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 191

-11108172] प्रथमोऽध्यायः
[71 8172. वक्ष्यमाणभेदापेक्षया द्विवचन निर्देशः । वक्ष्यते हि "आद्य परोक्षम्, प्रत्यक्षमन्यद्" इति स च द्विवचननिर्देशः प्रमाणान्तरसंख्यानिवृत्त्यर्थः ।
8 72. सूत्र में आगे कहे जानेवाले भेदोंकी अपेक्षा द्विवचनका निर्देश किया है। आगे कहेंगे 'आद्य परोक्षम, प्रत्यक्षमन्यत्।' यह द्विवचनका निर्देश प्रमाणकी अन्य संख्या के निराकरण करनेके लिए किया है।
विशेषार्थ-पिछले सूत्र में पाँच सम्यग्ज्ञानोंकी चर्चा करके इस सूत्र में उनकी प्रमाणता बतलायी गयी है। यों तो सम्यग्ज्ञान कहनेसे उनकी प्रमाणता सुतरां सिद्ध है, किन्तु दर्शनान्तरों में ज्ञानको मूख्यतया प्रमाण न मान कर सन्निकर्ष या इन्द्रिय आदिको प्रमाण माना गया है, इसलिए यहाँपर सन्निकर्ष आदि प्रमाण नहीं हैं, किन्तु ज्ञान ही प्रमाण है यह बतलाया गया है। सर्वार्थसिद्धि टीकामें मुख्यतया दो मतोंका उल्लेख करके उनकी आलोचना की गयी है। ये दोनों मत नैयायिक सम्मत हैं। नैयायिकोंने प्रत्यक्ष ज्ञानकी उत्पत्तिमें सन्निकर्ष और इन्द्रिय दोनोंको प्रमाण माना है। सन्निकर्ष प्रमाण है इस मत का उल्लेख न्यायभाष्यमें और इन्द्रिय प्रमाण है इस मतका उल्लेख उद्योतकरके न्यायवार्तिकमें पाया जाता है। परन्तु सर्वार्थसिद्धिकारने जब इस दुसरे मतका उल्लेख किया है, तो यह भी प्रथम मतके समान प्राचीन प्रतीत होता है। बहुत सम्भव है कि इस द्वारा सर्वार्थसिद्धिकारने सांख्यके 'इन्द्रियवृत्ति प्रमाण है इस मतका उल्लेख किया हो तो कोई आश्चर्य नहीं। नैयायिक लोग प्रत्यक्षज्ञानकी उत्पत्तिमें सन्निकर्षको असाधारण कारण मानकर उसे प्रमाण मानते हैं। किन्तु आगे चलकर करणके 'असाधारण कारणको करण कहते हैं। इस लक्षणके स्थानमें 'व्यापारवाले कारणको करण कहते हैं यह लक्षण भी प्रचलित हो गया जिससे सन्निकर्षके साथ उनके यहाँ इन्द्रियाँ भी प्रमाण मानी जाने लगीं। वे जब सन्निकर्षको प्रमाण मानते हैं तब ज्ञान उसका फल मान लिया जाता है और जब इन्द्रियों को प्रमाण मानते हैं तब भी सन्निकर्षको इन्द्रियोंका व्यापार मानकर ज्ञान उनका फल मान लिया जाता है। इसका यह अर्थ नहीं कि वे ज्ञानको प्रमाण ही नहीं मानते। उनके यहाँ ज्ञानको भी प्रमाण माना गया है। जब वे ज्ञानको प्रमाण मानते हैं तब हानबुद्धि और आदानबुद्धि और उपेक्षाबुद्धि उसका फल माना जाता है किन्तु नैयायिकोंकी सन्निकर्ष और इन्द्रियको प्रमाण माननेकी बात समीचीन नहीं है यही निर्णय इस सत्रकी टीकामें किया गया है। सन्निकर्षको प्रमाण मानने में जो दोष प्राप्त होते हैं वे इस प्रकार हैं-1. सूक्ष्म, व्यवहित और विप्रकृष्ट पदार्थोंका ज्ञान नहीं हो सकता, इसलिए सर्वज्ञताका अभाव होता है 2. चक्ष और मनसे ज्ञानकी उत्पत्ति नहीं हो सकती, क्योंकि ये अप्राप्यकारी हैं। 3. प्रत्येक इन्द्रियका अलग-अलग विषय मानना उचित नहीं, क्योंकि चक्षका रूपके साथ सन्निकर्ष पाया जानेसे जैसे वह रूपज्ञानका जनक है उसी प्रकार उसका रसके साथ भी सन्निकर्ष पाया जाता है अतः उससे रसका भी ज्ञान होना चाहिए। 4. सन्निकर्ष एकका न होकर इन्द्रिय और अर्थ इन दो या दोसे अधिकका होता है अत: सन्निकर्षका फल जो ज्ञान है वह भी दोनोंमें होना चाहिए। इन्द्रियको प्रमाण मानने में ये दोष आते हैं -1. सर्वज्ञताका अभाव होता है, क्योंकि इन्द्रियाँ सब पदार्थोंको एक साथ जाननेमें असमर्थ हैं । 2. इन्द्रियोंसे सूक्ष्म, व्यवहित और विप्रकृष्ट पदार्थोंका ज्ञान सम्भव न होनेसे भी सर्वज्ञताका अभाव होता है। 3. अनुमान आदि ज्ञानोंकी उत्पत्ति नहीं हो सकेगो, क्योंकि इन ज्ञानोंको उत्पत्ति इन्द्रियोंसे नहीं होती। सन्निकर्ष और इन्द्रियको प्रमाण मानने पर इसी प्रकार और भी दोष आते हैं। सन्निकर्ष और इन्द्रियको प्रमाण माननेवाले लोग ज्ञानको प्रमाण माननेपर एक बड़ी भारी आपत्ति यह देते हैं कि यदि ज्ञानको प्रमाण माना जाता है तो प्रमाण निष्फल हो जाता है। किन्तु उनकी यह आपत्ति भी समीचीन नहीं है, क्योंकि
www.jainelibrary.org |

Translation AI Generated

## Chapter One

[71 8172. The dual-number reference is in relation to the distinctions that will be explained later. For it will be said, "The first is indirect, the other is direct." This dual-number reference is meant to negate the existence of other types of knowledge.
8 72. The dual-number reference in the sutra is in relation to the distinctions that will be explained later. It will be said, "The first is indirect, the other is direct." This dual-number reference is meant to negate the existence of other types of knowledge.

**Special Note:** In the previous sutra, five types of right knowledge were discussed, and in this sutra, their validity is explained. While it is clear that right knowledge is valid, other schools of thought do not consider knowledge as the primary source of knowledge, but rather consider proximity or sense organs as the source of knowledge. Therefore, here it is explained that proximity, etc., are not the source of knowledge, but knowledge itself is the source of knowledge. In the Sarvarthasiddhi commentary, two main views are mentioned and criticized. Both these views are accepted by the Nyaya school. The Nyaya school considers both proximity and sense organs as the source of knowledge in the origin of direct knowledge. The view that proximity is the source of knowledge is mentioned in the Nyaya Bhashya, and the view that sense organs are the source of knowledge is mentioned in Uddyotakara's Nyaya Varttika. However, when the Sarvarthasiddhikar mentions this second view, it seems to be as ancient as the first view. It is very likely that the Sarvarthasiddhikar mentioned the Sankhya view that "sense organ activity is the source of knowledge," and there is no surprise in that. The Nyaya school considers proximity as an extraordinary cause in the origin of direct knowledge and considers it as the source of knowledge. However, later on, the term "cause" is used for the "extraordinary cause." This definition has been replaced by the definition of "cause" as "the cause that is involved in activity," which has led to the acceptance of sense organs as the source of knowledge in their school. When they consider proximity as the source of knowledge, knowledge is considered its result, and when they consider sense organs as the source of knowledge, proximity is considered the activity of the sense organs, and knowledge is considered its result. This does not mean that they do not consider knowledge as the source of knowledge. They also consider knowledge as the source of knowledge in their school. When they consider knowledge as the source of knowledge, then right understanding, wrong understanding, and indifference are considered its results. However, the Nyaya school's view of considering proximity and sense organs as the source of knowledge is not appropriate. This is the conclusion reached in the commentary on this sutra. The following are the flaws in considering proximity as the source of knowledge: 1. Knowledge of subtle, obstructed, and distant objects is not possible, therefore, omniscience is absent. 2. Knowledge cannot be generated by the eye and mind because they are incapable of acquiring knowledge. 3. It is not appropriate to consider each sense organ as having a separate object, because the eye's contact with form makes it the generator of knowledge of form, and similarly, it also has contact with taste, therefore, it should also generate knowledge of taste. 4. Proximity is not a single entity, but rather a combination of two or more entities, namely the sense organ and the object, therefore, the result of proximity, which is knowledge, should also be present in both. The following are the flaws in considering sense organs as the source of knowledge: 1. Omniscience is absent because sense organs are incapable of knowing all objects simultaneously. 2. Omniscience is also absent because knowledge of subtle, obstructed, and distant objects is not possible through sense organs. 3. Knowledge such as inference, etc., cannot be generated because these types of knowledge are not generated by sense organs. There are other flaws in considering proximity and sense organs as the source of knowledge. Those who consider proximity and sense organs as the source of knowledge raise a major objection to considering knowledge as the source of knowledge, saying that if knowledge is considered the source of knowledge, then the source of knowledge becomes ineffective. However, this objection is also not appropriate because...

|