365bet娱乐

It was a great task before 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 to reconcile the Upani峁�adic statements about creations, taken in literal sense, with those denying the world of multiplicity. Throughout the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, the description of Brahman as really devoid of all assignable marks becomes intelligible of His creations is real. The teachings about the disappearance of all multiplicity in the realisation of Brahman can not also be understood. The dawn of the knowledge of Reality can dispel only the unreal appearings as real, not what in really real. This idea furnishes 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 mind with a clue to the mystery of the world. If the world is a mere appearance, like an object in dream or illusion then the present appearance of the world and its disappearance on the knowledge of Reality become intelligible. This reconciliation has been suggested by 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉 also. Even in 峁欢惫别诲补 (6.47.18) the one Indra (God) is said to appear in many forms through powers of creating illusion (惭腻测补). The B峁沨adaranyaka (2.5.19) also accepts this. The 艢vet膩艣vet膩ra clearly states that the origin (p峁沘krti) of the world lies in the magical power (惭腻测补) of god.

惭补峁囜笉补苍补 惭颈艣谤补 says that not being able to show or establish the distinctiveness of Brahman or 闯墨惫补 by reasoning. He again resorts to sruti. He adds that there is an Upani峁�adic verse, 鈥楾here are two birds of beautiful plumage鈥�, unified in friendship through eternity, occupying the same tree. Of them, one eats the fruits of the tree, while the other merely looks on without eating鈥�. Hear the two birds are the 闯墨惫补 and Brahman, and the 艣峁泆ti stresses their difference. In this way 艣峁泆ti contradicts the idea of their unity you say, is asserted by other Vedic sentences.

艢补峁卥补谤补 argues that there are many 艣峁泆t墨s condemning the perception of diversity as: He who sees only diversity here, goes from death to death etc. In against these quoting a sentence pertaining to facts known even otherwise, through perception etc. It will not weaken the 艣峁泆ti passages that declare the unity of existence. They describe only the apparent nature, the wrong notions of things. They all are seen in ignorance like silver and nacre. A Vedic sentence must give you some knowledge unattainable through other means like perception, they must prompt you to some fruitful action. But others are Arthav膩d膩s, figures of speech and exaggerations. Whose meaning is not they purport to say. This passage you quoted is only an 础谤迟丑补惫腻诲补. There are many such passages in the Veda but they are dualistic import.

惭补峁囜笉补苍补 惭颈艣谤补 says that 厂尘峁泃颈 texts are attributed to great saints and seers and are based on Vedic texts, considered valid. For example, take the passage 鈥�碍峁�e迟谤补箩帽补 is myself; in the 骋墨迟补. Even so a truth given by perception, if it is supported by a Vedic text has to be given the same validity.

The difference between the 莫艣惫补谤补 and 闯墨惫补 is given in our intuitive and this is supported by the Vedic text quoted. Its validity cannot be questioned. 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that what the Veda supports is not all the 厂尘峁泃颈s, but the meaning of smriti passage which is identical with it. 鈥楰now the 碍峁�e迟谤补箩帽补 to be myself is identical in meaning with 鈥楾at Tvam Asi鈥�^[1]. This unique meaning cannot be got through any other means of knowledge except the Vedic passge, so far as the 骋墨迟补 passage reiterates this unique meaning, it is relevant in the vedic texts. This is not the case with regard to the sentence you have quoted about 鈥楾he two birds, sitting on the self tree鈥�. The knowledge of difference between 莫艣惫补谤补 and the 闯墨惫补 had even by the ignorant.^[2] No Veda is required for it. Only that is Veda which reveals new knowledge unattainable. Its function is to reiterate knowledge obtained in other ways. 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that 惭补峁囜笉补苍补 had mis-understood the meaning of the passage, 鈥榯wo birds of beautiful plumage鈥� etc. The right interpretation is that the passage is not meant to show the difference between 莫艣惫补谤补 and 闯墨惫补. But to distinguish 莫艣惫补谤补 from the sattva or the Buddhi or intellect. It is the Buddhi that undergoes the enjoyements and sufferings born of Karma, and the passage seeks to distinguish that Buddhi from 莫艣惫补谤补 and assert His freedom from 厂补峁僺补谤补.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

惭腻诲丑补惫补 痴颈诲测腻谤补峁噛补, 艢r墨mad 艢补峁卥补谤补 Digvijaya, (text in Sanskrit with Tamil Translation and Notes), Ed., 笔补峁囜笉颈迟 N.S Ananadakrishna Sastri, VII. 71

[2]:

Ibid.,