ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF CONTENTS, xxxv
Xor can the attributes of creation, c., give rise to any accidental characterisation of the Brahman, in as much as all accidental characterisations denote onl}* such things as have already been definitively characterised in some form or other, and in as much as it is not possible to establish that there is any definitive characterisation of the Brah- man quite independently of the passage referred to in the aphorism. Therefore it is not possible to know the Brahman by means of any definition (pp. 257-259.).
To these objections it is replied that the characteris- tics of universal creation, &c., mentioned in this aphorism are well suited to give us an accidental characterisation of the Brahman, and suited also to give a definition of the Brahman. It is not right to say that the Brahman is not at all known to us otherwise than through the char- acteristics of universal creation, &c.; etymology itself teaches us that He is a Being who is characterised by Su- preme Greatness and Growth and in the Upanishadic pas- sage under reference He is spoken of as a well known Be- ing. His greatness is really due to the fact of His being both the instrumental and the material cause of the universe, and the Brahman who is known to be all this may well be denoted by the characteristics of universal creation, &c. (pp. 259-261.). These characteristics of universal creation, &c., are also capable of defining the Brahman, in as much as they need not denote more than one Brahman. In the definition of the ox given above, all the three defining attributes are seen to conflict with each other ; and thus they tend to denote more than one ox. In the given definition of the Brahman there is no such contradiction between the attributes, for the reason that the world's creation, preservation, and destruction take place at different times. The attributes of universal creation,
