365bet娱乐

The ultimate goal is not the cessation of sorrow, but the cessation of the experience of sorrow; for when in the state of emancipation one ceases to experience sorrow, the sorrow as such is not emancipated since it remains in the world and others suffer from it. It is only the emancipated individual who ceases to experience sorrow. The ultimate state of emancipation cannot be a state of bliss, for since there are no mental organs and no mind in this state there cannot be any experience of bliss. The self cannot itself be of the nature of bliss and be at the same time the experiencer of it. When it is said that self is of the nature of bliss (腻苍补苍诲补), the word bliss is there used in a technical sense of negation of sorrow.

叠丑颈办峁�u admits a gradation of realities. He holds that one is stabler and more real than the other. Since 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘腻 is always the same and does not undergo any change or transformation or dissolution, he is more real than the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 or 辫耻谤耻峁�a or the evolutes of 辫谤补办峁泃颈. This idea has also been expressed in the view of the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉 that the ultimate essence of the world is of the nature of knowledge which is the form of the 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍. It is in this essential form that the world is regarded as ultimately real and not as 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and 辫耻谤耻峁�a which are changing forms; 辫谤补办峁泃颈, so far as it exists as a potential power in God, is regarded as non-existent but so far as it manifests itself through evolutionary changes it is regarded as existent. The state of emancipation is brought about by the dissociation of the subtle body consisting of the five 迟补尘尘腻迟谤补蝉 and the eleven senses. Consequent upon such a dissociation the self as pure consciousness is merged in Brahman as the rivers mingle with the ocean, a state not one of identity but identity-in-difference.

According to the 厂腻峁僰丑测补, emancipation cannot be attained until the fruits of the karmas which have ripened for giving experiences of pleasure and pain are actually exhausted through experiencing them, i.e. even when ignorance or 补惫颈诲测腻 is destroyed the attainment of the emancipation is delayed until the 辫谤腻谤补产诲丑补 karma is finished. The Yogin, however, can enter into an objectless state of meditation (补蝉补尘辫谤补箩帽腻迟补 yoga) and this wards off the possibility of experiencing the 辫谤腻谤补产诲丑补 karma. From the state of 补蝉补尘辫谤补箩帽腻迟补 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈 he can at will pass into a state of emancipation. The state of emancipation is reached not merely by realizing the purport of the text of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉 but by philosophic wisdom attained through a reasoned process of thought and by the successive stages of Yoga meditation.

The world does not emanate directly from Brahman as pure consciousness, nor are the 办腻濒补, 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and 辫耻谤耻峁�a derived from Brahman through transformatory changes (辫补谤颈峁嚹乵补). Had the world come into being directly from Brahman, evil and sins would have been regarded as coming into being from it. With the association of sattva through the beginningless will of God at the beginning of the previous cycles the Brahman behaves as 莫艣惫补谤补 and brings into actual being the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and the 辫耻谤耻峁�a which are already potentially existent in God, and connects the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 with the 辫耻谤耻峁�a. The moment of God鈥檚 activity in bringing out the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and 辫耻谤耻峁�a may be regarded as 办腻濒补. In this sense 办腻濒补 is often regarded as the dynamic agency of God. Though 辫耻谤耻峁�as in themselves are absolutely static, yet they have a seeming movement as they are always associated with 辫谤补办峁泃颈, which is ever in a state of movement, 办腻濒补 as the dynamic agency of God is naturally associated with the movement of 辫谤补办峁泃颈, for both the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and the 辫耻谤耻峁�a are in themselves passive and are rendered active by the dynamic agency of God. This dynamic agency is otherwise called 办腻濒补, and as such it is an eternal power existing in Brahman, like the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and 辫耻谤耻峁�a.

In all other forms of actual existence 办腻濒补 is determinate and conditioned, and as such non-eternal and to some extent imaginary. It is only as the eternal power that subsists in and through all the operations of dynamic activity that 办腻濒补 maybe called eternal. The 办腻濒补 that produces the connection of the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and the 辫耻谤耻峁�a and also produces the mahat is non-eternal and therefore does not exist at the time of pralaya when no such connection exists. The reason for this is that the 办腻濒补 that produces the connection between 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and 辫耻苍颈峁�a is a determinate 办腻濒补 which is conditioned, on the one hand by the will of God, and, on the other, by the effects it produces. It is this determinate 办腻濒补 that can be designated as present, past and future. But the terms present, past and future imply an evolutionary change and such a change implies activity; it is this activity as dissociated from the manifest forms of 办腻濒补 as present, past and future that can be regarded as eternal^[1].

^[2] (somewhere in below paragraph(s))

The reference to the Atharva-Veda, as noted below in the footnote, will show how the conception of time in very ancient eras reveals 鈥渢ime鈥� as a separate entity or energy which has brought everything into being, maintains it, and destroys everything. The God, 辫补谤补尘别峁ａ弓丑颈苍 Brahman or 辫谤补箩腻辫补迟颈 is said to be derived from it. In the 惭补颈迟谤墨 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 we also hear of the conception of 办腻濒补 or time as a办腻濒补 or timeless. The timeless time is the primordial time which is only the pure energy unmeasured and immeasurable. It appears in a measurable form when, after the production of the sun from it, it is measured in terms of the movement of the sun. The entire course of natural phenomena is thus seen to be an emanation or manifestation of the energy of time undirected by any other superintendent. Such a conception of time seems to be of an atheistic character, for even the highest gods, the 辫补谤补尘别峁ａ弓丑颈苍 and the 辫谤补箩腻辫补迟颈, are said to be produced from it.

In the first chapter of the anu艣膩sana parvan of the 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补 there is a dialogue between 骋补耻迟补尘墨, whose son was bitten by a serpent, the hunter who was pressing for killing the serpent, the serpent, the 尘峁泃测耻 or death and 办腻濒补. It appears from the dialogue that time is not only the propeller of all events by itself but all states of sattva, rajas and tamas, all that is moving and the unmoved in the heaven and in the earth, all our movements and cessation of movements, the sun, the moon, the waters, the fire, the sky, the earth, the rivers, the oceans and all that is being or not being are of the nature of time and brought into being by time and dissolved in time. Time is thus the original cause. Time, however, operates in accordance with the laws of karma; there is thus the beginningless relation between time and karma which determines the courses of all events. Karma in itself is also a product of time and as such determines the future modes of the operation of time. Here we have an instance of the second stage, the conception of time as the transcendental and immanent cause of all things. Here time is guided by karma. In the third stage of the conception of time, which is found in the 辫耻谤腻峁嘺蝉 and also adopted by 叠丑颈办峁�u, it is regarded as the eternal dynamic power inherent in Brahman and brought into operation by the will of God^[3].

'The word 辫耻谤耻峁�a is often used in the scriptural text in the singular number, but that signifies only that it is used in a generic sense, cf. 厂腻峁僰丑测补-蝉奴迟谤补, I. 154 (苍补鈥�dvaita-艣谤耻迟颈-virodho 箩腻迟颈-辫补谤补迟惫腻迟)^[4]. The difference between the superior 辫耻谤耻峁�a or God and the ordinary 辫耻谤耻峁�as is that while the latter are subject to experiences of pleasure and pain as a result of the actions or karma, the former has an eternal and continual experience of bliss through its reflection from its sattvamaya body to itself. 'The ordinary 辫耻谤耻峁�as, however, have not the experience of pleasure and pain as of constitutive definition, for in the stage of saintliness (箩墨惫补苍尘耻办迟颈) they have no such experiences. God can, however, have an experience of the experiences of pleasure and pain of other 辫耻谤耻峁�as without having been affected by them. The ultimate principle or the Brahman is a principle of pure consciousness which underlies the reality of both the 辫耻谤耻峁�as, 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and its evolutes; and it is because they are emergent forms which have their essence in the Brahman that they can appear as connected together. The movement of the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 is also ultimately due to the spontaneous movement of the pure consciousness, the basic reality.

The viveka and the aviveka, the distinction and the nondistinction, are all inherent in buddhi, and this explains why the 辫耻谤耻峁�as fail to distinguish themselves from the buddhi with which they are associated. The association of the 辫耻谤耻峁�as with the buddhi implies that it has in it both the characters of distinction and non-distinction. The difficulty is that the 鈥渞evelation of the distinction鈥� is so opposed by the force of non-distinction that the former cannot find scope for its manifestation. It is the purpose of yoga to weaken the force of the tendency towards non-distinction and ultimately uproot it so that revelation of distinction may manifest itself. Now it may be asked what is the nature of this obstruction. It may be replied that it is merely a negative condition consisting in the non-production of the cognition of the distinction through association with the products of 辫谤补办峁泃颈, such as attachment and antipathy, through which we are continually passing.

The 厂腻峁僰丑测补, however, says that the non-production of the distinction is due to the extreme subtleness of the nature of buddhi and 辫耻谤耻峁�a which so much resemble each other that it is difficult to distinguish their nature. But this view of the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 should not be interpreted as meaning that it is only the subtleness of the natures of these two entities that arrests our discriminating knowledge regarding them. For had it been so, then the process of yoga would be inefficacious in attaining such a knowledge. The real reason is that our association with attachment and antipathy with regard to gross objects obstructs our discriminating vision regarding these subtle entities. Our attachment to gross objects is also due to our long association with sense-objects. A philosopher, therefore, should try to dissociate himself from attachment with gross objects. The whole purpose of creation consists in furnishing materials for the experiences of 辫耻谤耻峁�a which seems to undergo all experiential changes of enjoyment and suffering, of pleasure and pain, in and through the medium of buddhi.

With the dissociation of buddhi, therefore, all experience ceases. The God is essentially pure consciousness, and though the knowledge of Him as such brings about liberation, yet epithets of omnipotence, all-pervasiveness and other personal characteristics are attributed to Him because it is through an approach to God as a super-personal Being that devotion is possible, and it is through devotion and personal attachment that true knowledge can arise. It is said in the scriptures that God cannot be realized by tapas, gifts or sacrifices, but only by bhakti^[5]. The highest devotion is of the nature of love (补迟迟测耻迟迟补尘腻 产丑补办迟颈岣� prema-濒补办峁�a峁嚹�).

God remains within all as the inner controller and everything is revealed to^ His super-conscio奴sness without the mediation of sense-consciousness. God is called all-pervasive because He is the cause of all and also because He is the inner controller.

Bhakti consists in the whole process of listening to God鈥檚 name, describing His virtues, adoration to Him, and meditation ultimately leading to true knowledge. These are all to be designated as the service of God. These processes of operations constituting bhakti are all to be performed with love. 叠丑颈办峁�u quotes Garu岣峚 辫耻谤腻峁嘺 to prove that the root 鈥�bhaj鈥� is used in the sense of service. He also refers to the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补 to show that the true bhakti is associated with an emotion which brings tears to the eyes, melts the heart and raises the hairs of the body. Through the emotion of bhakti one dissolves oneself as it were and merges into God鈥檚 existence, just as the river Ganges does into the ocean.

It will be seen from the above that 叠丑颈办峁�u urges on the doctrine of bhakti as love, as a way to the highest realization. The metaphysical views that he propounded give but small scope for the indulgence of such an attitude towards divinity. For, if the Ultimate Reality be of the nature of pure consciousness, we cannot have any personal relations with such a Being. The ultimate state of realization is also the entrance into a state of non-ditference with this Ultimate Being, who is not Himself a person, and therefore no personal relations ought to be possible with Him. In the 痴颈箩帽腻苍腻-尘峁泃补-产丑腻峁�y补, iv. i. 3, 叠丑颈办峁�u says that at the time of dissolution or emancipation the individuals are not associated with any content of knowledge, and are therefore devoid of any consciousness, and being of the nature of unconscious entities like wood or stone they enter into the all-illuminating great Soul just as rivers enter into the ocean.

Again, it is this great Soul that out of its own will sends them forth like sparks of fire and distinguishes them from one another and goads them to action^[6]. This great Soul or 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍 is the inner-controller and mover of our selves. But it may be remembered that this great Soul is not also the Ultimate Principle, the pure consciousness, but is the manifestation of the pure consciousness in association with the sattvamaya body. Under the circumstances the metaphysical position does not allow of any personal relation between the human beings and the Ultimate Entity. But yet the personal relation with the divinity as the ultimate consciousness not being philosophically possible, that relation is ushered in more out of a theistic tendency of 叠丑颈办峁�u than as a necessary natural conclusion.

The theistic relation is also conceived in a mystical fashion in the indulgence of the emotions of love rising to a state of intoxication. Such a conception of Divine love is found in the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺 ; and later on in the school of Vai峁ａ箛avism preached by Caitanya. It is different from the conception of devotion or bhakti as found in the system of 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补, where bhakti is conceived as incessant continual meditation. He seems to have been, therefore, one of the earliest, if not the earliest, exponent of emotionalism in theism, if we do not take into account the Pur膩峁噄c emotionalism of the 叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补-辫耻谤腻峁嘺. There are instances in the writings of modern European philosophers also, where the difficult position does not justify an emotionalism that is preached merely out of the theistic experiences of a personal nature, and as an illustration one may refer to the idea of God of Pringle Pattison. In the conception of 箩墨惫补 or individuals also there seems to be an apparent contradiction. For while the 辫耻谤耻峁�as are sometimes described as pure consciousness, they are at other times described as inert and wholly under the domination of 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍.

The contradiction is to be solved by the supposition that the inertness is only relative, i.e. the 辫耻谤耻峁�as are to be regarded as themselves inactive, being goaded to action by the inlying controller, 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍. They are called 鈥�箩补岣峚,鈥� resembling stone or wood only in the sense that they are inactive in themselves. But this inactivity should not be associated with want of consciousness. Being sparks of the eternal consciousness they are always of the nature of consciousness. Their activity, however, is derived from the 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍, so that, drawn by Him, they come out of the Eternal consciousness and play the role of a mundane individual and ultimately return to Brahman like rivers into the ocean at the time of emancipation. This activity of God is an eternal activity, an eternal creative impulse which is absolutely without any extraneous purpose (cararna-k膩ra峁嘺sya k峁泃e岣� nityatv膩t)^[7]. It proceeds from the spontaneous joy of God in a spontaneous manner like the process of breathing, and has no reference to the fulfilment of any purpose.

In the 痴测腻蝉补-产丑腻峁�y补 it is said that the creation of God is for the benefit of living beings. But 叠丑颈办峁�u does not support any purpose at all. This activity is sometimes compared with the purposeless playful activity. But 叠丑颈办峁�u says that even if there is any slight purpose in play that also is absent in the activity of God. The action also proceeds spontaneously with the creative desire of God, for which no body or senses are necessary. I le is identical with the whole universe and as such I Iis action has no objective outside of Himself, as in the case of ordinary actions. It is He who, depending upon the beginningless karma of human beings, makes them act for good or for evil. The karma itself, also being a part of His energy and a manifestation of I Iis impulse, cannot be regarded as limiting His freedom^[8]. The analogy of the doctrine of grace where the king bestows his grace or withholds it in accordance with the good or bad services of his serv ants is also regarded as helpful to conceive of the freedom of God in harmony with the deeds of the individual.

If it is argued now, if the creative activity of God is eternal, it can depend on the karma, 叠丑颈办峁�u鈥檚 reply is that the karmas act as accessory causes determining the eternal creative impulse of God as producing pleasurable and painful experiences. Following the trend of the Pur膩峁噄c method 叠丑颈办峁�u further suggests that it is the 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补 created by God who appears as the law-giver of the law of karma, as manifested in the spontaneous activity of God. It is He, therefore, who is responsible for the suffering of humanity in accordance with their karmas. God helps the process only by letting it go on in an unobstructed manner^[9]. In another passage he says that God perceives within Himself as parts of Him the 箩墨惫补s and their conditioning factors (耻辫腻诲丑颈) as associated with merit and demerit (dharma and adharma)\ associating these conditions with the 箩墨惫补s He brings them out of Himself. He is thus the maker of souls, just as the potter is the maker of pots^[10].

The self is regarded as being itself untouchable and devoid of any kind of association (a-艣补峁単补). The association between 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and 辫耻谤耻峁�a, therefore, is not to be interpreted in the sense of a direct contact in the ordinary sense of the term, but the association is to be understood only as transcendental reflection through the conditioning factors which make the pure soul behave as a phenomenal self or 箩墨惫补. The self has no knowledge as its quality or character, and is in itself pure consciousness, and there is at no time a cessation of this consciousness, which exists even during dreamless sleep. But in dreamless sleep there is no actual knowledge, as there is no content present at the time; and it is for that reason that the consciousness though present in the very nature of the self cannot be apperceived.

The 惫腻蝉补苍腻蝉 or desires existing in the 补苍迟补岣�-办补谤补峁嘺 cannot affect the pure soul, for at that time the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 remains in a dissolved condition. Knowledge of contents or objects is possible only through reflections from the states of the buddhi. The pure consciousness being identical with the self, there cannot also be the self-consciousness involving the notion of a duality as subject and object during dreamless sleep. The pure consciousness remains the same and it is only in accordance with changes of mental state that knowledge of objects arises and passes away^[11]. The 箩墨惫补s are thus not to be regarded as themselves the products of the reflection of 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍 as the 艢a峁卥arites suppose; for in that case the 箩墨惫补s would be absolutely unreal, and bondage and emancipation would also be unreal.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Atharva-Veda, xix. 54. In the 础迟岣�a谤惫补-痴别诲补 time is regarded as a generator of the sky and the earth and all beings exist through time. Tapas and Brahman exist in time and time is the god of all. Time produced all creatures. The universe has been set in motion by time, has been produced by it and is supported in it. Time becoming Brahman supports 辫补谤补尘别峁ａ弓丑颈苍. In the 艢vet膩艣vatara 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲 time is regarded as being held by the sun as the ultimate cause. In the 惭补颈迟谤墨 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲, vi. 14, it is said that from time all creatures spring, grow and decay.

Time is a formless form

(k膩l膩t sravanti bh奴t膩ni, k膩l膩t v峁沝dhi峁� pray膩nti ca. |
k膩le c膩鈥檚ta峁� niyacchanti k膩lo m奴rtir am奴rtim膩n).

It is again stated in the same work that there are two forms of Brahman, Time and no-Time.

[2]:

That which is before the sun is no-Time and is devoid of parts, and that which is after the sun is Time with parts.

[3]:

In the 础丑颈谤产耻诲丑苍测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, the work of the 笔补帽肠补谤腻迟谤补 school, niyati (destiny) and 办腻濒补 (time) are the two manifestations of the power of transcendent 办腻濒补 as arising from aniruddha. From this 办腻濒补 first arises the 蝉补迟迟颈补-驳耻峁嘺 and from that the rajn-gwui and thence the tamo-gima.

It is further said that it is time which connects and separates. The 办腻濒补 of course in its own turn derives its power from the self-perceiving activity (sudar - 艣补苍补) of Vi峁ａ箛u. That the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 transforms itself into its evolutes is also due to the dynamic function of 办腻濒补.

The M膩峁環ara v峁泃ti on the 厂腻峁僰丑测补-k膩rik膩, however, refers to the doctrine of 办腻濒补 as the cause of the world (办腻濒补岣� s峁沯ati bhutani, 办腻濒补岣� sa峁僪arate praj膩岣� | 办腻濒补岣� supte峁�u j膩garti tasm膩t 办腻濒补s tu k膩ra峁嘺m) and refutes it by say ing that there is no separate entity as 办腻濒补 (k膩lo n膩ma na ka艣 cit pad膩rtho'sti), there are only three categories, ryakta, aryakta and 辫耻谤耻峁�a, and 办腻濒补 falls within them (vyaktam aiyaktam 辫耻谤耻峁�a iti trayah era pad膩rth膩h tatra k膩lo antarbhuta岣�).

[4]:

The 础丑颈谤产耻诲丑苍测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, however, explains the singular number by the concept of a conglomeration of 辫耻谤耻峁�a or a colony of cells, as the honey-comb, which behaves as a totality and also in a multiple capacity as separate cells. 础丑颈谤产耻诲丑苍测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, VI. 33.

[5]:

aha峁� prak峁涐梗峁璦岣� bhaktito'anyai岣� s膩dhanai岣� dra峁ａ弓u峁� na
艣akya岣�, bhaktir eva keval膩 mad-dar艣ane s膩dhanam.
莫艣惫补谤补-g墨t膩-t墨k膩 (MS. borrowed from N. N. Gop墨n膩tha Kavir膩ja, late Principal, Queen鈥檚 College, Benares).

[6]:

tasm膩t pralaya-mok峁Ｄ�-dau vi峁�aya-sambandh膩-bh膩v膩t k膩峁ａ弓岣�a-lo峁ａ弓r膩-divat ja岣嵞佱弗 s膩nto j墨v膩 madhyand鈥檔膩-dityavat sad膩 sarv膩-vabh膩sake param膩-tmani vil墨yante samudre nada-nadya iva punasca sa eva param膩-tm膩 sve-cchay膩 gni-vissphul i峁単avat t膩-nup膩yi-sambandhena svato vibhajy膩鈥檔tary膩m墨 sa na prerayati tath膩 cokta峁� cak峁�u峁�mat膩鈥檔dh膩 iva n墨yam膩n膩 iti ata岣� sa eva mukhya 膩tm膩-ntary膩my am峁泃a岣�.
     痴颈箩帽腻苍腻-尘峁泃补-产丑腻峁�y补, iv. i. 3.

[7]:

See 痴颈箩帽腻苍腻-尘峁泃补-产丑腻峁�y补, ii. i. 32.

[8]:

Ibid. 11. 1. 33.

[9]:

痴颈箩帽腻苍腻-尘峁泃补-产丑腻峁�y补, II. i. 33.

[10]:

墨艣varo hi sv膩-峁兣沘-sva-艣ar墨r膩-峁兣沘-tulyau 箩墨惫补-tad-up膩dh墨 sv膩-ntar-gatau dharm膩-di-sahitau s膩k峁Ｄ乨 eva pa艣yann a-para-tantra岣� sva-l墨lay膩 sa峁儁oga-vi艣e峁�a峁� brahm膩-dm膩m api dur-vibh膩vya峁� kurvat kurnbhak膩ra iva gha峁璦m.
     Ibid. II. 1. 13.

[11]:

Ibid. II. 3. 5.