Svapakshadosaccha II.1.10 (144)
And because the objections (raised by the Sankhya against the Vedanta doctrine) apply to his (Sankhya) view also.
Svapakshadoshat: because of the objections, to his own view; Cha:
and.
The ob jec tions raised in Sutras 4 and 8 are lev elled against the op po nents.
Now the ta bles are turned on the ob jec tor. The ob jec tions raised by him (the Sankhya) to the doc trines of Vedanta are ap pli ca ble to his the ory as well. In his doc trine of cau sa tion also, the world of forms and sounds takes its or i gin from Pradhana and Prakriti which has no form or sound. Thus the cause is dif fer ent from the ef fect here also. In the state of re ab sorp tion or dis so lu tion, all ob jects merge into Pradhana and be come one with it.
There is per va sion into the Pradhana of all the ef fects of the world. It is ad mit ted by the Sankhyas also that at the time of re ab sorp - tion the ef fect passes back into the state of non-dis tinc tion from the cause, and so the ob jec tion raised in Su tra 8 ap plies to Pradhana also. The Sankhya will have to ad mit that be fore the ac tual be gin ning, the ef fect was non-ex is tent. What ever ob jec tions that are raised against Vedanta in this re spect are in fact true of the Sankhyas. That Brah man is the cause of the world, which is ad mit ted by Sruti, can not be thrown out by this sort of vain rea son ing. Vedanta is based on the Srutis. Hence the doc trine of Vedanta is au thor i ta tive and in fal li ble. There fore it must be ad mit ted. Fur ther, the Vedantic view is pref er a - ble, be cause the ob jec tions have also been an swered from the view - point of Vedanta. It is not pos si ble to an swer them from the view point of the Sankhya.
VH$m©à{VîR>mZmX{n; AÝ`WmZw_o`{_{V MoV² Ed_ß`{Z_m}jàg“…Ÿ&
Tarkapratishthanadapi; anyathanumeyamiti chetevamapyanirmoksha prasangah II.1.11 (145) If it be said that in consequence of the non-finality of reasoning we must frame our conclusions otherwise; (we reply that) thus also there would result non-release.
Tarka: reasoning, argument; Apratishthanat: because of not having
any fixity or finality; Api: also; Anyatha: otherwise; Anumeyam: to be inferred, to be ascertained, by arguing; Iti chet: if it be said, even thus in this way; Api: even; Anirmoksha: want of release, absence of the way out; Prasangah: consequence.
Great think ers like Kapila and Kanada are seen to re fute each other. Logic has no fix ity or fi nal ity. The de duc tions of one rea soner are over thrown by an other. What one man es tab lishes through rea - son can be re futed by an other man more in tel li gent and in ge nious than he. Nei ther anal ogy nor syl lo gism can ap ply to the soul. Con clu - sions ar rived at by mere ar gu men ta tion, how ever well-rea soned, and not based on any au thor i ta tive state ment, can not be ac cepted as fi nal as there still re mains the chance of their be ing re futed by more ex pert soph ists. Hence, the con clu sion of Sruti alone must be ac cepted.
With out show ing any re gard to rea son ing we must be lieve Brah - man to be the ma te rial cause of the uni verse, be cause the Upanishad teaches so.
The con clu sions of Vedanta are based on the Srutis which are in fal li ble and au thor i ta tive. Rea son ing which has no sure ba sis can - not over throw the con clu sions of Vedanta.
Rea son has its own prov ince and scope. It is use ful in cer tain sec u lar mat ters but in mat ters tran scen den tal such as the ex is tence of Brah man, fi nal re lease, life be yond, the pro nounce ments of hu man in tel lect can never be per fectly free from doubt, be cause these are mat ters which are be yond the scope of in tel lect. Even if there is to be any fi nal ity of rea son ing, it will not bring about any fi nal ity of doc trine with ref er ence to the soul, be cause the soul can not be ex pe ri enced by the senses. Brah man can not be an ob ject of per cep tion or of in fer - ence based on per cep tion. Brah man is in con ceiv able and con se - quently unarguable. Kathopanishad says, “This knowl edge is not to be ob tained by ar gu ment, but it is easy to un der stand it, O Nachiketas, when taught by a teacher who be holds no dif fer ence” (I.2.9).
The op po nent says: You can not say that no rea son ing what ever is well-founded be cause even the judg ment about rea son ing is ar - rived at through rea son ing. You your self can see that rea son ing has no foun da tion on rea son ing only. Hence the state ment that rea son ing has never a sure ba sis is not cor rect. Fur ther, if all rea son ing were un - founded, hu man life would have to come to an end. You must rea son cor rectly and prop erly.
We re mark against this ar gu ment of the op po nent that thus also then re sults “want of re lease”. Al though rea son ing is well-founded with re spect to cer tain things, with re gard to the mat ter in hand there will re sult “want of re lease”.
Those sages who teach about the fi nal eman ci pa tion of the soul, de clare that it re sults from per fect knowl edge. Per fect knowl - edge is al ways uni form. It de pends upon the thing it self. What ever thing is per ma nently of one and the same na ture is ac knowl edged to be the true thing. Knowl edge that per tains to this is per fect or true knowl edge. Mu tual con flict of men’s opin ions is not pos si ble in the
case of true or per fect knowl edge. But the con clu sions of rea son ing can never be uni form. The Sankhyas main tain through rea son ing that Pradhana is the cause of the uni verse. The Naiyayikas ar rive through rea son ing that the Paramanus or at oms are the cause of the world. Which to ac cept? How, there fore, can knowl edge which is based on rea son ing, and whose ob ject is not some thing al ways uni form, be true of per fect knowl edge? We can not come to a def i nite, pos i tive con clu sion through rea son ing in de pend ent of the Srutis. The Veda is eter nal. It is the source of knowl edge. It has for its ob ject firmly es tab - lished things. Knowl edge which is founded on the Veda can not be de - nied at all by any of the lo gi cians of the past, pres ent or fu ture. As the truth can not be known through rea son ing, there will be no lib er a tion.
We have thus es tab lished that per fec tion can be at tained through knowl edge of Brah man with the aid of Upanishads or the Srutis. Per fect knowl edge is not pos si ble with out the help of the Srutis. Dis re gard of Srutis will lead to ab sence of fi nal eman ci pa tion. Rea son ing which goes against the scrip tures is no proof of knowl - edge.
Our fi nal po si tion is that the in tel li gent Brah man must be re - garded as the cause and sub stra tum of the uni verse on the ground of scrip ture and of rea son ing sub or di nate to scrip ture.
Sishtaparigrahadhikaranam: Topic 4 Kanada and Gautama Refuted
EVoZ {eï>mn[aJ«hm A{n ì`m»`mVm…Ÿ&
Etena sishtaparigraha api vyakhyatah II.1.12 (146) By this (i.e. by the arguments against the Sankhyas) (those other theories) not accepted by the wise or competent persons are explained or refuted.
Etena: by this (by the above reasoning, by what has been said
against Sankhya); Sishtaparigrahah: not accepted by the wise or competent persons; Api: also; Vyakhyatah: are explained or refuted. Other views or the o ries not ac cepted by the Vedas are re futed.
Sishtah—the re main ing sys tems like those of the “At om ists”
trained, i.e., trained in the Vedas.
Sishtaparigrahah—all other views or sys tems of thought not ac -
cepted by those who are well in structed in the Vedas; all the dif fer ent views or sys tems con trary to the Vedas.
Aparigrahah means those sys tems which do not ac knowl edge or ac cept (Parigraha) the Vedas as au thor ity on these mat ters, but which rely on rea son alone and which are not coun te nanced by the Veda.
All the dif fer ent views or sys tems of thought which are con trary to the Vedas and which are not ac cepted by the dis ci plined and the
wise are re futed by what is said against Sankhya, i.e., by the same ar - gu ments.
Like the the ory of those who say that Pradhana or Prakriti is the cause of the world, the the o ries of those who pos tu late at oms as the cause are re futed by those who know the truths of scrip ture, like Manu or Vyasa, trained in the cor rect way of know ing them. The doc - trine of the Pradhana de serves to be re futed first as it stands near to the Ve dic sys tem, and is sup ported by some what strong and weighty ar gu ments. Fur ther, it has to a cer tain ex tent been adopted by some au thor i ties who fol low the Veda. If the most dan ger ous en emy is con - quered, the mi nor en e mies are al ready con quered. Even so, if the Sankhya doc trine is re futed, all other sys tems are al ready re futed also.
The Su tra teaches that by the de mo li tion of the Sankhya doc - trine given above, the re main ing the o ries not com prised within the Vedas are also re futed, such as the the o ries of Kanada, Gautama, Akshapada, Bud dhists, etc., be cause they are op posed to the Vedas on these points. The rea sons are the same as in the case of Sankhya. As re gards the na ture of the atom, there is no una nim ity of opin - ion. Kanada and Gautama main tain it to be per ma nent, while the four schools of Buddhas hold it to be im per ma nent. The Vaibhashika Bauddhas hold that the at oms are mo men tary but have an ob jec tive ex is tence (Kshanikam artha-bhutam). The Yogachara Bauddhas main tain it to be merely cog ni tional (Jnanarupam). The Madhyamikas hold it to be fun da men tally void (Sunya-rupam). The Jains hold it to be real and un real (Sad-asad-rupam).
Bhoktrapattyadhikaranam: Topic 5
The distinctions of enjoyer and enjoyed do not oppose unity
^moŠÌmnÎmoa{d^mJüoËñ`mëbmoH$dV²Ÿ&
Bhoktrapatteravibhagaschet syallokavat II.1.13 (147) If it be said (that if Brahman be the cause then) on account of (the objects of enjoyment) turning into the enjoyer, non-distinction (between the enjoyer and the objects enjoyed) would result, we reply that such distinction may exist nevertheless as is experienced commonly in the world.
Bhoktri: one who enjoys and suffers; Apatteh: from the objections, if
it be objected; Avibhagah: non-distinction; Chet: if it be said; Syat: may exist; Lokavat: as is experienced in the world.
An other ob jec tion based on rea son ing is raised against Brah - man be ing the cause and re futed.
The dis tinc tion be tween the enjoyer (the Jiva or the in di vid ual soul) and the ob jects of en joy ment is well known from or di nary ex pe ri - ence. The enjoyers are in tel li gent, em bod ied souls while sound and
the like are the ob jects of enjoyemnt. Ramakrishna for in stance, is an enjoyer while the mango which he eats is an ob ject of en joy ment. If Brah man is the ma te rial cause of the uni verse, then the world, the ef - fect would be non-dif fer ent from Brah man. The Jiva and Brah man be - ing iden ti cal, the dif fer ence be tween the sub ject and the ob ject would be an ni hi lated, as the one would pass over into the other. Con se - quently, Brah man can not be held to be the ma te rial cause of the uni - verse, as it would lead to the sublation of the well-es tab lished dis tinc tion be tween the enjoyer and the ob jects of en joy ment.
If you say that the doc trine of Brah man be ing the cause of the world will lead to the enjoyer or spirit be com ing one with the ob ject of en joy ment (mat ter), we re ply that such dif fer en ti a tion is ap pro pri ate in our case also, as in stances are found in the uni verse in the case of ocean, its waves, foams and bub bles and of the Sun and its light. The ocean waves, foams and bub bles are one and yet di verse in the uni - verse. Sim i larly, are the Brah man and the world. He cre ated and en - tered into the cre ation. He is one with them, just as the ether in the sky and the ether in the pot are one al though they ap pear to be sep a rate.
There fore it is pos si ble to have dif fer ence and non-dif fer ence in things at the same time ow ing to the name and form. The enjoyers and the ob jects of en joy ment do not pass over into each other and yet they are not dif fer ent from the Su preme Brah man. The enjoyers and ob jects of en joy ment are not dif fer ent from the view point of Brah man but they are dif fer ent as enjoyers and ob jects en joyed. There is not con tra dic tion in this.
The con clu sion is that the dis tinc tion of enjoyers and ob jects of en joy ment is pos si ble, al though both are non-dif fer ent from Brah man, their High est Cause, as the instnce of the ocean, and its waves, foams and bub bles dem on strates.
Arambhanadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 14-20) The world (ef fect) is non-dif fer ent from Brah man (the cause)
VXZÝ`Ëd_maå^UeãXm{Xä`…Ÿ&
Tadananyatvamarambhanasabdadibhyah II.1.14 (148) The non-dif fer ence of them (i.e. of cause and ef fect) re sults from such terms as ‘or i gin’ and the like.
Tat: (its, of the uni verse): Ananyatvam: non-dif fer ence; Arambhana sabdadibhyah: from words like ‘or i gin’, etc.
That the ef fect is not dif fer ent from the cause is shown here. In su tra 13, the Sutrakara spoke from the point of view of Parinamavada and re futed the ob jec tion raised by the op po nent that Brah man can not be the ma te rial cause as it con tra dicts per cep tion. In Parinamavada, Brah man ac tu ally un der goes trans for ma tion or mod i - fi ca tion. Now the same ob jec tion is over thrown from the view point of
Vivartavada. In Vivartavada there is only ap par ent mod i fi ca tion. Rope ap pears as a snake. It is not trans formed into an ac tual snake. This is the doc trine of Advaita of Sri Sankara.
In the pre vi ous Su tra the sim ile of the ocean and the waves was stated, ac cept ing the ap par ent va ri ety of ob jects. But in re al ity, cause and ef fect are one even now. This is clear from the word ‘Arambhana’ (be gin ning), just as by know ing a lump of clay, all clay will be known. Name is only a ver bal mod i fi ca tion. The true be ing is only clay. A pot is only clay even now. Sim i larly, the world is only Brah man even now. It is wrong to say that one ness and manifoldness are both true as in the case of ocean and waves, etc. The word ‘eva’ in ‘Mrittiketyeva’ shows that all di ver sity is un real. The soul is de clared to be one with Brah - man.
The ob jec tor or Purvapakshin says: ‘If there is only one Truth viz., Brah man, the di verse ob jects of per cep tion will be ne gated. The eth i cal in junc tions and pro hi bi tions will lose their pur port if the dis tinc - tion on which their va lid ity de pends does not re ally ex ist. More over, the sci ence of lib er a tion of the soul will have no re al ity, if the dis tinc - tion of teacher and the stu dent on which it de pends is not real. There