Indeed it is altogether destitute of colour or form; for it is the Supreme thing and ruler (of all that consists of colour and form viz., (Prakriti, &c.).

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 643 из 723Следующая ⇒

11. Even from the difference of place, no essential difference between the manifestations of the Lord should not be supposed (to arise); for (Shruti declares of Him the identical character) everywhere (i.e., in all places and in all manifestations).

Even from difference of places or positions, no manifestation of the Lord becomes different from Him. The Shruti says, “The wise say that this Lord only is Brahman (of perfect excellences) present in all bodies (celestial, human, etc.), in all places (the eye, etc.) (At. III. 2.3).” It is said in the Matsya Purana, “The Lord Vishnu is of identical essence (in all His various forms) in all places and positions (in respect of qualities, powers etc.), for He is the Supreme Lord of all powers, and so though He is of one (immutable) essence and form, He is observed to be of many forms like the Sun.” So also the Bhagavata says; “As the wise know Him to be One only like the Sun, present in many forms with reference to every eye, so I, having shaken off the wrong notion of difference (between the manifestations of the Lord), understand this Krishna to be the unborn (eternal) Lord, seated in various forms, each almighty, in the heart of every one of the embodied beings created by Himself.”

12. If it be said that the identity cannot be admitted on account of statements declaring difference, (we reply), the objection is not valid, on account of the distinct statement in each contend of the absence of difference.

It may be said that the identity of Vishva, Taijasa, etc., the manifestations of the Lord, cannot be maintained on account of the Shruti declaring difference between them and implying the relation of being the support and the supported, between the Lord and those manifestations, “Those two, Vishva and Taijasa, are confined to the cause and effect, but Pragna is confined to the cause only. But both these (relations) cease to be in the fourth” (Man. II. 16). But this view is wrong; for in Shrutis, the Lord declared to be present in various places as Prithivi, etc., is at each step shown to be identical with His own supreme essence in, “He is thy Lord, the immortal guide within thee, etc.” (Bri. V. 7. 3). Similarly the non-difference mutually between the manifestations of the Lord, is declared in, “He who is the perfect light, the absolutely immortal, etc., is the same Lord spoken of as the inner guide; and this is the thing eternally blessed and all this world is itself (dependent upon) Brahman” (Bri. IV. 5. 1), Again the non-difference of the various manifestations from the one all-pervading essence of the Lord is declared in, “The ten named Hari are He indeed; the hundred named Narayana, Hari, etc., the thousand named Vishva, etc.; the many named Para, etc., the innumerable named Ajita, Hari, etc., are indeed He only; and all this multitude of forms are but Brahman the perfect which has nothing before it, nothing after it, nothing second to it, nothing without it; but which encompasses everything else; and this Brahman is the Lord of all powers and perfect wisdom (who directly perceives every thing.) This is the meaning of the Rik.” (Bri. IV. 5. 19).

13. And also some (sakhins read) thus:

Thus, i.e., as absolutely non-different; and also as having innumerable identical forms, some sakhins read of Him in their texts (thus): “Though destitute of separate parts, He is of unlimited parts (which are all wholes) of identical essence; He is the cause of ending all mistaken notions (wrong knowledge); he is the sage who knows that Lord that is declared by the sacred syllable ‘Om’ and consists of bliss” (Man. IV. 7). Again the statement of separateness, while the non-difference really exists, proceeds from the difference of places and positions themselves as well as from the inconceivable power of the Lord, and as such it is consistent. It is also said in the Brahma Tarka, “Though the Supreme Lord is destitute of all defects and un-assailed by shortcomings, still being the witness and the author of bondage, etc., (all the states to which the beings are subject). He is called Baddha (that which is bound). Similarly though the Lord is essentially of individual character (devoid of parts), still he is spoken of as different individuals on account of His being present in things that are separate.”

It has been said that the Lord is of different hues and forms; but that would 1 involve destructibility. In reply to this objection, the Sutrakara says:

The perfect Being is certainly not a thing which has colour or form; for He is Superior to (Prakriti), the entity of matter and its products, since He is the sole guide and ruler of their activity. The particle ‘indeed’ points to the text, “He is neither large nor atomic,” etc., (Bri. V. 8.8). And it is also said in the Matsya Purana, “The colour and forms are the products of the elements and He is far above the influence of, and different from, the elements; hence He is called the colorless or formless; and possibly material colour and form cannot be supposed to be found in Him when He is far above the subtle material cause as well as above its presiding deity.”

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии