The cause must le admitted to be none other than Brahman from the statement of challenge as to the means, etc,, and other (arguments in scripture).

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 574 из 723Следующая ⇒

14. If it be said that on account of the statement that (on release) the soul, the subject of the experiences of life becomes one with the Supreme Being, there is absolute identity we deny it; for (the statement may be explained according to the usage of the world.

In the text, “The works and the intelligent soul all become one in the immutable Supreme Lord” (Ath. III. ii. 7) the emancipated soul is said to become the supreme Being. Hence the absolute identity of the two (is established). Wherefore it may be understood even before emancipation, (i,e., in the embodied state, the soul is the same Lord, for it would not do to accept that one essentially different might become identical with another. This view we refute; for the non-distinction spoken of in the text may arise as in other cases under observation. For instance, there is actually distinction in details though the world may speak of a certain quantity of water becoming one with another quantity; so is it here too. Accordingly the Shruti says, Just as pure water poured on to(another quantity of) pure water, becomes only such (water)” (Kath. iv. 15.) The Skandapurana distinctly says this; “Some water poured together with another quantity of water only becomes mingled with it; but it does not become this or that (quantity) only; for there is seen the increase of volume. Even so the soul too, though said to be in a state of non-distinction from Brahman, does not, however, become absolutely the Lord Himself; for there exist the attributes of absolute independence, wisdom, etc., which differentiate Brahman from the soul.” And “O Hari, thou art of that pure essence and character to which it is not possible for Brahma, Rudra and other gods to attain.” “Lord, they do not make approaches to Thy glory.” (Rv. VII. 99. 1) O Vishnu, No one that was, is or will be, etc” (Rv. VII. 99. 2).

Though this question may be brought under the Fourth Adhyaya, it has been discussed here as it is also included under the contradictions of reasoning (inconsistency of passages).

In the world, the production of anything has been observed to take place with the help of various means (helps) which has an existence independent of the efficient cause (or the doer). But this is not the case with Brahman. His creation proceeds only in virtue of His essential power. For the challenge (made in Shruti as to the existence of independent materials with which Brahman’s creation might proceed) is as follows: “What place was possibly there? What means at all were there? In what form did the means exist?” (Rv. x, 81. 2). Here, place and other things (required for an ordinary agent) are not stated in reply, because there are) none. The word ‘other’ in the aphorism intimates the arguments or reasons that support the view.

(This view is further supported) by such statements (as the following) “It is the dependent being (imperfect agent) that requires aids and means to work with. What should the absolute Lord require? For He confers on the very means the virtue of being such (means). Of what avail then are the means to Him? (So He is not conditioned by the necessity of having independent means).

Познавательные статьи:



Психологические особенности спортивного соревнования

Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации

Занятость населения и рынок труда

Социальный статус семьи и её типология