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 109

४०
समन्तभद्र-भारती
[ परिच्छेद ३ विशेषणभाव नहीं बनता-न वह विशेष्य है और न विशेषण ।'
(और यदि यह कहा जाय कि स्वसंवेदनसे विशेषणविशेष्यरहित ही तत्त्व प्रतिभासित होता है तो वह ठीक नहीं; क्योंकि स्वसंवेदनके भी सत्त्व (अस्तित्व) विशेषणकी विशिष्टतासे विशेष्य का ही अवभासन होता है। स्वसंवेदनके उत्तरकालमें होनेवाले विकल्पबुद्धिमें 'स्वका संवेदन' इस प्रकार विशेषण-विशेष्यभाव अवभासित होता है-स्वसंवेदनके स्वरूप में नहीं । यदि यह कहा जब कि स्वसंवेदन अविशेष्य-विशेषणरूप है और वह स्वतः प्रतिभासित होता है तो इससे ( भी ) स्वसंवेदनमें विशेषण-विशेष्यभाव सिद्ध होता है; क्योंकि वैसा कहनेपर अविशेषणविशेष्यत्व ही विशेषण हो जाता है।)
निषेध सत्का होता है असत्का नहीं द्रव्याद्यन्तरभावेन निषेधः संज्ञिनः सतः ।
असद्भेदो न भावस्तु स्थानं विधि-निषेधयोः ॥४७॥ 'यदि विशेषण-विशेष्यभावको सर्वथा असत् माना जाय तो उसका निषेध नहीं बनता; क्योंकि ) जो संज्ञी ( स्वद्रव्य-क्षेत्रकाल-भावकी अपेक्षा ) सत् होता है उसीका परद्रव्य-क्षेत्र-कालभावकी अपेक्षा निषेध किया जाता है, न कि असत्का। सर्वथा असत् पदार्थ तो विधि-निषेधका विषय ही नहीं होता-जो पदार्थ परद्रव्य-क्षेत्र-काल-भावकी अपेक्षाके समान स्वद्रव्य-क्षेत्र-काल-भावकी अपेक्षासे भी असत् है वह सर्वथा असत् है, उसकी विधि कैसी ? जिसकी विधि नहीं उसका निषेध नहीं बनता; क्योंकि निषेध विधि-पूर्वक होता है। और इसलिये जो सत् होकर अपने द्रव्यादिकी अपेक्षा कथंचित् वक्तव्य है उसीके ( परद्रव्यादिकी अपेक्षा निषेध होनेसे ) अवक्तव्यपना यक्त ठहरता है। और जो सतपदार्थ स्वदव्यादिकी अपेक्षा कथंचित् विशेषण-विशेष्यरूप है उसीके ( परद्रव्यादिकी अपेक्षा ) अविशेष्य-विशेषणपना ठीक घटित होता

Translation AI Generated

## Chapter 3: The Nature of Qualification

**40**
Samantbhadra-Bharati
[“Qualification does not arise, nor is it the qualified, nor the qualifier.”]
(And if it is said that the truth is manifested by self-awareness without qualification and the qualified, that is not correct; because even in self-awareness, the existence (being) of the qualified is perceived through the particularity of the qualifier. In the alternative consciousness that arises after self-awareness, the “awareness of oneself” is perceived as a qualifier-qualified relationship, not in the nature of self-awareness. If it is said that self-awareness is in the form of the unqualified and the qualifier, and that it is self-manifested, then this also proves the qualifier-qualified relationship in self-awareness; because by saying so, the unqualified and the qualifier itself becomes the qualifier.)

**47**
Negation is of the existent, not of the non-existent. Negation is of the existent, in relation to other substance, space, and time.
The non-existent is not a state, it is the place of injunction and prohibition.
(If the qualifier-qualified relationship is considered to be completely non-existent, then its negation does not arise; because) negation is of the existent (in relation to other substance, space, and time), not of the non-existent. A completely non-existent entity is not even the subject of injunction and prohibition – an entity that is non-existent in relation to other substance, space, and time, and also non-existent in relation to its own substance, space, and time, is completely non-existent. What injunction can there be for it? What has no injunction, has no negation; because negation arises after injunction. And therefore, what is existent and can be spoken of in some way in relation to its own substance, etc., is rightly considered to be unspeakable (in relation to other substance, etc.) due to its negation. And what is existent and is in some way in the form of the qualified and the qualifier in relation to its own substance, etc., is rightly considered to be in the form of the unqualified and the qualifier (in relation to other substance, etc.).