2023-03-01 15:21:44 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
XXXII
relating to Maya or the world, we meet with
definitions of Brahman of an altogether different
type." Dr. Thibaut mentions two of these
definitions," the current definition of Brahman
as Sat-chid-ananda" and the " samvid svayam-
prabha, the self-luminous principle of thought
which, in all time past, or future, neither starts
into being nor perishes."
In reply to these observations, we maintain
that Dr. Thibaut is wrong in saying that the de-
finition contained in the second sutra 66 can by a
Sankara be accepted only as a definition of Isva-
ra, of Brahman in association with maya." It
is a definition only of the absolute Brahman-
for Brahman, as Sankara states frequently, is
nitya-suddha, nitya-mukta, always free from
association with maya. It has no positive attri-
butes by which it can be defined. It cannot, in-
deed, be defined, it is anirdesya; it cannot be
known, agrâhya, as it is one only without a
second. Whenever we give a definition of any
kind, the object is to produce a theoretical know-
ledge (Paroksha-jnana) of what is defined. A
definition mentions attributes (viseshanas) or
lakshanas (characteristics or differentiating qua-
relating to Maya or the world, we meet with
definitions of Brahman of an altogether different
type." Dr. Thibaut mentions two of these
definitions," the current definition of Brahman
as Sat-chid-ananda" and the " samvid svayam-
prabha, the self-luminous principle of thought
which, in all time past, or future, neither starts
into being nor perishes."
In reply to these observations, we maintain
that Dr. Thibaut is wrong in saying that the de-
finition contained in the second sutra 66 can by a
Sankara be accepted only as a definition of Isva-
ra, of Brahman in association with maya." It
is a definition only of the absolute Brahman-
for Brahman, as Sankara states frequently, is
nitya-suddha, nitya-mukta, always free from
association with maya. It has no positive attri-
butes by which it can be defined. It cannot, in-
deed, be defined, it is anirdesya; it cannot be
known, agrâhya, as it is one only without a
second. Whenever we give a definition of any
kind, the object is to produce a theoretical know-
ledge (Paroksha-jnana) of what is defined. A
definition mentions attributes (viseshanas) or
lakshanas (characteristics or differentiating qua-