Sutrakritang Sutra

SR No.: 032440
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sudarshanlal Acharya, Priyadarshan Muni, Chhaganlal Shastri
Publisher: Shwetambar Sthanakvasi Jain Swadhyayi Sangh
Publication Year: 1999
Total Pages: 658
Language: Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari & agam_sutrakritang
File Size: 21 MB

Page 128

श्री सूत्रकृताङ्ग सूत्रम् सएहिं परियाएहिं, लोयं बूया कडेति य ।
तत्तं ते ण विजाणंति ण विणासी कयाइवि ॥९॥ छाया - स्वकैः पर्यायैर्लोक मब्रुवन् कृतमिति च ।।
तत्त्वन्ते न विजानन्ति न विनाशी कदाचिदपि ॥ अनुवाद - पहले जिनका वर्णन आया है वे देवकृत सृष्टिवाद आदि में विश्वास करने वाले अन्य तीर्थ अपनी इच्छानुरूप-जैसा मन में आता है, जगत को किसी द्वारा रचित बालाते हैं। वे तत्त्व- वास्तविकता को नहीं जानते हैं । यह जगत कभी भी विनाश को प्राप्त नहीं होता-कभी भी सर्वथा मिटता नहीं ।
टीका - अधुनैतेषां देवोप्तादिजगद्वादिनामुत्तरदानायाऽऽह - स्वकैः स्वीकयैः पर्यायै रभिप्रायै युक्तिविशेषै रयंलोकः कृत इत्येव मब्रुवन् अभिहितवन्तः । तद्यथा देवोप्तो ब्रह्मोप्त ईश्वरकृतः प्रधानादिनिष्पादितः स्वयम्भुवा व्यधायि तन्निष्पादितमायया म्रियते तथाण्डजश्चायं लोक इत्यादि।स्वकीयाभिरूपपत्तिभिःप्रतिपादयन्ति यथाऽस्मदुक्तमेव सत्यं नान्यदिति । ते चैवंवादिनो वादिनः सर्वेऽपि तत्त्वं परमार्थ यथावस्थितलोकस्व भावं नाभि (नवि) जानन्ति न सम्यग् विवेचयन्ति, यथाऽयं लोको द्रव्यार्थतया न विनाशीति-निर्मूलतः कदाचन । नचायमादित आरम्भ . केनचित् क्रियतेऽपित्वयं लोकोऽभूद्भवति भविष्यति च । तथाहि-तत्तावदुक्तं यथा 'देवोप्तोऽयं लोक' इति । तदसंगतम् । यतो देवोप्तत्वे लोकस्य न किञ्चित्तथाविधं प्रमाण मस्ति, नचाप्रमाणक मुच्यमानं विद्वज्जमननांसि प्रीणयति । अपि च - किमसौ देव उत्पन्नोऽनुत्पन्नो वा लोकं सृजेत ? न तावदनुत्पन्नस्तस्य खरविषाणस्येवासत्त्वात्करणाभावः । अथोत्पन्नः सृजेत् तत्किं स्वतोऽन्यतो वा ? यदि स्वतएवोत्पन्न स्तथासति तल्लोकस्यापिस्वतएवोत्पत्तिः किं नेष्यते ? अथान्यतउत्पन्नः सन्लोककरणाय, सोऽप्यन्योऽन्यतः सोऽप्यन्योऽन्यतइत्येवमनवस्था लता नभोमण्डल व्यापिन्यनिवारितप्रसरा प्रसर्पतीति । अथाऽसौ देवोऽनादित्वान्नोत्पन्न इत्युच्यते, इत्येवंसति लोकोऽप्यनादिरस्तु, को दोषः ? किञ्च असावनादिः सन्नित्योऽनित्यो वा स्यात ? यदि नित्यस्तदातस्य क्रमयोगपद्याभ्यामर्थक्रियाविरोधान्नकर्तृत्वम्, अथाऽनित्यस्तथासति स्वतएवोत्पत्त्यनन्तरं विनाशित्वादात्मनोऽपि न त्राणाय, कुतोऽन्यत्करणम्प्रति तस्य व्यापारचिन्तेति ? तथा किममूर्तो मूर्त्तिमान्वा ? यद्यमूर्तस्तदाऽऽकाशवदकर्तेव। अथ मूर्त्तिमान्, तथासति प्राकृत पुरुषस्येवोपकरणसव्यपेक्षस्य स्पष्टमेव सर्वजगदकर्तृव्य मिति । देवगुप्त देवपुत्रपक्षौ, त्वतिफल्गुत्वादपकर्णयितव्याविति । एतदेव दूषणं ब्रह्मोप्तपक्षेऽपि दृष्टव्यं तुल्ययोगक्षेमत्वादिति तथा यदुक्तं'तनुभुवनकरणादिकं विमत्यधिकरणभावापन्नं विशिष्ट बुद्धि मत्कारणपूर्वकं कार्य्यत्वाद् घटादिवदिति, तदयुक्तं तथा विध विशिष्ट कारण पूर्वकत्वेन व्याप्त्यसिद्धेः, कारणपूर्वकत्वमात्रेण तु कायं व्याप्तं कार्य्य विशेषोपलब्धौ कारणविशेष प्रतिपत्तिर्गृहीतप्रतिबन्धस्यैव भवति, नचात्यन्तादृष्टे तथा प्रतीतिर्भवति । घटे तत्पूर्वकत्वं प्रतिपन्नमिति चेद् युक्तं तत्र घटस्य कार्यविशेषत्व प्रतिपत्तेः, नत्वेवं सरित्समुद्रपर्वतादौ बुद्धिमत्कारणपूर्वकत्वेन सम्बन्धो गृहीत इति । नन्वतएव घटादिसंस्थानविशेषदर्शनवत् पर्वतादावपि विशिष्टसंस्थानदर्शनाद् बुद्धिमत्कारण पूर्वकत्वस्य साधनं क्रियते, नैतदेवं युक्तं, यतो नहि संस्थानशब्द प्रवृत्तिमात्रेण सर्वस्य बुद्धिमत्कारणपूर्वक त्वावगतिर्भवति, यदि तु स्याद् मृद्विकारत्वाद् वल्मीकस्याऽपि घटवत् कुम्भकार कृतिः स्यात्, तथा चोक्तम्__अन्यथा कुम्भकारेण मृद्विकारस्य कस्यचित् । घटादेः करणा त्सिद्धयेद् वल्मीकस्याऽपि तत्कृतिः । ?
इति, तदेवं यस्यैव संस्थान विशेषस्य बुद्धिमत्कारण पूर्वकत्वेन सम्बन्धो गृहीतस्तद्दर्शनमेव तथाविधकारणानुमापकम्भवति न संस्थानमात्रमिति। अपिचघटादिसंस्थानां कुम्भकार एवं विशिष्टः कर्तोपलक्ष्यते
(100

Translation AI Generated

The Sutra-Kritanga Sutra says, "They describe the world as created by their own means, their own ideas, their own special arguments. They do not know the truth, the reality. This world is never destroyed, never completely wiped out."

Commentary: Now, in response to those who believe in the world being created by gods, Brahma, or Ishvara, it is said: "They describe the world as created by their own means, their own ideas, their own special arguments." For example, they say the world was created by gods, Brahma, Ishvara, the primordial elements, or by itself, or by Maya, or that it is born from an egg, etc. They present their own arguments to prove their point, as if their view is the only truth. All those who hold such views do not know the truth, the ultimate reality, the true nature of the world. They do not understand that the world, in terms of its substance, is not destroyed, not completely wiped out. This world is not created by anyone, but it exists, has existed, and will continue to exist. For example, they say, "The world was created by gods." This is not true. There is no evidence to support the idea that the world was created by gods. And even if there were, such an argument would not convince wise people. Moreover, was the god who created the world born or unborn? If he was unborn, then he would not have the power to create, just like a barren bull. If he was born, then did he create the world by himself or by someone else? If he created it by himself, then why wouldn't the world also have been created by itself? If he was born by someone else, then that someone else must have been born by someone else, and so on, leading to an infinite regress. This is like a vine that spreads endlessly, covering the entire sky. If the god is said to be unborn and eternal, then why not say the same about the world? What is the problem with that? Furthermore, is this eternal god unchanging or changing? If he is unchanging, then he cannot act because he is not subject to the laws of cause and effect. If he is changing, then he would be destroyed after his birth, and he would not be able to protect himself, let alone create anything else. Also, is this god formless or formed? If he is formless, then he would be like space, incapable of acting. If he is formed, then he would be like a human being, who needs tools to act, and it would be clear that he is the creator of the entire world. The arguments of the Devagupta and Devaputra schools are too weak to be considered. The same criticism applies to the Brahma-upta school, as their arguments are similar. It is said that the world was created by a wise being with a specific intention, like a pot, because it has a specific purpose. This is not true, because the existence of a specific cause is not sufficient to prove the existence of a specific effect. The mere existence of a cause only leads to the understanding of a specific effect if there is a pre-existing restriction. But in the case of the world, there is no such restriction. It is said that the pot was created by a potter because we can see the specific purpose of the pot. But we cannot say the same about rivers, oceans, mountains, etc., because we do not see a wise being as the cause of their existence. It is argued that just as we see a specific form in a pot, we also see a specific form in mountains, etc., and therefore we can infer that they were created by a wise being. This is not true, because the mere existence of a specific form does not necessarily imply that it was created by a wise being. If that were the case, then an anthill would also be considered the creation of a potter, because it is made of earth. It is said that if the potter created the pot, then he must have also created the anthill. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of a specific form does not necessarily imply that it was created by a wise being. Only when we see a specific form that is connected to a wise being can we infer that it was created by that being. The form itself is not enough. Moreover, we see a specific potter as the creator of pots, etc.