Author Topic: CHAPTER 6 - SECTION 2  (Read 238 times)

Commentary

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
CHAPTER 6 - SECTION 2
« on: April 07, 2019, 11:47:09 AM »
6.2.1. Sat, Existence; eva, alone: The word sat means mere Existence, a thing that is subtle, without distinction, all pervasive, one, taintless, partless,
consciousness, which is known from all the Upanisads. The word eva is used for emphasis. What is that which is being determined?
This being said: That which is idam, this, the universe which is perceived as a modification possessed of name, from, and movement; that asit, was existence alone.The word sat-eva is connected with asit.

When was all this Existence alone?
This is being answered: Agre, in the beginning, before the creation of the universe.

Objection: Is it that this is not Existence now, because of which it is said that it was so in the beginning?
Reply: No.
Objection: Then, why is the qualification there?
Reply: Even now it is surely Existence. ut now it stands qualified by name and form, and also as an object of the word and idea 'this'. Therefore it
is termed as 'this'. ut before creation, in the beginning, this was only an object of the word and idea 'Existence'. Hence it is emphasized that 'in the beginning
this was Existence alone'. For, as is deep-sleep, so also before creation it was not possible to grasp this as possessed of name of form. As someone, after
rising from deep-sleep, realizes that is deep-sleep the thing that existed was mere existence, i.e. he realizes existence alone, similar was the case before
creation. This is the meaning. As in the world someone, who is the forenoon had seen a lump of earth spread by a potter desirous of making pot, plate etc.,
he, on perceiving in that very place different products like pot, plate, etc. while returning in the afternoon after visiting a village would say, 'These pots, plates, etc. were but earth in the forenoon', so also it is said even here, 'In the beginning this was Existence alone.'
By the words 'One only' is meant that there was nothing else coming under the category of Is product. By the words 'without a second' this is meant: As in the case of pot etc. some other efficient causes like potters and others, who are different from earth etc. but are the transformer of earth etc. into pot etc. are seen, similarly (here) also there arises the possibility of having some other second thing which is different from Existence, and yet is a cause associated with Existence. This is being denied by the phrase, 'without a second (advitiyam)'. So, 'without a second (advitiyam)'. So, 'without a second' means that it (Existence) has no second thing different from Itself.

Objection: Does is not also become established from the standpoint of the Vaisesikas that, all things remain associated with Existence, since the word 'Existence' and its idea remain associated with substances, qualities, etc. as is noticed in such usages as, 'The thing exists', 'The quality exists', 'The quality exists', 'The action exists', etc.?
Reply: It is true that it can be so now. But it is not admitted by the Vaisesikas that, before (its) creation this product surely was existence alone. For, according to them a product has no existence before (its) creation. Nor do they admit that before creation there was only one Existence without a second. So this cause which is spoken of a Existence, through the illustrations of earth etc. is different from the existence imagined by the Vaisesikas. Tat, with regard to that, with regard to the determination of the substance before creation; eke, some, the nihilists; ahuh, say, while determining the substance: Idam, this, this world; agre, in the beginning before creation; asit, was; eva, only; asat, non-existence, merely an absence of existence. For the Buddhists imagine that the reality before creation is merely an absence of existence. But they do no stand for any other substance opposed to existence, unlike the Naiyayikas who hold that existence and nonexistence mean 'things as they are', and the opposite of them, (According to the Vedantins a product remains inherent in the material, so that production really means expression. According to the nihilistic buddhists, nothing exists before its production. According to the Nyaya school, a product does not remain inherent in its material, but it is altogether a new creation. The material loses its former identity and becomes non-existent as it were, and from that non-existence the product emerges as a new creation. So the Naiyayikas believe in both the categories, existence and non-existence, whereas the Buddhists believe in non-existence alone as preceding creation.) (respectively).

Objection: If the idea of the Nihilists is that before creation there was mere absence of existence, then, by asserting that 'before creation it existed as nonexistence, one only, without a second', how can they speak of a connection with time, association with number, and non-duality?
Reply: Quite so, This is not logical for those who stand by only the absence of existence. And their admission of mere non-existence is also illogical because the existence of the person who denies existence, cannot be denied. If it is held that the admitter (of non-existence) exists now but not before creation, then, it is not so because there is no proof of non-existence of Existence before creation. It is illogical to imagine that there was non-existence alone before creation.
Objection: If the implication of a word is the form of a thing, then, how can the meaning of the word or the meaning of the sentence, 'Non-existence, one only without a second' be reasonable? And if that is unreasonable, then this sentence will become unauthoritative. (That is to say: After refuting the Vaisesikas and Bauddhas on the interpretation of the words asat, ekam, etc. how do you claim to explain cogently these very words?)
Reply: There is no such defect because the sentence is meant for obviating acceptance of the idea of 'existence', in as much as the word sat denotes the 'form' of an existing thing. And the words 'one only' and 'with-out a second' have been used in the same case-ending with 'Existence', and so also is 'this was'. This being so the (negative) nang (in the word asat) used in the sentence containing sat, removes, by taking help of the sentence containing sat, the idea of the meaning in the form -- 'There was existence alone, one without a second', conveyed by the sentence containing the word sat, just as a horse-rider diverts the horse from the object ahead of it by taking help of the horse itself. But it is not that it connotes the very absence of Existence. Therefore, the sentence ('Non-existence alone was there in the beginning', etc.) is used for restraining a person from understanding the opposite. For it is possible to restrain one from wrong understanding, by pointing out that he has misunderstood. Thus being purposeful, it becomes established that the sentence starting with 'non-existence, absence of everything. (Absence of a before jayata is a Vedic licence.)

6.2.2. After having shown the view of the absolute Nihilists which consists of this misunderstanding, the text rebuts it. 'Kutasu, by what logic, by what
means of proof; somya, O good looking one; can it khalu, verily, be so? How can it be that sat, existence; jayeta, comes out; asatah, for non-existence?'
The meaning is that this cannot be possible by any means of proof. As for the argument that a sprout is seen to come out of a seen to come out of a seed
that is destroyed, i.e. it comes out of non-existence itself, that also runs counters to their accepted view. How? Those which are the constituents of the
seed, arranged according to the shape of the seed, continue in the sprout as well. They are not destroyed when the sprout comes out. Again, apart from
those constituents of the seed, which are arranged according to the shape of the seed, nothing as a substance in the form of the configuration of the seed,
which can get destroyed at the time of birth of the sprout is admitted to exist by the Nihilists. On the other hand, if there is something else as a substance
which is other than the constituents, then, in that case their accepted view will be contradicted.

Objection: Again, if it is said that the configuration in the form of the seed accepted in popular usage gets destroyed?
Reply: What is this thing that is called popular usage? Is that existence or non-existence? If it is nonexistence, no illustration can be cited (in support). If, on the contrary, it is existence, even then the sprout does not come out of non-existence. For the sprout is born form the constituents of the seed.

Objection: If it is said that the constituents also become destroyed?
Reply: No, because the same logic applies to the constituents as well. Just as according to the Nihilists, a thing constituted by the arrangement of the parts of the seed does not exist, so also the constituents (do not exist). Therefore their destruction also is unreasonable. The constituents of the seed have themselves subtle constituents, and of those constituents again there are subtler constituents. Since this process has no end, therefore the question of destruction cannot be proved in any of these stages. Since the idea of existence persists throughout, and since there is no cessation of existence, therefore, in the case of those who hold the view of existence, the birth of an existing thing from another existing thing will stand established. But in the case of those who hold the view of non-existence, no example can be cited for illustrating the birth of an existing thing from non-existence. According to those who hold the view of existence, it is seen that, a pot is born from a lump of earth, because the former exists when the latter is there, and it doesn't when the latter is not. If a pot can come out of non-existence, then some-body wanting a pot would not take up a lump of earth. And there will arise the contingency of the word and idea of non-existence persisting in the pot. But this is not the case. Therefore, existence does not come out of non-existence. Even if they say: The idea of earth is the cause of the idea of a pot; therefore the idea of the earth produces the idea of the pot; but in reality neither the earth nor the pot exist,--even in that case the idea of earth, as an existing thing, becomes the cause of the idea of the pot. In this way existence is not produced from non-existence.

Objection: If it is said that, what is meant by cause and effect is only a succession of the ideas of the earth and the pot, whereas there is no relationship as between a (material) cause and its product?
Reply: No. The Nihilists cannot cite any external illustration to prove that ideas succeed one another (because ideas are merely internal). (The nihilist-Buddhists do not accept existence of external objects. Therefore, according to them even the ideas of earth and pot do not exist externally. Hence, it is illogical to cite these 'ideas' for explaining external experience of succession or causality.) Therefore he said, 'O good looking one, how can this be really so? How, in what way can existence be born out of nonexistence?' The idea implied is that there is no example whatever, to illustrate the birth of existence from non-existence. Thus, after having demolished the view of whose who hand by non-existence, the text concludes: 'Tu, but; eva, surely; somya, O good looking one; agre, in the beginning; all this asit, was; sat, Existence', thereby establishing its own position.

Objection: Even in the case of those who hold the view of Existence, no example can be cited to prove the birth of existence from existence, since it is not seen that some other pot comes out of a pot.
Reply: It is true that one existence does not come out of another existence in this way. What then? The same existence continues in a
different configuration. As for instance, a snake forms into a coil; and earth continues in different forms as dust, lump, pot-sherds, etc.

Objection: If it is existence itself that continues in all kinds of forms, then why is it said that 'this' was there before creation?
Reply: Has it not been heard by you that what is indicated by the word idam, this, has been specified to mean Existence?

Objection: Then it stands established that before creation there was only nonexistence, but not the entity denoted by the word idam, this. 'This' has been born now (after being created).
Reply: No, since it is Existence itself that was there as the object denoted by the word and idea 'This'. It is just like the continuance of earth itself as the object denoted by the words and ideas 'lump', 'pot', etc.

Objection: Are not a lump (of earth), a pot; etc. different things just as much as earth is? Similarly, since the product (of Existence) is an
object of some idea other than the idea of Existence, therefore the created product must be something different from Existence, just as a cow is different
from a horse.
Reply: No, since although a lump, a pot, etc. are different from one another, they are not different from earth. Even though a pot is different from a lump, and a lump is different from a pot, still, the lump and the pot are not different from earth. Therefore the lump and the pot are nothing but earth.
However, a cow is different from a horse, or a horse from a cow. Therefore pot etc. are merely different configurations of earth etc. Similarly all these are but
different shapes of Existence, and therefore it is reasonable that before creation Existence alone was there, because without exception all shapes are
dependent on speech alone.

Objection: Is it not that Existence is partless according to the Upanisadic texts: 'Partless, actionless, tranquil, faultless,
taintless' (Sv.VI.19); 'The Purusa is resplendent since He is formless, coextensive with all that is external and internal, and birthless' (Mu.II.1.2), and
others? How can it be logical that Existence which is partless can have changeful configuration?
Reply: There is no such fault because, as from the constituents of rope etc. there can appear shapes like snake etc. Similarly it is logical that from the consistence of sat, Existence, imagined by the intellect, there can appear a changeful configuration. This is supported by the Upanisadic text, 'All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Earth as such is the reality' (VI.1.4); 'Existence indeed is the reality'. Even when one has the idea of 'this', there is in reality the One without a second.

6.2.3. Tat, that Existence; aiksata, saw, undertook the act of visualization. From this it follows that the cause of the world is not the Pradhana imagined by the Samkhyas, for they accept Pradhana to be insentient. But this Existence is conscious because of being the agent of visualization. How did That visualize?
This is being answered: 'Syam, I shall become; bahu, many. Prajayeya, I shall be born excellently', like earth taking the shapes of pots etc. or ropes etc. taking the shapes of snake etc. imagined by the intellect.

Objection: In that case whatever is perceived is unreal, like a rope perceived in the shape of a snake etc.
Reply: No. Since it is Existence itself that is perceived otherwise through the duality of different forms, therefore, there is non-existence of
anything anywhere. That is what we say. As the Nyaya school after assuming that a thing is different from existence, says again that it has no existence
before its birth and after its destruction--it is not assumed by us in that way, at anytime or anywhere, that any word or any thing denoted by the word can be there differently from Existence. But all words and all things that are spoken of with the idea of their being different from Existence, are Existence only, just as in the world a rope itself is spoken of as a snake, under the idea that it is a snake; or as a lump and pot etc. are referred to with the words lump and pot etc. under the idea that they are different from earth. But just as the world and idea of a snake cease for one who has the discriminating knowledge about the rope, and as the world and ideas of pot etc. cease for one who has the discriminating knowledge about earth, similarly words and ideas with regard to all other transformation cease for those people who have the discriminating knowledge about Existence. This is so on the authority of such Upanisadic
texts as: 'Failing to reach which (rahman, as conditioned by the mind), words along with the mind turn back' (Tai,II.4); 'Whenever as aspirant gets fearlessly
established...in the inexpressible, and unsporting rahman...'(Tai.II.7.1). Having visualized thus, tat, That; asrjata, created; tejah, fire.

Objection: Is it not that in another Upanisadic text, 'From that Brahman, which is the Self, was produced space' (Tai.II.1.1), it is stated that are came out of space, and fire from that, as the third? How is it contradictorily stated (now) that fire came out of It first, and also that space came out of That itself?
Reply: There is no such fault, since it is logical to assume that after creating space and air, that Existence created fire. Or it may be that the order of creation is not what is intended to be spoken of here. The intended meaning is that all this is the product of Existence, and therefore Existence is one only, without a second. For there are examples of earth etc. Or since the intention is to speak of the intermixture of three elements, the text speaks of the creation of fire, water, and food. Fire is wellknown in the word as that which burns, ripens, illuminates, and is red. Tat, that; tejah, fire created by Existence; aiksata, saw. The meaning is that Existence which had taken the form of fire saw, 'ahu syam, I shall be many; prajayeya, I shall be born excellently'--this is to be explained as before. Tat, that; asrjata, created; apah, water. It is well-known in the world that water is liquid, cool, fluid, and white. Since water is a product of fire, therefore yatra kva ca, whenever and wherever; purusah, a person; socati, suffers; va, or; svedate, sweats, perspires; tejasah eva tat, that occurs from fire indeed. Tat apah, adhiijayante, water is born then.

6.2.4. Tah, those; apah, water; aiksanta, saw. As explained earlier, it is Existence itself that, assuming the form of water, saw. This is the meaning.
'Syama, we shall become; bahvyah, many, abundant. Prajayemahi, we shall be born excellently.' Tah, they; asrjanta, created; annam, food, which is
indicative of the earth, since food is a product of the earth. Therefore yatra kva ca, whenever and wherever; varsati, it rains; tadevea, there is those very
places; annam, food; bhavati, becomes; bhuyistham, plentiful. Therefore tat, there; annadyam, edible food; adhijayate, is born; adbhyah, from water; eva,
surely. It was said earlier that earth is referred to by saying 'they created food'. But here in this illustration paddy, barley, etc. are meant since there is the
qualifying phrase, 'food that is edible'. And food (as earth) is well-known to be heavy, steady, the supporting basis, and dark in colour.

Objection: Well, it is not perceived that there is any (conscious act of) seeing in the case of fire etc. since (in them) there is absence of defensive action against injury etc. and reaction like fear etc. Therefore how can there be such a statement as, 'That fire saw'?
Reply: There is no such defect, since fire etc. are modifications of the Seer who is the cause. And since the Seer who is Existence itself is the
producer of effects possessed of a well-defined order of succession, therefore the elements fire etc. seem to visualize, and hence it is said, 'they saw'.

Objection:Well, even of Existence, the act of seeing is certainly in a secondary sense.
Reply: No. Since visualization by Existence is known from the Upanisad only, therefore, it cannot be imagined that it is secondary. But in the case of fire etc. 'seeing' in the primary sense is inferred. Hence it is proper to assume that this is secondary.

Objection: It can be inferred even in the case of Existence that it is insentient, since it is a (material) cause like earth etc. Since Existence,
which is insentient like Pradhana, exists for serving the purpose of the sentient (purusa) and since it is the producer of effects in a well-defined succession of
time and order, therefore it can be inferred that Existence saw as it were, and that visualization in Its case is verily in a secondary sense. Moreover, it is seen
in the world that sentience is ascribed in a secondary sense to insentient things. As for instance: 'The bank is about to collapse.' (The visualization) by
Existence can also be like that.
Reply: No, since the Upanisad mentions Existence as the Self in the text, 'That is Truth, That is the Self (VI.14.3).

Objection: May it not be that the mentioned of Its being the Self is also in the secondary sense? As somebody may say, 'Bhadrasena is my own self', where the word self is used with regard to somebody who is not (one's) self, but yet serves all of one's purpose; similar is the case here.
Reply: No, since, for a person who has the true conviction about Existence that 'I am Existence', Liberation is enjoined in the text, 'For him the delay is for that long as he does not become freed' (VI.14.2).

Objection: May not Liberation itself be a secondary thing? For one who has the conviction that he is Self identified with Pradhana, Liberation remains near at hand. In this way even the instruction about Liberation is secondary. As in the world, a person who has started for going to village says, 'I have reached the village', having in his mind the idea of reaching it soon, this is also like that.
Reply: No, since the beginning is made with the statement, 'By knowing which the unknown becomes known' (VI.1.3), as also the other statement that all becomes known when the one Existence is known, because everything is non-different from It (Existence); and also because there is the assertion of nonduality. Moreover, it has not been heard from the Upanisad that there is something else to be known, nor is there any indicative word (in the Upanisad) from which it can be inferred that the instruction about Liberation should be taken as secondary. And if the whole Chapter is assumed to have a secondary meaning, then, the assumer will be undergoing a useless effort, because that knowledge which is calculated to serve the highest human purpose could be acquired by the assumer through logic itself. Therefore, since the meaning of the Upanisad is based on the authority of the Veda, it should not be given up. Hence the conclusion is that the Cause of the world is possessed of sentience.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 05:39:04 PM by Administrator »