Slokavartika a Study

SR No.: 001133
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: K K Dixit, Nagin J Shah, Dalsukh Malvania
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1983
Total Pages: 132
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Nyay, Tattvartha Sutra, & Tattvarth
File Size: 11 MB

Page 29

20
Šlokavartika--a-study
this meaning by a an authoritative person then this person must be recalled whenever this word is used, just as a Buddhist would not put reliance on a religious utterance unless he makes sure that it is Buddha's own utterance (vv.123-25). In any case, one should not put reliance on a Vedic utterance without recalling its author, but people put reliance on a Vedic utterance without recalling its author this utterance must be without an author (vv. 130-131). It might be said that God at the time of world-creation established convention about the meaning of a word with the help of another set of words that were at his disposal, but the pity is that the only words we know of are those current in our midst (vv.134-36). It will not do to retort that on this logic – that is, if convention about the meaning of a word cannot be establ. ished without the help of another set of words - one might as well say that the meaning of a word cannot be learnt without the help of another set of words; for it is a matter of everyday occurrence that people learn the meaning of a word, by observing that behaviour of their elders which takes place in the wake of an employ, ment of words (vv. 138-39). Nor will it do to say that God at the time of worldcreation established convention about the meaning of a word with the help of bodily gestures signifying this situation or that, for even the signification of bodily gestures must be already known to the learners concerned but there could be no such learners
the midst of beings that were first produced at the time of world-creation (vv. 139. 10) » Thus having acquainted ourselves with what Kumārila has to say about matters
ottu relevant to his present inquiry we might take notice of his argumenta directed:
In the hypothesis of God and world--creation on his part; they are as follows: «When nothing whatsoever existed before world.creation who can tell us how God
mati .- lit. the lord of creatures) looked iike at that time (vv. 45.-46) ? And in the hance of all motive and all means why should Go undertake world-creation at all (vv. 43-449) ? Morever, why should he create a world so full of misery (v. 49) ? Pity. could not be his motive, because at that time there was nobody to be pitied (v. 52) ? And, if world--creation be an act of play on his part, that means he does not have C hie. desires 'fulfilled (v. 56). Granted that the beings first created found themselves.
presence of God, but how could they be sure that it was he who had, croated T lus 58-59) ? God's own words to that effect could well be false. (v. 60);. but Vedastog could yield no necessary information, for on the present hypothesis even Vedas are a creation of God (v. 61). Nor is there any logic behind the concept of an allo-round world -- dissolution (v. 68). Certainly, why should it come about that no being whatsoever is reaping the consequence of his accumulated karmas (vv. 69-70) ? And if that be due to a desire on God's part then why not altogether give up the hypothesis of karma (v. 72) ? Maybe it is felt that an organization of component parts as is exhibited by a living body must be due to the controlling activity of a conscious agent, but even then why God and not the soul inhabiting this body be the agent needed (vv. 74--75) ? Moreover, in the very nature of things there can be no such controlling agent in the case of God's own body. If it be God himself