Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1he individual soul and the chief vital air (being mentioned) ; we say no, on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation (which would result from your interpretation) ; on account of (the meaning advocated by us) being ac- cepted (elsewhere) ; and on account of (characteristic marks of Brahman) being connected (with the pas- sage under discussion). Although we admit, the purvapakshin resumes, that the chapter about the pra/za does not furnish any instruction regarding some outward deity, since it contains a multitude of references to the interior Self; still we deny that it is concerned with Brahman. — For what reason ? — Because it mentions characteristic marks of the individual soul on the one hand, and of the chief vital air on the other hand. The passage, ' Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker/ mentions a characteristic mark of the individual soul, and must therefore be held to point out as the object of knowledge the individual soul which rules and employs the different organs of action such as speech and so on. On the other hand, we have the passage, * But pra^a alone, the intelligent Self, having laid hold of this body makes it rise up/ which points to the chief vital air ; for the chief attribute of the vital air is that it sustains the body. Similarly, we read in the colloquy of the vital airs (Pra. Up. II, 3), concerning speech and the other vital airs, ' Then pra^a (the chief vital air) as the best said to them : Be not deceived ; I alone dividing myself fivefold support this body and keep it.' Those, again, who in the I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3 1. IO3 passage quoted above read 'this one (masc.), the body *' must give the following explanation, Pra^a having laid hold of this one, viz. either the individual soul or the aggregate of the sense organs, makes the body rise up. The individual soul as well as the chief vital air may justly be designated as the intelligent Self; for the former is of the nature of intelligence, and the latter (although non-intelligent in itself) is the abode of other pra/zas, viz. the sense organs, which are the instruments of intelligence. Moreover, if the word pra^a be taken to denote the individual soul as well as the chief vital air, the pra^a and the intelligent Self may be spoken of in two ways, either as being non-different on account of their mutual concomit- ance, or as being different on account of their (essentially different) individual character; and in these two different ways they are actually spoken of in the two following passages, ' What is pr^a that is pra^a,
2on-different on account of their mutual concomit- ance, or as being different on account of their (essentially different) individual character; and in these two different ways they are actually spoken of in the two following passages, ' What is pr^a that is pra^a, what is pra^i that is pra^a ; ' and, ' For together do these two live in the body and together do they depart.' If, on the other hand, pr&na. denoted Brahman, what then could be different from what? For these reasons pra^a does not denote Brahman, but either the individual soul or the chief vital air or both. All this argumentation, we reply, is wrong, ' on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation.' Your inter- pretation would involve the assumption of devout medi- tation of three different kinds, viz. on the individual soul, on the chief vital air, and on Brahman. But it is inap- propriate to assume that a single sentence should enjoin three kinds of devout meditation ; and that all the passages about the pra^a really constitute one single sentence (one syntactical whole) appears from the beginning and the concluding part. In the beginning we have the clause ' Know me only/ followed by ' I am pra/za, the intelligent Self, meditate on me as Life, as Immortality;' and in the end we read, ' And that pra;za indeed is the intelligent Self, blessed, imperishable, immortal/ The beginning and the concluding part are thus seen to be similar, and we 1 Imam jariram instead of id&m jartram. 1 04 VED ANTA-Sfi TR AS. therefore must conclude that they refer to one and the same matter. Nor can the characteristic mark of Brahman be so turned as to be applied to something else ; for the ten objects and the ten subjects (subjective powers)1 cannot rest on anything but Brahman. Moreover, pra^a must denote Brahman 'on account of (that meaning) being accepted/ i. e. because in the case of other passages where characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned the word pra^a is taken in the sense of ' Brahman.' And another reason for assuming the passage to refer to Brahman is that here also, i. e. in the passage itself there is ' connexion ' with characteristic marks of Brahman, as, for instance, the reference to what is most beneficial for man. The assertion that the passage, ' Having laid hold of this body it makes it rise up,' contains a characteristic mark of the chief vital air, is untrue ; for as the function of the vital air also ultimately rests on Brahman it can figuratively be ascribed to the latter.
3on that the passage, ' Having laid hold of this body it makes it rise up,' contains a characteristic mark of the chief vital air, is untrue ; for as the function of the vital air also ultimately rests on Brahman it can figuratively be ascribed to the latter. So Scripture also declares, ' No mortal lives by the breath that goes up and by the breath that goes down. We live by another in whom these two repose ' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 5). Nor does the indication of the in- dividual soul which you allege to occur in the passage, 'Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker,' preclude the view of pra/za denoting Brahman. For, as the passages, ' I am Brahman,' ' That art thou,5 and others, prove, there is in reality no such thing as an individual soul absolutely different from Brahmanr but Brahman, in so far as it differentiates itself through the mind (buddhi) and other limiting conditions, is called individual soul, agent, enjoyer. Such passages therefore as the one alluded to, (viz. ' let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker,') which, by setting aside all the dif- ferences due to limiting conditions, aim at directing the mind on the internal Self and thus showing that the 1 Pa#>£a ^abdadaya^ pa^a pr/thivyadayai' ka da^a bhutamatra^ pa^a buddhindriyam pa^a buddhaya iti da^a pra^amatra^. Yadvd ^anendriyartha^ pa^a karmendriyartha^ kd. panketi da^a bhutamatrcU dvividhanindriyam pra^amatra dajeti bhava^. An. Gi. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3 1. IO5 individual soul is one with Brahman, are by no means out of place. That the Self which is active in speaking and the like is Brahman appears from another scriptural passage also, viz. Ke. Up. I, 5, ' That which is not expressed by speech and by which speech is expressed that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.' The remark that the statement about the difference of pra/za and pra^a (contained in the passage, ' Together they dwell in this body, together they depart ') does not agree with that interpretation according to which pra/za is Brahman, is without force ; for the mind and the vital air which are the respective abodes of the two powers of cognition and action, and constitute the limiting conditions of the internal Self may be spoken of as different.
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.
1he individual soul and the chief vital air (being mentioned) ; we say no, on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation (which would result from your interpretation) ; on account of (the meaning advocated by us) being ac- cepted (elsewhere) ; and on account of (characteristic marks of Brahman) being connected (with the pas- sage under discussion). Although we admit, the purvapakshin resumes, that the chapter about the pra/za does not furnish any instruction regarding some outward deity, since it contains a multitude of references to the interior Self; still we deny that it is concerned with Brahman. — For what reason ? — Because it mentions characteristic marks of the individual soul on the one hand, and of the chief vital air on the other hand. The passage, ' Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker/ mentions a characteristic mark of the individual soul, and must therefore be held to point out as the object of knowledge the individual soul which rules and employs the different organs of action such as speech and so on. On the other hand, we have the passage, * But pra^a alone, the intelligent Self, having laid hold of this body makes it rise up/ which points to the chief vital air ; for the chief attribute of the vital air is that it sustains the body. Similarly, we read in the colloquy of the vital airs (Pra. Up. II, 3), concerning speech and the other vital airs, ' Then pra^a (the chief vital air) as the best said to them : Be not deceived ; I alone dividing myself fivefold support this body and keep it.' Those, again, who in the I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3 1. IO3 passage quoted above read 'this one (masc.), the body *' must give the following explanation, Pra^a having laid hold of this one, viz. either the individual soul or the aggregate of the sense organs, makes the body rise up. The individual soul as well as the chief vital air may justly be designated as the intelligent Self; for the former is of the nature of intelligence, and the latter (although non-intelligent in itself) is the abode of other pra/zas, viz. the sense organs, which are the instruments of intelligence. Moreover, if the word pra^a be taken to denote the individual soul as well as the chief vital air, the pra^a and the intelligent Self may be spoken of in two ways, either as being non-different on account of their mutual concomit- ance, or as being different on account of their (essentially different) individual character; and in these two different ways they are actually spoken of in the two following passages, ' What is pr^a that is pra^a,
2on-different on account of their mutual concomit- ance, or as being different on account of their (essentially different) individual character; and in these two different ways they are actually spoken of in the two following passages, ' What is pr^a that is pra^a, what is pra^i that is pra^a ; ' and, ' For together do these two live in the body and together do they depart.' If, on the other hand, pr&na. denoted Brahman, what then could be different from what? For these reasons pra^a does not denote Brahman, but either the individual soul or the chief vital air or both. All this argumentation, we reply, is wrong, ' on account of the threefoldness of devout meditation.' Your inter- pretation would involve the assumption of devout medi- tation of three different kinds, viz. on the individual soul, on the chief vital air, and on Brahman. But it is inap- propriate to assume that a single sentence should enjoin three kinds of devout meditation ; and that all the passages about the pra^a really constitute one single sentence (one syntactical whole) appears from the beginning and the concluding part. In the beginning we have the clause ' Know me only/ followed by ' I am pra/za, the intelligent Self, meditate on me as Life, as Immortality;' and in the end we read, ' And that pra;za indeed is the intelligent Self, blessed, imperishable, immortal/ The beginning and the concluding part are thus seen to be similar, and we 1 Imam jariram instead of id&m jartram. 1 04 VED ANTA-Sfi TR AS. therefore must conclude that they refer to one and the same matter. Nor can the characteristic mark of Brahman be so turned as to be applied to something else ; for the ten objects and the ten subjects (subjective powers)1 cannot rest on anything but Brahman. Moreover, pra^a must denote Brahman 'on account of (that meaning) being accepted/ i. e. because in the case of other passages where characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned the word pra^a is taken in the sense of ' Brahman.' And another reason for assuming the passage to refer to Brahman is that here also, i. e. in the passage itself there is ' connexion ' with characteristic marks of Brahman, as, for instance, the reference to what is most beneficial for man. The assertion that the passage, ' Having laid hold of this body it makes it rise up,' contains a characteristic mark of the chief vital air, is untrue ; for as the function of the vital air also ultimately rests on Brahman it can figuratively be ascribed to the latter.
3on that the passage, ' Having laid hold of this body it makes it rise up,' contains a characteristic mark of the chief vital air, is untrue ; for as the function of the vital air also ultimately rests on Brahman it can figuratively be ascribed to the latter. So Scripture also declares, ' No mortal lives by the breath that goes up and by the breath that goes down. We live by another in whom these two repose ' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 5). Nor does the indication of the in- dividual soul which you allege to occur in the passage, 'Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker,' preclude the view of pra/za denoting Brahman. For, as the passages, ' I am Brahman,' ' That art thou,5 and others, prove, there is in reality no such thing as an individual soul absolutely different from Brahmanr but Brahman, in so far as it differentiates itself through the mind (buddhi) and other limiting conditions, is called individual soul, agent, enjoyer. Such passages therefore as the one alluded to, (viz. ' let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker,') which, by setting aside all the dif- ferences due to limiting conditions, aim at directing the mind on the internal Self and thus showing that the 1 Pa#>£a ^abdadaya^ pa^a pr/thivyadayai' ka da^a bhutamatra^ pa^a buddhindriyam pa^a buddhaya iti da^a pra^amatra^. Yadvd ^anendriyartha^ pa^a karmendriyartha^ kd. panketi da^a bhutamatrcU dvividhanindriyam pra^amatra dajeti bhava^. An. Gi. I ADHYAYA, I PADA, 3 1. IO5 individual soul is one with Brahman, are by no means out of place. That the Self which is active in speaking and the like is Brahman appears from another scriptural passage also, viz. Ke. Up. I, 5, ' That which is not expressed by speech and by which speech is expressed that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.' The remark that the statement about the difference of pra/za and pra^a (contained in the passage, ' Together they dwell in this body, together they depart ') does not agree with that interpretation according to which pra/za is Brahman, is without force ; for the mind and the vital air which are the respective abodes of the two powers of cognition and action, and constitute the limiting conditions of the internal Self may be spoken of as different.
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.