dr.rupnathji ( dr.rupak nath ) - astrology ofesoteric meditation his- ... dr.rupnathji ( dr.rupak...

Download DR.RUPNATHJI ( DR.RUPAK NATH ) - ASTROLOGY   ofesoteric meditation his- ... DR.RUPNATHJI ( DR.RUPAK NATH ) ... with transcendental spiritual questions youshould

Post on 12-Apr-2018




5 download

Embed Size (px)



    the Upanishads to signify a System of Philosophy,,and it may be safely asserted that its use in that

    sense did not come in vogue before Indian Philosophy

    began to be systematised.

    Philosophical thoughts at first assume a poetical

    form or appear under a poetical garb ; it takes some

    time before they are systematised. The* Devas J

    ( literally the shining ones ) of the Vedic literature-

    are but poetic forms typifying attempts of the human

    mind to go behind phenomena and grasp the essential

    realities underlying them. These attempted unifica-

    tions, however, are not thoroughgoing ; they (the

    Devas)are therefore superseded by or rather subsumed

    under an all-embracing unity the Brahman* The

    growth of the Vedanta Philosophy is due to an en-

    deavour to comprehend the nature of Brahman, so

    far as it is knowable by our reason, and its relation to

    the world and men. The Sutras of Vydsa are there-

    fore known as the Brahma- Siitras, and the Systemitself is known as Brahma-Mimansa. We shall see,,as we proceed, that if the attainment of unity is

    the goal that reason, from its very nature, sets before

    itself, the realisation of that end can be found in the

    Vedanta Philosophy. If, in going so far, human rea-

    son has not gone too far, we may safely assert that

    it could not go any farther. The search after unity




    ( DR.


    K NA

    TH )



    is either a self-delusion of reason, or the Vedanta

    Philosophy contains full-grown truth of which the

    doctrines of the other Systems of Philosophy are but


    The Vedanta is a ^a*r. The word ^JT literally

    signifies sight ; in its present reference it means

    insight, that is, insight into the essence of things and

    the nature of the self. Philosophy therefore is ^fr in

    so far as it is a means to this insight, and as the

    amelioration of miseries is a necessary consequence

    of this insight, it follows that philosophic darsana is;

    insight and foresight at the same time.

    To begin with, we have to start from the crude

    notions which common people entertain about thenature of the subject and the object and their in-

    ter-relation. The different Systems of Philosophyhave their origin mainly with a view to correct these

    crude notions by substituting in their place more

    adequate notions on those points. This end is

    succinctly designated by some of the Hindu Philoso-

    phers as ^i-faefi -H3TO- faTm or the correction of the

    ploughman's standpoint. But while the positionstaken up in the several Systems are generally in

    advance of the crude notions of the vulgar, theyare not all equally thoroughgoing and adequate.The relative estimate of these Systems, therefore,

    depends upon a thorough comprehension of the goal,that is, the ultimate or most complete standpointtowards which all the Systems are moving. It there-

    fore seems that although the several principal Systems




    ( DR.


    K NA

    TH )



    of Indian Philosophy are in certain respects antago-nistic to one another,they are yet capable of being

    regarded as forming so many stages in the consti-tution of one comprehensive System of philosophic


    Samkhya, Patanjala, Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Purva

    Mimansa, and Uttara Mimansa or Vedanta are the six

    Systems of Indian Philosophy which are collectivelyknown as i^^fo. This separate and distinctive position

    assigned to them arises partly from the fact that theyare more comprehensive and systematic, and partlyfrom their recognising the authority of the Vedas.

    In Sarvadarsanasamgraha Madhavacharyya notices

    ten other Systems. Some of these such as T^T^Tand qifmfa^N hardly deserve to be called Systems of

    Philosophy. They generally deal with some one or

    other of the philosophical topics in a new way, and

    were therefore separately treated by the author.

    There are a few, however, which deserve special

    mention, for instance, Bauddha Philosophy and

    Charvaka Philosophy, as they occupy a prominent

    place among the atheistic and avaidika Systemsof India. We should also notice the Ramanuja Systemnamed after its founder Ramanuja, Purnaprajna

    System started by Anandatirtha, and Saiva System

    expounded by Nilakantha and others ; these \\ ere

    indeed founded upon the Brahma Sittras of Vyasa,and indicated different modes of interpreting those

    sutras, as they, owing to their aphoristic character,

    were capable of being differently interpreted ; but




    ( DR.


    K NA

    TH )



    nowadays when one speaks of the Vedanta as a Systemof Philosophy, one generally refers to the System as

    expounded by Samkara and his followers whose

    characteristic doctrine is known as ^fricrei^ or the

    doctrine of pure nondualism.

    In this work also I will treat of the Vedanta

    Philosophy with special reference to the exposition

    of Samkara and his school;this line of procedure does

    not, in my opinion, require any special apology, forwhatever may be the real import of the Sutras of

    Vyasa, the Philosophy of kSamkara has now been

    unalterably identified with the Vedanta Philosophy;it is the Vedanta par excellence.




    ( DR.


    K NA

    TH )




    Classification of the Systems of Indian Philosophy.

    When one thinks of arranging the principal Philo-sophical Systems of India, the question naturally sug-

    gests itself, Is it possible to arrange them chronolo-

    gically ? In India, everything relating to chronologyis in the utmost confusion. When one looks into thematter, it becomes at once apparent, that according to

    the current traditions the authorship of works which

    seem to have been composed at different periods is

    often ascribed to the same person which makes one

    suspect the trustworthiness of the evidence on which

    those traditions were based. In some cases these ac-

    counts seem to lead to glaring absurdities. It is in-

    deed true that attempts are sometimes made to explainthem away either by representing some of the writers

    as immortal, or, at any rate, as of extraordinary longe-

    vity, or by maintaining, with a sort of perverse since-

    rity, that with one whose power of foresight has been

    developed by the practice of esoteric meditation his-

    toric anachronism has no place; but explanations of

    this character are hardly sufficient to allay the doubts

    of a rational mind. The confusion is again worse con -




    ( DR.


    K NA

    TH )



    founded when we remember, that in India several per-sons often went by the same name, so that even as-

    .suniing that we have got the name of the real author

    of a certain work, the difficulty of fixing his identityis not fully obviated thereby.

    Let us take an illustration with reference to the

    present question. It is wellknown that there is a

    Commentary on the Yoga System of Patanjali ascribed

    to the authorship of Vydsa. If this Vydsa be the same

    person as the author of the Vedanta Sutras, we get

    practically sufficient datum for determining the rela-

    tive position of the two Systems. But, then, there

    arises a difficulty in the way of accepting the sug-

    gested conclusion ; as is wellknown, the Mahdbhdshyaof Panini's Grammar is attributed to the authorshipof Patanjali ; now Panini's Grammar contains a refer-

    ence to one P^rasarya as the author of Bhikshu Sut-

    ras, and it has been thought that this relates to

    Vydsa and the Vedanta Sutras attributed to his author-

    ship. So then the conclusion which we had once

    reached again slips out of our hands, and the ano-

    malies remain to be solved by different persons in

    different ways.

    I therefore regard it to be a hopeless task to as-

    certain the relative position of the several Systemsin point of time by referring to the names of the

    Sages who are reputed to be their founders.

    There is yet another fact which renders the task

    harder still. I am referring to the cross-referenceswhich are found in the several Systems: thus the




    ( DR.


    K NA

    TH )



    characteristic doctrines of the Vcdanta are sought to-

    be refuted in the Sdnikhya Sutras, and the Samkhyadoctrines are similarly treated in the Veddnta Stltras,,

    and so on. It can hardly be maintained that all the ap-horisms containing these attempted refutations are sub-

    sequent interpolations, because, some of them at least

    are inextricably interwoven with the rest of the works.

    The real solution of this apparent anomaly seems to-

    be that the several Systems had been developed with

    reference to one another to a pretty good extent

    before they were systematised in an aphoristic form, and

    when they were so systematised the collections of

    aphorisms were ascribed to the authorship of some of

    the reputed founders of the schools.



View more >