2023-05-31 04:00:46 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
INTRODUCTION
samsara. For, the Taittiriya Upanishad thus describes the
existence (sat) and non-existence (asat) of the individual soul:
"He who knows the Brahman as non-existent, himself becomes
non-existent. Whoever knows the Brahman as existent is
indeed truly existent." (II. vi. 1)
Of the great soul: Great is His glory and His knowledge
deep and immeasurable. Hence it is impossible give out all
the Names of His. So it is said: "I have listened to the
auspicious interpretation of the names of this God. From it
I know only this, that Keśava indeed cannot be known fully."
Those who wish to experience in this manner the Thousand
Names of Vishnu, will help in the realisation of their souls.
This is the meaning suggested by the word Mahātmānaḥ.
The persons above-mentioned who are competent to
utter these (Names of His) should not, as these Names are due
to the gunas, mix with persons who are thieves of the gunas
(i. e., those who deny these gunas to Vishnu or those who
ascribe them to other deities). Suppose you argue: "Let this
teaching about the Brahman with attributes be for persons who
are entitled to a lesser objective (than final salvation); for the
teaching about the Brahman without attributes is indeed only
for those who aspire for salvation.' Fie unto you, your ears
are indeed deaf! For you dont hear to what these Names form
the means-which is loudly proclaimed in this verv stotra at
the end (where the fruits of reciting it are mentioned): "He is
released from the bonds of samsāra ", and "He reaches the
Eternal Brahman". If once you postulate two Brahmans, one
with attributes and one without attributes, the oneness of the
Brahman (which you advocate) will be destroyed. If in a
context when, with a view to know the best means of
salvation according to the very essence of the śāstras, the
question is put, "What is it you consider as the best dharma",
and the answer is in the same words, "This is the best in my
considered opinion", if you say that even then the lesser is
mentioned, where else will there be an opportunity to teach
the highest? (That is to say, the question and answer denote
that what is taught is the highest and nothing less than the
highest truth). Do not argue like a garrulous person that of
the two, that is, of the worship of God with attributes and
of God without attributes, the former is a step towards the
45
samsara. For, the Taittiriya Upanishad thus describes the
existence (sat) and non-existence (asat) of the individual soul:
"He who knows the Brahman as non-existent, himself becomes
non-existent. Whoever knows the Brahman as existent is
indeed truly existent." (II. vi. 1)
Of the great soul: Great is His glory and His knowledge
deep and immeasurable. Hence it is impossible give out all
the Names of His. So it is said: "I have listened to the
auspicious interpretation of the names of this God. From it
I know only this, that Keśava indeed cannot be known fully."
Those who wish to experience in this manner the Thousand
Names of Vishnu, will help in the realisation of their souls.
This is the meaning suggested by the word Mahātmānaḥ.
The persons above-mentioned who are competent to
utter these (Names of His) should not, as these Names are due
to the gunas, mix with persons who are thieves of the gunas
(i. e., those who deny these gunas to Vishnu or those who
ascribe them to other deities). Suppose you argue: "Let this
teaching about the Brahman with attributes be for persons who
are entitled to a lesser objective (than final salvation); for the
teaching about the Brahman without attributes is indeed only
for those who aspire for salvation.' Fie unto you, your ears
are indeed deaf! For you dont hear to what these Names form
the means-which is loudly proclaimed in this verv stotra at
the end (where the fruits of reciting it are mentioned): "He is
released from the bonds of samsāra ", and "He reaches the
Eternal Brahman". If once you postulate two Brahmans, one
with attributes and one without attributes, the oneness of the
Brahman (which you advocate) will be destroyed. If in a
context when, with a view to know the best means of
salvation according to the very essence of the śāstras, the
question is put, "What is it you consider as the best dharma",
and the answer is in the same words, "This is the best in my
considered opinion", if you say that even then the lesser is
mentioned, where else will there be an opportunity to teach
the highest? (That is to say, the question and answer denote
that what is taught is the highest and nothing less than the
highest truth). Do not argue like a garrulous person that of
the two, that is, of the worship of God with attributes and
of God without attributes, the former is a step towards the
45