|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth, even if knowledge of the sheath consisting of bliss is not knowledge of Brahman, its salvific purpose is preserved, since Brahman is the foundation of that sheath, its support; therefore, the salvific import of the text is not lost if we decide that "consisting of bliss" does not refer to Brahman.
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the basis of these (and other) arguments the previously firm siddhanta"Brahman is the sheath consisting of bliss"is reduced to an uttarapaksaprovisionally trueand a new siddhanta is fashioned: "Brahman is not the sheath consisting of bliss, but lies yet deeper inside that." This presentation of two versions of the siddhanta highlights dramatically, though also exceptionally, the permanent openness of the Text to rereading and the articulation of new positions; every position remains liable to modification, some further word. Advaita desires precision, and considers right meaning an attainable goal; but precision and rightness of meaning occur only within the context of an argument that is never closed, since it will always be possible that a new consideration or a better reading be brought forward. The adhikarana format is the vehicle of that advance, and it ensures that new arguments, and rereadings of old ones, are always possible. When these are advanced, the Text is reopened, and new elements incorporated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c. The Later Commentarial Contribution to the Interpretation of Taittiriya 2.1-6a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned earlier, each adhikarana can be read more complexly, by tracing "up" through the commentarial elaborations of its meaning further questions and objections and responses to them. Whatever is said in earlier texts will be carefully explained, but each explanation opens up new possibilities. Just as they dutifully explained the first purvapaksa and siddhanta, Vacaspati, Amalananda and Appaya Diksita dutifully confirm Sankara's second siddhanta, which is not doubted in their elaborations of it.22 It is not new content that motivates our reading of these later commentaries, but rather their skill in judgment and their ability to negotiate a path through a complex set of arguments. Their careful refinements give precision to Sankara's arguments, elaborating a broad set of subsequent |
|
|
|
|
|