United States or Solomon Islands ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Should the ajnana, on the other hand, belong to Brahman, we point out that Brahman, whose essential nature is self- illuminedness, cannot possibly be conscious of ajnana and the creation of the world effected by it.
Or else, consciousness of ajnana constituting the nature of Brahman, which is admittedly pure consciousness, in the same way as the consciousness of false silver is terminated by that cognition which sublates the silver, so some terminating act of cognition would eventually put an end to Brahman's essential nature itself. On the second alternative we ask what that something else should be.
Knowledge based on valid means of proof, has not for its antecedent, non-knowledge other than the antecedent non-existence of knowledge; just because it is knowledge based on valid proof; like that valid knowledge which proves the ajnana maintained by you.
How, further, do you conceive this consciousness of ajnana on Brahman's part? Is it due to Brahman itself, or to something else? In the former case this consciousness would result from Brahman's essential nature, and hence there would never be any Release.
Nor, again, the sense-organs in so far as modified by some defect; for they also can only produce modifications in what is effected by them, i.e. cognition. And the hypothesis of a beginningless, false ajnana constituting the general material cause of all erroneous cognitions has been refuted above.
There are also formal inferences, opposed to the conclusion of the purvapakshin. The ajnana under discussion does not obscure knowledge, just because it is ajnana; as shown by the cases of the shell, &c.; for such non- knowledge hides the object.
All this confirms our theory, viz. that since bondage springs from ajnana in the form of an eternal stream of karman, it can be destroyed only through knowledge of the kind maintained by us.
Brahman is not hidden by ajnana, because it is not the object of knowledge; whatever is hidden by non-knowledge is the object of knowledge; so e.g. shells and similar things.
Ajnana is not terminated by knowledge, because it does not hide the object of knowledge; whatever non-knowledge is terminated by knowledge, is such as to hide the object of knowledge; as e.g. the non-knowledge of the shell. Brahman is not the substrate of ajnana, because it is devoid of the character of knowing subject; like jars and similar things.
But this also we cannot admit; for Brahman is essentially consciousness of Self, and cannot become a witnessing principle unless its nature be previously hidden. Let then Brahman be hidden by some other cause! This, we rejoin, would take away from ajnana its alleged beginninglessness, and further would also lead to an infinite regress.
Word Of The Day