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 532

श्री सूत्रकृताङ्ग सूत्रम्
'गान्धर्वनगरतुल्या मायास्वप्नोपपातघनसदृशाः । मृगतृष्णानीहाराम्बुचन्द्रिकालातचक्रसमाः ॥१॥' इति भाषणाच्च स्पष्टमेव मिश्रीभावोपगमनं बौद्धानामिति । यदिवा नानाविधकर्मविपाकाभ्युपगमात्तेषां व्यत्यय एवेति, तथा चोक्तम्
'यदि शून्यस्तव पक्षो मत्पक्षनिवारकः कथं भवति ? । अथ मन्यसे न शून्यस्तथापि मत्पक्ष एवासौ ॥ १ ॥ '
इत्यादि, तदेवं बौद्धाः पूर्वोक्तया नीत्या मिश्रीभावमुपगता नास्तित्वं प्रतिपादयन्तोऽस्तित्वमेव प्रतिपादयन्ति ॥ तथा सांख्या अपि सर्वव्यापितया अक्रियमात्मानमभ्युपगम्य प्रकृतिवियोगान्मोक्षसद्भावं प्रतिपादयन्तुस्तेऽप्यात्मनो बन्धं मोक्षं च स्ववाचा प्रतिपादयन्ति, ततश्च बंधमोक्षसद्भावे सति स्वकीयया गिरा सक्रियत्वे गृहीते सत्यात्मन: सम्मिश्रीभावं व्रजन्ति, यतो न क्रियामन्तरेण बंधमोक्षौ घटेते, वा शब्दादक्रियत्वे प्रतिपाद्ये व्यत्यय एव सक्रियत्व तेषां स्ववाचा प्रतिपद्यते । तदेवं लोकायतिकाः सर्वाभावाभ्युपगमेन क्रियाऽभावं प्रतिपादयन्ति बौद्धाश्च क्षणिकत्वात्सर्वशून्यत्वाच्चाक्रियामेवाभ्युपगमयन्तः स्वकीयागमप्रणयनेन चोदिताः सन्तः सम्मिश्रीभावं स्ववाचैव प्रतिपद्यन्ते, तथा सांख्याश्चाक्रिमात्मानमभ्युपगच्छन्तो बंधमोक्षसद्भावं च स्वभ्युपगमेनैव सम्मिश्रीभावं व्रजन्ति व्यत्ययं च एतत्प्रतिपादितं । यदिवा बौद्धादिः कश्चित्स्याद्वादिना सम्यग्घेतुदृष्टान्तै र्व्याकुलीन्क्रियमाणः सन् सम्यगुत्तरं दानुयसमर्थो यत्किञ्चनभाषितया 'मुम्मुई होइ' त्ति गद्गदभाषित्वेनाव्यक्तभाषी भवति, यदिवा प्राकृतशैल्या छान्तसत्वाच्चायमर्थो द्रष्टव्यः, तद्यथा - मूकादपि मूको मूकमूको भवति एतदेव दर्शयति- स्याद्वादिनोक्तं साधनमनुवदितुं शीलमस्येत्यनुवादी तत्प्रतिषेधादननुवादी, सद्धेतुभिर्व्याकुलितमना मौनमेव प्रतिपद्यत इति भावः, अननुभाष्य च प्रतिपक्षसाधनं तथाऽदूषयित्वा च स्वपक्षं प्रतिपादयन्ति तद्यथा-' इदम्' अस्मदभ्युपगतं दर्शनमेक: पक्षोऽस्येति एकपक्षमप्रतिपक्षतयैकान्ति-कमविरुद्धार्थाभिधाधितया निष्प्रतिबाधं पूर्वापराविरुद्धमित्यर्थः, इदं चैवंभूतमपि सदि (त्कमि) त्याह- द्वौ पक्षावस्येति द्विपक्षं - सप्रतिपक्षमनै कान्तिकं पूर्वापरविरुद्धार्थाभिधायितया विरोधिवचन मित्यर्थः, यथा च विरोधिवचनत्वं तेषां तथा प्राग्दर्शितमेव, यदिवेदमस्यदीयं दर्शनं द्वौ पक्षावस्येति द्विपक्षं कर्मबन्धनिर्जरणं प्रतिपक्षद्वयसमाश्रयणात् तत्समाश्रयणं चेहामुत्र च वेदनां चौरपारदारिकादीनामिव ते हि करचरणनासिकादिच्छेदादिकामिहैव पुष्पकल्पां स्वकर्मणो विडम्बनामनुभवन्ति अमुत्र च नरकादौ तत्फलभूतां वेदनां समनुभवन्तीति, एवमन्यदपि कर्मोभयवेद्यमभ्युपगम्यते तच्चेदं 'प्राणी प्राणिज्ञान' मित्यादि पूर्ववत्, तथेदमेक: पक्षो-स्येत्येक पक्षं इहैव जन्मनि तस्य वेद्यत्वात्, तच्चेदम्-अविज्ञोपचितं परिज्ञोपचितमीर्यापथं स्वप्नान्तिकं चेति । तदेवं स्याद्वादिनाऽभियुक्ताः स्वदर्शनमेवमनन्तरोक्तया नीत्या प्रतिपादयन्ति तथा स्वाद्वादिसाधनोक्तौ छलायतनंछलं नवकम्बलो देवदत्त इत्यादिकं 'आहुः' उक्तवन्तः, च शब्दादन्यच्च दूषणाभासादिकं, तथा कर्म च एक पक्षद्विपक्षादिकं प्रतिपादितवन्त इति, यदिवा षडायतनानि उपादानकारणानि आश्रवद्वाराणि श्रोत्रेन्द्रियादीनि यस्य कर्मणस्तत्षडायतनं कर्मेत्येवमाहुरिति ॥५॥
टीका - पूर्व वर्णित अन्य मतवादियों की वाणी द्वारा ही अर्थात् उनके स्वीकृत सिद्धान्त से ही पदार्थ का अस्तित्त्व सिद्ध हो जाता है अथवा पदार्थ का अस्तित्त्व माने बिना उनका सिद्धान्त सिद्ध ही नहीं होता । ऐसा होने से वह पदार्थ स्वयं सिद्ध हो जाता है । वैसी स्थिति में वचन द्वारा उस पदार्थ का प्रतिषेध करते हुए वे लोकायतिक- चार्वाक आदि इन दोनों से मिश्रित - आपस में मिले हुए इस सिद्धान्त को अंगीकार करते हैं। यहां प्रयुक्त 'वा' शब्द से यह जानना चाहिये कि पदार्थ का निषेध करते हुए लोकायतिक चार्वाक एक प्रकार से उसका अस्तित्त्व ही प्रतिपादित करते हैं। इसे यों समझा जा सकता है । चार्वाक मतवादी अपने शिष्यों को जीव आदि तत्त्वों के अभाव प्रतिपादक शास्त्रों का उपदेश करते हैं। यहां वे शास्त्र प्रणेता आत्मा, उपदेश के साधनभूत शास्त्र, उपदीस्यमान शिष्य इनको तो वे अवश्य ही स्वीकार करते हैं । इन्हें माने बिना उपदेश
504

Translation AI Generated

## The Sutra Kritanga Sutra

"Like the city of Gandharva, like a dream, like a cloud of illusions, like a mirage, like water in a desert, like the moon in the sky, like a wheel." (1)

From this statement, it is clear that the Buddhists accept the doctrine of mixed existence. Or, if they accept the doctrine of the effects of various actions, then their view is contradictory. As it is said:

"If your view of emptiness is a hindrance to my view, how can it be? Or, if you think it is not empty, then it is still my view." (1)

And so, the Buddhists, by the above-mentioned method, while trying to prove the non-existence of mixed existence, actually prove its existence.

Similarly, the Samkhyas, by accepting the existence of an inactive self that pervades everything, and by proving the existence of liberation through separation from nature, also prove the bondage and liberation of the self through their own words. Therefore, while accepting the existence of bondage and liberation, they accept the mixed existence of the self through their own words, because bondage and liberation cannot occur without action. Or, if inactivity is proved by words, then their own words contradict their view of inactivity.

Thus, the Lokayatikas, by accepting the doctrine of complete non-existence, prove the non-existence of action. The Buddhists, by accepting the doctrine of momentariness and complete emptiness, also accept the non-existence of action. They are motivated by their own scriptures and accept mixed existence through their own words. Similarly, the Samkhyas, by accepting the inactive self and the existence of bondage and liberation, accept mixed existence through their own view, and this contradiction has been explained.

Or, if a Buddhist or any other debater is confused by proper arguments and is able to give a proper answer, he becomes speechless, uttering only "Mummu-i hoi" (I am confused) in a stammering voice. Or, this meaning should be understood in a natural way, due to the silence of the person. Just as a mute person becomes mute even when speaking to another mute person, this shows that the debater is unable to refute the argument of the Syadvada. He is unable to refute the argument because he is unable to follow the argument, and he remains silent because his mind is confused by valid arguments. He does not speak and refutes the argument of the opponent without corrupting his own view. For example, he says, "This is one side of our view." This means that our view is one-sided, not two-sided, and it is not contradictory, because it is not opposed by any other view. And even though this is the case, he says, "This has two sides." This means that our view is two-sided, it is opposed by another view, and it is contradictory because it is opposed by another view. As it has been shown earlier, this is how their view is contradictory. Or, if this view has two sides, then it is two-sided because it accepts the destruction of the bondage of karma by relying on two opposing views. This reliance on two opposing views leads to suffering in this world and the next, like thieves, adulterers, and others. They experience the consequences of their actions in this world, such as the cutting of their hands, feet, noses, etc., which is like a flower, and they experience the consequences of their actions in the next world, such as hell, etc. Similarly, other actions are also accepted as being experienced in both worlds. This is like the previous example, "The being knows the being." This is one side of the view, because it is experienced in this life. This is like the example, "The unlearned, the learned, the wrong path, the dream-like."

Thus, those who are accused by the Syadvada prove their own view by the method mentioned above. They also mention the deception of the Syadvada, such as the deception of the six sense organs, the deception of the new blanket, Devadatta, etc. They say, "They say," and they mention other deceptions, such as the deception of action, one side, two sides, etc. Or, they say, "The six sense organs are the causes of attachment, the doors of inflow, the ear, the eye, etc. The karma that has these six sense organs is called karma." (5)

## Commentary

The words of other schools of thought, i.e., their accepted principles, prove the existence of objects. Or, their principles cannot be established without accepting the existence of objects. In such a situation, the object becomes self-evident. In such a situation, while denying the existence of the object through words, they accept the mixed existence of the Lokayatikas, the Charvakas, etc., i.e., they accept a view that is a mixture of both. The word "or" here should be understood as meaning that while denying the existence of the object, the Lokayatikas and the Charvakas actually prove its existence. This can be understood as follows:

The Charvakas teach their disciples about the non-existence of the soul, etc. Here, they must accept the existence of the teacher, the scripture that is the means of teaching, and the disciple who is being taught. Without accepting these, teaching is not possible.