chhAndogya upaniShad 6.2.1 Shankara Bhashya part 3 of 3

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

 

Namaste,

 

Shankara Bhashya - tr. Sw. Gambhirananda Part 3 of 3

 

Objection: If the idea of the Nihilists is that before

creation there was mere absence of existence, then, by

asserting that 'before creation it existed as non-

existence, one only, without a second', how can they

speak of a connection with time, association with num-

ber, and non-duality?

Reply: Quite so. This is not logical for those who

stand by only the absence of existence. And their ad-

mission of mere non-existence is also illogical because

the existence of the person who denies existence, can-

not be denied. If it is held that the admitter (of non-

existence) exists now but not before creation, then, it is

not so because there is no proof of non-existence of

Existence before creation. It is illogical to imagine that

there was non-existence alone before creation.

Objection: If the implication of a word is the form of

a thing, then, how can the meaning of the word or the

meaning of the sentence, 'Non-existence, one only

without a second' be reasonable? And if that is un-

reasonable, then this sentence will become unauthori-

tative.

(That is to say: After refuting the Vaiseshikas and

Bauddhas on the interpretation of the words asat,

ekam, etc. how do you claim to explain cogently these

very words?)

Reply: There is no such defect because the sentence

is meant for obviating acceptance of the idea of 'existence', in as

much as the word sat denotes the 'form' of

an existing thing. And the words 'one only' and 'with-

out a second' have been used in the same case-ending

with 'Existence', and so also is 'this was'. This being so

the (negative) na~ng (in the word asat) used in the

sentence containing sat, removes, by taking help of the

very sentence containing sat, the idea of the meaning in

the form-'There was existence alone, one without a

second'-, conveyed by the sentence containing the

word sat, just as a horse-rider diverts the horse from

the object ahead of it by taking help of the horse itself.

But it is not that it connotes the very absence of Exist-

ence. Therefore, the sentence ('Non-existence alone

was there in the beginning', etc.) is used for restraining

a person from understanding the opposite. For it is

possible to restrain one from wrong understanding, by

pointing out that he has misunderstood. Thus being

purposeful, it becomes established that the sentence

starting with 'non-existence', etc. is a Vedic text, and is

valid too. Therefore sat, the manifest existence;

(a)-ja~yata was born out of; asat, non-existence, absence of

everything. (Absence of a before jayata is a Vedic

licence.)