(In
the two stanzas being interpreted herebelow, a brief note on the debate between
Sri Poornaprajna and the Logicians has been provided, with a little
explanation. It is hard to find exact English words for some of these highly
philosophical, and more so Dwaitic, line of thoughts. Please read, comment and
share. SDN)
BhidA
susADhyEtyanumAnamatra taihi prAyujyatAshu pratipakShaBheeShaNam|
AKhanDayadvyaKhanDaDheeridam
sa pakShadakShaha PhaNinam virADiva||4||
SUMMARY:
They played a prank “loophole can be easily exploited” which was always
effective in instilling fear among defence team. Like the Garuda with strong
wings destroy the serpents, most accomplished Sri Poornaprajna, who was capable
of defending his line of thought, nullified the weapons of apprehension shot by
the rivals.
In
his Bhavaprakashika, the author has substantiated the argument and counter
arguments that took place between Sri Poornaprajna and the group of Logicians.
The
inference put forth by the rival group was:
Vimatau
jeevaparamAtmAnau Bhinnau niyamyaniyamAmakatwAt rAjapuruShavat
Meaning:
The Soul and the Divine are separate because they harbour the sense of tangible
and intangible notions like royal humans.
To
quote Bhavaprakashika:
Atra
BhidAyAm| AnumAnam — ‘vimatau Bhinnau niyamyaniyAmakatwAt rAjapuruShavat’ iti|
Sri
Poornaprajna rejected this inference by stating:
QUOTE
FROM Bhavaprakashika:
Kimidam
vishEShaNam pakShAdBhinnamAhOswidaBhinnamuta BhinnABhinnam| nAdimaha
sambanDhApEkShayA(a)navasThAnAt| Na maDhyamaha pakShamAtrasya
vishEShaNamAtrasya vA(a)BhiprEtatwaprasangAt| Na chAntimaha uBhayadOShAopAtAt|
VyavasThayA aparidrushyamAnatwAdityaKhaNDayat| Idam cha vishEShavinirmuktAnAm
vishEShaNa nigrAhakam|(Excerpt from Sumadhwavijaya compiled and published by Dr.
Vyasanakere Prabhanjanacharyaha)
Is
this adjectival “separate status” (Bhinnatwa) different from the principal
subject or is it inseparabale or “separably inseparable”? Owing to the fallacy
of ‘non-status’ (Anavastha) or ‘opaque’ nature, it cannot be considered as ‘separable’;
due to the absence of attributable ‘quality’, it is inappropriate to treat it
as ‘inseparable’. As both these logical fallacies arise, the third proposition
of ‘separably inseparable’ is also null and void.
Rejection
of the proposition of ‘falsehood of the universe’
AThApi
miThyA vimatam matatwatO vivAdanirmuktavadityavAdi taihi|
AnEna
satyam vimatam matatwatO yaThA GhaTAdeetyanumA nyagadyata||5||
SUMMARY:
Still they fired another syllogism “This world is untrue; it is only believable
since it is visible”. For this Sri
Acharyaru replied “The world is very much true, quite established and tangible like
earthen pot and so on since it is glaring and visible.”
The
logical term for ‘believable’ is “Sampratipanna” or Shukti Rajata. The symbols
of earthen pot and other material things are not just believable but very much
true like the palm of a man, a tree. The term Sampratipanna means “so they say
and hence believed” where the inference is derived not by physical witness or
evidence but by illusory or imaginary and close-to-believe kind of statements.
It is said that where there is smoke there is fire. In this statement, there
may be occasions when smoke does not clearly signify the existence of fire and
vice versa. Earthen pot is not imaginary. It is tangible. Shukta Rajata and
other concepts are based on intangible or abstract things and therefore they
tend to be ‘untrue’. They are, by no stretch of imagination, an aberration of truly
untrue or what has been named as “Sadasadvilakshana”.
(Surrender
of Logicians will be narrated in the next episode with Shloka 6 SDN)
No comments:
Post a Comment