एकस्मिन्नसंभवाधिकरणम् ६
नैकस्मिन्नसंभवात् ॥ ३१ ॥
अर्हतो^ मतं न युक्तिमत्, एकस्मिन् वस्तुनि युगपत् सत्त्वासत्त्वनित्यत्वानेित्यत्वभेदाभेदानामसंभवात् | पर्यायरूपाश्च ^^द्रन्यस्यास्तित्वनास्तित्वादिशब्दबुद्धिविषयाः परस्परविरुद्धपैिण्डत्वघटत्वकपालत्वाद्यवस्था युगपन्न संभवन्ति | तथा घटत्वशरावत्वाद्यवस्थाश्च पृथिव्यादेः प्रदेशभेदेन | तथाच द्रव्यस्यानित्यत्वमुत्पत्तिवेिनाशयोगित्वं तद्विपरीतं नेित्यत्वं च नैकस्मिम् समवैति ॥
Sat) and non-existence (i.e. Asat) relate to the positive states of mutually contradictory natures of the objects.
EKASMINNASAMBHAVADHIKARANA 6
31. Naikasminnasambhavaat
Not so, on account of the impossibility in one.
The views of the Arhat or Jina, are not tenable, because it is not possible for an object to assume simultaneously the states of existence and non-existence, permanence and non- permanence, and separateness and non-separateness. It is also impossible to accept that a substance undergoes different states (Paryaayaas) simultaneously, because the states such as lumpness, potness, and the state of broken pieces etc. which are said to be the objects of the cognition of existence and non-existence, are mutually contradictory. The earth, etc. undergo the states of pot, plate, etc. in different parts. It is not possible to apprehend in the same substance, impermanence and its opposing nature namely, permanence, because
^अर्हतोऽपि A 1, M 1. , ^^द्रव्यस्यास्तित्वादि M 3, Pr.
