Author Topic: Objection 2  (Read 420 times)

Dr. Sadananda

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Objection 2
« on: February 26, 2015, 12:07:46 PM »
Objection 2


      Now the arguments of a second puurvapakshi are as follows:

      According to advaitin, the sR^ishhTi, sthiti and laya are cyclic processes and not a linear process. If this is linear, then advaitin will be faced with more severe question, 'When all this began?' Hence advaitin circumvented the problem by arguing that it is cyclic process and therefore the question of beginning does not arise, since every point in a cycle is both beginning as well as the end point.

      The pramaaNam for that advaitin quotes:

      avyaktaadiini bhuutaani vyaktamadhyaani bhaarata | avyakta nidhanaanyeva tatra kaa paridevanaa || B.G.2-28
     
      The beings are unmanifested before creation and unmanifested after annihilation and manifested temporarily in between. Therefore why grieve for such temporal things.

      avyaktaad vyaktayaH sarvaaH prabhavanti aharaagame | raatri aagame praliiyante tatraiva avyakta sanj~nake || B.G. 8-18.
     
      All beings and things get manifested from their unmanifested state when the creation starts (when Brahma's day starts) and return to unmanifested form when the creation folds (when Brahma's night starts).

      Hence advaitins subscribe that sR^ishhTi, sthiti and laya, creation, sustenance and annihilation are cyclic processes. Thus in a cyclic process one can not claim which one of three is the beginning. If so, puurvapakshii questions how did Vyasacharya say - janmaadi asya jagataH, because the word -aadi - in Sanskrit literally means beginning with. The secondary meaning only is etc. Hence the literary meaning of the suutra should be - the three phenomenon of the universe beginning with creation. Because of the cyclic nature, why didn't suutra say, beginning with sthiti or beginning with laya instead of beginning with janma, unless it is a linear process and not a cyclic process?

      Shankara gives two answers to this objection.

      Even though it is a cyclic process and hence one cannot in principle talk about the beginning in these phenomena, human comprehension generally goes in a particular order. In the events there is no order. But in our - pratipatti - or our understanding there is an order. If I have to talk about the destruction or death of something, it presupposes the existence of that thing. Hence its laya presupposes its sthiti. Likewise, if I have to talk about the existence of something, it presupposes its origin. Hence the understanding of laya presupposes the understanding of sthiti and which in turn presupposes the understanding of shrushhTi. Only after the child is born, we inquire into whether it is surviving or dying. Hence Shankara says understanding requires this logical sequence.

      Thus what Vyasacharya presents is - pratipatti kramaH - the order in understanding the phenomenon.

      The second answer is that Vyasacharya is writing the suutra keeping the shruti vishhaya vaakyam in his mind. Even though there is no order in the sR^ishhTi, sthiti and laya, shruti gives a particular order. Hence the choice of the order is dictated by the shruti vaakyam itself. In addition similar order is discussed in several shruti texts. For example, B.G 11-2 starts - bhava apyayau hi bhuutaanaam, meaning the sR^ishhTi and laya of the beings.

      With this the analysis of the word janmaadi is completed.