________________
112
VEDÂNTA-SOTRAS.
loses its purport, and with it the fundamental hypothesis as to the nature of agñana ; for if Brahman may be conscious of agñana (without a previous obscuration of its nature by agñana) it may as well be held to be in the same way conscious of the world, which, by you, is considered to be an effect of agñana.
How, further, do you conceive this consciousness of agñâna on Brahman's part? Is it due to Brahman itself, or to something else? In the former case this consciousness would result from Brahman's essential nature, and hence there would never be any Release. Or else, consciousness of agñana constituting the nature of Brahman, which is admittedly pure consciousness, in the same way as the consciousness of false silver is terminated by that cognition which sublates the silver, so some terminating act of cognition would eventually put an end to Brahman's essential nature itself.-On the second alternative we ask what that something else should be. If you reply 'another agñana,' we are led into a regressus in infinitum.-Let it then be said that agñana having first hidden Brahman then becomes the object of its consciousness.--This, we rejoin, would imply that agñana-acting like a defect of the eye—by its very essential being hides Brahman, and then agñana could not be sublated by knowledge.-Let us then put the case as follows Agñana, which is by itself beginningless, at the very same time effects Brahman's witnessing it (being conscious of it), and Brahman's nature being hidden; in this way the regressus in infinitum and other difficulties will be avoided.-But this also we cannot admit; for Brahman is essentially consciousness of Self, and cannot become a witnessing principle unless its nature be previously hidden.-Let then Brahman be hidden by some other cause !—This, we rejoin, would take away from agñana its alleged beginninglessness, and further would also lead to an infinite regress. And if Brahman were assumed to become a witness, without its essential nature being hidden, it could not possess—what yet it is main
Adopting the latter view only; see preceding note.
Digitized by
Digitized by Google