Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 25, 2025
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the organs. Is this latter creation the work of Hiranyagarbha only, who represents the collective aggregate of all individual souls; or, fundamentally, the work of the highest Brahman having Hiranyagarbha for its body just as the creation of water e.g. is the work of the highest Brahman having sire for its body? The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative.
We read in the Chandogya, 'Being only was this in the beginning, one only, without a second. It thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. The Purvapakshin maintains that the Pradhana is meant.
Against this view the Purvapakshin now argues as follows. The Vedanta- texts do not impart knowledge of Brahman; for unless related to activity or the cessation of activity, Scripture would be unmeaning, devoid of all purpose.
The settled conclusion, therefore, is that the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is none other than the highest Self. Here terminates the adhikarana of 'heaven, earth, and so on. Up. The question now arises whether the Self called bhuman is the individual Self or the highest Self. The Purvapakshin maintains the former view.
The doubtful point, however, is whether there is option between the meditation on the abandonment of works, and that on the obtainment of works by others, and that on both these events; or whether in each case all these meditations are to be combined. There is option, the Purvapakshin holds; for the reason that the texts make different declarations on this point.
Now no doubt can possibly arise as to the existence or non-existence of this latter Self, which, in the form of joy, satisfaction, &c., is known to every one. Hence the sloka cannot refer to that Self, and hence Brahman is different from that Self. This objection, the Purvapakshin rejoins, is unfounded.
To this bhedabheda view the Purvapakshin now objects on the following grounds: The whole aggregate of Vedanta-texts aims at enjoining meditation on a non-dual Brahman whose essence is reality, intelligence, and bliss, and thus sets forth the view of non-difference; while on the other hand the karma-section of the Veda, and likewise perception and the other means of knowledge, intimate the view of the difference of things.
The Purvapakshin had remarked that the oneness of the instrumental and the material cause is neither matter of observation nor capable of proof, and that the same holds good with regard to the theory that certain non-composite substances such as ether are created things; that these points also are in no way contrary to reason, we shall show later on under Su. I, 4, 23, and Su.
Next, an enquiry is entered upon whether in the case of certain particular meditations there actually exists, or not, that non- difference of injunction which is the cause of meditations being recognised as identical. Up. I, 2; Bri. Up. The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative.
It is not to be repeated, the Purvapakshin maintains; for the highest Self is just that which is constituted by the qualities freedom from all evil, and so on and as that Self so constituted can be comprised in one meditation, there is no need of repeating the meditation on account of the qualities. This view the Sutra sets aside. The meditation has to be repeated.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking