Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 22, 2025
Kritante Sankara takes it as an adjective of Sankhye and thinks that the reference is to the Vedanta. Sreedhara also seems to be of the same opinion. The substratum is the body. The agent is the person that thinks himself to be the actor. The organs are those of perception etc. The efforts are the actions of the vital winds Prana, etc.
This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. The being made of mind is the highest Self; for the text states certain qualities, such as being made of mind, &c., which are well known to denote, in all Vedanta- texts, Brahman only. Up. Up. Up. Up. Up. Up. Up. Or else we may interpret the Vedic text and the Sutra as follows.
His greatest achievement was his exposition of the Vedânta, of which I treat elsewhere.
Since the world springs from Brahman, is merged in Brahman, and depends on Brahman for its life, therefore as the text says 'All this has its Self in Brahman'; and this shows to us that what the text understands by Brahman is that being from which, as generally known from the Vedanta texts, there proceed the creation, and so on, of the world.
It might appear, we reply, that the Vedanta should be supported by the Yoga-smriti, firstly, because the latter admits the existence of a Lord; secondly, because the Vedanta-texts mention Yoga as a means to bring about final Release; and thirdly, because Hiranyagarbha, who proclaimed the Yoga-smriti is qualified for the promulgation of all Vedanta-texts.
So shall he enter into his kingdom, and go no more out. A discerning which is carried on without wavering is the means of liberation. Here we come close to the pure Vedanta, with its discernment between the eternal and the temporal. St. Paul, following after Philo and Plato, lays down the same fundamental principle: the things seen are temporal, the things unseen are eternal.
The Mâyâ of the Vedanta is not so much the affirmation of the will to live as the illusion that we have a real existence apart from Brahman, and the same may be said of Ahaṃkâra in the Sânkhya philosophy. It is the principle of egoism and individuality, but its essence is not so much self-assertion as the mistaken idea that this is mine, that I am happy or unhappy.
Now there arises the question, What are the characteristics of that Self? and in reply to it there come in texts such as 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman'; 'Being only this was in the beginning, one without a second. As these texts give the required special information, they stand in a supplementary relation to the injunctions, and hence are means of right knowledge; and in this way the purport of the Vedanta- texts includes Brahman as having a definite place in meditation which is the object of injunction.
The Sankya philosophy is severely dualistic and even has little use, if indeed it has any place, for the Divine Being. On the other hand, the Vedanta is uncompromisingly monistic. Its pantheism is of the highest spiritualistic type and is radically opposed to the materialism of the Sankya school.
The Vedânta and Sânkhya are really, if less obviously, similar clearings. They raise no objection to popular divinities but such divinities do not come within the scope of religious philosophy as they understand it. We have hitherto been occupied with obscure and shadowy personalities. The authors of the Upanishads are nameless and even MahâvÎra is unknown outside India.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking