Sambodhi 1990 Vol 17

Author(s): H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 29

24
(1) On B.S. I.ii.8 Dr. Ghate remarks2: "In sutra 7, it is interesting to note that the word 'tad-vyapadeśat' lit. 'owing to the mention of that is explained by all meaning 'alpatva (anutva)-vyapadeśāt. i.c. owing to the mention of minuteness' and as stating one of the reasons in favour of the jiva being referred to in the passage in question. Does it not imply an admission, on the part of the sütrakāra, of the minuteness of the jiva, accepted by all except Sankara, according to whom alone the jiva is as omnipresent as the Brahman ?"
The learned doctor here indirectly reads between the lines and makes the sutrakāra commit himself by declaring the 'aṇutva' or minuteness of the jiva. Be it noted that there is no such clear-cut statement so that the above remark can be justified. The sutrakara, as a matter of fact, simply establishes the all-pervasivenss of Brahman by refuting its anutva, likely to be superimposed on its residence in the heart-sky. It is true that the sūtrakāra has elsewhere dwelt upon the aṇutva of jiva. But it is pointless to bring in the discussion of a topic where it is not so expressly or necessarily stated.
There is no denying the fact that all the bhāṣyakāras here unanimously explained the word 'tad-vyapadeśat' as meaning' because of the mention of minuteness'.3
But in his over-enthusiasm to show the aṇutva of jiva, Dr. Ghate has outright disregarded the context; for he has forgotten that the word 'tad-vyapadeśat' presents the argument of the Purvapankṣin (the upholder of the prima facie view). It is totally against the common canons of textual interpretation to foist the prima facie view on that of the Siddhantin. However, important and correct may be a statement, it will totally lose its force and value in 'asthana' or wrong (improper) place, so to say. It may be argued just in the opposite way for establishing the allpervasiveness of jiva, as S. has already done. But that is also out of place here.
(2) On P. 70, Dr. Ghate passes the remark "Sütra 13 (i.e. II.i. 13). is very interesting, since each commentator has own peculiar way of interpreting it."
Further on p. 72, he remarks: 'Aud moreover, the question of the difference or non-difference between bhoktr and bhogya seems to be rather out of place, inspite of the explanation given by Vallabha,' and that 'the sütrakära would naturally oecupy himself with....the relation between Brahman and jiva as cause and effect'.