II-1 Śrī Bhāshya | Rāmānuja | 4

Topic 4 - The line of reasoning against the Sānkhyas is valid also against others like the Atomists

Sutra 2,1.12

एतेन शिष्टापरिग्रहा अपि व्याख्याताः ॥ १२ ॥

etena śiṣṭāparigrahā api vyākhyātāḥ || 12 ||

etena—By this; śiṣṭāparigrahāḥ—not accepted by the wise; api—also; vyākhyātāḥ—are explained.

12. By this (i.e. by the arguments against the Sānkhyas) (those other views) also not accepted by the wise (like Manu and others) are explained.

Not comprised means those theories which are not known to be comprised within (countenanced by) the Veda. The Sūtra means to say that by the demolition given above of the Sānkhya doctrine which is not comprised within the Veda the remaining theories which are in the same position, viz. the theories of Kaṇāda, Akṣapāda, Jaina, and Buddha, must likewise be considered as demolished.

Here, however, a new objection may be raised, on the ground namely that, since all these theories agree in the view of atoms constituting the general cause, it cannot be said that their reasoning as to the causal substance is ill-founded.--They indeed, we reply, are agreed to that extent, but they are all of them equally founded on Reasoning only, and they are seen to disagree in many ways as to the nature of the atoms which by different schools are held to be either fundamentally void or non-void, having either a merely cognitional or an objective existence, being either momentary or permanent, either of a definite nature or the reverse, either real or unreal, etc. This disagreement proves all those theories to be ill-founded, and the objection is thus disposed of.--Here finishes the section of 'the remaining (theories) non-comprised (within the Veda).'