sribhashya adhyaya2-padha2-rachananupapapathyadhikaranam-2-2-1

09-05-2006, 11:22 PM

sribhashya-adhyaya-2-padha2

rachanAnupapatthi aDHIkaraNam 2-2-1

rachanAnupapatthEscha nAnumAnam pravrtthEscha- 2-2-1

That which is inferred cannot be the cause because of the impossibility
of construction and of the activity.

In the previous sections the objections raised against the causality of
Brahman were refuted and the cause of the world of the sentient and the
insentient has been established as being Brahman only. Now the theories
of the nonvedantic schools are examined and refuted in order to
establish firmly the view that Brahman is the only cause of the world.

Ramanuja gives the reason for demolishing the views of others whose
theories are nonconforming to that set out in the scriptures as
otherwise through clever reasoning it might lead some dullwitted persons
to believe that these views are authoritative.

First the theory of sankhya is taken up which, Ramanuja says, is in
accordance with the sathkAryavAdha of the scriptures and hence may lead
to misconceptions.

Ramanuja quotes from Sankhya kArika of Isvarakrishna, whcih is at
present the basic authority on Sankhya philosophy.

moolaprakrthih avikrthih mahadhAdhyAh prakrthivikrthayah saptha

shodasakascha vikArO na prakrthirnavikrthirpurushah (SK.kArika-3)

The meaning of the karika is as follows: the moolaprakrthi, premordial
nature, which is changeless, is the cause and not the effect of
anything. There are seven entities which are both evolvents and
evolutes..namely, mahath, ahamkara, and the five thanmathras, while the
indhriyas,eleven in number and the five gross elements are only
evolutes, totalling to sixteen and the purusa, the sentient soul is
neither an evolvent nor an evolute.

The prakrthi or pradhana of sankhya is constituted of three gunas,
satthva, rajas and thamas, which are of the nature of light, action and
inertia respectively. The three attributes are in a state of equilibrium
before creation and the purusha has no action or attributes.The prakrthi
by the sheer nearness of the purusha starts the creation which results
in the intermingling of the gunas which are otherwise in equilibrium.
>From the moola prakrthi the mahat or buddhi is produced and from that
the ahamkara. According to the three gunas the ahamkara is of three
kinds sathvik, rajasik and thamasik. From the sathvik ahamkara, the five
jnnendhriyas and the five karmendhriyas and the manas are created. From
the thamasik ahamkara the five thanmathras, that is, the five elements
in their subtle form are created which in their turn produce the five
gross elements. The rajasika ahamkara is only assisting the other two
being the fountainhead of activity.

Purusha is the sentient soul different in each sarira. Due to ignorance
the attributes of prakrthi are superimposed on the purusha who imagines
himself as the doer and enjoyer identifying himself with the three gunas
of prakrthi. Just as the crystal appears red due to the nearness of a
red flower the activity of prakrthi is identified with purushsa, whose
sentiency is superimposed on prkrthi in its turn. By the knowledge of
the prakrthi and its evolutes the purusha understands that he is
different from it and this is the apavarga, release of sankhya. The
causality of pradhana is based on anumana, inference and by demolishing
of the reasoning of sankhya thus dismisses the whole theory of the
causality of pradhana. This adhuikarana of first padha of the second
chapter of the Brahmasuthra sets out to accomplish just that.

The argument of the sankhyas to prove that pradhana is the cause of the
world is as follows:

There must be one primal cause for everything as otherwise there will
be infinite regress because a causal substance producing an effect
through its parts is itself created from its parts which in turn from
their parts etc. The process does not end even in the case of atoms
which also must have parts to combine. So a primal cause such as
pradhana which has for its constituents the three gunas in equilibrium
alone, will have the power to produce this variegated world by the
combinationf of the gunas. This is shown in the karika

bhEdhAnAm parimAnathsamnvayAth sakthithah pravrtthEscha

kAraNa kArya vibhAghAth avibhAghAth vaisva roopyasya, kAraNam asthi
avyaktham (SK.karika-15,16)

The unmanifest cause(prkrthi) exists because of the finite nature of
specal objects, homogeneity,evolution being due to the efficiency of the
cause, the differentiation between the cause and effect and the merging
of the whole world of effects in the cause in dissolution.

The world being an effect it must have a cause which is similar to its
nature and hence the unmanifest prakrthi constituted of the three gunas
must be the cause, as everything in the world is made up of three gunas.
Sankhyan justifies this by saying that it is always seen the the effect
is of the nature of cause as in the case of pots and ornaments.since the
thathvas like mahath and ahamkara are also finite it points out to a
cause which is unmanifest with gunas in equilibrium, that is, before
their combining to produce the finite world.

This suthra refutes the argument of sankhya by saying that the pradhana
of sankhya, referred to as 'that which is inferred' is not the cause
because of the impossibility of construction and of the activity.

Pradhana being insentient cannot be the cause of the world as it is seen
that any causal activity involves a sentient being. Wood and other
materials cannot transform themselves into palaces or chariots without
the operatiion of a sentient soul. The three gunas, sathva rajas and
thamas are only the causes of light, action or inertia and they cannot
produce effects. The whiteness of a cow is not its cause but a quality.
Similarly sathva rajas and thamas are also qualities and not substances.
and that is why they are called gunas.

The contention that there must be only one cause is also disproved by
their own theory that the world is created from the three gunas and not
one.The gunas are also said to be unlimited and hence being all
pervading they cannot become less or more to combine and create the
world.

suthra2-payOmbuvacchEth thathrApi-2-2-2

If it is said that it is like milk or water there also.

Sankhyan answers to the above objection that it needs a sentient
principle to create, that in the case of milk and water it is seen to
transform without any aid of sentient principle. That is, the milk
becomes curd and the water which is of same taste being discharged from
the clouds, when taken in by the plants, is transformed into juices of
different tastes in cocoanut, palm ,woodapple and other fruits.
Similarly the pradhana also, though of homogeneous before creation
changes into different objects due to the disturbance in the equilibrium
of the gunas. This is indicated in the sankhya karika as 'pariNAmathah
salilavath prathiprathiguNAsrayaviseshAth'

(SK-16) the pradhana changes according to the gunas like water.Therefore
pradhana is capable of creation unaided by a sentient principle.

This is refuted by the suthra. Even on the case of milk and water there
is no creational activity without the intelligent agent, meaning that
even the plants need some one to take care of them and milk does not
become curd without someone adding curd into it.Moreover, that there is
a sentient principle even in inanimate things has already been shown by
the scriptural texts such as those which say that it is Brahman who is
inside earth and other entities as their inner controller and self. Even
the suthra 'upasamhAra dharsanAth na ithichETh na ksheeravath'
(BS.-2-1-24) where it is said that Brahman does not need any external
aid like milk turning into curd is only to denote the supreme power of
Brahman and not to dismiss the presence of sentient principle as Brahman
is the sentient principle required for creational activity.

suthra-3- vyathirekAnavasTHITHeh cha anpEKshathvam-2-2-3

Pradhana being independent of any guiding sentient principle there will
always be creation and no possibility of pralaya at all. So pradhana
must be controlled by brahman and hence cannot be the sole cause of the
world. But the opponent says that if Brahman who is described as
avAPthasamasthakAma, with no desire, of nature of bliss etc. is the
cause of the world the defects like cruelty and partiality will accrue
to Brahman. But, says Ramanuja, that the creation is like sport and the
inequalities are due to the karma of the individual souls, is already
explained in the earlier suthra.

The opponent now comes with the question, if the state of bondage and
release and the inequalities in various beings are all due to karma then
what is the function of Brahman in creation and annihilation? On the
other hand it is pradhana which acquires different forms and states
according to the karma of the individual self which explains the
differences in experiences and hence pradhana is fit to be the cause of
the world.

To this Ramanuja says, the opponent is ignorant of the nature of merit
and demerit,puNya and pApa, which are responsible for the karmaphala.
This cannot be understood unless one learns the sathras. It is said in
the scriptures that the puNya and pApa consists of the actions like
worship etc which please the LOrd and the actions that displease HIm are
pApa.His grace and retribution are the fruits of action resulting in
joy and sorrow 'paramapurusha aArAdhana rupEkarmaNee
puNyApuNyE;thadhanugrahanigrahAyatthE cha thathphale sukah duhkE'

Hence the Lord who has infallible will, with no desires, omniscient
omnipotent and of the nature of bliss etc. is the dispenser of the
fruits of actions and bestows on all beings the body and other
instruments to work out their karma, as effortlessly as a sport. There
is no question of cruelty or partiality in administrating justice. As
the punishment for a crime is to check the tendencty of evil, so too His
retribution is for redemption, as it is said in the Bhagavatgita,
'thEshAm sathatha yukthAnAm bajathAm preethipurvakam dhadhami
buddhiyogam tham yEna mAm upayAnthi thE;thesham EvAnukampArTHam aham
ajnAnajam thamah nAsayAmyAthmabhAvasTHah jnANadheepEna bhAsvathA.'
(BG.X-10-11) The lord says that He gives jnana to those who resort to
Him with devortion by destroying their darkness of ignorance out of
compassion by the light of wisdom. Therefore pradhana cannot be the
cause of the world.

The opponent argues that pradhana can transform itself without a
sentient principle like grass and water changes into milk in a cow. the
next suthra answers this.

suthra-4-anyathraabhAvAccha thrnAdhivath-2-2-4

Not like grass etc because milk does not exists other than cow.

The example is not correct as the grass etc does not turn into milk when
eaten by a bull or when not eaten at all. It is the sentient agent, the
cow which turns the grass into milk.

suthra-5-purAsmavath ithi cheth thaTHApi-2-2-5

If it is said like man and the stone that also.

It is argued by the opponent that even though the pradhana is insentient
and the purusha is actionless, the creation takes place by the mere
proximity of purusha which induces the pradhana to create.it is commonly
found in the world also as a blind man who could not see is able to move
about with the help of a lame person whom he carries on his
shoulders.Similarly the magnetic stone,though actionless attracts the
iron by its mere proximity. In the sankhykarika it is said 'purushasya
dharsanArTHam kaivalyArTHam thaTHA praDHAnasya,pangvanDHavath ubhayOrapi
samyogah thathkrthassargah.' In order that the individual self, purusha
may perceive pradhana and (knowing himslf different from it) obtain his
release the two are connected like a lame and a blind persons would and
hence the creation.

The suthra refutes this also as being inappropriate. The examples cited
do not prove the point. The lame and the blind persons are both sentient
souls, one is able to guide and the other is able to move.In the case of
the magnetic stone and the iron they need to be brought close by someone
in order that attraction will result.Moreover the pradhana and purusha
being always near to each other there will always be creation which will
be eternal and no release.. If the purusha is ever free there will not
be any creation at all.

suthra-6-angithva anupapathescha-2-2-6

The relationship of principal and subordinate is not appropriate.

It is maintained by the opponent that the creation takes place by the
overpowering of one guna of the others resuting in the variegated world.
But in pralaya all the three gunas are in equilibrium and hence cretion
cannot take place.If there is inequality even then there willbe creation
always. So the prdhana cannot create without a sentient principle.

suthra-7-anyaTHA anumithou cha jna sakthi viroDHAth-2-2-7

Any other inference is futile as pradhan is insentient.

This suthra dismisses all reasoning to establish the causality of
pradhana by saying that since pradhana can never be the cogniser, that
is, not sentient, it cannot be the cause.

suthra-8-abhyupagamE api arTHAbhAvAth-2-2-8

Even so because of absence of purpose.

The purpose of pradhana as being working for the enjoyment and release
of the purusha is inadmissible. Purusha is actionless,pure
intelligence, immutable and pure. Thus it is not possible for him to get
bound or to get released. If it is due to the nearness of pradhana, its
being always near, there will never be release for the purusha.

suthra-9-viprathishEdhAth asamanjasam-2-2-9

sankhyan theory is untenable because of contradictions.

The theory of sankhya is summarily dismissed by this suthra as being
full of contradictions.

1. Purusha who is pure intelligence, free in reality, actionless and
changeless is said to get bound by the gunas of prakrthi which is the
cause of both the bondage and release of purusha.

'sanGHAtha parArTHathvAth thriguNAdhiviparyayaaDHIshTAnATH

purushoasthi bhOkthrbhAvAth kaivalyArTHapravrtthEScha' (SK.17)

The purusha exists because the the aggregates of the gunas are created
for the sake of another,that is purusha,who is free from the gunas and
is the controlling agency of the gunas and their enjoyer and who aspires
for release.

2. The prakrthi alone is said to be bound and released and not purusha.
' ThasmAnna baDHyathE asou na muchyathE nApisamsararthi kaschith,
samsarathi baDhyathE cha nAnAsrayA prakrthih' (SK62)

As mentioned earlier the prakrthi and purusha are connected like the
lame and the blind where the prakrthi creates for the sake of enjoyment
of purusha and for his release, while the purusha who is indifferent
becomes the doer due to mutual superimposition of the gunas of prakrthi
and the sentiency of purusha.

Ramanuja now explains the discrepancies in the theory of sankkhya.

1. The doership etc due to superimposition cannot happen with respect to
purusha due to his being changeless and indifferent because even the
illusion of superimposition is a change Prakrti also cannot be the doer
and enjoyer because it is insentient.

2. Purusha being changeless, mere proximity of the prakrthi will not
result in superimpostion as, if it happens, it will be permanent on
account of the prakrthi being always proximate.

3. The prakrthi is said to be benevolent,and acts for the good of the
purusha in many ways with her three gunas while purusha is devoid of
attributes and does not confer any benefits on praskrthi, that is he is
indifferent.'nAnAvdhArupAyaihupakArNi anupakAriNah
pumsah,gunavathagunasyasathah thasyARTHamapArTHakam charathi.' (SK.60)
Ramanuja asks, if the prakrthi alone is bound and released (vide
kArikA62) then why is the prakrthi said to be helping purusha who is
ever free?

4.The prakrthi .as a dancer after exhibiting herself on the stage for
the sak of purusha withdraws as the dancer would after she has been
seen.

rangasya dharsayithvA nivarthathE narthakee yaTHA nrthyAth, purushasya
thTHAthmAnamprakAsyavinivartthathE prkrthih.' (sk.59)

Ramanuja says this is inappropriate because purusha being ever free and
changeless will never perceive the prakrthi nor experiences
superimposition. prakrthi being inanimate cannot see itself. If all this
is attributed to the mere proximity, which exists always there will be
eternal perception of each other as both purusha and prakrthi are
eternal.

Therfore concludes Ramanuja that due to all these discrepancies the
theory of causation of the sankhyas is refuted.

This is the end of rachanAnupapathyaDHikaraNam.