365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of S奴tra 2.1.11:

啶むぐ啷嵿�曕ぞ啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪�嵿�熰ぞ啶ㄠぞ啶︵お啷嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿く啶ムぞ啶ㄠ�佮ぎ啷囙く啶�啶苦い啶� 啶氞�囙う啷囙さ啶�啶�啷嵿く啶ㄠた啶班�嵿ぎ啷嬥し啷嵿�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶膏�權�嵿�椸��

tark膩prati峁ａ弓膩n膩dapy补苍测补迟丑腻numeyamiti cedevamapyanirmo峁�ca 辫谤补蝉补峁単补岣�

tarka - controversial reasoning; 补辫谤补迟颈峁ａ弓腻苍腻迟 - because not having any finality; api - also; 补苍测补迟丑腻 - otherwise; anumeyam - to be inferred; iti - thus; cet - if; evam - thus; api - also; 补苍颈谤尘辞峁�a - want of release; 辫谤补蝉补峁単补岣� - consequence.

鈥淸If it be said that there is] no finality about reasoning, for it is always possible to infer the truth of the opposite; we say no, for then the undesirable consequence would follow that that there would be no final liberation.鈥� (11)

S奴tra pagination:
础诲丑测腻测补 2:
  No Conflict Between 痴别诲腻苍迟补 and Other Vedic Scriptures;
笔腻诲补 1:
  Refutation of Opposing Views;
础诲丑颈办补谤补峁嘺 6:
  Non-Being not the First Cause.

Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺鈥檚 commentary (Govinda-bh膩峁�ya)

Owing to the differences in the brains of men, their reasoning powers are also different. There is no finality about reasoning; a position established by one man may be demolished the next day by a man with a stronger intellect. There is no conclusive certainty or definite finality about reasoning, even with regard to the acknowledged great intellects of the world; great thinkers like Kapila, 碍补峁嚹乨补 etc. are seen to contradict and refute one another. Therefore without relying upon defective human reason, we must accept that Brahman is the material cause of the world, simply because the Vedas and 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉 declare it. Everything else follows by simple deduction.

It cannot be said that any human reasoning is absolute and unassailable, for then the reasoning by which a particular argument is held to be inconclusive would itself become invalid, leading to a logical paradox. On the other hand, if all reasoning is held to be inconclusive, then all worldly activities would come to an end. Human activities are all based upon inference, as we predict the future from the experiences of past and present. The actions that have been found to yield pleasant or painful results in the past are repeated or avoided by reason alone, for it is inferred that they would produce the same consequences in the future as well. Indeed, this is one of the most important and useful functions of the mind and intelligence.

This view that all reason is inconclusive also leads to the undesirable consequence that the existence of spiritual liberation cannot be established. A proposition established purely by human intellect, unaided by intuition or experience, is always liable to be set aside by a higher intellect born in another time or place. Thus over time, great confusion develops around the teachings of the scriptures as various commentators refute each others鈥� arguments. Such speculative arguments are too unreliable to engender the firm faith required for genuine spiritual advancement. Therefore spiritual liberation can never be attained by methods evolved by human intelligence, but must be attained by the methods given by direct Upani峁�adic revelation alone.

The 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补 [叠丑墨峁�m补-辫补谤惫补 5.22] therefore says,

啶呧�氞た啶ㄠ�嵿い啷嵿く啶距�� 啶栢げ啷� 啶�啷� 啶�啶距さ啶� 啶� 啶むぞ啶傕じ啷� 啶むぐ啷嵿�曕�囙ぃ 啶�啷嬥�溹く啷囙い啷�

acinty膩岣� khalu ye bh膩v膩 na t膩峁僺 tarke峁嘺 yojayet

鈥�How can that which is beyond the imagination or sensory speculation of mundane creatures be approached simply by logic?鈥�

Logic and argument are always imperfect when applied to spiritual understanding. By utilizing mundane logic, one frequently comes to the wrong conclusion regarding the Absolute Truth, and as a result of such a conclusion one may fall down into a hellish condition of life. Nevertheless reason can be useful in analyzing the instructions of the scriptures and applying them to various circumstances. Those who are actually inquisitive to understand the philosophy of 痴别诲腻苍迟补 through logic and argument are welcome to put the 痴别诲腻苍迟补-s奴tras to the test, and those who actually know how to apply logic will come to the right conclusion that there is no philosophy more powerful than 痴别诲腻苍迟补.

It is perfectly true that within the scope of secular matters, such as mathematics, reason is absolute; but in transcendental matters, such as the existence of God, His role in the creation, the afterlife, the spiritual world, final liberation from material existence, etc., the conclusions of human intellect can never be perfectly free from doubt, because these matters are outside the scope of the mind and senses. For Brahman is inconceivable, and consequently unarguable. If you allow reasoning in the matter of Brahman, then you not only contradict the 艢谤耻迟颈, but also your own assertions become incongruous.

The 艢谤耻迟颈 itself says:

鈥�O N膩ciket膩, this faith that you have got cannot be brought about nor destroyed by argument. The Self becomes easily attained when one is taught by a true teacher. O dearest disciple, your determination is strong. Inquirers like you are very rare.鈥� [Ka峁環a Upani峁�ad 1.2.9]

The 厂尘峁泃颈 also supports this:

鈥淥 峁氠梗is! The sages realize that Truth with tranquil bodies, senses and minds, but when that realization is overwhelmed with dry reasoning, it vanishes.鈥�

Therefore, as 艢谤耻迟颈 is the highest authority in matter of religious law [dharma], it is the only authority in theological matters [Brahman]. Of course, reasoning auxiliary to 艢谤耻迟颈 is always allowed, because the word mantavya [reasoned about] shows that Brahman should be reasoned about. 厂尘峁泃颈 also says that one should interpret a scriptural passage by looking into and reasoning about all that precedes and follow it. This is the very process of samanvaya by which this commentary is written.