|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
36. Tr. 51-54. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37. E.g., Svetavatara Upanisad 6.9. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38. As we saw regarding UMS I.1.12-19. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39. The laksana of something is not its essence, but rather its distinguishing characteristic, that which marks it off from other thingsits definition, in the more active sense of marking off its boundaries. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40. Then, in the next section, I look forward to UMS II in order to show how the ambivalent reasonable-scriptural characterization of Brahman is accompanied by a deliberately fragmenting, designedly insufficiently reasonable characterization of competing viewpoints. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41. Tr. 14. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42. Tr. 14-15. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43. Tr. 15. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44. Tr. 17. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45. Amalananda's dense comments (Skt. 93-4) may help to clarify the issues involved. He asks whether Brahman, supposed to be known from the words of scripture, can actually be characterized by any word or group of words. When the siddhantin observes that "bliss" in Taittiriya 2 also entails "truth," etc.because these terms are always connectedthe purvapaksin objects that even when taken together these words still fail to communicate. If the words are distinct in their meanings, they do not add up to a definition of Brahman, which is distinctionless; if they are not distinct, then the meaning of a statement (composed of them) can never be determined, since words communicate only together, specifying and delimiting one another. Either way, they are not communicative. Unless the words are distinct in meaning, their use together as a sentence is merely repetitive, and means nothing. The siddhantin responds that when the meaning of a word is already known, that meaning can be put forth and specified by other meanings; but since the word "Brahman" is not a word of that sort, what we understand of it is achieved only by the collocation of words in the sentence altogether. Together the words communicate what is not the referent of any single one of them, and without it being a complex referent of all of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46. Deussen 1979, p. 108. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47. The text is given in translation in Deussen 1979, pp. 109-115. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48. Chandogya Upanisad 4.15.5. |
|
|
|
|
|