This page has not been fully proofread.

xxxiii
 
lities). In the former case, the purpose is to
exclude objects having attributes different from
those mentioned; in the latter case, the purpose
is to exclude all other objects and to turn the
attention to the particular object in view. In
the case of Brahman, however, whether we de-
fine by viseshanas or lakshanas-by taking tat-
astha lakshanas (accidental attributes) as in the
second sutra, or by svarupa lakshanas (essential
characteristics), viz., Sat-chit-ananda-only the
absolute Brahman is taught. For there is in
reality no visishta or qualified Brhman. Dr. Thi-
baut is not justified in saying that the definition
contained in the second sutra can by a Sankara
be accepted only as a definition of Isvara," (i.e.)
of Brahman in association with maya, and not of
the
pure or absolute Brahman. As the Advaitic
teacher Brahmanandaswami-quoting substanti-
ally Madhusudana Sarasvati-says in his Ratna-
vali, a commentary on the Siddhanta-Bindu:-
'लक्षणबोधकवाक्यमात्रस्य लक्षणविशिष्टबोधनद्वारा लक्षणोपलक्षिताख-
"All sentences which teach us cha-
racterising attributes, through the knowledge of
what seems to be attributed by the definition,
produce the knowledge of the undifferenced ob-
66
 
D