But, an objection is raised--how can knowledge, springing from the
sacred texts, bring about a cessation of the view of difference, in
manifest opposition to the evidence of Perception?--How then, we rejoin,
can the knowledge that this thing is a rope and not a snake bring about,
in opposition to actual perception, the cessation of the (idea of the)
snake?--You will perhaps reply that in this latter case there is a
conflict between two forms of perception, while in the case under
discussion the conflict is between direct perception and Scripture which
is based on perception. But against this we would ask the question how,
in the case of a conflict between two equal cognitions, we decide as to
which of the two is refuted (sublated) by the other. If--as is to be
expected--you reply that what makes the difference between the two is
that one of them is due to a defective cause while the other is not: we
point out that this distinction holds good also in the case of Scripture
and perception being in conflict. It is not considerations as to the
equality of conflicting cognitions, as to their being dependent or
independent, and so on, that determine which of the two sublates the
other; if that were the case, the perception which presents to us the
flame of the lamp as one only would not be sublated by the cognition
arrived at by inference that there is a succession of different flames.
Wherever there is a conflict between cognitions based on two different
means of knowledge we assign the position of the 'sublated one' to that
which admits of being accounted for in some other way; while that
cognition which affords no opening for being held unauthoritative and
cannot be accounted for in another way, is the 'sublating one [FOOTNOTE
25:1].' This is the principle on which the relation between 'what
sublates' and 'what is sublated' is decided everywhere. Now apprehension
of Brahman--which is mere intelligence, eternal, pure, free,
self-luminous--is effected by Scripture which rests on endless unbroken
tradition, cannot therefore be suspected of any, even the least,
imperfection, and hence cannot be non-authoritative; the state of
bondage, on the other hand, with its manifold distinctions is proved by
Perception, Inference, and so on, which are capable of imperfections and
therefore may be non-authoritative. It is therefore reasonable to
conclude that the state of bondage is put an end to by the apprehension
of Brahman. And that imperfection of which Perception--through which we
apprehend a world of manifold distinctions--may be assumed to be
capable, is so-called Nescience, which consists in the beginningless
wrong imagination of difference.--Well then--a further objection is
raised--let us admit that Scripture is perfect because resting on an
endless unbroken tradition; but must we then not admit that texts
evidently presupposing the view of duality, as e.g. 'Let him who desires
the heavenly world offer the Jyotishtoma-sacrifice'--are liable to
refutation?--True, we reply. As in the case of the Udgâtri and
Pratihartri breaking the chain (not at the same time, but) in
succession [FOOTNOTE 26:1], so here also the earlier texts (which refer
to duality and transitory rewards) are sublated by the later texts which
teach final release, and are not themselves sublated by anything else.
The texts which represent Brahman as devoid of qualities have greater
force
The same reasoning applies to those passages in the Vedânta-texts which
inculcate meditation on the qualified Brahman, since the highest Brahman
is without any qualities.--But consider such passages as 'He who
cognises all, who knows all' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'His high power is
revealed as manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet.
Up. VI, 8); 'He whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5); how can these passages, which clearly aim at defining the
nature of Brahman, be liable to refutation?--Owing to the greater weight,
we reply, of those texts which set forth Brahman as devoid of qualities.
'It is not coarse, not fine, not short, not long' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8);
'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'That
which is free from qualities,' 'that which is free from stain'--these
and similar texts convey the notion of Brahman being changeless, eternal
intelligence devoid of all difference; while the other texts--quoted
before--teach the qualified Brahman. And there being a conflict between
the two sets of passages, we--according to the Mîmâmsâ principle
referred to above--decide that the texts referring to Brahman as devoid
of qualities are of greater force, because they are later in order
[FOOTNOTE 27:1] than those which speak of Brahman as having qualities.
Thus everything is settled. The text Taitt. Up. II, 1 refers to Brahman
as devoid of qualities.
But--an objection is raised--even the passage 'The True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman' intimates certain qualities of Brahman, viz. true
being, knowledge, infinity!--Not so, we reply. From the circumstance
that all the terms of the sentence stand in co-ordination, it follows
that they convey the idea of one matter (sense) only. If against this
you urge that the sentence may convey the idea of one matter only, even
if directly expressing a thing distinguished by several qualities; we
must remark that you display an ignorance of the meaning of language
which appears to point to some weakmindedness on your part. A sentence
conveys the idea of one matter (sense) only when all its constitutive
words denote one and the same thing; if, on the other hand, it expresses
a thing possessing several attributes, the difference of these
attributes necessarily leads to a difference in meaning on the part of
the individual words, and then the oneness of meaning of the sentence is
lost.--But from your view of the passage it would follow that the
several words are mere synonyms!--Give us your attention, we reply, and
learn that several words may convey one meaning without being idle
synonyms. From the determination of the unity of purport of the whole
sentence [FOOTNOTE 27:2] we conclude that the several words, applied to
one thing, aim at expressing what is opposite in nature to whatever is
contrary to the meanings of the several words, and that thus they have
meaning and unity of meaning and yet are not mere synonyms. The details
are as follows. Brahman is to be defined as what is contrary in nature
to all other things. Now whatever is opposed to Brahman is virtually set
aside by the three words (constituting the definition of Brahman in the
Taittiriya-text). The word 'true' (or 'truly being') has the purport of
distinguishing Brahman from whatever things have no truth, as being the
abodes of change; the word 'knowledge' distinguishes Brahman from all
non-sentient things whose light depends on something else (which are not
self-luminous); and the word 'infinite' distinguishes it from whatever
is limited in time or space or nature. Nor is this 'distinction' some
positive or negative attribute of Brahman, it rather is just Brahman
itself as opposed to everything else; just as the distinction of white
colour from black and other colours is just the true nature of white,
not an attribute of it. The three words constituting the text thus _have_
a meaning, have _one_ meaning, and are non-synonymous, in so far as they
convey the essential distinction of one thing, viz. Brahman from
everything else. The text thus declares the one Brahman which is
self-luminous and free from all difference. On this interpretation of
the text we discern its oneness in purport with other texts, such as
'Being only this was in the beginning, one only, without a second.'
Texts such as 'That from whence these beings are born' (Taitt. Up. III,
1); 'Being only this was in the beginning' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Self
alone was this in the beginning' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 1), &c., describe
Brahman as the cause of the world; and of this Brahman the Taittirîya
passage 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' gives the strict
definition.
In agreement with the principle that all sâkhâs teach the same doctrine
we have to understand that, in all the texts which speak of Brahman as
cause, Brahman must be taken as being 'without a second', i.e. without
any other being of the same or a different kind; and the text which aims
at defining Brahman has then to be interpreted in accordance with this
characteristic of Brahman, viz. its being without a second. The
statement of the Chândogya as to Brahman being without a second must
also be taken to imply that Brahman is non-dual as far as qualities are
concerned; otherwise it would conflict with those passages which speak
of Brahman as being without qualities and without stain. We therefore
conclude that the defining Taittirîya-text teaches Brahman to be an
absolutely homogeneous substance.
But, the above explanation of the passage being accepted, it follows
that the words 'true being,' 'knowledge,' &c., have to be viewed as
abandoning their direct sense, and merely suggesting a thing distinct in
nature from all that is opposite (to what the three words directly
denote), and this means that we resort to so-called implication (implied
meaning, lakshanâ)!--What objection is there to such a proceeding? we
reply. The force of the general purport of a sentence is greater than
that of the direct denotative power of the simple terms, and it is
generally admitted that the purport of grammatical co-ordination is
oneness (of the matter denoted by the terms co-ordinated).--But we never
observe that all words of a sentence are to be understood in an implied
sense!--Is it then not observed, we reply, that _one_ word is to be
taken in its implied meaning if otherwise it would contradict the
purport of the whole sentence? And if the purport of the sentence, which
is nothing but an aggregate of words employed together, has once been
ascertained, why should we not take two or three or all words in an
implied sense--just as we had taken one--and thus make them fit in with
the general purport? In agreement herewith those scholars who explain to
us the sense of imperative sentences, teach that in imperative sentences
belonging to ordinary speech all words have an implied meaning only (not
their directly denotative meaning). For, they maintain, imperative forms
have their primary meaning only in (Vedic) sentences which enjoin
something not established by other means; and hence in ordinary speech
the effect of the action is conveyed by implication only. The other
words also, which form part of those imperative sentences and denote
matters connected with the action, have their primary meaning only if
connected with an action not established by other means; while if
connected with an ordinary action they have a secondary, implied,
meaning only [FOOTNOTE 30:1]. Perception reveals to us non-differenced
substance only
We have so far shown that in the case of a conflict between Scripture
and Perception and the other instruments of knowledge, Scripture is of
greater force. The fact, however, is that no such conflict is observed
to exist, since Perception itself gives rise to the apprehension of a
non-differenced Brahman whose nature is pure Being.--But how can it be
said that Perception, which has for its object things of various kinds--
and accordingly expresses itself in judgments such as 'Here is a jar,'
'There is a piece of cloth'--causes the apprehension of mere Being? If
there were no apprehension of difference, all cognitions would have one
and the same object, and therefore would give rise to one judgment only--
as takes place when one unbroken perceptional cognition is continued for
some time.--True. We therefore have to enquire in what way, in the
judgment 'here is a jar,' an assertion is made about being as well as
some special form of being. These implied judgments cannot both be
founded on perception, for they are the results of acts of cognition
occupying different moments of time, while the perceptional cognition
takes place in one moment (is instantaneous). We therefore must decide
whether it is the essential nature of the jar, or its difference from
other things, that is the object of perception. And we must adopt the
former alternative, because the apprehension of difference presupposes
the apprehension of the essential nature of the thing, and, in addition,
the remembrance of its counterentities (i.e. the things from which the
given thing differs). Hence difference is not apprehended by Perception;
and all judgments and propositions relative to difference are founded on
error only.