Swarajyasiddhi 1

 

स्वाराज्यसिद्धिः

The text consists of three प्रकरणs – namely, adhyāropa-prakaraṇa, apavāda prakaraṇa and kaivalya-prakaraṇa. The vision of Vedanta is conveyed through the process of adhyāropa and apavāda. Adhyāropa involves temporary acceptance of the duality to introduce Brahman. Apavāda involves negation of the duality to arrive at the non-dual truth. The result of brahmajñāna is discussed in kaivalya-prakaraṇa.

The first verse is maṅgalām – a prayer. The author visualises śiva - his chosen form of īsvara. Maṅgalam serves two purposes: completion of the text without obstacles and proper reception of the work by the readers.

1.  Prayer

गङ्गापूरप्रचलितजटास्रस्तभोगीन्द्रभीता-

मालिङ्गन्तीमचलतनयां सस्मितं वीक्षमाणः।

लीलापाङ्गैः प्रणतजनतां नन्दयंश्चन्द्रमौलि-

र्मोहध्वान्तं हरतु परमानन्दमूर्तिः शिवो नः॥1॥

 

 

The flow of Ganga on śiva’s head shakes his matted locks. Then the serpent slips down. It frightens pārvatī, the daughter of the king of mountains. Then she embraces śiva. Then śiva looks at her with a smile. Śiva is called Candramauli because he wears moon on his head. The true nature of śiva is paramānanda, - absolute happiness. With his compassionate glance, he pleases his devotees. May such śiva remove the darkness of our ignorance.

 

स्मारं स्मारं जनिमृतिभयं जातनिर्वेदवृत्ति

र्ध्यायं ध्यायं पशुपतिमुमाकान्तमन्तर्निषण्णम्॥

पायं पायं सपदि परमानन्दपीयूषधारां

भूयो भूयो निजगुरुपदाम्भोजयुग्मं नमामि॥2॥

Repeated remembrance of the fear of birth and death gave rise to vairagya. Intense meditation on पशुपति, the husband of उमा, who resides in me, led me to my गुरु, from who I received ब्रह्मज्ञान. I constantly enjoy the flow of the nectar of supreme happiness, which is the immediate result of self-knowledge. I repeatedly bow down to the lotus feet of my गुरु.

यस्माद् विश्वमुदेति यत्र निवसत्यन्ते यदप्येति य

त्सत्यज्ञानसुखस्वरूपमवधिद्वैतप्रणाशोज्झितम्।

यज्जाग्रत्स्वपनप्रसुप्तिषु विभात्येकं विशोकं परं
प्रत्यग्ब्रह्म तदस्मि यस्य कृपया तन्देशिकेन्द्रं भजे॥3॥

Everything arises from Brahman. Everything lives in Brahman. At the end, everything resolves into Brahman. Its nature is सत्य, ज्ञान and सुख. It is free from limitations, duality and destruction. It shines in waking, dream and deep sleep. It is one and free from sorrow. The supreme brahman is the innermost self. I am the Brahman. I adore the great teacher with whose grace I discovered this truth.

अधीतेज्यादानव्रतजपसमाधाननियमै-

र्विशुद्धस्वान्तानां जगदिदमसारं विमृशताम्।

अरागद्वेषाणामभयचरितानां हितमिदं
मुमुक्षूणां हृद्यं किमपि निगदामः सुमधुरम्॥4॥

Some people achieve purity of mind through study of vedas, यज्ञ (rituals), दान (giving), व्रत (austerities), जप, समाधान (concentration – refering to उपासना) and नियम (values prescribed in the शास्त्र).  They ascertain the worthlessness of the world and are free from attachment and hatred. Their behaviour does not cause fear to anyone. We expound something very sweet and pleasant to such seekers of मोक्ष.

ज्ञात्वा देवं सर्वपाशापहानि
र्नान्यः पन्थाश्चेति भूयोवचोभिः।

ज्ञप्तेः साक्षान्मुक्तिहेतुत्वसिद्धा
वध्यासत्वं बन्धनस्यार्थसिद्धम्॥ 5॥

Many statements like “ज्ञात्वा देवं सर्वपाशापहानिः” (श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् 1.11) and “नान्यः पन्थाः…” (श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद् 3.8) establish that knowledge is the direct means for मोक्ष. This implies¹ that संसार is अध्यास².

1.  मोक्ष is removal of संसार. If संसार is real, it cannot be removed by knowledge. Therefore, संसार should be unreal. The प्रमाण used here is श्रुतार्थापत्ति.

2.  अध्यस्यते इति अध्यासः i.e., superimposed. For example, snake is superimposed on rope.

 

सत्यं भावं न वित्तिर्व्यपनुदति यतः कर्मनाश्यो घटादि

र्मिथ्याभूतं च कर्म क्षपयति न तथा वित्तिघात्यं यतस्तत्।

इत्थं सिद्धे विभागे श्रुतिशिखरगिरा वित्तिघात्यः प्रतीतो

बन्धो मिथ्येति सिद्धे न तदपहतये कर्मजातं समर्थम्॥6॥

 

Knowledge does not destroy a real substance, as a real object like pot is destroyed by action. Also, action does not destroy an unreal object, as it is destroyed by knowledge. Thus, the difference in nature between real and unreal is established. The words of Vedanta reveal that the bondage (संसार) is removed by knowledge. It implies that the bondage is unreal. Hence, actions are not capable of putting an end to the bondage.

 

आविद्यो ह्येष बन्धो विरमति न विना वेदनं कर्मजालै-

र्मालोद्भूताहिरस्तं व्रजति किमु नमस्कारमन्त्रौषधाद्यैः।

एवं निश्चित्य नागस्त्वचमिव विधिना कर्मबन्धं विधूय

ज्ञानोपाये गुरुश्रीचरणमभिगतः सेवमानो यतेत॥7॥

 

Bondage is the effect of ignorance¹. Hence, it does not disappear without knowledge. Nets² of actions do not remove the effect of ignorance. Does a snake superimposed on a garland go away with salutation, chant, medicine and the like?³ Ascertaining thus, just as a snake casts off its old skin, a seeker should properly⁴ give up the bondage of actions⁵. He should take refuge at the feet of his गुरु. Serving the गुरु, he should strive in the path⁶ of self-knowledge.

1.  अविद्या According to Vedanta, अविद्या is not absence of knowledge. It is भावरूप i.e., a positive entity. It veils the true nature of आत्मा and projects संसार.

2.  कर्मजालैः = जालवद् बन्धहेतुभिः कर्मभिः। Actions do not remove bondage. Instead, they strengthen it with their results. Hence, they are compared to nets.

3.  In olden days, actions like salutation etc. were used to drive away a real snake. They might be effective for a real snake, but not for a superimposed snake.

4.  विधिना following the injunctions of the शास्त्र. A qualified seeker takes to संन्यास and renounces all कर्मs.

5.  कर्मबन्ध Actions do not remove bondage. Instead, they strengthen it with their results. Hence, they are called bondage.

6.  ज्ञानोपाय the spiritual disciplines that give rise to knowledge like श्रवण etc.

 

 

केचित् कर्मैव काम्योज्झितमुदितपदप्राप्त्युपायं प्रतीता-

स्तच्चोपास्तिं च मुक्तौ मिलितमथ परे साधनं सङ्गिरन्ते।

अन्ये तु ज्ञानकर्मोभयमिति मतिभिः स्वाभिरुत्प्रेक्षमाणा

ज्ञानादेवेति वाक्याद् वयमिह सहसा नानुमन्यामहे तान्॥8॥

Some¹ opine that कर्म, with the exclusion of काम्य, is the means to attain the said goal. Some others² assert that a combination³ of कर्म and उपासन is the means for मोक्ष. Some others conjecture with their own intellect⁴ that both⁵ ज्ञान and कर्म lead to मोक्ष. We verily disagree with them on account of the statement “ज्ञानादेव⁶…”.

 

1.  This view is held by some पूर्वमीमांसक philosophers.

2.  भर्तृप्रपञ्च, भास्कर etc.

3.  कर्म-उपासन-समुच्चय - combined performance of कर्म and उपासना.

4.  Without the guidance of a proper गुरु

5.  ज्ञान-कर्म-समुच्चय - combined performance of ज्ञान and कर्म.

6.  ज्ञानादेव तु कैवल्यम् (?) ज्ञानादेव विमुच्यते (1. यो. त. 16). There are many other statements in both श्रुति and स्मृति stating that ज्ञान is the only means for मोक्ष.

 

पैत्रो लोकोधिगम्यः क्रतुभिरधिगतो विद्यया देवलोको

यद्वा चेतःकषायक्षपणमिह तयोः स्मार्तमेवास्तु साध्यम्।

यज्ञेनेत्यादिवाक्याद् भवतु विविदिषा तत्फलं वेदनं वा

ज्ञानादेवामृतत्वं न हि शशकवधूः सिंहपोतं प्रसूते॥9॥

 

It is ascertained¹ that one attains पितृलोक by means of कर्मs and देवलोक through उपासना. Or², as per the स्मृति³, they could be meant for removing the impurities of the mind. Or, based on the statement “यज्ञेन⁴ …”, their result could be either desire for knowledge⁵ or knowledge⁶. In all respects⁷, ज्ञान is the only means for मोक्ष. A female hare does not give birth to a lion cub⁸.

 

^1.      From the statement कर्मणा पितृलोको विद्यया देवलोकः (Br. U. 1.5.16)

^{2.   This and the following results are applicable if कर्मs are performed as offerings to ईश्वर.}

^{3.   कषायपक्तिः कर्माणि ज्ञानं तु परमा गतिः। कषाये कर्मभिः पक्वे ततो ज्ञानं प्रजायते॥}

^{4.   तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसानाशकेन (Br. U. 4.4.22)}

^{5.   The कर्मs give rise to विविदिषा – thirst for ज्ञान – by bringing about purity of mind. The word विविदिषन्ति is interpreted as ‘they cultivate desire to know’.}

^{6.   This is based on another interpretation of the statement. विविदिषन्ति is understood as ‘they seek to know.”}

^{7.   Since there is no statement in श्रुति or स्मृति to suggest कर्म or उपासना as the means for मोक्ष.}

^{8.   This example suggests that कर्म, whose results are limited in nature, does not have the potential to give rise to मोक्ष.}

 

^{अर्थी दक्षो द्विजोऽहं बुध इति मतिमान् कर्मसूक्तोऽधिकारी}

^{शान्तो दान्तः परि्व्राडुपरमपरमो ब्रह्मविद्याधिकारी।}

^{इत्थं भेदे विवक्षन् समुदितमुभयं मुक्तिहेतुं सुशीतं}

^{नीरं वैश्वानरं चोभयमहह तृषोच्छेदकामः पिबेत् सः॥10}

One who identifies himself as a capable¹ and knowledgeable² seeker³ as well as a द्विज⁴ is entitled to perform कर्मs. On the other hand, a renunciate with mastery over mind and senses and committed to restraint⁵ is qualified for the knowledge of Brahman. Thus, the qualification for ज्ञान is different from that for कर्म. When it is so, one who insinuates that a combination of ज्ञान and कर्म leads मोक्ष might as well drink a mixture of cold water and fire⁶ with a desire to quench his thirst.

1.      capable of performing कर्म.

2.      Having the knowledge of the procedures of कर्म as prescribed in कर्मकाण्ड of the Vedas.

3.      Seeker of the result of Karma like wealth, स्वर्ग etc.

4.      A twice born – initiated into the study of Vedas and performing the rituals therein through the ritual of उपनयनम्.

5.      उपरम involves giving up of all actions except that are necessary for sustaining the body and pursuing the knowledge.

6.      Cold water and fire cannot be combined. Also, fire is not useful in quenching thirst. Likewise, कर्म and ज्ञान cannot be combined as both are opposed to each other. Moreover, कर्म does not serve any purpose in attaining मोक्ष.

ज्ञानं चाप्यद्वितीयस्वरससुखघनानन्तचिन्मात्ररूप-

ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वबोधः स भवति सुमतेस्तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यात्॥

देहाद्यध्यासदार्ढ्याच्छ्रुतमपि सहसा नैव सम्भावनीयं

ब्रह्मत्वं स्वस्य तस्मान्नयगुरुवचनैः साधु मीमांसनीयम्॥11॥

ज्ञान¹ is characterised by cognition of oneness of the self with ब्रह्मन् whose nature is अद्वितीय², स्वरस³, सुखघन⁴, अनन्त⁵ and pure consciousness. A seeker with a prepared⁶ mind attains the knowledge by means of statements like तत्त्वमसि. On account of strong identification with body etc., one⁷ does not quickly get convinced about one’s identity with ब्रह्मन् even on hearing the statement. Hence, one should properly enquire into the statements of Vedanta with the help of नय⁸ and the words of the गुरु.

 

1.  Knowledge of the absolute truth which is capable of dispelling संसार.

2.  One that does not have a second.

3.  स्वयम् एव रसः सारः यस्य तत्। It is its own essence. ब्रह्मन् does not depend on any other entity for its existence.

4.  Pure happiness.

5.  Free from limitations in terms of space, time and objects.

6.  Preparation includes purification of mind as well as the accumulation of the impression श्रवण etc. undertaken in previous lives.

7. This refers to seekers who do not have adequate preparation.

8. The word नय refers to the method of enquiry elucidated in ब्रह्मसूत्रs of बादरायण

 

देहं केऽपि तु वदन्ति खानि तु परे प्राणान् मनश्चापरे

बुद्धिं च क्षणिकां स्थिरामथ परे केचिच्चितं निस्सुखाम्।

आत्मानं जडचित्स्वभावमपरे चिद्वज्जडं चेतरे

सत्यज्ञानसुखाद्वितीयमपरे तत्रास्य को निश्चयः॥12॥

Various people refer to body¹, senses², प्राण³, मनस्⁴, momentary intellect⁵, steady intellect⁶ and consciousness without happiness⁷ as आत्मा. According to some others⁸, आत्मा is both sentient and insentient in nature. A few others⁹ believe that आत्मा is insentient with sentience as its attribute. According to others¹⁰, it is सत्य, ज्ञान¹¹, सुख and one without a second. Among these views, what is his¹² ascertainment?

1.  Ordinary people as well as चार्वाक philosophers.

2.  Some other चार्वाकs.

3.  चार्वाकs who are a little more advanced than the previous ones.

4.  Knowledge happens when मनस् is focused. In the absence of मनस्, even in the presence of body, senses and प्राण, knowledge does not take place. Hence they conclude that मनस् is आत्मा.

5.  क्षणिकविज्ञानवाद of Buddhists.

6.  According to some philosophers like भास्कर, विज्ञानमयकोश is आत्मा.

7.  सांख्य and पातञ्जल philosophers.

8.  According to भाट्ट school of मीमांसकs, आत्मा is चिज्जडोभयात्मक. A part of it is consciousness and another part is insentient. The insentient part modifies into doer, pleasure, pain etc.

9.  According to प्राभाकर school of मीमांसा and न्याय school.

10.  Advaita Vedanta.

11.  Consciouness.

12.  A seeker of knowledge. He should do enquiry to arrive at the right conclusion and rule out the fallacious ones.

 

आहुः केचिदणुं शरीरसदृशं केचिद् विभुं तं परे

ते तं मानसगोचरं तदपरे नित्यानुमेयं जगुः।

अन्ये चिद्विषयं परे तु परमस्वज्योतिराभ्यन्तरं

सत्येवं श्रुतियुक्तिभिर्विविदिषोर्युक्तो विचारो मुहुः॥13॥

Some¹ describe आत्मा as atomic in size. Some others² argue that it is the size of the body. Some³ describe it as infinite in size. While according to them⁴ it is perceived by the mind, others⁵ contend that it is always an object of inference. Some⁶ understand it as the object of consciousness. Some others⁷ describe it as self-effulgent and innermost. When it is so, it is proper for a seeker of knowledge to repeatedly⁸ enquire into the nature of the self⁹ with the help of श्रुति and युक्ति.

 

1.  पाशुपत, पाञ्चरात्र etc.

2.  जैन philosophers

3.  नैयायिक

4.  All philosophers mentioned above.

5.  सांख्य

6.  The word चिद्विषय can be interpreted in two ways: (1) चित् च असौ विषयः च चिद्विषयः। It is consciousness as well as object. This holds good in the view of Buddhist philosophers. According to them, आत्मा is विज्ञान and it is its own object. (2) चितः विषयः चिद्विषयः। According to प्राभाकर, आत्मा is the locus of knowledge and it is illumined by knowledge.

7.  वेदान्त

8.  Until knowledge dawns

9.  The meaning of the word त्वम् in महावाक्य.

 

एवं विश्वस्य हेतुं प्रकृतिमभिदधुः केऽपि केचित् पराणून्

ईशेनाधिष्ठितांस्तान् कतिचन कतिचिन्नश्वरं ज्ञानमेव।

अन्ये शून्यं विरिंचिं कतिचन समयं केऽपि केचिद् यदृच्छां

कर्मान्ये ब्रह्म मायाशबलितमपरे सोऽपि तस्माद् विमृश्यः॥14॥

Likewise, philosophers hold divergent views regarding the cause of the universe. According to some¹, it is प्रकृति. Others² contend that परमाणुs combine and start the universe. According to some others³, प्रकृति or परमाणुs presided over by ईश्वर are the cause. Others⁴ argue that the universe is made of just momentary flickers of consciousness. Various other philosophers hold शून्य⁵, विरिंचि⁶, time⁷, यदृच्छा⁸, कर्म⁹ and ब्रह्मन्¹⁰ associated with माया as the cause of the universe. Hence even the cause of the universe¹¹ should be enquired in to.

1.  सांख्य

2.  जैन and a few बौद्ध philosophers.

3.  According to पातञ्जल, प्रकृति presided over by ईस्वर gives rise to the universe. नैयायिक and वैशेषिक hold that the परमाणुs combine together at the will of ईश्वर.

4.  विज्ञानवाद

5.  शून्यवाद

6.  विरिंचि = हिरण्यगर्भ is the cause of the universe according to हैरण्यगर्भ school.

7.  मौहूर्तिक philosophers.

8.  Spontaneous creation.

9.  मीमांसक

10.              Advaita Vedanta

11.              Meaning of the word तत् in the महावाक्य.

 

यस्मादुत्पत्तिगुप्ती क्षतिरपि जगतां यच्च शास्त्रैकयोनिः

सर्वज्ञं मायया यत् सहजसुखसदद्वैतसंवित्स्वरूपम्।

तद् ब्रह्म स्वप्रकाशं श्रुतिशिखरगिरां सैव तात्पर्यभूमिः

स्वात्मासौ यं विदित्वा जनिमृतिजलधिं निस्तरन्तीह सन्तः॥15॥

 

With the assistance of माया, Brahman causes the origin, sustenance and resolution of all the effects¹. It is all-knowing and शास्त्रैकयोनि². The intrinsic nature of Brahman is happiness, existence without a second and consciousness. It is self-effulgent. It is the purport³ of the words of वेदान्त. It is one’s self. Attaining the knowledge of Brahman, the qualified seekers cross over the ocean of birth and death.

1.   जन्माद्यस्य यतः। Brahmasutra 1.1.2.

2.   In light with शास्त्रयोनित्वात्। Brahmasutra 1.1.3, the word can be interpreted in two ways.

(1)       शास्त्रस्य एकस्य योनिः। It the source of शास्त्र. The fact of शास्त्र being one of its effects is an adequate testimony for the omniscience of Brahman.

(2)       शास्त्रम् एकं योनिः प्रमाणं यस्य तत्। शास्त्र is the means of knowledge for knowing Brahman.

3.   तत्तु समन्वयात्। Brahmasutra 1.1.4.

 

सांख्यैः प्रख्यापितं न क्षममिह जगतां निर्मितौतत् प्रधानं

हेतुर्नैतादृशेऽर्थे प्रभवति गदितस्तार्किकैरीश्वरोऽपि।

नाणुः काणादबौद्धक्षपणकभणितो नापि निःसाक्षिशून्यं

तस्मादास्माकमेव श्रुतिगदितपरब्रह्म सिद्धं निदानम्॥16॥

 

प्रधान¹ proclaimed by सांख्य philosophers is not capable of creating the universe. ईश्वर proposed by the logicians² also cannot be the cause in this regard. अणु³ proposed by काणाद, बौद्ध and जैन philosophers and शून्य without a witness⁴ cannot be the cause of the universe. Hence, our supreme Brahman that is revealed by the श्रुति is the ascertained cause of the universe.

1.  It is also known as प्रकृति. According to सांख्य, it is insentient and consists of three गुणs, namely, सत्त्व, रजस् and तमस्.

2.   Phiosophers like पातञ्जल, गौतम, काणाद etc. The author calls them logicians because they try to understand the truth with logics alone and do not take recourse to श्रुति. According to them, ईश्वर is only intelligent cause and not material cause.

3.   Atom.

4.  According to शून्यवादी, the universe has emerged from a total void.

 

नाचैतन्यात् प्रधानं प्रभवति चलितुं तन्निसर्गक्रियं चे-

न्नित्यं सर्गप्रसंगो नियतिरपि यतः सर्गपूर्वा न पूर्वम्।

बन्धो निर्हेतुकः स्यात् कथमथ न भवेद् बन्धमोक्षाव्यवस्था

निःसौख्यं नापि मोक्षं स्पृहयति मतिमान् कापिलं तेन दुष्टम्॥ 17॥

 

Since प्रधान is insentient, it is not capable of moving¹. If activity the nature of प्रधान, creation will happen perpetually².  नियति³ of previous creation also cannot be accepted before establishing the activity of प्रधान. In सांख्य’s view, संसार would occur without any cause. Then how can he avoid confusion in the scheme of संसार and मोक्ष? Also, a wise man does not aspire for a मोक्ष that is devoid of happiness⁵. Hence, the view of कपिल is fallacious.

1.  According to सांख्य, three गुणs are in equilibrium in प्रधान. Creation is a result of disturbance in the equilibrium. सांख्य cannot explain the action that disturbs the equilibrium. प्रधान cannot begin the action by itself as it is insentient. सांख्य does not admit a sentient agent presiding over प्रधान.

2.   In that case सांख्य cannot explain a point of time when creation begins. Also, he cannot explain प्रलय.

3.  नियति = अदृष्ट or कर्म in the form of पुण्य and पाप. सांख्य might contend that अदृष्ट accumulated in previous cycle of creation moves प्रधान and begins present cycle of creation. This argument does not hold grounds as he cannot explain अदृष्ट without explaining the activity of प्रधान in the previous creation. Also, अदृष्ट being insentient, it cannot act on its own.

4.  सांख्य does not explain the association between पुरुष and प्रकृति. Hence प्रकृति cannot cause संसार in पुरुष. Hence, he may have to accept that संसार is natural to पुरुष. In that case, it cannot be eliminated. Therefore, he cannot explain the arrangement of संसार and मोक्ष.

5.   According to साख्य, मोक्ष is आत्यन्तिकदुःखनिवृत्ति, i.e., absolute freedom from sorrow. His concept of मोक्ष does not include the attainment of happiness.

 

किंचाकर्तैव भोक्ता यदि तव कृतहानाकृताभ्यागमः स्यात्

कीदृग् भोगोऽप्यसंगेऽनतिशयिनि भवेत् तेन भोग्यस्य कोऽर्थः॥

कीदृक् कस्याविवेकः कथमत स भवेद् भोगहेतुर्विवेकः

कस्य स्यात्तेन किं स्यादिति हि विमृशतो दुर्वचं ब्रह्मणोऽपि॥18॥

Moreover, in your¹ view, if enjoyer² is not the doer, there will be the logical fallacy of कृतहान-अकृताभ्यागम³. What kind of enjoyment is possible in the पुरुष who is free from association and qualification? What purpose of the object of enjoyment⁴ does the enjoyment serve? Whose⁵ and what kind⁶ of अविवेक do you talk about? How can it be the cause⁷ of enjoyment? Who⁸ gets विवेक? What purpose⁹ does it serve? Even ब्रह्मा¹⁰ cannot answer such enquiries.

 

1.  सांख्य

2.   According to सांख्य, पुरुष is only भोक्ता (enjoyer) and not कर्ता (doer).

3.  As per the law of कर्म, a doer enjoys the result of his action. Every action has a result and every result presupposes an action. If a doer does not receive the result, it is कृतहान, i.e., loss of what he has done. If one receives a result without doing action, it is अकृताभ्यागम, i.e., arrival of a result that one does not deserve. Both are not acceptable to the law of कर्म.

4.  प्रधान is भोग्य (object of enjoyment) as it works to provide enjoyment to पुरुष. No one works without a purpose. प्रधान cannot have its own purpose as it is insentient. Hence सांख्य cannot explain the reason for its working.

5.  पुरुष cannot have अविवेक as he is free from modifications. प्रकृति also cannot have अविवेक since it is insentient.

6.  According to सांख्य, प्रधान and पुरुष get associated with each other on account of अविवेक (error). सांख्य does not accept a distinct entity called absence. Hence अविवेक cannot be absence of knowledge. Unlike Vedantin, he does not accept superimposition. Hence, he fails to explain the nature of अविवेक.

7.  पुरुष is असंग i.e., free from association. Hence, how can he be associated with enjoyment?

8.   विवेक (knowledge of distinction) cannot dawn in पुरुष who is free from modifications. The insentient प्रकृति cannot have knowledge.

9.  It cannot serve any purpose of पुरुष as no change can take place in him. प्रकृति is insentient. Hence, it has nothing to gain.

10.              Even the omniscient ब्रह्मा (हिरण्यगर्भ) cannot justify the views of सांख्य. Hence the contentions of सांख्य do not stand the test of logics.

 

नेशोऽधिष्ठातुमीशोऽतनुकरणगुणस्तार्किकाणां प्रधानं

स्याच्चेत्तन्वक्षवत्त्वं सुचरितदुरितोद्भूतभोगप्रसंगः।

दुःखाढ्यं कुर्वतोऽस्य प्रसरति विषमाचारनैर्घृण्यदोषः

कर्मेप्सोश्चक्रकावस्थितिहतिविफलत्वान्यथासिद्धयः स्युः॥19॥

ईश्वर proposed by the logicians¹ is devoid of body, senses and attributes². It cannot preside over प्रधान³. If he has body and senses, he would also have enjoyment arising from good and evil deeds. The logicians cannot avoid the problem of partiality and cruelty in ईश्वर who creates a universe that is replete with misery. Accepting dependence⁴ on कर्म will lead to the logical fallacies of चक्रक⁵, regress ad infinitum⁶ and redundancy⁷. It will also establish another cause⁸ of the universe.

1.  The word ‘logicians’ refers to पातञल, वैशेषिक etc. who try to arrive at ईश्वर purely with logics.

2.  Desire, effort etc. that is required to create a given product.

3.  The word प्रधान represents all insentient material causes of the universe. It is प्रधान according to पातञल. In the view of वैशेषिक, it is परमाणु.

4.  ईश्वर creates the Universe based on the कर्मs of the individual जीवs.

5.  Cyclic dependency. If X depends on Y, Y depends on Z and Z in turn depends on X, it is a logical fallacy called चक्रक. The logician accepted ईश्वर as an agent to move प्रधान. If the functioning of ईश्वर depends on कर्म, what activates कर्म? If he answers that प्रधान activates कर्म, it will lead to चक्रक.

6.  What activates कर्म? If we accept another कर्म to activate the first कर्म, what activate the second कर्म? To account for this, we will have to accept infinite कर्मs.

7.  The logician accepted ईश्वर to explain the functioning of the insentient प्रधान. If ईश्वर also depends on another insentient agent (कर्म) for his functioning, acceptance of ईश्वर becomes redundant.

8.  ईश्वर as accepted by Vedanta. If the logician accepts कर्म, he should also accept the श्रुति which is प्रमाण for कर्म. In that case he will also have to accept the ईश्वर as revealed by the श्रुति.

 

सर्वज्ञः सर्वलिप्सुः सकलकृतियुतो नित्यमीशो यदि स्यात्

सर्वं कार्यं सदा स्यादुदयभृतिलया यौगपद्येन च स्युः।

बाह्योपादानवत् स्यात् तनुकरणधियां विश्वसर्गे व्यपेक्षा

निस्तर्कं चानुमानं कृतिरपि हि यतश्चेश्टयार्थं विधत्ते॥20॥्

If ईश्वर¹ is eternally endowed with knowledge, desire and effort associated with everything, all effects will be present always². Also, origin, sustenance and resolution will happen simultaneously. Just like external³ material, there will be requirement of body, senses and mind in the process of creating the universe. The inference⁴ lacks logical justification as effort depends on bodily activity to give rise to an effect.

1.  According to वैशेषिक, ईश्वर has eternal knowledge, desire and effort (नित्यज्ञानेच्छाकृतिमान्). He is the निमित्तकारण and परमाणुs are the उपादानकारण.

2.  Since knowledge, desire and efforts to create the universe exists always, there is no factor to determine specific time for a given effect.

3.  Áccording to वैशेषिक, the material cause (परमा॒णु) is outside ईश्वर. In general observation, material cause is different from intelligent cause. Potter, the intelligent cause of a pot, is different from clay, the material. Based on this general observation, वैशेषिक concludes that ईश्वर is only intelligent cause. In that case, like any other intelligent cause in the world, ईश्वर also should have body etc.

4.  The inference put forward by नैयायिक is as follows: क्षित्यादिकं सकर्तृकं, कार्यत्वाद्, घटवत्. The universe is a product like a pot. Hence, it should have a maker. The inference presumes that the maker is endowed with knowledge, desire and effort. But the effort cannot give rise to the product without bodily activity (चेष्टा). As ईश्वर does not have a body, he cannot have bodily activity also.

 

कस्मादण्वोः क्रिया स्यात् कथमथ मिलितौ निष्प्रतीकौ कथं वा

कार्यं ताभ्यां तृतीयं किमिति च न महत् पारिमाण्डल्यतः स्यात्।

तेभ्यः कस्मान्महान् स्यात् किमिति पुनरसावेव नित्यो न ते स्या-

न्नित्यश्चाणुः कथं वा निरवयव इति ब्रूह्यसत्कार्यवादिन्॥21॥

 

O असत्कार्यवादिन्¹, how can there can be action² in two atoms? And how do two atoms that do not have parts associate with each other? How can the effect be counted as a third entity that is distinct³ from the two? Why महत्⁴ cannot originate from atomic size? How can महत् originate from them⁵? Why cannot you accept (त्र्यणुक)⁶ itself as eternal? How can परमाणु be eternal and free from parts? Please reply.

 

1. According to नैयायिक and वैशेषिक, the effect (कार्य) is असत् (non-existent) before its origin. Hence, they are called असत्कार्यवादीs. On the other hand, सांख्य accepts the presence of effect in its potential form even before it originates. Hence सांख्य is called सत्कार्त्यवादी.

2.  The insentient atoms cannot move on their own. Isvara will not initiate an action without another cause. Another cause might require one more cause and so on. It ends in regress ad infinitum. Hence असत्कार्यवादी cannot explain the activity in the atoms that lead to creation.

3. Effect is not experienced as an independent substance. Hence it cannot be counted as a separate entity in addition to its causes.

4. According to वैशेषिक, अणु and महत् are two types of परिमाणs (quantities). अणु (atomic size) is not visible where as objects with महत् are visible. Two परमाणुs (atoms) combine to produce a द्व्यणुक. Combination of द्व्यणुकs produce त्र्यणुक. Both परमाणु and द्व्यणुक are अणु in quanitity and त्र्यणुक has the quanity महत्. As a general rule, the attributes of the material cause give rise to similar attribute in the effect. For example, the blue colour of threads give rise to blue colour of the cloth. When such is the case, why he cannot accept that the अणु size of the atoms give rise to महत् size in द्व्यणुक? Why he has go all the way to त्र्यणुक to get महत्? This is वेदान्ती’s objection.

5. द्व्यणुकs. According to वैशेषिक, the quantites of material cause give rise to greater quanity of same kind. For example, the quantity of threads is महत्. They give rise to the quantity of cloth that is also महत् and greater than the quantity of the treads. Following the same rule, the अणु quantity of द्व्यणुक should produce greater अणु quantity in त्र्यणुक. Hence त्र्यणुक cannot have महत् quantity. To avoid this problem, वैशेषिक makes an exception to the general rule in the case of द्व्यणुक and त्र्यणुक. वेदान्ती raises objection on this exception.

6. According to वैशेषिक, त्र्यणुक is the smallest visible particle. परमाणु and द्व्यणुक are invisible and hence are based on his speculation. Instead of imagining परमाणु and द्व्यणुक, he could have accepted त्र्यणुक as the smallest particle.

7. परमाणु is finite in nature. Hence it cannot be without parts. Hence it cannot be eternal also.

 

बाह्यं भोग्यं प्रजल्पन् क्षणिकमणुचयं भोक्तृसंघातमन्तः

स्कन्धानां पञ्चकञ्चेदृशमिति सुगतः पृच्छ्यतां वेदबाह्यः।

किन्ते मानान्तरेण प्रमितमिदमुत प्रौढिरेषा त्वदीया

किं वा मोहात्प्रलापः किमथ जड जगद्विप्रलिप्सा कुमुद्धे॥22॥

The author presents the view of some¹ Bauddhas. According to them, the external भोग्यसंघात (assemblage of objects) is momentary and a mere collection of atoms. The internal भोक्तृसङ्घात (assemblage of enjoyer) is made is also momentary. It consists of a group of five स्कन्धs². This contention of the Bauddha contradicts the Vedas. One should ask him the following: O ignorant one with a perverted intellect, have you conceived these ideas by any means of knowledge other than the known ones? Or, are you exhibiting your intellectual ability (to establish facts that are not true)? Or, are you blabbering in delusion? Or, do you intend to misguide the world?

 

1. सौत्रान्तिक and वैभाषिक

2.  a. रूपस्कन्ध consists of senses and objects perceived by them.

b. विज्ञानस्कन्ध consists of the “I” thought and knowledge of the objects without their specific features.

c. वेदनास्कन्ध consists of the experiences of pleasure and pain.

d. संज्ञास्कन्ध consists of cognition of objects with their specific attributes.

e. संस्कारस्कन्ध consists of desires, hatred, पुण्य, पाप etc.

 संघीभावः कथं वा चलनविरहिणां भङ्गुराणामणूनां

संघोनन्यः कथं वा विषयपदमियात् कश्च संघं विधत्ते।

स्कन्धानां सन्निपातः कथमिव कियतां भोक्तृता का च धारा

कस्य स्तां भोगमोक्षौ वद जड सफलं केन वा दर्शनं ते॥23॥

How can the momentary atoms that do not have movement¹ collect together? How can the assembly of atoms, that is not different from the atoms², be object of senses? Who³ makes the assembly?

 

1.  Movement is an action. Momentary objects cannot be locus of any action because they disappear before any action originates in them.

2.  According to Buddhist, the assembly of atoms is not different from atoms. The atoms are invisible. Hence the effect that is nothing other than atoms should also be invisible.

3.  The insentient atoms cannot assemble together by themselves. Bauddha does not accept a sentient agent.

 

नाविद्यादिप्रवृत्तेर्द्विविधसमुदयस्ते यदैकैकसन्ना

नश्यन्नुत्पादने न प्रभवति किमरे हेत्वसम्बन्धि कार्यम्।

तच्चेन्निर्हेतुकं स्यात् करणविफलरणविफलतास्वप्रतिज्ञाविरोधौ

त्रैविध्यं चाप्यभावे कथमिति वितथो बुद्धबन्धोः प्रलापः॥२॥

Two types of assemblages are not possible

on account of the functioning of अविद्या¹ etc.

because they expire² after giving rise to only

one effect. One cannot produce the effect

while extinguishing. How can there be an

effect that is not associated with its cause? If

the effect originates without cause, then there

will be redundancy of instrument³ and

contradiction of contention⁴. How can there be

three categories⁵ in absence? Hence

Buddhist’s contention is baseless.

1. According to the बौद्ध, अविद्या, संस्कार etc. function with mutual cause-effect relation and thus become responsible for samsara. This functioning of अविद्या etc. leads to the presumption of the presence of assemblage – both internal and external.

2. On account of their expiry after producing only one effect, they do not survive to produce the assembly of the effects.

3. Since Buddhist is not able to explain actual cause-effect relation, he may say that there is no real cause-effect relation. In that case one should be able to produce a pot without clay, wheel etc.

4. Buddhist’s own contention that an effect originates from certain causes.

5. According to Buddhist, there are three types of absence, namely, प्रतिसंख्यानिरोध, अप्रतिसंख्यानिरोध and आकाश. The author is indicating the illogicality of this contention.