Nyayakusumanjali of Udayana (study)
by Sri Ramen Bhadra | 2014 | 37,777 words
This page relates ‘Arguments proving pralaya� of the study on the Nyayakusumanjali of Udayana, who belonged to the Nyaya-Vaisheshika School of Indian philosophy and lived in the 10th century. The Nyaya-Kusumanjali is primarily concerned with proving the existence of God but also deals with various other important philosophical problems. The book is presented as an encyclopedia of Nyaya-Vaisesika doctrines.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Arguments proving pralaya
After showing that there is no difficulty in explaining the facts even if final destruction is accepted, Udayana claims that there are in fact positive arguments in favor of its admission. It is found that whatever continues as a process comes to an end at a certain point of time and does not continue forever. For example a lamp continues to burn for some time and then its flame becomes shorter and shorter and finally it disappears. Similarly it is found that the power of acquiring knowledge, studying the Veda, performing the different acts of sacrifice etc. gradually decreases. For example, in earlier time a person was capable of studying all the Vedas in their different branches. The merit of a person was very great. But as time goes on it is found that the capacity is not as strong as earlier. People then study only one Veda, next they study only some particular parts and finally the position is that they study only a single verse from one Veda. From this it is clear that nothing can go on in the same manner without an end. It is the nature of the things that they reach the highest level, but again gradually come to lower and lower levels and finally disappears. Same is true of creation. Just as it attains the greatest height so also it comes down to the lowest position. When it finally disappears there is pralaya. A new creation starts afterwards.[1] Udayana ends the stavaka as usual by offering his great respect to God in a verse which indirectly refers also to the subject–matter discussed in the stavaka.[2]
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
±·²âÄå²â²¹°ì³Ü²õ³Ü³¾ÄåñÂá²¹±ô¾± 2.4.