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 555

चिता
श्री समवसरणाध्ययनं । 'दु:खम' असातोदयरूपं तत्कारणं च यो जानाति 'सुखं' च तद्विपर्ययभूतं यो जानाति, तपसा यो निर्जरां च इदमुक्तं भवति-यः कर्मबन्धहेतून् तद्विपर्यासहेतूंश्च तुल्यतया जानाति तथाहि -
"यथा प्रकारा यावन्तः, संसारावेशहेतवः । तावन्तस्तद्विपर्यासा, निर्वाणावेश हेतवः ॥१॥"
स एव परमार्थतो 'भाषितुं वक्तुमर्हति, किं तद् ? इत्याह-क्रियावादम्, अस्ति जीवोऽस्ति पुण्यमस्ति पापमस्ति च पूर्वाचरितस्य कर्मणः फलमित्येवंरूपं वादमिति । तथाहि-जीवाजीवास्त्रवसंवरबन्धपुण्यपापनिर्जरा मोक्षरूपा नवापि पदार्थाः श्लोकद्वयेनोपात्ताः, तत्र य आत्मानं जानातीत्यनेन जीवपदार्थः, लोक मित्यनेना जीवपदार्थः तथा गत्यनागतिः शाश्वतेत्यादिनाऽनयोरेव स्वभावोपदर्शनं कृतं, तथाऽऽश्रवसंवरौ स्वरूपेणैवोपात्तौ दुःखमित्यनेन तु बन्धपुण्यपापानि गृहीतानिं, तदविनाभावित्वादुःखस्य, निर्जरायास्तु स्वाभिधाने नैवापादानं, तत्फलभूतस्य च मोक्षस्योपादान द्रष्टव्यमिति, तदेवमेतावन्त एव पदार्थास्तदभ्युपगमेन चास्तीत्यादिकः क्रियावादोऽभ्युपगतो भवतीति,
नि 'जानाति' अभ्यपगच्छति स परमार्थतः क्रियावादं जानाति । नन चापरदर्शनोक्त पदार्थपरिज्ञानेन सम्यग्वादित्वं । कस्मान्नाभ्युपगम्यते ? तदुक्तपदार्थनामेवाघटमानत्वात्, तथाहि-नैयायिकदर्शनेन तावत्प्रमाणप्रमेयसंशय प्रयोजनदृष्टान्तसिद्धान्तावयवतर्कनिर्णयवाद जल्पवितण्डाहेत्वाभासच्छलजाति निग्रहस्थानानीत्येते षोडश पदार्था अभिहिताः, तत्र हेयोपादेय (निवृत्ति) प्रवृत्तिरूपतया येन पदार्थपरिच्छित्ति, क्रियते तत्प्रमीयतेऽनेनेति प्रमाणं, तच्च प्रत्यक्षानुमानोपमानशाब्दभेदाच्चतुर्की,तत्रेन्द्रियार्थसंनिकर्पोत्पन्नं ज्ञानमव्यपदेश्यमव्यभिचारि व्यवसायात्मकं प्रत्यक्षं, तदेवेन्द्रियार्थयोर्यः संबन्धस्तस्मात्तदुत्पन्नं, नाभिव्यक्तं ज्ञानं, न सुखादिकम्, अव्यपदेश्यमिति व्यदेश्यत्वेशाब्दप्राप्ते; अव्यभिचारीताद्धिद्विचन्द्र ज्ञानवत् व्यभिचरतीति, व्यवसायात्मकमिति निश्चयात्मकं प्रत्यक्षं, तत्रास्य प्रत्यक्षता न बुध्य (युज्य) ते, तथाहियत्रात्माऽर्थग्रहणं प्रति साक्षाव्याप्रियते तदेव प्रत्यक्षं, तच्चावधिमनःपर्यायकेवलात्मकम्, एतच्चापरोपाधिद्वारेण । प्रवृत्तेरनुमानवत्परोक्षमिति, उपचारप्रत्यक्षं तु स्यात्, न चोपचारस्तत्त्वचिन्तायां व्याप्रियत इति । अनुमानमपि पूर्ववच्छेषवत्सामान्यतोदृष्टमिति त्रिधा, तत्र कारणात्कार्यानुमानं पूर्ववत् कार्यात्कारणानुमानं शेषवत् सामान्यतोदृष्टं तु चूतमेकं विकसितं दृष्ट्वा पुष्पिताश्चुता जगतीतियदिवा देवदत्तादौ गतिपूर्विकां स्थानात् स्थानान्तरावाप्तिं दृष्ट्वाऽऽदित्येऽपि गत्यनुमानमिति, तत्राप्यन्यथानुपपत्तिरेव गमिका, न कारणादिकं, तया बिना कारणस्य कार्य प्रति व्यभिचारात्, यत्र तु सा विद्यते तत्र कार्यकारणादिव्यतिरेकेणापि गम्यगमकभावौ दृष्टः, तद्यथा-भविष्यति शकटोदयः कृत्तिकादर्शनादिति, तदुक्तम् -
"अन्यथाऽनुपपन्नत्वं, यत्र तत्र त्रयेण किम् ? । नान्यथाऽनुपन्नत्वं, यत्र यत्र त्रयेण किम् ? ॥१॥"
अपिच-प्रत्यक्षस्याप्रामाण्ये तत्पूर्वकस्यानुमानस्या प्रामाण्यमिति । प्रसिद्धसाधात्साध्यसाधनमुपमानं, यथा गौर्गवयस्तथा, अत्र च सञ्जासञ्जिसम्बन्धप्रतिपत्तिरूपमानार्थः अत्रापि सिद्धायामन्यथाऽनुपपत्तावनुमानलक्षणत्वेन तत्रैवान्तर्भावात्पृथक्प्रमाणत्व मनुपपन्नमेव, अथ नास्त्यनुपपत्तिस्ततो व्यभिचारादप्रमाणतोपमानस्य । शाब्दमपि न सर्वं प्रमाणं, किं तर्हि ? आप्तप्रणीतस्यैवागमस्य प्रामाण्यं, न चाहद्वयातिरेकेणापरस्याप्तता युक्तियुक्तेति, एतच्चान्यत्र निर्लोठितमिति । किञ्च-सर्वमप्येतत्प्रमाणमात्मनो ज्ञानं ज्ञानं चात्मनो गुणः (गुणश्च) पृथक्पदार्थताऽऽपत्तेः, अथ प्रमेयग्रहणेनेन्द्रियार्थतया तेऽप्याश्रिता, सत्यमाश्रिताः, न तु युक्तियुक्ताः, तथाहि-द्रव्यव्यतिरेकेण तेषामभावात् तद्ग्रहणे च तेषामपि ग्रहणं सिद्धमेवेति न युक्तं पृथगुपादानम् । प्रमेयं त्वात्मशरीरेन्द्रियार्थबुद्धिमनः-प्रवृत्तिदोषप्रेत्यभावफल दुःखापवर्गाः, तत्रात्मा सर्वस्य द्रष्टोपभोक्ता चे (स चे) च्छाद्वेषप्रयत्नसुखदुःखज्ञानानुमेयः, स च जीवपदार्थतया गृहीत एवस्याभिरिति, शरीरं तु तस्य भोगायतनं, भोगायतननानीन्द्रियाणि भोक्तव्या इन्द्रियार्थाः, एतदपि शरीरादिकं जीवाजीवग्रहणेनोक्तमस्माभिरिति । उपभोगो बुद्धिरित्येतच्च ज्ञानविशेषः, स च जीवगुणतया जीवोपादान तयो
527

Translation AI Generated

## The Study of the Samvasarana

**The Sorrow** is the arising of the non-existent, and its cause, whoever knows, and **the Happiness** which is the opposite of that, whoever knows, by penance, whoever is purified, this is said - whoever knows the causes of the bondage of karma and the causes of its opposite equally, thus:

"As many are the types, the causes of the bondage of the world, so many are the opposites of those, the causes of the liberation of Nirvana." ||1||

He alone truly deserves to speak, what is that? He says - the **Action-Theory**, that there is a soul, there is merit, there is sin, and there is the fruit of past actions, such a theory. Thus - the soul, non-soul, restraint of inflow, bondage, merit, sin, purification, liberation - these nine substances are included in two verses. There, by "whoever knows himself", the substance of the soul is understood, by "world", the substance of the soul is understood, and by "going, not going, eternal, etc.", the nature of these two is shown. Similarly, inflow and restraint are included in their own form. By "sorrow", however, bondage, merit, and sin are taken, because sorrow is inseparable from them. Purification, however, is not included in its own definition, but the fruit of that, liberation, should be understood. Thus, these are the substances, and by accepting them, the Action-Theory is accepted.

Whoever "knows", accepts, he truly knows the Action-Theory. But, is the rightness of the theory not established by the knowledge of the substances mentioned by other schools? Why is it not accepted? Because the names of the substances mentioned are not established. Thus, in the Nyaya school, sixteen substances are mentioned - **proof, object of proof, doubt, purpose, example, principle, constituent, reasoning, determination, debate, quibbling, fallacy, deception, category, refutation, and position**. There, the **object of proof** is that by which the delimitation of the substance is done, in the form of **avoidance** and **acceptance** (restraint and activity). And that is **proof**, which is of four types - **perception, inference, comparison, and verbal testimony**. There, the knowledge arising from the contact of the sense organ with the object is **perception**, which is **unnameable**, **invariable**, and **determinative**. That is, the knowledge arising from the relation between the sense organ and the object, not the manifested knowledge, not happiness, etc., is **unnameable**, because it is nameable by verbal testimony; and because it is **invariable**, it is not variable like the knowledge of two moons. **Determinative** means that it is **certain**. There, its perceptibility is not appropriate, because where the self is directly present for the grasping of the object, that is perception. And that is only **attention**, **mind**, and **self**. And this is also through another **condition**. Inference is **indirect** like the inference of activity. **Conventional perception** may be there, but convention is not relevant in the investigation of truth. Inference is also of three types - **from the cause**, **from the effect**, and **from the general**. There, **inference from the cause** is like the previous, **inference from the effect** is like the remainder, and **inference from the general** is like seeing a single blooming flower and concluding that all flowers are blooming, or seeing the movement of Devadatta from one place to another and inferring movement in the sun. There, also, **incompatibility** is the means of inference, not the cause, etc., because without it, there is variability in the relation between the cause and the effect. Where it exists, there, the relation between the cause and the effect, etc., is seen as the inferred and the means of inference. For example, "There will be a chariot rising from the sight of the constellation Krittika." It is said:

"Incompatibility, where it is, what is the use of the three? Incompatibility, where it is, what is the use of the three?" ||1||

Moreover, if perception is not authoritative, then inference preceding it is authoritative. **Comparison** is the well-known means of proving the object to be proved, like "A cow is like a bull." Here, the meaning of comparison is the understanding of the relation between the similar and the dissimilar. Here, also, it is established that it is a type of inference, because it is included in the established incompatibility, and therefore, its separate authority is not established. If there is no incompatibility, then there is variability, and therefore, comparison is not authoritative. **Verbal testimony** is also not all authoritative. What then? Only the **scripture** composed by the **knowledgeable** is authoritative. And it is not reasonable that there is another knowledgeable person besides the omniscient. This is also discussed elsewhere. Further, all this proof is the knowledge of the self, and knowledge is a quality of the self. If it is a separate substance, then there is a contradiction. If they are dependent on the sense organ and the object for the grasping of the object of proof, then they are dependent, but not reasonable. Thus, because they are absent without substance, and because their grasping is established in the grasping of that, it is not reasonable to accept them separately. The **object of proof**, however, is the self, body, sense organ, object, intellect, mind, activity, fault, death, absence, fruit, sorrow, and liberation. There, the self is the perceiver and enjoyer of all, and it is inferred from hatred, effort, happiness, sorrow, and knowledge. And it is accepted as the substance of the soul. The body is the place of its enjoyment, the sense organs are the instruments of enjoyment, and the objects of the sense organs are the objects of enjoyment. This body, etc., is also mentioned by us in the understanding of the soul and non-soul. Enjoyment is intellect, and this is a special type of knowledge. And it is accepted as a quality of the soul, and therefore, it is accepted as the soul.