asambhavastu sato’nupapatteḥ ..2.3.8..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 203 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 3. 8.

असम्भवस्तु सतोऽनुपपत्तेः॥२.३.८॥

asambhavastu sato’nupapatteḥ ..2.3.8..

… Asambhavah, non-origination. .. Tu, but. … Satah of the Sat of Brahman. … Anupapatteh, on account of the impossibility (of there being an origin of Brahman).

8. But there can be no origin of Sat, because of its impossibility, (and unreasonableness). — 226.

COMMENTARY

The word «but» is used in order to remove the doubt. Of Brahman who is entitled to the designation of Sat, (i.e., that which exists), there can be no origin or Sambhava. Why do we say so? Because he is the causeless cause of till, and of such a cause there can be no origin. Other causes may have an origin, nay they are bound to have an origin, but that which is the Sat, by its very name, cannot have any origination. Hence the same Shruti of Shvetashvatara Upanishad says (VI., 9):

There is no master of His in the world, no ruler of His, not even a sign of Him. He is the cause, the Lord of the lords of the causes, and there is of Him neither parent nor lord.

Nor is it valid to say that because every cause has an origin, Brahman being a cause, must have an origin. This would be against all sacred texts and reasonings. A final causes being admitted by you, it is not desirable to search any cause of it, for then there would be an infinite regress. That which is the root cause, must be admitted to be rootless. As says the Sankhya Sutra, I., 67:

Since the root has no root, the root (of all) is root-less, (that is to say, there is no other cause of Nature, because there would be a regressus in infinitum, if we were to suppose another cause, which, by parity of reasoning, would require another cause, and so on without end).

Thus removing the doubt as to whether Brahman has any origin or not, it is implied that Brahman alone being the Supreme cause is free from all origination, and every tiling other than Brahman, such as Pradhana, Mahat, etc., has no origin. The special Sutras teaching the origin of Akasha and Vayu are illustrative only; because they could have been deduced from the general proposition that everything else than Brahman has an origin.

Adhikarana IV — The fire originates from air

Having finished the digression about Brahman, the text now goes on with the reconciliation of the conflicting Gratis as to the origination of fire. Some texts say that the fire originates direct from Brahman as the Chhandogya Upanishad, IV., 2. 2. Others declare that it originates from air. Those texts are given below:

It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth fire. The goddess of fire thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. She sent forth water. Therefore, wherever and whenever any body weeps or perspires, water comes out; for it is from fire I hat water is produced. (Bee page ante).

From that Self sprang Akasha; from Akasha, air; from air, fire: from fire, water.

The Purvapakshin says that fire comes direct from Brahman as taught in the Chhandogya Upanishad and the text of the Taittiriya Upanishad can be explained by interpreting the ablative case in the sense of showing sequence. ‘Vayoh Agnih’. The word Vayoh is in the ablative case, and may be translated either as ‘from Vayu’ or ‘after Vayu. ‘If translated ‘after creating Vayu, Brahman created Fire’ there would be no conflict between the two Upanishads. The Siddhanta view, however, is that fire originates directly from air, and the next Sutra teaches this.

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров