Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1tes of dreaming and deep sleep, finally explains the individual soul in its real nature, i. e. in so far as it is the highest Brahman, not in so far as it is indi- vidual soul ('As soon as it has approached the highest light it appears in its own form '). The highest light mentioned, in the passage last quoted, as what is to be approached, is nothing else but the highest Brahman, which is distinguished by such attributes as freeness from sin, and the like. That same highest Brahman constitutes — as we know from passages such as ' that art thou ' — the real nature of the individual soul, while its second nature, i. e. that aspect of it which depends on fictitious limiting conditions, is not its real nature. For as long as the indi- vidual soul does not free itself from Nescience in the form of duality — which Nescience may be compared to the mistake of him who in the twilight mistakes a post for a man — and does not rise to the knowledge of the Self, whose nature is unchangeable, eternal Cognition — which expresses itself in the form ' I am Brahman' — so long it remains the individual soul. But when, discarding the aggregate of body, sense- organs and mind, it arrives, by means of Scripture, at the knowledge that it is not itself that aggregate, that it does not form part of transmigratory existence, but is the True, the Real, the Self, whose nature is pure intelligence ; then 1 The masculine ' avirbhutasvarupa^ ' qualifies the substantive givak which has to be supplied. Properly speaking the giva, whose true nature has become manifest, i. e. which has become Brahman, is no longer giva ; hence the explanatory statement that the term g-iva is used with reference to what the £"iva was before it became Brahman, 1 86 VEDANTA-SljTRAS, knowing itself to be of the nature of unchangeable, eternal Cognition, it lifts itself above the vain conceit of being one with this body, and itself becomes the Self, whose nature is unchanging, eternal Cognition. As is declared in such scriptural passages as ' He who knows the highest Brahman becomes even Brahman ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9). And this is the real nature of the individual soul by means of which it arises from the body and appears in its own form. Here an objection may be raised.
2criptural passages as ' He who knows the highest Brahman becomes even Brahman ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9). And this is the real nature of the individual soul by means of which it arises from the body and appears in its own form. Here an objection may be raised. How, it is asked, can we speak of the true nature (svarupa) of that which is unchanging and eternal, and then say that ' it appears in its own form (true nature) ?' Of gold and similar substances, whose true nature becomes hidden, and whose specific qualities are rendered non-apparent by their contact with some other substance, it may be said that their true nature is rendered manifest when they are cleaned by the application of some acid substance ; so it may be said, likewise, that the stars, whose light is during daytime overpowered (by the superior brilliancy of the sun), become manifest in their true nature at night when the overpowering (sun) has departed. But it is impossible to speak of an analogous overpowering of the eternal light of intelligence by whatever agency, since, like ether, it is free from all contact, and since, moreover, such an assumption would be contradicted by what we actually observe. For the (energies of) seeing, hearing, noticing, cognising constitute the character of the individual soul, and that character is observed to exist in full perfection, even in the case of that individual soul which has not yet risen beyond the body. Every individual soul carries on the course of its practical existence by means of the activities of seeing, hearing, cognising ; otherwise no practical existence at all would be possible. If, on the other hand, that character would realise itself in the case of that soul only which has risen above the body, the entire aggregate of practical exis- tence, as it actually presents itself prior to the soul's rising, would thereby be contradicted. We therefore ask : Wherein consists that (alleged) rising from the body ? Wherein con- sists that appearing (of the soul) in its own form ? To this we make the following reply. — Before the rise of I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 9. 1 87 discriminative knowledge the nature of the individual soul, which is (in reality) pure light, is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense- objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly — to quote an analogous case from ordinary experience —the true nature of a pure crystal, i. e.
3were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense- objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly — to quote an analogous case from ordinary experience —the true nature of a pure crystal, i. e. its transparency and whiteness, is, before the rise of discriminative knowledge (on the part of the observer), non-discriminated as it were from any limiting adjuncts of red or blue colour ; while, as soon as through some means of true cognition discriminative knowledge has arisen, it is said to have now accomplished its true nature, i. e. transparency and whiteness, although in reality it had already done so before. Thus the discriminative knowledge, effected by vSruti, on the part of the individual soul which previously is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts, is (according to the scriptural passage under dis- cussion) the soul's rising from the body, and the fruit of that discriminative knowledge is its accomplishment in its true nature, i. e. the comprehension that its nature is the pure Self. Thus the embodiedness and the non-embodiedness of the Self are due merely to discrimination and non-discrimi- nation, in agreement with the mantra, ' Bodiless within the bodies,' &c. (Ka. Up. I, 3, %%)> and the statement of Smrzti as to the non-difference between embodiedness and non- embodiedness ' Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, it does not act and is not tainted' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 31). The individual soul is therefore called 'That whose true nature is non-manifest ' merely on account of the absence of discriminative knowledge, and it is called ' That whose nature has become manifest ' on account of the presence of such knowledge. Manifestation and non-manifestation of its nature of a different kind are not possible, since its nature is nothing but its nature (i. e. in reality is always the same). Thus the difference between the individual soul and the highest Lord is owing to wrong knowledge only, not to any reality, since, like ether, the highest Self is not in real contact with anything. And wherefrom is all this to be known? — From the instruc- 1 88 VEDANTA-S^JTRAS. tion given by Pra^apati who, after having referred to the ^iva (' the person that is seen in the eye,' &c.), continues ' This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fear- less, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1tes of dreaming and deep sleep, finally explains the individual soul in its real nature, i. e. in so far as it is the highest Brahman, not in so far as it is indi- vidual soul ('As soon as it has approached the highest light it appears in its own form '). The highest light mentioned, in the passage last quoted, as what is to be approached, is nothing else but the highest Brahman, which is distinguished by such attributes as freeness from sin, and the like. That same highest Brahman constitutes — as we know from passages such as ' that art thou ' — the real nature of the individual soul, while its second nature, i. e. that aspect of it which depends on fictitious limiting conditions, is not its real nature. For as long as the indi- vidual soul does not free itself from Nescience in the form of duality — which Nescience may be compared to the mistake of him who in the twilight mistakes a post for a man — and does not rise to the knowledge of the Self, whose nature is unchangeable, eternal Cognition — which expresses itself in the form ' I am Brahman' — so long it remains the individual soul. But when, discarding the aggregate of body, sense- organs and mind, it arrives, by means of Scripture, at the knowledge that it is not itself that aggregate, that it does not form part of transmigratory existence, but is the True, the Real, the Self, whose nature is pure intelligence ; then 1 The masculine ' avirbhutasvarupa^ ' qualifies the substantive givak which has to be supplied. Properly speaking the giva, whose true nature has become manifest, i. e. which has become Brahman, is no longer giva ; hence the explanatory statement that the term g-iva is used with reference to what the £"iva was before it became Brahman, 1 86 VEDANTA-SljTRAS, knowing itself to be of the nature of unchangeable, eternal Cognition, it lifts itself above the vain conceit of being one with this body, and itself becomes the Self, whose nature is unchanging, eternal Cognition. As is declared in such scriptural passages as ' He who knows the highest Brahman becomes even Brahman ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9). And this is the real nature of the individual soul by means of which it arises from the body and appears in its own form. Here an objection may be raised.
2criptural passages as ' He who knows the highest Brahman becomes even Brahman ' (Mu. Up. Ill, 2, 9). And this is the real nature of the individual soul by means of which it arises from the body and appears in its own form. Here an objection may be raised. How, it is asked, can we speak of the true nature (svarupa) of that which is unchanging and eternal, and then say that ' it appears in its own form (true nature) ?' Of gold and similar substances, whose true nature becomes hidden, and whose specific qualities are rendered non-apparent by their contact with some other substance, it may be said that their true nature is rendered manifest when they are cleaned by the application of some acid substance ; so it may be said, likewise, that the stars, whose light is during daytime overpowered (by the superior brilliancy of the sun), become manifest in their true nature at night when the overpowering (sun) has departed. But it is impossible to speak of an analogous overpowering of the eternal light of intelligence by whatever agency, since, like ether, it is free from all contact, and since, moreover, such an assumption would be contradicted by what we actually observe. For the (energies of) seeing, hearing, noticing, cognising constitute the character of the individual soul, and that character is observed to exist in full perfection, even in the case of that individual soul which has not yet risen beyond the body. Every individual soul carries on the course of its practical existence by means of the activities of seeing, hearing, cognising ; otherwise no practical existence at all would be possible. If, on the other hand, that character would realise itself in the case of that soul only which has risen above the body, the entire aggregate of practical exis- tence, as it actually presents itself prior to the soul's rising, would thereby be contradicted. We therefore ask : Wherein consists that (alleged) rising from the body ? Wherein con- sists that appearing (of the soul) in its own form ? To this we make the following reply. — Before the rise of I ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 1 9. 1 87 discriminative knowledge the nature of the individual soul, which is (in reality) pure light, is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense- objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly — to quote an analogous case from ordinary experience —the true nature of a pure crystal, i. e.
3were from its limiting adjuncts consisting of body, senses, mind, sense- objects and feelings, and appears as consisting of the energies of seeing and so on. Similarly — to quote an analogous case from ordinary experience —the true nature of a pure crystal, i. e. its transparency and whiteness, is, before the rise of discriminative knowledge (on the part of the observer), non-discriminated as it were from any limiting adjuncts of red or blue colour ; while, as soon as through some means of true cognition discriminative knowledge has arisen, it is said to have now accomplished its true nature, i. e. transparency and whiteness, although in reality it had already done so before. Thus the discriminative knowledge, effected by vSruti, on the part of the individual soul which previously is non-discriminated as it were from its limiting adjuncts, is (according to the scriptural passage under dis- cussion) the soul's rising from the body, and the fruit of that discriminative knowledge is its accomplishment in its true nature, i. e. the comprehension that its nature is the pure Self. Thus the embodiedness and the non-embodiedness of the Self are due merely to discrimination and non-discrimi- nation, in agreement with the mantra, ' Bodiless within the bodies,' &c. (Ka. Up. I, 3, %%)> and the statement of Smrzti as to the non-difference between embodiedness and non- embodiedness ' Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, it does not act and is not tainted' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 31). The individual soul is therefore called 'That whose true nature is non-manifest ' merely on account of the absence of discriminative knowledge, and it is called ' That whose nature has become manifest ' on account of the presence of such knowledge. Manifestation and non-manifestation of its nature of a different kind are not possible, since its nature is nothing but its nature (i. e. in reality is always the same). Thus the difference between the individual soul and the highest Lord is owing to wrong knowledge only, not to any reality, since, like ether, the highest Self is not in real contact with anything. And wherefrom is all this to be known? — From the instruc- 1 88 VEDANTA-S^JTRAS. tion given by Pra^apati who, after having referred to the ^iva (' the person that is seen in the eye,' &c.), continues ' This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' If the well-known seer within the eye were different from Brahman which is characterised as the immortal and fear- less, it would not be co-ordinated (as it actually is) with the immortal, the fearless, and Brahman.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.