[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Many scrip-tural texts attest our position.They are (1) One God createdthe sky and the earth.(2) From the Self, akasa came forth,etc.Here akasa implies other elements also.Owing to itsknowability, the jagat must be a karya; being a karya thereAppendix I 253must be its karta (creator), and he must be now ascertainedto be the creator of the universe.Q.: This applies to a pot and the potter because bothare seen.Not so in the other case.A.: He is totally different from all other agents.For,the scripture says: There was then (that is, before creation)neither Sat nor asat (anything nor nothing).There is nomaterial with which to create this jagat; yet He did it; there-fore He differs from all others.The Creator has now beenestablished.Q.: Should the reasoning based on the agamic textsthat the jagat is a karya be upheld as impregnable, thisshould hold good for the reasoning based on BarhaspatyaAgama also, which declares that the loka has no creatorbut appears solely according to nature.A.: It is only a semblance of an agama.Here are someextracts from it:Earth, air, fire and water are the four elements perceived(by the senses) and no fifth element is so perceived.The lokais composed of varying combinations of these four elementsand is also changing every moment, so that each successivemodification of this assemblage is similar to the previous one.The loka is only of the nature of these combinations and itrests in itself.Just as a solution of sugar acquires intoxicatingpower so also the mixture of ova and semen in the wombacquires intellectual power capable of action and cognition.Just as the intoxicating liquor is called wine, so also theintellect-united body is called a purusha (man).Pleasure isthe goal of man and it forms heaven whereas pain is called254 Tripura Rahasyahell; they are both natural.Mixtures of these two formthe routine of life (samsara).Just as the intoxicationdisappears after a time so also does the intellect; its totalextinction is called moksha (liberation) by the wise.Thereis no heaven or hell to go to after death.Such is the Charvaka doctrine which has alreadybeen refuted by all other schools of thought.It has beensaid to be a semblance of agama because it is opposed toall other agamas.Now it will be shown to be opposed toeveryone s experience also.Samsara being an uninterrupted series of births,deaths, etc., is full of pain.Its root cause must be foundand scotched.Samsara thus ending, Supreme Bliss ensuesand this is the supreme goal of man.Such is the belief ofthe seekers of liberation; this is supported by holy textsand logic.Such being the case, to admit direct perceptionas the only valid proof and to assert on its basis that deathis the only goal, show the sastra to be a so-called sastraonly.Therefore that agama has not been admitted by wisemen of discrimination to be helpful for gaining thesupreme goal of man.The Charvaka doctrine asserting only svatmanasa (lossof one s self) to be the goal of man should be asked, What ismeant by svatmanasa which you say is the goal? Is it themomentary loss or the loss of the series or the ordinary loss asunderstood by all? It cannot be the first since according toyou the intellect that is the self is momentary; the goal isattained every moment and no effort is needed to attain it.The other two are impossible (consistently with your views).Appendix I 255For, at the time of the dissolution of one s own self(svatmanasa) there would remain nothing to say one s own(svasya); therefore the loss of one s own self is unattainableand this ends in no purushartha (human effort).If you saythis very unattainability is itself the purushartha, then itmay even result in the loss of another self (because thereis no svasya)!Again, about the purushartha of the loss of one s self(svatmanasa) is it established on any pramana (authority) oris it not? If you say not , it is nonexistent like a hare s horn.Ifyou say it is on what pramana? You admit only directperception as proof.For this the object must be present herenow.The past or the future cannot be proved accordingto you.You who admit only direct perception as proof, tosay that the intellect is an effect similar to the intoxicatingpower of a solution of sugar is like saying I have no tongue.Your sastra was not given out by any all-knowing saint; itis dry and devoid of any reasoning.Having thus dealtwith atheism, the Sankhya school of thought is nextexamined.They are parinama vadis, i.e., they assert that the jagatwas originally contained in its source in a subtle manner;therefore it was before, it is now and it will be hereafter (thisis sad vada).They say that the jagat was not created by anintelligent being; its source is the unintelligent principle,prakrti, in which its three constituent qualities sattva, rajasand tamas were in equipoise
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]