FreeIndia.Org FreeIndia.Org FreeIndia.Org FreeIndia.Org
Home Book Talk Recommendations Bibliography Astrology HinduShops Gifts to India
Books By Subjects
Introduction And References
Temples And Legends of India
Hindu Scriptures
Stories
History
Social And Contemporary Issue
Dharma And Philosophy
Art
Worship
Philosophy And Commentaries
Hindutva
Organizations
Featured Book Authors
David Frawley
Dr. A. V. Srinivasan
Raja Gopala Chari
Dr. Krishna Bhatta
Advertisements
Chintan
Dr. David Frawley
Prof. Lata Jagtiani
Dr. Krishna Bhatta
Su.Sh Aditi Banerjee
Sh. Santhana Gopal
Dr. A.V. Srinivasan
Dr. Satish Modh
Dr. Raja Roy
Dr. Nachiketa Tiwari
Sh. Ed. Vishwanathan
Prof. Subhash Kak
Prof. Romesh Diwan
Dr. N. S. Rajaram
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe
Sh. Sudhir Birodkar
Sh. Devant Maharaj
Bookstore
Today's Best Selling Hindu Books from Amazon.com
Best Selling Yoga Books
Books about Gurus
Jain Books
Sikh Books
Eastern Religions Best Sellers
Books in the News
Special Sections
Biographies
Temples And Legends of India
Culture Course
Advertisements
HinduNet Signature Merchandise
Scripture Does Not Teach That Release Is Due To The Knowledge Of A Non-Qualified Brahman




Page: 1/5


Hindu Books > Hindu Scriptures > The Vedanta - Sutras > Adhyaya I > Pada I > Scripture Does Not Teach That Release Is Due To The Knowledge Of A Non-Qualified Brahman

Page1

Scripture does not teach that Release is due to the knowledge of a non-qualified Brahman.--the meaning of 'tat tvam asi.'

Nor can we admit the assertion that Scripture teaches the cessation of avidya to spring only from the cognition of a Brahman devoid of all difference. Such a view is clearly negatived by passages such as the following: 'I know that great person of sun-like lustre beyond darkness; knowing him a man becomes immortal, there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8); 'All moments sprang from lightning, the Person--none is lord over him, his name is great glory--they who know him become immortal' (Mahana. Up. I, 8-11). For the reason that Brahman is characterised by difference all Vedic texts declare that final release results from the cognition of a qualified Brahman. And that even those texts which describe Brahman by means of negations really aim at setting forth a Brahman possessing attributes, we have already shown above.

In texts, again, such as 'Thou art that,' the co-ordination of the constituent parts is not meant to convey the idea of the absolute unity of a non-differenced substance: on the contrary, the words 'that' and 'thou' denote a Brahman distinguished by difference. The word 'that' refers to Brahman omniscient, &c., which had been introduced as the general topic of consideration in previous passages of the same section, such as 'It thought, may I be many'; the word 'thou,' which stands in co-ordination to 'that,' conveys the idea of Brahman in so far as having for its body the individual souls connected with non-intelligent matter. This is in accordance with the general principle that co-ordination is meant to express one thing subsisting in a twofold form. If such doubleness of form (or character) were abandoned, there could be no difference of aspects giving rise to the application of different terms, and the entire principle of co-ordination would thus be given up. And it would further follow that the two words co-ordinated would have to be taken in an implied sense (instead of their primary direct meaning). Nor is there any need of our assuming implication (lakshana) in sentences 1## such as 'this person is that Devadatta (known to me from former occasions)'; for there is no contradiction in the cognition of the oneness of a thing connected with the past on the one hand, and the present on the other, the contradiction that arises from difference of place being removed by the accompanying difference of time. If the text 'Thou art that' were meant to express absolute oneness, it would, moreover, conflict with a previous statement in the same section, viz. 'It thought, may I be many'; and, further, the promise (also made in the same section) that by the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known could not be considered as fulfilled.

It, moreover, is not possible (while, however, it would result from the absolute oneness of 'tat' and 'tvam') that to Brahman, whose essential nature is knowledge, which is free from all imperfections, omniscient, comprising within itself all auspicious qualities, there should belong Nescience; and that it should be the substrate of all those defects and afflictions which spring from Nescience. If, further, the statement of co-ordination ('thou art that') were meant to sublate (the previously existing wrong notion of plurality), we should have to admit that the two terms 'that' and 'thou' have an implied meaning, viz. in so far as denoting, on the one hand, one substrate only, and, on the other, the cessation of the different attributes (directly expressed by the two terms); and thus implication and the other shortcomings mentioned above would cling to this interpretation as well. And there would be even further difficulties. When we form the sublative judgment 'this is not silver,' the sublation is founded on an independent positive judgment, viz. 'this is a shell': in the case under discussion, however, the sublation would not be known (through an independent positive judgment), but would be assumed merely on the ground that it cannot be helped. And, further, there is really no possibility of sublation, since the word 'that' does not convey the idea of an attribute in addition to the mere substrate.

Footnotes

1##. Which are alleged to prove that samanadhikaranya is to be explained on the basis of lakshana.




Next Page (2/5) Next Page


Scripture Does Not Teach That Release Is Due To The Knowledge Of A Non-Qualified Brahman
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Advertisement


This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2014, Dharma Universe.