Defence of pralaya

Udayana takes up the argument of the Mīmāṃsaka one by one and refutes them. It has been said that each day is preceded by another day and there is no end to this process. But an inference on the basis of this rule will not be valid, because there is a condition (upādhi) which makes it false. For example, we cannot rightly infer smoke from fire, because there is a condition, namely, conjunction with wet fuel. Smoke can be produced by fire only when there is such fuel. If there is no such fuel, fire cannot produce smoke as in the case of fire present in an iron ball. Similarly, it cannot be said that each day must be preceded by another day. Here also there is a condition, namely, the presence of the world. This rule is possible only when creation is going one. If there is no creation there can be no such rule. When creation starts newly after final destruction, the first day is not preceded by any day, because there was no such thing at the time of destruction. An example may be given. We know that the rainy season lasts for two months.

From the second day to the last day of the rainy season we find that all the days are preceded by days of the rainy season. But we cannot say on this basis that all days of the rainy season must be preceded by such a day. The first day is preceded by a day belonging to the summer, because the rainy season comes at the end of the summer.^[1]

It has been said that all the unseen result of the living beings cannot remain totally inactive at any point of time and hence finally destruction cannot be admitted. This is also not correct. When many persons at a time enjoy deep sleep (suṣupti), the unseen result of not a single person is productive. The unseen result of so many persons remains without producing anything for a long time. If we assume that this state is possible for a very long period relating to a vast number of living beings we can say that we have the state of final destruction. It will not be illogical to accept that there may be some period in which no person would enjoy any fruit of an action, because we have an example of such state in the case of deep sleep.^[2]

It has also been objected that if final destruction is admitted it will not be possible to explain the origin of the different cases at the time of new creation because of the absence of persons belonging to different castes. To this, Udayana answers that a particular thing may be produced from more than one cause. For example, bits of grass etc. may be produced sometimes from grass etc. themselves and sometimes from left over grains of rice etc. Similarly we can say that a Brahmin may be produced not only from another Brahmin but also due to some particular unseen result of an action. When the process of creation is already going on a Brahmin will be produced from a Brahmin, because persons belonging to different castes are already there. But just at the beginning of creation there is no such person. So, then, a person will be born as a Brahmin because of the result of his past action. In the previous birth this person had performed some good action as a result of which he will blessed with birth as a Brahmin in this new creation.^[3] It has also been argued that in case final destruction is admitted there will be no explanation for the prevalence of different arts and crafts and also the use of words to express particular meanings because when creation starts everybody is ignorant. As there was no creation before, there was no one to teach all this. The answer to this objection is given by Udayana with the example of a magician who puts a number of dolls in strings and by regulating the strings makes the dolls perform actions like bringing a jar etc. A child watching the show of the magician learns the meanings of words and also the performances of actions through the activity of the dolls. The introduction of different arts and crafts in the new creation may be explained in the same way. God is allpowerful. So at the beginning he assumes two bodies, one in the form of the guide and the other in the form of the guided. Trough these two bodies he teaches the use of words in particular meanings and also shows how to perform various activities relating to different arts and crafts. Then a tradition is created by the person so educated.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ibid.

[2]:

Ibid.

[3]:

Ibid.

[4]:

Ibid.