Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
Is there a right to speak at the right time or not? If there is, how is it ordered? If it is dependent on cooperation, then does the cooperator do something extraordinary or not? If he does, is it by abandoning his previous nature or by abandoning it? If it is by abandoning it, then it is impermanent due to the attainment of an unformed state. Or, if it is by abandoning his previous nature, then there is no extraordinary thing, so is it dependent on cooperation? Or, even if he does nothing, he depends on something specific for his work, which is not right, because:
"If someone depends on another to do something,
What is the thing that does nothing, depends on anything?" ||1||
Or, at the time of doing an action for one purpose, he does not have the nature of doing an action for another purpose, and in that case, the loss of permanence is clear. Or, he is eternal and does an action for a purpose simultaneously, in which case, since he does all actions in the first moment, he becomes inactive in the second moment, and thus, there is impermanence. Or, because of his nature, he does the same action again and again in the second moments, which is not possible because of the absence of doing what was done. Moreover, even the things that are to be achieved in the second moments are obtained in the first moment, because of his nature. If he is not of that nature, then his impermanence is established. Thus, due to the absence of action for a purpose from the eternal one, due to the order and simultaneity, the eternal one is not produced from its causes. Or, the impermanent nature arises, and in that case, due to the absence of obstacles, the impermanence of all things, as we have said, is established. Thus, it is said:
"The nature itself is considered to be the cause of the destruction of things.
The one who has nature and is not destroyed, how will he be destroyed later by whom?" ||1||
Now, even if there is impermanence, when the cause of destruction is present, then there is destruction. Thus, even the things that are impermanent due to the absence of the cause of their own destruction are not momentary. This is also the statement of the teacher who is not to be disregarded. For example, what is done by a hammer, etc., which is the cause of destruction, to a pot, etc.? What is to be asked here? Absence is done. And here, the beloved of the gods, absence, is to be asked. Is this a denial of a statement or a denial of a consequence? If it is a denial of a statement, then the meaning is that absence is different from existence, it is another existence, a pot, a cloth, etc., that is absence. If there is no action of a hammer, etc., in another existence, then nothing is done to the pot by it. If it is a denial of a consequence, then the meaning is that it makes the cause of destruction absent. What is said? It does not make existence. Thus, only the denial of action is done. And the action of a pot, etc., is not done by a hammer, etc., because it is done by its own causes. Or, existence-absence is absence, it does that. But, due to its insignificance and formlessness, how can there be action of an agent and a cause there? Or, if there is action of an agent there, then the agents would act in a rhinoceros horn, etc., as well. Thus, due to the inactivity of the cause of destruction, the momentariness is established due to the absence of an obstacle to the arising of things that are made momentary by their own causes. The word "tu" indicates the difference from the previous statements. The same is shown in the latter half of the verse, "anno ananno". For, just as the Buddhists, like the Atma-Shashthavadins, the Samkhyas, etc., have accepted a self that is different from the elements, and just as the Charvakas have accepted a self that is different from the elements, called consciousness, so they have not said or accepted that the self is born from causes, is made of the body, is transformed into the elements, and is produced. Thus, they, the Buddhists, have not accepted that self as causeless, beginningless, and endless, and eternal. ||17||
Commentary: Now, the author of the scripture presents the Buddhist philosophy as the opposing view, and then describes the doctrine of non-fruitfulness as propounded by the author of the work.
Many theorists - those who believe in the Buddhist philosophy - propound the five aggregates. They say that in this world, there are five aggregates called form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. There is no other or separate aggregate-substance called soul. Earth element and form, etc., are called the form aggregate. The experience of pleasure, the experience of pain, and the experience of neither pleasure nor pain are called the feeling aggregate. Form
(41)| SR No. | 032440 |
| Book Title | Sutrakritang Sutra |
| 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 |