Though We Can Infer The Mere Existence of God In General, by Arguing That Like All Effects

 - Produced such as a pot, the earth etc must have had a creator, - still His sepcific nature as the Real, Consciousness, the Infinite, the Secondless

- and so on cannot be known by mere inference. Wherefore Brahman cannot be ascertained by anumana either. As to Agama or Revelation

- the ritualistic section being conecrned with effects and the means by which to bring them about, there is no room left for the hope of obtaining a knowledge of Brahman from that section

- Objection - The author of the Brahmasiddhi says: "The nature of Brahman being in fact revealed in every state of consciousness, it is only the dissolution of the universe

- that is taught in the revelation - And it is but right to say so. For Brahman is Existence Consciousness and Bliss. Now in all things which are cognised by the organs

- of cognition, existence, consciousness and bliss are clearly seen. Wherefore Brahman is knowable in every cognition. Answer - True in all cognitions it is only the Brahman

- conditioned by the universe that is knwon. The eye and other organs of perception do not apprehend the pure essence, excluding colour, odour, taste and other sense-objects

- Otherwise all people would be liberated without the help of the Revelation and the Guru. But the end of man can be attained by a knowledge of the Unconditioned

- that the conditioned Brahman in here and there treated of in scriptures; and the knowledge of the Unconditioned which constituted the summum bonum of

- man is imparted only by Revelation - This truth is expressed by the author already quoted in the following words: Brahman in His Unconditioned form not falling within the ken of other organs of knowledge, it is deemed that He is made knwon by Revelation alone

- Wherefore the essential nature of the Self as one with the secondless Brahman constitutes the sepcific theme of the Upanishad, as unknowable by any other means. This is