pratisaṅkhyāpratisaṅkhyānirodhāprāptiḥ avicchedāt ..2.2.22..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 179 из 723Следующая ⇒

pratisaṅkhyāpratisaṅkhyānirodhāprāptiḥ avicchedāt ..2.2.22..

… Pratisamkhya, (destruction) depending upon the volition of some conscious entity. .. Apratisamkhya, (destruction) not depending upon any voluntary agency, .. Nirodhah, destruction, cessation. Apraptih, non-establishment, non-demonstration. … Avichchhedat, because there is no complete interruption.

22. Nor can there be established the two sorts of destructions, the volitional and the non-volitional, because there is never any complete interruption. — 195

COMMENTARY

Pratisamkhya-nirodha is the destruction of things dependent upon the volition of some conscious agent. Thus when a man says I shall destroy this jar and takes a hammer and reduces it to pieces. The other form of destruction which is non-dependent on the will of any sentient agent is called Apratisamkhya-nirodha. These two, together with Akasha or space, which is defined to be the absence of all obstruction or covering, are the three kinds of non-entities believed by the Buddhists. A destruction like this is called Niranvaya Vinasha or absolute destruction or Nirupakhya Shunyam or total void. Everything else is momentary only. As is found in the following aphorism. «Everything which is an object of conception other than these three (the two sorts of Nirodha and Akasha) is temporary and composite».

The author will refute later on the theory that Akasha is a non-entity. At present he refutes the wrong doctrine of the two sorts of Nirodha. These two sorts of Nirodhas cannot be established or are impossible, because (Avichchhedat), on account of the absence of interruption. An object which is existent cannot be absolutely annihilated, for the words origination and destruction of a substance really mean only change of condition of the substance. It only undergoes modification or a change of condition, but the substance is a unity and remains permanent. You cannot say that when a candle is burnt out, it is totally annihilated. As we find in other cases that destruction is only a change of condition, we can easily infer that in the case of the candle also there can be no total destruction.

Note: It is no longer a matter of inference now, but a positively proved fact, that when a candle burns out, it is not lost, but undergoes a change of condition. The first experiment shown in Chemistry is generally to prove the proposition that substance can never be annihilated.

We do not certainly perceive the candle when it is burnt out, but the materials of which it consisted, continue to exist in a very subtle state and hence they are imperceptible. If there were the absolute annihilation of even a single real substance, then in the next moment you will see the whole universe reduced to annihilation, and you yourself will not exist to see it Consequently absolute annihilation is an impossibility and cannot be proved.

Note: The following extract from Dr. Thibaut’s Vedanta Sutra, S. B. E., Vol. 34, page 410, explains the reasoning of this Sutra very clearly:

A series of momentary existence constituting a chain of causes and effects can never be entirely stopped; for the last momentary existence must be supposed either to produce its effect or not to produce it. In the former case the series is continued; the latter alternative would imply that the last link does not really exist, since the Bauddhas define the Satta of a thing as its causal efficiency (cf. Sarvadarshanasamgraha). And the non-existence of the last link would retrogressively lead to the non-existence of the whole series.

The Author next refutes the notion of release as entertained by the Buddhists.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности