caubheena hoi khalu thavanam.
Kajje sadi namadisu, tam
nikkhevam have samae. (737)
There is a description of
four types of Niksepas (ascriptions) as naming etc. in the scriptures to
understand the right meaning of a proposition. (737)
Davvam vivihasahavam, jena
sahavena hoi tam jheyam.
Tassa nimittam kirai, ekkam
pi ya davva caubheyam. (738)
A substance is possessed of
various characteristics and for the sake of that characteristic, which is
presently under consideration, one and the same thing is described in four
Nama tthavana davvam,
bhavam taha jana hoi nikkhevam.
Davve sanna namam, duviham pi
ya tam pi vikkhayam. (739)
Nama, Sthapana, Dravya, Bhava-these
four ways provide the concept of niksepa. Of these nama stands for the name
of the thing concerned and is of two types. (739)
Sayara iyara thavana,
kittima iyara du bimbaja padhama.
Iyara iyara bhaniya, thavana
ariho ya nayavvo. (740)
Sthapana is of two types-that
which resembles the real shape of that for which is stands, and that which
does not. When there is a supposition of one object in the other, it is
called sthapana Niksepa, for example, supposing an idol of an arhat as an
Davvam khu hoi duviham,
agama-noagamena jah bhaniyam.
Noagamam pi tiviham, deham
nanissa bhavikammam ca.
Nanisariram tiviham cuda
cattam cavidam ceti. (741 & 742)
Dravya (= potency) is of two
types-viz. agamato (=that in respect of an authentic text) and no-agamato
(=that not in respect of an authentic text). Thus the person who knows an
authentic text pertaining to an Arhat and yet is not making use of this
knowledge of his is agamato-dravya Arhat. Similary, no-agamato dravya is of
three types-viz. the knower's body, the would be knower, one acting in a
manner appropriate to the thing concerned. And the knower's body is of three
types-viz. one fallen, one given up, one make to fall. (741 & 742)
bhavo vi hodi davvam va.
agamabhavo du arahamto.
Taggunae ya parinado,
noagamabhava hoi arahamto.
Taggunaei jhada, kevalanani
hu parinado bhanio. (743 & 744)
Like dravya bhava (=reality)
too is of two types-viz. agamato (=that in respect of an authentic text) and
no-agamato (=that not in respect of an authentic text). Thus the person who
knows an authentic text pertaining to an Arhat and is also making use ofthis
knowledge is agamato-bhava Arhat. On the other hand, the person who ahas
developed the virtuous qualities appropriate to an Arhat or one who while
equipped with those qualities, undertakes meditation and so is considered to
have become a Kevalajnanin (=Arhat) is no-agamatobhava Arhat. (743 & 744)