SrI: SrImathE satakOpAya nama: SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama: SrImadh varavaramunayE nama:
sUthram 50
அந்த பக்ஷத்தில், ஒருவன் ஸுகிக்கிற காலத்திலே வேறே ஒருவன் துக்கிக்கக் கூடாது.
andha pakshathtil, oruvan sukikkiRa kAlaththilE vERE oruvan dhu:kikkak kUdAdhu.
Meaning
If that view (that there is only one soul) were true, then when one person experiences happiness, another person should not simultaneously experience sorrow.
Explanation
Refutation of EkAthmavAdha
Having stated the opponent’s position that there is only one AthmA, piLLai lOkAchAryar now demonstrates its untenability.
The expression:
“அந்த பக்ஷத்தில்” (andha pakshathtil)
means:
“If the doctrine that there is no difference among souls is accepted.”
The logical consequence
Suppose one person experiences:
“अहं सुखी“
aham sukhI
“I am happy.”
At the very same time, another person experiences:
“अहं दुःखी“
aham dhu:khI
“I am unhappy.”
If there is truly only one AthmA, such simultaneous contradictory experiences would be impossible.
Why is this impossible?
Pleasure and pain are mutually opposed experiences.
If both belonged to the same substratum (EkASrayathva), then both experiences would necessarily have to be recollected by the very same experiencer (ubhaya-prathisandhAna).
That would mean the one soul should simultaneously experience:
- “I am happy.”
- “I am miserable.”
Such contradictory cognition is impossible.
The correct conclusion
Since pleasure and pain are definitely experienced separately and distinctly by different individuals, they must belong to different experiencers.
Therefore, because pleasure and pain are individually determined (niyatha), the existence of distinct individual souls (AthmA-bhEdha) must necessarily be accepted.
adiyen vAsudhEva rAmAnuja dhAsan
archived in https://granthams.koyil.org
pramEyam (goal) – https://koyil.org
pramANam (scriptures) – https://granthams.koyil.org
pramAthA (preceptors) – https://acharyas.koyil.org
SrIvaishNava education/kids portal – https://pillai.koyil.org