________________
Vada ] Gañadharavada
281 : यत्संबन्धिभूतो भागो गृह्यते तत् समस्ति, यथा नभसः पूर्वमागे गृहीते तत्संबन्ध्यपरभागः, गृह्यते च घटादेराराद्भागः, अतस्तत्संन्धिभूतः परभागोऽप्यस्ति । यच्चोक्तम्--" आराद्भागस्याऽप्यन्य आराद्भागः कल्पनीया, तस्याप्यन्य इत्यादि तावत् , यावत् सर्वारातीयभागः" इति । अत्रापि परभागस्यासत्वे सर्वारातीयभागपरिकल्पनमुपपन्नमेव स्यात् । तस्मादस्ति परभाग sia il 888 11 (1980)
D. C.-What anumāna do you hold when you assert that front part is also unapprehensible because of the rear part being so ? For, how could you deny the existence of front part which is pratyakşa to you like the heat of fire !
It is proper to believe that front portion could exist only if the rear portion be existing and not otherwise. Since the front portion is existent to the apekšā of the rear one, jñāna about the rear portion will have to be derived from the front portion by means of anumāna. But from this, it is absolutely inconsistent to conclude that front portion is not perceived because the rear one is not seen.
Even the commentator asserts in this connection that when the front portion is seen we can infer the rear one e. g. A visible object has its rear portion apprehended because its front poriion which is connected whith the rear one is apprehended. It follows from this, that an object which has one portion perceptible contains another portion also. Objects like ghata, pața etc, must contain rear portions since their front ones are easily apprehended.
Again, the idea of the foremost part from the successive front portions will not fit your anumāna. As the rear part is a-vidyamāna, the inference of furemost part being so, is absolutely improper. Really speaking, the front part is perceptible in this case, and the inference of rear portion being vidyamāna, is correct.
Again,
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
