________________
48
PRABUDDH JEEVAN
JUNE 2014
bans
Darabans.
(1) Sankhya: Without granting as a Conscious Prin- ciple as the motive force how can Unconscious Prakriti evolve the Universe? How can the facral of the 3 gunas be possible without Conscious Purpose? The sponta- neous flow of milk from the cows' udders is a Sänkhva illustration of unconcious purpose: but it is false, for the milk flows because the cow loves the calf. i.e.. there is purpose even there.
Again, Sankhya contradicts itlsef; it mentions in places. 7 Indriyas and in places. 11. In some places, it says that develops from 1960: at other places, from 37602. In places, three 37-1:hts are stated; in places, only one.
Further, the Pātanjala Yoga has to accept a designer of the universe in the garb of पुरुषविशेष-ईश्वर; in this, it comes near to Vedānta.
(2) Vaiseșika : Unconscious atoms cannot produce the wonderfully well-adjusted universe. Adışta is unconscious, and by assuming it the difficulty of the evolution of a purposeful universe from atoms is not solved. कार्य as different from कारण is assumed by वैशेषिक, e.g., त्र्यणुक from द्वयणुक; then why object to the creation of the world from 6 ? How atoms arise at all is such as cannot be understood; if they move to create the world, how 14 is at all possible ?
(3) Buddhism: Momentary things can produce nothing; causation is impossible. The ud r ugars therefore becomes inexplicable. In fact, that which remembers the passing experience, the 311644, must be permanent, otherwise it cannot link the past and the present in experience. Therefore the fu chal won't do. The faşltal or Subjective Idealism also won't do, because (a) to deny that objects exist would be to contradict experience. (b) if we do not believe in immediate expe- rience, then even faşi or mental states cannot be believed in. (c) to say that ideas appear as illusory ob- jects won't do, for we can as well say that a certain man looks like the child of a barren woman, (d) dreams and waking experience are different; no waking experi- ence is unreal, for it is not contradicted by other expe- rience, while dreams are contradicted by waking expe- rience, (e) Lord Sugata Buddha has preached contra- dictory things, e.g., cfagl-R, 402P, i.e. there are inherent contradictions in the system.
(4) Jainism : Jainsim stands on Relativism, and
says nothing with confidence: it cannot be therefore a trustworthy philosophy, Jiva has a TRATT according to Jainism, then the result will be that if as a consequence of a man's Jiva is born in an elephant, part of the latter's body will have no soul, while if it be born in an ant, part of the soul will have no body to live in. If the gila is taken to have all in order to effect such adjustments, then the film will be 5 and will be subject to 7791, which the Jain cannot accept.
(5) Nyāya Deism : Naiyāyikas and Pasupatas believe in 3 as the Flour of the world, and a creator standing aloof from the Universe. If God creates different creatures as per their different ent creatures as per their different cus he becomes responsible for the injustice in the world: he will have
10, making some happy, others unhappy. To say that this is the result of won't do, for it leads to अन्योन्याश्रय, कर्म inspiring ईश्वर and ईश्वर inspiring कर्म; it will be an UURISTA.
(6) Bhāgavata Sampradāya : This view resorts to 4 46s.aryda divides himself into 4 6s (1) arya - its 1964; it is WHICHT; (2) out: it is vila; (3) : it is 444 and (4) अनिरूद्ध : it is अहंकार. Now वासुदेव is the कारणात्मक पराप्रकृति, while the other three are कार्यात्मकसृष्टि. This theory is opposed to श्रुति. If वासुदेव is one, how can it divide into different forms? If sia is produced, it will die, and then its fh will be impossible: what dies, ceases to exist, it cannot reach Fl. Rämānuia takes जीव etc. to be गुणs of वासुदेव and isa भागवत; so too वल्लभ.
Comparison of Sankara and Western Philosophers : Like Descartes, Sankara accepts the selfvalidity of self-consciousness. The two agree in their metaphysical method. In their results the two are far apart and bear no comparision.
A close resemblance exists between Sankara and Kant. The relation of Sankara to the Madhyamika Buddhists bears a parallelism to that of kant to Hume and Berkeley. For Berkeley only ideas were valid and for Hume the ego did not exist; Kant corrected both by rehabilating knowledge on the basis of the reality of the Ego. Just so, to the Buddhists the external world does not exist, it is all Vijnāna, to the Sunyavādins, it is Sunya; against this, Sankara recognises the phenomenal reality of the world and says there ultimate does exist as Real, and that is Brahman. The contrast of phenomena and noumena in Kant has its counterpart in the Vyävahärika and Paramarthika in Sankara. But while kant is either an agnostic or a Dualist, nay Plu
