SrI UpakAra Sangraham Part - 47

[Guest guest]

NOTE: Readers having difficulty in reading the text

may need to change their encoding to UTF-8.

------------

srI:

SrI upakAra sangraham – 47

---

adikAram – 1

poorva upakAra paramparai

(The Foremost Series of Favours)

---

SECTION – 5 (11) [continued]

(27 Favours of the Lord leading to the means for

MOKSHAM)

-----

 

After mentioning the cArvAka theory, SwAmi Desikan

next refers to Buddhism, which also does not accept

the authority of the Vedas.

 

2) Buddhism:

Buddhism was founded by Gautama who was a prince at

KapilAvastu before renouncing the royal life.

According to Gautama Buddha, life is a stream of

becoming and nothing is permanent. One thing is

dependent on another. Even the self is a composite of

perception (samjn~A), feeling (vedanA ), volitional

dispositions (samskAras), intelligence (vijnAna) and

form (roopa). All these change according to the law of

karma. Buddha’s four truths are: there is suffering,

it has a cause, it can be suppressed and there is way

to accomplish this. The cause of suffering is

ignorance and selfish craving. When one gets rid of

ignorance and its practical consequence of

selfishness, he attains nirvana. He postulated an

eight-fold path of morality for the attainment of

nirvAna. The Buddha does not believe in a positive

reality underlying the world which is continuously

changing. He also does not affirm a self underlying

the mental happenings and the positive character of

nirvana. As time passed two forms of Buddhism, namely,

the HeenayAna (early) and the MahAyAna (later)

emerged. The HeenayAna developed the theory of

transitoriness of substances or individuals, and

nirvAna is liberation from suffering. The MahAyAna

developed a positive philosophy which believes in the

reality of an Absolute, the essence of existence. It

personified Buddha himself as the law.

The fundamental points of distinction between the

HeenayAna and the MahAyAna concern the ultimate goal

of the religion, the instructions, the means and the

realization. The ultimate good of a follower of the

HeenayAna is to attain his own salvation whereas that

of a MahAyAna follower is not to seek his own

salvation but to seek the salvation of all beings.

Hence the goal of the HeenayAna was lower than that of

the MahAyAna.

In the course of development of the Buddhist theory,

many philosophical schools emerged. Four are the main

among them: the VaibhAshika, the sautrAntika, the

YogAcAra, and the MAdhyamika. They differ among

themselves in sub-theories.

 

a) VaibhAshika School: This does not accept the

existence of atma. It says that only objects which

appear to the perception and the perception alone are

true. They are momentary like a light’s effervescent

or the flood waters of a river. They appear to be same

but as the light of a lamp burning from moment to

moment and the water in a river flows out and new

water flows in. The external objects, therefore,

appear to be the same, whereas they are changing every

moment.

[The VaibhAshikas are said to be the followers of the

VibhAshA, an ancient commentary on the philosophical

teachings of the Buddha known as the Abhidhamma. They

are known as realists.]

b) SautrAntika School: According to this school of

Buddhism, the external objects do exist. But they

cannot be perceived, but can be known through

inference, just like knowing the objects from the

reflections in a mirror. An object is a conglomeration

of atoms. This theorist, therefore, does not accept

the objects but says they are only paramANus, big

atoms, which are alone true.

[The VaibhAsika and the SautrAntika schools belong to

HInayAna.]

 

c) YogAcara: This school rejects the theory of

soonyavAda, total void. Even the external objects are

all true. Knowledge is the cause for both suffering

and enjoyment. Both objects and the knower are only

aspects of knowledge and both do not exist as separate

entities. As no outside object exists independent of

knowledge, it is soonya, void.

[The YogAcaras are idealists. They evidently derive

their name from their association with yoga

practices.]

 

d) The MAdhyamika: This is also known as the treatise

on the Middle Doctrine. This was expounded by

NAgArjuna. According to him, whatever is perceptible

in unreal like those seen in dreams. The outside

objects are changing every moment. The world can not

be said to be true nor untrue. At the same time it

cannot be said to be true as well as untrue. This

theory is known as soonyavAda, theory of void.

However, he differed from the main Buddhism by saying

that the inner knowledge is true and only the outside

objects are untrue.

[The MAdhyamikas claim to hold a middle position in

various ways. But they arer extreme nihilists. ]

[The YOgAcAra and the MAdhyamika Schools belong to

the MahAyAna Buddhism.]

 

SrIbhAshyakara has dealt with these theories in his

works on VedAnt Sootras, SrIbhAshyam, VedAnta Deepa

and VedAnt sAra. Besides, SwAmi Desikan himself has

clarified our stand in his “Paramatabhangam”.

We shall see with the help of these grantams, the

un-tenability of these theories. In the Brahmasutra,

the second quarter of the second Chapter deals with

various theories of philosophies which do not accept

the authority of the Vedas.

Among the different theories within the Bhuddhist

philosophy, the doctrine of two classes, namely,

VaibhAshika and SautrAntika are taken up first by

SrIBhAshyakAra for consideration. The reason is that

it is almost similar to the doctrine of the

NaiyAyika-VaishEShika that has been discussed in the

previous AdhikaraNa. Both are based on the theory of

paraMaNu (big atom or molecule) being the source for

the origin of this world.

 

a & b) VaibhAshika & SautrAntika Schools:

The third adhikaraNa, “samudAyAdhikaraNam”, of the

second quarter of the second Chapter of the

Brahmasutra discusses the doctrine of these two

Buddhist schools. It covers as many as ten sutras (17

to 26).

These two schools accept the existence of the world,

but say it is only momentary. Their view is rejected

in this AdhikaraNa. In very first sutra,

SrIbhAshyakAra demolishes their theory.

Sutra – (2-2-17) – “samudAya ubhayahEtukE api tad

aprAptih” -- The creation of the aggregate does not

become established even in the aggregates caused by

its two causes, i.e., atoms and earth and others.

 

The theory that the aggregate is caused by these two,

i.e., atoms and elements cannot be established. These

do not become established by the reason of the

assertion of momentariness to all entities. Because,

atom, earth etc., exist for a moment only according

their theory. When an object joins with another, it

should happen at the first moment itself. In the next

moment it has to mingle with yet another. In the third

moment, a body or a world should emerge. If the atoms

disappear at the very moment they appear, when they

will do the act of joining together? Similar is the

case with the elements which are supposed to form the

body or the world by joining, according to the

Buddhist theory. Hence, as this philosophy proposes

the destruction of things within a moment of their

existence, there cannot be a world nor can be a body.

Also, there will not be any activity because things

will not exist the next moment after their appearance.

Therefore, for the creation of the world and the

physical matter, one has to accept the Brahman as the

cause.

In this way, SrIbhAshyakAra demolishes the theory of

momentary existence of matter and as propounded by

these two Schools of Buddhism.

 

c) YogAcara School:

 

The fourth AdhikaraNa, namely, “upalabdhyadhikaraNa”,

of the second quarter of the Second Chapter of the

Brahmasutra deals with the doctrine of this Buddhist

School. Three sutras come in this adhikaraNa:

i) “nA-bhAva uplabdEh //” (2-2-27) – There is no

non-existence (of things other than knowledge),

because it (i.e., the external world) is perceived.

This sutra discusses whether the doctrine of the

YogAchAras that vijnAnam alone is real, is based on

valid reasons or not.

SrIbhAshyakAra says that it is not. The person who

says, “I know the jar”, the knowledge and the jar

which is being known – as these are known separately,

to say that only knowledge exists and not the other

two, is not based on valid means of knowledge. Such a

theory deserves to be rejected by scholars. Knowledge

of all persons in the world is experienced as related

to a knowing subject and an object that is being

known. Hence, only a mad cap will assert that only

consciousness exists unrelated to the subject and the

object.

 

The second Sutra says: “vaidharmyacca na svapnAdivat”

(2-2-28) – The perceptions of waking state too are not

like dream perceptions, because of differences in

their nature.

 

The YogAcAra theory says that the knowledge in waking

state is devoid of objects as it is of the nature of

knowledge, like that in dreaming state.

 

SrIbhAshyakAra’s reply to this is that knowledge is

devoid of objects only under certain circumstances

like dreaming etc. Another notion of the YogAcAra is

that knowledge in general is devoid of objects as it

is of the nature of knowledge. The reply given to this

is: This inference which is also knowledge about an

object. So, knowledge is seen, even according to the

YogAcAra, to be both with an object and without it.

Thus the nature of knowledge is not without an object.

 

 

The third Sootra says: “na bhAvO anupalabdhEh //”

(2-2-29) – There is no existence (of such knowledge as

is devoid of objects), because it is not cognized.

 

Everywhere in this world, knowledge devoid of knower

and the object is not at all seen. Hence, nowhere

knowledge devoid of an existing object is possible. It

is concluded that the doctrine of YogAcArya is totally

inappropriate.

d) MAdhyamika School:

The fifth AdhikaraNa, namely,

“sarvathApapattyadhikaraNam” deals with the

inappropriateness of the MAdhyamika Buddhist theory.

The Sutra (30) says: “sarvathAnupapathEsca” – meaning,

“Because also it (i.e., the theory of the MAdhyamikas

is altogether inappropriate.”

 

SriBhashyakAra first raises the question whether the

doctrine of total void propounded by the MAdhyamika is

possible.

 

The prima facie view of the MAdhyamika is that it is

possible. How? Consciousness and the external objects

like jars etc. do not exist, as their origin cannot be

proved. An object cannot originate from another

object. For example, jars cannot originate from the

lump of clay that is not destroyed. Nor they can

originate from nothing. Therefore, the doctrine of

total void is the reality. Whatever appears is all

myth. The destruction of this myth is the salvation.

The MAdhyamika argues that the Buddha had proposed the

theory of momentariness of consciousness and the

external objects for those who are not mature enough

to accept the void theory. They are the VaibhAshikas.

 

SrIbhAshyakAra now states his reply: The view of the

MAdhyamika that all things are nothing, is not

possible, because it is completely inappropriate. The

terms “being” and “non-being” and the related ideas

are referring to different states of a thing or an

object which is perceived by the means of valid

knowledge. In this world, if it is said that a jar is

not there, it means that the form of jar is absent.

But it is in the form of pot-pieces. That way it is

perceived. If it is said the jar exists, it refers to

the form of the jar and it is perceived as such.

Therefore, the terms “being” and “non-being” refer

only to the respective form that is perceived. Both

terms proves the existence of the object and not a

void.

 

Here, one recalls a pAsuram of SrI nammAzhvAr in

TiruvAimozhi:

 

“uLan enil uLan, avan uruvam ivvuruvukaL,

uLan, alan enil, avan aruvam ivvaruvukaL,

uLan ena, ilan ena, ivai kuNmudaimaiyil

uLan irutakaimaiyodu ozhivilan parantE.”

 

(Tiruvaimozhi, 1-1-9)

 

(If it is stated that the Lord exits, He exists with a

form and all the attributes. If it is stated that He

does not exist (as stated by nihilists), then also He

exists; these formless things are His own; being and

non-being are the two facets and attributes of the

Lord. In such two ways, He has spread all over leaving

nothing uncovered.)

 

Here, we may refer to SrI ParAsara Bhattar’s verses

on these theories.

 

“yOgAcArO jagadapalapatyatra sautrAntikah tat

dhee vaicitryAt anumitipadam vakti vaibhAShikastu /

pratyakSham tatkShaNikayati tE ranganAtha! trayOpi

jnAnAtmatvakShaNbhiduratE cakShatE tAn kShipAmah //”

(SrIrangarAjastavam,2-8)

 

(Oh RanganAtha! This yOgAcAra Buddhist denies this

world; SautrAntika Buddhist says that world can be

inferred, because of various appearances; VaibhAshika

Buddhist dismisses this perceptive world as momentary.

All these three say that knowledge is the Atma and it

is also momentary. We reject their views.)

“jagadbhanguram bhangurA buddhirAtmEti asadvEtrabhAvE

tathA vEdyavittyOah /

kShaNadhvamsatashca smrutipratyabhij~nAdaridam

jagatsyAdidam rangacandra! // ”

(-do-, 2-9)

(Oh Rangachandra! To say that the world is momentary

and the momentary knowledge is the Atma, is false.

Because, if there is no a knower different from

knowledge and so are the objects and the knowledge,

this world will be devoid of cognition and

remembrance.)

SwAmi Desikan says that the Lord saved the jIva from

being confused by these Buddhist theories.

 

[books consulted:

1) Indian Philosophy by Dr. S.Radhakrishnan

2) The VedAnta Sutras with the SrI-Bhashya: Translated

by M.Rangacharya &

M.B.Varadaraja Iyengar (Vol ii);

3) VedAnta Deepa, (vol i) of Bhagavad Ramanjacharya:

English Translation

by Dr.N.S.Anantha Rangachary, Bangalore.

4) ShAreekakArikAvaLi, with Tamil Commentary by Sri

S.Krishnaswami Iyengar,

Puthur AgrahAram, Tiruchirapalli.]

 

(To continue)

dAsan

Anbil S.SrInivAsan

------------

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping