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 129

स्वसमय वक्तव्यताधिकारः नेश्वरः यदि पुनरीश्वरः स्यात किं कुम्भकारेणेति? नैतदस्ति, तत्राऽपीश्वर एव सर्वव्यापितया निमित्तकारणत्वेन व्याप्रियते, नन्वेवं दृष्टहानि रद्दष्टकल्पना स्यात् । तथा चोक्तम्
शत्रौषधादिसम्बन्धाच्चैत्रस्य व्रणरोहणे । असम्बद्धस्य किं स्थाणोः' कारणत्वं न कल्प्यते ? ।१।
तदेवं दृष्टकारणपरित्यागेनादृष्टपरिकल्पना न न्याय्येति । अपिच-देवकुलावटादीनां यः कर्ता स सावयवोऽव्याप्यनित्यो दृष्टः तद् दृष्टान्तसाधितश्चेश्वर एवम्भूत एव प्राप्नोति, अन्यथाभूतस्य च दृष्टान्ताभावाद्, व्याप्त्यसिद्धेर्नानुमानमिति । अनयैव दिशा स्थित्वा प्रकृत्त्यादिकमपि साधन मसाधन मायोज्यं तुल्य योगक्षेमत्वादिति। यदपिचोक्तं प्रधानादिकृतोऽयंलोक" इति तदप्यसङ्गतं, यतस्तत्प्रधानं किं मूर्तममूर्तंवा ? यद्यमूर्तं नततो मकराकरादेर्मूतस्योद्भवो घटते, न ह्याकाशाकिञ्चिदुत्पद्यमान मालक्ष्यते, मूर्तामूर्तयोः कार्यकारणविरोधादिति । अथ मूर्तं तत्कुतः समुत्पन्न ? न तावत्स्वतो, लोकस्याऽपि तथोत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गात् । नाप्यन्यतोऽनवस्थापत्तेरिति । यथाऽनुत्पन्नेमेवप्रधानाद्यनादिभावेनाऽऽस्ते तद्वल्लोकोऽपि किं नेष्यते ? अपिच- सत्त्वरजस्तमसां साम्यावस्था प्रधानमित्युच्यते, नचाविकृतात्प्रधान्महदादे रुत्पत्तिरिष्यते भवद्भिः, नच विकृतं प्रधान व्यपदेश मास्कन्दतीत्यतो न प्रधानान्महदादेरुत्पत्तिरिति । अपिच अचेतनायाः प्रकृतैः कथं पुरुषार्थं प्रति प्रवृत्तिः ? येनाऽत्यनो भोगोपपत्त्या सृष्टिः स्यादिति, प्रकृतेरयं स्वभाव इति चेदेवं तर्हि स्वभाव एव वलीयान् यस्तामपि प्रकृतिं नियमयति, तत एव च लोकोऽप्यस्तु किमदृष्टप्रधानादिकल्पनयेति ? । अथादिग्रहणात् स्वभावस्याऽपि कारणत्वं कैश्चिदिष्यत इति चेदस्तु, न हि स्वभावोऽभ्युपगम्यमानौ नः क्षति मातनोति । तथाहि-स्वोभावः स्वभावः स्वकीयोत्पत्तिः सा च पदार्थाना मिष्यत एवेति तथा यदुक्तं "नियतिकृतोऽयंलोक" इति तत्राऽपि नियमनं नियति यद्यथा , भवनं नियतिरित्युच्यते, सा चालोच्यमाना न स्वभावादतिरिच्यते । यच्चाऽभ्यधायि-स्वियम्भुवोत्पादितो लोक' इति तदप्यसुन्दरमेव, यतः स्वयम्भूरिति किमुक्तम्भवति ? किं यदाऽसौभवति तदा स्वतन्त्रोऽन्यनिरपेक्ष एव भवति, अथानादिभवनात्स्वयम्भूरिति व्यपदिश्यते ? तद्यदि स्वतन्त्रभवनाऽभ्युपगमस्तद्वल्लोकस्यापि भवनं किं नाऽभ्युपेयते ? किं स्वयम्भुवा ? अथाऽनादि स्ततस्तस्याऽनादित्वे नित्यत्वं नित्यस्यचैकरूपत्वात्कर्तृत्वाऽनुपपत्तिः, तथा वीतरागत्वात्तस्य संसार वैचित्र्यानुपपत्तिः, अथ सरागोऽसौ ततोऽस्मदाद्यव्यतिरेकात्सुतरां विश्वस्याकर्ता। मू-मूत्तीदिविकल्पाश्च प्राग्वदायोज्या इति यदपि चात्राऽभिहितम्-'तेन मारः समुत्पादितः, स च लोकं व्यापादयति' तदप्यकर्तृत्वस्यभिहितत्वात्प्रलापमात्र मिति तथा यदुक्तम् "अण्डादिक्रमजोऽयं लोक" इति तदप्यसमीचीनं, यतो यास्वप्सु तदण्डं निसृष्टं ताः यथाऽण्डमन्तरेणाभूवन् तथा लोकोऽपि भूत इत्यभ्युपगमे न काचिद् बाधा दृश्यते तथाऽसौ ब्रह्मा यावदण्डं सृजति तावल्लोकमेव कस्मान्नोत्पादयति ? किमनया कष्टया युक्त्यसङ्गतया चाण्डपरिकल्पनया ? एवमस्त्विति चेत् तथा केचिदभिहितवन्तो यथा ब्रह्मणो मुखाद् ब्राह्मणाः समजायन्त बाहुभ्यां क्षत्रिया उरुभ्यां वैश्याः पद्भ्यां शूद्रा इति, तदप्ययुक्तिसङ्गतमेव, यतो न मुखा देः कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिर्भवन्त्युपलक्ष्यते। अथाऽपि स्यात्तथासति वर्णानामभेदः स्याद्, एकस्मादुत्पत्तेः । तथा ब्राह्मणानां कठतैत्तिरीयककलापादिकश्च भेदो न स्याद्, एकस्मान्मुखादुत्पत्तेः । एवञ्चोपनयनादिसद्भावो न भवेद् भावे वा स्वस्रादिग्रहणापत्तिः स्याद् एवमाद्यनेकदोष दुष्टत्वादेवं लोकोत्पत्ति भ्युिपगन्तव्या । ततश्च स्थितमेतत्-त एवं वादिनो लोकस्यानाद्यपर्य्यवसित स्योर्ध्वाधश्चतुर्दशरज्जुप्रमाणस्य, वैशाखस्थानस्थकटिन्यस्तकरयुग्मपुरुषाकृतेरधोमुखमल्लकाकारसप्तपृथि व्यात्मकाधोलोकस्य, स्थालाकारासंख्येयद्वीप समुद्राधारमध्यलोकस्य, मल्लकसमुद्गकाकारोव॑लोकस्य, धर्माधर्माकाशपुद्धलजीवात्मकस्य,द्रव्यार्थतया नित्यस्य,पर्यायापेक्षया क्षणक्षयिणः, उत्पाद्व्ययध्रौव्यापादितद्रव्यसतत्त्वस्यानादिजीवकर्मसम्बन्धापादितानेकभवप्रपञ्चस्याष्टविधकर्मविप्रमुक्ताऽऽत्म लोकान्तोपलक्षितस्य तत्त्वमजानानाः मृषा वदन्तीति ॥९॥]
101

Translation AI Generated

The statement of the self-time is not the Lord, if it were the Lord, then what would the potter do? This is not the case, even there the Lord is engaged as the cause of the cause by pervading everything. But in this way, there would be a concept of the destruction of what is seen and the creation of what is not seen. Thus it is said:

"From the connection with the medicine of the enemy, etc., the wound of the arrow heals. What is the cause of the stationary object which is not connected?"

Therefore, the concept of the unseen by abandoning the seen cause is not justified. Moreover, the creator of the Devakulaavat, etc., is seen as having parts, non-pervasive, and impermanent. This is also proved by the example, and the Lord is also like this. Otherwise, there is no example of the other, and there is no inference due to the non-establishment of pervasiveness. Staying in this direction, the means of production, etc., should also be considered as means and non-means, because of the equality of yoga and welfare. What is also said, "This world is created by the primary, etc.", is also not appropriate, because what is that primary, is it concrete or abstract? If it is abstract, then the birth of the concrete from the Makarakara, etc., is not possible, because nothing is seen to be born from the sky, because of the contradiction between the concrete and the abstract in terms of cause and effect. If it is concrete, then from where is it born? It is not from itself, because there would be the possibility of the world being born in the same way. Nor is it from another, because of the non-establishment of the other. Just as the primary, etc., exists from the beginning without being born, so also the world should not be considered. Moreover, the primary is said to be the state of equilibrium of sattva, rajas, and tamas. And you do not accept the birth of the great, etc., from the un-modified primary, nor does the designation of the modified primary stand, therefore, there is no birth of the great, etc., from the primary. Moreover, how can the inert have an inclination towards the purpose of man, as stated by you? By which there would be creation with the possibility of enjoyment, if it is said that this is the nature of the primary, then in that case, the nature itself is stronger, which controls even the primary, and from that the world should also be, why the concept of the unseen primary, etc.? If it is said that some people accept the causality of nature from the beginning, then it is not the case, because the nature does not cause us any harm, as it is accepted. Because, nature is nature, its own birth, and that is accepted for all things. And what is said, "This world is created by destiny", there also the regulation is destiny, just as the building is destiny, and when considered, it does not go beyond nature. And what you have said, "The world is created by the self-born", is also not beautiful, because what is said by the self-born? Is it that when it becomes, then it becomes independent and free from others? Or is it designated as self-born because of its beginningless existence? If the acceptance of independent existence is there, then why is the existence of the world not accepted? Is it self-born? If it is beginningless, then because of its beginninglessness, it is eternal, and because of the eternality, it is uniform, and because of the uniformity, there is no possibility of being a doer. And because of being free from attachment, there is no possibility of the diversity of the world, if it is attached, then because of its non-difference from us, it is not the creator of the world. The concrete and abstract, etc., should be considered as before. And what is also said here, "By that Mara is born, and he destroys the world", is just talk, because of the statement of non-doership. And what is said, "This world is born from the egg, etc.", is also inappropriate, because the eggs which are laid by the fish, etc., are just as they are within the egg, so also the world is born, and there is no obstacle seen in this acceptance. And why does that Brahma not create the world until he creates the egg? Why with this difficult, illogical, and egg-concept? If it is so, then some have said that the Brahmanas were born from the mouth of Brahma, the Kshatriyas from the arms, the Vaishyas from the thighs, and the Shudras from the feet. This is also illogical, because the birth of anyone from the mouth of God is not seen. If it is so, then there would be no difference between the varnas, because of the birth from one. And there would be no difference between the Brahmanas, like the Katha Upanishad, etc., because of the birth from one mouth. And there would be no existence of the Upanayana, etc., or if there is, then there would be the possibility of taking the wife of one's own sister, etc. Because of many such defects and evils, this birth of the world should be accepted. Therefore, it is established that those who argue in this way, do not know the truth of the world, which is beginningless and endless, fourteen rajjus in length, in the form of a man with two hands placed on the waist in the Vaishkha place, with a lower world in the form of a wrestler with seven earths, a middle world with countless islands, seas, and bases, an upper world in the form of a wrestler emerging from the sea, made up of dharma, adharma, space, and the essence of life, eternal in terms of substance, momentary in terms of change, the truth of substance established by birth, decay, and permanence, the world of many births established by the beginningless karma of life, marked by the end of the world for those who are free from the eight types of karma, they speak falsely.