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 174

कारिका ११३] देवागम
१०५ नहीं है; क्योंकि इससे अन्यापोह-शब्दका अर्थ सिद्ध नहीं होता। शब्दका वही अर्थ माना जाता है जिसमें उस शब्दकी प्रवृत्ति हो । अन्यापोहमें किसी भी शब्दकी प्रवृत्ति नहीं होती। ऐसी स्थितिमें विधिरूप सामान्यको कहनेवाला वाक्य भी आपके मतानुसार मिथ्या ठहरता है । वास्तवमें वही वाक्य सत्य हैं जिसके द्वारा अपने अभिप्रेत अर्थ-विशेषकी प्राप्ति होती है और ऐसा वाक्य 'स्यात्' शब्दसे युक्त ही संभव है और उसीसे सत्य ( यथार्थ अर्थ ) की पहचान होती है। क्योंकि वह लोगोंको अभिप्रेत अर्थ-विशेषकी प्राप्ति कराता है। अन्य (स्यात्कारसे रहित ) वाक्योंसे अर्थविशेषकी प्राप्ति नहीं होती। यही स्याद्वाद और अन्यवादोंमें विशेष अन्तर है।
स्याद्वाद-संस्थिति विधेयमीप्सितार्थाङ्गं प्रतिषेध्याऽविरोधि यत् । तथैवाऽऽदेय-हेयत्वमिति स्याद्वाद-संस्थितिः ॥११३॥ '( अस्ति इत्यादिरूप ) जो विधेय है-मनके अभिप्रायपूर्वक जिसका विधान किया जाता है, किसोके भयादिवश नहीं-और ईप्सित-अर्थक्रियाका कारण है वह प्रतिषेध्यक-नास्तित्वादिके --साथ अविरोधरूप है-जो नास्तित्वादिके साथ अविरोधरूप नहीं वह ईप्सित-अर्थक्रियाका कारण भी नहीं हो सकता; क्योंकि विधि-प्रतिषेधके परस्पर अविनाभाव-सम्बन्ध है, विधिके बिना प्रतिषेधका और प्रतिषेधके बिना विधिका अस्तित्व नहीं बनता। और जिस प्रकार विधेय प्रतिषेध्यका अविरोधी ईप्सित अर्थक्रियाका अंग-कारण सिद्ध है उसी प्रकार वस्तुका आदेय-हेयपना है, अन्यथा नहीं; क्योंकि विधेयका एकान्त होनेपर किसीके हेयत्वका विरोध होता है। प्रतिषेध्यका एकान्त होनेपर किसीके आदेयत्वका विरोध होता है; स्याद्वादीके अभिप्रायानुसार सर्वथा विधेय ही प्रतिषेध्य नहीं होता; कथंचित् विधि-प्रतिषेध्यके तादाम्य

Translation AI Generated

## Karika 113: Devagam

**105 is not correct; because it does not establish the meaning of the term "Anyapoha". The meaning of a word is considered to be that which has its own inherent nature. There is no inherent nature in Anyapoha. In such a situation, the sentence that speaks of the general rule in the form of a law also becomes false according to your opinion. In reality, those sentences are true which lead to the attainment of the specific meaning intended by them, and such a sentence is possible only with the word "Syat" and it is through this that truth (real meaning) is recognized. Because it enables people to attain the specific meaning intended. Other (sentences devoid of Syatkara) do not lead to the attainment of specific meaning. This is the special difference between Syadvada and other philosophies.**

**Syadvada-samsthiti is that which is the predicate, is the part of the desired meaning, is not contradictory to the prohibited, and is the cause of the desired meaning. Similarly, the being-worthy-of-being-taken-up and the being-worthy-of-being-given-up are also Syadvada-samsthiti. ||113||**

**(Asti, etc.) which is the predicate - which is intended by the mind, not due to fear, etc. - and is the cause of the desired meaning, is non-contradictory to the prohibited - non-existence, etc. - that which is not non-contradictory to non-existence, etc. cannot be the cause of the desired meaning; because there is an inseparable relationship between law and prohibition, without law there is no existence of prohibition, and without prohibition there is no existence of law. And just as the predicate, being non-contradictory to the prohibited, is established as the part-cause of the desired meaning, in the same way, the being-worthy-of-being-taken-up and the being-worthy-of-being-given-up of a thing is also established, otherwise not; because if the predicate is absolute, there is a contradiction to the being-worthy-of-being-given-up of something. If the prohibited is absolute, there is a contradiction to the being-worthy-of-being-taken-up of something; according to the opinion of the Syadvadi, the predicate is never absolutely prohibited; in some way, there is a harmony between law and the prohibited.**