You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Aug 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00005 Aug 2006

 
Aug 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


suthra-3-sAsthrayOnithvAth



sAsthryOnih=sAsthram yasya yOnih;kAraNam pramAnam; of whom the
scriptures are the source of knowledge Thasya bhAvah sAsthrayonothvam.
thasmAth=sAsthrayonithvAth, therefore scripture is the proof of Brahman.

The scriptures being the source of right knowledge of Brahman the
scriptural text 'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthE ' is the proof of
Brahman.



Ramanuja considers the objection that scripture is not the only source
of knowledge of Brahman as there are other means of knowledge through
which Brahman can be known.

Ramanuja asks 'kim tharhi thava pramANam?' What exactly is the proof of
Brahman other than the sasthra? It cannot be prathyaksha, perception,
which can only be of two kinds, namely, sense perception or perception
through yogic powers. sense perception through sense organs is not
possible in this case. Even mental perception like sukha and duhkha  is
possible only from the experience through sense-contact. Yogic
prathyakha also happens only about things experienced already. Inference
is also out of question, says Ramanuja,  due to the absence of sign,
linga ,which is necessary for creating inferential knowledge.



Inference can arise in two ways, namely, viseEshathOdhrshta and
samanyathOdhrshta.  When the fire is inferred in a hill through the
perception of smoke coming out, the smoke is the linga, sign by which
inference arises considering the vyApthi, the invariable concomitance
between fire and smoke.This kind of inference is visEshathOdhrshtam.

SAmAnyathodhrshtam is the inference based on general observation as in
the inference of the fragrance of the sandalwood seen afar. The former
kind of inference is not possible with reference to Brahman because it
is a subject incomprehensible by the indriyas.The second kind is also
eliminated due to the absence of any sign that indicates vyapthi,
invariable concomitance.



The opponent, possibly Naiyayika, the logician, gives two reasons for
inferring that the world must have a sentient being as its creator.
First is that anything which is an effect is seen to have a maker who
has the knowledge of the material cause, instrumental cause  and the use
to which it is put to and the user. the example of this is things like
pot , the maker, namely the potter has the knolwledge of mud, the
material cause and potter's wheel, the efficient cause and the the
practical utility of the pot etc. Secondly all the insentient products
are dependent on and ruled by a sentient being.This is illusterated by
the example of a healthy body which is dependent on the sentient soul.
As in seeing the sprout we infer the presence of the seed , which is not
perceivable, seeing this world we can infer its creator, namely Brahman.



Ramanuja refutes this. He asks, ' what is meant by
EkachEthanADHeenathvam, dependence on one sentient being?' The example
quoted, namely, that of a healthy body being dependent on sentient soul
is sADhya vikala,fails to prove the point because the origination of the
body and sustenance of it does not depend on the sentient soul only but
it on the karmaphala of the individual self and of the wife, parents
etc. Moreover the world consists of inanimate things like mountains etc
which are included in the effects which are not seen to be dependent on
a sentient entity.



The argument that the agency of the world cannot belong to any mortal
being on account of their limited intelligence etc. also cannot be
proved. It is not necessary that the agent of creation like that of a
pot should have full knowledge of the causes and their potency, uses of
the product etc. It is enough if the potter knows that he can create a
pot form the mud and with the help of the potter's wheel  wthout being
knowledgeable about the power and potency of the materials and
instruments of creation. in the case of sacrifices productive of results
the doer of sacrifice need not know the unseen power, apurva , which
arises out of the sacrifice producing the result but it is enough if he
knows as to what will be the result of the sacrifice. So the lack of
complete knowledge about the creation does not preclude  an agent other
than Brahman and therefore the knowledge of Brahman can be proved only
through scriptures.



The opponent now comes up with an argument that the world is an effect
because it consists of things made up of parts.'sAvayathvAdhEva 
jagathah kAryathvam.' Whatever is made up of parts and capable of action
and has form, is an effect which presupposes a sentient agent. Hence an
omniscient and omnipotent principle, that is, Brahman can be inferred
from the effect, the world. From the nature of the effect the knowledge
and power of the cause is inferred. On seeing the products like pots or
even big palaces the power and knowledge of the maker is inferred.
Similarly since pleasure and pain are effects and insentient, an
intelligent cause can be inferred which cannot be the individual soul
but should have to be one who is the dispenser of the results of merits
and sins.Moreover the individual souls lack the subtle knowledge
necessary for the construction of the world.



The opponent here presupposes the objection(possibly from the advaitin)
that since all the agents of creation are seemed to possess bodies it is
inappropriate to ascribe agency to Brahman who is said to have no form.
He cites the instance of effects of demonical spirits on the bodies and
of poison being counteracted by will. So by mere sankalpa  Brahman
creates the world. It cannot be argued that will or mental power can
only exist in the embodiment because when the soul leaves the body the
mind and other faculties are found in tact and till they enter another
body.



  So the conclusion is that since the individual souls with their limited
knowledge and power are incacapable to produce this wonderful and
variegated world of sentient and insentient beings the inference points
out to a omniscient, omnipotent supreme being who, though without form,
creates this world through his will. Hence scripture is not the sole
proof of Brahman.



Ramanuja replies-'YathokthalakshaNam brahma janmAdhivAkyam
bhODhayathyEva; kuthah; sAsthraikapramANathvAth brahmaNah.'

Brahman is as described in the vedantha vakya 'yatho va imAni bhoothAni
jAyanthe----' ascribing the creation, sustenance and annihilation to
Brahman  because scripture is the only pramAna  of Brahman.The argument
that the world being an effect must have an intelligent agent as its
creator only points out to such an agent but not Brahman. Moreover  no
evidence can be shown through inference that the world was produced in
one whole or at one time to infer one creator nor  the things in the
world are of uniform nature like pots but have different characterstics.
Nor it can be assumed that individual souls are incapable of such
powers, which can be attained by them through exceptional austerities 
and merit.(That is, it cannot be proved through inference.) Perception
shows that the things produced in succession , that is, not at the same
time, have different causes..



Ramanuja asks he opponent who tries to prove Isvara as the creator
through inference, 'kim isvarah sasarirah asarirah vA karyam karothi, na
thAvadhasarirah, asarirasya karthrthva anupalabDHEh.' whether Isvara
creates the world possessing a body or without a body. saying that He
acts without a body is not acceptable as even mental activities require
a sarira to work through. It cannot be argued that the mind is eternal
because there is no activity on its part can be seen in the state of
disembodiment or release. If Isvara works having a body, it should
either be eternal , in which case its product, the world is also
eternal,and there is no need for Isvara, or creation. The sarira of 
Isvara cannot be non-eternal since there will be a contingency to cite
another cause for the body of Isvara which in turn requires another thus
ending up in infinite regress. If Isvara works without a body and
creates through His will, there could be no examples cited to prove the
validity of the inference as all the effects such as pot are not 
created by will.



So, says Ramanuja, 'athah dharsanAnuguNyEna isvarAnumAnam
dharsanAnuguNya parAhatham ithi sAsthraikapramAnah
parabrahmabhoothahsarvEsvarahpurushotthamah.' Therefore it is to be
concluded that based on observation the inference is refuted and the
sastra alone is the pramANa for the existence of the supreme Brahman,
Lord of all and the supreme self. The scripture speaks of the supreme
being who is  different from all the rest known through other means of
knowledge, who possesses infinite auspicious quqlities such as
omniscience, infallible will etc. and who is devoid of all
imperfections. Ramanuja concludes by saying 'athah prmAnanthara 
agocharathvena sAsthraika vishayathvAth,- yathO vA imani bhoothAni
ithyAdhi vAkyam- ukthalakshaNam brahma prathipAdhayathi ithi siddham'.
Since Brahman cannot be proved by any other means of knowledge and
scripture being the only source, the texts such as 'from whom all this
originate' etc. give authoritative knowledge of Brahman.



The next suthra takes up the question whether scriptures  are
authoritative regarding Brahman as it is siddha vasthu, already
established entity, and does not have any activity or cessation of it as
its purport.













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list