365bet娱乐

[Full title: Sripati鈥檚 Philosophical Standpoint (2): Brahman and the Material World]

The relation of the material world to Brahman may now be considered. In commenting on Sutra II. 3. 11, Pritivyadhikararupa Sabdantarabhyah [Earth (from water); earth on account of the subject-matter, the colour and other texts], Sripati sets out clearly the relation of Brahman to the material world. He starts by saying that when water manifested itself through the light, it reflected several beings. Sruti texts like Ta annam asrujanta, etc., declare that in order to sustain those beings, food was created. The doubt then arises, "Is it mere boiled food that was created or is it the world (that produced the materials of food)?" Certain sets of Sruti texts here and there declare Pritivya oshadhayah; Oshadhibhyo'nnam, etc., meaning that pritivi was created in which herbs and plants yielding corn were created. And these Sruti texts, even though appearing contradictory, yet confirm that all kinds of plants and herbs were created which yield food for sustenance to 695 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. 695

created beings. And the word prithvi therefore has become synonymous with annam or food and not with seedlings. How? The expression adhikararupa 搂abdantarebhyah implies this meaning. The Sruti text Tattejo asrujata,690 etc., declares that those primary elements which possess the authority to give birth to that which is sown become annam, etc., and in their edible, ripened condition become named annam and in that state remind one of prithvi. And even water also bears its commonness with prithvi. The Sruti text Tadyadapam sara asit tat samahanyata sa pritivyabhavat, etc., declares that other terms also express the product of prithvi and shows that prithvi is the chief source from which food originates. Here and there during the time of creation, water assumed the solidified form and presented the shape of an arrow. And that form of the arrow in course of time (the solidified form) produced Atma. And that form in course of time turned into the hardened form of prithvi. This is the meaning of the Sruti text. 697 Similarly anna, which is cooked grain, cannot be said to have directly issued from water. It is the result of coming into contact with prithvi, by which it became grain and finally assumed the form of cooked food. And this is the established and uncontradicted truth. So all the Sruti texts referred to above demonstrate without contradiction that the primary elements are the chief agencies involved in creation. The Kanva and Madhyandina texts like Yah pritivyam tishthan yah prithvi sariram, etc., also clearly explain that Siva Parabrahman appears in the bodily form enclosed in prithvi consisting of all the primary elements. Though he cannot have a bodily form of his own, if he manifests himself in a bodily form which is liable to dissolution, he will reduce himself to equality with jivas. If it be soif he is not one different from the jivas-there will result, from every point of view, an inconsistency in his being the chief cause. 690 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 2. 697 Ibid.

If it is said that a contradiction results by denying to Brahman the chief causality for prithvi and all things anterior and posterior to it, then the reply is, it is not so. For the Sruti text, "Yo Rudro agnau" etc., proclaims his all-pervasiveness. And further other texts like Yah pritivyam tishthan, 698 etc., are equal to the Sruti texts, Annam Brahma, etc. His bodily form is only to show his all-pervasiveness and not for creating the very bodily form like the jiva. Alternatively if it is argued whether prithvi and other primary elements behave even in pralaya in the way indicated in the patasamkocha nyaya, keeping Brahman within themselves, the ashtamurtitva of Brahman remaining undisputed, then, the following texts in the Saiva Purana: Mahesvaran mahasaktya schesana. khyo khagatmakah; Sambhutah purushastasmat pavanakhyo mahabalah; Tasmadaghoras sambhutah jvalanassarvabhakshakah; Jalatmaka vamadevastasmat jatah kripanidhih; Tasmat bhumyatmakah sadyo jatamurtis subhapradah; Tasmat oshadhayah sarve tato'nnam jayate kramat ; Tasmat puja bahirbhutas chetanachetanatmakah; Sarvantaryamirupena sarvakarta sadasivah; Prathamam sukshmarupena sadyojatadi panchakam; janayamasa devesah tatha sthulaprapanchakam ; etc., clearly prove that no one except (Parabrahman) is the chief cause. The Sruti text Akasadvayuh,699 etc., clearly deny to prithvi and other primary elements, which are mere lifeless objects, a hereditary character for causation. If it be doubted whether phenomenal agencies may possess such a character, the next Adhikaran bears testimony to the fact that they do not possess such a character. Tadabhidhyanadeva tu tallingat sah (II. 3. 12). (But he, from the inferential symbol supplied by their reflection.) Now it is seen that Parabrahman joins the primary elements (mahabhuta), and becomes the associate with the associated and yet behaves as one separate from them. Then the question arises whether the primary 698 Madhyandina Upa. 33 699 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. F

elements act on their divine initiative in bringing into existence the creative character of the beings or is it that they act under the controlling power of Paramesvara presiding in them. If, in accordance with the text Akasadvayuh,700 etc., it is inferred that the controlling power imparted to them in their respective ranges of action is used by the primary elements in their capacity to create, then a mutual contradiction in the Srutis arises. The reply is that Parabrahman within the range of the capacity of each primary element brings into play at a look, as it were, his controlling power and enables the element appear as if it did the work itself and on its own initiative. Hence the word in the Sutra Tallingat that distinguishing mark. The Supreme Being (Parabrahman) bearing the distinguishing symbol of controlling power over everything, as declared in the Sruti text, Yah pritivyam tishthan, 701 etc., proves that he is the sole controlling Being. The term prithvi and its abhimani devata should be understood. The terms akasa, etc., are understood to signify only what they are held to indicate by their traditional usage and are expected to do as their apportioned duty under divine control. It does not mean that these primary elements are infinitely independent in the range of their actions and so we do not hear of the Sruti text Akasadvayuh, 702 etc., giving them the all-independent power (of action). Nor should the Sruti text, Ta apa aikshanta iti, should be taken to mean that the primary elements alone form the chief cause in their respective names, for they signify nothing more than their own limited range of action. As the constant look of Parabrahman keeps the controlling power over these primary elements, there is no proof for individual independence of these primary elements themselves. Thus it is clearly proved that the 700 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. 701 Madhyandina Upa. 702 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. 703 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 2.

five great primary elements merge their agencies in the chief controlling power of Parabrahman in all their actions.