In both cases there are objections and hence the very idea of release is not established. — 196.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 180 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 2. 23.

उभयथा च दोषात्॥२.२.२३॥

ubhayathā ca doṣāt ..2.2.23..

.. Ubhayatha, in either case. … Cha, and stars Doshat, because there are objections.

23. In both cases there are objections and hence the very idea of release is not established. — 196.

COMMENTARY

The word ‘not’ is understood in this and the throe subsequent Sutras from the Sutra II., 2. 19. The Buddhists define Moksha or release to be the cessation of the series of Avidya and the rest, which constitute the world cycle called Samsara. Does this release accrue from Direct knowledge of the truth or of itself? It cannot be the first, for then the acceptance by the Buddhists of the form of destruction called Apratisamkhya-nirodha would be useless; nor can it be the latter, for then all the disciplines and methods of meditation laid down by the Buddhists become useless. Thus their teaching cannot stand the test of reasoning, and in this system release can never be established.

The author next refutes the doctrine of the Buddhists that Akasha is an absolute non-entity.

SUTRA II. 2. 24.

आकाशे चाविशेषात्॥२.२.२४॥

ākāśe cāviśeṣāt ..2.2.24..

.. Akashe, in the case of Akasha or space or ether. … Cha, and. … Avisheshat, because of no specific difference.

24. The tenet of the absolute non-existence of Akasha is also untenable, because there is no difference in this case also. — 197

COMMENTARY

The doctrine that space is an absolute non-entity is not tenable. Why do you say so? Avisheshat, because there is no difference in the case of Akasha from any other kind of substance which is an object of perception. we perceive space when we say «the hawk flies in space». The space, therefore, is as much a real substance, as the earth, etc. As we know the earth by its quality of smell, water by its quality of taste and so on, so we know from the quality of being the abode of objects, the existence of space, and that it has the attribute of Sound. Thus Akasha is a real substance and not a non-entity. You Buddhists also say that air exists in Akasha. If Akasha was totally non-existent, what would be the receptacle of air? Nor can you say that space is nothing but the absence of any occupying object This also cannot stand to reason. Consequently Akasha is not a negative substance of the logicians. The logicians hold that absence or Abhava is of three sorts: Prak-abhava, prior nonexistence, as the non-existence of the jar before its being made by the potter; second, Pradhvashta-abhava, or absence by destruction, as when a jar is broken into pieces; third, Atyanta-abhava, absolute non-existence, as the horn of the hare, which is absolutely a fiction. Akasha is none of these throe kinds of absence. If Akasha be a non-entity, then the whole universe would become devoid of space. For if you say that Akasha is nothing, but the absence of covering or occupying body, then it cannot be the covering of earth, etc., and if Akasha is non-perceptible, because there is an occupying body like earth, etc., then we are landed into a position that the whole universe is without space, because something or other exists everywhere. If you say that Akasha exists then there would be non-perception of earth, etc. Thus on neither view the definition of Akasha given by you is tenable.

Note: Nor is it possible to hold that Space i» nothing else but the non-existence (Abhava) of earth, and so on, for this view collapses as soon an set forth in definite alternatives. For whether we define Space as the antecedent and subsequent non-existence of earth, and so on, or as their mutual non-existence, or as their absolute non-existence — on none of these alternatives we attain the ‘proper idea of Space. If, in the first place, we define it as the antecedent and subsequent non-existence of earth, and so on, it will follow that, as the idea of Space can thus not be connected with earth and other things existing at the present moment, the whole world is without Space.

If, in the second place, we define it as the mutual non-existence of earth, and so on, it will follow that, as such mutual non existence inheres in the things only which stand towards each other in the relation of mutual non-existence, there is no perception of Space in the intervals between those things (while as a matter of fact there is). And, in the third place, absolute non-existence of earth, and so on, cannot of course be admitted, and as non-existence (Abhava) is clearly conceived as a special state of something actually existing, Space even if admitted to be of the nature of Abhava, would not on that account he a futile non-entity (something ‘Tuchcha’ or ‘Nirupakhya’.) — Dr. Thibaut.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Области применения синхронных машин

Оптимизация по Винеру и Калману