[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Philosophy](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana) › [Non-dualist Vedānta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita) › [Systematic treatises](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra) › [Establishment of Brahman](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi) › 3.32 # Establishment of Brahman 3.32 Brahmasiddhi 3.32 - **Language:** Sanskrit ### [3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.32) vidhimantareṇa na kāryopadeśapratītiḥ / yathāvasthitaṃ vastu tadvidhasyānuvādamātratvaṃ gamyate / anuvādaśca pramāṇāntaraviṣaya iti tadapekṣo bhūtārtho nārtha ucyata iti sāpekṣatvādaprāmāṇyam / vidhyarthasya tu pramāṇāntarāviṣayatvāttanniṣṭhamanapekṣaṃ pramāṇaṃ karmavidhivākyavat / pramāṇāntarāviṣayaśca vidhyarthaḥ / na hi ‘kuru'iti śabdajñānādanyataḥ pratītiḥ / evaṃ ca sati tattvapratipattipare vākye yadyapi vākyārthabodhātparācīnā pravṛttiḥ, vidhiphalaṃ nāsti / prāmāṇyāyaiva tu vidhiniṣṭhatvameṣitavyamiti / atrocyate --- > Without an injunction, there is no apprehension of instruction regarding what is to be done. > An entity that is already established as such is understood to be a mere reiteration of that sort. > And reiteration has for its sphere another means of valid cognition; hence an existent fact dependent on that is not declared to be the \[primary\] meaning, so because of dependence it lacks validity. > On the other hand, the meaning of an injunction is independent, being a means of valid cognition focused on that \[duty\], because it is not within the scope of any other means of valid cognition, just like sentences enjoining ritual acts. > And the meaning of an injunction is indeed not within the scope of any other means of valid cognition; > for there is no apprehension \[of it\] from anything other than the verbal cognition 'do \[this\]'. > And this being so, even if in a sentence intent on imparting reality, activity subsequent to understanding the sentence-meaning—the fruit of an injunction—does not exist, > yet intentness on an injunction must be accepted simply for the sake of validity. > To this, it is replied:— > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.31) - [Next: 3.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.33) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi~en-mt.3.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.advaita.sastra.brahmasiddhi.3.32) · Pramāṇa