And Shruti shows that; again it is also declared by Smriti.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 645 из 723Следующая ⇒

17. And Shruti shows that; again it is also declared by Smriti.

Further the following Shruti shows that perfect bliss is the form (as well as the essence of the Lord); “By means of superior knowledge, the wise see that Brahman which (is immortal and) shines everywhere, consisting of bliss (both in essence and in form)” (Ath. U. II. 2. 8); and in the Matsya Purana the Smriti shows that the Lord’s form consists of intelligence (knowledge) thus: “The ascetic should contemplate the Lord Vasudeva, who is like pure crystal and free from all defects, as the Supreme Lord, for the purpose of increasing knowledge; he should not contemplate (as the Lord) any other than Vasudeva whose Self consists of (pure) wisdom.”

18. And (if it be said that,) for the self-same reasons, the similarity (between the Lord and souls) is the similarity i.e., absolute identity (which exists between the Lord and His manifestations, it is denied; for it (absolute identity cannot be), just as (it does not exist) between Surya (the sun), etc., and their images.

It may appear that since there is thus no difference whatever between the manifestations of the Lord mutually and since there is similarity in the soul also, the same non-difference (absolute identity of the soul with Brahman) might be supposed. To refute such a supposition the Sutrakara, having stated that the soul is an image of the Lord, by the particle ‘Cha (and) shows that he is quite distinct from Him. Shruti and Smriti declare the same thus: “ The souls stand as so many reflections with regard to the different forms of the Lord” (Br. IV. 5. 19). “Just as the many images reflected on the surface of water are like the sun, so are the little souls of the world said to be like the Lord”, and so on.

For the same reasons, that is, only on account of separateness, of dependence upon, and of likeness to, the Lord, the comparison of the images of the sun, etc., is instituted in the case of the soul, not as being conditioned by anything (like a mirror, etc.).

[An objection arises to the practice of devotion as follows. Devotion need not be practised; for it has no purpose to serve. It cannot be supposed that the seeing of Brahman is the fruit of devotion; for even by that knowledge there is nothing gained. It cannot be said that the grace of the Lord is a result of the knowledge; for even His grace is productive of no good. Nor could it be supposed that the grace of the Lord yields Moksha (i.e., final beatitude); for the Moksha consisting of eternal bliss, wisdom, etc., is but the very essence of the soul, and as such it is ever accomplished by him. Nor could it be said that devotion, etc., are necessary for the manifestation (realisation) of the existing bliss, etc.; for the manifestation of bliss, etc., to which the soul is entitled is eternally ordained; and it is just possible that nature will sometime manifest itself. Thus the seeking of means such as devotion, knowledge, etc., for the sake of release is purposeless.]

The similarity as well as the everlasting bliss, knowledge, etc., being eternally present in the nature of the soul, there seems no purpose to be served by devotion, knowledge, etc. To refute this view the Sutrakara says:

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США