365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

啶ㄠ�囙�� 啶ㄠぞ啶ㄠ�囙い啶� 啶氞ぞ啶洁そ啶�啷嵿え啶距く啶距う啶苦え啷嵿う啷嵿ぐ啷嬥ぎ啶距く啶距き啶苦ぐ啶苦い啷嵿く啶�啶� 啷�
啶呧�溹ぞ啶�啶�啶距え啷� 啶�啶灌�佮ぇ啶� 啶�啶距く啶�啶� 啶溹ぞ啶�啶む�� 啶む�� 啶膏�� 啷� 啷ㄠオ 啷�

neha n膩neti c膩''mn膩y膩dindrom膩y膩bhirityapi |
aj膩yam膩no bahudh膩 m膩yay膩 j膩yate tu sa岣� || 24 ||

24. From such Scriptural passages as, 鈥淭here is no multiplicity in 膧迟尘补苍鈥�, 鈥淚ndra through 惭腻测腻鈥�, we know that the 膧迟尘补苍, though ever unborn, verily appears to have become many (only) through 惭腻测腻.

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

It may be asked how the changelessness (础箩腻迟颈) of 膧迟尘补苍 is the final conclusion of the 艢谤耻迟颈. In reply it is said that if creation were real, then the existence of the variety of objects would be absolutely real. Consequently there ought not to be Scriptural texts implying their unreality. But there are such Scriptural texts as, 鈥淚n this (膧迟尘补苍) there is no multiplicity,鈥� etc., which negate the existence of duality. Therefore creation (imaginary) has been imagined in order to help the understanding of the non-duality of 膧迟尘补苍. It¹ is like the story of 笔谤腻峁嘺. And this is further borne out by the use of the word, 鈥�惭腻测腻鈥� denoting unreality (in connection with creation) in such Scriptural texts as 鈥淚ndra² through 惭腻测腻 assumed diverse forms鈥�.

(Objection)鈥擳he word denotes knowledge (笔谤补箩帽腻).

(Reply)鈥擨t is true, but sens e-knowledge is illusory. The word³ 鈥湶涯宀饽邂�� is used to denote that (sense-) knowledge. Hence there is no blemish (in such use of the word). The word 鈥�惭腻测腻bhi岣�鈥� (through 惭腻测腻) in the Scriptural text means through sense-knowledge, which is illusory. For, the Scripture again says, 鈥淭hough unborn he appears to be born in many ways.鈥� Therefore 膧迟尘补苍 passes into birth through 惭腻测腻 alone. The word 鈥�Tu鈥� (鈥渧erily鈥�) in the text (of the 碍腻谤颈办腻) denotes certainty, that is to say, it⁴ indicates that creation is possible only through 惭腻测腻 or illusion and not in any real sense. For, birthlessness and birth in various forms cannot be predicated of the same object, as fire cannot be both hot and cold. Further, from such 艢谤耻迟颈 passages as 鈥淗ow can there be any delusion and any grief for him who sees unity,鈥� etc., we know that the knowledge of the unity of 膧迟尘补苍 is alone the conclusion of 艢谤耻迟颈 on account of the (good) result it brings to the knower. Again, the perception of differentiation implied by creation has been condemned in such 艢谤耻迟颈 passages as, 鈥淗e goes from death to death (who sees here many)鈥�.

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)

¹ It is, etc.鈥擜s the 艢谤耻迟颈 described the disputes of 笔谤腻峁嘺 and the sense-organs in order to prove the superiority of the vital breath (Mukhya 笔谤腻峁嘺), so also creation has been described in order to help the understanding of the student to grasp the unity of 膧迟尘补苍. (See 碍补谤颈办腻 3-15).

² Indra鈥擳he word is used here in the sense of the Supreme Lord.

³ The word, etc.鈥擳he word 鈥�惭腻测腻鈥� is sometimes used to denote empirical knowledge or the knowledge derived by the contact of the sense-organs with their objects. This knowledge does not indicate the Highest Consciousness or the knowledge of Reality. Hence creation through 惭腻测腻 is necessarily illusory.

⁴ It, etc.鈥擨f one believes in creation then the only plausible explanation is that of the 痴颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲补 and not any other theory such as 笔补谤颈峁嚹乵补惫腻诲补.