Chapter Two: Avirodha Adhyaya – Section 1 (Sutras 172-216)
In the First Section of the Second Chapter Brahman's creatorship of the world has been established on the authority of the scriptures supported by logic. All arguments against Brahman being the cause of the universe have been refuted.
In the present Section the Sutrakara or the framer of the Sutras examines the theories of creation advanced by other schools of thought in vogue in his time. All the doctrines of the other schools are taken up for refutation through reasoning alone without reference to the authority of the Vedas. Here he refutes by reasoning the Matter theory or the Pradhana theory of the Sankhya philosophy, the Atom theory of the Vaiseshika philosophy, the momentary and the Nihilistic view of the Buddhists, the Jain theory of simultaneous existence and non-existence, the Pasupata theory of coordinate duality and theory of energy unaided by intelligence.
It has been shown in the last Sutra of the First Section of the Second Chapter that Brahman is endowed with all the attributes through Maya, such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc., for qualifying Him to be the cause of the world.
Now in Section 2 the question is taken up whether the Pradhana of the Sankhya philosophy can satisfy all those conditions.
To put all things concisely in a nutshell, Sri Vyasa Bhagavan refutes in this section all the doctrines or theories prevalent in his time and inconsistent with the Vedanta theory; viz., (1) The Sankhya theory of the Pradhana as the first cause. (2) Refutation of the objection from the Vaiseshika stand point against the Brahman being the First Cause. (3) Refutation of the Atomic theory of the Vaiseshikas. (4) Refutation of the Bauddha Idealists and Nihilists. (5) Refutation of the Bauddha Realists. (6) Refutation of the Jainas. (7) Refutation of the Pasupata doctrine, that God is only the efficient and not the material cause of the world. (8) Refutation of the Pancharatra or the Bhagavata doctrine that the soul originates from the Lord, etc.
In the First Section of the Second Chapter Brahman's authorship of the world has been established on the authority of the scriptures supported by logic. The task of the Second Pada or Section is to refute by arguments independent of Vedic passages the more important philosophical theories concerning the origin of the universe which are contrary to the Vedantic view.
(Sutras 1-10) is directed against the Sankhyas. It aims at proving that a non-intelligent first cause such as the Pradhana of the Sankhyas is unable to create and dispose.
Adhikaranas II and III:
(Sutras 11-17) refute the Vaiseshika doctrine that the world takes its origin from the atoms which are set in motion by the Adrishta.
Adhikaranas IV and V:
are directed against various schools of Buddhistic philosophy.
(Sutras 18-27) refutes the view of Buddhistic Realists who maintain the reality of an external as well as an internal world.
(Sutras 28-32) refutes the view of the Vijnanavadins or Buddhistic Idealists, according to whom Ideas are the only reality. The last Sutra of the Adhikarana refutes the view of the Madhyamikas or Sunyavadins (Nihilists) who teach that everything is void, i.e., that nothing whatsoever is real.
(Sutras 33-36) refutes the doctrine of the Jainas.
(Sutras 37-41) refutes the Pasupata school which teaches that the Lord is not the material but only the efficient or operative cause of the world.
(Sutras 42-45) refutes the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or Pancharatras.
In Sutras 1 to 10 the principle of Sankhya philosophy is further refuted by reasoning. Pradhana or blind matter is inert. It is insentient or non-intelligent. There is methodical arrangement in the causation of this world. Hence it is not reasonable to suppose that blind matter can have any inclination for the creation of the world without the help of intelligence.
The Sankhya says that the inert Pradhana may become active of its own accord and spontaneously pass into the state of the world and undergo modification into intellect, egoism, mind, Tanmatras, etc., just as water flows in rivers spontaneously, rain from the clouds, or milk from the udder to the calf. This argument of the Sankhya is untenable, because the flowing of water or milk is directed by the intelligence of the Supreme Lord.
According to the Sankhyas, there is no external agent to urge Pradhana into activity or restraining from activity. Pradhana can work quite independently. Their Purusha is always inactive and indifferent. He is not an agent. Hence the contention that Pradhana in presence of Purusha or Spirit acquires a tendency towards action or creation cannot stand.
The Sankhya argues that Pradhana is by itself turned into the visible world, just as grass eaten by a cow is itself turned into milk. This argument is groundless as no such transformation is found on the part of the grass eaten by the bull. Hence, also, it is the will of the Supreme Lord that brings about the change, not because the cow has eaten it. Therefore Pradhana by itself cannot be said to be the cause of the world.
The Sankhya says that Purusha can direct the Pradhana or inspire activity in Pradhana though He has no activity, just as a lame man can move by sitting on the shoulders of a blind man and direct his movements. The independent and blind Pradhana, in conjunction with the passive but intelligent Purusha, originates the world. This argument also is untenable because the perfect inactivity and indifference of Purusha and the absolute independence of Pradhana cannot be reconciled with each other.
The Pradhana consists of three Gunas, viz., Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. They are in a state of equipoise before creation. No Guna is superior or inferior to the other. The Purusha is altogether indifferent. He has no interest in bringing about the disturbance of equilibrium of the Pradhana. Creation starts when the equipoise is upset and one Guna becomes more predominant than the other two. As there was in the beginning of creation no cause for the disturbance of the state of equipoise, it was not possible for Pradhana to be transformed into the world.
Sutras 11 to 17 refute the Atomic theory of the Vaiseshika philosophy where the indivisible minute atoms are stated to be the cause of the world. If an atom has any parts of an appreciable magnitude, then it cannot be an atom. Then it can be further divisible. If they are without parts of any appreciable magnitude, as they are so described in Vaiseshika philosophy, it is not possible for such two partless atoms to produce by their union a substance having any magnitude. Hence compound substances can never be formed by the combination of atoms. Therefore the Vaiseshika theory of origination of the world from indivisible atoms is untenable.
The inanimate atoms can have no tendency of themselves to unite together and cohere so as to form compounds. Vaiseshikas hold that the motion which is due to the unseen principle (Adrishta), joins the atoms in which it resides to another atom. Adrishta is a latent force of the sum total of previous deeds which waits to bear fruit in the future. Thus the whole world originates from atoms.
As Adrishta is insentient it cannot act. It cannot reside in the atoms. It must inhere in the soul. If the latent force or Adrishta be an inherent property of atoms, the atoms will always remain united. Hence there will be no dissolution and no chance for fresh creation.
If the two atoms unite totally or perfectly the atomic state will continue as there will be no increase in bulk. If in part, then atoms will have parts. This is against the theory of the Vaiseshikas. Hence, the theory of the Vaiseshikas that the world is caused by combination of atoms is untenable.
The atomic theory involves another difficulty. If the atoms are by nature active, then creation would be permanent. No Pralaya or dissolution could take place. If they are by nature inactive, no creation could take place. The dissolution would be permanent. For this reason also, the atomic doctrine is untenable.
According to the Vaiseshika philosophy, the atoms are said to have colour etc. That which has form, colour etc., is gross, and impermanent. Consequently, the atoms must be gross and impermanent. This contradicts the theory of the Vaiseshikas that they are minute and permanent.
If the respective atoms of the elements also possess the same number of qualities as the gross elements, then the atom of air will have one quality, an atom of earth will have four qualities. Hence an atom of earth which possesses four qualities will be bigger in size. It would not be an atom any longer. Hence the Atom theory of the Vaiseshikas on the causation of the world does not stand to reason in any way. This Atom theory is not accepted by the Vedas.
Sutras 18 to 32 refute the Buddhistic theory of momentarism and Nihilism (Sunyavada). The Vaiseshikas are the Realists (Sarvastitvavadins). They accept the reality of both the outside world and the inside world consisting respectively of external objects and consciousness and feelings. The Sautrantikas are the idealists (Vijnanavadins). They hold that thought alone is real. They maintain that ideas only exist and the external objects are inferred from the ideas. The Yogacharas hold that ideas alone are real and there is no external world corresponding to these ideas. The external objects are unreal like dreamy objects. The Madhymikas maintain that even the ideas themselves are unreal and there is nothing that exists except the void (Sunyam). They are the Nihilists or Sunyavadins who hold that everything is void and unreal. All of them agree that everything is momentary. Things of the previous moment do not exist in the next moment.
According to the Buddhists, atoms and consciousness are both inanimate. There is no permanent intelligence which can bring about the aggregation or which can guide the atoms to unite into an external thing or to form a continuous mental phenomena. Hence the doctrine of this school of Bauddhas is untenable.
Nescience etc., stand in a causal relation to each other merely. They cannot be made to account for the existence of the aggregates. According to the Buddhistic theory, everything is momentary. A thing of the present moment vanishes in the next moment, when its successor manifests. At the time of the appearance of a subsequent thing, the previous thing already vanishes. Hence it is impossible for the previous thing to be the cause of the subsequent thing. Consequently the theory is untenable.
The Buddhists maintain that existence originates from nonexistence because they hold that the effect cannot manifest without the destruction of the cause, the tree cannot appear until the seed is destroyed. We always perceive that the cause subsists in the effect as the thread subsists in the cloth. Hence the Buddhistic view is incorrect, unreasonable and inadmissible.
Even the passing of cause into effect in a series of successive states like nescience, etc., cannot take place unless there is a coordinating intelligence. The Buddhists say that everything has only a momentary existence. Their school cannot bring about the simultaneous existence of two successive moments. If the cause exists till it passes into the stage of effect, the theory of momentary existence (Kshanikavada) will vanish.
According to the Buddhistic view, salvation or freedom is attained when ignorance is destroyed. Ignorance is the false idea of permanency in things which are momentary.
The ignorance can be annihilated by the adoption of some means such as penance, knowledge, etc., (conscious destruction), or it may destroy itself (spontaneity). But both the alternatives are defective. Because this annihilation of ignorance cannot be attained by the adoption of penance or the like, because the means like every other thing is also momentary according to the Buddhistic view and is therefore, not likely to produce such annihilation. Annihilation cannot take place of its own accord, for in that case all Buddhistic instructions, the disciplines and methods of meditation for the attainment of salvation will be useless.
The Buddhists do not recognise the existence of Akasa. They regard Akasa as a non-entity. This is unreasonable. Akasa has the quality of sound. It is also a distinct entity like earth, water, etc. If Akasa be a non-entity, then the entire world would become destitute of space. Scriptural passages declare "Akasa sprang from Atman." Hence Akasa is a real thing. It is a Vastu (existing object) and not non-existence.
If everything is momentary the experiencer of something must also be momentary. But the experiencer is not momentary because people have the memory of past experiences. Memory can take place in a man who has previously experienced it. He is connected with at least two moments. This certainly refutes the theory of momentariness.
A non-entity has not been observed to produce entity. Therefore it does not stand to reason to suppose non-entity to be the cause. The world which is a reality is stated by the Buddhists to have arisen out of non-entity. This is absurd. A pot is never found to be produced without clay. If existence can come out of non-existence, then anything may come out of anything, because non-entity is one and the same in all cases. A jack tree may come out of a mango seed. If an existing thing can arise out of nothing, then an indifferent and lazy man may also attain salvation without efforts. Emancipation may be attained like a windfall. Rice will grow even if the farmer does not cultivate his field.
The Vijnanavadins say that the external things have no objective reality. Everything is an idea without any reality corresponding to it. This is not correct. The external objects are actually perceived by senses of perception. The external world cannot be non-existent like the horns of a hare.
The Buddhist Idealists say that perception of the external world is like the dream. This is wrong. The consciousness in dream depends on the previous consciousness in the wakeful state, but the consciousness in the wakeful state does not depend on anything else but on the actual perception by the sense. Further, the dream experiences become false as soon as one wakes up.
The Buddhist Idealists hold that though an external thing does not actually exist, yet its impressions do exist, and from these impressions diversities of perception and ideas like chair, tree arise. This is not possible, as there can be no perception of an external thing which is itself non-existent. If there be no perception of an external thing, how can it leave an impression?
The mental impressions cannot exist because the ego which receives impressions is itself momentary in their view.
The Sunyavada or Nihilism of the Buddhists which asserts that nothing exists is fallacious, because it goes against every method of proof, viz., perception, inference, testimony or scripture and analogy.
Sutras 33 to 36 refute the Jaina theory. According to the Jaina theory, everything is at once existing and non-existing. Now this view cannot be accepted, because in one substance it is not possible that contradictory qualities should exist simultaneously. No one ever sees the same object to be hot and cold at the same time. Simultaneous existence of light and darkness in one place is impossible.
According to the Jaina doctrine heaven and liberation may exist or may not exist. We cannot arrive at any definite knowledge. There is no certainty about anything.
The Jainas hold that the soul is of the size of the body. As the bodies of different classes of creatures are of different sizes, the soul of a man taking the body of an elephant on account of his past deeds will not be able to fill up the body of an elephant. The soul of an elephant will not have sufficient space in the body of an ant. The stability of the dimensions of the soul is impaired. The Jaina theory itself falls to the ground.
Sutras 37 to 41 refute the theory of the followers of the Pasupata system. The followers of this school recognise God as the efficient or the operative cause. They recognise the primordial matter as the material cause of the world. This view is contrary to the view of the Sruti or Vedanta where Brahman is stated to be both the efficient and the material cause of the world. Hence, the theory of Pasupatas cannot be accepted.
God, in their view, is pure, without attributes, and activity. Hence there can be no connection between Him and the inert primordial matter. He cannot urge and regulate matter to work. To say that God becomes the efficient cause of the world by putting on a body is also fallacious because all bodies are perishable. God is eternal according to the Pasupatas, and so cannot have a perishable body and become dependent on this physical instrument.
If it be said that the Lord rules the Pradhana, etc., just as the Jiva rules the senses which are also not perceived, this cannot be; because the Lord also would experience pleasure and pain, hence would forfeit His Godhead. He would be subject to births and deaths, and devoid of Omniscience. He will lose all His supremacy. This sort of God is not admitted by the Pasupatas.
Sutras 42 to 45 refute the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine. According to this school, the Lord is the efficient as well as the material cause of the universe. This is in quite agreement with the Srutis. Another part of the system is open to objection. The doctrine that Sankarshana or the Jiva is born of Vaasudeva, Pradyumna or mind from Sankarshana, Aniruddha or Ahamkara from Pradyumna is incorrect. Such creation is not possible. If there is such birth, if the soul be created it would be subject to destruction and hence there could be no liberation.
The Bhagavatas may say that all the Vyuhas or forms are Vaasudeva, the Lord having intelligence, Lordship, strength, power, etc., and are free from faults and imperfections. In this case there will be more than one Isvara or Lord. This goes against their own doctrine according to which there is only one real essence, the holy Vaasudeva. Further, there are also inconsistencies or manifold contradictions in the system. There are passages which are contradictory to the Vedas. It contains words of depreciation of the Vedas. Hence, the doctrine of the Bhagavatas cannot be accepted.
Rachananupapattyadhikaranam: Topic 1 (Sutras 1-10)
Refutation of the Sankhyan theory of the Pradhana as the cause of the world.
Rachananupapattescha nanumanam II.2.1 (172)
That which is inferred, (by the Sankhyas, viz., the Pradhana) cannot be the cause (of the world) because (in that case it is) not possible (to account for the) design or orderly arrangement (found in the creation).
Rachana: construction, the design in creation; Anupapatteh: on account of the impossibility; Cha: and; Na: not; Anumanam: that which is inferred, what is arrived at by inference, i.e., the Pradhana of the Sankhyas.
An argument is brought forward to the effect that the Pradhana of the Sankhyas is not the cause of the world.
The main object of the Vedanta Sutras is to show the purpose of the revelation of truth in the Vedas. They aim also at refuting the wrong doctrines in the other systems of philosophy. In the previous portion the doctrine of the Sankhyas has been refuted here and there on the authority of the scriptures. Sutras 1-10 refute it through logical reasoning.
Pradhana or blind matter is inert. It is an insentient entity. It does not possess the intelligence that is needed for creating such a multifarious, elaborate, wonderful, orderly, methodical and well-designed universe as this. It cannot bring into being the manifold orderliness of the cosmos. No one has ever seen a beautiful palace constructed by the fortuitous coming together of bricks, mortar, etc., without the active cooperation of intelligent agents like the architects, masons and the rest. Hence, Pradhana cannot be the cause of this world.
Clay cannot change itself into a pot.
The reasoning that Pradhana is the cause of the world because it has in it pleasure, pain, dullness, which are found in the world is not valid, because it is not possible for an insentient entity to create the wonderful, orderly universe. Moreover, how do you say that pleasure and pain and dullness are found in the outside world? The external objects are a factor in pleasure and pain which are internal experiences. Moreover, there can be pleasure and pain even irrespective of the external objects. How can you ascribe them to an insentient entity (Achetana)?
Physical objects like flowers, fruits, etc., no doubt have the presence in them of the quality of producing pleasure. But the feeling of pleasure is altogether an internal feeling. We cannot say that flowers and fruits have the nature of pleasure in them, though they excite pleasure in man. Pleasure is altogether an attribute of the soul and not of matter or Pradhana. Hence, matter or Pradhana cannot be said to have the quality of pleasure, etc.
Pravrittescha II.2.2 (173)
And on account of the (impossibility of) activity.
Pravritteh: because of the activity, of a tendency; Cha: and (it has the force of 'only' here).
This is an argument in support of Sutra 1.
Pradhana (blind matter) cannot be the cause of the world, because it is also impossible for it to have an inclination for creation.
How does Pradhana in a state of equilibrium of its three Gunas become dynamic and creative? It cannot disturb its own equipoise. The desire or tendency to create cannot be ascribed to the inert Pradhana. The inert chariot cannot move by itself. It is only the intelligent charioteer who moves the chariot by directing the movements of the horse. Mud by itself is never seen to create a jar without the agency of an intelligent potter. From what is seen we determine what is not seen. We proceed from the known to the unknown. How then do you prove that Pradhana which is insentient is self-moving? Hence the inert Pradhana cannot be the cause of the universe, because the activity that is necessary for the creation of the universe would be impossible in that case. There must be a directive intelligent Being or Entity for that purpose.
The activity must be attributed to the directive intelligence rather than to the inert matter or Pradhana. That which sets Pradhana or matter in motion is the real agent. Every activity is seen as the result of an intelligent agent. Inert matter or Pradhana therefore has no agency. Matter or Pradhana has no self-initiated activity of its own.
The objector may say "I do not see Chetana (soul) active and that I see only the activity of the body." We reply that there is no activity without the soul.
He may again say that the soul, being pure consciousness, cannot have activity. We reply that the soul can induce activity, though not self-active, just as a lodestone or magnet though unmoving can make iron move. A material object though fixed causes activity in our senses.
The objector may again say that as the soul is one and infinite, there is no possibility of causation of activity. We reply that it causes activity in the names and forms created by Maya owing to Avidya.
Hence, motion can be reconciled with the doctrine of an intelligent First Cause but not with the doctrine of a non-intelligent first cause (Pradhana of the Sankhyas).
Payo'mbuvaccet tatra'pi II.2.3 (174)
If it be said (that the Pradhana moves or spontaneously modifies herself into the various products) like milk or water (without the guidance of any intelligence), (we reply that) there also (it is due to intelligence).
Payo'mbuvat: like milk and water; Chet: if; Tatra: there, in those cases; Api: even, also. (Payah: milk; Ambuvat: like water.)
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.
If the objector says that there could be self-activity of nature as in milk or water, we reply that even then there is the operation of an intelligent agent.
The Sankhya says that the inert Pradhana may become active of its own accord and undergo modification into intellect, egoism, mind, Tanmatra, etc., just as water flows in rivers spontaneously, rain from the clouds or milk from the udder to the calf.
This is refuted by the latter part of Sutra 'Tatra Api', even there. Even the flowing of water or milk is directed by the intelligence of the Supreme Lord. This we infer from the example of chariot, etc. We may not see the intelligent driver of the chariot, but we infer his existence from the motion of the car.
The scriptures also say, "He who dwells in the water, who rules the water from within" (Bri. Up. III.7.4). "By the command of that Akshara, O Gargi! some rivers flow to the east" (Bri. Up. III.8.9). Everything in this world is directed by the Lord.
Further the cow is an intelligent creature. She loves her calf, and makes her milk flow by her wish. The milk is in addition drawn forth by the sucking of the calf. The flow of water depends on the downward sloping of the earth.
Vyatirekanavasthiteschanapekshatvat II.2.4 (175)
And because (the Pradhana) is not dependent (on anything), there being no external agent besides it (it cannot be active).
Vyatirekanavasthiteh: There being no external agency besides it; Cha: and also; Anapekshatvat: because it is not dependent. (Vyatireka: an external agent; Anavasthiteh: from non-existence, as it does not exist.)
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.
According to the Sankhyas, there is no external agent to urge Pradhana into activity, or restrain from activity. Their Purusha is indifferent, neither moves to, nor restrains from, action. He is not an agent. He is unresponsive to the first stimulus for starting the process of creation. Hence, there is no agency to disturb the primordial equilibrium. Therefore, the Pradhana of the Sankhyas cannot be the First Cause of the world.
The state in which the three Gunas are in a state of equipoise is called Pradhana by the Sankhyas. According to the Sankhyas, no controlling sentient power operates on the Pradhana. Purusha is static and quiescent.
Therefore, Pradhana may evolve in one way now and in another way afterwards or may not evolve at all, as it is not controlled by any directing and ruling Intelligence. But the Supreme Lord is Omniscient and Omnipotent. He has perfect control over Maya. He can create or not create as He pleases.
The Pradhana of the Sankhyas is inert, so it cannot of itself start to be active; or when it is set in motion it can hardly stop to be active of itself. Hence, the Sankhyas cannot explain creation and dissolution when there is no directing or ruling intelligence. All other principles are only effects of the Pradhana. Therefore, they cannot exercise any influence on it. Hence, the theory of the Sankhyas is self-contradictory.
Anyatrabhavaccha na trinadivat II.2.5 (176)
And (it can) not (be said that the Pradhana modifies itself spontaneously) like grass, etc., (which turn into milk), because of its absence elsewhere (than in the female animals).
Anyatra: elsewhere, in the other case, elsewhere than in cows; Abhavat: because of the absence; Cha: and, also; Na: not; Trinadivat: like the grass etc.
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.
The word 'cha' – and, has the force of 'only'.
The objector says that as grass becomes milk, so Pradhana may evolve into the world. But does grass become milk of its own power? No. If so, try to produce milk from grass. A cow alone converts grass into milk. Does a bull do so?
The spontaneous modification of the Pradhana is not possible. Grass is not changed into milk spontaneously. It is converted into milk only when eaten by cows but not by the bulls. Here also it is the will of the Supreme Lord that brings about the change, not because the cow has eaten it.
The illustration or analogy is useless. It cannot stand. The argument of the Sankhyas is not sound. Hence, the Pradhana's undergoing modification of itself cannot be accepted. The spontaneous modification of Pradhana cannot be proved from the instances of grass and the like.
Abhyupagame'pyarthabhavat II.2.6 (177)
Even if we admit (the Sankhya position with regard to the spontaneous modification of the Pradhana, it cannot be the cause of the universe) because of the absence of any purpose.
Abhyupagame: accepting, admitting, taking for granted; Api: even; Artha: purpose; Abhavat: because of the absence.
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.
Even though we admit for the sake of argument that the Pradhana is spontaneously active, it will lead to a contradiction in their philosophy. If the Pradhana is spontaneously active, if it is capable of an inherent tendency for modification, motion or change, its activity cannot have any purpose. This will contradict the view of the Sankhyas that the modification of the Pradhana is for the experience or enjoyment (Bhoga) and release of the soul (Moksha).
There is no enjoyment to be enjoyed by the ever-perfect Purusha (or Soul). If he could enjoy, how could he ever become free from enjoyment? He is already free. He is already in a state of beatitude. As He is perfect, He can have no desire.
The insentient Pradhana cannot have a desire to evolve. So the satisfaction of a desire cannot be considered as the purpose of activity of the Pradhana. If you say that evolution must be postulated because creative power would become inoperative otherwise, we reply that in that case creative power will be always operative and there could be no attainment of freedom from it by the attainment of beatitude.
It is, therefore, impossible to maintain that the Pradhana becomes active for the purpose of the soul. It cannot be the cause of the universe.
Purushasmavaditi chet tathapi II.2.7 (178)
If it be said (that the Purusha or Soul can direct or move the Pradhana) as the (lame) man can direct a blind man, or as the magnet (moves the iron), even then (the difficulty cannot be overcome).
Purusha: a person. Asma: a lodestone, a magnet; Vat: like; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Tathapi: even then, still.
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.
The Sankhyas say that Purusha can direct the Pradhana or inspire activity in Pradhana, though He has no activity, just as a lame man can move by sitting on the shoulders of a blind man and direct his movements or just as a magnet attracts iron. But these illustrations are not apt. A lame man speaks and directs the blind man. The blind man, though incapable of seeing, has the capacity of understanding those instructions given by the lame man and acting upon them. But Purusha is perfectly indifferent. He has no kind of activity at all. Hence, He cannot do that with regard to the Pradhana.
Moreover, the lame and the blind are both conscious entities and the iron and the magnet are both insentient matter. Consequently, the instances given are not to the point. According to the Sankhyas the Pradhana is independent. Hence, it is not right to say that it depends on the proximity of the Purusha for its activity, just as the iron depends on the magnet for its motion. A magnet attracts when the iron is brought near. The proximity of the magnet to the iron is not permanent. It depends on a certain activity and the adjustment of the magnet in a certain position. But no one brings the Purusha near Pradhana. If Purusha is always near, then creation will be eternal. There will be no liberation at all.
The Purusha and the Pradhana are altogether separate and independent. Pradhana is non-intelligent, inert and independent. Purusha is unintelligent and indifferent. No one else (a third principle) exists to bring them together. Hence there can be no connection between them.
There could be no creative activity at all according to the doctrine of the Sankhyas. If there could be such activity, there could be no final release as the cause of creation could never cease.
In Vedanta Brahman which is the cause of the universe is indifferent but He is endowed with attributes and activity through Maya. He is characterised by non-activity inherent in His own nature and at the same time by moving power inherent in Maya. So He becomes the Creator. He is indifferent by nature and active by Maya. Hence, His creative power is well explained. He is superior to the Purusha of the Sankhyas.
Angitvanupapattescha II.2.8 (179)
And again (the Pradhana cannot be active) because the relation of principal (and subordinate matter) is impossible (between the three Gunas).
Angitvanupapatteh: on account of the impossibility of the relation of principal (and subordinate); Cha: and, also. (Angitva: the relation of being the principal, being preponderant; Anupa- patteh: on account of the impossibility and unreasonableness).
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.
The Pradhana has been defined to be the equilibrium of the three Gunas. The Pradhana consists of three Gunas, viz., Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Three Gunas are independent of each other. They are in a state of equipoise before creation. In the state of Pradhana no Guna is superior or inferior to the other. Every one of them is equal to the other and consequently the relation of subordinate and principal could not exist then. The Purusha is altogether indifferent. He has no interest in bringing about the disturbance of equilibrium of the Pradhana. Creation starts when the equipoise is upset and one Guna becomes more predominant than the other two. As there exists no extraneous principle to stir up the Gunas, the production of the Great Principle and the other effects which would require for its operative cause a non-balanced state of the Gunas is impossible. Equipoise cannot be disturbed without any external force. The Gunas are absolutely independent when they are in a state of equilibrium. They cannot take of themselves a subsidiary position to another Guna without losing their independence. Hence, creation would be impossible.
This Sutra says that such preponderance is not possible. The Sankhyas cannot explain why should one Guna preponderate over the other. Hence, on account of the impossibility of such preponderance of one over the other Gunas, Pradhana cannot be accepted to be the cause of the world.
Anyathanumitau cha jnasaktiviyogat II.2.9 (180)
Even if it be inferred otherwise on account of the Pradhana being devoid of the power of intelligence (the other objections to the Pradhana being the cause of the universe remain in force).
Anyatha: otherwise, in other ways; Anumitau: if it be inferred, in case of inference; Cha: even, and; Jnasakti: power of intelligence; Viyogat: because of being destitute of, because of dissociation.
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is continued.
Even if the objector postulates such power of modification as being inherent in Pradhana, the inappropriateness will continue because of the insentiency or non-intelligence of the Pradhana.
The Sankhya says: We do not acknowledge the Gunas to be characterised by absolute independence, irrelativity and unchangeableness. We infer the characteristics of the Gunas from those of their effects. We presume that their nature must be such as to make the production of the effects possible. The Gunas have some characteristics, different attributes and mysterious powers inherent in them like unstability. Consequently the Gunas themselves are able to enter into a state of inequality, even while they are in a state of equipoise. Even in that case we reply, the objections stated above which were founded on the impossibility of an orderly arrangement of the world, etc., remain in force on account of the Pradhana being devoid of the power of intelligence. As Pradhana is insentient it has not the power of self-consciousness. Being thus destitute of it, it has not the idea of any plan or design. It cannot say as an intelligent entity would say, "Let me create the world in such and such a way." A house can never be built by mere bricks and mortar without the supervision and active agency of the architect and masons. Even so, creation never proceeds from dead matter or Pradhana. Without the directive action of intelligence, the Gunas, however wonderful in their powers and attributes, cannot of themselves create the universe.
On account of lack of intelligence the objections, founded on design etc., in the universe and that it would lead to continuous creation, come in the way of accepting the Pradhana as the cause of the universe (Vide Sutras 1, 4 and 7).
Vipratishedhaccasamanjasam II.2.10 (181)
And moreover (the Sankhya doctrine) is objectionable on account of its contradictions.
Vipratishedhat: because of contradiction; Cha: also, and; Asamanjasam: inconsistent, objectionable, not harmonious, untenable.
The argument in support of Sutra 1 is concluded.
Further, the Sankhya doctrine is inconsistent because there are various contradictions in the Sankhya philosophy. Sometimes the senses are said to be eleven and again they are said to be seven. It sometimes says that the Tanmatras come from Mahat and sometimes that they come from Ahamkara. Sometimes it says that there are three Antahkaranas. Sometimes it says that there is only one Antahkarana.
Moreover, their doctrine contradicts Sruti which teaches that the Lord is the cause of the universe, and Smriti based on Sruti. For these reasons also the Sankhya system is objectionable. It cannot be accepted.
Here the Sankhya again brings a counter-charge. He says "You also have got such inappropriateness in your doctrine." He asks whether if Brahman is cause and effect, there could be any liberation from effects and whether scripture affirming liberation will not become useless. He argues "fire cannot become free from heat and light or water free from waves. Only when there is separateness of cause and effect, there can be any meaning in liberation."
We reply that even the objector must admit that Purusha being by nature pure, cannot be disturbed and that disturbance is due to Avidya and is not absolutely real. That is our position too. But you give Avidya a state of permanence. Consequently even if Purusha gets free from it, there is no surety that such separation will be permanent. We postulate only one Being. All effects are only relative and cannot, therefore, affect the absolute reality.
Mahaddirghadhikaranam: Topic 2 (Sutra 11)
Refutation of the Vaiseshika view.
Mahaddirghavadva hrasvaparimandalabhyam II.2.11 (182)
(The world may originate from Brahman) as the great and the long originate from the short and the atomic.
Mahat dirghavat: like the great and the long; Va: or; Hrasvaparimandalabhyam: from the short and the atomic.
The atomic theory of the Vaiseshikas that formless, indivisible atoms enter into the composition of the world is now refuted.
The sage Kanada is the founder of the Vaiseshika philosophy. He holds all objects which have any shape or form as perishable and they are all made of minute, indivisible, formless and immutable particles known as atoms (Anu). These atoms are considered to be the cause of the world. The atoms are of four kinds, viz., the atoms of earth, the atoms of water, the atoms of fire and the atoms of air. These atoms exist distinct from one another without any shape or form. At the beginning of creation, one atom (a monad) unites with another and forms a dyad, an aggregate of two atoms. The dyad (dvyanu) unites with another atom and forms a triad, an aggregate of three atoms, and so on. Thus a visible universe is formed.
The Vaiseshikas argue thus: The qualities which inhere in the substance which constitutes the cause produces qualities of the same kind in the substance which forms the effect. White cloth is produced from a cloth of a different colour. Consequently, when the intelligent Brahman is taken as the cause of the universe, we should find intelligence inherent in the effect also, viz., the universe. But this is not so. Hence, the intelligent Brahman cannot be the cause of the universe.
The Sutrakara or the author of the Sutras shows that this reasoning is fallacious on the ground of the system of Vaiseshikas themselves.
The Sankhya philosophy has been refuted in Sutras 1-10. Now the Vaiseshika system is taken up in Sutras 11-17 and refuted. The inconsistency in the origination of an aggregate of the three and of four atoms from the union of monads and of dyads of the Vaiseshika is like the inconsistency in the origination of the world from the insentient Pradhana of Sankhya. If the atom has any parts of an appreciable magnitude, then it cannot be an atom. Then it can be further divisible. If they are without parts of any appreciable magnitude, as they are so described in Vaiseshika philosophy, it is not possible for such two partless atoms to produce by their union a substance having any magnitude. The same is the case with three atoms and so on. Hence, compound substances can never be formed by the combination of atoms. Therefore, the Vaiseshika theory of origination of the world upon indivisible atoms is untenable.
According to the Vaiseshika philosophy, two ultimate atoms (Parimandalas or Paramanus) become a double atom (Dvyanuka or Hrasva) on account of Adrishta, etc. But the atomic nature of the ultimate atom is not found in the Dvyanuka which is small. Two Dvyanukas form a Chaturanuka (quadruple atom) which has not the characteristics of smallness but becomes longer and bigger. If the ultimate atom can create something which is contrary to the atom, what is the inappropriateness in Brahman which is Knowledge and Bliss creating the insentient and non-intelligent world full of misery? Just as the atomic nature of the ultimate atom is not found in the later combinations which have other traits, so also the Chaitanya or intelligence of Brahman is not found in the world.
The ultimate condition of the world is atomic, according to the Vaiseshika system. The atoms are eternal. They are the ultimate cause of the universe. The universe exists in the atomic state in the state of Pralaya or dissolution. An atom is infinitesimal. A dyad is minute and short. Chaturanuka or quadruple atom is great, and long.
If two atoms which are spherical can produce a dyad which is minute and short but which has not got the spherical nature of the atom, if the dyads which are short and minute can produce a Chaturanuka which is great and long but which has not got the minuteness and shortness of the dyad, it is quite obvious that all the qualities of the cause are not found in the effect. So it is quite possible that the intelligent, blissful Brahman can be the cause of a world which is non-intelligent and full of suffering.
Paramanujagadakaranatvadhikaranam: Topic 3 (Sutras 12-17)
Refutation of the atomic theory of the Vaiseshikas.
The objection against the view of Vedanta has been answered in the previous Sutra. Now the Vaiseshika system is refuted.
Ubhayathapi na karmatastadabhavah II.2.12 (183)
In both cases also (in the cases of the Adrishta, the unseen principle inhering either in the atoms or the soul) the activity (of the atoms) is not possible; hence negation of that (viz., creation through the union of the atoms).
Ubhayatha: in either case, in both ways, on both assumptions or hypotheses; Api: also; Na: not; Karma: action, activity, motion; Atah: therefore; Tadabhavah: absence of that, negation of that, i,e, negation of the creation of the world by union of atoms.
The argument against the Vaiseshika system commenced in Sutra 11 is continued.
What is the cause that first operates on the ultimate atoms? Vaiseshikas hold that the motion which is due to the unseen principle (Adrishta) joins the atom in which it resides, to another atom. Thus binary compounds, etc. are produced and finally the element of air. Similarly fire, water, earth, the body with its organs are produced. Thus the whole world originates from atoms. The qualities of the binary compounds are produced from the qualities inhering in the atoms, just as the qualities of the cloth result from the qualities of the threads. Such is the teaching of the Vaiseshika system of philosophy.
The motion in the atoms cannot be brought about by the Adrishta residing in the atoms, because the Adrishta which is the resultant of the good and bad actions of the soul cannot reside in the atoms. It must inhere in the soul. The Adrishta residing in the soul cannot produce motion in the atom. The motion of the atom is not explained on both these views. As Adrishta is insentient it cannot act. As Adrishta is in the soul, how can it operate in the atoms? If it can, such operation will go on for ever as there is no agency to control it. When two atoms combine do they unite perfectly or not? If they unite totally, if there is total interpenetration, the atomic state will continue as there will be no increase in bulk. If in part, then atoms will have parts. This is against the theory of the Vaiseshikas. Moreover, if they combine once, there cannot be separation or dissolution. Adrishta will be active to bring about creation for the enjoyment of the fruits of actions. For these reasons the doctrine of the atoms being the cause of the world must be rejected.
The Vaiseshikas may argue that the motion originates in the atoms as soon as they come in the proximity of the souls charged with any definite Adrishta. This also is untenable. Because there can be no proximity or contact between the souls which are partless and the atoms which also are partless.
An insentient object cannot move another as it is inert. All motion of objects are initiated, guided and directed by intelligence and intelligent beings.
The soul cannot be the cause of the primal motion of the atoms at the beginning of creation. Because in dissolution, according to the Vaiseshikas, the soul itself lies dormant without possessing any intelligence and hence is in no way superior to the atom.
It cannot be said also that the primal motion of the atom is caused by the will of the Lord in conformity with the Adrishta of the souls, because the Adrishtas of the souls do not mature and are not awakened. Hence the will of the Lord is not active.
As there is thus no motion in the atoms in the beginning of the creation, they cannot come together and form an aggregate. Consequently, there can be no creation as the binary compounds cannot be produced.
According to the Vaiseshikas, the universe is created by the union of the atoms. Now what causes this union? If it is a seen cause, it is not possible before the creation of the body. A seen cause can be an endeavour or an impact. There can be no endeavour on the part of the soul if there is no connection of the soul with mind. As there is neither body nor mind before creation, there cannot be any endeavour. Similar is the case with impact or the like.
What causes the union of the atoms? Adrishta or the unseen principle cannot be the cause of the first motion of the atoms because the Adrishta is non-intelligent. There is no intelligence to guide the Adrishta. Hence it cannot act by itself.
Does the Adrishta inhere in the soul or the atoms? If it is inherent in the soul, there is no intelligence to direct the Adrishta as the soul is then inert. Moreover, the soul is partless like the atoms. Consequently, there cannot be any connection between the soul and the atoms. Hence, if the Adrishta inheres in the soul, it cannot produce motion in the atoms which are not connected with the soul.
If the Adrishta is inherent in the atoms, there would be no dissolution because the atoms will ever be active as the Adrishta is always present.
Therefore there is no possibility for original motion in the atoms and so combination of atoms is not possible.
Hence the theory of Vaiseshikas that the universe is caused by the combination of atoms is untenable.
Samavayabhyupagamaccha samyadanavasthiteh II.2.13 (184)
And because in consequence of Samavaya being admitted, a regresssus ad infinitum results on similar reasoning (hence the Vaiseshika theory is untenable).
Samavayabhyupagamat: Samavaya being admitted; Cha: and, also; Samyat: because of equality of reasoning; Anavasthiteh: regressus ad infinitum would result.
The argument against the Vaiseshika philosophy commenced in Sutra 11 is continued.
Samavaya is inseparable inherence or concomitant cause or combining force. It is one of the seven categories of the Vaiseshika philosophy. It is the affinity which brings about the union of the atoms.
The Vaiseshikas say that two Paramanus become a Dvyanuka on account of the operation of the combining force (Samavaya) and that the Samavaya connects the dyad with its constituents, the two atoms, as the dyad and the atoms are of different qualities. Samavaya is different from the ultimate atoms and dyads which it connects. Why should it operate unless there be another Samavaya to make it operate? That new Samavaya will require another Samavaya to connect it with the first and so on. Thus their theory is vitiated by the fault of Anavastha Dosha or regressus ad infinitum.
The argument is faulty. Hence the atomic doctrine which admits Samavaya relationship for the union of the atoms is not admissible. It must be rejected as it is useless and as it is an incongruous assumption.
Nityameva cha bhavat II.2.14 (185)
And on account of the permanent existence (of activity or non-activity, the atomic theory is not admissible).
Nityam: eternal; Eva: certainly, even; Cha: and, also; Bhavat: because of the existence, from the possibility.
The argument against the Vaiseshika commencing in Sutra 11 is continued.
The atomic theory involves another difficulty. If the atoms are by nature active, then creation would be permanent. No Pralaya or dissolution could take place. If they are by nature inactive, no creation could take place. The dissolution would be permanent. Their nature cannot be both activity and inactivity because they are self-contradictory. If they were neither, their activity and non-activity would have to depend on an operative or efficient cause like Adrishta. As the Adrishta is in permanent proximity to the atoms, as the Adrishta is always connected with the atoms, they will be ever active. Consequently, creation would be permanent. If there is no efficient or operative cause, there will be no activity of the atoms. Consequently, there would be no creation.
For this reason also the atomic doctrine is untenable and inadmissible.
Rupadimatvacca viparyayo darsanat II.2.15 (186)
And on account of the atoms possessing colour, etc., the opposite (of which the Vaiseshikas hold would take place), because it is seen or observed.
Rupadimatvat: because of possessing colour, etc.; Cha: and, also; Viparyayah: the reverse, the opposite; Darsanat: because it is seen or observed, from common experience.
The argument against Vaiseshika commencing in Sutra 11 is continued.
According to the Vaiseshika philosophy, the atoms are said to have colour, etc. If this is not the case, the effects will not possess these qualities, as the qualities of the cause only are found in the effects. Then the atoms would no longer be atomic and permanent. Because that which has form, colour, etc., is gross, ephemeral and impermanent. Consequently the atoms, etc., which are endowed with colour etc., must be gross and inpermanent. This contradicts the theory of the Vaiseshikas that they are minute and permanent.
Hence the atomic theory, being thus self-contradictory, cannot be accepted. The atoms cannot be the ultimate cause of the universe. There would result from the circumstance of the atoms having colour, etc., the opposite of which the Vaiseshikas mean.
Ubhayatha cha doshat II.2.16 (187)
And because of defects in both cases (the atomic theory cannot be accepted).
Ubhayatha: in both ways, on either side, in either case; Cha: also, and; Doshat: because of defects (or difficulties).
The argument against Vaiseshikas is continued.
Earth has the qualities of smell, taste, colour and is gross. Water has colour, taste and touch and is fine. Fire has colour and touch and is finer still. Air is the finest of all and has the quality of touch only. The four gross elements earth, water, fire and air are produced from atoms.
If we suppose that the respective atoms of the elements also possess the same number of qualities as the gross elements, then the atom of air will have one quality, an atom of earth will have four qualities. Hence an atom of earth which possesses four qualities will be bigger in size. It would not be an atom any longer. It will not satisfy the definition of an atom.
If we suppose them all to possess the same number of qualities, in that case there cannot be any difference in the qualities of the effects, the gross elements because the attributes of the cause (the atoms) are reproduced in its effects (the gross elements).
If the atom is one and the same and has only one quality, then more than one quality should not be found. Fire should not have form in addition to touch as so on.
Hence, in either case the doctrine of the Vaiseshikas is defective and therefore untenable. It cannot be logically maintained.
Aparigrahacchatyantamanapeksha II.2.17 (188)
And because (the atomic theory) is not accepted (by authoritative sages like Manu and others) it is to be totally rejected.
Aparigrahat: because it is not accepted; Cha: and; Atyantam: altogether, totally, completely; Anapeksha: to be rejected.
The argument against Vaiseshika is concluded.
At least the Sankhya doctrine of Pradhana was accepted to some extent by Manu and other knowers of the Veda but the atomic doctrine has not been accepted by any person of authority in any of its parts. Therefore, it is to be disregarded entirely by all those who take their stand on the Veda.
Further, there are other objections to the Vaiseshika doctrine. The Vaiseshikas assume six categories or Padarthas viz., Dravya (substance), Guna (quality), Karma (action), Samanya (generality), Visesha (particularity) and Samavaya (inherence). They maintain that the six categories are absolutely different from each other and possess different characteristics just as a man, a horse and a hare differ from one another. They say that the categories are independent and yet they hold that on Dravya the other five categories depend. This contradicts the former one. This is quite inappropriate. Just as animals, grass, trees and the like, being absolutely different from each other, do not depend on each other, so also the qualities etc., also being absolutely different from substance cannot depend on the latter.
The Vaiseshikas say that Dravya (substance) and Guna (quality) are inseparably connected. At the same time they say that each begins its activity. The threads bring the cloth into existence and the whiteness in the threads produces the whiteness in the cloth. "Substances originate another substance and qualities another quality" (Vaiseshika Sutras I.1.10). If the thread and its quality occupy the same space and are inseparably united, how can this take place? If the substance and the quality are inseparably together with reference to time, the two horns of a cow would have to grow together. If there is inseparability in the nature of the substance and its quality, why can you not say that both are one and identical. Hence the theory that the quality depends upon substance and that the quality and substance are inseparable, is untenable and inadmissible.
Further, the Vaiseshikas make distinction between Samyoga (conjunction) and Samavaya (inherence). They say that Samyoga is the connection of things which exists separately and Samavaya is the connection of things which are incapable of separate existence. This distinction is not tenable as the cause which exists before the effect cannot be said to be incapable of separate existence. What is the proof of the existence of Samyoga or Samavaya apart from cause and effect? Nor is there any Samyoga or Samavaya apart from the things which become connected. The same man although being one only forms the object of many different names and notions according as he is considered in himself or in his relation to others. Thus he is thought and spoken of as man, Brahmana, learned in the Veda, generous boy, young man, old man, father, son, grandson, brother, son-in-law, etc. The same digit connotes different numbers, ten or hundred or thousand, according to its place.
Moreover, we have not seen Samyoga except as between things which occupy space. But mind is Anu and does not occupy space according to you. You cannot say that you will imagine some space for it. If you make such a supposition, there is no end to such suppositions. There is no reason why you should not assume a further hundred or thousand things in addition to the six categories assumed by the Vaiseshikas.
Moreover, two Paramanus which have no form cannot be united with a Dvyanuka which has form. There does not exist that kind of intimate connection between ether and earth which exists between wood and varnish.
Nor is the theory of Samavaya necessary to explain which, out of cause and effect, depends on the other. There is mutual dependence. Vedantins do not accept any difference between cause and effect. Effect is only cause in another form. The Vedantins acknowledge neither the separateness of cause and effect, nor their standing to each other in the relation of abode and the thing abiding. According to the Vedanta doctrine, the effect is only a certain state of the cause.
Moreover, Paramanus are finite and so they will have form. What has form must be liable to destruction.
Thus it is quite clear that the atomic doctrine is supported by very weak arguments. It is opposed to those scriptural texts which declare the Lord to be the general cause. It is not also accepted by sages like Manu and others. Therefore, it should be totally disregarded by wise men.
Samudayadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutras 18-27)
Refutation of the Bauddha Realists.
Samudaya ubhayahetuke'pi tadapraptih II.2.18 (189)
Even if the (two kinds of) aggregates proceed from their two causes, there would take place non-establishment (of the two aggregates).
Samudaya: the aggregate; Ubhayahetuke: having two causes; Api: also, even; Tadapraptih: it will not take place, it cannot be established.
After refuting the atomic theory of Vaiseshika, the Buddhistic theories are now refuted.
Lord Buddha had four disciples who founded four systems of philosophy, called respectively Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Yogachara and Madhyamika. The Vaibhashikas are the Realists (Sarvastitvavadins) who accept the reality of both the outside and the inside world consisting respectively of external objects and thought (also consciousness, feelings, etc.). The Sautrantikas are the Idealists (Vijnanavadins). They hold that thought alone is real. They maintain that there is no proof whether external objects really exist or not, the ideas only exist and the external objects are inferred from these ideas. Thus the Vaibhashikas hold that the external objects are directly perceived while the Sautrantikas maintain that the outward world is an inference from ideas. The third class, the Yogacharas hold that ideas alone are real and there is no external world corresponding to these ideas. The outward objects are unreal like dream objects.
The Madhyamikas maintain that even the ideas themselves are unreal and there is nothing that exists except the void (Sunyam). They are the Nihilists or Sunyavadins who hold that everything is void and unreal. All of them agree that everything is momentary. Nothing lasts beyond a moment. Things of the previous moment do not exist in the next moment. One appears and the next moment it is replaced by another. There is no connection between the one and the other. Everything is like a scene in a cinema which is produced by the successive appearance and disappearance of several isolated pictures.
The Realists recognise two aggregates, viz., the external material world and the internal mental world, which together make up the universe. The external world is made up of the aggregate of atoms, which are of four kinds, viz., atoms of earth which are solid, atoms of water which are viscid, atoms of fire which are hot and atoms of air which are mobile.
The five Skandhas or groups are the cause for the internal world. They are Rupa Skandha, Vijnana Skandha, Vedana Skandha, Samjna Skandha and Samskara Skandha. The senses and their objects form the Rupa Skandha. Vijnana Skandha is the stream of consciousness which gives the notion of egoism or 'I'. The Vedana Skandha comprises the feeling of pleasure and pain. The Samjna Skandha consists of names such as Ramakrishna, etc. All words thus constitute the Samjna Skandha. The fifth Skandha called Samskara Skandha consists of the attributes of the mind such as affection, hatred, delusion, merit (Dharma), demerit (Adharma), etc. All internal objects belong to any one of the last four Skandhas. The four last Skandhas form the internal objects. All activities depend upon the internal objects. The internal objects constitute the inner motive of everything. All external objects belong to one Skandha namely the Rupa Skandha. Thus the whole universe consists of these two kinds of objects, internal and external. The internal aggregate or the mental world is formed by the aggregate of the last four Skandhas. These are the two internal and external aggregates referred to in the Sutra.
The theory of the Bauddhas which classifies all objects under two heads, one aggregate being called the external, the other internal, is not sufficient to explain the world order; because all aggregates are unintelligent and there is no permanent intelligence admitted by the Bauddhas which can bring about this aggregation. Everything is momentary in its existence according to the Bauddhas. There is no permanent intelligent being who brings about the conjunction of these Skandhas. The continuation is not possible for these external atoms and internal sensations without the intervention of an intelligent guide. If it be said they come together of their own internal motion, then the world becomes eternal; because the Skandhas will be constantly bringing about creation as they are eternal and as they possess motion of their own. Thus this theory is untenable.
It cannot be explained how the aggregates are brought about, because the parts that constitute the material aggregates are destitute of intelligence. The Bauddhas do not admit any other permanent intelligent being such as enjoying soul or a ruling lord, which could effect the aggregation of atoms.
How are the aggregates formed? Is there any intelligent principle behind the aggregates as the Cause, the Guide, the Controller or the Director? Or does it take place spontaneously? If you say that there is an intelligent principle, is it permanent or momentary? If it is permanent, then the Buddhistic doctrine of momentariness is opposed. If it is momentary, it must come into existence first and then unite the atoms. Then the cause should last more than one moment. If there is no intelligent principle as director or controller, how can non-intelligent atoms and the Skandhas aggregate in an orderly manner? Further, the creation would continue for ever. There would be no dissolution.
For all these reasons the formation of aggregates cannot be properly explained. Without aggregates there would be an end of the stream of earthly existence which presupposes those aggregates. Therefore, the doctrine of this school of Bauddhas is untenable and inadmissible.
Itaretarapratyayatvaditi chennotpattimatranimittatvat II.2.19 (190)
If it be said that (the formation of aggregates may be explained) through (nescience) standing in the relation of mutual causality, we say 'no'; they merely are the efficient cause of the origin (of the immediately subsequent links and not of the aggregation).
Itara-itara: mutual, one another; Pratyayatvat: because of being the cause, one being the cause of the other; Iti: thus; Chet: if; (Iti chet: if it be said); Na: no; Utpattimatranimittatvat: because they are merely the efficient cause of the origin.
An objection against Sutra 18 is raised and refuted.
The series beginning with nescience comprise the following members: Nescience, Samskara or impression, Vijnana (knowledge), name and form, the abode of the six (i.e., the body and the senses, contact, experience of pleasure and pain, desire, activity, merit, demerit, birth, species, decay, death, grief, lamentation, mental affliction and the like).
Nescience is the error of considering that what is momentary, impure, etc., to be permanent, pure, etc. Impression, (affection, Samskara) comprises desire, aversion, etc., and the activity caused by them. Knowledge (Vijnana) is the self-consciousness (Aham iti alayavijnanasya vrittilabhah) springing up in the embryo. Name and form is the rudimentary flake or bubble-like condition of the embryo. The abode of the six (Sadayatana) is the further developed stage of the embryo in which the latter is the abode of the six senses. Touch (Sparsa) is the sensation of cold, warmth, etc., on the embryo's part. Feeling (Vedana) is the sensation of pleasure and pain resulting therefrom. Desire (Trishna) is the wish to enjoy the pleasurable sensations and to shun the painful ones. Activity (Upadana) is the effort resulting from desire. Birth is the passing out from the uterus. Species (Jati) is the class of beings to which the new-born creature belongs. Decay (Jara), death (Marana) is explained as the condition of the creature when about to die (Mumursha). Grief (Soka) is the frustration of wishes connected therewith. Lament (Parivedana): the lamentations on that account. Pain (Duhkha) is such pain as caused by the five senses. Durmanas is mental affliction. The 'and the like' implies death, the departure to another world and the subsequent return from there.
The Buddhistic realist says: Although there exists no permanent intelligent principle of the nature either of a ruling Lord of an enjoying soul under whose influence the formation of the aggregates could take place, yet the course of earthly existence is rendered possible through the mutual causality of nescience (ignorance) and so on, so that we need not look for any other combining principle.
Nescience, Samskara, etc., constitute an uninterrupted chain of cause and effect. In the above series the immediately preceding item is the cause of the next. The wheel of cause and effect revolves unceasingly like the water-wheel and this cannot take place without aggregates. Hence aggregates are a reality.
We reply: Though in the series the preceding one is the cause of the subsequent one, there is nothing which can be the cause of the aggregates. It may be argued that the union of atom and the continuous flow of sensations are proved by the mutual interdependence existing among them. But the argument cannot stand, as this mutual interdependence cannot be the cause of their cohesion. Of two things one may produce the other, but that is no reason why they should unite together.
Even if Avidya (nescience), Samskara, Vijnana, Nama, and Rupa, etc., may without a sentient or intelligent agency pass from the stage of cause to the stage of effect, yet how can the totality of all these simultaneously exist without the will of a coordinating mind?
If you say that this aggregate or the world is formed by the mutual causation of Avidya and the rest, we say it is not so, because your link of causation explains only the origin of the subsequent from the previous. It only explains how Vijnana arises from Samskara, etc. It does not explain how the aggregate is brought about. An aggregate called Sanghata always shows a design and is brought about for the purpose of enjoyment. A Sanghata like a house may be explained to have been produced by putting together of bricks, mortar, etc., but they do not explain the design. You say that there is no permanent Atman. Your Atman is momentary only. You are a Kshanikatvavadin. There can be no enjoyment or experiencing for such a momentary soul; because the enjoying soul has not produced the merit or demerit whose fruits it has to enjoy. It was produced by another momentary soul. You cannot say that the momentary soul suffers the fruits of the acts done by its ancestral soul, for then that ancestral soul must be held to be permanent and not momentary. If you hold any soul to be permanent, it will contradict your theory of the momentariness of everything. But if you hold everything to be impermanent, your theory is open to the objection already made. Hence the doctrine of the Sanghatas (Buddhists) is untenable. It is not based on reason.
The atoms cannot combine by themselves even when they are assumed to be permanent and eternal. We have already shown this when examining the doctrine of the Vaiseshikas. Their combination is much more impossible when they are momentary.
The Bauddhas say that a combining principle of the atoms is not necessary if the atoms stand in a relation of causality. The atoms would combine by themselves. This is incorrect. The causality will explain only the production of atoms at different moments. It cannot certainly explain the union of the atom into an aggregate. The combination of an aggregate can take place only if there is an intelligent agent behind. Otherwise it is impossible to explain the union of inert and momentary atoms.
You will say that in the eternal Samsara the aggregates succeed one another in an unbroken chain and hence also Nescience and so on which abide in those aggregates. But in that case you will have to assume either that each aggregate necessarily produces another aggregate of the same kind, or that it may produce either a like or an unlike one without any settled or definite rule. In the former case a human body could never pass over into that of a god or an animal or a being of the infernal regions as like will go on producing like; in the latter case a man might in an instant become an elephant or a god and again become a man; either of which consequences would be contrary to your system.
The individual soul for whose enjoyment this aggregate of body etc., exists is also evanescent or momentary. It cannot therefore be an enjoyer. As the individual soul is momentary, whose is liberation? As there is no permanent enjoyer, there is no necessity for these aggregates. There may exist a causal relation between the members of the series consisting of Nescience, etc., but in the absence of a permanent enjoying soul, it is not possible to establish on that ground the existence of aggregates. Hence the doctrine of momentariness of the Buddhist school of Realists cannot stand.
Uttarotpade cha purvanirodhat II.2.20 (191)
(Nor can there be a causal relation between nescience, etc.) because on the origination of the subsequent thing the preceding one ceases to be.
Uttarotpade: at the time of the production of the subsequent thing; Cha: and; Purvanirodhat: because the antecedent one has ceased to exist, because of the destruction of the previous thing. (Uttara: in the next, in the subsequent; Utpade: on the origination, on the production.)
The argument against the Buddhistic theory, commenced in Sutra 18, is continued.
We have hitherto argued that nescience and so on stand in a causal relation to each other merely, so that they cannot be made to account for the existence of the aggregates. We are now going to prove that they cannot even be regarded as efficient causes of the subsequent members of the series to which they belong.
According to the Buddhistic theory everything is momentary. A thing of the present moment vanishes in the next moment when its successor manifests. At the time of the appearance of a subsequent thing, the previous thing vanishes. Hence it is impossible for the previous thing to be the cause of the subsequent thing. Consequently the theory is untenable and inadmissible. It cannot stand to reason.
We always perceive that the cause subsists in the effect as the thread subsists in the cloth. But the Buddhists hold that existence originates from non-existence because they maintain that the effect cannot manifest without the destruction of the cause, the tree cannot appear until the seed is destroyed.
Even the passing of cause into effect in a series of successive states like nescience, etc., cannot take place, unless there is a coordinating intelligence. You say that everything has only a momentary existence. Your School cannot bring about the simultaneous existence of two successive moments. If the cause exists till it passes into the stage of effect, the theory of momentary existence (Kshanikatva) will vanish.
You may say that the former momentary existence when it has reached its full development becomes the cause of the later momentary existence. That also is impossible, because even that will require a successive or second moment for operation. This contradicts the doctrine of momentariness.
The theory of momentary existence (Kshanikatva) cannot stand. The gold that exists at the time the ornament is made is alone the cause of the ornament and not that which existed before and has ceased to exist then. If it be still held to be the cause, then existence will come out of non-existence. This is not possible. The theory of momentariness will contradict the doctrine that the effect is the cause in a new form. This doctrine indicates that the cause exists in the effect. This shows that it is not momentary. Further, origination and destruction will be the same owing to momentariness. If it is said that there is difference between origination and destruction, then we will have to say that the thing lasts for more than one moment. Hence we have again to declare the doctrine of momentariness to be untenable.
Asati pratijnoparodho yaugapadyamanyatha II.2.21 (192)
If non-existence (of cause) be assumed, (while yet the effect takes place), there results contradiction of the admitted principle or proposition. Otherwise there would result simultaneity (of cause and effect).
Asati: in the case of non-existence of cause, if it be admitted that an effect is produced without a cause; Pratijna: proposition, admitted principle; Uparodhah: contradiction, denial; Yaugapadyam: simultaneity, simultaneous existence; Anyatha: otherwise.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
If the Buddhists say that an effect is produced without a cause then they would contradict their own proposition that every effect has a cause. The proposition admitted by Buddhists that the consciousness of blue, etc., arises when mind, eye, light and object act in union as cause will fail. All sorts of effects can co-exist.
If a cause be assumed then we have to accept that the cause and effect exist simultaneously at the next moment. The cause exists for more than one moment. The cause exists till the state of effect is reached. Then the doctrine of momentariness will fail.
Pratisankhyapratisankhyanirodhapraptiravicchedat II.2.22 (193)
Conscious and unconscious destruction would be impossible on account of non-interruption.
Pratisankhya nirodha: conscious destruction, destruction due to some cause or agency; causal destruction, destruction depending upon the volition of conscious entity; Apratisankhya nirodha: unconscious destruction, destruction not depending upon any voluntary agency; Apraptih: non-attainment, impossibility; Avicchedat: because of non-interruption, because it goes on without interruption.
The argument against the theory of the Buddhists is continued.
The Buddhists hold that universal destruction is ever going on and that this destruction or cessation is of two kinds, viz., conscious and unconscious. Conscious destruction depends upon an act of thought as when a man breaks a jar having previously formed the intention of doing so. Unconscious destruction is the natural decay of objects.
The flow of cause and effect goes on without interruption and therefore cannot be subject to either kind of destruction. Nor can any individual antecedent of a series be said to be totally destroyed, as it is recognised in its immediate consequence.
Both kinds of destruction or cessation are impossible because it must refer either to the series of momentary existences or to the single members constituting the series.
The former alternative is not possible because in all series of momentary existences the members of the series stand in an unbroken relation of cause and effect so that the series cannot be interrupted. The latter alternative is similarly not admissible, because it is not possible to hold that any momentary existence should undergo complete annihilation entirely undefinable and disconnected with the previous state of existence, as we observe that a thing is recognised in the various states through which it may pass and thus has a connected existence. When an earthen jar is destroyed we find the existence of the clay in the potsherds or fragments into which the jar is broken or in the powder into which the potsherds are ground. We infer that even though what seems to vanish altogether such as a drop of water which has fallen on heated iron, yet continues to exist in some other form, viz., as steam.
The series of momentary existence forming a chain of causes and effect is continuous and can never be stopped, because the last momentary existence before its annihilation must be supposed either to produce its effect or not to produce it. If it does, then the series is continued and will not be destroyed. If it does not produce the effect, the last link does not really exist as the Bauddhas define Satta of a thing as its causal efficiency and the non-existence of the last link would lead backward to the non-existence of the whole series.
We cannot have then two kinds of destruction in the individual members of the series also. Conscious destruction is not possible on account of the momentary existence of each member. There cannot be unconscious destruction as the individual member is not totally annihilated. Destruction of a thing really means only change of condition of the substance.
You cannot say that when a candle is burnt out, it is totally annihilated. When a candle burns out, it is not lost but undergoes a change of condition. 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.
For these reasons the two kinds of destruction which the Bauddhas assume cannot be proved.
Ubhayatha cha doshat II.2.23 (194)
And on account of the objections presenting themselves in either case.
Ubhayatha: in either case; Cha: and, also; Doshat: because of objections.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
There is a fallacy in either view, i.e., that Avidya or ignorance is destroyed by right knowledge or self-destroyed.
According to the Buddhistic view, emancipation is the annihilation of ignorance. Salvation or freedom is attained when ignorance is destroyed. Ignorance (Avidya or nescience) is the false idea of permanency in things which are momentary.
The ignorance can be annihilated by the adoption of some means such as penance, knowledge, etc., (conscious destruction); or it may destroy itself (spontaneity). But both the alternatives are defective. Because this annihilation of ignorance cannot be attained by the adoption of penance or the like; for the mean like every other thing, is also momentary according to the Buddhistic view and is, therefore, not likely to produce such annihilation; annihilation cannot take place of its own accord, for in that case all Buddhistic instructions, the disciplines and methods of meditation for the attainment of emancipation will be useless.
According to the Buddhistic theory, there can be no voluntary exertion on the part of the aspirant for the breaking asunder of his continued worldly experiences or nescience. There is no hope of their ever coming to an end by mere exhaustion as the causes continue to generate their effects which again continue to generate their own effects and so on and there is no occasion left for practices for attaining release.
Thus in the Buddhistic system release or freedom can never be established. The teaching of the Buddhists cannot stand the test of reasoning.
Aakase chaviseshat II.2.24 (195)
The cause of Akasa (ether) also not being different (from the two other kinds of destruction it also cannot be a non-entity.)
Akase: in the case of Akasa or ether; Cha: also, and; Aviseshat: because of no specific difference.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
We have shown in Sutras 22-23 that the two kinds of destruction (cessation) are not totally destitute of all positive characteristics and so cannot be non-entities. We now proceed to show the same with regard to space (ether, Akasa).
The Buddhists do not recognise the existence of Akasa. They regard Akasa as a non-entity. Akasa is nothing but the absence of covering or occupying body (Avaranabhava). This is un-reasonable. Akasa has the quality of sound, just as earth has smell, water taste, fire form, air touch. Akasa also is a distinct entity like earth, water, etc. Hence there is no reason why Akasa also should be rejected as a non-entity, while earth, water, etc., are recognised as being entities.
Just as earth, air, etc., are regarded as entities on account of their being the substratum of attributes like smell, etc., so also Akasa should be considered as an entity on account of its being the substratum of sound, earth, water, etc., that are experienced through their respective qualities, viz., smell, taste, form, touch. The existence of Akasa is experienced through its quality, sound. Hence Akasa also must be an entity.
Space is inferred from its attribute of sound, just as earth is inferred from smell. Where there is relation of substance and attribute there must be an object. The Buddhists hold that space is mere non-existence of matter (Avaranabhavamatram). If so, a bird may fall down as there is no obstructive matter, but how can it fly up? Non-existence of matter is space which is a positive object and not mere negation or non-entity.
The doctrine that Akasa is an absolute non-entity is not tenable. Why do you say so? Aviseshat, because there is no difference in the case of Akasa from any other kind of substance which is an object of perception. We perceive space when we say, "the crow 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 quality of sound. Thus Akasa is a real substance and not a non-entity.
If Akasa be a non-entity, then the entire world would become destitute of space.
Scriptural passages declare "Space sprang from the Atman" (Atmana akasassambhutah). So Akasa is a real thing. It is a Vastu (existing object) and not non-existence.
O Buddhists! You say that air exists in Akasa. In the Bauddha scriptures, a series of questions and answers beginning "On which, O revered Sir, is the earth founded?" in which the following question occurs, "On which is the air founded?" to which it is replied that the air is founded on space (ether). Now it is clear that this statement is appropriate only on the supposition of space being a positive entity, not a mere negation. If Akasa was totally non-existent, what would be the receptacle of air?
You cannot say that space is nothing but the absence of any occupying object. This also cannot stand to reason. If you say that space is nothing but the absence in general of any covering or occupying body, then when one bird is flying, whereby space is occupied, there would be no room for a second bird which wishes to fly at the same time. You may give an answer that the second bird may fly there where there is absence of a covering body. But we declare that that something by which the absence of covering bodies is distinguished must be a positive entity, viz., space in our sense and not the mere non-existing of covering bodies.
Moreover, there is a self-contradiction in the statements of Buddhists with reference to the three kinds of negative entities (Nirupakhya). They say that the negative entities are not positively definable, and also are eternal. It is absurd to talk of a non-being as being eternal or evanescent. The distinction of subjects and predicates of attribution totally rests on real things. Where there is such distinction, there exists the real thing such as pot, etc., which is not a mere undefinable negation or non-entity.
Anusmritescha II.2.25 (196)
And on account of memory the things are not momentary.
Anusmriteh: on account of memory; Cha: and.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
The theory of momentariness of the Buddhists is refuted here. If everything is momentary the experiencer of something must also be momentary. But the experiencer is not momentary, because people have the memory of past experiences. Memory can take place only in a man who has previously experienced it, because we observe that what one man has experienced is not remembered by another man. It is not that the experience is that one sees and another remembers. Our experience is "I saw and I now remember what I saw." He who experiences and remembers is the same. He is connected with at least two moments. This certainly refutes the theory of momentariness.
The Buddhists may say that memory is due to similarity. But unless there be one permanent knowing subject, who can perceive the similarity in the past with the present. One cannot say "This is the pot, this is the chair which was in the past." So long there is not the same soul which saw and which now remembers, how can mere similarity bring about such a consciousness as "I saw and I now remember (Pratyabhijna)?" The knowing subject must be permanent and not momentary.
Doubt may arise with reference to an external object. You may not be able to say whether it is identically the same object which was perceived in the past or something similar to it. But with reference to the Self, the cognising subject, there can never arise any such doubt whether I am the same who was in the past, for it is impossible that the memory of a thing perceived by another should exist in one's own Self.
If you say that this, the thing remembered, is like that, the thing seen, in that case also two things are connected by one agent. If the thing perceived was separate and ceased totally, it cannot be referred at all. Moreover the experience is not that "this is like that" but that "this is that."
We admit that sometimes with reference to an external thing a doubt may arise whether it is that or merely is similar to that; because mistake may occur concerning what lies outside our minds. But the conscious subject never has any doubt whether it is itself or only similar to itself. It is distinctly conscious that it is one and the same subject which yesterday had a certain sensation and remembers that sensation today. Does any one doubt whether he who remembers is the same as he who saw?
For this reason also the theory of momentariness of the Buddhists is to be rejected.
We do not perceive objects coming into existence in a moment or vanishing in a moment. Thus the theory of momentariness of all things is refuted.
Nasato'dristatvat II.2.26 (197)
(Existence or entity does) not (spring) from non-existence or non-entity, because it is not seen.
Na: not; Asatah: from non-existence, of the unreal, of a non-entity; Adrishtatvat: because it is not seen.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
A non-entity has not been observed to produce entity. Therefore it does not stand to reason to suppose non-entity to be the cause.
The Bauddhas (Vainasikas) assert that no effect can be produced from anything that is unchanging and eternal, because an unchanging thing cannot produce an effect. So they declare that the cause perishes before the effect is produced. They say from the decomposed seed only the young plant springs, spoilt milk only turns into curds, and the lump of clay has ceased to be a lump when it becomes a pot. So existence comes out of non-existence.
According to the view of the Buddhists, a real thing, i.e., the world has come into existence out of nothing. But experience shows that this theory is false. A pot for instance is never found to be produced without clay. Such a hypothetical production can only exist in the imagination, for example, the child of a barren woman. Hence the view of the Buddhists is untenable and inadmissible.
If existence can come out of non-existence, if being can proceed from non-being, then the assumption of special causes would have no meaning at all. Then anything may come out of anything, because non-entity is one and the same in all cases. There is no difference between the non-entity of a mango seed and that of a jack-seed. Hence a jack tree may come out of a mango seed. Sprouts also may originate from the horns of hares. If there are different kinds of non-existence, having special distinctions just as for instance, blueness and the like are the special qualities of lotuses and so on, the non-existence of a mango seed will differ from that of a jack-seed, and then this would turn non-entities into entities.
Moreover if existence springs from non-existence all effects would be affected with non-existence, but they are seen to be positive entities with their various special characteristics.
The horn of a hare is non-existent. What can come out from that horn? We see only being emerging from being, e.g., ornament from gold, etc.
According to the Bauddhas, all mind and all mental modifications spring from the four Skandhas and all material aggregates from the atoms. And yet they say at the same time that entity is born of non-entity. This is certainly quite inconsistent and self-contradictory. They stultify their own doctrine and needlessly confuse the minds of every one.
Udasinanamapi chaivam siddhih II.2.27 (198)
And thus (if existence should spring from non-existence, there would result) the attainment of the goal by the indifferent and non-active people also.
Udasianam: of the indifferent and non-active; Api: even, also; Cha: and; Evam: thus; Siddih: success accomplishment, and attainment of the goal.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
If it were admitted that existence or entity springs from non-existence or non entity, lazy inactive people also would attain their purpose. Rice will grow even if the farmer does not cultivate his field. Jars will shape themselves even if the potter does not fashion the clay. The weaver too will have finished pieces of cloth without weaving. No body will have to exert himself in the least either for going to the heavenly world or for attaining final emancipation. All this is absurd and not maintained by anybody.
Thus the doctrine of the origination of existence or entity from non-existence or non-entity is untenable or inadmissible.
Nabhavadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutras 28-32)
Refutation of the Bauddha Idealist.
Nabhava upalabdheh II.2.28 (199)
The non-existence (of eternal things) cannot be maintained; on account of (our) consciousness (of them).
Na: not; Abhavah: non-existence; Upalabdheh: because they are perceived, because of perception, because we are conscious of them on account of their being experienced.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued. From this Sutra begins the refutation of Buddhistic Idealists.
The doctrine of the Buddhist which affirms the momentary existence of external objects has been refuted. The Sutrakara or the author of the Sutras now proceeds to refute the doctrine of the Buddhistic school which affirms the momentariness of thought, which declares that only ideas exist and nothing else.
According to the Buddhistic Idealists (Vijnanavadins), the external world is non-existent. They maintain that every phenomenon resolves itself into consciousness and idea without any reality corresponding to it. This is not correct. The external phenomena are not non-existent as they are actually witnessed by our senses of perception. The external world is an object of experience through the senses. It cannot therefore, be non-existent like the horns of a hare.
The Vijnanavadins say: No external object exists apart from consciousness. There is impossibility for the existence of outward things. Because if outward objects are admitted, they must be either atoms or aggregates of atoms such as chairs, pots, etc. But atoms cannot be comprehended under the ideas of chair, etc. It is not possible for cognition to represent things as minute as atoms. There is no recognition of atoms and so the objects could not be atoms. They could not be atomic combinations because we cannot affirm if such combinations are one with atoms or separate therefrom.
According to the Vijnanavadins or the Yogachara system the Vijnana Skandha or idea alone is real. An object like pot or chair which is perceived outside is nothing more than ideas. The Vijnana or idea modifies itself into the form of an object. All worldly activities can go on with mere ideas, just as in dream all activities are performed with the thought objects. Ideas only exist. It is useless to assume that the object is something different from the idea. It is possible to have practical thought and intercourse without external objects, just as it is done in dream. All practical purposes are well rendered possible by admitting the reality of ideas only, because no good purpose is served by additional assumption of external objects corresponding to internal ideas.
The mind assumes different shapes owing to the different Vasanas or desire-impressions submerged in it. Just as these Vasanas create the dream world, so the external world in the waking state is also the result of Vasanas. The assumption of an external object is unnecessary. We do not see any separation of cognition and object. In dream we cognise without objects. Even so in the waking state there could be cognition without objects. Our manifoldness of Vasanas can account for such cognitions.
Perception in the waking state is like a dream. The ideas that are present during a dream appear in the form of subject and object, although there is no external object. Hence, the ideas of chair, pot which occur in our waking state are likewise independent of external objects, because they also imply ideas.
This argument is fallacious. When you see a chair or a pot how can you deny it? When you eat, your hunger is appeased. How can you doubt the hunger or the food? You say that there is no object apart from your cognition on account of your capriciousness. Why do you not see a chair as a pot? If an object is a mere mental creation like a dream why should the mind locate it outside?
The Buddhist may say "I do not affirm that I have no consciousness of an object. I also feel that the object appears as an external thing, but what I affirm is this that I am always conscious of nothing directly save my own ideas. My idea alone shines as something external. Consequently the appearance of the external things is the result of my own ideas."
We reply that the very fact of your consciousness proves that there is an external object giving rise to the idea of externality. That the external object exists apart from consciousness has necessarily to be accepted on the ground of the nature of consciousness itself. No one when perceiving a chair or a pot is conscious of his perception only, but all are conscious of chair or a pot and the like as objects of perception.
You (Vijnanavadins) say that the internal consciousness or idea appears as something external. This already indicates that the external world is real. If it were not real, your saying like something external would be meaningless. The word 'like' shows that you admit the reality of the external objects. Otherwise you would not have used this word. Because no one makes a comparison with a thing which is an absolute unreality. No one says that Ramakrishna is like the son of a barren woman.
An idea like a lamp requires an ulterior intellectual principle or illuminer to render it manifest. Vijnana has a beginning and an end. It also belongs to the category of the known. The knower is as indispensable of cognitions as of objects.
The Buddhist idealist, while contending that there is nothing outside the mind, forgets the fallacy of the argument. If the world, as they argue, were only an outward expression of internal ideas, then the world also would be just mind. But the Buddhists argue that the mind, which is ostensibly in the individual, is also the world outside. Here the question arises: How does the idea of there being nothing outside arise without the mind itself being outside? The consciousness that nothing exists outside cannot arise if there is really nothing outside. Hence the Buddhist Vijnanavada doctrine is defective.
When the Buddhists came to know of the illogicality of their concept, they modified their doctrine saying that the mind referred to here is not the individual mind but the cosmic mind, known as Alaya-Vijnana, which is the repository of all individual minds in a potential form. Here the Buddhist stumbles on the Vedanta doctrine that the world is a manifestation of the Universal Mind.
Vaidharmyaccha na svapnadivat II.2.29 (200)
And on account of the difference in nature (in consciousness between the waking and the dreaming state, the experience of the waking state) is not like dreams, etc., etc.
Vaidharmyat: on account of difference of nature, because of dissimilarity; Cha: and, also; Na: not; Svapnadivat: like dreams etc.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
The waking state is not like dream, etc., because of dissimilarity. The ideas of the waking state are not like those of a dream on account of their difference of nature.
The Buddhists say: The perception of the external world is like the dream. There are no external objects in a dream and yet the ideas manifest as subject and object. Even so the appearance of the external universe is independent of any objective reality.
The analogy of dream phenomena to the phenomena of the waking world is wrong. The consciousness in a dream and that in a wakeful state are dissimilar. The consciousness in a dream depends on the previous consciousness in the wakeful state, but the consciousness in the wakeful state does not depend on anything else, but on the actual perception by senses. Further the dream experience become false as soon as one wakes up. The dreaming man says as soon as he wakes up, "I wrongly dreamt that I had a meeting with the collector. No such meeting took place. My mind was dulled by sleep and so the false ideas arose." Those things on the contrary, of which we are conscious in our waking state such as post and the like are never negated in any state. They stand unchallenged and uncontradicted. Even after hundreds of years they will have the same appearance as now.
Moreover dream phenomena are mere memories whereas the phenomena of the waking state are experienced as realities. The distinction between remembrance and experience or immediate consciousness is directly realised by everyone as being founded on the absence or presence of the object. When a man remembers his absent son, he does not directly meet him. Simply because there is similarity between dream state and waking state we cannot say that they have the same nature. If a characteristic is not the nature of an object it will not become its inherent nature simply by being similar to an object which has that nature. You cannot say that fire which burns is cold because it has characteristics in common with water.
Hence the dreaming state and the waking state are totally dissimilar in their inherent nature.
Na bhavo'nupalabdheh II.2.30 (201)
The existence (of Samskaras or mental impressions) is not possible (according to the Bauddhas), on account of the absence of perception (of external things).
Na: not; Bhavah: existence (of impressions or Samskaras); Anupalabdheh: because they are not perceived, because (external things) are not experienced.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
According to your doctrine there could be no existence of Vasanas or mental impressions as you deny the existence of objects.
You say that though an external thing does not actually exist, yet its impressions do exist, and from these impressions diversities of perception and ideas like chair, tree arise. This is not possible, as there can be no perception of an external thing which is itself non-existent. If there be no perception of an external thing, how can it leave an impression?
If you say that the Vasanas or the mental impressions are Anadi (beginningless, or causeless), this will land you in the logical fallacy of regressus ad infinitum. This would in no way establish your position. Vasanas are Samskaras or impressions and imply a cause and basis or substratum, but for you there is no cause or basis for Vasanas or mental impressions, as you say that it cannot be cognised through any means of knowledge.
Kshanikatvacca II.2.31 (202)
And on account of the momentariness (of the Alayavijnana or ego-consciousness it cannot be the abode of the Samskaras or mental impressions).
Kshanikatvat: on account of the momentariness; Cha: and.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is continued.
The mental impressions cannot exist without a receptacle or abode. Even the Alayavijnana or ego-consciousness cannot be the abode of mental impressions as it is also momentary according to the Buddhistic view.
Unless there exists one continuous permanent principle equally connected with the past, the present and the future, or an absolutely unchangeable Self which cognises everything, we are unable to account for remembrance, recognition, which are subject to mental impressions dependent on place, time and cause. If you say that Alayavijnana is something permanent then that would contradict your doctrine of momentariness.
We have thus refuted the doctrine of the Buddhists which holds the momentary reality of the external world and the doctrine which declares that ideas only exist.
Sarvathanupapattescha II.2.32 (203)
And (as the Bauddha system is) illogical in every way (it cannot be accepted).
Sarvatha: in every way; Anupapatteh: because of its not being proved illogical; Cha: and, also.
The argument against the Buddhistic theory is concluded here.
The Sunyavada or Nihilism of the Buddhist which asserts that nothing exists is fallacious because it goes against every method of proof, viz., perception, inference, testimony and analogy. It goes against the Sruti and every means of right knowledge. Hence it has to be totally ignored by those who care for their own happiness and welfare. It need not be discussed in detail as it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil. It has no foundation whatever to rest upon. Any endeavour to use this system as a guide in the practical concerns of life is mere folly.
O Sunyavadins! You must admit yourself to be a being and your reasoning also to be something and not nothing. This contradicts your theory that all is nothing.
Further, the means of knowledge by which Sunyata is to be proved must at least be real and must be acknowledged to be true, because if such means of knowledge and arguments be themselves nothing, then the theory of nothingness cannot be established. If these means and arguments be true, then something certainly is proved. Then also the theory of nothingness is disproved.
Ekasminnasambhavadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 33-36)
Refutation of the Jaina Doctrine.
Naikasminnasambhavat II.2.33 (204)
On account of the impossibility (of contradictory attributes) in one and the same thing at the same time (the Jaina doctrine is) not (to be accepted).
Na: not; Ekasmin: in one; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility.
After the refutation of the Buddhistic doctrine of momentariness, Vijnanavada and Nihilism, the Jaina doctrine is taken up for discussion and refutation.
The Jainas acknowledge seven categories or Tattvas, viz., soul(Jiva), non-soul (Ajiva), the issuing outward(Asrava), restraint (Samvara), destruction (Nirjara), bondage (Bandha), and release (Moksha). These categories can be mainly divided into two groups, the soul and the non-soul. The Jainas say also that there are five Astikayas viz., Jiva or soul, Pudgala (body, matter), Dharma (merit), Adharma (demerit) and Akasa (space).
Their chief doctrine is the Saptabhanginyaya. They predicate seven different views with reference to the reality of everything, i.e., it may exist, may not exist, may exist and may not exist, may be inexpressible, may exist and may be inexpressible, may not exist and may be inexpressible and may exist and may not exist and may be inexpressible.
Now this view about things cannot be accepted, because in one substance it is not possible that contradictory qualities should exist simultaneously. No one ever sees the same object to be hot and cold at the same time. Simultaneous existence of light and darkness in one place is impossible.
According to the Jaina doctrine, heaven and liberation may exist or may not exist. This world, heaven and even liberation will become doubtful. We cannot arrive at any definite knowledge. It would be useless to lay down rules of practice for the attainment of heaven, for the avoidance of hell or for emancipation because there is no certainty about anything. The heaven may as well be hell and final freedom not different from these. As everything is ambiguous, there would be nothing to distinguish heaven, hell and final liberation from each other.
Confusion will arise not only with regard to the object of the world, but of the world also. If things are indefinite, and if everything is "somehow it is, somehow it is not," then a man who wants water will take fire to quench his thirst and so on with everything else, because it may be that fire is hot, it may be that fire is cold.
If there is such doubt how can true knowledge result? How can the Jaina teachers teach anything with certainty if everything is doubtful? How can their followers act at all, learning such teachings?
Applying this Saptabhanginyaya to their five Astikayas, the five may become four or even less. If they are inexpressible, why do they talk about it?
We have already refuted the atomic theory on which is based the Jaina doctrine that Pudgala (matter) is due to atomic combination.
Hence the Jaina doctrine is untenable and inadmissible. Their logic is fragile as the thread of a spider and cannot stand the strain of reasoning.
Evam chatmakartsnyam II.2.34 (205)
And in the same way (there results from the Jaina doctrine) the non-universality of the soul.
Evam: thus, in the same way, as it is suggested by the Jaina theory; Cha: also, and; Atma-akartsnyam: non-universality of the soul.
Other defects of the Jaina theory are shown.
We have hitherto spoken about the objection resulting from the Syadvada of the Jainas, viz., that one thing cannot have contradictory attributes. We now turn to the objection that from their doctrine it would follow that the individual soul is not universal, i.e., not omnipresent.
The Jainas hold that the soul is of the size of the body. In that case it would be limited and with parts. Hence it cannot be eternal and omnipresent.
Moreover, as the bodies of different classes of creatures are of different sizes, the soul of a man taking the body of an elephant on account of its past deeds will not be able to fill up that body. The soul of an ant also will not be able to fill up the body of an elephant. The soul of an elephant will not have sufficient space in the body of an ant. A large portion of it will have to be outside that body. The soul of a child or a youth being smaller in size will not be able to fill completely the body of a grown-up man.
The stability of the dimensions of the soul is impaired. The Jaina theory itself falls to the ground.
The Jainas may give an answer that a Jiva has infinite limbs and therefore could expand or contract. But could those infinite limbs be in the same place or not? If they could not, how could they be compressed in a small space? If they could, then all the limbs must be in the same place and cannot expand into a big body. Moreover they have no right to assume that a Jiva has infinite limbs. What is there to justify the view that a body of limited size contains an infinite number of soul particles?
Well then, the Jainas may reply, let us assume that by turns whenever the soul enters a big body, some particles accede to it, while some withdraw from it, whenever it enters a small body.
To this hypothesis, the next Sutra gives a suitable answer.
Na cha paryayadapyavirodho vikaradibhyah II.2.35 (206)
Nor is non-contradiction to be derived from the succession (of parts according to and departing from the soul to such different bodies) on account of the change, etc., (of the soul).
Na: not; Cha: also, and; Paryayat: in turn, because of assuming by succession; Api: even; Avirodhah: no inconsistency; Vikaradibhyah: on account of change, etc.
Further defects of the Jaina doctrine are shown in this Sutra.
The Jaina may say that the soul is really indefinite in its size. Therefore when it animates the bodies of an infant or a youth it has that size, and when it occupies the bodies of horses or elephants it expands itself to that size. By successive expansion and dilation like the gas it fully occupies the entire body which animates for the time being. Then there is no objection to our theory that the soul is of the size of the body.
Even if you say that the limbs of the soul keep out or come in according as the body is small or big, you cannot get over the objection that in such a case the soul will be liable to change and consequently will not be eternal. Then any talk of bondage and emancipation would be meaningless. The futility of the question of release and of the philosophy that deals with it would result.
If the soul's limbs can come and go, how could it be different in nature from the body? So one of these limbs only can be the Atman. Who can fix it? Whence do the limbs of the soul come? Where do they take rest? They cannot spring from the material elements and re-enter the elements because the soul is immortal. The limbs come and go. The soul will be of an indefinite nature and stature.
The Jaina may say that although the soul's size successively changes it may yet be permanent. Just as the stream of water is permanent although the water continually changes.
Then the same objection as that urged against the Buddhists will arise. If such a continuity is not real but is only apparent, there will be no Atman at all. We are led back to the doctrine of a general void. If it is something real, the soul will be liable to change and hence not eternal. This will render the view of the Jaina impossible.
Antyavasthiteschobhayanityatvadavisesah II.2.36 (207)
And on account of the permanency of the final (size of the soul on release) and the resulting permanency of the two (preceding sizes), there is no difference (of size of the soul, at any time).
Antyavasthiteh: because of the permanency of the size at the end; Cha: and; Ubhayanityatvat: as both are permanent; Aviseshah: because there being no difference.
Discussion on the defects of the Jaina doctrine is concluded.
Further the Jainas themselves admit the permanency of the final size of the soul, which it has in the stage of release. From this it follows also that its initial size and its intervening size must be permanent. Therefore there is no difference between the three sizes. What is the speciality of the state of release? There is no peculiarity of difference, according to the Jainas, between the state of release and the mundane state. The different bodies of the soul have one and the same size and the soul cannot enter into bigger and smaller bodies. The soul must be regarded as being always of the same size, whether minute or infinite and not of the varying sizes of the bodies.
Therefore the Jaina doctrine that the soul varies according to the size of the body is untenable and inadmissible. It must be set aside as not in any way more rational than the doctrine of the Buddhas.
Patyadhikaranam: Topic 7 (Sutras 37-41)
Refutation of the Pasupata System.
Patyurasamanjasyat II.2.37 (208)
The Lord (cannot be the efficient or the operative cause of the world) on account of the inconsistency (of that doctrine).
Patyuh: of the Lord, of Pasupati, of the Lord of animals; Asamanjasyat: on account of inconsistency, on account of untenableness, inappropriateness.
The Pasupatas or the Mahesvaras are divided into four classes, viz., Kapala, Kalamukha, Pasupata and Saiva. Their scripture describes five categories, viz., Cause (Karana), Effect (Karya), Union (Yoga by the practice of meditation), Ritual (Vidhi) and the end of pain or sorrow (Duhkhanta), i.e., the final emancipation. Their categories were revealed by the great Lord Pasupati Himself in order to break the bonds of the soul called herein Pasu or animal.
In this system Pasupati is the operative or the efficient cause (Nimitta Karana). Mahat and the rest are the effects. Union means union with Pasupati, their God, through abstract meditation. Their rituals consist of bathing thrice a day, smearing the forehead with ashes, interturning the fingers in religious worship (Mudra), wearing Rudraksha on the neck and arms, taking food in a human skull, smearing the body with ashes of a burnt human body, worshipping the deity immersed in a wine-vessel. By worshipping the Pasupati the soul attains proximity with the Lord, and there accrues a state of cessation of all desires and all pains which is Moksha.
The followers of this school recognise God as the efficient or the operative cause. They recognise the primordial matter as the material cause of the world. This theory is contrary to the view of the Sruti where Brahman is stated to be both the efficient and the material cause of the world. Hence the theory of Pasupatas cannot be accepted.
According to Vedanta, the Lord is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe. The Naiyayikas, Vaiseshikas, Yogins and Mahesvaras say that the Lord is the efficient cause only and the material cause is either the atoms, according to the Naiyayikas and Vaiseshikas, or the Pradhana, according to the Yogins and Mahesvaras. He is the ruler of the Pradhana and the souls which are different from Him.
This view is wrong and inconsistent. Because God will be partial to some and prejudiced against others. Because some are prosperous, while others are miserable in this universe. You cannot explain this saying that such difference is due to diversity of Karma, for if the Lord directs Karma, they will become mutually dependent. You cannot explain this on the ground of beginninglessness, for the defect of mutual dependence will persist.
Your doctrine is inappropriate because you hold the Lord to be a special kind of soul. From this it follows that He must be devoid of all activity.
The Sutrakara himself has proved in the previous Section of this book that the Lord is the material cause as well as the ruler of the world (efficient or the operative cause).
It is impossible that the Lord should be the mere efficient cause of the world, because His connection with the world cannot be established. In ordinary worldly life we see that a potter who is merely the efficient cause of the pot has a certain connection with the clay with which he fashions the pot.
The Srutis emphatically declare 'I will become many' (Tait. Up. II.6). This indicates that the Lord is both the efficient and the material cause of the universe.
Sambandhanupapattescha II.2.38 (209)
And because relation (between the Lord and the Pradhana or the souls) is not possible.
Sambandha: relation; Anupapatteh: because of the impossibility; Cha: and.
The argument against the Pasupata view is continued.
A Lord who is distinct from the Pradhana and the souls cannot be the ruler of the latter without being connected with them in a certain way. It cannot be conjunction (Samyoga), because the Lord, the Pradhana and the souls are of infinite extent and destitute of parts. Hence they cannot be ruled by Him.
There could not be Samavaya-sambandha (inherence) which subsists between entities inseparably connected as whole and part, substance and attributes etc., (as in the case of Tantu-pata, thread and cloth), because it would be impossible to define who should be the abode and who the abiding thing.
The difficulty does not arise in the case of the Vedantins. They say that Brahman is Abhinna-Nimitta-Upadana, the efficient cause and the material cause of the world. They affirm Tadatmya- sambandha (relation of identity). Further they depend on the Srutis for their authority. They define the nature of the cause and so on, on the basis of Sruti. They are, therefore, not obliged to render their tenets entirely conformable to observation as the opponents have to.
The Pasupatas cannot say that they have the support of the Agama (Tantras) for affirming Omniscience about God. Such a statement suffers from the defect of a logical see-saw (petitio principii), because the omniscience of the Lord is established on the doctrine of the scripture and the authority of the scripture is again established on the omniscience of the Lord.
For all these reasons, such doctrines of Sankhyayoga about the Lord is devoid of foundation and is incorrect. Other similar doctrines which likewise are not based on the Veda are to be refuted by corresponding arguments.
Adhishthananupapattescha II.2.39 (210)
And on account of the impossibility of rulership (on the part of the Lord).
Adhisthana: rulership; Anupapatteh: because of the impossibility; Cha: and.
The argument against the Pasupata view is continued.
The Lord of the argumentative philosophers, such as Naiyayikas, etc., is untenable hypothesis. There is another logical fallacy in the Nyaya conception of Isvara. They say that the Lord creates the world with the help of Pradhana, etc., just as a potter makes pots with the mud.
But this cannot be admitted, because the Pradhana which is devoid of colour and other qualities and therefore not an object of perception, is on that account of an entirely different nature from clay and the like. Therefore, it cannot be looked upon as the object of the Lord's action. The Lord cannot direct the Pradhana.
There is another meaning also for this Sutra. In this world we see a king with a body and never a king without a body. Therefore, the Lord also must have a body which will serve as the substratum of his organs. How can we ascribe a body to the Lord, because a body is only posterior to creation?
The Lord, therefore, is not able to act because he is devoid of a material substratum, because experience teaches us that action needs a material substratum. If we assume that the Lord possesses some kind of body which serves as a substratum for his organs prior to creation, this assumption also will not do, because if the Lord has a body He is subject to the sensations of the ordinary souls and thus no longer is the Lord.
The Lord's putting on a body also cannot be established. So the Lord of animals (Pasupati) cannot be the ruler of matter (Pradhana). That by putting on a body the Lord becomes the efficient cause of the world is also fallacious. In the world it is observed that a potter having a bodily form fashions a pot with the clay. If from this analogy the Lord is inferred to be the efficient cause of the world, He is to be admitted to have a bodily form. But all bodies are perishable. Even the Pasupatas admit that the Lord is eternal. It is untenable that the eternal Lord resides in a perishable body and so becomes dependent on another additional cause. Hence it cannot be inferred that the Lord has any bodily form.
There is still another meaning. Further, there is in his case the impossibility (absence) of place. For an agent like the potter etc., stands on the ground and does his work. He has a place to stand upon. Pasupati does not possess that.
Karanavacchenna bhogadibhyah II.2.40 (211)
If it be said (that the Lord rules the Pradhana etc.,) just as (the Jiva rules) the senses (which are also not perceived), (we say) no, because of the enjoyment, etc.
Karanavat: like the senses; Chet: if, if it be conceived. Na: not (no it cannot be accepted); Bhogadibhyah: because of enjoyment, etc.
An objection against Sutra 38 is raised and refuted.
The Sutra consists of two parts, namely an argument and its reply. The argument is 'Karanavacchet' and the reply is 'Na bhogadibhyah'.
The opponent says: Just as the individual soul rules the sense organs which are not perceived, so also the Lord rules the Pradhana, etc.
The analogy is not correct, because the individual soul feels pleasure and pain. If the analogy be true, the Lord also would experience pleasure and pain, caused by the Pradhana etc., and hence would forfeit His Godhead.
Antavattvamasarvajnata va II.2.41 (212)
(There would follow from their doctrine the Lord's) being subject to destruction or His non-omniscience.
Antavattvam: finiteness, terminableness, subject to destruction; Asarvajnata: absence of Omniscience; Va: or.
The argument raised in Sutra 40 is further refuted and thus the Pasupata doctrine is refuted.
According to these schools (Nyaya, Pasupata, the Mahesvara, etc.), the Lord is Omniscient and eternal. The Lord, the Pradhana and the souls are infinite and separate. Does the Omniscient Lord know the measure of the Pradhana, soul and Himself or not? If the Lord knows their measure, they all are limited. Therefore a time will come when they will all cease to exist. If Samsara ends and thus there is no more Pradhana, of what can God be the basis or His lordship? Or, over what is His Omniscience to extend? If nature and souls are finite, they must have a beginning. If they have a beginning and end, there will be scope for Sunyavada, the doctrine of nothingness. If He does not know them, then he would no longer be Omniscient. In either case the doctrine of the Lord's being the mere efficient cause of the world is untenable, inconsistent and unacceptable.
If God be admitted to have organs of senses and so to be subject to pleasure and pain, as stated in Sutra 40, He is subject to birth and death like an ordinary man. He becomes devoid of Omniscience. This sort of God is not accepted by the Pasupatas even. Hence the doctrine of the Pasupatas, that God is not the material cause of the world cannot be accepted.
Utpattyasambhavadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 42-45)
Refutation of the Bhagavata or the Pancharatra school.
Utpattyasambhavat II.2.42 (213)
On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the individual soul from the Highest Lord), (the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine cannot be accepted).
Utpatti: causation, origination, creation; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility.
The Pancharatra doctrine or the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is now refuted.
According to this school, the Lord is the efficient cause as well as the material cause of the universe. This is in quite agreement with the scripture or the Sruti and so it is authoritative. A part of their system agrees with the Vedanta system. We accept this. Another part of the system, however, is open to objection.
The Bhagavatas say that Vaasudeva whose nature is pure knowledge is what really exists. He divides Himself fourfold and appears in four forms (Vyuhas) as Vaasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Vaasudeva denotes the Supreme Self, Sankarshana the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind, and Aniruddha the principle of egoism, or Ahamkara. Of these four Vaasudeva constitutes the Ultimate Cause, of which the three others are the effects.
They say that by devotion for a long period to Vaasudeva through Abhigamana (going to the temple with devotion), Upadana (securing the accessories of worship). Ijya (oblation, worship), Svadhyaya (study of holy scripture and recitation of Mantras) and Yoga (devout meditation) we can pass beyond all afflictions, pains and sorrows, attain Liberation and reach the Supreme Being. We accept this doctrine.
But we controvert the doctrine that Sankarshana (the Jiva) is born from Vaasudeva and so on. Such creation is not possible. If there is such birth, if the soul be created it would be subject to destruction and hence there could be no Liberation. That the soul is not created will be shown in Sutra II.3. 17.
For this reason the Pancharatra doctrine is not acceptable.
Na cha kartuh karanam II.2.43 (214)
And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.
Na: not; Cha: and; Kartuh: from the agent; Karanam: the instrument.
The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.
An instrument such as a hatchet and the like is not seen to be produced from the agent, the woodcutter. But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz., the individual soul termed Sankarshana, there springs its internal instrument or mind (Pradyumna) and from the mind, the ego or Ahamkara (Aniruddha).
The mind is the instrument of the soul. Nowhere do we see the instrument being born from the doer. Nor can we accept that Ahamkara issues from the mind. This doctrine cannot be accepted. Such doctrine cannot be settled without observed instances. We do not meet with any scriptural passage in its favour. The scripture declares that everything takes its origin from Brahman.
Vijnanadibhave va tadapratishedhah II.2.44 (215)
Or if the (four Vyuhas are said to) possess infinite knowledge, etc., yet there is no denial of that (viz., the objection raised in Sutra 42).
Vijnanadibhave: if intelligence etc. exist; Va: or, on the other hand; Tat: that (Tasya iti); Apratishedhah: no denial (of). (Vijnana: knowledge; Adi: and the rest; Bhave: of the nature (of).)
The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.
The error of the doctrine will persist even if they say that all the Vyuhas are Gods having intelligence, etc.
The Bhagavatas may say, that all the forms are Vaasudeva, the Lord, and that all of them equally possess Knowledge, Lordship, Strength, Power, etc., and are free from faults and imperfections.
In this case there will be more than one Isvara. This goes against your own doctrine according to which there is only one real essence, viz., the holy Vaasudeva. All the work can be done by only One Lord. Why should there be four Isvaras?
Moreover, there could be no birth of one from another, because they are equal according to the Bhagavatas, whereas a cause is always greater than the effect. Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect requires some superiority on the part of the cause, as for instance, in the case of the clay and the pot, where the cause is more extensive than the effect and that without such superiority the relation is simply impossible. The Bhagavatas do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, etc., between Vaasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they are all forms of Vaasudeva without any special distinction.
Then again, the forms of Vaasudeva cannot be limited to four only, as the whole world from Brahma down to a blade of grass is a form or manifestation of the Supreme Being. The whole world is the Vyuha of Vaasudeva.
Vipratishedhacca II.2.45 (216)
And because of contradictions (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).
Vipratishedhat: because of contradiction; Cha: and.
The argument against the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is concluded here.
There are also other inconsistencies, or manifold contradictions in the Pancharatra doctrine. Jnana, Aisvarya, or ruling capacity, Sakti (creative power), Bala (strength), Virya (valour) and Tejas (glory) are enumerated as qualities and they are again in some other place spoken of as selfs, holy Vaasudevas and so on. It says that Vaasudeva is different from Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Yet it says that these are the same as Vaasudeva. Sometimes it speaks of the four forms as qualities of the Atman and sometimes as the Atman itself.
Further we meet with passages contradictory to the Vedas. It contains words of depreciation of the Vedas. It says that Sandilya got the Pancharatra doctrine after finding that the Vedas did not contain the means of perfection. Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas, Sandilya studied this Sastra.
For this reason also the Bhagavata doctrine cannot be accepted. As this system is opposed to and condemned by all the Srutis and abhored by the wise, it is not worthy of regard.
Thus in this Pada has been shown that the paths of Sankhyas, Vaiseshikas and the rest down to the Pancharatra doctrine are strewn with thorns and are full of difficulties, while the path of Vedanta is free from all these defects and should be trodden by every one who wishes his final beatitude and salvation.
Thus ends the Second Pada (Section 2) of the Second Adhyaya (Chapter II) of the Brahmasutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.