Jena vina logassa vi,
vavaharo savvaha na nivvahai.
Tassa bhuvanekkaguruno, namo
Without whom, even the
worldly affairs can not be carried out, I bow to that Anekantavada
(non-absolutism), the only preceptor of the world. (660)
Lakkhanam pajjavanam tu,
ubhao assiya bhave. (661)
The substance is the abode of
attributes and the same are inhered by the substance. The distinctive
characteristic of mode is that it depends on both. (661)
davvaiutta ya pajjava natthi.
daviyalakkhanam eyam. (662)
There is no substance without
the modes, nor are the modes without substance. The characteristics of
substance are origination, permanence and destruction. (662)
Na bhavo bhamgavihino,
bhamgo va natthi sambhavavihino.
Uppado vi ya bhamgo, na vina
dhovvena atthena. (663)
There is no orgination
without destruction, no destruction without origination, while neither
origination nor destruction is possible without a permanent substance. (663)
vijjamte pajjaesu pajjaya.
Davvam hi samti niyadam,
tamha davvam havadi savvam. (664)
The origination, permanence
and destruction belong to the modes (and not to the substance0, but since
modes are definitely of the form of a substance, everything whatsoever is
the form of a substance. (664)
Samavedam khalu davvam,
Ekkammi ceva samaye, tamha
davvam khu tattidayam. (665)
Since at one and the same
moment the substance is subject to three states, viz. origination,
permanence and destruction-these three states verily constitute a substance.
Padubbhavadi ya anno,
pajjao pajjao vayadi anno.
Davvassa tam pi davvam, neva
panattham neva uppannam. (666)
The mode of a substance which
emerges is one and that which vanishes is other than it, while the substance
neither emerges, not vanishes. (666)
Tassa u balaiya,
appajjavajoya bahuviyappa. (667)
The individual remains the
same person from his birth till the time of death, though he assumes the
various states of childhood etc. (667)
Tamha vatthunam ciya, jo
sariso pajjavo sa samannam.
Jo visariso viseso, ya
mao'natthamtaram tatto. (668)
All the modes of the things
which are common to all of them are universal, while those which are not,
are particular but both belong to the same. (668)
Samanna aha visese, davve
nanam havei aviroho.
Sahai tam sammattam, nahu
puna tam tassa vivariyam. (669)
The cognitions of a substance
are universal and particular and are uncontradicted. This is the right
cognition whereas the contrary to it is not. (669)
Na ya so egassa piya, tti
sesayanam piya hoi. (670)
One and the same person
assumes the relationship of father, son, grandson, nephew and brother, but
he is the father of one whose he is and not of the rest (so is the case with
all the things). (670)
purisam jo bhanejja aviyappam.
Saviyappameva vi nicchaena,
na sa nicchao samae. (671)
A person is certainly
possessed of alternative relationships and aslo assumes single relationship.
But one exclusively ascribes to this person either the former or the latter
relationship, is certainly not wellversed in the scriptures. (671)
Annonnanugayanam, `imam va
tam va' tti vibhyanamajuttam.
javamta visesapajjaya. (672)
The particular qualities (of
a substance) are mixed together just like milk and water, so it is not
justifiable "to exclusively distinguish them as `this' or `that' quality.
bhikkhu, vibhajjavayam ca viyagarejja.
dhammasamutthitehim, viyagarejja samaya supanne. (673)
A monk, who ii doubtful about
the meaning of a verse, should adopt without any pride the relative point of
view in his interpretation. A wise monk, while dealing with other monks
following the right path in their practice of religion, should preach with
eqanimity in a truthful and unequivocal langauage. (673)