United States or Morocco ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !


The non-difference of the souls from each other and Brahman is thus essential, while their difference is due to the Upadhis. We therefore hold that the Upadhis are produced, in accordance with the actions of the individual souls, as essentially non-different and different from Brahman.

Joy, satisfaction, great satisfaction, bliss, are imagined as the members, non-different from it, of Brahman consisting of bliss, and of them all the unmixed bliss-constituted Brahman is said to be the tail or support.

Up. Up. Up. Up. The general rule is that an effect is non- different in character from its cause; as e.g. pots and bracelets are non-different in character from their material causes clay and gold.

As long as this decision remains unsettled, the conclusions arrived at under the two Sutras referred to, viz. that the soul is non-different from Brahman and that Brahman is 'additional' to the soul, are without a proper basis. Up.

And on account of the existence of that which is posterior. On account of the existence of the posterior, i.e. the effect existing in the cause for this reason also the effect is non-different from the cause.

Fire is only the operative cause of smoke; for smoke originates from damp fuel joined with fire. As thus the identity of the substance is perceived in the effect also, we are entitled to conclude that the difference of ideas and terms rests on difference of state only. The effect, therefore, is non-different from the cause. This is so for the following reason also.

Should it be maintained that the texts declaring difference refer to difference due to limiting adjuncts, while the texts declaring non-difference mean essential non-difference, we must ask the following question does the non-conditioned Brahman know, or does it not know, the soul which is essentially non-different from it? If it does not know it, Brahman's omniscience has to be abandoned.

II, 1, 22 and others have refuted the view that Brahman is to be considered as non-different from the personal soul, because in texts such as 'thou art that' it is exhibited in co-ordination with the latter. And other Sutras have proved that Brahman must, on the basis of numerous scriptural texts, be recognised as the inner Self of all things material and immaterial.

But how then about the declaration that through the cognition of one thing everything is known?-There is no difficulty here, since the soul also is an effect, and since effect and cause are non-different. But this implies that the soul is an originated thing just like Ether and so on! Not so, we reply.

For the Chandogyaitself virtually admits the origination of Ether; in so far, namely, as the clause 'that by which the non-heard is heard, &c., declares that through the knowledge of Brahman everything is known. This declaration is not abandoned, i.e. is adhered to, only if the Ether also is an effect of Brahman and thus non-different from it.