भवेत्स्वभावाद्भावानामसिध्दिः सिध्दिरेव वा॥२२॥
स्रष्टा त्वमितसंकल्पो ब्रह्मापत्यं प्रजापतिः॥
चेतनाचेतनस्यास्य जगतः सुखदुःखयोः॥२३॥
Translation: Kankayana said " No. If nature was responsible for occurrence or non occurrence of phenomena then there cannot be fruits of willful activity (free will).
(I propose) The creator, Prajapati, Son of Brahma, on his own infinite free will created sentient and non sentient universe and all the pleasures and sorrows.
Commentary (Chakrapani): यदि (If) is the word hidden or assumed here. If nature was responsible....for occurrence or non occurrence of organisms and diseases then there cannot be fruits of willful activity like agriculture, Yajna, study which are known to be effective in public opinion as well as Shastra.These will become futile if everything occurred or did not occur only due to nature
Infiniteness of free will of Prajapati Son of Brahma is derived from simultaneous creation of whole sentient and non sentient universe and all the pleasures and sorrows.
Commentary (Vishnu): Essentially the argument here is about free will and predetermination or destiny. If we opt for Swabhava vada (Nature Theory) then we deny free will for organisms. Even in microbes there may be evidence of free will responsible for their behavior. Current science usually ignores this possibility in the sophisticated investigation of behavior of microorganisms. The nature theory is embedded in mindset of scientists. There was a joke about a geneticist searching for the gene responsible for free will !!! Usually people do not associate free will with any animal other than Humans.
In his excellent book 'A Brief history of Time' Prof. Stefan Hawking examines two varieties of Anthropic principle while discussing origin of universe; A weak Anthropic principle and a strong Anthropic principle. The discussion is too exotic to be paraphrased here. Kankayana is expounding weak Anthropic principle here. In Karma theory it was Strong anthropic principle. As to the identity of creator he is repeating the popular belief of those times. By invoking the name of Prajapati he might be giving more weightage to his argument as Prajapati is the one who received knowledge of Ayurveda from Brahma.(Chapter 1 Sootrasthana).
Commentary (Vishnu): Essentially the argument here is about free will and predetermination or destiny. If we opt for Swabhava vada (Nature Theory) then we deny free will for organisms. Even in microbes there may be evidence of free will responsible for their behavior. Current science usually ignores this possibility in the sophisticated investigation of behavior of microorganisms. The nature theory is embedded in mindset of scientists. There was a joke about a geneticist searching for the gene responsible for free will !!! Usually people do not associate free will with any animal other than Humans.
In his excellent book 'A Brief history of Time' Prof. Stefan Hawking examines two varieties of Anthropic principle while discussing origin of universe; A weak Anthropic principle and a strong Anthropic principle. The discussion is too exotic to be paraphrased here. Kankayana is expounding weak Anthropic principle here. In Karma theory it was Strong anthropic principle. As to the identity of creator he is repeating the popular belief of those times. By invoking the name of Prajapati he might be giving more weightage to his argument as Prajapati is the one who received knowledge of Ayurveda from Brahma.(Chapter 1 Sootrasthana).
No comments:
Post a Comment