365bet娱乐

Mantra 6.2.1.

1. The Sat (Good) alone, O child! existed in the beginning (of this creation) one only, without an equal. About this others say, the Asat (Void) alone existed in the beginning of this creation, one only without a second, from that Void (Asat) was produced the Plenum (Sat).鈥�408.

Note.鈥擳he word 鈥淪at鈥� may be translated as the True, the Good, the Plenum. The word 鈥淎sat鈥�, refers to the theory of 艢奴苍测补 痴腻诲补 which maintains that in the beginning was Nothing, was Void, from which came out everything.

Mantra 6.2.2.

2. 鈥楤ut, O child, how could it be thus,鈥� said the father. 鈥楬ow from the Void should be born the Plenum. Therefore, the Sat (the Good) alone existed, O child, in the beginning of this creation, one only, without an equal.鈥�409.

Mantra 6.2.3.

3. He thought 鈥業 shall assume many forms (in order to govern the world) and create beings.鈥� He created Fire. The Goddess of Fire thought, 鈥業 shall assume many forms and create beings.鈥� She created the Waters (痴腻测耻). Therefore, wherever and whenever any body weeps or perspires, water comes out; for it is from lire that water is produced.鈥�410.

Mantra 6.2.4.

4. The (God of) water thought 鈥榤ay I multiply and create beings. He created (Rudra the God of) Food (Earth). Therefore, wherever and whenever it rains, much food is produced; therefore from Water alone is produced all food fit for eating.鈥�411.

Note:鈥擜pparently this is a geological conception clothed in mythological language.

Madhva鈥檚 commentary called the Bh膩峁�ya:

The creation of the world is now being taught, in order to establish the greatness of the Lord. The second 办丑补峁囜笉补 begins with the famous passage:鈥斺�淪ad eva somya idam agra 膩sit ekam eva 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘鈥�. This is the key-stone of the advaita edifice, and naturally Madhva takes pains to refute the wrong interpretation of the Advaitins. 艢补峁卥补谤补 takes the three words ekam, eva and 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘, as negativing the three sorts of Bhedas, namely the svagata, the 蝉补箩腻迟墨测补, and the 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补, Bhedas. Thus in a tree, the difference that exists in it, between its branches, leaves, etc., is a svagata bheda or difference inter se. There is no such difference in Brahman. It is homogeneous. The difference that exists between one tree and another of a different class, such as between an apple and a mango tree is 蝉补箩腻迟墨测补 bheda or class difference. There is no class difference in Brahman. As is the difference between a tree and a stone, things belonging to different classes altogether and which is 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 difference, or extreme difference, there is no such difference in Brahman. The word eka or one shows, that Brahman is the sole cause of the universe, and not like the clay which is the material cause of the pot, but whose efficient cause is the potter and the instrumental cause is potter鈥檚 wheel, etc. Brahman is the material and the efficient cause as well. The word 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘 shows that there is no other substance in existence than Brahman. It is the only substance that exists. This view of 艢补峁卥补谤补 is set aside by our Commentator

The words ekam eva 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘 mean that the Lord is free from svagata bheda, i.e., He is homogeneous; and is free from 蝉补箩腻迟墨测补 bheda, that is, He has no one equal to Him. He is one homogeneous substance and is peerless. As says the text:鈥斺�淗e is called 鈥榚kam eva 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘鈥�, because He is devoid of any equal or superior, and because, He has no differences inter se, being a homogeneous mass. Such is the Eternal Brahman.鈥� This is in the Pravritta [笔谤补惫峁泃迟补?].

鈥淭he word 鈥榚va鈥� is used in order to exclude the theory of 产丑别诲腻-产丑别诲补 (which teaches that Brahman has difference and is differenceless also). The word 鈥槻够灞咕背倌�测补尘鈥� shows that He is free from equality and superiority:鈥攆or there is no one equal to Him or superior to Him. (Had the word 鈥榚va鈥� not been used, then 鈥榚kam 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘鈥� would have meant one and peerless, which need not be homogeneous, as one pot, etc. For so far as the pot is concerned, it is one, but it has differences in its various parts. The 产丑别诲腻-产丑别诲补 theory would have come in, but for the word eva. Therefore this 艢谤耻迟颈 sadeva, etc., says that the Lord 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 is 鈥榚kam eva,鈥� 鈥榦ne only.鈥� The word 诲惫颈迟墨测补尘 means 鈥榚qual鈥�. This word is used in the sense of 鈥榚qual鈥� in the 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补.

Tho 惭补丑腻产丑腻峁�y补 reference is:鈥斺��asya gor dvit墨yena bh膩vyam iti ukte sad峁浥沷 gaur eva up 膩diyate na a艣va岣�na 驳补谤诲补产丑补岣�鈥�. This shows that 诲惫颈迟墨测补尘 has the meaning of 蝉补诲峁浥沘 or equal also.

鈥楾he word 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘, therefore, means without 鈥榚qual.鈥� How can any one be superior to Him, when no one can even come up to Him. Thus this great text shows that the Lord is one and peerless. Thus it is in the S膩ma Sa峁僪it膩.

Nor is the absence of 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 bheda a well-known thing; (for no one has ever seen a thing which has not its contrary). Moreover there is no proof of the existence of such an absence of 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 bheda. The word 补诲惫颈迟墨测补 does not mean the absence of 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 bheda. As says another text:鈥斺�淲hen it is said the Lord is 鈥榚ka eva 补诲惫颈迟墨测补鈥� it means that there is no one equal to Him or greater than He.鈥� So also another text:鈥斺�楾he Lord is one, there is no one equal to, or greater than, Him.鈥�

If it be said there is nothing else than the Lord and all that exists is the Lord, and so there is no such thing as 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补, and consequently the absence of 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 bheda is the most natural thing in the world; then the whole context becomes absurd.

For the question put by 鲍诲诲腻濒补办补 is what is that thing by knowing which, the unknown becomes known. If there exists no other thing than Brahman, the knowledge of Brahman will give us the knowledge of nothing, and not of every thing; for nothing else exists. Therefore the Commentator says:鈥�

If there exists no 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 object, but all is Brahman, then the very question of 鲍诲诲腻濒补办补 becomes purposeless, for he asks what is that by knowing which every thing else becomes known, by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, etc. The very question takes for granted the existence of other things which are to be heard or perceived, etc. And since every thing is Brahman, the knowledge of any thing, (of a pot even) would be the knowledge of Brahman. Not only this, but ignorance would be as good as, nay the very acme of knowledge; for there being no 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 difference, ignorance and knowledge is one and the same. Nor would remain there any such difference, as truth and falsehood; for the recognition of such difference amounts to the giving up of the advaita position; and admission that 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 bheda is not a fiction of the moralists but an absolute something.

Moreover the difference between truth and falsehood being a fiction, it follows that their identity is not a fiction, but a truth and a reality. The true and the false being thus identical, the phrases like these 鈥渢his is truth; this is false鈥� cease to have any meaning, so it is as much true to say that the 闯墨惫补 and 莫艣惫补谤补 are identical as to say that they are different. In other words, the proposition that the 闯墨惫补 and the 莫艣惫补谤补 are different is also true. Your position, therefore, that the Brahman is the absolute reality and everything else is false becomes untenable.

Another absurdity of this position is that Brahman itself becomes false, for there being no difference between truth and falsehood, it is as much true to say that Brahman is; as to say that it is not. Even if we admit that this Great Text 鈥渆kem eva 补诲惫颈迟墨测补尘鈥� declares that there is no bhedas in Brahman, whether svagata or 蝉补箩腻迟墨测补 or 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补, we explain it in this way

This text prohibits 蝉补箩腻迟墨测补 and svagata bheda and that kind of 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 bheda which asserts the existence of any 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 object greater than Brahman. (In other words, Brahman is a homogeneous substance, has no svagata bheda; He is unique,鈥攈as no other substance of his class, has no 蝉补箩腻迟墨测补 bheda; and lastly there is no one greater than Him, and thus He has no vijat墨ya bheda also, in this sense only; that is there is no 惫颈箩腻迟墨测补 object greater than He.

The Commentator now explains the whole Kha峁囜笉a in the very words of a well-known book.

The Lord 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 Hari is called Sat; because He is the best of all; (the Good par excellence). He created (emitted) in the beginning (the chaste Goddess 艢r墨) the eternally existing Shining One called Tejas or Light. (She is the presiding deity of Fire or light). She is called tejas either because she resides in the All-pervading (鈥�tate鈥� in the all-pervading) and is Unborn (aja, unborn; te + aja). Or She is called tejas because the creation (ja) is by her, with the Lord (tata) as efficient cause. In other words She is called Tejas because Her creative form, called 惫颈诲测腻, is born (ja) from the Lord Hari (ta).

From Her is born even the 笔谤腻峁嘺 called also Manu, and named also water or Apas. From Her also comes out the Lord 叠谤补丑尘腻, the presiding deity of the four-castes of 叠谤腻丑尘补峁嘺蝉, etc.

In fact, the birth of 笔谤腻峁嘺 and 叠谤补丑尘腻 is simultaneous and 笔谤腻峁嘺 always in turn becomes 叠谤补丑尘腻, therefore, the birth of 笔谤腻峁嘺 is said first. Moreover 笔谤腻峁嘺 is more important of the two. Therefore His creation is mentioned first.

From 笔谤腻峁嘺 is born the Lord Hara, who is called anna [annam] or Food.

These three Devatas鈥斉歳墨, 笔谤腻峁嘺 and 叠谤补丑尘腻, and Hara are called here by the names of three elements鈥攍ight, water and earth, and they are the presiding deities of these. In fact, this Kha峁囜笉a teaches the creation of these three 顿别惫补迟腻蝉 and of these three elements as well.

That Shining One鈥斉歳墨 dwells in light, and 笔谤腻峁嘺 even dwells in the water, therefore from heat (tejas) comes out water, (as perspiration). The Lord Hara dwells in food, and so food comes out of water (as Hara comes out of 笔谤腻峁嘺). In fact, the earth is the food of this passage, for all food is but a form of earth.