rutestu śabdamūlatvāt ..2.1.27..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 151 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 1. 27.

श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्॥२.१.२७॥

śrutestu śabdamūlatvāt ..2.1.27..

..: Shruteh, from the scripture, on account of revelation. … Tu, but. … Shabda, word. Revelation. Mulatvat, because of the root.

27. But the above defects do not apply in the case of Brahman, because the scriptures so declare it, and the Word of God alone is the root from which we learn anything about these transcendental subjects. — 163.

COMMENTARY

The word «Tu» removes the above doubt, The word «not» is understood in this Sutra, and is to be drawn from II., 1. 24. In the case of Brahman being the agent, the above imperfections do not apply. Why do we say so, because the scripture declares it to be so, such as: Brahman is transcendental, inconceivable, pure knowledge and yet He has a form, He is possessed of knowledge; and though He is one, He is manifold also, and though He is partless, He has parts, and though He is immeasurable, he is yet measured, He is the creator of all, yet unmodified Himself. Similarly, in the Mundaka Upanishad, III., 1. 7.

The Lord shines forth as great, divine and inconceivable. He appears as smaller than the smallest, He is far off as well as near, and to the discerning, He is verily here in the cavity of the heart.

This text also shows the paradoxical and transcendental powers of Brahman. Similarly, another text says: Lord Govinda is without parts, is one, His form is mere existence, intelligence and bliss. While another text says: He has a crown of peacock hair, has a very pleasant form and unobstructed intelligence. In the Gopala Upanishad we read, though one He shines forth as many. In the Mandukya Upanishad, we find Him described as partless and yet having parts:

He who knows the Lord as partless and yet full of infinity of parts, as the destroyer of all false knowledge and blissful, is verily a sage and no one else; he is verily a sage arid no one else.

Similarly, in the Kathopanishad (II., 20) we find Him. described as measured though immeasurable:

Sitting He goes afar, resting He moves everywhere, who other than my Self is able to know that God who is the dispenser of pleasure and pain.

So also Rig Veda, 10, 81. 3, (Shvet. Up., III., 3) says:

That one God, having His eyes, His face, His arms, and His feet in every place, when producing heaven and earth, forges them together with His arms and His wings.

So, also in Shvetashvatara Upanishad, IV., 17, 16:

This God is the creator of all, is the Highest Self, He is always present in the hearts of men, with heart of love and the mind concentrated, the wise who know Him verily become immortal.

He is the creator of all, He is the heart of all, the source of Saman, the Omniscient, the Creator of time, possessed of all auspicious attributes and knowing all. He is the Lord of all matter and spirits, He is the Lord of all Gunas, He is the cause of transmigratory existence and release, bondage and freedom.

So also in VI., 19:

He is partless and actionless, pore and taintless, all peace. He is the supreme bridge of immortality, He is like fire that remains when the fuel is all burnt.

These texts of Shvetashvatara Upanishad show very distinctly the possession by the Lord of powers which appear to us self-contradictory, and : hence impossible. But in matters transcendental, we are to be guided by scripture and not by our mere reasoning.

But, says an objector, are we to renounce our reason in favour of scripture, when there is pure contradiction, such as the assertion, the tire has drenched the cloth? Is not such a statement a logical absurdity? To this the Sutra replies, «Shabda-mulatvat». The knowledge of Brahman and His attributes being founded on the scripture, and the scripture alone, we have no right to say that the scriptures are illogical, if they describe God as having attributes which are paradoxical. These inconceivable attributes must be accepted by us with regard to Brahman, because the only proof of Brahman is the word alone. Nor is it so mysterious altogether. We see some distant analogy of it in the inconceivable powers of certain gems and charms to produce magical effects. Because a thing is inexplicable or inconceivable, there is no reason to hold it impossible.

To sum up: There are three sorts of proofs, namely: sensuous (Pratyaksha), inferential (Anumana) and scriptural authority or the word of God (Shabda). In the case of the first two kinds of knowledge, there is always room for mistake and hallucination. Thus a sensuous perception may be a pure hallucination, caused either by hypnotic suggestion or disease of the senses. A man may see a person standing in front of him, or the cut off head of Chitra, while as a matter of fact this may be all duo to pure hypnotism. Thus ‘Pratyaksha» or sense-knowledge is not always absolutely reliable. Similarly, the knowledge based upon inference is also liable to error. Ordinarily, the proposition is true when we say, ‘There is no smoke without fire»; but in some cases, the person would not be justified in inferring the existence of fire from mere smoke. A great fire, when quenched by water, gives rise to a large amount of smoke, a person seeing such smoke and suffering from cold may go to the place where that smoke is rising from, but will be disappointed when he sees there charred coals and no fire. Thus inference is also liable to error. The only proof which is free from all these possibilities of errors is the word, whether it is the word of God as recorded in the scripture or the word of an inspired sage called Apta or the perfect, or the word of a person who is competent and honest. Thus the statements. «There is snow on the tops of the Himalayas, there are gems in the depths of the Oceans» are always true. The word not only corroborates perception and reason, it is sometimes independent of both, and often declares that which neither reason nor perception can ever tell us. Thus a man who has been once deceived by seeing an illusory decapitated head may take a real decapitated head to be an illusion. But when he is told, from the voice of silence, that it is a real head and not an illusion, his ignorance is removed and he gets true knowledge. So also a traveller suffering from cold, may be running towards the place where smoke is rising, thinking that he will find relief there. But a person who knows the real nature of that smoke, may save him from disappointment by saying, «Do not go there, there is no fire, smoke is rising from the fire that has just been quenched by the rains».

The word as an instrument of proof supports and corroborates perception and inference. Thus a man may have a jewel necklace on his throat, but having forgotten it may be searching it everywhere. But when he is told, «Thou hast the necklace on thy throat»; he is saved all further trouble and anxiety. So also the word is the only means of knowing things which cannot be known either by perception or reason, or at least, which cannot be known by every man by his own perception and reason. Thus the movements of the heavenly bodies and their influences, have been declared to us by the astronomers and the experts in that department The word, therefore, of these persons is our only means of knowing when a certain celestial phenomenon will take place, such as an eclipse or the rising of a comet. Thus here also we see, that the word is a higher means of knowledge, than our own perception or reason. In worldly matters, the word is admittedly superior in its probative force to perception and reason. Much more is it so in matters other-worldly, where we have to d» pend on the testimony of seers and saints, and the highest testimony of all, the word of God or Scripture. As says the Shruti:

«The non-knower of Vedas can never think even of the Supreme».

Therefore, the scripture being self-proved, is not open to any objections.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры