Agam 25 Prakirnak 02 Atur Pratyakhyan Sutra

SR No.: 002562
Original Sutra Author: Veerbhadra Gani
Author: Kirtiyashsuri
Publisher: Sanmarg Prakashan
Publication Year: 2010
Total Pages: 400
Language: Prakrit, Sanskrit, Gujarati
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Agam, Canon, F000, & F020
File Size: 11 MB

Page 300

खण्ड:-२ दृष्टान्तसमुच्चयः
__ २५९
पौरुष्यादिपदेनाद्धाप्रत्याख्यानेऽपि निश्चितम् । यामादिकं कालमानमेव यस्मादुदीर्यते ।।८१।। अथ तत्रापि पदं तन्नो वाच्यमिति चेत्तदा । भवेदनशनापत्तिः, प्रव्रज्यादिन एव हि ! ।।८२।। न च साधोर्भवेन्नाद्धाप्रत्याख्यानमिति त्वया । वक्तव्यमपसिद्धान्तदोषापत्तिर्यतो भवेत् ।।८३।। सिद्धान्ते हि जिनैरद्धाप्रख्याख्यानं तपस्विनाम् । कर्तव्यत्वेन कथितं, दशद्याऽनागतादिकम् ।।८४ ।। वाञ्छारूपो द्वितीयोऽपि, पक्षो नो युज्यते क्वचित् । मुनेरन्यभवेऽवद्यसेवाश यन्न विद्यते ।।८५।। अन्यच्चापरिमाणत्वं, प्रत्याख्यानस्य यत्पुरा । त्वया प्रोक्तं तदपि नो, युक्तं युक्तिविरोधतः ।।८६।। क्रियमाणेऽपरिणामप्रत्याख्याने हि जायते । अनागताद्धा सर्वापि, प्रत्याख्यानस्य गोचरः ।।८७।। तदा चायुःक्षयाद्देवभवं गतवतो यतेः । सावद्यसेवनेऽवश्यं, व्रतभङ्ग प्रसज्यते ! ।।८८।। अथ यावच्छक्ति यस्मात्, प्रत्याख्यानं विधीयते । तस्मादपरिमाणत्वमिति चेदभिधीयते ।।८९।। तर्हि शक्तिमितं प्रत्याख्यानमङ्गीकृतं स्वयम् । तथा चापरिमाणत्वस्वीकारस्तस्य नोचितः ।।१०।। किञ्चाशंसावशान्नैव, यावज्जीवेति पठ्यते । व्रतभङ्गभयात्किन्तु, यावज्जीवेति पठ्यते ।।९१।। आशंसारहितत्वेन, तत्सावधिकमप्यहो । प्रत्याख्यानं न दोषाय, कायोत्सर्गनिदर्शनात् ।।१२।। इत्यादिवन्ध्यवचनं, न यदा स्वीचकार सः । तदा सर्वेऽपि मुनयस्तमेवं प्रोचिरे मुहुः ।।१३।। महात्मनित्थमेवेदं, वन्ध्यवाक्यमुरीकुरु । एवमेवैतदुक्तं श्रीआर्यरक्षितसूरिभिः ।।९४ ।। अन्येऽपि स्थविरा अन्यगच्छीया ये बहुश्रुताः । तेऽपि पृष्टा जगुः प्रत्याख्यानं सावधिकं ध्रुवम् ।।९५ ।। तथाऽपि माहिलो नैव, तं कदाग्रहमत्यजत् । आग्रहो ह्यङ्गिनां प्रायोऽसाध्यः स्यात्क्षयरोगवत् ।।९६ ।। तानित्यूचे च नो यूयं, तत्त्वं जानीथ किञ्चन । तीर्थङ्करैर्हि भावोऽयं, कथितोऽस्ति मदुक्तवत् ।।९७ ।। ततः साध्वादिकः सर्वसङ्घः प्रष्टुं जिनेश्वरम् । उद्दिश्य शासनसुरी, कायोत्सर्गं विनिर्ममे ।।९८ ।।
सुरी साऽप्याऽऽययौ ब्रूत, किं करोमीति वादिनी ? ।
सङ्घ स्माहेति पृच्छ त्वं, गत्वा सीमन्धराधिपम् ।।१९।। किं गोष्ठामाहिलमुनिरुदीरयति सूनृतम् । सङ्घो दुर्बलिकापुष्पमित्रादिः सकलोऽथवा ? ।।१०० ।। ततो देव्यवदद्दत्त, कायोत्सर्गबलं मम । यथाऽनेकसुराकीणे, मार्गे स्यां गन्तुमीश्वरी ।।१।। सङ्घनाऽथ कृते कायोत्सर्गे शासनदेवता । गत्वा विदेहे सङ्घोक्तयुक्त्याऽप्राक्षीज्जगत्प्रभुम् ।।२।। शशंस शम्भुशक्रोऽथ, सङ्घोऽसौ वक्ति सूनृतम् । माहिलस्त्वनृतं ब्रूते, निह्नवो ह्येष सप्तमः ।।३।। तदाकाऽऽगता देवी, सङ्घमेवमवोचत । कायोत्सर्गं पारयित्वा, भाषितं शृणुताऽर्हतः ।।४।।

Translation AI Generated

Chapter 2: Collection of Examples
259
Even though the rejection of food is denied by the term "masculinity" etc., it is certain. Because the time measure like "yāma" etc. is derived from it. ||81|| If it is said that the word is not there even in that case, then there would be the calamity of non-eating, because it is only for renunciation etc.! ||82|| And it is not that the rejection of food would be for the good, because then there would be the fault of contradicting the established doctrine. ||83|| Because in the doctrine, the Jinas have stated the rejection of food by the ascetics as obligatory, like ten days, future etc. ||84|| The second view, which is according to desire, is not justifiable anywhere. Because there is no service to the worthy in the absence of the muni. ||85|| And also, the fact that the rejection is immeasurable, which you have stated, is not justifiable due to contradiction of logic. ||86|| Because in the case of rejection of the impermanent, which is being done, all future food becomes the object of rejection. ||87|| And then, due to the decay of life, the ascetic who has gone to the divine state, would definitely have a breach of vows in the service of the worthy! ||88|| If it is said that the rejection is done as long as one has the strength, then it is immeasurable. ||89|| Then the rejection limited to strength is accepted by you. And thus, the acceptance of its immeasurability is not proper. ||90|| And also, it is not read as "as long as life" due to the fear of the calamity of breach of vows, but it is read as "as long as life" due to the fear of the calamity of breach of vows. ||91|| Because of the absence of fear, that rejection is also not a fault, as is evident from the renunciation of the body. ||92|| When he did not accept the statement of the worthy, then all the munis said that in this way. ||93|| This statement of the worthy is to be considered as a statement of the worthy. This is how it was said by the venerable Aryarakshita Suri. ||94|| Other elders, who are well-versed in other sects, were also asked, and they also said that the rejection is definitely limited. ||95|| Even so, Mahila did not give up that attachment. Because attachment is usually difficult to overcome for the Angas, like a wasting disease. ||96|| You should know that this truth has been stated by the Tirthankaras, as I have said. ||97|| Then the entire assembly of the worthy, including the Sadhus, asked the Jinesvara, intending to renounce the body, as instructed by the Shastra Suri. ||98||
The Suri also came and said, "What should I do?"
The assembly said, "Ask the lord of the boundary." ||99||
"Is it Mahila Muni who is speaking the truth, or the entire assembly, including the weak, the flower-friends, etc.?" ||100||
Then the goddess said, "My strength is to renounce the body, so that I may be able to go on the path, like many celestial beings." ||101||
Then, after the renunciation of the body by the assembly, the Shastra Devata went to Videha and asked the lord of the world according to the logic of the assembly. ||102||
Then Shambhu and Sakra said, "That assembly is speaking the truth. Mahila is speaking falsehood. He is the seventh slanderer." ||103||
Then the goddess who had come there