पृष्ठम्:तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम्.djvu/२२

विकिस्रोतः तः
Jump to navigation Jump to search
एतत् पृष्ठम् अपरिष्कृतम् अस्ति


0B which he seeks to realise is Eternal Existence, Knowledge, and The Biss. Professor Max Miller writes deliberately as follows:^& vedanta whether we call it a religion or a philosophy, has com. pletely broken with the effete anthropomorphic conception of God and of the Soul as approaching the throne of God, and has opened istas which were unknown to the greatest thinkers of Europe. The Vedanta philosophy shows that the relation between man and God is far closer and more intimate than that set forth in any other systen. It establishes the identity of the human soul with the Supreme Soul and thus inculcates a higher code of morality, DrDeussen says. -So the Vedanta, in its unfalsified form, is the strongest support of pure morality, is the greatest consolation in the sufferings of life and death,-Indians keep to it.' If there is and can be one existence, how then did that which is infinite, ever perfect, ever blessed, become subject to delusion ? Whence comes this avidyathis primal cause of ignorance, sin and misery ? The answer to this question is this. The whole question is inadmissible. Why? If perfection is that which is beyond time, space, and causality, then this question assumes the form: How did the perfect become imperfect? In logical language this question asks how that which is beyond causation becomes subject to it. Here we first admit that something is beyond caus ation, and then ask what caused it. Questions regarding origits can only be asked within the limit of causation. Therefore the question is an impossible one. You ask for the cause of aidya, but it has no cause; for causality goes only so far as this Sistra goes, but never beyond. In inquiring after such a cause you abuse your mental organ for which it is not made and where it is no core available.

  • Prof. Deussen's judgement that ‘all philosophers in India and Greece and

everywhere have been defective, until Kant came to show us that the whole question (From where comes this agity¢ ?) is inadmissible” is, in my humble opinion, not well-founded. cf e.g. अनिर्वाच्यानाद्यविद्यारूपं शरीरद्वयस्य कारणमात्रं सत् स्वस्वरूपाशानं निर्विकल्पकरूपं यदस्ति तत्कारणशरीरम् ।