Saguna. Brahman is no where taught in) the Vedas, (which) uniformly describe the Nirguna Brahman only. — 10.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 22 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA I. 1. 10.

गतिसामान्यात्॥१.१.१०॥

gatisāmānyāt ..1.1.10..

… Gatah, Avagati or knowledge, the conception. …. Samanyat, because of uniformity.

10. Saguna. Brahman is no where taught in) the Vedas, (which) uniformly describe the Nirguna Brahman only. — 10.

COMMENTARY

Knowledge or information given by all the Vedas has this thing in common, that they unanimously describe that there is a Being who is intelligence personified, who is omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly pure, the Supreme Self, and the causes of the universe; and that as the fruit of worshipping Him, He gives salvation to all. This knowledge is common or uniform in all the Vedas. That being so, one Brahman is described in them. The division of Brahman into Saguna and Nirguna has no authority in the Vedas. In the Gita also we find the same. Says Si f Krishna: «Oh Dhananjaya! there is no one higher than Myself». (VII., 7). Was Shri Krishna Saguna or Nirguna?

This idea is more clearly expressed in the next Sutra, where direct Vedic texts are quoted, to show that Nirguna Brahman is the subject-matter of all the Vedas.

SUTRA I. 1. 11.

श्रुतत्वाच्च॥१.१.११॥

śrutatvācca ..1.1.11..

Shrutatvat, because of a Shruti text. Cha, and.

11. And there is direct text to show that Nirguna Brahman who is creator of the universe is the giver of salvation.) — 11.

COMMENTARY

In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad we read:

He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings, the witness, the perceiver, the only one, and Nirguna (free from qualities) (Sv. Up., VI, 11.)

Here the word Nirguna, free from all qualities, is expressly stated with regard to Brahman. Thus we know that the Nirguna Brahman is the Creator and is so described. We cannot, therefore, say that Nirguna Brahman is ineffable and inexpressible. Those who say that we can know Nirguna Brahman merely by inference and not directly, that Nirguna Brahman cannot be the Creator, because He has no desire, and that creation can proceed only from a being that has a desire, are wrong. Because, if Nirguna Brahman can not be described by any words, then nor can He be suggested by the indirect implication of any word (Lakshana). For Lakshana or suggested force of implication or secondary significance of a word can only apply to those things, which are capable of being described by words. In fact, as the Vedas say that Brahman is invisible, etc., so they also say that Brahman is Nirguna. They do not convoy the idea that Brahman is indescribable.

Objection: But how can you say that He is Nirguna and at the same time possesses the attributes described in the Upanishad that He is all-powerful, etc. For Nirguna and Saguna are mutually exclusive. Either Brahman has qualities or He has no qualities.

Answer: This is not so. The contradiction is apparent only. Those who do not understand the occult meaning of the word Nirguna think that there is contradiction. The words Nirguna, etc., apply to Brahman, by excluding from Him certain qualities included under the term Guna etc. This is the negative side of the definition: while the words Omnipotent, etc., apply to Brahman certain qualities which He possesses as His positive side. Therefore, when we say that Brahman is Nirguna, we mean thereby that He does not possess the three gunas or qualities of Prakriti: Sattva, Rajas or Tamas. But He possesses certain qualities, which form His essential nature, such as Omniscience, etc. Thus there is no contradiction. So we also find in the Puranas: «The material qualities, such as Sattva and the rest do not exist in the Lord. He is the store-house of all auspicious qualities. Therefore, He is infinite and perfectly pure. Hari the savior is the subject-matter of all the Vedas». When the Shruti says that «He is nameless, etc».. those words simply mean that He cannot be fully defined by any name, because he is infinite. They also mean that all names, so far as they denote material qualities, are not applicable to Brahman. Those who say that the words, Nirguna, etc., must be taken in their literal sense, and that Brahman is devoid of all qualities should be asked, «Do these words convey any idea of Brahman or not?» If they say, «They do convey the idea of Brahman»: then he is described by those words, and so cannot be said to be Avachya. But if those words do not convey any idea about Brahman, then it was useless to have commenced a description of Brahman by the use of those words, when they define nothing and describe nothing and convey no idea.

Here ends the commentary of the eleven Sutras which form a subsection by itself.

VERSE

Lot us have faith in that Pure, All-knowledge, All-bliss, All-pervading, Anandamaya Brahman, in whom all words find their true significance

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры