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 86

कारिका ११]
देवागम प्रवादियोंका विवक्षित अपना-अपना इष्ट एक तत्त्व ( अनिष्टतत्त्वों का भी उसमें सद्भाव होनेसे ) अभेदरूप सर्वात्मक ठहरता हैऔर इसलिए उसकी अलगसे कोई व्यवस्था नहीं बन सकती। यदि अत्यन्ताभावका लोप किया जाय-एक द्रव्यका दूसरे द्रव्यमें सर्वथा अभाव है, इसको न माना जाय-तो एक द्रव्यका दूसरेमें समवाय-सम्बन्ध ( तादात्म्य ) स्वीकृत होता है और ऐसा होनेपर यह चेतन है, यह अचेतन है इत्यादि रूपसे उस एक तत्त्वका सर्वथा भेदरूपसे कोई व्यपदेश ( कथन ) नहीं बन सकता।'
अभावैकान्तकी सदोषता अभावैकान्त-पक्षेऽपि भावाऽपन्हव-वादिनाम् । बोध-वाक्यं प्रमाणं न केन साधन-दूषणम् ।।१२।। 'यदि अभावैकान्तपक्षको स्वीकार किया जाय-यह माना जाय कि सभी पदार्थ सर्वथा असत्-रूप हैं तो इस प्रकार भावोंका सर्वथा अभाव कहनेवालोंके यहाँ ( मतमें ) बोध ( ज्ञान) और वाक्य (आगम ) दोनोंका ही अस्तित्व नहीं बनता और दोनोंका अस्तित्व न बननेसे ( स्वार्थानुमान, परार्थानुमान आदिके रूपमें ) कोई प्रमाण भी नहीं बनता; तब किसके द्वारा अपने अभावैकान्त पक्षका साधन किया जा सकता और दूसरे भाववादियोंके पक्षमें दूषण दिया जा सकता है ?--स्वपक्ष-साधन और परपक्ष-दूषण दोनों ही घटित न होनेसे अभावैकान्तपक्षवादियोंके पक्षकी कोई सिद्धि अथवा प्रतिष्ठा नहीं बनती और वह सदोष ठहरता है; फलतः अभावैकान्तपक्षके प्रतिपादक सर्वज्ञ एवं महान् नहीं हो सकते।'
उभय और अवक्तव्य एकान्तोंकी सदोषता विरोधान्नोभयकात्म्यं स्याद्वाद-न्याय-विद्विषाम् । अवाच्यतैकान्तेऽप्युक्तिर्नाऽवाच्यमिति युज्यते ॥१३॥

Translation AI Generated

## [Verse 11]

The proponents of the Devagam doctrine posit that their respective cherished principle, being a single entity (with the harmonious presence of undesirable elements within it), is non-dual and all-encompassing. Therefore, it cannot be categorized separately. If the complete absence of something is eliminated – the complete absence of one substance in another is not accepted – then the relationship of Samavaya (identity) between one substance and another is acknowledged. If this is the case, then there cannot be any designation (statement) of that one entity as being completely distinct, such as "this is conscious," "this is unconscious," etc.

## [Verse 12]

The doctrine of complete non-existence is flawed. Even those who advocate for complete non-existence, who claim that all things are completely unreal, have no basis for knowledge (bodha) or scripture (vakya). Without the existence of both, there can be no proof (such as self-inference, inference for others, etc.). How then can they establish their doctrine of complete non-existence and refute the arguments of those who believe in existence? Without the ability to establish their own position and refute the opposing view, the proponents of complete non-existence cannot achieve any validation or standing. Consequently, they cannot be considered omniscient or great.

## [Verse 13]

Both extremes, of complete affirmation and complete negation, are flawed. Due to contradiction, there cannot be a common ground for those who are hostile to the doctrine of Syadvada (the doctrine of maybe). Even in the case of complete silence, it is not appropriate to say that something is unspeakable.