And (this) syllogistic reasoning being framed at will, is not pure reasoning; hence (it is) not to be sought.

18. And (this) syllogistic reasoning being framed at will, is not pure reasoning; hence (it is) not to be sought.

 

Indeed a syllogism may be framed (with whatever premises) we like. Therefore in establishing what is true, absolute reasoning is not to be sought. This is also said in the Skanda. “As the syllogism may be whimsical, only such reasoning as may not be at variance with Shruti is to be admitted for the consistent ‘understanding of the foregoing and subsequent passages, but otherwise in no case is it (useful).

Accordingly the Shruti says: ‘This conviction (faith) can neither be brought nor taken away by reasoning’,

19. And (because) in this context, (the text explains) the relation of him to Them (anandamaya, etc., both here and in heaven).

 

‘Of him’, of the soul; ‘And’ implies the accumulation of grounds. He obtains all desires by means of the Lord (through the grace of the Lord) and along with Brahma ‘(the four-faced)’. (T. U. ii-i.) ‘He who fearlessly stands devoted to Him that is unsupported, etc’. ‘He approaches such Lord perfect in bliss’. (T. U. ii. 7-8).

(In the text quoted in the previous Adhikarana). ‘In the incomprehensible and in the ruler of all, etc’., (the quality of being incomprehensible) has been mentioned. And the same is predicated of some one that is within, in the following text, “The maker who is within. Him who of His own accord dwells within the moon, and whom the gods though dwelling with Him do not know well.” (T.A. iii-11); and He appears to be one different from Vishnu, from the subsequent texts “Indra, the king ” — “the seven become yoked (to the Sun’s chariot),” and so on: therefore, only the subject of these texts should be Anandamaya, (not Vishnu).

It should not however be so concluded. For