Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1result, for it does possess such an abode — viz. the act of water being carried (in it) — with reference to which it is enjoined. So again a special fruit may be enjoined for the case of the sacrificial post being made of bilva-wood ; for this latter quality likewise has an abode, viz. the sacrificial post with reference to which it is enjoined. But in the case of the quality of consisting of par;/a-wood there is no such established abode under the heading of which that quality is enjoined ; and if we assumed that the sentence (' He whose ^uhu is made of par;/a-wood hears no evil sound ') after intimating that the quality of consisting of par;za-wood resides in the^uhu is also meant to enjoin the fruit thereof, we should impute to the text the imperfection called ' split of the sentence.' — The meditations on the other hand are themselves acts, and as such capable of a special injunction ; hence there is no reason why a special result should not be enjoined for those meditations which are based on sacrificial acts. The conclusion therefore is that the meditations on the udgitha, &c., although based on sacrifices, are yet not necessary members of the latter, because they have results of their own like the use of the godohana-vessel. For this reason the authors of the Kalpa-sutras have not represented such meditations as belonging to the sacrificial performances.
243. As in the case of the offerings, (Vayu and Pra;2a must be held apart). This has been explained (in the Purva Mtma;;^sa-siitra). The section of the Va^asaneyaka which begins, ' Voice held, I shall speak' {Bri. Up. I, 5, 21), determines Pra/^a to be the best among the organs of the body, viz. speech and so on, and Vayu to be the best among the Devas, viz. Agni and so on. — Similarly in the AV^andogya, Vayu is affirmed to be the general absorber of the Devas, 'Vayu indeed is the absorber' (IV, 3, i), while Pra;/a is said to be the general absorber of the organs of the body, ' Breath indeed is the absorber' (IV, 3, 3). — The doubt here arises whether Vayu and Pra;/a are to be conceived as separate or not. As non-separate, the purvapakshin maintains; because in Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 43. 257
3their true nature they do not differ. And as their true nature does not differ they must not be meditated upon separately. Another scriptural passage also declares that the organs of the body and the divinities are non-different in their true nature, ' Agni having become speech entered the mouth,' &c. (Ait. An II, 4, 2, 4). Moreover, the passage Br/. Up. I, 5^^3> '^ These are all alike, all endless,' declares that the powers of the Devas constitute the Self of the organs of the body. And various other passages also testify to the fundamental non-difference of the two. In some places we have even a direct identification of the two, ' What Prawa is, that is Vayu.' And in the j-loka concluding the Vao-asaneyaka-chapter to which the passage under discussion belongs, the text refers to pra//a only (' He verily rises from the breath and sets in the breath '), and thus shows the breath to be one with the previously mentioned Vayu. This conclusion is moreover confirmed by the fact that the observance enjoined in the end refers to pra«a only, ' Therefore let a man perform one observance only, let him breathe up and let him breathe down ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 23). Similarly, the AV/indogya-passage, IV, 3, 6, ' One god swallowed the four great ones,' intimates that there is one absorber only, and does not say that one god is the absorber of the one set of four, and another the absorber of the other set of four. — From all this it follows that Vayu and Pra;^a are to be conceived as one.
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.
1result, for it does possess such an abode — viz. the act of water being carried (in it) — with reference to which it is enjoined. So again a special fruit may be enjoined for the case of the sacrificial post being made of bilva-wood ; for this latter quality likewise has an abode, viz. the sacrificial post with reference to which it is enjoined. But in the case of the quality of consisting of par;/a-wood there is no such established abode under the heading of which that quality is enjoined ; and if we assumed that the sentence (' He whose ^uhu is made of par;/a-wood hears no evil sound ') after intimating that the quality of consisting of par;za-wood resides in the^uhu is also meant to enjoin the fruit thereof, we should impute to the text the imperfection called ' split of the sentence.' — The meditations on the other hand are themselves acts, and as such capable of a special injunction ; hence there is no reason why a special result should not be enjoined for those meditations which are based on sacrificial acts. The conclusion therefore is that the meditations on the udgitha, &c., although based on sacrifices, are yet not necessary members of the latter, because they have results of their own like the use of the godohana-vessel. For this reason the authors of the Kalpa-sutras have not represented such meditations as belonging to the sacrificial performances.
243. As in the case of the offerings, (Vayu and Pra;2a must be held apart). This has been explained (in the Purva Mtma;;^sa-siitra). The section of the Va^asaneyaka which begins, ' Voice held, I shall speak' {Bri. Up. I, 5, 21), determines Pra/^a to be the best among the organs of the body, viz. speech and so on, and Vayu to be the best among the Devas, viz. Agni and so on. — Similarly in the AV^andogya, Vayu is affirmed to be the general absorber of the Devas, 'Vayu indeed is the absorber' (IV, 3, i), while Pra;/a is said to be the general absorber of the organs of the body, ' Breath indeed is the absorber' (IV, 3, 3). — The doubt here arises whether Vayu and Pra;/a are to be conceived as separate or not. As non-separate, the purvapakshin maintains; because in Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 43. 257
3their true nature they do not differ. And as their true nature does not differ they must not be meditated upon separately. Another scriptural passage also declares that the organs of the body and the divinities are non-different in their true nature, ' Agni having become speech entered the mouth,' &c. (Ait. An II, 4, 2, 4). Moreover, the passage Br/. Up. I, 5^^3> '^ These are all alike, all endless,' declares that the powers of the Devas constitute the Self of the organs of the body. And various other passages also testify to the fundamental non-difference of the two. In some places we have even a direct identification of the two, ' What Prawa is, that is Vayu.' And in the j-loka concluding the Vao-asaneyaka-chapter to which the passage under discussion belongs, the text refers to pra//a only (' He verily rises from the breath and sets in the breath '), and thus shows the breath to be one with the previously mentioned Vayu. This conclusion is moreover confirmed by the fact that the observance enjoined in the end refers to pra«a only, ' Therefore let a man perform one observance only, let him breathe up and let him breathe down ' (Br/. Up. I, 5, 23). Similarly, the AV/indogya-passage, IV, 3, 6, ' One god swallowed the four great ones,' intimates that there is one absorber only, and does not say that one god is the absorber of the one set of four, and another the absorber of the other set of four. — From all this it follows that Vayu and Pra;^a are to be conceived as one.
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.