Indian Logic and Atomism: An Exposition of the Nyaya and Vaiceshika Systems c19.s2.10

c19.s2.10

More serious is the argument that the syllogism adduced does not prove the result. A jar is certainly produced by the potter, but in addition to the knowledge of his material, his desire, and action he must have a body in order to bring about the result, and therefore God must have a body, which is contrary to our observation. The answer to this is that mere possession of a body cannot be the real point in question, for else a man while in sleep would be an agent; it must rather be the character of being an operator of instruments sufficient to bring about a result, and an unembodied being can possess this power, as in the case of the soul which moves by its volition the body. True the body exists and belongs to the soul, but it is the soul which impels, and God has the atoms to impel in lieu of the body which the soul has as its object. Nor is there any real difficulty in understanding how he can possess intelligence, desire, and volition as eternal, whence his power of creation may be derived. On the other hand, it is urged that the souls and the atoms together can account for the whole of creation. To this Çrīdhara replies that this cannot be, since, until creation has operated, the souls are not united with sense organs through which alone they can possess cognitions. If it is replied that the soul has an inherent intelligence which is all-pervading, the answer is that this is contrary to experience which shows that the soul on birth in a body finds all things new and that therefore it does not continuously function, so that we are compelled to resort to illegitimate hypotheses if we depart from the sound view that a soul needs sense organs to be conscious. It follows, therefore, that creation requires the operation of an active intelligence which is that of God. The unity of God follows from the fact that there is no ground to accept a multiplicity of equally omniscient beings to perform the work of creation, and further such a multiplicity would by interference rather hinder than further the result.