asaditi cenna pratiṣedhamātratvāt ..2.1.7..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 134 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 1. 7.

असदिति चेन्न प्रतिषेधमात्रत्वात्॥२.१.७॥

asaditi cenna pratiṣedhamātratvāt ..2.1.7..

.. Asat, non-existing, absolute, nothing… Iti, thus. … Chet, if. …Na, not. … Pratishedha, a denial, a prohibition. … Matratvat, because, merely.

7. If it be objected, that the world is then an absolute unreality, we say no, for there was merely a denial in the previous Sutra of the sameness of nature between the cause and the effect, and not that the two are substantially different — 143.

COMMENTARY

The objection raised by the opponent is no real objection. Because the denial in the previous Sutra was only with regard to the rule that the cause and effect must be of the same nature essentially. It was not meant that the substances of the two should also be different (Thus the effect of the union of oxygen and hydrogen is essentially different in qualities from the two gases but there is no substantial difference between the effect, water and the cause, oxygen and hydrogen. The substance is the same). Our position is that Brahman himself becomes modified into the world, and then manifests different characteristics. The meaning is this. When you say that because there is difference of nature between the cause Brahman and the effect world, and therefore, Brahman cannot be the material cause of the world, do you mean to say, that because all the attributes of Brahman do not re-appear in the effect therefore, the effect is not due to Brahman, or do you intend to say that because only some characteristics appear and the others do not therefore, Brahman is not the cause? Your connot mean the first for then there would be no such thing as cause and effect, for the cause and effect are not identical in all characteristics. The very relationship of cause and effect implies that there is some difference between them. For though the lump of clay be the cause of the jar made out of it, yet the jar does not possess the lumpiness of the clay, but has a different form altogether. If, however, you mean the second, and say that no characteristics of Brahman appear in the world, you are evidently wrong. For Brahman is Sat or Being, and this characteristic of His re-appears in the world, for the world possesses existence. Nor can you say, that because these particular attributes of Brahman do not appear in the world, such as His joyousness, etc., therefore, the world is not His effect. You cannot pick and choose the qualities at random, for then anything may become the cause of any other thing; and everything will be the cause of everything else, and the law of causation would be reduced to absurdity.

Says an objector, we do not hold any such absurd position. But we demand that the particular attributes which differentiate the cause from other objects, should re-appear in the effect, for the relation of cause and effect is constituted by the persistence in the effect of those characteristic points which differentiate the cause from other things. The characteristics by which the thread differs -from gold, persist in the cloth manufactured from the thread, and in the bracelet made from gold.

To this, we reply, that this is not an invariable rule. For this rule is violated in the production of worms from the honey, and so on. Nor is gold in every respect the same as the bracelet; there is the difference of condition between the two. Though the world and Brahman are different, as the philosopher’s stone is different from gold, yet they have this in common, that both are essentially one in substance, as the gold and bracelet. Therefore, the world, though an effect, is not unreal.

The Sankhya opponent comes forward now with another objection:

Познавательные статьи:



Формы дистанционного обучения

Передача мяча двумя руками снизу

Значение правильной осанки для жизнедеятельности человека

Основные ошибки при выполнении передач мяча на месте