United States or Marshall Islands ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
We thus arrive at the conclusion that those who hold the non-duality of Brahman must also admit that it is Brahman alone which is affected with beginningless avidya, and owing to this avidya is conscious of plurality within itself.
Or, to put the matter again from a different point of view, Brahman constituted by pure non- differenced intelligence is false, since it is to be attained by knowledge, which is the effect of avidya; or since it is to be attained by knowledge abiding in knowing subjects who are mere figments of avidya; or because it is attained through knowledge which is the mere figment of avidya.
Who is possessed of the principle of change? Who is not possessed of the same? What is he that devours the Sun and what is the Sun? What is Vidya and what is Avidya? What is Immobile and what Mobile? What is without beginning, what is Indestructible, and what is Destructible? These were the excellent questions put to me by that foremost of Gandharvas.
And if Brahman were assumed to become a witness, without its essential nature being hidden, it could not possess what yet it is maintained to possess the uniform character of consciousness of Self. If, moreover, Brahman is hidden by avidya, does it then not shine forth at all, or does it shine forth to some extent?
Those, on the other hand, who explain the difference, referred to in Sutra 22, as the difference between the jiva in its state of bondage and the jiva in so far as free from avidya, i.e. the unconditioned Brahman, implicate themselves in contradictions.
No, when the perfect knowledge comes, every word remains in its place, only they do not bind us to themselves, but let us pass through them and lead us to the idea which is emancipation. Thus it is only avidya which makes the self our fetter by making us think that it is an end in itself, and by preventing our seeing that it contains the idea that transcends its limits.
For those also who hold that avidya belongs to the individual souls do not maintain that the distinction of bondage and release, of one's own self and other persons, is real; and if it is unreal it can be accounted for by the avidya of one subject. This admits of being stated in various technical ways.
On the latter alternative two subordinate alternatives arise Does this avidya which gives rise to the fictitious distinction of souls belong to Brahman? or to the individual souls? If you say 'to Brahman', your view coincides with mine. Well then, 'to the souls'! But have you then quite forgotten that Nescience is assumed for the purpose of accounting for the distinction of souls?
The doctrine that Brahman, which in itself is pure, non-differenced self- illuminedness, has its own true nature hidden by avidya and hence sees plurality within itself, is in conflict with all the valid means of right knowledge; for as Brahman is without parts, obscuration, i.e. cessation, of the light of Brahman, would mean complete destruction of Brahman; so that the hypothesis of obscuration is altogether excluded.
For, as seen in the case of Saubhari and others, it is owing to the oneness of the Self that one person is conscious of the pains and pleasures due to several bodies. This also has been proved before. Nor is there any proof for your assertion that all bodies must be held to spring from the avidya of one subject, because they are bodies, non-intelligent, effects, fictitious.
Word Of The Day