Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1his father, ' And to whom will you give me ' ? The father, irritated by the boy's persistent questioning, gives an angry reply, and in consequence of this the boy goes to the palace of Yama, and Yama being absent, stays there for three days without eating. Yama on his return is alarmed at this neglect of hospitality, and wishing to make up for it allows him to choose three boons. Na^iketas, thereupon, full of faith and piety, chooses as his first boon that his father should forgive him. Now it is clear that conduct of this kind would not be possible in the case of one not convinced of the soul having an existence independent of the body. For his second boon, again, he chooses the knowledge of a sacrificial fire, which has a result to be experienced only by a soul that has departed from the body ; and this choice also can clearly be made only by one who knows that the soul is something different from the body. When, therefore, he chooses for his third boon the clearing up of his doubt as to the existence of the soul after death (as stated in v. so), it is evident that his ques- tion is prompted by the desire to acquire knowledge of the true nature of the highest Self— which knowledge has the form of meditation on the highest Self — , and by means thereof, knowledge of the true nature of final Release which consists in obtaining the highest Brahman. The passage, therefore, is not concerned merely with the problem as to the separation of the soul from the body, but rather with the problem of the Self freeing itself from all bondage whatever — the same problem, in fact, with which another scriptural passage also is concerned, viz. ' When he has departed there is no more knowledge' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13). The full purport of Na&ketas' question, therefore, is as follows : When a man qualified for Release has died and thus freed himself from all bondage, there arises a doubt as to his existence or non-existence— -a doubt due to the disagreement of philosophers as to the true nature of Release ; in order to clear up this doubt I wish to learn from thee the true nature of the state of Release.— Philo- sophers, indeed, hold many widely differing opinions as to what constitutes Release. Some hold that the Self is con- I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 12. 2jl
2Some hold that the Self is con- I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 12. 2jl stituted by consciousness only, and that Release consists in the total destruction of this essential nature of the Self. Others, while holding the same opinion as to the nature of the Self, define Release as the passing away of Nescience (avidya). Others hold that the Self is in itself non-sentient, like a stone, but possesses, in the state of bondage, certain distinctive qualities, such as knowledge, and so on. Release then consists in the total removal of all these qualities, the Self remaining in a state of pure isolation (kaivalya). Others, again, who acknowledge a highest Self free from all imperfection, maintain that through connexion with limit- ing adjuncts that Self enters on the condition of an indi- vidual soul ; Release then means the pure existence of the highest Self, consequent on the passing away of the limiting adjuncts. Those, however, who understand the Ved&nta, teach as follows: There is a highest Brahman which is the sole cause of the entire universe, which is antagonistic to all evil, whose essential nature is infinite knowledge and blessedness, which comprises within itself numberless auspicious qualities of supreme excellence, which is different in nature from all other beings, and which constitutes the inner Self of all. Of this Brahman, the indi- vidual souls — whose true nature is unlimited knowledge, and whose only essential attribute is the intuition of the supreme Self — are modes, in so far, namely, as they con- stitute its body. The true nature of these souls is, how- ever, obscured by Nescience, i. e. the influence of the beginningless chain of works ; and by Release then we have to understand that intuition of the highest Self, which is the natural state of the individual souls, and which follows on the destruction of Nescience. — When Na/Hketas desires Yama graciously to teach him the true nature of Release and the means to attain it, Yama at first tests him by dwelling on the difficulty of comprehending Release, and by tempting him with various worldly enjoyments. But having in this way recognised the boy's thorough fitness, he in the end instructs him as to the kind of meditation on the highest Self which constitutes knowledge of the highest Reality, as to the nature of Release — which consists in 272 VEDANTA-stiTRAS. reaching the abode of the highest Self — , and as to all the required details. This instruction begins, I, 2, 12, 'The Ancient one who is difficult to see/ &c, and extends up to I, 3, 9, ' and that is the highest place of Vishnu/ — It thus is an established conclusion that the ' eater ' is no other than the highest Self. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of i the eater/ 13. (The Person) within the eye (is the highest Self) on account of suitability.
3— Here terminates the adhikara/za of i the eater/ 13. (The Person) within the eye (is the highest Self) on account of suitability. The jOandogas have the following text : ' The Person that is seen within the eye, that is the Self. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman' (Kk. Up. IV, 15, 1). The doubt here arises whether the person that is here spoken of as abiding within the eye is the reflected Self, or some divine being presiding over the sense of sight, or the embodied Self, or the highest Self. — It is the reflected Self, the Purvapakshin maintains ; for the text refers to the person seen as something well known, and the expression, 'is seen,' clearly refers to something directly perceived. Or it may be the individual soul, for that also may be referred to as something well known, as it is in special connexion with the eye : people, by looking into the open eye of a person, determine whether the living soul remains in him or is departing. Or else we may assume that the Person seen within the eye is some particular divine being, on the strength of the scriptural text, Bri. Up. V, 5, 2, { He (the person seen within the sun) rests with his rays in him (the person within the eye).' Any of these beings may quite suitably be referred to as something well known. — Of these alternatives the Sutra disposes by declaring that the Person within the eye is the highest Self. For the text goes on to say about the Person seen within the eye, c They call him Sa/^yadvama, for all blessings go towards him. He is also Vamani, for he leads all blessings. He is also Bhamani, for he shines in all worlds.' And all these attributes can be reconciled with the highest Self only. 14. And on account of the statement as to abode, and so on. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, I 5. 273 Abiding within the eye, ruling the eye, and so on are predicated by scripture of the highest Self only, viz. in Brz. Up. Ill, 7, 18, 'He who dwells within the eye, who rules the eye within.' We therefore recognise that highest Self in the text, 'That Person which is seen within the eye.' The argument founded on reference to 'something well known ' thus suits the highest Self very well ; and also the clause which denotes immediate perception (' is seen ') appears quite suitable, since the highest Self is directly intuited by persons practising mystic concentration of mind (Yoga). 15. And on account of the text referring only to what is characterised by pleasure.
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.
1his father, ' And to whom will you give me ' ? The father, irritated by the boy's persistent questioning, gives an angry reply, and in consequence of this the boy goes to the palace of Yama, and Yama being absent, stays there for three days without eating. Yama on his return is alarmed at this neglect of hospitality, and wishing to make up for it allows him to choose three boons. Na^iketas, thereupon, full of faith and piety, chooses as his first boon that his father should forgive him. Now it is clear that conduct of this kind would not be possible in the case of one not convinced of the soul having an existence independent of the body. For his second boon, again, he chooses the knowledge of a sacrificial fire, which has a result to be experienced only by a soul that has departed from the body ; and this choice also can clearly be made only by one who knows that the soul is something different from the body. When, therefore, he chooses for his third boon the clearing up of his doubt as to the existence of the soul after death (as stated in v. so), it is evident that his ques- tion is prompted by the desire to acquire knowledge of the true nature of the highest Self— which knowledge has the form of meditation on the highest Self — , and by means thereof, knowledge of the true nature of final Release which consists in obtaining the highest Brahman. The passage, therefore, is not concerned merely with the problem as to the separation of the soul from the body, but rather with the problem of the Self freeing itself from all bondage whatever — the same problem, in fact, with which another scriptural passage also is concerned, viz. ' When he has departed there is no more knowledge' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13). The full purport of Na&ketas' question, therefore, is as follows : When a man qualified for Release has died and thus freed himself from all bondage, there arises a doubt as to his existence or non-existence— -a doubt due to the disagreement of philosophers as to the true nature of Release ; in order to clear up this doubt I wish to learn from thee the true nature of the state of Release.— Philo- sophers, indeed, hold many widely differing opinions as to what constitutes Release. Some hold that the Self is con- I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 12. 2jl
2Some hold that the Self is con- I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 12. 2jl stituted by consciousness only, and that Release consists in the total destruction of this essential nature of the Self. Others, while holding the same opinion as to the nature of the Self, define Release as the passing away of Nescience (avidya). Others hold that the Self is in itself non-sentient, like a stone, but possesses, in the state of bondage, certain distinctive qualities, such as knowledge, and so on. Release then consists in the total removal of all these qualities, the Self remaining in a state of pure isolation (kaivalya). Others, again, who acknowledge a highest Self free from all imperfection, maintain that through connexion with limit- ing adjuncts that Self enters on the condition of an indi- vidual soul ; Release then means the pure existence of the highest Self, consequent on the passing away of the limiting adjuncts. Those, however, who understand the Ved&nta, teach as follows: There is a highest Brahman which is the sole cause of the entire universe, which is antagonistic to all evil, whose essential nature is infinite knowledge and blessedness, which comprises within itself numberless auspicious qualities of supreme excellence, which is different in nature from all other beings, and which constitutes the inner Self of all. Of this Brahman, the indi- vidual souls — whose true nature is unlimited knowledge, and whose only essential attribute is the intuition of the supreme Self — are modes, in so far, namely, as they con- stitute its body. The true nature of these souls is, how- ever, obscured by Nescience, i. e. the influence of the beginningless chain of works ; and by Release then we have to understand that intuition of the highest Self, which is the natural state of the individual souls, and which follows on the destruction of Nescience. — When Na/Hketas desires Yama graciously to teach him the true nature of Release and the means to attain it, Yama at first tests him by dwelling on the difficulty of comprehending Release, and by tempting him with various worldly enjoyments. But having in this way recognised the boy's thorough fitness, he in the end instructs him as to the kind of meditation on the highest Self which constitutes knowledge of the highest Reality, as to the nature of Release — which consists in 272 VEDANTA-stiTRAS. reaching the abode of the highest Self — , and as to all the required details. This instruction begins, I, 2, 12, 'The Ancient one who is difficult to see/ &c, and extends up to I, 3, 9, ' and that is the highest place of Vishnu/ — It thus is an established conclusion that the ' eater ' is no other than the highest Self. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of i the eater/ 13. (The Person) within the eye (is the highest Self) on account of suitability.
3— Here terminates the adhikara/za of i the eater/ 13. (The Person) within the eye (is the highest Self) on account of suitability. The jOandogas have the following text : ' The Person that is seen within the eye, that is the Self. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman' (Kk. Up. IV, 15, 1). The doubt here arises whether the person that is here spoken of as abiding within the eye is the reflected Self, or some divine being presiding over the sense of sight, or the embodied Self, or the highest Self. — It is the reflected Self, the Purvapakshin maintains ; for the text refers to the person seen as something well known, and the expression, 'is seen,' clearly refers to something directly perceived. Or it may be the individual soul, for that also may be referred to as something well known, as it is in special connexion with the eye : people, by looking into the open eye of a person, determine whether the living soul remains in him or is departing. Or else we may assume that the Person seen within the eye is some particular divine being, on the strength of the scriptural text, Bri. Up. V, 5, 2, { He (the person seen within the sun) rests with his rays in him (the person within the eye).' Any of these beings may quite suitably be referred to as something well known. — Of these alternatives the Sutra disposes by declaring that the Person within the eye is the highest Self. For the text goes on to say about the Person seen within the eye, c They call him Sa/^yadvama, for all blessings go towards him. He is also Vamani, for he leads all blessings. He is also Bhamani, for he shines in all worlds.' And all these attributes can be reconciled with the highest Self only. 14. And on account of the statement as to abode, and so on. I ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, I 5. 273 Abiding within the eye, ruling the eye, and so on are predicated by scripture of the highest Self only, viz. in Brz. Up. Ill, 7, 18, 'He who dwells within the eye, who rules the eye within.' We therefore recognise that highest Self in the text, 'That Person which is seen within the eye.' The argument founded on reference to 'something well known ' thus suits the highest Self very well ; and also the clause which denotes immediate perception (' is seen ') appears quite suitable, since the highest Self is directly intuited by persons practising mystic concentration of mind (Yoga). 15. And on account of the text referring only to what is characterised by pleasure.
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.