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 40

श्री सूत्रकृताङ्ग सूत्रम् वा ? भिन्नश्चेत्षष्ठ भूतप्रसङ्गो, न चान्यत् पञ्चभूतव्यतिरिक्त संयोगाख्यभूतग्राहकं भवतां प्रमाणमस्तिप्रत्यक्षस्यैवैकस्याभ्युपगमात्, तेन च तस्याग्रहणात्, प्रमाणान्तराभ्युपगमे चतेनैव जीवस्याऽपिग्रहणमस्तु। अथ अभिन्नो भूतेभ्योसंयोगः, तत्राप्येतच्चिन्तनीयम्-किं भूतानि प्रत्येकं चेतनावन्त्य चेतनान्तिवा ? यदि चेतनावन्ति तदा एकेन्द्रियसिद्धिः, तथा (च) समुदास्य पञ्चप्रकारचैतन्यापत्तिः । अथाचितनानि, तत्र चोक्तोदोषो, नहि यद्यत्र प्रत्येकमविद्यमानं तत् तत्समुदाये भव दुपलभ्यते, सिकतासुतैलवदित्यादिना। यदप्यत्रोक्तं-यथामद्यङ्गेष्वविद्यमानाऽपि प्रत्येकं मदशक्तिः समुदाये प्रादुर्भवतीति, तदप्ययुक्तं, यतस्तत्र किण्वादिषुयाच यावती च शक्ति रुपलभ्यते, तथाहि-किण्वेबुभुक्षापनयनसामर्थ्यं भ्रमिजननसामर्थ्यञ्च, उदकाय तृऽपनयन सामर्थ्यमित्यादिनेति, भूतानाञ्च प्रत्येकं चैतन्यानभ्युपगमे दृष्टान्त दान्तिकयोरसाम्यम् । किञ्च-भूतचैतन्याभ्युपगमेमरणाभावो, हतकायेऽपि पृथिव्यादीनां भूतानां सद्भावात् । नैतदस्ति तत्र मृतकाये वायोस्तेजसो वाऽभावान्मरणसद्भाव इत्यशिक्षितस्योल्लापः, तथाहिमृतकायेशोफोपलब्धेर्न वायोरभावः, कोथस्य च पक्तिस्वभावस्य दर्शनान्नाग्नेरिति । अथ सूक्ष्मः कश्चिद् वायु विशेषोऽग्निर्वा ततोऽपगत इतिमतिरिति एवञ्च जीव एव नामान्त रेणाभ्युपगतो भवतीति, यत्किञ्चिदेतत् । तथान भूत समुदाय मात्रेण चैतन्याविर्भावः, पृथिव्यादिष्वेकत्र व्यवस्थापितेष्वपि चैतन्यानुपलब्धे । अथ कायाकारपरिणतौ सत्यां तदभिव्यक्तिरिष्यते, तदपि न यतो लेप्यमयप्रतिमायां समस्तभूतसद्भावेऽपि जडत्वमेवोपलभ्यते । तदेवमन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामालोच्य मानोनायं चैतन्याख्यो गुणो भूतानां भवितुमर्हति । समुपलभ्यते चायंशरीरेषु, तस्मात् पारिशेष्यात् जीवस्यैवायमिति स्वदर्शनपक्षपातं विहायाङ्गीक्रियतामिति । यच्चोक्तं प्राक् - "नपृथिव्यादिव्यतिरिक्तआत्माऽस्मि, तद्ग्राहकप्रमाणाभावान् प्रमाणञ्चात्रप्रत्यक्षमेवैकमित्यादि, तत्र प्रतिविधीयतेयत्तावदुक्तं प्रत्यक्ष मे वैकं प्रमाणं नानुमानादिक' मित्येतदनुपासितगुरोर्वचः तथाहि-अर्थाविसावादकं प्रमाणमित्युच्यते, प्रत्यक्षस्य च प्रामाण्यमेवं व्यवस्थाप्यते-काश्चित्प्रत्यक्षव्यक्तीर्धर्मित्वेनोपादाय प्रमाणयति-प्रमाणमेताः, अर्थविसंवादकत्वाद्, अनुभूत प्रत्यक्ष व्यक्तिवत् न च ताभिरेव प्रत्यक्षव्यक्तिभिः स्वयंविदिताभिः परं व्यवहारयितुमयमीशः, तासां स्वसंविन्निष्ठत्वान्मूकत्वाच्च प्रत्यक्षस्य । तथानानुमानं प्रमाणमित्यनुमाने नैवानुमाननिरासं कुर्वंश्चार्वाकः कथंनोन्मत्तः स्याद? एवं ह्रसौ तदप्रमाण्यं प्रतिपादयेद् यथा-नानुमानं प्रमाणं विसंवादकत्वात्, अनुभूतानुमान व्यक्तिवदिति, एततच्चानुमानम्, अथ पर प्रसिद्धयैतदुच्यते, तदप्ययुक्तं, यतस्तत्परप्रसिद्धमनुमानं भवतः प्रमाणमप्रमाणं वा ? प्रमाणं चेत्कथमनुमानमप्रमाणमित्युच्यते, अथाप्रमाणं कथमप्रमाणेन सता तेन परः प्रत्याय्यते ? परेण तस्य प्रामाण्येनाभ्युपगतत्वादिति चेत्, तदप्यसाम्प्रतं, यदि नामपरो मौढ्यादप्रमाणमेव प्रमाणामित्यध्यवस्यति, किं भवताऽतिनिपुणेनाऽपितेनैवासौ प्रतिपाद्यते ? योह्यज्ञोगुडमेव विषमिति मन्यते किं तस्य मारयितुकायेनाऽपि बुद्धिमता गुड एवदीप्यते ? तदेवं प्रत्यक्षानुमानयोः प्रामाण्याप्रामाण्ये व्यवस्थापयतो भवतोऽनिच्छतोऽपि बलादायातमनुमानस्य प्रामाण्यम् । तथा स्वर्गापवर्गदेवतादेः प्रतिषेधं कुर्वन् भवान् केन प्रमाणेन करोति ? नतावत्प्रत्यक्षेण प्रतिषेधः कर्तुं पायंते, यतस्त्प्रत्यक्षं प्रवर्तमानं वातन्निषेध विदध्यान्निवर्तमानं वा ? न तावत्प्रवर्तमानं तस्याभावविषयत्वविरोधात् नाऽपिनिवर्तमानं,यतस्तत्त्वनाऽस्ति तेन च प्रतिपत्तिरित्यसंङ्गतं तथाहि-व्यापकविनिवृत्तौ व्याप्यस्याऽपि (वि) निवृत्तिरिष्यते, न चार्वाग्दर्शिप्रत्यक्षेण समस्तवस्तुव्याप्तिः सम्भाव्यते तत्कथं प्रत्यक्षविनिवृत्तौ पदार्थव्यावृत्तिरिति ? तदेवं स्वर्गादेः प्रतिबेधं कुर्वता चावकिणाऽवश्यंप्रमाणान्तरमभ्युगतम्।तथाऽन्याभिप्रायविज्ञानभ्युपगमादत्र स्पष्टमेव प्रमाणान्तरमभ्युपगतम्, अन्यथा कथं परावबोधाय शास्त्रप्रणयनमकारि चार्वाकेणेत्यलमति प्रसङ्गेन । तदेवं प्रत्यक्षादन्यदपि प्रमाणमस्ति. तेनाऽऽत्मासेत्स्यति, किंपुनस्तदितिचेद्, उच्यते, अस्त्यात्मा, असाधारणतद्गुणोपलब्धेः, चक्षुरिन्द्रियवत्, चक्षुरिन्द्रियं हिन साक्षादुपलभ्यते, स्पर्शनादीन्द्रिया साधारण रूपविज्ञानोत्पादन शक्त्यात्वनुमीयते, तथाऽऽत्माऽपि पृथिव्याद्यसाधारण
12)

Translation AI Generated

Is the Sutra-kritanga Sutra a single entity or different? If it is different, then there is the implication of six substances. And there is no other proof for you to accept a substance called "samyoga" (combination) other than the five elements, because you accept only perception as proof. And because of that, there is no acceptance of it. And if you accept another proof, then there will be no acceptance of the soul. If it is not different from the elements, then this should also be considered: Are the elements each conscious or unconscious? If they are conscious, then there is the implication of one sense organ, and also the implication of five kinds of consciousness in the aggregate. If they are unconscious, then there is the previously mentioned fault. For if that which is not present in each part is not found in the aggregate, then it is like sand and oil, etc. And what is said here, "Just as the power of intoxication is not present in each part of the body, but appears in the aggregate," is also not right. Because the power that is found in yeast, etc., is like this: the power to remove hunger in yeast, the power to cause fermentation, the power to remove thirst in water, etc. And if you accept that the elements are each conscious, then there is a difference between the example and the thing being explained. Moreover, if you accept that the elements are conscious, then there is no death. Because the elements like earth, etc., are present even in a dead body. This is not true. Because death is present due to the absence of air or fire in a dead body. This is the talk of an uneducated person. Because the absence of air is not perceived in a dead body, and because of the perception of the nature of cooking in boiling, fire is not absent. If you say that some subtle air or fire has gone away, then the soul is accepted by another name. This is all that is. And if consciousness arises only from the aggregate of elements, then consciousness is not perceived even when earth, etc., are arranged together. If you say that it is manifested when the body is formed, then that is also not right. Because even when all the elements are present in a clay image, only inertness is perceived. Thus, by considering the presence and absence, this quality called consciousness should not belong to the elements. And it is perceived in bodies. Therefore, by the process of elimination, this belongs to the soul. So, discarding your own viewpoint, accept this. And what was said before, "I am not different from earth, etc., because there is no proof to accept it, and perception is the only proof here," etc., is refuted here. Because what is said, "Perception is the only proof, not inference, etc.," is the statement of a teacher who has not been followed. Because proof is said to be that which is not contradictory to the object. And the validity of perception is established like this: Some instances of perception are accepted as valid by the proof, "These are proofs because they are not contradictory to the object, like the instances of perception that have been experienced." And these instances of perception themselves, which are known to themselves, cannot be used to prove anything else. Because perception is mute due to its being confined to its own knowledge. And if inference is proof, then how can a Carvaka, who does not refute inference, be insane? He would refute its validity like this: "Inference is not proof because it is contradictory to the object, like the instances of inference that have been experienced." And this is also inference. If you say that this is said by common knowledge, then that is also not right. Because is that common knowledge inference proof or not proof? If it is proof, then how is inference said to be not proof? If it is not proof, then how can someone be convinced by something that is not proof? If you say that it is accepted by someone else as valid, then that is also not right. If someone, due to foolishness, considers something that is not proof to be proof, then is that accepted by you, who is very intelligent? If someone thinks that poison is a sweet substance, then is that accepted by an intelligent person who is about to kill him? Thus, you, who are establishing the validity and invalidity of perception and inference, are forced to accept the validity of inference even though you do not want to. And what proof do you use to deny heaven, liberation, and deities? Perception cannot be used to deny them. Because does perception deny something that is present or something that is not present? It cannot deny something that is present because it is contradictory to its being the object of absence. And it cannot deny something that is not present because it does not exist, and therefore there is no perception. This is not logical. Because if something that pervades is absent, then the pervaded is also absent. And the perception of a Carvaka cannot be considered to pervade all objects. How can the absence of an object be established by the absence of perception? Thus, you, who are denying heaven, etc., are definitely accepting another proof. And because you accept the knowledge of another's opinion, another proof is clearly accepted here. Otherwise, how could a Carvaka have composed scriptures to teach others? This is enough of this implication. Thus, there is another proof besides perception. By that, the soul will be established. If you ask, "What is that?", then it is said: There is a soul because of the perception of its unique qualities, like the eye sense organ. The eye sense organ is directly perceived. The touch sense organ, etc., are inferred by their power to produce knowledge of form, etc., which is common. Similarly, the soul is also inferred by its unique qualities, which are different from earth, etc.