tarkāpratiṣṭhānādapi anyathānumeyamiti cedevamapyanirmokṣaprasaṅgaḥ ..2.1.11..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 138 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 1. 11.

तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादपि अन्यथानुमेयमिति चेदेवमप्यनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गः॥२.१.११॥

tarkāpratiṣṭhānādapi anyathānumeyamiti cedevamapyanirmokṣaprasaṅgaḥ ..2.1.11..

.. Tarka, reasoning, ratiocination, controversial reasoning. … Apratishthanat, because not having any fixity or finality, .. Api, also, Anyatha, otherwise, contrary. Anumeyam, to be inferred, inferable. … Iti, thus. .. Chet, if. … Evam, thus, …Api, thus, also. … Anirmoksha, want of release Prasangah, consequence.

11. If it be said that there being no finality about reasoning, it is always possible to infer the truth of the opposite; we say «no», for then the undesirable consequence would follow that there would be no final release also. — 147.

COMMENTARY

Owing to the differences of the brains of men, their reasoning powers are also different There is no finality about reasoning. A position established by reason by one man, is found to be demolished the next day by the stronger intellect of the other man. Therefore, showing no regard to reasoning, we must believe Brahman to be the material cause of the world, because the Upanishad teaches so. Even with regard to the acknowledged great thinkers, there .is no finality about their reasoning also. Great thinkers like Kapila, Kanada, etc., are seen to refute each other.

Objection: Nor can it be said that there is no reasoning which is absolutely unassailable, for then the reasoning by which argumentation is held to be non-conclusive would itself become invalid. If every reasoning be inconclusive, then all worldly activities would come to an end. Human activities are all based upon inference, the future is predicted from the present, and past. The actions which have been found pleasant or painful in their results in the past, are followed or avoided, by reasoning alone. For it is inferred that they would produce the same consequences, in the future also.

Reply: In this view also, the existence of Release would not be established. A proposition established by pure human intellect, unaided by intuition, is always liable to be set aside by a higher intellect, born in another time or place. Release, therefore, can never be obtained by methods evolved by the human brain, but is to be found by Upanishad method only.

It is perfectly true, that in certain secular matters, reasoning is absolute (such as mathematical reasoning); but in makers transcendental, such as the existence of God, of after life, of final Release, etc., the pronouncements of human intellect can never be perfectly free from doubt; because these are matters not within the scope of mind; they are beyond its scope. For Brahman is inconceivable, and consequently unarguable. If you allow reasoning in the matter of Brahman, then you not only contradict the Shruti, but your own assertion becomes incongruous. For says the Shruti:

This belief which thou hast got, cannot be brought about nor destroyed by argument. When taught by the True Teacher the Self becomes easily realised. O dearest, strong is thy resolution. Enquirers like thee, O Nachiketas, are not many. — Katha Up, I., 2. 9.

The Smriti also is to the same effect:

O Rishi I the sages with their body, senses and mind tranquil, realize that Truth, but when it is overwhelmed with dry reasoning, it vanishes.

Therefore, as Shruti is the highest authority in matters of Law (Dharma), so also it is the only authority, in matters theological (Brahman). Of course, the reasoning auxiliary to Shruti is always allowed, for the word Mantavya, used in the Shruti itself, shows that Brahman should be Mantavya or reasoned about also. The Smriti also says that one must interpret a passage of law by reasoning and looking to all that precedes it and follows it. See Manu, XII. 106.

Adhikarana VII — Kanada and Gautama refuted

The author has refuted the arguments of the Sankhyas and the Yoga philosophers as regards God boing the operative cause only and not the material cause of the world. Now he refutes the Smritis of Kanada and Gautama, and answers the objections brought forward by them. According to Kanada and others, if Brahman be taken to be the material cause of the world, then those philosophies would find no scope at all. For, according to them, the bigger atoms are formed by the aggregation of smaller atoms. When two small atoms unite they give rise to a molecule called dvi-anu or a dyad, and so the triad, etc. The whole world is made up of atoms, which are the ultimate material cause of the universe and not the Brahman or Prakriti. Brahman being supposed to be all-pervading, cannot be the material cause of the world, for it is limited.

Siddhanta: To this the author replies by the following Sutra:

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности