Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Thus there remains no contra- diction.— Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' the destruc- tion of the others/ 728 VEDANTA-Sft TR AS. SECOND PADA. 1. Speech with mind, on account of this being seen and of scriptural statement. The Sutras now begin an enquiry into the mode of the going to Brahman of him who knows. At first the soul's departure from the body is considered. On this point we have the text, ' When a man departs from hence his speech is combined (sampadyate) with his mind, his mind with his breath, his breath with fire, fire with the highest deity ' (Kh. Up. VI, 6, 1). The doubt here arises whether the speech's being combined with the mind, referred to in the text, means that the function of speech only is merged in mind, or the organ of speech itself. — The Purvapakshin holds the former view ; for, he says, as mind is not the causal substance of speech, the latter cannot be merged in it ; while the scriptural statement is not altogether irra- tional in so far as the functions of speech and other organs are controlled by the mind, and therefore may be conceived as being withdrawn into it. — This view the Sutra sets aside. Speech itself becomes combined with mind ; since that is seen. For the activity of mind is observed to go on even when the organ of speech has ceased to act. — But is this not sufficiently accounted for by the assumption of the mere function of speech being merged in mind ? — To this the Sutra replies ' and on account of the scriptural word/ The text says distinctly that speech itself, not merely the function of speech, becomes one with the mind. And when the function of speech comes to an end, there is no other means of knowledge to assure us that the function only has come to an end and that the organ itself continues to have an independent existence. The objection that speech can- not become one with mind because the latter is not the causal substance of speech, we meet by pointing out that the purport of the text is not that speech is merged in mind, but only that it is combined or connected with it. IV ADHYAYA, 2 PAD A, 4. 729 2. And for the same reason all follow after. Because speech's becoming one with mind means only conjunction with the latter, not merging within it ; there is also no objection to what Scripture says as to all other organs that follow speech being united with mind. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' speech/ 3. That mind in breath, owing to the subsequent clause.
2— Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' speech/ 3. That mind in breath, owing to the subsequent clause. That mind, i. e. mind united with all the organs unites itself with breath ; not merely the function of mind. This appears from the clause following upon the text quoted above, ' mind (unites itself) with breath.' Here, however, a further doubt suggests itself. The text ' Mind is made of earth ' declares earth to be the causal substance of mind, and the text * that (viz. water) sent forth earth ' declares water to be the causal substance of earth ; while the further text ' breath is made of water ' shows water to be the causal substance of breath. Considering therefore that in the text * mind becomes united with breath' the term breath is naturally understood to denote the causal substance of breath, i. e. water, the appropriate sense to be given to the statement that mind is united with water is that mind is completely refunded into its own causal substance — so that the * being united ' would throughout be understood ' as being completely merged.' — The reply to this, however, is, that the clauses c Mind is made of food, breath is made of water,' only mean that mind and breath are nourished and sustained by food and water, not that food and water are the causal substances of mind and breath. The latter indeed is impossible ; for mind consists of aha^kara, and as breath is a modification of ether and other elements, the word breath may suggest water. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' mind.' 4. That (is united) with the ruler, on account of the going to it, and so on. As from the statements that speech becomes united with mind and mind with breath it follows that speech and 7 3 O VED ANTA-sti TR AS. mind are united with mind and breath only ; so we con- clude from the subsequent clause ' breath with fire ' that breath becomes united with fire only. — Against this prima facie view the Sutra declares ' that breath becomes united with the ruler of the organs, i. e. the individual soul, on account of the going to it, and so on.' That breath goes to the individual soul, the following text declares, ' At the time of death all the pra/zas go to the Self of a man about to expire ' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 38). Similarly Scripture men- tions the departure of pra/za together with the soul, ' after him thus departing the pra/m departs ' ; and again its staying together with the soul, ' What is that by whose departure I shall depart, and by whose staying I shall stay ? ' (Pr. Up. VI, 3). We therefore conclude that the text ' breath with fire ' means that breath joined with the individual soul becomes united with fire. Analogously we may say in ordinary life that the Yamuna is flowing towards the sea, while in reality it is the Yamuna joined with the Ganga which flows on. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the ruler.5 5. With the elements, this being stated by Scripture.
3Analogously we may say in ordinary life that the Yamuna is flowing towards the sea, while in reality it is the Yamuna joined with the Ganga which flows on. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the ruler.5 5. With the elements, this being stated by Scripture. There arises the further question whether breath joined with the soul unites itself with fire only or with all the elements combined. — With fire, so much only being declared by Scripture ! — This view the Sutra sets aside. Breath and soul unite themselves with all the elements ; for Scripture declares the soul, when moving out, to consist of all the elements — ' Consisting of earth, consisting of water, consisting of fire/ — But this latter text explains itself also on the assumption of breath and soul uniting themselves in succession with fire and the rest, one at a time ! — This the next Sutra negatives. 6. Not with one; for both declare this. Not with one ; because each element by itself is incapable of producing an effect. Such incapability is declared by Scripture and tradition alike. The text ' Having entered these beings with this £*iva soul let me reveal names and forms — let me make each of these three tripartite ' (Kh. Up. IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, J. 73 1 VI, 3) teaches that the elements were rendered tripartite in order to be capable of evolving names and forms ; and of similar import is the following Smrzti text, ' Possessing various powers these (elements), being separate from one another, were unable to produce creatures without com- bining. But having entered into mutual conjunction they, from the Mahat down to individual beings, produce the Brahma egg.' From this it follows that in the clause c breath is united with fire ' the word fire denotes fire mixed with the other elements. Breath and soul therefore are united with the aggregate of the elements. — Here ter- minates the adhikara/za of ' the elements/ 7. And it is common up to the beginning of the way ; and the immortality (is that which is obtained), without having burned.
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.
1Thus there remains no contra- diction.— Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' the destruc- tion of the others/ 728 VEDANTA-Sft TR AS. SECOND PADA. 1. Speech with mind, on account of this being seen and of scriptural statement. The Sutras now begin an enquiry into the mode of the going to Brahman of him who knows. At first the soul's departure from the body is considered. On this point we have the text, ' When a man departs from hence his speech is combined (sampadyate) with his mind, his mind with his breath, his breath with fire, fire with the highest deity ' (Kh. Up. VI, 6, 1). The doubt here arises whether the speech's being combined with the mind, referred to in the text, means that the function of speech only is merged in mind, or the organ of speech itself. — The Purvapakshin holds the former view ; for, he says, as mind is not the causal substance of speech, the latter cannot be merged in it ; while the scriptural statement is not altogether irra- tional in so far as the functions of speech and other organs are controlled by the mind, and therefore may be conceived as being withdrawn into it. — This view the Sutra sets aside. Speech itself becomes combined with mind ; since that is seen. For the activity of mind is observed to go on even when the organ of speech has ceased to act. — But is this not sufficiently accounted for by the assumption of the mere function of speech being merged in mind ? — To this the Sutra replies ' and on account of the scriptural word/ The text says distinctly that speech itself, not merely the function of speech, becomes one with the mind. And when the function of speech comes to an end, there is no other means of knowledge to assure us that the function only has come to an end and that the organ itself continues to have an independent existence. The objection that speech can- not become one with mind because the latter is not the causal substance of speech, we meet by pointing out that the purport of the text is not that speech is merged in mind, but only that it is combined or connected with it. IV ADHYAYA, 2 PAD A, 4. 729 2. And for the same reason all follow after. Because speech's becoming one with mind means only conjunction with the latter, not merging within it ; there is also no objection to what Scripture says as to all other organs that follow speech being united with mind. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' speech/ 3. That mind in breath, owing to the subsequent clause.
2— Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' speech/ 3. That mind in breath, owing to the subsequent clause. That mind, i. e. mind united with all the organs unites itself with breath ; not merely the function of mind. This appears from the clause following upon the text quoted above, ' mind (unites itself) with breath.' Here, however, a further doubt suggests itself. The text ' Mind is made of earth ' declares earth to be the causal substance of mind, and the text * that (viz. water) sent forth earth ' declares water to be the causal substance of earth ; while the further text ' breath is made of water ' shows water to be the causal substance of breath. Considering therefore that in the text * mind becomes united with breath' the term breath is naturally understood to denote the causal substance of breath, i. e. water, the appropriate sense to be given to the statement that mind is united with water is that mind is completely refunded into its own causal substance — so that the * being united ' would throughout be understood ' as being completely merged.' — The reply to this, however, is, that the clauses c Mind is made of food, breath is made of water,' only mean that mind and breath are nourished and sustained by food and water, not that food and water are the causal substances of mind and breath. The latter indeed is impossible ; for mind consists of aha^kara, and as breath is a modification of ether and other elements, the word breath may suggest water. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' mind.' 4. That (is united) with the ruler, on account of the going to it, and so on. As from the statements that speech becomes united with mind and mind with breath it follows that speech and 7 3 O VED ANTA-sti TR AS. mind are united with mind and breath only ; so we con- clude from the subsequent clause ' breath with fire ' that breath becomes united with fire only. — Against this prima facie view the Sutra declares ' that breath becomes united with the ruler of the organs, i. e. the individual soul, on account of the going to it, and so on.' That breath goes to the individual soul, the following text declares, ' At the time of death all the pra/zas go to the Self of a man about to expire ' (Bri. Up. IV, 3, 38). Similarly Scripture men- tions the departure of pra/za together with the soul, ' after him thus departing the pra/m departs ' ; and again its staying together with the soul, ' What is that by whose departure I shall depart, and by whose staying I shall stay ? ' (Pr. Up. VI, 3). We therefore conclude that the text ' breath with fire ' means that breath joined with the individual soul becomes united with fire. Analogously we may say in ordinary life that the Yamuna is flowing towards the sea, while in reality it is the Yamuna joined with the Ganga which flows on. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the ruler.5 5. With the elements, this being stated by Scripture.
3Analogously we may say in ordinary life that the Yamuna is flowing towards the sea, while in reality it is the Yamuna joined with the Ganga which flows on. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' the ruler.5 5. With the elements, this being stated by Scripture. There arises the further question whether breath joined with the soul unites itself with fire only or with all the elements combined. — With fire, so much only being declared by Scripture ! — This view the Sutra sets aside. Breath and soul unite themselves with all the elements ; for Scripture declares the soul, when moving out, to consist of all the elements — ' Consisting of earth, consisting of water, consisting of fire/ — But this latter text explains itself also on the assumption of breath and soul uniting themselves in succession with fire and the rest, one at a time ! — This the next Sutra negatives. 6. Not with one; for both declare this. Not with one ; because each element by itself is incapable of producing an effect. Such incapability is declared by Scripture and tradition alike. The text ' Having entered these beings with this £*iva soul let me reveal names and forms — let me make each of these three tripartite ' (Kh. Up. IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, J. 73 1 VI, 3) teaches that the elements were rendered tripartite in order to be capable of evolving names and forms ; and of similar import is the following Smrzti text, ' Possessing various powers these (elements), being separate from one another, were unable to produce creatures without com- bining. But having entered into mutual conjunction they, from the Mahat down to individual beings, produce the Brahma egg.' From this it follows that in the clause c breath is united with fire ' the word fire denotes fire mixed with the other elements. Breath and soul therefore are united with the aggregate of the elements. — Here ter- minates the adhikara/za of ' the elements/ 7. And it is common up to the beginning of the way ; and the immortality (is that which is obtained), without having burned.
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.