Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1e. the embodied soul which is introduced by the clause ' he who does not desire,' not to the body which the text had not previously mentioned. The sixth case (tasya) here denotes the embodied soul as IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 12. 735 that which is connected with the prazzas (' the prazzas belonging to that, i. e. the soul, do not pass out '), not as that from which the passing out takes its start. — But why should the ' tasya ' not denote the body as the point of starting (' the prazzas do not pass forth from that (tasya), viz. the body5)? — Because, we reply, the soul which is actually mentioned in its relation of connexion with the prazzas (as indicated by tasya) suggests itself to the mind more immediately than the body which is not mentioned at all ; if therefore the question arises as to the starting- point of the passing forth of the prazzas the soul is (on the basis of the text) apprehended as that starting-point also (i.e. the clause 'the prazzas of him do not pass forth' implies at the same time 'the prazzas do not pass forth from him, i. e. from the soul '). Moreover, as the prazzas are well known to be connected with the soul and as hence it would serve no purpose to state that con- nexion, we conclude that the sixth case which expresses connexion in general is here meant to denote the starting- point in particular. And no dispute on this point is really possible ; since ' according to some ' it is * clear ' that what the text means to express is the embodied soul as the starting-point of the prazzas. The some are the Madhyan- dinas, who in their text of the Brzhad-arazzyaka read * na t asm at prazza utkramanti ' — ( the prazzas do not pass forth from him ' (the * tasya ' thus being the reading of the Kazzva vSakha only). — But, an objection is raised, there is no motive for explicitly negativing the passing away of the prazzas from the soul ; for there is no reason to assume that there should be such a passing away (and the general rule is that a denial is made of that only for which there is a presumption). — Not so, we reply. The iT/zandogya-text ' For him there is delay only as long as he is not delivered (from the body) ; then he will be united ' declares that the soul becomes united with Brahman at the time of its sepa- ration from the body, and this suggests the idea of the soul of him who knows separating itself at that very time (i. e. the time of death) from the prazzas also. But this would mean that the soul cannot reach union with Brahman by 736 vedanta-sOtras. means of proceeding on the path of the gods, and for this reason the BrzTiad-ara/zyaka ('of him the pra/zas do not pass forth ') explicitly declares that the pra/^as do not depart from the soul of him who knows, before that soul proceeding on the path of the gods attains to union with Brahman.
2means of proceeding on the path of the gods, and for this reason the BrzTiad-ara/zyaka ('of him the pra/zas do not pass forth ') explicitly declares that the pra/^as do not depart from the soul of him who knows, before that soul proceeding on the path of the gods attains to union with Brahman. The same line of refutation would have to be applied to the arguments founded by our opponent on the question of Artabhaga, if that question be viewed as referring to him who possesses true knowledge. The fact however is that that passage refers to him who does not possess that know- ledge ; for none of the questions and answers of which the section consists favours the presumption of the knowledge of Brahman being under discussion. The matters touched upon in those questions and answers are the nature of the senses and sense objects viewed as graha and atigraha ; water being the food of fire; the non-separation of the pra/zas from the soul at the time of death ; the continuance of the fame — there called name — of the dead man ; and the attainment, on the part of the soul of the departed, to conditions of existence corresponding to his good or evil deeds. The passage immediately preceding the one re- ferring to the non-departure of the pra/zas merely means that death is conquered in so far as it is a fire and fire is the food of water ; this has nothing to do with the owner of true knowledge. The statement that the pra/zas of the ordinary man who does not possess true knowledge do not depart means that at the time of death the pra/zas do not, like the gross body, abandon the £*iva, but cling to it like the subtle body and accompany it. 13. Smrzti also declares this. Smrzti also declares that the soul of him who. knows departs by means of an artery of the head. ' Of those, one is situated above which pierces the disc of the sun and passes beyond the world of Brahman ; by way of that the soul reaches the highest goal' (Yagn. Smrz. Ill, 167). — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' up to the beginning of the road.' IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 5. 737 14. With the Highest; for thus it says.
3Smrz. Ill, 167). — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' up to the beginning of the road.' IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 5. 737 14. With the Highest; for thus it says. It has been shown that at the time of departure from the body the soul together with the organs and pra/zas unites itself with the subtle elements, fire and the rest ; and the notion that the soul of him who knows forms an exception has been disposed of. The further question now arises whether those subtle elements move on towards producing their appropriate effects, in accordance with the works or the nature of meditation (of some other soul with which those elements join themselves), or unite themselves with the highest Self. — The Purvapakshin holds that, as in the case of union with the highest Self, they could not give rise to their peculiar effects, i. e. the experience of pleasure and pain, they move towards some place where they can give rise to their appropriate effects.— Of this view the Sutra dis- poses. They unite themselves with the highest Self; for Scripture declares ' warmth in the highest Being ' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 6). And the doings of those elements must be viewed in such a way as to agree with Scripture. As in the states of deep sleep and a pralaya, there is, owing to union with the highest Self, a cessation of all experience of pain and pleasure ; so it is in the case under question also. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' union with the Highest/ 15. Non-division, according to statement. Is this union with the highest Self to be understood as ordinary * merging/ i. e. a return on the part of the effected thing into the condition of the cause (as when the jar is reduced to the condition of a lump of clay), or as absolute non-division from the highest Self, such as is meant in the clauses preceding the text last quoted, ' Speech is merged in mind ' ? &c. — The former view is to be adopted ; for as the highest Self is the causal substance of all, union with it means the return on the part of individual beings into the condition of that causal substance. — This view the Sutra re- jects. Union here means non-division, i. e. connexion of such kind that those subtle elements are altogether incapable of being thought and spoken of as separate from Brah- [48] 3 b 738 VEDANTA-S<j TR AS. man. This the text itself declares, since the clause c warmth in the highest Being ' is connected with and governed by the preceding clause ' Speech is merged in mind/ This preceding clause intimates a special kind of connexion, viz. absolute non-separation, and there is nothing to prove that the dependent clause means to express something different ; nor is there any reason why at the time of the soul's departure those elements should enter into the causal con- dition ; nor is there anything said about their again pro- ceeding from the causal substance in a new creation. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' non-separation.'
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.
1e. the embodied soul which is introduced by the clause ' he who does not desire,' not to the body which the text had not previously mentioned. The sixth case (tasya) here denotes the embodied soul as IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 12. 735 that which is connected with the prazzas (' the prazzas belonging to that, i. e. the soul, do not pass out '), not as that from which the passing out takes its start. — But why should the ' tasya ' not denote the body as the point of starting (' the prazzas do not pass forth from that (tasya), viz. the body5)? — Because, we reply, the soul which is actually mentioned in its relation of connexion with the prazzas (as indicated by tasya) suggests itself to the mind more immediately than the body which is not mentioned at all ; if therefore the question arises as to the starting- point of the passing forth of the prazzas the soul is (on the basis of the text) apprehended as that starting-point also (i.e. the clause 'the prazzas of him do not pass forth' implies at the same time 'the prazzas do not pass forth from him, i. e. from the soul '). Moreover, as the prazzas are well known to be connected with the soul and as hence it would serve no purpose to state that con- nexion, we conclude that the sixth case which expresses connexion in general is here meant to denote the starting- point in particular. And no dispute on this point is really possible ; since ' according to some ' it is * clear ' that what the text means to express is the embodied soul as the starting-point of the prazzas. The some are the Madhyan- dinas, who in their text of the Brzhad-arazzyaka read * na t asm at prazza utkramanti ' — ( the prazzas do not pass forth from him ' (the * tasya ' thus being the reading of the Kazzva vSakha only). — But, an objection is raised, there is no motive for explicitly negativing the passing away of the prazzas from the soul ; for there is no reason to assume that there should be such a passing away (and the general rule is that a denial is made of that only for which there is a presumption). — Not so, we reply. The iT/zandogya-text ' For him there is delay only as long as he is not delivered (from the body) ; then he will be united ' declares that the soul becomes united with Brahman at the time of its sepa- ration from the body, and this suggests the idea of the soul of him who knows separating itself at that very time (i. e. the time of death) from the prazzas also. But this would mean that the soul cannot reach union with Brahman by 736 vedanta-sOtras. means of proceeding on the path of the gods, and for this reason the BrzTiad-ara/zyaka ('of him the pra/zas do not pass forth ') explicitly declares that the pra/^as do not depart from the soul of him who knows, before that soul proceeding on the path of the gods attains to union with Brahman.
2means of proceeding on the path of the gods, and for this reason the BrzTiad-ara/zyaka ('of him the pra/zas do not pass forth ') explicitly declares that the pra/^as do not depart from the soul of him who knows, before that soul proceeding on the path of the gods attains to union with Brahman. The same line of refutation would have to be applied to the arguments founded by our opponent on the question of Artabhaga, if that question be viewed as referring to him who possesses true knowledge. The fact however is that that passage refers to him who does not possess that know- ledge ; for none of the questions and answers of which the section consists favours the presumption of the knowledge of Brahman being under discussion. The matters touched upon in those questions and answers are the nature of the senses and sense objects viewed as graha and atigraha ; water being the food of fire; the non-separation of the pra/zas from the soul at the time of death ; the continuance of the fame — there called name — of the dead man ; and the attainment, on the part of the soul of the departed, to conditions of existence corresponding to his good or evil deeds. The passage immediately preceding the one re- ferring to the non-departure of the pra/zas merely means that death is conquered in so far as it is a fire and fire is the food of water ; this has nothing to do with the owner of true knowledge. The statement that the pra/zas of the ordinary man who does not possess true knowledge do not depart means that at the time of death the pra/zas do not, like the gross body, abandon the £*iva, but cling to it like the subtle body and accompany it. 13. Smrzti also declares this. Smrzti also declares that the soul of him who. knows departs by means of an artery of the head. ' Of those, one is situated above which pierces the disc of the sun and passes beyond the world of Brahman ; by way of that the soul reaches the highest goal' (Yagn. Smrz. Ill, 167). — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' up to the beginning of the road.' IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 5. 737 14. With the Highest; for thus it says.
3Smrz. Ill, 167). — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' up to the beginning of the road.' IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 5. 737 14. With the Highest; for thus it says. It has been shown that at the time of departure from the body the soul together with the organs and pra/zas unites itself with the subtle elements, fire and the rest ; and the notion that the soul of him who knows forms an exception has been disposed of. The further question now arises whether those subtle elements move on towards producing their appropriate effects, in accordance with the works or the nature of meditation (of some other soul with which those elements join themselves), or unite themselves with the highest Self. — The Purvapakshin holds that, as in the case of union with the highest Self, they could not give rise to their peculiar effects, i. e. the experience of pleasure and pain, they move towards some place where they can give rise to their appropriate effects.— Of this view the Sutra dis- poses. They unite themselves with the highest Self; for Scripture declares ' warmth in the highest Being ' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 6). And the doings of those elements must be viewed in such a way as to agree with Scripture. As in the states of deep sleep and a pralaya, there is, owing to union with the highest Self, a cessation of all experience of pain and pleasure ; so it is in the case under question also. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' union with the Highest/ 15. Non-division, according to statement. Is this union with the highest Self to be understood as ordinary * merging/ i. e. a return on the part of the effected thing into the condition of the cause (as when the jar is reduced to the condition of a lump of clay), or as absolute non-division from the highest Self, such as is meant in the clauses preceding the text last quoted, ' Speech is merged in mind ' ? &c. — The former view is to be adopted ; for as the highest Self is the causal substance of all, union with it means the return on the part of individual beings into the condition of that causal substance. — This view the Sutra re- jects. Union here means non-division, i. e. connexion of such kind that those subtle elements are altogether incapable of being thought and spoken of as separate from Brah- [48] 3 b 738 VEDANTA-S<j TR AS. man. This the text itself declares, since the clause c warmth in the highest Being ' is connected with and governed by the preceding clause ' Speech is merged in mind/ This preceding clause intimates a special kind of connexion, viz. absolute non-separation, and there is nothing to prove that the dependent clause means to express something different ; nor is there any reason why at the time of the soul's departure those elements should enter into the causal con- dition ; nor is there anything said about their again pro- ceeding from the causal substance in a new creation. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' non-separation.'
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.