|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on the basis of extrapolation from a common sense view of the worldis known from the upanisads; extraneous appeals to instances, such as the generation and flow of mother's milk, are ultimately judged to be unconvincing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third, it is impossible to understand how a material source either starts or stops movingwhat is there to prompt such changes? But "since the Lord has omniscience, omnipotence, and marvellous power (maya), his engagement in or disengagement from activity presents no contradiction." (UMS II.2.4) Of course, this hypothesis of divine power (maya) is a hypothesis prompted by the upanisads, not the achievement of reason working alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth, and similarly, a purely material source cannot work like the magnet mentioned in UMS II.2.2unmoving but causing movementsince its nonconsciousness and lack of intention would mean that its activity would either never start or never stop; "in the case of the supreme self," by contrast, "there is the greater advantage that it is inactive from its own point of view, but is a driving urge, from the standpoint of divine power (maya)." (UMS II.2.7) Again, the rejection of the Samkhyan hypothesis is based on a position, the maya thesis, which ultimately has upanisadic roots. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fifth, the Samkhyans vainly attempt to use the theory of a purely material source to sort out the set of impossible relationships they have entangled themselves in: |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
This thesis of the Samkhyas is self-contradictory. For sometimes they enumerate seven organs and sometimes eleven; similarly sometimes they teach about the origin of the subtle elements from the great one [mahat], and sometimes from the ego; so also sometimes they mention three internal organs, and sometimes one. (UMS II.2.10)
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The construction of explanations is not a problem for Advaita, since the Advaitins do not claim to offer an alternative theory that is compelling solely on rational grounds. Advaita exegesis has established that all is one; the troubling elements and relationships simply do not exist. The Samkhyan efforts at explanation can be rejected without having to present totally convinc- |
|
|
|
|
|