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 59

स्वसमय वक्तव्यताधिकारः स्यात् पुण्येन च सुखी स्यादिति, न चैतद् दृष्टमिष्टं वा, तथा व्यापित्वान्नित्यत्वाच्चात्मनः 'पंचधा' पंचप्रकारा नारक तिर्यङ्मनुष्यामर मोक्षलक्षणा गतिर्न भवेत, ततश्च भवतां सांख्यानां काषायचीवर धारण शिरस्तुण्डमुण्डनदण्डधारणभिक्षाभोजित्वपंचरात्रोपदेशानुसारयमनियमाद्यनुष्टानं तथा -
"पंचविंशतितत्वज्ञो, यत्र तत्राश्रये रतः । जटी मुण्डी शिखी वापि, मुच्यते नात्र संशयः ॥१॥ इत्यादि
सर्वमपार्थकमाप्नोति तथा देवमनुष्यादिषु गत्यागती न स्यातां, सर्वव्यापित्वादात्मनः, तथा नित्यत्वाच्च विस्मरणाभावाजातिस्मरणादिका च क्रिया नोपपद्यते, तथा आदिग्रहणात् 'प्रकृतिःकरोति पुरुष उपभुङ्क्ते' इति भुजिक्रिया या समाश्रिता साऽपि न प्राप्नोति, तस्या अपि क्रियात्वादिति, अथ 'मुद्राप्रतिबिम्बोदयन्यायेन भोग' इति चेद्, एतत्तु निरन्तराः सुहृदः प्रत्येष्यन्ति, वाङमात्रत्वात्, प्रतिबिम्बोदयस्यापि च क्रिया विशेषत्वादेव, तथा नित्ये चाविकारिण्यात्मनि प्रतिबिम्बोदयस्याभावाद्यत्किञ्चिदेतदिति ॥३४॥ननु च भुजि क्रियामात्रेण प्रति बिम्बोदयमात्रेण च यद्यप्यात्मा सक्रियः तथापि न तावन्मात्रेणास्माभिः सक्रियत्वमिष्यते, किं तर्हि ? समस्त क्रियावत्वे सतीत्येतदाशङ्क्य नियुक्तिकृदाह - ____ण हु अफलथोवणिच्छित कालफलत्तणमिहं अदुमहेऊ । णादुद्धथोव दुद्धत्तणे णगावित्तणे हेऊ ॥३५॥
न हु' नैवाफलत्वं द्रुमाऽभावे साध्ये हेतुर्भवति, नहि यदैव फलवां स्तदैव द्रुमः अन्यदात्वद्रुम इतिभावः, एवमात्मनोऽपिसुप्ताद्यवस्थायां यद्यपि कथञ्चिन्निष्क्रियत्वं तथापि नैतावतात्वसौ निष्क्रिय इति व्यपदेशमर्हति, तथा स्तोकफलत्वमपि न वृक्षाऽभावसाधनायालं, स्वल्पफलोऽपि हि पनसाहिवृक्षव्यपदेशभाग्भवति, एवमात्माऽपि स्वल्पक्रियोऽपि क्रियावानेव, कदाचिदेषा मतिर्भवतो भवेत्-स्तोकक्रियो निष्क्रिय एव, यथैक कार्षापिणधनो न धनित्व (व्यपदेश) मास्कन्दति एवमात्माऽपि स्वल्पक्रियत्वादक्रिय इति, एतदप्यचारू, यतोऽयं दृष्टान्तः प्रतिनियतपुरुषापेक्षया चो (ऽत्रो) पगम्यते समस्त पुरुषापेक्षया वा ? तत्र यद्याद्यः पक्षः तदा सिद्धसाध्यता, यतः सहस्रादिधनवदपेक्षया निर्धन एवासौ, अथ समस्तपुरुषापेक्षया तदसाधु, यतोऽन्यान् जरच्चीवरधारिणोऽपेक्ष्य कार्षापण धनोऽपि धनवानेन, तथाऽऽत्मापि यदि विशिष्टसामोपेतपुरुष- क्रियापेक्षया निष्क्रियोऽभ्युपगम्यते न काचित्क्षतिः सामान्यापेक्षया तु क्रियावानेव, इत्यलमतिप्रसंगेन, एवमनिश्चिता- कालफलत्वाख्य हेतु द्वयमपि न वृक्षाऽभावसाधकम् इत्यादि योज्यम्, एवमदुग्धत्वस्तोकदुग्धत्वरूपा वपि हेतू न गोत्वाऽभावं साधयतः, उक्तन्यायेनैव दार्टान्तिकयोजनाकार्येति ॥३५॥१४॥
टीकार्थ - अब तन्जीव तच्शरीरवादी तथा अकारकवादी सिद्धान्तिकों के मत का निराकरण करने के लिये आगमकार बतलाते हैं -
__ आत्मा को देह से अव्यत्तिरिक्त या अपृथक् मानने वाले सैद्धान्तिकों के मत का यहां निराकरण किया जाता है-इस संबंध में उन्होंने जो यह प्रतिपादित किया कि देह से आत्मा पृथक् नहीं है यह असंगत है-ऐसा कहने में संगति फलित नहीं होती, क्योंकि आत्मा का देह से पार्थक्य है । इस तथ्य को साबित करने वाला प्रमाण उपलब्ध होता है । वह यह है - ___इस देह का कोई कर्ता विद्यमान है-किसी कर्ता द्वारा यह कृत-निर्मित है, क्योंकि यह सादि-आदियुक्त है, प्रति नियताकार-एक निश्चित आकार लिया हुआ है । इस संसार में जो जो पदार्थ सादि आदियुक्त है तथा जिनके आकार-आकृतियां सुनिश्चित हैं उनका कोई न कोई कर्ता विद्यमान-दृष्टिगोचर होता है अर्थात् वे किसी कर्ता द्वारा रचित है, घड़ा इसका उदाहरण है । जिस पदार्थ का कोई कर्ता विद्यमान दिखाई नहीं देता, जो
(31)

Translation AI Generated

"It is said that one should be happy with virtue and have the right to speak at the right time. But this is not seen or desired. And since the self is all-pervasive and eternal, there would be no five types of destinies - hell, animal, human, celestial, and liberation. Therefore, the arguments of the Sankhyas regarding the wearing of saffron robes, shaving the head and beard, carrying a staff, begging for food, and following the teachings of the five nights are all meaningless. Similarly, the statement:

"He who knows the twenty-five principles,
Is devoted to the refuge wherever he may be,
Whether he has matted hair, a shaved head, or a tuft of hair,
He is liberated, there is no doubt. ||1||"

and so on, is also meaningless. There would be no coming and going in the realms of gods, humans, etc., because the self is all-pervasive and eternal. Also, due to the eternal nature of the self, there would be no forgetting, remembering of past lives, etc. And since the self is the first cause, the action of eating, which is based on the principle "Nature acts, the self enjoys," is also not possible, because the self is also an agent. If it is said that "enjoyment is through the principle of the reflection of the seal," then this is refuted by the constant friends, because it is merely a matter of words, and the reflection of the seal is also a specific action. And since the self is eternal and unchanging, there is no reflection of the seal, and therefore this is all meaningless. ||34||

"But even if the self is active through the mere action of eating and the mere reflection of the seal, we do not consider it to be active merely through these. What then? It is active through all actions." This doubt is addressed by the author:

"It is not that the absence of a tree is the cause of the absence of fruit. Nor is it that whenever there is fruit, there is a tree, and that there is something else besides the tree. Similarly, even though the self may be inactive in a state of sleep, etc., it does not deserve to be called inactive. And the absence of fruit is not a sufficient reason for the absence of a tree, because even a tree with little fruit is still considered a tree. Similarly, even though the self may have little action, it is still an agent. Perhaps you may think that a self with little action is inactive, just as a person with one karshapan is not considered wealthy. Similarly, the self is inactive because it has little action. This is also not correct, because this analogy is understood in relation to a specific person, or in relation to all people? If it is the former, then it is a case of proving the already proven, because he is poor compared to someone with thousands of karshapanas. If it is the latter, then it is not valid, because even one karshapan is considered wealth compared to others who are beggars. Similarly, if the self is considered inactive in relation to a person with specific qualities, there is no harm. But in relation to the general, it is an agent. Therefore, this is not a valid argument. Similarly, the two reasons, namely, the absence of fruit and the absence of fruit at a specific time, are not sufficient reasons for the absence of a tree. And so on. Similarly, the reasons of the absence of milk and the presence of little milk do not prove the absence of a cow. This is similar to the analogy of the dart, which is not relevant to the task at hand. ||35||14||

Commentary: Now, in order to refute the views of those who believe that the self is inseparable from the body and those who believe that the self is inactive, the author of the scripture explains:

The view of those who believe that the self is inseparable from the body is refuted here. They have stated that the self is not separate from the body, but this is not consistent. This statement is not consistent because the self is separate from the body. There is evidence to prove this fact. It is this: This body has a maker, it is made by someone, because it is equipped with a beginning and an end, and it has a definite form. In this world, all objects that have a beginning and an end and have definite forms and shapes have a maker, as can be seen. That is, they are made by someone. A pot is an example. There is no maker visible for an object that does not have a maker, which is (31)
"