The vishhNutattvanirNaya on the eternality of saN^skR^ita varNas

From AnandatIrtha's vishhNutattvanirNaya, 1st parichchheda:
   न च उच्चारणकाले एव वर्णानामुत्पत्तिरिति वाच्यम् । तदेवेदं वचनमिति प्रत्यभिज्ञाविरोधात् ।
  न च सादृश्यात् प्रत्यभिज्ञा भ्रान्तिरिति वाच्यम् । सोऽयं देवदत्त इत्यादेरपि तथात्वप्राप्तेः ।
  सर्वक्षणिकत्वं वदता बौद्धेन सेयं दिगितिप्रत्यभिज्ञायाः भ्रान्तित्वं न वाच्यम् पञ्चस्कन्धेभ्यः अन्यत्वात् न च दिशः एव भ्रान्तिकल्पिताः विज्ञानशून्ययोरपिसाम्यात् ।
  न च आदित्योदयादिनैव दिक्कल्पना अन्धकारोऽपि दिङ्मात्रप्रतीतेः । कादाचित्कभ्रान्तिरेव आदित्योदयादिदर्शनान्निवार्यते । सा च विज्ञानशून्ययोरपि भवतीति तेषां मतं वादिविप्रतिपत्तेः । अतो दिशः स्थिरा एवेति सिद्ध्यति शून्यवदेव ।
  अतस्तद्वेद्वेदस्यापि स्थैर्यं सिद्धं तदेवेदं वाक्यमिति प्रत्यभिज्ञानात् ।
  न चानुमानादीनामागमं विना प्रामाण्यं धर्मादिषु । तदगोचरत्वात् ।
  अतः अपौरुषेयवाक्येनैव धर्मादिसिद्धेः सर्ववादिनामपि तदङ्गीकार्यम् ।
  " The contention that the varNas(syllables)  are created when they are pronounced (and perish soon after) is not correct. Due to the varNa being recognised as the same as that was heard on an earlier occasion. To consider varNas as created will be contrary to such recognition. (Therefore, the varNas are eternal).
            It cannot be also contended that so called recognition is a mistaken notion due to a similarity (of a varNa now pronounced with the same varNa pronounced earlier). However, in this case even the well - known instance of a recognition viz. " He is the same devadatta " may have to be treated as a mistaken notion, but not an instance of recognition(pratyabhijJNA). (This will not be acceptable to anyone).
             Even the buddhists who claim everything to be mommentary cannot dismiss the recognition(pratyabhijJNA) of dik i.e., AkAsha as an illusion. However, they have accepted dik, i.e., AkAsha as permanent. This is because, according to them AkAsha is different from the five skandhas (which are only momentary).
                   The contention of some buddhists who claim even dik i.e., the different quarters of AkAsha as illusory is also not correct, because in that case even vujJNAna and shUnya may have to be treated as illusory.
                           The contention that the quarters east, west, etc., are envisaged on the basis of sunrise, etc.,  is also not correct, because even in darkness one comprehends the quarters east, west, etc.. An occasional confusion in respect of east, west, etc., only is removed by a reference to sun - rise, etc.. Such a confusion can be pointed out even in respect of vijJNAna and shUnya also as these very concepts are opposed by others. Thus, the quarters of AkAsha are permanent(Therefore, the possibility of recognition has to be accepted in respect of these and hence the possibility of recognition in respect of varNas cannot be questioned).
                      COMMENT 
 Here, it is shown that even buddhists who talk of momentariness of everything have accepted the concept of recognition in case of dik i.e., AkAsha. According to the sautrAntika and vaibhAshhika schools of buddhism, AkAsha, pratisaMkhyAnirodha and apratisaMkhyAnirodha, these three are eternal. These are outside of the five skandha:
             आकाशस्य प्रतिसंख्याऽप्रतिसंख्यद्वयोः पञ्चस्कन्धेभ्यः अन्यत्वात् नित्यत्वमिति बौद्धसिद्धान्तः । यथोक्तं आकाशो द्वौ विनाशौ च नित्यं त्रयमसंस्कृतम् । विनाशद्वयस्वरूपं च बुद्धिपूर्वविनाशो हि प्रतिसंख्या निरोधगीः । अबुद्धिपूर्वकस्तेषां निरोधऽप्रतिसंख्यया ॥
 Since AkAsha is eternal according to these buddhists, the recognition in respect of it cannot be called a mistaken notion even by buddhists. Thus, the concept of recognition is accepted by them also. The five skandhas of the buddhists are:
                          रूपसंज्ञावेदनासंस्कारविज्ञानलक्षणः पञ्चस्कन्धाः । 
                  Here, dik, refers to avyAkR^itAkAsha and dishah refers to the quarters which are its parts.
 The expressions dika and avyAkR^itAkAsha refer to space(not elemental ether). Space is comprehended directly by the sAxin(perceiving self). The quarters are real parts of space. These are natural and not due any any upAdhi i.e., adjuncts. The sunrise, etc., do not cause east, west, etc., quarters, but only help to grasp them correctly. Therefore, the quarters have steady positions. Though they have steady positions, the usage of the expressions east, west, etc.,  differs for people standing in different places, because these expressions are used relatively with reference to the positions taken by people in space.
                            From the above these observations emerge:
                               1. The expressions dik and avyAkR^itAkAsha refer to space.
                                2. dik in the plural dishah refers to the quarters that are parts of avyAkR^itAkAsha i.e., space. 
                               3. The quarters are natural and real. These have steady positions. These are not caused by any adjuncts, nor are these superimpositions on space. Both space and the quarters are directly comprehended by the sAxin.                                      
         From this, it is clear that the contention of those who consider dishaH i.e., the quarters as superimposed and illusory are incorrect. If without appropriate grounds these are considered as illusory, why not consider vijJNAna and shUnya also as illusory?
            The question of the reality and eternality of space and the quarters is discussed only demonstrate the possibility of the concept of recognition. The issue with which this section is mainly concerned is that of the eternity of the varNas and vedas on the grounds of recognition. That is established. Therefore, this discussion is concluded with the remark that the varNas and the vedas are eternal.
                                      The fact that dharma, adharma, etc., cannot be comprehended by anumAna(by itself), paurushheya - vAkya, etc., and that the apaurushheya veda has to be accepted as the source for the knowledge of these is again stressed in conclusion. 
 
Therefore, the eternality of the varNas and consequently of the vedas is established. The vedic sentences (vAkyas) are recognised as the same sentences all along.
                            anumAna, paurushheyavAkya, etc., are not the sources of knowledge of dharma, adharma, etc., without the support of the vedas. dharma, adharma, etc., are not comprehended by anumAna, paurushheyavAkya, etc.. These are comprehended only by apaurushheya - veda. Therefore, all have to accept apaurushheya scripture. "   

 

knr


--
If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it.
Happy moments, praise God.
Difficult moments, seek God.
Quiet moments, worship God.
Painful moments, trust God.

 Every moment, thank God