sribhashya-adhyaya2-padha-1-vilakshanathvadhikaranam2--1-4

September 1, 2006

vilakshaNathvADHikaraNam- 2-1-3

suthra-4-na vilakshaNathvAth asya thaTHAthvam cha sabdhATH- 2-1-4

World being of contrary nature to it, Brahman cannot be the cause and

this is known from the scriptures also.

This suthra and the next are poorvapaksha suthras. Here the opponent

resorts to tharka,reasoning, to prove that Brahman is not the cause of

the world. The reason given for this is that the world is full of

sorrow, insentient, impure and contrary to Brahman , who, according to

the vedantin, is omniscient, omnipotent, free from imperfections and

possessed of infinite auspicious qualities. This difference is not only

known through perception but also from the scriptural texts like 'samAnE

vrkshE purushah nimagnO aneesayA sochathi muhyamAnah, (Svet.4-7) in the

same tree the individual self immersed in sorrow grieves, being

overpowered by his own helplessness.' and 'aneesaschAthmA baDhyathE

bhOkthrbhAvAth, the individual soul, not being master of itelf, gets

bound, with the concept of being an enjoyer. (svet.1-8) As it has been

shown through experience that the cause is not different from the effect

in nature by the example of pot and clay, gold and ornaments etc.

Therefore the cause of the world can only be praDHAna of sankhya.

Further the poorvapakshin says that even though the scripture is said

to be independent of any other pramANa because of its content being

something beyond the sense experience, it has to be explained in

accordance with tharka. He quotes from Manusmrthi 'yastharkENa

anusanDHatthE sa Dharmam vedha nEtharah, only who investigateds dharma

by means of reasoning, understands it and none else.' ( Actually this is

only half the verse and Ramanuja quotes the full verse in a later suthra

in reply to this.) Moreover the sasthra, verbal testimony, as a valid

means of cognition requires three conditions, namely, AkAnkshA,

expectancy, sannidhi,proximity and yOgyatha,compatability and hence

these are to be proved by tharka.

Now it requires a little explanation as to what these three conditions

mean.There are three valid means of cognition, namely,

perception,prathyaksha, inference,anumAna and sabda,verbal testimony

which generally means the vEdha, accepted by both sankhya and

visishtadvaita, though advaita cites three more, namely,

upamAna,comparison, arthApatthi, presumption and anupalabDHi,

noncognition. Of these, the sabdhapramANa requires the above mentioned

conditions for validity. AkAnksha, expectancy is the inability of a word

to convey the meaning of a sentence without other words. For example,'

a cow, a horse a man,' is not a meaningful sentence without some other

word denoting their connection. Sannidhi is juxtaposition which means

that a sentence will be meaningful only when the words are uttered in

quick succession. and not with long intervals.YogyathA is compatibility

in the meaning of the words. For instance, the sentence 'sprinkles with

fire' is not valid because of the incompatibility between the words

'sprinkling' and 'fire.'

The opponent presupposes an argument by the vedantin that the causality

of Brahman being determined on the basis of sruthi texts sentiency must

be present in the world, which is the effect, and hence saying that the

world being insentient it cannot be the effect of Brahman is not

correct. Even in the case of pot etc, sentiency is present but as in the

case of deep sleep and swoon it is not manifest and this is the

difference between sentient and insentient beings.To this the

poorvapakshin answers that when something is always absent it only

proves its nonexistence. Since the sentiency is not present in the

inanimate objects it proves that they are not sentient. To have potency

which is never exhibited is like the procreative power of a barren

woman. To say that just because the causality of Brahman is established

through the sruthi the sentiency is present in inanimate things and

because it is present it proves the causality of Brahman, is based on

mutual dependence which cannot be ascertained. It is not possible to

show the relationship of cause and effect between two things which are

basically different.

Of course there cannot be similarity of all the characterstics between

the cause and the effect in which case the effect will not differ from

the cause but the essential characterstic persists in the cause and

effect which distinguishes it from other things as clay is distinct from

gold.It cannot be argued that the sattha, existence is the

characterestic that persists in Brahman the cause and the world ,the

effect, because the essential characterestics of Brahman such as being

free from defects, having knowledge and bliss as HIs nature and the

Lordship are all not found in the world and hence brahman cannot be the

material cause.

It may be argued that the relationship of cause and effect is seen in

the world between things of different nature as in the case of the hair

and nails, which are insentient, coming out of the sentient being, or

the scorpion originating from cowdung or from the sentient spider the

insentient web coming out. But the poorvapakshin disagrees, saying that

even in these cases only the insentient part of the cause persists in

the effect.

There is a fresh objection to the view of sankhya put forward now. in

the scriptures it is seen that sentiency is attributed to the insentient

things as in the texts such as 'tham prthivee abraveeth' The earth said

to him, 'ApO vA akAmayantha,' the waters desired, etc. To this the next

suthra replies.

suthra-5-abhimAnivyapadhEsasthu visEshAnugathibhyAm-2-1-5

But the reference is to the presiding deities.

It is found in the scripture passages such as 'hanthAham imA thisrO

dhEvathAh,' (Chan.6-3-2) where fire, water and earth are denoted as

deities which means the presiding deities of these elements. Also in

AithrEya Aranyaka ' agnirvAg bhoothvA mukham prAvisath,

AdhithyaschkshurbhoothvA akshinee prAvisath,vAyurprANObhoothvA nAsikE

prAvisath, fire became speech and entered the mouth, the sun became the

sight and entered the eyes and the wind became the vital air and entered

the nostrils, where the fire ,sun and the wind are the presiding deities

of the sense organs.

The opponent concludes by saying that since the world consists of

insentient beings Brahman cannot be the cause of it, which has been

proved from the scripture and reasoning and hence praDHAna is the

material cause.

suthra-6-dhrsyathE thu-2-1-6

But it is seen to be so.

The argument that Brahman cannot be the cause of the world because it is

different from Brahman is not correct. In the world there are examples

of the cause and effect being different as worms are seen to originate

from honey and the scorpion from cow dung. The explanation that the

insentient part in both only have the relationship of cause and effect

is wrong. As per the contention of the opponent the charactersetic which

distinguishes the cause from others must be present in the effect. But

it is not so in the examples cited. so the world, even if it is assumed

to be different from Brahman, could have originated from Brahman.

suthra-7-asadhithi cheth, na, prathishEdfhamAthrathvAth-2-1-7

If the effect is said to be nonexisting in the cause, no, it is only

denial of similarity and not of oneness.

If the world and the Brahman ,though different are related as cause and

effect it would mean that the effect was not existent in the cause, says

the opponent. But this suthra refutes it saying that, it is only the

similarity between the two is denied as an essential requisite and not

the oneness of the cause and effect. Brahman is the cause which is

modified into the effect, the world, which is not different from Brahman

in reality.

suthra-8-apeethou thadvath prasangAth asamanjasam-2-1-8

Since at the time of dissolution the cause becomes the effect the

causality of Brahman is not admissible.

In dissolution the effect becomes the cause and if Brahman is the cause

it becomes one with the effect. In that case all the imperfections of

the world will adhere to Brahman. Then all the vedantha vakyas like

'yassarvajnah sarvavith,''apahathapApmA ,vijarO vimrthyuh,' etc will

become meaningless, says the opponent. This difficulty, he says, cannot

be got rid of by claiming the body- soul relationship between Brahman

and the world and explaining that as the imperfections of the body do

not affect the soul, those of the world do not touch Brahman, because,

the very relation ship is untenable. If it is assumed to be so, the

defects of the world, as the body of Brahman will affect Brahman also.

Moreover sarira is the result of karmaphala while Brahman is free from

karma. Vedanta texts also clearly describe Brahman as not having a body

'apANipAdhO javanO grheethApasyathyachakshuh srnOthyakarNah,

(Svet.-3-19) He moves and grasps without feet and hands, sees, hears

without eyes and ears. since He has no indhriyas to enjoy any experience

He cannot have a body which is the seat of enjoyment.

Nor can it be said that the body is that which is subservient and

controlled by the will of the sentient soul and exists for its use,

(that is seshathva) says the poorvapakshin. The body which is injured

or dead does not obey the will of the soul inside and the puppets which

are controlled by a sentient being do not constitute his body.

Hence the sarira sariri bhava cannot be accepted and if it is accepted

the imperfections of the world will find a place in Brahman.

suthra-9-na thu dhrshtAnthAbhAvAth-2-1-9

Not so. because of examples.

The imperfections of the world do not affect Brahman and the contention

that the vedanta texts are not valid in proving the causality of Brahman

is not correct. It is seen that the imperfections of the body do not

adhere to the soul and the same entity can remain with and without

defects in two different states.The defects of the body like old age,

disease etc are not found in the self and the attributes like joy and

sorrow are not found in the body. Such as the state of childhood , youth

etc belong only to the body, the imperfections of the world do not

belong to Brahman who is the inner self. When Brahman expands and

contracts by creation and dissolution, these changes are only with

respect to the world of sentient and insentient beings and do not affect

Brahman.

To say that the sarira-sariri bhava of brahman and the world is not

appropriate, says Ramanuja, is only a kutharka, malicious reasoning on

the part of those who do not understand the real significance of the

scriptural texts which are substantiated by logical reasoning.There are

enough evidence in the scriptures to prove the sarira-sariri bhava. In

BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad the passages beginning from 'yah prthivyAm

thishTan ---Yasya prthivee sariram,(Brhd.3-7) He who is in earth as its

inner self,'(Brhd.3-7-12) and ending with 'yah Athmani thishTan----

yasya Athma sariram, who is in the individual soul as its inner self and

of whom the individual soul is the body, enumerates each sentient and

insentient entity and declares the sarira-sariri bhava of Brahman. In

Subakla upanishad also similar passage is found ending with 'Esha

sarvabhoothAntharAthmA apahathapApmA dhivyO dhEva Eko nArAyaNah,

(Subal.7), this is the divine Lord Narayana who is free from evil and

the inner self of all.

The definition of body as the instrument of enjoyment of the fruit of

actions as given by the opponent is not correct, says Ramanuja. The

declaration of earth etc as the sarira of Isvara does not satisfy this

definition. the sarira of the released souls also fall outside the scope

of this definition since there is no karma for them. The body assumed by

the supreme self in His manifestations is not made of elements and hence

the body cannot be said to be a combination of five elements to cite

pradhAna as the cause.Again the body can neither be defined as that of

which the five vital breaths are the source of life because in the case

of the plants, though they have life, the five vital breaths have no

place in them. Nor is the body the abode of indhriyas or cause of joy

and sorrow always, as can be seen in the case of body of stone or wood

acquired through curse like that of Ahalya and others.

Therefore the body is to be defined as a substance which is in

subordinate relation to a sentient soul, to be used for the purpose of

that soul and controlled by it. In the injured body the power of control

is obstructed as heat of fire etc. are obstructed by external agents. A

dead body is not fit to be called as such since the soul has left and it

is only a congregation of matter.

Hence the whole universe of sentient and insentient beings constitute

the sarira of the Lord, who controls and supports it for His purposes

and which is totally subservient to Him.

suthra-10-svapkshadhOshAccha-2-1-10

Also because of defects of the poorvapaksha view.

This suthra points out the discrepency in the view of sankhya that the

praDhAna is the cause of the world. PraDHAna, that is, prakrthi, is said

to create the world by the mere proximity of purusha ,who in his turn

gets bound due to the superimposition of the gunas of prakrthi on him,

while purusha is said to be chinmAthra,pure intelligence free from all

changes. Now, Ramanuja asks, 'nirvikArasya chinmAthra rupasya

prakrthidharmAdhyAsahethubhootham prakrthisannidhAnam kim rupam ithi

vivechaneeyam.' This means, it has to be made clear what exactly causes

the superimposition of the attributes of prakrthi on the changeless

purusha. Is it the very existence of prakrthi or any modifications in it

or in purusha. It could not be due to changes in purusha who is

changeless. The prakrthi is said to undergo modifications and create the

world due to the superimposition on the purusha and therefore it is the

effect of the changes and hence cannot cause them. If on the other hand

it is the mere existence of prakrthi and its proximity that causes the

superimposition, there would be no question of release because of the

permanent existence of prakrthi near purusha.Hence the sankhyan view is

not rational.

suthra-11-tharkAprathishTAnAdhapi-2-1-11

Because of defective reasoning(of sankhya and others)

Brahman is the cause of the world as established by sruthi because the

reasoning of sankhya is defective. The arguments of all the other

schools like nyayavaiseshika, buddhists, jaina and sankhya are mutually

conflicting and have to be set aside.

suthra-12- anyathAanumEyam ithi chethEvam api anirmOkshaprasangah-2-1-12

Even if it is said that the discrepancies can be resolved by different

arguments the difficulty cannot be surmounted.

The opponent claims that the criticisms of other schools could be

quashed by adopting a different way of argumentation but this suthra

refutes this. Any theory dependent on reasoning ability can always be

outdone by a cleverer opponent. In matters which transcend the sensory

perception only the sasthra can be authoritative. Ramanuja here quotes

from Manusmrithi which says 'Arsham DharmOpadhesam chavedhasAsthra

aviroDHinA, yas tharkENa anusanDHatthE sa dharmam vedha nEtharah,(the

same text partly quoted at the outset by the poorvapakshin) he alone

knows dharma, who can support the teachings of the rshis on it, in

accordance with the scriptures.' Hence, concludes Ramanuja, the

praDHANakAraNavadha of sankhya is to be dismissed being contrary to the

scriptures.

Thus ends vikajshaNathvADHikaraNam.

September 1, 2006

SrI:

Dear Dr.Saroja Ramanujam : THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONTINUED

outstanding postings on Sri Bhaashyam .

The e-book based on your postings are going to be Nadu Naayakam

( Central Jewel) inthe Sundara Simham E-book series Kaimakryam

of presentign 108 online e-books for AasthikAs intersted in

Sri VaishNava Darsanam .

NamO Sri RaamAnujAya ,

V.Sadagopan

vilakshaNathvADHikaraNam- 2-1-3

suthra-4-na vilakshaNathvAth asya thaTHAthvam cha sabdhATH- 2-1-4

World being of contrary nature to it, Brahman cannot be the cause and this is known from the scriptures also.

This suthra and the next are poorvapaksha suthras. Here the opponent resorts to tharka,reasoning, to prove that Brahman is not the cause of the world. The reason given for this is that the world is full of sorrow, insentient, impure and contrary to Brahman , who, according to the vedantin, is omniscient, omnipotent, free from imperfections and possessed of infinite auspicious qualities. This difference is not only known through perception but also from the scriptural texts like 'samAnE vrkshE purushah nimagnO aneesayA sochathi muhyamAnah, (Svet.4-7) in the same tree the individual self immersed in sorrow grieves, being overpowered by his own helplessness.' and 'aneesaschAthmA baDhyathE bhOkthrbhAvAth, the individual soul, not being master of itelf, gets bound, with the concept of being an enjoyer. (svet.1-8) As it has been shown through experience that the cause is not different from the effect in nature by the example of pot and clay, gold and ornaments etc. Therefore the cause of the world can only be praDHAna of sankhya.

be set aside.

*******************

suthra-12- anyathAanumEyam ithi chethEvam api anirmOkshaprasangah-2-1-12

Even if it is said that the discrepancies can be resolved by different arguments the difficulty cannot be surmounted.

The opponent claims that the criticisms of other schools could be quashed by adopting a different way of argumentation but this suthra refutes this. Any theory dependent on reasoning ability can always be outdone by a cleverer opponent. In matters which transcend the sensory perception only the sasthra can be authoritative. Ramanuja here quotes from Manusmrithi which says 'Arsham DharmOpadhesam chavedhasAsthra aviroDHinA, yas tharkENa anusanDHatthE sa dharmam vedha nEtharah,(the same text partly quoted at the outset by the poorvapakshin) he alone knows dharma, who can support the teachings of the rshis on it, in accordance with the scriptures.' Hence, concludes Ramanuja, the praDHANakAraNavadha of sankhya is to be dismissed being contrary to the scriptures.

Thus ends vikajshaNathvADHikaraNam.