Ratnakarandaka Shravakachara

SR No.: 010669
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jugalkishor Mukhtar
Publisher: Manikchand Digambar Jain Granthamala Samiti
Publication Year: 1982
Total Pages: 456
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 7 MB

Page 74

कूल किसी व्यक्तिको उसके कर्मका फल न होने देनेका सामर्थ्य रखता हो, अथवा यों कहिये कि परम भक्तिभावसे की हुई अर्हन्तदेवकी पूजाके अवश्यंभावी फलको, वह अपनी पूजा न होनेके कारण रोक सकता हो । इस लिये शासनदेवताओंकी पूजाके समर्थनमें उक्त युक्तिप्रयोग निर्बल तथा असमीचीन जरूर है और उसे समाजमें उस समय प्रचलित शासनदेवताओंकी पूजाका मूल ग्रंथके साथ सामंजस्य स्थापित करनेका प्रयत्न मात्र समझना चाहिये । परंतु किसीकी श्रद्धाका विषय ही यदि निर्बल हो तो उसे उसके समर्थनार्थ निर्बल युक्तियोंका प्रयोग करना ही पड़ेगा, और इस लिये केवल इन वाक्योंपरसे ही यह नहीं कहा जा सकता कि यह टीका प्रमेयकमलमार्तडादिके कर्ता प्रभाचंद्राचायकी बनाई हुई नहीं है, अथवा नहीं हो सकती। उसके लिये उक्त आचार्य महोदयके माने हुए ग्रंथों (प्रमेयकमलमार्तडादिक ) परसे यह दिखलानेकी जरूरत है कि उनके विचार इस शासनदेवताओंकी पूजाके विरुद्ध थे अथवा ग्रंथके 'साहित्यकी जाँच, आदि दूसरे मार्गोसे ही यह सिद्ध किया जाना चाहिये कि यह टीका उन आचार्यकी बनाई हुई नहीं हो सकती। अभीतक ऐसी कोई बात सामने नहीं आई जिससे शासन देवताओंकी पूजाके विषयमें इन आचार्यकी श्रद्धा तथा विचारोंका कुछ हाल मालूम हो सके और इस लिये दूसरे मार्गोसे ही अब इस बातके जाँचनेकी जरूरत है कि यह टीका उनकी बनाई हुई हो सकती है या कि नहीं।
प्रमेयकमलमार्तड और न्यायकुमुदचंद्र भी, दोनों टीकाग्रंथ हैं-एक श्रीमाणिक्यनन्दी आचार्यके 'परीक्षामुख' सूत्रकी वृत्ति है तो दूसरा भट्टाकलंकदेवके 'लघीयस्त्रय' ग्रंथकी व्याख्या । इन टीकाओंका 'रत्नकरण्डक'की इस टीकाके साथ जब मीलान किया जाता है तो दोनोंमें परस्पर बहुत बड़ी असमानता पाई जाती है। एककी प्रतिपादनशैली-कथन करनेका ढंग-और साहित्य दूसरेसे एकदम भिन्न है, दोनोंके आदि अन्तके पद्योंमें भी परस्पर कोई सादृश्य नहीं देखा जाता, रत्नकरण्डकटीकाके प्रत्येक परिच्छेदके अन्तमें प्रतिपादित विषयकी सूचनादि रूपसे कोई पद्य भी नहीं हैं, प्रमेयकमलमार्तडादिकमें साहित्यकी प्रौढता और अर्थगभीरतादिकी जो बात पाई जाती है वह इस टीकामें नहीं है, और यह बात तो बहुत ही स्पष्ट है कि यह टीका विवेचनोंसे प्रायः शून्य है, जब कि प्रमेय कमलमार्तण्डादिक टीकाएँ प्रायः प्रत्येक विषयके विवेचनोंको लिये हुए हैं और इस टीकाकी तरह शब्दानुवादका अनुसरण करनेवाली अथवा उसीपर अपना प्रधान लक्ष रखनेवाली नहीं हैं। दोनोंकी इस सब विभि

Translation AI Generated

If someone were capable of preventing the fruits of karma from reaching an individual, or in other words, if they could prevent the inevitable results of the worship of an Arhantdeva due to their intense devotion, then their own lack of worship would be the cause. Therefore, the argument in favor of the worship of Shasana Devatas is weak and inappropriate, and it should be understood as merely an attempt to reconcile the worship of Shasana Devatas prevalent in society at that time with the original scriptures. However, if the subject of someone's faith is weak, then one must use weak arguments to support it. Therefore, it cannot be said solely on the basis of these statements that this commentary was not written by Prabhachandracharya, the author of "Pramayakamalmartad," or that it could not have been written by him. To prove this, it is necessary to show from the accepted works of the aforementioned Acharya (Pramayakamalmartad, etc.) that his views were against the worship of Shasana Devatas, or it must be proven through other means, such as an examination of the literature, that this commentary could not have been written by him. So far, nothing has come to light that reveals anything about the faith and views of these Acharyas regarding the worship of Shasana Devatas. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate this matter further through other means to determine whether this commentary could have been written by them or not.

"Pramayakamalmartad" and "Nyayakumudchandra" are both commentaries - one is a commentary on the "Parikshamukh" sutra by Srimanikyanandi Acharya, while the other is an explanation of the "Laghiyastray" text by Bhattakalankadeva. When these commentaries are compared with this commentary on the "Ratnakarandaka," a significant difference is found between them. The style of presentation - the way of speaking - and the literature are completely different from each other. There is no similarity between the initial and final verses of both, and there are no verses in the form of information about the subject discussed at the end of each chapter of the "Ratnakarandaka" commentary. The sophistication of the literature and the depth of meaning found in "Pramayakamalmartad," etc., are not present in this commentary. It is very clear that this commentary is almost devoid of discussions, while the commentaries like "Pramayakamalmartad," etc., have included discussions on almost every subject and are not like this commentary, which follows word-for-word translation or focuses primarily on it. All these differences between the two...