2023-03-01 15:21:53 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
lix
whatever state, according to Sankara's system.
is knowledge or intelligence; whatever is due to
its association with buddhi is non-essential, or
more strictly, unreal, false." It is no doubt
false, but the Jiva does not know it by ex-
perience to be false.
to be false. Owing to adhyasa or
avidya (ignorance) he has lost the knowledge of
what he is in truth and essence and has identifi-
ed himself with his upâdhi, viz., the buddhi,
and even the body &c. Consequently, in the
samsara con lition, the essential quality of the
Atman is closed to him and he becomes, as the
sutra says,
identified with the buddhi.- Dr.
Thibaut next turns to sutra 18 of the third
pada which describes the soul as gna. Here
again we are referred to his conspectus where he
remarks :-" We can hardly imagine that an
author definitely holding the views of Sankara
should, when propounding the important dogma
of the soul's nature use the term gna of which
the most obvious interpretation is gnatri, not
gnanam." Dr. Thibaut, in the first place, fails to
consider the reason given in the sutra, viz.,
"ga" for this very reason.' For what reason?
The answer is,-for the reason mentioned
whatever state, according to Sankara's system.
is knowledge or intelligence; whatever is due to
its association with buddhi is non-essential, or
more strictly, unreal, false." It is no doubt
false, but the Jiva does not know it by ex-
perience to be false.
to be false. Owing to adhyasa or
avidya (ignorance) he has lost the knowledge of
what he is in truth and essence and has identifi-
ed himself with his upâdhi, viz., the buddhi,
and even the body &c. Consequently, in the
samsara con lition, the essential quality of the
Atman is closed to him and he becomes, as the
sutra says,
identified with the buddhi.- Dr.
Thibaut next turns to sutra 18 of the third
pada which describes the soul as gna. Here
again we are referred to his conspectus where he
remarks :-" We can hardly imagine that an
author definitely holding the views of Sankara
should, when propounding the important dogma
of the soul's nature use the term gna of which
the most obvious interpretation is gnatri, not
gnanam." Dr. Thibaut, in the first place, fails to
consider the reason given in the sutra, viz.,
"ga" for this very reason.' For what reason?
The answer is,-for the reason mentioned