat) can be subjected to negation (niÈedha) with regard to attributes like the rootsubstance. A nonentity (asat – a non existing substance) cannot be subjected to either affirmation (vidhi) or negation (niÈedha). Ú ðī 1 aeO;k|UrjHkkosu fu"ks/% lafKu% lr% A vlñHksnks u HkkoLrq LFkkua fof/fu"ks/;ks% AA47AA lkekU;kFkZ & tks (ij&aeO;] ij&{ks=k] ij&dky] ij&Hkko) dh vis{kk ls fu"ks/ fd;k tkrk gSA tks loZFkk vlr~ (vfo|eku) gS og fof/ vkSj fu"ks/ dk fo"k; gh ugha gksrk gSA laKh lr~ (fo|eku) gksrk gS mlh dk ij&aeO; vkfn Negation (ni edha), in regard to some attribute, can only be of an existing entity (sat) and not of a nonentity (asat): È Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra: lr% dFkf×pÙknlÙo'kfÙkQ% [ks ukfLr iq"ia r#"kq izfl1⁄4e~ A loZLoHkkoP;qreizek.ka LookfXOk#1⁄4a ro n`f"Vrks¿U;r~ AA (5-3-23) The nature of reality (sat) involves two logical predications – one affirmative (asti) and the other negative (nāsti); like a flower exists in the tree and does not exist in the sky. If reality be accepted without any of these two predications (asti and nāsti), nothing can exist logically and will lose validity. O Lord Sumatinātha, the assertions of all others 1. The attributes are (a) root-substance (dravya); (b) space of its existence (kÈetra); (c) time of its existence (kāla); and (d) its nature (bhāva). 84 ĀptamīmāÚsā not following your doctrine are self-contradictory. Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra", p. 31-33. Jaina logicians describe every fact of reality according to four different aspects: its substance (dravya), space of its existence (kÈetra), time of its existence (kāla), and its nature (bhāva). Every object admits of a fourfold affirmative predication (svacatuÈÇaya) with reference to its own substance (svadravya), own space (svakÈetra), own time (svakāla), and own nature (svabhāva). Simultaneously a fourfold negative predication is implied with reference to other substance (paradravya), other space (parakÈetra), other time (parakāla), and other nature (parabhāva). The substance of an object not only implies its svadravya but differentiates it from paradravya. It becomes logically necessary to locate a negation for every affirmation and vice-versa. We must not only perceive a thing but also perceive it as distinct from other things. Without this distinction there cannot be true and clear perception of an object. When the soul, on the availability of suitable means, admits of the fourfold affirmation with respect to svadravya, svakÈetra, svakāla, and svabhāva, it also admits of the fourfold negation with respect to paradravya, parakÈetra, parakāla, and parabhāva. Excerpted from: Jain, Vijay K. (2014), "Acārya Pujyapāda's IÈÇopadeśa – The Golden Discourse", p. 6. 85 Verse 47 (As posited by the Buddhists –) Something that is devoid of all characteristics is a nonentity (being not discernible through any method of knowledge – pram a) and being a nonentity that something is indescribable. (But we posit –) Only a real entity is called a nonentity (somehow, in some respect) when the process of reasoning (of attributing characteristics to it) is reversed. āõ voLRoufHkykI;a L;kr~ lokZUrS% ifjo£tre~ A oLRosokoLrqrka ;kfr izfØ;k;k foi;Z;kr~ AA48AA lkekU;kFkZ & fo"k; ugha gksus ds dkj.k)] vkSj tks voLrq gS og gh (loZFkk) vufHkykI; (vokP;) gksrh gSA oLrq izfØ;k ds foi;Z; ls (foijhr gks tkus ij & ij&aeO; vkfn dh vis{kk ls) voLrqrk dks izkIr gks tkrh gSA tks loZ&/eks± ls jfgr gS og voLrq gS (fdlh Hkh izek.k dk Yes, a nonentity (asat) is indescribable, but only an entity (sat) becomes a nonentity (asat), in some respect, depending on the process of reasoning: The empiricist Buddhist refuses to call a 'series' a real entity in the sense in which he calls the members of this series real entities but that he at the same time refuses to dismiss a 'series' as an illusory appearance. Ā īmāÚ ā p. 51. Shah, Nagin J. (1999), "Samantabhadra's ptam s – Critique of an Authority", 86 ĀptamīmāÚsā If all characteristics of an entity are indescribable (as proclaimed by the Buddhists) then why make these a subject of articulation (in discourses, to corroborate and contradict viewpoints)? If it be accepted that this kind of articulation is fictional (saÚvÃti) – mere usage – then it is opposed to reality. lokZUrk'psnoDrO;kLrs"kka  d opua iqu% A laòfr'psUè"kSoS"kk ijekFkZfoi;Z;kr~ AA49AA lkekU;kFkZ & ( loZ /eZ voDrO; gSa rks mudk dFku (/eZ&ns'kuk vkfn ds fy,) D;ksa fd;k tkrk gS\ ;fn mudk dFku laòfr&:i (dsoy O;ogkj ds fy,) gS rks ijekFkZ ls foijhr gksus ds dkj.k og feF;k gh gSA {kf.kdSdkUr&oknh ckS1⁄4ksa ds vuqlkj) ;fn ;g dgk tk, fd If all characteristics of an entity are indescribable then do not make these a subject of articulation: 87 Verse 49 To the question as to why reality is pronounced as 'indescribable' the possible answers are (a) due to lack of strength, (b) due to its non-existence, and (c) due to lack of knowledge. The first and the third options cannot be accepted by the proponents of 'indescribability' (as this would mean inadequacy on their part). Then why pretend (and not concede that as per your assertion reality is 'indescribable' because it does not exist; it amounts to nihilism – s nyav da)? Speak clearly. ū ā v'kD;RoknokP;a fdeHkkokfRdecks/r% A vk|UrksfDr};a u L;kr~  d O;ktsuksP;rka LiQqVe~ AA50AA lkekU;kFkZ & D;ksa gS\ D;k v'kD; (dFku djus dh vleFkZrk) gksus ls vokP; gS] ;k vHkko (vfLrRo&foghu) gksus ls vokP; gS] ;k vki esa Kku u gksus ls vokP; gS\ igyk vkSj vUr ds fodYi rks curs ugha gSa (vki dks Lohdkj ughsa gks ldrs gSa)A ;fn vHkko gksus ls oLrq&rÙo vokP; gS rks cgkus cukus ls D;k ykHk\ Li"V dfg, fd oLrq&rÙo dk loZFkk vHkko gSA (;fn {kf.kdSdkUr&oknh ckS1⁄4ksa ls iwNk tk, &) rÙo vokP; The use of the term 'indescribable' by our rivals amounts to 'nonexistence' of reality: 8 ĀptamīmāÚsā (The Buddhists' assertion that the never-ceasing series of momentary ideas, each impressed by the former, gives man the semblances which we regard in ordinary life as the outer world and the soul, amounts to –) The mind that had not intended to injure, injures; the mind that had intended to injure, does not injure; and the mind that had neither intended to injure nor injured, suffers bondage. Moreover (since the existence of the last mentioned mind is also momentary), the mind that had suffered bondage does not get rid of bondage. (To whom, then, belongs liberation? The term liberation is a synonym for 'severance of bonds' and liberation can take place only of the person who was bound, while on the contention of momentary extinction, one moment a person is bound, and the liberation belongs to another moment; there, therefore, results a negation of liberation.) fgUkLR;ufHkla/kr` u fguLR;fHklaf/er~ A cè;rs rñ};kisra fpÙka c1⁄4a u eqP;rs AA51AA lkekU;kFkZ & ds fujUo; fouk'k dk fl1⁄4kUr ekuk tk, &) glk djus dk ftl fpÙk dk vfHkizk; ugha gS og glk djrk gS] ftl fpÙk dk glk djus dk vfHkizk; gS og  glk ugha djrk gSA ftl fpÙk us  glk djus dk dksbZ vfHkizk; ugha fd;k vkSj u glk gh dh og fpÙk cU/u dks izkIr gksrk gSA vkSj ftl fpÙk dk cU/u gqvk mldh eqfDr ugha gksrh gS] fiQj eqfDr fdldh gksrh gS\ (;fn {kf.kdSdkUr&oknh ckS1⁄4ksa ds {k.k&{k.k esa izR;sd inkFkZ Incongruence in the doctrine of 'absolute momentariness' (k a ika-ek nta):È õ ā 89 Verse 51 (In view of your assertion that destruction takes place on its own, without any cause –) When there is no cause for destruction then the person alleged to have injured someone cannot be the cause of injury. In the same light, the eightfold path 1(a gahetuka) to liberation (mok a), in the form of destruction of the series of mental states, cannot be the cause of liberation (mokÈa). ÈÇāô È vgsrqdRokÂk'kL;  glkgsrquZ  gld% A fpÙklUrfruk'k'p eks{kks uk"VkÄgsrqd% AA52AAõ lkekU;kFkZ & Lo;a gksrk gS &) fouk'k ds vgsrqd gksus ls  glk djus okyk  gld ugha Bgjrk gSA blh izdkj fpÙk&lUrfr ds fouk'k&:i tks eks{k ekuk x;k gS og Hkh v"VkÄgsrqd ugha gks ldrk gSA (ckS1⁄4&er esa eks{k dks fpÙk&lUrfr dk õ uk'k&:i ekuk x;k gSA eks{k ds vkB vax Hkh o£.kr gSa & lE;Xn`f"V] lE;d~ ladYi] lE;d~ okp~] lE;d~ deZu~] lE;d~ vkthou] lE;d~ O;k;ke] lE;d~ Lèfr rFkk lE;d~ lekf/A) ({kf.kdSdkUr&oknh ckS1⁄4ksa ds vuqlkj fouk'k fcuk dkj.k ds Fault in asserting that destruction takes place on its own, without any cause: 1. Noble Eightfold Path consists of a set of eight interconnected factors or conditions, that when developed together, lead to the cessation of suffering (dukkha): Right View (samyag dÃÈÇi), Right Intention (samyag saÚkalpa), Right Speech ( vāc), Right Action (samyag karman), Right Livelihood (samyag ājīvana), Right Effort (samyag vyāyāma), Right Mindfulness (samyag smÃti), and Right Concentration (samyag samādhi). Buddha's samyag 90 ĀptamīmāÚsā The Buddhists say that a Consciousness alone is the established truth. All the three worlds are the result of discrimination or thought-relations. No external object exists in reality. All that is, is consciousness. Liberation (mok a) is origination of a cognition purified from the inundation of the forms of objects which have passed away 1upon the annihilation of all suffusions (vāsanā) . And that does not fit since simply from the absence of the cause, the attainment of liberation (mokÈa) is unaccountable. ll, except consciousness, is unreal. È 2 91 Verse 52 1. 'vāsanā', which in common language signifies imparting of a scent, is much discussed in Buddhist writings; it denotes a factor in a thought due to prior experience or activity, a bias. 2. See Thomas, F.W. (1968), "The Flower-Spray of the Quodammodo Doctrine – Śrī MalliÈeõa Surī's Syādvāda-Maôjarī", p. 120. If a cause is required to bring into existence a dissimilar effect (that is, an effect that is different from the preceding moment) then that cause should be responsible for both – bringing into existence of a new effect and destruction of the effect that existed at the preceding moment. Therefore, for entities that are internally connected, the cause of both effects, destruction and origination, is one and the same. fo:idk;kZjEHkk; ;fn gsrqlekxe% A vkJf;H;keuU;ks¿lkofo'ks"kkn;qDror~ AA53AA lkekU;kFkZ & og fouk'k dk dkj.k ugha gS vfirq mlls dsoy foln`'k&dk;Z dh mRifÙk gksrh gS &) ;fn foln`'k inkFkZ dh mRifÙk ds fy, gsrq dk lekxe b"V fd;k tkrk gS rks og uk'k vkSj mRikn nksuksa dk dkj.k gksus ls mudk vkJ;Hkwr gS vkSj blfy, vius vkJ;h uk'k vkSj mRikn nksuksa dk;ks± ls vfHkUu gksxkA (ckS1⁄4&er ds vuqlkj ftldks fouk'k dk dkj.k dgk tkrk gS For entities that are internally connected, the cause of destruction and origination is one and the same: The stroke of a hammer which is the cause of destruction of a jar is also the cause of origination of potsherd; the cause of two effects is the same. Wherever there is concomitance between effects, the cause must be the same; like mango-ness and treeness are concomitant and coexist. 92 ĀptamīmāÚsā The series (sant na) and lumps or aggregates (skandha) are considered fictional (saÚvÃti) – mere usage – and devoid of selfexistence. There can certainly be no origination, destruction and continuance of a fictional entity like the 'horns of a hare' (kharaviÈāõa). ā LdU/larr;'pSo laòfrRoknlaLÑrk% A fLFkR;qRifÙkO;;kLrs"kka u L;q% [kjfo"kk.kor~ AA54AA lkekU;kFkZ & mRifÙk dks LdU/&lUrfr;ksa dh mRifÙk ekuk tk, &) LdU/ksa dh larfr;k¡ Hkh vkids er esa laòfr&:i gksus ls vijekFkZHkwr (vdk;Z&:i) gSaa] rc muds fy, gsrq dk lekxe dSlk\ vr% tks ik¡p LdU/ (:i&LdU/] osnuk&LdU/] laKk&LdU/] laLdkj&LdU/] foKku&LdU/) crk, x, gSa os ijekFkZ&lr~ ugha gSa] muesa x/s ds lhax ([kjfo"kk.k) ds leku fLFkfr] mRifÙk vkSj O;; ugha cu ldrs gSaA (;fn {kf.kdSdkUr&oknh ckS1⁄4ksa ds er esa foln`'k&dk;Z dh For an entity devoid of self-existence, there cannot be origination, destruction and continuance: In Buddhist phenomenology the aggregates (skandha) are the five functions or aspects that constitute the sentient being: a) form or matter (rūpa), b) sensation or feeling (vedanā), c) perception or cognition (saÚjðā), d) mental formations or volitions (saÚskāra), and e) consciousness or discernment (vijðāna). The five aggregates are considered to be the substrata for 93 Verse 54 clinging and thus 'contribute to the causal origination of future suffering'. Clinging to the five aggregates must be removed in order to achieve release from sa ra. Nothing among them is really "I" or "mine". In the technical language of Buddhism, the human knowledge is confined to the saÚvÃti-satya, i.e., to the phenomenal reality. It is unable to grasp the paramārthikasatya, i.e., the noumenal reality. The empirical world is the phenomenal reality while the ultimate truth is the noumenal reality. The phenomenal reality is svabhāva-śūnya, i.e., devoid of self-existence. Úsā 94 ĀptamīmāÚsā Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. absolute 'being' (nityatva) and absolute 'non-being' (anityatva) – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA55AA lkekU;kFkZ & mHk;SdkRE; (fuR;Ro vkSj vfuR;Ro nksuksa ,dkUr i{kksa dks ,d&:Ik ekuuk) ugha cu ldrk gSA ;fn (nksuksa ,dkUr i{kksa dh ekU;rk esa fojks/ vkus ds Hk; ls) vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) dk ,dkUr ekuk tk, rks og Hkh ugha curk gS] vokP; 'kCn dk iz;ksx djus ls Loopu fojks/ mifLFkr gksrk gSA L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okyksa ds ;gk¡ fojks/ vkus ds dkj.k Fault in accepting both, absolute 'being' (nityatva) and absolute 'non-being' (anityatva), without mutual dependence: 95 Verse 55 1Being subject to recognition (pratyabhij na) , the real has permanence from a particular point of view. Recognition of the real is not accidental since it is universally experienced without any hindrance. O Lord ! In your view the real also has momentariness since it exhibits change of state at different times. If the real be considered either absolutely permanent or ðā fuR;a rRizR;fHkKkukÂkdLekÙknfofPNnk A {kf.kda dkyHksnkÙks cq1⁄4Ôlapjnks"kr% AA56AA lkekU;kFkZ & ds dkj.k rÙo dFkf×pr~ fuR; gSA izR;fHkKku dk lñHkko fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd vfoPNsn:i ls og vuqHko esa vkrk gSA dky ds Hksn ls ifj.kke&Hksn gksus ls rÙo dFkf×pr~ {kf.kd Hkh gSA loZFkk fuR; vkSj loZFkk {kf.kd rÙo esa cqf1⁄4 dk lapkj ugha gks ldrk gSA gs Hkxou~ ! vkids vusdkUr er esa izR;fHkKku dk fo"k; gksus From different points of view both permanence (nityatva) and momentariness (anityatva) are universally experienced: 1. Recognition , in general, means knowing the thing as that which was known before. It consists in knowing not only that a thing is such and such but that it is the same thing that was seen before. Recognition (pratyabhijðāna) is the conscious reference of the past and a present cognition of the same object. I see a jar, recognize it as something that was perceived before, and say 'this is the same jar that I saw'. Recognition (pratyabhijðāna) is the valid cognition that we get through the synthesis of the present cognition and remembrance (smÃti). Recognition (pratyabhijðāna) is not regarded as depending solely on a previous mental impression and, therefore, is exempt from the fatal defect of remembrance (smÃti). (pratyabhijðāna) 96 ĀptamīmāÚsā 1Ācārya Umāsvāmi asserts in Tattvārthasūtra : r‰kokO;;a fuR;a AA5&31AA Permanence is indestructibility of the essential nature (quality) of the substance. The assertion based on remembrance (sm ti), "This is only that," is recognition (pratyabhijðāna). (This is the same thing I saw yesterday.) That does not occur accidentally. That which is the cause of such a statement is its intrinsic nature (tadbhāva). Tadbhāva is its existence, condition or mode. A thing is seen having the same nature with which it was seen formerly. So it is recognized in the form, "This is the same as that". If it be considered that the old thing has completely disappeared and that an entirely new thing has come into existence then there can be no remembrance. And worldly relations based on it would be disturbed. Therefore, the indestructibility of the essential nature of a substance is determined as permanence. But it should be taken from one point of view. If it be permanent from all points of view, then there can be no change at all. And, in that case, transmigration as well as the way to salvation would become meaningless. Ã absolutely momentary, its cognition, remaining static always, will be meaningless. 1. See Pūjyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi", p. 156-157. Jain, S.A. (1960), "Reality : English Translation of Shri 97 Verse 56 O Lord ! In your doctrine, so far as the general characteristic (s m nya svabh va) of a substance is concerned it neither originates nor gets destroyed since existence (being or sat) is its differentia. However, so far as the particular characteristics (viśeÈa svabhāva) are concerned, the substance originates and gets destroyed. Thus, the existence (of a substance) is characterized by origination (utpāda), destruction (vyaya) and permanence (dhrauvya). ā ā ā u lkekU;kReuksnsfr u O;sfr O;DreUo;kr~ A O;sR;qnsfr fo'ks"kkÙks lgSd=kksn;kfn lr~ AA57AA lkekU;kFkZ & mRiUu gksrh gS vkSj u u"V gksrh gSA ;g ckr Li"V gS D;ksafd lc i;kZ;ksa esa mldk vUo; ik;k tkrk gS (oLrq dk lkekU;&Lo:i mldh lc voLFkkvksa esa fLFkj jgrk gS)A rFkk fo'ks"k dh vis{kk ls oLrq u"V vkSj mRiUu gksrh gSA ;qxir~ (,d lkFk) ,d oLrq esa rhuksa (mRikn] O;;] /zkSO;) dk gksuk gh lr~ gSA gs Hkxou~ ! vkids 'kklu esa oLrq lkekU; dh vis{kk ls u Existence is characterized by origination (utp da), destruction (vyaya) and permanence (dhrauvya): ā A substance is permanent from the point of view of general properties. From the point of view of its specific modes it is not permanent. Hence there is no contradiction. These two, the general and the particular, somehow, are different as well as identical. Thus these form the cause of worldly intercourse. 98 ĀptamīmāÚsā The destruction of the cause (a jar, for example) is the cause of the origination of the effect (the potsherd); both, destruction of the cause and origination of the effect, invariably go together. In some respect (the mode), the two – origination and destruction – are mutually different. However, due to the presence of the universal characters of 'being' (class – j ti, enumeration – saÚkhyā, etc.) the two – origination and destruction – can also be said to be not different from each other. If origination, destruction and permanence are not viewed as mutually depended, the 'being' (sat) will get reduced to a nonentity like the 'sky-flower'. ā dk;ksZRikn% {k;ks gsrks£u;ekYy{k.kkr~ ìFkd~ A u rkS tkR;k|oLFkkuknuis{kk% [kiq"ior~ AA58AA lkekU;kFkZ & (mÙkjkdkj&:i) dk;Z dk mRikn gSA mRikn vkSj fouk'k y{k.k dh vis{kk ls dFkf×pr~ ìFkd~&ìFkd~ gSaA tkfr vkfn ds voLFkku ds dkj.k mRikn vkSj fouk'k esa dFkf×pr~ Hksn ugha Hkh gSA ijLij fujis{k mRikn] O;; vkSj /zkSO; vkdk'k&iq"i ds leku voLrq gSaA ,d gsrq dk fu;e gksus ls (miknku dkj.k dk) tks {k; gS ogh If origination, destruction and permanence are not viewed as mutually depended, the 'being' (sat) will get reduced to a nonentity like the 'sky-flower': Here we come to the main metaphysical tenet of Jainism to the effect that every real is a complex of origination (utp da), destruction (vyaya), and permanence (dhrauvya) besides of substance (dravya), mode (paryāya) and quality (guõa). ā 9 Verse 58 From the point of view of modes, the three characteristics (origination, destruction and permanence) are mutually different from one another and are also different from the substance. From the point of view of substance, these three (origination, destruction and permanence) are not perceived separately from the substance. Hence these are not different. Origination, destruction and permanence, mutually irrespective, become non-existent like the 'sky-flower'. Mere origination does not exist because that is without stability and departure; mere destruction does not exist because that is without stability and origination; mere permanence does not exist because that is without destruction and origination – all 1three, mutually irrespective, are like the 'hair of a tortoise' . 1. See Thomas, F.W. (1968), "The Flower-Spray of the Quodammodo Doctrine – Śrī MalliÈeõa Surī's Syādvāda-Maôjarī", p. 130. 10 ĀptamīmāÚsā (When a diadem is produced out of a gold jar –) The one desirous of the gold jar gets to grief on its destruction; the one desirous of the gold diadem gets to happiness on its origination; and the one desirous of gold remains indifferent, as gold remains integral to both – the jar as well as the diadem. This also establishes the fact that different characters of existence (origination, destruction and permanence) are the causes of different responses. ?kVekSfylqo.kkZFkhZ uk'kksRiknfLFkfr"o;e~ A 'kksdizeksnekè;LF;a tuks ;kfr lgsrqde~ AA59AA lkekU;kFkZ & ( esa&) lqo.kZ ds ?kV dk] lqo.kZ ds eqdqV dk vkSj dsoy lqo.kZ dk bPNqd euq"; Øe'k% lqo.kZ&?kV dk uk'k gksus ij 'kksd dks] lqo.kZ&eqdqV ds mRiUu gksus ij g"kZ dks] vkSj nksuksa gh voLFkkvksa esa lqo.kZ dh fLFkfr gksus ls 'kksd vkSj g"kZ ls jfgr ekè;LF;&Hkko dks izkIr gksrk gSA vkSj ;g lc lgsrqd gksrk gSA (fcuk gsrq ds mu ?kVkFkhZ] eqdqVkFkhZ rFkk lqo.kkZFkhZ ds 'kksdkfn dh fLFkfr ugha curh gSA) lqo.kZ&?kV dks lqo.kZ&eqdqV esa ifjo£rr djus dh fLFkfr Three characters of existence – origination, destruction and permanence – explained through an example: 10 Verse 59 The one who has vowed to take only milk, does not take curd; the one who has vowed to take only curd, does not take milk, and the 1one who has vowed not to take any cow-produce (gorasa) does not take either. Thus existence ('being' or sat) has threefold character – origination (of the mode that is curd), destruction (of the mode that is milk), and permanence (of the substance that is cow-produce, present in curd as well as milk). i;ksozrks u nè;fÙk u i;ksfÙk nf/ozr% A vxksjlozrks uksHks rLekÙkÙoa =k;kRede~ AA60AA lkekU;kFkZ & ngh gh ysus dk ozr gS og nw/ ugha ihrk gS] vkSj ftldk xksjl ugha ysus dk ozr gS og nksuksa (nw/ rFkk ngh) ugha ysrk gSA bl izdkj ls oLrq&rÙo =k;kRed (mRikn] O;; rFkk /zkSO; :Ik) gSA ftldk nw/ gh ysus dk ozr gS og ngh ugha [kkrk gS] ftldk Another example of the threefold character of existence: 1. The genus cow-produce (gorasa) is consumed in many forms like milk, curd, cheese, and buttermilk. 102 ĀptamīmāÚsā (As per the Nyāya-VaiśeÈika ontology –) the effect (k rya) and the cause (k ra a), the quality (gu a) and the possessor of that quality (guõī), and the generality (sāmānya) and its possessor (sāmānyavān), are absolutely different, then difficulties arise – If one maintains that ā ā õ õ dk;Zdkj.kukukRoa xq.kxq.;U;rkfi p A lkekU;r}nU;Roa pSdkUrsu ;nh";rs AA61AA lkekU;kFkZ & ( eas vkSj lkekU;&lkekU;oku~ esa loZFkk (,dkUr :Ik ls) Hksn ekuk tk, rks ,slk ekuuk Bhd ugha gS & uS;kf;d&oS'ksf"kd er esa &) ;fn dk;Z&dkj.k esa] xq.k&xq.kh The view that the effect (k rya) and the cause (k ra a) etc. are absolutely different: ā ā õ prqFkZ ifjPNsn Section 4 In the substance (dravya), quality (guõa), action (karma), generality (sāmānya), uniqueness (viśeÈa), inherence (samavāya) and non-existence (abhāva). Substance (dravya) is that in which a quality or an action can exist but which in itself is different from both quality and action. Quality (guõa) differs from substance and action (karma) in the sense that it is an unmoving property. The action (karma), like quality, has no separate existence, it belongs to the substance. But while quality is a permanent feature of a substance, action is a Nyāya-VaiśeÈika system, seven categories of reality are 103 transient one. Generality (sāmānya) relates to abstract characteristic that is singular and eternal and yet pervades many. Like leadership is a single characteristic, but it resides in many individuals. Leadership is also eternal because it was already in existence before the first leader emerged and will continue to exist even if there were no more leaders. Uniqueness (viśeÈa) is that characteristic by virtue of which a thing is distinguished from all other things. Like space, time and soul, it is eternal. Everything in the world, existent or nonexistent, is accompanied by uniqueness. Generality and uniqueness are opposite concepts. Inherence (samavāya) is a permanent relation between two entities, one of whom inheres in the other. One of the entities depends for its existence on the other. Objects in an inherent relationship cannot be reversed as those that are related by nearness. Non-existence (abhāva) is that which is not found in any of the six positive categories, and yet according to the Nyāya-VaiśeÈika view non-existence exists, just as space and direction. To illustrate, to the question 'how does one know that there is no chair in the room?', the answer is 'by looking at the room'. Thus non-existence also exists. The universalities and particularities are held to be eternal and have a distinct own-nature, but these are not credited with existence (sattā), which is confined to substances, qualities and actions. The gist of the Jaina argument is that universality and particularity are involved in the nature of everything and not imposed from outside by virtue of a relation of 'inherence'. 104 ĀptamīmāÚsā A single effect (in the aggregate – avayav ) cannot inhere in many causes (the constituent parts – avayava) since, as has been assumed, it is possessed of no parts. Or if it be assumed that the effect is possessed of parts then it no longer remains a single entity. Thus, there are difficulties in accepting the non-Jaina position regarding the way the effect inheres in its cause. ī ,dL;kusdòfÙkuZ HkkxkHkkokñcgwfu ok A HkkfxRok}k¿L; uSdRoa nks"kks òÙksjukgZrs AA62AA lkekU;kFkZ & (;fn lkekU;&lkekU;oku~ esa loZFkk Hksn ekuk tk, rks&) ,d dh vusdksa esa òfÙk ugha gks ldrh gS] D;ksafd mlds Hkkx (va'k) ugha gksrs gSaA vkSj ;fn ,d ds vusd Hkkx gSa] rks og ,dRo fLFkj ugha jgrk gSA bl izdkj ,d dh vusd esa lokZRed vFkok loZns'k òfÙk ekuus ls vukgZr er esa vusd nks"k vkrs gSaA oS'ksf"kd er ds vuqlkj dk;Z&dkj.k] xq.k&xq.kh vkSj Fault in accepting that there is inherence (samav ya) of a single effect in many causes: ā 1The hold that 'attributes', like the intelligence (caitanya) and the colour (r pa), and 'bearers of attributes', like the self (ātmā) and the pot (ghaÇa), are completely different, yet being connected by 'inherence' (samavāya) these attain the designations 'attributes' and 'bearers of attributes'. Inherence weaves together; it is also styled 'occurrence' (vÃtti). Through that occurrence, the inherence connection, the VaiśeÈika ū 1. See L;k}kne×tjh] txnh'kpUnz tSu (MkW-) (1992)] JhefYy"ks.klwfjiz.khrk ì"B 43105 Verse 62 designation 'attributes' and 'bearer of attributes' is approved. However, there can be no relation of 'attributes' and 'bearer of attributes' if the two are utterly different. If it be said that the relation between the two is through 'inherence' then we must be able to cognize the thing called 'inherence' and that is not possible. The connection between the 'attributes' and the 'bearer of the attributes' is to be adopted only as defined by 'non-separate existence' and not something other, such as inherence etc. 106 ĀptamīmāÚsā If cause and effect are considered absolutely separate from one another, there should be separateness between these with respect to space and time, just as is seen between two external material substances (e.g., the pot and the tree – residing in separate substrata – yutasiddha). Then it will not be possible to explain the occurrence (vÃtti) of cause and effect in a material entity in same space (and time). ns'kdkyfo'ks"ks¿fi L;kñòfÙk;qZrfl1⁄4or~ A lekuns'krk u L;kr~ ewrZdkj.kdk;Z;ks% AA63AA lkekU;kFkZ & ìFkd~ gSa] rks ;qrfl1⁄4 inkFkks± dh rjg (?kV&ò{k dh rjg) fHkUu ns'k vkSj fHkUu dky esa mudh òfÙk (fLFkfr) ekuuh iM+sxhA bl dkj.k ls ew£rd dkj.k vkSj dk;Z esa tks lekuns'krk (,d&dky&ns'krk) ns[kh tkrh gS og ugha cu ldsxhA ;fn vo;o&vo;oh] dk;Z&dkj.k vkfn ,d nwljs ls loZFkk Fault in accepting absolute separateness between the aggregate (avayav ) and the constitutent parts (avayava):ī 107 Verse 63 It might be said that there exists a relationship of substratum and superstratum between two entities (viz. the constituent parts and the aggregate – avayava and avayav ) through inherence (samavāya), and due to inherence the two cannot remain independent of each other even at different space and time. We respond that if inherence (samavāya) itself is independent of the two entities, how can it possibly create a relationship between them? ī vkJ;k¿¿Jf;HkkokUu LokrU=;a leokf;uke~ A bR;;qDr% l lEcU/ks u ;qDr% leokf;fHk% AA64AA lkekU;kFkZ & ;fn ;g dgk tk, fd (vo;o vkJ; gS vkSj vo;oh vkJ;h gS) gksus ds dkj.k Lora=krk ugha gS ftlls ns'k&dky dh vis{kk ls Hksn gksus ij Hkh òfÙk curh gS] rks ,slk dguk Bhd ugha gSA D;ksafd tks Lo;a vlEc1⁄4 gS (leok; vukfJr gksus ls vlEc1⁄4 gh jgrk gS) og ,d vo;oh dk nwljs vo;oh ds lkFk lEcU/ dSls djk ldrk gS\ leokf;;ksa esa vkJ;&vkJ;h&Hkko Fault in accepting inherence as independent of the constituent parts (avayava) and the aggregate :(avayavī) 108 ĀptamīmāÚsā (As per the s –) Generality or universality (s m nya) and inherence (samavāya) both exist in their entirety (and inseparably) in their substratum (that is, the entity). Also, these two cannot exist independent of their substratum. If so, how can these persist in entities which are subject to destruction and origination? VaiśeÈika ā ā lkekU;a leok;'pk¿I;sdSd=k lekfIrr% A vUrjs.kk¿¿J;a u L;kUuk'kksRikfn"kq dks fof/% AA65AA lkekU;kFkZ & gSaA vkSj vkJ; ds fcuk mudk lñHkko ugha gks ldrk gSA rc u"V vkSj mRiUu gksus okys vfuR; dk;ks± esa muds lñHkko dh fof/&O;oLFkk dSls cu ldrh gS\ lkekU; vkSj leok; vius&vius vkJ;ksa esa iw.kZ :Ik ls jgrs Relationship between generality (s m nya) and inherence (samavāya): ā ā 109 Verse 65 (As per the s –) The generality and the inherence (samav ya) are considered absolutely independent of each other. Also, these two have no relation whatsoever with their substratum, the entity (artha) – the object of knowledge. If so, all three – the generality (sāmānya), the inherence (samavāya), and the entity (artha) – become nonentities like the 'sky-flower'. VaiśeÈika (sāmānya) ā loZFkk¿ufHklEcU/% lkekU;leok;;ks% A rkH;keFkksZ u lEc1⁄4Lrkfu =khf.k [kiq"ior~ AA66AA lkekU;kFkZ & ijLij esa fdlh izdkj dk (la;ksxkfn&:i dk) lEcU/ ugha gS rc mu nksuksa ds lkFk nzO;] xq.k rFkk deZ&:i tks vFkZ gS mldk Hkh lEcU/ ugha curk gSA vr% lkekU;] leok; vkSj vFkZ ;s rhuksa gh  vkdk'kiq"i* ds leku voLrq Bgjrs gSaA (oS'ksf"kd er ds vuqlkj &) tc lkekU; vkSj leok; dk If no relation whatsoever is accepted between generality (s m nya) and inherence (samav ya):ā ā ā The universalities and particularities are held by the VaiśeÈikas to be eternal and having their own distinct nature, but they are not credited with existence (satt ), which is confined to the entity (artha) – substance (dravya), quality (guõa) and action (karma). ā 10 ĀptamīmāÚsā If it be maintained that the atoms (a u) are absolutely nondistinct (oneness – ananyatva) then these should remain as such (non-distinct) even after their union to form molecules (skandha), creating thereby a substance. Under such a regime the four basic substances (bhūtacatuÈka of the Buddhists) – earth (pÃthvī), water (jala), fire (agni), and air (vāyu) – which are but the effects of the union of atoms, will turn out to be illusory. õ vUkU;rSdkUrs¿.kwuka la?kkrs¿fi foHkkxor~ A vlagrRoa L;kñHkwrprq"da Hkzkafrjso lk AA67AA lkekU;kFkZ & vUkU;rk dk ,dkUr ekuk tk, rks LdU/&:i esa muds feyus ij Hkh foHkkx ds leku ijLij vlEc1⁄4rk gh jgsxhA vkSj ,slk gksus ij ckS1⁄4ksa ds }kjk ekU; tks Hkwrprq"d (ijek.kqvksa dk ìfFkoh] ty] vfXu vkSj ok;q ,sls pkj LdU/ksa ds :i esa dk;Z) gS og okLrfod u gksdj HkzkUr gh gksxkA (ckS1⁄4&er ds vuqlkj &) ;fn vUkU;rSdkUr esa ijek.kqvksa dh Fault in accepting atoms as absolutely non-distinct: 1 Verse 67 As the cause (k ra a) is established by the effect (k rya), therefore, when the effect (bhūtacatuÈka of the Buddhists) is illusory, the cause [the atoms (aõu) responsible for the formation of molecules (skandha)] must also be illusory. And with nonexistent character of both, the cause and the effect, the attributes of the effect like quality (guõa) and genus (jāti) will also become illusory (non-existent). Note: The relation between the material cause and its effect is that wherever the cause is present the effect would be present, and wherever the effect would be present the cause must have been present. Again, negatively, if the cause is absent the effect must also be absent and conversely if the effect is absent the cause must also be absent. ā õ ā dk;ZHkzkUrsj.kqHkzkfUr% dk;ZfyÄa fg dkj.ke~ Aõ mHk;kHkkorLrRLFka xq.ktkrhrjPp u AA68AA lkekU;kFkZ & gh Bgjsaxs D;ksafd dk;Z ds }kjk dkj.k dk Kku fd;k tkrk gS (vFkkZr~ dkj.k dk;ZfyÄd gksrk gS)A dk;Z vkSj dkj.k nksuksa ds vHkko ls muesa jgus okys õ xq.k] tkfr] fØ;k&vkfn dk Hkh vHkko gks tk,xkA Hkwrprq"d&:i dk;Z ds HkzkUr gksus ij rRdkj.k v.kq Hkh HkzkUr If the effect is illusory, the cause must also be illusory; the atoms (a u) then become illusory:õ 12 ĀptamīmāÚsā (As per the S khya view –) If the effect (k rya) and the cause (kāraõa) are considered absolutely one, then, as the two are declared to be inseparably connected (avinābhāvī), one of these is bound to be non-existent. (And, as a corollary, the other too becomes non-existent.) If it be said that the effect and the cause are actually one but are referred to as two by mere usage then also, being a product of imagination, both these remain misconceptions. āÚ ā ,dRos¿U;rjkHkko% 'ks"kkHkkoks¿foukHkqo% A f}Rola[;kfojks/'p laòfr'psUè"kSo lk AA69AA lkekU;kFkZ & (lka[;erkuqlkj &) ;fn ekuk tk, rks muesa ls fdlh ,d dk vHkko gks tk,xkA vkSj ,d ds vHkko esa nwljs dk Hkh vHkko Bgjsxk D;ksafd mudk ijLij esa vfoukHkko lEcU/ gSA ;fn f}Ro&la[;k dks laòfr&:i & dfYir vFkok vkSipkfjd & ekuk tk, rks laòfr ds feF;k gksus ls f}Rola[;k Hkh feF;k gh Bgjrh gSA dk;Z vkSj dkj.k dks loZFkk ,d Fault in considering the effect (k rya) and the cause (k ra a) as absolutely one: ā ā õ 13 Verse 69 Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. absolute separateness (anyatva) and absolute oneness (ananyatva) of cause (kāraõa) and effect (kārya) – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA70AA lkekU;kFkZ & dkj.k dh vU;rk vkSj vuU;rk nksuksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ dk;Z vkSj Fault in accepting both, absolute separateness (anyatva) and absolute oneness (ananyatva) of cause (kāraõa) and effect (kārya), without mutual dependence: 14 ĀptamīmāÚsā The substance (dravya) and its mode (pary ya), somehow, exhibit oneness (with each other) as both these have logical continuance (avyatireka). The two also, somehow, exhibit separateness (from each other) as there is difference of effect (pariõāma and pariõāmī), of capacity (śaktimāna and śaktibhāva), of designation (saÚjðā), of number (saÚkhyā), of 1self-attribute (svalakÈaõa), of utility (prayojana), and so on . The substance and its modes, thus, are neither absolutely one nor absolutely different; as established by the doctrine of nonabsolutism (anekāntavāda), these two, the substance and its modes, show oneness as well as separateness in some respects only. ā aeO;i;kZ;;ksjSD;a Rk;ksjO;frjsdr% A ifj.kkefo'ks"kkPp 'kfDrePNfDrHkkor% AA71AA lkekU;kFkZ & nksuksa esa vO;frjsd ik;k tkrk gSA nzO; vkSj i;kZ; dFkf×pr~ ,d nwljs ls ukuk&:i Hkh gSa] D;ksafd nzO; vkSj i;kZ; esa ifj.kke&ifj.kkeh dk Hksn gS] 'kfDreku~ vkSj 'kfDrHkko dk Hksn gS] laKk (uke) dk Hksn gS] la[;k dk Hksn gS] Loy{k.k dk Hksn gS] vkSj iz;kstu vkfn dk Hksn gSA (vkfn 'kCn ls dky ,oa izfrHkkl dk Hksn xzg.k fd;k x;k gSA) nzO; vkSj i;kZ; esa dFkf×pr~ ,sD; (vHksn) gS] D;ksafd mu The doctrine of non-absolutism (anek ntav da) declares that the substance and its modes show oneness as well as separateness in some respects only: ā ā laKkla[;kfo'ks"kkPp Loy{k.kfo'ks"kr% A iz;kstukfnHksnkPp rUukukRoa u loZFkk AA72AA 1. Time (k la) and appearance (pratibh sa) are also included.ā ā 15 Verses 71 & 72 Ācārya Umāsvāmi's Tattvārthasūtra: xq.ki;Z;oñ aeO;e~ AA5&38AA That which has qualities and modes is a substance. r‰ko% ifj.kke% AA5&42AA The condition (change) of a substance is a mode. That in which qualities and modes exist is a substance. What are qualities and what are modes? Those characteristics which exhibit association (anvaya) with the substance are qualities. Those characteristics which exhibit distinction or exclusion (vyatireka) – logical discontinuity, "when the pot is not, the clay is," – are modes. A substance possesses both. That which makes distinction between one substance and another is called a quality, and the modification of a substance is called a mode. The substance (dravya) is inseparable (residing in same substratum – ayutasiddha) from its qualities, and permanent (nitya). That which distinguishes one substance from all others is its distinctive quality. Only the presence of this quality makes it a substance. If such distinctive characteristics were not present, it would lead to intermixture or confusion of substances. For instance, souls are distinguished from matter by the presence of qualities such as knowledge. Matter is distinguished from souls by the presence of form (colour) etc. Without such distinguishing characteristics, there can be no distinction between souls and matter. Therefore, from the general point of view, knowledge etc. are qualities always associated with the soul, and form etc. are always associated with the matter. Their modifications, which are separable from particular points of view, are modes. For instance, in living beings, these are knowledge of pitcher, knowledge of cloth, anger, pride, etc., and in matter these are intense or mild odour, 16 ĀptamīmāÚsā colour, etc. The collection or aggregate of qualities and modes, which somehow is considered different from these, is called a substance. If the aggregate were completely (from all points of view) the same, it would negative both substance and qualities. From the point of view of designation (saÚjðā) etc., qualities are different from the substance. Yet, from another point of view, qualities are not different from the substance as they partake of the nature of substance and are not found without substance. Whatever condition or form a substance, such as the medium of motion, takes that condition or form is called its modification (pariõāma). It is of two kinds, without a beginning and with a beginning. 17 Verses 71 &

The existence of the entity (dharm ) and its attribute (dharma) cannot be established if these are considered absolutely dependent (āpekÈika) on each other as neither can then hold its identity. (In case two objects are absolutely dependent on each other, both are bound to lose their individual identity.) If these, the entity and its attribute, be considered absolutely independent (anāpekÈika) of each other, then the general (sāmānya) and the particular (viśeÈa) attributes cannot be established. [Only an entity which has general (sāmānya – dravya) and particular (viśeÈa – paryāya) attributes can be the subject of knowledge. Dravya without its modification and modification without its dravya cannot be the subject of valid ī ;|kisf{kdflf1⁄4% L;kUu };a O;ofr"Brs A vukisf{kdfl1⁄4kS p u lkekU;fo'ks"krk AA73AA lkekU;kFkZ & ,d&nwljs dh vis{kk j[kus okyh) gksrh gS] rks vkis{; vkSj vkisf{kd nksuksa esa ls fdlh dh flf1⁄4 ugha gks ldrh gSA vkSj flf1⁄4 dks loZFkk vukisf{kd (,d&nwljs dh vis{kk u j[kus okyh) ekuus ij muesa lkekU;&fo'ks"k Hkko ugha cu ldrk gSA ;fn inkFkks± (/eZ o /ehZ vkfn) dh flf1⁄4 vkisf{kd (loZFkk The entity (dharm ) and its attribute (dharma) are neither absolutely dependent (āpekÈika) nor absolutely independent (anāpekÈika): ī i×pe ifjPNsn Section 5 19 knowledge; only their combination can be the subject of knowledge.] Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra: ;FkSd'k% dkjdeFkZfl1⁄4;s leh{; 'ks"ka Lolgk;dkjde~ A rFkSo lkekU;fo'ks"kekr`dk u;kLros"Vk xq.keq[;dYir% AA (13-2-62) Just as the two mutually supportive causes, the substantial cause (upādāna kartā) and the instrumental cause (nimitta kartā), result in the accomplishment of the desired objective, in the same way, your doctrine that postulates two kinds of attributes in a substance, general (sāmānya) and specific (viśeÈa), and ascertains its particular characteristic (naya) depending on what is kept as the primary consideration for the moment while keeping the other attributes in the background, not negating their existence in any way, accomplishes the desired objective. Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra", p. 87. Ācārya Māõikyanandi's ParīkÈāmukha: lkekU;fo'ks"kkRek rnFkksZ fo"k;% AA4&1AA Only an object which has both, the general (sāmānya – dravya) and the specific (viśeÈa – paryāya) attributes can be the subject of valid knowledge. 120 ĀptamīmāÚsā Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two – viz. absolute dependence (āpekÈika) and absolute independence (anāpekÈika) of the entity and its attribute – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be selfcontradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā Fault in accepting both absolute dependence and absolute independence (anāpekÈika) of the entity and its attribute, without any mutual relation: (āpekÈika) fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA74AA lkekU;kFkZ & flf1⁄4 vkSj vukisf{kd flf1⁄4 nksuksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ vkisf{kd 12 Verse 74 The fact that there is invariable togetherness (avin bh va) between an entity (dharmī) and its attribute (dharma) is established on the basis of their relative existence. This fact, however, has no implication on their respective own-nature. Their respective own-nature is self-proven like the constituent parts of the agent of production (kāraka) [the doer (kartā), the activity (karma) etc.], and the agent of knowledge (jðāpaka) [the method of knowledge (pramāõa), and the object of knowledge (prameya)]. Note: The doer (kartā) does not rely on the activity (karma) for its own nature and the activity (karma) does not rely on the doer (kartā) for its own nature. Similarly, the method of knowledge (pramāõa) does not rely on the object of knowledge (prameya) for its own nature and the object of knowledge (prameya) does not rely on the method of knowledge (pramāõa) for its own nature. But empirically these are considered related to each other. ā ā There is invariable togetherness (avin bh va) between an entity (dharmī) and its attribute (dharma) but still each has its ownnature: ā ā /eZ/E;ZfoukHkko% fl1⁄4ÔR;U;ks¿U;oh{k;k A u Lo:ia Lorks ásrr~ dkjdKkidkÄor~ AA75AAõ lkekU;kFkZ & fl1⁄4 gksrk gS] mudk Lo:i ughaA Lo:i rks dkjd vkSj Kkid ds vaxks dh rjg Lor% fl1⁄4 gSA (dkjd ds nks vax drkZ vkSj deZ rFkk Kkid ds nks vax izek.k vkSj izes; ;s vius&vius Lo:i ds fo"k; esa nwljs vax dh vis{kk ugha j[krs gSaA O;ogkj ds fy, ikjLifjd vis{kk vko';d gS] Lo:i ds fy, ughaA) /eZ vkSj /ehZ dk vfoukHkko lEcU/ gh ijLij dh vis{kk ls 12 ĀptamīmāÚsā The existence of the entity (dharm ) and its attribute (dharma), thus, can be described in seven ways: 1) somehow dependent (āpekÈika) , 2) somehow independent (anāpekÈika), 3) somehow both (ubhaya) – dependent and independent, 4) somehow indescribable (avaktavya), 5) somehow dependent and indescribable (āpekÈika-avaktavya), 6) somehow independent and indescribable (anāpekÈika-avaktavya), and 7) somehow both dependent and independent and indescribable (ubhaya-avaktavya). ī 123 Verse

If it be maintained that Reality can only be established through the use of the middle term (hetu) then it will not be possible to establish anything with the help of the proven sources of knowledge – direct (pratyakÈa) sources of knowledge etc. [For, under such a regime, the use of the middle term (hetu), which necessarily requires, among other things, prior knowledge of the entity (dharmī), the reason (sādhana or liôga) and the general rule or illustration (udāharaõa), will not be possible.] If it be maintained that Reality can only be established through the authority of the scripture (āgama) then even contradictory doctrines (promulgated by different scriptures) will stand fl1⁄4a ps1⁄4srqr% lo± u izR;{kkfnrks xfr% A fl1⁄4a psnkxekr~ lo± fo#1⁄4kFkZerkU;fi AA76AA lkekU;kFkZ & izR;{k vkfn ls inkFkks± dk Kku ugha cu ldsxkA (,slk ekuus ij gsrqewyd vuqeku&Kku Hkh ugha cu ldsxk D;ksafd vuqeku ds fy, /ehZ] lk/u vkSj mnkgj.k dk izR;{k Kku gksuk vko';d gSA) vkSj ;fn vkxe ls lc rÙoksa dh flf1⁄4 gksrh gS] rks ijLij&fo#1⁄4 vFkZ ds izfriknd erksa dh Hkh flf1⁄4 gks tk,xhA ;fn gsrq ls gh (,dkUrr%) lc rÙoksa dh flf1⁄4 gksrh gS] rks Fault in the two views that Reality can only be established through the use of the middle term (hetu), or through the authority of the scripture (āgama): "k"B ifjPNsn Section 6 125 established. (The knowledge thus obtained, without any scrutiny, will be unreliable and not necessarily true.) In inference, the proposition (pratijðā) is the statement about the aspect to be proved of the major term (sādhya). The middle term (hetu) is the statement of reason (sādhana). The statement of a general rule supported by an example is called the udāharaõa. 126 ĀptamīmāÚsā Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. the use of the middle term (hetu) and the scriptural authority (āgama), to establish Reality – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be selfcontradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA77AA lkekU;kFkZ & vkSj vkxe&flf1⁄4 nksuksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ gsrq&flf1⁄4 Fault in accepting both, the use of the middle term (hetu) and the scriptural authority (āgama), to establish Reality, without mutual relation: 127 Verse 77 When the promulgator of Reality is 'not a true authority' (an pta), whatever is established through the use of the authentic middle term (hetu) is called hetu-established; when the promulgator of Reality is 'a true authority' (āpta), whatever is established through his incontrovertible statement is called āpta-established. ā oDr;ZukIrs ;1⁄4srks% lkè;a r1⁄4srqlkf/re~ A vkIrs oDrfj r}kD;kr~ lkè;ekxelkf/re~ AA78AA lkekU;kFkZ & gsrq&lkf/r (;qfDrfl1⁄4) dgk tkrk gS vkSj oDrk ds vkIr gksus ij mlds opuksa ls tks fl1⁄4 fd;k tkrk gS og vkxe&lkf/r ('kkL=kfl1⁄4) dgk tkrk gSA (vkIr ;FkkFkZ oLrq&rÙo dk izfriknd ,oa vfolaoknd gSA) oDrk ds vukIr gksus ij tks gsrq ls fl1⁄4 fd;k tkrk gS og Reality can be established by both – the authentic middle term (hetu) and the true authority ( pta):ā 128 ĀptamīmāÚsā If it be maintained (as the proponents of that there is existence only of internal 'objects of knowledge' (artha), i.e., of cognition arrived at through the subjective act of mind, then all inferences (anumāna) drawn by the intellect (buddhi), and verbal testimony of the scripture (āgama) would become sources of invalid knowledge (pramāõābhāsa). But how can there be invalid knowledge (pramāõābhāsa) without there being existence of valid knowledge (pramāõa)? vijðānādvaita do) vUrjÄkFkZrSdkUrs cqf1⁄4okD;a è"kk¿f[kye~ Aõ izek.kkHkklesokrLrr~ izek.kkn`rs dFke~ AA79AA lkekU;kFkZ & (foKkuk}Sr erkoyfEc;ksa ds vuqlkj &) dk gh lñHkko gS] ,slk ,dkUr ekuus ij lc cqf1⁄4&:i vuqeku vkSj okD;&:i vkxe feF;k gks tk;saxs vkSj feF;k gksus ls os izek.kkHkkl Bgjrs gSaA fdUrq izek.k dk vfLrRo Lohdkj fd;s fcuk izek.kkHkkl dk O;ogkj Hkh dSls gks ldrk gS\ dsoy vUrjax vFkZ Fault in the vi that cognition arrived at through the subjective act of mind is the only source of valid knowledge: jðānādvaita's assertion lIre ifjPNsn Section 7 129 (In the scheme of vijðānādvaita –) sādhya (statement of that which is to be proved, the major term) and the sādhana (statement of the reason, the middle term, hetu) one tries to prove that cognition alone is real, the process will not be a legitimate one; the statement of the sādhya, without considering any distinction whatsoever between the sādhya and sādhana, will suffer from what is known as the fallacy of the thesis (pratijðādoÈa) and the statement of the hetu, without accepting an inseparable connection with the major term, sādhya, from the fallacy of the reason (hetudoÈa). If through the use of the lkè;lk/ufoKIrs;Zfn foKfIrek=krk A u lkè;a u p gsrq'p izfrKkgsrqnks"kr% AA80AA lkekU;kFkZ & ;fn foKku&ek=k gh ekuk tk, rks ,slk dgus ls izfrKknks"k (Loopu&fojks/) vkSj gsrqnks"k (vfl1⁄4kfn nks"k) mifLFkr gksrs gSa & vkSj bl dkj.k u dksbZ lkè; cu ldrk gS vkSj u gsrqA lkè; vkSj lk/u (gsrq) dh foKfIr (Kku) dks In the vijðānādvaita scheme, i sādhya and the sādhana, cannot establish that cognition alone is real: nference, through the use of the 130 ĀptamīmāÚsā If the absolutist view (of the bahiraôgārthaikānta) that all cognitions have real substrata in the external world alone (totally objective, with no subjective input) be maintained then each cognition becomes prima facie valid, with a total absence of a cause for fallacy in the source of valid knowledge (i.e. nonexistence of pramāõābhāsa). And, as a result, all propositions, even those holding contradictory positions, will remain validated. cfgjÄkFkZrSdkUrs izek.kkHkklfuÉokr~ Aõ losZ"kka dk;Zflf1⁄4% L;kf}#1⁄4kFkkZ¿fHk/kf;uke~ AA81AA lkekU;kFkZ & ekudj dsoy cfgjaxkFkZrk dks gh ekuuk)] ,slk ,dkUr ekuus ij izek.kkHkkl (la'k;kfn&:i feF;kKku) dk fuÉo (yksi) gks tkus ls fo#1⁄4 vFkZ dk izfriknu djus okys lc yksxksa ds dk;Z dh flf1⁄4 BgjsxhA dsoy cfgjax vFkZ dk gh lñHkko gS (vUrjax&Kku dks u Fault in the bahira g rthaik nta that maintains the absolutist view that all cognitions have real substrata in the external world alone: ô ā ā 13 Verse 81 Fault in accepting both, the all-subjective cognition of the internal reality and the all-objective cognition of the external reality, without mutual dependence: Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. the all-subjective cognition of the internal reality and the allobjective cognition of the external reality – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA82AA lkekU;kFkZ & ,dkUr vkSj cfgjax vFkZ ,dkUr nksuksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ vUrjax vFkZ 132 ĀptamīmāÚsā O Lord ! You have asserted that when reality is ascertained through internal cognition that illumines the subjective 1knowledge-object (prameya) there is no scope for invalid knowledge (pramāõābhāsa), and when it is ascertained through external cognition that illumines the objective knowledge-object (prameya) there is the possibility of valid knowledge (pramāõa) as well as invalid knowledge (pramāõābhāsa). Hkkoizes;k¿is{kk;ka izek.kkHkklfuÉo% A cfg% izes;kis{kk;ka izek.ka rfUuHka p rs AA83AA lkekU;kFkZ & vis{kk ls dksbZ Hkh Kku loZFkk izek.kkHkkl ugha gSA vkSj cká&izes; (bfUnz;&Kku ds }kjk vFkZ dks ekuuk) dh vis{kk ls Kku izek.k vkSj izek.kkHkkl nksuksa gksrk gSA gs Hkxou~ ! vkids er esa Hkko&izes; (Kku ds Lolaosnu) dh Both, internaland external-cognition, can be sources of valid knowledge: 1. The conception of pram or valid apprehension implies three necessary factors, namely the subject (pramātā), the object (prameya) and the method of knowledge (pramāõa). ā 13 Verse 83 The word ' soul), being a designation (sa j ), must have a corresponding external object (bāhyārtha) that it signifies; a word, being a designation, is always associated with a corresponding external object, just as the word 'hetu' – the middle term. (The word 'hetu' may have 'smoke' as the corresponding external object.) As the word 'pramā' (valid apprehension) has a corresponding object that signifies valid apprehension, similarly words like 'māyā' (deceit), signifying an illusory cognition, have corresponding objects that signify illusory cognition. jīva' ( Ú ðā tho'kCn% lckákFkZ% laKkRok1⁄4srq'kCnor~ A ek;kfnHkzkfUrlaKk'p ek;k|S% LoS% izeksfDror~ AA84AA lkekU;kFkZ &  uke:i gksrk gS og cká vFkZ ds fcuk ugha gksrk gS tSls  gsrq* 'kCnA (/we 'kCn tc ^gsrq* dh rjg iz;qDr gksrk gS rc og ^/qvk¡* cká inkFkZ ds vfLrRo ds fcuk ugha gksrk gSA) ftl izdkj  izek* 'kCn dk cká vFkZ ik;k tkrk gS] mlh izdkj  ek;k* vkfn HkzkfUr dh laKk,¡ Hkh vius HkzkfUr :i vFkZ ls lfgr gksrh gSaA tho* 'kCn laKk gksus ls cká vFkZ lfgr gS_ tks 'kCn laKk ;k The word 'soul' must have a corresponding external object (b hy rtha):ā ā 134 ĀptamīmāÚsā The three kinds of designations – a piece of cognition (buddhi), a word , and an object (artha) – concurrently signify three corresponding comprehensions – a piece of cognition (buddhi), a word (śabda), and an object (artha), respectively. And the three kinds of comprehensions reflect equally the corresponding designations. (For example, the word 'jīva' – when the designation is jīva-buddhi, it reflects the cognition of 'jīva'; when the designation is jīva-śabda, it reflects the word 'jīva'; and when the designation is jīva-artha, it reflects the object that is 'jīva'.) (saÚjðā) (śabda) cqf1⁄4'kCnkFkZlaKkLrkfLrÏks cq1⁄4Ôkfnokfpdk% A rqY;k cq1⁄4Ôkfncks/k'p =k;LrRizfrfcEcdk% AA85AA lkekU;kFkZ & cqf1⁄4] 'kCn vkSj vFkZ dh leku :Ik ls okpd gSaA vkSj mu laKkvksa ds izfrfcEc&Lo:i cqf1⁄4 vkfn dk cks/ Hkh leku :i ls gksrk gSA cqf1⁄4&laKk] 'kCn&laKk vkSj vFkZ&laKk ;s rhu laKk,¡ Øe'k% These three, a piece of cognition (buddhi), a word ( abda), and an object (artha), signify three corresponding comprehensions: ś 135 Verse 85 The speaker with a particular piece of cognition , the hearer (śrotā) receiving the auditory perception in the form of the sentence (vākya), and the subject (pramātā) in whom valid knowledge (pramā) inheres as an attribute, are distinctly established. In case the method of knowledge (pramāõa) is fallacious, the corresponding external objects (bāhyārtha) – in the form of internal and external cognition – too will be fallacious. (vaktā) (bodha) oDr`Jksr`izekr`.kka cks/okD;izek% ìFkd~ À HkzkUrkoso izekHkzkUrkS ckák¿FkkSZ rkn`'ksrjkS AA86AA lkekU;kFkZ & dkj.k) gksrk gS] Jksrk (vfHk/s;&ifjKku ds fy,) ftl okD; dks lqurk gS] vkSj izekrk dks tks izek (vfHk/s;&fo"k; esa ;ksX;&v;ksX; vFkok lR;&vlR; dk fu.kZ;) gksrk gS & ;s rhuksa ìFkd~&ìFkd~ O;ofLFkr gSaA (bl izdkj foKkuk}Srrk ckf/r Bgjrh gSA) izek.k ds HkzkUr gksus ij vUrKsZ; vkSj cfgKsZ; :i ckákFkks± dk foospu Hkh HkzkUr gh BgjsxkA oÙkQk dk tks (vfHk/s;&fo"k;d) cks/ (okD; dh izòfÙk esa The speaker (vakt ) having the piece of cognition (bodha), the hearer (śrotā) hearing the sentence (vākya), and the subject (prāmatā) having the knowledge (pramā), are distinct: ā 136 ĀptamīmāÚsā The piece of cognition (buddhi) and the word can be sources of valid knowledge (pramāõa) only when the external objects (bāhyārtha) corresponding to these exist; not when there is absence of the corresponding external objects. Truth is established on the existence of the corresponding external objects (of the piece of cognition and the word), and untruth when the external objects are absent. (śabda) cqf1⁄4'kCnizek.kRoa ckákFksZ Lkfr uklfr A lR;kùrO;oLFkSoa ;qT;rs¿FkkZIR;ukfIr"kq AA87AA lkekU;kFkZ & vFkZ ds vHkko esa ughaA cká vFkZ dh izkfIr gksus ij lR; dh O;oLFkk vkSj cká vFkZ dh izkfIr u gksus ij vLkR; dh O;oLFkk dh tkrh gSA cqf1⁄4 vkSj 'kCn esa izek.krk cká vFkZ ds gksus ij gksrh gS] cká The validity of the knowledge depends on whether there is agreement or disagreement with the corresponding external object (bahy rtha):ā Two kinds of sources of valid knowledge can be thought of: one, used for self through the piece of cognition (buddhi), and two, used for others through the word ( abda). These two can be considered authentic only when there is existence of the corresponding external objects (bahyārtha). The existence of the corresponding external objects (bahyārtha) establishes the authenticity of the speaker (vaktā), the hearer (śrotā), and the subject (pramātā) and also of the piece of cognition (bodha), the uttered sentence (vākya), and the valid knowledge (pramā). The corresponding external object (bahyārtha) of the word 'jīva' (soul) is thus established. (pramāõa) ś 137 Verse 87 The validity of the knowledge depends on whether there is agreement or disagreement with the corresponding external object (b hy rtha); when there is agreement, the knowledge is valid; in case of disagreement, the knowledge is invalid. ā ā 138 ĀptamīmāÚsā If the accomplishment of objects (artha) is due only to fate (daiva), then how could human-effort (pauruÈa) be responsible for the creation of fate? If it be assumed that fate is responsible for the creation of fate, then there is no possibility of attainment of liberation (mokÈa), and all human-effort to attain liberation (mokÈa) will be futile. nSoknsokFkZflf1⁄4'psíSoa ikS#"kr% dFke~ A nSor'psnfueksZ{k% ikS#"ka fu"iQya Hkosr~ AA88AA lkekU;kFkZ & gS rks ikS#"k ls nSo dh flf1⁄4 dSls dgh tk ldssxh\ vkSj nSo ls gh nSo dh flf1⁄4 ekuus ij dHkh Hkh eks{k ugha gksxkA eks{k ds vHkko esa eks{k izkfIr ds fy, iq#"kkFkZ djuk fu"iQy gh gksxkA ;fn nSo ls gh lc vFkZ (iz;kstu&:i dk;Z) dh flf1⁄4 gksrh Fault in accepting that the accomplishment of objects is due only to fate: v"Ve ifjPNsn Section 8 139 If the accomplishment of objects (artha) is due only to humaneffort (pauruÈa) then how could fate (daiva) be responsible for the creation of human-effort? If it be assumed that only humaneffort is responsible for the creation of human-effort, then all human-effort for the accomplishment of objects should always be successful. ikS#"kknso flf1⁄4'psr~ ikS#"ka nSor% dFke~ A ikS#"kkPpsneks?ka L;kr~ loZizkf.k"kq ikS#"ke~ AA89AA lkekU;kFkZ & ,dkUr ekuk tk, rks ikS#"k&:i dk;Z dh flf1⁄4 dSls gksrh gS\ ;fn mldh nSo ls flf1⁄4 gksrh gS rks ,slk ekuus ij mÙkQ ,dkUr dk fojks/ gksrk gSA vkSj ;fn ikS#"k ls gh ikS#"k dh flf1⁄4 ekuh tk, rks lc izkf.k;ksa dk ikS#"k veks?k (fu"iQy u gksuk) Bgjsxk (tks izR;{k ds fo#1⁄4 gS)A ;fn ikS#"k ls gh lc vFkZ (iz;kstu&:i dk;Z) dh flf1⁄4 dk Fault in accepting that the accomplishment of objects is due only to human-effort: 140 ĀptamīmāÚsā Fault in accepting both, the accomplishment of objects is due only to fate and that it is due only to human-effort, without mutual relation: Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. the accomplishment of objects is due only to fate (daiva) and the accomplishment of objects is due only to human-effort (pauruÈa) – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA90AA lkekU;kFkZ & ikS#"k nksuksa ,dkUrksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ nSo vkSj 14 Verse 90 Both fate and human-effort are jointly responsible for desirable and undesirable effects: The desirable and undesirable effects (k rya) that one begets without premeditation should be understood due primarily to one's fate (daiva). (In incidences of such effects human-effort (pauruÈa) occupies the secondary role and fate (daiva) the primary role.) The desirable and undesirable effects (kārya) that one begets in consequence of premeditation should be understood due primarily to one's human-effort (pauruÈa). (In incidences of such effects fate (daiva) occupies the secondary role and human-effort (pauruÈa) the primary role.) ā vcqf1⁄4iwokZis{kk;kfe"Vkfu"Va LonSor% A cqf1⁄4iwoZO;is{kk;kfe"Vkfu"Va LoikS#"kkr~ AA91AA lkekU;kFkZ & fdlh dks vcqf1⁄4iwoZd (cqf1⁄4&O;kikj dh vis{kk ds fcuk) gksrh gS mls Lo&nSo&Ñr le>uk pkfg;sA tks b"V vkSj vfu"V vFkZ dh izkfIr cqf1⁄4iwoZd (cqf1⁄4&O;kikj dh vis{kk j[kdj) gksrh gS mls Lo&ikS#"k&Ñr le>uk pkfg;sA tks b"V (vuqdwy) vkSj vfu"V (izfrdwy) vFkZ dh izkfIr Fate (daiva) – It is invisible (ad a). The word implies one's inherent capability (yogyatā) and the fruition of karmas from previous life (pūrva-karma). Human-effort (pauruÈa) – It is visible (dÃÈÇa). The word implies one's efforts in this life. Both, fate (daiva) and human-effort (pauruÈa), are responsible for the accomplishment of the object (artha). ÃÈÇ 142 ĀptamīmāÚsā If it be maintained that causing pain to others must necessarily result into bondage of demerit (p pa) and that causing pleasure to others must necessarily result into bondage of merit (puõya) then, being the instrumental cause of pain and pleasure to others, inanimate objects (like thorn and poison, milk and 1sweet-food) and persons free from passions (like passionless saints of high order) must also suffer bondage (of karmas involving merit and demerit). ā ikia /qzoa ijs nq%[kkr~ iq.;a p lq[krks ;fn A vpsrukd"kk;kS p cè;s;krka fufeÙkr% AA92AA lkekU;kFkZ & vkSj ij dks lq[k nsus ls fuf'pr :i ls iq.; dk cU/ gksuk ekuk tk, rks ij ds nq%[k vkSj lq[k esa fufeÙk gksus ds dkj.k vpsru inkFkZ (d.Vdkfnd vkSj nqXèkkfnd) vkSj d"kk; jfgr tho (ohrjkx) dks Hkh iki vkSj iq.; dk cU/ gksrs jguk pkfg;sA ;fn ij dks nq%[k nsus ls fuf'pr :i ls iki dk cU/ gksuk Fault in accepting that causing pain and pleasure to others must necessarily result into demerit and merit: uoe ifjPNsn Section 9 1. Major passions (ka ya) are four – anger (krodha), pride (m na), deceitfulness (māyā), and greed (lobha). Èā ā 143 Fault in accepting that causing pain and pleasure to oneself must necessarily result into merit and demerit: If it be maintained that causing pain to oneself must necessarily result into bondage of merit (puõya) and that causing pleasure to oneself must necessarily result into bondage of demerit (pāpa) then, being the instrumental cause of pain and pleasure to oneself, those free from all attachment (vītarāga), and learned ascetics must also suffer bondage (of karmas involving merit and demerit). iq.;a /qzoa Lorks nq%[kkr~ ikia p lq[krks ;fn A ohrjkxks eqfu£o}kaLrkH;ka ;q×T;kfUufeÙkr% AA93AA lkekU;kFkZ & gS vkSj vius dks lq[k nsus ls iki dk cU/ fuf'pr :i ls gksrk gS rks ohrjkx (d"kk;&jfgr) vkSj fo}ku~ eqfutuksa dks Hkh (iq.; vkSj iki&:i) deZ&cU/ gksuk pkfg;s D;ksafd os Hkh vius lq[k vkSj nq%[k dh mRifÙk ds fufeÙk&dkj.k gksrs gSaA ;fn vius dks nq%[k nsus ls iq.; dk cU/ fuf'pr :i ls gksrk 14 ĀptamīmāÚsā Ācārya Umāsvāmi's Tattvārthasūtra: 'kqHk% iq.;L;k'kqHk% ikiL; AA6&3AA Virtuous activity is the cause of merit (puõya) and wicked activity is the cause of demerit (pāpa). Ācārya Pujyapada's Sarvārthasiddhi What is good and what is evil? Killing, stealing, copulation, etc. are wicked activities of the body. Falsehood, harsh and uncivil language are wicked speech-activities. Thoughts of violence, envy, calumny, etc. are wicked thought-activities. The opposites of these are good. How can activity be good or wicked? That activity which is performed with good intentions is good. And that which is performed with evil intentions is wicked. But the distinction is not based on the activities being 1the causes of auspicious and inauspicious karmas . In that case, there would be no good activities at all, as good activities also are admitted to be the cause of bondage of knowledge2obscuring karmas etc. (by the Jainas) . That, which purifies the soul or by which the soul is purified, is merit (puõya), namely that which produces happy feeling etc. That which protects or keeps the soul away from good is demerit (pāpa), namely that which produces unhappy feeling etc. Jain, S.A. (1960), "Reality : English Translation of Shri Pūjyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi", p. 168-169. Ācārya Kundakunda's Paðcāstikāya-Sāra jkxks tLl ilRFkks v.kqdaiklaflnks ; ifj.kkeks A fpÙks .kfRFk dyqLla iq..ka thoLl vklofn AA (135) Whenever Jīva has desires high and noble, thoughts based on love and sympathy and in whose mind there are no evil impulses towards the same, the Karmic matter that causes merit flows in as conditioned by the above mentioned springs of righteousness. 1. activities in themselves. And the consequences are largely determined by the intentions underlying any activity. 2. From the real point of view, it is no doubt true that all activities are undesirable as every kind of activity is the cause of influx and bondage. But from the empirical point of view there is difference. Merit leads to pleasure and demerit to pain. From the Jaina standpoint, intentions are all-important and not 145 Verse 93 frflna cqHkqfD[kna ok nqfgna nV~Bw.k tks nq nqfgne.kks A ifMoTtfn ra fdo;k rLlslk gksfn v.kqdaik AA (137) If anyone moved at the sight of the thirsty, the hungry and the miserable, offers relief to them, out of pity, then such behavior of that person is love or charity. dksèkks o tnk ek.kks ek;k yksHkks o fpÙkeklsTt A thoLl dq.kfn [kksga dyqlks fÙk ; ra cqèkk osafr AA (138) Whenever anger, pride, deceit and covetousness, appear in the mind of a Jīva, they create disturbing emotion, interfering with calmness of thought. This emotional agitation of thought is called impure thought by the wise. pfj;k iekncgqyk dkyqLla yksynk ; fol;slq A ijifjrkoioknks ikoLl ; vkloa dq.kfn AA (139) Inordinate taste for worldly things, impure emotions, hankering for and indulging in sensual pleasures, causing anguish to fellow beings, and slandering them openly or covertly; these constitute the spring of evil. l..kkvks ; frysLlk bafn;olnk ; vÙk#íkf.k* A .kk.ka p nqIimÙka eksgks ikoIink gksafr AA (140) The different animal instincts, the different soul-soiling emotions, the tempting senses, suffering and wrath, undesirable thoughts and corruption of the faculties of perception and will; these constitute the spring of evil. Chakravarti Nayanar, A., "Ācārya Kundakunda's Paðcāstikāya-Sāra", p. 112-115. 146 ĀptamīmāÚsā * ikBkUrj % vê#ð íkf.k Fault in accepting both, causing pain and pleasure to others and to oneself must necessarily result into bondage of karmas, without mutual dependence: Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. causing pain and pleasure to others and causing pain and pleasure to oneself must necessarily result into bondage of karmas – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA94AA lkekU;kFkZ & ij&nq%[k&lq[k vkSj Lo&nq%[k&lq[k tfur iki vkSj iq.; lEcU/h nksuksa ,dkUrksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ 147 Verse 94 Auspicious or inauspicious kinds of dispositions cause the influx of meritorious or demeritorious karmas: When pleasure and pain in oneself and in others are due to the 1limbs (a ga) of the auspicious kind of disposition (vi uddhi) , these are causes of the influx of meritorious karmas (puõya). When pleasure and pain in oneself and in others are due to the 2limbs of the inauspicious kind of disposition (saÚkleśa) , these are causes of the influx of demeritorious karmas (pāpa). O Lord ! In your view, if pleasure and pain in oneself and in others are not due to the auspicious or inauspicious kinds of dispositions then there cannot be influx of meritorious or demeritorious karmas; these do not yield any fruit. ô ś fo'kqf1⁄4laDys'kkÄa psr~ LoijLFka lq[kklq[ke~ Aõ iq.;ikikÏokS ;qDrkS u psñO;FkZLrokgZr% AA95AA lkekU;kFkZ & iq.; dk vkÏo gksrk gS vkSj ;fn laDys'k dk vax gS rks iki dk vkÏo gksrk gSA gs Hkxou~ ! vkids er esa ;fn Lo&ijLFk lq[k vkSj nq%[k fo'kqf1⁄4 vkSj laDys'k ds dkj.k ugha gSa rks iq.; vkSj iki dk vkÏo O;FkZ gS] vFkkZr~ mudk dksbZ iQy ugha gksrk gSA ;fn Lo&ij esa gksus okyk lq[k&nq%[k fo'kqf1⁄4 dk vax gS rks 1. auspicious kind of disposition (vi uddhi) – due to virtuous (dharmya) and pure (śukla) kinds of concentration. There are three limbs (aôga) of the auspicious kind of disposition – its cause (kāraõa), its effect (kārya), and its own-nature (svabhāva). 2. inauspicious kind of disposition (saÚkleśa) – due to sorrowful (ārta) and cruel (raudra) kinds of concentration. This also has three limbs – its cause (kāraõa), its effect (kārya), and its own-nature (svabhāva). ś 148 ĀptamīmāÚsā If ignorance (aj na) be considered an assured cause of bondage (bandha) then since there are infinite knowables (jðeya), no one can become an Omniscient (kevalin) [i.e., the one who has attained omniscience (kevalajðāna)]. If it be maintained that liberation (mokÈa) results from even slight-knowledge (alpajðāna) then, because of the persistent presence of acute ignorance, the cause of bondage will persist (and, as such, attainment of liberation cannot be imagined). ðā vKkukPpsñ/qzoks cU/ks Ks;k¿uUR;kUu dsoyh A KkuLrksdkf}eks{k'psnKkukñcgqrks¿U;Fkk AA96AA lkekU;kFkZ & dksbZ Hkh dsoyh ugha gks ldrk gSA vkSj ;fn vYiKku ls eks{k dh izkfIr ekuh tk, rks vKku ds cgqr gksus ds dkj.k cU/ dk izlax lnk cuk jgsxk vkSj blfy, eks{k dk gksuk ughsa cu ldsxkA ;fn vKku ls cU/ fu;e ls gksrk gS rks Ks;ksa ds vuUr gksus ls Fault in views that ignorance is the cause of bondage and that liberation is possible with slight-knowledge: n'ke ifjPNsn Section 10 The S khya view that only through the realization of his independence from the environment including his own psychophysical mechanism, Puru a attains perfect knowledge, is the point of contention in this verse. According to the SāÚkhya view, with his discriminative knowledge Puruśa is able to āÚ ś 149 perceive that the activities are all due to Prak ti while he himself remains in unruffled peace. PrakÃti, which continues to spin round on account of its own impulse, can no more influence the liberated Puruśa because he has attained freedom on account of his discriminative knowledge. Ã 150 ĀptamīmāÚsā Fault in accepting that ignorance is an assured cause of bondage and even slight-knowledge is the cause of liberation, without mutual relation: Those who are hostile to the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) can also not maintain that the two attributes – viz. ignorance (ajðāna) is an assured cause of bondage (bandha) and even slight-knowledge (alpajðāna) is the cause of liberation (mokÈa) – describe but one and the same phenomenon (i.e., endorsing both one-sided, independent standpoints – ubhayaikānta), for such a position will be self-contradictory. And if they maintain that the phenomena are absolutely indescribable (avācyataikānta) then for them even to utter the words 'the phenomenon is indescribable' is not tenable as it is irrational. ā ā fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a L;k}knU;k;fof}"kke~ A vokP;rSdkUrs¿I;qfDrukZokP;fefr ;qT;rs AA97AA lkekU;kFkZ & cU/ vkSj vYiKku ls eks{k nksuksa ,dkUrksa dk fujis{k vfLrRo ugha cu ldrk gS D;ksafd nksuksa ds loZFkk ,dkRE; ekuus esa fojks/&nks"k vkrk gSA vokP;rk (voDrO;rk) ,dkUr Hkh ugha cu ldrk gS D;kasfd vokP;rSdkUr esa  ;g vokP; gS* ,sls okD; dk iz;ksx djus ls og okP; gks tkrk gSA tks L;k}kn&U;k; ls }s"k j[kus okys gSa muds ;gk¡ vKku ls 15 Verse 97 The real causes of bondage and liberation: Bondage (bandha) is caused due to ignorance accompanied by delusion (moha), and bondage is not caused due to ignorance (ajðāna) not accompanied by delusion (moha). In the same way, liberation (mokÈa) is caused due to slightknowledge (alpajðāna) not accompanied by delusion (moha), and liberation (mokÈa) is not caused due to slight-knowledge (alpajðāna) accompanied by delusion (moha). (ajðāna) vKkukUeksfguks cU/ks ukKkuk}hreksgr% A KkuLrksdkPp eks{k% L;kneksgkUeksfguks¿U;Fkk AA98AA lkekU;kFkZ & cU/ ugha gksrk gSA blh izdkj eksg&jfgr vYi&Kku ls eks{k gksrk gS] fdUrq eksg&lfgr vYi&Kku ls eks{k ugha gksrk gSA eksg&lfgr vKku ls cU/ gksrk gS vkSj eksg&jfgr vKku ls 152 ĀptamīmāÚsā Dispositions, like attachment or desire, originate according to the type of karmic bondage: The origination of dispositions, like attachment or desire, is variegated (vicitra) according to the type of karmic bondage (karmabandha), and this karmic bondage originates from its own appropriate causes. The souls subject to karmic bondage are of two types – those possessing spiritual purity (śuddhi) [and destined to attain liberation (mokÈa) – bhavya jīva], and those possessing spiritual impurity (aśuddhi) [and destined not to attain liberation (mokÈa) – abhavya jīva]. dkekfnizHkof'p=k% deZcU/kuq:ir% A rPp deZ LogsrqH;ks thokLrs 'kq1⁄4Ô'kqf1⁄4r% AA99AA lkekU;kFkZ & og deZcU/ ds vuqlkj gksrh gS rFkk deZcU/ vius dkj.kksa ds vuq:i gksrk gSA ftUgsa deZcU/ gksrk gS os tho 'kqf1⁄4 vkSj v'kqf1⁄4 ds Hksn ls nks izdkj ds (HkO; vkSj vHkO;) gksrs gSaA bPNk vkfn Hkkolalkj&:i dk;ks± dh mRifÙk fofp=k gS vkSj 153 Verse 99 The manifestation of purity in a soul has a beginning while the manifestation of impurity is beginningless: These, purity and impurity (a , are two kinds of power akin to the cookability (pākya) or the non-cookability (apākya) of a cereal (viz. beans like uÃada and mūôga). The manifestation of purity (in a soul) has a beginning while the manifestation of impurity is beginningless. And, being (the soul's) own-nature (svabhāva), it is not open to logical argument (tarka). (śuddhi) śuddhi) 'kq1⁄4Ô'kq1⁄4h iqu% 'kDrh rs ikD;kikD;'kfDror~ A lk|uknh r;ksO;ZDrh LoHkkoks¿rdZxkspj% AA100AA lkekU;kFkZ & dh v;ksX;rk & fdlh&fdlh ew¡x ;k mM+n dks fdruk Hkh idk;k tk, og idrk ugha gS) dh rjg 'kqf1⁄4 vkSj v'kqf1⁄4 ;s nks 'kfDr;k¡ gSaA 'kqf1⁄4 dh O;fÙkQ lkfn vkSj v'kqf1⁄4 dh O;fÙkQ vukfn gSA ;g oLrq&LoHkko gS tks rdZ dk fo"k; ugha gksrk gSA ikD;&'kfDr (idus dh ;ksX;rk) vkSj vikD;&'kfDr (idus The capacities (purity and impurity) of two kinds of souls are compared with those of beans; some of these become soft and edible on being stewed and others remain hard even after being stewed for a long time. It is not possible to know beforehand whether a particular bean is edible or non-edible. On being boiled some beans, as per their nature, will become soft; the others, as per their nature, will remain hard as before. In the same manner, it is not possible to know beforehand whether a person has the capacity to attain liberation (mok a) or not. È 154 ĀptamīmāÚsā Austerities (tapas) and observance of vows (vrata) are like heating our souls up. On performance of such laudable efforts, some will acquire true knowledge and attain liberation, but others will not be able to get rid of worldly sufferings and are destined to stay forever in the cycle of rebirths (saÚsāra). The attainment of purity in a soul has a beginning but impurity is beginningless. In this verse Ācārya Samantabhadra makes an important point: purity or impurity of souls is their inherent nature (svabhāva) and, therefore, not open to logical argument (tarka). We cannot know through indirect knowledge of the senses if a person has the capacity to attain liberation (mokÈa); only the Omniscient can know this. 15 Verse 100 That by which substances (souls and non-souls) are rightly known, or knowledge alone, is pram a:āõ O Lord ! As per your teaching, that by which substances (souls and non-souls) are rightly known, or knowledge alone, is pramāõ ( the method of knowledge). āõ is of two kinds: first, direct (pratyakÈa) – omniscience (kevalajðāna) – which knows the whole range of objects of knowledge simultaneously, without gradation (akramabhāvī), and second, indirect (parokÈa), which knows the objects of knowledge partially and in succession (kramabhāvī). Knowledge in succession features the doctrine of conditional predications – syādvāda, and ascertainment, without contradiction, of one particular state or mode of the object, called naya. a lit. Pram a rÙoKkua izek.ka rs ;qxiRloZHkklue~ A ØeHkkfo p ;TKkua L;k}knu;laLÑre~ AA101AA lkekU;kFkZ & rÙoKku nks izdkj dk gS & vØeHkkoh vkSj ØeHkkohA tks Kku ,d lkFk (;qxir~) lEiw.kZ inkFkks± dks tkurk gS] ,slk izR;{k dsoyKku vØeHkkoh gSA tks Kku (efrKku vkfn) Øe ls inkFkks± dks tkurk gS og ØeHkkoh gSA ØeHkkoh Kku L;k}kn vkSj u; nksuksa ls laLÑr gksrk gSA gs Hkxou~~ ! vkids er esa rÙoKku dks izek.k dgk x;k gSA The ordinary human being cannot rise above the limitations of his senses; his apprehension of reality is partial and it is valid only from a particular viewpoint. This leads to the nayav da of the Jainas. When ordinary human knowledge is partial, a new method of stating our approach to the complex reality had to be devised, and that is syādvāda, the doctrine of conditional ā 156 ĀptamīmāÚsā predications. Thus the doctrine is the direct result of the strong awareness of the complexity of the object of knowledge and the limitations of human apprehension and expression. Pram a is the comprehensive view; naya is the partial view. Ācārya Kundakunda's Pravacanasāra: tkna l;a leÙka .kk.ke.karRFkfoRFkMa foeya A jfg;a rq vksXxgkfn g lqga fr ,xafr;a Hkf.k;a AA1&59AA That self-born, perfect and pure knowledge which spreads over infinite things and which is free from the stages of perception such as apprehension and speculation is called 1the real happiness . Upadhye, A.N. (1935), "Śrī Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasāra", p. 76. While the self-born, direct knowledge (or omniscience) is utterly pure and free from stages, the sensory knowledge (matijðāna) has four stages as mentioned in the following sūtra. Ācārya Umāsvāmi's Tattvārthasūtra: voxzgsgk¿ok;/kj.kk% AA1&15AA (The four divisions of sensory knowledge are) apprehension (sensation), speculation, perceptual judgement, and retention. Jain, S.A. (1960), "Reality : English Translation of Shri Pūjyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi", p. 23. āõ 1. Ignorance, the result of knowledge-obscuring karmas, is misery in this world. Real happiness consists in destroying the karmas and attaining omniscience, the very nature of the self. 157 Verse 101 Fruits of the two kinds of pram a:āõ The fruit of the first kind of – direct or omniscience (kevalajðāna) – is equanimity (upekÈā). The fruit of the other kinds of pramāõa – indirect (parokÈa) – is discernment, i.e., acceptance (grahaõa) or rejection (tyāga); besides, of course, equanimity, as stated above. Destruction of ignorance (ajðāna) about the self, however, is the actual fruit of all methods of knowledge (pramāõa). pramāõa (pratyakÈa) mis{kkiQyek|L; 'ks"kL;k¿¿nkugku/h% A iwokZ ok¿Kkuuk'kks ok loZL;kL; Loxkspjs AA102AA lkekU;kFkZ & iQy mis{kk gSA 'ks"k tks ØeHkkoh&Hkklu:i izek.k (eR;kfn Kku&lewg) gS mldk ijaijk iQy vknku (xzg.k) vkSj gku (R;kx) dh cqf1⁄4 gSA vFkok iwoZ esa dgh xbZ mis{kk Hkh mldk iQy gSA okLro esa vius fo"k; esa vKku dk uk'k gksuk gh lc izek.k&:i Kkuksa dk iQy gSA izFke tks ;qxiRloZHkklu:i izek.k (dsoyKku) gS] mldk Ācārya Umāsvāmi's Tattvārthasūtra kinds of knowledge constitute the two types of pramā a: rRizek.ks AA1&10AA These (five kinds of knowledge) are the two types of pramāõa (valid knowledge). As regard the fruit of pramāõa, there is satisfaction in the attainment of knowledge. The soul, whose knowledge-nature is clouded by the foreign matter of karmas, finds satisfaction in determining the nature of substances with the help of the asserts that the five õ 158 ĀptamīmāÚsā senses. That is spoken of as the fruit of knowledge (or of pramāõa). Or the attainment of equanimity (upekÈā) and the destruction of ignorance (ajðāna) may be considered the fruit. Equanimity is freedom from attachment and aversion. Also, on the destruction of darkness, that is ignorance, the self attains the power of discrimination between what needs to be accepted and rejected. 159 Verse 102 The word 'sy t' is used to assert a particular attribute of the object of knowledge and explicatory of the manifold points of view (anekānta): ā O Lord ! The word 'sy t', used in conjunction with the object of knowledge (artha), imparts to your sentences a definitive meaning explicatory of the manifold points of view (anekānta) and corroborates a particular attribute of the object. The word 1'syāt' is a nipāta – a particle, an indeclinable – acknowledged by the Omniscients (kevalins) as well as the all-knowing Masters of Scripture (śrutakevalins); it qualifies the meaning of the sentence concerned. ā okD;s"ousdkUr|ksrh xE;a izfr fo'ks"k.ke~ A L;kfUuikrks¿FkZ;ksfxRokÙko dsofyukefi AA103AA lkekU;kFkZ & (tSls ^L;knfLr ?kV%* esa) gksus ds dkj.k vusdkUr dk |ksrd gksrk gSA dsofy;ksa vkSj Jqrdsofy;ksa ds Hkh okD;ksa esa iz;qDr ^L;kr~* 'kCn fuikr (vO;;) gS vkSj xE;&cksè; (foof{kr vFkZ) dk fo'ks"k.k (cks/d& lwpd) gksrk gSA gs Hkxou~ !  L;kr~* 'kCn vFkZ (Ks; inkFkZ) ds lkFk lEc1⁄4 1. An avyaya is a preposition, an indeclinable word or particle; a kind of compound. Nipāta words are parts of avyaya used to communicate the meaning. The word 'syāt' is used in relation to a particular meaning, not in terms of doubt, possibility or vacillation (maybe, perhaps). 160 ĀptamīmāÚsā Sy dv da is the doctrine of conditional predications, renouncing the absolutist view: ā ā Discarding the absolutist (ek nta) point of view and observing the practice of using the word 'kathaôcit' – 'from a certain viewpoint', or 'in a respect', or 'under a certain condition' – is what is known as syādvāda – the doctrine of conditional predications. It embraces the seven limbs (saptabhaôga) of assertion, the one-sided but relative method of comprehension (naya), and also the acceptance and rejection of the assertion. ā L;k}kn% loZFkSdkUrR;kxkr~  dòÙkfpf}f/% A lIrHkaxu;kis{kks gs;kns;fo'ks"kd% AA104AA lkekU;kFkZ & L;k}kn gSA (blfy, dFkf×pr~ vkfn 'kCn L;k}kn ds i;kZ;okph gSaA) L;k}kn lIrHkaxksa vkSj u;ksa dh vis{kk dks fy, jgrk gS rFkk gs; vkSj mikns; dk fo'ks"kd (Hksnd) gksrk gSA loZFkk ,dkUr dk R;kx djds dFkf×pr~ fo/ku djus dk uke The particle 'syāt' in a sentence qualifies the acceptance or rejection of the proposition or predication expressed by the sentence. It refers to a 'point of view' or 'in a particular context' or 'in a particular sense'. The 'vāda' presents a theory of logic and metaphysics. Syādvāda means a theory of predication of reality from different points of view, in different contexts or from different universes of discourse. Syādvāda is the expression of the pictures of reality obtained from different points of view in definite and determinate logical predications. Syādvāda promotes catholic outlook of many-sided approach to the problem of knowledge of reality. It is anti-dogmatic and it 16 Verse 104 presents a synoptic picture of reality from different points of view. Sy dv da expresses a protest against one-sided, narrow, dogmatic and fanatical approach to the problems of reality. It affirms that there are different facets of reality and these have to be understood from various points of view by the predications of affirmation, negation and indescribability. Anekānta is the basic understanding of the complexity of reality and the necessity of looking at it from different points of view. Syādvāda is the expression of the anekāntavāda in logical and predicational form. In this sense, anekāntavāda is the foundational principle and syādvāda is the logical expression 1of the foundational principle. In the presentation of the nature of an object in its infinite aspects we have to adopt the sevenfold predicational form (saptabhaôgī) which includes the positive and the negative predications without contradicting each other. The nature of the object can be considered from seven points of view and their predications would be sevenfold. Everything can be presented through sevenfold predications. These predications have been worked out on the basis of permutations of the fundamental threefold predications of affirmation, negation and indescribability. A limb (bhaôga) refers to the partial presentation or a particular form of expression. Saptabhaôgī is the sum total of the seven limbs of logical expression. It is the expression of the psychological basis in nayavāda. ā ā 1. See Philosophy", p. 240. Shastri, Devendra Muni (1983), "A Source-book in Jaina 162 ĀptamīmāÚsā The doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) and omniscience (kevalajðāna) are both illuminators of reality: ā ā Sy dv da, the doctrine of conditional predications, and kevalajðāna, omniscience, are both illuminators of the substances of reality. The difference between the two is that while kevalajðāna illumines directly, syādvāda illumines indirectly. Anything which is not illuminated or expressed by the two is not a substance of reality and hence a non-substance (avastu). ā ā L;k}kndsoyKkus loZrÙoizdk'kus A Hksn% lk{kknlk{kkPp áoLRoU;rea Hkosr~ AA105AA lkekU;kFkZ & izdk'kd gSaA nksuksa ds izdk'ku esa lk{kkr~ (izR;{k) vkSj vlk{kkr~ (ijks{k) dk Hksn gSA tks oLrq bu nksuksa Kkuksa esa fdlh Hkh Kku dk fo"k; ugha gksrh gS og voLrq gSA L;k}kn vkSj dsoyKku nksuksa lEiw.kZ rÙoksa (thokfn) ds Syādvāda and kevalajðāna are the foundational facts of knowledge. The difference between the two is that kevalajðāna is the complete and all-emracing knowledge of reality while syādvāda is the conditional predication of the individual propositions of the knowledge obtained in kevalajðāna. Kevalajðāna is the direct experience and syādvāda is its indirect expression. 163 Verse 105 A naya gives expression to a particular aspect of an object, comprehended fully by sy dv da:ā ā A naya gives expression to a particular aspect (like 'nityatva') of an object, comprehended fully by syādvāda, through the use of homogeneous (sādharmya) or heterogenous (vaidharmya) example (drÈÇānta) to establish, without contradiction, inseparable connection (vyāpti) between the major term (sādhya) and the middle term (hetu). (Thus, naya is designated here as a virtual synonym of hetu, beside its usual designation as a relative, one-sided comprehension.) l/eZ.kSo lkè;L; lk/E;kZnfojks/r% A L;k}knizfoHkDrkFkZfo'ks"kO;Û"dks u;% AA106AA lkekU;kFkZ & n`"VkUr ds lkFk oS/E;Z }kjk fcuk fdlh fojks/ ds tks L;k}kn&:i ijekxe ds fo"k;Hkwr vFkZ&fo'ks"k (^fuR;Ro* vkfn) dk O;×td gksrk gS] og u; dgykrk gSA lkè; dk lk/E;Z n`"VkUr ds lkFk lk/E;Z }kjk vkSj oS/E;Z 164 ĀptamīmāÚsā A substance (dravya) is an inseparable consolidation of attributes: A substance (dravya) is an inseparable consolidation of attributes expressed through all one-sided, but relative, comprehensions (naya) and their subdivisions (upanaya), pertaining to the three times (the past, the present, and the future). It is one (with respect to the dravyārthika naya) and many (with respect to the paryāyārthika naya). u;ksiu;SdkUrkuka f=kdkykuka leqPp;% A vfoHkzkM~HkkolEcU/ks aeO;esdeusd/k AA107AA lkekU;kFkZ & fo"k;Hkwr (,dkUr fo"k;ksa dk) vusd /eks± ds rknkRE; lEcU/ dks izkIr leqnk; dk uke aeO; gSA og aeO; ,d Hkh gS vkSj vusd Hkh gSA rhuksa dkyksa dks fo"k; djus okys u;ksa vkSj miu;ksa ds 165 Verse 107 The conglomeration of inter-dependent and relative assertions reveals the true nature of an object: If it be said that the conglomeration of unseemly propositions [purported to be made by independent, one-sided points of view (naya) in isolation (of reality)] is bound to be false, our reply is that this is not correct. In your scheme, O Lord, only those onesided points of view (naya) which make absolute and nonrelative assertions are false; assertions which are interdependent and relative, in fact, each reveal an aspect of truth, and their conglomeration, therefore, reveals the true nature of an object. feF;klewgks feF;k psUu feF;SdkUrrkfLr u% A fujis{kk u;k feF;k lkis{kk oLrq rs¿FkZÑr~ AA108AA lkekU;kFkZ & ekuus ij mudk leqnk;&:i nzO; Hkh feF;k gh ekuuk pkfg;sA ;g Bhd ugha gS D;ksafd L;k}kfn;ksa ds ;gk¡ feF;SdkUrrk ugha gS] dsoy fujis{k u; gh feF;k gksrs gSaA gs Hkxou~ ! vkids er esa u; ijLij lkis{k gSa vkSj blfy, muds fo"k; vFkZfØ;kdkjh gksrs gSa (vkSj blfy, muds lewg ds oLrqiuk lq?kfVr gS)A dksbZ dg ldrk gS fd fuR;Ro vkfn ,dkUr /eks± dks feF;k 16 ĀptamīmāÚsā A sentence asserts, either positively or negatively, a particular characteristic of the multifarious nature of an entity: In the doctrine of non-absolutism (anek ntav da), a sentence asserts, either positively (vidhi) or negatively (niÈedha), a particular characteristic of the multifarious nature of an entity. Irrespective of whether the sentence asserts the characteristic positively or negatively, both such (seemingly contradictory) characteristics are present in it. Without the acceptance of this feature (i.e., if only the positive or the negative characteristic is assumed to be present in the entity), the entity is bound to become a nonentity (avastu). ā ā fu;E;rs¿FkksZ okD;su fof/uk okj.ksu ok A rFkk¿U;Fkk p lks¿o';efo'ks";RoeU;Fkk AA109AA lkekU;kFkZ & (oLrq&rÙo ds dSls fu;fer fd;k tkrk gS mldk lek/ku &) vusdkUrkRed oLrq&rÙo dk fof/&okD; vFkok fu"ks/&okD; ds }kjk fu;eu gksrk gSA vusdkUrkRed gksus ls oLrq&rÙo fof/&:i Hkh gS vkSj fu"ks/&:i Hkh gSA ;fn ,slk u ekuk tk, rks dsoy fof/&okD; vFkok dsoy fu"ks/&okD; ls tks ,dkUr&:i fo'ks"; (oLrq&rÙo) gS og voLrq gh gSA vusdkUrkRed gksrs gq, Hkh mls okD; }kjk The basic thesis in Jainism is the non-one-sided (anek nta) nature of reality. A thing is supposed to have infinite-fold characteristics or properties. It becomes imperative, therefore, to apply all kinds of predicates, including seemingly contradictory ones, to describe its singular aspect depending on one's point of view. To illustrate, an entity has an aspect that ā 167 Verse 109 is unchanging – this is its 'sat' aspect or 'svabh va' aspect or its 'substance' aspect. The reality seems to be unchanging when we consider its 'substantial' aspect but it seems to be everchanging when we consider its qualities and modes. Anekāntavāda synthesizes the two aspects and builds them into a coherent whole. All standpoints (naya) are right in their own respective spheres but if they are taken to be refutations, each of the other, they are wrong. A man who knows the 'non-one-sided' nature of reality never says that a particular view is absolutely wrong. A naya deals only with the particular point of view of the speaker and does not deny the remaining points of view, not under consideration at the moment. ā Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra: foof{krks eq[; brh";rs¿U;ks xq.kks¿foo{kks u fujkRedLrs A rFkkfjfe=kkuqHk;kfn'kfDr}Z;ko/s% dk;Zdja fg oLrq AA (11-3-53) Ś āô ā The sevenfold mode of predications (saptabha gī) with its partly meant and partly non-meant affirmation (vidhi) and O Lord ! You had pronounced that the naya deals with a particular attribute that is under consideration – called the primary attribute – of a substance and it does not deny the existence of the remaining attributes – called the secondary attributes. A substance, thus, exhibits attributes like a friend, a foe, and neither a friend nor a foe; it incorporates duality of 1attributes (and their combinations) which truly explain its existence. rey san tha ô 1. See Svayambhūstotra", p. 72-75. Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's 168 ĀptamīmāÚsā negation , qualified with the word 'syāt' (literally, in some respect; indicative of conditionality of predication) dispels any contradictions that can occur in thought. The student of metaphysics in Jainism is advised to mentally insert the word 'syāt' before every statement of fact that he comes across, to warn him that it has been made from one particular point of view, which he must ascertain. (niÈedha) 169 Verse 109 Ācārya AmÃtcandra's PuruÈārthasiddhyupāya: ijekxeL; chta fuf"k1⁄4tkR;U/flU/qjfo/kue~ A ldyu;foyflrkuka fojks/eFkua uekE;usdkUre~ AA 2 AA I bow to Anekānta (the doctrine of manifold points of view – relative pluralism), the root of unmatched Jaina Scripture, that reconciles the partial viewpoints of men, born blind, about the elephant, and which removes all contradictions about the nature of substances by apprehending reality through multiplicity of viewpoints. Ācārya AmÃtcandra has termed the doctrine of nonabsolutism (anekāntavāda) as the root of the Jaina Scripture. Without a clear understanding of this gem of Jainism, men of this world are like the blind men of the parable ; they insist on their partial knowledge being accepted for the whole truth. 1 1. See siddhyupāya – with Hindi and English Translation", p. 3-4. Jain, Vijay K. (2012), "Shri Amritchandra Suri's PuruÈārthaThe nature of reality can be predicated only through a sentence that incorporates both the affirmation and negation, depending on the point of view: The nature of reality is such that it can be predicated only through a sentence that incorporates both the affirmation ('that is' – tat) and negation ('that is not' – atat), depending on the point of view. (In case a sentence predicates affirmation, affirmation is the primary theme and negation is present but as a secondary theme; in case a sentence predicates negation, negation is the primary theme and affirmation is present but as a secondary theme.) A predication that takes the absolutist view of either affirmation or negation is not true. And how can one describe the nature of reality through such a false sentence? rnr}Lrq okxs"kk rnsosR;uq'kklrh A u lR;k L;kUè"kkokD;S% dFka rÙokFkZns'kuk AA110AA lkekU;kFkZ & oLrq dks loZFkk rr~&:i (lr~&fuR;kfn&:i) vFkok loZFkk vrr~&:i (vlr~&vfuR;kfn&:i) gh izfrikfnr djrk gS og lR; ugha gSA ,sls feF;k opuksa ds }kjk rÙokFkZ (rÙo&Lo:i) dk izfriknu dSls gks ldrk gS\ oLrq rr~ vkSj vrr~ (lr~ vkSj vlr~ vkfn) :i gSA tks okD; Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra: rnso p L;kÂ rnso p L;kr~ rFkkizrhrsLro rRdFkf×pr~ A UkkR;UreU;RoeuU;rk p fo/s£u"ks/L; p 'kwU;nks"kkr~ AA (9-2-42) O Lord Suvidhinātha ! Your description of reality postulates that, as established by experience, there is the 170 ĀptamīmāÚsā conditional affirmation of a substance, from a particular point of view, and also the conditional negation, from another point of view. The two views, existence and nonexistence, are not without any limitation; these views are neither totally inclusive nor totally exclusive to each other. Leaving out the limitation will lead to nihilistic delusion. fuR;a rnsosnfefr izrhrsuZ fuR;eU;Rk~izfrifÙkfl1⁄4s% A Uk rf}#1⁄4a cfgjUrjÄfufeÙkuSfefÙkd;ksxrLrs AAõ (9-3-43) When we reckon the existence of a substance we maintain that it is eternal and when we reckon the non-existence of that substance we maintain that it is perishable. O Lord Suvidhinātha ! You had declared that the two views that proclaim the same substance to be eternal as well as perishable are reconciled by the doctrine of material or internal cause (upādāna kartā) and the auxiliary or external cause (nimitta kartā) in the performance of any action. Jain, Vijay K. (2015), "Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra", p. 59-60. 17 Verse 110 A sentence while calling attention to its own general meaning simultaneously negates the other meanings: It is the nature of a sentence that while calling attention to its own general meaning expressly conveyed by it, it also negates the meanings that may be conveyed by other (unspoken) sentences. (For example, the sentence, "Bring the jar," not only conveys to the listener to bring the jar but also that a piece of cloth, a table, or a lamp, are not to be brought. Thus, while a sentence affirms its own meaning, it also simultaneously negates the other meanings.) If a sentence is thought of as capable only of expressing its own general meaning without negating what is not meant, the speech becomes a nonentity like the 'sky-flower' ( k apu pa).ā āś È okd~LoHkkoks¿U;okxFkZizfr"ks/fujÄ~dq'k% A vkg p LokFkZlkekU;a rkn`XokD;a [kiq"ior~ AA111AA lkekU;kFkZ & izfriknu djrk gqvk vU; okD;ksa ds vFkZ dk izfr"ks/ djus esa fujadq'k (Lora=k) gksrk gSA bl okD;&LoHkko ls fHkUu tks loZFkk vU;kiksgkRed (fu"ks/&:i) okD; gS og vkdk'kiq"i* ds lkeku voLrq gSA okD; dk ;g LoHkko gS fd og vius vFkZ lkekU; dk 172 ĀptamīmāÚsā The use of the word 'sy t' acts like a stamp of truth that enables the listener to grasp the intended particular meaning of a sentence: ā If it be said that a sentence expressing the universality (s m nya) aspect, in fact, denotes only the particularity (vi e a) aspect, this is not correct since the speech then becomes a nonentity. The use of the word 'syāt' acts like a stamp of truth that enables the listener to grasp the intended particular meaning. (An entity has both the universality (sāmānya) as well as the particularity (viśeÈa) aspects. When the expression makes the universality aspect as its subject, the particularity aspect becomes secondary and when the expression makes the particularity aspect as its subject, the universality aspect becomes secondary; this is doubtlessly achieved by using the word 'syāt' in the expression.) 1 ā ā ś È lkekU;okfXo'ks"ks psUu 'kCnkFkksZ è"kk fg lkA vfHkizsrfo'ks"kkIrs% L;kRdkj% lR;yk×Nu% AA112AA lkekU;kFkZ & ;fn dgk tk, fd ( vU;kiksg&:i (ij ds vHkko&:i) fo'ks"k dk izfriknu djrs gSa] rks ,slk ekuuk Bhd ugha gS D;ksafd vU;kiksg 'kCn dk vFkZ fl1⁄4 ugha gksrk gSA vr% vU;kiksg dk izfriknu djus okys opu feF;k gSaA vkSj vfHkizsr vFkZ fo'ks"k dh izkfIr gksus ls L;kRdkj (L;k}kn) lR; dk fpÉ gSA ^vfLr* vkfn) lkekU; okD; 1. In the Buddhist concept of 'any poha-v da', the word is capable only of negating what is not meant, without affirming anything. ā ā 173 Verse 112 Affirmation, when not in conflict with negation, yields the desired result of describing truly an object of knowledge: Affirmation, when not in conflict with negation, yields the desired result of describing truly an object of knowledge. Only when affirmation and negation are juxtaposed in mutually nonconflicting situation, one is able to decide whether to accept or reject the assertion. This is how the doctrine of conditional predications (sy dv da) establishes the truth.ā ā fo/s;ehfIlrkFkkZÄa izfr"ksè;kfojksf/ ;r~ Aõ rFkSok¿¿ns;gs;Rofefr L;k}knlafLFkfr% AA113AA lkekU;kFkZ & dh flf1⁄4 dk dkj.k gSA fo/s; dks izfr"ksè; dk vfojks/h gksus ds dkj.k gh oLrq vkns; vkSj gs; gSA bl izdkj ls L;k}kn dh (;qfDr'kkÐkfojks/ ds dkj.k) lE;d~ fLFkfr (flf1⁄4) gksrh gSA izfr"ksè; dk vfojks/h tks fo/s; gS og bZfIlr (vHkh"V) vFkZ 174 ĀptamīmāÚsā The ' ptam m s ' has been composed for the seekers of own well-being: Ā ī āÚ ā This treatise – Deep Reflection On The Omniscient Lord – has been composed for those who seek their well-being (i.e., realization of the Self) by enabling them to discern between the true and the false preaching. 'ĀptamīmāÚsā' brh;ekIrehekalk fofgrk fgrfePNrke~ A lE;fXeF;ksins'kkFkZfo'ks"kizfriÙk;s AA114AA lkekU;kFkZ & bl izdkj lE;d~&mins'k vkSj feF;k&mins'k ds vFkZ&fo'ks"k dh izfrifÙk (Hksn&foKku) ds fy, cukbZ x;h gSA ;g vkIrehekalk vius fgr dh pkg j[kus okyksa dks This concludes the (also known as the 'Devāgamastotra') composed by the supremely holy and stainless Ācārya Samantabhadra, a glittering jewel among the authors of the sacred scripture, who reigned supreme as a poet, a disputant, a preacher and an orator, and whose expositions, based on the incontrovertible doctrine of syādvāda, have torn apart mountains of misconceptions. With great devotion, I make obeisance humble at the worshipful feet of Ācārya Samantabhadra. 'ĀptamīmāÚsā' 175 Verse

abhāva – non-existence 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 103, 104 abhāvaikānta – absolute nonexistence 25, 26 abhavya jīva – destined not to attain liberation 153 abheda – see advaita absolute separateness 55, 60 absolutist view 15, 16, 131, 161, 170 Ācārya AmÃtcandra, Ācārya Amritchandra 48, 169 Ācārya Kundakunda, Ācārya Kundkund 9, 10, 31, 48, 71, 78, 145, 146, 157 Ācārya Māõikyanandi 120 Ācārya Nemicandra, Ācārya Nemichandra 8 Ācārya Pūjyapāda 6, 85 Ācārya Samantabhadra 13-17, 78, 84, 85, 120, 155, 168, 170, 171, 175 Ācārya Umāsvāmi 97, 116, 144, 157, 158 Ācārya Vidyānanda 11 acetana – inanimate 71 adhikaraõa – substratum 48-50 adÃÈÇa – invisible 142 advaita – ekatva, abheda, nondualism 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 60, 65 advaita-ekānta – absolute nondualism 47, 48, 51, 52, 60 Advaita-Vedānta 47 AÈÇasahasrī 11 affirmation 15, 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 40, 42, 60, 84, 85, 162, 168, 170, 171, 174 āgama – scriptural authority 125, 127, 129 agni – fire 111 AhaÚkāra – I-ness or Ego 69-71 ahetu – not a legitimate middle term, non-reason 39, 54 ajīva – non-soul 22, 33 ajðāna ignorance 149, 151, 152 ākāśa – space 22, 70 akramabhāvī – without gradation 156 alpajðāna – slight-knowledge 149, 151, 152 anādi – without beginning 20, 23 ananta – without end 20, 23 ananta catuÈÇaya – four infinitudes 5 ananta darśana – infinite perception 5 ananta jðāna – infinite knowledge 5 ananta sukha – infinite bliss 5 ananta vīrya – infinite energy 5 ananyatva – oneness 111, 114 anāpekÈika independent 119, 121, 123 GENERAL I ND EX anāpekÈika-avaktavya – somehow independent and indescribable 123 anāpta – not a true authority 128 aneka, anekatva – many, manyness 45 anekānta, anekāntavāda – nonabsolutism, many-sided view 28, 40, 115, 160, 162, 167-169 aôga – limbs 148 antarāya – obstructive 6, 14 aõu – atom 111, 112 anumāna – inference 63, 129 anumeya – object of inference 1012 anupayoga – non-consciousness 33 anvaya – (agreement in) association 36, 38, 80, 116 anyāpoha-vāda – the Buddhist concept that the word is capable only of negating what is not meant, without affirming anything 173 anyatva – separateness 114 anyonyābhāva – reciprocal nonexistence 20-22, 24 apādāna – dislodgement 48-50 apākya – non-cookability 154 āpekÈika – dependent 119, 121, 123 āpekÈika-avaktavya – somehow dependent and indescribable 123 apprehension 11, 133, 134, 156, 157 apramāõa – not pramāõa 44 āpta – Omniscient, a true authority 3, 128 āpta-established 128 arati – displeasure 4 Arhat – the World Teacher or 'Jina' 4, 5, 11-14 ārta – sorrowful (concentration) 148 artha – object (of knowledge) 19, 42, 110, 129, 135, 139, 140, 142, 160 artha-kriyā – performance of activity 42 asat – non-existing 27, 32-34, 42, 57, 77, 84, 86 aÈÇāngahetuka – Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path to liberation 90 astitva – existence 36, 38, 63 aśubha – wicked 16, 51 aśuddhi – spiritual impurity 153, 154 asvarūpa – devoid of the form of its own 22, 24 atat – 'that is not' 170 atiśaya – miraculous happenings 5 attachment 4, 5, 8, 144, 153, 159 atyantābhāva – absolute nonexistence 21, 22, 24 avācyataikānta – absolutely indescribable 26, 60, 95, 114, 121, 127, 132, 141, 147, 151 avagraha – apprehension 11 avaktavya – indescribable 27, 30, 34, 35, 45, 123 āvaraõa – envelopment of the soul 178 ĀptamīmāÚsā by material karmas 8 avastu – non-object 42, 163, 167 avāya – judgement 11 avayava – constituent parts 105, 107, 108 avayavī – aggregate 105, 107, 108 avidyā – ignorance 47, 51 avinābhāva – invariable togetherness 36-38, 45, 61, 122 avyakta – non-manifest 69-71 avyatireka – logical continuance 115 ayutasiddha – residing in same substratum 116 bahiraôgārthaikānta – all cognitions have real substrata in the external world alone (totally objective, with no subjective input) 131 bāhyārtha – external object 134, 136-138 bandha – bondage 51, 74, 149, 151153 beginningless 154, 155 bhaôga – limb 162 bhāva – existence, manifestation, nature 19, 25, 26, 30, 63, 84, 85 bhāva nirjarā – subjective shedding of karmas 9 bhāvaikānta – absolute existence 19, 26 bhāvakarma – dispositions of the soul 8 bhavya jīva – destined to attain liberation 153 bhaya – fear; ihaloka bhaya fear relating to this life; paraloka bhaya fear relating to the life beyond; maraõa bhaya – fear of death; vedanā bhaya – fear of pain and suffering; atrāõa bhaya – fear of being without protection; agupti bhaya – fear of divulgence of one's deeds; ākasmika bhaya – fear of the unexpected 5 bheda – see pÃthaktva bhūtacatuÈka – the four basic substances as per the Buddhists – earth, water, fire, air 111, 112 bodha – cognition 25, 136, 137 bondage 17, 18, 51, 70, 72, 74, 89, 143-145, 147, 149, 151-153 Brahma 47, 48 Buddhi – reason, intellect, a piece of cognition 69-71, 129, 135, 137 Buddhist 56, 62, 75, 80-83, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 111, 112, 173 buddhivÃtti – function of the intellect 71 cāmara – flywhisk 3, 6 catuÈkoÇivikalpa – fourfold causal relations 1 82, 83 celestial beings 4, 6, 13 Chakravarti Nayanar, A. 9, 146 Chakravarti, A. (Prof.) 71, 78 cintā – anxiety 5 Cit – intelligence 70 179 General Index consciousness 18, 21, 22, 32, 33, 50, 91, 93 dÃÈÇānta – statement of a general rule supported by an example 53 daiva – fate 139-142 darśanāvarõīya – perceptionobscuring 6, 14 demerit 51, 74, 143-145, 148 destruction 6, 8, 9, 13, 18, 20, 21, 46, 48-50, 76, 79, 90, 92, 93, 98102, 109, 158, 159 Devāgamastotra 175 dhāraõā – retention 11 dharma (1) – medium of motion 22 dharma (2) – attribute 43, 119, 122, 123 dharmī – the entity 13, 36, 37, 38, 43, 45, 62, 119, 122, 123, 125 dharmya – virtuous (concentration) 148 dhrauvya – permanence 79, 98, 99 doÈa – imperfections 8 dravya – substance 22, 30-35, 39, 42, 49, 59, 63, 67, 78, 84, 85, 99, 103, 110, 115, 116, 119, 120, 165 dravya nirjarā – objective shedding of karmas 9 dravyakarma – material karmas 8 dravyārthika naya – general standpoint with dravya as the object 59, 165 DravyasaÉgraha 8, 9, 179 dÃÈÇa – visible 142 dvaita – dualism 54 dveÈa – aversion 5 Egoity – AhaÚkāra 70 eka, ekatva – one, oneness 45, 56, 61, 63, 65 ekānta – absolutist, non-equivocal 15, 17, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55, 60, 67, 74, 75, 80, 89, 161 empirical (point of view) 48, 49, 94, 122, 145, 178, 179 equanimity 158, 159 factors-of-action 47-50 falsehood 14, 144 fate 139-142 fruit (of pramāõa) 67, 68, 158, 159 gaganakusuma or ākāśapuÈpa – the 'sky-flower' 64, 77, 172 gandha – smell 70 ghātiyā karmas – deluding (mohanīya), knowledgeobscuring (jðānāvarõīya), perception-obscuring (darśanāvarõīya), and obstructive (antarāya) 6, 9 gorasa – cow-produce 102 grahaõa – acceptance 159 guõa – quality 99, 103, 110, 112 guõī – possessor of quality 103 guru – preacher 3 hetu – the middle term 36-39, 5254, 61-63, 80, 90, 125-128, 130, 180 ĀptamīmāÚsā 134, 164 hetudoÈa – fallacy of the reason 130 hetu-established 128 hetu-phala-bhāva – relationship of cause and effect 80 human-effort 139-142 IÈÇopadeśa 6, 85 īhā – speculation 11 ihaloka – this world 5, 51 impurity 153-155 indescribable 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 45, 60, 82, 83, 86-88, 95, 114, 121, 123, 127, 132, 141, 147, 151 inference 10, 12, 52, 63, 126, 129 inherence 103-106, 108-110 itaretarābhāva – see anyonyābhāva Jain, Champat Rai 62 Jain, S.A. 97, 145, 157 Jain, Vijay K. 6, 9, 15, 17, 78, 85, 120, 168, 169, 171 jala – water 70, 111 janma – (re)birth 4 jāti class, genus 59, 99, 112 jðānāvarõīya – knowledge covering 6, 14 jðāpaka – agent of knowledge 63, 122 jðeya – knowable, object of knowledge 57, 149 jīva – soul 21, 22, 32, 33, 134, 135, 137, 145, 153 jīva-artha – the object that is 'jīva' 135 jīva-buddhi – the cognition of 'jīva' 135 jīva-śabda – the word 'jīva' 135 jðāna – knowledge or cognition 5, 57 judgement (perceptual) 11, 157 kāla – time 22, 30, 32, 63, 84, 85, 115 kāraka – factors-of-action 47-50, 63, 67, 69, 122 karaõa – instrument 48-50 kāraõa – cause 49, 69, 77, 80, 103, 112-114, 148 karma – activity 16, 48-51, 103, 110, 122 karmabandha – karmic bondage 153 karmic matter 9, 145 kartā – doer 47-50, 58, 77-79, 120, 122, 171 kārya – effect 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80, 103, 112-114, 142, 148 kaÈāya – passions 143 kathaôcit – from a certain viewpoint 161 kÈaõika – transient 16, 56, 75, 80 kÈaõika-ekānta – absolute momentariness 75, 80 kÈetra – place 30, 32, 63, 84, 85 kÈudhā – hunger 4 kevalajðāna – infinite knowledge 5, 12, 50, 149, 156, 158, 163, kevalin – Omniscient 149 kharaviÈaõa – the 'horns of a hare' 64, 93 18 General Index kheda – regret 4 knowledge-obscuring 6, 8, 145, 157 kramabhāvī – in succession 156 kriyā – action 47, 48 krodha – anger 143 liberation 13, 17, 18, 51, 70, 72, 74, 78, 89, 90, 91, 139, 149, 151-155 liôga – mark – see hetu liôgī – see sādhya lobha – greed 143 Lord Rama 10 Lord Śreyāôsanātha 168 Lord Sumatinātha 84 Lord Suvidhinātha 15, 170, 171 Lord Vimalanātha 16 mada – pride; jðāna mada – pride of knowledge; pūjā mada – pride of veneration; kula mada – pride of lineage; jāti mada – pride of caste; bala mada – pride of strength; Ãddhi mada – pride of accomplishments; tapa mada – pride of austerities; śarīra mada – pride of beauty 5 Mahat or Buddhi – the Great or Intellect 69, 70 MalliÈeõa Surī 17, 18, 70, 76, 91, 100 māna – pride 143 maraõa – death 5 matijðāna – sensory knowledge 157 māyā – illusion, deceit 47, 48, 134, 143 merit 17, 18, 28, 51, 74, 143-145, 148, 176 misery 157 mode 11, 12, 14, 27, 30, 34, 39, 40, 46, 49, 59, 69, 79, 81, 97-100, 102, 115-117, 156, 168 modification 9, 10, 18, 59, 67, 69, 71, 116, 117, 119 moha – delusion 5, 152 mohanīya – deluding 6, 14 mokÈa – liberation 51, 74, 90, 91, 139, 149, 151-155 Mount Meru 10 nāstitva – non-existence 36, 38, 39 naya – a particular state or mode of object; relative, one-sided comprehension 27, 28, 34, 40, 43-46, 49, 58, 59, 120, 156, 157, 161, 162, 164-166, 168 negation 15, 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 40, 42, 51, 84, 85, 89, 162, 169-171, 174 niÈcaya ÈaÇkāraka – transcendental sixfold factors-of-action 49-50 nidrā – sleep 5 niÈedha – negative 42, 84, 167, 169 nigamana – conclusion 53 nimitta kartā (kāraõa) – auxiliary or external cause 49, 58, 77, 78, 80, 120, 171 nipāta – a particle, an indeclinable, part of avyaya 160 nirjarā – shedding of karmas 9 182 ĀptamīmāÚsā nitya, nityatva – permanent, permanence 16, 67, 74, 95, 96, 116, 164 nityatva-ekānta – absolutely permanent 67, 74 nonentity 58, 83, 84, 86, 99, 167, 172, 173 non-eternal 17, 18, 30, 33, 34, 41 non-existence 37-42, 54, 88, 103, 104, 171, Nyāya-VaiśeÈika 103, 104 omniscience 9-15, 43, 50, 72, 149, 156-158, 163 origination 17, 46, 48, 70, 79, 9194, 98-102, 109, 153 pÃthaktva-ekānta – absolute separateness 55, 60 pain 5, 17, 18, 71, 143-145, 147, 148 pakÈa – minor term, locus or abode 52, 53, 61-63 pakÈa-dharmatva – existence in relation to the minor term 62, 63 pākya – cookability 154 Pańcāstikāya-Sāra 9, 31 pāpa – demerit 51, 74, 143-145, 148 parabhāva – other-being 32, 33, 85 paracatuÈÇaya – other-quaternion 32 paradravya – other-substance 32, 85 parakāla – other-time 32, 85 parakÈetra – other-place 32, 85 paraloka – abode after death, the other world 5, 16, 51 paramārthikasatya – the noumenal reality 94 ParīkÈāmukha 120 pariõāma – modification (paryaya) 42, 115, 117 pariõāmī – the substance (dravya) in which modification takes place 115 parokÈa – indirect 14, 156, 158 particular 30, 42, 43, 67, 98, 116, 119, 120, 156, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 168, 171, 173, particularity 41, 104, 173 paryāya – form, mode 33, 35, 39, 42, 59, 67, 99, 119, 120, 165 paryāyārthika naya – standpoint of modification 59, 165 passions 6, 8, 143, 176 pÃthaktva – separateness, diversity 61, 63, 65 pÃthvī – earth 70, 111 pauruÈa – human-effort 139-142 perception 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 85, 93, 136, 146, 157 pleasure 17, 18, 143-148 pradeśa – space-point 17 pradhvaÚsābhāva – posterior (emergent) non-existence 20, 23 prāgabhāva – prior (antecedent) non-existence 19, 20, 23 PrakÃti – nature 70-72, 150 pramā – valid knowledge or 183 General Index apprehension 67, 68, 134, 136, 137 pramāõa – source or method of valid knowledge 13, 25, 42-44, 65, 67-69, 71, 86, 122, 129, 133, 136, 137, 156-159 pramāõābhāsa – invalid knowledge 129, 131, 133 pramāõa-phala – fruit of valid source of knowledge 67, 68 pramātā – subject of knowledge 68, 133, 136, 137 prameya – object of knowledge 10, 12, 68, 122, 133 pramiti – correct notion 67, 68 pratibhāsa – appearance 47, 115 pratiÈedhya – negative 39 prātihārya – splendours 5, 6 pratijðā – proposition, thesis 52, 53, 126 pratijðādoÈa – fallacy of the thesis 130 pratyabhijðāna – recognition 75, 76, 96, 97 pratyakÈa – direct (perception or knowledge) 12, 14, 15, 76, 125, 156, 158 Pravacanasāra 10, 11, 48, 72, 157 prayojana – utility 115 pretyabhāva – birth following death, transmigration 56, 74, 75 pudgala – matter 22 puõya – merit 51, 74, 143-145, 148, 176 purity 72, 153-155 PuruÈa – Spirit 70-73 PuruÈārthasiddhyupāya 169 quality 32, 45, 59, 97, 99, 103, 110, 112, 116 quodammodo (L.) – 'in a way', syāt 18, 28, 70, 76, 91, 100 rasa – taste 70 rāga – attachment 5 Ratnakaraôçaka Śrāvakācāra 14 raudra – cruel (concentration) 148 Reals (tattvas) 70 rebirth 16, 155 remembrance 96, 97 retention 11, 157 roga – sickness 4 rūpa – form, colour 70, 93, 105 śabda – word 70, 135, 137 sādhana – see hetu sādharmya – presence-inhomologue, homogeneousness 36-38, 56, 164 sādhya – the major term 13, 36, 37, 39, 52, 53, 61, 62, 126, 130, 164 sakaladeśa – comprehensive and absolute 44 śaktibhāva – the capacity (paryāya) 115 śaktimāna – the abode of capacity (dravya) 115 sāmānya – general, generality 42, 58, 67, 98, 103, 104, 109, 110, 119, 120, 173 samavāya – inherence 103-105, 184 ĀptamīmāÚsā 108-110 Samayasāra 71, 78 saÚsāra – cycle of rebirths 94, 155 samudāya – aggregate of qualities in a single object 56 santāna – series of successive events 56, 80-82, 93 sapakÈa – homogeneous example 62, 63 sapakÈa-sattva – existence of connection in a homogeneous example 62, 63 saptabhaôgī – the seven-nuance system 27, 28, 32, 34, 40, 45, 162, 168 saptabhaôga – the seven limbs 28, 161 sarvajða – Omniscient 3, 10, 12 Sarvārthasiddhi 97, 144, 145, 157 sarvātmaka – pervading in everything, all-pervading 21, 24 sat – existing, being 27, 32-34, 42, 57, 73, 79, 84, 86, 98, 99, 102, 168 sat-cid-ānanda – 'ExistenceThought-Bliss' 47 sattā – existence 104 saÚjðā – perception or cognition, designation 93, 115, 117, 134, 135 saÚjðī – named, word-denotedentity 54, 84 SāÚkhya 69-71, 73, 113, 149 saÚkhyā – enumeration 99, 115 saÚkleśa – inauspicious kind of disposition 148 saÚpradāna – bestowal 48-50 saÚskāra – mental formations, volitions 93 saÚvÃti – fictional, mere usage 81, 87, 93 saÚvÃti-satya – the phenomenal reality 94 scripture 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 32, 51, 125, 129, 160, 169, 175 sense-organs 69 Shah, Nagin J. 86 Shastri, Devendra Muni 162 skandha – lump or aggregate, molecule 93, 111, 112 sky-flower 43, 54, 64, 77, 83, 99, 100, 110, 172 smaraõa – memory 75 smÃti – memory 75, 90, 96, 97 śoka – grief 4 sparśa – touch 70 speculation 11, 157 śrotā – the hearer 137 śrutakevalins – Masters of Scripture 160 stutya – worthy of adoration 3 śubha – virtuous 16, 51 śuddhi – spiritual purity 153, 154 śuddhopayoga – established in pure self 50 śukla – pure (concentration) 148 śūnya – null and void 33, 94 śunyavāda – nihilism 88 svabhāva – own-being, own-nature 32, 85, 94, 98, 148, 154, 155 185 General Index svabhāva-śūnya – devoid of selfexistence 94 svacatuÈÇaya – own-quaternion 32, 85 svadravya – own-substance 32, 85 svakāla – own-time 32, 85 svakÈetra – own-place 32, 85 svalakÈaõa – self-attribute 115 svayambhū – self-dependent 50 Svayambhūstotra 15-17, 78, 84, 85, 120, 168, 170, 171, 181 sveda – perspiration 5 syād-asti – in a way it simply is 30 syād-avaktavya – in a way it is simply indescribable 30 syād-nāsti – in a way it simply is not 30 syādvāda – doctrine of conditional predications 17, 18, 26, 28, 60, 70, 76, 91, 95, 100, 114, 121, 127, 132, 141, 147, 151, 156, 161-164, 174, 175 Syādvāda-Maôjarī 17, 18, 70, 76, 91, 100 syāt – 'in a way' 28, 160, 161, 169, 173 tadbhāva – intrinsic nature 97 tÃÈā – thirst 4 tapas – asceticism, austerities 9, 155 tarka – logical argument 154-155 tat – 'that is' 170 Tattvārthasūtra 97, 116, 144, 157, 158 teja – fire 70 Thomas, F.W. 18, 70, 76, 91, 100 transcendental (point of view) 4850, 178, 179 transmigration 97 tyāga – rejection 159 ubhaya – of both (attributes) 27, 34, 37, 123 ubhaya-avaktavya – somehow both dependent and independent and indescribable 123 ubhayaikānta – endorsing both one-sided and independent standpoints 26, 95, 114, 121, 127, 132, 141, 147, 151 udāharaõa – illustration 53, 125, 126 universal 30, 63, 99, universality 41, 104, 109, 173 upacāra asadbhūta naya 49 upādāna kartā (kāraõa) – material or internal cause 49, 58, 77, 78, 80, 120, 171 Upadhye, A.N. 11, 72, 157 upanaya – application of the rule; subdivision of naya 53, 165 upayoga – consciousness 32, 33 upekÈā – equanimity 158, 159 utpāda – origination 79, 98, 99 vāda – a theory of logic and metaphysics 161 vaidharmya – absence-inheterologue, heterogeneousness 186 ĀptamīmāÚsā 36-38, 164 VaiśeÈikas 109, 110 vaktā – the speaker 137 vākya – the sentence 25, 136, 137 valid knowledge 14, 15, 25, 42, 65, 67, 120, 129, 131, 133, 136, 137, 158 vāsanā – suffusions 91 vastu-prapaôca – non-reality of the world of things 47 vÃtti – occurrence 105, 107 vāyu – air 70, 111 vedanā – sensation, feeling 93 vicitra – variegated 153 vidheya – affirmative 39 vidhi – affirmation 42, 84, 167, 168 vidyā – knowledge 51 vijðāna – consciousness or discernment 93 vijðānādvaita – cognition arrived at through the subjective act of mind is the only source of valid knowledge 129-130 vikaladeśa – partial and relative 44 vipakÈa – heterogeneous example 62, 63 vipakÈa-vyāvÃtti – non-existence by contrariety in a heterogeneous example 62, 63 viśeÈa – particular, specific 42, 58, 98. 103, 104, 119, 120, 173 viśeÈaõa – qualifying attribute 3639, 45, 83 viśeÈya – entity qualified 39, 83 vismaya – astonishment 4 viśuddhi – auspicious kind of disposition 148 vītarāga – free from all attachment 144 vyakta – manifest 69, 70 vyāpti – logical or inseparable connection 36, 53, 164 vyatireka – distinction, exclusion 36, 37, 116 vyavahāra ÈaÇkāraka – empirical sixfold factors-of-action 48-49 vyaya – disappearance 79, 98, 99 yutasiddha – residing in separate substrata 107 żarā – old-age 4 ]] 187 General Index

dkfjdk dk izFke pj.k Verse No. Page IND EX OF VERSES dkfjdk vuqØef.kdk vKkukPpsñ/qzoks cU/ks 96 149 vKkukUeksfguks cU/ks 98 152 v}Sra u fouk }Srkñ 27 54 v}SrSdkUri{ks¿fi 24 47 vè;kRea cfgjI;s"k 2 4 vUkU;rSdkUrs¿.kwuka 67 111 vuis{ks ìFkDRoSD;s 33 61 vUrjÄkFkZrSdkUrs õ 79 129 vU;s"ouU;'kCnks¿;a 44 81 vcqf1⁄4iwokZis{kk;k& 91 142 vHkkoSdkUri{ks¿fi 12 25 voDrO;prq"dksfV& 46 83 voLRoufHkykI;a L;kr~ 48 86 v'kD;RoknokP;a fde~ 50 88 vfLrRoa izfr"ksè;suk& 17 36 vgsrqdRokÂk'kL; 52 90 vkJ;k¿¿Jf;HkkokUu 64 108 brh;ekIrehekalk 114 175 mis{kkiQyek|L; 102 158 ,dRos¿U;rjkHkko% 69 113 ,dL;kusdòfÙkuZ 62 105 ,dkusdfodYiknk& 23 45 ,oa fof/fu"ks/kH;ke~ 21 42 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --189 dkfjdk dk izFke pj.k Verse No. Page dFkf×pr~ rs lnsos"Va 14 27 deZ}Sra iQy}Sra 25 51 dkekfnizHkof'p=k% 99 153 dk;Zdkj.kukukRoa 61 103 dk;ZHkzkUrsj.kqHkzkfUr% 68 112 dk;ZaeO;eukfn L;kr~ 10 23 dk;ksZRikn% {k;ks gsrks& 58 99 dq'kykdq'kya deZ 8 16 Øek£ir};kñ }Sra 16 34 {kf.kdSdkUri{ks¿fi 41 75 ?kVekSfylqo.kkZFkhZ 59 101 prq"dksVs£odYiL; 45 82 tho'kCn% lckákFkZ% 84 134 rÙoKkua izek.ka rs 101 156 rnr}Lrq okxs"kk 110 170 rhFkZÑRle;kuka p 3 7 RoUerkèrckákuka 7 15 nsokxeuHkks;ku& 1 3 ns'kdkyfo'ks"ks¿fi 63 107 nSoknsokFkZflf1⁄4'psñ 88 139 nks"kkoj.k;ksgkZfu% 4 8 aeO;i;kZ;;ksjSD;a 71 115 aeO;k|UrjHkkosu 47 84 /eZ/E;ZfoukHkko% 75 122 /esZ /esZ¿U; ,okFkksZ 22 43 u;ksiu;SdkUrkuka 107 165 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --190 ĀptamīmāÚsā dkfjdk dk izFke pj.k Verse No. Page u lkekU;kReuksnsfr 57 98 u gsrqiQyHkkokfn& 43 80 ukfLrRoa izfr"ksè;suk& 18 38 fuR;RoSdkUri{ks¿fi 37 67 fuR;a rRizR;fHkKkukr~ 56 96 fu;E;rs¿FkksZ okD;su 109 167 i;ksozrks u nè;fÙk 60 102 ikia /qzoa ijs nq%[kkr~ 92 143 iq.;a /qzoa Lorks nq%[kkr~ 93 144 iq.;ikifØ;k u L;kr~ 40 74 ìFkDRoSdkUri{ks¿fi 28 55 ikS#"kknso flf1⁄4'psr~ 89 140 izek.kdkjdSO;ZDra 38 69 izek.kxkspjkS lUrkS 36 65 cfgjÄkFkZrSdkUrs õ 81 131 cqf1⁄4'kCnizek.kRoa 87 137 cqf1⁄4'kCnkFkZlaKkLrk& 85 135 Hkkoizes;k¿is{kk;ka 83 133 HkkoSdkUrs inkFkkZuke~ 9 19 feF;klewgks feF;k psr~ 108 166 ;fn lRloZFkk dk;± 39 73 ;|lRloZFkk dk;± 42 77 ;|kisf{kdflf1⁄4% L;kr~ 73 119 oDr;ZukIrs ;1⁄4srks% 78 128 oDr`Jksr`izekr`.kkà 86 136 okD;s"ousdkUr|ksrh 103 160 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --19 Index of Verses dkfjdk dk izFke pj.k Verse No. Page okd~LoHkkoks¿U;okxFkZ& 111 172 fo/s;izfr"ksè;kRek 19 39 fo/s;ehfIlrkFkkZÄaõ 113 174 fo:idk;kZjEHkk; 53 92 fojks/kUuksHk;SdkRE;a 13 26 32 60 55 95 70 114 74 121 77 127 82 132 90 141 94 147 97 151 foo{kk pkfoo{kk p 35 64 fo'kqf1⁄4laDys'kkÄa psr~ õ 95 148 'kq1⁄4Ô'kq1⁄4h iqu% 'kDrh 100 154 'ks"kHkÄk'p usrO;k õ 20 40 laKkla[;kfo'ks"kkPp 72 115 l Roesokfl funksZ"kks 6 13 lRlkekU;kÙkq loSZD;a 34 63 lnkReuk p fHkUua psr~ 30 57 lnso lo± dks usPNsr~ 15 32 l/eZ.kSo lkè;L; 106 164 larku% leqnk;'p 29 56 loZFkk¿ufHklEcU/% 66 110 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --192 ĀptamīmāÚsā                   dkfjdk dk izFke pj.k Verse No. Page lokZReda rnsda L;kr~ 11 24 lokZUrk'psnoDrO;k& 49 87 lkè;lk/ufoKIrs% 80 130 lkekU;okfXo'ks"ks psr~ 112 173 lkekU;a leok;'p 65 109 lkekU;kFkkZ fxjks¿U;s"kka 31 58 fl1⁄4a ps1⁄4srqr% lo± 76 125 lw{ekUrfjrnwjkFkkZ% 5 10 LdU/larr;'pSo 54 93 L;k}kndsoyKkus 105 163 L;k}kn% loZFkSdkUr& 104 161 fgUkLR;ufHkla/kr` 51 89 gsrksj}Srflf1⁄4'psñ 26 52 ]] --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --193 Index of Verses Other sacred Jaina texts from Vikalp Printers: ISBN 81-903639-2-1 Rs. 250/Tattv rths tra is invaluable for understanding life, and pursuit of happiness. The hardships and afflictions that we have to endure are of our own making. Our deeds, driven by passions, lead to sufferings and reproach in this world and the next. Virtuous activity alone, which is the cause of merit (puõya), leads to joyous feeling, auspicious life, charming and lustrous physique, and high status. Our ultimate goal is the attainment of the divine attributes, in fullness and perfection, of our souls. We can reach the goal only through the threefold path of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct (ratnatraya). ā ū Āchārya Um sv mi's Tattvārthsūtra ā ā WITH HINDI AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION vkpk;ZJh mekLokeh fojfpr rÙokFkZlw=k Edited by: Vijay K. Jain Foreword by: Āchārya 108 Vidyanand Muni ! Published: 2011 ! Hard Bound ! Printed on Art Paper ! Pages: xii + 163 ! Size: 16 22.5 cm 194 As ch rya Vidyanand writes in the Foreword of Samayas ra, it is the ultimate conscious reality. The enlightened soul has infinite glory. It has the innate ability to demolish karmas, both auspicious as well as inauspicious, which constitute the cycle of births and deaths, and are obstacles in the path to liberation. Samayasāra is an essential reading for anyone who wishes to lead a purposeful and contented life. It provides irrefutable and lasting solutions to all our problems, concerning worldly ways as well as spiritual curiosities and misgivings. Ā ā ā Āchārya Kundkund's Samayasāra WITH HINDI AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION ISBN 81-903639-3-X Rs. 350/- ! Published: 2012 ! Hard Bound ! Printed on Art Paper ! Pages: xvi + 208 ! Size: 16 22.5 cm English Translation, and Edited by: Vijay K. Jain Foreword by: Āchārya 108 Vidyanand Muni Jhenkpk;Z dqUndqUn fojfpr le;lkj 195 Shri Amritchandra Suri's is a matchless Jaina text that deals with the conduct required of the householder ( r vaka). In no other text that deals with the conduct required of the householder we see the same treatment of complex issues such as the transcendental and the empirical points of view, cause and effect relationships, and injury and non-injury, maintaining throughout the spiritual slant. The basic tenet of Jainism – noninjury or AhiÉsā – has been explained in detail in the book. PuruÈārthasiddhyupāya ś ā WITH HINDI AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION ISBN 81-903639-4-8 Rs. 350/- ! Published: 2012 ! Hard Bound ! Printed on NS Maplitho Paper ! Pages: xvi + 191 ! Size: 16 22.5 cm Foreword by: Āchārya 108 Vidyanand Muni Shri Amritchandra Suri's PuruÈārthasiddhyupāya Realization of the Pure Self Jh vèrpUaelwjh fojfpr iq#"kkFkZfl1⁄4Ôqik; English Translation, and Edited by: Vijay K. Jain 196 ISBN 81-903639-5-6 Rs. 450/Dravyasa graha is one of the finest classical Jaina texts, composed by His Holiness Ācārya Nemichandra (c. 10th century CE). It deals primarily with the Realities (tattvas) that contribute to world process. The conduct required for attaining the ultimate goal of liberation follows from the knowledge of these Realities. Both, the transcendental and the empirical points of view, have been considered while explaining the nature of substances, souls and non-souls. It will be of much use to scholars worldwide interested in pursuing the study of Jaina epistemology. É ! Published: 2013 ! Hard Bound ! Printed on NS Maplitho Paper ! Pages: xvi + 216 ! Size: 16 22.5 cm Foreword by: Ācārya 108 Vidyanand Muni With Authentic Explanatory Notes Ācārya Nemichandra's DravyasaÉgraha vkpk;Z usfepUae fojfpr aeO;laxzg English Translation, and Edited by: Vijay K. Jain 197 Rs. 450/- ! Published: 2014 ! Hard Bound ! Printed on NS Maplitho Paper ! Pages: xvi + 152 ! Size: 16 22.5 cm Ācārya Pujyapada's IÈÇopadeśa – The Golden Discourse vkpk;Z iwT;ikn fojfpr b"Vksins'k Foreword by: Ācārya 108 Vidyanand Muni Vijay K. Jain By: ISBN 81-903639-6-4 His Holiness Ācārya Pujyapada, who graced this earth around 5th century CE, had crafted some valuable gems of Jaina doctrine, including Sarvāthasiddhi and IÈÇopadeśa. Concise but deep in import, IÈÇopadeśa unambiguously establishes the glory of the Self. It is an essential reading for the ascetic. The householder too who ventures to study it stands to benefit much as the work establishes the futility of worldly objects and pursuits, and strengthens right faith, the basis for all that is good and virtuous. 198 Rs. 500/- ! Published: 2015 ! Hard Bound ! Printed on NS Maplitho Paper ! Pages: xxiv + 220 ! Size: 16 22.5 cm Divine Blessings: Ācārya 108 Vidyanand Muni Vijay K. Jain By: ISBN 81-903639-7-2 Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra (2nd century CE) is a fine composition in Sanskrit dedicated to the adoration of the Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara, the Most Worshipful Supreme Beings. Through its 143 verses Svayambhūstotra not only enriches reader's devotion, knowledge, and conduct but also frees his mind from blind faith and superstitions. Rid of ignorance and established firmly in right faith, he experiences ineffable tranquility and equanimity. The book has two useful Appendices. Appendix-1 attempts to familiarize the reader with the divisions of empirical time that are used extensively in Jaina cosmology. Appendix-2 provides a glimpse of life stories, adapted from authentic Jaina texts, of the Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara. Ācārya Samantabhadra's Svayambhūstotra – Adoration of The Twenty-four Tīrthaôkara vkpk;Z leUrHkae fojfpr Lo;EHkwLrks=k 19 GUI D E T O T RANS L IT ERAT ION Devan gar IAST * ā ī v a vk ā b i bZ ī m u mQ ū , e ,s ai vks o vkS au Í Ã va É v% Í d ka [k kha x ga ?k gha Ä ôa p ca N cha t ja > jha ×k ða Devan gar IASTā ī V Ça B Çha M ça < çha .k õa r ta Fk tha n da èk dha u na i pa iQ pha c ba Hk bha e ma ; ya j ra Devan gar IASTā ī y la o va 'k śa "k Èa l sa *IAST: International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration AE Ò g ha {k kÈa =k tra K jða J śra 20 ĀptamīmāÚsā