asantateścāvyatikaraḥ ..2.3.47..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 237 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 3. 47.

असन्ततेश्चाव्यतिकरः॥२.३.४७॥

asantateścāvyatikaraḥ ..2.3.47..

… Asantateh, on account of non-connectedness or non-perfection. .. Cha, and. … Avyatikarah, want of confusion.

47. The Jiva is incomplete and hence there is no possibility of confusion between the Jiva and the Avatara. — 265.

COMMENTARY

The Jiva is incomplete and not perfect like the Avatara, hence it can never be confounded with the Avatara, like the Fish and the rest. The Jiva is atomic in size and hence non-full; as we find it described in texts like that of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, V., 9, which says «the Jiva is to be known as part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair». While the Avataras are declared to be full as in the text:

That (the root of all Avataras) is full, this (the risible Avatara) is also full, from that full this full emanates. Taking away this full from that full the full still remains behind.

The Purvapakshin had adduced the reason for holding the Jiva to be identical with Avataras, because of the epithet ‘Amsha’ being applied to both. The author shows in the next Sutra the logical fallacy in the reasoning of the Purvapakshin.

SUTRA II. 3. 48.

आभास एव च॥२.३.४८॥

ābhāsa eva ca ..2.3.48..

Abhasah, fallacy. …, mere. .. Cha, and.

48. The reason for holding the Jiva and the Avataras to be similar is a mere fallacy. — 266.

COMMENTARY

The reason adduced by the Purvapakshin to prove the similarity of the Jiva with the Avatara is that both are equally designated by the word ‘Amsha’. There is a logical fallacy (of undistributed middle) in this argument. The reasoning may be fully set out in this form:

The Jiva is a part or Amsha of Brahman — the Avatara is a part or Amsha of Brahman; therefore, the Jiva is an Avatara.

It is the same reasoning the absurdity of which is apparent to every body if stated folly thus:

All dogs are animals — all men are animals; therefore, all dogs are men.

The word ‘Cha’ in the Sutra implies that other illustrations of such fallacious arguments may also be given here. Thus though the earth and the ether are both substance; yet we cannot infer that both are therefore similar; or existence and non-existence are both categories, but we cannot infer that, therefore, both are similar. In short, there lurks the fallacy of undistributed middle in all those reasons.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the word ‘Amsha’ when applied to the Avatara means the non-manifestation of the entire Divine powers, while the same word when applied to the Jivas means subordination to Divinity.

Adhikarana XIX — Jivas are not all similar and equal

Having thus finished the digression, the author now takes up the context- about the attributes of the Jivas. In the Kathopanishad we find the following text (II., 5. 13):

The eternal among the eternals, the consciousness among all the consciousnesses, the one who bestows the fruits of Karmas to many Jivas, the tranquil-minded ones who see Him seated in their Atma, get eternal happiness, but not the others.

Doubt: This text shows that the Jivas are many, but have all the same attribute of being eternal and intelligent. Are they, therefore, all similar?

Purvapaksha: The Purvapakshin maintains that because all Jivas possess the same attributes of eternality and intelligence; therefore, they must be all similar.

Siddhanta: The Jivas are not all similar as shown in the next Sutra.

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология