bhoktrāpatteravibhāgaścetsyāllokavat ..2.1.13..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 140 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 1. 13.

भोक्त्रापत्तेरविभागश्चेत्स्याल्लोकवत्॥२.१.१३॥

bhoktrāpatteravibhāgaścetsyāllokavat ..2.1.13..

.. Bhoktra, with the enjoyer, with the Jiva. .. Apatteh, from becoming. … Avibhagah, non-distinction. … Chet, if. Syat, it may be … Loka-vat, as in the ordinary life; as in the world.

13. If Brahman be the material cause of the world, then there would be no distinction between the Enjoyer (Jiva) and the Lord. To this we reply, it need not be so, as we see in ordinary life. — 149.

COMMENTARY

Objection: Your opinion is that Brahman as possessing the subtle energy is himself the material cause, and as possessing the gross energy he is even the effect. Let us see whether this view is sound or not Now energy is not different from the substance of which it is the energy; therefore, the Jiva, the subtle energy of Brahman, is not different from Brahman Thus your theory of the two energies of Brahman, lands you into this contradiction. Thus it follows that the Jiva and Brahman become one. Therefore, the texts like «two birds» «when it sees the other as the Lord», etc., become null and void and the difference established by them is ignored.

Reply: To this objection we reply: It is not so. Even in ordinary life, the energy is seen different from the person possessing it Thus a man armed with a sword is a single man, but the sword is different from the man, though it represents the energy of the man. Therefore, Brahman possessed with Shakti is nothing more than Brahman, yet the Shakti is different from Brahman. Thus there is no fault in this theory of Brahman and His two Shaktis.

Adhikarana VIII — The world is non-different

from Brahman

Now the author wishes to establish that, though the world may be considered as having Brahman for its material cause, yet it does not follow that the world is the same as Brahman. In the previous Sutra, II, I. 7, and other subsequent Sutras, the non-difference of the world from Brahman was assumed, and it was on this assumption, that the proof was given that Brahman was the material cause of the world. The present Sutra raises an objection against that very non-difference, and then proceeds to refute it.

The question is: Is this world, which is an effect, different from Brahman or is it not different? The followers of Kanada hold the view that the effect is always different from its cause. Their reasons are as follows: (i) The difference of ideas. For cause and effect are the objects of different ideas. For a lump of clay, which is the cause, is a different idea from the jar, which is its effect, (ii) The difference of words. The word «jar» applied to the effect, is never applied to the «lump» of clay which is its cause. Thus the cause and effect are not only represented by different ideas in our minds, but by different words also, (iii) The difference of adaptability. thus a jar is used in fetching water from the well, while no water can be fetched in a lump of clay, (iv) The difference of forms. The cause clay is a mere lump in shape; the effect, namely, the jar, has a difference shape, with a broad neck, etc. (v) The difference of time. The cause is prior in time, the effect is posterior. Thus for all these reasons, the effect is different from the cause. If it were not different, then the activity of the person producing the effect would be useless. If a jar be the same as a lump of clay, then the activity of the potter is useless. For a jar would come into existence in spite of such activity. If it be said, that the effect, although always existing, is at first non-manifest; and then is manifested; so the activity of the agent is necessary, and thus activity is not purpose-less: this view also is not correct The question arises, does the effect exist before manifestation or does is not? Or, is the manifestation existent or non-existent prior to the activity of the agent? The manifestation cannot be existent prior to such activity, for then that activity will be purposeless, and it would follow that the effect should be ever perceptible. Moreover, this would result in removing the distinction between the eternal and non-eternal things. If it be assumed that one manifestation requires another manifestation to account for it, then we are driven into a regressus in infinitum. If it be held that manifestation is non-real (Asat), then we lapse into the theory of the Asat-karya-vada; according to which the effect does not exist before its origination. Therefore the Purvapaksha is that the effect is different from the cause, and that activity of the agent is not necessary for the production of the effect, if the effects were unreal. Therefore, the Naiyayikas hold that from a material cause, which is Asat, is produced an effect which is Sat.

Siddhanta: This view of the Vaisheshikas is refuted by the author in the following Sutra:

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология