Sarvarthasiddhi

SR No.: 001443
Original Sutra Author: Devnandi Maharaj
Author: Fulchandra Jain Shastri
Publisher: Bharatiya Gyanpith
Publication Year: 1997
Total Pages: 568
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Philosophy, Tattvartha Sutra, & Tattvarth
File Size: 14 MB

Page 189

- 11108169] प्रथमोऽध्यायः
[69 संनिकर्षः केषांविदिन्द्रियमिति । अतोऽधिकृतानामेव मत्यादीनां प्रमाणत्वख्यापनार्थमाह
तत्प्रमाणे 1100 8166. तद्वचनं किमर्थम् । प्रमाणान्तरपरिकल्पनानिवृत्त्यर्थम् । संनि'कर्षः प्रमाणमिन्द्रिय प्रमाणमिति केचित्कल्पयन्ति तन्निवृत्त्यर्थं तदित्युच्यते । तदेव मत्यादि प्रमाणं नान्यदिति ।
8167. अथ संनिकर्षे प्रमाणे सति इन्द्रिये वा को दोषः? यदि संनिकर्षः प्रमाणम्, सूक्ष्म व्यवहितविप्रकष्टानामर्थानामग्रहणप्रसङ्गः। न हि ते इन्द्रियः संनिकृष्यन्ते । अतः सर्वज्ञत्वाभावः 'स्यात् । इन्द्रियमपि यदि प्रमाणं स एव दोषः, अल्पविषयत्वात् चक्षुरादीनां ज्ञेयस्य चापरिमाणत्वात्।
168. सर्वेन्द्रियसंनिकर्षाभावश्च ; चक्षर्मनसोः प्राप्यकारित्वाभावात् । अप्राप्यकारित्वं च उत्तरत्र वक्ष्यते।
8169 यदि ज्ञानं प्रमाणं फलाभावः। अधिगमो हि फलमिष्टं न भावान्तरम् । स चेत्रमाणं, न तस्यान्यत्फलं भवितुमर्हति । फलवता च प्रमाणेन भवितव्यम् । संनिकर्षे इन्द्रिये वा प्रमाणे सति अधिगमः फलमर्थान्तरभूतं युज्यते इति । तदयुक्तम् । यदि संनिकर्षः प्रमाणं अर्थामाना है, किन्हींने सन्निकर्षको और किन्हींने इन्द्रियको। अतः अधिकार प्राप्त मत्यादिक ही प्रमाण हैं इस बातको दिखलानेके लिए आगेका सूत्र कहते हैं
८ वह पांचों प्रकार का ज्ञान दो प्रमाणरूप है ॥10॥ 8166. शंका-सूत्रमें 'तत्' पद किसलिए दिया है ? समाधान—जो दूसरे लोग सन्निकर्ष आदिको प्रमाण मानते हैं उनकी इस कल्पनाके निराकरण करने के लिए सूत्रमें 'तत्' पद दिया है। सन्निकर्ष प्रमाण है, इन्द्रिय प्रमाण है ऐसा कितने ही लोग मानते हैं इसलिए इनका निराकरण करनेके लिए सूत्रमें 'तत्' पद दिया है जिससे यह अर्थ स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि वे मत्यादि ही प्रमाण हैं, अन्य नहीं।
167. शंका -सन्निकर्ष या इन्द्रियको प्रमाण मानने में क्या दोष है ? समाधान-यदि सन्निकर्षको प्रमाण माना जाता है तो सूक्ष्म, व्यवहित और विप्रकृष्ट पदार्थों के अग्रहणका प्रसंग प्राप्त होता है; क्योंकि इनका इन्द्रियोंसे सम्बन्ध नहीं होता। इसलिए सर्वज्ञताका अभाव हो जाता है। यदि इन्द्रियको प्रमाण माना जाता है तो वही दोष आता है, क्योंकि चक्षु आदिका विषय अल्प है और ज्ञेय अपरिमित हैं।
8163. दूसरे सब इन्द्रियोंका सन्निकर्ष भी नहीं बनता, क्योंकि चक्षु और मन प्राप्यकारी नहीं हैं, इसलिए भी सन्निकर्षको प्रमाण नहीं मान सकते। चक्षु और मनके अप्राप्यकारित्वका कथन आगे कहेंगे।
8 169. शंका-यदि ज्ञानको प्रमाण मानते हैं तो फलका अभाव होता है। प्रकृतमें ज्ञानकोही फल मानना इष्ट है अन्य पदार्थ को फल मानना इष्ट नहीं। पर यदि उसे प्रमाण मान लिया जाता है तो उसका कोई दूसरा फल नहीं प्राप्त हो सकता। किन्तु प्रमाणको फलवाला होना चाहिए। पर सन्निकर्ष या इन्द्रियको प्रमाण मानने पर उससे भिन्न ज्ञानरूप फल बन जाता है?
1. 'उपलब्धिसाधनानि प्रमाणानि ।'-11113 न्या. मा.। 2. 'यदुपलब्धिनिमित्तं तत्प्रमाणं ।' त्या. वा. पृ. 51 3. नातो-ऽन्यदिति-प्रा., दि. 1।

Translation AI Generated

## Chapter 1

[11108169] **Chapter 1**

[69] **Question:** What are the objects of the senses? **Answer:** To establish that only the objects of the senses are the means of knowledge, the following sutra is stated:

**Sutra:** That (knowledge) is the means of knowledge. [1100 8166]

**Question:** What is the purpose of this sutra? **Answer:** To refute the assumption of other means of knowledge. Some people assume that **sannnikarsha** (contact) is the means of knowledge, and others assume that the senses are the means of knowledge. To refute these assumptions, the sutra states "that" (knowledge) is the means of knowledge. This means that knowledge itself is the means of knowledge, and not anything else.

[8167] **Question:** What is the flaw in considering **sannnikarsha** or the senses as the means of knowledge? **Answer:** If **sannnikarsha** is considered the means of knowledge, then there would be a possibility of not perceiving subtle, distant, or obstructed objects, because they do not come into contact with the senses. This would lead to the absence of omniscience. Similarly, if the senses are considered the means of knowledge, the same flaw arises because the objects of the senses are limited, while the objects of knowledge are unlimited.

[8168] **Question:** There is also the absence of contact between all the senses. The eye and the mind are not capable of being the object of each other. This lack of mutual objectification will be discussed later.

[8169] **Question:** If knowledge is considered the means of knowledge, then there would be a lack of fruit. In reality, knowledge itself is considered the desired fruit, not any other object. If knowledge is considered the means of knowledge, then it cannot have any other fruit. However, the means of knowledge should have a fruit. If **sannnikarsha** or the senses are considered the means of knowledge, then knowledge becomes a different fruit, which is not appropriate.

**Sutra:** The five types of knowledge are the two forms of the means of knowledge. [10]

[8166] **Question:** Why is the word "that" used in the sutra? **Answer:** The word "that" is used in the sutra to refute the assumption of those who consider **sannnikarsha** and other things as the means of knowledge. Many people believe that **sannnikarsha** is the means of knowledge, and others believe that the senses are the means of knowledge. To refute these assumptions, the word "that" is used in the sutra, which clarifies that knowledge itself is the means of knowledge, and not anything else.

[8167] **Question:** What is the flaw in considering **sannnikarsha** or the senses as the means of knowledge? **Answer:** If **sannnikarsha** is considered the means of knowledge, then there would be a possibility of not perceiving subtle, distant, or obstructed objects, because they do not come into contact with the senses. This would lead to the absence of omniscience. Similarly, if the senses are considered the means of knowledge, the same flaw arises because the objects of the senses are limited, while the objects of knowledge are unlimited.

[8168] **Question:** There is also the absence of contact between all the senses. The eye and the mind are not capable of being the object of each other. This lack of mutual objectification will be discussed later.

[8169] **Question:** If knowledge is considered the means of knowledge, then there would be a lack of fruit. In reality, knowledge itself is considered the desired fruit, not any other object. If knowledge is considered the means of knowledge, then it cannot have any other fruit. However, the means of knowledge should have a fruit. If **sannnikarsha** or the senses are considered the means of knowledge, then knowledge becomes a different fruit, which is not appropriate.

1. 'The means of knowledge are the instruments of attainment.' - [11113] Nyaya Ma.
2. 'That which is the cause of attainment is the means of knowledge.' - Tya. Va. p. 51
3. 'There is no other than this.' - Pra., Di. 1.