Search This Blog

Monday, December 20, 2010

Nature Theory

भरद्वाजस्तु नेत्याह कर्ता पूर्वं हि कर्मणः॥

दृष्टं न चाकृतं कर्म यस्य स्यात्पुरुषः फलम्॥२०॥
भावहेतुः स्वभावस्तु व्याधीनाम् पुरुषस्य च ॥
खरद्रवचलोष्णत्वम् तेजोन्तानाम् यथैव हि॥२१॥

Translation: Bharadwaja said " No. Doer always precedes the deed. We do not perceive an event happening spontaneously which will result in generation of an organism. 
(I propose) Origin of diseases and organisms are a result of nature (natural laws) like properties of Mahabhootas roughness, liquidity, movement and hotness respectively. 

Commentary (Chakrapani): If the organisms occurred due to spontaneous events then it refutes the Karma theory and if Purusha (organisms) are a result of Karma (behaviours) then it leads to a dilemma of origin of first organism. The words न दृष्टं mean not found true with प्रमाण or criteria of valid evidence. The premise 'Every behavior whether evil or good, religious or sinful needs a doer'   is the thrust of the argument.
The natural properties of Mahabhootas are quoted in 1st chapter of Sharir sthana.

Commentary (Vishnu): Bharadwaja's proposal here is very important. It states that everything occurs as per natures laws. No separate doer is needed for events to occur. An excellent exposition of the same principle can be read in the phenomenal book by Dr. Richard Dawkins 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Whole Darwinian theory is founded on this principle. We can even say that this is the foundation of Modern Science. Everything which happened after Big Bang is explainable by natural laws. Of course there remains the question of 'What caused Big Bang?'

Even if we confine ourselves to diseases, whole biomedical science is based on the same premise. For every happening we seek the explanation in natural laws.Biophysics, Biochemistry, Evolutionary biology, Molecular biology and many other disciplines firmly believe that everything is explainable by natural laws.
Bharadwaja's refutation of Karma theory is impeccable. 
Let us wait a little while for the next argument which refutes this theory.

No comments:

Post a Comment