|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
3. The following observations rely on Fictional Truth, which seeks to offer "a systematic scrutiny of the textual mechanisms and the verbal structures that represent or imply the truth of a fictitious tale." (Riffaterre 1990, p. xii.) In his foreword, Stephen Nichols characterizes Riffaterre's project as the effort to offer "an historical corrective to the reigning critical orthodoxy as the principalin some critics onlylegitimate form of art's interaction with the social formation that produced it." (Riffaterre 1990, p. vii) Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to this retrieval of Advaita. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Riffaterre 1990, p. xiii. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Riffaterre 1990, pp. xiii-xiv. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Riffaterre 1990, p. 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Riffaterre 1990, p. 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Riffaterre 1990, p. 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Just as world renunciation and the abandonment of texts is legitimated Textually; see Chapter 2, p. 55-58. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. This is P.M. Modi's assessment of UMS II.2: "This Pada (UMS III.2.) seems to deal with the different states, jagarita, svapna and susupta,of the individual soul and of the Supreme Being. The first Sutra (samdhye srstiraha hi) refers to the Sruti, "samdhyam trtiyam svapnasthanam." (Brhadaranyaka Upanisadad 4.3.9) Therefore, sthana in this Sutra means the states of jagarita [being awake], svapna [sleep] and susupta [dreamless sleep] . . . If we interpret the world sthana in this sense [as indicating "states"] we have not to suspect this discussion of the Supreme Self (UMS II.2.11-41) to be an interpolation because we can then say that Pada II of Adhyaya III deals with the states of the individual soul and those of the Supreme Soul." (Modi 1956 vol. I, p. 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. The precise nature of Brahman's possession of two forms is not entirely made clear by Modi: "The Sruti [text] referred to under Sutra 13 says that Brahman is simultaneously both arapavat and rapavat . . . In Sutra 14 the Sutrakara says that this is possible because Brahman is chiefly arupavat and secondarily rupavat.In other words, if Brahman were both rupavat and arupavat in the literal sense, there would be a self-contradiction and then the Sruti in question would not be rationally explained. But such is not the case. Brahman is only arupavat, because it is chiefly arupavat . . . So on the strength of the Sruti [text] one can say without being inconsistent that Brahman is simultaneously both arupavat and rupavat, as the Sutrakara [Badarayana] does in Sutra 11." (Modi 1956 vol. I, p. 11) It is not clear what it means to say that Brahman is only without form, because it is chiefly without form, or that Brahman is simul- |
|
|
|
|
|