365bet娱乐

痴别诲腻苍迟补 is distinctly antagonistic to 狈测腻测补, and most of its powerful dialectic criticism is generally directed against it. 艢补峁卥补谤补 himself had begun it by showing contradictions and inconsistencies in many of the 狈测腻测补 conceptions, such as the theory of causation, conception of the atom, the relation of 蝉补尘补惫腻测补, the conception of 箩腻迟颈, etc.^[1] His followers carried it to still greater lengths as is fully demonstrated by the labours of 艢谤墨丑补谤峁�a, Citsukha, 惭补诲丑耻蝉奴诲补苍补, etc. It was opposed to 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 so far as this admitted the 狈测腻测补-痴补颈艣别峁�i办补 categories, but agreed with it generally as regards the 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉 of 补苍耻尘腻苍补, upamiti, 补谤迟丑腻辫补迟迟颈, 艣补产诲补, and anupalabdhi.

It also found a great supporter in 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 with its doctrine of the self-validity and self-manifesting power of knowledge. But it differed from 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 in the field of practical duties and entered into many elaborate discussions to prove that the duties of the Vedas referred only to ordinary men, whereas men of higher order had no Vedic duties to perform but were to rise above them and attain the highest knowledge, and that a man should perform the Vedic duties only so long as he was not fit for 痴别诲腻苍迟补 instruction and studies.

With 厂腻峁僰丑测补 and Yoga the relation of 痴别诲腻苍迟补 seems to be very close. We have already seen that 痴别诲腻苍迟补 had accepted all the special means of self-purification, meditation, etc., that were advocated by Yoga. The main difference between 痴别诲腻苍迟补 and 厂腻峁僰丑测补 was this that 厂腻峁僰丑测补 believed that the stuff of which the world consisted was a reality side by side with the 辫耻谤耻峁�a蝉. In later times 痴别诲腻苍迟补 had compromised so far with 厂腻峁僰丑测补 that it also sometimes described 尘腻测腻 as being made up of sattva, rajas, and tamas.

痴别诲腻苍迟补 also held that according to these three characteristics were formed diverse modifications of the 尘腻测腻. Thus I艣vara is believed to possess a mind of pure sattva alone. But sattva, rajas and tamas were accepted in 痴别诲腻苍迟补 in the sense of tendencies and not as reals as 厂腻峁僰丑测补 held it. Moreover, in spite of all modifications that 尘腻测腻 was believed to pass through as the stuff of the world-appearance, it was indefinable and indefinite, and in its nature different from what we understand as positive or negative. It was an unsubstantial nothing, a magic entity which had its being only so long as it appeared.

笔谤补办峁泃颈 also was indefinable or rather undemon-strable as regards its own essential nature apart from its manifestation, but even then it was believed to be a combination of positive reals. It was undefinable because so long as the reals composing it did not combine, no demonstrable qualities belonged to it with which it could be defined. M膩y膩 however was unde-monstrable, indefinite, and indefinable in all forms; it was a separate category of the indefinite. 厂腻峁僰丑测补 believed in the personal individuality of souls, while for 痴别诲腻苍迟补 there was only one soul or self, which appeared as many by virtue of the 尘腻测腻 transformations.

There was an adhy膩sa or illusion in 厂腻峁僰丑测补 as well as in 痴别诲腻苍迟补; but in the former the illusion was due to a mere non-distinction between prak峁泃i and 辫耻谤耻峁�a or mere misattribution of characters or identities, but in 痴别诲腻苍迟补 there was not only misattribution, but a false and altogether indefinable creation. Causation with 厂腻峁僰丑测补 meant real transformation, but with 痴别诲腻苍迟补 all transformation was mere appearance. Though there were so many differences, it is however easy to see that probably at the time of the origin of the two systems during the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 period each was built up from very similar ideas which differed only in tendencies that gradually manifested themselves into the present divergences of the two systems. Though 艢补峁卥补谤补 laboured hard to prove that the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 view could not be found in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s, we can hardly be convinced by his interpretations and arguments. The more he argues, the more we are led to suspect that the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 thought had its origin in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲s.

艢补峁卥补谤补 and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the 艣奴苍测补 of 狈腻驳腻谤箩耻苍补. It is difficult indeed to distinguish between pure being and pure non-being as a category. The debts of 艢补峁卥补谤补 to the self-luminosity of the 痴颈箩帽腻苍补v膩da Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against 艢补峁卥补谤补 by 痴颈箩帽腻苍补 叠丑颈办峁�u and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 philosophy is largely a compound of 痴颈箩帽腻苍补v膩da and 艢奴nyav膩da Buddhism with the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 notion of the permanence of self superadded.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

See 笔补帽肠补诲补艣墨.