2023-05-31 04:00:46 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
BHAGAVAD GUNA DARPANA
latter. For, the two are contradictory to each other so that
one cannot be a step to lead to the other.
Besides, what is the fundamental reason for one without
attributes being experienced as if it is with attributes? If it is
said to be due to avidyā (nescience), then what a fascinating
mystery about the Vedas (do we have)! How can the Brahman,
which is said to be the best medicine to one who is about to
die, having swooned from the poison of birth, death,
delusion and other imperfections of life in samsāra, be at the
same time the abode of faults like nescience and delusion and
remain without even a trace of the smallest particle of (good)
qualities?
If it is argued that the fault of the Brahman is itself unreal,
your argument about the attributelessness (of the Brahman) is
also unreal. Is this quality real or unreal? If the fault is
unreal, then it means that the Brahman is (nairgunyam) without
a fault. Similarly, if being devoid of attributes is unreal, then
being endowed with attributes is real. Thus, the proposition
is proved. So, even though you do not want it, the truth is
that the Brahman is free of faults and full of attributes.
There is another point to be answered. What is it that
destroys the nescience in the Brahman? If the answer is, "He
who realises monism or oneness", then we have a beautiful
(riddle). The Supreme Brahman wanders round and round in
error, while the bound individual soul in samsara redeems it.
(This is stating the proposition upside down.)
Moreover, on what ground can the passages describing
the Brahman as having attributes be said to be useless? If the
answer is that these are contradicted by passages describing
the Brahman as without attributes, why not the other way
round? Both kinds of passages are equally authoritative
and exercise equal force in contradicting (each other).
Why
reject the one and favour the other? There is another
point. If the attributes of the Brahman are to be denied, what
is the purpose of these poor Vedic texts describing the Brahman
as having attributes? If the reply is that there is necessity to
mention the existence of attributes for the purpose of negat.
ing them, why mention them at all and then negate them? Is
46
latter. For, the two are contradictory to each other so that
one cannot be a step to lead to the other.
Besides, what is the fundamental reason for one without
attributes being experienced as if it is with attributes? If it is
said to be due to avidyā (nescience), then what a fascinating
mystery about the Vedas (do we have)! How can the Brahman,
which is said to be the best medicine to one who is about to
die, having swooned from the poison of birth, death,
delusion and other imperfections of life in samsāra, be at the
same time the abode of faults like nescience and delusion and
remain without even a trace of the smallest particle of (good)
qualities?
If it is argued that the fault of the Brahman is itself unreal,
your argument about the attributelessness (of the Brahman) is
also unreal. Is this quality real or unreal? If the fault is
unreal, then it means that the Brahman is (nairgunyam) without
a fault. Similarly, if being devoid of attributes is unreal, then
being endowed with attributes is real. Thus, the proposition
is proved. So, even though you do not want it, the truth is
that the Brahman is free of faults and full of attributes.
There is another point to be answered. What is it that
destroys the nescience in the Brahman? If the answer is, "He
who realises monism or oneness", then we have a beautiful
(riddle). The Supreme Brahman wanders round and round in
error, while the bound individual soul in samsara redeems it.
(This is stating the proposition upside down.)
Moreover, on what ground can the passages describing
the Brahman as having attributes be said to be useless? If the
answer is that these are contradicted by passages describing
the Brahman as without attributes, why not the other way
round? Both kinds of passages are equally authoritative
and exercise equal force in contradicting (each other).
Why
reject the one and favour the other? There is another
point. If the attributes of the Brahman are to be denied, what
is the purpose of these poor Vedic texts describing the Brahman
as having attributes? If the reply is that there is necessity to
mention the existence of attributes for the purpose of negat.
ing them, why mention them at all and then negate them? Is
46