Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1na^is and the pericardium are mere roads leading to it. Moreover (to explain further the difference of the manner in which the soul, in deep sleep, enters into the na^is, the pericardium and Brahman respectively), the na<^is and the pericardium are (in deep sleep) merely the abode of the limiting adjuncts of the soul ; in them the soul's organs abide ^ For apart from its connexion with the limiting adjuncts it is impossible for the soul in itself to abide anywhere, because being non-different from Brahman it rests in its own glory. And if we say that, in deep sleep, it abides in Brahman we do not mean thereby that there is a difference between the abode and that which abides, but that there is absolute identity of the two. For the text says, ' With that which is he becomes united, he is gone to his Self; ' which means that the sleeping person has entered into his true nature. — It cannot, moreover, be said that the soul is at any time not united with Brahman — for its true nature can never pass away — ; but considering that in the state of waking and that of dreaming it passes, owing to the contact with its limiting adjuncts, into something else, as it were, it may be said that when those adjuncts cease in deep sleep it passes back into its true nature. Hence it would be entirely wrong to assume that, in deep sleep, it sometimes becomes united with Brahman and sometimes not ^. Moreover, even if we admit that there are different places for the soul in deep sleep, still there does not result, from that difference of place, any difference in the quality of deep sleep which is in all cases characterised by the cessation of special cognition ; it is, therefore, more appropriate to say that the soul does (in deep sleep) not cognize on account of its oneness, having become united with Brahman ; according to the 5ruti, ' How should he know another ? ' (Brz. Up. IV, 5, 15). — If, further, the sleeping soul did rest in the na^is and the puritat, it would be impossible
2^ An. Gi. explains karawani by karmawi : na</ishu puritati k■^ ^ivasyopadhyantarbbQlani karawani karma«i tish//;anlity upadhyadharatvam, ^ivasya tv adharo biahmaiva. "^ But with the na</is or the pericardium only. [38] L 146 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. to assign any reason for its not cognizing, because in that case it would continue to have diversity for its object ; according to the 6"ruti, ' When there is, as it were, duality, then one sees the other,' &c. — But in the case of him also who has diversity for his object, great distance and the like may be reasons for absence of cognition ! — What you say might indeed apply to our case if the soul were acknowledged to be limited in itself; then its case would be analogous to that of Vish;/umitra, who, when staying in a foreign land, cannot see his home. But, apart from its adjuncts, the soul knows no limitation. — Well, then, great distance, &c., residing in the adjuncts may be the reason of non-cognition ! — Yes, but that leads us to the conclusion already arrived at, viz. that the soul does not cognize when, the limiting adjuncts having ceased, it has become one with Brahman.
3Nor do we finally maintain that the na^is, the pericardium, and Brahman are to be added to each other as being equally places of deep sleep. For by the knowledge that the uadis and the pericardium are places of sleep, nothing is gained, as scripture teaches neither that some special fruit is connected with that knowledge nor that it is the subordinate member of some work, &c., connected with certain results. We. on the other hand, do want to prove that that Brahman is the lasting abode of the soul in the state of deep sleep ; that is a knowledge which has its own uses, viz. the ascertainment of Brahman being the Self of the soul, and the ascertainment of the soul being essentially non-connected with the worlds that appear in the waking and in the dreaming state. Hence the Self alone is the place of deep sleep. 8. Hence the av^^aking from that (viz. Brahman). And because the Self only is the place of deep sleep, on that account the scriptural chapters treating of sleep invariably teach that the awaking takes place from that Self. In the Brt. Up. when the time comes for the answer to the question, 'Whence did he come back?' (II, i, 16), the text Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 9. I47
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.
1na^is and the pericardium are mere roads leading to it. Moreover (to explain further the difference of the manner in which the soul, in deep sleep, enters into the na^is, the pericardium and Brahman respectively), the na<^is and the pericardium are (in deep sleep) merely the abode of the limiting adjuncts of the soul ; in them the soul's organs abide ^ For apart from its connexion with the limiting adjuncts it is impossible for the soul in itself to abide anywhere, because being non-different from Brahman it rests in its own glory. And if we say that, in deep sleep, it abides in Brahman we do not mean thereby that there is a difference between the abode and that which abides, but that there is absolute identity of the two. For the text says, ' With that which is he becomes united, he is gone to his Self; ' which means that the sleeping person has entered into his true nature. — It cannot, moreover, be said that the soul is at any time not united with Brahman — for its true nature can never pass away — ; but considering that in the state of waking and that of dreaming it passes, owing to the contact with its limiting adjuncts, into something else, as it were, it may be said that when those adjuncts cease in deep sleep it passes back into its true nature. Hence it would be entirely wrong to assume that, in deep sleep, it sometimes becomes united with Brahman and sometimes not ^. Moreover, even if we admit that there are different places for the soul in deep sleep, still there does not result, from that difference of place, any difference in the quality of deep sleep which is in all cases characterised by the cessation of special cognition ; it is, therefore, more appropriate to say that the soul does (in deep sleep) not cognize on account of its oneness, having become united with Brahman ; according to the 5ruti, ' How should he know another ? ' (Brz. Up. IV, 5, 15). — If, further, the sleeping soul did rest in the na^is and the puritat, it would be impossible
2^ An. Gi. explains karawani by karmawi : na</ishu puritati k■^ ^ivasyopadhyantarbbQlani karawani karma«i tish//;anlity upadhyadharatvam, ^ivasya tv adharo biahmaiva. "^ But with the na</is or the pericardium only. [38] L 146 VEDANTA-S^TRAS. to assign any reason for its not cognizing, because in that case it would continue to have diversity for its object ; according to the 6"ruti, ' When there is, as it were, duality, then one sees the other,' &c. — But in the case of him also who has diversity for his object, great distance and the like may be reasons for absence of cognition ! — What you say might indeed apply to our case if the soul were acknowledged to be limited in itself; then its case would be analogous to that of Vish;/umitra, who, when staying in a foreign land, cannot see his home. But, apart from its adjuncts, the soul knows no limitation. — Well, then, great distance, &c., residing in the adjuncts may be the reason of non-cognition ! — Yes, but that leads us to the conclusion already arrived at, viz. that the soul does not cognize when, the limiting adjuncts having ceased, it has become one with Brahman.
3Nor do we finally maintain that the na^is, the pericardium, and Brahman are to be added to each other as being equally places of deep sleep. For by the knowledge that the uadis and the pericardium are places of sleep, nothing is gained, as scripture teaches neither that some special fruit is connected with that knowledge nor that it is the subordinate member of some work, &c., connected with certain results. We. on the other hand, do want to prove that that Brahman is the lasting abode of the soul in the state of deep sleep ; that is a knowledge which has its own uses, viz. the ascertainment of Brahman being the Self of the soul, and the ascertainment of the soul being essentially non-connected with the worlds that appear in the waking and in the dreaming state. Hence the Self alone is the place of deep sleep. 8. Hence the av^^aking from that (viz. Brahman). And because the Self only is the place of deep sleep, on that account the scriptural chapters treating of sleep invariably teach that the awaking takes place from that Self. In the Brt. Up. when the time comes for the answer to the question, 'Whence did he come back?' (II, i, 16), the text Ill ADHYAYA, 2 PADA, 9. I47
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.