|
|
|
|
|
|
|
limiting adjunctsbody and the rest. And though the self continues as before [untouched by these flaws], it is seen to remain falsely identified with the body and the rest, the identification having arisen from a series of errors preceding each other."
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although various inferences about a material source for the world seem plausible and consonant with scripture, UMS II.1.4ff. will show that the material complexity of the world is more easily explained by the postulation of Brahman than by that of the material source.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of UMS 1.1.5 and in UMS 1.1.6 the objection is introduced that since the Chandogya text speaks not only of Being (sat) as "seeing," but also of fire and water as doing the same, there is no warrant for concluding that the "seeing" attributed to Being is intelligenceany more than the metaphorical "seeing" of fire is or water is intelligent. Sankara responds that the usage regarding Being is legitimately exceptional: the logic of the passage as a whole points toward the intelligible relation between Being and the human knower, and thus supports an interpretation of seeing as an intelligent operation. Regarding fire and water, there are no comparable persuasive arguments.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UMS I.1.7-11 extends the exposition of the two sides to the Advaita-Samkhya argument in several ways: a. were the material source the object of knowledge, knowing it would not lead to salvation; if effective at all in changing the knower, the transformation would be merely a degradation of the conscious to the level of the nonconscious; such knowledge cannot be intended by the Chandogya passage (I.1.7-8); b. scripture must be unanimous in proposing only one primary topic; it cannot refer to Brahman in some texts and a material source in others (I.1.10); c. there are other texts37 which speak of Brahman as the omniscient source, and these confirm our interpretation of the Chandogya text (I.1.11). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a whole, UMS I.1.5-11 defends the theological position that Brahman is the sole intelligent, material, efficient and final cause of the world. The debate which concludes in this position is a matter of right exegesis and, by extension, of the articulation of the implications of that intelligent reading; essential to it |
|
|
|
|
|