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 433

-81238778] अष्टमोऽध्यायः
[313 च' इति वक्ष्यते ततश्च भवति अन्यतश्चेति सूत्रार्थो योजितः । किमर्थमिह निर्जरानिर्देशः क्रियते, संवरात्परा निर्देष्टव्या उद्देशवत् ? लघ्वर्थमिह वचनम् । तत्र हि पाठे 'विपाकोऽनुभवः' इति पुनरनुवादः कर्तव्यः स्यात् । किसलिए किया है, क्योंकि उद्देश्यके अनुसार उसका संवरके बाद उल्लेख करना ठीक होता ? समाधान-थोड़ेमें बोध करानेके लिए यहाँ निर्जराका उल्लेख किया है । संवरके बाद पाठ देने पर 'विपाकोऽनुभवः' इसका फिरसे अनुवाद करना पड़ता।
विशेषार्थ--अनुभव, अनुभाग या फलदानशक्ति इनका एक ही अर्थ है । कर्मका बन्ध होते समय जिस कर्मकी जो प्रकुति होती है उसके अनुरूप उसे फलदानशक्ति प्राप्त होती है। उदाहरणार्थ-ज्ञानावरणकी ज्ञानको आवृत करनेकी प्रकृति है, इसलिए इसे इसीके अनुरूप फलदान शक्ति प्राप्त होती है। प्रकृतिका अर्थ स्वभाव है और अनुभवका अर्थ है उस स्वभावके अनुरूप उसे भोगना। साधारणत: यहाँ यह कहा जा सकता है कि यदि प्रकृति और अनुभवका यही अर्थ है तो इन्हें अलग-अलग मानना उचित नहीं है, क्योंकि जिस कर्मकी जैसी प्रकृति होगी उसके अनुरूप उसका भोग सुतरां सिद्ध है। इसलिए प्रकृतिबन्ध और अनुभवबन्ध ये दो स्वतन्त्र सिद्ध नहीं होते, किन्तु अनुभवबन्धका अन्तर्भाव प्रकृतिबन्धमें ही हो जाता है । यदि कहा जाय कि ज्ञानावरण आदि रूपसे कर्मकी प्रकृति फलदानशक्तिके निमित्तसे होती है, इसलिए प्रकृतिबन्धमें अनुभवबन्धका अन्तर्भाव नहीं किया जा सकता सो इसका यह समाधान है कि जबकि प्रकृतिबन्धका कारण योग है और अनुभवबन्धकी हीनाधिकताका कारण कषाय है तब फिर फलदान शक्तिके निमित्तसे कर्मकी प्रकृति बनती है यह कैसे माना जा सकता है। थोड़ी देरको यह मान भी लिया जाय तब भी यह प्रश्न खड़ा रहता है कि प्रकृतिबन्ध और अनुभवबन्धको अलग अलग क्यों माना गया है और उनके अलग अलग माननेके योग और कषाय दो स्वतन्त्र कारण क्यों बतलाये गये हैं। सूत्रकारने बन्धके चार भेद करके भी विपाक अर्थात् कर्मभोगको अनुभव कहा है और उसे प्रकृतिके अनुरूप बतलाया है । इससे तो यही सिद्ध होता है कि वस्तुतः ये दो नहीं हैं, किन्तु बन्ध समयकी अपेक्षा जिसका नाम प्रकृति है उदयकाल की अपेक्षा उसे ही अनुभव कहते हैं ? समाधान यह है कि कर्मबन्धके समय कर्मका विविधरूपसे विभाग योगके निमित्तसे ही होता है और विभागको प्राप्त हुए कर्मोमें हीनाधिक फलदानशक्ति का प्राप्त होना कषायके निमित्तसे होता है, इसलिए ये दोनों स्वतन्त्र माने गये हैं। यद्यपि यह ठीक है कि बिना शक्तिके किसी कर्मकी प्रकृति नहीं बन सकती। स्वतन्त्र प्रकति कहनेसे उसकी शक्तिका बोध हो ही जाता है, फिर भी ऐसी शक्तिकी एक सीमा होती है। उसका उल्लंघन कर जो न्यूनाधिक शक्ति पायो जाती है उसीका बोध कराना अनुभागबन्धका काम है। उदाहरणार्थ ग्यारहवें, बारहवें और तेरहवें गुणस्थानमें सातावेदनीयका प्रकृतिबन्ध होता है और यह प्रकृतिबन्ध एक नियत मर्यादामें अनुभागको लिये ही होता है, फिर भी यहाँ अनुभागबन्धका निषेध किया गया है सो इसका कारण यह है कि जो अनुभाग सकषाय अवस्थामें सातावेदनीयका प्राप्त होता था वह यहाँ प्राप्त नहीं होता है। सकषाय अवस्थामें प्राप्त होनेवाले जघन्य अनुभागसे भी यह अनन्तवें भागमात्र होता है। इतना कम अनुभाग सकषाय अवस्थामें नहीं प्राप्त हो सकता। इससे प्रकृतिबन्धसे अनुभागबन्धके अलग कहनेकी उपयोगिता सिद्ध हो जाती है। तात्पर्य यह है कि प्रकृतिबन्धमें कर्मभेद को स्वीकार करके भी न्यूनाधिक फलदान शक्ति नहीं स्वीकार की गयी है, किन्तु अनुभागबन्धमें इसका और इसके कारणका स्वतन्त्र रूपसे विचार किया जाता है, इसलिए प्रकृतिबन्ध और उसका कारण स्वतन्त्र है तथा अनुभागबन्ध और

Translation AI Generated

## Chapter Eight

[313c] It will be said that the meaning of the sutra is applied here, as it is said "other than that". Why is the mention of "nirjara" made here? Shouldn't it be mentioned after "samvara", as per the purpose?

**Solution:** The mention of "nirjara" is made here for brevity. If the text were to be given after "samvara", then "vipako'nubhavaḥ" would have to be translated again.

"Anubhava", "anubhaga", and "phaladanashakti" all have the same meaning. At the time of the binding of karma, the karma acquires a "phaladanashakti" (fruit-giving power) according to its nature. For example, "jnanavaran" has the nature of covering knowledge, therefore it acquires a "phaladanashakti" accordingly. The meaning of "prakriti" is nature, and the meaning of "anubhava" is to experience according to that nature.

Generally, it can be said here that if this is the meaning of "prakriti" and "anubhava", then it is not appropriate to consider them separately, because it is naturally proven that the experience will be according to the nature of the karma. Therefore, "prakritibandha" and "anubhavabandha" are not two independent entities, but "anubhavabandha" is included in "prakritibandha".

If it is said that the nature of karma, in the form of "jnanavaran" etc., is due to the "phaladanashakti", therefore "anubhavabandha" cannot be included in "prakritibandha", then the solution is this: While the cause of "prakritibandha" is "yoga", and the cause of "anubhavabandha" is "hinaadhikta" (inferiority/superiority) due to "kashaya", then how can it be considered that the nature of karma is formed due to "phaladanashakti"? Even if we assume this for a while, the question still remains: Why are "prakritibandha" and "anubhavabandha" considered separately, and why are "yoga" and "kashaya" given as two independent causes for their separate consideration?

The sutrakar has described four types of binding, and has also called "vipak" (karma experience) as "anubhava", and has described it according to its nature. This proves that they are not actually two, but what is called "prakriti" at the time of binding, is called "anubhava" at the time of its manifestation?

**Solution:** At the time of karma binding, the division of karma in various forms is due to "yoga", and the acquisition of "hinaadhik" (inferior/superior) "phaladanashakti" in the acquired karma is due to "kashaya", therefore these two are considered independent.

Although it is true that without power, the nature of any karma cannot be formed. By saying "independent prakriti", the knowledge of its power is already implied. However, there is a limit to such power. The knowledge of the power that is acquired beyond that limit is the work of "anubhagabandha".

For example, in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth "gunasthanas", there is "prakritibandha" of "satavedaniya", and this "prakritibandha" is for a fixed limit of "anubhaga". However, "anubhagabandha" is prohibited here. The reason for this is that the "anubhaga" that was acquired in the "sakashay" state of "satavedaniya" is not acquired here. The "anubhaga" acquired in the "sakashay" state is also only a fraction of infinity. Such a small "anubhaga" cannot be acquired in the "sakashay" state. This proves the usefulness of calling "anubhagabandha" separately from "prakritibandha".

The implication is that in "prakritibandha", although the difference in karma is accepted, "hinaadhik" (inferior/superior) "phaladanashakti" is not accepted. However, in "anubhagabandha", this and its cause are considered independently. Therefore, "prakritibandha" and its cause are independent, and "anubhagabandha" and...