Samayasara

SR No.: 006764
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A Chakravarti
Publisher: Bharatiya Gyanpith
Publication Year: 1989
Total Pages: 370
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Agam, & Canon
File Size: 20 MB

Page 135

CHAPTER I
Self. It is difficult to understand what the author has exactly in his mind, when he says that it is erroneous to predicate bondage of this reality. Neither of the commentators is of any help to us. When he says that it is erroneous to associate bondage with Paramātmā, the author must be thinking about some rival theory which in his opinion makes that mistake. To predicate a further career for the Paramatma leading to a further manifestation would certainly be considered by our author as an erroneous hypothesis. Probably he is thinking of the Upanisadic system which not only presupposes that Atma or Brahma is the original cause of the world but also postulates the periodic evolution and involution in the life-career of the ultimate Brahma which our author evidently thinks reduces the Brahma to a Samsaric entity and therefore amounts to predicating bondage to the Paramātmā Svarupa. It would probably be more plausible to suggest that he was thinking of the popular deities of the Puranic Hinduism. But such a suggestion would be an anachronism, because Puranic Hinduism and Puranic deities were not fully developed about the Ist century B. C., which is the date of our author. Internal evidence clearly shows that he was fully acquainted with Upanisadic literature; hence our suggestion that the author was having in his mind the Brahma's periodic career of manifestation and dissolution, an idea prominently present in the Upanisadic thought. This Upanisadic Brahma, which is also designated as Paramātmā, is the same as our author's SvaSamaya-the Ego-in-itself; but the Vedantic Brahma or Paramātmā is credited with periodic manifestation and dissolution, a characteristic entirely foreign to our author's concept of Sva-Samaya. This is only offered as a suggestion of a probable implication of the author's intention and we cannot assert anything dogmatically about that.
7
Next, the author goes to show that of these two Egos, the empirical Ego and the metempirical Ego, the former is easily apprehended whereas the latter is very difficult to realise. सुदपरिचिदाणुभूदा सव्वस्स वि कामभोगबंध कहा । एयत्तस्सुवलंभो णवरि ण सुलभो विभत्तस्स ॥४॥