sribhashya-1-1-3

[Guest guest]

suthra-3-sAsthrayOnithvAth

 

 

 

sAsthryOnih=sAsthram yasya yOnih;kAraNam pramAnam; of whom the

scriptures are the source of knowledge Thasya bhAvah sAsthrayonothvam.

thasmAth=sAsthrayonithvAth, therefore scripture is the proof of Brahman.

 

The scriptures being the source of right knowledge of Brahman the

scriptural text 'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthE ' is the proof of

Brahman.

 

 

 

Ramanuja considers the objection that scripture is not the only source

of knowledge of Brahman as there are other means of knowledge through

which Brahman can be known.

 

Ramanuja asks 'kim tharhi thava pramANam?' What exactly is the proof of

Brahman other than the sasthra? It cannot be prathyaksha, perception,

which can only be of two kinds, namely, sense perception or perception

through yogic powers. sense perception through sense organs is not

possible in this case. Even mental perception like sukha and duhkha is

possible only from the experience through sense-contact. Yogic

prathyakha also happens only about things experienced already. Inference

is also out of question, says Ramanuja, due to the absence of sign,

linga ,which is necessary for creating inferential knowledge.

 

 

 

Inference can arise in two ways, namely, viseEshathOdhrshta and

samanyathOdhrshta. When the fire is inferred in a hill through the

perception of smoke coming out, the smoke is the linga, sign by which

inference arises considering the vyApthi, the invariable concomitance

between fire and smoke.This kind of inference is visEshathOdhrshtam.

 

SAmAnyathodhrshtam is the inference based on general observation as in

the inference of the fragrance of the sandalwood seen afar. The former

kind of inference is not possible with reference to Brahman because it

is a subject incomprehensible by the indriyas.The second kind is also

eliminated due to the absence of any sign that indicates vyapthi,

invariable concomitance.

 

 

 

The opponent, possibly Naiyayika, the logician, gives two reasons for

inferring that the world must have a sentient being as its creator.

First is that anything which is an effect is seen to have a maker who

has the knowledge of the material cause, instrumental cause and the use

to which it is put to and the user. the example of this is things like

pot , the maker, namely the potter has the knolwledge of mud, the

material cause and potter's wheel, the efficient cause and the the

practical utility of the pot etc. Secondly all the insentient products

are dependent on and ruled by a sentient being.This is illusterated by

the example of a healthy body which is dependent on the sentient soul.

As in seeing the sprout we infer the presence of the seed , which is not

perceivable, seeing this world we can infer its creator, namely Brahman.

 

 

 

Ramanuja refutes this. He asks, ' what is meant by

EkachEthanADHeenathvam, dependence on one sentient being?' The example

quoted, namely, that of a healthy body being dependent on sentient soul

is sADhya vikala,fails to prove the point because the origination of the

body and sustenance of it does not depend on the sentient soul only but

it on the karmaphala of the individual self and of the wife, parents

etc. Moreover the world consists of inanimate things like mountains etc

which are included in the effects which are not seen to be dependent on

a sentient entity.

 

 

 

The argument that the agency of the world cannot belong to any mortal

being on account of their limited intelligence etc. also cannot be

proved. It is not necessary that the agent of creation like that of a

pot should have full knowledge of the causes and their potency, uses of

the product etc. It is enough if the potter knows that he can create a

pot form the mud and with the help of the potter's wheel wthout being

knowledgeable about the power and potency of the materials and

instruments of creation. in the case of sacrifices productive of results

the doer of sacrifice need not know the unseen power, apurva , which

arises out of the sacrifice producing the result but it is enough if he

knows as to what will be the result of the sacrifice. So the lack of

complete knowledge about the creation does not preclude an agent other

than Brahman and therefore the knowledge of Brahman can be proved only

through scriptures.

 

 

 

The opponent now comes up with an argument that the world is an effect

because it consists of things made up of parts.'sAvayathvAdhEva

jagathah kAryathvam.' Whatever is made up of parts and capable of action

and has form, is an effect which presupposes a sentient agent. Hence an

omniscient and omnipotent principle, that is, Brahman can be inferred

from the effect, the world. From the nature of the effect the knowledge

and power of the cause is inferred. On seeing the products like pots or

even big palaces the power and knowledge of the maker is inferred.

Similarly since pleasure and pain are effects and insentient, an

intelligent cause can be inferred which cannot be the individual soul

but should have to be one who is the dispenser of the results of merits

and sins.Moreover the individual souls lack the subtle knowledge

necessary for the construction of the world.

 

 

 

The opponent here presupposes the objection(possibly from the advaitin)

that since all the agents of creation are seemed to possess bodies it is

inappropriate to ascribe agency to Brahman who is said to have no form.

He cites the instance of effects of demonical spirits on the bodies and

of poison being counteracted by will. So by mere sankalpa Brahman

creates the world. It cannot be argued that will or mental power can

only exist in the embodiment because when the soul leaves the body the

mind and other faculties are found in tact and till they enter another

body.

 

 

 

So the conclusion is that since the individual souls with their limited

knowledge and power are incacapable to produce this wonderful and

variegated world of sentient and insentient beings the inference points

out to a omniscient, omnipotent supreme being who, though without form,

creates this world through his will. Hence scripture is not the sole

proof of Brahman.

 

 

 

Ramanuja replies-'YathokthalakshaNam brahma janmAdhivAkyam

bhODhayathyEva; kuthah; sAsthraikapramANathvAth brahmaNah.'

 

Brahman is as described in the vedantha vakya 'yatho va imAni bhoothAni

jAyanthe----' ascribing the creation, sustenance and annihilation to

Brahman because scripture is the only pramAna of Brahman.The argument

that the world being an effect must have an intelligent agent as its

creator only points out to such an agent but not Brahman. Moreover no

evidence can be shown through inference that the world was produced in

one whole or at one time to infer one creator nor the things in the

world are of uniform nature like pots but have different characterstics.

Nor it can be assumed that individual souls are incapable of such

powers, which can be attained by them through exceptional austerities

and merit.(That is, it cannot be proved through inference.) Perception

shows that the things produced in succession , that is, not at the same

time, have different causes..

 

 

 

Ramanuja asks he opponent who tries to prove Isvara as the creator

through inference, 'kim isvarah sasarirah asarirah vA karyam karothi, na

thAvadhasarirah, asarirasya karthrthva anupalabDHEh.' whether Isvara

creates the world possessing a body or without a body. saying that He

acts without a body is not acceptable as even mental activities require

a sarira to work through. It cannot be argued that the mind is eternal

because there is no activity on its part can be seen in the state of

disembodiment or release. If Isvara works having a body, it should

either be eternal , in which case its product, the world is also

eternal,and there is no need for Isvara, or creation. The sarira of

Isvara cannot be non-eternal since there will be a contingency to cite

another cause for the body of Isvara which in turn requires another thus

ending up in infinite regress. If Isvara works without a body and

creates through His will, there could be no examples cited to prove the

validity of the inference as all the effects such as pot are not

created by will.

 

 

 

So, says Ramanuja, 'athah dharsanAnuguNyEna isvarAnumAnam

dharsanAnuguNya parAhatham ithi sAsthraikapramAnah

parabrahmabhoothahsarvEsvarahpurushotthamah.' Therefore it is to be

concluded that based on observation the inference is refuted and the

sastra alone is the pramANa for the existence of the supreme Brahman,

Lord of all and the supreme self. The scripture speaks of the supreme

being who is different from all the rest known through other means of

knowledge, who possesses infinite auspicious quqlities such as

omniscience, infallible will etc. and who is devoid of all

imperfections. Ramanuja concludes by saying 'athah prmAnanthara

agocharathvena sAsthraika vishayathvAth,- yathO vA imani bhoothAni

ithyAdhi vAkyam- ukthalakshaNam brahma prathipAdhayathi ithi siddham'.

Since Brahman cannot be proved by any other means of knowledge and

scripture being the only source, the texts such as 'from whom all this

originate' etc. give authoritative knowledge of Brahman.

 

 

 

The next suthra takes up the question whether scriptures are

authoritative regarding Brahman as it is siddha vasthu, already

established entity, and does not have any activity or cessation of it as

its purport.