VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH RAMANUJA'S SRÎBHASHYA 35 страница

8. And even if it be admitted; on account of the absence of a purpose.

Even if it were admitted that the Pradhana is established by Inference, the Sankhya theory could not be accepted for the reason that the Pradhana is without a purpose. For, according to the view expressed in the passage, 'In order that the soul may know the Pradhana and become isolated' (Sankhya Ka. I, 21), the purpose of the Pradhana is fruition and final release on the part of the soul; but both these are impossible. For, as the soul consists of pure intelligence, is inactive, changeless, and spotless, and hence eternally emancipated, it is capable neither of fruition which consists in consciousness of Prakriti, nor of Release which consists in separation from Prakriti. If, on the other hand, it be held that the soul constituted as described is, owing to the mere nearness of Prakriti, capable of fruition, i.e. of being conscious of pleasure and pain, which are special modifications of Prakriti, it follows that, as Prakriti is ever near, the soul will never accomplish emancipation.

9. And (it is) objectionable on account of the contradictions.

The Sankhya-system, moreover, labours from many internal contradictions. -- The Sankhyas hold that while Prakriti is for the sake of another and the object of knowledge and fruition, the soul is independent, an enjoying and knowing agent, and conscious of Prakriti; that the soul reaches isolation through the instrumentality of Prakriti only, and that as its nature is pure, permanent, unchanging consciousness, absence of all activity and isolation belong to that nature; that for this reason the accomplishing of the means of bondage and release and of release belong to Prakriti only; and that, owing to Prakriti's proximity to the unchanging non-active soul, Prakriti, by a process of mutual superimposition (adhyasa), works towards the creation of a world and subserves the purposes of the soul's fruition and emancipation. -- 'Since the aggregate of things is for the sake of another; since there is an opposite of the three gunas and the rest; since there is superintendence; since there is an experiencing subject; and since there is activity for the sake of isolation; the soul exists' (Sankhya Ka. 17); 'And from that contrast the soul is proved to be a witness, isolated, neutral, cognising and inactive' (18). -- And after having stated that the activity of the Pradhana is for the purpose of the release of the Self, the text says, 'therefore no (soul) is either bound or released, nor does it migrate; it is Prakriti which, abiding in various beings, is bound and released and migrates' (62). And 'From this connexion therewith (i.e. with the soul) the non-intelligent appears as intelligent; and although all agency belongs to the gunas, the indifferent (soul) becomes an agent. In order that the soul may know the Pradhana and become isolated, the connexion of the two takes place like that of the lame and the blind;

and thence creation springs' (20, 21). -- Now to that which is eternally unchanging, non-active and isolated, the attributes of being a witness and an enjoying and cognising agent can in no way belong. Nor also can such a being be subject to error resting on superimposition; for error and superimposition both are of the nature of change. And, on the other hand, they also cannot belong to Prakriti, since they are attributes of intelligent beings. For by superimposition we understand the attribution, on the part of an intelligent being, of the qualities of one thing to another thing; and this is the doing of an intelligent being, and moreover a change. Nor is it possible that superimposition and the like should take place in the soul only if it is in approximation to Prakriti. -- They may take place just on account of the non-changing nature of the soul! -- Then, we reply, they would take place permanently. And that mere proximity has no effective power we have already shown under II, 1, 4. And if it is maintained that it is Prakriti only that migrates, is bound and released, how then can she be said to benefit the soul, which is eternally released? That she does so the Sankhyas distinctly assert, 'By manifold means Prakriti, helpful and endowed with the gunas, without any benefit to herself, accomplishes the purpose of the soul, which is thankless and not composed of the gunas' (Sankhya Ka. 60). -- The Sankhyas further teach that Prakriti, on being seen by any soul in her true nature, at once retires from that soul -- 'As a dancer having exhibited herself on the stage withdraws from the soul, so Prakriti withdraws from the soul when she has manifested herself to it' (59); 'My opinion is that there exists nothing more sensitive than Prakriti, who knowing "I have been seen" does not again show itself to the soul' (61). But this doctrine also is inappropriate. For, as the soul is eternally released and above all change, it never sees Prakriti, nor does it attribute to itself her qualities; and Prakriti herself does not see herself since she is of non-intelligent nature; nor can she wrongly impute to herself the soul's seeing of itself as her own seeing of herself, for she herself is non-intelligent and the soul is incapable of that change which consists in seeing or knowing. -- Let it then be said that the 'seeing' means nothing more than the proximity of Prakriti to the soul! -- But this also does not help you; for, as said above, from that there would follow eternal seeing, since the two are in eternal proximity. Moreover, the ever unchanging soul is not capable of an approximation which does not form an element of its unchanging nature. -- Moreover, if you define the seeing as mere proximity and declare this to be the cause of Release, we point out that it equally is the cause of bondage -- so that bondage and release would both be permanent. -- Let it then be said that what causes bondage is wrong seeing -- while intuition of the true nature of things is the cause of Release! -- But as both these kinds of seeing are nothing but proximity, it would follow that both take place permanently. And if, on the other hand, the proximity of Soul and Prakriti were held not to be permanent, then the cause of such proximity would have to be assigned, and again the cause of that, and so on _ad infinitum_. -- Let us then, to escape from these difficulties, define proximity as nothing more than the true nature of soul and Prakriti! -- As the true nature is permanent, we reply, it would follow therefrom that bondage and release would be alike permanent. -- On account of all these contradictory views the system of the Sankhyas is untenable.

We finally remark that the arguments here set forth by us at the same time prove the untenableness of the view of those who teach that there is an eternally unchanging Brahman whose nature is pure, non-differenced intelligence, and which by being conscious of Nescience experiences unreal bondage and release. For those philosophers can show no more than the Sankhyas do how their Brahman can be conscious of Nescience, can be subject to adhyasa, and so on. There is, however, the following difference between the two theories. The Sankhyas, in order to account for the definite individual distribution of birth, death, and so on, assume a plurality of souls. The Vedantins, on the other hand, do not allow even so much, and their doctrine is thus all the more irrational. The assertion that there is a difference (in favour of the Vedantins) between the two doctrines, in so far as the Vedantins hold Prakriti to be something unreal, while the Sankhyas consider it to be real, is unfounded; for pure, homogeneous intelligence, eternally non-changing, cannot possibly be conscious of anything different from itself, whether it be unreal or real. And if that thing is held to be unreal, there arise further difficulties, owing to its having to be viewed as the object of knowledge, of refutation, and so on.

Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the impossibility of construction.'

10. Or in the same way as the big and long from the short and the atomic.

We have shown that the theory of the Pradhana being the universal cause is untenable, since it rests on fallacious arguments, and suffers from inner contradictions. We shall now prove that the view of atoms constituting the universal cause is untenable likewise. 'Or in the same way as the big and long from the short and the atomic' 'Is untenable' must be supplied from the preceding Sutra; 'or' has to be taken in the sense of 'and.' The sense of the Sutra is -- in the same way as the big and long, i.e. as the theory of ternary compounds originating from the short and the atomic, i.e. from binary compounds and simple atoms is untenable, so everything else which they (the Vaiseshikas) maintain is untenable; or, in other words -- as the theory of the world originating from atoms through binary compounds is untenable, so everything else is likewise untenable. -- Things consisting of parts, as e.g. a piece of cloth, are produced by their parts, e.g. threads, being joined by means of the six sides which are parts of those parts. Analogously the atoms also must be held to originate binary compounds in the way of combining by means of their six sides; for if the atoms possessed no distinction of parts (and hence filled no space), a group of even a thousand atoms would not differ in extension from a single atom, and the different kinds of extension -- minuteness, shortness, bigness, length, &c. -- would never emerge. If, on the other hand, it is admitted that the atoms also have distinct sides, they have parts and are made up of those parts, and those parts again are made up of their parts, and so on in infinitum. -- But, the Vaiseshika may object, the difference between a mustard seed and a mountain is due to the paucity of the constituent parts on the one hand, and their multitude on the other. If, now, it be held that the atom itself contains an infinity of parts, the mustard seed and the mountain alike will contain an infinity of parts, and thus their inequality cannot be accounted for. We must therefore assume that there is a limit of subdivision (i.e. that there are real atoms which do not themselves consist of parts). -- Not so, we reply. If the atoms did not possess distinct parts, there could originate no extension greater than the extension of one atom (as already shown), and thus neither mustard seed nor mountain would ever be brought about. -- But what, then, are we to do to get out of this dilemma? -- You have only to accept the Vedic doctrine of the origination of the world.

Others explain the above Sutra as meant to refute an objection against the doctrine of Brahman being the general cause. But this does not suit the arrangement of the Sutras, and would imply a meaningless iteration. The objections raised by some against the doctrine of Brahman have been disposed of in the preceding pada, and the present pada is devoted to the refutation of other theories. And that the world admits of being viewed as springing from an intelligent principle such as Brahman was shown at length under II, 1, 4. The sense of the Sutra, therefore, is none other than what we stated above. -- But what are those other untenable views to which the Sutra refers? -- To this question the next Sutra replies.

11. On both assumptions also there is no motion, and thence non-being (of the origination of the world).

The atomic theory teaches that the world is produced by the successive formation of compounds, binary, ternary, and so on, due to the aggregation of atoms -- such aggregation resulting from the motion of the atoms. The primary motion of the atoms -- which are the cause of the origination of the entire world -- is assumed to be brought about by the unseen principle (adrishta), 'The upward flickering of fire, the sideway motion of air, the primary motion on the part of atoms and of the manas are caused by the unseen principle.' -- Is then, we ask, this primary motion of the atoms caused by an adrishta residing in them, or by an adrishta residing in the souls? Neither alternative is possible. For the unseen principle which is originated by the good and evil deeds of the individual souls cannot possibly reside in the atoms; and if it could, the consequence would be that the atoms would constantly produce the world. Nor again can the adrishta residing in the souls be the cause of motion originating in the atoms. -- Let it then be assumed that motion originates in the atoms, owing to their being in contact with the souls in which the adrishta abides! -- If this were so, we reply, it would follow that the world would be permanently created, for the adrishta, of the souls forms an eternal stream.-But the adrishta requires to be matured in order to produce results. The adrishtas of some souls come to maturity in the same state of existence in which the deeds were performed; others become mature in a subsequent state of existence only; and others again do not become mature before a new Kalpa has begun. It is owing to this dependence on the maturation of the adrishtas that the origination of the world does not take place at all times. -- But this reasoning also we cannot admit. For there is nothing whatever to establish the conclusion that all the different adrishtas which spring from the manifold actions performed at different times, without any previous agreement, by the infinite multitude of individual Selfs should reach a state of uniform maturation at one and the same moment of time (so as to give rise to a new creation). Nor does this view of yours account for the fact of the entire world being destroyed at the same time, and remaining in a state of non-maturation for the period of a dviparardha. -- Nor can you say that the motion of the atoms is due to their conjunction with (souls whose) adrishta possesses certain specific qualities imparted to them by the will of the Lord; for by mere inference the existence of a Lord cannot be proved, as we have shown under I, 1. The origin of the world cannot, therefore, be due to any action on the part of the atoms.

12. And because owing to the acknowledgment of samavaya, there results a _regressus in infinitum_ from equality.

The Vaiseshika doctrine is further untenable on account of the acknowledgment of samavaya. -- Why so? -- Because the samavaya also, like part, quality, and generic characteristics, requires something else to establish it, and that something else again requires some further thing to establish it -- from which there arises an infinite regress. To explain. The Vaiseshikas assume the so-called samavaya relation, defining it as 'that connexion which is the cause of the idea "this is here," in the case of things permanently and inseparably connected, and standing to each other in the relation of abode and thing abiding in the abode.' Now, if such a samavaya relation is assumed in order to account for the fact that things observed to be inseparably connected -- as, e.g., class characteristics are inseparably connected with the individuals to which they belong -- are such, i.e. inseparably connected, a reason has also to be searched for why the samavaya, which is of the same nature as those things (in so far, namely, as it is also inseparably connected with the things connected by it), is such; and for that reason, again, a further reason has to be postulated, and so on, _in infinitum_. Nor can it be said that inseparable connexion must be assumed to constitute the essential nature of samavaya (so that no further reason need be demanded for its inseparable connexion); for on this reasoning you would have to assume the same essential nature for class characteristics, qualities, and so on (which would render the assumption of a samavaya needless for them also). Nor is it a legitimate proceeding to postulate an unseen entity such as the samavaya is, and then to assume for it such and such an essential nature. -- These objections apply to the samavaya whether it be viewed as eternal or non-eternal. The next Sutra urges a further objection against it if viewed as eternal.

13. And because (the world also) would thus be eternal.

The samavaya is a relation, and if that relation is eternal that to which the relation belongs must also be eternal, so that we would arrive at the unacceptable conclusion that the world is eternal.

14. And on account of (the atoms) having colour and so on, the reverse (takes place); as it is observed.

From the view that the atoms of four kinds -- viz. of earth or water or fire or air -- possess colour, taste, smell, and touch, it would follow that the atoms are non-eternal, gross, and made up of parts -- and this is the reverse of what the Vaiseshikas actually teach as to their atoms, viz. that they are eternal, subtle, and not made up of parts. For things possessing colour, e.g. jars, are non-eternal, because it is observed that they are produced from other causes of the same, i.e. non-eternal nature, and so on. To a non-perceived thing which is assumed in accordance with what is actually perceived, we may not ascribe any attributes that would be convenient to us; and it is in accordance with actual experience that you Vaiseshikas assume the atoms to possess colour and other qualities. Hence your theory is untenable. -- Let it then, in order to avoid this difficulty, be assumed that the atoms do not possess colour and other sensible qualities. To this alternative the next Sutra refers.

15. And as there are objections in both cases.

A difficulty arises not only on the view of the atoms having colour and other sensible qualities, but also on the view of their being destitute of those qualities. For as the qualities of effected things depend on the qualities of their causes, earth, water, and so on, would in that case be destitute of qualities. And if to avoid this difficulty, it be held that the atoms do possess qualities, we are again met by the difficulty stated in the preceding Sutra. Objections thus arising in both cases, the theory of the atoms is untenable.

16. And as it is not accepted, it is altogether disregarded.

Kapila's doctrine, although to be rejected on account of it's being in conflict with Scripture and sound reasoning, yet recommends itself to the adherents of the Veda on some accounts -- as e.g. its view of the existence of the effect in the cause. Kanada's theory, on the other hand, of which no part can be accepted and which is totally destitute of proof, cannot but be absolutely disregarded by all those who aim at the highest end of man. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the big and long'.

17. Even on the aggregate with its two causes, there is non- establishment of that.

We so far have refuted the Vaiseshikas, who hold the doctrine of atoms constituting the general cause. Now the followers of Buddha also teach that the world originates from atoms, and the Sutras therefore proceed to declare that on their view also the origination, course, and so on, of the world cannot rationally be accounted for. These Bauddhas belong to four different classes. Some of them hold that all outward things, which are either elements (bhuta) or elemental (bhautika), and all inward things which are either mind (kitta) or mental (kaitta), -- all these things consisting of aggregates of the atoms of earth, water, fire and air -- are proved by means of Perception as well as Inference. Others hold that all external things, earth, and so on, are only to be inferred from ideas (vijñana). Others again teach that the only reality are ideas to which no outward things correspond; the (so-called) outward things are like the things seen in dreams. The three schools mentioned agree in holding that the things admitted by them have a momentary existence only, and do not allow that, in addition to the things mentioned, viz. elements and elemental things, mind and mental things, there are certain further independent entities such as ether, Self, and so on. -- Others finally assert a universal void, i.e. the non-reality of everything.

The Sutras at first dispose of the theory of those who acknowledge the real existence of external things. Their opinion is as follows. The atoms of earth which possess the qualities of colour, taste, touch and smell; the atoms of water which possess the qualities of colour, taste and touch; the atoms of fire which possess the qualities of colour and touch; and the atoms of air which possess the quality of touch only, combine so as to constitute earth, water, fire and air; and out of the latter there originate the aggregates called bodies, sense-organs, and objects of sense-organs. And that flow of ideas, which assumes the form of the imagination of an apprehending agent abiding within the body, is what constitutes the so-called Self. On the agencies enumerated there rests the entire empiric world. -- On this view the Sutra remarks, 'Even on the aggregate with its two causes, there is non-establishment of that'. That aggregate which consists of earth and the other elements and of which the atoms are the cause; and that further aggregate which consists of bodies, sense-organs and objects, and of which the elements are the cause -- on neither of these two aggregates with their twofold causes can there be proved establishment of that, i.e. can the origination of that aggregate which we call the world be rationally established. If the atoms as well as earth and the other elements are held to have a momentary existence only, when, we ask, do the atoms which perish within a moment, and the elements, move towards combination, and when do they combine? and when do they become the 'objects of states of consciousness'? and when do they become the abodes of the activities of appropriation, avoidance and so on (on the part of agents)? and what is the cognising Self? and with what objects does it enter into contact through the sense-organs? and which cognising Self cognises which objects, and at what time? and which Self proceeds to appropriate which objects, and at what time? For the sentient subject has perished, and the object of sensation has perished; and the cognising subject has perished, and the object cognised has perished. And how can one subject cognise what has been apprehended through the senses of another? and how is one subject to take to itself what another subject has cognised? And should it be said that each stream of cognitions is one (whereby a kind of unity of the cognising subject is claimed to be established), yet this affords no sufficient basis for the ordinary notions and activities of life, since the stream really is nothing different from the constituent parts of the stream (all of which are momentary and hence discrete). -- That in reality the Ego constitutes the Self and is the knowing subject, we have proved previously.

18. If it be said that (this) is to be explained through successive causality; we say 'no,' on account of their not being the causes of aggregation.

'If it be said that through the successive causality of Nescience and so on, the formation of aggregates and other matters may be satisfactorily accounted for.' To explain. Although all the entities (acknowledged by the Bauddhas) have a merely momentary existence, yet all that is accounted for by avidya. Avidya means that conception, contrary to reality, by which permanency, and so on, are ascribed to what is momentary, and so on. Through avidya there are originated desire, aversion, &c., which are comprised under the general term 'impression' (samskara); and from those there springs cognition (vijñana) which consists in the 'kindling' of mind; from that mind (kitta) and what is of the nature of mind (kaitta) and the substances possessing colour, and so on, viz. earth, water, &c. From that again the six sense-organs, called 'the six abodes'; from that the body, called 'touch' (sparsa); from that sensation (vedana), and so on. And from that again avidya, and the whole series as described; so that there is an endlessly revolving cycle, in which avidya, and so on, are in turn the causes of the links succeeding them. Now all this is not possible without those aggregates of the elements and elemental things which are called earth, and so on; and thereby the rationality of the formation of those aggregates is proved.

To this the second half of the Sutra replies 'Not so, on account of (their) not being the causes of aggregation'. -- This cannot rationally be assumed, because avidya, and so on, cannot be operative causes with regard to the aggregation of earth and the other elements and elemental things. For avidya, which consists in the view of permanency and so on, belonging to what is non-permanent, and desire, aversion and the rest, which are originated by avidya cannot constitute the causes of (other) momentary things entering into aggregation; not any more than the mistaken idea of shell-silver is the cause of the aggregation of things such as shells. Moreover, on the Bauddha doctrine, he who views a momentary thing as permanent himself perishes at the same moment; who then is the subject in whom the so-called samskaras, i.e. desire, aversion, and so on, originate? Those who do not acknowledge one permanent substance constituting the abode of the samskaras have no right to assume the continuance of the samskaras.

19. And on account of the cessation of the preceding one on the origination of the subsequent one.

For the following reason also the origination of the world cannot be accounted for on the view of the momentariness of all existence. At the time when the subsequent momentary existence originates, the preceding momentary existence has passed away, and it cannot therefore stand in a causal relation towards the subsequent one. For if non-existence had causal power, anything might originate at any time at any place. -- Let it then be said that what constitutes a cause is nothing else but existence in a previous moment. -- But, if this were so, the previous momentary existence of a jar, let us say, would be the cause of all things whatever that would be met with in this threefold world in the subsequent moment-cows, buffaloes, horses, chairs, stones, &c.! -- Let us then say that a thing existing in a previous moment is the cause only of those things, existing in the subsequent moment, which belong to the same species. -- But from this again it would follow that one jar existing in the previous moment would be the cause of all jars, to be met with in any place, existing in the following moment! -- Perhaps you mean to say that one thing is the cause of one subsequent thing only. But how then are we to know which thing is the cause of which one subsequent thing? -- Well then I say that the momentarily existing jar which exists in a certain place is the cause of that one subsequent momentary jar only which exists at the very same place! -- Very good, then you hold that a place is something permanent! (while yet your doctrine is that there is nothing permanent). -- Moreover as, on your theory, the thing which has entered into contact with the eye or some other sense-organ does no longer exist at the time when the idea originates, nothing can ever be the object of a cognition.

20. There not being (a cause), there results contradiction of the admitted principle; otherwise simultaneousness.

If it be said that the effect may originate even when a cause does not exist, then -- as we have pointed out before -- anything might originate anywhere and at any time. And not only would the origination of the effect thus remain unexplained, but an admitted principle would also be

contradicted. For you hold the principle that there are four causes bringing about the origination of a cognition, viz. the adhipati-cause, the sahakari-cause, the alambhana-cause, and the samanantara-cause. The term adhipati denotes the sense-organs. -- And if, in order to avoid opposition to an acknowledged principle, it be assumed that the origination of a further momentary jar takes place at the time when the previous momentary jar still exists, then it would follow that the two momentary jars, the causal one and the effected one, would be perceived together; but as a matter of fact they are not so perceived. And, further, the doctrine of general momentariness would thus be given up. And should it be said that (this is not so, but that) momentariness remains, it would follow that the connexion of the sense-organ with the object and the cognition are simultaneous.

21. There is non-establishment of pratisankhya and apratisankhya destruction, on account of non-interruption.

So far the hypothesis of origination from that which is not has been refuted. The present Sutra now goes on to declare that also the absolute (niranvaya) destruction of that which is cannot rationally be demonstrated. Those who maintain the momentariness of all things teach that there are two kinds of destruction, one of a gross kind, which consists in the termination of a series of similar momentary existences, and is capable of being perceived as immediately resulting from agencies such as the blow of a hammer (breaking a jar, e.g.); and the other of a subtle kind, not capable of being perceived, and taking place in a series of similar momentary existences at every moment. The former is called pratisankhya-destruction; the latter apratisankhya-destruction. -- Both these kinds of destruction are not possible. -- Why? -- On account of the non-interruption, i.e. on account of the impossibility of the complete destruction of that which is. The impossibility of such destruction was proved by us under II, 1, 14, where we showed that origination and destruction mean only the assumption of new states on the part of one and the same permanent substance, and therefrom proved the non-difference of the effect from the cause. -- Here it may possibly be objected that as we see that a light when extinguished passes away absolutely, such absolute destruction may be inferred in other cases also. But against this we point out that in the case of a vessel of clay being smashed we perceive that the material, i.e. clay, continues to exist, and that therefrom destruction is ascertained to be nothing else but the passing over of a real substance into another state. The proper assumption, therefore, is that the extinguished light also has passed over into a different state, and that in that state it is no longer perceptible may be explained by that state being an extremely subtle one.

⇐ Предыдущая 36 37 38 39 404142 43 44 45 Следующая ⇒