In the previous episode we saw how the ancient Samkhya philosophers put forward their claims. In one stroke they make the idea of Brahma or God totally irrelevant.
Apparently, they can explain ‘everything’ without taking recourse to any mystical entity called God! How does the Brahma supporters take on this onslaught of the opponent?
By the way, I am using the words ‘Brahma supporters’ to refer to whoever was pushing the idea of Brahma or God. They could represent sage Badarayana himself or any one of his later followers who strived to uphold the supremacy of the Vedas.
This is how the war of words goes…
Brahma supporters:
“Excellent! You indeed have a wonderful story. But let us make some basic things clear. Logic and reasoning are good and may be helpful when it comes to worldly things that can be perceived through our senses. But when it comes to things that cannot be perceived through our senses, any amount of logic fails. This is so because there is no way of verifying whatever was argued upon. Depending on who is good at arguing, he wins the case. So, logic has its limitations. It is ill founded.
Now let us come to details.
You say that your primordial substance Pradhana is insentient. That means it cannot think, it cannot feel, it also does not have a free will. That being the case, how did this Pradhana accomplish this wonderful feat which you call as creation?
To create something, what one at least needs is a will to create. Since what is created is a highly complex entity, the creator also needs to be extremely knowledgeable. Any activity is motivated by a desire for happiness. But how is it that your inert Pradhana exhibits the will and knowledge needed for this complex process? Being insentient it had no motivation to be happy either. It is incapable of experiencing happiness!
Your story sounds like the story in which a person without fingers drills holes in the beads, a blind person who strings these beads into a nice garland, a person without a neck wears that garland, and a dumb person praises the person wearing such a garland! It is as ridiculous as that!”
Samkhya opponent:
“But you can’t belittle our preceptors like that. After all, our preceptor Kapila was a great Vedic scholar and a realized person. What he said cannot be totally wrong.”
Brahma supporters:
“We do respect Sage Kapila and no doubt he was a realized person. So was sage Kanada and many others. Were they less realized? According to sage Kanada who propounded the Vaisheshika theory, this entire world was made up of atoms which are insentient. But even he said that God was needed as a supervisor of this creation since insentient atoms by themselves cannot do anything on their own. But you say that no such God is needed!
My friend, however realized, human beings have their own limitations. They are fallible. They have a tendency to make wrong judgements. That is the reason why we say that over reliance on reasoning alone is not good. We need to support our arguments with commonly agreed upon premises. We consider Upanishads as a valid premise in deciding truths that are beyond our limits of perception. Your preceptors too were Vedic scholars. Why then are you bringing up your weak arguments without providing support from the Upanishads? Don’t you think Upanishads are the final yard sticks?
You are talking about Pancha bhootas, mind, organs and so on. We can accept all that since those can be perceived to some extent and also, because those words appear in the Upanishads. But where is the mention of Pradhana in the Upanishads? That is a concept which is neither perceptible nor supported by any of the Upanishadic words! You just imagined it. And then you claim that your theory is based on reasoning and it is verifiable! What kind of logic are you talking about?”
Samkhya opponent:
“You can’t say that. Though we have arrived at our theory completely based on logic, we can show evidence to that even in the Upanishads. Each concept that we talk about, and every explanation we put forth, can be found in the Upanishads.”
Brahma supporters:
“Sorry my friend. You have totally misinterpreted the Upanishads and come up with your own imaginary story. We don’t buy your story, though it is quite interesting 😊”
Samkhya opponent:
“Ok then. Let us hear your version of the story. How do you think Upanishads explain this entire phenomenon? And where exactly we have misinterpreted the Upanishads as you accuse us. Do you have an alternate story?”
Brahma supporters:
“Yes, we do. That is what we are going to elucidate as we go on.
First of all, we consider Brahma to be omniscient, one who has a will, one who can think, and the one who is embodiment of happiness. So, he is capable of doing anything that he wishes to. He is not insentient like your Pradhana. We can quote any number of verses from the Upanishads to support our claims.
For example, in the Taitariya Upanishad (II.1.i) the Brahma is defined as the embodiment of Truth and infinite Knowledge– “Satyam Jnyanamanantam”. That makes Brahma Omniscient. There are many places where this Brahma is explained as someone who can think and has a will of his own. For example, in the Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.3) when the cause for the creation of the world is explained, it is said that
“The Brahma thought - ‘let me be many’ – TadaikShata bahu syaam prajaayEyEti”
That means that the Brahma can think and has a free will. In several places in the Upanishads Brahma is declared to be an embodiment of Bliss – “Anandam Brahma”. How can such a thing be devoid of happiness?
So, the Brahma we are talking about is not an inert thing like Pradhana or the primordial substance. On the contrary, Brahma is a sentient entity which is embodiment of knowledge, intelligence, will, and bliss. Now you want to know how this world came into existence? Let us explain that to you.”
This is how their arguments go. The Brahma Supporters have a creation story which superficially looks quite similar to the one described by the Samkhya. We will discuss this story in the next episode.
A series on ancient Indian composition Brahma Sutra. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21
No comments:
Post a Comment