sribhashyam-adhyaya2-padha3

[Guest guest]

sribhashya

 

 

 

ADHYAYA-2-PADHA-3

 

 

 

 

 

ViyadhaDHikaraNam-2-3-1

 

 

 

suthra-1-na viyadhasruthEh-2-3-1

 

 

 

AkAsa is notcreated because it is not so stated in the sruthi.

 

 

 

In the first adhyaya it was shown that all scriptural texts denote

Brahman as the only cause of the world and in the first padha of the

second adhyaya all the objections raised against this view are refuted.

In the second padha of the second adhyaya the theories of causation

forwarded by the nonvedantic schools are refuted. Now the next two

padhas the possible discrepencies that may be cited from the scriptures

regarding the theory of creation are examined and the objections based

on them are refuted.

 

 

 

A doubt is raised in the above suthra by the poorvapakshin as to

whether the AkAsa is created or not.The opponent says that it is not -na

viyadh- because it is not stated so in the scriptures-asruthEh. they

quote the Chandhogya text which says 'thadhaikshatha bahusyAm prajAyEya

thatthEjO asrjatha'(Chan.6-2-3) it willed to become many and created

fire and goes on to mention the creation of other elements but the

AjkAsa was not mentioned . AkAsa being all-pervading and without parts

like the individual self could not have been created. But there is

discrepency when it is said in the taiitiriya text 'thasmAth vA

EthasmAth Athmanah AkAsah sambhoothah,'(Taitt.2-1) from that self AkAsa

was created and it goes on to say that from AkAsa vAyu was produced etc.

To this the next suthra replies.

 

 

 

suthra-2-asthi thu-2-3-2

 

 

 

But there is.

 

 

 

There is scriptural reference to the creation of AkAsa. Sruthi which

deals with matters beyond the perception through the senses are capable

of validating the creation of AkAsa which cannot be proved by any

pramANa. The fact that AkAsa is without parts is not sufficient to

contradict the decalation of its xcreation by the sruthi because even in

the case of the individual self its unorigination is not based on its

being without parts, which point will be made clear later, says

Ramanuja.

 

 

 

suthra-3-gounyasambhavAth sabdhAccha-2-3-3

 

 

 

The creation of AkAsa is to be taken in secondary sense because of the

impossibility and also from the texts.

 

 

 

The poorvapakshin now says that the texts referring to the creation of

AkAsa must be taken in the secondary sense because there are texts

declaring that AkAsa is eternal such as 'vAyuschAnthriksham

chaithadhamrtham' (Brhd.2-3-3) vayu and AkAsa both are eternal.'

 

 

 

suthra-4-syAth chaikasya brahmasabdhavath-2-3-4

 

 

 

There may be primaray and secondary meaning for a word as in the case of

Brahman.

 

 

 

The opponent anticipaties the objection that in the statement 'from the

self AkAsa originated and from Akasa, vayu etc. the origination of AkAsa

alone cannot be taken in the secondary sense while that of vayu etc is

in the primary sense.

 

 

 

It is possible, he says, as in the sentence 'thasmAth Ethadh brahma

nAmarupam annam cha jAyathE,(Mund.1-1-9)from Him is born brahma,name

form and matter ,'where the word brahma is used to denote the creator

Hiranyagarbha while in the previous text 'thapasAcheeyathE brahma,

meaning the Brahman swells by knowledge,' the word brahma is used in the

primary sense.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-5- pratijnAhAnih avyathirEkAth-2-3-5

 

 

 

Non-abandonment of the promissory statement only from non-difference.

 

 

 

 

 

This suthra refutes the objection expressed in the previous two suthras.

 

Secondary meaning cannot be assumed for the Chandhogya text because the

promissory statement that by knowing one everything else becomes known

will be true only if the AkAsa is the effect of Brahman.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-6-sabdhEbhyah-2-3-6

 

 

 

>From texts.

 

 

 

Chandhogya declaration that the sath alone was in the beginning and that

it is the self of everything denotes that AkAsa, as everything else, is

the effect of and non-different from Brahman. Moreover the statement 'it

created fire ' is not sufficient to disprove the origination of AkAsa

mentioned in other texts.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-7-yAvathvikAramthuvibhAgO lokavath-2-3-7

 

 

 

The origination extends to all as in the world.

 

 

 

All being said to be the effect of Brahman , it includes the origination

of Aksa also as in the world when we say all these men are the sons of

Devadattha, similar to 'EthadhAthmyam idham sarvam, all these have

Brahman as their self. The statement that AkAsa is immortal or vAyu is

immortal is used in the same sense as the devas are immortal whereas

they are also created by Brahman, meaning only that they exist for

longer duration as compared to the mortals.

 

 

 

suthra-8-EthEna mAthrisvA vyAkhyathah-2-3-8

 

 

 

By this the air is also explained.

 

 

 

The origination of the air is also explained in the similar manner.

 

 

 

suthra-9-asambhavasthu sathah anupapattheh-2-3-9

 

 

 

Unorigination pertains to Brahman only.

 

 

 

All the rest are the effects of Brahman. The origination of AkAsa and

air are to illustrate the general truth.

 

This is the end of viyadhDHikaraNam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thEjoDHikaraNam 2-3-2

 

 

 

Suthra-10-thEjO athah thaTHA Aha-2-3-10

 

 

 

Sruthi declares that fire is produced.

 

 

 

It is said that everything riginated from Brahman. but from the

statement such as 'vAyoragnih,'etc. a doubt arises whether the susequent

effects are produced from the precedent ones or from Brahman directly.

The poorvapakshin claims that in the above statement 'from air fire'

(originated) it shows that fire is the effect of air.

 

 

 

suthra-11-Apah-2-3-11

 

 

 

Water from fire.

 

 

 

>From the text 'agnEh Apah,water from fire, the fire is the cause of

water.

 

 

 

suthra-12-prthivee-2-3-12

 

 

 

Earth from water.

 

 

 

>From the texts 'adhbhyah prthivee,' 'thA annam

asrjantha,(Chand.6-2-3)meaning, the waters created (food) earth, and

it is shown that water is the cause of earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suthra13-aDHikArarupasabdhAnthrEbhyah-2-3-13

 

 

 

By food, earth is meant from subject matter, form and other sruthi

texts.

 

 

 

The word food means earth for the following reasons:

 

1.'adhaneeyasya sarvasya prthiveevikArathvAth kAraNE kAryasabdhah'-As

all that is eaten is a modification of earth, the term denoting the

effect is applied to the cause.

 

2. The subsequent passage to that referring to the creation of prthivee

from water mentioning the colours respective to fire, water and earth,

refers to earth as annam.'yadhagnErOhitham

rupam,thEjasasthdhrupam,yacchuklam thadhapAm, yadhkrshnam thadhannasya,

(6-4-6) in fire, what appears red belongs to fire the white colour

belongs to water and what is black belongs to earth and earth is

referred to as annam,food.'

 

 

 

The poorvapakshin says that as the evolution from mahath etc happens

from the preceding principle only the elements are described as each

being originated from the preceding one.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-14-thadhabhiDHyAnAdhEva thu thallingAth sah-2-3-14

 

 

 

He is known (to be the cause of everything )from the indicatory mark,

that is, reflection.

 

 

 

In all the effects Brahman is the inherent cause and this is known

through the indicatory mark supplied by reflection. The word reflection

means the phrase 'bahu syam' repeated in the passage on creation.From

'thadhaikshatha bahusyAm prajAyEya,(Chan.6-2-3) it willed to become

many,meaning Brahman,in describing the creation of each element

proceeding from the preceding one such as 'thatthEja aikshatha bahusyAm

prajAyeya, fire willed to become many,' and 'thA Apa aikshantha

bahusyAma prajAyEmahi the waters willed to become many' etc. the phrase

is repeated. So the act of willing denotes it is Brahman only, which is

the cause of everything. Moreover Brahman is mentioned as the inner self

of all in BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad, 'yah prthivyAm thishTan,yasthEjasi

thishTan, yO vayou thishTan,ya AkAsE thishTan and so on(Brhd.3-7-3)

which also shows that everything is the effect of Brahman only.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-15-viparyayENa thu kramO atha upapadhyathEcha-2-3-15

 

 

 

The reverse order of creation is possible only if the effects proceed

from Brahman.

 

 

 

In Mundaka upanishad the order of creation is quite the reverse of that

found in the Taiitiriya text quoted by the poorvapakshin.(Taitt.2-1) the

Mundaka text 'EthasmAth jAyathe prANO manssarvEndhriyANi cha, kham

vAyurjyothirApahprthvee sarvasya DHAriNee,from Him are born prANa

,mind,senses, AkAsa,air, fire, waterand earth which bears all.So unless

Brahman is the direct cause both the texts would be conflicting each

other.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra16-antharA vijnAnamanasee kramENa thallingAth ithi chEth na,

aviseshAth2-3-16

 

 

 

If it is said it is the same order only with indhriyas and mind in

between, it is not so because of non-difference.

 

 

 

It is argued by the opponent that the vijnAna ,knowledge which is

denoted by the term indhriyas, being the instruments of knowledge, and

the mind found in between prANa and the elements are in the same order

of creation presented elsewhere , only prAna and other things are added

and hence there is no reverse order.

 

 

 

The suthra refutes this view saying that the words 'EthasmaAth jAyathE

prAnah manas sarvEndhriyANi etc only denotes that everything originated

from Brahman and not the order of creation.

 

 

 

But the opponent objects that to say that everything is denoted by

Brahman only is contrary to their separate connotations to which the

next suthra gives the reply.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra17-charAcharavyapAsrayasthu syath thadhvyapadhesah

bhAkthasthadhbhAvabhAvithvAth-2-3-17

 

 

 

The words denoting the moving and immobile things are not secondary

because they depend on Brahman for their denotating power.

 

 

 

The view of the opponent is that the words fire etc can denote Brahman

only in the secondary sense since their primary meaning is to denote

their individual entity.This is refuted by this suthra, saying that

their denotation is based on Brahman only as shown in the text 'anEna

rupENa AthmanA anupravisya nAmrupe vyAkaravANi.'(Chan.6-3-2) Thus ends

the thEjODhikaraNam.