Aptamimansa

SR No.: 001170
Original Sutra Author: Samantbhadracharya
Author: Jugalkishor Mukhtar
Publisher: Veer Seva Mandir Trust
Publication Year: 1978
Total Pages: 190
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Philosophy
File Size: 9 MB

Page 107

समन्तभद्र-भारती [ परिच्छेद ३ है वह सन्तानीसे पृथक नहीं होता-सर्वथा पृथकरूपमें उसका अस्तित्व बनता ही नहीं ।'
संवृति और मुख्यार्थकी स्थिति अन्येष्वनन्यशब्दोऽयं संवृतिर्न मृषा कथम् । मुख्यार्थः संवृतिर्न स्याद् विना मुख्यान्न संवृतिः ॥४४॥
'यदि ( बौद्धोंकी ओरसे ) यह कहा जाय कि अन्योंमें अनन्य शब्दका यह जो व्यवहार है--सर्वथा भिन्न चित्त-क्षणोंको जो सन्तानके रूपमें अनन्य, अभिन्न अथवा एक आत्मा कहा जाता है-वह संवृति है-काल्पनिक अथवा औपचारिक है, वास्तविक नहीं तो सर्वथा संवृतिरूप होनेसे वह मिथ्या क्यों नहीं है ? अवश्य ही मिथ्या है, और इसलिये उसके आधारपर सन्तान आत्मा जैसी कोई वस्तु व्यवस्थित नहीं बनती। यदि संतानको मुख्य अर्थके रूपमें माना जाय तो मुख्यार्थ होता है वह सर्वथा संवृतिरूप नहीं होता और यदि संवृतिरूपमें उसे माना जाय तो सांवृत्ति बिना मुख्यार्थके बनती नहीं-मुख्यके बिना उपचारकी प्रवृत्ति होती ही नहीं; जैसे सिंहके सद्भाव-बिना सिंहका चित्र नहीं बनता।'
चतुष्कोटि-विकल्पके अवक्तव्यको बौद्ध-मान्यता चतुष्कोटेर्विकल्पस्य सर्वान्तेषक्त्ययोगतः । तत्त्वाऽन्यत्वमवाच्यं चेत्तयोः सन्तानतद्वतोः ॥४५॥ 'यदि ( बौद्धोंकी ओरसे ) यह कहा जाय कि चूंकि सब धर्मोंमें चतुष्कोटिविकल्पके कथनका अयोग है-सत्त्व-एकत्वादि किसी भी धर्मके विषयमें यह कहना नहीं बन सकता कि वह सत्-रूप है या असत्-रूप है अथवा सत् असत् दोनों ( उभय ) रूप है या दोनोंरूप नहीं ( अनुभयरूप ) है; क्योंकि सर्वथा सत् कहने पर
।

Translation AI Generated

## Samantabhadra-Bharati [Chapter 3]

"He is not separate from the lineage - his existence does not arise at all in a completely separate form."

"This convention of using the word 'ananya' (non-dual) in relation to others is not false. How can it be? The primary meaning is not convention, and convention cannot exist without the primary meaning." [44]

"If (from the Buddhist perspective) it is said that this use of the word 'ananya' in relation to others, which refers to completely different moments of consciousness that are called 'lineage', 'non-dual', 'indivisible', or 'one soul', is a convention - a fabrication or a formality, not real - then, being completely conventional, why is it not false? It is certainly false, and therefore, no entity like a lineage-soul can be established based on it. If the lineage is considered as the primary meaning, then the primary meaning is not completely conventional. And if it is considered as conventional, then convention cannot exist without the primary meaning - there is no possibility of formality without the primary. Just as a lion's picture cannot exist without the lion's essence."

"The Buddhist belief that the fourfold alternative is inexpressible due to its inability to encompass all aspects is incorrect. The truth of the difference between the lineage and the lineage-possessor is inexpressible." [45]

"If (from the Buddhist perspective) it is said that since the fourfold alternative is not applicable in all religions - it cannot be said about any religion that it is real, unreal, both real and unreal, or neither real nor unreal - because saying it is completely real..."