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 157

समन्तभद्र-भारती
[ परिच्छेद ९
यहाँ पर यदि यह कहा जाय कि उन अकषाय-जीवोंके दूसरोंको सुख-दुःख पहुँचाने का कोई संकल्प या अभिप्राय नहीं होता, उस प्रकार की कोई इच्छा नहीं होती और न उस विषय में उनकी कोई आसक्ति ही होती है, इसलिये दूसरोंके सुख-दुःखकी उत्पत्तिमें निमित्तकारण होनेसे वे बन्धको प्राप्त नहीं होते; तो फिर 'दूसरों में दुःखोत्पादन पापका और सुखोत्पादन पुण्यका हेतु है' यह एकान्त सिद्धान्त कैसे बन सकता है ? - अभिप्रायाभावके कारण अन्यत्र भी दुःखोत्पादनसे पापका और सुखोत्पादनसे पुण्यका बन्ध नहीं हो सकेगा; प्रत्युत इसके विरोधी अभिप्रायके कारण दुःखोत्पत्तिसे पुण्यका और सुखोत्पत्तिसे पापका बन्ध भी हो सकेगा । जैसे एक डाक्टर सुख पहुँचानेके अभिप्रायसे पूर्ण सावधानी के साथ फोड़ेका ऑपरेशन करता है परन्तु फोड़ेको चीरते समय रोगीको कुछ अनिवार्य दुःख भी पहुँचाता है, इस दुःखके पहुँचनेसे डाक्टरको पापका बन्ध नहीं होगा इतना ही नहीं, बल्कि उसकी दुःखविरोधिनी भावना के कारण यह दुःख भी पुण्य-बन्धका कारण होगा । इसी तरह एक मनुष्य कषायभावके वशवर्ती होकर दुःख पहुँचाने के अभिप्राय से किसी कुछड़ेको लात मारता है, लातके लगते ही अचानक उसका कुबड़ापन मिट जाता है और वह सुखका अनुभव करने लगता है, कहावत भी है - "कुबड़े गुण लात लग गई”– तो कुबड़ेके इस सुखानुभवसे लात मारनेवालेको पुण्यफलको प्राप्ति नहीं हो सकती - उसे तो अपनी सुखविरोधिनी भावनाके कारण पाप ही लगेगा । अतः यह एकान्त सिद्धान्त कि 'परमें सुख-दुःखका उत्पादन पुण्य-पापका हेतु है' पूर्णतया सदोष है, और इसलिये उसे किसी तरह भी वस्तुतत्त्व नहीं कह सकते ।
८८
स्वमें दुःख-सुख से पुण्य पापके एकान्तवी सदोषता पुण्यं ध्रुवं स्वतो दुःखात्पापं च सुखतो यदि । वीतरागो मुनिर्विद्वांस्ताभ्यां युंज्यान्निमित्ततः ॥ ९३||

Translation AI Generated

## Samantabhadra-Bharati
[ Chapter 9 ]

If it is said that those who are free from the eight karmas (akshaya-jivas) do not have any intention or desire to cause happiness or suffering to others, and they have no attachment to such matters, therefore they do not acquire karma due to being the instrumental cause in the creation of happiness or suffering in others; then how can the principle that "causing suffering to others is the cause of sin and causing happiness is the cause of merit" be an absolute truth? - Due to the absence of intention, causing suffering will not lead to sin and causing happiness will not lead to merit in other situations as well; rather, due to the opposite intention, causing suffering will lead to merit and causing happiness will lead to sin. For example, a doctor performs surgery on a boil with utmost care, intending to bring about happiness, but while cutting the boil, he also causes some unavoidable suffering to the patient. The doctor will not acquire sin due to causing this suffering; rather, due to his intention to alleviate suffering, this suffering will become a cause of merit. Similarly, a person, under the influence of passions (kṣayābhāva), kicks a hunchback with the intention of causing suffering. As soon as the kick lands, the hunchback's hunchback disappears, and he begins to experience happiness. There is a saying, "A hunchback gets his due by a kick." So, the person who kicked the hunchback will not receive merit for this experience of happiness - he will only acquire sin due to his intention to cause suffering. Therefore, the absolute principle that "causing happiness or suffering to others is the cause of merit or sin" is completely flawed, and therefore cannot be considered as the truth in any way.

88
The absolute principle of merit and sin arising from happiness and suffering in oneself is flawed. Merit is certainly due to suffering, and sin is due to happiness. A wise and dispassionate monk should connect these two with the cause. || 93 ||