2023-03-01 15:21:41 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
XXV
commentator neither mentions a difficulty of the
kind suggested, nor attempts to get over it.
He only takes this opportunity to give his views
on a somewhat connected topic which is neither
here nor elsewhere mentioned or discussed by
Sankara in any of his works, but which has
formed the subject of a wide divergence of
opinion among the later exponents and teachers
of the Advaita school,-viz., whether there is
one primeval avidya (universal ignorance) of
which the particular portion forming the limit-
ing adjunct of each Jiva is destroyed by the
Brahma-jnana (Knowledge of Brahman) which
brings release, or there is a different primeval
avidya special to each. Govindananda decides
in favour of the former, and holds that there is
no authority for the latter.
Dr. Thibaut before closing the present
topic, remarks as follows:-"In connection with
the two passages discussed, we meet in the
fourth adhyaya with another passage, which
indeed has no bearing on the distinction of apara
and paravidya, but may yet be shortly referred
to in this place as another and altogether un-
C
commentator neither mentions a difficulty of the
kind suggested, nor attempts to get over it.
He only takes this opportunity to give his views
on a somewhat connected topic which is neither
here nor elsewhere mentioned or discussed by
Sankara in any of his works, but which has
formed the subject of a wide divergence of
opinion among the later exponents and teachers
of the Advaita school,-viz., whether there is
one primeval avidya (universal ignorance) of
which the particular portion forming the limit-
ing adjunct of each Jiva is destroyed by the
Brahma-jnana (Knowledge of Brahman) which
brings release, or there is a different primeval
avidya special to each. Govindananda decides
in favour of the former, and holds that there is
no authority for the latter.
Dr. Thibaut before closing the present
topic, remarks as follows:-"In connection with
the two passages discussed, we meet in the
fourth adhyaya with another passage, which
indeed has no bearing on the distinction of apara
and paravidya, but may yet be shortly referred
to in this place as another and altogether un-
C