पृष्ठम्:वेदान्तसारः (सदानन्दः).djvu/१२

viii PREFACE परापरब्रह्मविवेकानवधारणेनापरस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि वर्तमाना गतिश्रुतयः परस्मिन्न ध्यारोप्यन्ते । किं द्वे ब्रह्मणी परमपरं चेति । बाढम् द्वे । ‘एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोङ्कार’ इत्यादिदर्शनात् । किं पुनः परं ब्रह्म किमपरमिति । उच्यते । यत्राविद्याकृतनामरूपदि विशेषप्रतिषेधादस्थूलादिशब्दैर्नाह्योपदिश्यते तत्परम् । तदेव यत्र नामरूपादि विशेषेण केनचिद्विशिष्टमुपासनायोपदिश्यते मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूप' इत्यादिशब्दैस्तदपरम्' ”। Here then we have the difference between परं निर्गुणं ब्रह्म and अपरं सगुणं ब्रह्म clearly laid down in axiomatic form, and illustrated by scripture passages. Now for the inconsistencies! ८2 In 1. 1. 12 we have a discussion as to the application of the term आनन्दमयः in Tait. 2. 5. Does it apply to परं ब्रह्म or to some other? The purvapaksin says that the refer ence is to अमुख्य आत्मा and concludes with the words तस्मात्सं- . सार्थेवानन्दमय आत्मेति.The reply to this is as follows: सार्वानन्दमय आत्मांते ‘एवं प्राप्त इदमुच्यत ‘आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात्’ । पर एवात्मा आनन्दमयो भवितुमर्हति । कुतः । ‘अभ्यासात्’ । परस्मिन्नेव ह्यामन्यानन्दशब्दो बहुकृत्वोऽभ्यस्यते”। Now here the alternative lay between परं ब्रह्म and another, and the latter being finally rejected the former is of course accepted, as in all similar cases. There fore the expression पर आत्मा must be used by the siddhantin as the equivalent of परं ब्रह्म. In 1. 1. 11 however we find that परमात्मा is only ईश्वर, for it is said there “एक एव तु परमात्मे श्वरस्तैस्तैर्गुणविशेषैर्विशिष्ट उपास्यो यद्यपि भवति तथापि यथागुणोपासनमेव फलानि भिद्यन्ते । This is conclusively established, too, from 1. 1. 16 where the discussion is continued as follows:- ‘‘इतश्वानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा । ‘नेतरः' । इतर ईश्वरादन्यः संसारी जीव इत्यर्थः। न जीव आनन्दमयशब्देनाभिधीयते’’ । According to this the choice lay between ईश्वर and जीव, the former term being used as the equivalent of परं ब्रह्म the expression employed in the opening part of the adhikarana. So then परं ब्रह्म is used by Sankara himself as the equivalent of ईश्वर in direct opposition to his own axioms. But here is a still more glaring instance! In 1. 2. 1 there is a discussion as to the meaning of Chha. 3. 14, I, 2. 1. Bri. 3. 8. 8. 2. Cha.3. 14 2