न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिङ्गम्, सर्वत्र हि ॥ ११ ॥
na sthānato’pi parasyobhayaliṅgam, sarvatra hi || 11 ||
na—Not; sthānataḥ—from (difference of) place; api—even; parasya—of Brahman; ubhayaliṅgaṃ—twofold characteristic; hi—because; sarvatra—throughout (the scriptures teach otherwise).
11. Even from (difference of) place a twofold characteristic cannot (be predicated) of Brahman, because throughout (the scriptures teach It to be otherwise i.e. without any qualities).
In the scriptures, we find two kinds of description about Brahman. Some texts describe It as qualified and some as unqualified, “From whom all activities, all desires, all odours, and all tastes proceed” (Chh. 3. 14. 2) speak of attributes; again “It is neither gross nor minute, neither short nor long, neither redness nor moisture” etc. (Brih. 3. 8 . 8). Are we to take that both are true of Brahman according as It is or is not connected with adjuncts, or have we to take only one of them as true and the other as false, and if so, which, and on what grounds? The Sutra says that both cannot be predicated of one and the same Brahman, for it is against experience. One and the same thing cannot have two contradictory natures at the same time. Nor does the mere connection of a thing with another change its nature, even as the redness of a flower reflected in a crystal does not change the nature of the crystal, which is colourless. The imputation of redness is due to ignorance and not real. Neither can a thing change its real nature : it means destruction. Even so in the case of Brahman, Its connection with adjuncts like earth etc. is a product of nescience. Hence between the two aspects of Brahman we have to accept that which is attributeless as Its true nature, for throughout the scriptures we find Brahman so described to the exclusion of Its qualified aspects. “It is without sound, without touch, form, and decay” etc. (Kath. 1. 3. 15). The other description of Brahman is only for the sake of Upasana and is not Its real nature.