English
’ 33- The past tense in the above passage is used to Instruct & pupil, accustomed to connect a thing with notions of time. That isto say, in considering the secondless Reality, though time as @ separate entity is absent, yet aa the pupils are habi- tuated to time, the past tense is purposely introduced to help thelr comprehension. Hence the expression cannot lead to the inference of a second thing, in any way militating against the secondiess Reality—the Parabrahma. 34. In common practice, with the objective world before you, whatever questions or inferences you gather are possible, PARCHADASI. 23 tiot so with what relates to non-dual spirituality. That is to way, when there are many objects, and the knowledge relating to them many, then only questions will arise for solution in a variety of ways, but when the object of knowledge is reduced to number one as happens in the conception of non-duality, no such question or inference will cause an interruption of the subject, for then, that knowledge has assumed the impartite thape or in other words, become so modified and blended with the object, that it is one impartite whole. In such @ con- dition (non-dual) questions, and answers, argument and analysis are out of the question, for the knowledge which enables the individual to cover an object for the purpose of framing a question, or deciding an answer for it, has become reduced to one and cannot master any thing else, besides it has become already one with the impartite Parabrahma. 35. To exclude duality from the spiritual Monad or Essence, the Smrifi text is cited as authority wherein is men- tioned, “Before the world had come into existence there was one, quite,—because inert, vast—so as not to be grasped by word or by the mind—unspeakable and unthinkable, nameless, —for it is impossible to portray an accurate description,— indescribable because the eyes and the other organs cannot take hold of It,—something—the antitype of nothing — essentially existent. It is not fre, for it does not discover material objects, nor are they discovered by it. Neither is it darkness, it enshrouds, nothing, for it is naturally un- covered, ail-pervading, and equally present everywhere.” [Now the controversy between a Buddhist and Non-dualist in Teference to the inferences of their sacred writings is being given; ‘you, refer to a Buddhist and ‘we,’ non-dualist}. 36. IE you ‘ask, since the earth and its contents have all come into existence, it is very natural to conclude there was & time when they did not exist, yes not even the atoms, for af created objects are equally subject to destruction. But how do we comprehend ether also was then want- a4 PANCHADASI. ing, to avoid falling into the dilemma of admitting twain existences ? 37. Oh ye Buddhists! If your conception of ‘ nothing’ in that period of the history of the universe when it existed not, implies neither contradiction nor any difficulty, then why do you misapprehend us, when we say, that in that very same prior condition, there was only present the ONE EXIS- TENCE. The inference is very natural, for that prior con- dition ig equally present in both the premises, in your ‘nothing’ and our ‘existence.’ They simply indicate the extreme—negative and positive poles. In the same way as your negative was present, our positive presexisted every condition, 38. If you say ether is visible as a separate entity outside the globe in the shape of its atmosphere, so that a8 regards visibility it is not an inconclusive argument, we may then enquire of you, when and how do you see it without light or darkness? In the absence of that light or darkness ether is never visible, and both of them cannot exist ouf of the universe, consequently you never see the ether without it, this you are forced to admit. Besides,—according to your view, ether is not a really visible body. 39. If you say that according to the Vedanta, the easen- tially existent Parabrahma is also invisible, so here again the same difficulty crops up, which is pointed out in the preceding paragraph with regard to the visibility of ether, and the con- ditions are therefore equal, to such a query we reply that in the state of unconscious meditation without recognition of subject and object, we do conceive the Brahma as a (positive) existence and have no knowledge of non-existence, which by argument and analysis we do away with. 40. if you say, during such meditation, existence is not conceivable, for the separate function of the internal organ is at abeyance, and it cannot cover the Brahma. Our reply is, for discovering the Brahma the presence of Boodit is not ‘PANCHADAST. 25 Weeded. For, It is self-illuminated and requires no other ‘extraneous aid for bemg discovered. Though not a subject ‘of Boodhs (spiritual intelligence) yet it is duly reflected in the ‘consciousness, as a witness, a presence not to be put by, a ‘real existence, and not an unreal ‘nothing.’ 41. Therefore after the mind has been freed from its ‘subjective modifications of determination and {error, mistake, or] indecision and has attained tranquility, as iis associated ‘consciousness is manifested in the form of a simple presence, or witness, doing nothing, but in a condition of passivity, so ‘that prior condition when it existed hefore the objective world had sprung into evistence through Matter (Maya) is easily conceivable and imptics neither any difficulty nor contra- diction, 42. The inherent force residing in the Parabrahma which is essentially existent, and which canrot be differentiated is called Maya. As the consuming flame of fire imparts an idea of its force, so the potentiality of the universal force resident ‘in the Supreme Self is plainly seen in the (creative works) ‘objective material world. 43. (Now this Maya cannot be said to be one with Para- brahma or as something distinct). As the consuming force of fire cannot be said to be fire, so the inherent force of the Supreme Brahma (Maya) is not the same with It, to say so is ‘anreasonable, for, you cannot say “I am my own force,” hence the inherent universal force is not the substance itself. Thea again if you admit it as a separate entity, Can you describe its sepatate existence? {It will thus be evident that Maya and Force with which a Madhyamika Buddhist seeks to identify matter and Parabrahma, are two inseparably blended; we all know force cannot exist without matter as a separate entity, yet to say that it is the same as matter is absurd, hence the contention in the paragraph just asks an opponent of the Vedantic School to describe force as a separate entity. 2 PARCHADASI. Beet But it may be urged that Pargbrahma is force, and,—therefore to introduce the same force pjther ina separate or analogous form is no less absurd. For what is force, is always so, hence force plus force is equally force; under such circumstances the mind fails to comprehend the drift of the text. But no such ambiguity will remain, if we introduce matter in its nadifferentiated condition,—a condition in which the difference between matter and its inherent force is nil, the boundary line 90 to speak, in which matter tosing its grossness, assumes the subtlety of superetherial finis, when no matter is distinguish- able as such, but all is spirit or force ; and such an inference is derived from nature, for the boundary line between the mineral and vegetable, and between the latter and the animal creation is so gradually bevelled at the edges, that each passeses into the other by way of,transition. For a long time, Science was undecided whether a certain vegetable was the last link in the scale of the animal series or a vegetable, so much do they resemble each other. If such a view be accepted, and it is the one advocated by Kapila—in his Mula Prakritithen the difference between Prakriti and Purush on which many have stumbled from ignorance, no longer subsists for all practical purposes, but for syllogistic ends we may goon dabbling ad- infinitum. The Vedantist here presents to his antagonist, (@ Buddhist) the sharp point of a sword which cuts both ways, inasmuch as it takes the ground from under his feet and’ makes the position of the assailant really invincible. Now, Maya is described as a force and it is elsewhere described as the chief factor of the universe, consequently it cannot be anything less than matter. So that we come to the same point whence we started, ¢. g., matter and force. Otherwise the meaning is absurd. And this Maya or matter existed poten- tially in the Parabrahma and: by an act of volition was created the objective world. with the self-made Maya residing within it... Now suck a doctrine is not open to the erticism that God made the world out of nothing, for nothing can create PANCHADASI. . 27 nothing. On the other hand He* created it out of matter which resided within him. If it be asked, since the Parabrahma ig a pure spirit how can It have any connection with matter which is antagonistic to It? We reply, that spirit and force are convertible terms, and we have seen that force cannot exist without matter, hence wherever there is force, there must matter be. It is emphatically laid down that Maya existed in the Parabrahma, and it is this Maya which evolved or creat- ed the universe in a natural order of sequence, by under- going change impressed upon it, through its force or Parabrahma, Without such changes being wrought upon it through the agency of its spirit or force, the universe and ita stellar system could never have sprung up; change is the law of the universe, change every where and in every moment is the grand centre around which are deposited the nidus of future planets, their sattelites etc., and the gradual, slow but sure dissolution of the present existing ones.