ke B/ri/. Up. II, 2, 4, 'These two are
the /ri/shis Gautama and Bharadvaja; the right Gautama, the left
Bharadvaja.'--Another reason for the non-qualification of the gods is
stated in the following Sutra.
32. And (the devas, &c. are not qualified) on account of (the words
denoting the devas, &c.) being (used) in the sense of (sphere of) light.
To that sphere of light, the purvapakshin resumes, which is stationed in
the sky, and during its diurnal revolutions illumines the world, terms
such as Aditya, i.e. the names of devas, are applied, as we know from
the use of ordinary language, and from Vedic complementary
passages[207]. But of a mere sphere of light we cannot understand how it
should be endowed with either a bodily form, consisting of the heart and
the like, or intelligence, or the capability of forming wishes[208]. For
mere light we know to be, like earth, entirely devoid of intelligence.
The same observation applies to Agni (fire), and so on. It will perhaps
be said that our objection is not valid, because the personality of the
devas is known from the mantras, arthavadas, itihasas, pura/n/as, and
from the conceptions of ordinary life[209]; but we contest the relevancy
of this remark. For the conceptions of ordinary life do not constitute
an independent means of knowledge; we rather say that a thing is known
from ordinary life if it is known by the (acknowledged) means of
knowledge, perception, &c. But none of the recognised means of
knowledge, such as perception and the like, apply to the matter under
discussion. Itihasas and pura/n/as again being of human origin, stand
themselves in need of other means of knowledge on which to base. The
arthavada passages also, which, as forming syntactical wholes with the
injunctory passages, have merely the purpose of glorifying (what is
enjoined in the latter), cannot be considered to constitute by
themselves reasons for the existence of the personality, &c. of the
devas. The mantras again, which, on the ground of direct enunciation,
&c., are to be employed (at the different stages of the sacrificial
action), have merely the purpose of denoting things connected with the
sacrificial performance, and do not constitute an independent means of
authoritative knowledge for anything[210].--For these reasons the devas,
and similar beings, are not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.
33. Badaraya/n/a, on the other hand, (maintains) the existence (of
qualification for Brahma-
|