Sambodhi 1990 Vol 17

Author(s): H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 32

accepted by S. was generally in vogue. V. has refuted it twice; once at the hands of the Ekadesin and liimself.
Though the meaning of 'sthāna' as 'state' is obviously accepted, the meaning, given by S. and V., is not at all unsatisfactory. So the contention of Prof. R. D. Karmarkar,12.... it seems probable that R. and Keśava have laid their finger on the right point...." is not tenable On the contrary, the meaning of ś. and V. is nearer to the purport, because ‘ubhayalingatva' or being possessed with two-fold attributes is more directly connected with the sthāpas or adjuncts with which the Para i.e. supreme soul becomes connected. So it is not the question here whether the Para can be called 'ubhayalinga' due to His connection with the different states. If such would have been the case, then the words “rūpavat' and 'arūpavat' ought to have been regarded as understood. Dr. P. M. Modi13 has actually been led to such a conclusion and Dr. S. K. Belvalkar14 has referred to it in passing. Of course, he has failed to appreciate the view of V. in its true light.
True that the word 'arūpavat' is not far to seek as it occurs in B. S. III. ii. 14. But ‘apakarșa' or reverse stretching of a word in sūtra is rarely accepted in B.S. Again however important the word farūpavat' may be because of its similarity with the discussion of puruşavidha and apurusavidha found in Yaskaś Nirukta, 15 it is not proper to foist those ideas on the sūtrakāra by petitioprincipil. Once this is understood in its true light, there does not arise any doubt as regards the interpretation of this part.
(7) Dr. Ghate is absolutely wrong when he says that 'according to V. all these sutras (B.S. II. ij. 11-21) from one adhikarana.' Because it becomes clear from the text of A. B. as it stands that according to V. there are three adhikaraṇas comprising of sütras 11-13, 14-18 & 19-22.17
(8) In B.S. III. ii. 27 Dr. Ghatel8 has favoured N. Whereas Dr. Belvalkar 19 sides with S. by showing tliat the sūtrakāra may have been content to allow the matter to be adjudicated at the court of Sakşātkāra. Prof. Karmarkar20 gives the palm of superiority to Kesava. Dr. Thibaut21 though usually favouring R., has remarked, "whichever commentator we follow, we greatly miss coherence and strictness of reasoning.”
This sūtra is very important. It establishes the two sold character of Brahman and not two kinds of Brahman, viz. Saguņa or apara and nirgune or para as S. would have it. It is shown on the authority of śruti, that Brahman possesses all contradictory qualities without giving rise to any inconsistency 22