sanskrit
stringlengths 4
615
| english
stringlengths 2
1.3k
|
|---|---|
nākrame tu vastuni pariṇāmaḥ siddhyed iti bhinnakramastuśabdaḥ / | The Answer is supplied by the following Text: [see verse 139 above] In a thing in regard to which there was no ‘Sequence’, however, ‘modification’ would not be possible; |
evam tāvat pariṇāmakṛtaṃ śabdamayatvaṃ bhāvānāṃ na yuktam // | the term ‘tu’, ‘however’, is to be construed with ‘akrame From this it follows that it cannot be right to regard Things as ‘consisting of Sound’, through ‘modification’, (139) |
nāpi dvitīyaḥ pakṣo yujyata iti darśayann āha athāpītyādi / | The following Text proceeds to show that the other alternative cannot be maintained: [see verse 140 next] |
athāpi kāryarūpeṇa śabdabrahmamayaṃ jagat / tathāpi nirvikāratvāt tato naiva kramodayaḥ // | If the world be regarded as ‘consisting of sound’ in the form of ‘product’ (not eternal), even so, as sound would be unmodifiable, there could be no sequential appearance. |
evam api śabdasya nityatvenāvikāritvāt tataḥ krameṇa kāryādayo na prāpnoti / | Even so, as Sound is eternal (ex hypothesi), and hence unmodifiable, it is not possible for the Products to appear sequentially; |
sarveṣām avikalāpratibaddhasāmarthyakāraṇādyugapadevotpādaḥ syāt / | in fact, all things should appear simultaneously, as being the effects of equally perfect cause of unobstructed potency. |
kāraṇavaikalyāddhi kāryāṇi pratilambante taccedavikalaṃ tatkimaparamapekṣeran / yena yugapan na bhaveyuḥ // | In fact, the appearance of effects is delayed only when there is some imperfection in the Cause; if the Cause is perfect, therefore, for what would the effect wait, and hence not appear simultaneously? (140) |
anyo 'nyarūpasambhūtau tasmād ekasvarūpataḥ / vivṛttamartharūpeṇa kathaṃ nāma taducyate // | If, from sound which is of one form always, diverse forms are produced, then how is it that the world is spoken of as ‘evolved’ in the form of the object? (141) |
api ca yadi tasmād ekasvabhāvācchabdātmano 'nyānyasya svabhāvasyotpattiraṅīkriyate tadā tadbrahma vivṛttamartharūpeṇetyetan na siddhyet na hyarthāntarasyotpāde 'nyasya tatsvabhāvamanāviśastastādrūpyeṇa vivarto yuktaḥ / | Further, if it is admitted that out of Sound, which is of one form only, various diverse forms are produced, then it will not be true to say that ‘Brahman evolves into the form of the Object’; because it is not right that when a different thing is produced, one thing should evolve out of another in that form, without actually entering into that form itself. |
tasmāt sarvathāpi pratijñārtho nāvakalpate // | Thus the Proposition set up by the other Party cannot be maintained in any way at all. |
śabdākārānusyūtatvād iti ca hetur asiddha iti darśayann āha atadrūpetyādi / atadrūpaparāvṛttamṛdrūpatvopalabdhitaḥ / | Another reason put forward (in support of the view that the World is produced out of Sound) is “because all things are permeated with Sound-forms”; the following Text proceeds to show that this Reason is ‘unproven’, ‘Inadmissible’: [see verses 142-143 above] |
na hi bhāvānāṃ paramārthenaikarūpānugamo 'sti / | As a matter of fact, there can be no one comprehensive notion of all things; |
sarveṣāṃ svasvabhāvavyavasthitatayā samānajātīyavyāvṛttasvabhāvatvāt / kālpanikaṃ tu vijātīyavyāvṛttikṛtamekākārānusyūtatvameṣāṃ vyavasthāpyate / | everything has its own specific character, and thereby differentiated from homogeneous as well as heterogeneous things; whenever they are regarded as permeated by a common character, it is only an assumption based upon the fact of that character serving to differentiate them from such, other things as are heterogeneous; |
yathā ghaṭaśarāvodañcanādiṣu paramārthato bhinneṣvapyamṛdātmakapadārthavyāvṛttikṛto mṛdātmā kalpyate tatra / | for instance, in the case of such things as the Jar, the öup and the Pail, etc. even though these are really distinct from, each other, the common character of ‘Clay’ is assumed, on the basis of the exclusion of all that is not-Clay. |
tadapi kālpanikameṣāṃ nīlādīnāṃ śabdākārānusyūtatvaṃ na sambhavati / na hi nīlapitādiṣu śabdarūpamupalabhāmahe / | Even this assumed ‘uniformness’, consisting of being permeated by the nature of Sound, is not possible in the case of the things in question, such as, the Blue, the Yellow and the like because we do not perceive the Sound-character in the Blue, the Yellow and such things; |
anupalabhamānāś ca kathamaśabdātmakavyāvacchedakṛtaṃ śabdākārānusyūtatvaṃ kalpayāmaḥ / tasmād abījeyaṃ kalpanetyasiddho hetuḥ //142- | and when you do not perceive such a uniform character in them, how can it be assumed that, being permeated by Sound-character is due to the preclusion of what is not of the nature of Sound? Thus the assumption is entirely baseless and hence the reason is ‘unproven’, ‘Inadmissible’. |
athāvibhāgamevedaṃ brahmatattvaṃ sadā sthitam / | If it be held that “Brahman in its essence remains ever undifferentiated; |
avidyopaplavālloko vicitraṃ tvabhimanyate // | it is only under disturbance due to ignorance that people regard it as diverse”. |
athāpi syād avibhaktam eva sadā brahmātmakaṃ tattvamavikāri paramārthato 'vasthitam / | The following view might be urged by the Opponent: “The one Principle of Brahman remains always undifferentiated, essentially unmodified in reality, there is no modification of It; |
na tasya paramārthena pariṇāmaḥ kintvavidyātimiropahatabuddhilocanā nīlādibhedena vicitram iva manyante / | what happens is that people having their minds and eyes clouded by the darkness of Ignorance, regard It as diverse, in such forms as the Blue and the like. |
yathoktam yathā viśuddham ākāśaṃ timiropapluto janaḥ / | This has been thus declared: ‘Even though Ākāśa (Space) is pure, yet obsessed by darkness, people come to regard it as limited and made up of diversified parts; |
tathedam amṛtaṃ brama nirvikāramavidyayā / kaluṣatvam ivāpannaṃ bhedarūpaṃ vivartataḥ // | in the same manner, though Brahman is immortal and unmodifiable, yet It appears to be sullied by Nescience and hence diversely modified’, Under the circumstances, there would be no such absurdity as all things occupying the same point in Space; |
saṃvidbhedaś ca bhaviṣyati avidyopaplavakṛtatvāt tasyeti bhāvaḥ // | because in reality all things are non-entities, therefore there would be diversity in their cognitions also, the diversity being due to the oscillations of Nescience”. |
tatrāpītyādinā pratividyatte | The above argument is answered by the following Texts: [see verse 145 next] |
tatrāpi vedyate rūpamavidyopaplutair janaiḥ / yannīlādiprakāreṇa tyāgādāne nibandhanam // tadrūpavyatirekeṇa brahmarūpamalakṣitam / kathaṃ vyutthitacetobhir astitvena pratīyate // | Even so, what is actually perceived in the form of blue and the; rest by persons tramelled by nescience which form serves as the basis of rejecting and acquiring certain things, apart from that form, what is there in the form of ‘Brahman’, unperceived, which could be cognised as ‘existing by persons whose mind has risen above (the shackles of nescience)? (145-146) |
[p.73] pramāṇavaśāddhi prameyasattāvyavasthitiḥ; na caivaṃ rūpasya brahmaṇaḥ siddhaye kiñcana pramāṇamasti / | The existence of the cognisable thing can be established only by means of Proofs (Means of Cognition); there is however no proof for (means of cognising) the existence of Brahman as postulated. |
na hi nīlāder hitāhitaprāptiparihārādhiṣṭhānād vyatiriktam aparaṃ brahmarūpaṃ pratibhāsate / | For instance, It cannot be proved by Perception, as Brahman does not appear in any form other than the Blue and the rest as the basis of such activity as rejecting and acquiring; |
apratibhāsamānaṃ ca kathaṃ tadvyutthitacetobhir nyāyamārgāvasthitair astitvena pratīyatām //145- | and when It does not appear at all (in any pure form of Its own), how could It be cognised as existing, by persons whose minds have risen (above the shackles of Nescience) and are centred on the path of Reason? (145-146) |
na tat pratyakṣataḥ siddham avibhāgamabhāsanāt / | The undifferentiated Brahman cannot be proved by perception, because it never appears in that form; |
nityādutpattyayogena kāryaliṅgaṃ ca tatra na // | and as nothing can be produced from what is eternal, there can be no probans in the form of an effect (which could lead to the inference of Brahman); |
dharmisatvāprasiddhes tu na svabhāvaḥ prasādhakaḥ / | and as the very existence of the thing itself (Brahman) is still unproved, no character of its own could serve as the probans leading to the inference (of the said Brahman); |
na caitadatirekeṇa liṅgaṃ sattāprasādhakam // | and apart from these two, there can be no probans which could prove the existence (of Brahman). |
syād etat / svasaṃvedanapratyakṣata eva tatsiddhaṃ jñānātmarūpatvāt / | The following might be urged (by the other party): “The said Brahman is proved by Its own cognition, since it is of the nature of Consciousness itself. |
tathā hi jyotis tadeva śabdātmakatvāccaitanyarūpatvācceti / | For instance, Brahman Itself is Light, because It is of the essence of Sound, and because it is of the nature of Intelligence.” |
tadetat svasaṃvedanaviruddham / | This however is contrary to our own experience; |
tathā hyanyatra gatamānaso 'pi cakṣuṣā rūpamīkṣamāṇo 'nādhiṣṭhā{dista}bhilāpam eva nīlādipratyayamanubhavatīti / | for instance, even when one has his mind wandering elsewhere, when looking with his eyes upon Colour, one has such non-determinate perception of the Blue and such things as is free from verbal expression; |
etac ca vistareṇa pratipādayiṣyate / | this is going to be explained in detail later on. |
etena yaduktam na so 'sti pratyayo loke ityādi tadapi prayuktaṃ bhavati / | This also sets aside what has been asserted as to “there being no cognition in the world which is not associated with words”. |
tasmād avibhāgaṃ śabdamayaṃ brahma na pratyakṣataḥ siddham / | From all this it follows that the undifferentiated Brahman of the essence of Sound cannot be proved by Perception. |
nāpyanumānataḥ / | Nor can It be proved by Inference. |
tathā hyanumānaṃ bhavatkāryaliṅgaṃ bhavet / svabhāvaliṅgam vā / | If there were an Inference (of Brahman) it could be based on a Probans in the form of an Effect (of that Brahman), or in that of the nature of Brahman Itself. |
anupalabdhes tu pratiṣedhaviṣayatvād vidhāvanadhikāra eva / | As for mere Non-apprehension, it can have only negation for its object, and can have no influence upon an affirmation (such as that of the Existence of Brahman). |
tatra na tāvat kāryaliṅgam nityātkasyacitkāryasyānupapatteḥ kramayaugapadyābhyāṃ nityasyārthakriyāvirodhāt / | Now, there can be no Probans in the form of an Effect, because no effect can proceed from what is eternal; because any fruitful action either consecutive or concurrent would be repugnant to the very nature of the eternal Thing. |
nāpi svabhāvaliṅgam asti / | Nor can there be a Probans in the shape of the nature of Brahman Itself; |
tasyaiva brahmākhyasya dharmiṇo 'siddheḥ / | because the Thing itself, in the form of Brahman, is still not established; |
na hyasiddhe dharmiṇi tatsvabhāvabhūto dharmaḥ svātantryeṇa siddhyet / | and so long as the Thing itself has not been established, no nature or character of it can be established independently by Itself. |
anyat tarhi liṅgaṃ bhaviṣyatītyāha na caitad ityādi / | It might be urged that there may be some other Probans (apart from the two just mentioned). In answer to this, it is added Apart from these, etc.; |
svabhāvakāryavyatirekeṇānyasya sādhyārthapratibandhābhāvāt / | i.e. apart from Nature and Effect, there is nothing that can prove your Probandum; as no other Probans would be invariably concomitant with it; |
na cāpratibaddhaṃ liṅgaṃ yuktam atiprasaṅgāt / | and what is not invariably concomitant cannot serve as a Probans; |
yadapi ca śabdarūpānvayatvaṃ bhāvānāmuktam / | It has been asserted that Things are associated with Sound-forms; |
tadasiddhatvād alīkatvāc ca na śabdarūpatve pāramārthikaṃ brahmaṇaḥ sādhayitum alam / nāpyāgamāt tasya siddhis tasyānavasthitatvāt / | such association has not been proved, and is absolutely false; and as such cannot prove the fact of Brahman being really of the essence of Sound. Nor can such a Brahman be proved by Scripture; as the character of ‘Scripture’ itself is uncertain. |
yadyapyanupalambhākhyam asti liṅgam / | ‘Non-apprehension’ also is a sort of Indication (Probans); |
tat tu svabhāvahetovevāntargatam iti bhāvaḥ / | but that is included under what has been mentioned already as ‘Nature’. |
api ca jñānamātrārthakaraṇe 'pyayogyaṃ brahma gamyatām / | Nor can this ‘Non-apprehension’ serve to prove Existence; |
tadayogyatayā rūpaṃ taddhyavastutvalakṣaṇam / | and it is Existence that is desired to be proved; |
ityetat pratipādayannāha jñānaṃ jñeyakramāt siddham ityādi / | this is what is meant by the phrase which could prove the existence of Brahman. |
jñānaṃ jñeyakramāt siddhaṃ kramavatsarvamanyathā / | All consciousness must be consecutive, as it must follow the order of sequence of the objects cognised; |
yaugapadyena tat kāryaṃ vijñānamanuṣajyate // jñānamātre 'pi naivāsya śakrarūpaṃ tataḥ param / | if it were not so, its effect in the form of cognition would come about simultaneously. hence even in the effect in the form of ‘cognition’, there is nothing, apart from the rejecting and acquiring, which could be within the powers of brahman; |
bhavatīti prasaktāsya vandhyāsūnusamānatā // | so that it becomes reduced to the position of the ‘son of the barren woman’. |
[p.74] etac ca pūrvamīśvaraparīkṣāyāṃ prasādhitam / | A further elucidation of this is supplied in the following Text: [see verses 149-150 above] All this has been proved under the section dealing with ‘God’ (in Text 89). |
tataḥ param iti / | ‘Tataḥ param’, ‘apart from that’; |
tyāgādānanibandhanānnīlādeḥ paramanyadity arthaḥ / | i.e. other than the Blue and other things which form the basis of the acts of rejecting and acquiring. |
yadi vā tata iti nigamanam / | Or the term ‘tataḥ’ may be taken as the re-assertion of the Conclusion; |
param iti tyāgādānanibandhanānnīlādeḥ paramanyad ity arthaḥ / yadi vā tata iti nigamanam / param iti tātvikam / | the meaning being that ‘it is something apart from the Blue and other things which form the basis of the acts of Rejecting and Acquiring’, Or the term ‘tataḥ’ may be taken as the re-assertion of the Conclusion, in the form ‘therefore it is true, real’. |
vandhyāsūnusamānateti / | The position of the ‘Son of the Barren Woman’; |
na hi vandhyāsūnoravastutvavyavasthāyām arthakriyāsāmarthyavirahavyatirekeṇānyannibandhanam asti //149- | for regarding the ‘Son of the Barren Woman’ as a non-entity, there is no reason apart from the fact of his being incapable of effective action. |
athedam ucyate taṃ tu paraṃ brahmātmānamabhyudayaniḥśreyasaphaladharmānugṛhītāntaḥkaraṇāyogina eva paśyantīti tadapi nopapadyata iti darśayati viśuddhetyādi / viśuddhajñānasantānā yogino 'pi tato na tat / | For the same reason even mystics with their ‘chain of pure consciousness’ do not know that form of brahman; as the necessary connection could be possible only after an action of the cognition itself. The following might be urged: “The said essence of Supreme Brahman is perceived only by such Yogins (Mystics) as have their mind aided by Merit leading to Prosperity and Highest Good”. This also is not possible; |
vidanti brahmaṇo rūpaṃ jñāne vyāpṛtya saṅgateḥ // yadi hi jñāne yogaje tasya vyāpāraḥ syāt tadā yoginas tasya rūpaṃ paśyantīti syāt / | this is what is shown by the following Text: [ see verse 151 above] If the Mystic had operated upon the cognition born of mystic communion, then it might be admitted that Mystics perceive that form of Brahman. |
yāvatā yathoktena prakāreṇa jñāne tasya vyāpārābhāvād ayuktam etat / | As it is, however, in the manner shown above, no such operation is possible; hence this view cannot be right. |
syād etan na tadviṣayajñānotpattyā yoginas taṃ paśyanti / | “When Mystics perceive that form of Brahman, it is not through the appearance of cognition relating to it; |
tadvyatiriktasya yogino yogijñānasya cābhāvāt / | as apart from that, neither the Mystic nor the mystic cognition has any existence; |
kintu yogitvāvasthāyāṃ svamātmānaṃ jyotīrūpaṃ tatprakāśamānaṃ yoginastaṃ paśyantīti / | what happens is that during the mystic state, Mystics perceive It as their own self, in the form of Light effulgent”, |
ucyate / yadyevaṃ prāgayogitvāvasthāyāṃ kiṃ tasya rūpam iti vācyam / | The answer to this is as follows: If it is so, then it has to be explained what the Brahman’s form is prior to the mystic state. |
yadi sadaiva jyotīrūpaṃ tadā tarhi na kadācid ayogitvāvasthāsti sadaivātmajyotīrūpatvād brahmaṇaḥ / | If It is always of the form of Light effulgent, then there can be no state which is not-mystic; as ex hypothesi, Brahman is ever of the nature of the effulgent light of Self; |
tataścāyatnataḥ sarveṣāṃ mokṣaprasaṅgaḥ / | so that the Liberation of all beings would be accomplished without effort. |
athāpi syād yathā bhavatāṃ svapnādyavasthāsu jñānamadvayam api vicitrākāraparigraheṇa pratibhāsate tathā tadadvayamapyavidyāvaśād aviśuddhasantatīnāṃ tathā prakāśata iti / | It is possible that the following might be urged: “Just as for you, Buddhists, during the state of Dream and the like, the Cognition, though one, appears in a variegated form, so the Brahman also, even though one, appears diverse to persons whose chain of cognitions is not pure, through Ignorance.” |
tadasamyak / | That cannot be right; |
na hi tadvyatirekeṇānye kecid aviśuddhasantatayaḥ santi yeṣāṃ tat tathā pratibhāsate / | because as a matter of fact, apart from Brahman, there are none whose ‘Chain’ is not pure, to whom the said form could appear as stated. |
svayam eva tathā pratibhāsata iti cet evaṃ tarhi mokṣābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ / | “Brahman appears, by Itself, in that form.” In that ease, no Liberation would be possible; |
sarvadaiva brahmaṇo 'dvayarūpapratibhāsātmakatvāt / | because Brahman is always of the nature of one single Cognition. |
asmākaṃ tu viśuddhajñānāntarodayān muktir yujyata eva / | As for us (Buddhists), Liberation is quite possible, as at that stage, there appears a distinct pure Cognition. |
na cāpi bhavatāṃ tadvyatirekiṇyavidyāsti / | Further, for you, apart from Brahman, there can be no Ignorance or Illusion under whose influence the Brahman would appear in the said form. |
yadvaśāt tat tathā pratibhāsata iti syāt / avyatireke cāvidyāyās tadvaśāt tadeva tathā pratibhāsata iti suvyāhṛtam etat / athāpi syād avidyāvaśāt khyātītyanenāvidyātmakatvam eva tasya khyāpyata iti / | And on account of Illusion being non-separate from It, it would be well-said that ‘under the influence of that Illusion, Brahman appears as Itself in that form’! It might be said that “When it is said that ‘It becomes cognised under the influence of Ignorance’, what is meant is that It is of the nature of Ignorance (or Illusion).” |
na hi nityaikarūpe brahmaṇyavidyātmake sthite sati / tadātmikāyā avidyāyā vyapagamaḥ sambhavati / yenāvidyāvyapagamān muktir bhavet / | If so, then the implication is all the clearer that there can be no Liberation: when the Eternal One Brahman has the nature of Ignorance, there can be no cessation of that Ignorance, which forms the essence of Brahman, by virtue of which cessation there could be Liberation. |
atha vyatiriktāvidyāṅgīkriyate evam api nityatvād anādheyātiśayasya [p.75] brahmaṇaḥ sā tatkiñcit karotīti na yuktam avidyāvaśāt tathā pratibhāsanam tataścāvidyayā saha tasya sambandhābhāvāt saṃsārābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ / | If then, Ignorance is admitted to be something apart from Brahman, even so, it could not produce any effect upon Brahman, which is eternal and hence not susceptible to any addition to Its qualities. So that it cannot be right to assert that Its appearance (in Cognition) is due to the influence of Ignorance; and thus there being no connection between Ignorance and Brahman, there can be no Birth and Rebirth. |
na cāpi sā tatvānyatvābhyāṃ nirvaktuṃ śakyata iti vaktum vastudharmasya gatyantarābhāvāt / | Nor can it be right to assert that “It could be described as being neither real nor unreal”; because all things must fall within one or the other of these two; |
anyathā vastutvameva na syāt / | otherwise it would not be a Thing (Entity) at all. |
na cāvastuvaśāt tathā tasya vyatiryuktātiprasaṅgāt / | Nor will it be right to say that “it is because of its being a Non-entity that it is cognised in that form”; |
tathābhūtasya cārthakriyākāriṇaḥ svabhāvasyāvasthitināmakaraṇe na nā{noo}stivivādaḥ / | If, even in that state, it is called a ‘State’ or ‘Condition’, in the sense that its nature is capable of fruitful action, we have nothing to say against that. |
asmākaṃ tu vitathābhiniveśavāsanaivāvidyā sā ca vāsanā śaktir ucyate / | As for us (Buddhists), Ignorance (or Illusion) is only the Disposition of wrongful Attachment (or Yearning); and this Disposition is called a ‘Faculty’; |
śaktiś ca kāraṇātmakajñānātmabhūtaiveti / tena pūrvapūrvataḥ kāraṇabhūtādavidyātmano jñānād uttarottarakāryajñānasya vitathākārābhiniveśina utpatter avidyāvaśāt tathākhyātir yuktā / | and this Faculty is only of the Essence of Cognition in the form of a ‘Cause’, Hence what happens is that each preceding Cognition, which is of the nature of Ignorance and serves as a Cause, is followed by a succeeding Cognition, which is of the nature of its Effect and has within itself the traces of wrongful attachment; |
tasyāścāvidyāyā yogābhyāsādasamarthataratamakṣaṇotpādakrameṇa vyapagamāt pariśuddhajñānasantānodayādapavargaprāptir ityato bandhamokṣavyavasthā yuktimatī / | This Ignorance is duly removed by Mystic Practices, through the process of succeeding moments endowed with gradually increasing degrees of inefficiency (in the Ignorance), and there appears a series of pure Cognitions and consequent Liberation; so that the process of ‘Bondage and Liberation’ becomes duly established on a reasonable basis. |
natvevaṃ bhavatāṃ sambhavati nityaikarūpatvād brahmaṇo 'vasthādvayāsambhavāt / | This is not possible under your theory; |
ekatvāc ca tasya brahmaṇa ekasya muktau sarveṣāṃ muktiprasaṅgaḥ ekasyāmuktausarveṣām uktiprasaṅgaścānivāryaḥ / | as Brahman, being Eternal and One, cannot have two ‘states’ (of Ignorance and Liberation), and because the said Brahman is one, the Liberation of one man would mean the Liberation of all men; and the non-liberation (Bondage) of one would mean the Bondage of all. |
na cāpyayogitvāvasthāyām ātmajyotīrūpatve 'sya kiñcit pramāṇam asti / | Nor is there any proof for the fact of Brahman being of the nature of ‘the Light of Self’, during the non-mystic state. |
prasādhakaṃ jñānaṃ hi prakāśātmatayā svasaṃvedanaprasiddham / na tvevaṃ śabdātmā sarvatra pratyayātmani saṃvedyata iti nirdiṣṭam etat / | The Cognition that proves anything is of the nature of ‘Light’ and hence recognised as ‘self-cognised’, The ‘Sound-self’ however is never found to be cognised in all cognitions, as has been already mentioned before. |
athāyogyavasthāyām ātmajyotiṣṭvam asya nāṅgīkriyate evam api prāgavidyamānaṃ tadātmajyotiṣṭvamatyaktapūrvarūpasya brahmaṇaḥ paścādyogyavasthāyāṃ kutaḥ sambhūtam iti vācyam / | Thus then, df it is admitted that during the ‘non-mystic’ state, Brahman is not of the nature of the ‘Light of Self’, even so, it will have to be explained how the ‘Light of Self’ which, thus, would not be previously existent, comes about subsequently during the ‘mystic state’, in the Brahman, without this latter having abandoned Its previous form and character. |
tasmān mithyāpravādo 'yaṃ śabdabrahmavādo bhavatām ityalaṃ bahunā // | From all this it follows that your doctrine of ‘Sound-Brahman’ is absolutely wrong. We desist from further expatiation on this point. |
pradhānapariṇāmena samaṃ ca brahmadarśanam / | This doctrine of ‘Brahman’ also is similar to the doctrine of the ‘evolution from primordial matter’; |
taddūṣaṇānusāreṇa boddhavyam iha dūṣaṇam // | and the objections urged against this latter should be understood to be applicable to the former also. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.