365bet娱乐

180
The formal emphasis on distinctions in this passage
should not, however, blind us to the fact that Madhus奴dana,
as I have suggested, also wants us to see certain
homologies. So far they are as follows: melted
mind/unmelted mind, conditioned mode/unconditioned mode,
form of bhagavat/form of Brahman.
The idea of apprehending the "form" of Brahman--the
formless, attributeless, unobjectifiable Absolute--is, of
course, problematic in itself. How can the one Knower be
known? How can Consciousness become its own object? This
difficulty is commonly flaunted by Advaita's critics,
notably the M膩dhvas and the Naiy膩yikas, and Madhusudana is
obliged to address it from various angles in all his major
works. His response, in essence, is that truly speaking all
knowledge consists of a mental mode grasping Brahman. The
distinction between ordinary knowledge and brahmavidy膩 is
that, while in the former the mind apprehends the ultimate
as limited by an object, in the latter Brahman is grasped as
limited by the akha峁囜笉膩k膩racittav峁泃ti only. So even the
55 final knowledge of Brahman is conditioned (up膩hita), but
it is conditioned in a special way. In the VKL, Madhus奴dana
states:
Even when it is [ logically] impossible for Brahman to be
an object of knowledge, knowledge is found to have
Brahman as its object. This occurs either by its
grasping of the original (bimba) or through some quite
different
vacanya process that is inexplicable (anir-