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 39

स्वसमय वक्तव्यताधिकारः
मद्याङ्गेषु समुदितेषु मदशक्तिवदिति । तथा न भूतव्यतिरिक्तं चैतन्यं तत्कार्य्यत्वाद्, घटादिवदिति । तदेवं भूतव्यतिरिक्तस्याऽऽत्मनोऽभावाद्भूतानामेव चैतन्याभिव्यक्ति: जलस्य बुद्बुदाभिव्यक्तिवदिति केषाञ्चिल्लोकायतिकानामाकाशस्याऽपि भूतत्वेनाभ्युपगमाद्भूत पञ्चकोपन्यासो न दोषायेति । न नु च यदि भूतव्यतिरिक्तोऽपरः कश्चिदात्माख्यः पदार्थो न विद्यते कथंतर्हिमृत इति व्यपदेश इत्याशङ्कयाह- अथैषां कायाकार परिणतौ चैतन्याभिव्यक्तौ सत्यां तदूर्ध्वं तेषामन्यतमस्यविनाशेऽपगमे वायोस्तेजसश्चोभयो र्वा देहिनो देवदत्ताख्यस्य विनाशोऽपगमो भवति, ततश्च मृतइति व्यपदेशः प्रवर्तते न पुनर्जीवापगम इति भूताव्यतिरिक्त चैतन्यवादि पूर्वपक्षइति । अत्र प्रतिसमाधानार्थं निर्युक्तिकृदाह
." पञ्चण्हं संजोए अण्णगुणाणं च चेयणाइगुणो । पंचिंदियठाणाणं ण अण्णमुणियं मुणइ अण्णो ||३३|| पञ्चानां पृथिव्यादीनां भूतानां संयोगे कायाकार परिणामे चैतन्यादिक आदिशब्दात् भाषा चङ्कमणादिकश्चगुणो न भवतीति प्रतिज्ञा, अन्यादयस्त्वत्र हेतुत्वेनोपात्ताः दृष्टान्तस्त्वभ्यूह्यः सुलभत्वात्तस्य नोपादानम् ।
तत्रेदं चार्वाकः प्रष्टव्यः- -यदेतद्भूतानां संयोगे चैतन्य मभिव्यज्यते तत्किं तेषां संयोगेऽपि स्वातन्त्र्य ए॒वाहोस्वित् परस्परापेक्षया पारतन्त्र्य इति ? किंचात: ? । न तावत्स्वातन्त्र्ये, यत आह " अण्णगुणाणंचेति” [चैतन्यादन्ये गुणायेषां तान्यन्यगुणानि तथाहि - आधारकाठिन्यगुणापृथिवी, द्रवगुणाआपः, पक्तृगुणंतेजः, चलनगुणोवायुः, अवगाहदानगुणमाकाशमिति यदिवा प्रागभिहिता गन्धादयः पृथिव्यादीनामेकैक परिहांन्याऽन्येगुणश्चैतन्यादिति, तदेवं पृथिव्यादीन्यन्यगुणानि । 'च' शब्दो द्वितीयविकल्पवक्तव्यतासूचनार्थः चैतन्यगुणे साध्येपृथिव्यादीनामन्यगुणानां सतां चैतन्यगुणस्य पृथिव्यादीनामेकैकस्याप्यभावान्न तत्समुदायाच्चैतन्याख्योगुणः सिद्ध्यतीति । प्रयोगस्त्वत्र-भूतसमुदायः स्वातन्त्र्ये सति धर्मित्वेनोपादीयते, न तस्य चैतन्याख्योगुणोऽस्तीति साध्योधर्मः पृथिव्यादीनामन्यगुणत्वात्, यो योऽन्य गुणानां समुदायस्तत्र तत्रा पूर्वगुणोत्पतिर्नभवतीति ) यथा सिकतासमुदाये स्निग्धगुणस्य तैलस्य नोत्पत्तिरिति, घटपटसमुदाये 'वा न स्तम्भाद्याविर्भाव इति, दृश्यते च काये चैतन्यं तदात्मगुणो भविष्यति न भूतानामिति ।। अस्मिन्नेव साध्येहेत्वन्तरमाह “पंचिदियठाणाणंत्ति; पञ्चं च तानि स्पर्शनरसनम्राण चक्षुः श्रोत्राख्यानीन्द्रियाणि तेषां स्थानानि-अवकाशास्तेषां चैतन्यगुणाभावान्नभूतसमुदाये चैतन्यम् - इदमत्रहृदयं-लोकायतिकानां हि अपरास्यद्रष्टुरनम्भुपगमादिन्द्रियाण्येव द्रष्टृणि, तेषां चयानि स्थानानि उपादानकारणानि तेषामाचिद्रूपत्वान्न भूतसमुदाये ' चैतन्यमिति। इन्द्रियाणाञ्चामूनिस्थानानि, तद्यथा श्रोत्रेन्द्रियस्याकाशं सुषिरात्मकत्वात्, घ्राणेन्द्रियस्य पृथिवीतदात्मकत्वात् चक्षुरिन्द्रियस्य तेजस्तद्रूपत्वात् एवं रसनेन्द्रियस्यापः स्पर्शनेन्द्रियस्यवायुरिति । प्रयोगश्चात्रनेन्द्रियाण्युपलब्धिमन्ति, तेषामचेतन गुणारब्धत्वात्, यद्यदचेनगुणारब्धं तत्तदचेतनं यथा घटपटादीनि, एवमपि च भूतसमुदाये चैतन्याभावएवसाधिनोभवति । पुनहेत्वरमाह-"ण अण्णमुणियं अण्णोत्ति" इहेन्द्रियाणि प्रत्येकभूतात्मकानि तान्येवापरस्य द्रष्टुरभावाद् द्रष्टृणि, तेषाञ्च प्रत्येकं स्वविषय ग्रहणादन्यविषये चाप्रवृत्तेर्नान्य दिन्द्रिय ज्ञातमन्यदिन्द्रियं जानातीति, अतो मया पञ्चाऽपि विषया ज्ञाता इत्येवमात्मक: संकलनाप्रत्ययो न प्राप्नोति, अनुभूयते चायं तस्मादेकेनैव द्रष्ट्रा भवितव्यम्, तस्यैवच चैतन्यं न भूतसमुदायस्येति । प्रयोगः पुनरेवं-नभूतसमुदाये चैतन्यं तदारब्धेन्द्रियाणां प्रत्येकविषयग्रहित्वे सति संकलना प्रत्यायाभावात्, यदि पुनरन्यगृहीतमप्यन्योगृह्णीयाद् देवदत्तगृहीतं यज्ञदत्तेनाऽपि गृह्येत, न चैतद् दृष्टमिष्टं वेति । ननुच स्वातन्त्र्यपक्षेऽयं दोष:, यदापुनः परस्परसापेक्षाणां संयोगपारतन्त्र्याभ्युपगमेन भूतानामेव समुदितानां चैतन्याख्यो धर्मः संयोगवशादविर्भवति, यथा किण्वोदकादिषुमद्याङ्गेषु समुदितेषु प्रत्येक मविद्यमानाऽपि मदशक्तिरिति, तदा कुतोऽस्यदोषस्यावकाश इति ? अत्रोत्तरंगा थोपात्तचशब्दाक्षिप्तमभिधियतेयत्तावदुक्तं यथा— भूतेभ्यः परस्परसव्यपेक्षसंयोगभाग्भ्यश्चैतन्यमुत्पद्यते, तत्र विकल्पयामः किमसौ संयोग: संयोगिभ्यो भिन्न भिन्नो
11

Translation AI Generated

## Self-Time Statement of Authority

It is said that the power of intoxication arises from the combination of ingredients in intoxicating drinks. Similarly, consciousness cannot be something other than the elements, because it is their function, just like a pot. Thus, since there is no self other than the elements, consciousness is merely a manifestation of the elements, like the bubbles in water. Some Lokayatikas accept that even space is an element, so the theory of five elements is not a fault.

But if there is no other substance called the self, distinct from the elements, then how can there be the designation of death? To this doubt, it is said:

"When the body form of these beings changes and consciousness manifests, then, upon the destruction of one of them, the destruction of the other, or both, the destruction of the embodied being, Devadatta, is accepted. Therefore, the designation of death arises, not the destruction of the soul." This is the argument of the proponent of consciousness distinct from the elements.

To refute this, the author of the text says:

"The five elements, along with their other qualities, are the cause of consciousness. The five sense organs do not perceive anything other than the five elements." [33]

Here, the statement "the five elements, along with their other qualities, are the cause of consciousness" is a declaration. The other statements are presented as reasons, and the example is implied, as it is easily understood.

Therefore, the Charvaka should be asked:

"What is this consciousness that manifests from the combination of the elements? Is it independent of them, or is it dependent on them?"

Now, it cannot be independent, because it is said:

"The other qualities of the elements are the cause of consciousness." [33]

For example, the quality of hardness is the quality of earth, the quality of fluidity is the quality of water, the quality of burning is the quality of fire, the quality of movement is the quality of air, and the quality of pervasiveness is the quality of space. Or, as mentioned earlier, the qualities of smell, etc., are the qualities of earth, etc. Each of these qualities is distinct from consciousness. The word "and" indicates the possibility of another alternative. Since the qualities of earth, etc., exist, and the quality of consciousness does not exist in each of them, nor in their combination, the quality of consciousness cannot be established.

The example here is:

The combination of elements is taken as the subject of the argument, and it does not have the quality of consciousness. This is because the quality of consciousness is the quality of other elements. The combination of any other qualities does not produce a new quality. For example, the quality of oil, which is the quality of smoothness, does not arise in a combination of sand. Similarly, the quality of a pillar, etc., does not arise in a combination of a pot and a cloth. It is observed that consciousness is present in the body, and it will be the quality of the self, not of the elements.

The author presents another reason for the same conclusion:

"The five sense organs do not perceive anything other than the five elements." [33]

The five sense organs are touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing. Their locations are the spaces where they reside. Since they do not have the quality of consciousness, consciousness does not arise from the combination of elements.

The heart of this argument is:

The Lokayatikas do not accept the existence of a separate perceiver. They believe that the sense organs themselves are the perceivers. Their locations are the material causes of perception. Since they are non-conscious, consciousness does not arise from the combination of elements.

The locations of the sense organs are:

The sense of hearing is located in space, because space is hollow. The sense of smell is located in earth, because it is its essence. The sense of sight is located in fire, because it is its form. Similarly, the sense of taste is located in water, and the sense of touch is located in air.

The example here is:

The sense organs are capable of perception. Since they are caused by non-conscious qualities, whatever is caused by non-conscious qualities is non-conscious, like a pot and a cloth. Thus, the absence of consciousness in the combination of elements is established.

The author presents another reason:

"The sense organs do not perceive anything other than the five elements." [33]

Each sense organ is made up of an element. Since there is no separate perceiver, they are the perceivers. Each sense organ perceives its own object and does not perceive the object of another sense organ. Therefore, no sense organ knows another sense organ. Thus, the idea of a self that knows all five objects does not arise. It is experienced that there must be a single perceiver, and it is his consciousness, not the consciousness of the combination of elements.

The example here is:

Consciousness does not arise from the combination of elements, because the sense organs, which are caused by it, perceive only their own objects. If one sense organ could perceive the object of another sense organ, then Devadatta's perception would also be perceived by Yajnadatta. But this is not observed.

Now, if the argument is based on independence, then there is a fault. If, on the other hand, the argument is based on the dependence of the elements on each other, and the quality of consciousness arises from the combination of elements, then how can there be any fault?

The answer to this is:

It has been said that consciousness arises from the combination of elements, which are dependent on each other. Let us consider this: Is this combination different from the elements that combine?