Establishment of Brahman 3.258.1

3.258.1

atha kāryarūpanāśaḥ, ucchedātmatāprasaṅgo mokṣasya /
tatra ‘vidyayāmṛtamaśnute'; iti virodhaḥ, vidyayaivocchedaprasaṅgāt /
ātmocchedasya cāniṣṭatvādaphalatvam /
pratiṣiddhaśca ‘akṣaram'ityatra mukhyaḥ kāryakāraṇabhāvaḥ ‘vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyam'iti vikārānṛtatvapratipādanācchrutyā /
na caturthaḥ, ananyatvādeva, caitanyasya ca brahmarūpasyāviśeṣāt /
atha vijñānātmanāṃ śokamohādyabhāvo viśiṣyata iti cettatrāpi śokādayaścedātmāno vijñānātmanām, anucchedyāḥ /
atha guṇā arthāntaramāgamāpāyinaḥ kṣaṇikāḥ, kṣaṇikatvādeva cocchidyanta iti na tatsādhanamapekṣyam /
na cāgāmināmanutpattaye 'pekṣyata ityuktam /
atha aiśvaryaviśeṣo brahmaṇi /
tatprāptistadrūpapariṇāmo mokṣaḥ, ‘sa svarāḍ bhavati'; iti śruteḥ /
tadasat, anekeśvarānupapatteḥ /
brahmaṇo nyūnaṃ samaṃ vā vijñānātmanām aiśvaryaṃ syāt? nyūnatvena brahmarūpāpattirna svārājyam /
tathā hi ---
brahmaśabdavācyaḥ parameśvarasteṣāmadhipatiḥ syāt /
tathā cānyarājatā /
tatra cāntavatvaṃ śrūyate ---
‘atha ye 'nyathāto viduḥ, anyarājānaste kṣayyalokā bhavanti'; iti /
upapadyate ca parameśvarecchayā nyūnaiśvaryāṇāmaiśvaryapracyutidarśanālloke /
‘samatvasya tvanapapattireva yugapat /
ekaścetsarvādhipatiḥ sarvasya praśāsitā, paraḥ kiṃ kurvannīśaḥ syāt? virodhācca /
na khalveṣāmekamatitve heturasti /
tatraikasmin vastuni viruddhābhiprāyayorekābhiprāyānuvidhāyitve tasyetarasyānīśvaratvam /
ubhayānuprāyānuvidhānaṃ na, virodhāt /
ubhayorananuvidhāne 'nīśvaratvamubhayoḥ /

If [it is said that liberation is] the destruction of the nature of the effect, liberation would entail annihilation. / In that case, there is a contradiction with [the scripture], 'Through knowledge one attains immortality,' because it would entail annihilation through knowledge itself. / And since the annihilation of the Self is not desired, it cannot be a human end. / Moreover, an actual relation of cause and effect has been rejected in the passage on 'the Imperishable,' because scripture demonstrates the unreality of modifications in: 'A modification is only a verbal handle, a name.' / Nor is the fourth [alternative possible], precisely because there is non-difference, and consciousness, which is the nature of Brahman, admits of no distinction. / If it is said that the distinction lies in the absence of grief, delusion, and so forth for the individual conscious selves: even so, if grief and the like are the nature of the individual conscious selves, they cannot be annihilated. / If they are qualities that are distinct entities, arriving and departing, and momentary, then since they are annihilated by their very momentariness, no means for their [annihilation] is to be sought. / And it has already been stated that [a means] is not sought to prevent the origination of future ones. / If [it is argued that] there is a particular sovereignty in Brahman, / and reaching that or transforming into that nature is liberation, according to the scriptural text: 'He becomes an autonomous ruler'— / this is incorrect, because multiple lords are impossible. / Would the sovereignty of the individual conscious selves be less than or equal to that of Brahman? / If it were less, attaining the nature of Brahman would not be autonomous rule. / For indeed: / The Supreme Lord, designated by the word 'Brahman', would be their sovereign. / And thus there would be rule by another. / And in that case, finitude is taught by scripture: / 'Now, those who know otherwise than this are subject to another ruler; they possess perishable worlds.' / And this is reasonable, for in ordinary experience we see that those of lesser sovereignty are deposed from sovereignty by the will of a supreme lord. / An equality [of sovereignty], however, is simply impossible simultaneously. / If one is the sovereign of all, the ruler of all, what would the other do to be a lord? And because there would be a contradiction. / Indeed, there is no reason for their agreement of mind. / In that situation, when two have conflicting intentions concerning a single object, if [matters] follow the intention of the one, the other would not be a lord. / Following the intention of both is impossible, because of the contradiction. / If neither [intention] is followed, both would not be lords.