The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c5.s5.t2.6
The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c5.s5.t2.6
- Language
- English
c5.s5.t2.6.1
*Anumânam* rests on the *Pratyaksham*, and only has the force of proof so long as it is rightly inferred therefrom, the *Smriti* also is only so far valid as an authority, as it confirms the *Çruti* by its testimony, and completes it by right inference. Therefore it is frequently quoted in confirmation, but not seldom also rejected; as for instance 4, 2, 21, in reference to the departure of the soul, the ideas of the *Smriti* (Bhagavadgîtâ 8, 23) are only so far rejected as they are in contradiction to the *Çruti* (p. 1109, 5). For the rest Bâdarâyaṇa declares himself, 2, 1, 11, as opposed in principle to any possibility of basing the metaphysical verities on reflection (*tarka*), which is commented on by Çaṅkara as follows (p. 435, 11):—"And, therefore, mere reflection (*kevalas tarkaḥ*) must not be quoted in opposition in a matter which is to be known by [sacred] tradition (*âgama*); for reflections which, without [sacred] tradition, rest only on the speculation (*utprekshâ*) of men, are untenable, since this speculation is unbridled. For instance the reflections thought out by some experts after great trouble are recognized by others, still more expert, as [merely] apparent, and those of the latter in the same way by others. Therefore one cannot rely on it, that reflections have stability, because the opinions of men vary.
c5.s5.t2.6.2
But [it may be objected], when there is a man of recognised greatness, a Kapila or another, who has made a reflection, one could at least rely on it as well-founded. Even here a sound foundation is lacking, since even the recognised pioneers (*tîrthakara*) such as Kapila, Kaṇâda and the like, openly contradict each other." To this the opponent objects: "Yet one can, perhaps, come to a well-founded reflection, in reflecting in a different way, for that there can be no well-founded reflection at all is in itself a law based on reflection alone (p. 436, 7); and because one reflection is false, the other need not also be false; the opinion that all reflection is unreliable, would make an end of all worldly action resting thereon (p. 436, 10)." Reflection, he says, might have in view the consideration of the words of scripture, in order to reach in this way the full truth (p. 437, 1); even *Manu* (12, 105) recommends, besides the tradition of scripture, perception and inference; and the excellence of reflection is precisely this, that, unbound by previous reflections, in case they are untenable, other reflections may be made (p. 437, 7). To this Çañkara replies (p. 437, 10): "Even though it appear that in many provinces reflection is well-founded, yet, in the province here spoken of, reflection cannot be freed from the reproach of baselessness;
c5.s5.t2.6.3
for it is impossible to know at all this extremely profound essence of being (*bhāva-yâthâtmyam*), without the [sacred] tradition, connected with liberation; for this subject does not fall within the province of perception (*pratyaksham*), because it is without form and the like, and therefore also not within the province of inference (*anumânam*) and the other [Pramâṇas], because it has no characteristics [*liṅgam*] and the like." Here, as our author further develops the question, where the full truth and the liberation which results from it—as all admit--are being considered, the subject of knowledge must be identical, and the knowledge of it uncontradictable. But reflections do not fulfil these conditions, because they contradict each other, and what the one maintains, another overthrows, and what the latter puts in its place, yet another overthrows (p. 438, 9). Besides, the Sâṅkhya system is not in any way recognised by everyone as the highest, and in any case it is impossible to bring together all the thinkers of all lands and times, to establish firmly the final truth of reflection among them. But, on the other hand, the Veda, as a source of knowledge, is eternal; its subject stands fast; the full knowledge of it formed therefrom cannot be turned aside by all the reflecters of the past, present and future (p. 439, 5).
c5.s5.t2.6.4
By this the full validity of the Upanishad teaching is proved, and by this it is established, "in virtue of the [sacred] tradition and the reflection which follows it" that (which was to be proved) the spiritual Brahman is at once the *causa efficiens* and the *causa materialis* of the world (p. 439, 7).