[Kapila muni's sAnkhyA]

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Hari,

Thanks for a detailed mail on this subject. Please note

that I wasn't in any way advocating sAnkhyam. My question

was different. I wanted to know why is there a contrast

between Kapila muni's svarUpam and His theory ? He being

Sriman Narayana amsam why did he postulate a theory that

rejects paramAthmA? Is it a foible that he was an amsam

of Sriman Narayana ? Or

Is it that he was just another controversial sage like

Sage Parasurama who in spite of being Sriman Narayana amsam

engaged in atrocities to kshathriyAs ?

 

Thanks,

chandrasekaran.

[Guest guest]

Dear SrI Chandrasekaran Venkatraman,

 

Your question is impressive but I think you will not

mistake me for making a correction to your question.

 

You have written:

>"It's held that the sAnkhya theory is against vedAnthA

>since it doesn't approve of the possibility of a Supreme

>Universal controller viz., paramAthmA"

 

Here, "a Supreme universal controller" should be "the

Supreme universal controller"; this is because, your words

leads to a presumable point that the Supreme Universal

controller may be established by anumAnam itself, which

is not possible. (Refer the concluding note of this article)

 

The subject is very vast; It can be known clearly only through

the traditional kAlakshEpam methods. Still, let me outline it.

Let me answer your question briefly as follows. Hope the list

owner will not reject this article for its length. Furhter,

I am writing these things from my poor memory; the adhikaraNa-sUtra

numbers, transliterations are subject to verification! At Singapore,

I do not have all the granthams except few books. I have to depend

only upon my memory and hand written notes that I prepared during

my kAlakshepams. Therefore, scholars, please correct me if there

is spelling mistakes/transliteration errors or such mistakes.

I answer your questions as follows:

 

However great may be Sage Kapila who composed the nireeswara

sAnkaya smruthi, but his words do not agree with the VedAnta. Therefore,

Kapila smruthi it is rejected. The two sUtras in Brahma sUtra second chapter

(avirOdha adyAyam), first pAdam (smruthi pAdam), smruthiyadhikaraNam declares

this.

 

"smruthyanavakASa-dOsha-prasanga ithi chEnnAnyassmruthyanavakASa

dOsha prasangAth"

 

The ithihAsas, purANas, dharma-SAstras etc., are aiming at explaining and

ascertaining the purport of apowrushEya Sruthi. The Kapila smruthi is one

amoung them. If this smurhti is accepted, then the pradhAnam (prakruthi-

achit) is to be accepted as jagath kAraNAm. If this is rejected, then there is

no use for kapila smruthi as veda-upabruhmaNam. To avoid this case, if one

argues that it has to be accepted, then by the same manner of

argument, it can be argued that manu smruthi, pArASara smruthi etc., which

is fully in accordance with the Sruthi has to be accepted as

veda-upabruhmaNam; If it is not accepted, then the same dOsham "no use"

arises for these smruthis also. Also the veda-virudhda and vaidika smruties

cannot be simultaneously accepted as both are mutually

contradicting one another. When we have number of smruties like manu

smruthi which are fully in accordance with the Sruthi, why should kapila

smruthi which is against the Sruthi be treated and accepted as

veda-upabruhmaNam? Therefore, considering veda-virudhda kapila smruthi as

veda-upabruhmaNam is not appropriate.

 

"itharEshAmchAnupalabdhE:"

 

If it is argued that Sage Kapila is also equally great "yogi" as Manu (who

is an amSam of VishNu) etc, then it can be counter-aruged that Manu,

parASara etc have not found out (through the Sruthi) what Kapila has

found. . As Kapila smruthi is against the Veda, it can be safely conclued

that Kapila smruthi is bhrAnthi-mUlam - having confusion/bewilderment as

source. Therefore, Kapila smurhti is rejected.

 

In brahma sUtra 2-2-9, we find the sUtra "viprathishEdAth asamanjasam";

the sAnkaya theory of Kapila has mutually contradicting concepts and

therefore it is irrational; it is refuted and rejected. The explanation of

these things are lengthly. The smruthi-pAdam and tarka-pAdam in the second

chapter of Brahma sUtra has all the points to refute nireeswara sAnkya

matham.

 

The kapila sAnkya matham's thathvam is "mUla-prakruthirvikruthi:

mahadAdyA: prakruthi vikruthaya: saptha: | shODaSakaScha vikArO

na prakruthirna vikruthi: purusha: || This is the nireeSwara sAnkya

pancha-vimSathi thathva sangraham. This has to be very critically

analysed and only then, we can find it to be against the pramANam.

 

SrImath ParASara bhaTTArya: in his SrI RangarAja stavam (2-17) mentions

nireeSwara sAnkaya matham in a way, which refutes it as "sanchashtE nESvaram

thvAm purusha-parishadi nyasya yadvAAnyaparyAth sAnkya:"

 

In yatirAja sapthati, the greatest AchArya swAmi SrIman NigamAntha

mahA dESika says "kapila kalpanA vAgurAm". The nireeSwara sAnkya matham

of Kapila is refuted and rejected by Vaidikas.

 

In the Brahma sUtra's second chapter (avirOdha-adyAyam), second pAda (tarka

pAdam), Veda vyAsa in rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam, refutes

nireeSwara sAnkya matham in detail

 

"rachanAnupapaththEScha nAnumAnam pravruthEScha"

 

The insentient (achit) cannot be held independently as the cause (kAraNam)

as it has no knowledge. "effect" (kAryam) is possible if and only if

a prAgnya (sentient entity) is admitted to adminster it. Therefore the

anupravESam (being entered into it by sankalpam atleast) is esstential.

This prAgnya is the paramAthma. Otherwise, the achit cannot be held

as kAraNam.

 

"payOmbuvanchEth-thatrApi"

 

If it is argued that "like milk (kAraNam) becomes curd (kAryam) by itself,

prakruthi (kAraNam) by itself (independenlty without paramAthma) becomes

jagath (kAryam), then this anumAnam is invalid because, even in the

example "milk-curd", chEthana-vasthu is involved. The micro-organisms

are chEthana (chit) entities (sentients), and they have further another

chEthana entity (who is paramAthmA) as their Aathma. Without chEthana

entity, kAryam is not possible.

 

"vyathirEkAnavasthithESchAnapEkshathvAth"

 

If paramAthma is not required/accepted here in Srushti (creation), then

creation should be continous and always it should be happening; as this is

not observed, mere pradAnam cannot be the kAraNam.

 

"anyathrAbhAvAncha na truNAdivath"

 

If it is argued that "just like the grass eaten by a cow automatically

becomes milk, the pradhAnam independently is the jagath-kAraNam" then,

this argument is funny because the opponent has accepted

chEthana-sankalpam but still argues that independent achit is the cause.

Even if the opponent's vAdam is accepted,then the argument can be reversed

that "why not the same type of grass eaten by ox is not becoming milk?";

Therefore bhagavath sankalpam cannot be rejected in this context.

 

"purushASmavadithi chEth thathApi"

 

Now the argument of sAnkya is substantiated with some irrelevant examples

as follows: "A person with vision but without legs (handicapped) can lead

a blind man who is not handicapped. A magnet attracts and makes iron piece

to move towards it just because of its closeness with the iron piece; in

the similar manner, the independent prakruthi in the sannadhi (presence,

closeness) of udAseena (he who is neither favorable or unfavorable)

sentient purusha becomes the cause";

This explanation of sAnkya is not appropriate to itself and infact fatal for

sAnkya itself. This is because, in the blind man example, the

handicapped fellow being sentient entity dictates and leads the blind fellow

(another sentient being ) by sankalpam. The magnet which does the

action of attracting iron is insentient. But in sankya theory, the

udAseena purusha (though sentient-chethana vasthu) is not having any

action to perform. Therefore, the examples of sAnkya to substantiate the

independent-pradAna-kAraNa-vAdam is not appropriate.

 

"angithvAnupapaththEScha"

 

The Srushti is possible only if there is difference in the ratio of the three

guNas (attributes) present in the prakruthi. In sAnkya, this cannot

be established as in prati-sarga-avastha guNas are in uniform manner always.

Therefore, the Srushti has to become impossible in

sAnkya theory. How can it speak about Srushti?

 

"anyathAnumithow cha gnya-Sakthi-viyOgAth"

 

Even if the above error in sAnkya is overlooked, then without chEthana

vasthu's knowledge (which is his power) - sankalpam, achEthanam cannot be the

kAraNam. The errors cited in the earlier sUtras are very much

applicable here.

 

"abyupagamEpyarthAbhAvAth"

 

sAnkya holds that the "bhOgam" of purusha is his bewilderment of

prakruthi-guNas as his guNas. This is pradhAna-darSanam. If he realises that

prakruthi is different from himself (purusha),

then it is "moksham". This concept of sAnkya is most irrational. sAnkya holds

that the purusha is udAseena. How is that he gets the bewilderment

of prakruthi-guNas as his guNas? Further, sAnkya holds that the purusha is

nirvikAra vasthu. How can it attribute a vikAram "pradhAna-darSanam"

to the purusha? As the purusha is held udAseena, he should not get any

prayojanam (benefit) from prakruthi. Therefore, the concept of bhOgam and

moksham is illogical in sAnkya.

 

"viprathishEdhAnchAsamanjasam"

 

As the kapila's sAnkya matham talks about pradhAna-darSanam, bhOgam,

nirvikArathvam for purusha and pradAna-kAraNathvam with resepect to

achEthanam, these things are mutually contradicting one another;

therefore, Kapila matham is not logical; It is refuted and rejected.

It is against the Sruthi. The Sruthi has clearly declared that

the jagath kAraNam is SrIman NArAyaNa: Brahman.

 

Further in fourth pAda in first chapter of brahma sUtra has important

points in the same context. The AnumAnikAdhikaraNam, chamasAdhikaraNam

(which deals with the Sruthi "ajAm EkAm lOhitha Sukla krushNAm bahvee:

prajA: SrujamAnAm sarUpA:") are very important to reject the

abrahmAthmaka pradhAnam (prakruthi) of Kapila sAnkya. (please note the letter

"a" in the term abrahmAthmaka which negates brahmAthmaka pradhAnam).

 

Important note:

=============================

The rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam seems to use anumAnam to

establish the chEthana vasthu as paramAthma, without him the achEthanam

cannot become kAryam. Therefore, a contradiction may arise here - "Has

rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam contradicted the SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam

where it was established that the Brahman can be established only by

apowrushEya sabda pramANam and cannot be established by anumAnam?"

The doubt/contradiction in the form of above question is solved/answered as

follows: There is no contradiction between SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam &

rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam. In SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam, it was

established that the Brahman CANNOT be established

by anumAnam. In rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam, it is established that the

Brahman CANNOT be refuted/rejected by anumAnam. Therefore, there is

absolutely no contradiction between the two adhikaraNams. It has to noted

that the pramANam which establishes an entity alone may have the capacity

to reject it.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI RAmAnuja DAsan (mshari)

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1