Re: [Kapila muni's sAnkhyA]
From the Bhakti List Archives
• December 14, 2000
Dear SrI Chandrasekaran Venkatraman, Your question is impressive but I think you will not mistake me for making a correction to your question. You have written: >"It's held that the sAnkhya theory is against vedAnthA >since it doesn't approve of the possibility of a Supreme >Universal controller viz., paramAthmA" Here, "a Supreme universal controller" should be "the Supreme universal controller"; this is because, your words leads to a presumable point that the Supreme Universal controller may be established by anumAnam itself, which is not possible. (Refer the concluding note of this article) The subject is very vast; It can be known clearly only through the traditional kAlakshEpam methods. Still, let me outline it. Let me answer your question briefly as follows. Hope the list owner will not reject this article for its length. Furhter, I am writing these things from my poor memory; the adhikaraNa-sUtra numbers, transliterations are subject to verification! At Singapore, I do not have all the granthams except few books. I have to depend only upon my memory and hand written notes that I prepared during my kAlakshepams. Therefore, scholars, please correct me if there is spelling mistakes/transliteration errors or such mistakes. I answer your questions as follows: However great may be Sage Kapila who composed the nireeswara sAnkaya smruthi, but his words do not agree with the VedAnta. Therefore, Kapila smruthi it is rejected. The two sUtras in Brahma sUtra second chapter (avirOdha adyAyam), first pAdam (smruthi pAdam), smruthiyadhikaraNam declares this. "smruthyanavakASa-dOsha-prasanga ithi chEnnAnyassmruthyanavakASa dOsha prasangAth" The ithihAsas, purANas, dharma-SAstras etc., are aiming at explaining and ascertaining the purport of apowrushEya Sruthi. The Kapila smruthi is one amoung them. If this smurhti is accepted, then the pradhAnam (prakruthi- achit) is to be accepted as jagath kAraNAm. If this is rejected, then there is no use for kapila smruthi as veda-upabruhmaNam. To avoid this case, if one argues that it has to be accepted, then by the same manner of argument, it can be argued that manu smruthi, pArASara smruthi etc., which is fully in accordance with the Sruthi has to be accepted as veda-upabruhmaNam; If it is not accepted, then the same dOsham "no use" arises for these smruthis also. Also the veda-virudhda and vaidika smruties cannot be simultaneously accepted as both are mutually contradicting one another. When we have number of smruties like manu smruthi which are fully in accordance with the Sruthi, why should kapila smruthi which is against the Sruthi be treated and accepted as veda-upabruhmaNam? Therefore, considering veda-virudhda kapila smruthi as veda-upabruhmaNam is not appropriate. "itharEshAmchAnupalabdhE:" If it is argued that Sage Kapila is also equally great "yogi" as Manu (who is an amSam of VishNu) etc, then it can be counter-aruged that Manu, parASara etc have not found out (through the Sruthi) what Kapila has found. . As Kapila smruthi is against the Veda, it can be safely conclued that Kapila smruthi is bhrAnthi-mUlam - having confusion/bewilderment as source. Therefore, Kapila smurhti is rejected. In brahma sUtra 2-2-9, we find the sUtra "viprathishEdAth asamanjasam"; the sAnkaya theory of Kapila has mutually contradicting concepts and therefore it is irrational; it is refuted and rejected. The explanation of these things are lengthly. The smruthi-pAdam and tarka-pAdam in the second chapter of Brahma sUtra has all the points to refute nireeswara sAnkya matham. The kapila sAnkya matham's thathvam is "mUla-prakruthirvikruthi: mahadAdyA: prakruthi vikruthaya: saptha: | shODaSakaScha vikArO na prakruthirna vikruthi: purusha: || This is the nireeSwara sAnkya pancha-vimSathi thathva sangraham. This has to be very critically analysed and only then, we can find it to be against the pramANam. SrImath ParASara bhaTTArya: in his SrI RangarAja stavam (2-17) mentions nireeSwara sAnkaya matham in a way, which refutes it as "sanchashtE nESvaram thvAm purusha-parishadi nyasya yadvAAnyaparyAth sAnkya:" In yatirAja sapthati, the greatest AchArya swAmi SrIman NigamAntha mahA dESika says "kapila kalpanA vAgurAm". The nireeSwara sAnkya matham of Kapila is refuted and rejected by Vaidikas. In the Brahma sUtra's second chapter (avirOdha-adyAyam), second pAda (tarka pAdam), Veda vyAsa in rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam, refutes nireeSwara sAnkya matham in detail "rachanAnupapaththEScha nAnumAnam pravruthEScha" The insentient (achit) cannot be held independently as the cause (kAraNam) as it has no knowledge. "effect" (kAryam) is possible if and only if a prAgnya (sentient entity) is admitted to adminster it. Therefore the anupravESam (being entered into it by sankalpam atleast) is esstential. This prAgnya is the paramAthma. Otherwise, the achit cannot be held as kAraNam. "payOmbuvanchEth-thatrApi" If it is argued that "like milk (kAraNam) becomes curd (kAryam) by itself, prakruthi (kAraNam) by itself (independenlty without paramAthma) becomes jagath (kAryam), then this anumAnam is invalid because, even in the example "milk-curd", chEthana-vasthu is involved. The micro-organisms are chEthana (chit) entities (sentients), and they have further another chEthana entity (who is paramAthmA) as their Aathma. Without chEthana entity, kAryam is not possible. "vyathirEkAnavasthithESchAnapEkshathvAth" If paramAthma is not required/accepted here in Srushti (creation), then creation should be continous and always it should be happening; as this is not observed, mere pradAnam cannot be the kAraNam. "anyathrAbhAvAncha na truNAdivath" If it is argued that "just like the grass eaten by a cow automatically becomes milk, the pradhAnam independently is the jagath-kAraNam" then, this argument is funny because the opponent has accepted chEthana-sankalpam but still argues that independent achit is the cause. Even if the opponent's vAdam is accepted,then the argument can be reversed that "why not the same type of grass eaten by ox is not becoming milk?"; Therefore bhagavath sankalpam cannot be rejected in this context. "purushASmavadithi chEth thathApi" Now the argument of sAnkya is substantiated with some irrelevant examples as follows: "A person with vision but without legs (handicapped) can lead a blind man who is not handicapped. A magnet attracts and makes iron piece to move towards it just because of its closeness with the iron piece; in the similar manner, the independent prakruthi in the sannadhi (presence, closeness) of udAseena (he who is neither favorable or unfavorable) sentient purusha becomes the cause"; This explanation of sAnkya is not appropriate to itself and infact fatal for sAnkya itself. This is because, in the blind man example, the handicapped fellow being sentient entity dictates and leads the blind fellow (another sentient being ) by sankalpam. The magnet which does the action of attracting iron is insentient. But in sankya theory, the udAseena purusha (though sentient-chethana vasthu) is not having any action to perform. Therefore, the examples of sAnkya to substantiate the independent-pradAna-kAraNa-vAdam is not appropriate. "angithvAnupapaththEScha" The Srushti is possible only if there is difference in the ratio of the three guNas (attributes) present in the prakruthi. In sAnkya, this cannot be established as in prati-sarga-avastha guNas are in uniform manner always. Therefore, the Srushti has to become impossible in sAnkya theory. How can it speak about Srushti? "anyathAnumithow cha gnya-Sakthi-viyOgAth" Even if the above error in sAnkya is overlooked, then without chEthana vasthu's knowledge (which is his power) - sankalpam, achEthanam cannot be the kAraNam. The errors cited in the earlier sUtras are very much applicable here. "abyupagamEpyarthAbhAvAth" sAnkya holds that the "bhOgam" of purusha is his bewilderment of prakruthi-guNas as his guNas. This is pradhAna-darSanam. If he realises that prakruthi is different from himself (purusha), then it is "moksham". This concept of sAnkya is most irrational. sAnkya holds that the purusha is udAseena. How is that he gets the bewilderment of prakruthi-guNas as his guNas? Further, sAnkya holds that the purusha is nirvikAra vasthu. How can it attribute a vikAram "pradhAna-darSanam" to the purusha? As the purusha is held udAseena, he should not get any prayojanam (benefit) from prakruthi. Therefore, the concept of bhOgam and moksham is illogical in sAnkya. "viprathishEdhAnchAsamanjasam" As the kapila's sAnkya matham talks about pradhAna-darSanam, bhOgam, nirvikArathvam for purusha and pradAna-kAraNathvam with resepect to achEthanam, these things are mutually contradicting one another; therefore, Kapila matham is not logical; It is refuted and rejected. It is against the Sruthi. The Sruthi has clearly declared that the jagath kAraNam is SrIman NArAyaNa: Brahman. Further in fourth pAda in first chapter of brahma sUtra has important points in the same context. The AnumAnikAdhikaraNam, chamasAdhikaraNam (which deals with the Sruthi "ajAm EkAm lOhitha Sukla krushNAm bahvee: prajA: SrujamAnAm sarUpA:") are very important to reject the abrahmAthmaka pradhAnam (prakruthi) of Kapila sAnkya. (please note the letter "a" in the term abrahmAthmaka which negates brahmAthmaka pradhAnam). Important note: ============================= The rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam seems to use anumAnam to establish the chEthana vasthu as paramAthma, without him the achEthanam cannot become kAryam. Therefore, a contradiction may arise here - "Has rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam contradicted the SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam where it was established that the Brahman can be established only by apowrushEya sabda pramANam and cannot be established by anumAnam?" The doubt/contradiction in the form of above question is solved/answered as follows: There is no contradiction between SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam & rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam. In SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam, it was established that the Brahman CANNOT be established by anumAnam. In rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam, it is established that the Brahman CANNOT be refuted/rejected by anumAnam. Therefore, there is absolutely no contradiction between the two adhikaraNams. It has to noted that the pramANam which establishes an entity alone may have the capacity to reject it. Thanks & Regards M.S.HARI RAmAnuja DAsan (mshari@usa.net) ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 -------------------------------------------------------------- - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@eGroups.com Search archives at http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/index.html#SEARCH
- Next message: Sadagopan: "AchArya RaamAnujA CD ROM"
- Previous message: Venkatesh K. Elayavalli: "Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami's Upanyasam - Dec 16"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]