Shloka 31
Śrī–Indra–Bali Saṃvāda: The Departure and Fourfold Placement of Lakṣmī
नन्वेते हेतवः सन्ति ये केचिन्मूर्तिसंस्थिता: । अमूर्तस्य हि मूर्तेन सामान्यं नोपपद्यते
nanvete hetavaḥ santi ye kecin mūrtisaṃsthitāḥ | amūrtasya hi mūrtena sāmānyaṃ nopapadyate |
Bhīṣma dit : «En effet, toutes les raisons et tous les exemples avancés (par les sceptiques) reposent sur des choses dotées de forme. Or, entre l’informe et le formé, aucune véritable identité ne peut être établie. On ne saurait donc soutenir légitimement que le Soi sans forme naît de la combinaison d’éléments matériels formés, ni qu’il s’y réduise.»
भीष्म उवाच
Educational Q&A
Bhīṣma argues that examples drawn from formed, material things cannot establish conclusions about the formless Self (Ātman). Since the formless and the formed do not share the same nature, it is not logically valid to claim that consciousness/the Self is produced by material elements or that material analogies can fully explain it.
In the Śānti Parva’s philosophical instruction, Bhīṣma addresses objections associated with skeptical/materialist reasoning. He critiques the opponents’ reliance on material examples and insists that such reasoning cannot account for the formless principle identified as the Self.