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 558

श्री सूत्रकृताङ्ग सूत्रम् तत्र सङ्ख्यादयः सामान्यगुणा रूपादिवद्रव्यस्वभा (वाभा) वत्वेन परोपाधिकत्वाद्गुणा एव न भवन्ति, अथापि स्युस्तथापि न गुणानांपृथक्त्वव्यवस्था, तृत्पृथक्त्वभावे द्रव्यस्वरूपहानेः 'गुणपर्यायवद्रव्य' (तत्त्वा. अ. ५ सू.) मितिकृत्वा अतो नान्तरीयकतया द्रव्यग्रहणैनैव ग्रहणं न्याय्यमिति न पृथग्भावः । किञ्च तस्य भावस्तत्त्वमित्युच्यते, भावप्रत्ययश्च यस्य गुणस्य हि भावाद् द्रव्ये शब्दनिवेशस्तदभिधाने 'त्वतला' वित्यनेन भवति, तत्र घटो रक्त उदकस्याहारको जलवान् सवैरेव घट उच्यते, अत्र च घटस्य भावो घटत्वं रक्तस्य भावो रक्तत्वं आहारकस्य भाव आहारकत्वं जलवतो भावो जलवत्त्वमित्यत्र घटसामान्यरक्तगुणक्रियाद्रव्यसंबन्धरूपाणां गुणानां सद्भावात् द्रव्ये पृथुबुध्नाकार उदकाद्याहरणक्षमेकुटकाख्ये शब्दस्य घटादेरभिनिवेशस्तत्र त्वतलौ, इह च रक्ताख्यः को गुणो ? यद सद्भावात्, कतरच्च तद् द्रव्यं यत्र शब्दनिवेशो येन भावप्रत्ययः स्यादिति ? । किमिदानी रक्तस्य भावो रक्तत्वमिति न भवितव्यं ?, भवितव्यमुपचारेण, तथाहि-रक्त इत्येतद्र्व्यत्वेनोपचर्य तस्य सामान्यं भाव इति रक्तत्वमिति, न चोपचारस्तत्त्वचिन्तायामुपयुज्यते, शब्दसिद्धावेव तस्य कृतार्थत्वादिति । शब्दश्चाकाशस्य गुण एव न भवति, तस्य पौद्गलिकत्वाद्, आकाशस्य चामूर्तत्वादिति । शेषं तु प्रक्रियामात्रं न साधनदूषणयोरङ्गम्। क्रियाऽपि द्रव्यसमवायिनी गुणवत्पृथगाश्रयितुं न युक्तेति । अथ सामान्यं, तद्विधा-परमपरं च, तत्र परं महासत्ताख्यं द्रव्यादिपदार्थव्यापि, तथा चोक्तम्-"सदिति यतो द्रव्यगुणकर्मसु सा सत्ता" अपरं च द्रव्यत्वगुणत्वकर्मत्वात्मकं, तत्र न तावन्महासत्तायाः पृथक्पदार्थता युज्यते, यतस्तस्यां यः सदिति प्रत्ययः स किमपरसत्तानिबन्धन उत स्वत एव ? तत् यद्यपरसत्तानिबन्धनस्तत्राप्ययमेव विकल्पोऽतोऽनवस्था, अथ स्वत एव ततस्तद्वद द्रव्यादिष्वपि स्वत एव सत्प्रत्ययो भविष्यतीति किमपरसत्ताऽजागलस्तनकल्पया । विकल्पितया ?, किञ्च-द्रव्यादीनां किं सतां सत्तया सत्प्रत्यय उतासतां ?, तत् यदि सतां स्वत एव सत्प्रत्ययो भविष्यति किं तया ? असत्पक्षे तु शशविषाणादिष्वपि सत्तायोगात्सत्प्रत्यय: स्यादिति, तथा चोक्तम् -
"स्वतोऽर्थाः सन्तु सत्तावत्सत्तया किं सदात्मनाम् ? । असदात्मसु नैषा स्यात्सर्वथाऽतिप्रसङ्गतः ॥१॥"
इत्यादि । एतदेव दूषणमपरसामान्येऽप्यायोज्यं, तुल्ययोगक्षेमत्वात् । किञ्च-अस्माभिरपि सामान्यविशेषरूपत्वाद्वस्तुनः कथञ्चित्तदिष्यत एवेति, तस्य च कथञ्चित्तदव्यतिरेकाद् द्रव्यग्रहणेनैव ग्रहणमिति। अथ विशेषाः, ते चात्यन्तव्यावृत्तिबुद्धि हेतुत्वेन परैराश्रीयन्ते, तत्रेदं चिन्त्यते-या तेषु विशेषबुद्धिः सा नापरविशेषहेतुकाऽऽश्रयितत्वा, अनवस्थाभयात्, स्वतः समाश्रयणे च तद्वद् द्रव्यादिष्वपि विशेषबुद्धिः स्यात्किं द्रव्यादिव्यतिरिक्तैर्विशेषैरिति ?, द्रव्याव्यतिरिक्तास्तु विशेषा अस्माभिरप्याश्रीयन्ते, सर्वस्य सामान्यविशेषात्मकत्वादिति। एतत्तु प्रक्रियामात्रं, तद्यथा-नित्यद्रव्यवृत्तयोऽन्त्या विशेषाः, नित्यद्रव्याणि च चतुर्विधाः परमाणवो मुक्तात्मानो मुक्तमनांसि च, इति । नियुक्तिकत्वादपकर्णयितव्यमिति । समवायस्तु-अयुतसिद्धानामाधाराधेयभूतानां य इह प्रत्ययहे तुः स समवाय इत्युच्यते, असावपि नित्यश्चैकश्चाश्रीयते, तस्य च नित्यत्वात्समवायिनोऽपि नित्या आपोरन् तदनित्यत्वे च तस्याप्यानित्यवापत्तिः, तदाधाररूपत्वात्तस्य, तदेकत्वाच्च सर्वेषां समवायिनामेकत्वापत्तिः, तस्य चानेकत्वमिति । किञ्च-अयं समवायः संबन्धः, तस्य च द्विष्ठत्वाद् युतसिद्धत्वमेव। दण्डदण्डिनोरिव,वीरणानां चकटोत्पत्तौ तद्रूपतया विनाश:कटरूपतयोत्पत्तिरन्वयरूपतया व्यवस्थानमिति दुग्धदनोरिवेत्येवं वैशेषिकमतेऽपि न सम्यक् पदार्थावस्थितिरिति ॥ साम्प्रतं साङ्घयदर्शने तत्त्वनिरूपणं प्रक्रम्यते-तत्र प्रकृत्यात्मसंयोगात्सृष्टिरूपजायते, प्रकृतिश्च सत्त्वरजस्तमसांसाम्यावस्था ततो महान्महतोऽहंकारःअहङ्कारादेकांदशेन्द्रियाणि पञ्च तन्मात्राणि तन्मात्रेभ्यः पञ्च भूतानीति, चैतन्यं पुरुषस्य स्वरूपं, स चाकर्ता निर्गुणो भोक्तेति । तत्र परस्परविरुद्धानां सत्त्वादीनां गुणानां प्रकृत्यात्मनां नियामकं गुणिनमन्तरेणैकत्रावस्थानं न युज्यते, कृष्णसितादिगुणानामिव, न च
1530

Translation AI Generated

The Sutra of the Sri Sutra Kritanga, in which numbers and other general qualities are not qualities because they are dependent on the nature of substances like form, etc., and are not qualities because they are dependent on the nature of substances like form, etc. Even if they were, there would still be no separate arrangement of qualities, because the destruction of the nature of the substance would result in the absence of separate existence. Therefore, it is appropriate to grasp the substance by grasping the substance, as it is said, "The substance is the synonym of the quality" (Tattvartha. A. 5 Sutra). Therefore, there is no separate existence. Moreover, its existence is called its essence, and the perception of existence is that of the quality, because the insertion of the word in the substance due to the existence of the quality is done by the word "tvatala". For example, a pot is red, the water is its food, and it is called a pot by all these qualities. Here, the existence of the pot is potness, the existence of red is redness, the existence of the food is foodness, and the existence of the water is waterness. Therefore, due to the existence of the qualities of the pot, the general red quality, action, and substance, the word "kutaka", which is a large, round, water-holding, etc., is inserted in the substance, and that is the "tvatala". But what is the quality called "red"? What is its existence? And what is the substance in which the word is inserted, so that there is a perception of existence? Now, should the existence of red be redness? It should be, by convention. For example, the word "red" is conventionally used as a substance, and its general existence is redness. But convention is not used in the consideration of essence, because it is fulfilled in the establishment of the word. And the word is not a quality of space, because it is material, and space is immaterial. The rest is just a process, not a part of the defect of the means. And action is also inseparable from the substance, and it is not appropriate to consider it as a separate quality with a different support. Now, what about the general? It is of two kinds: the ultimate and the penultimate. The ultimate is called "maha-satta", which pervades substances like the earth, etc. And it is said, "Because of the word 'sat', there is that existence in substances, qualities, and actions." The penultimate is the essence of substance, quality, and action. Now, the separate existence of "maha-satta" is not appropriate, because the perception of "sat" in it, is it dependent on another existence or is it self-existent? If it is dependent on another existence, then there is the same dilemma, and therefore, there is no end. If it is self-existent, then there will be a self-existent perception of "sat" in substances, etc., and what about the existence of another existence, like the horn of a rabbit? Is it hypothetical? Moreover, is the perception of "sat" in substances, etc., due to their existence or due to their being existent? If the perception of "sat" is self-existent in the existent, then what about it? But in the case of the non-existent, there would be a perception of "sat" in the existence of the horn of a rabbit, etc., because of the existence of "sat" in them. And it is said,
"Things are self-existent, but what about the existence of the existent?
It would not be so in the non-existent, because it would be a universal implication."
And so on. This same defect is applicable to the penultimate general, because the conditions and results are the same. Moreover, we also accept that the object is of the form of the general and the particular, and because it is inseparable from it in some way, it is grasped by grasping the substance. Now, what about the particulars? They are dependent on others because they are the cause of the perception of complete difference. Here, it is to be considered that the perception of particularity in them is not caused by another particularity, because of the fear of endlessness. And if it is self-dependent, then there would be a perception of particularity in substances, etc., as well, because of the particularities that are different from substances, etc.? But the particularities that are not different from substances are also dependent on us, because everything is of the nature of the general and the particular. This is just a process, just as the ultimate particulars are the eternal substances, and the eternal substances are of four kinds: atoms, liberated souls, liberated minds, and liberated bodies. Because of their being appointed, they should be discarded. Now, what about "samavaya"? It is called "samavaya" which is the perception of the support and the supported, which are not self-existent. It is also eternal and one, and it is dependent on others. Because of its eternality, the "samavaya" is also eternal, and if it is non-eternal, then it would also be non-eternal, because it is the support. And because of its oneness, there would be oneness of all the "samavaya"s, but it is not one. Moreover, this "samavaya" is a relation, and because it is two-fold, it is self-existent. Just as the stick and the stick-holder, and the destruction of the form of the "chakra" in the birth of the "chakra" and the birth of the form of the "chakra" in the destruction of the "chakra", and the arrangement of the form of the "chakra" in the form of the "chakra", just as the milk and the curd, and so on. Even in the Vaisheshika view, the arrangement of the objects is not correct. Now, the exposition of the essence in the Samkhya view is being undertaken. There, creation arises from the union of nature and the self. And nature is the state of the three qualities: sattva, rajas, and tamas. From that, arises the great, from the great arises the ego, from the ego arises the eleven senses, from the senses arise the five subtle elements, and from the subtle elements arise the five gross elements. Consciousness is the nature of the self, and it is the doer, without qualities, and the enjoyer. Now, the qualities like sattva, etc., which are mutually contradictory, cannot exist together in nature and the self without a controller and a possessor, just as the qualities like black and white, etc. And it is not
1530