Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: June 25, 2025
Nor is the Purvapakshin right when maintaining that, as the word 'ether' satisfies the demand for a special cause of the world, all other texts are to be interpreted in accordance herewith. The words, 'All these beings indeed spring from the ether only, merely give expression to something generally known, and statements of this nature presuppose other means of knowledge to prove them.
There are also formal inferences, opposed to the conclusion of the purvapakshin. The ajnana under discussion does not obscure knowledge, just because it is ajnana; as shown by the cases of the shell, &c.; for such non- knowledge hides the object.
With reference to the plea urged by the Purvapakshin that, owing to inferential marks pointing to the individual soul, and the circumstance of mention being made of the chief vital air, we must decide that the section treats of the enjoying individual soul and not of the highest Self, the Sutra remarks that this argumentation has already been disposed of, viz. in connexion with the Pratardana vidya.
The Purvapakshin holds the former view; for, he says, as mind is not the causal substance of speech, the latter cannot be merged in it; while the scriptural statement is not altogether irrational in so far as the functions of speech and other organs are controlled by the mind, and therefore may be conceived as being withdrawn into it. This view the Sutra sets aside.
All this proves that the two Sutras can be interpreted only in the way maintained by us. Here terminates the adhikarana of 'being within. A doubt here arises whether the two texts constitute one meditation or not. The two meditations are separate, the Purvapakshin maintains; for they have different characters.
Here the doubt arises whether this vidya, as being one with the previously introduced vidya, states qualities to be included in the meditation enjoined in that vidya, or qualities to be included in the meditations on the highest Self as enjoined in all the Vedanta-texts. The former is the case, the Purvapakshin holds, on account of the leading subject-matter. Up.
Let it then be said that the expression, 'Brahman is the tail, is merely figurative, in so far as Brahman is the substrate of all things imagined through avidya! But, the Purvapakshin rejoins, we may as well assume that the ascription to Brahman of joy, as its head and so on, is also merely figurative, meant to illustrate the nature of Brahman, i.e. the Self of bliss as free from all pain.
The Purvapakshin holds that, as in the case of union with the highest Self, they could not give rise to their peculiar effects, i.e. the experience of pleasure and pain, they move towards some place where they can give rise to their appropriate effects. Of this view the Sutra disposes. Up. And the doings of those elements must be viewed in such a way as to agree with Scripture.
To view a superior person, a prince e.g., as a servant would be lowering; while, on the other hand, to view a servant as a prince is exalting. Here terminates the adhikarana of 'symbols. And the ideas of Aditya and the rest on the member; on account of this being rational. Up. The Purvapakshin holds the former view.
The fact of our saying 'the jar has perished' while yet the clay persists, was referred to by the Purvapakshin as proving that the effect is something different from the cause; but this view is disproved by the view held by us that origination, destruction, and so on, are merely different states of one and the same causal substance.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking