United States or Cayman Islands ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Ajnana which has the character of a positive entity cannot be destroyed by knowledge; just because it is a positive entity, like jars and similar things. But, it now may be said, we observe that fear and other affections, which are positive entities and produced by previous cognitions, are destroyed by sublative acts of cognition! Not so, we reply.
Even if ajnana means antecedent non-existence of knowledge, we can say that knowledge of the substrate and object of non-knowledge has for its object the Self presented obscurely only; and thus there is no difference between our views unless you choose to be obstinate!
In conclusion we remark that in defining right knowledge as 'that which has for its antecedent another entity, different from its own antecedent non-existence, you do not give proof of very eminent logical acuteness; for what sense has it to predicate of an entity that it is different from nonentity? For all these reasons Inference also does not prove an ajnana which is a positive entity.
And if it be said that the light of Brahman is obscured by ajnana, we point to all the difficulties, previously set forth, which follow from this hypothesis to obscure light means to make it cease, and to make cease the light of Brahman, of whom light is the essential nature, means no less than to destroy Brahman itself.
If you reply 'another ajnana, we are led into a regressus in infinitum. This, we rejoin, would imply that ajnana acting like a defect of the eye by its very essential being hides Brahman, and then ajnana could not be sublated by knowledge.
Word Of The Day