etena śiṣṭāparigrahā’pi vyākhyātāḥ ..2.1.12..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 139 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 1. 12.

एतेन शिष्टापरिग्रहाऽपि व्याख्याताः॥२.१.१२॥

etena śiṣṭāparigrahā’pi vyākhyātāḥ ..2.1.12..

… Etena, by this, by the above reasoning. .. Shishtah, the remaining systems like those of the Atomists. … Aparigrahah, not acknowledged by the Vedas, not accepted of the Vedas. .. Api, also. .. Vyakhyatah, are explained or refuted.

12. Hereby other systems not in harmony with the Vedas, are also refuted. — 148.

COMMENTARY

The word Shishtah means the remaining. The word Aparigrahah means those systems which do not acknowledge or accept (Parigraha) the Vedas as authority in these matters, but which rely on reason alone; and which are not countenanced by the Veda, The Sutra teaches that by the demolition of the Sankhya doctrine given above, the remaining theories not comprised within the Vedas are also refuted, such as the theories of Kanada and Akshapada, etc., for they are opposed to the Vedas on these points. The reasons are the same as in the case of Sankhya.

Nor is there any fixed rule in the theory of the Arambha Vada that this is the minimum with which a thing must commence. For we see it contradicted in the case of a cloth commenced with a large thread in a double cloth; and in the case of sound born of Akasha.

We give below an extract from the commentary of Ramanuja, to show the exact bearing of the question treated in this section. This translation is from Dr. Thibaut’s Vedanta Sutras, Ramanuja.

«Here however a new objection may be raised, on the ground, namely, that since all these theories agree in the view of atoms constituting the general cause, it cannot be said that their reasoning as to the causal substance is ill-founded. They indeed, we reply, are agreed to that extent, but they are all of them equally founded on Reasoning only, and they are seen to disagree in many ways as to the nature of the atoms, which by different Schools are held to be either fundamentally void, or non-void, having merely cognitional or an objective existence, being either momentary or permanent, either of a definite nature or the reverse, either real or un-real, etc. This disagreement proves all those theories to be ill-founded, and the objection is thus disposed of». — Ramanuja.

Thus even as regards the nature of the atom, there is no unanimity of opinion. Kanada and Gautama hold it to be permanent, while the four Schools of the Bauddhas hold it to be impermanent.

Note: The Vaibhashika Bauddhas hold that the atoms are momentary but have an objective existence, (Kshanikan artha-bhuktan). The Yogachara Bauddhas hold it to be merely cognitional (jnana-rupam) The Madhyamikas hold it to be fundamentally void (Shunya-rupam). The Jainas hold it to be real and non-real (Sad-asad-rupam).

The author raises another objection and disposes of it:

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?