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 125

५६
समन्तभद्र-भारती
परिच्छेद [ ४
भिन्नताके एकान्तको बाधित ठहराते हैं, वह ठीक नहीं है; क्योंकि देशाऽभेद दो प्रकारका है - एक शास्त्रीय और दूसरा लौकिक । कार्य-कारणादिका शास्त्रीय देशाऽभेद असिद्ध है - शास्त्रकी अपेक्षासे पटादिरूप कार्यका स्वकीय कारण तन्तुसमूह और तन्तुओंका कारण कपासादि इस तरह सबका स्व- अन्य कारणदेशकी दृष्टिसे देशभेद ही है । लौकिक देशाऽभेदका आकाश - आत्मादिके साथ व्यभिचारदोष घटित होता है; क्योंकि लौकिक देशकी अपेक्षा आकाश और आत्मादिके भिन्न देशका अभाव होने पर भी उनका तादात्म्य नहीं है ।
1
उक्त भिन्नतैकान्त में दोष
एकस्याsनेक वृत्तिर्न भागाभावाद्बहूनि वा । भागित्वाद्वाऽस्य नैकत्वं दोषो वृत्तेरनार्हते || ६२ ||
( यदि वैशेषिकमतानुसार कार्य-कारण, गुण-गुणी और सामान्य सामान्यवान्को सर्वथा एक दूसरे से भिन्न माना जाय तो ) एककी— पटादि अवयवीरूप कार्य द्रव्यादिकी - ( अपने आरम्भक तन्तु आदि) अनेकों में - कारणादिकमें-- वृत्ति - प्रवृत्ति नहीं बनती; क्योंकि उस एकके विभाग के अभावसे निरंशपना माना गया है- जबकि वृत्ति होनी चाहिये; अन्यथा कार्य-कारणभावादिका विरोध उसी तरह घटित होगा जिस तरह अकार्य-कारणरूप तन्तु-घटका और मृत्पिण्ड पटका कार्य कारणभाव विरुद्ध होता है। यदि ( अवयवी आदि ) एकको भागित्वरूप आश्रित करके वृत्ति मानी जाय तो इससे एकका एकत्व स्थिर नहीं रहता- वह विभक्त होकर बहुरूपमें परिणत हो जाता है । इसके सिवाय यह प्रश्न पैदा होता है कि एककी अनेक में वह वृत्ति तन्तु आदिके लक्षण आधारके प्रति एकदेशरूपसे होती हैं या सर्वात्मक रूपसे ? एक देशरूपसे वह नहीं बनती; क्योंकि एक पटादि कार्यद्रव्यके निष्प्रदेश होनेसे तन्तु

Translation AI Generated

## 56
## Samantabhadra-Bharati
## Chapter [4

It is not correct to state that the principle of distinctness is absolute. This is because there are two types of non-differentiation: one is scriptural and the other is worldly. The scriptural non-differentiation of cause and effect, etc., is not valid. From the perspective of scripture, the cloth, etc., as an effect, has its own cause, the group of threads, and the threads have their own cause, cotton, etc. In this way, everything is differentiated from its own cause and effect. The worldly non-differentiation of space, soul, etc., is flawed because it leads to contradiction. Even though space and soul, etc., do not have distinct locations from the perspective of the worldly, they are not identical.

## 1
## Flaws in the aforementioned principle of distinctness

If one thing has multiple functions, it is not due to the absence of parts, nor is it due to the presence of multiple parts. If it is due to the presence of parts, then its oneness is not established. This is a flaw in the function, as it is not appropriate. || 62 ||

(If, according to the Vaisheshika school of thought, cause and effect, quality and qualified, and universal and particular are considered to be completely distinct from each other, then) the function of one - the cloth, etc., as an effect, in the form of its constituent parts, in the many - the cause, etc. - does not arise. This is because the absence of parts in that one thing implies that it is without parts, while it should have parts. Otherwise, the contradiction between cause and effect, etc., will arise in the same way as the contradiction between the non-cause and effect relationship of the thread and the pot, and the clay and the pot. If the function of one (constituent parts, etc.) is considered to be based on the parts, then the oneness of that one thing is not established. It becomes divided and transformed into many forms. Besides this, the question arises: does the function of one in many occur with respect to the characteristics of the thread, etc., as a basis, in a single location, or in a universal way? It does not occur in a single location, because the cloth, etc., as an effect, is without a specific location, and therefore the thread...