2023-03-01 15:22:09 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
XCV
In section iii of his Preface to his Bombay
edition of Vedanta-Sara, he makes the following
statement regarding the Advaitic school, a
statement which carries with it its own refuta-
tion : "On account of the apparent separate
existence of deity and humanity, writers of this
school employ the epithets para, mukhya, and
nirguna to designate pure unassociated Brahma,
and apara, amukhya and sayuna to distinguish
that portion of Brahma, which, through
association with avidya, is looked upon as God."
But whoever knows the Advaita doctrine ought
to know that the pure Brahman is amurta
without material form or embodiment and
therefore nishkala, without parts. When Colonel
Jacob speaks of Saguna Brahman as a "portion
of Brahma ", he evidently uses language which
is altogether inapplicable and inappropriate to
the topic of which he treats.
Next, Colonel Jacob goes on to speak
of "the extraordinary way in which even San-
kara again and again ignores the distinction pro-
pounded by himself." This much can be justly
said of Dr. Thibaut that he would never make
In section iii of his Preface to his Bombay
edition of Vedanta-Sara, he makes the following
statement regarding the Advaitic school, a
statement which carries with it its own refuta-
tion : "On account of the apparent separate
existence of deity and humanity, writers of this
school employ the epithets para, mukhya, and
nirguna to designate pure unassociated Brahma,
and apara, amukhya and sayuna to distinguish
that portion of Brahma, which, through
association with avidya, is looked upon as God."
But whoever knows the Advaita doctrine ought
to know that the pure Brahman is amurta
without material form or embodiment and
therefore nishkala, without parts. When Colonel
Jacob speaks of Saguna Brahman as a "portion
of Brahma ", he evidently uses language which
is altogether inapplicable and inappropriate to
the topic of which he treats.
Next, Colonel Jacob goes on to speak
of "the extraordinary way in which even San-
kara again and again ignores the distinction pro-
pounded by himself." This much can be justly
said of Dr. Thibaut that he would never make