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 171

१०२ समन्तभद्र-भारती
[ परिच्छेद १० बनता है। और इस तरह सत् असत् आदि वाक्योंमें विधि-निषेधकी गौण तथा प्रधानरूपसे वृत्तिका होना लक्षित होता है।'
तदतद्रूप वस्तुको तद्रूप ही कहनेवाली वाणी सत्य नहीं तदतद्वस्तु वागेषा तदेवेत्यनुशासती । न सत्या स्यान्मषा-वाक्यः कथं तत्त्वार्थ-देशना ॥११०।। ___( यदि यह कहा जाय कि वाक्य विधिके द्वारा ही वस्तुतत्त्वका नियमन करता है तो यह सर्वथा एकान्त ठीक नहीं है; क्योंकि) वस्तु तत्-अतत्रूप है-दृष्टि-भेदके साथ अविनाभावसम्बन्धको लिये हुए सत्-असत्, नित्य-अनित्यादि अनेकान्तरूप है-जो वाक्य ( वाणी ) उसे सर्वथा तत्रूप-सत्-नित्यादिरूप-ही प्रतिपादन करता है-उसके प्रतिपक्षी अविनाभावी धर्मको गौण किये हुए न होकर उसका विरोधक है-वह सत्य नहीं होता तब ( ऐसे ) मिथ्या-वाक्योंसे तत्त्वार्थकी-यथार्थ वस्तुस्वरूपकी-देशना ( कथनी ) कैसे बन सकती है ?-नहीं बन सकती।'
व्याख्या-यद्यपि सभी (विधि और प्रतिषेध) वाक्य विधि और प्रतिषेध दोनों-रूप वस्तुका प्रतिपादन करते हैं फिर भी यदि कहा जाय कि वे केवल विधिका ही अनुशासन ( उपदेश ) करते हैं तो यह कथन सत्य (यथार्थ) नहीं-मिथ्या है और मिथ्या-वाक्योंके द्वारा वस्तुस्वरूपका यथार्थ कथन नहीं बन सकता । अतः वाक्य चाहे विधिरूप हों और चाहे निषेधरूप, सभी विधि तथा प्रतिषेध दोनोंरूप वस्तुका प्रतिपादन करते हैं। अन्तर केवल इतना ही है कि विधि-वाक्यके द्वारा विधिका कथन मुख्यरूपसे और प्रतिषेधका कथन गौणरूपसे तथा प्रतिषेध-वाक्यके द्वारा प्रतिषेधका कथन मुख्यरूपसे और विधिका कथन गौणरूपसे किया जाता है । यही यथार्थ तत्त्व-देशना है।

Translation AI Generated

## 102 Samantabhadra-Bharati
[Chapter 10 is formed. And in this way, it is observed that in sentences like 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non-being), there is a secondary and primary role of injunction and prohibition.]

"Speech that calls an object by its own form is not true. Speech that describes an object as 'that' itself, instructs accordingly. A sentence like 'it is a fly' cannot be true. How can it be a declaration of the true meaning? [110]"

_(If it is said that sentences regulate the truth of objects only through injunction, then this is completely incorrect; because)_ "An object is 'that' and 'not that' - it is of the form of anekanta (many-sidedness) with the inseparable connection of the difference of perspective - 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non-being), 'nitya' (eternal) and 'anitya' (non-eternal) etc. - a sentence (speech) that declares it completely as 'that' - 'sat' (being), 'nitya' (eternal) etc. - is not its opponent, but its contradictor, having made the inseparable dharma (principle) secondary. It is not true. Then, how can such false sentences be a declaration (statement) of the true meaning - the true nature of the object? - It cannot be."

**Explanation:** Although all (injunction and prohibition) sentences declare both injunction and prohibition forms of an object, if it is said that they only instruct according to injunction, then this statement is not true (real) - it is false. And a true statement of the nature of the object cannot be made through false sentences. Therefore, whether sentences are in the form of injunction or prohibition, they all declare both injunction and prohibition forms of the object. The only difference is that through an injunction sentence, the declaration of injunction is primarily made and the declaration of prohibition is secondarily made, and through a prohibition sentence, the declaration of prohibition is primarily made and the declaration of injunction is secondarily made. This is the true declaration of the truth.