Continuing our discussion on the debates on Brahma or God, in this episode let us see how the Brahma supporters face the criticisms by the Vaisheshikas or the ancient Indian atomic theorists.
Brahma supporters reply back:
“Ok. You are saying that ‘if a sentient Brahma took the form of the material world, then the material world too should have been sentient. The effect should inherit the properties of the cause. But that is not the case. The material world is insentient. So, our theory is wrong’.Let us talk about your theory.You are saying that this material world was formed out of atoms or Paramanus. Right? You also say that these Paramanus have neither any mass nor dimensions. But every entity in the material world has both mass as well as the dimensions! How is that possible? They too should have inherited the property of the atoms and become mass less and dimensionless! How do you explain that?You say that ‘in the beginning’ the atoms combined with each other to form bigger composites and finally gave rise to the material world. But how was that possible? The atoms are insentient and have no free will to act. In that case how did they spring into action and combine with each other? They should have been lying there as they are for eons without creating anything. But the material world did come into existence and you say that that came into existence as a result of combining of atoms. How do you explain that?If you say that the atoms though insentient were always active, then there is no way the material world can finally disintegrate at the time of dissolution of the world. The material world would continue to exist forever, because the atoms would keep creating newer and newer things. That means this world is endless.You say that there was some unseen force – adrShta – that motivated the otherwise inactive atoms to spring into action. What is that unseen force? Where does it come from? If you say that it comes from the past actions or Karma of the living beings, are you not presupposing the existence of the living beings before the world came into existence? That does not make much sense.If you say that the souls forced the atoms to get into action mode, even that does not make sense. The souls are sentient, but they are not capable of doing anything without a body, And the body can come into existence only after the material world is formed. So, it is chicken and egg problem.Let us see another of your great claims.You say that the four basic elements namely earth, water, fire, and air were formed by the combination of 4 types basic atoms. The basic atoms having earthy properties combined to form earth, the basic atoms having watery qualities combined to form water, and so on.Now earth can be seen, touched, tasted, and even smelt. But water can only be seen, touched, or tasted. It has no smell. Similarly, the rest two basic elements are finer than these. More ways a substance can be perceived, grosser it is. Now, according to you the earthy atoms should have 4 properties and the airy atoms should have only one property. If more properties imply a grosser atom, then an earthy atom should be grosser than the airy atom. But you say that atoms have no dimension and mass. If that is the case, how did their ‘grossity’ differ?If on the other hand, you argue that all these types of atoms have only one property each, then earth will have only one of the properties as well. It can be seen, but not felt and so on. That is not the case. So, whichever way you look at it, your theory is self-contradictory. And so, it is not valid.There is one more reason why we say that your theory is useless. Though the Samkhya theory is also wrong, many scriptures accept parts of their theory as valid. But your theory is not accepted as valid wholly or partially by anyone worth the name. Your theory is rejected by all scholarly people. So, it is not worth talking about your theory”.
The main point the Brahma supporters are trying to assert is that while an insentient thing can come out of a sentient thing, the converse cannot. Also, to initiate anything, you need a sentient entity to start with. An insentient entity can only help but not initiate anything.
The Brahma supporters have a point, though I am not impressed by the way they dismiss their weak opponents. Winning by pulling down the opponent may be a valid tactic in a duel, but I don’t consider that as decent. I feel that one should win based on one’s own strength and not on the basis of opponent’s weaknesses. Such a victory only proves that the opponent is wrong. But it does not prove that the winner is right. Think about that.
Samkhya and Vaisheshika are on the Vedic side. They may be opponents of the Brahma supporters but they also accept the Vedas as a valid authority. So, winning them may not be very difficult. The real challenge comes when you are confronted with an opponent who does not accept any of your scriptures. How do you face them? Let us see that in the next episode.
A series on ancient Indian composition Brahma Sutra. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21
No comments:
Post a Comment