smṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅga iti cennānyasmṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅgāt ..2.1.1..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 128 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 1. 1.

स्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्ग इति चेन्नान्यस्मृत्यनवकाशदोषप्रसङ्गात्॥२.१.१॥

smṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅga iti cennānyasmṛtyanavakāśadoṣaprasaṅgāt ..2.1.1..

… Smriti, the Smriti, the Kapila philosophy. … Anavakasha, non-room, want of application, redundancy. … Dosha, fault. … Prasangah, result. Iti, thus …. Chet, if. .. Na, not. Anya, other…. Smriti, the Smriti. Anavakasha, non-scope or redundancy. … Dosha, fault. ... Prasangat, because of the result.

1. (If it be objected that) the (Kapila) Smriti will find no scope (under Vedantic interpretation), we say no; because (under the Sankhya interpretation) there would result the fault of want of scope for other Smritis (like that of Manu, etc.) — 137.

COMMENTARY

The word Anavakasha means want of room, want of scope, in other words, becoming totally useless. The objection to the Vedanta texts being explained, by force of Samanvaya, as teaching that Brahman is the sole cause of the universe, is that the Sankhya Smriti does not find any scope under that interpretation; therefore, the Vedanta texts ought to be explained in a way opposite to that which would appear from their superficial plain meaning. This objection is raised in the first part of the Sutra.

It is answered in the second Half of the Sutra, which says, let it be so that the Sankhya Smriti finds no scope, for otherwise other Smritis like those of Manu and the rest which are in harmony with the Vedanta teaching and which declare that Brahman is the universal cause, would become useless. Thus there is a choice of two evils: should the Vedanta texts be interpreted in a distorted way, so as to give scope to the Sankhya Smriti, or should they 6e interpreted in a natural way, so as to give room to Manu and the rest. The greater evil is not to give scope to Manu and the rest Manu and the Smritis like that establish that the Lord is the cause of the creation, etc., of the universe, and that the theory of Kapila is not correct. Thus Manu (Chapter I. V.) says:

This (universe) existed in the shape of darkness, unperceived, destitute of distinctive marks, unattainable by reasoning, unknowable, wholly immersed, as it were, in deep sleep.

Then the divine Self-existent (Svayambhu, himself) indiscernible, (but) making (all) this, the great elements and the rest, discernible, appeared with irresistible creative power, dispelling the darkness.

He who can be perceived by the internal organ (alone), who is subtle, indiscernible, and eternal, who contains all created beings and is inconceivable, shone forth of his own (will).

He, desiring to produce beings of many kinds from his own body, first with a thought created the waters, and placed his seed in them.

That (seed) became a golden egg, in brilliancy equal to the sun; in that (egg) He himself was born as Brahman, the progenitor of the whole world.

Similarly, Parashara says in the Vishnu Purana:

From Vishnu there sprang the world, and in Him it abides; He makes this world persist and he rules it. He is the world. As the spider draws out the thread from his stomach, and again draws it into his body, similarly the world is emitted from the body of the Lord and merges back into it. — Vishnu Purana.

There are other Smritis also to the same effect. These find do scope in Karma Kanda and are concerned with theoretical truth only. They cannot be explained as helping Karma Kanda. They are taught for the sake of Jnana, because they teach practical duties, with the object of purifying the mind, so the knowledge of Brahman may arise therein.

(All abstract science and philosophy are of no practical utility, except in so far as they conduce to mental culture; or to put it in the words of the Hindu Philosophy, Jnana Kanda has no concern with actions, but only with the purification of the mind.) The following Shruti text shows that the purification of the mind is the object of Jnana Kanda:

The Brahmanas try to know Him through the studies of the Vedas, by sacrifices, by alms, by austerities and by fasting. — Br. Up., IV., 4. 22.

No doubt in some cases we find the performance of these things lead to the falling of rain, to the begetting of sons, to the attainment of heaven, etc. That is, however, only side-results or bye-products, which arise occasionally; with the object to produce faith in the scriptures; and their higher object is to produce knowledge of Brahman. In fact, the entire Veda including the Karma Kanda has this object, as says the text:

Whose form and essential nature all the Vedas declare and in order to attain Whom they prescribe austerities, desiring to know -whom the great ones perform Brahmacharya, that symbol I will briefly tell thee. It is Om. (Katha Up., I., 3. 15).

So also the text:

«All the Vedas declare Narayana alone», etc.

Nor can we settle the meaning of the Vedanta texts by means of the Sankhya Smriti of Kapila, for then we should have to accept the extremely undesirable conclusion, that all the other Smritis quoted are of no authority, and it would be establishing a conclusion opposed to the whole tendency of the sacred scriptures. For settling the meaning of a text is to show clearly the whole current of the scripture. Sankhya Smriti does not possess this qualification. Therefore, it is against scripture, evolved out of one’s own inner consciousness and not the production of any authoritative (Apta) person. We are, therefore, not afraid of the contingency that the Sankhya Smriti would find no scope in Vedanta. Let the Sankhya Smriti be totally discarded when by so doing we save those other very numerous class of Smritis which closely follow the doctrine of the Vedanta.

It is not proper to show undue preference for Sankhya Smriti merely on the strength of its being composed by an Apta or authoritative person. For in that case, we shall have to admit many a conflicting Smriti, such as those of Gautama, etc., who were also Aptas, but who have given different theories about the world, soul and God and thus we shall be landed into the absurdity of believing contradictory theories, merely because their authors were Aptas (or reliable honest persons). The result of which will be that we shall never know what was the truth. Moreover, it is a well-known maxim that when there is a conflict between two Smritis, then that Smriti alone is to be followed which is in harmony with the sacred scriptures (Shruti): and that alone ought to be respected.

Since our opponent raises the objection on the strength of Kapila’s Smriti, therefore our author says, «we shall refute him by his own argument», namely, by the strength of other Smritis such as those of Manu, etc. For if the argument of the opponent has any force, it comes to this, that scope should be given to the Smritis, and the Vedanta should be so explained that the Smritis should not be discarded.

Taking our stand on this proposition of our opponent we say, that we must so explain the Vedanta that it may give scope to the largest number of Smritis, such as Manu and the rest.

As regards the objection, that the author of the Sankhya is spoken of respectfully by the Shruti itself, in the famous passage of Shvetashvatara Upanishad (V., 2), we reply that you have not properly understood that verse. It does not refer to Kapila, the founder of Atheistic Sankhya, but to a different being altogether. The verse really means, «He who before the creation of the world produced the sage Kapila’ (namely, the Golden-coloured Brahma) in order to maintain the universe and who sustains this Brahma with the knowledge of the past, present and future, we worship that Lord God». The word Kapila here means Golden-coloured, and is another name of Brahma called Hiranyagarbha, referred to in this very Upanishad in Verse 4 of the 3rd Chapter: «He who is the cause of the birth and power of the gods, Rudra, the lord of all, the omniscient, who at the beginning begot Hiranyagarbha, may he grant us good understanding». That this first-born with the Golden colour is Brahma, we find also from Verse 12, Chapter IV of this Upanishad. Thus the sacred scripture refers to another being altogether, when it uses the word Kapila; and it does not refer to the founder of the atheistic science, for he misinterpreted the meanings of the Shruti. Therefore, if this later Kapila is called an un-authoritative person (Anapta) we are not showing any disrespect to the Shruti. On the other hand, the authoritativeness of Manu is stated in unambiguous language in the Taittiriya Brahmana, where it is said, «Whatever Manu has declared that is a panacea».

Similarly, Shri Parashara is mentioned in the Vishnu Purana to have obtained the knowledge of the supersensuous worlds and of the true nature of Devatas, through the blessing of Pulastya and Vasishtha. Thus both Manu and Parashara are undoubtedly Aptas, but not so Kapila. The sage Kapila who founded the Sankhya Smriti opposed to the Vedic doctrine, was a particular Jiva, born in the family of Agnivamsha and deluded by the mysterious power of the Lord, he propounded this false philosophy. He is not that Kapila who was the son of Kardama, for he was an incarnation of Vishnu.

Note: There are two persons of the name of Kapila mentioned in our books: they should not be confounded. The founder of the atheistic Sankhya was a different person from the Kapila mentioned with great respect in Bhagavata Purana and the Bhagavad Gita. See our Chhandogya Upanishad, page 242.

Thus we find in the Padma Purana:

One Kapila called also Vasudeva taught the philosophy of Sankhya to the Devas, Brahma and the rest, to the Rishis, Bhrigu and the rest, as well as to Asuri. He taught the doctrine full of harmony with the teachings of the Vedas. There was another Kapila who also taught a Sankhya philosophy, fully opposed to all the Vedic teachings, and he had also a disciple called Asuri, who was other than the first Asuri. His Philosophy is full of false reasoning and bad arguments.

Therefore, there is no fault if the Sankhya Smriti be entirely discarded, because it is opposed to the Vedas and is the work of a person who is not an Apta.

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США