Syadvada Manjari

Author(s): Mallishenacharya, F W Thomas
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas

Page 83

82
F. W. Thomas, Mallisena's Syadvadamañjarī
And lord over immortality (ambrosia) which (when ?) by food it grows exceedingly" 30). "What moves, what does not move; what is far, what near; What is inside of all this, and what is outside of all this",
etc.). And because it is established also by Veda sentences such as: "To be heard, to be thought of, to be meditated upon"*) 32). (103) Because the same is demonstrated also by Scripture which has an author 33); and it is said -
"All this assuredly is Brahma; diversity here there is none.
His playground they behold; him no man beholds". (cf. p. 79).
"For there is establishment of the same from Demonstration also: 'The supreme person, one alone, is reality: because all different things are manifestations of him. As thus: all positive existents are manifestations of Brahma, because they are all invested with the one form of existence; whatever is invested with the form of something, consists in fact thereof; as pot, cup, saucer, pail, etc., invested with one form, namely earth, are manifestations of earth. And every entity is invested with the single form, 'existence'; thus it is established that 'all different things are manifestations of Brahma"".
Now all this is fallacious, like what is uttered stutteringly through tasting wine-juice, because it does not stand consideration. For every (real) entity is established by Demonstration, and not by mere words. And on the Advaita view a Demonstratant does not exist, since, if it were existent, duality would follow; because of the existence as a second of the Demonstrant establishing the Advaita. Or is it thought that a Demonstrant also in regard thereto is admitted in order to convince (worldly) people? That is not so: for on their view the people also cannot exist, because only the one eternally undivided supreme Brahma exists.
Or let a Demonstrant also somehow or other exist. Then, is perception, inference or Scripture adopted as the Demonstrant establishing that (Advaita doctrine)? Not perception, to begin with; since that reveals simply the differences found in the whole mass of entities; because only so does it appear to all, down to children and herdsmen. As for it having been said that 'unquestioning perception reports it', that also is not correct. For the validity thereof as a proof is not admitted; because of every real means of proof the validity is justified only when in the form of certitude (vyavasaya) 34) it does not lead to disappointment. By questioning (savikai paka) 35) perception, on the other hand, as a means of proof, there is not, even in dream, appearance of a single supreme Brahma in the form of affirmation.
As for it having been said that "They declare perception affirmative", and so on, that also is not (104) satisfactory; for by perception there is illumination only of entities consisting of aspects recurrent and discriminative 36). And that has already been dealt with. For no single indivisible universal, purely existence, irrespective of differences, appears as running all through, so that (the saying) "What is non-duality, that is the form of Brahma" 37), etc., should seem good**); because an universal, irrespective of differences, is, like an ass's horn, nonapparent. Thus it is said:
*) anumantavya add Das.
**) sobheta ra ka kha gha ha, Das; sobhate AMP.
30) Rg-veda, X. 90. 2 (M. L.).
3) Isävasya-upaniṣad, v. 5 (M. L.).
32) Brhad-aran yaka-upanisad, II. 4. 5.
33) Which the eternal Veda has not. On the quotation see note 4).
4) The unquestioning has not the nature of apperception.
35) I. e. such perception as involves a judginent, e. g. 'cow'.
3) Sc. class-aspects and individual aspects.
37) Source untraced.