|
|
| AYURVEDA |
God-An Indisputable Logical Necessity
The permanent existence of these necessary psychical activities in God has been shown to be plausible and we think it possible to prove it by a reductio ad absurdum. The arguments of the components have failed to shake the foundational universal p** that whatever is possessed of an origin has for its author an intelligent agent and once the origination of the world process is admitted, the inference of an intelligent author becomes irrestible. And if an intelligent author of the universe is established as a matter of logical necessity, the nature of his intelligence or volitional activity will be determined in conformity with his authorship. They will have to be admitted to be of such a character as not to be in conflict with his cosmic activities. The cosmic activities presuppose an intelligent agent who has a direct knowledge of the materials and the modus operandi necessary to bring about the universe. Certainly this knowledge of all existent facts extending over all divisions of time cannot be a contingent event as in that case God will have to be assumed to be ignorant of whatever has happened in the past and so will have no agency in that regard. If His knowledge is an transitory as ours, it will have no application to the future and so God will not be the controller of the future course of events. If, however, it is supposed that God has an infinite series of cognitions, volitions and desires produced in regular succession and all these have reference to all things possible or actual, still we shall have to admit a number of psychical acts which are absolutely without any similarity to our psychical activities. It will be simpler and more convenient to suppose that God’s cognitive activity is one and eternal and so also the other psychical activities. The admission of God as an author of the universe will necessitate the postulation of eternal psychical activities which are necessary for the creation, superintendence and control of the universe. There attributes are consequential to God’s cosmic functions and to seek to refute the existence of God on the ground of the impossibility or improbability of these attributes will be a roundabout procedure, without any logical validity. If you expect to deny God with any show of plausibility, you will have to prove either that the universe does not presuppose an intelligent maker or that it is existing as a finished product for all eternity which is the position of the Jainas and the Mimamsakas. If, however, the position adumbrated cannot be maintained with any semblance of logic, the admission of God and of His consequential attributes and powers will follow as a matter of indisputable logical necessity. The opponent, who builds his destructive logic on the apparent absurdity of the consequential attributes of God, has only to be reminded that his generalization hat psychical attributes cannot be eternal is based upon purely empirical data and does not bar out the contrary possibility by a reductio ad absurdum. We have, however, seen that the eternal existence of relevant psychical activities in God follows as a corollary from the nature of the universe, which becomes unintelligible unless an omniscient and omnipotent creator and ruler is postulated.
The Law of Karma
We now propose to discuss certain other consequential problems before bringing this dissertation to a close. The main ground of the proof of God has been shown to be teleological and this teleological argument, again is ultimately based upon the argument of the moral law- the law of Karma. The raison d’etre of creation is found in the moral necessity of providing the rewards of actions done by individual souls in their previous lives and so in the philosophy of the Nyaaya-Vaiseshika school or of all schools of Indian thought which believe in creation, the individual self holds a prerogative position of honour, since the entire creation is believed to centre round him and to provide only the stage on which the drama of his destiny will be played. God has no destiny and no personal mission. He is only the judge and ordainer of the moral deserts: in other words, He has only a judicial and executive duty which He discharges out of an irresistible sense of justice to uphold the supremacy of moral laws, and we have seen how God’s justice is tempered with mercy. But a question of logical difficulty raises itself in this connection, viz, the relation of God with individual selves whose destiny is guided by Him. The merits of individuals inhere in the individual souls and if God is to operate upon these merits, it has to be shown how God comes into relation with these. The individual selves are held to be ubiquitous substances and so also is God. It has been held by some thinkers that two ubiquitous substances may be related by way of uncaused conjunction and if this relation is accepted we can explain the relation of God with individual selves are one of uncaused conjunction. God being connected with the individual souls for all eternity and through this with their merits. But this relation of uncaused conjunction is not universallly admitted and so another relation acceptable to all has been propounded by Vaachaspati Misra. The individual selves are connected with the atoms as they also are eternal entities, and these atoms are connected with God. So God and the individual selves are connected through the medium of atoms. Even indirect relation is of service for causal operations. Here also the relation of God to individuals may be explained either through atoms or through the mind, both of which are eternal existents and are eternally conjoined with God. So we see that the relation of God and individuals is not logically inconceivable, although it is not possible to give any definite judgement as to the peculiar extension of the relation whether it is of unlimited extension or of limited extension. The question is inspired by idle curiosity and does not have any metaphysical importance. It is sufficient that a relation is logically conceivable and the question of extension and the like appears to be based upon irrelevant analogy of spatial relations of material bodies, which cannot be pushed too far.
God an eternal living force
Another question may be raised. Granted that God is the creator of the universe, but then He may take a holiday and retire from the cosmic functions which may take their destined course under their own laws. What argument makes you suppose that God will be the eternal controller and guide of every detail of the world process? The answer is that the same necessity which makes God’s activity inevitable in the past is present throughout the world process. The blind forces of nature cannot be self-guided and for their control and guidance the supervision of an intelligent being is necessary. The movements of natural forces, the elements, the atoms, the elections and so on are perpetually going on and they are meant to serve some purpose: and who makes their movements fruitful and who again imparts activity to them but God? So God is an eternal living force and the eternal judge and ordainer of the moral order, but for whose intervention and guidance the world would fall to pieces like a rotten cloth.
God is one
But a question arises-is a plurality of Gods possible? No, there is but one God and one God alone. Why should a plurality of Gods be postulated at all? If one God is impotent to bring about the world-order or to maintain discipline, a number of Gods with different functions allotted to them may be necessary and we shall have a republic of Gods and not absolute monarchy. But are these Gods omniscient? If they are not omniscient and omnipotent one and all, it is logically simpler and more economic to postulate the existence of one such God, for He will be able to discharge the cosmic functions alone and unaided. Apart from considerations of simplicity and logical economy, the postulation of a number of equally omniscient and omnipotent Gods will lead to insoluble complications. There is no certitude that they will act in unison and accord for all time and there may arise occasions when they may differ. The result will be an unrelieved anarchy and confusion. If, however, it is supposed that these Gods will be guided by the counsels of one among them who will be the President, a primus inter pares just as we see in the systems of democratic government, then again the President will be the virtual God and the supreme ruler, if his mandate is obeyed by all. If it is supposed that these omniscient Gods will never have occasion for dispute, since they will be all persuaded for the wisdom of a particular line of action and will, therefore, act in complete agreement, then of course none will be the ruler of the universe and so none be God. But why should we at all believe in such a republic of gods-what logical necessity is there which will make us bless the theory? Absolutely no case can be made out for this hypothesis and so we must reject it without hesitation or scruple. Polytheism as a philosophical doctrine is absolutely an illogical and superfluous hypothesis and it should be clearly recognised that India never favoured this doctrine either in theory or in practice, though unsympathetic critics owing to their ignorance of the inwardness of Indian religious practices, have maligned the people of India and their religion on this ground. It is high time that critics should approach Indian philosophy and religion with scientific detachment and unbiased attitude and if they care to know the truth, they will be disabused of their prejudices and religious animosity will be a thing of the past.
The Worship of God
It is a truism that the Nyaaya-Vaiseshika school staunchly believes in the infallibility of Vedic religion and its allegiance is not confined to the ritualistic portion of the Veda alone, but equally accepts the supreme authority of the Upanishads also, although this school follows its own interpretation. The Nyaaya-Vaiseshika school does not believe in monism and its philosophy can be characterized as uncompromising pluralism. The relation of individual souls to God is neither one of pure identity nor one of identity in difference, but one of absolute and unqualified otherness. The relation of God to the individual selves is not internal but strictly and purely external. God is alluded to as being in the position of a father to the suffering soul and His cosmic activity has been spoken of an inspired by considerations of justice and mercy alike. The supreme solicitude of God for the deliverance of suffering creatures from the meshes of transmigration is also alluded to in clear and unambiguous language in the Bhaashya of Vaatsyaayana. But man’s relation to God is not clearly emphasized in the ancient literature. It is only in the works of Udayana that we find this topic broached. Udayana begins his Nyaaya-kusumaanjali with an impassioned salutation to God and in the course of his writing he speaks of worship of God to be instrumental in the achievement of salvation and enjoyment of heavenly bliss, whichever may be cared for by His devotees. He goes further to state that philosophical speculation is a kind of worship of the Deity and has its supreme justifications and fulfillment only in so far as it leads the enquiring soul to surrender himself to God’s protection and mercy. We are tempted to believe that the predominance of the devotional attitude in subsequent Nyaaya literature is entirely due to the influence of Udayanaachaarya. It is remarkable that Vardhamaana took great pains to reconcile this statement of Udayana with the orthodox Nyaaya position that salvation is achieved by an unerring realization of the true mature of the self and this supreme saving knowledge is effected by proper understanding of the worship of God or knowledge of God as an instrument of salvation. Vardhamaana, therefore, was at great pains to bring it into line with the central position of the Nyaaya philosophy and he succeeds by making knowledge of God contributory to self-realization. But Udayana in the concluding passages of the Nyaaya Kusamaanjali emphatically maintains that worship of God is essential for salvation and his pleadings and advocacy of the necessity and logical possibility of self-surrender and meditation of God are unsurpassable for their devotional ardor, impassioned enthusiasm and moral fervour. A better and more successful advocacy of theism is difficult to conceive The Nyaaya-kusumaanjali will remain, we may be permitted to remark without exaggeration or partisan spirit, one of the best works on theism in the whole of world literature, noted alike for its spiritual earnestness and logical consistency. The philosophical literature of India, not only of the Nyaaya-Vaiseshika school, would have been pro tanto poorer and weaker if Udayana had not been born to enrich it by his masterly contributions.
|
|
|
Previous
Next
|
|
|