In his Tiruvaimozhi, Nammazhvar says no matter what
arguments are brought against the Supreme One, the factremains that He exists. If one says He exists, then it can be
pointed out to him that all jivatmas and this world constitute His body. If one were to assert He does not exist, that does not in any way alter the fact that He does exist. So goes Nammazhvar’s argument. It is not possible to prove that He does not exist. Positive proof of something can be accepted, but not negative proof, elaborated M.A. Venkatakrishnan, while explaining Nammazhvar’s verse from Tiruvaimozhi.
If a man claims he can swim and is asked to prove it, he can
do so by swimming. But if a man says he cannot swim, can he prove it?
The only way to prove it, would be for him to jump into
the water and be drowned. And sometimes even people who know how to swim do drown. So proving somethingnegatively will not work. Even the legal system works
according to the rendering of positive proofs. If a murder is
committed, and a man is accused of having committed it, the best way for him to prove that he did not do it, would be for him to prove he was not in the scene of crime when the crime was committed. But just his word won’t do in a court of law.
He must be able to prove that he was elsewhere at the
time. In other words, positive proof of his presenceelsewhere is what is required. So Nammazhvar says that if
someone asserts that the Supreme One does not exist, this in no way negates His existence. He is the unsurpassed and
unequalled One, who pervades the entire Universe.
Comments
Post a Comment