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 524

श्री सूत्रकृताङ्ग सूत्रम् सादृश्यबलेनप्रवृत्तेः, न च सर्वज्ञाभावे साध्ये तादृग्विधं सादृश्यमस्ति येनासौ सिध्यतीति । नाप्यर्थापत्त्या, तस्याः प्रत्यक्षादि प्रमाण पूर्वकत्वेन प्रवृत्तेः, प्रत्यक्षादीनां च तत्साधकत्वेनाप्रवर्तनात् तस्या अप्यप्रवृत्तिः । नाप्यागोमन, तस्य सर्वज्ञसाधकत्वेनापि दर्शनात्, नापि प्रमाणपञ्चकाभाव रूपेणाभावेन सर्वज्ञाभावः सिध्यति, तथाहि-सर्वत्र सर्वदा न संभवति तदग्राहकं प्रमाणमित्येत दर्वाग्दर्शिनो वक्तुं न युज्यते, तेन हि देशकाल-विप्रकृष्टानां पुरुषाणां यद्विज्ञानं तस्य ग्रहीतुम् शक्यत्वात्, तद्ग्रहणे वा तस्यैव सर्वज्ञत्वापत्तेः, न चार्वाग्दर्शिनां ज्ञानं निवर्तमानं सर्वज्ञाभावं साध्यति तस्याव्यापकत्वात्, न चाव्यापक व्यावृत्त्या पदार्थव्यावृत्तियुक्तेति, न च वस्त्वन्तरविज्ञानरूपोऽभावः सर्वज्ञाभावसाधनायालं, वस्त्वन्तरसर्वज्ञयोरेकज्ञानसंसर्गप्रतिबन्धाभावात् । तदेवं बाधकप्रमाणाभावात्संभवानुपानस्य च प्रतिपादितत्वादस्ति सर्वज्ञः, तत्प्रणीतागमाभ्युपगमाच्च मतभेद दोषो दूरापास्त इति, तथाहितत्प्रणीतागमाभ्युपगमवादिनामेकवाक्यतया शरीरमात्रव्यापी संसार्यात्माऽस्ति, तत्रैव तद्गुणोपलब्धेरिति, इतरेतराश्रयदोषश्चात्र नावतरत्येव, यतोऽभ्यस्यमानायाः प्रज्ञाया ज्ञानातिशयः स्वात्मन्यपि दृष्टो, न च दृष्टेऽनुपपन्नं नामेति । यदप्यभिहितं तद्यथा 'न च ज्ञानं ज्ञेयस्य स्वरूपं परिच्छेतुमलं, सर्वत्रावग्भिागेन व्यवधानात्, सर्वारातीयभागस्य च - परमाणुरूपतयाऽतीन्द्रियत्त्वा 'दिति, एतदपि वाङ्मात्रमेव, यत: ज्ञानस्य देशकालस्वभावव्यवहितानामपि ग्रहणान्नास्तिव्यवधान संभव:, अग्दिर्शिज्ञानस्याप्यवयबद्वारेणावयविनि प्रवृत्ते स्ति व्यवधानं, न ह्यवयवी स्वावयवैर्व्यवधीयत इति युक्तिसंगतम्, अपिचअज्ञानमेव श्रेय इत्यत्राज्ञानमिति किमयं पर्युदास आहोस्वित्प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधः ? तत्र यदि ज्ञानादन्यदज्ञानमिति ततः पर्युदासवृत्त्या ज्ञानान्तरमेव । समाश्रितं स्यात् नाज्ञानवाद इति, अथ ज्ञानं न भवतीत्यज्ञानं तुच्छो नीरूपो ज्ञानाभावः स च सर्वसामर्थ्यरहित इति कथं श्रेयानिति ? । अपिचअज्ञानं श्रेय इति प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधेन ज्ञानं श्रेयो न भवतीति क्रियाप्रतिषेध एव कृतः स्याद्, एतच्चाध्यक्षबाधितं, यतः सम्यग्ज्ञानादर्थं परिच्छिद्य प्रवर्तमानोऽर्थक्रियार्थी न विसंवाद्यत इति । किंच-अज्ञानप्रमादवद्भिः पादेन शिर: स्पर्शनेऽपिस्वल्पदोषतां परिज्ञायैवाज्ञानं श्रेय इत्यभ्युपगम्यते, एवं च सति प्रत्यक्ष एव स्यादभ्युपगमविरोधो, नानुमान प्रमाणमिति । तथा तेदवं सर्वथा ते अज्ञानवादिनः 'अकोविदा' धर्मोपदेशं प्रत्यनिपुणाः स्वतोऽकोविदेभ्य एव स्वशिष्येभ्य 'आहुः' कथितवन्तः, छान्तसत्वाच्चैकवचनं सूत्रे कृतमिति । शाक्या अपि प्रायशोऽज्ञानिकाः, अविज्ञोपचितं कर्म बन्धं न यातीत्येवं यतस्तेऽभ्युपगमयन्ति, तथा ये च बालमत्तसुप्तादयोऽस्पष्टविज्ञाना अबन्ध का इत्येवमभ्युपगमं कुर्वन्ति, ते सर्वेऽप्यकोविदा दृष्टव्या इति । तथाऽज्ञानपक्षसमाश्रयणाच्चाननुविचिन्त्य भाषणान्मृथा ते सदा वदन्ति। अनुविचिन्त्य भाषणं यतो ज्ञाने सति भवति, तत्पूर्वकत्वाच्च सत्यवादस्य अतो ज्ञानानभ्युपगमादनुविचिन्त्य भाषणाभाव, तदभावाच्च तेषां मृषावादित्वमिति ॥२॥
टीकार्थ – क्रियावादियों, अक्रियावादियों, वैनयिको तथा अज्ञानवादियों का साधारणतया वर्णन कर अब उनके सिद्धान्तों के दोष बताने हेतु पीछे के क्रमानुसार उनके मन्तव्य प्रकट करते हैं क्योंकि पूर्व क्रम की ज्यों पीछे का क्रम भी ग्रहित होता है अथवा इन चारों मतवादियों में अज्ञानवादी ही अत्यन्त अपलापीविपरीतभाषी है । अत्यन्त असंबद्ध है । अतः प्रारम्भ में उन्हीं को लेकर सूत्रकार विवेचन करते हैं ।
. जिनमें अज्ञान विद्यमान है अथवा जो अज्ञान को लेकर ही आचरणशील है, वे अज्ञानिक कहे जाते हैं । उनका स्वरूप प्रदर्शित किया जाता है । वे अज्ञानिक-अज्ञानवादी हम ही कुशल-सुयोग्य हैं-यह कहते हुए अज्ञान ही श्रेयस का हेतु है इस प्रकार प्रतिपादित करते हैं, वे असंबद्ध भाषी है । विचिकित्सा-चित्तविप्लुति या भ्रांति से रहित नहीं हैं, संशयग्रस्त हैं। वे कहते हैं ये सभी ज्ञानवादी परस्पर विरुद्धभाषी हैं । अतः वे यथार्थवादी नहीं हैं । उनमें से कई आत्मा को सर्वगत-सर्वव्यापी मानते हैं । कई असर्वगत मानते हैं । कई कहते हैं कि
-496

Translation AI Generated

The English translation preserving the Jain terms is as follows:

The Shri Sutrakritanga Sutra has arisen due to the power of similarity, but there is no such similarity by which it could be established in the absence of omniscience. Nor is it through arthapatti (implication), as that too is based on pratyaksha (direct perception) and other pramanas (valid means of knowledge), and the pramanas themselves do not establish it. Nor is it through agama (scriptural testimony), as that too is seen to establish omniscience. Nor does the absence of the panchaka pramanas (five valid means of knowledge) establish the absence of omniscience, because it is not possible to say that there is no pramana that can grasp it everywhere and at all times. For, the knowledge of persons remote in place and time can be grasped, and grasping that would lead to their omniscience, and the knowledge of the ordinary people does not negate omniscience as it is not all-pervasive, and the negation of the non-all-pervasive does not lead to the negation of the object. Nor is the absence in the form of the knowledge of another substance sufficient to establish the absence of omniscience, as there is no obstruction to the contact of omniscience with another substance. Thus, since there is no counter-evidence and the possibility of the existence of the Sarvagya (Omniscient) has been established, and since the acceptance of the agamas (scriptures) propounded by him, the fault of difference of opinion is far removed. Thus, according to the proponents of the agamas accepted by him, the Jiva (soul) that is bound in the Samsara (cycle of birth and death) is only body-pervading, and the knowledge of its attributes is obtained there itself. And the fallacy of mutual dependence also does not arise here, because the extraordinary knowledge observed in the cultivated intellect is also seen in one's own self, and what is observed cannot be said to be unreal. And what has been said, that "knowledge is not able to comprehend the nature of the knowable, due to the obstruction everywhere by division", this is mere verbosity, because there is no possibility of obstruction in the knowledge that grasps even the things separated by place and time, and even the knowledge of the ordinary people has obstruction through the doors of the limbs, for the limbed does not get obstructed by its own limbs. And as for the statement "ignorance alone is the best", is this a prasajya-pratishedha (simple negation) or a paryudasa (exclusive negation)? If ignorance is other than knowledge, then by the paryudasa method, another knowledge would be resorted to, not the doctrine of ignorance. And if there is no knowledge, then ignorance being empty, formless, and devoid of all potency, how can it be the best? And by the prasajya-pratishedha of "ignorance is the best", a negation of the action of knowledge being the best would be made, which is contradicted by direct perception, because the one who acts with right knowledge does not contradict the desired result. Moreover, even by accepting that ignorance is the best, just as in the case of a small defect in touching the head with the foot, it is recognized, so here too the contradiction with the acceptance would be direct, not inferential. Thus, these ignorance-advocates, being incompetent themselves, have taught the doctrine of ignorance to their own incompetent disciples, and the use of the singular number in the sutra is due to the calmness of mind. Even the Shramanas are mostly ignorant, as they accept that the karma (action) accumulated without knowledge does not lead to bondage, and those who consider the unclear consciousness of the child, the intoxicated, and the sleeping as non-binding, they all should be seen as incompetent. And due to the adoption of the ignorance standpoint, without deliberation, they always speak falsely, because deliberation occurs in the presence of knowledge, and truth-speaking is preceded by it, so the absence of deliberation due to the non-acceptance of knowledge, and the absence of that leads to their falsehood.