पृष्ठम्:विशिष्टाद्वैतसिद्धिः.djvu/९७

( 78 ) could not be the material cause of fire. Something has to be attributed to it to make it possible for it to be- come and create fire. There being nothing to suggest that that something may be unreal we have to take it as real. On the other hand unreality of it is objec- tionable since if accepted it necessitates to explain away the seeing and the action of creation of Sat and to take them in a secondary sense. It is difficult to understand Sankara when he says (under 6-2-4) fSince the seeing of Sat is to be known only through Sabda (Veda) it cannot be taken in a secondary sense. If Sat is the pure Advaita Brahmin it could not see in the proper and primary sense of the word. If on the other hand Sat saw in the proper primary sense of the word it could not b . the Nirvisesha Advaita Brahman. That fire sav(6-2-3) is correctly explained by Sankara : “तत् सत्सृष्ट' तेज: ऐन्त । तेजोरूपसंस्थितं सत् ऐक्षतेत्यर्थः ।- That fire which was created by Sat saw. What is meant is "Sat in the form of fire saw." > But it is difficult to explain why he should say sub-. sequently (under 6-2-4). ‘तेजःप्रभृति ईक्षत इव ईक्षत इत्युच्यते भूतम्’ The elements, fire. etc., are said to see taking them as if they do