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 87

स्वसमय वक्तव्यताधिकारः पुरुषकारे सति फल प्राप्तिवैसदृश्यं फलाप्राप्तिश्च न भवेत् कस्यचित्तु सेवादिव्यापाराभावेऽपि विशिष्टफलाऽवाप्तिद्देश्यत इति, अतोन पुरुषकारात्किञ्चिदासाद्यते, किंतर्हि ? नियतेरेवेति । एतच्च द्वितीय श्लोकन्तेऽभिधास्यते । नाऽपि कालः कर्ता तस्यैकरूपत्वाज्जगति फलवैचित्र्यानुपपत्तेः, कारणभेदे हि कार्य भेदो भवति नाऽभेदे, तथाहिअयमेव हि भेदो भेदहेतु र्वा घटते यदुत विरुद्धधर्माध्यासः कारणभेदश्च तथेश्वर कर्तृकेऽपि सुख दुःखे न भवतः, यतोऽसावीश्वरो मूर्तोऽमूर्तो वा? यदि मूर्तस्तत: प्राकृतपुरुषस्येव सर्वकर्तृत्वाभावः, अथामूर्तस्तथा सत्याकाशस्येव सुतरां निष्क्रियत्वम्, अपि च यद्यसौ रागादिमांस्ततोऽस्मदाद्यव्यतिरेकाद्विश्वस्याकतव, अथाऽसौ विगतरागस्ततस्तत्कृतं सुभगदुर्भगेश्वरदरिद्रादि जगद्वैचित्र्यं न घटां प्रास्चति, ततो नेश्वरः कर्तेति, तथा स्वभावस्याऽपि सुख दुः खादिकर्तृत्वानुपपत्तिः, यतोऽसौ स्वभावः पुरुषाद्भिन्नोऽभिन्नोवा ? यदि भिन्नो न पुरुषाश्रिते सुख दुःखे कर्तुमलं तस्माद्भिन्नत्वादिति । नाऽप्यभिन्नः, अभेदेपुरुष एवस्या त्तस्य चाकर्तृत्व मुक्तमेव । नाऽपि कर्मणः सुखदुखं प्रति कर्तृत्वं घटते, यतस्तत्कर्म पुरुषाद्भिन्न मभिन्नं वा भवेत ? अभिन्नं चेत्पुरुषमात्रतापत्तिः कर्मणः, तत्र चोक्तो दोषः अथ भिन्नं तत्किंसचेतनमचेतनंवा ? यदि सचेतन मेकस्मिन् काये चैतन्यद्वयापत्तिः, अथाचेतनं तथा सति कुतस्तस्यपाषाणखण्डस्येवास्वतंत्रस्य सुख-दुःखोत्पादनं प्रति कर्तृत्वमिति। एतच्चोत्तरत्र व्यासेन प्रतिपादयिष्यत इत्यलं प्रसंगेन, तदेवं सुखं सैद्धिकं सिद्धावपवर्गलक्षणायां भवं यदिवा दुःखमसातोदयलक्षणमसैद्धिकं सांसारिकं, यदिवोभयमप्येतत्सुखदुखंवास्त्रक् चन्दनांगनाद्युपभोगक्रियासिद्धौ भवं तथा कशाताडनाङ्कनादि सिद्धौ भवं सैद्धिकं, तथा असैद्धिकं सुखमान्तरमानन्द रूप माकस्मिकमनवधारितबाह्य निमित्तम् एवं दुःखमपि ज्वरशिरोर्तिशूलादिरूपमंगोत्थमसैद्धिकं तदेवदुभयमपि न स्वयं पुरुष कारेण कृतं नाऽप्यन्येन केनचित् कालादिना कृतं वेदयन्त्यनुभवन्ति
पृथज्जीवाः प्राणिन इति । कथं तर्हि तत्तेषामभूद् ? इति नियतिवादी स्वाभिप्रायमाविष्करोति 'संग इयं' त्ति, (सम्यक् स्वपरिणामेन गतिः-यस्य यदा यत्र यत्सुखदुःखानुभवनं सा संङ्गतिर्नियतिस्तस्यां भवं सांङ्गतिकं, यतश्चैवं न पुरुषकारादि कृतं सुख दुःखादि अतस्तत्तेषां प्राणिनां नियतिकृतं सांङ्गतिकमित्युच्यते। 'इह' अस्मिन सुखं दुःखानुभववादे एकेषां वादिनामाख्यातं तेषामयमम्युपगमः । तथा चोक्तम्-प्राप्ठ्योनियतिवलाश्रयेण योऽर्थ, सोऽवश्यं भवति नृणा शुभोऽशुभोवा । भूतानां महतिकृतेऽपि हि प्रयत्ने, नाभाव्यं भवति न भाविनोऽस्ति नाशः ॥२/३।। ___टीकार्थ - उपर्युक्त रूप में पंचभूतवादी आदि सैद्धान्तिकों के मत का निरास-निराकरण या खण्डन करके अब आगे दो श्लोकों द्वारा नियतिवादियों के सिद्धान्त का दिग्दर्शन कराते हैं -
जगत में प्राणीवृन्द द्वारा जो सुखात्मक और दुःखात्मक अनुभव किये जाते हैं, वे उनके अपने उद्यम द्वारा कृत नहीं है । उसी प्रकार एक भव से दूसरे भव में जाना-एक योनि से दूसरी योनि में जन्म लेना-यह भी अपने पुरुषार्थ द्वारा निष्पादित किया हुआ नहीं है । यहां इस गाथा में कारण में कार्य का उपचार करके दुःख शब्द द्वारा दु:ख के कारण का विधान किया गया है-कथन किया गया है । यह दुःख शब्द उपलक्षण है-सूचक है, अत: इससे सुख आदि को भी लिया जाना चाहिये । इस प्रकार कहने का अभिप्राय यह है कि जो यह सुख दुःखात्मक अनुभूति होती है, वह जीवों के पुरुषकार-पुरषार्थ या उद्यम द्वारा जन्य-उत्पन्न होने योग्य नहीं है । तथा वह काल, परमात्मा, स्वभाव और कर्म आदि अन्यान्य पदार्थों के द्वारा भी कियाहुआ किस प्रकार हो सकता है, अर्थात् इन द्वारा भी वह किया हुआ नहीं है । यहा 'णं' शब्द वाक्यालंकार हेतु प्रयुक्त हुआ है । यदि अपने अपने पुरुषार्थ या उद्यम के फलस्वरूप सुख आदि की अनुभूति-प्राप्ति हो तो नौकर सेठ तथा कृषक आदि का उद्योग या परिश्रम तो समान ही होता है-ये सभी अपने अपने तरीके से मेहनत करते हैं किन्तु ऐसा होने के बावजूद फल भिन्न भिन्न प्रकार का होता है या कभी कभी फल अप्राप्त भी रहता
(59)

Translation AI Generated

If the attainment of results were due to human effort, then there would be no difference in the attainment of results, nor would there be any non-attainment of results. Even in the absence of service or other activities, the attainment of specific results would be possible. Therefore, what is attained from human effort? It is only **niyati** (destiny). This will be explained in the second verse. Time is also not the doer, because due to its uniformity in the world, the diversity of results would not be possible. For, in the difference of causes, there is a difference in effects, not in the absence of difference. For example, this difference is the cause of difference, or it becomes the cause of difference, namely, the attribution of opposite qualities and the difference in causes. Even if the Lord is the doer, there would not be happiness and sorrow, because is the Lord embodied or unembodied? If embodied, then like a worldly man, he would not be the doer of everything. If unembodied, then like the true sky, he would be completely inactive. Moreover, if he has attachment, etc., then due to his non-difference from us, the whole world would be inactive. If he is free from attachment, then the diversity of the world, such as prosperity, misfortune, lordship, poverty, etc., would not be created by him. Therefore, the Lord is not the doer. Similarly, the nature of things is also not the doer of happiness, sorrow, etc., because is nature different from or non-different from the soul? If different, then it is not possible for it to be the doer of happiness and sorrow, which are dependent on the soul, because of its difference. Nor is it non-different, because in non-difference, the soul itself would be the doer, and its non-doing is already established. Nor is karma the doer of happiness and sorrow, because is karma different from or non-different from the soul? If non-different, then karma would be the same as the soul, and the defect mentioned there would arise. If different, then is it conscious or unconscious? If conscious, then there would be two consciousnesses in one body. If unconscious, then how can it be the doer of the production of happiness and sorrow, like a piece of stone? This will be explained in detail later. Therefore, enough of this digression. Thus, happiness is theoretical, being the characteristic of liberation, or sorrow is non-theoretical, being the characteristic of non-liberation, worldly. Or both happiness and sorrow are real, being established in the enjoyment of things like clothes, sandalwood, and women, or being established in things like being beaten with a stick, being branded, etc., theoretical. Similarly, other happiness, which is in the form of bliss, is accidental, not determined by external causes, and is non-theoretical. Similarly, sorrow, which is in the form of fever, headache, pain, etc., is bodily and non-theoretical. Both of these are not done by the soul itself, nor are they done by anyone else, such as time, etc. This is experienced by individual living beings. How then did it happen to them? The **niyati** (destiny) theorist reveals his opinion: "**Sang** (association)". (The movement of the self with its own transformation - the experience of happiness and sorrow, wherever and whenever it is, is **sangati** (association), **niyati** (destiny). What happens in it is **sangatik** (associated with destiny). Since happiness and sorrow, etc., are not done by human effort, etc., therefore, they are said to be done by **niyati** (destiny) for those living beings. In this theory of the experience of happiness and sorrow, it is said by some theorists that this is their assumption. Thus it is said: "Whatever is obtained by relying on the power of **niyati** (destiny), that surely happens to humans, whether auspicious or inauspicious. Even with great effort on the part of beings, what is not to be, does not become, and what is to be, does not perish." (2/3) _Commentary - After refuting the views of the five-element theorists, etc., the **niyati** (destiny) theory is now presented in the next two verses. The experiences of happiness and sorrow that are experienced by living beings in the world are not done by their own efforts. Similarly, going from one existence to another - being born in one womb to another - is also not accomplished by one's own efforts. Here, in this verse, the effect is dealt with in the cause, and the word "duhkha" (sorrow) is used to establish the cause of sorrow. The word "duhkha" (sorrow) is suggestive, therefore, happiness, etc., should also be taken from it. The meaning of this statement is that the experience of happiness and sorrow is not capable of being generated or produced by the efforts of living beings. And how can it be done by other things like time, the Supreme Being, nature, and karma, etc.? That is, it is not done by them either. Here, the word "ṇam" is used for the sake of the figure of speech called **vakyalankara** (sentence ornament). If the experience of happiness, etc., were to be obtained as a result of one's own efforts, then the servant, the master, and the farmer, etc., would all have the same effort - they all work hard in their own way - but despite this, the results are different, or sometimes the results are not obtained at all. (59)