365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

啶�啷冟げ啷嵿げ啷嬥す啶掂た啶膏�嵿か啷佮げ啶苦�權�嵿�椸ぞ啶︵�嵿く啷堗�� 啶膏�冟し啷嵿�熰た啶班�嵿く啶� 啶氞�嬥う啶苦い啶距え啷嵿く啶ム�� 啷�
啶夃お啶距く啶� 啶膏�嬥そ啶掂い啶距ぐ啶距�� 啶ㄠぞ啶膏�嵿い啶� 啶�啷囙う啶� 啶曕ぅ啶傕�氞�� 啷� 啷оカ 啷�

m峁沴lohavisphuli峁単膩dyai岣� s峁涐梗峁璱ry膩 codit膩nyath膩 |
up膩ya岣� so'vat膩r膩ya n膩sti bheda岣� katha峁僣ana || 15 ||

15. (The scriptural statements regarding) creation as illustrated by examples of earth, iron, sparks, etc., or otherwise, (only) serve the purpose of (ultimately) explaining the unity (of 闯墨惫补 and Brahman). (Really speaking) multiplicity does not exist in any manner.

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

(翱产箩别肠迟颈辞苍)鈥擝别蹿辞谤别¹ creation all this might have been unborn, one and non-dual; but after creation, all this evolved world and the embodied beings (闯墨惫补s) denote multiplicity.

(Reply)鈥擭o, it cannot be so. For, the scriptural passages dealing with creation have another meaning. This difficulty raised here has already been solved by the statements that² the aggregates (entities) of body, etc., like dream-objects, are produced through illusion of the subject (膧迟尘补苍) and that creation and the differences of the 闯墨惫补s are like the creation and the differences of the 骋丑补峁�膩k腻艣补蝉, i.e., the bits of 膧办腻艣补 enclosed in different jars. The scriptural³ statements dealing with creation and differences (of the created beings), have again been referred to here in order to show that such statements regarding creation have the purpose of determining the unity of 闯墨惫补 and Brahman. The⁴ (theory of) creation has been described in the scripture through the illustrations of earth, iron, sparks, etc., or otherwise; but all these modes of creation are meant for enlightening our intellect so that it may comprehend the identity of 闯墨惫补 and Brahman. It is just like the story⁵ of the organs of speech (惫腻办), etc., being smitten with evil by the Asuras (demons) as described in the chapter on 笔谤腻峁嘺 (vital breath), where the real purpose of the 艢谤耻迟颈 is to demonstrate the special importance of 笔谤腻峁嘺.

(翱产箩别肠迟颈辞苍)鈥擶别⁶ do not accept this meaning as indicated.

(Reply)鈥擸our contention is not correct. For⁷ this story about 笔谤腻峁嘺, etc., has been differently narrated in different recensions of the Vedas. If the story of 笔谤腻峁嘺 were literally true, there should have been one version only in all recensions. Different versions of contradictory nature would not have been narrated. But we do come across such different versions in the Vedas. Therefore the scriptural passages recording stories of 笔谤腻峁嘺 are not meant to serve any purpose of their own, i.e., they should not be taken literally. The scriptural⁸ statements regarding creation should also be understood in a similar manner.

(翱产箩别肠迟颈辞苍)鈥�There have been different creations in different cycles. Therefore, the scriptural statements regarding creations (of the universe) and stories (of 笔谤腻峁嘺) are different as they refer to the Creations in different cycles.

(Reply)鈥擳his contention is not valid. For, they (the illustrations of earth, iron, etc., as well as the stories of 笔谤腻峁嘺) serve no other useful purpose than clearing our intellect as stated above. No one can imagine any other utility of the scriptural statements regarding creation and 笔谤腻峁嘺.

(翱产箩别肠迟颈辞苍)鈥擶别⁹ contend that these are for the purpose of meditation so that one may ultimately attain to that end.

(Reply)鈥擳his is not correct either; for no one desires to attain his identity with the dispute (in the case of the 笔谤腻峁嘺 narrative), or with the creation or destruction (in the case of the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc.). Therefore we have reasonably to conclude that the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc., are for the purpose of helping the mind to realise the oneness of 膧迟尘补苍, and for no other purpose whatsoever. Therefore, no multiplicity is brought about by creation, etc.

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)

¹ Before, etc.鈥擳here are definite Scriptural statements regarding creation. These statements are literally true. Therefore multiplicity caused by creation is also true.

² That, etc.鈥擨苍 碍腻谤颈办腻蝉 3 and 10 (Chapter III), it has been established that the perception of ego and non-ego as separate from Brahman is due to ignorance.

³ Scriptural, etc.鈥擨t has been explained, in the previous text that the Scriptural statements regarding creation, etc., are for the purpose of explaining the illusory nature of the universe to those who take it as real. But the purpose of this 碍腻谤颈办腻 is to enable us to understand the identity of 闯墨惫补 and Brahman.

⁴ The creation, etc.鈥擳he meaning is that we should not take these Scriptural statements in the literal sense but must get at their underlying significance.

⁵ Story, etc.鈥擳he reference is to the second part of the first chapter of the Ch膩ndogya Upani峁�ad. This story cannot be accepted in a literal sense as the organs of speech, etc., being themselves unconscious, cannot quarrel with one another. The significance of the story is to demonstrate the superiority of 笔谤腻峁嘺 over other Indriyas (organs). The story referred to here is as follows: The Devas and Asuras, both of the race of Praj膩pati, fought with one another. The Devas (Gods) and the Asuras (Demons) are explained as good and evil inclinations of man. The Devas took the 鲍诲驳墨迟补, thinking that they would be able to vanquish the Asuras with it. The 鲍诲驳墨迟补 stands for the sacrificial act to be performed by the 鲍诲驳腻迟峁�, the 厂腻尘补惫别诲补 priest, with the 鲍诲驳墨迟补 hymns. They meditated on the 鲍诲驳墨迟补 as the breath in the nostril, but the Asuras smote the breath with evil. Then they meditated on 鲍诲驳墨迟补 as the speech, the eye, the ear, the mind; but ail these sense organs were smitten with evil by the Asuras. Then they meditated on 鲍诲驳墨迟补 as 笔谤腻峁嘺 (vital breath) and the Asuras failed to smite it with evil. Therefore 笔谤腻峁嘺 is superior to all sense-organs.

⁶ We, etc.鈥擶e do not accept your explanation, for, the organs of speech, etc., have been designated as gods. Therefore they cannot be insentient matter.

⁷ For, etc.鈥擳his story about 笔谤腻峁嘺 has been differently stated in different Upani峁�ads. This cannot happen if the story is to be accepted as literally true.

⁸ Scriptural, etc.鈥擳he story regarding creation, as in the case of 笔谤腻峁嘺, has been differently stated in different parts of the Upani峁�ads. In some places we read that the 膧办腻艣补 was first evolved; again we find that the fire was first evolved and still in another place it is mentioned that 笔谤腻峁嘺 was first evolved. Therefore, on account of the contradictory natures of these stories they should not be taken as true. They serve some other purpose, 惫墨锄., the establishment of the absence of variety, or the oneness of 膧迟尘补苍 (Brahman).

⁹ We contend, etc.鈥擨t is said in the 艢谤耻迟颈 that the worshipper ultimately realises the oneness of 膧迟尘补苍.