sribhashya adhyaya2-padha1-adhukaranas4and5

[Guest guest]

sishtAparigrahADHIkaraNam-2-1-4

 

 

 

suthra-13-EthEna sishtAparigrahA api vyAkhyAthah

 

2-1-13

 

 

 

By this the remaining systems of philosophy are also explained.

 

 

 

All the other schools ,namely, nyAya, buddhism, jainism etc are also

refuted by the argument that mere reasoning cannot establish any theory

against that of the vedas.Although these systems are against sankhya,

being based on the causality of atoms, the nature of atoms and the

process of creation are different in each and hence all are refuted

being contrary to the vedas.

 

 

 

 

 

BhOkthrApathyaDHikaraNam-2-1-5

 

 

 

suthra-14-gothrApatthEh avibhAgascheth--syAllOkavath-2-1-14

 

 

 

If it is said that being the enjoyer will make Brahman non-different

from the individual self, no. as can be seen in the world.

 

 

 

The argument of the opponent is that if Brahman has the sentient and the

insentient as His body he will be embodied like the individual soul and

will be the enjoyer of joy and sorrow. If it is said that this has

already been answered in the earlier suthra 'sambhOgaprApthirithi chenna

visEshyAth,'(BS.1-2-8) it was only with reference to Brahman meditated

as being with in the heart. But Brahman having a body like the jiva the

contingency of experiencing joy and sorrow will arise as in the case of

the individual self. This has been confirmed by the sruthi also saying

'na ha vai sasarirasya sathah priyApriyayOh apahathirasthi, asariram vA

va santhamna priyApriye sprsathah,' that as long as the soul is in the

body there is no escape from joy and sorrow but when he leaves the body

there is no contact with joy and sorrow.Brahman being the material

cause, the nature of cause and effect being the same, as in the case of

mud and clay or gold and ornaments, the imperfections of the world will

affect Brahman also.Therefore the theory of causality of pradhAna of

sankhya alone is valid.

 

 

 

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that there is difference

between the individual soul and Brahman as we can see from the

experience in the ordinary life. The joy and sorrow are caused by merit

and demerit and not due to the embodiment alone. Since Brahman has no

karma and hence no bondage resulting from karma even though having the

subtle and gross universe as HIs body, He is not the enjoyer of sukha

and duhkha.. We see that in ordinary life, the king is not affected by

the punishment meted out to his subjects though he is also embodied like

them. Like wise the Lord also being the dispenser of the fruit of

actions to all, is not affected by them.

 

 

 

Ramanuja quotes from DhrmidabhAshyakAra to illustrate this point.

 

'yaTHAloke rAjaprachuradhanthasookE GHOrE anarTha sankatE api

pradhEsEvarthamAnah vyajanAdhyavaDHoothadhEhah,' just as a prince

staying in an uncomforatable infested with mosquitoes etc does not feel

the discomfort being fanned and given all comforts by his attendents, so

too the Lord is not touched by the defects of the world, His power

acting as the fan,'thaTHA asou lOkesvaah bhramathsAmarthya chAmarah

dhOshairna sprsyathe.' As the sruthi vakyas ascertain that brahman is

free from imperfections and changes the comparison with clay and gold is

not applicable.

 

Thus ends the bhokthrApathyADHikaraNam.