________________
INTRODUCTION.
lxv
above is not the object of any other means of proof but Scripture is confirmed in Sûtra 23, 'Scripture declares Brahman to be the non-manifest.'-And the intuition (sâkshâtkâra) of Brahman ensues only upon its samrâdhana, i.e. upon its being perfectly pleased by the worshipper's devotion, as Scripture and Smriti declare (24).-That this interpretation of 'neti' is the right one, is likewise shown by the fact that in the same way as prakâsa, luminousness, giâna, intelligence, &c., so also the quality of being differentiated by the world (prapa kavisishtatâ) is intuited as non-different, i. e. as likewise qualifying Brahman; and that prakâsa, and so on, characterise Brahman, is known through repeated practice (on the part of rishis like Vâmadeva) in the work of samrådhana mentioned before (25).-For all these reasons Brahman is connected with the infinite, i.e. the infinite number of auspicious qualities; for thus the twofold indications (linga) met with in Scripture are fully justified (26).— In what relation, then, does the akid vastu, i.e. the nonsentient matter, which, according to the Brihadâraṇyaka, is one of the forms of Brahman, stand to the latter ?—Nonsentient beings might, in the first place, be viewed as special arrangements (samsthânaviseshâh) of Brahman, as the coils are of the body of the snake; for Brahman is designated as both, i.e. sometimes as one with the world (Brahman is all this, &c.), sometimes as different from it (Let me enter into those elements, &c.) (27).-Or, in the second place, the relation of the two might be viewed as analogous to that of light and the luminous object which are two and yet one, both being fire (28).-Or, in the third place, the relation is like that stated before, i.e. the material world is, like the individual souls (whose case was discussed in II, 3, 43), a part-amsa-of Brahman (29, 30).
Adhik. VII (31-37) explains how some metaphorical expressions, seemingly implying that there is something different from Brahman, have to be truly understood.
Adhik. VIII (38-41) teaches that the reward of works is not, as Gaimini opines, the independent result of the works acting through the so-called apûrva, but is allotted by the Lord.
[34]
e
Digitized by Google
