And because of the denouncement.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 651 из 723Следующая ⇒

31. And because of the denouncement.

Of separateness(between Brahman and His bliss, etc.), by Shrutis such as the following, “Brahman is but one, identical with His wisdom, bliss and other qualities and His own essential parts (manifestations, etc.), and to which there is no equal or superior” (Ch. U. VI. 2. 1). “In Brahman there is not the slightest difference (as the qualified and quality)” (Kath. II. 4.11).

32. (The qualities of Brahman are of a different nature), on account of His being declared as the bridge, as that which is beyond measure (absolutely perfect), as related (the original of the reflected qualities in the sold), and as being quite distinct from those of the world.

The bliss, eta, of Brahman should not be thought to be similar to those of the world, (though they are spoken of by the same words); but they are quite distinct in nature from those of the world. For in the following texts and the like: “This bliss is the bridge that supports (Ch. VIII. 4.1);” “This which is the bliss of the perfect.” “This is the immortal glory of the Brahmana (i.e., the Lord)” (Bri. VI. 4.23), the Lord’s bliss is designated the bridge or the support of all. In the text, “That from which speech recoils” (Tait. II. 4), immeasurableness is told of the Lord (and of His excellences). In the text, “All other beings live but by a drop of the bliss of this Lord” (Bri. VI. 3.32), the relation between the Lord and the world is shown. And the separateness is shown thus: “The knowledge of the souls is a different thing, the knowledge of the perfect Lord is a different thing. For the knowledge of the Supreme is declared to be perfect, wholly and eternally of blissful and immutable nature.” Therefore on account of their being essentially different in nature from those of the world. Brahman’s bliss, etc., are surely quite distinct.

33. And became (the bliss, etc., of the soul) are perceptible.

For the very reason that the bliss, etc. of the souls are given in perception, (while those of the Lord are not), (the distinct nature of the latter is settled). The Kaundinya Shruti also says, “Unperceived, indescribable and inconceivable are the bliss, wisdom, power and strength of Brahman; hence they call Him Brahman, hence they call Him Brahman.”

Then how does that come to be designated ‘bliss’ (etc.) which is not within the range of perception in the world? In reply to this question the Sutrakara says:

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии