2023-03-01 15:21:41 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
xxiv
states that those qualities belong to them
agrar' "when conditioned by phenomena".
The latter is the correct statement. So, Dr.
Thibaut's previous statement of Sankara's
position is avowedly erroneous. Sankara makes
no such statement himself. Dr. Thibaut makes
a self-contradictory statement of his own, and
thus he refutes himself,-not Sankara. Dr.
Thibaut erroneously translates एवमपि as
"Thus also". Really it means, "Even (if it is)
thus," or "though (it is) thus". Interpreted
thus, the Sutra contrasts the attributeless in-
telligence which constitutes the essential nature
of the Self with attributes such as lordly power
which appertain to the limited condition of the
soul previously to the attainment of liberation.
Lastly, Dr. Thibaut fails altogether to com-
prehend the scope of some remarks made by
Sankara's commentator, Govindananda, towards
the close of his explanation of Sankara's
bhashya on this Sutra. He thinks that
Govindananda points to a "difficulty" in
Sankara's interpretation and that "his (Govinda-
nanda's) attempts to get over the difficulty
certainly does not improve matters". The
""
states that those qualities belong to them
agrar' "when conditioned by phenomena".
The latter is the correct statement. So, Dr.
Thibaut's previous statement of Sankara's
position is avowedly erroneous. Sankara makes
no such statement himself. Dr. Thibaut makes
a self-contradictory statement of his own, and
thus he refutes himself,-not Sankara. Dr.
Thibaut erroneously translates एवमपि as
"Thus also". Really it means, "Even (if it is)
thus," or "though (it is) thus". Interpreted
thus, the Sutra contrasts the attributeless in-
telligence which constitutes the essential nature
of the Self with attributes such as lordly power
which appertain to the limited condition of the
soul previously to the attainment of liberation.
Lastly, Dr. Thibaut fails altogether to com-
prehend the scope of some remarks made by
Sankara's commentator, Govindananda, towards
the close of his explanation of Sankara's
bhashya on this Sutra. He thinks that
Govindananda points to a "difficulty" in
Sankara's interpretation and that "his (Govinda-
nanda's) attempts to get over the difficulty
certainly does not improve matters". The
""