Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1which form the substratum for the soul when passing out of this body, must be subtle in its nature and extent. This follows from the scriptural passages, which declare that it passes out by the veins and so on. Their thinness renders them capable of passing out, and their transparency (permeability) is the cause of their not being stopped by any gross substance. For these reasons they, when passing out of the body, are not perceived by bystanders. 10. For this reason (it is) not (destroyed) by the destruction (of the gross body). On account of this very subtlety the subtle body is not destroyed by what destroys the gross body, viz. burning and the like. 11. And to that same (subtle body) that warmth (belongs), on account of the proof (which observation furnishes). To that same subtle body belongs the warmth which we perceive in the living body by means of touch. That warmth is not felt in the body after death, while such qualities as form^ colour and so on continue to be perceived; it is. on the other hand, observed as long as there is life. From this it follows that the warmth resides in something different from the body as ordinarily known. Scripture also says, ' He is warm if going to live, cold if going to die.' 12. Should you say that on account of the denial (made by scripture) (the soul of him who knows Brahman does not depart) ; we deny this, (because scripture means to say that the pra/^as do not depart) from the embodied soul.
2From the distinction conveyed by the clause, ' and (relative) immortality without having burned' (Sutra 7), it follows that in the case of absolute immortality being reached there is no going and no departure of the soul from the body. — The idea that for some reason or other IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 3. ^73 a departure of the soul might take place in this latter case also, is precluded by the following scriptural passage, ' But as to the man who does not desire, who, not desiring, freed from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Self only, of him the vital spirits do not depart, — being Brahman, he goes to Brahman ' {Brt. Up. IV, 4, 6). From this express denial — forming part of the higher knowledge — it follows that the pra;^as do not pass out of the body of him who knows Brahman.
3This conclusion the purvapakshin denies. For, he says, the passage quoted does not deny the departure of the prawas from the body, but from the embodied (individual) soul. — How is this known ? — From the fact that in another 5akha we have (not the sixth, genitive, case ' of him,' but) the fifth, ablative, case ' from him ' — ' From him the vital spirits do not depart ' (Madhyandina 5akha). For the sixth case which expresses only relation in general is determined towards some special relation by the fifth case met with in another .Sakha. And as the embodied soul which has a claim on exaltation and bliss is the chief topic of the chapter, we construe the words * from him ' to mean not the body but the embodied soul. The sense therefore is ' from that soul when about to depart the pra;/as do not depart, but remain with it.' The soul of him who dies therefore passes out of the body, together with the pra;^as. This view the next Sutra refutes. 13. For (in the text) of some (the denial of the soul's departure) is clear.
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.
1which form the substratum for the soul when passing out of this body, must be subtle in its nature and extent. This follows from the scriptural passages, which declare that it passes out by the veins and so on. Their thinness renders them capable of passing out, and their transparency (permeability) is the cause of their not being stopped by any gross substance. For these reasons they, when passing out of the body, are not perceived by bystanders. 10. For this reason (it is) not (destroyed) by the destruction (of the gross body). On account of this very subtlety the subtle body is not destroyed by what destroys the gross body, viz. burning and the like. 11. And to that same (subtle body) that warmth (belongs), on account of the proof (which observation furnishes). To that same subtle body belongs the warmth which we perceive in the living body by means of touch. That warmth is not felt in the body after death, while such qualities as form^ colour and so on continue to be perceived; it is. on the other hand, observed as long as there is life. From this it follows that the warmth resides in something different from the body as ordinarily known. Scripture also says, ' He is warm if going to live, cold if going to die.' 12. Should you say that on account of the denial (made by scripture) (the soul of him who knows Brahman does not depart) ; we deny this, (because scripture means to say that the pra/^as do not depart) from the embodied soul.
2From the distinction conveyed by the clause, ' and (relative) immortality without having burned' (Sutra 7), it follows that in the case of absolute immortality being reached there is no going and no departure of the soul from the body. — The idea that for some reason or other IV ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 1 3. ^73 a departure of the soul might take place in this latter case also, is precluded by the following scriptural passage, ' But as to the man who does not desire, who, not desiring, freed from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Self only, of him the vital spirits do not depart, — being Brahman, he goes to Brahman ' {Brt. Up. IV, 4, 6). From this express denial — forming part of the higher knowledge — it follows that the pra;^as do not pass out of the body of him who knows Brahman.
3This conclusion the purvapakshin denies. For, he says, the passage quoted does not deny the departure of the prawas from the body, but from the embodied (individual) soul. — How is this known ? — From the fact that in another 5akha we have (not the sixth, genitive, case ' of him,' but) the fifth, ablative, case ' from him ' — ' From him the vital spirits do not depart ' (Madhyandina 5akha). For the sixth case which expresses only relation in general is determined towards some special relation by the fifth case met with in another .Sakha. And as the embodied soul which has a claim on exaltation and bliss is the chief topic of the chapter, we construe the words * from him ' to mean not the body but the embodied soul. The sense therefore is ' from that soul when about to depart the pra;/as do not depart, but remain with it.' The soul of him who dies therefore passes out of the body, together with the pra;^as. This view the next Sutra refutes. 13. For (in the text) of some (the denial of the soul's departure) is clear.
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.