By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
This is a question on application of logic (inference) without scriptures. Dvaita teaches us that we are not supposed to use logic to reason the existence of God (Brahman) and that we must rely on the scriptures to prove the same. Unquote.
Not exactly. Small variation to that. Dvaita never says anything like "we are not supposed to...", as one is free to employ any mode. But Dvaita only points out the flaws in all such approaches. Logic an neither be used to prove the existence of God nor to deny the existence of God. Since the logic fails to go either way, we are forced to go to the Agamas.
Every inference does not lead to infinite regress. That is one of the kinds of flaws. In fact, in PramANA paddhati all nigraha=sthAnas (or points of defeat) are condensed into just six categories - 1. Virodha(contradiction), 2. asaMgati (irrelevance), 3. nyUna (Falling short), 4. Adhikya (excessive info that is not needed), 5. saMvAda (Accepting a pramEya that has been already proven wrong) and 6. anukti (Not telling a must aspect needed for explaining to others).
The infinite regress comes under Virodha and we have to prove how it is so.
In Vedas, a vachana comes "naiShA tarkeNa matirApaneyA" (it means that b tarka alone, something can either be proven or disproven). If Tarka ends up finally in PratyakSha or Agama, then it is fine. Or else it goes on forever. That will be infinite regress. But then we have to show how that is so. Note that this Agama vAkya tells what the real situation is. I will not use This or other Agama vAkas to show how Nyaa school logic collapses.
The arguments of Vyasatirtha against Nyaya school is not in one place, but spreads to various portions of his work.
Now, I am going to show the flaws in each of the points mentioned in Wikipedia and unless we do that, we will not be justified to say that "Hence we have to resort to Agamas". Similarly any arguments, brought by pure logic either for God or against God without reference to Agamas, can be refuted.
Note that in the following arguments, neither I will use the Agamas, nor Nyaya school proponents can use the Agamas. Their arguments indicate that God must be there and I counter those arguments without using the Agamas.
Quote - 1. The world is an effect, all effects have efficient cause, hence the world must have an efficient cause. That efficient cause is God. Unquote.
This is like pot and pot-maker or watch and watch-maker or car and car-maker. Now a watch or pot may be made by one person. But the complex cars that we see, we know multiple persons are the efficient cause. If that were so, how can one say that there is only one efficient cause. For such complex universe, there may have been hundreds of gods. (Pls don't mention scriptures that 33 crore gods are there etc. We can not use scriptures either for or against). Secondly, the maker(s) may have existed a few hundred years ago and may not be around now. So, the efficient cause of this universe may not be around. Thirdly if the efficient cause is still around, why can we not see that (be a man or woman or thing - note we can not use or bring scriptures). Lastly, how do we know what it is like.
Quote - 2. Atoms are inactive. To form a substance, they must combine. To combine, they must move. Nothing moves without intelligence and source of motion. Since we perceive substance, some intelligent source must have the inactive atoms. That intelligent source is God. Unquote.
All similar arguments as above. How do we know that such an intelligent source is not visible or hiding somewhere, or why not coming in front of all people and where does that intelligent source exist?
Quote - 3. Something sustains this world. Something destroys this world. Unintelligent Adrishta cannot do this. We must infer that something intelligent is behind. That is God. Unquote.
What is that something. What ever name we ma call, why is it not visible? Why only invisible thing can do all that? Why can't that be visible? Is it fixated in one place or moving? Is that small or big?
Quote - 4. Each word has meaning and represents an object. This representational power of words has a cause. That cause is God. Unquote.
How do we know that power of word has a cause? Where does this cause exist? Why is that not visibke?
Quote - 5.
Everybody reaps the fruits of his actions. Merits and demerits accrue from his own actions. An unseen power keeps a balance of merit and demerit. But since this unseen power is unintelligent, it needs to intelligent guidance to work. That intelligent guide is God.
Unquote.
How do we know that we reap fruits of our actions? How do we know that an unseen power exist? Why should it be only one power? Is that bound by actions as well? If yes, why would that bound itself? If not, where is that? Whys is that not seen? How do we know bout Dharma or mokSha or whether they even exist?
Even an eternal ordinary soul exists? - We do not know even that ordinary soul exists or not as eternal being. So, logic does not take us anywhere and so we are guided by unauthored and eternal Vedas only. Apta vAkyas help in that.
Shri Krishnarpanamastu !
Comments
Post a Comment