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 159

समन्तभद्र-भारती
[परिच्छेद ९ हेतु है, अभिप्रायविहीन दुःख-सुखका उत्पादन पुण्य-पापका हेतु नहीं है।
अतः उक्त दोनों एकान्त सिद्धान्त प्रमाणसे बाधित हैं, इष्टके भी विरुद्ध पड़ते हैं और इसलिये ठीक नहीं कहे जा सकते ।
उभय तथा अवक्तव्य एकान्तोंकी सदोषता विरोधान्नोभयकात्म्यं स्याद्वाद-न्याय-विद्विषाम् ।। अवाच्यतैकान्तेऽप्युक्तिर्नाऽवाच्यमिति युज्यते ॥९४।।
( पाप-पुण्यके बन्ध-सम्बन्धी प्रस्तुत दोनों एकान्तोंकी अलग मान्यतामें दोष देखकर । यदि दोनों सिद्धान्तोंके एकात्मरूप उभय एकान्तको माना जाय तो वह स्याद्वाद-न्यायसे द्वेष रखनेवालोंके विरोध-दोषके कारण नहीं बनता। अवाच्यताका एकान्त मानने में भी अवाच्य' है यह कहना युक्त नहीं ठहरता है, क्योंकि 'अवाच्य' शब्दके द्वारा वह 'वाच्य' हो जायगा और तब सर्वथा अवाच्यता-- का एकान्त नहीं रहेगा।
पुण्य-पापकी निर्दोष व्यवस्था विशुद्धि-संक्लेशाङ्ग चेत् म्वपरस्थं सुखासुखम् ।
पुण्य-पापास्रवौ युक्तौ न चेद्वयर्थस्तवाऽहेतः ॥९५।। . 'यदि स्व-परस्थ-अपना अथवा परका-सुख-दुःख विशुद्धि तथा संक्लेशका अङ्ग है-तत्कारण-कार्य वा स्वभावरूप है-तो वह सुख-दुःख यथाक्रम पुण्य-पापके आस्त्रव-बन्धका हेतु है और यदि विशद्धि तथा संक्लेश दोनोंमेंसे किसीका भी अङ्ग-कारण-कार्यस्वभावरूप-नहीं होता है तो ( हे अर्हन् भगवन् ! ) आपके मतमें वह व्यर्थ कहा है-उसका कोई फल नहीं। अन्यथा, पूर्वकारिका ( ९३ ) में कहे हुए 'अकेतनाऽकषायौ' और 'वीतरागो मुनिविद्वान्' पदोंमें जिनका उल्लेख है उनके भी बन्धका प्रसंग उपस्थित होगा।'
व्याख्या-यहाँ 'संक्लेश' का अभिप्राय आर्त-रौद्रध्यानके

Translation AI Generated

## Samantabhadra-Bharati
[Chapter 9: The reason for suffering and happiness is not the cause of merit and demerit.
Therefore, both of the aforementioned one-sided doctrines are refuted by evidence, contradict the desired outcome, and therefore cannot be considered correct.
The flawed nature of both the "both" and "unspeakable" one-sided doctrines is due to the opposition of the Syadvada-naya-vidvisha. Even in the "unspeakable" one-sided doctrine, it is not appropriate to say that it is "unspeakable." ||94||
(Seeing the flaws in the separate beliefs of the two one-sided doctrines regarding the bondage related to merit and demerit. If the "both" one-sided doctrine, which is the same as both doctrines, is accepted, it does not become a cause of opposition due to the hatred of those who oppose the Syadvada-naya. Even in accepting the one-sided doctrine of "unspeakable," it is not appropriate to say that it is "unspeakable," because by using the word "unspeakable," it becomes "speakable," and then the one-sided doctrine of "unspeakable" will not remain at all.
If the pure and impure aspects are the cause of happiness and suffering, either for oneself or for others, then happiness and suffering are the cause of the flow of merit and demerit, which leads to bondage. And if neither purity nor impurity is the cause, then (O Arhan Bhagavan!) according to your opinion, it is considered useless - it has no fruit. Otherwise, the bondage of those mentioned in the previous verse (93) - "Aketana Akashaya" and "Vitraga Muni Vidvan" - will also arise.
Explanation: Here, "Samklesha" refers to the agitated, fierce, and meditative...