Brahman is both bliss and blissful, as one indivisible Time is said to be) prior (and posterior). — 340.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 311 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA III. 2. 30.

पूर्ववद्वा॥३.२.३०॥

pūrvavadvā ..3.2.30..

.. Purvavat, as in the. prior time. .. Va, or.

30. (Brahman is both bliss and blissful, as one indivisible Time is said to be) prior (and posterior). — 340.

COMMENTARY

Or to take another illustration. As time is a duration, and has neither priority nor posteriority in it, but is one, and yet is spoken of as prior and posterior, and itself becomes the measure and the measured, so also Brahman is both knowledge and the knower, both blissful and bliss: both the attribute and the thing having an attribute. This illustration from time is meant for subtler intellects, as that of serpent and his coils was for dull-witted. In fact, each succeeding illustration is subtler than the one given in the preceding Sutra. As it is in the Brahma Purana (Padma according to Madhva):

Through Brahman is non-different from bliss (He is bliss and blissful), yet conventionally He is spoken of as separate from bliss (as possessing bliss), just like the light (in the case of the sun, which is both light and the abode of light); or like prior and posterior time, where the indivisible Time becomes its own measure.

SUTRA III. 2. 31.

प्रतिषेधाच्च॥३.२.३१॥

pratiṣedhācca ..3.2.31..

… Pratishedhat, because of the denouncement or prohibition Cha, and: has the force of ‘only’: exclusion.

31. And because of the prohibition (in the Scriptures, which declare that the Lord and His attributes are not to be considered as different). — 350.

COMMENTARY

Thus in the Katha Upanishad (II., 4. 11 and 14):

Even through the purified mind this knowledge is to be obtained, (hat there is no difference whatsoever here (in the attributes of (ho Lord). From death to death he goes, who beholds this here with difference.

As water falling on an inaccessible mountain top runs down, thus seeing the qualities of the Lord as separate from the Lord a man runs down to Darkness.

Nor is there any Svagata-bheda in the Lord, as the following text of the Narada Pancharatra shows:

The Lord is an entity having perfect and faultless qualities, He is the Atman or the Self and free from all the attributes of the body consisting of insentient matter. He too has a body — hands, feet, face, stomach, etc., but all of pure bliss (not of matter). That Atman is everywhere and always devoid of internal differences also.

Thus these texts prohibit any difference between the quality and the qualified, and consequently the qualities of the Lord (are not accidents, as is generally the case with all qualities, but) are the essential nature of the Lord. Therefore, the qualities like knowledge, etc., are sometimes designated by the term «Lord». As says the Vishnu Purana: …

«The word Lord denotes infinite knowledge, power, strength, lordliness, energy and lustre, without the admixture of any baser qualities».

Thus these qualities are called Bhagavan or Lord. The two (the Lord and His attributes) are spoken of separately — though they are essentially one — just as the water and its waves are spoken of separately as two, though’ it is all one water. The difference arises from this Vishesha. Therefore, the Lord who is ever joy and bliss, is said to be joyful and blissful and to have a body of all delight. All these qualities of the Lord are eternal, and consequently (hat body of the Lord is also eternal, Though there is no distinction (Vishesha strictly so called) here between the quality and the qualified, yet for conventional purposes such a (Vishesha) distinction is recognised and spoken of as such. If this conventional (Vishesha) distinction be not Admitted, then the sentences like the following would also become absurd (for they are really tautologies when logically analysed): «The being exists», «the time always exists», «the space is everywhere». All these sentences are logical tautologies, but they are of constant use and good as conventions. Nor can it be said that such a usage is erroneous and is based upon delusion. For the phrase «the Be-ness exists» conveys as true an information as the sentence «the jar exists». For there is no subsequent experience which sublates this knowledge Nor is the sentence «the Re-ness exists», is a superimposition or a figurative speech like «Devadatta is a lion». For we can never say of Be-ness that it does not exist, as we can say of Devadatta that he is not a lion. Nor can it be said that such a usage is a natural one, though there is no concrete content of any substance in these sentences like «the Be-ness exists». The very fact that such usage is natural shows that in these sentences also there is a Vishesha. The existence of such Vishesha is suggested by the expressive illustration of the water flowing down a hill. The man who makes a distinction between the Lord and His attributes goes down to darkness, like the water that falls on a mountain top. In that verse there is a prohibition of all difference between the Lord and His attributes which are described there. In the absence of such conventional difference, there cannot be the possibility of the relationship of quality and qualified, merely because there are many qualities. The category called Vishesha (the specific attribute) therefore exists, oven here, though it is not here separate from the substance, but still has a particular function of its own. Nor is it open to the objection of regressus in. infinitum, that a Vishesha must have a Vishesha of its own, and so on. For we have said above, that the Vishesha here though not separable from the substance (i.e., the Lord) has a function of its own with regard to that substance. Therefore, the existence of Vishesha is proved here also, as it is an invariable concomitant of the substance to which it appertains.

Note: The whole discussion about Vishesha is necessitated by the fact that there is a theory held by some Nyaiyayikas that qualities are non-eternal, and are accidental. Some deny also the category called Vishesha. The substance alone is eternal and the Vishesha is non-eternal. In this view, the Vishesha or the quality becomes non-eternal, if it exists at all. The qualities of the Lord also become non-eternal. But in the case of Brahman the qualities are eternal; therefore, Vishesha, which is ordinarily different from the substance, becomes the substance in the case of the Lord. The quality becomes the qualified the Vishesha becomes the Dharmin.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника прыжка в длину с разбега

Тактические действия в защите

История Олимпийских игр

История развития права интеллектуальной собственности