365bet娱乐

In 办腻谤颈办腻 17, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 says that the dualists obstinately cling to the conclusions arrived at by their enquiries (as being the truth). So they contradict one another; whereas the Advaitins finds no conflict with them.

Commenting on this 办腻谤颈办腻 艢补峁卥补谤补 says the dualists who follow the views of Kapila (厂腻峁卥丑测补蝉), Kan膩岣峚 (痴补颈艣别峁�i办补), Buddha (Buddhists), Arhat (Jains), and others are firmly rooted (苍颈艣肠颈迟腻岣�) in the methodologies leading to their own conclusions. They think that 鈥渢he view of our school alone is the ultimate Reality-it cannot be otherwise鈥�. They remain attached to their points of view. They detest every rival school. In this way they are overcome by attachment and aversion on account of their adherence to their own conclusions, they mutually contradict one another.

But the view of the non-dualists, with its universal acceptance and the support of the vedas, does not conflict with any other view. As one is not at conflict with one鈥檚 own hands and feet, for the limbs are its integral parts, so also, just because of nondifference from all, this vedic view, consisting in seeing the same Self in everyone is not opposed (na virudhyate) to them, who are mutually at conflict. Thus the meaning is that the right view consists in realizing the unity of 腻迟尘补苍, for this view is free from the defects of attachment and aversion etc.

In this 办腻谤颈办腻 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 says that non-duality (advaita) is all pervading and so includes duality as well. No one can be at conflict with something belonging to or included in oneself. He says that the non-dualist on account of his knowledge of identity of everything and unity (ekatva) of 腻迟尘补苍, does not get affected with the views of dualist, for he knows these so called dualists view (difference) to be his own Self. He realizes the entire world to be the projection of his own thought (办补濒辫补苍腻). The thoughts are also identical with the Self (Brahman) as the various dream-objects are identical with the mind. Therefore the theories of dualist are not in conflict with non-duality because they are identical with Brahman. The 艢谤耻迟颈 passage corroborates this view as 鈥淎ll this is verily Brahman鈥�.

The words 鈥�dvaita鈥� and 鈥�dvaitins鈥� occurs in 办腻谤颈办腻 18. It refers to the realists who believe the existence of the external world independent of the perceiver. According to the dualists the origin of the world has to be explained and hence they proposed varieties of theories. The 厂腻峁卥丑测补 school, for example propound the view that the world (jagat) has evolved from 辫谤补办峁泃颈 which undergoes a change. The manifest world is not an appearance but a reality. The 笔耻谤耻峁�a who is the seer is independent of 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and the evolutes. Thus this school propounds an uncompromising dualism. The followers of 碍补峁嚹乨补 that is 痴补颈艣别峁�i办补 school accept 辫补谤补尘腻峁嘘 or atoms as the cause of the world. The 辫补谤补尘腻峁嘘s combined and through permutation and combination of various atoms the world is created. The world is real and is brought under seven 辫补诲腻谤迟丑补蝉. The self is one of the 辫补诲腻谤迟丑补蝉 namely dravya. The self and the world are two independent entities.

Even though Kapila and 碍补峁嚹乨补 seem to accept the external world as independent of consciousness, they propose different theories of causation namely, 蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 and a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补. According to the former the effect pre-exists in the cause as the potential. In other words effect is not a new product. While the latter, who accept a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补, the effect is not potentially present in the cause, but due to various combination of the atoms and intervention of the efficient and instrumental cause it assumes a new form. The 厂腻峁卥丑测补 philosophers do not accept 碍补峁嚹乨补s view and vice versa. This has been pointed out by 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 that there is obstinacy in clinging to their positions amongst themselves despite both being dualist they contradict one another.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 18 says that: As non-duality is the ultimate Reality, therefore duality is said to be its effect (办腻谤测补 or bheda). The dualists perceive duality either way (i.e., both in the Absolute and in the phenomena). Therefore the non-dual position does not conflict with the dualist鈥檚 position.

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary of this 办腻谤颈办腻 gives reason as to why the non-dualist does not conflict with the dualist鈥檚 position; although it is evident that dualism must necessarily be in opposition to non-dualism. He says that, advaita is the 辫补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补 and this position does not contest with the dualist鈥檚 position. For this he gives scriptural evidence that the duality is considered only as an effect (bheda) i.e. an apparent effect of non-duality (advaita). 艢补峁卥补谤补 uses the term 办腻谤测补, while Gau岣峚pada uses the term bheda. According to advaita, the effect is not created through the transformation of the cause. In other words the non-dual Brahman does not undergo modification like 笔谤补办峁泃颈 undergoes in the 厂腻峁卥丑测补 philosophy for producing the effect i.e., the world. The 艢谤耻迟颈 says that, 鈥榠n the beginning this was being alone, one only without a second鈥�.it sent forth fire (Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 VI.2.2-3).^[1] This text proves that the duality is the effect of non-duality. From the Absolute standpoint the effect is non different from the cause. It is the cause that has become the effect. It has no independent existence. Duality is only another name for non-duality. It is effect, and non-duality is the cause. The waves are non-different from the ocean. The cause like the ocean alone is real. It is the One that has become many, many only in names and forms.

According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 the non-duality (advaita) is further proved by reason. In the absence of the activity of the mind either in the states of 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈, or, swoon, or in the deep-sleep, duality is not perceived. Therefore duality is said to be the effect of nonduality. Duality exists only in the state of ignorance. It is not ultimately real.

So far as the dualists are concerned, they hold that duality exists both in the absolute standpoint and also in the relative stand point. 艢补峁卥补谤补 points out that we have no conflict with the dualists as duality is perceived only by the ignorant (deluded) people and non-duality by the enlightened people which is supported both by the scripture and reason. The 艢谤耻迟颈 also says that, 鈥�Indra (the Lord) goes about in many forms by his 尘腻测腻蝉鈥� (叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. II.5.19)^[2] 鈥淭here is not, however, a second, nothing else separate from him that he could see鈥� (叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. IV.3.23)^[3].

艢补峁卥补谤补 says the non-dualist is like the case of a man riding a spirited elephant, who knows that none can oppose him. If a deluded person, though standing on the ground, thinks that he, too, is on an elephant and challenges the other to drive his beast upon him, the former laughs at him and goes his own way without entering into any conflict with him. Similarly, the non-dualist is fully aware of the truth of his assertions and does not think it necessary to enter into any argument with a dualist. Thus, from the absolute standpoint, the knower of Brahman is the very Self (腻迟尘补苍) of the dualist. For the non-dualist there is no opponent. He is not conscious of another. He regards all as his own Self.

As interesting point has been raised by 艢补峁卥补谤补 to distinguish between 笔补谤尘腻谤迟丑补, absolutely real and a辫补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补. For the dualists the duality is real at both levels. In other words the world is real, independent of the perceiver. According to 碍补峁嚹乨补 e.g. the world created through the various combination of 辫补谤补尘腻峁嘘 exists independent of 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘腻 or 箩墨惫补迟尘腻. The Ved膩ntins on the other hand declare that since the world is seen only when there is a 肠颈迟迟补蝉辫补苍诲补苍补峁� [cittaspandana] or activity of mind and is absent when there is no cittaspandanam [cittaspandana] like swoon, deep sleep and 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈. According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 if the world were real it should persist in these states. Since this is not the case the world depends for its existence on the mind of the perceiver. Therefore the world is not absolutely real whereas the continuous presence of Self identical with non-dual Brahman is the Ultimate Reality. Advaita reiterates that dualism is not real in the absolute sense. And hence there is no quarrel with them. The gold in the gold ornaments has no conflicts with its effect namely the ornament or the oceanic water with the waves, foam, bubbles.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 19 says: 鈥楾his changeless, unborn, non-dual absolute reality appears to undergo modification only on account of 尘腻测腻 (illusion) and not otherwise. For, if this modification were real, the immortal (Brahman) would become the mortal鈥�.

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary on this 办腻谤颈办腻 anticipates an objection: If it is stated that duality is the effect of non-duality in 办腻谤颈办腻 18, then a doubt may arise that like nonduality (advaita), duality too is the absolute reality. 艢补苍办补谤补 says that to dispel this doubt it is being stated in this 办腻谤颈办腻 that non-duality is the absolute Truth that appears manifold through illusion (尘腻测腻). It is like a person with a defective eye seeing many moons or one erroneously seeing the rope as a snake or a line of water, a garland etc.. The non-dual 腻迟尘补苍 has not in any way become the phenomenal universe. The 腻迟尘补苍 does not undergo real transformation because it is not a whole composed of parts. The 腻迟尘补苍 has no parts. A composite thing can get transformed through a change in its components, e.g. earth gets transformed into jars etc.

Therefore, the ever unborn 腻迟尘补苍 which is without parts, admits of no distinction in any manner, (other than) excepting through 尘腻测腻 or which is due to the illusion of the perceiver. According to 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 and 艢补峁卥补谤补 if the modification is real, then the immortal (补尘峁泃补峁�), the unborn (ajam), the non-dual 腻迟尘补苍 would become mortal (vrajet martyat膩m). It is like fire acquiring the attribute of coldness whose intrinsic nature is heat. This would amount to giving up one鈥檚 own intrinsic nature which is not desired by any one because such a position is opposed to all means of proof. It contradicts all modes of reasoning. Therefore, all modifications that the unborn, undecaying 腻迟尘补苍 undergoes are modifications in appearance alone and not in reality. The non-dual 腻迟尘补苍 appears as if with distinction, only through illusion (尘腻测腻) of the perceiver. Thus duality is not the ultimate reality, but only an appearance of reality.

In the vaitathya 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 says:

鈥�腻迟尘补苍, the Self-luminous through the powers of his own 尘腻测腻 imagines the plurality in Himself by Himself鈥�.

In 办腻谤颈办腻 19 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 says that the dispersal of the One into the many is only an apparent phenomenon. Its manifoldness is only an illusion of the perceiver.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻s 19-22 analyses the doctrine of 补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补 (birthlessness). These 办腻谤颈办腻s contain a dialectical, syllogistic argument for the doctrine of 补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补, with a strikingly new syntax and terminology.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 20 says that, 鈥榯he disputants (i.e. the dualists) contend that the ever unborn (changeless) entity (腻迟尘补苍) undergoes a change. How could an entity which is changeless and immortal partake of the nature of the mortal鈥�?

Commenting on this 办腻谤颈办腻 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the word 鈥榙isputant鈥� (惫腻诲颈苍补岣�) refers to the dualistic interpreters of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s. They claim that the unborn Reality-the 腻迟尘补苍 which is by nature immortal really passes into birth as the universe. The meaning is the dualist disputants are those who opt for doctrine of origination of an entity (腻迟尘补苍) which is really unborn (aj膩tasyaiva dharmasya j膩tim icchanti 惫腻诲颈苍补岣�). This is in contrast with the Advaitins, who asserts the doctrine of nonorigination (补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补). According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 if an entity (腻迟尘补苍) really passes into birth then it necessarily becomes subject to mortality. 膧迟尘补苍 can never become subject to annihilation as that is a complete reversal of his intrinsic nature. The dualist鈥檚 contention that the changeless atman undergoes a change is a contradiction. This is brought out by 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 when he asks how the immortal can ever become mortal. The subject never becomes an object. The word 鈥�aja鈥�, unborn has a double sense i.e., having no cause from which It is born (unorginated) and having no effect to which It gives birth (unoriginating). According to 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 an unborn, eternal entity by its very nature cannot modify or transform in any way. Thus 办腻谤颈办腻 19-20 reassert the non-transformative nature of the Self.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 21 says that, 鈥榯he immortal cannot become mortal, nor can the mortal ever become immortal. For, it is never possible for a thing to change its nature鈥�. 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the reversal of one鈥檚 own intrinsic nature never takes place under any circumstances. He gives an illustration of fire. Fire can never change its intrinsic nature, of being hot and naturally becoming cold.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 22 says that, 鈥榟ow can he, who believes that the naturally immortal entity becomes mortal, maintain that the Immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature鈥�?

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary explains this 办腻谤颈办腻 as: The disputant argues that before the creation, Brahman the cause is immortal, but subsequent to the creation i.e., an entity becomes the effect by transformation and therefore mortal. Thus 鈥渋mmortality (changeless) and mortality (change) apply to the two states of 腻迟尘补苍. Then there is no inconsistency鈥�. Both 艢补峁卥补谤补 and 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 refute this contention. They say that how then an entity which is really born (办峁泃补办补) become inherently immortal and changeless? How can the 鈥渋mmortal鈥�, that which passes through birth be said to stand changeless? It can never remain changeless. This cannot be justified in any manner. Thus in the case of those disputants who believe that 腻迟尘补苍 passes into birth, there can be no entity which is unborn (aja) and changeless. In that case, according to them, everything is mortal. They cannot conceive the possibility of liberation/ freedom from the cycle of birth and death.

Continuing with the discussion on 补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 23 says that both the views that the creation is real and that it is unreal have been equally emphasized in the 艢谤耻迟颈. That which is supported by the 艢谤耻迟颈 declaration and corroborated by reason alone should be accepted and not otherwise.

It may be contended that those who support the doctrine of non-creation (补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补) cannot explain the scriptural passages describing the creation doctrine by following the laws of causality. In reply it is said that there are indeed such 艢谤耻迟颈 texts which describe creation; but their meaning serve other purposes. It has already been explained in 办腻谤颈办腻 15-16, that all such 艢谤耻迟颈 texts serve only as helps to the mind in the act of grasping the absolute. In other words 鈥淪uch 艢谤耻迟颈 texts are intended as a means for generating the sense of oneness in the mind of people of ordinary intelligence鈥�. It is only a way of preparing the mind to comprehend non-dualism (advaita).

According to 艢补峁卥补谤补 the intention of this 办腻谤颈办腻 is to prove that creation is unreal and in that connection the specific 艢谤耻迟颈 passages like 鈥渉e created鈥�, 鈥渉e became鈥� would appear as contradicting the doctrine of unreality of creation. Therefore in order to remove all doubts in that matter, the same contention and its reply is restated in this 办腻谤颈办腻.

艢补峁卥补谤补 says that whether we take the creation of things as real (产丑奴迟补迟补岣�) or as a mere illusion created by a magician (a产丑奴迟补迟补岣�), the scriptural texts regarding creation remains unaffected. It may be urged in this connection, that when choice has to be made between the two possible meanings, i.e., primary and Secondary, it is reasonable to understand a word in its primary meaning.

艢补峁卥补谤补 emphatically denies this possibility of two meaning of a text. The reason is that creation in any sense other than illusion is not recognized. It has already been stated in 办腻谤颈办腻 15 that no purpose is served by admitting the real creation. All creation, whether primary (as in the waking state) or secondary (as in the dream state) are only due to ignorance (补惫颈诲测腻).

There is no creation from the absolute point of view. In this regard 艢补峁卥补谤补 quotes the 艢谤耻迟颈 passage:

鈥淒ivine and formless is the person, He is without and within, unborn, without breath and without mind, pure and higher than the highest immutable鈥� (Mu峁囜笉aka 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 II.1.2)^[4].

Therefore, what the 艢谤耻迟颈 text has firmly ascertained (niscitam) is that 腻迟尘补苍 is only one, without a second, unborn (changeless) and immortal and is also based upon rational coherence (yuktiyuktam). Both 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 and 艢补峁卥补谤补 emphasize the import of 艢谤耻迟颈 text which is supported by reason (yuktiyuktam).

The purpose of this 办腻谤颈办腻 is to reject 辫补谤颈峁嚹乵补-惫腻诲补颈. e., the real transformation of a cause and establish the doctrine of non-creation (补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补). The rendering therefore, creation of something in reality (产丑奴迟补迟补岣�) and creation not in reality but only as appearance (a产丑奴迟补迟补岣�), which is created by the magician is appropriate in this context^[5]. There is no 鈥榗reation鈥� or 鈥榖ecoming鈥� for 腻迟尘补苍, because the 腻迟尘补苍 is always the same. The idea of any action or change is incompatible with 腻迟尘补苍. According to Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补, all creations, real or illusory, are equally unreal. The creation of objects in dreams is called illusory in relation to objects perceived in the waking state. But the objects of the waking state are also realized to be unreal from the stand point of ultimate reality (腻迟尘补苍).

Both illusory objects and so called real objects belong to the realm of phenomena. The purpose of the 艢谤耻迟颈 texts is not to establish the creation, real (辫补谤颈峁嚹乵补) as apparent (vivarta), but to establish the doctrine of non-origination (补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补). The 艢谤耻迟颈 texts describe liberation (尘辞办峁�a) as the goal of human life. If the creation is taken to be real, that goal cannot be achieved. Both reason and 艢谤耻迟颈 texts support this view.

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 in 办腻谤颈办腻 24 again quotes the 艢谤耻迟颈 texts. He says that the 艢谤耻迟颈 passages as 鈥渢here is no diversity here鈥� (neha n膩n膩iti 叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. IV.4.99, Ka峁環a 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 IV.II) and 鈥淚ndra through 尘腻测腻 (鈥�Indro 尘腻测腻bhir iti 峁歏 VI. 47.18; 叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲. II. 5-19) etc. assumes diverse forms鈥� etc., it is implied that the ever unborn 腻迟尘补苍 appears as born in many forms only through 尘腻测腻 i.e. wrong knowledge causing super imposition.

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary on this 办腻谤颈办腻 explains that if the creation is absolutely real, the variety of experiences must necessarily be real. In that case there would have been no scriptural texts to assert that they are unreal. But there are such texts in fact to deny the reality of duality. For example: 鈥楾here is nothing of variety here鈥� (碍补峁环补鲍 II.1.11)^[6]. The creation is imagined as a means for the seeker to comprehend the nonduality of the 腻迟尘补苍. Creation as such is not a reality. This is like the imagined interlogue of 辫谤腻峁嘺 and other sense organs to ultimately prove the superiority of 辫谤腻峁嘺 (mukhya 辫谤腻峁嘺).

In the second 艢谤耻迟颈 text cited by 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 (鈥業ndra through 尘腻测腻鈥�) the word 尘腻测腻 is used to indicate the unreality of the objects of creation. To the objection that the word 鈥�尘腻测腻鈥� is also used to mean knowledge, 艢补峁卥补谤补 says that the word 尘腻测腻 is used to indicate the sense-knowledge (辫谤补箩帽腻) only and as sense-knowledge it is included in 补惫颈诲测腻 (ignorance). He says that there is nothing wrong in using the word 尘腻测腻 as illusion. The meaning of the plural word 鈥�尘腻测腻bhi岣�鈥� is 鈥渢hrough sense-knowledge which is illusory鈥�. The expression 鈥渢hrough 尘腻测腻鈥� means 鈥渢hrough our having senseorgans pervaded by 补惫颈诲测腻鈥�. The vedic text (Yajur-Veda 31.19) again says, 鈥榯hough unborn, It appears to be born in diverse ways鈥�^[7]. Hence the conclusion of this 办腻谤颈办腻 is that the 腻迟尘补苍 becomes subject to birth through 尘腻测腻 alone. Birthlessness and 鈥榖irth in many ways鈥� are two statements contrary to each other and are like the simultaneous predication of heat and cold in the case of fire. The real meaning of the scripture is the realization of the non-dual 腻迟尘补苍 which produces the good result i.e. the removal of all miseries. In this regard 艢补峁卥补谤补 quotes two 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic texts as the text of praise and also the 艢谤耻迟颈 text which censures a person who sees multiplicity through creation. They are: 鈥榃hat delusion and what sorrow can be to him who has seen the oneness鈥� (滨艣补鲍 7)^[8] and 鈥榃hatever is here, that (is) there. Whatever is there, that, too, is here. Whoever perceives anything like manyness here goes from death to death鈥� (碍补峁环补鲍 II.1.10)^[9].

骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 further in 办腻谤颈办腻 25 fortifies his contention by referring other 艢谤耻迟颈 texts which deny a real creation, such as the denial of 鈥渃oming into being鈥� (蝉补峁� bhuti) in the 莫艣a 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, and the passage in the 叠峁沨补诲腻谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 which denies any preexisting cause for the origination of the 箩墨惫补: 鈥渨ho can cause it to pass into birth鈥�? In this 办腻谤颈办腻 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 gives a direct reference to 艢谤耻迟颈 texts for the refutation of the theory of causality and thereby creation.

He quotes the 艢谤耻迟颈 passage:

鈥淭hose who meditate upon 蝉补峁� bhutii. e. the 办腻谤测补 Brahman known as 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补 enter into blinding darkness鈥�, says the 艢谤耻迟颈 text (莫艣a 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 12). T

his text censures the worship of 蝉补峁僢huti. Thus all the subsequent creation i.e. the whole of the effects evolving from 蝉补峁僢huti is negated. If this 蝉补峁僢huti (贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补) were absolutely real, there would not have been any denunciation/censure of his worship.

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his commentary on the above 办腻谤颈办腻 points out the reason for the denouncing 蝉补峁僢huti because the opponents may believe that 蝉补峁僢huti is used here for co-coordinating with 补惫颈诲测腻 or karma. The opponents may not accept the view that the intention of this mantra in 莫艣a 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 is to censure the 蝉补峁僢huti 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻. A person has to perform rituals as well as contemplate (耻辫腻蝉补苍腻) and a perfect balance freeze him from the cycle of birth and death. Hence proving that the effects (蝉补峁僢huti are relative and non-real) and thereby considering a 蝉补峁僢huti 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 is futile which is going against the scriptural passage. 艢补峁卥补谤补 concedes to this point made by the opponent and says that the intention of the 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 is to combine 蝉补峁僢huti with karma yet it is important to understand the limitation of 蝉补峁僢huti 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 and karma.

The objector points out another 艢谤耻迟颈 passage (莫艣a 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 11) and says that the real purpose is not to censure and negate 蝉补峁僢huti but to prescribe a samuccaya or combination of 惫颈苍腻艣补颈. e. karma and 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 of 蝉补峁僢huti (贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补 deity). The 艢谤耻迟颈 passage (莫艣a 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 9) also declares that: 鈥楾hey enter into blinding darkness who worship ignorance (补惫颈诲测腻) and those who delight in knowledge enter into still greater darkness, as it were鈥�^[10].

艢补峁卥补谤补 in his reply to this objection says, it is true that the condemnation of the meditation on worship of 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补 is meant for enjoining a combination of the meditation on the Deity, viz. 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补, with rites, referred to by the word 惫颈苍腻艣补 (karma). According to 艢补峁卥补谤补, just as 惫颈苍腻艣补颈. e. the karma like agnihotra ritual takes one beyond the death in the nature of activities (not sanctioned by scriptures) of people due to their natural ignorance, similarly the combination of that agnihotra karma with meditation on the deity 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补 which is for the purpose of 蝉补峁僺k膩rai. e. purifying the mind.

The 蝉补峁僢huti and 惫颈苍腻艣补 do not directly generate the knowledge of oneness of the Self with Brahman (Brahma-别办迟惫补产丑腻惫补). They indirectly produce purity of mind and that facilitates the discrimination etc. that is congenial to listening (sravanam) of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲ic 艣膩艣tra and cogitating on it and realizing the Ultimate Reality. Thus the utility of 蝉补峁僢huti 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻 and karma together are for mental purification. If it were not so, then the mere performance of action and contemplating conjointly can liberate a person. But this is not the case. Moreover the effects or the 办腻谤测补 utpatti itself is not absolutely real; has only a relative existence. Therefore they can be sublated in final illumination. When such an illumination takes place the sublated world and its effects do not reoccur just as with the destruction of the illusion of the snake on the rope. If a person properly understands the rope then the snake illusion will never haunt him. Similarly for the illuminated person, there is neither the 办腻谤测补 (the world) nor the cause. This 办腻谤颈办腻 is very crucial because the author 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 uses the authenticity of the scripture to negate the effect and thereby the cause leading to his final doctrine of 补箩腻迟颈惫腻诲补 which is a significant contribution to the school of the Advaita 痴别诲腻苍迟补.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s, 449.

[2]:

Ibid.,208.

[3]:

Ibid.,264.

[4]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s, 680.

[5]:

Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya takes 鈥�产丑奴迟补迟补岣�鈥� to mean 鈥榝rom the existent鈥�(All this was Sat before Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 V1, 2-1) and 补产丑奴迟补迟补丑 鈥榝rom the non-existent (All this was Asat before TaiU II. 7.1), and remarks 鈥榓ccording to 艢补峁卥补谤补 产丑奴迟补迟补岣� is 辫补谤补尘腻谤迟丑补ta岣� and 补产丑奴迟丑补迟岣� is 尘腻测腻-y膩. But in 办腻谤颈办腻 IV.3 he explains the same words saying 鈥�bh奴stasya vidayam膩nasya, abh奴tasa avidyam膩nasya鈥�. Karmarkar criticised this view as incorrect. He says that 鈥�Sat鈥� and 鈥�Asat鈥� mean not necessarily 鈥榚xistent鈥� and 鈥榥on-existent鈥� but 鈥榤anifestation鈥� and 鈥榰nmanifestation鈥� also. He says that in this 办腻谤颈办腻, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补 is concerned with pointing out the real nature of the process of creation and not the creation of anything. Karmarkar rightly criticises Vidhusekhar in his notes but retains his translation for 产丑奴迟补迟补岣� (by mistake perhaps). Karmarkar, 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补-K膩rik膩, 98-9.

[6]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s, 634.

[7]:

Gambhirananda Swami, trans. M膩峁囜笉奴kya 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 with the Commentary of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 2000), 129.

[8]:

S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s, 578.

[9]:

Ibid., 634.

[10]:

Ibid., 573.