And became of the absence of any statement to the effect that it is a thing to be set aside.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 520 из 723Следующая ⇒

8. And became of the absence of any statement to the effect that it is a thing to be set aside.

The Atharvana Upanishad says “Know that Atman only as the (supreme) one; abandon other words; He is the bridge of immortality.” (II. 2-5). From this injunction to discard other things and not to discard Him the Atman is not the qualified (Brahman).

9. On account of His merging into Himself.

“That is whole, this is whole, from the whole issues the whole, the whole being taken away from the whole, (still) the whole remains (Br. U. V. i-1.) “He takes out self from self, merges self into self and becomes only self.” The glorious Lord, who is. superior to and different from the persons of the world, and unlimited by the three qualities, shows himself as many, and again the unblemished Lord, the first cause becomes the individual one and goes to rest. Thus there is the scriptural declaration of His (Atman’s) withdrawing Himself into self. For it cannot be that the pure Lord merges into the qualified Atman.

And in no part of scripture is anything to the contrary said.

10. On account of the uniformity of view (conveyed by all the texts).

As Paingius’ Shruti says “all scripture and all accurate and true reasoning produce only one kind of high perception, that is, that of Brahman; hence there is no occasion whatever for contradiction in the whole body of scriptural texts, as well as in the Ithihasa”; there is but the uniformity of the knowledge (produced).

11. And because (it is so) declared in scripture.

“ He is the one supreme and illustrious Lord, who is imperceptibly present in every being, who is all pervading, who actuates all beings from within, who is the master of all action, in whom all beings dwell, who is the witness of all, who is essentially intelligence and who is unmixed with matter, and unqualified (Sv. VI-11). For what cannot be conveyed by words cannot be declared by the Shruti; and it is not fit to assume what is not established by authority; for it is not possible for words to indicate things which cannot be named (directly) by any word.

In the whole (of the remaining part) of this chapter beginning with the aphorism, “The blissful (is Brahman only) from the repetition,” Sutrakara mainly expounds the same law (by which Brahman is perceived to be the subject of the whole scripture); and in this (first Pada) it is mainly shown how the names which by usage are known to denote other things, are the names of Brahman (predicating of Him the attributes connoted by them). The subject matter of this Pada is not of any other description, as this could not be found (to be).

It has been said that Brahman ought to be enquired into. The same Brahman appears in the Taittireya Shruti (II. 52), ‘Brahman is its tail, its support’, to be a limb of Anandamaya (the blissful); but the knowledge of the part is not to be sought instead of the knowledge of the whole To remove this objection (and to establish the necessity for the proposed enquiry into Brahman), the Sutrakara advances this aphorism.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?