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 |
Wika ni Bhīṣma: “Tunay, ang anumang dahilan at halimbawang inihaharap (ng mga mapagduda) ay pawang nakabatay sa mga bagay na may anyo. Ngunit sa pagitan ng walang-anyo at may-anyo, walang tunay na pagkakatulad na maitatatag. Kaya’t hindi makatuwirang ipangatwiran na ang walang-anyong Sarili ay nagmumula sa, o naipapaliwanag ng, pagsasanib ng mga materyal na sangkap na may anyo.”
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.