United States or Switzerland ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
'that which is, that appears in different conditions, and it is in this sense that the world is non-different from Brahman. But this theory is really in conflict with all Scripture, Smriti, Itihasa, Purana and Reasoning. For Scripture, Smriti, Itihasa and Purana alike teach that there is one supreme cause, viz.
A thing even which is known as one only may be designated by a plural form, as in a mantra one girdle is spoken of as 'the fetters of Aditi. And as to the case under discussion, we know on the authority of Scripture, Smriti, Itihasa, and Purana, that the wonderful worlds springing from the mere will of a perfect and omnipresent being cannot be but infinite. And because Scripture declares it. Up.
There at the beginning Narada says, 'I know the Rig-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvana as the fourth, the Itihasa- purana as the fifth, and so on, enumerating all the various branches of knowledge, and finally summing up 'with all this I know the mantras only, I do not know the Self. Now this declaration of the knowledge of the Self not being attainable through any branch of knowledge except the knowledge of the Bhuman evidently has no other purpose but to glorify this latter knowledge, which is about to be expounded.
For if the text 'Thou art that, be viewed as teaching the unity of the individual soul and the highest Self, there is certainly no reason, founded on unmeaningness, to ascribe to Brahman, intimated by the word 'that' which is all-knowing, &c. Nescience, which is contradictory to Brahman's nature. Itihasa and Purana also do not anywhere teach that to Brahman there belongs Nescience.
Word Of The Day