Sri VaishNava Darsanam .
vilakshaNathvADHikaraNam-
2-1-3
suthra-4-na
vilakshaNathvAth asya thaTHAthvam cha sabdhATH-
2-1-4
World being of contrary nature to
it, Brahman cannot be the cause and this is known from the
scriptures also.
This suthra and the next are
poorvapaksha suthras. Here the opponent resorts to
tharka,reasoning, to prove that Brahman is not the cause of the world.
The reason given for this is that the world is full of sorrow, insentient,
impure and contrary to Brahman , who,
according to the vedantin, is omniscient, omnipotent, free
from imperfections and possessed of infinite auspicious qualities. This
difference is not only known through perception but also from the scriptural
texts like 'samAnE vrkshE purushah nimagnO aneesayA sochathi
muhyamAnah, (Svet.4-7) in the same tree the individual self immersed in
sorrow grieves, being overpowered by his own helplessness.' and
'aneesaschAthmA baDhyathE bhOkthrbhAvAth, the individual soul,
not being master of itelf, gets bound, with the concept of
being an enjoyer. (svet.1-8) As it has been shown through
experience that the cause is not different from the effect in nature by the
example of pot and clay, gold and ornaments etc. Therefore the cause of the
world can only be praDHAna of sankhya.
be set
aside.
*******************
suthra-12-
anyathAanumEyam ithi chethEvam api
anirmOkshaprasangah-2-1-12
Even if it is said that the
discrepancies can be resolved by different arguments the difficulty cannot be
surmounted.
The opponent claims that the
criticisms of other schools could be quashed by adopting a different way of
argumentation but this suthra refutes this. Any theory dependent on reasoning
ability can always be outdone by a cleverer opponent. In matters which
transcend the sensory perception only the sasthra can be authoritative.
Ramanuja here quotes from Manusmrithi which says 'Arsham
DharmOpadhesam chavedhasAsthra aviroDHinA, yas tharkENa anusanDHatthE sa
dharmam vedha nEtharah,(the same text partly quoted at
the outset by the poorvapakshin) he alone
knows dharma, who can support the teachings of the rshis on it, in
accordance with the scriptures.' Hence, concludes Ramanuja, the
praDHANakAraNavadha of sankhya is to be dismissed being contrary to the
scriptures.
Thus ends
vikajshaNathvADHikaraNam.