ॐ
॥ श्रिगणेशय नमः ॥
॥ श्रिसद् गुरुपरमात्मने नमः ॥
Hari Om! Salutations to Sri Vyasa, the Avatara of Vishnu, the clever Badarayana and Sri Krishna Dvaipayana.
Vedas include three parts viz., the Karma Kanda which offers with sacrifices or ceremonial rites, the Upasana Kanda which treats of Upasana (worship) and the Jnana Kanda which offers with data of Brahman. Karma Kanda represents the ft of a person, Upasana Kanda the guts, and the Jnana Kanda the top. Simply as the top is an important portion of a person, so additionally the Upanishads which deal with of the data portion of the Vedas is the top of the Vedas. Therefore it’s stated to be the Siras (head) of Vedas.
Jaimini is the writer of the Purva Mimamsa. Sri Vyasa (Badarayana or Krishna Dvaipayana) the Guru of Jaimini is the writer of the Brahma Sutras in any other case often called Vedanta Sutras. The examine of Brahma Sutras is an artificial examine of the Upanishads. It treats of the Vedanta philosophy.
The Vedas are everlasting. They weren’t written by any particular person. They got here out from the breath of Hiranyagarbha (Lord Brahma). Vedanta is the tip or gist of the Vedas. It offers with the data portion. Vedanta just isn’t mere hypothesis. It’s the genuine file of transcendental experiences or direct and precise realisation of the good Hindu Rishis or seers. Brahma Sutras is the Science of the Soul.
There are greater than fourteen commentaries on the Brahma Sutras.
The inaccurate identification of the physique with the pure Atman is the foundation trigger for human sufferings and miseries and for births and deaths. You determine your self with the physique and say, ‘I’m truthful, darkish, stout or skinny. I’m a Brahmin, I’m a Kshatriya, I’m a health care provider’. You determine your self with the senses and say, ‘I’m blind, I’m dumb’. You determine your self with the thoughts and say, ‘I do know nothing. I do know every part. I grew to become indignant. I loved a superb meal. I’m affected by this illness’. Your entire object of the Brahma Sutras is to take away this inaccurate identification of the Soul with the physique which is the foundation reason behind your sufferings and miseries, which is the product of Avidya (ignorance) and assist you to within the attainment of the ultimate emancipation by data of Brahman.
The Upanishads appear to be stuffed with contradictions at first. They don’t comprise constant system of thought. Sri Vyasa systematised the ideas or philosophy of the Upanishads in his Brahma Sutras. The Sutras reconcile the conflicting statements of the Upanishads.
The 5 nice Acharyas: Sri Sankara the exponent of Kevala Advaita or uncompromising monism, Sri Ramanuja the exponent of Visishtadvaita or certified monism, Sri Nimbarka the exponent of Bhedabheda-vada, Sri Madhva the exponent of strict Dvaitism or Dvaita-vada and Sri Vallabha the exponent of Suddhadvaita-vada or pure monism agree that Brahman is the reason for this world and that data of Brahman results in Moksha or the ultimate emancipation, which is the purpose of life. Additionally they emphatically declared that Brahman may be identified solely by the scriptures and never by mere reasoning. However they differ amongst themselves as to the character of this Brahman, the relation of the person soul to Brahman, the state of the soul within the state of ultimate emancipation, the means of accomplishing It and Its causality with regards to this universe.
In response to Sri Sankara, there may be one Absolute Brahman who’s Sat-chit-ananda, who’s of a completely homogeneous nature. The looks of this world is because of Maya-the illusory energy of Brahman which is neither Sat nor Asat. This world is unreal. This world is a Vivarta or obvious modification by Maya. Brahman seems as this universe by Maya. Brahman is the one actuality. The person soul has restricted himself by Avidya and identification with the physique and different automobiles. By way of his egocentric actions he enjoys the fruits of his actions. He turns into the actor and enjoyer. He regards himself as atomic and as an agent on account of Avidya or the limiting Antahkarana. The person soul turns into similar with Brahman when his Avidya is destroyed. In actuality Jiva is all-pervading and similar with Brahman. Isvara or Saguna Brahman is a product of Maya. Worship of Isvara results in Krama Mukti. The pious devotees (the knowers of Saguna Brahman) go to Brahmaloka and attain remaining launch by highest data. They don’t return to this world. They attain the Nirguna Brahman on the finish of the cycle. Data of Nirguna Brahman is the one technique of liberation. The knowers of Nirguna Brahman attain quick remaining launch or Sadyomukti. They needn’t go by the trail of gods or the trail of Devayana. They merge themselves in Para Brahman. They don’t go to any Loka or world. Sri Sankara’s Brahman is Nirvisesha Brahman (Impersonal Absolute) with out attributes.
In response to Sri Ramanuja, Brahman is with attributes (Savisesha). Me is endowed with all auspicious qualities. He isn’t intelligence itself. Intelligence is his chief attribute. He incorporates inside Himself no matter exists. World and particular person souls are important actual constituents of Brahman’s nature. Matter (Achit) and soul (Chit) type the physique of the Lord, Lord Narayana who’s the Inside Ruler (Antaryamin). Matter and souls are referred to as modes of Him (Prakara). The person souls won’t ever be fully resolved in Brahman. In response to Ramanuja, Brahman just isn’t completely one and homogeneous. The person souls bear a state of Sankocha (contraction) throughout Pralaya. They develop (Vikasa) throughout creation. Sri Ramanuja’s Brahman is a Private God with attributes. The person soul of Ramanuja is de facto particular person. It is going to stay a persona for ever. The soul stays in Vaikuntha for ever in a state of bliss and enjoys the divine Aisvarya of Lord Narayana. Bhakti is the chief means to remaining emancipation and never Jnana. Sri Ramanuja follows in his Bhashya the authority of Bodhayana.
In response to Sri Nimbarkacharya, Brahman is taken into account as each the environment friendly and materials reason behind the world. Brahman is each Nirguna and Saguna. The universe just isn’t unreal or illusory however is a real manifestation or Parinama of Brahman. (Sri Ramanuja additionally holds this view. He says “Simply as milk is remodeled into curd, so additionally Brahman has remodeled Himself as this universe”). This world is similar with and on the identical time totally different from Brahman simply because the wave or bubble is similar and on the identical time totally different from water. The person souls are elements of the Supreme Self. They’re managed by the Supreme Being. The ultimate salvation lies in realising the true nature of 1’s personal soul. This may be achieved by Bhakti (devotion). The individuality of the finite self (Jivatman) just isn’t dissolved even within the state of ultimate emancipation. Sri Ramanuja additionally holds that the Jiva assumes the divine physique of Sri Narayana with 4 fingers and enjoys in Vaikuntha the divine Aisvarya of the Lord.
You could ask why do such nice realised souls maintain totally different views, why have they began totally different cults or methods. The best philosophy of Sri Sankara which bespeaks of the id of the person soul and the Supreme Soul can’t be understood by the overwhelming majority of individuals. Due to this fact Sri Madhva and Sri Ramanuja began their Bhakti cult. The totally different colleges are totally different rungs within the ladder of Yoga. The coed should place his foot step-by-step and at last attain the very best peak of perfection-the Kevaladvaita realisation of Sri Sankara. As temperaments are totally different, totally different colleges are additionally essential to go well with the style, capability, and stage of evolution of the aspirant. Due to this fact all colleges and cults are essential. They have their very own place and scope.
The views of assorted Acharyas are all true in respect of the actual facet of Brahman handled by them every in his personal method. Sankara has taken Brahman in His transcendental facet, whereas Sri Ramanuja has taken Him mainly in His immanent facet. Individuals had been following blindly the rituals in the course of the time of Sri Sankara. When he was making ready his commentary he had in view the aim of combating the baneful results which blind ritualism produced. He by no means condemned selfless service or Nishkama Karma Yoga. He condemned the efficiency of rituals with egocentric motives.
Sankara Bhashya is the oldest of all commentaries. It upholds Suddha-Para-Brahman or the Supreme Self of the Upanishads as one thing superior to different divine beings. It propounds a really daring philosophy and declares emphatically that the person soul is similar with the Supreme Self. Sankara’s philosophical view precisely represents the that means of Badarayana. His explanations solely faithfully render the meant that means of Sri Vyasa. That is past doubt and dispute.
College students of Kevaladvaita Faculty of Philosophy ought to examine the Sariraka Bhashya of Sri Sankara which is profound, refined and distinctive. It’s an authority which ends up in the fitting understanding of the Brahma Sutras. The most effective thinkers of India, Germany, America and England belong to this college. It occupies a excessive rank in books on philosophy. Advaita philosophy is probably the most chic and the grandest philosophy of the Hindus.
You may perceive the Brahma Sutras if in case you have a data of the twelve classical Upanishads. You may perceive the second chapter if in case you have a data of Sankhya, Nyaya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Vaiseshika Darsana and Buddhistic college, too. All these colleges are refuted right here by Sri Sankara. Sri Sankara’s commentary is the perfect commentary. Dr. Thibaut has translated this commentary into English. “Brahma Sutras” is among the books of Prasthanatraya. That is an authoritative e book on Hindu Philosophy. The work consists of 4 Adhyayas (chapters), 16 Padas (sections), 223 Adhikaranas (matters) and 555 Sutras (aphorisms). The primary chapter (Samanvayadhyaya) unifies Brahman, the second (Avirodhadhyaya) refutes different philosophies, the third (Sadhanadhyaya) offers with apply (Sadhana) to achieve Brahman and the fourth (Phaladhyaya) treats of fruits of Self-realisation. Every chapter incorporates 4 Padas. Every Pada incorporates Adhikaranas. Every Adhikarana has separate query to debate. The primary 5 Adhikaranas of the primary chapter are very, crucial.Glory to Sri Vyasa Bhagavan, son of Parasara, the mighty sage, a Chiranjivi who has written all Puranas and in addition divided the Vedas. Might his blessings be upon you all!
Introduction
The Vedanta Sutras are referred to as Sariraka Mimamsa as a result of they take care of Para Brahman, the Sarira (the embodied).
Within the first chapter the writer exhibits that every one the Vedic texts uniformly consult with Brahman and discover their Samanvaya (reconciliation) in Him. Within the second chapter, it has been proved that there isn’t a battle between Vedanta and different Sastras. Within the third chapter the means of accomplishing Brahman are described. Within the fourth chapter is described the results of attaining Brahman.
The Adhikarin (one who’s competent to grasp and examine the Sastra) is one who’s of tranquil thoughts and has the attributes of Sama (quietude), Dama (self-control), and many others., is stuffed with religion, is continually engaged in good ideas and associates with the knowers of Reality, whose coronary heart is purified by the due discharge of all duties, non secular and secular, and with none thought of reward. The Sambandha is the outline of Brahman by this Sastra. The Vishaya or the subject material of this Sastra is the Supreme Brahman who’s all pure. The Prayojana (necessity) of this Sastra is to acquire realisation of the Supreme Brahman, by the elimination of all false notions that forestall that realisation.
This Sastra consists of a number of Adhikaranas or matters or propositions. Each proposition consists of 5 elements:(1) Thesis or Vishaya, (2) Doubt or Samsaya, (3) Anti-thesis or Purvapaksha, (4) Synthesis or proper conclusion or Siddhanta and (5) Sangati or settlement of the proposition with the opposite elements of the Sastra.
In the entire e book of the Vedanta Sutras Brahman is the principle theme or the subject material of debate. An interpretation of any passage should not go away from the subject material of Brahman. Every chapter has a selected matter of its personal. A passage have to be interpreted persistently with the subject of that chapter. There’s a sure relation between Adhikaranas or matters themselves. One Adhikarana results in one other by some explicit affiliation of concepts. In a Pada or part there are lots of Adhikaranas and they aren’t put collectively in a haphazard method.
Synopsis
This part provides a chook’s-eye view of the topic handled within the Brahma Sutras particularly the character of the Supreme Brahman or the Highest Self, of the person soul and the universe and their inter-relations and provides hints on meditation on Brahman.
Adhikarana I: Sutra 1 provides a touch that the e book is supposed for many who are endowed with an actual want for attaining the data of Brahman.
Adhikarana II: Sutra 2 defines Brahman as that whence the world originates and many others.
Adhikarana III: Sutra 3 declares that Brahman is the supply of the Vedas and that Brahman is understood solely by the examine of Sruti and by no different means of information.
Adhikarana IV: Sutra 4 proves Brahman to be the uniform matter of all Vedanta texts.
Adhikarana V: Sutras 5 to 11 present that none however Brahman is admitted by Sruti to be the reason for the world. They show by numerous cogent and convincing arguments that the Brahman which the Vedantic texts proclaim as the reason for the universe is an clever precept, and can’t be recognized with the non-intelligent or insentient Pradhana from which the world originates, as declared by the Sankhyas.
Adhikarana VI: Sutras 12 to 19 increase the query whether or not the `Anandamaya’ in Taittiriya Upanishad II-5 is merely the person soul or the Supreme Self. The Sutras present that Brahman is All-Bliss and that by the time period `Anandamaya’ in Sruti is supposed neither the person soul, nor the Pradhana of Sankhyas. The Sutras show that all of them describe none however Brahman.
Adhikarana VII: Sutras 20 and 21, present that the golden particular person seen throughout the solar and the particular person seen throughout the eye talked about in Chh. Up. I-6 will not be some particular person soul of excessive eminence, however the highest Brahman or the Supreme Self.
Adhikarana VIII: Sutra 22 exhibits that the ether (Akasa) from which in line with Chh. Up. I-9 all beings originate, just isn’t the fundamental ether however the Supreme Brahman.
Adhikarana IX: Sutra 23 exhibits that Prana, additionally talked about in Chh. Up. I-11-15 is the Supreme Brahman.
Adhikarana X: Sutras 24 to 27 educate that the sunshine spoken of in Chh. Up. III-13-7 just isn’t the peculiar bodily mild however the Supreme Brahman.
Adhikarana XI: Sutras 28 to 31 resolve that the Prana talked about in Kau. Up. III-2 is Brahman.
Chapter I
SAMANVAYA ADHYAYA
Part 1
Jijnasadhikaranam: Subject 1
The enquiry into Brahman and its pre-requisites
Athato Brahmajijnasa I.1.1 (1)
Now, due to this fact, the enquiry into Brahman.
Atha: now, then, afterwards; Atah: due to this fact; Brahmajijnasa: a want for the data of Brahman (the enquiry into the true nature of Brahman).
Sutra actually means a string. It serves the aim of stringing collectively the flowers of the Vedanta passages.
The phrase Atha just isn’t used to introduce a brand new topic that’s going to be taken up. It’s right here to be taken as denoting quick consecution.
The enquiry of Brahman specifically relies upon upon some antecedent situations. The enquirer ought to be endowed with sure religious requisites or {qualifications}. Then solely the enquiry is feasible.
Atha i.e., after the attainment of sure preliminary {qualifications} such because the 4 technique of salvation viz., (1) Nitya-anitya-vastu-viveka (discrimination between the everlasting and the non-eternal); (2) Ihamutrarthaphalabhogaviraga (indifference to the enjoyment on this life or in heaven, and of the fruits of 1’s actions); (3) Shatsampat (sixfold virtues viz., Samacontrol of thoughts, Damacontrol of the exterior senses, Uparati cessation from worldly enjoyments or not considering of objects of senses or discontinuance of non secular ceremonies, Titiksha endurance of delight and ache, warmth and chilly, Sraddhafaith within the phrases of the preceptor and of the Upanishads and Samadhanadeep focus); (4) Mumukshutva (want for liberation).
Those that have gotten an earnest want for the data of Brahman solely are match for the examine of Vedanta Philosophy or Brahma Sutras. Even with out possessing the data of Karma Kanda which offers with non secular ceremonies or sacrifices, a want for attaining the data of Brahman will come up direct from the examine of the Srutis. The enquiry of Brahman doesn’t rely upon the efficiency of any acts.
You need to know and realise the everlasting Brahman. Then solely you’ll attain everlasting bliss, freedom, perfection and immortality. You need to have sure preliminary {qualifications} in your search. Why must you enquire about Brahman? As a result of the fruits obtained by sacrifices and many others., are ephemeral, whereas the data of Brahman is everlasting. Life on this earth and the life in heaven which you’ll attain on account of your virtuous deeds is transient. If you realize Brahman, you’ll take pleasure in eternal bliss and immortality. That’s the reason why you need to begin the hunt of Brahman or the Reality or the Final Actuality.
A time comes when an individual turns into detached to Karmas. He is aware of that Karmas can’t give him eternal, unalloyed happiness which isn’t blended with ache, sorrow and concern. Due to this fact, naturally, a want arises in him for the data of Brahman or the all-pervading, everlasting Soul which is above Karmas, which is the supply of everlasting happiness.
Charvakas or Lokayatikas suppose that the physique is the soul. Some suppose that the senses are the soul. Some others suppose that the thoughts is the soul. Some suppose that the mind is the soul. Some suppose that the soul is a mere momentary thought.
Some suppose that nothing exists in actuality. Some suppose that there’s a soul which is totally different from the physique which is each agent and enjoyer of the fruits of motion. Others maintain that he’s not a doer however is just an enjoyer. Some suppose that the person soul is part of the Supreme Soul. Vedantins keep that the person soul is similar with the Supreme Soul. Completely different colleges of philosophy maintain totally different views. Due to this fact it’s essential to look at the reality of issues very fastidiously.
Data of Brahman destroys Avidya or ignorance which is the foundation of all evil, or the seed of this formidable Samsara or worldly life. Therefore you need to entertain the will of realizing Brahman. Data of Brahman results in the attainment of the ultimate emancipation. Therefore an enquiry about Brahman by the examine of the Srutis which treats of Brahman is worth it and ought to be undertaken.
The query now arises: What are the traits of that Brahman? The character of the Brahman is described within the following Sutra or aphorism.
JANMADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2
DEFINITION OF BRAHMAN
janmadyasya yatah
(Brahman is that) from which the origin and many others., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and dissolution) of this (world proceed).
Janmadi: origin and many others.; Asya: of this (world); Yatah: from which.
Reply to the enquiry of Brahman is briefly given on this Sutra. It’s acknowledged that Brahman who’s eternally pure, clever and free (Nitya, Buddha, Mukta Svabhava) is the one trigger, keep and remaining resort of this world. Brahman who’s the originator, preserver and absorber of this huge world should have limitless powers and traits. Therefore He’s All-powerful and Omniscient. Who however the All-powerful and Omniscient Brahman may create, rule and destroy it? Actually mere atoms or probability can’t do that work. Existence can’t come out of non-existence (Ex nihilo nihil match). The origin of the world can’t proceed from a non-intelligent Pradhana or Prakriti. It can’t proceed from its personal nature or Svabhava spontaneously and not using a trigger, as a result of particular locations, instances and causes are wanted for the manufacturing of results.
Brahman should have some traits. You may attain data of Brahman by reflection on its attributes. In any other case it isn’t potential to have such data. Inference or reasoning is an instrument of proper data if it doesn’t contradict the Vedanta texts.
Within the ascertainment of Reality or the Final Actuality or the primary trigger the scriptures alone are authoritative as a result of they’re infallible, they comprise the direct intuitive experiences of Rishis or Seers who attained Brahma Sakshatkara or Self-realisation. You can not rely upon mind or causes as a result of a person of sturdy mind can overthrow a person of weak mind. Brahman just isn’t an object of the senses. It’s past the attain of the senses and the mind.
The second Sutra doesn’t propound right here that inference serves because the technique of realizing Brahman. It factors to a Vedantic textual content which provides an outline of the traits of Brahman. What then, is that Vedanta textual content? It’s the passage of Taittiriya Upanishad III-i: Bhrigu Varuni went to his father Varuna sayingSir, educate me Brahman. That from whence these beings are born, that by which, when born they reside, that into which they enter at their loss of life, attempt to know That. That’s Brahman.
You’ll attain Self-realisation by meditation on Brahman or the truths declared by Vedantic texts and never by mere reasoning. Pure cause (Suddha Buddhi) is a assist in Self-realisation. It investigates and divulges the truths of the Scriptures. It has a spot additionally within the technique of Self-realisation. However perverted mind (Viparita Buddhi) is a good hindrance. It retains one distant from the Reality.
That which is the reason for the world is Brahman. That is Tatastha Lakshana. The origin, sustenance and dissolution of the world are traits of the world. They don’t pertain to the everlasting unchanging Brahman. But these point out Brahman which is the trigger for this universe. Srutis give one other definition of Brahman. It is a description of its true, important nature Satyam Jnanam Anantam BrahmaTruth, Data, Infinity is Brahman. That is Svarupa Lakshana.
The data of the true nature of a factor doesn’t rely upon the notions of man however solely on the factor itself. The data of Brahman additionally relies upon altogether on the factor, i.e., Brahman itself. Motion relies upon fully in your will however notion just isn’t an impact of volition. It is determined by the article perceived. You can not convert a tree into a person by an act of will. A tree will stay a tree at all times. Equally Realisation of Brahman is Vastu Tantra. It is determined by the truth of the article. It isn’t Purusha Tantra. It doesn’t rely upon volition. It isn’t one thing to be achieved by motion. Brahman just isn’t an object of the senses. It has no reference to different means of information. The senses are finite and dependent. They’ve solely exterior issues for his or her objects, not Brahman. They’re characterised by outgoing tendencies on account of the pressure of Rajas. They’re of their nature so constituted that they run in the direction of exterior objects. They can not cognise Brahman.
Data of Brahman can’t come by mere reasoning. You may attain this information by instinct or revelation. Instinct is the ultimate results of the enquiry into Brahman. The article of enquiry is an current substance. You’ll have to know this solely by instinct or direct cognition (Aparakosha- anubhuti or Anubhavaexperience). Sravana (listening to of the Srutis), Manana (reflection on what you will have heard), Nididhyasana (profound meditation) on Brahman results in instinct. The Brahmakara Vritti is generated from the Sattvic Antahkarana which is supplied with the 4 technique of salvation, and the directions of the Guru, who has understood the true significance of `Tat Tvam Asi’ Mahavakya. This Brahmakara Vritti destroys the Mula-Avidya or primitive ignorance, the foundation reason behind all bondage, births and deaths. When the ignorance or veil is eliminated, Brahman which is self-effulgent reveals Itself or shines by Itself in Its pristine glory and ineffable splendour. In peculiar notion of objects the thoughts assumes the type of the article. The Vritti or ray of the thoughts removes the veil (Avarana-bhanga) that envelops the article and Vritti-sahita-chaitanya or intelligence mirrored within the modification of the thoughts reveals the article. Then solely you cognise the article. There may be Vritti-vyapti and there may be Phala-vyapti additionally within the notion of an object. You need a Vritti and intelligence (Chaitanya) related to the Vritti. However within the case of cognition of Brahman there isn’t a Phala-vyapti. There may be solely Vritti-vyapti as Brahman is self-luminous. If there’s a cup in a pot, you need a lamp and the eyes to see the cup at nighttime, when the pot is damaged: but when there’s a lamp throughout the pot, you need the eyes solely to see the lamp when the pot is damaged. You do not need a lamp.
SASTRAYONITVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3
BRAHMAN IS REALISABLE ONLY THROUGH THE SCRIPTURES
SASTRAYONITVAT I.1.3 (3)
The scripture being the supply of proper data.
Sastra: the scripture; Yonitvat: being the supply of or the technique of the fitting data.
The Omniscience of Brahman follows from His being the supply of scripture. The aphorism clearly factors out that the Srutis alone are proof about Brahman.
As Brahman is the reason for the world we’ve got to deduce that Brahman or the Absolute is Omniscient. Because the scripture alone is the technique of proper data with regards to Brahman the proposition laid in Sutra 2 turns into confirmed. Brahman just isn’t merely the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer of the world, He’s the supply or womb of scriptures and is revealed by scriptures. As Brahman is past the attain of the senses and the mind, He may be apprehended solely on the authority of the Srutis that are infallible and comprise the religious experiences of realised seers or sages. The Srutis declare that Brahman Himself breathed forth the Vedas. Due to this fact He who has introduced forth the Srutis or the Vedas which comprise such fantastic divine data have to be all-knowledge and omnipotent.
The scriptures illumine all issues like a search mild. Scripture is the supply or the technique of proper data by which you will have a complete understanding of the character of Brahman. Srutis furnish details about what just isn’t identified from different sources. It can’t be identified by different means of information independently of the Srutis. Brahman is formless, colourless, attributeless. Therefore it can’t be grasped by the senses by direct notion. You may infer the existence of fireside by its accompanying smoke however Brahman can’t be established by inference or analogy, as a result of it’s attributeless and there can’t be a second factor which is analogous to Brahman. Brahman is Infinite and secondless. He who’s unaware of the Srutis can’t know that Supreme Being. There are different means of information additionally which have gotten a spot however they aren’t unbiased. They complement after Brahman is established by the Srutis.
SAMANVAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4
BRAHMAN THE MAIN PURPORT OF ALL VEDANTIC TEXTS
TATTU SAMANVAYAT I.1.4 (4)
However that (Brahman is to be identified solely from the Scriptures and never independently by some other means is established), as a result of it’s the fundamental function (of all Vedantic texts).
Tat: that; Tu: however; Samanvayat: on account of settlement or concord, as a result of it’s the fundamental function.
The argument in help of Sutra 2 is sustained. Brahman or the Absolute may be identified solely from the scriptures as a result of all of the scriptural passages may be harmonised solely by such a doctrine. The Vedantic texts consult with Brahman solely, as a result of they’ve Brahman for his or her fundamental matter. The proposition that Brahman is the one reason behind the world is established: as a result of that is the authoritative saying of the scriptures. All of the Vedantic texts agree on this respect.
The phrase `tu’ (however) is employed to rebut the above Purvapaksha or the prima facie view as urged above. It’s correct to say that Brahman is the uniform matter taught in all of the Vedantic texts. Why? Samanvayat. Anvaya means construing a passage in line with the six traits or Shad Lingas viz., (1) Upakrama-Upasamhara Ekavakyataagreement in starting and conclusion; (2) Abhyasarepetition; (3) ApurvataUniqueness of material; (4) Phalafruit; (5) Arthavadapraise and (6) Yuktireasoning. These six marks assist to reach at the true purport of any work. In chapter six of the Chhandogya Upanishad Brahman is the principle purport of all passages. At first you’ll find This world, my baby, was however the Actual (Sat) to start with. It concludes, In all of it that exists has its Self. It’s true. It’s the Self. There may be settlement within the opening and concluding passages. That is Upakrama-Upasamhara. Uddalaka the preceptor, repeats `Tat Tvam Asi’ 9 instances to his disciple Svetaketu. That is repetition (Abhyasa). Brahman is likely distinctive, as He’s Infinite and secondless. Once you attain data of Brahman every part else is understood. That is Phala or fruit.
There may be reasoning within the scriptures. Simply as pots are nothing however clay, ornaments are nothing however gold, so additionally this world of names and varieties is nothing however Brahman. If you realize the character of clay, you’ll know all that’s made out of clay. Even so if you realize Brahman, every part else can be identified to you. Brahman is the supply of the creation, preservation and dissolution of the universe. That is Artha-vada or Stuti-vada by the use of reward. All these six marks or Shad Lingas denote that the chief matter or fundamental purport of the Vedantic texts is Brahman.
All of the Vedanta-texts have for his or her purport Brahman, for instance, Being solely this was to start with, one and not using a second (Chh. Up. VI-2-1) At first all this was Atman or self solely (Ait. Ara. II-4-I-1). That is Brahman with out trigger and with out impact, with out something inside or outdoors; this self is Brahman perceiving every part (Bri. Up. II-5-19) That Immortal Brahman is earlier than (Mun. Up. II-2-11) and comparable passages. It isn’t proper to suppose that these passages have a distinct sense. The passages can’t consult with brokers, divinities related with acts of non secular obligation. You can see in Bri. Up. II-4-14, Then by what ought to he see and Whom? This clearly exhibits that there’s neither an agent, nor an object of motion, nor an instrument.
Brahman can’t grow to be an object of notion and different means of information, as a result of This can be very refined, summary, infinite and all-pervading. How can a finite insentient instrument know the Infinite? The senses and the thoughts derive their energy and lightweight from Brahman the supply. Brahman is Self-luminous, Self-existent, Self-knowledge, Self-delight, and Self-contained. Brahman can’t be realised with out assistance from Vedantic passage Tat Tvam AsiThou artwork That (Chh. Up. VI-8-7).
When one realises Brahman, he’s completely free of all types of miseries and pains. He attains the purpose of life or the summum bonum. The conception of duality as agent, motion and the like is destroyed. Self-realisation just isn’t a fruit of motion. It isn’t a results of your prepared or doing. It’s the results of realising one’s id with Brahman. Scripture goals solely at eradicating the veil of ignorance or Avidya. Then the self-effulgent Brahman shines by Itself in Its pristine glory. The state of Moksha or the ultimate emancipation is everlasting. It isn’t transient just like the fruits attained by motion. Motion relies upon upon the need and is unbiased of the article. Data is determined by the character of the article and is unbiased of the need of the knower.
A correct understanding of the Vedantic texts results in the ultimate emancipation of man. It isn’t essential for him to exert or do any superhuman feat or motion. It’s only mere understanding that it’s a rope and never a snake that helps to destroy one’s concern. Scripture doesn’t converse solely of moral and ceremonial duties. It reveals the soul and helps one to achieve Self-realisation. The sage who has learnt by the assistance of Vedantic texts to take away the inaccurate identification with the physique is not going to expertise ache. It’s only the ignorant worldly minded man who experiences ache on account of his identification with the physique.
The attainment of heaven, procuring a son, getting rain, and many others., are taught within the Vedas as incitement to the acquirement of information of Brahman by child souls and to provide religion in man. When he finds that the Vedic Mantras have the ability to provide rain he will get religion in them and has an inclination to check them. He progressively will get disgust for the mundane objects and develops discrimination between the true and the transitory and burning craving for liberation. He develops love for Brahman. Due to this fact all Vedas educate Brahman. Sacrifices give mundane fruits solely when they’re achieved with egocentric motives, solely when Kama or sturdy want is in the back of the Mantras. When they’re carried out with Nishkamya Bhava with out egocentric motives they purify the guts and assist to achieve data of the Self. Therefore Karma Kanda itself, by educating the worship of assorted deities, turns into a part of Brahma Jnana. It’s actually the worship of Brahman, when the ingredient of want or selfishness is eliminated. Such a worship purifies the guts and produces a style for enquiry of Brahman. It doesn’t produce some other earthly want.
The article of enquiry within the Karma Kanda is one thing to be achieved viz., obligation. The article of enquiry in Vedanta texts is the already existent, completely achieved Brahman. The fruit of the data of Brahman have to be totally different from the fruit of information of obligation which is determined by the efficiency of motion.
You can see within the Upanishads Verily the Self (Atman) is to be seen Bri. Up. II-4-5. The Atman which is free from sin that it’s which we should get your hands on, that it’s which we should attempt to perceive Chh. Up VIII-7-1. Let a person worship him as Atman or the SelfBri. Up I-4-7; Let a person worship the Atman solely as his true stateBri. Up. I-4-15; He who is aware of Brahman turns into BrahmanMun. Up. III-2-9. These texts rouse in you a want to know what that Brahman is. The Vedantic texts give a phenomenal description of the character of Brahman. They educate that Brahman is everlasting, all-knowing, completely self-sufficient, ever pure, free, pure data, absolute bliss, self-luminous and indivisible. One attains remaining emancipation because the fruit of meditation on Brahman.
The Vedantic texts declare, The clever who is aware of the Atman as bodiless throughout the our bodies, as unchanging amongst altering issues, as nice and omnipresent does by no means grieve (Katha Up. II-22). He’s with out breath, with out thoughts, pure (Mun. Up. II-1-2). That particular person just isn’t connected to something (Bri. Up. IV-3-15). All these texts set up the truth that the ultimate emancipation differs from all of the fruits of motion and is an eternally and primarily bodiless state. Moksha is Kutastha Nitya, i.e., everlasting, with out present process any change. Brahman is omnipresent like ether (Akasavat Sarvagata) free from all modifications (Nirvikara), completely Self-sufficient, Self-contained (Nirapeksha), indivisible (Akhanda). He isn’t composed of elements (Nishkala). He’s Self-luminous (Svayam Prakasa, Svayam Jyoti).
You can see in Katha Upanishad, Completely different from advantage and demerit, totally different from impact and trigger, totally different from previous and future is that Brahman (I-2-14). Moksha is similar as Brahman. Moksha or Brahman can’t be the impact of actions. It can’t be supplementary to actions. If it’s so it will be non-eternal.
To know Brahman is to grow to be Brahman. Mundaka Upanishad says, He who is aware of Brahman turns into Brahman. As Brahman is an already current entity, realizing Brahman doesn’t contain an act like a ritualistic act. When Avidya or nescience is destroyed by data of the Self, Brahman manifests Itself, simply because the rope manifests itself when the phantasm of snake is eliminated. As Brahman is your Inside Self you can not attain It by any motion. It’s realised as one’s personal Atman when the ignorance is annihilated. Texts like The Atman is to be realised and many others., just isn’t an injunction. It’s meant to withdraw the thoughts of the aspirant from exterior objects and switch it inwards.
Brahman just isn’t an object of the motion of realizing. It’s totally different from the Identified and once more it’s past the Unknown (Kena Up. I-3) How ought to he know him by whom He is aware of all this (Bri. Up. II-4-14). Brahman is expressly declared to not be the article of an act of religious worship (Upasana). Know that alone to be Brahman, not that which individuals adore right here (Kena Up. I-5).
The scripture by no means describes Brahman as this or that. Its function is to indicate that Brahman because the everlasting topic, Pratyagatman, the inside Self is rarely an object. It can’t be maintained that Moksha or Brahman is one thing to be ceremonially purified. There is no such thing as a room for a purificatory ceremony within the eternally pure Brahman.
Brahman is the Self or Atman of all. It could neither be striven nor prevented. All objects perish as a result of they’re mere modifications of the 5 parts. However the Soul or Brahman is immortal and unchanging. It’s in its essence eternally pure and free.
He who identifies himself together with his physique experiences ache. A sage who has eliminated Dehadhyasa or identification of the physique by figuring out himself with the pure, all-pervading Brahman is not going to expertise ache. A wealthy man who’s overvalued by the self-esteem of his wealth is affected with grief when he loses his wealth. However he isn’t affected by the lack of wealth after he has as soon as retired from the world and has grow to be an ascetic. A sage who has attained data of Brahman can’t be a merely worldly doer as earlier than. He doesn’t belong to this world as he did earlier than. A cosmopolitan man can also grow to be a sage of Self-realisation with the Bhava of non-doer (Akarta), non-agent (Abhokta). The Srutis declare When he’s free from the physique, then neither pleasure nor ache touches him (Chh. Up. VIII-12-1). The objector could say The state of being free from the physique follows solely when a person dies. That is fully flawed as a result of the reason for man being joined to the physique is inaccurate data. The sage who has attained data of Brahman, and who identifies himself with Brahman is free from his physique even whereas nonetheless alive. The Sruti additionally declares Simply because the slough of a snake lies on an ant-hill, useless and forged away, so additionally lies this physique. That bodiless immortal Soul is Brahman solely, is just mild. (Bri. Up. IV-4-7). With eyes, He’s with out eyes because it had been; with ears, with out ears because it had been; with speech, with out speech because it had been; with a thoughts, with out thoughts because it had been; with Prana, with out Prana because it had been; The sage is now not related with motion of any variety.
The Sankhyas say that the Vedantic texts about creation don’t consult with Brahman however to the Pradhana which is made up of the three GunasSattva, Rajas and Tamasas the First Trigger. They keep that every one the Vedanta texts which deal with of the creation of the world clearly level out that the reason for the world needs to be concluded from the impact by inference and the trigger which is to be inferred is the connection of the Pradhana or Prakriti with the Souls or Purushas. The followers of Kanada (the Faculty of Vaiseshika philosophy) infer from the exact same passages that the Lord is the environment friendly reason behind the universe and the atoms are its materials trigger.
The Sankhyas say Omnipotence may be attributed to the Pradhana because it has all its results for its objects. Omniscience additionally may be ascribed to it. Data is de facto an attribute of Sattva Guna. Sattva is among the parts of Pradhana. Due to this fact Pradhana may be stated to be omniscient. You can not ascribe Omniscience or restricted data to the Soul or Purusha which is remoted and pure intelligence itself. Due to this fact the Vedanta texts ascribe Omniscience to the Pradhana though it’s in itself non-intelligent.
Brahman is with none devices of motion. As Pradhana has three parts it appears affordable that it alone is able to present process modifications like clay into numerous objects and will act as a cloth trigger, whereas the uncompounded, homogeneous and unchangeable Brahman is unable to take action. Due to this fact the Vedantic texts which deal with of creation clearly consult with Pradhana solely and due to this fact it’s the First Trigger referred to by the scriptures. To those conclusions Sri Vyasa provides a solution within the following Sutra.
IKSHATYADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 5-11)
Brahman (the clever precept) is the First Trigger
IKSHATERNASABDAM I.1.5 (5)
On account of seeing (i.e. considering being attributed within the Upanishads to the First Trigger, the Pradhana) just isn’t (the primary trigger indicated by the Upanishads; for) it (Pradhana) just isn’t based mostly on the scriptures.
Ikshateh: on account of seeing (considering); Na:just isn’t; Asabdam:not based mostly on the scriptures.
Sutras 5 to 11 refute the arguments of the Sankhyas and set up Brahman alone because the First Trigger.
It isn’t potential to seek out room within the Vedanta texts for the non-intelligent Pradhana, as a result of it isn’t based mostly on scripture. Why? As a result of seeing or considering is ascribed to the trigger within the scripture. Within the scripture it’s stated that the First Trigger willed or thought earlier than creation. You can see within the Chhandogya Upanishad VI-2, Being solely, my expensive, this was to start with, one solely and not using a second. It thought `Might I be many, could I develop forth.’ It projected fireplace. Aitareya Upanishad says, The Atman willed: `Let me mission worlds’. So it projected these worlds (I-1-1.2). In Prasna Upanishad VI-3 it’s stated of the particular person of sixteen elements. He thought. He despatched forth Prana… There can’t be any considering or prepared within the insentient Pradhana. It’s potential provided that the First Trigger is an clever being like Brahman.
Whether it is stated that such a high quality may be attributed to Prakriti in a secondary sense, simply as red-hot iron may be referred to as fireplace as a result of it might burn, we reply, why ought to we ascribe artistic energy and Omniscience to such Prakriti which we make investments with will and Omniscience in a secondary sense once we can ascribe artistic energy and Omniscience to Brahman Himself to whom Will and Omniscience may be ascribed in a major sense.
Brahman’s data is everlasting. He isn’t in want of any devices of information. He isn’t in want of a physique. His data is with none obstructions. Svetasvatara Upanishad says, He grasps with out fingers, strikes with out ft, sees with out eyes, hears with out ears. He is aware of what may be identified, however nobody is aware of Him. They name Him the primary, the Nice particular person (VI-8, III-19).
You can not attribute sentiency (Chetanatva) to Pradhana even in a figurative sense, as a result of it’s stated that the Creator grew to become the soul and entered the physique. How can the insentient matter (Achetana) grow to be the sentient soul (Chetana)? Vedantic texts emphatically declare that by realizing Brahman every part else may be identified. How can we all know the souls by realizing matter?
Pradhana or matter can’t be the Sat which is described as the reason for the world, as a result of that will be against the scripture which makes use of the phrase Ikshateh. You can see in Svetasvatara Upanishad, He, the God of all souls, is the Creator of the world. Due to this fact it’s fairly clear that Brahman and never Pradhana is the reason for this world.
In all Vedantic texts there’s a uniform declaration that Chetana (consciousness) is the reason for the world. Pradhana doubtlessly incorporates all varieties in a seed state. The entire world exists in it in a refined seed state in Pralaya and but it can’t be considered the Creator as a result of it’s non-sentient. Vedanta texts emphatically declare that an Clever Being willed and created this universe. You can see in Chhandogya Upanishad, The Sat existed to start with. It was one and not using a second. It willed to grow to be many. It created fireplace.
The argumentation of the Sankhyas that the Pradhana is all-knowing due to its Sattva is inadmissible, as a result of Sattva just isn’t preponderant within the Pradhana because the three Gunas are in a state of equipoise. If the Pradhana is all-knowing even within the situation of equilibrium (Gunasamyavastha) on account of the ability of information residing in Sattva, it have to be little-knowing additionally on account of the ability of retarding data which resides in Rajas and Tamas. Due to this fact whereas Sattva will make it all-knowing, Rajas and Tamas will make it little-knowing. That is truly a contradiction. Additional a modification of Sattva which isn’t related with a witnessing precept or silent Sakshi just isn’t referred to as data. The non-intelligent Pradhana is devoid of such a precept. Therefore all-knowingness can’t be ascribed to Pradhana.
The case of the Yogins doesn’t apply to the purpose into consideration right here. They attain Omniscience on account of extra of Sattva in them. There may be an clever precept (Sakshi) in him unbiased of Sattva. When a Yogi attains data of the previous and the long run on account of the grace of the Lord, you can not deny the Eternity and Infinity of Brahman’s data.
Brahman is pure Intelligence itself, Unchangeable. All- knowingness and creation will not be potential for Brahman. To this objection it may be replied that Brahman may be All-knowing and inventive by His illusory energy, Maya.
Simply as within the case of ether we speak of ether inside a jar and ether within the sky however it’s all actually one ether, so additionally the differentiation of Jiva and Isvara is just an obvious differentiation on account of limiting adjuncts or Upadhis, viz., physique and thoughts.
The Sankhyas increase one other objection. They are saying that fireside and water are also figuratively spoken of as clever beings. The fireplace thought `Might I be many, Might I develop’ and it projected water. Water thought `Might I be many, Might I develop,’ it projected earth Chh. Up. 6-2-3-4. Right here water and fireplace are insentient objects, and but considering is attributed to them. Even so the considering by the Sat within the textual content initially quoted will also be taken figuratively within the case of Pradhana additionally. Therefore, although Pradhana is insentient, it might but be the First Trigger.
The next Sutra refutes this argument.
Gaunaschet na Atmasabdat I.1.6 (6)
If it’s stated that (the phrase `seeing’ or considering) is utilized in a secondary sense, (we are saying) not so, due to the phrase Atman being utilized to the reason for the world.
Gaunah: oblique, secondary, figurative; Chet: if; Na: not; Atmasabdat: due to the phrase Atman, i.e., soul.
You say that the time period `Sat’ denotes the non-intelligent Pradhana or Prakriti and that `considering’ is attributed to it in a secondary or figurative sense solely as it’s to fireplace and water. You could argue that inert issues are generally described as residing beings. Due to this fact Pradhana can nicely be accepted because the environment friendly reason behind the world. This can’t stand. That is definitely untenable. Why so? Due to the phrases `Atman’ (soul) being utilized subsequently within the Sruti to that which is the reason for the world vide the Sruti All this universe is in essence That; That’s the Reality. That’s Atman (Soul). That thou artwork O Svetaketu. Chh. Up. VI-8-7. (Instruction by Uddalaka to his son, Svetaketu).
The passage in Chh. Up. VI-2 begins, Being (Sat) solely, my expensive, this was to start with. After creating fireplace, water, earth, It thought `let me now enter into these three as this residing self (Jiva) and evolve names and varieties’ Chh. Up. VI-3-2. The Sat, the First Trigger, refers back to the clever precept, the Jiva as its Self. By the time period Jiva we should perceive the clever precept which guidelines over the physique and helps the Prana. How may such a precept be the self of the non-intelligent Pradhana? By Self or Atman we perceive a being’s personal nature. Due to this fact it’s fairly apparent that the clever Jiva can’t type the character of the non-intelligent Pradhana. The considering on the a part of the fireplace and water is to be understood as depending on their being dominated over by the Sat. Therefore it’s pointless to imagine a figurative sense of the phrase `considering’.
Now the Sankhya comes with a brand new objection. He says that the phrase `Atman’ (Self) could also be utilized to the Pradhana, though it’s non-intelligent, on account of its being figuratively used within the sense of `that which serves all functions of one other’, as for instance, a king makes use of the phrase `self’ to some servant who carries out his needs `Govinda is my (different) self’. Equally it applies to Pradhana additionally as a result of the Pradhana works for the enjoyment and the ultimate salvation of the soul and serves the soul simply in the identical method because the minister serves his king. Or else the phrase Atman (Self) could consult with non-intelligent issues, in addition to to clever beings, as for example, in expressions like Bhutatma (the Self of the weather), Indriyatma (the Self of the senses) simply because the one phrase `mild’ (Jyoti) denotes a sure sacrifice (the Jyotistoma) in addition to a flame. Due to this fact the phrase Self (Atman) can be utilized with regards to the Pradhana additionally. How then does it comply with from the phrase `Self’ that the `considering’ attributed to the reason for the universe is to not be taken in a figurative sense?
The following Sutra refutes the argument.
Tannishthasya mokshopadesat I.1.7 (7)
(The Pradhana can’t be designated by the time period Self) as a result of Salvation is said to at least one who’s dedicated to that Sat.
Tat: to that; Nishthasya: of the devoted; Mokshopadesat: from the assertion of salvation.
Additional cause is given on this Sutra to show that Pradhana just isn’t the reason for this world.
The non-intelligent Pradhana can’t be denoted by the time period `Self’ as a result of Chhandogya Upanishad declares: O Svetaketu! That (the refined Sat) is the Self. `Thou artwork That’. An clever man like Svetaketu can’t be recognized with the non-intelligent Pradhana. If the non-intelligent Pradhana had been denoted by the time period `Sat’, the that means of the Mahavakya Tat Tvam Asi can be `Thou artwork non-intelligent’. The educating will come to this. You might be an Achetana or non-intelligence and emancipation is attaining such a state of insentiency. Then the Srutis can be a supply of evil. The scriptures would make contradictory statements to the drawback of man and would thus not grow to be a way of proper data. It isn’t proper to destroy the authority of the faultless Srutis. Should you assume that the infallible Sruti just isn’t the technique of proper data this can be definitely fairly unreasonable.
The ultimate emancipation is said within the Srutis to him who’s dedicated to the Sat, who has his being in Sat. It can’t be attained by meditation on the non-intelligent Pradhana vide Sruti: `He waits solely until he’s launched and therefrom unites with Brahman’ (Chh. Up. VI-14-2).
If the scripture which is considered a way of proper data ought to level out a person who’s desirous of emancipation however who’s unaware of the way in which to it, an insentient self because the true Self he would, just like the blind man who had caught maintain of the ox’s tail to succeed in his village, by no means be capable to attain the ultimate launch or the true Self.
Due to this fact the phrase `Self’ is utilized to the refined Sat not in a merely figurative sense. It refers to what’s clever solely in its major that means. The `Sat’, the primary trigger, doesn’t consult with the Pradhana however to an clever precept. It’s declared within the Sruti that he, who is totally dedicated to the Creator or reason behind the world, attains the ultimate emancipation. It isn’t affordable to say that one attains his launch by devotion to blind matter, Pradhana. Therefore Pradhana can’t be the Creator of the world.
Heyatvavachanaccha I.1.8 (8)
And (the Pradhana can’t be denoted by the phrase `Self’), as a result of it isn’t acknowledged (by the scriptures) that It (Sat) needs to be discarded.
Heyatva: health to be discarded; Avachanat: not being acknowledged (by the scriptures); Cha: and.
One more reason is given on this Sutra to show that Pradhana just isn’t the Creator of the universe.
If you wish to level out to a person the small star Arundhati, you direct his consideration at first to an enormous neighbouring star and say `That’s Arundhati’ though it’s actually not so. You then level out to him the true Arundhati. Even so if the preceptor meant to make his disciple perceive the Self step-by-step from grosser to subtler truths by the non-self he would undoubtedly state in the long run that the Self just isn’t of the character of the Pradhana and that the Pradhana have to be discarded. However no such assertion is made. The entire chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad offers with the Self as nothing however that Sat.
An aspirant has been taught to repair his thoughts on the trigger and meditate on it. Actually he can’t attain the ultimate emancipation by meditating on the inert Pradhana. If the Sruti right here meant the Pradhana to be the reason for the world, it will have absolutely requested the aspirant to desert such a trigger and discover out one thing increased for his remaining emancipation. Therefore Pradhana can’t be the tip and intention of religious quest.
The phrase `and’ signifies that the contradiction of a earlier assertion is a further cause for the rejection.
Additional this chapter begins with the query, What’s that which being identified every part is understood? Have you ever ever requested, my baby, for that instruction by which you hear what can’t be heard, by which you understand what can’t be perceived, by which you realize what can’t be identified. Now if the time period `Sat’ denoted the Pradhana, if the Pradhana had been the primary trigger, then by realizing Pradhana every part have to be identified, which isn’t a reality. The enjoyer (soul) which is totally different from Pradhana, which isn’t an impact of the Pradhana can’t be identified by realizing the Pradhana. If `that’ or Sat means Pradhana (matter) the Srutis ought to educate us to show away from it. However it isn’t the case. It provides a particular assurance that by realizing that every part may be identified. How can we all know the soul by realizing matter? How can we all know the enjoyer by realizing the loved? Therefore the Pradhana just isn’t denoted by the time period `Sat’. It isn’t the primary trigger, realizing which every part is understood, in line with the Sruti.
For this the Sutrakara provides another excuse.
Svapyayat I.1.9 (9)
On account of (the person) merging in its personal Self (the Self can’t be the Pradhana).
Svapyayat: on account of merging in a single’s personal self.
The argument to show that Pradhana just isn’t the reason for the universe or the Self is sustained.
The waking state is that the place the thoughts, the senses and the physique act in live performance to know the objects. The person soul identifies himself with the gross physique. Within the dreaming state the physique and the senses are at relaxation and the thoughts performs with the impressions which the exterior objects have left. The thoughts weaves its net of Vasanas. In deep sleep the person soul is free from the limitation of thoughts. He rests in his personal Self although in a state of ignorance.
Just about the trigger denoted by the phrase `Sat’ the Sruti says, When a person sleeps right here, then my baby, he turns into united with the Sat, he’s gone to his personal self. Due to this fact they are saying of him `he sleeps’ (Svapiti) as a result of he’s gone to his personal (Svam Apita) Chh. Up. VI-8-1. From the truth that the person soul merges within the common soul in deep sleep, it’s understood that the Self, which is described within the Sruti as the final word Actuality, the reason for the world just isn’t Pradhana.
Within the Chhandogya textual content it’s clearly stated that the person soul merges or resolves within the Sat. The clever Self can clearly not resolve itself into the non-intelligent Pradhana. Therefore, the Pradhana can’t be the First Trigger denoted by the time period `Sat’ within the textual content. That into which all clever souls are merged in an clever reason behind the universe is denoted by the time period Sat and never the Pradhana.
An extra cause for the Pradhana not being the trigger is given within the subsequent Sutra.
Gatisamanyat I.1.10 (10)
On account of the uniformity of view (of the Vedanta texts, Brahman is to be taken as that trigger).
Gati: view; Samanyat: on account of the uniformity.
The argument to show that Pradhana just isn’t the reason for the universe is sustained.
All of the Vedanta texts uniformly consult with an clever precept because the First Trigger. Due to this fact Brahman is to be thought of because the trigger. All of the Vedanta texts uniformly educate that the reason for the world is the clever Brahman. The Srutis declare thus, As from a burning fireplace sparks proceed in all instructions, thus from that Self the Pranas proceed every in the direction of its place, from the Pranas the gods, from the gods the worlds (Kau. Up. III-3). From that Brahman sprang ether (Tait. Up. II-1). All this springs from the Self (Chh. Up. VII-2-6). This Prana is born from the Self (Pra. Up. III-3). All these passages declare the Self to be the trigger. The time period `Self’ denotes an clever being. Due to this fact the all-knowing Brahman is to be taken as the reason for the world due to the uniformity of view of the Vedanta-texts.
An extra cause for this conclusion is given within the following Sutra.
Srutatvaccha I.1.11 (11)
And since it’s instantly acknowledged within the Sruti (due to this fact the all-knowing Brahman alone is the reason for the universe).
Srutatvat: being declared by the Sruti; Cha: additionally, and.
The argument that Pradhana just isn’t the reason for the world is sustained.
The All-knowing Lord is the reason for the universe. That is acknowledged in a passage of the Svetasvatara Upanishad VI-9, He’s the trigger, the Lord of the Lords of the organs. He has neither father or mother nor Lord. `He’ refers back to the all-knowing Lord described within the chapter. Due to this fact it’s lastly established that the All-knowing, Omnipotent Brahman is the First Trigger and never the insentient or non-intelligent Pradhana or anyone else.
Thus the Vedanta texts contained in Sutra I-1-11 have clearly proven that the Omniscient, All-powerful Lord is the reason for the origin, subsistence and dissolution of the world. It’s already proven on account of the uniformity of view (I-1-10) that every one Vedanta texts maintain an clever trigger.
From Sutra 12 onwards until the tip of the primary chapter a brand new matter is taken up for dialogue. The Upanishads converse of two varieties of Brahman, viz., the Nirguna or Brahman with out attributes and the Saguna or Brahman with attributes.
The Upanishads declare, For the place there may be duality because it had been, then one sees the opposite; however when the Self solely is all this, how ought to he see one other? Bri. Up. IV-5-15. The place one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that’s the best (Infinite, Bhuma). The place one sees one thing else, hears one thing else, understands one thing else, that’s the little (finite). The best is immortal; the little is mortal Chh. Up. VII-24-1. The clever one, who having produced all varieties and made all names, sits calling the issues by their names Tait. Ar. III-12-7.
Who’s with out elements, with out actions, tranquil, with out faults, with out taint, the very best bridge of immortality, like a fireplace that has consumed its gasoline Svet. Up. VI-19. Not so, not so Bri. Up. II-3-6. It’s neither coarse nor effective, neither quick nor lengthy; faulty in a single place, good within the different Bri. Up. III-1-8.
All these texts declare Brahman to own a double nature, in accordance as it’s the object both of nescience or data. Brahman with attributes (Saguna) is throughout the area of nescience. It’s the object of Upasana which is of various varieties giving totally different outcomes, some to exaltations, some to gradual emancipation (Krama-Mukti), some to success in works. When it’s the object of nescience, classes of devotee, object of devotion, worship are utilized to it. The sorts of Upasana are distinct owing to the excellence of the totally different qualities and limiting adjuncts. The fruits of devotion are distinct in accordance because the worship refers to totally different qualities. The Srutis say In accordance as man worships him, that he turns into. In response to what his thought is on this world, so will he be when he has left this life Chh. Up. III-14-1. Meditation on the Saguna Brahman can’t result in quick emancipation (Sadyo-Mukti). It could solely assist one to achieve gradual emancipation (Krama-Mukti).
Nirguna Brahman of Vedantins or Jnanis is free from all attributes and limiting adjuncts. It’s Nirupadhika, i.e., free from Upadhi or Maya. It’s the object of information. The Data of the Nirguna Brahman alone results in quick emancipation.
The Vedantic passages have a uncertain import. You’ll have to discover out the true significance of the texts by reasoning. You’ll have to make a correct enquiry into the that means of the texts as a way to arrive at a settled conclusion relating to the data of the Self which ends up in instantaneous emancipation. A doubt could come up whether or not the data has the upper or the decrease Brahman for its object as within the case of Sutra I-1-2.
You can see in lots of locations within the Upanishads that Brahman is described apparently with qualifying adjuncts. The Srutis say that the data of that Brahman results in instantaneous launch (Sadyo-Mukti). Worship of Brahman as restricted by these adjuncts can’t result in quick emancipation. But when these qualifying adjuncts are thought of as not being in the end arrived at by the passages however used merely as indicative of Brahman then these passages would consult with the Nirguna Brahman and the ultimate emancipation would end result from realizing that Brahman. Due to this fact you’ll have to discover out the true significance of the passages by cautious enquiry and reasoning.
In some locations you’ll have to discover out whether or not the textual content refers to Saguna Brahman or the person soul. You’ll have to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the true significance of those passages which evidently have a uncertain import by cautious enquiry and reasoning. There can be no problem in understanding for the clever aspirant who’s endowed with a pointy, refined and pure mind. The assistance of the instructor is at all times essential.
Right here ends the commentary of the eleven Sutras which type a sub-section by itself.
ANANDAMAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 12-19)
ANANDAMAYA IS PARA BRAHMAN
ANANDAMAYO’BHYASAT I.1.12 (12)
Anandamaya means Para Brahman on account of the repetition (of the phrase `bliss’ as denoting the Highest Self).
Anandamayah: stuffed with bliss; Abhyasat: due to repetition.
Now the writer Badarayana takes up the subject of Samanvaya. He clearly exhibits that a number of phrases of the Srutis that are apparently ambiguous actually apply to Brahman. He begins with the phrase `Anandamaya’ and takes up different phrases one after one other until the tip of the chapter.
Taittiriya Upanishad says, Completely different from this Vijnanamaya is one other inside Self which consists of bliss (Anandamaya). The previous is crammed by this. Pleasure (Priya) is its head. Satisfaction (Moda) is its proper wing or arm. Nice satisfaction (Pramoda) is its left wing or arm. Bliss (Ananda) is its trunk. Brahman is the tail, the help. II-5
Now a doubt arises as as to if this Anandamaya is Jiva (human soul) or Para Brahman. The Purvapakshin or opponent holds that the Self consisting of bliss (Anandamaya) is a secondary self and never the principal Self, which is one thing totally different from Brahman, because it varieties a hyperlink in a sequence of selfs starting with the self consisting of meals (Annamaya), all of which aren’t the principal Self. Although the blissful Self, Anandamaya Purusha, is acknowledged to be the innermost of all it can’t be the first Self, as a result of it’s acknowledged to have pleasure, and many others., for its limits and to be embodied. It additionally has the form of man. Just like the human form of the previous is the human form of the latter. If it had been similar with the first Self, pleasure, satisfaction, and many others., wouldn’t have an effect on it; however the textual content clearly says, `Pleasure is its head’. The textual content additionally says, `Of that former one this one is the embodied Self’ Tait. Up. II-6. Of that former Self of bliss (Anandamaya) is the embodied Self. That which has a physique can be definitely affected by pleasure and ache. The time period Anandamaya signifies a modification. Due to this fact it can’t consult with Brahman which is changeless. Additional 5 totally different elements similar to head, proper arm, left arm, trunk and tail are talked about of this Anandamaya Self. However Brahman is with out elements. Due to this fact the Anandamaya Self is just Jiva or the person soul.
Right here is the reply of the Siddhantin. This Sutra exhibits that Brahman is Bliss. By the Anandamaya Self we’ve got to grasp the Highest Self, `on account of repetition’. Abhyasa or repetition means uttering a phrase once more with none {qualifications}. It is among the Shad Lingas or six traits or marks by which the subject material of a passage is ascertained.
The phrase `Bliss’ is repeatedly utilized to the very best Self. Taittiriya Upanishad says: `Raso vai sah. Rasam hyevayam labdhvanandi bhavati’`He the Highest Self is Bliss in itself. The person soul turns into blissful after attaining that Bliss’ II-7. `Who may breathe forth if that Bliss didn’t exist within the ether of the guts? As a result of He alone causes Bliss. He attains that Self consisting of Bliss’ II-7. He who is aware of the Bliss of Brahman fears nothing II-9. And once more He (Bhrigu, having taken recourse to meditation), realised or understood that Bliss is Brahman Anandam Brahmeti vyajanat III-6.
Varuna teaches his son Bhrigu what’s Brahman. He first defines Brahman as the reason for the creation, and many others., of the universe after which teaches him that every one materials objects are Brahman. Akin to, meals is Brahman, Prana is Brahman, thoughts is Brahman, and many others. He says this as a way to educate that they’re the supplies of which the world is made. Lastly he concludes his educating with `Ananda’ declaring that `Ananda is Brahman’. Right here he stops and concludes that `the doctrine taught by me is predicated on Brahman, the Supreme’ Taitt. Up. III-6-1.
Data and Bliss is Brahman Bri. Up. III-9-27. Because the phrase `Bliss’ is repeatedly used with regards to Brahman, we conclude that the Self consisting of bliss is Brahman additionally.
It’s objected that the blissful Self denotes the person soul because it varieties a hyperlink in a sequence of secondary selfs starting with the Annamaya Self. This can’t stand as a result of the Anandamaya Self is the innermost of all. The Sruti teaches step-by-step, from the grosser to the subtler, and increasingly inside and finer for the sake of simple comprehension by males of small mind. The primary refers back to the bodily physique because the Self, as a result of worldly minded folks take this physique because the Self. It then proceeds from the physique to a different self, the Pranamaya self, then once more to a different one. It represents the non-self because the Self for the aim of simple understanding. It lastly teaches that the innermost Self which consists of bliss is the true Self, simply as a person factors out at first to a different man a number of stars which aren’t Arundhati as being Arundhati and at last factors out in the long run the true Arundhati. Due to this fact right here additionally the Anandamaya Self is the true Self as it’s the innermost or the final.
`Tail’ doesn’t imply the limb. It signifies that Brahman is the help of the person soul as He’s the substratum of the Jiva.
The possession of a physique having elements and pleasure and so forth as head, and many others., are additionally attributed to It, on account of the previous limiting situation viz., the self consisting of understanding, the so-called Vijnanamaya Kosha. They don’t actually belong to the true Self. The possession of a physique is ascribed to the Self of Bliss, solely as a result of it’s represented as a hyperlink within the chain of our bodies which begins with the self consisting of meals. It isn’t attributed to it in the identical sense by which it’s predicated of the person soul or the secondary self (the Samsarin). Due to this fact the Self consisting of Bliss is the very best Brahman.
Thus, the Sutra establishes that Anandamaya is Brahman. However the commentator Sankara has a brand new orientation of outlook on this regard. The Acharya says that Anandamaya can’t be Brahman as a result of Anandamaya is among the 5 sheaths or Koshas of the person, the opposite 4 being Annamaya (bodily physique), Pranamaya (very important physique), Manomaya (psychological physique), and Vijnanamaya (mental physique). The Anandamaya is definitely the causal physique which determines the capabilities of the opposite sheaths. The person enters into the Anandamaya sheath in deep sleep and enjoys bliss there, which is the explanation why this sheath known as Anandamaya (bliss-filled). A protection of individuality can’t be considered Brahman. Additional, if Anandamaya had been Brahman itself, the person in deep sleep can be united with Brahman in that situation. However this doesn’t occur since one who goes to sleep returns to peculiar waking expertise. Therefore the Anandamaya just isn’t Brahman.
Vikarasabdanneti chet na prachuryat I.1.13 (13)
If (it’s objected that the time period Anandamaya consisting of bliss can) not (denote the supreme Self) due to its being a phrase denoting a modification or transformation or product (we are saying that the objection is) not (legitimate) on account of abundance, (which is denoted by the suffix `maya’).
Vikara sabdat: from the phrase `Anandamaya’ with the suffix `mayat’ denoting modification; Na: just isn’t; Iti: this; thus; Chet: if; Na: not so; Prachuryat: due to abundance.
An objection in opposition to Sutra 12 is refuted on this Sutra.
If the objector says that `maya’ means modification, it can’t be. We can’t predicate such a modification with regard to Brahman who’s changeless. We reply that `maya’ means fulness or abundance and Anandamaya means not a spinoff from Ananda or Bliss however fulness or abundance of bliss.
The phrase `Anandamaya’ has been definitely utilized to indicate the Supreme Soul or the Highest Self and never the person soul. Within the Tait. Up. II-8 the Bliss of Brahman is lastly declared to be completely Supreme. Maya due to this fact denotes abundance or fulness.
Anandamaya doesn’t imply absence of ache or sorrow. It’s a optimistic attribute of Brahman and never a mere negation of ache. Anandamaya means `He whose important nature or Svarupa is Ananda or Bliss’. After we say: `the solar has abundance of sunshine’, it actually means, the solar, whose important nature is mild known as Jyotirmaya. Due to this fact Anandamaya just isn’t Jiva however Brahman. `Anandamaya’, is the same as `Ananda-svarupa’He whose important nature is bliss. `Maya’ has not the pressure of Vikara or modification right here.
The phrase `Ananda’ or Bliss is used repeatedly within the Srutis solely with regards to Brahman. `Maya’ doesn’t imply that Brahman is a modification or impact of Bliss. `Maya’ means pervasion.
The phrase `The sacrifice is Annamaya’ means `the sacrifice is abounding in meals’, not `is a few modification or product of meals!’ Due to this fact right here additionally Brahman, as abounding in Bliss, known as Anandamaya.
Taddhetuvyapadesaccha I.1.14. (14)
And since he’s declared to be the reason for it (i.e. of bliss; due to this fact `maya’ denotes abundance or fulness).
Tad+Hetu: the reason for that, particularly the reason for Ananda; Vyapadesat: due to the assertion of declaration; Cha: and.
One other argument in help of Sutra 12 is given.
The Srutis declare that it’s Brahman who’s the reason for bliss of all. Esha hyevanandayatiFor he alone causes bliss Tait. Up. II-7. He who causes bliss should himself abound in bliss, simply as a person who enriches others should himself be in possession of considerable wealth. The giver of bliss to all is Bliss itself. As `Maya’ could also be understood to indicate abundance, the Self consisting of bliss, Anandamaya, is the Supreme Self or Brahman.
The Sruti declares that Brahman is the supply of bliss to the person soul. The donor and the donee can’t be one and the identical. Due to this fact it’s understood that `Anandamaya’ as acknowledged in Sutra 12 is Brahman.
Mantravarnikameva cha giyate I.1.15 (15)
Furthermore that very Brahman which has been re-referred to within the Mantra portion is sung (i.e. proclaimed within the Brahmana passage because the Anandamaya).
Mantra-varnikam: He who’s described within the Mantra portion; Eva: the exact same; Cha: and in addition, furthermore; Giyate: is sung.
The argument in help of Sutra 12 is sustained. The earlier proofs had been based on Lingas. The argument which is now given is predicated on Prakarana.
The Self consisting of bliss is the very best Brahman for the next cause additionally. The second chapter of the Taittiriya Upanishad begins, He who is aware of Brahman attains the Highest Brahmavidapnoti Param. Brahman is Reality, Data and Infinity (Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam Brahma) (Tait. Up. II-1). Then it’s stated that from Brahman sprang at first the ether after which all different shifting and non-moving issues. The Brahman coming into into the beings stays within the recess, inmost of all. Then the sequence of the totally different self are enumerated. Then for straightforward understanding it’s stated that totally different from that is the inside Self. Lastly the identical Brahman which the Mantra had proclaimed is once more proclaimed within the passage beneath dialogue, totally different from that is the opposite inside Self, which consists of bliss. The Brahmanas solely clarify what the Mantras declare. There can’t be a contradiction between the Mantra and Brahmana parts.
An extra inside Self totally different from the Self consisting of bliss just isn’t talked about. On the identical i.e. the Self consisting of bliss is based. This identical data of Bhrigu and Varuna, he understood that bliss is Brahman Tait. Up. III-6. Due to this fact the Self consisting of Bliss is the Supreme Self.
Brahmavidapnoti ParamThe knower of Brahman obtains the Highest. This exhibits that the worshipper Jiva obtains the worshipped Brahman. Due to this fact Brahman who’s the article attained have to be thought of as totally different from the Jiva who obtains, as a result of the obtained and the obtainer can’t be one and the identical. Therefore the Anandamaya just isn’t Jiva. The Brahman which is described within the Mantras (Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma) is described afterward within the Brahmanas as Anandamaya. It’s our obligation to grasp the id of the educating within the Mantras and the Brahmanas which type the Vedas.
Netaro’nupapatteh I.1.16 (16)
(Brahman and) not the opposite (i.e. the person soul is supposed right here) on account of the impossibility (of the latter assumption).
Na: not; Itarah: the opposite i.e. the Jiva; Anupapatteh: due to the impossibility, non-reasonableness.
The argument in help of Sutra 12 is sustained.
The Jiva just isn’t the being referred to within the Mantra Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma due to the impossibility of such a development.
The person soul can’t be denoted by the time period the one consisting of bliss. Why? On account of the impossibility. As a result of the scripture says with regards to the Self consisting of bliss, He wished `Might I be many, could I develop forth.’ He mirrored. After he had thus mirrored, he despatched forth no matter there may be.
He who’s referred to within the passage, The Self consisting of bliss and many others. is claimed to be creator of every part. He projected all this no matter is Tait. Up. II-6. The Jiva or the person soul can’t definitely do that. Due to this fact he isn’t referred to within the passage The Self consisting of bliss and many others.
Bhedavyapadesaccha I.1.17 (17)
And on account of the declaration of the distinction (between the 2 i.e. the one referred to within the passage `The Self consisting of bliss’ and many others. and the person soul, the latter can’t be the one referred to within the passage).
Bheda: distinction; Vyapadesat: due to the declaration; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 12 is sustained.
The Sruti makes a distinction between the 2. It describes that one is the giver of bliss and the opposite because the receiver of bliss. The Jiva or the person soul, who’s the receiver, can’t be the Anandamaya, who’s the giver of bliss.
The Self consisting of bliss is of the essence of flavour attaining which the person soul is blissful: Raso vai sah (Brahma) Rasam hyeva’yam (Jiva) labdhva’nandi bhavati. Tait. Up. II-7.
That which is attained and the attainer can’t be the identical.
Therefore the person soul just isn’t referred to within the passage which is beneath dialogue.
Kamachcha Nanumanapeksha I.1.18 (18)
Due to wishing or prepared within the scriptural passage we can’t say even inferentially that Anandamaya means Pradhana.
Kamat: due to want or prepared; Cha: and; Na: not; Anumana: the inferred one, i. e. the Pradhana; Apeksha: necessity.
The argument in help of Sutra 12 is sustained.
The phrase `Akamyata’ (willed) within the scriptural textual content exhibits that the Anandamaya can’t be Pradhana (primordial matter), as a result of will can’t be ascribed to non-sentient (Jada) matter. Prakriti is non-sentient and might don’t have any Kamana or want. Due to this fact the Anandamaya with regard to which the phrase Kama is used can’t be Prakriti or Pradhana. That which is inferred i.e. the non-intelligent Pradhana assumed by the Sankhyas can’t be considered being the Self of bliss (Anandamaya) and the reason for the world.
Asminnasya cha tadyogam sasti I.1.19 (19)
And furthermore it, i e., the scripture, teaches the becoming a member of of this, i.e., the person soul, with that, i.e., consisting of bliss (Anandamaya) when data is attained.
Asmin: in him; within the particular person referred to as Anandamaya; Asya: his, of the Jiva; Cha: and, additionally; Tat: that; Yogam: union; Sasti: (Sruti) teaches.
The argument in help of Sutra 12 is concluded on this Sutra.
Scripture teaches that the Jiva or the person soul obtains the ultimate emancipation when he attains data, when he’s joined or recognized with the Self of bliss beneath dialogue. The Sruti declares, When he finds freedom from concern, and relaxation in that which is invisible, bodiless, indefinable and supportless, then he has attained the fearless (Brahman). If he has the smallest distinction in it there may be concern (of Samsara) for him Tait. Up. 11-7.
Excellent relaxation is feasible solely once we perceive by the Self consisting of bliss, the Supreme Self and never both the Pradhana or the person soul. Due to this fact it’s proved that the Self consisting of bliss (Anandamaya) is the Supreme Self or Para Brahman.
ANTARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 20-21)
THE BEING OR PERSON IN THE SUN AND THE EYE IS BRAHMAN
ANTASTADDHARMOPADESAT I.1.20 (20)
The being inside (the Solar and the attention) is Brahman, as a result of His attributes are taught therein.
Antah: (Antaratma, the being throughout the solar and the attention); Tat Dharma: His important attribute; Upadesat: due to the educating, as Sruti teaches.
The fantastic Purusha of Chhandogya Upanishad described in chapters 1, 6 and seven is Brahman.
From the outline within the Chhandogya Upanishad of the important qualities belonging to the Indwelling Spirit residing within the Solar and within the human eye, it’s to be understood that he’s Brahman and never the person soul. You can see in Chhandogya Upanishad I-6-6, Now that particular person vibrant as gold who’s seen throughout the solar, with beard vibrant as gold and hair vibrant as gold altogether to the very suggestions of his nails, whose eyes are like blue lotus. His identify is `Ut’ as a result of he has risen (Udita) above all evil. He transcends all limitations. He additionally who is aware of this rises above all evil. A lot with regards to the Devas.
Just about the physique, Now the one who is seen within the eye is Rik. He’s Sama. He’s Uktha. He’s Yajus. He’s Brahman. His type is similar as that of the previous i.e. of the Being within the Solar. The joints of the one are the joints of the opposite, the identify of the one is the identify of the opposite Chh. Up. I-7-5.
Do these texts consult with some particular particular person soul who by the use of data and pious deeds has raised himself to an exalted state; or do they consult with the eternally good supreme Brahman? The Purvapakshin says that the reference is to a person soul solely, because the scripture speaks of a particular form, explicit abode. Particular options are attributed to the particular person within the Solar, such because the possession of beard as vibrant as gold and so forth. The identical traits belong to the being within the eye additionally.
Quite the opposite no form may be attributed to the Supreme Lord, That which is with out sound, with out contact, with out type, with out decay Kau. Up. I-3-15.
Additional a particular abode is acknowledged, He who’s within the Solar. He who’s within the eye. This exhibits that a person soul is supposed. As regards the Supreme Lord, he has no particular abode, The place does he relaxation? In his personal glory Chh. Up. VII-24-1. Just like the ether he’s Omnipresent, Everlasting.
The ability of the being in query is claimed to be restricted. He’s the Lord of the worlds past that and of the needs of the Devas, exhibits that the ability of the being within the Solar is restricted. He’s the Lord of the worlds beneath that and of the needs of males, exhibits that the ability of the particular person within the eye is restricted. Whereas the ability of the Supreme Lord is limitless. He’s the Lord of all, the King of all issues, the Protector of all issues. This means that the Lord is free from all limitations. Due to this fact the being within the Solar and within the eye can’t be the Supreme Lord.
This Sutra refutes the above objection of the Purvapakshin. The being throughout the Solar and throughout the eye just isn’t the person soul, however the Supreme Lord solely. Why? As a result of His important attributes are declared.
At first the identify of the being throughout the Solar is acknowledged, His identify is `Ut’. Then it’s declared, He has risen above all evil. The identical identify is then transferred to the being within the eye, the identify of the one is the identify of the opposite. Excellent freedom from sins is ascribed to the Supreme Self solely, the Self which is free from sin and many others., Apahatapapma Chh. Up. VIII-7. There may be the passage, He’s Rik. He’s Saman, Uktha, Yajus, Brahman, which declares the being within the eye to be the Self, Saman and so forth. That is potential provided that the being is the Lord, who as being the reason for all, is to be considered the Self of all.
Additional it’s declared, Rik and Saman are his joints with regards to the Devas, and the joints of the one are the joints of the opposite with regards to the physique. This assertion may be made solely with regards to that which is the Self of all.
The point out of a selected abode, viz., the Solar and the attention, of type with a beard vibrant as gold and of a limitation of powers is just for the aim of meditation or Upasana. The Supreme Lord could assume by Maya any type He likes as a way to please thereby his religious worshippers to avoid wasting and bless them. Smriti additionally says, That thou seest me O Narada, is the Maya emitted by me. Don’t then look on me endowed with the qualities of all beings. The limitation of Brahman’s powers which is because of the distinction of what belongs to the Devas and what to the physique, has reference to religious meditation solely. It’s for the comfort of meditation that these limitations are imagined in Brahman. In His important or true nature He’s past them. It follows, due to this fact, that the Being which scripture states to be throughout the eye and the Solar is the Supreme Lord.
Bhedavyapadesachchanyah I.1.21 (21)
And there may be one other one (i.e. the Lord who’s totally different from the person souls animating the Solar and many others.) on account of the declaration of distinction.
Bheda: distinction; Vyapadesat: due to declaration; Cha: and, additionally; Anyah: is totally different, one other, aside from the Jiva or the person soul.
An argument in help of Sutra 20 is adduced.
Anyah: (Sarirat anyah: aside from the embodied particular person soul). Furthermore there may be one who’s distinct from the person souls which animate the Solar and different our bodies, viz., the Lord who guidelines inside. The excellence between the Lord and the person souls is said within the following passage of the Srutis, He who dwells within the Solar and is throughout the Solar, whom the Solar doesn’t know, whose physique the Solar is and who guidelines the Solar from inside, is thy Self, the ruler inside, the immortal (Bri. Up. III-7-9). Right here the expression He throughout the Solar whom the Solar doesn’t know clearly exhibits that the Ruler inside is distinct from that cognising particular person soul whose physique is the solar. The textual content clearly signifies that the Supreme Lord is throughout the Solar and but totally different from the person soul figuring out itself with the Solar. This confirms the view expressed within the earlier Sutra. It’s a longtime conclusion that the passage beneath dialogue provides an outline of the Supreme Lord solely however not of any exalted Jiva.
AKASADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8
THE WORD AKASA MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS BRAHMAN
AKASASTALLINGAT I.1.22 (22)
The phrase Akasa i.e., ether right here is Brahman on account of attribute marks (of that i.e. Brahman being talked about).
Akasah:the phrase Akasa as used right here; Tad: His, of Brahman; Lingat: due to attribute mark.
Brahman is proven to be Akasa on this Sutra. The Akasa of Chh. Up. I-9 is Brahman.
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad I-9 the next passage is available in. What’s the origin of this world? `Ether’ he replied. As a result of all these beings take their origin from the ether solely, and return into the ether. Ether is bigger than these, ether is their final resort (Dialogue between Silak and Prabahana). Right here the doubt arisesDoes the phrase `ether’ denote the Highest Brahman or the Supreme Self or the fundamental ether?
Right here Akasa refers back to the Highest Brahman and to not the fundamental ether, as a result of the traits of Brahman, particularly the origin of your entire creation from it and its return to it at dissolution are talked about. These marks might also consult with Akasa because the scriptures say from the Akasa sprang air, from air fireplace, and so forth they usually return to the Akasa on the finish of a cycle. However the sentence All these beings take their origin from the Akasa solely clearly signifies the very best Brahman, as all Vedanta-texts agree in proclaiming undoubtedly that every one beings take their origin from the Highest Brahman.
However the Purvapakshin or the opponent could say that the fundamental Akasa additionally could also be taken because the trigger viz., of air, fireplace and the opposite parts. However then the pressure of the phrases all these and solely within the textual content quoted can be misplaced. To maintain it, the textual content ought to be taken to consult with the basic reason behind all, together with Akasa additionally, which is Brahman alone.
The phrase Akasa can also be used for Brahman in different texts: That which known as Akasa is the revealer of all varieties and names; that inside which varieties and names are, that’s Brahman Chh. Up. VIII-14-1. The clause They return into the ether once more factors to Brahman and so additionally the phrase `Akasa is bigger than these, Akasa is their remaining resort’, as a result of the scripture ascribes to the Supreme Self solely absolute superiority. Chh. Up. III-14-3.
Brahman alone may be larger than all and their final purpose as talked about within the textual content. The qualities of being larger and the final word purpose of every part are talked about within the following texts: He’s larger than the earth, larger than the sky, larger than heaven, larger than all these worlds Chh. Up. III-14-3. Brahman is Data and Bliss. He’s the Final Objective of him who makes presents Bri. Up. III-9-28.
The textual content says that every one issues have been born from Akasa. Such a causation can apply solely to Brahman. The textual content says that Akasa is bigger than every part else, that Akasa is the Supreme Objective and that it’s Infinite. These indications present that Akasa means Brahman solely.
Varied synonyms of Akasa are used to indicate Brahman. Wherein the Vedas are within the Imperishable One (Brahman) the Highest, the ether (Vyoman) Tait. Up. III-6. Once more OM, Ka is Brahman, ether (Kha) is Brahman Chh. Up IV-10-5 and the outdated ether (Bri. Up. V-1.)
Due to this fact we’re justified in deciding that the phrase Akasa, although it happens to start with of the passage refers to Brahman, it’s just like that of the phrase Agni (the fireplace) research a chapter, the place the phrase Agni, although it happens to start with denotes a boy. Due to this fact it’s settled that the phrase Akasa denotes Brahman solely.
PRANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9
THE WORD `PRANA’ MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS BRAHMAN
ATA EVA PRANAH I.1.23 (23)
For a similar cause the breath additionally refers to Brahman.
Ata eva: for a similar cause; Pranah: the breath (additionally refers to Brahman).
As Prana is described as the reason for the world, such an outline can apply to Brahman alone.
Which then is that deity? `Prana’ he stated. Concerning the Udgitha it’s stated (Chh. Up. I-10-9), `Prastotri’ that deity which belongs to the Prastava and many others.
For all of the beings merge in Prana alone and from Prana they come up. That is the deity belonging to the Prastava Chh. Up. I-11-4. Now the doubt arises whether or not Prana is important pressure or Brahman. The Purvapakshin or opponent says that the phrase Prana denotes the fivefold breath. The Siddhantin says: No. Simply as within the case of the previous Sutra, so right here additionally Brahman is supposed on account of attribute marks being talked about; for right here additionally a complementary passage makes us to grasp that every one beings spring from and merge into Prana. This may happen solely in reference to the Supreme Lord.
The opponent says The scripture makes the next assertion: when man sleeps, then into breath certainly speech merges, into breath the attention, into breath the ear, into breath the thoughts; when he wakes up then they spring once more from breath alone. What the Veda right here states is a matter of every day commentary, as a result of throughout sleep when the respiration goes on uninterruptedly the functioning of the sense organs ceases and once more turns into manifest when the person wakes up solely. Therefore the sense organs are the essence of all beings. The complementary passage which speaks of the merging and rising of the beings may be reconciled with the chief very important air additionally.
This can’t be. Prana is used within the sense of Brahman in passages like `the Prana of Prana’ (Bri. Up. IV-4-18) and `Prana certainly is Brahman’ Kau. Up. III-3. The Sruti declares All these beings merge in Prana and from Prana they come up Chh. Up. I-11-5. That is potential provided that Prana is Brahman and never the very important pressure by which the senses solely get merged in deep sleep.
JYOTISCHARANANDHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10 (SUTRAS24-27)
THE LIGHT IS BRAHMAN
JYOTISCHARANABHIDHANAT I.1.24 (24)
The `mild’ is Brahman, on account of the point out of ft in a passage which is related with the passage in regards to the mild.
Jyotih: the sunshine; Charana: ft; Abhidhanat: due to the point out.
The expression `Jyotih’ (mild) is subsequent taken up for dialogue. The Jyotis of Chhandogya Upanishad III-13-7 refers to Brahman and to not materials mild; as a result of it’s described as having 4 ft.
Sruti declares, Now that mild which shines above this heaven, increased than all, increased than every part, within the highest worlds past which there are not any different worldsthat is similar mild which is inside man. Right here the doubt arises whether or not the phrase mild denotes the bodily mild of the solar and the like or the Supreme Self?
The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds that the phrase `mild’ denotes the sunshine of the solar and the like as it’s the peculiar well-established that means of the time period. Furthermore the phrase `shines’ ordinarily refers back to the solar and comparable sources of sunshine. Brahman is colourless. It can’t be stated within the major sense of the phrase that it `shines’. Additional the phrase `Jyotis’ denotes mild for it’s stated to be bounded by the sky (`that mild which shines above this heaven’); the sky can’t grow to be the boundary of Brahman which is the Self of all, which is all-pervading and infinite, and is the supply of all issues movable or immovable. The sky can type the boundary of sunshine which is mere product and which is due to this fact united.
The phrase Jyoti doesn’t imply bodily mild of the solar which helps imaginative and prescient. It denotes Brahman. Why? On account of the ft (quarters) being talked about in a previous textual content: Such is its greatness, larger than that is the Purusha. One foot of It’s all beings, whereas its remaining three ft are the Immortal in heaven Chh. Up. III-12-6. That which on this textual content varieties the three quarter half, immortal and related with heaven of Brahman which altogether constitutes 4 quarters, this exact same entity is once more referred to within the passage beneath dialogue, for there additionally it’s stated to be related with heaven.
Brahman is the subject material of not solely the earlier texts, but in addition of the following part, Sandilya Vidya (Chh. Up. III-14). If we interpret `mild’ as peculiar mild, we’ll commit the error of dropping the subject began and introduce a brand new topic. Brahman is the principle matter within the part instantly following that which incorporates the passage beneath dialogue (Chh. Up. III-14). Due to this fact it’s fairly affordable to say that the intervening part additionally (Chh. Up. III-13) treats of Brahman solely. Therefore we conclude that within the passage the phrase `mild’ should denote Brahman solely.
The phrase `Jyoti’ right here does by no means denote that mild on which the perform of the attention relies upon. It has totally different that means, for example with speech solely as mild man sits (Bri. Up. IV-3-5); no matter illumines one thing else could also be thought of as `mild’. Due to this fact the time period `mild’ could also be utilized to Brahman additionally whose nature is intelligence as a result of It provides mild to the entire universe. The Srutis declare Him the shining one, every part shines after; by His mild all that is illumined (Kau. Up. II-5-15) and Him the gods worship because the Gentle of lights, because the Immortal (Bri. Up. IV-4-16).
The point out of limiting adjuncts with respect to Brahman, denoted by the phrase `mild’ `bounded by heaven’ and the task of a particular locality serves the aim of religious meditation. The Srutis converse of various sorts of meditation on Brahman as specifically related with sure localities such because the solar, the attention, the guts.
Due to this fact it’s a settled conclusion that the phrase `mild’ right here denotes Brahman.
Chhando’bhidhanannet chet na tatha
cheto’rpananigadat tatha hello darsanam I.1.25 (25)
If it’s stated that Brahman just isn’t denoted on account of the metre Gayatri being denoted, we reply not so, as a result of thus i.e. by the use of the metre the applying of the thoughts on Brahman is said; as a result of thus it’s seen (in different passages additionally).
Chhandas: the metre often called Gayatri; Abhidhanat: due to the outline; Na: not; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Tatha: thus, like that; Chet’orpana: utility of the thoughts; Nigadat: due to the educating; Tatha hello: like that; Darsanam: it’s seen (in different texts).
An objection raised in opposition to Sutra 24 is refuted on this Sutra.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says Within the passage, `One foot of It’s all beings’, Brahman just isn’t referred to however the metre Gayatri, as a result of the primary paragraph of the previous part of the identical Upanishad begins with Gayatri is every part, by any means right here exists. Therefore the ft referred to within the textual content talked about within the earlier Sutra consult with this metre and to not Brahman.
In reply we are saying, not so; as a result of the Brahmana passage Gayatri certainly is all this teaches that one ought to meditate on the Brahman which is related with this metre, for Brahman being the reason for every part is related with that Gayatri additionally and it’s that Brahman which is to be meditated upon.
Brahman is meditated upon as Gayatri. By this rationalization all grow to be constant. If Gayatri meant metre then it will be unimaginable to say of it that Gayatri is every part by any means right here exists as a result of definitely the metre just isn’t every part. Due to this fact the Sutra says Tatha hello darsanamSo we see. By such a proof solely the above passage provides a constant that means. In any other case we must maintain a metre to be every part which is absurd. Due to this fact by Gayatri the meditation on Brahman is proven.
The course of the thoughts is said within the textual content `Gayatri is all this’. The passage instructs that by the use of the metre Gayatri the thoughts is to be directed on Brahman which is related with that metre.
This interpretation is in accordance with the opposite texts in the identical part e.g. All this certainly is Brahman Chh. Up. III-14-1 the place Brahman is the chief matter.
Religious meditation on Brahman by its modifications or results is talked about in different passages additionally; for example, Ait. Ar. III-2-3.12 it’s the Supreme Being beneath the identify of Gayatri, whom the Bahvrichas worship as Mahat-Uktha i.e. Maha Prana, the Adhvaryu monks as Agni (fireplace), and the Chandoga monks as Maha Vrata (the best ceremony).
Due to this fact Brahman is supposed right here and never the metre Gayatri.
Bhutadipadavyapadesopapatteschaivam I.1.26 (26)
And thus additionally (we should conclude, viz., that Brahman is the topic or matter of the earlier passage, the place Gayatri happens) as a result of (thus solely) the declaration as to the beings and many others. being the ft is feasible.
Bhutadi: the weather and many others. i.e. the weather, the earth, the physique and the guts; Pada: (of) foot, half; Vyapadesa: (of) point out (of) declaration or expression; Upapatteh: due to the likelihood or proof, reasonableness, as it’s rightly deduced from the above causes; Cha: additionally; Evam: thus, so.
An argument in help of Sutra 24 is adduced.
The beings, earth, physique and coronary heart may be felt solely of Brahman and never of Gayatri, the metre, a mere assortment of syllables. The earlier passage has solely Brahman for its matter or topic, as a result of the textual content designates the beings and so forth because the ft of Gayatri. The textual content at first speaks of the beings, the earth, the physique and the guts after which goes on describing that Gayatri has 4 ft and is sixfold. If Brahman weren’t meant, there can be no room for the verse such is the greatness and many others.
Therefore by Gayatri is right here meant Brahman as related with the metre Gayatri. It’s this Brahman particularised by Gayatri that’s stated to be the Self of every part within the passage Gayatri is every part and many others.
Due to this fact Brahman is to be considered the subject material of the earlier passage additionally. This identical Brahman is once more recognised as mild in Chh. Up. III-12-7.
The weather, the earth, the physique and the guts can’t be represented because the 4 verses of Gayatri. They are often understood solely to imply the fourfold manifestations of the Supreme Being. The phrase heaven is a big phrase. Its use in reference to `mild’ reminds us of its use in reference to the `Gayatri’ additionally. Due to this fact the `mild’ shining above heaven is similar because the `Gayatri’ that has three of its ft in heaven.
Upadesabhedanneti chet na
ubhayasminnapyavirodhat I.1.27 (27)
If it’s stated (that Brahman of the Gayatri passage can’t be recognised within the passage treating of `mild’) on account of the distinction of designation or the specification (we reply) no, as a result of in both (designation) there may be nothing opposite (to the popularity).
Upadesa: of educating of grammatical development or instances; Bhedat: due to the distinction; Na: not; Iti chet: if it’s stated; Na: no; Ubhayasmin: in each, (whether or not within the ablative case or within the locative case); Api: even; Avirodhat: as a result of there isn’t a contradiction.
One other objection in opposition to Sutra 24 is raised and refuted. If it’s argued that there’s a distinction of expression consisting in case-ending within the Gayatri-Sruti and within the Jyoti Sruti relating to the phrase `Div’ (heaven) then the reply is `No’; the argument just isn’t tenable, as there isn’t a materials contradiction between the 2 expressions.
Within the Gayatri passage three ft of it are what’s immortal in heaven, heaven is designated because the abode of Brahman; whereas within the latter passage that mild which shines above this heaven, Brahman is described as current above heaven. One could object that the subject material of the previous passage can’t be recognised within the latter. The objector could say how then can one and the identical Brahman be referred to in each the texts? It could; there may be no contradiction right here. Simply as in peculiar language a chook, though involved with the highest of a tree, just isn’t solely stated to be on the tree, but in addition above the tree, so Brahman additionally, though being in heaven, is right here known as being past heaven as nicely.
The locative Divi in heaven and the ablative `Divah’ above heaven will not be opposite. The distinction within the case-ending of the phrase Div is not any contradiction because the locative case (the seventh case-ending) is commonly used within the scriptural texts to precise secondarily the that means of the ablative (the fifth case-ending).
Due to this fact the Brahman spoken of within the former passage may be recognised within the latter additionally. It’s a settled conclusion that the phrase mild denotes Brahman.
Although the grammatical instances used within the scriptural passage will not be similar, the article of the reference is clearly recognised as being similar.
PRATARDANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 28-31)
PRANA IS BRAHMAN
PRANASTATHANUGAMAT I.1.28 (28)
Prana is Brahman, that being so understood from a related consideration (of the passage referring to Prana).
Pranah: the breath or life-energy; Tatha: thus, so, likewise like that acknowledged earlier than; like that acknowledged within the Sruti quoted earlier than in connection therewith; Anugamat: due to being understood (from the texts).
The expression `Prana’ is once more taken up for dialogue.
Within the Kaushitaki Upanishad there happens the dialog between Indra and Pratardana. Pratardana, the son of Divodasa, got here by the use of combating and energy to the abode of Indra. Pratardana stated to Indra, You your self select for me that boon which you suppose is most useful to man. Indra replied, Know me solely. That is what I believe most useful to man. I’m Prana, the clever Self (Prajnatman). Meditate on me as life, as immortality III-2. That Prana is certainly the clever Self, bliss, undecaying, immortal III-8.
Right here the doubt arises whether or not the phrase Prana denotes merely breath, the modification of air or the God Indra, or the person soul, or the very best Brahman.
The phrase `Prana’ within the passage refers to Brahman, as a result of it’s described as probably the most conducive to human welfare. Nothing is extra conducive to human welfare than the data of Brahman. Furthermore Prana is described as Prajnatma. The air which is non-intelligent can clearly not be the clever Self.
These attribute marks that are talked about within the concluding passage, viz., `bliss’ (Ananda), undecaying (Ajara), immortal (Amrita) may be true solely of Brahman. Additional data of Prana absolves one from all sins. He who is aware of me thus by no deed of his is his life harmed, neither by matricide nor by patricide Kau. Up. III-1.
All this may be correctly understood provided that the Supreme Self or the very best Brahman is acknowledged to be the subject material of the passages, and never if the very important air is substituted as an alternative. Therefore the phrase `Prana’ denotes Brahman solely.
Na vakturatmopadesaditi chet
adhyatmasambandhabhuma hyasmin I.1.29 (29)
If it’s stated that (Brahman is) not (denoted or referred in these passages on account of) the speaker’s instruction about himself, we reply not so, as a result of there may be abundance of reference to the Inside Self on this (chapter or Upanishad).
Na: not; Vaktuh: of the speaker (Indra); Atma: of the Self; Upadesat: on account of instruction; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Adhyatma sambandha bhuma: abundance of reference to the Inside Self; Hello: as a result of; Asmin: on this (chapter or Upanishad).
An objection to Sutra 28 is refuted.
An objection is raised in opposition to the assertion that Prana denotes Brahman. The opponent or Purvapakshin says, The phrase Prana doesn’t denote the Supreme Brahman, as a result of the speaker Indra designates himself. Indra speaks to Pratardana, Know me solely. I’m Prana, the clever Self. How can the Prana which refers to a persona be Brahman to which the attribute of being a speaker can’t be ascribed. The Sruti declares, Brahman is with out speech, with out thoughts Bri. Up. III-8-8.
Additional on, additionally Indra, the speaker glorifies himself, I slew the three-headed son of Tvashtri. I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees to the wolves (Salavrika). I killed the folks of Prahlada and so forth. Indra could also be referred to as Prana owing to his energy. Therefore Prana doesn’t denote Brahman.
This objection just isn’t legitimate as a result of there are discovered considerable references to Brahman or the Inside Self in that chapter. They’re Prana, the clever Self, alone having laid maintain of this physique makes it stand up. For as in a automotive the circumference of the wheel is about on the spokes and the spokes on the nave; thus are these objects set on the themes (the senses) and the themes on the Prana. And that Prana certainly is the Self of Prajna, blessed (Ananda), undecaying (Ajara) and immortal (Amrita). He’s my Self, thus let it’s identified. This Self is Brahman, Omniscient Bri. Up. II-5-19.
Indra stated to Pratardana, Worship me as Prana. This may solely consult with Brahman. For the worship of Brahman alone may give Mukti or the ultimate emancipation which is most useful to man (Hitatma). It’s stated of this Prana, For he (Prana) makes him, whom he needs to steer out from these worlds, do a superb deed. This exhibits that the Prana is the good trigger that makes each exercise potential. This is also per Brahman and never with breath or Indra. Therefore `Prana’ right here denotes Brahman solely.
The chapter incorporates info relating to Brahman solely owing to loads of references to the Inside Self, not relating to the self of some deity.
But when Indra actually meant to show the worship of Brahman, why does he say worship me? It’s actually deceptive. To this the next Sutra provides the correct reply.
Sastradrishtya tupadeso vamadevavat 1.1.30 (30)
The declaration (made by Indra about himself, viz., that he’s and with Brahman) is feasible by instinct as attested by Sruti, as within the case of Vamadeva.
Sastradrishtya: by perception based mostly on scripture or as attested by Sruti; Tu: however; Upadesah: instruction; Vamadevavat: like that of Vamadeva.
The objection raised in Sutra 29 is additional refuted.
The phrase `tu’ (however) removes the doubt. Indra’s describing himself as Prana is kind of appropriate as he identifies himself with Brahman in that instruction to Pratardana just like the sage Vamadeva.
Sage Vamadeva realised Brahman and stated I used to be Manu and Surya which is in accordance with the passage No matter Deva knew Brahman grew to become That (Bri. Up. I-4-10). Indra’s instruction is also like that. Having realised Brahman by the use of Rishi-like instinct, Indra identifies himself within the instruction with the Supreme Brahman and instructs Pratardana in regards to the Highest Brahman by the use of the phrases `Know me solely’.
Indra praises the data of Brahman. Due to this fact it isn’t his personal glorification when he says `I killed Tvashtri’s son’ and many others. The that means of the passage is `Though I do such merciless actions, but not even a hair of mine is harmed as a result of I’m one with Brahman. Due to this fact the lifetime of some other particular person additionally who is aware of me thus just isn’t harmed by any deed of his. Indra says in a subsequent passage `I’m Prana, the clever Self.’ Due to this fact the entire chapter refers to Brahman solely.
Jivamukhyapranalinganneti chet na upasatraividhyat
asritatvadiha tadyogat I.1.31 (31)
If it’s stated that (Brahman is) not (meant) on account of attribute marks of the person soul and the chief very important air (being talked about); we are saying no, as a result of (such an interpretation) would enjoin threefold meditation (Upasana), as a result of Prana has been accepted (elsewhere within the Sruti within the sense of Brahman) and since right here additionally (phrases denoting Brahman) are talked about with regards to Prana.
Jivamukhyapranalingat: on account of the attribute marks of the person soul and the chief very important air; Na: not; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Upasana: worship, meditation; Traividhyat: due to the 3 ways; Asritatvat: on account of Prana being accepted (elsewhere in Sruti within the sense of Brahman); Iha: within the Kaushitaki passage; Tadyogat: due to its appropriateness; as they’ve been utilized; as a result of phrases denoting Brahman are talked about with regards to Prana.
However one other objection is raised. What’s the necessity of this Adhikarana once more, meditation of Prana and figuring out Prana with Brahman, when within the previous Sutra, I-1-23 it has been proven that Prana means Brahman?
To this we reply: this Adhikarana just isn’t a redundancy. Within the Sutra I-1-23, the doubt was solely with regard to the that means of the only phrase Prana. On this Adhikarana the doubt was not in regards to the that means of the phrase Prana, however about the entire passage, by which there are phrases, and marks or indications that will have led an individual meditating, to suppose that there additionally Jiva and breath meant to be meditated upon. To take away this doubt, it’s declared that Brahman alone is the subject of debate on this Kaushitaki Upanishad and never Jiva or very important breath.
Due to this fact this Adhikarana has been individually acknowledged by the writer.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds that Prana doesn’t denote Brahman, however both the person soul or the chief very important air or each. He says that the chapter mentions the attribute marks of the person soul on the one hand, and of the chief very important air then again.
The passage `One ought to know the speaker and never enquire into speech’ (Kau. Up. III-4) mentions a attribute mark of the person soul. The passage Prana, laying maintain of his physique, makes it stand up Kau. Up. III. 3 factors to the chief very important air as a result of the chief attribute of the very important air is that it sustains the physique. Then there may be one other passage, `Then Prana stated to the organs: be not deceived. I alone dividing myself fivefold help this physique and maintain it’ Prasna Up. II-3. Then once more you’ll find `What’s Prana, that’s Prajna; what’s Prajna, that’s Prana.’
This Sutra refutes such a view and says, that Brahman alone is referred to by `Prana’, as a result of the above interpretation would contain a threefold Upasana, viz., of the person soul, of the chief very important air, and of Brahman. Which is definitely in opposition to the accepted guidelines of interpretation of the scriptures. It’s inappropriate to imagine {that a} single sentence enjoins three sorts of worship or meditation.
Additional to start with we’ve got know me solely adopted by I’m Prana, clever Self, meditate on me as life, as immortality; and in the long run once more we learn And that Prana certainly is the clever Self, blessed (Ananda), undecaying (Ajara) and immortal (Amrita). The start and the concluding half are thus seen to be comparable. Due to this fact we should conclude that they refer to at least one and the identical topic and that the identical subject-matter is saved up all through.
Due to this fact `Prana’ should denote Brahman solely. Within the case of different passages the place attribute marks of Brahman are talked about the phrase `Prana’ is taken within the sense of Brahman. It’s a settled conclusion that Brahman is the subject or material of the entire chapter.
Introduction
Within the First Pada or Part Brahman has been proven to be the reason for the origin, sustenance and dissolution of the entire universe. It has been taught that the Supreme Brahman ought to be enquired into. Sure attributes similar to Eternity, Omniscience, All-pervadingness, the Self of all and so forth have been declared of the Brahman.
Within the latter a part of Part I sure phrases within the Sruti similar to Anandamaya, Jyoti, Prana, Akasa, and many others., utilized in a distinct sense have been proven by reasoning to consult with Brahman. Sure passages of the scriptures about whose sense doubts are entertained and which comprise clear traits of Brahman (Spashta-Brahmalinga) have been proven to consult with Brahman.
Now on this and the following Part some extra passages of uncertain import whereby the attribute marks of Brahman will not be so obvious (Aspashta-Brahmalinga) are taken up for dialogue. Doubts could come up as to the precise that means of sure expressions of Sruti, whether or not they point out Brahman or one thing else. These expressions are taken up for dialogue on this and the following Sections.
Within the Second and Third Padas can be proven that sure different phrases and sentences in which there’s solely obscure or vague indication of Brahman apply additionally to Brahman as in these of the First Pada.
Synopsis
Doubts could come up as to the precise that means of sure expressions of Sruti, whether or not they point out Brahman or one thing else. These expressions are taken up for dialogue on this and the following sections.
It’s proved on this part that the totally different expressions utilized in totally different Srutis for Divine contemplation point out the identical Infinite Brahman.
Within the Sandilya Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad it’s stated that as the shape and the character of an individual in his subsequent life are decided by his wishes and ideas of the current one, he ought to continually want for and meditate upon Brahman who is ideal, who’s Sat-Chit-Ananda, who’s immortal, who’s Self-luminous, who’s everlasting, pure, birthless, deathless, Infinite and many others., in order that he could grow to be similar with Him.
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1 to eight) exhibits that the being which consists of thoughts, whose physique is breath and many others., talked about in Chhandogya Upanishad III-14 just isn’t the person soul, however Brahman.
Adhikarana II: (Sutras 9 and 10) decides that he to whom the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas are however meals (Katha Up. I-2-25) is the Supreme Self or Brahman.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 11 and 12) exhibits that the 2 which entered into the cave (Katha Up. I-3-1) are Brahman and the person soul.
Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 13 to 17) states that the particular person throughout the eye talked about in Chh. Up. IV-15-1 signifies neither a mirrored picture nor any particular person soul, however Brahman.
Adhikarana V: (Sutras 18 to twenty) exhibits that the Inside Ruler inside (Antaryamin) described within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III-7-3 as pervading and guiding the 5 parts (earth, water, fireplace, air, ether) and in addition heaven, solar, moon, stars and many others., is not any aside from Brahman.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 21 to 23) proves that which can’t be seen, and many others., talked about in Mundaka Upanishad I-1-6 is Brahman.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 24 to 32) exhibits that the Atman, the Vaisvanara of Chhandogya Upanishad V-11-6 is Brahman.
The opinions of various sages particularly Jaimini, Asmarathya and Badari have additionally been given right here to indicate that the Infinite Brahman is usually conceived as finite and as possessing head, trunk, ft and different limbs and organs as a way to facilitate divine contemplation in line with the capability of the meditator.
SARVATRA PRASIDDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-8)
THE MANOMAYA IS BRAHMAN
SARVATRA PRASIDDHOPADESAT I.2.1 (32)
(That which consists of the thoughts `Manomaya’ is Brahman) as a result of there may be taught (on this textual content) (that Brahman which is) well-known (as the reason for the world) within the Upanishads.
Sarvatra: in all places, in each Vedantic passage i.e., in all Upanishads; Prasiddha: the well-known; Upadesat: due to the educating.
Sruti declares, All this certainly is Brahman, emanating from Him, residing and shifting in Him, and in the end dissolving in Him; thus realizing let a person meditate with a peaceful thoughts. A person in his current life is the end result of his earlier ideas and wishes. He turns into that in after-life what he now resolves to be. Due to this fact he ought to meditate on Brahman who’s ideally good, who capabilities by his very life-energy and who’s all-light. He who consists of the thoughts, whose physique is Prana (the refined physique) and many others. Chh. Up. III-14.
Now a doubt arises whether or not what’s identified as the article of meditation by the use of attributes similar to consisting of thoughts, and many others., is the person soul or the Supreme Brahman.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: the passage refers back to the particular person soul solely. Why? As a result of the embodied self solely is related with the thoughts. It is a well-known reality, whereas the Supreme Brahman just isn’t. It’s stated within the Mundaka Upanishad II-1-2 `He’s with out breath, with out thoughts, pure.’
The passage doesn’t intention at enjoining meditation on Brahman. It goals solely at enjoining calmness of thoughts. The opposite attributes additionally subsequently acknowledged within the textual content He to whom all works, all wishes belong consult with the person soul.
The Srutis declare He’s my Self throughout the coronary heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley. This refers back to the particular person soul which has the scale of the purpose of a goad, however to not the infinite or limitless Brahman.
We reply: The Supreme Brahman solely is what’s to be meditated upon as distinguished by the attributes of consisting of thoughts and so forth. As a result of the textual content begins with All this certainly is Brahman. That Brahman which is taken into account as the reason for the world in all scriptural passages is taught right here additionally within the method Tajjalan. As the start refers to Brahman, the latter passage the place He who consists of the thoughts (Manomaya) happens, must also consult with Brahman as distinguished by sure qualities. Thus we keep away from the fault of dropping the subject-matter beneath dialogue and unnecessarily introducing a recent matter. Additional the textual content speaks of Upasana, meditation. Due to this fact it’s however correct that Brahman which is described in all different passages as an object of meditation can also be taught right here and never the person soul. The person soul just isn’t spoken of anyplace as an object of meditation or Upasana.
Furthermore you may attain serenity by meditating on Brahman which is an embodiment of peace. Manomaya refers to Brahman in Mun. Up. II-2-7, Tait. Up. I-6-1 and Katha Up. VII-9. The well-known Manomaya, utilized in all of the above passages to Brahman, is referred to right here within the Chhandogya additionally. Due to this fact Manomaya refers back to the Supreme Brahman solely.
Vivakshitagunopapattescha I.2.2 (33)
Furthermore the qualities desired to be expressed are potential (in Brahman; due to this fact the passage refers to Brahman).
Vivakshita: desired to be expressed; Guna: qualities; Upapatteh: due to the reasonableness, for the justification; Cha: and, furthermore.
An argument in help of Sutra 1 is adduced. And since the attributes, sought to be utilized by the Sruti quoted above, justly belong to Brahman, it have to be admitted that the passage refers to Brahman.
He who consists of the thoughts, whose physique is Prana (the refined physique), whose type is mild, resolve is true, whose nature is like that of ether (Omnipresent and invisible), from whom proceed all actions, all wishes, all scents, all tastes; who’s All-embracing, who’s unvoiced and unattached Chh. Up. III-14-2. These attributes talked about on this textual content as matters of meditation are potential in Brahman solely.
The qualities of getting true wishes (Sat Kama) and true functions (Sat Sankalpa) are attributed to the Supreme Self in one other passage viz., `The Self which is free from sin and many others.’ Chh. Up. VIII-7-1, He whose Self is the ether; that is potential as Brahman which as the reason for your entire universe is the Self of every part and can also be the Self of the ether. Thus the qualities right here intimated as matters of meditation agree with the character of Brahman.
Therefore, because the qualities talked about are potential in Brahman, we conclude that the Supreme Brahman alone is represented as the article of meditation.
Anupapattestu na saarirah I.2.3 (34)
Then again, as (these qualities) will not be potential (in it) the embodied (soul is) not (denoted by Manomaya and many others.).
Anupapatteh: not being justifiable, due to the impossibility, due to the unreasonableness, as a result of they aren’t applicable; Tu: however then again; Na: not; Saarirah: the embodied, the Jiva or the person soul.
Such qualities can’t apply to the person soul. The argument in help of the Sutra is sustained. The previous Sutra has acknowledged that the qualities talked about are potential in Brahman. The current Sutra declares that they aren’t potential within the Jiva or the embodied Soul. Brahman solely is endowed with the qualities of `consisting of thoughts or Manomaya, and so forth’ however not the embodied Self.
As a result of the qualities similar to `He whose functions are true, whose Self is the ether, who’s speechless, who just isn’t disturbed, who is bigger than the earth’ can’t be ascribed to the person soul. The time period `Saarira’ or embodied means `dwelling in a physique.’
If the opponent says `The Lord additionally dwells within the physique’, we reply: true, He does abide within the physique, however not within the physique alone; as a result of Sruti declares `The Lord is bigger than the earth, larger than the heaven, Omnipresent just like the ether, everlasting.’ Quite the opposite the person soul resides within the physique solely.
The Jiva is sort of a glow-worm earlier than the effulgence of the Brahman who is sort of a Solar when put next with it. The superior qualities described within the textual content will not be definitely potential in Jiva.
The All-pervading just isn’t the embodied self or the person soul, as it’s fairly unimaginable to predicate Omnipresence of Him. It’s unimaginable and in opposition to reality and cause additionally that one and the identical particular person might be in all of the our bodies on the identical time.
Karmakartrivyapadesaccha I.2.4 (35)
Due to the declaration of the attainer and the article attained. He who consists of the thoughts (Manomaya) refers to Brahman and to not the person soul.
Karma: object; Kartri: agent; Vyapadesat: due to the declaration or point out; Cha: and.
An argument in help of Sutra 3 is adduced.
A separate distinction is drawn between the article of exercise and of the agent. Due to this fact the attributes of `consisting of thoughts’ (Manomaya) can’t belong to the embodied self. The textual content says After I shall have departed from therefore I shall receive him Chh. Up. III-14-4. Right here the phrase `Him’ refers to that which is the subject of debate. Who consists of the thoughts, the article of meditation viz., as one thing to be obtained; whereas the phrases `I shall receive’ signify the meditating particular person soul because the agent i.e., the obtainer.
We should not assume that one and the identical factor is spoken of because the attainer (agent) and the article attained on the identical time. The attainer and the attained can’t be the identical. The article meditated upon is totally different from the one who meditates, the person soul referred to within the above textual content by the pronoun `I’.
Thus for the above cause additionally, that which is characterised by the attributes consisting of thoughts `Manomaya’ and so forth, can’t be the person soul.
Sabdaviseshat I.2.5 (36)
Due to the distinction of phrases.
Sabda: phrase; Viseshat: due to distinction.
The argument in favour of Sutra 1 is sustained. That which possesses the attributes of consisting of thoughts and so forth can’t be the person soul, as a result of there’s a distinction of phrases.
Within the Satapatha Brahmana the identical thought is expressed in comparable phrases As is a grain of rice, or a grain of barley, or a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed, so is that golden particular person within the Self (X. 6-3-2). Right here one phrase i.e. the locative within the Self denotes the person soul or the embodied self, and a distinct phrase, viz. the nominative `particular person’ denotes the self distinguished by the attributes of consisting of thoughts and many others.
We, due to this fact, conclude that the 2 are totally different and that the person self just isn’t referred to within the textual content beneath dialogue.
Smritescha I.2.6 (37)
From the Smriti additionally (we all know the embodied self or the person soul is totally different from the one referred to within the textual content beneath dialogue).
Smriteh: from the Smriti; Cha: and, additionally.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
It’s so declared additionally within the Smriti (Bhagavad Gita). From the Smriti additionally it’s evident that the person soul is markedly totally different from the subject material of the textual content beneath dialogue.
Smriti additionally declares the distinction of the person soul and the Supreme Soul The Lord dwelleth within the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, by His illusive energy, inflicting all beings to revolve, as if mounted on a potter’s wheel (Gita: XVIII-61).
The distinction is just imaginary and never actual. The distinction exists solely as long as Avidya or ignorance lasts and the importance of the Mahavakya or Nice Sentence of the Upanishads `Tat Tvam Asi’ (Thou artwork That) has not been realised. As quickly as you grasp the reality that there’s just one common Self, there may be an finish to Samsara or phenomenal life with its distinction of bondage, remaining emancipation and the like.
Arbhakaukastvattadvyapadesaccha neti chet na
nichayyatvadevam vyomavaccha I.2.7 (38)
If it’s stated that (the passage does) not (consult with Brahman) on account of the smallness of the abode (talked about i.e. the guts) and in addition on account of the denotation of that (i.e. of minuteness) we are saying, No; as a result of (Brahman) has thus to be meditated and since the case is just like that of ether.
Arbhakaukastvat: due to the smallness of the abode; Tadvyapadesat: due to the outline or denotation as such i.e. minuteness; Cha: and in addition; Na: not; Iti: not so; Chet: if; Na: not; Nichayyatvat: due to meditation (within the coronary heart); Evam: thus, so; Vyomavat: just like the ether; Cha: and.
An objection to Sutra 1 is raised and refuted.
Now an objection is raised, that the Manomaya of the Chhandogya Upanishad can’t be Brahman, however is Jiva, as a result of the outline there may be extra relevant to a person soul than to Brahman. The textual content says He’s my self throughout the coronary heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a mustard seed Chh. Up. III-14-3. This exhibits that the Manomaya occupies little or no house, in truth it’s atomic and so can’t be Brahman.
This Sutra refutes it. Although a person is the king of the entire earth, he may on the identical time be referred to as the king of Ayodhya as nicely. The Infinite known as the atomic as a result of He may be realised within the minute house of the chamber of the guts, simply as Lord Vishnu may be realised within the sacred stone referred to as Saligrama.
Though current in all places, the Lord is happy when meditated upon as abiding within the coronary heart. The case is just like that of the attention of the needle. The ether, although all-pervading, is spoken of as restricted and minute, with regards to its reference to the attention of the needle. So it’s stated of Brahman additionally.
The attributes of limitation of abode and of minuteness are ascribed to Brahman just for the comfort of conception and meditation, as a result of it’s troublesome to meditate on the all-pervading, infinite Brahman. This can definitely not go in opposition to His Omnipresence. These limitations are merely imagined in Brahman. They don’t seem to be in any respect actual.
Within the very passage Brahman is said to be infinite like house, and all pervading like ether, `Larger than the earth, larger than the sky, larger than heaven, larger than all these worlds.’ Although Brahman is all-pervading, but He turns into atomic by His mysterious inconceivable energy to please His devotees. He seems concurrently in all places, wherever His devotees are. This simultaneous look of the atomic Brahman in all places establishes His all-pervadingness even in His manifested type. Gopis noticed Lord Krishna in all places.
The opponent says: If Brahman has His abode within the coronary heart, which heart-abode is a distinct one in every physique, it will comply with, that He’s attended by all of the imperfections which connect to beings having totally different abodes, similar to parrots shut up in several cages viz., need of unity being made up of elements, non-permanency, and many others. He can be topic to experiences originating from reference to our bodies. To this the writer provides an acceptable reply within the following Sutra.
Sambhogapraptiriti chet na vaiseshyat I.2.8 (39)
If it’s stated that (being related with the hearts of all particular person souls to) Its (Brahman’s) Omnipresence, it will even have expertise (of delight and ache) (we are saying) not so, on account of the distinction within the nature (of the 2).
Sambhogaprapti: that it has expertise of delight and ache; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Vaiseshyat: due to the distinction in nature.
One other objection is raised and refuted right here.
The phrase `Sambhoga’ denotes mutual expertise or frequent expertise. The pressure of `Sam’ in `Sambhoga’ is that of `Saha’. The mere dwelling inside a physique just isn’t a trigger at all times of experiencing the pleasures or pains related with that physique. The expertise is topic to the affect of the nice and evil actions. Brahman has no such Karma. He’s actionless (Nishkriya, Akarta). Within the Gita the Lord says, The Karmas don’t contact Me and I’ve no attachment to the fruit of KarmasNa mam karmani limpanti na me karmaphale spriha.
There is no such thing as a equality in expertise between Brahman and the person soul, as a result of Brahman is all-pervading, of absolute energy; the person soul is of little energy and completely dependent.
Although Brahman is all-pervading and related with hearts of all particular person souls and can also be clever like them, He isn’t topic to pleasure and ache. As a result of the person soul is an agent, he’s the doer of excellent and dangerous actions. Due to this fact he experiences pleasure and ache. Brahman just isn’t the doer. He’s the everlasting Satchidananda. He’s free from all evil.
The opponent says: The person soul is in essence similar with Brahman. Due to this fact Brahman can also be topic to the pleasure and ache skilled by the Jiva or the person soul. It is a silly argument. It is a fallacy. In actuality there may be neither the person soul nor pleasure and ache. Pleasure and ache are psychological creations solely. When the person soul is beneath the affect of ignorance or Avidya, he foolishly thinks that he’s topic to pleasure and ache.
Proximity is not going to trigger the clinging of ache and pleasure to Brahman. When one thing in house is affected by fireplace, the house itself can’t be affected by fireplace. Is ether blue as a result of boys name it so? Not even the slightest hint of expertise of delight and ache may be attributed to Brahman.
Sruti declares Two birds reside collectively as associates on the identical tree i.e. physique. Considered one of them, i.e. the person soul, eats the tasteful fruit i.e. enjoys the fruit of his actions: and the opposite i.e. the Supreme Soul witnesses with out consuming something, i.e. with out partaking of fruit Mun. Up. III-1-1.
Sutras 1 to eight have established that the topic of debate within the quoted portion of the Chhandogya Upanishad Chapter III-14 is Brahman and never the person soul.
ATTRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 9-10)
THE EATER IS BRAHMAN
ATTA CHARACHARAGRAHANAT I.2.9 (40)
The Eater (is Brahman), as a result of each the movable and immovable (i.e. the entire world) is taken (as His meals).
Atta: the Eater; Characharagrahanat: as a result of the movable and immovable (i.e. the entire universe) is taken (as His meals).
A passage from the Kathopanishad is now taken up for dialogue. We learn in Kathopanishad I.2.25 Who then is aware of the place He’s, to Whom the Brahmanas and Kshatriyas are (because it had been) however meals, and loss of life itself a condiment? This textual content exhibits by the use of the phrases `meals’ and `condiment’ that there’s some eater.
Who is that this eater? Is it the fireplace referred to in as eater: Soma certainly is meals, and fireplace eater Bri. Up. I-4-6, or is it particular person soul known as eater Considered one of them eats the candy fruit Mun. Up. III-I-I, or the Supreme Self?
We reply that the eater have to be the Supreme Self as a result of it’s talked about what’s movable and what’s immovable. Your entire universe is re-absorbed in Brahman. All issues movable and immovable are right here to be taken as constituting the meals of Brahman whereas Demise itself is the condiment. The eater of the entire world, the patron of all these items of their totality may be Brahman alone and none else.
The Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas are talked about as mere examples as they’re foremost of created beings and as they maintain a pre-eminent place. The phrases are merely illustrative.
The entire universe sprinkled over by Demise is referred to right here because the meals. Condiment is a factor which renders different issues extra palatable and causes different issues to be eaten with nice relish. Due to this fact the Demise itself is consumed, being a condiment because it had been, it makes different issues palatable. Due to this fact the Eater of your entire world made palatable by Demise, can imply solely Brahman in His facet of Destroyer. He withdraws the entire universe inside Himself on the time of Pralaya or dissolution. Due to this fact the Supreme Self have to be taken right here because the Eater.
The opponent says: Brahman can’t be an eater. The Sruti declares The opposite appears on with out consuming. We are saying that this has no validity. The passage goals at denying the fruition of the outcomes of works. It isn’t meant to disclaim the re-absorption of the world into Brahman; as a result of it’s well-established by all of the Vedanta-texts that Brahman is the reason for the creation, sustenance and re-absorption of the world. Due to this fact the Eater can right here be Brahman solely.
Prakaranaccha I.2.10 (41)
And on account of the context additionally the (eater is Brahman).
Prakaranat: from the context; Cha: additionally, and.
An argument in help of Sutra 9 is given.
Brahman is the topic of the dialogue. At first Nachiketas asks Yama, Inform me of that which is above good and evil, which is past trigger and impact and which is aside from the previous and future Katha Up. I-2-14. Yama replies, I’ll inform you briefly. It’s OM Katha Up. I-2-15. This Atman is neither born nor does it die Katha Up. I-2-18. He lastly consists of of whom the Brahmana and the Kshatriya courses are, because it had been, meals and Demise itself a condiment or pickle, how can one thus know the place that Atman is?
All this clearly exhibits that Brahman is the overall matter. To stick to the overall matter is the correct continuing. Therefore the Eater is Brahman. Additional the clause Who then is aware of the place he’s, exhibits that realisation may be very troublesome. This once more factors to the Supreme Self.
The pressure of the phrase `Cha’ (and) within the Sutra is to point that the Smriti can also be to the identical impact, as says the Gita.
Thou artwork the Eater of the worlds, of all that strikes and stands; worthier of reverence than the Guru’s self, there may be none like Thee.
GUHAPRAVISHTADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 11-12)
THE DWELLERS IN THE CAVE OF THE HEART ARE
THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND BRAHMAN
Guham pravistavatmanau hello taddarsanat I.2.11 (42)
The 2 who’ve entered into the cavity (of the guts) are certainly the person soul and the Supreme Soul, as a result of it’s so seen.
Guham: within the cavity (of the guts) Pravishtau: the 2 who’ve entered; Atmanau: are the 2 selfs (particular person soul and the Supreme Soul); Hello: certainly, as a result of; Taddarsanat: as a result of it’s so seen.
One other passage of the Kathopanishad is taken up for dialogue. In the identical Kathopanishad I-3-1 we learn, Having entered the cavity of the guts, the 2 benefit from the reward of their works within the physique. Those that know Brahman name them shade and lightweight: likewise these house owners who carry out the Trinachiketa sacrifice.
The doubt arises right here whether or not the couple referred to are the person soul and Buddhi (mind).
Within the passage beneath dialogue, the couple referred to are the person soul and the Supreme Self, for these two, being each clever selfs, are of the identical nature. We see that in peculiar life additionally at any time when a quantity is talked about, beings of the identical class are understood to be meant. When a bull is delivered to us, we are saying `carry one other, look out for a second’. It means one other bull, not a horse or a person. So, if with an clever self, the person soul, one other is claimed to enter the cavity of the guts, it should refer to a different of the identical class i.e. to a different clever being and to not the mind (Buddhi) which is insentient.
Sruti and Smriti converse of the Supreme Self as positioned within the cave. We learn in Kathopanishad I-2-12 The traditional who’s hidden within the cave, who dwells within the abyss. We additionally discover in Taittiriya Upanishad II-1 He who is aware of him hidden within the cave, within the highest ether and seek for the self who entered into the cave. A particular abode for the all-pervading Brahman is given for the aim of conception and meditation. This isn’t opposite to cause.
Typically the traits of 1 in a gaggle are not directly utilized to the entire group as once we say The boys with an umbrella the place just one has an umbrella and never the entire group. Equally right here additionally, although it is just one who’s having fun with the fruits of actions each are spoken of as consuming the fruits.
The phrase `pibantau’ is within the twin quantity that means `the 2 drink whereas as a matter of reality, the Jiva solely drinks the fruit of his works and never the Supreme Self. We could clarify the passage by saying that whereas the person soul drinks, the Supreme Self additionally is claimed to drink as a result of he makes the soul to drink. The person soul is the direct agent, the Supreme Self is the causal agent that’s to say the person self instantly drinks whereas the Supreme Self causes the person soul to drink.
The phrases `shade’ and `mild’ present the distinction between the Infinite Data of the Supreme Self and the finite data of the Jiva, or that the Jiva is sure right down to the chain of Samsara, whereas the Supreme Self is above Samsara.
We, due to this fact, perceive by the `two entered into the cave’, the person soul and the Supreme Self.
One more reason for this interpretation is given within the following Sutra.
Viseshanaccha I.2.12 (43)
And on account of the distinctive qualities (of the 2 talked about in subsequent texts).
Viseshanat: on account of distinctive qualities; Cha: and.
An argument in help of Sutra 11 is given.
That is clear additionally from the outline in different parts of the identical scripture viz. Kathopanishad.
Additional the distinctive qualities talked about within the textual content agree solely with the person soul and the Supreme Soul. As a result of in a subsequent passage (I-3-3) the traits of the 2 which have entered the cavity of the guts are given. They point out that the 2 are the person soul and Brahman. Know that the Self to be the charioteer, the physique to be the chariot. The person soul is represented as a charioteer driving on by the transmigratory existence and remaining emancipation. Additional it’s stated He attains the tip of his journey, that highest place of Vishnu Katha Up. I-3-9. Right here it’s represented that the Supreme Self is the purpose of the motive force’s course. The 2 are talked about right here because the attainer and the purpose attained i.e. the person soul or Jiva and the Supreme Soul or Brahman.
Within the previous passage (I-2-12) additionally it’s stated The clever, who by the use of meditation on his Self, recognises the Historical who’s troublesome to be seen, who has entered into the darkish, who’s hidden within the cave of the guts, who abides within the abyss as God, he certainly leaves pleasure and sorrow far behind. Right here the 2 are spoken of because the meditator and the article of meditation.
Furthermore the Supreme Self is the overall matter. It’s due to this fact apparent that the passage beneath dialogue refers back to the particular person soul and the Supreme Self.
ANTARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4 (SUTRAS 13-17)
THE PERSON WITHIN THE EYE IS BRAHMAN
Antara upapatteh I.2.13 (44)
The particular person inside (the attention) (is Brahman) on account of (the attributes talked about therein) being applicable (solely to Brahman).
Antara: inside (the attention), the being throughout the eye; Upapatteh: on account of the appropriateness of (attributes).
The being throughout the eye is Brahman, as a result of it’s affordable to construe the passage as making use of to the Supreme Self than to the rest.
The type of worship in one other a part of Chhandogya Upanishad (IV-15-1), taking the being throughout the eyes because the Supreme Self, is taken up as the topic for dialogue.
In Chhandogya Upanishad IV-15-1 we learn, This particular person that’s seen within the eye is the Self. That is Immortal and fearless, that is Brahman. The doubt right here arises whether or not this passage refers back to the mirrored self which resides within the eye, or to the person soul or to the self of some deity which presides over the organ of sight or to the Supreme Self.
The Sutra says that the particular person within the eye is Brahman solely, as a result of the attributes `Immortal’, `fearless’, and many others., talked about right here accord with the character of the Supreme Self solely.
The attributes `being untouched by sin’, being `Samyadvama’ and many others., are relevant to the Supreme Self solely. The attributes of being `Vamani’ or the chief of all and `Bhamani’, the All-effulgent, utilized to the particular person within the eye are applicable within the case of Brahman additionally.
Due to this fact, on account of settlement, the particular person throughout the eye is the Supreme Self or Brahman solely.
Sthanadivyapadesaccha I.2.14 (46)
And on account of the assertion of place and so forth.
Sthanadi: the place and the remaining; Vyapadesat: on account of the assertion; Cha: and.
An argument in help of Sutra 13 is given.
In different Srutis location and many others., i.e., abode, identify and type are attributed to Brahman Himself to facilitate meditation. However how can the all-pervading Brahman be in a restricted house like the attention? Particular abode just like the cavity of the guts, the attention, the earth, disc of the solar and many others., is given to the all-pervading Brahman for the aim of meditation (Upasana), simply as Saligrama is prescribed for meditation on Vishnu. This isn’t opposite to cause.
The phrase `and so forth’ which varieties a part of the Sutra exhibits that not solely abode is assigned to Brahman but in addition things like identify and type not applicable to Brahman which is devoid of identify and type, are ascribed to It for the sake of meditation, as Brahman with out qualities can’t be an object of meditation. Vide Chh. Up. 1.6.6-7. His identify is `Ut’. He with the golden beard.
Sukhavisishtabhidhanadeva cha I.2.15 (46)
And on account of the passage referring to that which is distinguished by bliss (i.e. Brahman).
Sukha: bliss; Visishta: certified by; Abhidhanat: due to the outline; Eva: alone; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 13 is sustained.
As a result of the textual content refers back to the Supreme Self solely and to not Jiva who’s depressing.
The identical Brahman which is spoken of as characterised by bliss to start with of the chapter within the clauses Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman Kha is Brahman we should suppose It to be referred to within the current passage additionally, as it’s correct to stay to the subject material beneath dialogue.
The fires taught to Upakosala about Brahman Breath is Brahman, bliss is Brahman, the ether is Brahman Chh. Up. IV-10-5. This identical Brahman is additional elucidated by his instructor because the being within the eye.
On listening to the speech of the fires viz., Breath is Brahman, Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman, Upakosala says I perceive that breath is Brahman, however I don’t perceive that Ka or Kha is Brahman. Due to this fact the fires reply What’s Ka is Kha. What’s Kha is Ka.
The phrase Ka in peculiar language denotes sensual pleasure. If the phrase Kha weren’t used to qualify the sense of Ka one would suppose that peculiar worldly pleasure was meant. However as the 2 phrases Ka and Kha happen collectively and qualify one another, they point out Brahman whose Self is Bliss. Due to this fact the reference is to Supreme Bliss and such an outline can apply solely to Brahman.
If the phrase Brahman within the clause Ka is Brahman weren’t added and if the sentence would run Ka, Kha is Brahman, the phrase Ka can be solely an adjective and thus pleasure being a mere high quality can’t be a topic of meditation. To forestall this, each phrases Ka in addition to Kha are joined with the phrase Brahman. Ka is Brahman. Kha is Brahman. Qualities in addition to individuals having these qualities might be objects of meditation.
Srutopanishatkagatyabhidhanaccha I.2.16 (47)
And on account of the assertion of the way in which of him who has identified the Reality of the Upanishads.
Sruto: heard; Upanishatka: Upanishads; Gati: method; Abhidhanat: due to the assertion; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 13 is sustained.
The particular person within the eye is the Supreme Self for the next cause additionally. From Sruti we all know of the way in which of the knower of Brahman. He travels after loss of life by the Devayana path or the trail of the Gods. That method is described in Prasna Up. 1-10. Those that have sought the Self by penance, abstinence, religion and data attain the Solar by the Northern Path or the trail of Devayana. From thence they don’t return. That is the immortal abode, free from concern, and the very best.
The knower of the particular person within the eye additionally goes by this path after loss of life. From this description of the way in which which is understood to be the way in which of him who is aware of Brahman it’s fairly clear that the particular person throughout the eye is Brahman.
The next Sutra exhibits that it isn’t potential for the above textual content to imply both the mirrored Self or the Jiva or the deity within the Solar.
Anavasthiterasamhhavaccha netarah I.2.17 (48)
(The particular person throughout the eye is the Supreme Self) and never some other (i.e. the person soul and many others.) as these don’t exist at all times; and on account of the impossibility (of the qualities of the particular person within the being ascribed to any of those).
Anavasthiteh: not current at all times; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility; Cha: and; Na: not; Itarah: some other.
The argument in help of Sutra 13 is sustained.
The mirrored self doesn’t completely abide within the eye. When some particular person comes close to the attention the reflection of that particular person is seen within the eye. When he strikes away the reflection disappears.
Absolutely you don’t suggest to have some one close to the attention on the time of meditation so that you could be meditate on the picture within the eye. Such a fleeting picture can’t be the article of meditation. The person soul just isn’t meant by the passage, as a result of he’s topic to ignorance, want and motion, he has no perfection. Therefore he can’t be the article of meditation. The qualities like immortality, fearlessness, immanence, eternity, perfection and many others., can’t be appropriately attributed to the mirrored self or the person soul or the deity within the solar. Due to this fact no different self save the Supreme Self is right here spoken of because the particular person within the eye. The particular person within the eye (Akshi Purusha) have to be seen because the Supreme Self solely.
ANTARYAMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 18-20)
THE INTERNAL RULER IS BRAHMAN
Antaryamyadhidaivadishu taddharmavyapadesat I.2.18 (49)
The inner ruler over the gods and so forth (is Brahman) as a result of the attributes of that (Brahman) are talked about.
Antaryami: the ruler inside; Adhidaivadishu: within the gods, and many others.; Tat: His; Dharma: attributes; Vyapadesat: due to the assertion.
A passage from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue. In Bri. Up. III-7-1 we learn He who inside guidelines this world and the opposite world and all beings and afterward He who dwells within the earth and throughout the earth, whom the earth doesn’t know, whose physique the earth is, who guidelines the earth from inside, he’s thy Self, the ruler inside, the immortal and many others., III-7-3.
Right here a doubt arises whether or not the Inside Ruler (Antaryamin) denotes the person soul or some Yogin endowed with extraordinary powers similar to for example, the ability of constructing his physique refined or the presiding deity or Pradhana or Brahman (the Highest Self).
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: Some god presiding over the earth and so forth have to be the Antaryamin. He solely is able to ruling the earth as he’s endowed with the organs of motion. Rulership can rightly be ascribed to him solely. Or else the ruler could also be some Yogin who is ready to enter inside all issues on account of his extraordinary Yogic powers. Actually the supreme Self can’t be meant as He doesnot possess the organs of actions that are wanted for ruling.
We give the next reply. The inner Ruler have to be Brahman or the Supreme Self. Why so? As a result of His qualities are talked about within the passage beneath dialogue. Brahman is the reason for all created issues. The common rulership is an applicable attribute of the Supreme Self solely. Omnipotence, Selfhood, Immortality, and many others., may be ascribed to Brahman solely.
The passage He whom the earth doesn’t know, exhibits that the Inside Ruler just isn’t identified by the earth-deity. Due to this fact it’s apparent that the Inside Ruler is totally different from that deity. The attributes `unseen’, `unheard’, additionally consult with the Supreme Self solely Which is devoid of form and different smart qualities.
He’s additionally described within the part as being all-pervading, as He’s inside and the Ruler inside of every part viz., the earth, the solar, water, fireplace, sky, the ether, the senses, and many others. This additionally may be true solely of the Highest Self or Brahman. For all these causes, the Inside Ruler is not any different however the Supreme Self or Brahman.
Na cha smartamataddharmabhilapat I.2.19 (50)
And (the Inside Ruler is) not that which is taught within the Sankhya Smriti (viz., Pradhana) as a result of qualities opposite to its nature are talked about (right here).
Na: neither; Cha: additionally, and; Smartam: that which is taught in (Sankhya) Smriti; Ataddharmabhilapat: as a result of qualities opposite to its nature are talked about.
An argument in help of Sutra 18 is given.
The phrase Antaryamin (Inside Ruler) can’t relate to Pradhana because it has not acquired Chaitanya (sentiency) and can’t be referred to as Atman.
The Pradhana just isn’t this `Inside Ruler’ because the attributes He’s the immortal, unseen Seer, unheard Hearer and many others., There is no such thing as a different seer however He, there isn’t a different thinker however He, there isn’t a different Knower however He. That is the Self, the Ruler inside, the Immortal. All the pieces else is of evil (Bri. Up. III-7-23), can’t be ascribed to the non-intelligent blind Pradhana.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: Properly then, if the time period `Inside Ruler’ can’t denote the Pradhana as it’s neither a Self nor seer it might definitely denote the person soul or Jiva who’s clever and due to this fact sees, hears, thinks and is aware of, who’s inner and due to this fact of the character of Self. Additional the person soul is able to ruling over the organs, as he’s the enjoyer. Due to this fact the interior ruler is the person soul or Jiva.
The next Sutra provides an acceptable reply to this.
Sariraschobhaye’pi hello bhedenainamadhiyate I.2.20 (51)
And the person soul (just isn’t the Inside Ruler) for each additionally (i.e. each recensions viz., the Kanva and Madhyandina Sakhas of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) converse of it as totally different (from the Inside Ruler.)
Sarirah: the embodied, the person soul; Cha: additionally, and; (Na: not); Ubhaye: the each particularly the recentions Kanva and Madhyandinas; Api: even, additionally; Hello: as a result of; Bhedena: by the use of distinction; Enam: this, the Jiva; Adhiyate: learn, converse of, point out.
The argument in help of Sutra 18 is sustained. The phrase `not’ is to be provided from the previous Sutra.
The followers of each Sakhas converse of their texts of the person soul as totally different from the interior ruler. The Kanvas learn He who dwells in KnowledgeYo vijnane tishthan Bri. Up. III-7-22. Right here `data’ stands for the person soul. The Madhyandinas learn He who dwells within the Selfya atmani tishthan. Right here `Self’ stands for the person soul. In both studying the person soul is spoken of as totally different from the `Inside Ruler’, for the Inside Ruler is the Ruler of the person soul additionally.
The distinction between the Jiva and Brahman is one among Upadhi (limitation). The distinction between the Inside Ruler and the person soul is merely the product of ignorance or Avidya. It has its cause within the limiting adjunct, consisting of the organs of motion, introduced by ignorance. The distinction just isn’t completely true. As a result of the Self inside is one solely; two inner Selfs will not be potential. However on account of limiting adjuncts the one Self is virtually handled as if it had been two, simply as we make a distinction between the ether of the jar and the common ether.
The scriptural textual content the place there may be duality, because it had been, there one sees one other intimates that the world exists solely within the sphere of ignorance, whereas the following textual content However when the Self solely is all this how ought to one see one other declares that the world disappears within the sphere of true data.
ADRISYATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 21-23)
THAT WHICH CANNOT BE SEEN IS BRAHMAN
Adrisyatvadigunako dharmokteh I.2.21 (52)
The possessor of qualities like indivisibility and many others., (is Brahman) on account of the declaration of Its attributes.
Adrisyatva: invisibility; Adi: and the remaining, starting with; Gunakah: one who possesses the standard (Adrisyatvadigunakah: possessor of qualities like invisibility); Dharmokteh: due to the point out of qualities.
Some expressions from the Mundaka Upanishad are actually taken up as the topic for dialogue.
We learn within the Mundaka Upanishad (I-1-5 & 6) The upper data is that this by which the indestructible is understood or realised. That which can’t be seen nor seized, which is with out origin and qualities, with out fingers and ft, the everlasting, all-pervading, omnipresent, infinitesimal, that which is imperishable, that it’s which the clever take into account because the supply of all beings.
Right here the doubt arises whether or not the supply of all beings which is spoken of as characterised by invisibility and many others., is Pradhana, or the person soul, or the Supreme Self or the Highest Lord.
That which right here is spoken of because the supply of all beings (Bhutayoni) characterised by such attributes as invisibility and so forth, may be the Supreme Self or Brahman solely, nothing else, as a result of qualities like He’s all-knowing (Sarvajna), all-perceiving (Sarvavit) Mun. Up. I-1-9 are true solely of Brahman and never of the Pradhana which is non-intelligent. Actually it can’t consult with the Jiva or the embodied soul as he’s narrowed by his limiting situations. The part additionally, by which these passages happen pertains to the Highest Data or Para Vidya. Due to this fact it should consult with Brahman and to not Pradhana or Jiva.
Viseshanabhedavyapadesabhyam cha netarau I.2.22 (53)
The opposite two (viz. the person soul and the Pradhana) will not be (the supply of all beings) for distinctive attributes and variations are acknowledged.
Viseshanabhedavyapadesabhyam: on account of the point out of distinctive attributes and variations; Cha: and; Na: not; Itarau: the opposite two.
An argument in help of Sutra 21 is given.
The supply of all beings is Brahman or the Supreme Self however not both of the 2 others viz., the person soul for the next cause additionally.
We learn within the Mundaka Upanishad II.1, 2 That the heavenly particular person is and not using a physique. He’s each with out and inside, is birthless, with out breath, and with out thoughts, pure, increased than the excessive, Imperishable. The distinctive attributes talked about right here similar to being of a heavenly nature (Divya), `Birthless’, `Pure’, and many others., can on no account belong to the person soul who erroneously regards himself to be restricted by identify and type as introduced by Avidya or ignorance and erroneously considers himself restricted, impure, corporeal, and many others. Due to this fact the passage clearly refers back to the Supreme Self or Brahman who’s the topic of all of the Upanishads.
Greater than the excessive, Imperishable (Pradhana) intimates that the supply of all beings spoken of within the final Sutra just isn’t the Pradhana however one thing totally different from it. Right here the time period imperishable means the Avyaktam or Avyakrita (the unmanifested or the undifferentiated) which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and varieties, incorporates the refined elements of the fabric parts and abides within the Lord. As it’s no impact of something, it’s excessive when in comparison with all results. Mind, thoughts, egoism, the Tanmatras, the organs are all born from it. Aksharat paratah parahHigher than the excessive Imperishable, which expresses a distinction clearly signifies that the Supreme Self or Brahman is supposed right here. Past Pradhana or Avyaktam is Para Brahman. It’s a settled conclusion due to this fact that the supply of all beings should imply the very best Self or Brahman solely.
An extra argument in favour of the identical conclusion is given within the following Sutra.
Rupopanyasaccha I-2-23 (54)
And on account of its type being talked about (the passage beneath dialogue refers to Brahman).
Rupa: type; Upanyasat: due to the point out; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 21 is sustained.
Additional His type is described within the Mundaka Upanishad II-1-4 Hearth is His head, His eyes the solar and the moon, the quarters His ears, His speech the Vedas, the wind His breath, His coronary heart the universe; from His ft got here the earth, He’s certainly the inside Self of all beings.
This assertion of type can refer solely to the Supreme Lord or Brahman. Such an outline is acceptable solely within the case of Brahman, as a result of the Jiva is of restricted energy and since Pradhana (matter) can’t be the Soul or inside Self of residing beings.
Because the supply of all beings varieties the overall matter, the entire passage from From Him is born breath upto He’s the inside Self of all beings refers to that very same supply.
The Individual certainly is all this, sacrifice, data and many others. Mun. Up. II-1-10, intimates that the supply of all beings referred to within the passage beneath dialogue is none aside from the Supreme Self or Brahman, for He’s the inside Self of all beings.
VAISVANARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 24-32)
VAISVANARA IS BRAHMAN
Vaisvanarah sadharanasabdaviseshat I.2.24 (55)
Vaisvanara (is Brahman) on account of the excellence qualifying the frequent phrases (Vaisvanara and Self).
Vaisvanarah: Vaisvanara; Sadharana sabda: frequent phrase; Viseshat: due to the excellence.
This Sutra proves that the phrase Vaisvanara utilized in Sruti for worship signifies Brahman.
We learn in Chh. Up. V.18.1-2 He who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self, extending from heaven to earth as similar together with his personal Self, eats meals in all beings, in all selfs. Of that Vaisvanara Self Sutejas (heaven) is the top, the solar the attention, the ft the earth, the mouth the Ahavaniya fireplace.
Right here the doubt arises whether or not by the time period Vaisvanara we’ve got to grasp the gastric fireplace or the fundamental fireplace, or the god presiding over the fundamental fireplace, or the person soul or the Supreme Self (Brahman).
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says that Vaisvanara is the gastric fireplace as a result of it’s stated in Bri. Up. V-9 Agni Vaisvanara is the fireplace inside man by which the meals that’s eaten is digested. Or it might denote fireplace generally or the deity which presides over the fundamental fireplace or the person soul who being an enjoyer is in shut neighborhood to Vaisvanara fireplace.
The Siddhantin says right here that the Supreme Self or Brahman solely is referred to on account of the qualifying adjuncts to those phrases. The adjuncts are Heaven is the top of this Vaisvanara Self, the Solar its eyes, and many others. That is potential solely within the case of the Supreme Self.
Additional within the passage He eats meals in all worlds, in all beings, in all selfs. That is potential provided that we take the time period Vaisvanara to indicate the Highest Self.
The fruit of meditation on this Vaisvanara Self is the attainment of all wishes and destruction of all sins (Chh. Up. V.24.3). This may solely be true if the Supreme Self is supposed. Furthermore the chapter begins with the enquiry What’s our Self? What’s Brahman? The phrases `Self’ and `Brahman’ are marks of Brahman and point out the Supreme Self solely. The phrase `Brahman’ is utilized in its major sense. Due to this fact it’s correct to suppose that the entire chapter treats of Brahman solely. Furthermore, etymologically additionally the phrase Vaisvanara means Brahman; as a result of it’s composed of two phrases Visva that means all and Nara that means `males’ particularly He who incorporates all males inside himself. Such a being is Brahman solely.
It’s a settled conclusion, due to this fact, that solely Brahman may be meant by the time period Vaisvanara.
Smaryamanamanumanam syaditi I.2.25 (56)
As a result of that (cosmic type of the Supreme Lord) which is described within the Smriti is an indicatory mark or inference (from which we infer the that means of this Sruti textual content beneath dialogue).
Smaryamanam: talked about within the Smriti; Anumanam: indicatory mark, inference; Syat: could also be; Iti: as a result of thus.
An argument in help of Sutra 24 is given. The phrase `Iti’ denotes a cause. It factors to a corroborative assertion which expresses the identical factor because the Sruti. The Smritis interpret the passages of the Sruti. Due to this fact the place a doubt arises as to the importance of a passage within the Sruti, the Smriti could also be consulted as a way to get extra mild on the subject material. The Smriti provides an outline of the cosmic type of the Highest Lord as He whose mouth is fireplace, whose head is heaven, whose navel the ether, whose eyes the solar, whose ears the areas, reverence to Him, whose physique is the world. That is in settlement with the outline within the textual content beneath dialogue. The identical Lord who’s spoken of within the Sruti is described within the Smriti additionally.
Within the Bhagavad Gita XV-14 the phrase Vaisvanara is expressly utilized to the LordI having grow to be the fireplace of life, take possession of the our bodies of respiration beings and united with the life-breaths, I digest the 4 sorts of meals. Right here a reality in regards to the Lord is said in a Smriti passage and from it we could infer that the Vaisvanara Vidya taught within the Chhandogya Upanishad additionally refers to this thriller of the Lord. Therefore Vaisvanara is the Highest Lord. Due to this fact it’s a settled conclusion that the Supreme Lord is referred to within the textual content.
Within the following Sutra the writer removes the doubt that the Vaisvanara could denote the gastric fireplace.
Sabdadibhyo’ntahpratisthanaccha neti chet na tatha
drishtyupadesat asambhavat purushamapi
chainamadhiyate I.2.26 (57)
If it’s stated that (Vaisvanara is) not (Brahman) or the Highest Lord on account of the time period (viz., Vaisvanara which has a distinct settled that means viz., gastric fireplace) and many others., and on account of his abiding inside (which is a attribute of the gastric fireplace) (we are saying) no, as a result of there may be the instruction to conceive (Brahman) as such (because the gastric fireplace, as a result of it’s unimaginable for the gastric fireplace to have the heaven and many others., for its head and different limbs) and in addition as a result of they (the Vajasaneyins) describe him (viz. the Vaisvanara) as man (which time period can’t apply to the gastric fireplace).
Sabdadibhyah: on account of the phrase; Antah: inside; Pratishthanat: due to abiding; Cha: and; Na: not; Iti chet: if it’s stated; Na: not so; Tatha: thus, as such; Drishtyupadesat: on account of the directions to conceive it; Asambhavat: due to impossibility; Purusham: as particular person; Api: additionally; Cha: and; Evam: him; Adhyate: (they) describe.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is sustained.
The Purvapakshin raises the next objection. The peculiar that means of Vaisvanara is fireplace. Furthermore scripture speaks of the Vaisvanara as abiding inside. He is aware of him abiding inside man Sat. Br. 10-6-1-11 which applies to the gastric fireplace solely. Due to this fact the gastric fireplace alone and never Brahman is referred to within the textual content beneath dialogue.
This Sutra refutes this objection. The Siddhantin provides the next reply. The Sruti right here teaches the worship of Brahman within the gastric fireplace by the use of meditation (Upasana) analogously to such passages as Let a person meditate on the thoughts as Brahman Chh. Up. III-18-1.
Furthermore the gastric fireplace can’t have heaven for its head, and so forth. Additional the Vajasaneyins take into account Vaisvanara as a person (Purusha). This Agni Vaisvanara is a person Sat. Br. 10.6.1-11.
Due to this fact Vaisvanara right here refers to Brahman solely. Within the following Sutra the writer units apart the view that Vaisvanara of this passage means the Devata referred to as Agni or the fundamental fireplace.
Ata eva na devata bhutam cha I.2.27 (58)
For a similar causes (the Vaisvanara) can’t be the deity (fireplace) or the ingredient (fireplace).
Ata eva: for a similar causes; Na: (is) not; Devata: the presiding deity of fireside; Bhutam: the ingredient of fireside; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is sustained.
The Purvapakshin says: the presiding deity of fireside is a mighty being. He’s endowed with nice lordliness and energy. Due to this fact heaven, and many others., could very appropriately be its head and different members. Due to this fact the passage could very nicely apply to him.
For a similar causes acknowledged in Sutra 26 Vaisvanara is neither the divinity of fireside nor the ingredient of fireside. The fundamental fireplace is mere warmth and lightweight. The heaven and so forth can’t correctly be ascribed as its head and so forth, as a result of an impact can’t be the Self of one other impact. Once more the heavenly world can’t be ascribed as head, and many others., to the god of fireside, as a result of it isn’t the Supreme Trigger however a mere impact and its energy or glory is determined by the Supreme Lord. To them the phrase Atman couldn’t appropriately be relevant in any respect.
Sakshadapyavirodham Jaiminih I.2.28 (59)
Jaimini (declares that there’s) no contradiction even (if by Vaisvanara) (Brahman is) instantly (taken as the article of worship).
Sakshat: instantly; Api: additionally, even; Avirodham: no objection, no contradiction; Jaiminih: (so says) Jaimini.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is sustained.
Jaimini says that it isn’t essential to state that what is supposed by Vaisvanara is fireplace as a logo of God and that the view that it means Brahman instantly and in a major sense is kind of constant and applicable. The very phrase `Vaisvanara’ means the totality of life and applies to Brahman as he’s the Soul of all (Sarvatmatvat).
This Sutra declares that `Vaisvanara’ may be taken on to imply Brahman as an object of meditation, as a result of Vaisvanara additionally means the common man i.e., the all-pervading Brahman Himself. Because the phrase Vaisvanara actually means He to whom belong all males or who’s the chief (Nara) of all (Visva) so the phrase Vaisvanara denotes etymologically the Supreme Brahman.
Abhivyakterityasmarathyah I.2.29 (60)
On account of the manifestation, so says Aasmarathya.
Abhivyakteh: due to manifestation; Iti: thus, so; Aasmarathyah: (says) Asmarathya.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is sustained.
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad beneath dialogue Vaisvanara is described as having the scale of a span. How can the Infinite Brahman be restricted by the measure of a Pradesa or a span? To this objection the writer provides his reply within the following Sutra.
The sage Aasmarathya says that for the good thing about the worshipper the Infinite Brahman manifests Himself within the finite individually being localised in restricted locations such because the physique or the guts of the human being. Due to this fact there isn’t a incongruity in utilizing the phrase Vaisvanara (even standing for the gastric fireplace) to suggest Brahman. Although Brahman is all-pervading, but He specifically manifests Himself as extending from heaven to earth or within the coronary heart for the sake of His devotees.
Asmarathya says that the Infinite is realised by His grace within the restricted house of psychological picture within the thoughts or a bodily picture with out. The devotees who meditate on Brahman of their coronary heart as having the scale of a span, see Him of that dimension, as a result of He manifests Himself to them in that type.
That is the opinion of Aasmarathya.
Therefore, in line with the opinion of the instructor Aasmarathya the scriptural textual content which speaks of Him who’s measured by a span could consult with the Supreme Self or the Highest Lord.
Anusmriterbadarih I.2.30 (61)
For the sake of meditation or fixed remembranceso says the sage Badari.
Anusmriteh: for the sake of meditation or fixed remembrance; Baadarih: (so says) the sage Baadari.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is sustained.
The sage Baadari is of opinion that this measure of a span is a psychological system to facilitate meditation.
He says that the scale of the thumb refers to a psychological picture and to not the precise dimension.
The Supreme Lord could also be referred to as `measured by a span’ as a result of He’s remembered or meditated, by the use of the thoughts, which is seated within the coronary heart which is measured by a span. The scale of the guts is that of a span. As Brahman is meditated as abiding within the lotus of the guts, the aspirant involuntarily associates him with the scale of a span. This psychological affiliation or Anusmriti is the trigger why Brahman known as Pradesamatra, the measure of a span.
Due to this fact Vaisvanara could nicely stand for Brahman.
Sampatteriti jaiministatha hello darsayati I.2.31 (62)
Due to imaginary id the Supreme Lord could also be referred to as Pradesamatra (span lengthy). So says Jaimini as a result of so (the Sruti) declares.
Sampatteh: due to imaginary id; Iti: thus, so; Jaimini: (says) Jaimini; Tatha: on this method; Hello: as a result of; Darsayati: (the Sruti) declares.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is sustained.
Jaimini says that the outline refers to a state of realisation of type between the crown of the top and the chin in your physique. The cosmic being is worshipped by the identification of various elements of His with the totally different elements of the worshipper’s physique from the highest of head to the chin. The pinnacle of the meditator or worshipper is heaven, the eyes the solar and the moon, and so forth. On this meditation the cosmic being is restricted to the scale of a span, the space from the crown of the top to the chin. Therefore Jaimini says that the Highest Lord within the passage beneath dialogue is taken into account as of the scale of a span.
The Sruti additionally declares The instructor stated, pointing to his personal head. `That is the Highest Vaisvanara’ i.e. the top of the VaisvanaraVajasaneyi Brahmana.
Amananti chainamasmin I.2.32 (63)
Furthermore they (the Jabalas) educate that this (Supreme Lord is to be meditated upon) on this (the house between the top and the chin).
Amananti: (they) converse, educate, recite, declare; Cha: furthermore, additionally, and; Enam: this; Asmin: on this.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is concluded.
Furthermore the Jabalas converse of their textual content of the Supreme Lord within the intermediate house between the highest of the top and the chin.
Jabala Sruti additionally says so. It says that He’s to be realised Avimukta (full liberation) between Varana (sin preventor) and Nasi (sin destroyer).
Jabala Upanishad says What’s the place? The place the place the eye-brows and the nostril be a part of. That’s the becoming a member of place of the heavenly world represented by the higher a part of the top and of the opposite i.e. the earthly world represented by the chin.
Sutras 27 to 32 declare that the reference to the Supreme Lord by the time period Pradesamatra as extending from heaven to the earth or as measured by a span is kind of applicable.
By all this it’s proved that Vaisvanara is the Supreme Lord.
See Jabala Upanishad-1.
Introduction
Within the final Part texts of uncertain import had been interpreted to consult with Brahman. Another expressions prescribed for divine contemplation in several Srutis, not already mentioned in Part 2 are actually taken up for dialogue to show that all of them point out the identical Infinite Brahman.
Within the First Part of the First Chapter the writer (Sutrakara) took up the phrases which referred to the manifested world similar to Akasa (ether), Prana (vitality), Jyoti (mild) and confirmed that they actually consult with Brahman. Within the Second Part the writer took up the phrases which referred to the human physique and confirmed that they consult with Brahman. The Part referred to the Saguna facet of Brahman. The Third Part refers back to the Nirguna facet of Brahman. Right here the topic of debate is to Para Brahman or the Supreme Nirguna Brahman.
Synopsis
Another passages prescribed for meditation in several Srutis, not already mentioned in Part-2 are actually taken up for dialogue to show that all of them point out the identical Infinite, Satchidananda, all-pervading, everlasting, Immortal Brahman.
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-7) proves that that inside which the heaven, the earth and many others., are woven (Mun. Up. II-2-5) is Brahman.
Adhikarana II: (Sutras 8-9) exhibits that the Bhuma referred to in Chh. Up. VII-23 is Brahman.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 10-12) teaches that the Akshara (the Imperishable one) of Bri. Up. III-8-8 by which the ether is woven is Brahman.
Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 13) decides that the Highest One that is to be meditated upon with the syllable OM in line with Prasna Up. V-5 just isn’t the decrease however the increased Brahman.
Adhikarana V: (Sutras 14-21) exhibits that the small ether (Daharakasa) throughout the lotus of the guts talked about in Chh. Up. VIII-1 is Brahman.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 22-23) proves that he after whom every part shines, by whose mild all that is lightedKatha Up. II-2-15is not some materials luminous physique, however Brahman itself.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 24-25) decides that the particular person of the scale of a thumb talked about in Katha Up. II-1-12 just isn’t the person soul however Brahman.
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 26-33) The following two Adhikaranas are of the character of a digression. They increase a facet difficulty and resolve that deities are equally entitled to practise Brahma Vidya as prescribed within the Vedas. Sutras 29 and 30 set up the conclusion that the Vedas are everlasting.
Adhikarana IX: (Sutras 34-38) explains that Sudras are altogether not entitled for Brahma Vidya.
Adhikarana X: (Sutra 39) proves that the Prana by which every part trembles in line with Katha Up. II-3-2 is Brahman.
Adhikarana XI: (Sutra 40) proves that the `mild’ (Jyoti) talked about in Chh. Up. VIII-12-3 is the Highest Brahman.
Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 41) decides that the ether which reveals names and varieties (Chh. Up. VIII-14) just isn’t the fundamental ether however Brahman.
Adhikarana XIII: (Sutras 42-43) teaches that the Vijnanamayahe who consists of information of Bri. Up. IV-3-7 just isn’t the person soul however Brahman.
DYUBHVADYADHIKARANAM : TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-7)
THE ABODE OF HEAVEN, EARTH ETC. IS BRAHMAN
Dyubhvadyayatanam svasabdat I.3.1 (64)
The abode of heaven, earth, and many others., (is Brahman) on account of the time period, `personal’ i.e., `Self’.
Dyu: heaven; Bhu: earth; Adi: and the remaining; Ayatanam: abode; Sva: personal; Sabdat: from the phrase (Sva sabdat: on account of the phrase `Self’).
An expression from the Mundaka Upanishad is taken up for dialogue.
Para Brahman is the idea or resting place of heaven, earth and many others., because the time period Atman indicative of Him is discovered within the passage. We learn in Mundaka Upanishad II-2-5 He in whom the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, as additionally the thoughts with all of the senses, know Him alone because the Self, and depart off different speak! He’s the bridge of immortality.
Right here the doubt arises whether or not the abode is the Supreme Brahman or one thing else.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds that the abode is one thing else on account of the expression He’s the bridge of immortality. He says: it’s identified from every day expertise {that a} bridge takes one to some additional financial institution. It’s unimaginable to imagine one thing past the Supreme Brahman, as a result of the Srutis declare, Brahman is infinite and not using a shore Bri. Up. II-4-12. Because the Pradhana is the overall trigger, it might be referred to as the overall abode. Or the Sutratman could be the abode. The Srutis say Air is that thread, O Gautama! By air as by a thread O Gautama! this world and the opposite world and all beings are strung collectively Bri. Up. III-7-2. So the air helps all issues. Or else the Jiva could be the abode with regards to the objects of enjoyment as he’s the enjoyer.
He who’s spoken of because the abode, in whom the earth, heaven and many others., are woven is Brahman solely, on account of the time period `Personal’ or `Self’ which is acceptable provided that Brahman is referred to within the textual content and never Pradhana or Sutratman. (We meet with the phrase `Self’ within the passageKnow him alone because the Self).
Brahman is spoken of within the Sruti as the overall abode by its personal phrases i.e. by phrases correctly designating Brahman as, for example, All these creatures, my expensive, have their root within the being, their abode within the being, their relaxation within the being (Chh. Up. VI-8-4).
Within the texts previous and following this one, i.e. in Mun. Up. II-1-10 and II-2-11 Brahman is spoken of. Due to this fact it is just correct to deduce that Brahman solely is referred to within the intervening texts which is beneath dialogue. Within the texts cited above point out is fabricated from an abode and that which abides. In Mundaka Upanishad II-2-11 we learn: Brahman certainly is all this. From this a doubt could come up that Brahman is of a manifold variegated nature, simply as within the case of a tree consisting of leaves, branches, stem, root and many others. ln order to take away this doubt the textual content declares within the passage beneath dialogue Know Him alone because the Self i.e. know the Self alone and never that which is merely a product of Avidya (ignorance) and is fake or illusory. One other scriptural textual content reproves the person who thinks that this world is actual. From loss of life to loss of life goes he who beholds any distinction right here (Katha Up. II-4-11).
The assertion All is Brahman goals at dissolving the flawed conception of the truth of the world. It doesn’t intimate that Brahman is of manifold, variegated nature. The homogeneous nature of Brahman is clearly acknowledged within the Srutis. As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outdoors, however is altogether a mass of style, thus certainly has that Self (Brahman) neither inside nor outdoors, however is altogether a mass of information (Bri. Up. IV-5-13). For all these causes the abode of heaven, earth and many others., is the Supreme Brahman.
The phrase Setu (bridge) within the phrases `Amritasyaisa Setuh’ (He’s the bridge of immortality) merely refers to His being the idea of each created object and the technique of immortality. The phrase `bridge’ is supposed to intimate solely that which known as a bridge that helps, not that it has an extra financial institution. You shouldn’t suppose that the bridge meant is like an peculiar bridge fabricated from wooden or stone. As a result of the phrase `Setu’ is derived from the foundation `Si’ which suggests to bind. The phrase conveys the thought of holding collectively or supporting.
Muktopasripyavyapadesat I.3.2 (65)
Due to the declaration (within the scriptures) that that’s to be attained by the liberated.
Mukta upasripya: to be attained by the liberated; Vyapadesat: due to declaration.
An argument in help of Sutra I is given.
The above phrase Dyubhvadyayatanam refers to Para Brahman, additionally as a result of He’s described as attained by the emancipated soul.
An extra cause is given to intimate that Brahman is supposed within the passage beneath dialogue. Brahman is the purpose of the emancipated. That Brahman is that which is to be resorted to by the liberated is understood from different scriptural passages similar to The fetter of the guts is damaged, all doubts are solved, all his works perish when He who’s the upper and the decrease has been beheld Mun. Up. II-2-8. The clever man free of identify and type goes to the divine One that is bigger than the good (Mun. Up. III.2-8). When all wishes which as soon as entered his coronary heart are destroyed then does the mortal grow to be immortal, then he obtains Brahman (Bri. Up. IV-4-7).
Nowhere you’ll find that the Pradhana and comparable entities are to be resorted to by the emancipated.
We learn within the Bri. Up. IV-4-21, Let a clever Brahmana after he has found Him, practise knowledge. Let him not search after many phrases, as a result of that’s mere weariness of the tongue. For that reason additionally the abode of heaven, earth, and many others., is the Supreme Brahman.
Nanumanamatacchabdat I.3.3 (66)
(The abode of heaven and many others.) just isn’t that which is inferred i.e. Pradhana as a result of there isn’t a time period indicating it.
Na: not; Anumanam: that which is inferred i.e. Pradhana; Atad sabdat: as a result of there isn’t a phrase denoting it.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
The abode referred to in Sutra 1 doesn’t point out Pradhana as a result of there isn’t a such expression within the stated Mundaka Upanishad as may be construed to point Pradhana or matter. Quite the opposite such phrases as He who is aware of all (Sarvajna) understands all (Sarvavit) (Mun. Up. I-1-9) intimate an clever being against Pradhana in nature. For a similar cause the air (Sutratman) can’t be accepted because the abode of heaven, earth and many others.
Pranabhriccha I.3.4 (67)
(Nor) additionally the person soul.
Pranabhrit: the residing or particular person soul, supporter of Prana, i.e., Jiva; Cha: additionally; (Na: not).
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
The phrase `not’ is known right here from the previous Sutra.
Though the person soul is an clever being and might due to this fact be denoted by the phrase `Self’ but omniscience and comparable qualities don’t belong to him, as his data is restricted by the adjuncts. He can’t grow to be the resting place or abode of your entire world as he’s restricted and due to this fact not omnipresent.
The person soul can’t be accepted because the abode of heaven, earth and many others., for the next cause additionally.
Bhedavyapadesat I .3.5 (68)
(Additionally) on account of the declaration of distinction (between) particular person soul and the abode of heaven and many others.
Bhedavyapadesat: on account of distinction being talked about.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
Within the textual content beneath dialogue viz., Know him alone because the Self (Atman) (Mun. Up. II-2-5), there’s a declaration of distinction. The person soul who’s desirous of emancipation is the Knower and abode of heaven is the factor to be identified. Brahman which is denoted by the phrase `Self’ and represented as the article of information is known to be the abode of heaven, earth and so forth.
For the next cause additionally the person soul can’t be accepted because the abode of heaven, earth and many others.
Prakaranat I .3.6 (69)
On account of the subject material.
Prakaranat: On account of the subject material, from the context.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
The Supreme Brahman is the subject material of your entire chapter. You may perceive this from the passage Sir, what’s that by which when it’s identified, every part else turns into identified? Mun. Up. I-1-3. Right here the data of every part is claimed to be depending on the data of 1 factor. As a result of all this i.e. the entire universe turns into identified if Brahman the Self of all is understood, however not if solely the person soul is understood.
The Mundaka Upanishad begins with `what’s that by which’ and concludes by saying The knower of the Brahman turns into Brahman III-2-9. This clearly intimates that the subject material of the entire Upanishad from the start to the tip is Brahman solely. Therefore it’s the identical Brahman which is spoken of because the resting place of heaven, earth and so forth.
One more reason in opposition to the person soul is given within the following Sutra.
Sthityadanabhyam cha I. 3.7 (70)
And on account of the 2 situations of remaining unattached and consuming (of which the previous is attribute of the Supreme Self, the latter of the person soul).
Sthiti: abiding, existence; Adanabhyam: consuming; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is concluded.
We learn in Mundakopanisad III-1-1. Two birds, inseparable associates cling to the identical tree. Considered one of them eats the candy fruit, the opposite appears on (stays as a witness). The passage refers to Brahman as Self-poised bliss and to the person soul as consuming the candy and bitter fruits of actions. Right here Brahman is described because the silent witness. The passage describes the situation of mere inactive presence of Brahman. The person soul eats the fruits of his works viz. pleasure and ache and due to this fact he’s totally different from Brahman. The 2 states viz. mere presence and the enjoyment point out that Brahman and the person soul are referred to. This description which distinguishes the 2 may be apt provided that the abode of heaven and many others. is Brahman. In any other case there can be no continuity of matter.
It can’t be stated that the passage merely describes the character of the person soul, as a result of it’s nowhere the aim of the scripture to explain the person soul. The person soul is understood to everybody as agent and enjoyer. Bizarre expertise tells us nothing of Brahman. Brahman is the particular matter of all scriptural texts. The aim of the scriptures is at all times to explain and set up Brahman which isn’t well-known.
BHUMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC (SUTRAS 8-9)
BHUMA IS BRAHMAN
Bhuma samprasadadadhyupadesat I.3.8 (71)
Bhuma (is Brahman) as a result of it’s taught after the state of deep sleep (i.e. after Prana or the very important air which stays awake even in that state).
Bhuma: the huge, the Infinite, the total; Samprasadat adhi: past the state of deep sleep (right here the very important precept or Prana); Upadesat: due to the educating.
The time period `Bhuma’ doesn’t denote numerical largeness however pervasion within the form of fulness. Samprasada means the undisturbed place or bliss therefore the state of deep sleep, when that bliss is loved. `Adhi’ means above, past.
Bhuma denotes Brahman, as a result of it’s described in Sruti to be above Prana, which is right here represented by the bliss loved throughout deep sleep. Bhuma refers to Brahman because the passage teaches an entity increased than Samprasada i.e. Prana or very important air which is awake and lively even in deep sleep.
An expression from the Chhandogya Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue. Within the seventh chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad Sanatkumara provides directions to Narada. He begins with `identify’ and takes the scholar step-by-step. He goes increased and better and in the end teaches the very best reality which is Bhuma or the Infinite. Sanatkumara says to Narada Bhuma is Bliss. It’s best to want to grasp the place one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that’s Bhuma. VIII-22-24.
Right here the doubt arises whether or not Bhuma is the very important air or Brahman (the Supreme Self).
The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the very important air is Bhuma. He says: Narada approaches Sanatkumara for initiation into the mysteries of Atman. We meet with a sequence of questions and solutions similar to Is there something larger than a reputation? Speech is bigger than identify. Is there something larger than speech? Thoughts is bigger than speech which extends from identify as much as very important air. Then Narada doesn’t ask whether or not there may be any increased reality. However nonetheless Sanatkumara provides an exposition on Bhuma. This intimates that Bhuma just isn’t totally different from the very important air taught already.
Additional he calls the knower of the very important air an Ativadin i.e., one who makes an announcement surpassing previous statements. This clearly exhibits that the very important air is the very best Reality.
This Sutra refutes the argument and says that Bhuma is Brahman. Sanatkumara distinctly says to NaradaBut verily he’s an Ativadin who declares the very best Being to be the True (Satya) Chh. Up. VII-16-1. This clearly signifies that it refers to one thing increased than Prana or the very important air. One can grow to be really an Ativadin by realizing this Supreme Reality solely.
Although Narada doesn’t ask Sanatkumara Is there something larger than the very important air?, a brand new matter about Brahman (Bhuma) which is the Supreme Reality is begun. Narada stated to Sanatkumara Sir, could I grow to be an Ativadin by the Reality. Sanatkumara leads Narada step-by-step, stage by stage to the data of Brahman or Bhuma and instructs him that this Bhuma is Brahman.
Narada at first listens to the instruction given by Sanatkumara on numerous issues, the final of which is Prana after which turns into silent. Thereupon the clever Sanatkumara explains to him spontaneously with out being requested that he solely is an Ativadin who has data of the Highest Reality, and that the data of significant air which is an unreal product is destitute of substance. By the time period The True is supposed the Supreme Brahman, as a result of Brahman is the one Actuality. Sanatkumara thereupon leads Narada by a sequence of steps starting with understanding as much as the data of Bhuma. We, due to this fact, conclude that the Bhuma is the Supreme Brahman, and that it’s totally different from Prana or the very important air.
If Prana or the very important air had been the Bhuma then Sanatkumara wouldn’t have continued his directions. He would have stopped his directions after saying Prana is bigger than hope (VII-15-1). However he provides a transparent description of the character of Bhuma in Sections 23, 24, 25 of the identical chapter. Due to this fact Bhuma alone is Brahman or the Highest Reality.
Selfhood doesn’t belong to Prana. Furthermore one can free himself from grief solely by data of the Supreme Brahman. Brahman solely is All Full. Bhuma means additionally fulness. The standard of the Bhuma agrees greatest with the Supreme Brahman which is the trigger, supply, help and substratum for every part. Bhuma is taught because the final of the sequence. It’s Infinite Bliss. Due to this fact it’s the highest of all.
The meditation on Prana is increased than meditation on Title as much as hope. Due to this fact he who thus meditates on Prana known as an Ativadin. He’s an Ativadin in contrast with these beneath him. However the meditation on the Supreme Brahman is superior even to that on Prana. Therefore he who meditates on Brahman or the Bhuma is the true Ativadin.
Narada thought that the instruction in regards to the Atman is now accomplished. Due to this fact he didn’t ask any additional query. Sanatkumara knew that the data of Prana just isn’t the very best data. Due to this fact he spontaneously continues his educating to Narada and tells him that the data of Brahman or the Bhuma is the very best data. The Srutis say that Prana springs from Brahman. Due to this fact Prana is inferior to Brahman. Brahman alone is the Bhuma of the passage of the Chhandogya Upanishad beneath dialogue.
Dharmopapattescha I.3.9 (72)
And since the attributes (declared within the scriptural passage to Bhuma) apply appropriately solely to Para Brahman.
Dharma: qualities, attributes; Upapatteh: due to the suitability; Cha: and.
An argument in help of Sutra 8 is given.
The attributes which the scripture attributes to the Bhuma agree nicely with Brahman. Within the Bhuman the peculiar actions of seeing and many others. are absent. The Sruti declares the place one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that’s the Bhuma. We all know from one other textual content that that is the attribute of the Supreme Self. However when the Atman solely is all this, how may he see one other? Bri. Up. IV-5-15.
The qualities of being the True, resting by itself greatness, non-duality, bliss, Infiniteness, the self of every part, Omnipresence, Immortality and many others., talked about within the textual content beneath dialogue can belong to the Supreme solely, to not Prana which is an impact and as such can’t possess any of those attributes.
By all this it’s proved that the Bhuma is the Supreme Self or Brahman.
AKSHARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 10-12)
AKSHARA IS BRAHMAN
Aksharamambarantadhriteh I.3.10 (73)
The Imperishable (is Brahman) on account of (its) supporting every part as much as Akasa (ether).
Aksharam: the Imperishable; Ambaranta dhriteh: as a result of it helps all as much as Akasa.
An expression from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue. We learn in Bri. Up. III-8-7, In what then is the ether woven like warp and woof? Gargi put this query to sage Yajnavalkya. He replied: O Gargi, the Brahmanas name this Akshara (the Imperishable). It’s neither coarse nor effective, neither quick nor lengthy and many others. Bri. Up. III-8-8. Right here the doubt arises whether or not the phrase `Akshara’ means syllable `OM’ or Brahman. The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that `Akshara’ etymologically means a syllable and due to this fact usually represents the syllable OM, which can also be an object of meditation. We have now no proper to ignore the settled that means of a phrase.
This Sutra refutes the above view and says that `Akshara right here stands for Brahman solely’. Why? As a result of the Akshara is claimed to help every part from earth as much as ether. The textual content says In that Akshara, Gargi! is the ether woven like warp and woof Bri. UP. III-8-11. Now the attribute of supporting every part as much as ether can’t be ascribed to any being however Brahman.
Furthermore It’s neither coarse nor effective, neither quick nor lengthy and many others., signifies that relative qualities are absent in it. Due to this fact the `Akshara’ is Brahman. The objector says: However even Pradhana helps every part as much as ether, as a result of it’s the reason for all of the modified objects within the universe and so the Akshara or the Imperishable could also be Pradhana. To this doubt the next Sutra provides a solution.
Sa cha prasasanat I.3.11 (74)
This (supporting) on account of the command (attributed to the Imperishable, may be the work of the Supreme Self solely and never of the Pradhana).
Sa: this (the standard of supporting every part as much as ether); Cha: and, additionally; Prasasanat: due to the command.
An argument in help of Sutra 10 is given.
The supporting of all issues as much as ether is the work of the Highest Self solely. Why? On account of the command. The textual content speaks of a command By the command of that Akshara O Gargi! the solar and the moon stand aside Bri. Up. III-8-9.
This command or rulership may be the work of the very best Lord solely, not of the non-intelligent Pradhana. As a result of non-intelligent causes similar to clay and the like can’t command their results similar to jars and the like. Due to this fact the Pradhana can’t be the `Akshara’ which helps every part as much as Akasa or ether.
Anyabhavavyavrittescha I.3.12 (75)
And on account of (the Sruti) separating (the Akshara) from that nature is totally different (from Brahman).
Anya: one other; Bhava: nature; Vyavritteh: on account of the exclusion.
The argument in help of Sutra 10 is concluded.
The Imperishable (Akshara) just isn’t Pradhana or Jiva, as a result of in the identical textual content we discover description of attributes which might exclude one other nature than Brahman. In a supplementary passage in the identical Upanishad we discover description of this Akshara which excludes Pradhana and Jiva, as a result of they don’t possess that nature.
The qualities referred to within the textual content particularly, seeing, listening to, considering, realizing and many others., That Akshara, O Gargi! is unseen however seeing, unheard however listening to, unperceived however perceiving, unknown however realizing. There is no such thing as a different seer however He, no different hearer however He, no different thinker however He, no different knower however He. In that Imperishable O Gargi! the ether is woven warp and woof (Bri. Up. III-8-11), level to an clever being and due to this fact negate the Pradhana which is non-intelligent.
The phrase `Akshara’ can’t denote the person soul as he isn’t free from limiting adjuncts, from which Akshara is free. The Srutis say Akshara is with out eyes, with out ears, with out speech, with out thoughts and many others. (Bri. Up. III-8-8).
Due to this fact it’s a settled conclusion that the Akshara or the imperishable is the Supreme Brahman solely.
IKSHATIKARMAVYAPADESADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4
THE HIGHEST PERSON TO BE MEDITATED UPON IS THE HIGHEST BRAHMAN
Ikshatikarmavyapadesat sah I.3.13 (76)
Due to His being talked about as the article of sight, He (who’s to be meditated upon is Brahman).
Ikshati: seeing, realising; Karma: object; Vyapadesat: due to his being talked about; Sah: he.
An expression from the Prasnopanishad is taken up now for dialogue.
The Highest Brahman is described as He’s acknowledged to be the article of Ikshana (realisation by imaginative and prescient). The reference is clearly to the Supreme Self as the article of Ikshana.
We learn in Prasna Upanishad V-2 O Satyakama, the syllable OM is the very best and in addition the opposite Brahman; due to this fact he who is aware of it arrives by the identical means at one of many two. The textual content then goes on Once more he who meditates with the syllable Om of three Matras (A-U-M) on the Highest Individual Prasna Up. V-5. A doubt arises whether or not the article of meditation is the Highest Brahman or the decrease Brahman, as a result of in V-2 each are talked about, and in addition as a result of Brahmaloka is described because the fruit by the worship of this Highest Individual.
The Sutra says: What’s right here taught as the article of meditation is the Highest Brahman and never Hiranyagarbha (the decrease Brahman). Why? On account of its being spoken of as the article of sightHe sees the Highest Individual. This intimates that he truly realises or will get himself recognized with the Highest Individual. Hiranyagarbha is also unreal from the very best or transcendental view level. He’s throughout the realm of Maya. He’s related to Maya. Due to this fact the Highest Individual means the Highest Brahman solely which is the one Actuality. This very Brahman is taught at first of the passage as the article of meditation.
The Sruti declares that the discharge from evil is the fruit of meditation As a snake is free of its pores and skin, so is he free of evil. This clearly signifies that the Supreme constitutes the article of meditation.
The attainment of Brahmaloka by the worshipper shouldn’t be thought of as an inappropriate or insignificant fruit of the worship of the Highest Individual, as a result of it’s a step in gradual liberation or emancipation by levels (Krama Mukti). He who meditates on the Supreme Self by the use of the syllable OM as consisting of the Matras, obtains for his first reward Brahmaloka and after that Kaivalya Moksha or oneness with Supreme Brahman.
In Prasna Upanishad we learn He arrives at this by the use of the Omkara; the clever arrives at that which is at relaxation, free from decay, from loss of life, from concern, the Highest. Free from decay, free from loss of life, free from concern, the Highest can apply solely to the Supreme Brahman and to not the decrease Brahman.
The phrase Brahmaloka doesn’t imply the Loka of Brahman however the Loka or situation which is Brahman Himself, simply as we clarify the compound phrase Nishadasthapati, not because the head-man of the Nishadas however a headman who on the identical time is a Nishada. It’s a Karmadharaya compound which doesn’t imply the world of Brahman, however that world which is Brahman.
DAHARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 14-21)
THE DAHARA OR THE `SMALL AKASA’ IS BRAHMAN
Dahara uttarebhyah I.3.14 (77)
The small (ether, Akasa, is Brahman) on account of the following arguments or expression).
Daharah: the small; Uttarebhyah: from subsequent texts or expressions or arguments.
One other expression from the Chhandogya Upanishad is taken up for dialogue.
`Dahara’ refers to Brahman, as a result of the explanation acknowledged within the later parts of the passage present this clearly.
We learn in Chhandogya Upanishad VIII-1-1 Now there may be this metropolis of Brahman (the physique), and in it the place, the small lotus (the guts) and in it that small ether (Akasa). Now what exists inside that small ether is to be sought, that’s to be understood.
Right here the doubt arises whether or not the small ether throughout the small lotus of the guts, which the Sruti speaks, is the fundamental ether, or the person soul, or the Supreme Soul.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: By the small ether we’ve got to grasp the fundamental ether which is the peculiar that means of the phrase. It’s right here referred to as small with regards to its small abode, the guts. Or else the `small one’ could also be taken to imply the person soul on account of the time period town of Brahman (Brahmapuri). The physique is right here referred to as town of Brahman as a result of the person soul has his abode within the physique, and has acquired this by his deeds. The person soul is right here referred to as Brahman in a metaphorical sense. The Supreme Brahman can’t be meant, as a result of He isn’t linked with the physique as its Lord. The Lord of town i.e., the person soul resides in a single spot of town viz., the guts, simply as a King dwells in a single spot of his Kingdom. Additional the thoughts, the limiting adjunct of the person soul, abides within the coronary heart. Solely the person soul is in contrast within the Sruti in dimension to the purpose of a goad.
Right here the `small Akasa’ is Brahman and doesn’t imply elemental ether, though there may be the qualification `small’ which can point out that he’s a restricted one thing. Why? As a result of the character of Brahman is described afterward within the textual content As massive as this (exterior) ether is, so massive is that Akasa throughout the coronary heart. Each heaven and earth are contained inside it. Chh. Up. VIII 1-3. This clearly intimates that it isn’t truly small.
Akasa can’t be in contrast with itself. The finite particular person soul additionally with its limiting adjuncts can’t be in contrast with the all-pervading Akasa or ether. The Sruti declares Each the earth and heaven are contained in it. This means that this Akasa is the help of the entire world. From this it’s manifest that the ether is the Supreme Self.
We learn within the Chhandogya Upanishad VIII-1-5 The Self or Atman is sinless, ageless, deathless, griefless, free from outdated age, starvation, thirst, with true want (Satkama), true thought (Satsankalpa) that ever comes true. This can’t apply to mere bodily ether. These are all distinct qualities of the Supreme Brahman. The outline can’t consult with the person soul, as a result of the comparability to the infinite ether and the assertion that heaven and earth are contained in it can’t apply to the finite particular person soul.
The phrase `Brahma’ in Brahmapuri exhibits the reference to Brahman solely. Even should you take the phrase as referring to Jiva the educating pertains to Brahman who’s realised within the coronary heart which is the Brahmapuri (town of soul or Brahman). Furthermore the promise of Infinite Bliss to the knower of Dahara Akasa intimates that the reference is just to the Supreme Brahman.
For all the explanations defined, that ether is the Highest Self or Supreme Brahman.
Gatisabdabhyam tatha hello drishtam lingam cha I.3.15 (78)
The small Akasa (ether) is Brahman on account of the motion of going (into Brahman) and of the phrase (Brahmaloka); as a result of thus it’s seen (i.e. the person souls go into Brahman) is seen elsewhere in different Sruti texts; and this every day going of the souls into Brahman (throughout deep sleep) is an inferential signal by the use of which we could correctly interpret the phrase `Brahmaloka’).
Gatisabdabhyam: on account of the going and of the phrase; Tatha hello: thus, like; Drishtam: it’s seen; Lingam: mark, signal from which one thing could also be inferred; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 14 is given.
It has been stated within the previous Sutra that the small ether is Brahman on account of the explanations given within the subsequent passages. These subsequent passages are actually described.
The point out of `going’ and a `phrase’ refers to Brahman. We learn in Chhandogya Upanishad VIII-3-2. All these creatures day after day go into this Brahmaloka (i.e. they’re merged in Brahman throughout deep sleep) and but don’t uncover it and many others. This passage exhibits that every one Jivas or particular person souls go every day into the `small Akasa’ referred to as right here Brahmaloka. This intimates that the `small Akasa’ is Brahman.
This going of the person souls into Brahman which happens every day within the deep sleep is talked about within the different Sruti textual content: He turns into united with the true (Sat), he’s merged in his personal Self Chh. Up. VI-8-1.
In frequent parlance or peculiar life additionally we are saying of a person who’s in deep sleep He has grow to be Brahman. He’s gone into the state of Brahman.
The phrase `Brahmaloka’ is to be interpreted as Brahman Himself, and never because the world of Brahman (Satya Loka) as a result of there may be the indicatory signal within the passage. What’s that indicatory signal or Lingam? It’s stated within the textual content that the soul goes to this world every day. It’s definitely unimaginable for the Jiva to go to the world of Brahman every day. Therefore the time period `Brahmaloka’ means right here Brahman Himself.
Dhritescha mahimno’syasminnupalabdheh I.3.16 (79)
Furthermore on account of the supporting additionally (attributed to it) the small ether have to be Brahman, as a result of this greatness is noticed on this (Brahman solely in line with different scriptural passages).
Dhriteh: on account of supporting (of the world by the Akasa or ether); Cha: and, furthermore, additionally; Asya mahimnah: this greatness; Asmin: in Brahman; Upalabdheh: on account of being noticed or discovered.
The argument in help of Sutra 14 is sustained.
Daharakasa or the small ether referred to in Sutra 14 signifies Brahman, because the glory of supporting all of the worlds may be fairly true solely in respect of Brahman. And likewise on account of the `supporting’ the small ether may be the Supreme Brahman solely. How? To start with the textual content introduces the overall topic of debate within the passage In it’s that small ether. Then the small ether is to be in contrast with the common ether. All the pieces is contained in it. Then the time period Self is utilized to it. Then it’s acknowledged that it’s free from sin and many others. Lastly it’s stated That Self is a financial institution, a limiting help (Vidhriti) in order that these worlds might not be confounded (Chh. Up. VIII-4-1). On this passage the glory of small ether by the use of supporting the worlds is seen. Simply as a dam shops the water in order that the boundaries of the fields will not be confounded, so additionally that Self serves like a dam so that the world and all of the totally different castes and Asramas might not be confounded.
Different texts declare that this greatness of supporting belongs to Brahman alone By the command of that Imperishable (Akshara) O Gargi, the solar and moon are held of their positions Bri. Up. III-8-9. He’s the lord of all, the king of all kings, the protector of all issues. He’s a financial institution and a limiting help, in order that these worlds might not be confounded Bri. Up. IV-4-22. This additionally exhibits that to be a boundary and help of the worlds is the distinctive attribute of Brahman solely. Due to this fact, on account of the `supporting’ additionally, the small (ether) is nothing else however Brahman.
Prasiddhescha I.3.17 (80)
Additionally due to the well-known that means (of Akasa as Brahman the small Akasa is Brahman).
Prasiddheh: of the well-known (that means); Cha: additionally
The argument in help of Sutra 14 is sustained.
Akasa has the settled that means of Brahman. It’s a well-known reality in Sruti that Brahman is indicated by the time period Akasa. Due to this fact `Daharakasa’ additionally stands for Brahman.
We learn in Chh. Up. VIII-14-1 Akasa is the revealer of all names and varieties. All these beings take their origin from Akasa alone Chh. Up. I-9-1. For who may breathe if that Akasa (ether) weren’t bliss Tait. Up. II-7. In all these texts `Akasa’ stands for Brahman.
Itaraparamarsat sa iti chen nasambhavat I.3.18 (81)
Whether it is stated that the opposite one (i.e. the person soul) is supposed on account of a reference to it (made in a complementary passage) (we are saying) no, on account of the impossibility.
Itara: the opposite one, that’s the Jiva; Paramarsat: on account of reference; Sa: he (the person soul); Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Asambhavat: on account of impossibility.
The argument in help of Sutra 14 is sustained. We learn within the Chhandogya UpanishadNow that serene being, the person soul (Jiva) certainly which having risen above this earthly physique, and having reached the very best mild, seems in its true type, that’s the Self: thus he spoke.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: As within the complementary passage the person soul is referred to, the small Akasa of Chh. Up. VIII-1-1 can also be the person soul. The phrase `serenity’ (Samprasada) which denotes the state of deep sleep conveys the thought of the person soul solely. The `rising from the physique’ additionally may be spoken of the person soul solely whose abode is due to this fact `the small Akasa’; this denotes within the passage beneath dialogue solely the person soul, on account of reference to the ether.
This can’t be. Within the first place the person soul which is restricted by the interior organ and its different adjuncts, can’t be in contrast with the all-pervading ether.
Within the second place, the attributes like `freedom from evil’ and the likes of this Akasa, referred to within the passage beneath dialogue, can’t be true of the person soul. Therefore Brahman is supposed in that passage.
Uttaracchedavirbhutasvarupastu I.3.19 (82)
If it’s stated that for subsequent texts (it seems that the person soul is supposed, we are saying that what’s there referred to is) slightly (the person soul in thus far) as its actual nature has grow to be manifest (i.e. as it’s non-different from Brahman).
Uttarat: from the following texts of the Sruti; Chet: if; Avirbhuta-svarupat: with its true nature made manifest; Tu: however.
The argument in help of Sutra 14 is sustained.
An objection is once more raised by the Purvapakshin to justify that the `small Akasa’ (Dahara) refers back to the particular person soul. Prajapati on the outset declares that the Self, which is free from sin and the like is that which we should attempt to perceive Chh. Up. VIII-7-1. After that he factors out that the seer throughout the eye i.e. `the person soul is the Self’, Chh. Up. VIII-7-3. He once more explains the character of the identical particular person soul in its totally different states. He who strikes about blissful in goals is the Self Chh. Up. VIII-10-1. When a person being asleep, reposing, and at good relaxation sees no goals, that’s the Self Chh. Up. VIII-1l-1. The qualifying phrases `Immortal, fearless’ utilized in every of those descriptions of the self present that the person soul is free from sin or evil and the like. Clearly the person soul is supposed right here as a result of Brahman is free from the three states viz. waking, dream and deep sleep. It is usually stated to be free from evil. Due to this fact `small Akasa’ refers back to the particular person soul or Jiva and to not Brahman.
The Sutra refutes this. The Sutra makes use of the expression He whose nature has grow to be manifest. Prajapati lastly explains the person soul in its true nature as similar with Brahman. The reference is to the person soul in its true nature as similar with Brahman or, in different phrases, who has realised his oneness with Brahman and to not the person soul as such. As quickly because it has approached the very best mild it seems in its personal type. Then It’s the Highest Purusha Chh. Up. VIII-12-3. The person soul is free from evil and many others., when it turns into similar with Brahman and never when it’s enveloped by limiting adjuncts and stays because the finite Jiva or embodied soul. Company (Kartritva), having fun with (Bhoktritva), like and dislike (Raga-dvesha) point out Jivahood. If these are eliminated the person soul shines as Brahman.
So long as the person soul doesn’t free itself from Avidya (ignorance) within the type of duality and doesn’t rise to the data of the Self or Brahman, whose nature is unchangeable and Satchidananda which expresses itself within the type `I’m Brahman’, so lengthy it stays as a person soul. The ignorance of the Jiva could also be in comparison with the error of a person who within the twilight errors a publish for a person, a rope for a serpent.
When it provides up the identification with the physique, sense organs and thoughts, when it realises its id with the Supreme Brahman it turns into Brahman itself whose nature is unchangeable and Satchidananda, as is said in Mun. Up. III-2-9. He who is aware of the very best Brahman turns into even Brahman. That is the true nature of the person soul by the use of which it arises from the physique and seems in its personal actual type.
Why a reference has in any respect been made to Jiva on this Part treating of Dahara, you’ll find a solution within the following Sutra.
Anyarthascha paramarsah I.3.20 (83)
And the reference (to the person soul) is for a distinct function.
Anyarthah: for a distinct function; Cha: and; Paramarsah: reference.
The argument in help of Sutra 14 is sustained.
The reference to the person soul has a distinct that means. The reference to the person soul just isn’t meant to find out the character of the person soul, however slightly the character of the Supreme Brahman. The reference to the three states of the person soul is supposed to not set up the character of Jiva as such, however to indicate lastly its actual nature (Svarupa) which isn’t totally different from Brahman.
One other objection is raised. The textual content describes this `Dahara’ as occupying a really small house within the coronary heart, and since `Dahara’ is so small and Jiva can also be small, due to this fact, `Dahara’ have to be Jiva talked about subsequently. The next Sutra provides an acceptable reply.
Alpasruteriti chet taduktam I.3.21 (84)
If it’s stated that on account of the scriptural declaration of the smallness (of the ether) (the Brahman can’t be meant) (we are saying that) that has already been defined.
Alpasruteh: due to the Sruti declaring its smallness; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Tat: that; Uktam: has already been defined.
The argument in help of Sutra 14 is concluded.
The Purvapakshin or the objector has acknowledged that the smallness of the ether acknowledged by the Sruti In it’s that small ether doesn’t agree with Brahman, that it might nevertheless consult with the Jiva or the person soul which is in comparison with the purpose of a goad. This has already been refuted. It has already been proven beneath I.2.7 that smallness could also be attributed to Brahman for the aim of meditation (Upasana). The identical refutation is to be utilized right here additionally. That smallness is contradicted by that Sruti textual content which compares the ether throughout the coronary heart with the common ether As massive as is that this ether so massive is the ether throughout the coronary heart.
ANUKRITYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 22-23)
EVERYTHING SHINES AFTER BRAHMAN
Anukritestasya cha I.3.22 (85)
On account of the performing after (i.e. the shining after) (that after which solar, moon, and many others. are stated to shine is the Supreme Self) and (as a result of by the sunshine) of Him (every part else is lighted).
Anukriteh: due to the performing after, from imitation, from the next; Tasya: its; Cha: and.
A passage from the Mundaka Upanishad is taken now for dialogue.
We learn in Mundaka Upanishad II-2-10 and Kathopanisad II-ii-15 The Solar doesn’t shine there nor the moon and the celebs, nor these lightnings, a lot much less the fireplace. After him when he shines every part shines; by the sunshine of him all that is lighted.
Now a doubt arises whether or not he after whom when he shines every part shines, and by whose mild all that is lighted is a few effulgent substance, or the Supreme Self.
The `shining after’ talked about within the textual content After him when he shines every part shines is feasible provided that the Supreme Self or Brahman is known. One other Sruti declares of that Supreme Self, His type is mild, his ideas are true Chh. Up. III-14-2. Him the gods worship as the sunshine of lights, as immortal time Bri. Up. IV-4-16.
The clause On account of the performing after factors to the `shining after’ talked about within the textual content beneath dialogue.
That the sunshine of the Solar and many others., ought to shine by another materials mild just isn’t identified. It’s absurd to say that one mild is lighted by one other. We have no idea of any bodily mild, besides the solar, that may mild Brahman.
The manifestation of this entire universe has for its trigger the existence of the sunshine of Brahman, simply because the existence of the sunshine of the solar is the reason for the manifestation of all type and colors. Brahman is self-luminous. It stays in Its personal glory. It illumines the solar, the moon, the celebs, the lightning, the fireplace, the senses, the thoughts and the mind and all objects. It doesn’t want some other mild to illumine it. Sruti texts like Brahman is the sunshine of lights (Jyotisham Jyotih) clearly intimate that Brahman is Self-effulgent. It’s fairly potential to disclaim the shining of solar, moon and many others., with regards to Brahman, as a result of no matter is seen is seen by the sunshine of Brahman solely. As Brahman is Self-effulgent, it isn’t seen by the use of some other mild.
Brahman manifests every part else however just isn’t manifested by the rest. We learn in Bri. Up. By the Self alone as his mild man sits IV-3-6. The phrase `Sarvam’ denotes that your entire world of names and varieties depends on the glory of Brahman. The phrase `anu’ intimates that the reference is to Brahman as a result of it’s from Him that every one effulgence is derived.
Api cha smaryate I.3.23 (86)
Furthermore the Smriti additionally speaks of him i.e. Brahman to be the common mild.
Api cha: furthermore, additionally; Smaryate: the Smriti states.
An argument insupport of Sutra 22 is given.
The Smriti or Gita additionally says so. In Gita, Chapter XV-6 we learn Neither the solar, nor the moon, nor the fireplace illumines that, having gone into which males don’t return, that’s my highest seat. And The sunshine which abiding within the solar illumines the entire world and that which is within the moon and that which is within the fireplace, all that mild know to be mine XV-12.
PRAMITADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 24-25)
THE PERSON OF THE SIZE OF A THUMB IS BRAHMAN
Sabdedeva pramitah I.3.24 (87)
From the very phrase (viz., the time period Lord utilized to it) the (particular person) measured (by the scale of the thumb) (is Brahman).
Sabdat: from the very phrase; Eva: even, solely, itself; Pramitah: measured, i.e., described as having the scale of the thumb.
An expression from the Kathopanishad is taken up for dialogue.
We learn in Kathopanishad II-4-12, The particular person of the scale of a thumb resides within the center or centre of the physique and many others. and in II-4-13 That particular person, of the scale of a thumb is sort of a mild with out smoke, lord of the previous and of the long run, he is similar at present and tomorrow. Realizing Him one doesn’t search to cover oneself any extra. That is That.
A doubt arises now whether or not the particular person of the scale of a thumb talked about within the textual content is the person soul or the Supreme Self (Brahman).
The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds that on account of the assertion of the particular person’s dimension of thumb the person soul is supposed, as a result of to the Supreme Self which is Infinite the Sruti textual content wouldn’t ascribe the measure of a thumb.
To this we reply that the particular person of the scale of a thumb can solely be Brahman. Why? On account of the time period `Isana’, `Lord of the previous and of the long run.’ The best Lord solely is absolutely the ruler of the previous and the long run. Additional the clause That is that connects the passage with that which had been enquired about, and due to this fact varieties the subject of debate. What had been enquired about by Nachiketas is Brahman. Nachiketas asks Lord Yama, That which thou seest as neither this nor that, as neither impact nor trigger, as neither previous nor future, inform me that (Katha Up. I-2-14). Yama refers to this particular person of the scale of a thumb thus That which you wished to know is that this.
Brahman is claimed to be of the scale of a thumb, although He’s all-pervading, as a result of He’s realisable within the restricted chamber of the guts of a person.
The epithet `The Lord of the previous and the long run’, can’t be utilized to Jiva in any respect, whose previous and the long run is sure by his Karmas and who just isn’t free to own a lot glory.
However how the all-pervading Lord may be stated to be restricted by the measure of a thumb? The next Sutra provides an acceptable reply.
Hridyapekshaya tu manushyadhikaratvat I. 3 25 (88)
However with regards to the guts (the very best Brahman is claimed to be of the scale of a thumb) as man alone is entitled (to the examine of the Vedas, to practise meditation and attain Self-realisation).
Hridi: within the coronary heart, with regards to the guts; Apekshaya: by reference to, in consideration of; Tu: however; Manushyadhikaratvat: due to the privilege of males.
A qualifying rationalization of Sutra 24 is given, and the privilege for Upasana or meditation is mentioned.
The measure of a thumb is ascribed to Brahman, though all-pervading, which with regards to his residing throughout the coronary heart which is mostly as massive because the thumb. Brahman dwells throughout the coronary heart of all residing beings. The hearts differ in line with the animals, some have bigger hearts, some have smaller, some are greater than a thumb, some are lower than a thumb. Why is the `thumb’ used as a typical? Why a person’s coronary heart solely and never that of some other animal, additionally? The second half of the Sutra provides a solution`on account of man solely being entitled’. Man solely is entitled to the examine of the Vedas and apply of meditation and totally different Upasanas of Brahman prescribed in them. Due to this fact the thumb is used as the usual of measurement with regards to him alone.
The intention right here is to indicate the id of particular person soul with Brahman which is contained in the physique and is of the scale of a thumb. The Vedanta passages have twofold purport. A few of them intention in giving an outline of the character of Brahman, some in educating the unity of the person soul with the Supreme Soul. Our passage teaches the unity of the person soul with the Supreme Soul or Brahman, not the scale of something. This level is rendered fairly clear additional on within the Upanishad. The particular person of the scale of a thumb, the inside Self, at all times abides within the coronary heart of males. Let a person draw that Self forth from his physique with steadiness, as one attracts the pith from a reed. Let him know that Self as `Vibrant because the Immortal’. Katha Up. II-6-17.
DEVATADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 26-33)
THE DEVAS ALSO ARE ENTITLED TO THE STUDY OF VEDAS
and to meditate on Brahman
Taduparyapi Baadarayanah sambhavat I.3.26 (89)
Additionally (beings) above them (viz., males) (are entitled for the examine and apply of the Vedas) on account of the likelihood (of it) in line with Badarayana.
Tad upari: above them i.e. increased than males particularly Devas; Api: additionally, even; Baadarayanah: the sage Baadarayana is of opinion; Sambhavat: as a result of (it’s) potential.
The outline of the privilege of examine of Vedas and meditation is sustained.
There’s a digression from the principle matter on this Part in Sutras 26 to 38. The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds that such meditation just isn’t potential within the case of the Devas, as a result of they aren’t endowed with the sense organs. Therefore they have no functionality to meditate. The Devas like Indra and the remaining are mere thought varieties created by the chanting of Mantras. They don’t have any want for the possession of Vairagya (dispassion), Viveka (discrimination) and many others. To this the writer provides a reply on this Sutra. A doubt could come up from the earlier Sutra that as it’s acknowledged that males alone have the privilege to the examine of the Vedas, the gods are thereby debarred. This Sutra removes this doubt.
The instructor Baadarayana thinks that the Sutra entitles gods additionally who’re above males for the examine of Vedas, apply of meditation and attainment of information of Brahman. How? As a result of it’s potential for them additionally as they too are corporeal beings. The Upanishads, the Mantra portion of the Vedas, the Itihasas and the Puranas all unanimously describe that the Devas have our bodies. They might have the will of ultimate launch brought on by the reflection that every one results, objects and energy are non-permanent. They might have the will to own the fourfold qualification which is critical for attaining the data of Brahman. The gods bear discipleship as a way to attain data. We learn in Chh. Up. VIII-7-11 Indra lived as a disciple with Prajapati for 100 and one years; Bhrigu Varuni went to his father Varuna, saying, sir, educate me Brahman Tait. Up. III-1. The god Varuna possessed the data of Brahman which he teaches to his son Bhrigu.
The gods additionally possess all of the requisites for practising meditation. Due to this fact they’re additionally entitled for the examine of the Vedas and attaining Self-realisation. Even with out Upanayana and examine the Veda is manifest of itself to the gods.
The passage about that which is of the scale of a thumb is equally legitimate when the fitting of the gods is accepted. Of their case the Sruti describing the Lord of the scale of a thumb refers back to the dimension of their thumbs.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says if we admit that Devas have our bodies, then there would come up difficulties with regard to sacrifices, as a result of it isn’t potential for one finite corporeal being like Indra to be concurrently current at many locations of sacrifices, when he’s invoked concurrently by all his worshippers. Due to this fact sacrifices will grow to be ineffective. To this objection the writer provides an acceptable reply within the following Sutra.
Virodhah karmaniti chet, na,
anekapratipatterdarsanat I.3.27 (90)
If it’s stated that (the corporeality of the gods includes) a contradiction to sacrifices; (we are saying) no, as a result of we discover (within the scriptures) the belief (by the gods) of many (varieties at one and the identical time).
Virodhah: contradiction; Karmani: Within the sacrifices; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Aneka: many (our bodies); Pratipatteh: due to the belief; Darsanat: as a result of it’s discovered (within the scriptures).
An objection in opposition to Sutra 26 is raised and refuted.
It’s potential for a Devata to imagine a number of varieties on the identical time. He can seem in sacrifices carried out concurrently at totally different locations. Smriti additionally states A Yogin, O hero of the Bharatas, could by his energy multiply his self in lots of thousand varieties and in them stroll about on earth. In some he could benefit from the objects, in others he could bear dire penance, and at last he could once more withdraw all of them, simply because the solar withdraws its many rays. If such Smriti passage declares that even Yogins, who’ve merely acquired numerous extraordinary powers, similar to subtlety of physique and the like could assume a number of our bodies on the identical time, how rather more able to such feats should the gods be, who naturally possess all supernatural powers. A god could divide himself into many varieties and current himself in lots of sacrifices on the identical time. He can stay all of the whereas unseen by others, in consequence of his energy to make himself invisible. Furthermore, why can’t the identical god be the article of many sacrifices, simply as the identical man may be the article of salutation of many individuals?
Sabda iti chet, na, atah prabhavat
pratyakshanumanabhyam I.3.28 (91)
If it’s stated ({that a} contradiction will end result) in respect of the phrase (we are saying) no, as a result of (the world) originates from the phrase, as is understood from direct notion (Sruti) and inference (Smriti).
Sabda: relating to Vedic phrases; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: no; Atah: from this, from these phrases; Prabhavat: due to the creation; Pratyakshanumanabhyam: from direct notion (Sruti) and inference (Smriti).
One other objection in opposition to Sutra 26 (with respect to the corporeality of the gods) is raised and refuted.
The Purvapakshin maintains: The Vedic phrases have been proved within the Purvamimamsa philosophy to be everlasting, i.e. with out starting or finish. Now if gods are stated to have our bodies they should have births and deaths, which all embodied beings are topic to. Due to this fact the Vedic phrases for particular person deities can’t exist earlier than their beginning, nor can these phrases signify any deities, after they have ceased to exist throughout dissolution. Therefore the permanency of Vedic phrases fails.
To this objection the reply is that there can’t be any such incongruity with regard to Vedic phrases, as a result of each Sruti and Smriti keep that particular person gods owe their origin to Vedic phrases.
The Vedic phrases exist from eternity. They have their settled that means. The Vedic names for gods signify their sorts and never the people. Due to this fact the births or deaths of particular person gods can’t have an effect on the categories, a lot much less the everlasting character of Vedic phrases.
Cows are innumerable however it’s with the kind that the phrase `cow’ is inseparably related. The phrase `cow’ is everlasting. It doesn’t rely upon the beginning and loss of life of people belonging to that sort. Phrases representing the gods have for his or her counterpart objects which might be sorts and never people. Indra refers to a divine perform just like the workplace of the Viceroy and whoever known as to that perform known as Indra. Due to this fact right here is not any non-eternality with regards to the Vedas.
The phrase, together with even the gods, is created from scriptural phrases. The scriptural phrases are the supply for the world and the gods. Should you object to this and say that this conflicts with the Sutra I-1-2, which says that Brahman is the reason for the world, we reply: Brahman is the Upadanakarana (materials trigger). The Veda just isn’t such materials trigger. The creator utters the Vedic phrases and creates. He says earth and creates the earth and so forth.
The creation of each embodied being, whether or not Indra or a cow, proceeds from remembrance of the shape and its traits by Lord Brahma. When he utters these phrases, which by affiliation at all times counsel the actual type and the traits of that type. When a particular particular person of the category referred to as Indra has perished, the creator, realizing from the Vedic phrase `Indra’ which is current in his thoughts as the category traits of the being denoted by the phrase, creates one other Indra possessing these exact same traits, simply because the potter fashions a brand new jar on the idea of the phrase `jar’ which is revolving in his thoughts.
Each Vedic phrase at all times expresses a selected sort type and doesn’t categorical any particular person. Brahman creates the world by remembering the actual sort varieties denoted by these phrases. Kinds (Akritis) are everlasting and exist within the archetypal airplane from eternity earlier than they grow to be concrete in any particular person type. Brahma, the creator created the Devas by reflecting on the phrase `and many others.’ (these). He created the boys by the phrase `Asrigram’; the Pitris by the phrase `Indavah’ (drops); the planets by the phrase `Tiras pavitram’; the songs by the phrase `Asuva’; the Mantras by the phrase `Visvani’ and he created all different creatures by the phrase `Abhisaubhaga’.
The phrase `etad’ (this) reminds Brahma the creator of the Devas presiding over the senses; the phrase `Asrigra’ that means blood, reminds him of these creatures by which blood is the chief life-element, particularly males; the phrase`Indu’ denoting moon, reminds him of the fathers, who reside within the Chandraloka; the phrase `Tiras pavitram’ that means `holding of the pure ambrosia’ reminds of the planets the place the Soma fluid exists; the phrase `Asuva’ (flowing) reminds him of the candy circulate of music; the phrase `Visva’ reminds him of the hymns sacred to the Visvedevas; the phrase `Abhisubhaga’, that means `nice prosperity’, reminds him of all creatures. We learn in Bri. Up. He together with his thoughts united himself with speech i.e. the phrase of the Veda.
Each phrase has for its counterpart a type or an object which it denotes. Title and type are inseparable. Everytime you consider a type its identify comes earlier than your thoughts without delay. Everytime you utter a reputation the article comes earlier than your thoughts. The relation between a reputation or phrase and type (the article) is everlasting.
The Veda just isn’t the fabric reason behind the universe. Should you say that the Veda refers to Vasus, Rudras, Adityas and different gods who’re born and are due to this fact non-eternal and, therefore, the Vedas additionally have to be non-eternal, we reply that what are born are the person manifestations of Dravya (substance), Guna (high quality) and Karma (actions) however not the Akritis, species. The origination of the universe from the `phrase’ is to not be understood within the sense that the phrase constitutes the fabric reason behind the world as Brahman does.
The a number of names, actions, and situations of all issues He formed to start with from the phrases of the Vedas Manu I-21.
Thought first manifests as a phrase after which because the extra concrete type. You can not separate the thought from identify and type. Should you want to do a factor you first bear in mind the phrase denoting the factor and then you definately begin the work. The Vedic phrases manifested within the thoughts of Prajapati, the creator earlier than the creation. After that he created the issues equivalent to these phrases. Uttering Bhur he created the earth and many others. Taittiriya Brahmana II-2-4-2.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the universe can’t be born of letters that are perishable, that there’s an everlasting Sphota (causal type of sound) of which uttered sounds are manifestations and that such Sphota is the reason for the universe. Sphota is that which causes the conception of the sense of a phrase (Arthadhiketu). Sphota is a supersensuous entity which is manifested by the letters of the phrase and if comprehended by the thoughts itself manifests the sense of the phrase.
This assertion of the Purvapakshin is de facto untenable. That is definitely not our precise expertise. The uttered sounds don’t perish, for on the finish of their utterance we realise their id once we utter them once more. It’s stated that there is perhaps a distinction of intonation when uttering the identical phrase twice; this doesn’t negate the id, for the distinction is just a distinction of the instrument of manifestation. Albeit the letters are many, their group may be the topic of a conception (e.g. ten, hundred and many others). The Sphota principle is due to this fact fairly pointless.
It’s due to this fact fairly clear that the Vedic sounds are everlasting and that there isn’t a logical fallacy within the doctrine that by them has been created your entire universe together with the gods.
Ata eva cha nityatvam I.3.29 (92)
From this very cause additionally there follows the eternity of the Vedas.
Ata eva: due to this fact, from this very cause; Cha: additionally; Nityatvam: The eternity of the Vedas.
A facet difficulty is deduced from Sutra 28.
The everlasting nature of Vedic phrases can also be established from the identical causes adduced in Sutra 28 i.e. as a result of these phrases signify everlasting sorts.
This Sutra now confirms the already established eternity of the Vedas. The universe with its particular everlasting sorts or spheres similar to gods and so forth originates from the phrase of the Veda. For this very cause the eternity of the phrase of the Veda have to be accepted. As gods and many others., as sorts are everlasting, the Vedic phrases are additionally everlasting.
The Vedas weren’t written by anyone. They’re the very breath of the Lord. They’re everlasting. The Rishis weren’t the authors of the Vedas. They solely found them. By way of their previous good deeds the monks had been in a position to perceive the Vedas. They discovered them dwelling within the Rishis. The Mantra By way of sacrifice they adopted the hint of speech; they discovered it dwelling within the Rishis. in Rigveda Samhita X-71-3 exhibits that the speech discovered by the Rishis was everlasting. Veda Vyasa additionally says Previously the good Rishis, being allowed to take action by Svayambhu, obtained by their penance the Vedas along with the Itihasas, which had been hidden on the finish of the Yuga.
Samananamarupatvat cha avrittavapyavirodho
darsanat smritescha I.3.30 (93)
And on account of the sameness of names and varieties in each recent cycle there isn’t a contradiction (to the eternity of the phrases of the Vedas) even within the revolving of the world cycles, as is seen from the Sruti and Smriti.
Samananamarupatvat: on account of comparable names and varieties; Cha: and; Avrittau: within the cycles of creation; Api: even, additionally; Avirodhah: no inconsistency or contradiction; Darsanat: from the Sruti; Smriteh: from the Smriti, Cha: and.
An argument in favour of Sutra 29 is given on this Sutra.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: On the finish of a cycle every part is completely annihilated. There may be new creation at first of the following cycle. There’s a break within the continuity of existence. Therefore whilst sorts, the gods will not be everlasting and the everlasting relation of Vedic phrases and the objects they denote doesn’t stay. Consequently there may be contradiction to the eternity and the authority of the Vedas.
We are saying it isn’t so. Simply as a person who rises from sleep continues the identical type of existence which he loved beforehand to his sleep, so additionally the world is a latent or potential state (in seed type) in Pralaya or dissolution; it’s once more projected with all of the earlier number of names and varieties at first of the following cycle. Due to this fact the eternity of the relation between Vedic phrases and their objects is by no means contradicted. Consequently the authoritativeness of the Vedas stays. That is supported by Sruti and Smriti. We learn in Rigveda X-190-3 As previously the Lord ordered the solar and the moon, heaven, earth, the sky and many others. We learn within the Smriti As the identical indicators of seasons seem time and again of their due course, so do beings seem and reappear in successive cycles.
The phrase `Cha’ within the Sutra is used to take away the doubt raised. Even after a terrific Pralaya there isn’t a contradiction with regard to the eternity of Vedic phrases, as a result of the brand new creation proceeds on the sameness of names and varieties and many others., within the previous creation. In a Mahapralaya the Vedas and the categories denoted by the phrases of the Vedas merge within the Lord and grow to be one with Him. They continue to be in Him in a state of latency. When the Lord wishes to create they arrive out from Him once more and grow to be manifest. The creation of people is at all times preceded by a mirrored image on the phrases of the Vedas and the categories denoted by them.
After the Mahapralaya the Lord creates the Vedas in precisely the identical order and preparations as they’d been earlier than. He displays on the phrases and kinds and initiatives the entire universe. A subsequent creation is just like the previous creation. The Lord creates the world simply as a potter who makes a pot by remembering the phrase `pot’ and the shape which the phrase calls up in his thoughts.
After a Mahapralaya the Lord Himself creates all parts from Mahat downwards as much as Brahmanda. He initiatives Brahma from His physique and teaches Him the Vedas mentally (not orally) and entrusts Him with the work of additional creation. In minor Pralaya Brahma doesn’t stop to exist, nor do the weather. Brahma Himself creates the world after each minor Pralaya.
It could be objected that once we sleep after which get up we are able to recall the already skilled exterior universe and that such a factor just isn’t potential within the case of the dissolution of the world. However our reply is that by the grace of the supreme Lord, Hiranyagarbha or Brahma can recollect the state of the world because it was earlier than the dissolution. We learn within the Svetasvatara Upanishad Throughout Pralaya all varieties vanish however Sakti stays. The following creation takes place by it alone. In any other case you would need to postulate a creation out of nothing.
Madhvadishvasambhavadanadhikaram Jaiminih I.3.31 (94)
On account of the impossibility (of the gods being certified) for Madhu Vidya and many others., Jaimini (is of opinion that the gods) will not be certified (both for Upasana or for the Brahma Vidya or the data of the Self).
Madhu adishu: in Madhu Vidya and many others.; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility; Anadhikaram: disqualification; Jaiminih: Jaimini is of opinion.
One other objection to Sutra 26 is raised.
For Madhu Vidya vide Chh. Up. III-1-11, the sage Jaimini, the writer of Purvamimamsa, says that because the solar and the opposite gods are the deities to be worshipped in Madhu Vidya and the like, it’s unimaginable that they need to even be the worshippers. Therefore they aren’t entitled for the Upasana prescribed in Sruti, as a result of clearly they can not worship themselves. In Madhu Vidya one is to meditate on the Solar as honey (useful). Such a meditation just isn’t potential for Surya or the Solar-god as a result of one and the identical particular person can’t be each the article of meditation in addition to the particular person meditating.
Additional the Devas like Vasu and many others., already belong to the category of Vasus and many others. Due to this fact of their case the meditation is ineffective because the fruit is already achieved. The Devas don’t have anything to realize by such meditation. So that they don’t have any want for this meditation, as a result of they already are in possession of that which is the fruit of such meditation.
Jyotishi bhavacca I.3.32 (95)
And (the gods will not be certified for Vidyas) as a result of (the phrases `solar, moon’ and many others., spoken of as gods) are used within the sense of mere spheres of sunshine.
Jyotishi: as mere spheres of sunshine; Bhavat: as a result of used within the sense; Cha: and.
An argument in help of the objection raised in Sutra 31 is given.
The Purvapakshin raises one other objection: The luminous orbs can’t presumably do acts of meditation. Such and different luminary objects as Agni and many others., can’t have a bodily type with fingers, coronary heart or intelligence. They’re materials inert objects. They can not have needs. We can’t place religion on Itihasas and Puranas, as they’re of human origin and as they themselves stand in want of different means of information on which to base. The Mantras don’t type an unbiased technique of authoritative data. The Arthavada passages can’t be regarded to represent by themselves causes for the existence of the persona of the gods. Consequently the gods will not be certified for any sort of Vidya or data of Brahman.
Bhavam tu Baadarayano’sti hello I. 3.33 (96)
However Baadarayana, then again (maintains) the existence (of qualification on the a part of the gods for Brahma Vidya); for there are (passages indicatory of that; physique, wishes and many others., which qualify one for such data do exist within the case of the gods).
Bhavam: the existence (of the qualification to practise the meditation like Madhu Vidya and many others.); Tu: however; Baadarayanah: the sage Baadarayana (maintains); Asti: does exist; Hello: as a result of.
This Sutra refutes the arguments within the earlier two Sutras and concludes the dialogue.
However Baadarayana holds that the gods too have the fitting to practise Upasana as meditation and Brahma Vidya, as a result of there are indications in Sruti to that impact. He maintains that every luminary orb has a presiding deity with physique, intelligence, wishes and many others. The gods can assume any type at will. Indra assumed the type of a ram and carried off Medhatithi. Surya assumed the type of a person and got here to Kunti. We learn in Chh. Up. VIII-12-6 The gods certainly do worship the Atman. The sun-god could also be disqualified for a selected type of meditationMadhu Vidya, as he can’t meditate on the solar himself, however that’s no cause why he ought to be disqualified for different meditations or for Brahma Vidya or the data of Brahman. Related is the case with different gods.
The expression `Tu’ (however, then again) is supposed to rebut the Purvapakshin.
Scripture declares that the Devas are certified. No matter Deva was woke up so to know Brahman he certainly grew to become that Bri. Up. 1-4-10. Indra went to Prajapati saying nicely, allow us to seek for that Self by which if one has searched it out, all worlds and all wishes are obtained Chh. Up. VIII-7.
The outline of the types of gods is actual. How can unreal types of gods be conceived by our minds for our providing sacrifices to them? Bizarre persons are not in a position to behold their varieties. However sages like Vyasa have seen them. They spoke to the gods. The Yoga Sutras say By Svadhyaya one may be in communion with the deity which we worship. How will you deny the powers of Yoga? Rishis had marvellous powers.
Due to this fact gods have varieties and are eligible for Brahma Vidya.
Apasudradhikaranam: Subject 9 (Sutras 34-38)
The correct of the Sudras to the examine of Vedas mentioned
Sugasya tadanadarasravanat
tadadravanat suchyate hello I.3.34 (97)
(King Janasruti) was in grief on listening to some contemptuous phrases used about him by the sage within the type of a swan; owing to his approaching Raikva, overwhelming with that grief, Raikva referred to as him Sudra; for it (the grief) is pointed at by Raikva.
Suk: grief; Asya: his; Tat: that, particularly that grief; Anadarasravanat: from listening to his (the Rishi’s) disrespectful speech; Tada: then; Adravanat: due to going to him i.e, to Raikva; Suchyate: is referred to; Hello: as a result of.
The dialogue on the privilege of divine meditation begun in Sutra 25 is sustained.
The entire of this Adhikarana about Sudras along with the previous one in regards to the Devas seems to be an interpolation of some later writer.
Within the earlier Sutra it has been proven that the gods are entitled to the examine of Vedas and Brahma Vidya. This Sutra discusses whether or not the Sudras are entitled to them or not.
The Purvapakshin says: The Sudras additionally have gotten our bodies and wishes. Therefore they’re additionally entitled. Raikva refers to Janasruti who needs to be taught from him by the identify of Sudra. Fie, necklace and carriage be thine, O Sudra, along with the cows Chh. Up. IV-2 & 3. However when he seems a second time, Raikva accepts his presents and teaches him. Smriti speaks of Vidura and others who had been born from Sudra moms as possessing highest data. Due to this fact the Sudra has a declare to Brahma Vidya or data of Brahman.
This Sutra refutes the view and denies the fitting to the examine of the Vedas for Sudra. The phrase `Sudra’ doesn’t denote a Sudra by beginning which is its standard that means, as a result of Janasruti was a Kshatriya king. Right here we must take the etymological that means of the phrase which is, He rushed into grief (Sukam abhi dudrava) or as grief rushed on him or as he in his grief rushed to Raikva. The next Sutra additionally intimates that he was a Kshatriya.
Kshatriyatvavagateschottaratra chaitrarathena lingat I.3.35 (98)
And since the Kshatriyahood (of Janasruti) is understood from the inferential mark (provided by his being talked about) afterward with Chaitraratha (who was a Kshatriya himself).
Kshatriyatva: the state of his being a Kshatriya; Avagateh: on account of being identified or understood; Cha: and; Uttaratra: latter on in a subsequent a part of the textual content; Chaitrarathena: with Chaitraratha; Lingat: due to the indicatory signal or the inferential mark.
An argument in help of Sutra 34 is given.
Janasruti is talked about with the Kshatriya Chaitraratha Abhipratarin in reference to the identical Vidya. Therefore we are able to infer that Janasruti additionally was a Kshatriya as a result of, as a rule, equals are talked about along with equals. Therefore the Sudras will not be certified for the data of Brahman.
Samskaraparamarsat tadabhavabhilapacca (I.3.36) (99)
As a result of purificatory ceremonies are talked about (within the case of the twice-born) and their absence is said (within the case of the Sudra).
Samskara: the purificatory ceremonies, the investiture with sacred thread; Paramarsat: due to the reference; Tat: that ceremony; Abhava: absence; Abhilapat: due to the declaration; Cha: and.
The dialogue on the privilege of Brahma Vidya on the a part of Sudras is sustained.
In other places of the Vidyas the Upanayana ceremony is referred to. The Upanayana ceremony is said by the scriptures to be a essential situation for the examine of all types of information or Vidya. We learn in Prasna Up. I-1 Dedicated to Brahman, agency in Brahman, searching for for the very best Brahman they, carrying gasoline of their fingers, approached the venerable Pippalada, considering that he would educate all of them that. Upanayana ceremony is supposed for the upper castes. Just about the Sudras then again, the absence of ceremonies is ceaselessly talked about within the scriptures. Within the Sudra there is no sin by consuming prohibited meals, and he isn’t match for any ceremony Manu X-12-6. A Sudra by beginning can’t have Upanayana and different Samskaras with out which the Vedas can’t be studied. Therefore the Sudras will not be entitled to the examine of the Vedas.
The following Sutra additional strengthens the view {that a} Sudra can don’t have any Samskara.
Tadabhavanirdharane cha pravritteh I.3.37 (100)
And since the inclination (on the a part of Gautama to impart data is seen solely) on the ascertainment of the absence of Sudrahood (in Jabala Satyakama).
Tad: that, particularly the Sudrahood; Abhava: absence; Nirdharane: in ascertainment; Cha: and; Pravritteh: from inclination.
The identical dialogue on the Sudras’ proper is sustained.
Gautama, having ascertained Jabala to not be a Sudra from his talking the reality proceeded to provoke and instruct him. None who just isn’t a Brahmana would thus converse out. Go and fetch gasoline, pal, I shall provoke you. You haven’t swerved from the reality Chh. Up. IV-4-5.
This scriptural textual content furnishes an inferential signal of the Sudras not being able to initiation.
Sravanadhyayanarthapratishedhat smritescha I .3.38 (101)
And on account of the prohibition in Smriti of (the Sudras) listening to, learning and understanding (the Veda) and performing Vedic rites (they aren’t entitled to the data of Brahman).
Sravana: listening to; Adhyayana: learning; Artha: understanding; Pratishedhat: on account of the prohibition; Smriteh: within the Smriti; Cha: and.
The identical dialogue on the Sudras’ proper is concluded right here.
The Smriti prohibits their listening to the Veda, their learning and understanding the Veda and their performing Vedic rites. The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be crammed with molten lead and lac. For a Sudra is sort of a cemetery. Due to this fact the Veda is to not be learn within the neighborhood of a Sudra. His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his physique is to be reduce by if he preserves it. Sudras like Vidura and the non secular hunter Dharma Vyadha acquired data owing to the after results of former deeds in previous births. It’s potential for the Sudras to achieve that data by the Puranas, Gita and the epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata which comprise the quintessence of the Vedas.
It’s a settled level that the Sudras don’t possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.
The digression begun from Sutra 26 ends right here and the overall matter is once more taken up.
KAMPANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10
THE PRANA IN WHICH EVERYTHING TREMBLES IS BRAHMAN
Kampanat I.3.39 (102)
(Prana is Brahman) on account of the vibration or trembling (spoken of the entire world).
Kampanat: on account of shaking or vibration.
After discussing the facet points in Sutra 25-38 the Sutrakara or the writer of the Sutras resumes the examination of the principle difficulty.
An argument in help of Sutra 24 is given right here.
The dialogue of qualification for Brahma Vidya or data of Brahman is over. We return to our chief matter i.e., the enquiry into the purport of the Vedanta texts.
We learn in Kathopanishad II-3-2 No matter there may be in the entire world has come out of Prana and trembles within the Prana. The Prana is a good terror, a raised thunderbolt. Those that realize it grow to be immortal.
The Purvapakshin maintains that the time period Prana denotes the air or the very important pressure with its 5 modifications. The Siddhantin says: Right here Prana is Brahman and never the very important pressure, as a result of Brahman solely is spoken of within the previous in addition to within the subsequent a part of the chapter. How then can it’s supposed that the very important pressure ought to be referred to within the intermediate half?
The entire world trembles in Prana. We discover right here a high quality of Brahman viz., its constituting the abode of the entire world. That the phrase `Prana’ denotes the very best Self seems from such passages as `the Prana of Prana’ Bri. Up. IV-4-18. The scripture declares No mortal lives by the Prana and the breath that goes down. We reside by one other in whom these two repose (Katha Up. II-5-5.) Within the passage subsequent to the one beneath dialogue From terror of it fireplace burns, from terror the solar shines, from terror Indra and Vayu and Demise because the fifth run away. Brahman and never the very important pressure is spoken of as the topic of that passage, which is represented as the reason for concern on the a part of your entire universe inclusive of the Prana itself. Brahman solely is the reason for the lifetime of your entire universe together with the very important pressure.
Brahman is in comparison with a thunderbolt as a result of he evokes concern in fireplace, air, solar, Indra and Yama. Additional Immortality is said to him who is aware of this Prana. A person who is aware of him solely passes over loss of life, there isn’t a different path to go. (Svet. Up. VI-15). Prana can also be usually used to indicate Brahman within the Sruti.
JYOTIRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11
THE `LIGHT’ IS BRAHMAN
Jyotirdarsanat I.3.40 (103)
The sunshine (is Brahman) on account of that (Brahman) being seen (within the scriptural passage).
Jyotih: mild; Darsanat: on account of (Brahman) being seen.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is sustained.
We learn within the Sruti Thus does that serene being arising from this physique, seem in its personal type as quickly because it has approached the Highest Gentle (Chh. Up. VIII-12-3).
Right here the doubt arises whether or not the phrase `mild’ denotes the bodily mild which is the article of sight and dispels darkness, or the Highest Brahman.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: The phrase mild denotes the well-known bodily mild as a result of that’s the standard sense of the phrase.
To this we’ve got the next reply. The phrase `mild’ can denote the Highest Brahman solely. Why? As a result of in the entire chapter Brahman is the subject of debate. The Highest Gentle can also be referred to as the `Highest Individual’ in that textual content itself afterward. Freedom from physique is claimed to belong to that being which is one with this mild. Sruti declares When he’s free from the physique then neither pleasure nor ache touches him (Chh. Up. VIII-12.1). Freedom from physique just isn’t potential outdoors Brahman. One can attain freedom or the bodiless state when he identifies himself with Brahman.
ARTHANTARATVADIVYAPADESADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12
THE AKASA IS BRAHMAN
Akaso’rthantaratvadivyapadesat I.3.41 (104)
Akasa (is Brahman) as a result of it’s declared to be one thing totally different and many others., (from names and varieties).
Akasah: Akasa; Arthantaratvadi-vyapadesat: as a result of it’s declared to be one thing totally different; Artha: with a that means; Antaratva: differentness. Adi: and many others.; Vyapadesat: from assertion on account of designation.
One other expression from the Chhandogya Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue. We learn in Chhandogya Upanishad VIII-14-1 That which known as Akasa is the revealer of all names and varieties. That inside which these names and varieties are contained is Brahman, the Immortal, the Self.
Right here a doubt arises whether or not that which right here known as Akasa is the Highest Brahman or the peculiar elemental ether.
The Purvapakshin or the objector says that Akasa means right here the fundamental ether, as a result of that is the traditional that means of the phrase.
To this the Siddhantin provides the next reply. Right here `Akasa’ is Brahman solely, as a result of it’s designated as a distinct factor and many others. Names and varieties are stated to be inside this Akasa, which is due to this fact totally different from these.
The time period Akasa signifies Brahman as a result of it’s acknowledged to be the supply of all names and varieties, additionally as a result of it’s certified by such epithets as `Infinite, Immortal’ `Self’. The phrase Akasa, refers to Brahman as a result of the outline past identify and type applies solely to Brahman.
SUSHUPTYUTKRANTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13 (SUTRAS 42-43)
THE SELF CONSISTING OF KNOWLEDGE IS BRAHMAN
Sushuptyutkrantyorbhedena I.3.42 (105)
Due to the Highest Self being proven as totally different (from the person soul) within the states of deep sleep and loss of life.
Sushupti utkrantyoh: In deep sleep and loss of life; Bhedena: by the distinction, as totally different; (Sushupti: deep sleep; Utkranti: departing on the time of loss of life).
An expression from the sixth chapter of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue.
Within the sixth Prapathaka or chapter of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in reply to the questionWho is that Self? (IV-3-7), a prolonged exposition of the character of the Self is given. He who’s throughout the coronary heart, among the many Pranas, the particular person of sunshine, consisting of information.
Right here a doubt arises whether or not the Self is the Highest Self or the person soul.
The Sutra declares that it’s the Highest Self. Why? As a result of it’s proven to be totally different from the person soul within the state of deep sleep and on the time of loss of life. This particular person embraced by the Highest clever Self is aware of nothing that’s with out or inside Bri. Up. IV-3-21. This clearly signifies that in deep sleep the `particular person’ or the person soul is totally different from the Highest clever Self or Brahman.
Right here the time period the particular person should imply the Jiva or the embodied soul, as a result of the absence of the data of what’s inside and with out in deep sleep may be predicated solely of the person soul. The Supreme clever Self is Brahman as a result of such intelligence may be predicated of Brahman solely. Brahman is rarely dissociated from all-embracing data. Equally the passage that treats of departure i.e. loss of life (this bodily Self mounted by the clever self strikes alongside groaning) refers back to the Supreme Lord as totally different from the person soul. The Jiva who casts off this mortal physique is totally different from Supreme Self or Brahman. The Jiva alone passes by the phases of sound-sleep and loss of life. Brahman has neither sleep nor loss of life. He’s unsleeping at all times.
Due to this fact Brahman is the chief matter on this Part. The Chapter solely goals at describing the character of Brahman. The prolonged discourse on the person soul on this Part is to indicate that he’s in essence similar with Brahman.
Patyadisabdebhyah I.3.43 (106)
(The Being referred to in Sutra 42 is Brahman) due to the phrases `Lord’ and many others., being utilized to Him. He’s the controller, the Ruler, the Lord of all. Bri. Up. IV-4-22.
Patyadi sabdebhyah: On account of phrases like `Lord’ and many others., (the self within the textual content beneath dialogue is the Superme Self).
The argument in help of Sutra 42 is given.
These epithets are apt solely within the case of Brahman, as a result of these epithets intimate that the factor spoken of is totally free. Therefore the phrase Self denotes the Highest Self or Brahman and never the Jiva or the embodied soul, from all of which we conclude that the Chapter refers back to the Supreme Brahman.
Introduction
In Subject 5, Part 1, it has been proven that because the Pradhana of the Sankhyas just isn’t based mostly on the authority of the scriptures and that as all of the Sruti texts consult with an clever precept as the primary trigger, Brahman is the primary trigger.
The character of Brahman has been outlined in I.1.2. It has been proven that the purport of all Vedanta texts is to set forth the doctrine that Brahman and never the Pradhana, is the reason for the world.
The Sankhyas say that it has not been satisfactorily proved that there isn’t a scriptural authority for the Pradhana, as a result of some Sakhas comprise expression which appear to convey the thought of the Pradhana.
This Pada or Part proceeds to take care of the consideration of different Vedic texts that are asserted by the Sankhyas to declare that the Pradhana is the reason for the universe.
The entire of Part 4 provides appropriate and cogent solutions to all objections raised by the Sankhyas.
Synopsis
The fourth Pada or Part of the primary Chapter is specifically directed in opposition to the Sankhyas. This Part examines some passages from the Upanishads the place phrases happen which can be mistaken for the names of the insentient matter of Sankhyas. It declares authoritatively that the Vedanta texts lend no help by any means to the Sankhya principle of creation or the doctrine of Pradhana. This Part proves that Brahman is the fabric in addition to the environment friendly reason behind the universe.
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-7) discusses the passage in Katha Upanishad I-3-10, 11 the place point out is fabricated from the good (Mahat) and the undeveloped (Avyaktam). Avyakta is a synonym for Pradhana within the Sankhya Sastra. `Mahat’ means mind in Sankhya philosophy. Sri Sankaracharya exhibits that the time period Avyakta denotes the refined physique or Sukshma Sarira in addition to the gross physique additionally and the time period Mahat Brahman or the Supreme Self.
Adhikarana II: (Sutras 8-10) exhibits that in line with Sankara the tri-coloured `Aja’ spoken of within the Svetasvatara Upanishad IV.5 just isn’t the Pradhana of the Sankhyas however both that energy of the Lord from which the world takes its origin or the first causal matter first produced by that energy.
Adhikarana IlI: (Sutras 11-13) exhibits that the `Pancha-pancha- janah’ talked about in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV-4-17 will not be the twenty-five rules of the Sankhyas.
Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 14-15) exhibits that though there may be battle as regards the order of creation, scripture doesn’t contradict itself on the all-important level of Brahman i.e., a Being whose essence is intelligence, which is the reason for this universe.
Adhikarana V: (Sutras 16-18) proves that He who’s the maker of these individuals, of whom that is the work talked about in Kau. Up. IV-1-19 just isn’t both the Prana (the very important air) or the person soul, however Brahman.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 19-22) decides that the Self to be seen, to be heard and many others. (Bri. Up. II-4-5) is the Supreme Self, however not the person soul. The views of Jaimini, Asmarathya, Audulomi and Kasakritsna are expressed.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 23-27) teaches that Brahman just isn’t solely the environment friendly or operative trigger (Nimitta) of the world, however its materials trigger as nicely. The world springs from Brahman by the use of modification (Parinama Sutra 26).
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutra 28) exhibits that the refutation of the Sankhya views is relevant to different theories additionally such because the atomic principle which says that the world has originated from atoms, and many others.
ANUMANIKADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-7)
THE MAHAT AND AVYAKTA OF THE KATHOPANISHAD
don’t consult with the Sankhya Tattvas
Anumanikamapyekeshamiti chet na
sarirarupakavinyastagrihiter darsayati cha I.4.1 (107)
If it’s stated that in some (recensions of the Vedas) that which is inferred (i.e. the Pradhana) (is) additionally (talked about), (we are saying) no, as a result of (the phrase `Avyakta’ occurring within the Katha Upanishad) is talked about in a simile referred to the physique (and means the physique itself and never the Pradhana of the (Sankhyas); (the Sruti) additionally explains (it).
Anumanikam: that which is inferred (i.e., the Pradhana); Api: additionally; Ekesham: of some branches or college of Srutis or recensions of the textual content; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: No; Sarirarupa- kavinyastagrihiteh: as a result of it’s talked about in a simile referring to the physique (Sarira: physique, Rupaka: simile, Vinyasta: contained, Grihiteh: due to the reference); Darsayati: (the Srutis) clarify; Cha: additionally, too, and.
The Sankhyas once more increase an objection. They are saying that the Pradhana can also be based mostly on scriptural authority, as a result of some Sakhas just like the Katha Sakha (college) comprise expressions whereby the Pradhana appears to be referred to Past the Mahat there may be the Avyakta (the unmanifested or the undeveloped), past the Avyakta is the Purusha (Being or Individual) Katha Up. 1-3-11.
The Sankhyas say that the phrase `Avyakta’ right here refers back to the Pradhana as a result of the phrases `Mahat’, `Avyakta’ and `Purusha’ which happen in the identical order within the Sankhya philosophy, happen within the Sruti textual content. Therefore they’re recognised to be the identical classes of the Sankhyas. The Pradhana known as `undeveloped’ as a result of it’s destitute of sound and different qualities. It can’t due to this fact be stated that there isn’t a scriptural authority for the Pradhana. We declare that this Pradhana is the reason for the world on the energy of Sruti, Smriti and ratiocination.
This Sutra refutes it thus. The phrase `Avyakta’ doesn’t consult with the Pradhana. It’s utilized in reference to a simile referring to the physique. The instantly previous a part of the Chapter displays the simile by which the Self, the physique, and so forth, are in comparison with the Lord of a chariot, a charioteer and many others. Know the soul to be the Lord of the chariot, the physique to be the chariot, the mind the charioteer and the thoughts the reins. The senses they name the horses, the objects of the senses their roads. When the Self is in union with the physique, the senses and the thoughts, then clever folks name him the enjoyer Katha Up. I.3.3-4.
All these items which might be referred to in these verses are discovered within the following: Past the senses there are the objects, past the objects there may be thoughts, past the thoughts there may be the mind, the good Self (Mahat) is past the mind. Past the good (Mahat) is the Avyakta (the undeveloped), past the Avyakta there may be the Purusha. Past the Purusha there may be nothingthis is the purpose, the very best path Katha Up. I.3.10-11.
Now examine these two quotations. On this passage we recognise the senses and many others. which within the previous simile had been in comparison with horses and so forth. The senses, the mind and the thoughts are referred to in each passages beneath the identical names. The objects within the second passage are the objects that are within the former passage designated because the roads of the senses. The Mahat of the later textual content means the cosmic mind. Within the earlier passage mind is the charioteer. It consists of the person and cosmic mind. The Atman of the sooner textual content corresponds to the Purusha of the later textual content and physique of the sooner textual content corresponds to Avyakta within the later textual content. Due to this fact Avyakta means the physique right here and never the Pradhana. There stays now the physique solely which had earlier than been in comparison with the chariot within the earlier textual content.
Now an objection is raised. How can the physique which is manifest, gross and visual (Vyakta) be stated to be unmanifest and unevolved? The next Sutra provides an acceptable reply.
Sukshmam tu tadarhatvat I.4.2 (108)
However the refined (physique is supposed by the time period Avyakta) on account of its functionality (of being so designated).
Sukshmam: the refined, the everlasting atoms, the causal physique; Tu: however; Tad arhatvat: as a result of it may be correctly so termed.
An objection to Sutra 1 is refuted.
The Sutra replies that what the time period `Avyakta’ denotes is the refined causal physique. Something refined could also be spoken of as `undeveloped’ or `unmanifested’. The refined elements of the weather, the causal substance, i.e., the 5 uncompounded parts out of which the physique is shaped could also be referred to as so. As they’re refined and never manifest, and as in addition they transcend sense notion, they are often correctly designated by the time period `Avyakta’.
It is usually a matter of frequent prevalence to indicate the impact by the trigger. Due to this fact the gross physique is referred to right here not directly. Evaluate for example the phrase Combine the Soma with the cow (i.e., milk) Rigveda IX.40.4. One other scriptural passage additionally declares Now all this, i.e., this developed world with names and varieties is able to being designated `undeveloped’ in as far as in a earlier state it was in a merely seminal or potential state destitute of names and varieties.
In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I-4-7, the Karana Sarira known as by the time period unevolved or Avyakta. Earlier than the world got here into manifestation it was within the type of a seed or causal physique.
An objection is raised. If the Avyakta is taken to be matter in its refined state consisting of the causal physique, what objection is there to interpret it because the Pradhana of the Sankhya system, as a result of there additionally Avyakta means matter in refined state. The next Sutra provides an acceptable reply to this objection.
Tadadhinatvat arthavat I.4.3 (109)
On account of its dependence (on the Lord, such a earlier seminal situation of the world could also be admitted, as a result of such an admission is) affordable.
Tad: its; Adhinatvat: on account of dependence; Arthavat: having a way or a that means subserving an finish or function; is becoming.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
The opponent says. If an acceptable causal state of the gross world is admitted it’s pretty much as good as accepting the Pradhana, for we Sankhyas perceive by the time period Pradhana, nothing however the antecedent situation of the universe.
The Siddhantin provides the next reply. The Pradhana of the Sankhyas is an unbiased entity. The refined causal state admitted right here depends on the Highest Lord. A earlier refined stage of the universe should essentially be admitted. It’s fairly affordable. For with out it the Lord can’t create. It’s the potential energy of Brahman. The entire Lila is saved up by this energy. He couldn’t grow to be lively if he had been destitute of this potential energy. It’s the causal potentiality inherent in Brahman. That causal potentiality is of the character of nescience.
The existence of such a causal potentiality renders it potential that the Jivanmuktas or liberated souls don’t take additional beginning as it’s destroyed by good data. It’s rightly denoted by the time period `undeveloped’ (Avyakta). It has the Supreme Lord for its substratum. It’s of the character of an phantasm. It’s Anirvachaniya or indescribable. You may neither say that it’s nor that it isn’t.
This undeveloped precept is usually denoted by the time period `Akasa’, ether. In that Imperishable then, O Gargi, the ether is woven like warp and woof Bri. Up. III-8-11. Typically, once more, it’s denoted by the time period Akshara, the Imperishable. Greater than the excessive, Imperishable Mun. Up. II-1-2.
Simply because the phantasm of a snake in a rope just isn’t potential merely by ignorance with out the substratumrope, so additionally the world can’t be created merely by ignorance with out the substratum, the Lord. Due to this fact the refined causal situation depends on the Lord, and but the Lord just isn’t within the least affected by this ignorance, simply because the snake just isn’t affected by the poison. Know that the Prakriti is Maya and the good Lord the ruler of Maya Svet. Up. IV-10.
So the Avyakta is a helper (Sahakari) to the Lord in His creation. The Lord creates the universe utilizing it as a way. It’s depending on the Lord. It isn’t just like the Pradhana of the Sankhyas which is an unbiased entity.
The Lord appears on Maya and energises her. Then she has the ability of manufacturing the world. In her personal nature she is Jada or insentient.
Within the subsequent Sutra the writer provides another excuse for holding that the `Avyakta’ of the Katha Upanishad is to not be interpreted as Pradhana.
Jneyatvavachanaccha I.4.4 (110)
And since it isn’t talked about (that the Avyakta) is to be identified (it can’t be the Pradhana of the Sankhyas).
Jneyatva: that’s the object to be identified; Avachanat: due to non-mention; Cha: and.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
In response to the Sankhyas, emancipation outcomes when the distinction between the Purusha and the Avyakta (Prakriti) is understood. For and not using a data of the character of the constitutive parts of Pradhana it’s unimaginable to recognise the distinction of the soul from them. Therefore the Avyakta is to be identified in line with the Sankhyas. However right here there isn’t a query of realizing the Avyakta. Therefore it can’t be the Pradhana of the Sankhyas.
It’s unimaginable to carry that data of issues which isn’t taught within the textual content is of any use to man. For that reason additionally we maintain that the phrase `Avyakta’ can’t denote the Pradhana.
The Sankhyas name Avyakta or Pradhana the primary trigger. However the first trigger has been acknowledged within the Sruti as the article to be identified. Within the Sruti `Avyakta’ just isn’t acknowledged to be an object of pursuit. Therefore it isn’t the primary trigger and consequently, can’t be mistaken for the matter of Sankhyas.
In response to the Sankhyas, liberation is attained by realizing that Purusha is totally different from Prakriti. The data of Prakriti is thus a vital of launch. However the Katha Upanishad nowhere mentions that the data of `Avyakta’ is critical for the ultimate emancipation. Due to this fact the Avyakta of the Katha Upanishad just isn’t the Prakriti of the Sankhyas.
Nowhere does the scripture declare that Pradhana (Matter) is Jneya (to be identified) or Upasya (to be worshipped). What’s aimed toward as the article of information of adoration within the Srutis is the Supreme seat of Vishnu (Tad Vishnoh paramam padam).
Vadatiti chet na prajno hello prakaranat I.4.5 (111)
And should you keep that the textual content does converse (of the Pradhana as an object of information) we deny that; as a result of the clever (supreme) Self is supposed on account of the overall material.
Vadati: the verse or the textual content states; Iti: thus; Chet: if. Na: no; Prajnah: the mind supreme; Hello: as a result of; Prakaranat: from the context, due to the overall subject-matter of the Chapter.
An objection to Sutra 4 is raised and refuted.
The Sruti says, He who has perceived that which is with out sound, with out contact, with out type, decay, with out style, everlasting, with out odor, with out starting, with out finish, past the good (Mahat) and unchangeable, is free of the jaws of loss of life Katha Up. II-3-15.
The Sankhyas says that the Pradhana needs to be identified to achieve the ultimate launch, as a result of the outline given of the entity to be identified agrees with the Pradhana, which can also be past the Mahat (nice). Therefore we conclude that the Pradhana is denoted by the time period `Avyaktam’.
This Sutra refutes this. It says that by Avyakta, the one past Mahat (nice) and many others., the clever Supreme Self is supposed, as that’s the subject-matter of that Part.
Additional the very best Self is spoken of in all Vedantic texts as possessing simply these qualities that are talked about within the passage quoted above viz., absence of sound and many others.
Therefore it follows that the Pradhana within the textual content is neither spoken of as the article of information nor denoted by the time period `Avyaktam’.
Even the propounders of the Sankhya philosophy don’t state that liberation or launch from loss of life is the results of the data of Pradhana. They state that it’s because of the data of the sentient Purusha.
The writer provides another excuse for holding that Pradhana just isn’t meant within the passage of the Katha Upanishad.
Trayanameva chaivamupanyasah prasnascha I.4.6 (112)
And there may be query and rationalization relating to a few issues solely (to not the Pradhana).
Trayanam: of the three, particularly three boons requested by Nachiketas; Eva: solely; Cha: and; Evam: thus; Upanyasah: talked about, (presentation by the use of reply); Prasnat: query; Cha: and.
The objection raised in Sutra 5 is additional refuted.
Within the Katha Upanishad Nachiketas asks Yama three questions solely viz., in regards to the fireplace sacrifice, the person soul and the Supreme Self. These three issues solely Yama explains and to them solely the questions of Nachiketas refer. Pradhana just isn’t talked about. Nothing else is talked about or enquired about. There is no such thing as a query relative to the Pradhana and therefore no scope for any remarks on it. We can’t anticipate Yama to talk of the Pradhana which has not been enquired into. So Pradhana has no place within the discourse.
Mahadvaccha I.4.7 (113)
And (the case of the time period Avyakta) is like that of the time period Mahat.
Mahadvat: just like the Mahat; Cha: and.
An argument in help of Sutra 1 is given. Simply as within the case of Mahat, Avyakta is also used within the Vedas in a way totally different from that connected to it within the Sankhya.
The Sankhyas use the time period `Mahat’ (the good one) to indicate the primary born entity, the mind. The time period has a distinct that means within the Vedic texts. Within the Vedic texts it’s related with the phrase Self. Thus we see in such passages because the followingThe nice Self is past the mind (Katha Up. I-3-10), The nice Omnipresent Self (Katha Up. I-2-22), I do know the good particular person (Svet. Up. III-8). We due to this fact, conclude that the time period `Avyakta’ additionally the place it happens within the Srutis, can’t denote the Pradhana. Although the Avyakta could imply the Pradhana or Prakriti within the Sankhya philosophy, it means one thing totally different within the Sruti texts. So the Pradhana just isn’t based mostly on scriptural authority, however is a mere conclusion of inference.
Mahat is the Buddhi of the Sankhyas. However within the Katha Upanishad the Mahat is claimed to be increased than Buddhi. Buddheratma mahan parah. So the Mahat of the Kathopanishad is totally different from the Mahat of the Sankhyas.
CHAMASADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 8-10)
THE AJA OF SVETASVATARA UPANISHAD DOES NOT MEAN PRADHANA
Chamasavadaviseshat I.4.8 (114)
(It can’t be maintained that `Aja’ means the Pradhana) as a result of no particular attribute is acknowledged, as within the case of the cup.
Chamasavat: like a cup; Aviseshat: as a result of there isn’t a particular attribute.
An expression from the Svetasvatara Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue in help of Sutra 1.
The writer subsequent refutes one other flawed interpretation given by the Sankhyas of a verse from the Svetasvatara Upanishad.
We discover within the Svetasvatara Upanishad IV-5, There may be one `Aja’ crimson, white and black in color, producing manifold offspring of the identical nature.
Right here a doubt arises whether or not this `Aja’ refers back to the Pradhana of the Sankhyas or to the refined parts fireplace, water, earth. The Sankhyas keep that `Aja’ right here means the Pradhana, the unborn. The phrases crimson, white and black consult with its three constituents, the Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. She known as `unborn’. She just isn’t an impact. She is claimed to provide manifold offspring by her personal unaided effort.
This Sutra refutes this. The Mantra taken by itself just isn’t in a position to give assertion what the Sankhya doctrine is supposed. There is no such thing as a foundation for such a particular assertion within the absence of particular traits. The case is analogous to that of the cup talked about within the Mantra, There’s a cup having its mouth beneath and its backside above Bri. Up. II-2-3. It’s unimaginable to resolve from the textual content itself what sort of cup is supposed. Equally it isn’t potential to repair the that means of `Aja’ from the textual content alone.
However in reference to the Mantra in regards to the cup we’ve got a supplementary passage from which we be taught what sort of cup is supposed. What known as the cup having its mouth beneath and its backside above is the cranium. Equally, right here we’ve got to refer this passage to supplementary texts to repair the that means of Aja. We must always not assert that it means the Pradhana.
The place can we be taught what particular being is supposed by the phrase `Aja’ of the Svetasvatara Upanishad? To this query the next Sutra provides an acceptable reply.
Jyotirupakrama tu tatha hyadhiyata eke I.4.9 (115)
However (the weather) starting with mild (are meant by the time period Aja), as a result of some learn so of their textual content.
That is explanatory to Sutra 8.
Jyotirupakrama: parts starting with mild; Tu: however; Tatha: thus; Hello: as a result of; Adhiyate: some learn, some recensions have a studying; Eke: some.
By the time period `Aja’ we’ve got to grasp the causal matter from which fireplace, water and earth have sprung. The matter begins with mild i.e., contains fireplace, water and earth. The phrase `tu’ (however) provides emphasis to the assertion. One Sakha assigns to them crimson color and many others. The crimson color is the color of fireside, white color is the color of water, black color is the color of earth Chh. Up. VI-2-4, 4-1.
This passage fixes the that means of the phrase `Aja’. It refers to fireplace, earth and water from which the world has been created. It isn’t the Pradhana of the Sankhyas which consists of the three Gunas. The phrases crimson, white, black primarily denote particular colors. They are often utilized to the three Gunas of the Sankhyas in a secondary sense solely. When uncertain passages must be interpreted, the passages whose sense is past doubt are for use. That is usually a recognised rule.
Within the Svetasvatara Upanishad in Chapter I we discover that Aja is used together with the phrase Devatma Saktithe divine energy. Due to this fact Aja doesn’t imply Pradhana.
The artistic energy is Brahman’s inherent vitality, which emanates from Him in the course of the interval of creation. Prakriti herself is born of Brahman. Due to this fact Aja in its literal sense of `unborn’ can’t apply to Prakriti or Pradhana. Lord Krishna says, Mama yonir mahad BrahmaMy womb is the good Brahman, in that I place the germ thence cometh forth the beginning of all beings, O Bharata. This exhibits that Prakriti herself is produced from the Lord.
Kalpanopadesaccha madhvadivadavirodhah I.4.10 (116)
And on account of the assertion of the belief (of a metaphor) there may be nothing opposite to cause (in Aja denoting the causal matter) as within the case of honey (denoting the solar in Madhu Vidya for the sake of meditation) and comparable instances.
Kalpana: the artistic energy of thought; Upadesat: from educating; Cha: and; Madhvadivat: as within the case of honey and many others.; Avirodhah: no incongruity.
The argument in help of Sutra 8 is sustained.
The Purvapakshin says, The time period Aja denotes one thing unborn. How can it consult with the three causal parts of the Chhandogya Upanishad, that are one thing created? That is opposite to cause.
The Sutra says: There is no such thing as a incongruity. The supply of all beings viz., fireplace, water and earth is in comparison with a she-goat by the use of metaphor. Some she-goat is perhaps partly crimson, partly white and partly black. She may need many younger goats resembling her in color. Some he-goat may love her and lie by her facet, whereas another he-goat may abandon her after having loved her. Equally the common causal matter which is tri-coloured on account of its comprising fireplace, water and earth produces many inanimate and animate beings like unto itself and is loved by the souls who’re sure by Avidya or ignorance, whereas it’s renounced by these souls who’ve attained true data of the Brahman.
The phrases `like honey’ within the Sutra imply that simply because the solar though not being honey is represented as honey (Chh. Up. III.1), and speech as cow (Bri. Up. V-8), and the heavenly world and many others., because the fires (Bri. Up. VI-2.9). So right here the causal matter although not being a tri-coloured she-goat, is metaphorically or figuratively represented as one. Therefore there may be nothing incongruous in utilizing the time period `Aja’ to indicate the combination of fireside, water and earth. `Aja’ doesn’t imply `unborn’. The outline of Nature as an Aja is an imaginative method of educating a Reality. The solar is the honey of the gods, although the solar just isn’t mere honey.
SANKHYOPASANGRAHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3
THE FIVE-FOLD-FIVE (PANCHA-PANCHAJANAH) DOES NOT
consult with the twenty-five Sankhyan classes
Na sankhyopasangrahadapi nanabhavadatirekaccha I.4.11 (117)
Even from the assertion of the quantity (five-fold-five i.e., twenty-five classes by the Sruti it’s) not (to be understood that the Sruti refers back to the Pradhana) on account of the variations (within the classes and the surplus over the variety of the Sankhyan classes).
Na: not; Sankhya: quantity; Upasangrahat: from assertion; Api: even; Nanabhavat: on account of the variations; Atirekat: on account of extra; Cha: and.
This Sutra discusses whether or not the twenty-five rules of the Sankhyan philosophy are admitted by the Sruti.
The Sankhya or Purvapakshin failed in his try to base his doctrine on the textual content which speaks of the `Aja’. He once more comes ahead and factors to a different textual content. He in whom the 5 teams of 5 and the ether relaxation, Him alone I consider to be the Self; I who know consider Him to be Brahman (Bri. Up. IV-4-17). Now five-times-five makes twenty-five. That is precisely the variety of the Sankhya Tattvas or rules. The doctrine of Pradhana rests on a scriptural foundation. Right here is the scriptural authority for our philosophy.
This Sutra refutes such an assumption. Panchapanchajanah, five-five-people can’t denote the twenty-five classes of the Sankhyas. The Sankhya classes have every their particular person distinction. There are not any attributes in frequent to every pentad. The Sankhya classes can’t be divided into teams of 5 of any foundation of similarity, as a result of all of the twenty-five rules or Tattvas differ from one another.
That is additional not potential `on account of the surplus’. The ether is talked about as a separate class. This can make the quantity twenty-six in all. This isn’t in accordance with the idea of the Sankhyas.
From the mere enumeration of the quantity 25 we can’t say that the reference is to the twenty-five Sankhya classes and that therefore the Sankhya doctrine has the sanction of the Vedas.
The passage refers to Atma additionally. Then the overall quantity can be twenty-seven. Atma is described as the idea of the others. Due to this fact it can’t be one of many twenty-five rules.
The rules of Sankhya philosophy are propounded as unbiased of Purusha. However right here the classes are identified to be fully depending on Brahman or Atma who is claimed to be the mainstay of all of them. So that they can’t be accepted because the unbiased rules of Sankhya.
The phrase Panchajanah is a gaggle denoting time period. It’s the particular identify belonging to all of the members of that group. The group consists of 5 members, every of whom known as a Panchajanah. Due to this fact the phrase `Pancha-panchajanah’ doesn’t imply 5 instances 5 beings however 5 beings. Each one among whom known as a Panchajanah. It is rather like the phrase Saptarshi, which denotes the constellation Ursa Main, consisting of seven stars. The phrase Saptarshi is a particular identify of everybody of those stars. After we say seven Saptarshis we don’t imply seven times-seven stars however seven stars every one among whom known as a Saptarshi. Due to this fact `Pancha-pancha-janah’ doesn’t imply 5 instances 5 merchandise, however 5 folks each one among whom known as a Panchajanah. The twenty-five Tattvas of the Sankhyas are these: 1,Prakriti; 2-8, seven modifications of Prakriti viz., Mahat and many others., that are causal substances, in addition to results; 9-24 sixteen results; the 25 is the soul which is neither a causal substance nor an impact.
Who then are these beings referred to as Panchajanah? The next Sutra provides the reply.
Pranadayo vakyaseshat I.4.12 (118)
(The Panchajanah or the 5 folks referred to are) the very important pressure and many others., (as is seen) from the complementary passage.
Pranadayah: the Prana and the remaining; Vakyaseshat: due to the complementary passage.
The Sutra is explanatory to Sutra 11.
The textual content by which the Panchajanah are talked about is adopted by one other one by which the very important pressure and 4 different issues are talked about as a way to describe the character of Brahman. They who know the Prana of Prana (the breath of breath), the attention of the attention, the ear of the ear, the meals of the meals, the thoughts of thoughts and many others. (Bri. Madhya. IV-4-21).
The 5 folks consult with the Prana and the opposite 4 of the textual content and are talked about for the aim of describing the character of Brahman.
The Sankhya asks how can the phrase `folks’ be utilized to the breath, the attention, the ear and so forth? How we ask in return, can it’s utilized to your classes? In each instances the frequent that means of the time period `folks’ is utilized to the Pranas within the textual content, These are the 5 individuals of Brahman (Chh. Up. III-13-6). Breath is father, breath is mom (Chh. Up. VII-15-1).
The objector says. That is potential solely within the recension of the Madhyandinas, who learn the extra phrase `Annasya Annam’. However in Kanva recension that phrase `annasya annam’ is omitted. We have now solely 4. This objection is answered by the writer within the following Sutra.
Jyotishaikeshamasatyanne I.4.13 (119)
Within the textual content of some (the Kanva recension) the place meals just isn’t talked about (the quantity 5 is made up) by `mild’ (talked about within the earlier verse).
Jyotisha: by mild; Ekesham: of some texts or recensions, i.e., of the Kanvas; Asati: within the absence of; Anne: meals.
The argument in help of Sutra 11 is sustained.
The immortal mild of lights the gods worship as longevity Bri. Up. IV-4-10. Though meals just isn’t talked about within the textual content cited within the final Sutra, in line with the Kanva recension of the Satapatha Brahmana, but the 4 of that verse, along with `mild’ talked about within the textual content quoted above, would make the 5 folks.
We have now proved herewith that scriptures provide no foundation for the doctrine of the Pradhana. It is going to be proven afterward that this doctrine can’t be proved both by Smriti or by ratiocination.
KARANATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4 (SUTRAS 14-15)
BRAHMAN IS THE FIRST CAUSE
Karanatvena chakasadishu yathavyapadishtokteh I.4.14 (120)
Though there’s a battle of the Vedanta texts as regards the issues created similar to ether and so forth, there isn’t a such battle with respect to Brahman because the First Trigger, on account of His being represented in a single textual content as described in different texts.
Karanatvena: because the (First) trigger; Cha: and; Akasadishu: with regards to Akasa and the remaining; Yatha: as; Vyapadishta: taught in several Srutis; Ukteh: due to the assertion.
The doubt that will come up from Sutra 13 that totally different Srutis could draw totally different conclusions as to the reason for the universe is eliminated by this Sutra.
Within the previous a part of the work the correct definition of Brahman has been given. It has been proven that every one the Vedanta texts have Brahman for his or her frequent matter. It has been proved additionally that there isn’t a scriptural authority for the doctrine of the Pradhana. However now the Sankhya raises a brand new objection.
He says: It isn’t potential to show both that Brahman is the reason for the origin and many others., of the universe or that every one the Vedanta texts consult with Brahman; as a result of the Vedanta passages contradict each other. All of the Vedanta texts converse of the successive steps of the creation in several order. In actuality they converse of various creations. Thus in Tait. Up. II-1-1 we discover that creation proceeds from Self or Brahman From the Self sprang Akasa, from Akasa air and many others. This passage exhibits that the reason for creation is Atman. In one other place it’s stated that the creation started with fireplace (Chh. Up. VI-2-3). In one other place, once more, it’s stated The particular person created breath and from breath religion (Pras. Up. IV-4); in one other place, once more, that the Self created these worlds, the water above the heaven, mild, the mortal (earth) and the water beneath the earth (Aitareya Aranyaka II-4-1-2, 3). There no order is acknowledged in any respect. Someplace it’s stated that the creation originated from the non-existent (Asat). At first there was the non-existent (Asat); from it was born what exists (Tait. Up. II-7). At first there was the non-existent; it grew to become existent; it grew (Chh. Up. III-19-1). In one other place it’s stated Others say, to start with there was that solely which isn’t; however how may it’s thus, my expensive? How may that which is to be born of that which isn’t (Chh. Up. VI-2-1& 2).
In one other place Sat is claimed to be the reason for the universe Sat alone was to start with Chh. Up. VI-2-1. In one other place, once more, the creation of the world is spoken of as having taken place spontaneously. Once more we discover that Avyakta is claimed to be the reason for the world Now all this was then Avyakrita (undeveloped). It grew to become developed by identify and type Bri. Up. 1-4-7. Thus the Upanishads will not be constant, as regards the reason for the universe. Thus it isn’t potential to establish that Brahman alone is taught within the Upanishads as the reason for the world. As many discrepancies are noticed, the Vedanta texts can’t be accepted as authorities for figuring out the reason for the universe. We should settle for another reason behind the world resting on the authority of Sruti and reasoning.
It’s potential to say that Pradhana alone is taught to be the reason for the world as we discover from the passage of the Bri. Up. already quoted above. Additional the phrases Sat, and Asat, Prana, Akasa and Avyakrita can very nicely be utilized to Pradhana, as a result of a few of them similar to Akasa, Prana are the results of Pradhana, whereas others are the names of Pradhana itself. All these phrases can’t be utilized to Brahman.
In some passages we discover that Atman and Brahman are additionally stated to be the reason for the world; however these two phrases may be utilized to Pradhana additionally. The literal that means of the phrase `Atman’ is all-pervading. Pradhana is all-pervading. Brahman actually signifies that which is pre-eminently nice (Brihat). Pradhana could also be referred to as Brahman additionally. Pradhana known as Asat in its facet of modified issues and it’s referred to as Sat or being in its causal or everlasting facet. Pradhana known as Prana because it is a component produced from it. Pondering and many others., might also apply to Pradhana in a metaphorical sense, that means the graduation of motion. So when the Upanishad says It thought, let me grow to be many, it means, that Pradhana began the motion of multiplication. Due to this fact all of the Upanishad passages referring to creation harmonise higher with the idea of Pradhana being the creator than of Brahman.
The Siddhantin provides the next reply. Though the Vedanta texts could also be conflicting with regard to the order of the issues created similar to ether and so forth, but they uniformly declare that Brahman is the First Trigger. The Vedantic passages that are involved with setting forth the reason for the world are in concord all through. It can’t be stated that the battle of statements relating to the universe impacts the statements relating to the trigger i.e., Brahman. It isn’t the principle object of the Vedanta texts to show about creation. Due to this fact it will not even matter enormously. The chief function of the Srutis is to show that Brahman is the First Trigger. There is no such thing as a battle relating to this.
The instructor will reconcile afterward these conflicting passages additionally which consult with the universe.
Samakarshat I.4.15 (121)
On account of the connection (with passages treating of Brahman, non-existence doesn’t imply absolute Non-existence)
Samakarshat: from its reference to a distant expression.
Some texts from the Taittiriya, the Chhandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads are taken up for dialogue.
The Sankhyas increase one other objection. They are saying: There’s a battle with regards to the primary trigger, as a result of some texts declare that the Self created these worlds (Ait. Ar. II-4-1-2-3). Some Vedanta passages declare that creation originated from non-existence (Tait. II-7). Once more in some passages existence is taught because the First Trigger (Chh. Up. VI-1-2). Some Srutis converse of spontaneous creation. It can’t be stated that the Srutis consult with Brahman uniformly because the First Trigger owing to the conflicting statements of the Vedanta texts.
The Siddhantin provides the next reply. We learn within the Tait. Up. II-7 This was certainly non-existence to start with. Non-existence right here doesn’t imply absolute non-existence. It means undifferentiated existence. At first existence was undifferentiated into identify and type. Taittriya Upanishad says He who is aware of Brahman as non-existing turns into himself non-existing. He who is aware of Brahman as current, him we all know himself as current Tait. Up. II-6. It’s additional elaborated by the use of the sequence of sheaths viz., the sheath of meals and many others. represented because the inside self of every part. This identical Brahman is once more referred to within the clause. He wished `Might I be many’. This clearly intimates that Brahman created the entire universe.
The time period `Being’ ordinarily denotes that which is differentiated by means and varieties. The time period `Non-being’ denotes the identical substance earlier to its differentiation. Brahman known as `Non-being’ beforehand to the origination of the world in a secondary sense.
We learn in Chh. Up. VI-2-2 How can that which is created from non-existence be? This clearly denies such a risk.
Now this was then undeveloped (Bri. Up. I-4-7) doesn’t by any means assert that the evolution of the world came about and not using a ruler, as a result of it’s related with one other passage the place it’s stated, He has entered right here to the very suggestions of the finger-nails (Bri. Up. I-4-7). `He’ refers back to the Ruler. Due to this fact we’ve got to take that the Lord, the Ruler, developed what was undeveloped.
One other scriptural textual content additionally describes that the evolution of the world came about beneath the superintendence of a Ruler. Let me now enter these beings with this loving Self, and let me then evolve names and varieties Chh. Up. VI-3-2.
Though there’s a reaper it’s stated The corn-field reaps itself. It’s stated additionally The village is being approached. Right here we’ve got to provide by Devadatta or any person else.
Brahman is described in a single place as existence. In one other place it’s described because the Self of all. Due to this fact it’s a settled conclusion that every one Vedanta texts uniformly level to Brahman because the First Trigger. Actually there isn’t a battle on this level.
Even within the passage that declares Asat i.e. non-being to be the trigger there’s a reference to Sat i.e. Being. Even the textual content that describes Asat because the Causal pressure ends by referring to Sat.
The doubt in regards to the that means of a phrase or passage may be eliminated by reference to its reference to a distant passage in the identical textual content, for such connection is discovered to exist within the totally different passages of Sruti. The precise that means of such phrases as `Asat’ which suggests non-entity, apparently, `Avyakrita’ which suggests apparently non-manifest Pradhana of Sankhya, is thus ascertained to be Brahman. Evaluate the Srutis: meeske�eceele He desired, I can be many I’ll manifest myself Tait. Up. II-6-2. Deme�e Foce�e Deemeerled
This was at first Asatapparently a non-entity. Tait. II-7-1. The that means of the phrase Asat of the second passage is ascertained to be Brahman by reference to the primary passage the place the identical query particularly the state of the universe earlier than creation is answered in a clearer method.
The that means of the phrase Avyakrita within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I-4-7 within the passage �leceemeerled (thus due to this fact, that was the undifferentiated) is ascertained to be the Brahman as nonetheless undeveloped by a reference to the passage me S<<e Fn eefJe DeeveKee�esYe (the identical is pervading all by and thru right down to the guidelines of the nails of the fingers and toes). Avyakta is recognised within the final passage extra clearly by the phrases `Sa esha’ (the self-same one).
The Pradhana of the Sankhyas doesn’t discover a place anyplace within the passages which deal with about the reason for the world. The phrases `Asat’ `Avyakrita’ additionally denote Brahman solely.
The phrase `Asat’ refers to Brahman which is the topic beneath dialogue within the earlier verse. Earlier than the creation, the excellence of names and varieties didn’t exist. Brahman additionally then didn’t exist within the sense that He was not related with names and varieties. As he has then no identify and type, he’s stated to be Asat or non-existent.
The phrase `Asat’ can’t imply matter or non-being, as a result of on this very passage we discover that the outline given of it might apply solely to Brahman.
Brahman just isn’t `Asat’ within the literal that means of that phrase. The seer of the Upanishad makes use of it in a way completely distinct from its peculiar denotation.
BALAKYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 16-18)
HE WHO IS THE MAKER OF THE SUN, MOON, ETC. IS BRAHMAN
and never Prana or the person soul
Jagadvachitvat I.4.16 (122)
(He whose work is that is Brahman) as a result of (the `work’) denotes the world.
Jagat: the world; Vachitvat: due to the denotation.
A passage from the Kaushitaki Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue.
Within the Kaushitaki Brahmana the sage Balaki guarantees to show Brahman by saying I shall inform you Brahman, and he goes on to explain sixteen issues as Brahman, starting with the Solar. All these are put aside by the King Ajatasatru who says, none of them is Brahman. When Balaki is silenced, Ajatasatru provides the educating about Brahman in these phrases: O Balaki! He who’s the maker of these individuals whom you talked about and whose work is the seen universeis alone to be identified.
We learn within the Kaushitaki Upanishad within the dialogue between Balaki and Ajatasatru O Balaki, He who’s the maker of these individuals whom you talked about, and whose work is that this (seen universe) is alone to be identified (Kau. Up. IV-19).
A doubt arises now whether or not what’s right here stated as the article of information is the person soul or the Prana or Brahman, the Supreme Self. The Purvapakshin holds that the very important pressure or Prana is supposed, as a result of he says the clause of whom that is the work factors to the exercise of movement and that exercise rests on Prana. Secondly, we meet with the time period `Prana’ in a complementary passage. Then he turns into one with the Prana alone Kau. Up. IV-20. The phrase `Prana’ denotes the very important pressure. That is well-known. Thirdly, Prana is the maker of all of the individuals, the particular person within the Solar, the particular person within the moon and many others. We all know from one other scriptural textual content that the Solar and different deities are solely differentiations of Prana, Who’s that one God in whom all different gods are contained? Prana and he’s Brahman, they usually name him That’ (Bri. Up. III-9-9).
Or the passage refers back to the particular person soul as the article of information. A subsequent passage incorporates an inferential mark of the person soul, Because the grasp feeds together with his folks, nay as his folks feed on the grasp, thus does this acutely aware Self feed with the opposite selfs Kau. Up. IV-20. As the person soul is the help of the Prana, it might itself be referred to as Prana. We thus conclude that the passage beneath dialogue refers both to the person soul or to the chief Prana however to not the Lord of whom it doesn’t comprise any inferential marks by any means.
The Sutra refutes all these and says it’s Brahman that’s referred to the maker within the textual content; as a result of Brahman is taught right here I shall educate you Brahman. Once more `this’ which suggests the world, is his `work.’ This clearly factors out that the `he’ is Brahman solely.
The reference within the Kaushitaki Brahmana passage is to the Supreme Lord due to the reference to the world. The exercise referred to is the world of which the Lord is the Creator.
Due to this fact the maker is neither Prana nor the person soul, however the Highest Lord. It’s affirmed in all Vedanta texts that the Maker of the world is the Supreme Lord.
Jivamukhyapranalinganneti chet tad vyakhyatam I.4.17 (123)
If it’s stated that on account of the inferential marks of the person soul and the chief Prana (Brahman is) not (referred to by the phrase `matter’ within the passage quoted), (we reply) that has already been defined.
Jiva: the person soul; Mukhyaprana: the chief very important air; Lingat: due to the inferential marks; Na iti: not thus; Chet: if; Tat: that; Yyakhyatam: has already been defined.
An objection to Sutra 16 is raised and refuted. The objection has already been disposed of beneath I-1-31.
Within the Sutra I-1-31 which handled the subject of the dialogue between Indra and Pratardana, this objection was raised and answered. All these arguments would apply right here additionally. It was proven there that when a textual content is interpreted as referring to Brahman on the bottom of a complete survey of its preliminary and concluding clauses, all different inferential marks which level to different matters, similar to Jiva or Prana and many others., have to be so interpreted that they might be in concord with the principle matter.
Right here additionally the preliminary clause refers to Brahman within the sentence Shall I inform you Brahman? The concluding clause is Having overcome all evils, he obtains pre-eminence amongst all beings, sovereignty and supremacy, yea, he who is aware of this. Thus the preliminary and concluding clauses right here additionally consult with Brahman. If in the course of this textual content we discover any mark from which Jiva or some other matter could also be inferred, we should so interpret the passage as to consult with Brahman, as a way to keep away from contradiction.
This matter just isn’t redundant as it’s already taught in Sutra I-1-31, as a result of the chief level mentioned right here is the phrase `Karma’ which is liable to misinterpretation. Due to this fact this Adhikarana definitely teaches one thing new.
The phrase Prana happens within the sense of Brahman within the passage The thoughts settles down on Prana Chh. Up. VI-8-2.
Anyartham tu Jaiminih prasnavyakhyanabhyamapi
chaivameke I.4.18 (124)
However Jaimini thinks that (the reference to the person soul within the textual content) has one other function on account of the query and the reply; furthermore, thus some additionally (the Vajasaneyins) (learn of their textual content or recension).
Anyartham: for an additional function; Tu: however; Jaiminih: Jaimini; Prasna-vyakhyanabhyam: from the query and the reply; Api: additionally; Cha: and; Evam: on this method; Eke: others, different Srutis
An argument in help of Sutra 16 is given.
Even the reference to the person soul has a distinct function i.e. goals at intimating Brahman.
After Ajatasatru has taught Balaki by waking the sleeping man, that the soul is totally different from the Prana or the very important air, he asks the next query: Balaki, the place did the particular person right here sleep? The place was he? Whence got here he thus again? Kau. Up. IV. 19. These questions clearly consult with one thing totally different from the person soul. And so likewise does the reply (Kau. Up. IV.20) say that the person soul is merged in Brahman in deep sleep.
When sleeping he sees no dream, then he turns into one with that Prana alone, and `from that Self all Pranas proceed, every in the direction of its place, from the Pranas the gods, from the gods the worlds.
This dialog happens within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. It clearly refers back to the particular person soul by the use of the time period the particular person consisting of cognition (Vijnanamaya) and distinguishes from it the Highest Self. The place was then the particular person consisting of cognition? and from whence did he thus come again? (Bri. Up. II-1-16) and afterward, within the reply to the above query, declares that `the particular person consisting of cognition lies within the ether throughout the coronary heart’. We already know that the phrase `ether’ denotes the supreme seat for example within the passage above the small ether throughout the lotus of the guts (Chh. Up. VIII-1-1).
VAKYANVAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 19-22)
THE ATMAN TO BE SEEN THROUGH HEARING ETC., OF THE
Bri. Up. II-4-5 is Brahman and never Jivatma
Vakyanvayat I.4.19 (125)
(The Self to be seen, to be heard and many others., is the Supreme Self) on account of the related that means of the sentences.
Vakyanvayat: On account of the related that means of the sentences.
A passage from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is now taken up for dialogue.
From the artificial examine of the context it’s clear that the reference is to the Supreme Self.
We learn within the Maitreyi-Brahmana of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad the next passage: Verily a husband just isn’t expensive that you could be love the husband and many others., however that you could be love the Self, due to this fact every part is expensive. Verily the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be mirrored and to be meditated upon, O Maitreyi! When the Self has been seen, heard, mirrored and realised or identified, then all that is identified Bri. Up. IV-5-6.
Right here a doubt arises whether or not that which is represented as the article to be seen, to be heard and so forth is the person soul or the Supreme Self.
The Purvapakshin says: The Self is by the point out of expensive issues similar to husband and so forth, indicated because the enjoyer. From this it seems that the textual content refers back to the particular person soul.
This Sutra refutes this and says that on this passage the very best Self is referred to, and never the person soul. In the entire Part Brahman is handled. Maitreyi says to her husband Yajnavalkya: What ought to I do with the wealth by which I don’t grow to be immortal? What my Lord knoweth inform that to me. Thereupon Yajnavalkya expounds to her the data of the Self. Scripture and Smriti declare that immortality may be attained solely by the data of the Supreme Self. Then Yajnavalkya teaches her the data of the Self. Lastly the Part concludes with Up to now goes immortality.
Immortality can’t be attained by the data of the person soul, however solely by the data of the Highest Self or Brahman. Due to this fact Brahman alone is the subject material of the passage beneath dialogue. Brahman alone is to be seen or realised by listening to, reflection and meditation.
Yajnavalkya declares that the Self is the centre of the entire world with the objects, the senses and the thoughts, that it has neither inside nor outdoors, that it’s altogether a mass of information. It follows from all this that what the textual content represents as the article of sight and so forth is the Supreme Self.
Additional it’s stated within the textual content that by the data of the Self every part is understood. This clearly intimates that the Self is Brahman solely as a result of how can the data of finite Jiva or particular person soul give us data of every part?
Pratijnasiddherlingamasmarathyah I.4.20 (126)
(The truth that the person soul is taught as the article of realisation is an) indicatory mark which is proof of the proposition; so Asmarathya thinks.
Pratijnasiddheh: due to the proof of the proposition; Lingam: indicatory mark; Asmarathyah: the sage Asmarathya.
An argument in help of Sutra 19 is given. The indication is that the person soul just isn’t totally different from Brahman, the Final Trigger, of which it’s a ray. Therefore to know Brahman, the Trigger, is to know all that.
If the person had been fairly totally different from Brahman, then by the data of Brahman every part else wouldn’t be identified. The preliminary assertion goals at representing the person soul or Jiva and the Supreme Self as non-different for the aim of fulfilling the promise made. The non-difference between Brahman and the person soul establishes the proposition, When the Self is understood all that is identified, All that is that Self.
Asmarathya is of opinion that the passages `Atmani vijnate sarvamidam vijnatam bhavati’ and `Idam sarvam yadayamatma’ show the facet of id of the person soul and the Supreme Self, as a result of solely then may be attained what’s promised i.e., that by the data of Brahman every part may be attained. I-4-20.
The sparks that proceed from a fireplace will not be completely totally different from the fireplace as they’re of the character of the fireplace. They don’t seem to be completely non-different from the fireplace, as a result of in that case they might be distinguished neither from the fireplace nor from one another. Equally the person souls additionally, that are the results of Brahman, are neither completely totally different from Brahman, as a result of that will imply that they aren’t of the character of intelligence; nor completely non-different from Brahman, as a result of in that case they may not be distinguished from one another; and since in the event that they had been similar with Brahman, and due to this fact Omniscient, it will be ineffective to present them any instruction. Due to this fact the person souls are someway totally different from Brahman and someway non-different. This doctrine of Asmarathya is called Bhedabhedavada. That is the opinion of the sage Asmarathya.
Utkramishyata evambhavadityaudulomih I.4.21 (127)
The preliminary assertion identifies the person soul with Brahman or the Supreme Self as a result of the soul, when it’ll depart (from the physique), is such (i.e. one with the Supreme Self); thus Audulomi thinks.
Utkramishyata: of him who would move away from the physique; Evam bhavat: due to this situation; Iti: thus; Audulomih: the sage Audulomi.
The argument in help of Sutra 19 is sustained.
Jiva or the person soul which is related to its totally different limiting adjuncts viz., physique, senses and thoughts, attains freedom by meditation and data. When it rises from the physique i.e., when it’s free and has no body-consciousness, it realises that it’s similar with Brahman. Due to this fact it’s represented as non-different from the Supreme Self. That is the opinion of the instructor Audulomi.
We learn within the Srutis additionally that serene being arising from this physique, seems in its personal type as quickly because it has approached the Highest Gentle Chh. Up. VIII-12-3. Mundakopanishad says Because the flowing rivers vanish within the sea, having misplaced their identify and type, so additionally the sage, free of identify and type, goes to the Divine One that is bigger than the good Mun. Up. III-2-8.
The person soul is totally totally different from the Supreme Self. It’s conditioned by the totally different limiting adjuncts viz., physique, senses, thoughts and mind. However it’s spoken of within the Upanishads as non-different from the Supreme Self as a result of it might move out of the physique and grow to be one with the Supreme Self, after having purified itself by the use of meditation and data. The textual content of the Upanishad thus transfers a future state of non-difference to that point when distinction truly exists. This doctrine advocated by Audulomiwhich holds that distinction between the person soul and Brahman within the state of ignorance is a realityis a Satyabhedavada.
Avasthiteriti Kasakritsnah I.4.22 (128)
(The preliminary assertion is made) as a result of (the Supreme Self) exists within the situation (of the person soul); so the Sage Kasakritsna thinks.
Avasthiteh: due to the existence; Iti: thus (holds); Kasakritsnah: the sage Kasakritsna.
The argument in help of Sutra 19 is sustained.
The person soul or Jiva is kind of totally different in nature from Brahman or the Supreme Self. It isn’t potential for the person soul to be one with Brahman within the state of emancipation. Due to this fact the instructor Kasakritsna thinks that the Highest Self Itself exists as the person soul. Because the Supreme Self exists additionally within the situation of the person soul, the Sage Kasakritsna is of opinion that the preliminary assertion which goals at intimating the non-difference of the 2 is feasible.
Brahman of the Supreme Self and the person soul are completely non-different. The obvious distinction is because of Upadhis or limiting automobiles or adjuncts that are solely merchandise of Avidya or ignorance. The distinction is illusory or unreal from absolutely the or transcendental view level. Due to this fact it follows that every part else is understood by the data of the Self or Brahmajnana.
That the Supreme Self solely is that which seems as the person soul is apparent from the Brahmana-passage Let me enter into them with this residing Self and evolve names and varieties.
Sutra 20 signifies that, the affirmation that by realizing It every part is understood, exhibits the person soul and the Supreme Self are non-different. Sutra 21 means the id of the soul and the Supreme Self, refers back to the state of attainment of the Supreme Self by the purified and perfected soul. Sutra 22 signifies that even now the Supreme Self is the person soul. It isn’t that the person soul is dissolved or merged within the Supreme Self. Our inaccurate sense of range and separateness is misplaced or dissolved however the soul, which is in actuality the Supreme Self (or the one Atman which alone exists), exists for ever.
Of those three opinions, the one held by Kasakritsna is in accordance with the Scripture, as a result of it agrees with what all of the Vedanta texts educate.
In response to the assertion of Asmarathya, the soul just isn’t completely totally different from the Supreme Self. His declaration signifies by the expression Owing to the fulfilment of the promise, that there’s a sure relation of trigger and impact between the Supreme Self and the person soul. The promise is made within the two passages when the Self is understood, all that is identified and all that is that Self. In response to Asmarathya the person soul is a product of the Highest Self. Due to this fact the data of the trigger provides rise to the data of every part. If the Soul and the Supreme Self are non-different, the promise that by the data of 1 every part turns into identified may be fulfilled.
In response to the view of Audulomi the distinction and non-difference of the 2 rely upon distinction of situation; the person soul is just a state of the very best Self or Brahman. The view of Asmarathya and Audulomi can’t stand.
Jivahood is an unreality. It’s a creation of Avidya or nescience. The person soul is similar with Brahman in essence. On account of ignorance we really feel that we’re conditioned or restricted by the false, illusory Upadhis and that we’re totally different from Brahman. Actually the person soul is neither created nor destroyed. If the Jivahood is a actuality it might by no means be destroyed and liberation can be unimaginable. If the person soul turns into one with Brahman or the Highest Self when it attains freedom or the ultimate emancipation, then Jivahood is illusory. The origin of the souls from the Supreme Self like sparks from the fireplace just isn’t actual creation. It have to be seen solely with regards to the limiting adjuncts.
The objector says: the passage, `Rising from out of those parts he vanishes once more after them. When he has departed there isn’t a extra data’, signifies the ultimate annihilation of the soul, however not its oneness with the Supreme Self.
We reply, that is incorrect. The passage means to say solely that every one sense notion ceases when the soul departs from the physique, not that the Self is annihilated. The passage intimates that the eternally unchanging Self which is one mass of information or consciousness can’t definitely perish however by the use of true data of the Self, disconnection with the weather and the sense organs, that are the merchandise of ignorance, has taken place.
The person soul and the Supreme Self differ in identify solely. It’s a settled conclusion that good data produces absolute oneness of the 2. The Self known as by many alternative names however it’s One solely. Excellent data is the door to Moksha or the ultimate emancipation. Moksha just isn’t one thing effected and non-eternal, It’s everlasting and isn’t totally different from the eternally unchanging, immortal, pure Brahman who’s One and not using a second. Those that state that there’s distinction between the person and the Supreme Self will not be in concord with the true sense of the Vedanta texts.
PRAKRTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC7 (SUTRA 23-27)
BRAHMAN IS BOTH THE EFFICIENT AND THE MATERIAL CAUSE
Prakritischa pratijna drishtantanuparodhat I.4.23 (129)
(Brahman is) the fabric trigger additionally on account of (this view) not being in battle with the proposition and the illustrations (quoted within the Sruti).
Prakritih: the fabric trigger; Cha: additionally; Pratijna: the proposition; Drishtanta: illustrations; Anuparodhat: on account of this not being in battle.
This Sutra states that Brahman is the environment friendly in addition to the fabric reason behind the universe.
Brahman has been outlined as that from which proceed the origin, sustenance and dissolution of this universe. Now a doubt arises whether or not Brahman is the fabric trigger like clay or gold, or the environment friendly or operative causality like potter or goldsmith.
The Purvapakshin or the objector holds that Brahman is the one operative or the environment friendly reason behind the world, as in texts like, He mirrored, he created Prana Pras. Up. VI.3&4. Commentary and expertise intimate that the motion of operative causes solely similar to potters and the like is preceded by considering or reflection. It’s, due to this fact, fairly appropriate that we must always regard the creator additionally in the identical mild. The creator is said because the `Lord’. Lords similar to kings are identified solely as operative causes. The Supreme Lord have to be considered an operative trigger.
This Sutra refutes this prima facie view of the Purvapakshin. Brahman can also be the fabric reason behind this universe. The time period `cha’ (additionally) signifies that Brahman is the environment friendly trigger as nicely. Provided that Brahman is the fabric reason behind the universe it’s potential to know every part by the data of Brahman. Have you ever ever requested for that instruction by which that which isn’t heard turns into heard; that which isn’t perceived, perceived; that which isn’t identified, identified? (Chh. Up. IV.1-2), which declare that the results will not be totally different from their environment friendly trigger, as a result of we all know from peculiar expertise that the carpenter is totally different from the home he has constructed.
The illustrations referred to listed here are My expensive, as by one lump of clay all that’s fabricated from clay is understood, the modification i.e., the impact being a reputation merely which has its origin in speech, whereas the reality is that it’s clay merely and many others. (Chh. Up. VI-14). These texts clearly point out that Brahman is the fabric reason behind the universe, in any other case they’d be meaningless.
Promising statements are made elsewhere additionally. For example What’s that by which whether it is identified every part else turns into identified, Mun. Up. I.1.3. When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived and identified then all that is identified (Bri. Up. IV-5-6). All these promissory statements and illustrative situations that are to be present in all Vedanta texts show that Brahman can also be the fabric trigger.
There is no such thing as a different guiding being than Brahman. We have now to conclude from this that Brahman is the environment friendly trigger on the identical time. Lumps of clay and items of gold are depending on extraneous operative causes similar to potters and goldsmiths as a way to form themselves into vessels and ornaments; however outdoors Brahman as materials trigger there isn’t a different operative or environment friendly trigger to which the fabric trigger may look, as a result of the scripture says that Brahman was One and not using a second earlier to creation. Who else might be an environment friendly or operative trigger when there was nothing else?
If that had been admitted that there’s a guideline totally different from the fabric trigger, in that case every part can’t be identified by one factor. Consequently the promissory statements and the illustrations can be stultified.
Due to this fact Brahman is the environment friendly trigger, as a result of there isn’t a different ruling precept. He’s the fabric trigger as nicely as a result of there isn’t a different substance from which the universe can take its origin.
For the sake of concord between the proposition to be established and illustrations given therein, we conclude that Brahman is the fabric reason behind the world. The textual content expressly declares Him to be the environment friendly or operative trigger as nicely.
Abhidhyopadesacca I. 4.24 (130)
On account of the assertion of will or reflection (to create on the a part of the Supreme Self, It’s the materials trigger).
Abidhya: will, reflection; Upadesat: on account of instruction or educating or assertion; Cha: additionally, and.
An argument in help of Sutra 23 is given He wished or thought could I be many, could I develop forth. On this textual content the will and reflection point out that Brahman is the environment friendly trigger.
Might I be many exhibits that Brahman Himself grew to become many. Due to this fact He’s the fabric trigger as nicely.
He willed to manifest Himself as many i.e., because the universe.
He willed to evolve the universe out of Himself. This intimates that He’s without delay the fabric and the environment friendly reason behind creation.
Sakshaccobhayamnanat I.4.25 (131)
And since the Sruti states that each (the origin and the dissolution of the universe) have Brahman for his or her materials trigger.
Sakshat: direct; Cha: additionally; Ubhayamnanat: as a result of the Sruti states each.
The argument in help of Sutra 23 is sustained.
This Sutra offers an extra argument for Brahman’s being the overall materials trigger.
That from which a factor takes its origin and into which it’s withdrawn, and absorbed is its materials trigger. That is well-known. Thus the earth, for example, is the fabric reason behind rice, barley and the like. All these items take their origin from the Akasa (Brahman) alone and return into the Akasa Chh. Up. I-9-1.
That from which these items are produced, by which, when produced they reside, and into which they enter at their dissolutiontry to know that. That’s Brahman Tait. Up. III.1. These Upanishadic passages point out clearly that Brahman is the fabric trigger additionally.
The phrase `Sakshat’ (direct) within the Sutra exhibits that there isn’t a different materials trigger, however that every one this originated from the Akasa (Brahman) solely. Commentary and expertise educate that results will not be re-absorbed into the rest however their materials trigger.
Atmakriteh parinamat I.4.26 (132)
(Brahman is the fabric reason behind the world) as a result of it created Itself by present process modification.
Atmakriteh: created itself; Parinamat: by present process modification.
The argument in help of Sutra 23 is sustained.
We learn within the Tait. Up. II-7 That Itself manifested Itself. This intimates that Brahman alone created the world out of Itself, which is feasible solely by present process modification. This represents the Self as the article of motion in addition to the agent. So He’s the Karta (creator-agent) and Karma (creation). He turns into the creation by the use of Parinama (evolution or modification).
The phrase `Itself’ intimates the absence of some other operative trigger however the Self. The modification is clear (Vivarta), in line with Sri Sankaracharya. It’s actual, in line with Sri Ramanujacharya. The world is unreal within the sense that it isn’t everlasting. It’s an phantasm within the sense it has solely an exceptional existence, it has no existence separate from Brahman.
Yonischa hello giyate I.4.27 (133)
And since (Brahman) known as the supply.
Yoni: the womb, the supply, the origin; Cha: and; Hello: as a result of; Giyate: known as.
The argument in help of Sutra 23 is sustained.
Brahman is the fabric reason behind the universe, additionally as a result of He’s acknowledged in Sruti to be the supply of the universe.
We learn in Mundaka Upanishad III-1-3, The Maker, the Lord, the Individual, who has his supply in Brahman and that which the clever regard because the Supply of all beings Mun. Up. I- 1-6.
Achintyam-avyaktam-ananta rupam, sivam, prasantam amritam brahmayonim; Tamadimadhyantavihinam-ekam vibhum chid- anandam-arupam-adbhutamHe is meaningless, unspeak- in a position, infinite in type, all-good, all-peace, immortal, the father or mother of the universe, with out starting, center and finish, with out rival, all-pervading, all-consciousness, all-bliss, invisible, and inscrutable this means that Brahman is the fabric reason behind the world.
The phrase Yoni or womb at all times denotes the fabric trigger, as within the sentence the earth is the Yoni or womb of herbs and bushes.
It’s thus proved or established that Brahman is the fabric reason behind the universe.
SARVAVYAKHYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8
THE ARGUMENTS WHICH REFUTE THE SANKHYAS REFUTE THE OTHERS ALSO
Etena sarve vyakhyata vyakhyatah I.4.28 (134)
By this all (the doctrines in regards to the origin of the world that are against the Vedanta texts) are defined.
Etena: by this, by what has been stated; Sarve: all; Vyakhyatah: are defined.
The argument is concluded on this Sutra.
By what has been stated within the foregoing Sutras it’s to be understood that the educating of all of the Srutis, even people who haven’t been mentioned factors to Brahman, the one reason behind the world.
By thus disproving the doctrine of Pradhana being the reason for the world all have been refuted. By overthrowing the chief disputant others are overthrown simply as by defeating the commander all of the others are additionally defeated. Thus those that attribute creation to atoms and different theorists are all defeated.
All doctrines that talk of two separate causes are refuted. The atomic principle and different theories will not be based mostly on scriptural authority. They contradict many scriptural texts.
The Sankhya doctrine in line with which the Pradhana is the reason for the universe, has within the Sutras starting with I.1.5 been time and again introduced ahead and refuted.
The doctrine of Pradhana stands considerably close to to the Vedanta doctrine because it admits the non-difference of trigger and impact just like the Vedanta doctrine. Additional, it has been accepted by a few of the authors of the Dharma Sutras similar to Devala and others. Furthermore the Vedanta texts comprise some passages which to some people who find themselves endowed with boring mind could seem to comprise inferential marks pointing to it. For all these causes the commentator has taken particular bother to refute the Pradhana doctrine. He has not directed his particular consideration to the atomic and different theories.
The repetition of the phrase `are defined’ exhibits that the Chapter ends right here.
It’s proved that Brahman is the fabric in addition to the environment friendly reason behind the universe.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Smriti-nyaya-virodha-parihara varieties the subject of the primary Pada. The Smritivirodha is handled in Sutras 1-3 and 12 additionally. The Nyayavirodha is handled in the remainder of the Sutras. Pada (Part) 2 assaults the varied Darsanas or methods of philosophy on their very own grounds. The Third and Fourth Padas intention at establishing a unity of purport within the apparently divergent and inconsistent cosmological and psychological ideas of the a number of Vedanta passages. Thus the title Avirodha or absence of contradiction given to the chapter is kind of applicable.
It has been proven within the First Chapter that the Omniscient Lord of all is the reason for the origin of the world simply as clay is the fabric reason behind pots and many others., and gold of golden ornaments. It has been conclusively proved additionally within the First Chapter that every one the Vedanta texts deal with of Brahman because the First Trigger and that Brahman is the import of all of the Vedanta texts. This was established by the Samanvaya.
Simply because the magician is the reason for the subsistence of the magical phantasm, so additionally Brahman is the reason for the subsistence of this universe by His Rulership. Simply because the 4 courses of creatures are reabsorbed into the earth, so additionally, projected world is lastly reabsorbed into His essence throughout Pralaya or dissolution.
It has been additional proved additionally that the Lord is the Self of all beings.
The doctrine of Pradhana being the reason for the world has been refuted within the First Chapter as it isn’t based mostly on the authority of the scriptures.
On this Part the arguments based mostly on reasoning in opposition to the doctrine which speaks of Brahman because the First Trigger are refuted. Additional arguments which declare their authoritativeness from the Smritis to ascertain the doctrine of Pradhana and the idea of the atoms are refuted on this Part.
SYNOPSIS
Beforehand it has been proved on the authority of Sruti that the matter or Pradhana just isn’t the reason for the world. The First Chapter has proved that every one the Vedantic texts unanimously educate that there’s just one reason behind the universe, viz., Brahman, whose nature is intelligence. It has additionally been proved that there isn’t a scriptural textual content which can be utilized to ascertain methods against the Vedanta, extra notably the Sankhya system.
The primary two Padas of the Second Chapter refute any objections which can be raised in opposition to the Vedanta doctrine on purely speculative grounds other than the authority of the Srutis. Additionally they present that no system that can not be reconciled with the Vedanta may be established in a passable method.
Part I (Pada) of the Second Chapter proves by arguments that Brahman is the reason for the world and removes all objections which may be levelled in opposition to such conclusion.
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-2) refutes the objection of the Sankhyas that the accepting of the system of Vedanta includes the rejection of the Sankhya doctrine which constitutes part of Smriti and so has claims or consideration. The Vedanta replies that the acceptance of the Sankhya Smriti would pressure us to reject different Smritis such because the Manu Smriti that are against the doctrine of the Sankhyas. The Veda doesn’t affirm the Sankhya Smriti however solely these Smritis which educate that the universe takes its origin from an clever creator or clever major trigger (Brahman).
Adhikarana II: (Sutra 3) extends the identical line of argumentation to the Yoga-Smriti. It discards the idea of the Yoga philosophy of Patanjali relating to the reason for the world.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 4-5) raises an objection that as Brahman and the world will not be comparable in nature and properties, one being sentient, and many others., and the opposite insentient, and many others., Brahman can’t be the reason for the universe.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 6-7) refutes the objection by stating that there are situations on the earth of era of the inanimate from the animate as, for example, the manufacturing of hair from the residing physique, additionally of the animate from the inanimate as, for example, the beginning of scorpions and different bugs from cow-dung. They show that it isn’t essential that the trigger and the precipitated ought to be comparable in all respects.
Adhikarana III: (Sutra 8) raises an objection that on the time of normal dissolution, when the impact (world) is merged within the trigger (Brahman), the latter have to be contaminated by the previous.
Adhikarana III: (Sutra 9) refutes the objection by exhibiting that there are direct situations on the contrary, simply because the merchandise of the earth similar to jars and many others., on the time of dissolution don’t change earth into their very own nature; however, quite the opposite, they’re themselves turned into the substance of earth.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 10-11), Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 12), Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 29) present that arguments directed in opposition to the view that Brahman is the reason for the world could also be levelled in opposition to the opponents as nicely, such because the Sankhyas and the Vaiseshikas, as a result of within the Sankhya system, the anonymous Pradhana produces all names and varieties and within the Vaiseshika system invisible and formless atoms unite and type a visual world. The Sutras state that arguments could also be extended with none conclusion being arrived at and that the conclusion of the Vedas solely is to be revered. All of the views that are antagonistic to the Vedas are ruthlessly refuted.
Adhikarana V: (Sutra 13) teaches that though the having fun with souls and the objects are in actuality nothing however Brahman, but they might virtually be held aside, simply as in peculiar life we maintain aside and distinguish as separate particular person issues, the waves, the ripples and foam of the ocean though they’re in essence similar and solely sea water.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 14-20) treats of the non-difference of the impact from the trigger, a doctrine of the Vedanta which is defended by the followers of the Vedanta in opposition to the Vaiseshikas. In response to the Vaiseshikas, the impact is one thing totally different from the trigger.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 21-22) refutes the objection that Brahman within the type of the person soul is topic to pleasure and ache by exhibiting that although Brahman assumes the type of the person soul, but He transcends the latter and stays untainted by any property of Jiva whom He controls from inside. Although the person soul or Jiva is not any aside from Brahman Himself, but Brahman stays absolutely the Lord and as such above pleasure and ache. Jiva is a slave of Avidya. Brahman is the controller of Maya. When Jiva is free of Avidya, he turns into similar with Brahman.
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 23-25) exhibits that Brahman, though devoid of fabric and devices of motion, could but create the world by His Sat-Sankalpa or will energy, simply as gods by their mere energy of volition create palaces, animals and the like and milk by itself turns into curds.
Adhikarana IX: (Sutras 26-29) explains that Brahman doesn’t fully remodel Himself into the universe although He’s with out elements. Though He initiatives the world from Himself, but He stays one and undivided. The world is unreal. The change is just obvious just like the snake is the rope however not actual. Brahman just isn’t exhausted within the creation.
Adhikarana X: (Sutras 30-31) teaches that Brahman, though devoid of devices of motion, is ready to create the universe by the use of the various powers He possesses.
Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 32-33) explains that Brahman has no motive in creating the world however initiatives the universe out of mere sporting impulse which is inherent in Him.
Adhikarana XII: (Sutras 34-36) justifies Brahman from the fees of partiality and cruelty that are introduced in opposition to Him owing to the inequality of place and destiny of the varied individuals and the common struggling on the earth. Brahman acts as a creator and dispenser with regards to the advantage and demerit of the person souls.
Adhikarana XIII: (Sutra 37) sums up the previous arguments and states that every one the attributes of Brahman, viz., Omniscience, Omnipotence and the like, are discovered applicable in Brahman alone and none else and are similar to to capacitate Him for the creation of the universe. Brahman is, due to this fact, the reason for the world.
Smrityadhikaranam: Subject 1 (Sutras 1-2)
Refutation of Smritis not based mostly on Srutis
Smrityanavakasadoshaprasanga iti chet na
anyasmrityanavakasadoshaprasangat� II.1.1 (135)
If it’s objected that (from the doctrine of Brahman being the reason for the world) there would end result the defect of there being no room for sure Smritis (we are saying) no, as a result of (by the rejection of that doctrine) there would end result the defect of need of room for another Smriti.
Smriti: the Sankhya philosophy; Anavakasa: no room; Dosha: defect; Prasangat: End result, probability; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Anyasmriti: different Smritis; Anavakasadoshaprasangat: as a result of there would end result the defect of need of room for different Smritis.
The conclusion arrived at in Chapter I-Part IV, that Brahman is the reason for the world is corroborated by Smritis aside from Sankhya. The earliest and probably the most orthodox of those Smritis is the Smriti written by Manu.
Should you say that one set of Smritis can be ignored whether it is stated that Pradhana just isn’t the reason for the world, is not going to one other set of Smritis like Manu Smriti which is predicated on the Srutis and due to this fact extra authoritative be ignored should you say that Brahman just isn’t the trigger? We have now proven that the Sruti declares Brahman to be the trigger. Solely such Smritis that are in full settlement with the Sruti are authoritative. What if Kapila and others are Siddhas? Siddhi (perfection) is determined by Dharma and Dharma is determined by the Vedas. No Siddha is authoritative if his view is opposite to that of the Sruti. Smritis that are against the Vedas ought to be rejected ruthlessly.
Kapila acknowledges a plurality of selfs. He doesn’t admit the doctrine of there being one common Self. The system of Kapila contradicts the Vedas, not solely the belief of an unbiased Pradhana but in addition by its speculation of a plurality of selfs. We can’t clarify the Vedanta texts in such a way as to not carry them into battle with Kapila Smriti. Kapila Smriti contradicts the Srutis. Therefore it ought to be disregarded.
The verse V-2 of Svetasvatara Upanishad doesn’t consult with Kapila the founding father of Sankhya philosophy. It refers to a distinct being altogether. The verse actually means “He who earlier than the creation of the world produced the golden colored Brahma (Kapila) as a way to keep the universe”. The phrase Kapila means right here �golden colored’ and is one other identify for Brahma referred to as Hiranygarbha.
Itaresham chanupalabdheh��� II.1.2 (136)
And there being no point out (within the scriptures) of others (i.e., the results of the Pradhana in line with the Sankhya system), (the Sankhya system can’t be authoritative).Itaresham: of others; Cha: and; Anupalabdheh: there being no point out.
An argument in help of Sutra 1 is given.
Additional such rules as Mahat and many others., that are stated to be merchandise of Pradhana are perceived neither within the Veda nor in peculiar expertise. Then again the weather and the senses are discovered within the Veda and on the earth and therefore could also be referred to within the Smriti. Therefore such phrases as Mahat and many others., present in Smritis don’t consult with merchandise of Pradhana however to different classes revealed within the Sruti. See I.4.1.
There is no such thing as a point out of the opposite classes of the Sankhyas anyplace within the Vedas. Due to this fact the Sankhya system can’t be authoritative.
Sankaracharya has proved that by the phrase Mahat we’ve got to grasp both the cosmic mind or Hiranyagarbha or the person soul, however in no case the Mahat of the Sankhya philosophy i.e., the primary product of the Prakriti.
It isn’t solely as a result of Sankhya teaches that Pradhana is the writer of creation which makes it unauthoritative, however it teaches different doctrines additionally which don’t have any basis within the Vedas. It teaches that souls are pure consciousness and all-pervading, that bondage and freedom is the work of Prakriti. It additional teaches that there isn’t a Supreme Self, the Lord of all. It additionally maintains that Pranas are merely types of the capabilities of the 5 senses and don’t have any separate existence of their very own. All these heterodox doctrines are to be discovered there. Therefore the Sankhya system can’t be authoritative.
Yogapratyuktyadhikaranam: Subject 2
Refutation of Yoga
Etena yogah pratyuktah��������� II.1.3 (137)
By this the Yoga philosophy is (additionally) refuted.
Etena: by this viz., by the refutation of the Sankhya Smriti;
Yogah: the Yoga philosophy; Pratyuktah: is (additionally) refuted.
The Yoga philosophy of Patanjali is refuted right here. Yoga known as “Sesvara-Sankhya”.
The Purvapakshin says: The Yoga system is given within the Upanishads additionally, just like the Svetavatara Upanishad and many others. “Holding his head, neck, trunk erect” and many others. Svet. Up. II-8. “The Self is to be heard, to be considered, to be meditated upon” Bri. Up. II-4-5. “This the agency holding again of the senses is what known as Yoga” Katha Up. II-3-11. “Having obtained this information and the entire rule of Yoga” Katha. Up. II-3-18. Yoga is an support to the focus of thoughts. With out focus one can’t have data of Brahman. Therefore Yoga is a way to data. Because the Yoga Smriti is predicated on the Srutis, it’s authoritative. The Yoga Smriti acknowledges the Pradhana which is the First Trigger.
For a similar cause as adduced in opposition to the Sankhya system, the Yoga philosophy by Patanjali can also be refuted because it additionally accepts the idea that Prakriti is the reason for the universe.
This Sutra remarks that by the refutation of the Sankhya Smriti the Yoga Smriti is also to be thought of as refuted as a result of the Yoga philosophy additionally recognises, in opposition to scripture, a Pradhana because the unbiased reason behind the world and the good precept and many others., as its results though the Veda or frequent expertise just isn’t in favour of those views.
Although the Smriti is partly authoritative it ought to be rejected because it contradicts the Srutis on different matters.
Though there are lots of Smritis which deal with of the soul, we’ve got directed our consideration to refute the Sankhya and Yoga, as a result of they’re broadly often called providing the means for attaining the very best finish of man. Furthermore, they’ve obtained the appreciation of many nice individuals. Additional their place is strengthened by Sruti “He who has identified that trigger which is to be apprehended by Sankhya and Yoga he’s free of all fetters” Svet. Up. VI-13.
We are saying that the very best purpose of man can’t be attained by the data of the Sankhya Smriti, or Yoga apply. Sruti clearly says that the ultimate emancipation or the supreme beatitude can solely be obtained by the data of the unity of the Self which is conveyed by the Veda. “Solely the person who is aware of Brahman crosses over Demise, there isn’t a different path to go” Svet. Up. III-8.
The Sankhya and Yoga methods keep duality. They don’t discern the unity of the Self. Within the textual content cited “That trigger which is to be identified by Sankhya and Yoga”, the phrases �Sankhya’ and �Yoga’ denote Vedic data and meditation as these phrases are utilized in a passage standing near different passages which consult with Vedic data.
We definitely permit room for these parts of the 2 methods which don’t contradict the Veda. The Sankhyas say, “The soul is free from all qualities (Asanga).” That is in concord with the Veda which declares that Purusha is basically pure. “For that particular person just isn’t connected to something” Bri. Up. IV-3-16.
The Yoga prescribes retirement from the issues of life (Nivritti) for the wandering Sannyasin. That is corroborated by the Sruti. “Then the Parivrajaka with orange gown, shaven, with none possession” and many others. Jabala Upanishad. IV-7.
Their reasoning is appropriate to the extent to which it results in Self-realisation.
The above remarks will function a reply to the claims of all argumentative Smritis. We maintain that the reality may be realised nor identified from the Vedanta texts solely, “None who doesn’t know the Veda perceives the good one” Taittiriya Brahmana III-12.9.7.
“I now ask thee that Individual taught within the Upanishads” Bri. Up. III-9-2.
Na Vilakshanatvadhikaranam: Subject 3 (Sutras 4-11)
Brahman may be the reason for the universe, though
It’s of a opposite nature from the universe
Na vilakshanatvadasya tathatvam cha sabdat����������� II.1.4 (138)
(The objector says that) Brahman can’t be the reason for the world, as a result of this (the world) is of a distinct nature (from Brahman) and its being so (totally different from Brahman) (is understood) from the scriptures.
Na: not (i.e. Brahman just isn’t the reason for the world);
Vilakshanatvat: due to distinction in nature; Asya: its (i.e. of this world); Tathatvam: its being so; Cha: and; Sabdat: from the phrase, from the Sruti.
There are eight Sutras on this Adhikarana. The primary and the second categorical the Purvapaksha (objection) and the others categorical the true doctrine (Siddhanta).
The objections based on Smriti in opposition to the doctrine of Brahman being the environment friendly and the fabric reason behind the universe have been refuted. We now proceed to refute these based on reasoning.
Some believable objections in opposition to Brahman being the reason for the world are raised on this Sutra and the following one.
The objector says: Brahman is intelligence. Brahman is pure. However the universe is materials, insentient and impure. Due to this fact, it’s totally different from the character of Brahman. Therefore, Brahman can’t be the reason for this world.
The impact have to be of the identical nature because the trigger. The impact is just trigger in one other type. The trigger and impact can’t be fully of a distinct nature. The clever and sentient Brahman can’t produce non-intelligent, insentient, materials universe. If Brahman is taken to be the reason for the world, the character of the 2 have to be comparable. However they look like fairly totally different in essence or nature. Therefore, Brahman can’t be the reason for the world.
The distinction in nature can also be identified from the statements of Sruti, “Brahman grew to become intelligence in addition to non-intelligence (world)” (Taittiriya Upanishad, Brahmananda Valli, Sixth Anuvaka -Vijnanam cha avijnanam cha abhavat). Due to this fact, Brahman can’t be the reason for the fabric universe. Brahman, which is pure spirit, can’t be the reason for this universe, which is impure matter. The world which consists of ache, pleasure and phantasm can’t be derived from Brahman.
Abhimanivyapadesastu viseshanugatibhyam� II.1.5 (139)
However the reference is to the presiding deities (of the organs) on account of the particular characterisation and in addition from the actual fact of a deity so presiding.
Abhimani: the presiding deity (of the organs and the weather);
Vyapadesah: an expression, a sign, mentioning of, denotation of; Tu: however; Visesha: particular adjunct, on account of distinction, due to so being certified; Anugatibhyam: the act of pervading; Viseshanugatibhyam: from the precise adjunct in addition to from the actual fact of pervading, on account of their coming into.
This Sutra meets an objection to Sutra 4. The phrase �Tu’ (however) discards the doubt raised.
At any time when an inanimate object is described in Smriti as behaving like animate beings, we’re to grasp that it is a sign of a deity presiding over it. Within the case of actions like talking, disputing, and so forth, which require intelligence, the scriptural texts don’t denote the mere materials parts and organs however slightly the clever deities which preside over every organ viz., speech, and many others.
You can see in Kaushitaki Upanishad: “The deities contending with one another for who was the perfect.” “All of the deities recognised the pre-eminence in Prana” (Kau. Up. II-14). The Kaushitakins make categorical use of the phrase “deities” as a way to exclude the thought of the mere materials organs being meant. Aitareya Aranyaka (II-2-4) says, “Agni having grow to be speech entered the mouth”. This exhibits that every organ is related with its personal presiding deity.
There’s a textual content within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (VI-I-7) which says, “These organs quarrelled over their respective greatness.”
The texts of Chhandogya Upanishad additionally present the existence of such presiding deities. “The fireplace thought and produced water.” This means that the inanimate object could also be referred to as God having reference to its presiding deity. The thought spoken of is that of the Highest Deity which is related with the results as a superintending precept. All these strengthen the speculation that the texts consult with the superintending deities.
From all this, we’ve got to conclude that this universe is totally different in nature from Brahman. Due to this fact, the Universe can’t have Brahman for its materials trigger.
The following Sutra provides a really appropriate reply to the objection raised by the Purvapakshin or the objector.
Drishyate tu��� II.1.6 (140)
However it (such organisation of life from matter) can also be seen.
Drishyate: is seen; Tu: however.
Objection raised in Sutras 4 and 5 are actually refuted.
The phrase �however’ discards the Purvapaksha. �However’ refutes the Purvapakshin’s or objector’s views expressed within the final Sutra, viz., that this universe can’t have originated from Brahman, as a result of it’s totally different in character. For we see that from man who’s clever, non-intelligent issues similar to hair and nails originate, and that from non-intelligent matter similar to cow-dung, scorpions and many others., are produced. So the objections raised in Sutras 4 and 5 will not be legitimate. Therefore it’s fairly potential that this materials universe might be produced by an clever Being, Brahman. Origination of insentient creation from the sentient Creator just isn’t unreasonable.
The Mundaka Upanishad says “Simply because the spider stretches forth and gathers collectively its threads, as herbs develop out of the earth, as from a residing man comes out the hair, so additionally from the Imperishable comes out this universe” (I.1.7).
The objector could say that the physique of a person is the reason for the hair and nails and never the person, and the cow-dung is the reason for the physique of the scorpion, and many others. Even then, there may be distinction in character between the trigger, the dung and the impact, the physique of the scorpion, in as far as some non-intelligent matter (the physique) is the abode of an clever precept (the soul of the scorpion), which the opposite non-intelligent matter (the cow-dung) just isn’t. They don’t seem to be comparable in all respects. In the event that they had been, then there can be nothing like trigger and impact. Should you anticipate finding all of the elements of Brahman on the earth, then what’s the distinction between trigger and impact?
The trigger and its results will not be comparable in all respects, however one thing within the trigger is discovered within the impact additionally, simply as clay within the lump is discovered within the jar additionally, although the form, and many others., of the 2 fluctuate. The very relationship of trigger and impact implies that there’s some distinction between the 2. Some qualities of the trigger, Brahman, similar to existence and intelligence, are present in Its impact, the universe. All objects within the universe exist. The universe will get this high quality from Brahman, which is Existence itself. Additional the intelligence of Brahman illumines your entire world. The 2 qualities of Brahman, viz., existence and intelligence, are discovered within the universe. Therefore it’s fairly correct to take Brahman as the reason for this universe, although there could also be some distinction in different respects between them.
Asaditi chet na pratishedhamatratvat II.1.7 (141)
If it’s stated (that the world, the impact, would then be) non-existent (earlier than its origination or creation), (we are saying) no, as a result of it’s a mere negation (with none foundation).
Asat: non-existence; Iti chet: if it’s stated; Na: no; Pratishedhamatratvat: due to denial, because it merely denies.
An objection to Sutra 6 is raised and refuted.
The opponent says that if Brahman which is clever, pure and devoid of qualities similar to sound and so forth, is the reason for the universe which is of an reverse nature, i.e., non-intelligent, impure, possessing the qualities of sound, and many others., it follows that the impact, i.e., the world, was non-existent earlier than its precise origination, as a result of Brahman was then the one existence. Which means one thing which was non-existing is introduced into existence, which isn’t accepted by the Vedantins who keep the doctrine of the impact current within the trigger already.
The objection raised by the opponent is not any actual objection. It has no pressure on account of its being a mere negation.
This Sutra refutes the objection raised by the opponent. It declares that this negation is a mere assertion with none goal validity. Should you adverse the existence of the impact earlier to its precise origination, your negation is a mere negation with none object to be negatived. The impact definitely exists within the trigger earlier than its origination and in addition after it. The impact can by no means exist independently, other than the trigger both earlier than or after creation. The Sruti says, “Whosoever appears for something elsewhere than in Brahman is deserted by every part” (Bri. Up. II-4-6).
Due to this fact, the universe exists in Brahman even earlier than creation. It isn’t completely non-existent.
Apitau tadvatprasangadasamanjasam II.1.8 (142)
On account of the consequence that on the time of Pralaya or nice dissolution (the trigger turns into) like that (i.e., just like the impact), the doctrine maintained hitherto (that Brahman is the reason for the universe) is absurd.
Apitau: on the time of Pralaya or the good dissolution; Tadvat: like that, just like the impact; Prasangat: on account of the results; Asamanjasam: inconsistent, absurd.
A believable objection in opposition to Brahman being the reason for the world is raised right here.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent raises additional objections.
Throughout dissolution the impact, i.e., the world, is absorbed within the trigger, the Brahman. Consequently, it follows that the trigger turns into just like the impact. The trigger is affected by the character of the impact. The evils of defects inherent within the impact will taint the trigger. Brahman have to be affected by the character of the world, simply as water is affected by the salt which is dissolved in it, simply as the entire meals is scented by the pungent odor of asafoetida when it’s blended with any condiment. He would grow to be impure and would no extra be the Omniscient reason behind the universe because the Upanishads maintain. He should grow to be insentient, gross, restricted, just like the world, which is absurd. Brahman, due to this fact, can’t be the reason for the world.
There may be one other objection additionally. Throughout dissolution all issues have gone right into a state of oneness with Brahman. All distinctions move on the time of reabsorption into the state of non-distinction. Then there can be no particular trigger left on the time of a brand new starting of the universe. Consequently, the brand new world couldn’t come up with all of the distinctions of having fun with souls, objects to be loved, and many others. There can be no issue bringing about creation once more.
The third objection is, if despite this a brand new creation is feasible, then even the liberated souls or the Muktas who’ve grow to be one with Brahman, can be dragged into rebirth.
It can’t be stated that the universe stays distinct from the Highest Brahman even within the state of reabsorption or dissolution, as a result of in that case it will be no dissolution in any respect. The impact current separate from the trigger just isn’t potential.
Therefore the Vedanta doctrine of Brahman being the reason for the universe is objectionable because it results in all types of absurdities.
The following Sutra provides an acceptable reply to this.
Na tu drishtantabhavat���������� II.1.9 (143)
However not (so) on account of the existence of illustrations.
Na: not; Tu: however; Drishtantabhavat: on account of illustrations.
The objection raised in Sutra 8 is refuted.
By the phrase �tu’ (however) the opportunity of the objection is put aside.
The objections don’t have any pressure. Why ought to an impact which is resolved into the trigger once more have an effect on the trigger by introducing the defects of the impact? When the impact is concerned within the trigger, it does by no means taint the trigger by its results. There are innumerable situations. If a superb decoration is melted into gold, how can the peculiarities of type of the decoration seem within the gold?
When a jar made up of clay is damaged and reabsorbed into its authentic substance, i.e., clay, it doesn’t impart to it its particular options or qualities. It doesn’t flip the earth into pots and pitchers however it’s itself remodeled as earth. The four-fold complicated of natural beings which springs from the earth doesn’t impart its qualities to the latter on the time of re-absorption.
Reabsorption can’t happen in any respect if the impact, when resolving again into its causal substance, continues to subsist there with all its particular person properties.
Regardless of the non-difference of trigger and impact, the impact has its self within the trigger however not the trigger within the impact. The impact is of the character of the trigger and never the trigger the character of the impact. Due to this fact the qualities of the impact can’t contact the trigger.
As a substitute of Brahman being remodeled into the world, the world is remodeled into Brahman, being merged in Him on the time of its dissolution. Therefore there can’t be any objection to Brahman being accepted as the reason for the world on the bottom prompt in Sutra 8.
Although the world is stuffed with distress, and many others., but Brahman is all pure, and many others. He stays at all times untouched by evil. As youth, childhood and outdated age belong to the physique solely and to not the Self, as blindness and deafness and many others., belong to the senses and to not the Self, so the defects of the world don’t belong to Brahman and don’t pervade the pure Brahman.
If trigger and impact are separate as you say, there can be no involution in any respect. As trigger and impact are one and the identical, the objection that the defects of the impact will have an effect on the trigger just isn’t peculiar to involution alone. If what the Purvapakshin says is appropriate, the defect will have an effect on the trigger even now. That the id of trigger and impact of Brahman and the universe, holds good indiscriminately with regard to all time, not solely the time of involution or reabsorption is said in lots of scriptural passages, as for instance-This every part is that Self (Bri. Up. II.4.6). The Self is all this (Chh. Up. VII.25.2). The Immortal Brahman is that this earlier than (Mun. Up. II.2.11). All that is Brahman (Chh. Up. III.14.1).
Whether it is stated that the defects are the results of superimposition of Avidya or nescience and can’t have an effect on the trigger, this rationalization will apply to involution additionally.
Cobra just isn’t affected by the poison. A magician just isn’t affected by the magical phantasm produced by himself, as a result of it’s unreal. Even so Brahman just isn’t affected by Maya. The world is just an phantasm or look. Brahman seems as this universe, simply as a rope seems because the snake. Due to this fact Brahman is unaffected by Maya or the world phantasm. Nobody is affected by his dream-creations or the illusory visions of his dream, as a result of they don’t accompany the waking state and the state of dreamless sleep. Equally the Everlasting Witness of all states of consciousness just isn’t affected by the world or Maya.
Equally baseless is the second objection. There are parallel situations with regards to this additionally. Within the state of deep sleep, you don’t see something. The soul enters into a vital situation of non-distinction. There is no such thing as a range, however as quickly as you get up you behold the world of range. The outdated stage of distinction comes once more, as ignorance or Avidya just isn’t destroyed. Chhandogya Upanishad says, “All these creatures after they have grow to be merged within the True, know not that they’re merged within the True. No matter these creatures are right here, whether or not a lion, or a wolf, or a boar or a worm or a gnat or a mosquito, that they grow to be once more” (Chh. Up. VI-9-2<|>&<|>3).
An identical phenomenon takes place throughout Pralaya or dissolution. The ability of distinction stays in a possible state as Avidya or Nescience within the state of dissolution additionally. As long as the essential Avidya or ignorance is there, creation or evolution will comply with involution simply as a person wakes up after sleep.
The liberated souls is not going to be born once more as a result of of their case flawed data or ignorance has been fully destroyed by good data of Brahman.
The view held by the Purvapakshin that even on the time of reabsorption the world ought to stay distinct from Brahman just isn’t admitted by the Vedantins.
In conclusion it may be appropriately stated that the system based on the Upanishads is in each method unobjectionable.
Svapakshadosacca����� II.1.10 (144)
And since the objections (raised by the Sankhya in opposition to the Vedanta doctrine) apply to his (Sankhya) view additionally.
Svapakshadoshat: due to the objections, to his personal view; Cha: and.
The objections raised in Sutras 4 and eight are levelled in opposition to the opponents.
Now the tables are turned on the objector. The objections raised by him (the Sankhya) to the doctrines of Vedanta are relevant to his principle as nicely. In his doctrine of causation additionally, the world of varieties and sounds takes its origin from Pradhana and Prakriti which has no type or sound. Thus the trigger is totally different from the impact right here additionally. Within the state of reabsorption or dissolution, all objects merge into Pradhana and grow to be one with it.
There may be pervasion into the Pradhana of all the results of the world. It’s admitted by the Sankhyas additionally that on the time of reabsorption the impact passes again into the state of non-distinction from the trigger, and so the objection raised in Sutra 8 applies to Pradhana additionally. The Sankhya must admit that earlier than the precise starting, the impact was non-existent. No matter objections which might be raised in opposition to Vedanta on this respect are in truth true of the Sankhyas. That Brahman is the reason for the world, which is admitted by Sruti, can’t be thrown out by this form of useless reasoning. Vedanta is predicated on the Srutis. Therefore the doctrine of Vedanta is authoritative and infallible. Due to this fact it have to be admitted. Additional, the Vedantic view is preferable, as a result of the objections have additionally been answered from the point of view of Vedanta. It isn’t potential to reply them from the point of view of the Sankhya.
Tarkapratishthanadapi anyathanumeyamiti chet
evamapyanirmoksha prasangah���������� II.1.11 (145)
If it’s stated that in consequence of the non-finality of reasoning we should body our conclusions in any other case; (we reply that) thus additionally there would end result non-release.
Tarka: reasoning, argument; Apratishthanat: due to not having any fixity or finality; Api: additionally; Anyatha: in any other case; Anumeyam: to be inferred, to be ascertained, by arguing; Iti chet: if it’s stated, even thus on this method; Api: even; Anirmoksha: need of launch, absence of the way in which out; Prasangah: consequence.
Objections raised in Sutras 4 and eight are additional refuted.
Nice thinkers like Kapila and Kanada are seen to refute one another. Logic has no fixity or finality. The deductions of 1 reasoner are overthrown by one other. What one man establishes by cause may be refuted by one other man extra clever and ingenious than he. Neither analogy nor syllogism can apply to the soul. Conclusions arrived at by mere argumentation, nevertheless well-reasoned, and never based mostly on any authoritative assertion, can’t be accepted as remaining as there nonetheless stays the possibility of their being refuted by extra knowledgeable sophists. Therefore, the conclusion of Sruti alone have to be accepted.
With out exhibiting any regard to reasoning we should consider Brahman to be the fabric reason behind the universe, as a result of the Upanishad teaches so.
The conclusions of Vedanta are based mostly on the Srutis that are infallible and authoritative. Reasoning which has no certain foundation can’t overthrow the conclusions of Vedanta.
Purpose has its personal province and scope. It’s helpful in sure secular issues however in issues transcendental such because the existence of Brahman, remaining launch, life past, the pronouncements of human mind can by no means be completely free from doubt, as a result of these are issues that are past the scope of mind. Even when there may be to be any finality of reasoning, it is not going to result in any finality of doctrine with regards to the soul, as a result of the soul can’t be skilled by the senses. Brahman can’t be an object of notion or of inference based mostly on notion. Brahman is inconceivable and consequently unarguable. Kathopanishad says, “This information is to not be obtained by argument, however it’s simple to grasp it, O Nachiketas, when taught by a instructor who beholds no distinction” (I.2.9).
The opponent says: You can not say that no reasoning no matter is well-founded as a result of even the judgment about reasoning is arrived at by reasoning. You your self can see that reasoning has no basis on reasoning solely. Therefore the assertion that reasoning has by no means a certain foundation just isn’t appropriate. Additional, if all reasoning had been unfounded, human life must come to an finish. You need to cause appropriately and correctly.
We comment in opposition to this argument of the opponent that thus additionally then outcomes “need of launch”. Though reasoning is well-founded with respect to sure issues, with regard to the matter in hand there’ll end result “need of launch”.
These sages who educate in regards to the remaining emancipation of the soul, declare that it outcomes from good data. Excellent data is at all times uniform. It relies upon upon the factor itself. No matter factor is completely of 1 and the identical nature is acknowledged to be the true factor. Data that pertains to that is good or true data. Mutual battle of males’s opinions just isn’t potential within the case of true or good data. However the conclusions of reasoning can by no means be uniform. The Sankhyas keep by reasoning that Pradhana is the reason for the universe. The Naiyayikas arrive by reasoning that the Paramanus or atoms are the reason for the world. Which to just accept? How, due to this fact, can data which is predicated on reasoning, and whose object just isn’t one thing at all times uniform, be true of good data? We can’t come to a particular, optimistic conclusion by reasoning unbiased of the Srutis. The Veda is everlasting. It’s the supply of information. It has for its object firmly established issues. Data which is based on the Veda can’t be denied in any respect by any of the logicians of the previous, current or future. As the reality can’t be identified by reasoning there can be no liberation.
We have now thus established that perfection may be attained by data of Brahman with assistance from Upanishads or the Srutis. Excellent data just isn’t potential with out the assistance of the Srutis. Disregard of Srutis will result in absence of ultimate emancipation. Reasoning which fits in opposition to the scriptures is not any proof of information.
Our remaining place is that the clever Brahman have to be considered the trigger and substratum of the universe on the bottom of scripture and of reasoning subordinate to scripture.
Sishtaparigrahadhikaranam: Subject 4
Kanada and Gautama Refuted
Etena sishtaparigraha api vyakhyatah II.1.12 (146)
By this (i.e. by the arguments in opposition to the Sankhyas) (these different theories) not accepted by the clever or competent individuals are defined or refuted.
Etena: by this (by the above reasoning, by what has been stated in opposition to Sankhya); Sishtaparigrahah: not accepted by the clever or competent individuals; Api: additionally; Vyakhyatah: are defined or refuted.
Different views or theories not accepted by the Vedas are refuted.
Sishtah-the remaining methods like these of the “Atomists” skilled, i.e., skilled within the Vedas.
Sishtaparigrahah-all different views or methods of thought not accepted by those that are nicely instructed within the Vedas; all of the totally different views or methods opposite to the Vedas.
Aparigrahah means these methods which don’t acknowledge or settle for (Parigraha) the Vedas as authority on these issues, however which depend on cause alone and which aren’t countenanced by the Veda.
All of the totally different views or methods of thought that are opposite to the Vedas and which aren’t accepted by the disciplined and the clever are refuted by what is claimed in opposition to Sankhya, i.e., by the identical arguments.
Like the idea of those that say that Pradhana or Prakriti is the reason for the world, the theories of those that postulate atoms because the trigger are refuted by those that know the truths of scripture, like Manu or Vyasa, skilled within the appropriate method of realizing them. The doctrine of the Pradhana deserves to be refuted first because it stands close to to the Vedic system, and is supported by considerably sturdy and weighty arguments. Additional, it has to a sure extent been adopted by some authorities who comply with the Veda. If probably the most harmful enemy is conquered, the minor enemies are already conquered. Even so, if the Sankhya doctrine is refuted, all different methods are already refuted additionally.
The Sutra teaches that by the demolition of the Sankhya doctrine given above, the remaining theories not comprised throughout the Vedas are additionally refuted, such because the theories of Kanada, Gautama, Akshapada, Buddhists, and many others., as a result of they’re against the Vedas on these factors. The explanations are the identical as within the case of Sankhya.
As regards the character of the atom, there isn’t a unanimity of opinion. Kanada and Gautama keep it to be everlasting, whereas the 4 colleges of Buddhas maintain it to be impermanent. The Vaibhashika Bauddhas maintain that the atoms are momentary however have an goal existence (Kshanikam artha-bhutam). The Yogachara Bauddhas keep it to be merely cognitional (Jnanarupam). The Madhyamikas maintain it to be basically void (Sunya-rupam). The Jains maintain it to be actual and unreal (Unhappy-asad-rupam).
Bhoktrapattyadhikaranam: Subject 5
The distinctions of enjoyer and loved don’t oppose unity
Bhoktrapatteravibhagaschet syallokavat��� II.1.13 (147)
If it’s stated (that if Brahman be the trigger then) on account of (the objects of enjoyment) turning into the enjoyer, non-distinction (between the enjoyer and the objects loved) would end result, we reply that such distinction could exist nonetheless as is skilled generally on the earth.
Bhoktri: one who enjoys and suffers; Apatteh: from the objections, if it’s objected; Avibhagah: non-distinction; Chet: if it’s stated; Syat: could exist; Lokavat: as is skilled on the earth.
One other objection based mostly on reasoning is raised in opposition to Brahman being the trigger and refuted.
The excellence between the enjoyer (the Jiva or the person soul) and the objects of enjoyment is well-known from peculiar expertise. The enjoyers are clever, embodied souls whereas sound and the like are the objects of enjoyemnt. Ramakrishna for example, is an enjoyer whereas the mango which he eats is an object of enjoyment. If Brahman is the fabric reason behind the universe, then the world, the impact can be non-different from Brahman. The Jiva and Brahman being similar, the distinction between the topic and the article can be annihilated, because the one would move over into the opposite. Consequently, Brahman can’t be held to be the fabric reason behind the universe, as it will result in the subiation of the well-established distinction between the enjoyer and the objects of enjoyment.
Should you say that the doctrine of Brahman being the reason for the world will result in the enjoyer or spirit changing into one with the article of enjoyment (matter), we reply that such differentiation is acceptable in our case additionally, as situations are discovered within the universe within the case of ocean, its waves, foams and bubbles and of the Solar and its mild. The ocean waves, foams and bubbles are one and but various within the universe. Equally, are the Brahman and the world. He created and entered into the creation. He’s one with them, simply because the ether within the sky and the ether within the pot are one though they look like separate.
Due to this fact it’s potential to have distinction and non-difference in issues on the identical time owing to the identify and type. The enjoyers and the objects of enjoyment don’t move over into one another and but they aren’t totally different from the Supreme Brahman. The enjoyers and objects of enjoyment will not be totally different from the point of view of Brahman however they’re totally different as enjoyers and objects loved. There may be not contradiction on this.
The conclusion is that the excellence of enjoyers and objects of enjoyment is feasible, though each are non-different from Brahman, their Highest Trigger, because the instnce of the ocean, and its waves, foams and bubbles demonstrates.
Arambhanadhikaranam: Subject 6 (Sutras 14-20)
The world (impact) is non-different from Brahman (the trigger)
Tadananyatvamarambhanasabdadibhyah��������������� 11.1.14 (148)
The non-difference of them (i.e. of trigger and impact) outcomes from such phrases as ‘origin’ and the like.
Tat: (its, of the universe): Ananyatvam: non-difference; Arambhana sabdadibhyah: from phrases like ‘origin’, and many others.
That the impact just isn’t totally different from the trigger is proven right here.
In sutra 13, the Sutrakara spoke from the perspective of Parinamavada and refuted the objection raised by the opponent that Brahman can’t be the fabric trigger because it contradicts notion. In Parinamavada, Brahman truly undergoes transformation or modification. Now the identical objection is overthrown from the view level of Vivartavada. In Vivartavada there may be solely obvious modification. Rope seems as a snake. It isn’t remodeled into an precise snake. That is the doctrine of Advaita of Sri Sankara.
Within the earlier Sutra the simile of the ocean and the waves was acknowledged, accepting the obvious number of objects. However in actuality, trigger and impact are one even now. That is clear from the phrase ‘Arambhana’ (starting), simply as by realizing a lump of clay, all clay can be identified. Title is just a verbal modification. The true being is just clay. A pot is just clay even now. Equally, the world is just Brahman even now. It’s flawed to say that oneness and manifoldness are each true as within the case of ocean and waves, and many others. The phrase ‘eva’ in ‘Mrittiketyeva’ exhibits that every one range is unreal. The soul is said to be one with Brahman.
The objector or Purvapakshin says: ‘If there is just one Reality viz., Brahman, the various objects of notion can be negated. The moral injunctions and prohibitions will lose their purport if the excellence on which their validity relies upon does not likely exist. Furthermore, the science of liberation of the soul can have no actuality, if the excellence of instructor and the scholar on which it relies upon just isn’t actual. There can be no bondage and therefore no liberation. Because the science of the soul itself is unreal, it can’t result in the Actuality. If the doctrine of launch is unfaithful, how can we keep the reality of absolutely the unity of the Self?
However these objects don’t have any pressure as a result of the entire phenomenal existence is considered true so long as the data of Brahman has not arisen, simply because the dream creatures are regarded to be true until the waking state arrives. After we get up after goals, we all know the dream world to be false however the data of goals just isn’t false. Furthermore, even goals generally forebode the upcoming actuality of loss of life. The fact of realisation of Brahman can’t be stated to be illusory as a result of it destroys ignorance and results in the cessation of phantasm.
Bhave chopalabdheh���������������������������������������������� 11.1.15(149)
And (as a result of) solely on the existence (of the trigger) (the impact) is skilled.
Bhave: on the existence; Cha: and; Upalabdheh: is skilled impact (world) is inseparable from its materials trigger, Brahman, is sustained.
The argument begun in Sutra 14 as to the way it follows that the impact (world) is inseparable from its materials trigger, Brahman, is sustained.
The impact is perceived solely when the trigger is current in it; in any other case not. A pot or material will exist even when the potter or the weaver isabsent, however it is not going to exist if the clay or thread is absent. This proves that the impact just isn’t totally different from the trigger. The Chhandogya Upanishad says, “All these created issues, O my son, originate from Sat, i.e., Brahman, relaxation in Him and finally dissolve in Him” (VI-8-4).
The objector says: There is no such thing as a recognition of fireside within the smoke. The smoke being the impact of fireside, ought to indicate fireplace in it. To this we reply that smoke is de facto the impact of damp gasoline. The damp gasoline is available in contact with fireplace and throws off its earthly particles within the type of smoke. The smoke and the gasoline are similar. We are able to recognise the gasoline within the smoke. That is proved by the truth that the smoke has odor simply because the gasoline has. The smoke is mostly of the identical nature as that of the gasoline.
The phenomena of the universe manifest solely as a result of Brahman exists. They can not definitely seem with out Brahman. Due to this fact the world (impact) just isn’t totally different from Brahman, the trigger.
Sattvacchavarasya���������������������������������������������� 11.1.16 (150)
And on account of the posterior (i.e., the impact which comes after the trigger) current (because the trigger earlier than creation).
Sattvat: Due to the existence; Cha: and; Avarasya: of the posterior, i.e., of the impact because it comes after the trigger, i.e., of the world.
The argument begun in Sutra 14 is sustained.
The scripture says that the impact (the world) existed in its causal facet (Brahman) earlier than the creation.
“At first, my expensive, Sadeva somyedamagra asit, this was solely existence” (Chh. Up.). “Atma va idam eka agra asit, verily to start with this was Self, one solely” (Ait. Ar.2.4.1). “Brahma va idamagra asit. Earlier than creation, this universe existed as Brahman” (Bri. Up. 1.4.10).
The Upanishads declare that the universe had its being within the trigger, Brahman, earlier than creation. It was one with Brahman. Because the world was non-different from the trigger earlier than creation, it continues to be non-different after creation additionally.
The impact (world) is non-different from the trigger (Brahman) as a result of it’s existent within the trigger, identically even, previous to its manifestation, although in time it’s posterior.
A factor which doesn’t exist in one other factor by the self of the latter just isn’t produced from that different factor. For example, oil just isn’t produced from sand. We are able to get oil from the groundnut as a result of it exists within the seed, although in latency, however not from sand, as a result of it does notexist in it. The existence is similar each on the earth and in Brahman. As every part exists in Brahman, so it might come out of it.
Brahman is in all time neither extra nor lower than that which is. So the impact additionally (the world) is in all time solely that which is. That which is, is one solely. Therefore the impact is non-different from the trigger.
Asadvyapadesanneti chet na dharmantarena
vakyaseshat����������������������������������������������������� 11.1.17(151)
If it’s stated that on account of (the impact) being described as that which isn’t, (the impact does) not (exist earlier than creation), we reply ‘not so’, as a result of the time period ‘that which isn’t’ denotes one other attribute or attribute (as is seen from the latter a part of the textual content.
Asadvyapadesat: on account of its being described as non-existent; Na: not; Iti chet: if it’s stated; Na: no: Dharmantarena: by one other attribute or attribute; Vakyaseshat: from the latter a part of the textual content or passage, due to the complementary passage.
The argument that the world had no existence earlier than creation is refuted.
From the phrase ‘Asat’, actually that means non-existence, within the Sruti, it might be argued that earlier than creation the world had no existence. However that argument can’t stand because the latter a part of the identical textual content makes use of epithets aside from “non-existent” to explain the situation of the world earlier than creation. We perceive from this that the world was existent earlier than creation. That is established by reasoning additionally as a result of one thing can’t come out of nothing and in addition by clear statements on different texts of Sruti. “Asad va idam agra asif-Asat was this verily to start with (Tait. Up. 11-7-1).
“Asat eva agre asif-This universe was at first however non-existent. Asat certainly was this to start with. From it verily proceeded the Sat (Chh. Up. III.19.1). The latter a part of the passage is Tatsadasit” (That was existent). The phrase ‘i i-existent’ (Asat) universe doesn’t definitely imply absolute non-existence, however that the universe didn’t exist in a gross, differentiated state. It existed in an especially refined unmanifested state. It was not differentiated. It had not but developed identify and type. The world was projected. Then it grew to become gross, and developed identify and type. You will get the that means should you undergo the latter a part of the passage ‘It grew to become existent.’ ‘It grew’.
It’s absurd to say that non-existence (Asat) existed. Due to this fact, Sat means manifest, i.e. having identify and type, whereas Asat merely means effective, refined and unmanifested. ‘Asat’ refers to a different attribute of the impact, particularly non-manifestation. The phrases Sat and Asat refer to 2 attributes of 1 and the identical object, particularly to its gross or manifested situation and refined or unmanifested situation.
Asad va idamagra asit. Tato vai sadajayata. Tadatmanam svayamakuruta. Tasmat tatsukritamuchyata iti. Yadvai tatsukritam. Asat certainly was this to start with. From it verily proceeded the Sat. That made itself its Self. Due to this fact, it’s stated to be self-made.
The phrases “Asat made itself its Self clears up any doubt as to the true that means of the phrase “that”. If the phrase “Asat” meant absolute non-existence, then there can be a contradiction in phrases, as a result of non-existence can by no means make itself the Self of something. The phrase “Asit” or “was” turns into absurd when utilized to “Asat” as a result of absolute non-existence can by no means be stated to exist and ‘was’ means ‘existed’. An absolute non-existence can don’t have any relation with time previous or current. Additional, it can’t have any company additionally as we discover within the passage, “It made itself its Self.” Therefore the phrase ‘Asat’ ought to be defined as a refined state of an object.
Yukteh sabdantaraccha��������� ���������������������������������11.1.18(152)
From reasoning and from one other Sruti textual content (the identical is obvious. This relation between trigger and impact is established.)
Yukteh: from reasoning; Sabda-antarat: from one other Sruti textual content; Cha: and.
That the impact exists earlier than its origination and is non-different from the trigger follows from reasoning and in addition from an extra scriptural passage or one other textual content of the Vedas.
The identical reality is obvious from logic or reasoning additionally. In any other case, every part may have been produced from something. If non-being is the trigger, then why ought to there be an inevitable sequence? Why ought to curds be produced from milk and never from mud? It’s unimaginable even inside 1000’s of years to result in an impact which is totally different from its trigger. Specific causes produce explicit results solely. The relation of trigger and impact (e.g. the relation of mud and pot) is a relation of id. The reason for our considering and saying ‘the pot exists’ is the truth that the lump of clay assumes a selected type of a neck, hole stomach, and many others., whereas the fabric stays as clay solely. Quite the opposite we predict and say ‘the jar doesn’t exist’, when the clay pot is damaged into piece. Therefore existence and non-existence present solely their totally different situations. Non-existence on this connection doesn’t imply absolute non-existence. That is reasoning or Yukti.
Simply as an actor places on many disguises and is but the identical man, so additionally the Final Trigger (Brahman) seems as these various objects and but is similar.
Therefore the trigger exists earlier than the results and is non-different from the impact.
The impact exists within the trigger in an unmanifested state. It’s manifested throughout creation. That’s all. A fully non-existent factor just like the horns of a hare can by no means come into existence. The trigger can’t produce altogether a brand new factor which was not current in it already.
Additional, we discover from the well-known passage of the Chhandogya Upanishad, “At first, my expensive, there was solely existence, one and not using a second” (Chh. Up. VI-2-1), that the impact exists even earlier than creation and is non-different from its trigger.
The writer now provides some illustrations as a way to affirm the doctrine that impact is similar with the trigger.
Patavaccha����������������������������������������������������������� 11.1.19(153)
And like a bit of fabric.
Patavat: like a bit of fabric; Cha: and.
An instance in help of Sutra 17 is introduced.
Simply as a rolled or folded piece of fabric is subsequently unrolled or unfolded, so additionally the world which rested unmanifested earlier than creation turns into afterwards manifested. The world is sort of a folded material earlier than creation. It is sort of a material that’s unfold out after creation. A folded material just isn’t seen as a material until it’s unfold out. The threads will not be seen as a material until they’re woven. Even so, the impact is within the trigger and is similar with the trigger. Within the folded state you can not make out whether or not it’s a material or the rest. However when it’s unfold out you may clearly know that may be a material. Within the state of dissolution (Pralaya) the world exists in a seed state or potential situation in Brahman.
There are not any names and varieties. The universe is in an undifferen-tiated or unmanifested state. It takes a gross type after creation. The names and varieties are differentiated and manifested.
As a bit of fabric just isn’t totally different from the threads, so the impact (world) just isn’t totally different from its trigger (Brahman).
The phrase “Cha” (and) of the Sutra exhibits that different illustrations just like the seed and the tree might also be given right here.
When the material is folded, you have no idea of what particular size and width it’s. However when it’s unfolded you realize all these particulars. You additionally know that the material just isn’t totally different from the folded object. The impact, the piece of fabric, is unmanifested so long as it exists in its trigger, i.e., the threads. It turns into manifest and is clearly seen on account of the operations of shuttle, loom, weaver, and many others.
The conclusion is that the impact just isn’t totally different from the trigger.
Yatha cha pranadi��������������������������������������������������������� 11.1.20 (154)
And as within the case of the totally different Pranas or Very important airs. Yatha: as; Cha: and; Pranadi: within the case of Pranas or very important airs.
One other illustration in help of Sutra 17 is introduced.
The phrase ‘Cha’ (and) within the Sutra exhibits that the final illustration of the piece of fabric and the current one among life capabilities ought to be learn collectively as one illustration.
When the 5 totally different very important airs are managed by the apply of Pranayama, they merge within the chief Prana, the trigger which regulates respiration. Mere life solely is maintained. All different capabilities similar to bending and stretching of the limbs and many others., are stopped. This exhibits that the varied very important airs, the results, will not be totally different from their trigger, the chief Prana. The totally different very important airs are solely modifications of the chief or Mukhyaprana. So is the case with all results. They don’t seem to be totally different from the trigger.
Thus it’s established that the impact, the world, is similar with its trigger, Brahman. Due to this fact, by realizing Brahman every part is understood. As the entire world is an impact of Brahman and non-different from it, the promise held out within the scriptural textual content ‘what just isn’t heard is heard, what just isn’t perceived is perceived, what just isn’t identified is understood’ (Chh. Up. VI.I.3) is fulfilled.
Itaravyapadesadhikaranam: Subject 7 (Sutras 21-23)
Brahman doesn’t create evil
Itaravyapadesaddhitakaranadidoshaprasaktih��������� 11.1.21 (155)
On account of the opposite (i.e., the person soul) being acknowledged (as non-different from Brahman) there would come up (in Brahman) the faults of not doing what is helpful and the like.
Itaravyapadesat: on account of the opposite being acknowledged (as non-different from Brahman); Hitakaranadidoshaprasaktih: defects of not doing what is helpful and the like would come up. (Itara: aside from being Brahman, i.e. the person soul; Vyapadesat: from the designation, from the expression; Hita: good, useful; Akaranadi: not creating, and many others.; Dosha: imperfection, defect, faults; Prasaktih: end result, consequence.)
The discussions on the relation of the world to Brahman have been completed now. The query of the relation of the person soul to Brahman is being raised by the use of an objection on this Sutra.
Within the earlier Adhikarana, the oneness of the impact (world) with its trigger (Brahman) has been established.
On this Sutra, the opponent or Purvapakshin raises an objection. He says, that if Brahman is the reason for the world, there may be inappropri-ateness in that view as a result of the scripture describes Jiva as being Brahman and, due to this fact, he is not going to trigger hurt to himself similar to beginning, loss of life, outdated age, illness, by moving into the particular person of the physique. A being which is itself completely pure, can’t take this altogether impure physique as forming a part of its Self.
The scripture declares the opposite, i.e., the embodied soul to be one with Brahman. “That’s the Self. “Thou artwork That. O Svetaketu” (Chh. Up. VI.8.7.). By stating that the person soul is one with Brahman, there arises room for locating out a fault within the knowledge of Brahman, that He isn’t doing good to Himself by creating struggling and ache on account of repeated births and deaths for Himself. Will anybody do what’s dangerous and unsightly to himself? Will he not keep in mind that he created the world? Will he not destroy it as the reason for his struggling? Brahman would have created a really lovely world the place every part would have been nice for the person soul with out the least ache or struggling. That isn’t so. Therefore, Brahman just isn’t the reason for the world as Vedanta maintains. As we see that what can be useful just isn’t achieved, the speculation of the world having come out of an Clever Trigger (Brahman) just isn’t acceptable.
Adhikam tu bhedanirdesat�������������������������������������� 11.1.22(156)
However (Brahman, the Creator, is) soemthing extra (than the person soul) on account of the assertion within the Srutis (of distinction) between the person soul (and Brahman).
Adhikam: one thing extra, larger than the Jiva; Tu: however; Bhedanirdesat: due to the mentioning of variations on account of the assertion of distinction. (Bheda: distinction; Nirdesat: due to the mentioning).
The objection raised in Sutra 21 is refuted.
The phrase ‘tu’ (however) refutes the objection of the final Sutra. It discards the Purvapaksha.
The Creator of the world is All-powerful. He isn’t the imprisoned, embodied soul. The defects talked about within the earlier Sutra similar to doing what just isn’t useful and the like don’t connect to that Brahman as a result of as everlasting freedom is His attribute nature, there may be nothing both useful to be achieved by Him or non-beneficial to be prevented by Him. Furthermore, there isn’t a obstruction to His data and energy, as a result of He’s Omniscient and All-powerful. He’s a mere witness. He’s acutely aware of the unreality of the world and Jiva. He has neither good nor evil. Therefore the creation of a universe of excellent and evil by Him is unobjectionable.
The Jiva is of a distinct nature. The defects talked about within the earlier Sutra belong to the Jiva solely, as long as he’s in a state of ignorance. The Srutis clearly level out the distinction between the person soul and the Creator in texts like “Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be mirrored and to be meditated upon” (Bri. Up. 11.4.5). All these variations are imaginary or illusory on account of ignorance. When the person soul attains data of Brahman, he remembers his id with Brahman. Then the entire phenomenon of plurality which springs from flawed data disappears. There may be neither the embodied soul nor the creator.
This Brahman is superior to the person soul. The person soul just isn’t the creator of this universe. Therefore the objection raised in Sutra 21 can’t stand. The potential of faults clinging to Brahman is excluded.
Although Brahman assumes the type of the person soul, but He isn’t exhausted thereby. However He stays as one thing extra, i.e., because the controller of the person soul. That is apparent from the excellence identified within the Sruti. Therefore there isn’t a event for the fault spoken of in Sutra 21.
Asmadivaccha tadanupapattih������������������������������ 11.1.23 (157)
And� as a result of� the case� is� comparable� to� that of stones,� and many others.,
(produced from the identical earth),� the objection raised is untenable.
Asmadivat:� like� stone,� and many others.;� Cha:� and;� Tat� anupapattih:�� its untenability, unreasonableness, impossibility; (Tat: of that; Tasya: its, of the objection raised in Sutra 21).
The objection raised in Sutra 21 is additional refuted.
The objector could say that Brahman which is Data and Bliss and unchangeable can’t be the reason for a universe of range, of excellent and dangerous. This objection can’t stand, as a result of we see that from the identical materials earth, stones of various values like diamonds, lapis lazuli, crystals and in addition peculiar stones are produced. From the seeds that are positioned in a single and the identical floor numerous crops are seen to spring up, similar to sandalwood and cucumbers, which present the best distinction of their leaves, blossoms, fruits, perfume, juice, and many others. One and the identical meals produces numerous results similar to blood, hair, nail, and many others. So additionally, one Brahman additionally could comprise in itself the excellence of the person selves and the very best Self and will produce numerous results. So additionally from Brahman which is Bliss and Data, a world of excellent and evil may be created.
Therefore the objection imagined by others in opposition to the doctrine of Brahman being the reason for the world can’t be maintained.
Furthermore, the scripture declares that every one results have their origin in speech solely. The dreaming man is one however the dream footage are many. These are hinted at by the phrase ‘Cha’ of the Sutra.
Upasamharadarsanadhikaranam: Subject 8 (Sutras 24-25)
Brahman is the reason for the world
Upasamharadarsananneti chenna kshiravaddhi 11.1.24 (158)
�Should you object that Brahman with out devices can’t be the reason for the universe, as a result of an agent is seen to gather supplies for any development, (we are saying) no, as a result of (it’s) like milk (turning into curds).
Upasamharadarsanat: as a result of assortment of supplies is seen; Na: not; Iti chet: if it’s stated; Na: no; Kshiravat: like milk; Hello: as a result of, as.
Darsanat: due to the seeing; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Vat: like, has the pressure of an instrumental case right here. (See Sutra of Panini, Tena tulyam kriya and many others.)
An objection that supplies are essential for the creation of the world is refuted.
Although Brahman is devoid of supplies and devices, He’s but the reason for the universe. Should you object that an environment friendly trigger like a potter is seen to make use of devices and due to this fact Brahman can’t be the fabric trigger as additionally the environment friendly trigger, we reply that it’s like milk turning into curds.
The objector, Purvapakshin, says: Workmen are discovered to gather supplies to do their works. Brahman additionally should have required supplies wherewith to create the world, however there was no different factor than Brahman earlier than creation. He’s one and not using a second. He couldn’t have introduced out His work of creation as there was no materials, simply as a potter couldn’t have made his pots, if there had been no supplies like earth, water, staffs, wheels, and many others., earlier than him.
This objection has no pressure. Supplies will not be required in each case. For example, milk is itself remodeled into curd. In milk no exterior company is required to alter it into curds. Should you say that within the case of milk warmth is critical for curdling the milk, we reply that warmth merely accelerates the method of curdling. The curdling happens by the inherent capability of the milk. You can not flip water into curds by the applying of warmth. The milk’s functionality of turning into curd is merely accomplished by the cooperation of auxiliary means.
Brahman manifests Himself within the type of the universe by His inscrutable energy. He merely wills. The entire universe comes into being. Why can’t the All-powerful Infinite Brahman create the world by His will-power (Sankalpa) alone with out devices and extraneous aids?
Brahman is All-powerful and Infinite. Therefore no extraneous support or instrument is critical for Him to create this world.
Thus Sruti additionally declares “There is no such thing as a impact and no instrument identified of Him, nobody is seen like unto or higher. His excessive energy is revealed as manifold and inherent, performing as pressure and data” (Svet. Up. VI. 8).
Due to this fact, Brahman, though one solely, is ready to remodel Himself as this universe of various results with none instrument or extraneous support, on account of His infinite powers.
Devadivadapi loke��������������������������������������������������������� 11.1.25 (159)
(The case of Brahman creating the world is) like that of gods and different beings on the earth (in peculiar expertise).
Devadivat: like gods and others (saints); Api: even, additionally; Loke: on the earth.
The phrase ‘vat’ has the pressure of sixth case right here. One other studying is ‘Iti’ (thus), as an alternative of ‘Api1.
The argument in help of Sutra 24 is introduced ahead.
An objector (or Purvapakshin) says: ‘The instance of milk turning into curds just isn’t applicable as it’s an insentient factor. Clever brokers like potters start to do their work after offering themselves with a whole set of devices. How then can it’s stated that Brahman, an clever Being, can do His work of creation with none auxiliary, with out assistance from any constituent supplies?’ We reply, ‘like gods and others.’
We see additionally that on the earth gods and sages create explicit issues similar to palaces, chariots, and many others., by pressure of will, with out exterior support. Why can’t the All-powerful Creator create the world by His will-power (Sat Sankalpa) or His infinite energy of Maya?
Simply because the spider initiatives out of itself the threads of its net, simply as the feminine crane conceives and not using a male from listening to the sound of thunder, simply because the lotus wanders from one lake to a different with none technique of conveyance so additionally the clever Brahman creates the world by itself with out exterior devices or support.
The case of Brahman is totally different from that of potters and comparable brokers. No extraneous means is critical for Brahman for creation. There may be limitation within the creation of pots. The creation of Brahman can’t be restricted by the situations noticed within the creation of pots. Brahman is All-powerful.
Kritsnaprasaktyadhikaranam: Subject 9 (Sutras 26-29)
Brahman is the fabric reason behind the universe, although He’s with out elements
Kritsnaprasaktimiravayavatvasabdakopo va���������� 11.1.26 (160)
Both the consequence of your entire (Brahman present process change) needs to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be with out elements (if Brahman is the fabric reason behind the world).
Kritsnaprasaktih: risk of your entire (Brahman being modified); Niravayavatvasabdakopat: contradiction of the scriptural assertion that Brahman is with out elements; Va: or, in any other case.
(Kritsna: whole, full, complete; full; Prasaktih: exigency, employment; exercise; Niravayava: with out elements, with out type, with out members, indivisible; Sabda: phrase, textual content, expressions in Sruti; Kopat: contradiction, violation, incongruity, stultification; Va: or.)
An objection that Brahman just isn’t the fabric reason behind the world, is raised within the Sutra.
The objector says that if your entire Brahman turns into the world, then no Brahman will stay distinct from the world and that if part of Brahman turns into the world, the scriptural texts which declare Brahman to be with out elements can be violated.
If Brahman is with out elements and but the fabric reason behind the universe, then we’ve got to confess that your entire Brahman turns into modified into the universe. Therefore there can be no Brahman left however solely the impact, the universe. Additional, it’ll go in opposition to the declaration of the Sruti textual content that Brahman is unchangeable.
If quite the opposite it’s stated {that a} portion of Brahman solely turns into the universe, then we must settle for that Brahman is made up of elements, which is denied by the scriptural texts. The passages are, niSkalaM niSkriyaM SantaM nirawadhyam niranjanaM-“He who’s with out elements, with out actions, tranquil, with out fault, with out taint” (Svet. Up. VI. 19). Diwyo hyamUrtaH sa bahyabhyantaro hyajaH | -“That heavenly particular person is with out physique, He’s each with out and inside, not produced” (Mun. Up. ll.1.2). edam mahadbhUtamanantamapaarM wigyanaghana ewa | -“That nice Being is infinite, limitless, consisting of nothing however Data” (Bit Up. ll.4.12). sa EShaNeti Neyamaatmaa | -“He’s to be described by No, No” (Bri. Up. III.9.26). asthulamanaNu | -“It’s neither coarse nor effective” (Bri. Up. III.8-8). All these passages deny the existence of elements or distinctions in Brahman.
No matter has type is perishable and so Brahman additionally will grow to be perishable or non-eternal.
Additionally if the universe is Brahman, the place is the necessity for any command to see (Drastavya)? The texts which exhort us to attempt to see Brahman grow to be purposeless, as a result of the results of Brahman could also be seen with none effort and other than them no Brahman exists. Lastly, the texts which declare Brahman to be unborn are contradicted thereby.
Therefore Brahman can’t be the fabric reason behind the universe. This objection is refuted within the subsequent Sutra.
Srutestu sabdamulatvat����������������������� ����������������11.1.27 (161)
However (this isn’t so) on account of scriptural passages and on account of (Brahman) resting on scripture (solely).
Sruteh: from Sruti, as it’s acknowledged in Sruti, on account of scriptural texts; Tu: however; Sabdamulatvat: on account of being based mostly on the scripture, as Sruti is the inspiration.
(Sabda: phrase, revelation, Sruti; Mula: basis.)
The objection raised in Sutra 25 is refuted.
Your entire Brahman doesn’t grow to be the world as a result of the scripture declares so, and Brahman may be identified solely by the supply of scripture.
The phrase ‘tu’ (however) discards the objection. It refutes the view of the earlier Sutra. These objections don’t have any pressure as a result of we depend on the Sruti or scripture.
Your entire Brahman doesn’t bear change, though the scriptures declare that the universe takes its origin from Brahman. Sruti says, “one foot (quarter) of Him is all beings, and three ft are what’s immortal in heaven.” (padohsya wiSwa BhUtaani tripaadasyaamrutam diwi)
Furthermore, we’re one with Brahman in deep sleep as acknowledged by the scripture. How may that occur if your entire Brahman has grow to be the world?
Additional, the scripture declares that we are able to realise Brahman within the coronary heart. How may that be if your entire Brahman has grow to be the world?
Furthermore, the opportunity of Brahman changing into the article of notion by the use of the senses is denied whereas its results could thus be perceived.
The scriptural texts declare Brahman to be with out elements. Then how may an element grow to be manifest? We reply that it is just the results of Avidya.
Are there two moons if on account of a defect of your imaginative and prescient you see two moons? You need to depend on scriptures alone however not on logic for realizing what’s past the thoughts.
Brahman rests solely on the Srutis or scriptures. The sacred scriptures alone, however not the senses, are authoritative relating to Brahman. Therefore we must settle for the declarations of the Srutis with out the least hesitation.
The scriptural texts declare on the one hand that not your entire Brahman adjustments into its results and then again, that Brahman is with out elements. Even sure peculiar issues similar to gems, spells, herbs, and many others., possess powers which produce various reverse results on account of distinction of time, place, event and so forth. Nobody is ready to discover out by mere reflection the variety of these powers, their favouring situations, their objects, their functions, and many others., with out the assistance of instruction. When such is the case with peculiar issues, how rather more unimaginable is it to conceive with out assistance from scripture the true nature of Brahman with its powers unfathomable by thought? The scripture declares “Don’t apply reasoning to what’s unthinkable.”
Therefore the Srutis or the scriptures alone are authority in issues supersensuous. We must settle for that each these reverse views expressed by the scriptures are true, although it doesn’t stand to cause. It have to be remembered that the change in Brahman is just obvious and never actual. Brahman someway seems as this universe, simply as rope seems because the snake. Brahman turns into the idea of your entire, obvious universe with its adjustments, however it stays on the identical time unchanged in its true and actual nature.
Atmani chaivam vichitrascha hello������������� ���������������11.1.28 (162)
And since within the particular person soul additionally (as in gods, magicians, in goals) numerous (creation exists). Equally (with Brahman additionally).
Atmani: within the particular person soul; Cha: additionally, and; Evam: thus; Vichitrah: various, manifold, variegated; Cha: and, additionally; Hello: as a result of.
The objection raised in Sutra 26 is additional refuted by an illustration.
There is no such thing as a cause to seek out fault with the doctrine that there could be a manifold creation within the one Self with out destroying its character. Within the dream state, we see such various and fantastic creation in ourselves. “There are not any chariots in that dreaming state, no horses, no roads, however he himself creates chariots, horses and roads” (Bri. Up. IV.3.10), and but the person character of the self just isn’t affected by it. This doesn’t reduce or have an effect on our integrity of being.
In peculiar life too a number of creations, elephants, horses and the like are seen to exist in gods, magicians, with none change in themselves, with out interfering with the unity of their being. Equally, a a number of creation could exist in Brahman additionally with out divesting it of its character of unity. The varied creation originates from Brahman by Its inscrutable energy of Maya and Brahman Itself stays unchanged.
The second ‘cha’ (additionally, and) is as a way to point out that when such fantastic issues are believed by us because the goals, the powers of the gods and the magicians, why ought to we hesitate to consider within the mysterious powers of Brahman? The phrase ‘hello’ implies that the information above talked about are well-known within the scriptures.
Svapakshadoshaccha������������������������������������������ 11.1.29(163)
And on account of the opponent’s personal view being topic to those very objections.
Svapaksha: in a single’s personal view; Doshat: due to the defects; Cha: additionally, and.
The objection raised in Sutra 26 is additional refuted.
The argument raised in Sutra 26 can’t stand, as a result of the identical cost may be levelled in opposition to the objector’s facet additionally.
The objection raised by you’ll equally apply to your doctrine that the formless (impartite) Infinite Pradhana or Prakriti void of sound and different qualities creates the world. The Sankhyas could say, “We don’t point out that our Pradhana is with out elements. Pradhana is just a state of equipoise of the three Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Pradhana varieties an entire containing the three Gunas as its elements. We reply that such a partiteness doesn’t take away the objection in hand since Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are every of them equally impartite.
Every Guna by itself assisted by the 2 different Gunas, constitutes the fabric reason behind that a part of the world which resembles it in its nature. Therefore, the objection lies in opposition to the Sankhya view likewise.
As reasoning is at all times unstable, if you’re inclined to consider within the Pradhana’s being in truth able to partition, then it follows that the Pradhana can’t be everlasting.
Let it then be stated that the varied powers of the Pradhana to which the number of its results are pointing are its elements. Properly, we reply, these various potencies are admitted by us additionally as we see the reason for the world in Brahman. The identical objection applies additionally to your atomic principle.
The identical objections may be levelled in opposition to the doctrine of the world having originated from atoms. The atom just isn’t made up of elements. When one atom combines with one other atom, it should enter into mixture with its entire extent with one other. It can’t enter into partial contact with one other. There can be whole interpenetration. Therefore, there might be no additional enhance within the dimension. The compound of two atoms wouldn’t occupy extra space than one atom. The results of the conjunction can be a mere atom. However should you maintain that the atom enters into the mix with an element solely, that will go in opposition to the belief of the atoms having no elements.
If the Pradhana is taken to be the reason for the universe because the Sankhyas keep, in that case additionally the view of the Sankhyas can be equally topic to the objections raised in opposition to the Vedantic view of Brahman as the reason for the universe, because the Pradhana, too, is with out elements. As for the propounder of the Brahman-theory, he has already refuted the objection directed in opposition to his personal view.
Sarvopetadhikaranam: Subject 10 (Sutras 30-31)
Totally-equipped Brahman
Sarvopeta cha taddarsanat����������������������������������� 11.1.30 (164)
And (Brahman is) endowed with all (powers), as a result of it’s seen (from the scriptures).
Sarvopeta: endowed with all powers, omnipotent; Cha: additionally, and; Taddarsanat: as a result of it’s seen (from the scriptures).
(Sarva: all; Upeta: endowed with, possessed with; Tat: that, the possession of such powers.)
The objection in Sutra 26 is additional refuted.
Brahman is All-powerful as is obvious from the scriptures. Therefore it’s completely inside His powers to manifest Himself because the world and to be on the identical time past it.
The objector (Purvapakshin) says: We see that males who’ve a bodily physique are endowed with powers. However Brahman has no physique. Therefore He can’t be within the possesssion of such powers.
This has no pressure. This Sutra provides proof of Brahman being endowed with Maya Sakti. Varied scriptural texts declare that Brahman possesses all powers. “He to whom all actions, wishes, all odours, all tastes belong, he who embraces all this, who by no means speaks, and is rarely stunned” (Chh. Up. III.14.4). “He who wishes what’s true and imagines what’s true” (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). “He who is aware of all in its totality and cognises all in its particulars” (Mun. Up. 1.1.9). “By the command of that Imperishable, O Gargi, solar and moon stand aside” (Bri. Up. III.8.9). “The nice Lord is the Mayin (the Ruler of Maya)” (Svet. Up. IV. 10) and different comparable passages.
Vikaranatvanneti chet taduktam�������������� ����������������11.1.31 (165)
If it’s stated that as a result of (Brahman) is devoid of organs, (it’s) not (in a position to create), (we reply that) this has already been defined.
Vikaranatvat: due to need of organs of motion and notion; Na: not; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Tat: that, that objection; Uktam: has been defined or answered.
One other objection to Brahman being the reason for the world is refuted.
The opponent says: “Brahman is destitute of organs. Therefore, although He’s omnipotent, He can’t create.” Scripture declares, “He’s with out eyes, with out ears, with out speech, with out thoughts” (Bri. Up. III.8.8). Additional Srutis say, “Not this, Not this.” This precludes all attributes. We all know from Mantras and Arthavadas, and many others., that the gods and different clever beings, although endowed with all powers, are in a position to create as a result of they’re furnished with bodily devices of motion.
The Sutra consists of an objection and its reply. The objection portion is ‘Vikaranatvanneti chef and the reply portion is’Taduktam.’
Although Brahman has no eyes or ears, or fingers or ft, He’s All-powerful. That has been defined above in Sutras 11.1.4 and 11.1.25. He assumes totally different varieties by Avidya or Maya. With respect to Brahman, the scripture alone is the authority, however not cause. The scripture declares that Brahman, although destitute of organs, possesses all capacities and powers, “Grasps with out fingers, strikes swiftly with out ft, sees with out eyes and hears with out ears” (Svet. Up. 111.19). Although Brahman is devoid of all attributes, but He’s endowed with all powers by Avidya or Maya.
Prayojanatvadhikaranam: Subject 11 (Sutras 32-33)
Ultimate finish of Creation
Na prayojanavattvat����������������������������������������������� 11.1.32 (166)
(Brahman is) not (the creator of the universe) on account of (each exercise) having a motive.
Na: not (i.e. Brahman can’t be the creator); Prayojana-vattvat: on account of getting motive.
One other objection to Brahman being the reason for the world is raised.
The objector says: “On this world, all people does a piece with some motive. He does any work to fulfill his want. There may be additionally a scriptural passage that confirms this results of frequent expertise, ‘Verily, every part just isn’t expensive that you could be love every part, however that you could be love the Self, due to this fact every part is dear1 (Bri. Up. 11.4.5). However Brahman is all-full, self-sufficient and self-contained. He has nothing to realize by the creation. Due to this fact He can’t have interaction Himself in such a ineffective creation. Therefore, Brahman can’t be the reason for the universe.”
The enterprise of making this world with all its particulars is certainly a weighty one. If Brahman wishes creation to fulfil a want, then He can’t be an eternally blissful, good being with no unfulfilled wishes. If He has no want, then He is not going to want to create and so there can be no creation. It can’t be stated that He creates with out function, like a mindless man in a state of frenzy. That will surely contradict His Omniscience.
Therefore the doctrine of the creation continuing from an clever Being (Brahman) is untenable.
Lokavattu lilakaivalyam������������������������������������������ 11.1.33 (167)
However (Brahman’s artistic exercise) is mere sport, similar to is seen on the earth (or peculiar life).
Lokavat: as on the earth, as in peculiar life; Tu: however; Lilakaivalyam: mere pastime.
(Lila: sport, play; Kaivalyam: merely; Lilamatram: mere pastime.)
The objection raised in Sutra 32 is replied to.
The phrase ‘tu’ (however) removes the above obejction.
Brahman has created the world not out of any want or motive. It’s merely His pastime, continuing from His personal nature, which is inherent in and inseparable from Him, as it’s seen additionally on the earth that generally a wealthy man or a prince, does some motion with none motive or function, merely out of a sportive impulse. Simply as kids play out of mere enjoyable, or simply as males breathe with none motive or function, as a result of it’s their very nature, simply as a person stuffed with cheerfulness when awakening from sound sleep, begins to bounce about with none goal, however from mere exuberance of spirit, so additionally Brahman engages Himself in creating this world not out of any function or motive, however out of sporting or Lila or play continuing from His personal nature.
Though the creation of this universe seems to us a weighty and troublesome enterprise, it’s mere play to the Lord, whose energy is infinite or limitless.
If in peculiar life we could presumably by shut scrutiny detect some refined motive even for sportful motion (enjoying at a sport of balls just isn’t altogether motiveless, as a result of the prince will get some pleasure by the play), we can’t achieve this with regard to the actions of the Lord. The scripture declares that every one needs are fulfilled within the Lord and that He’s all-full, self-contained and self-sufficient.
It shouldn’t be forgotten nevertheless that there isn’t a creation from the standpoint of the Absolute, as a result of identify and type are as a consequence of Avidya or ignorance and since Brahman and Atman are actually one.
The opponent once more raises an objection. The idea that Brahman is the creator is open to the objection that He’s both partial or merciless, as a result of some males take pleasure in happiness and others undergo distress. Therefore this principle just isn’t a congruous one. This objection is eliminated by the next Sutra.
Vaishamyanairghrinyadhikaranam: Subject 12 (Sutras 34-36)
Brahman is neither partial nor merciless
Vaishamyanairghrinye na sapekshatvat
tatha hello darsayati������������������������������������������������ 11.1.34(168)
Partiality and cruelty can’t (be ascribed to Brahman) on account of His making an allowance for (different causes in that matter viz., advantage and demerit of the souls), for thus (scripture) declares.
Vaishamya: inequality, partiality; Nairghrinye: cruelty, unkindness; Na: not (can’t be ascribed to Brahman); Sapekshatvat: due to dependence upon, as it’s depending on one thing else, i.e., upon the Karma of the souls; Tatha: so; Hello: as a result of; Oarsayati: the scripture declares.
The accusation that Brahman is partial and merciless in His creation of the world is eliminated.
Some are created poor, some wealthy. Due to this fact Brahman or the Lord is a fan of some. He makes folks undergo. Due to this fact He’s merciless. For these two causes Brahman can’t be the reason for the world. This objection is untenable. The Lord can’t be accused of inequality and cruelty, as a result of enjoyment and struggling of the person soul are decided by his personal earlier good and dangerous actions. Sruti additionally declares. “A person turns into virtuous by his virtuous deeds and sinful by his sinful acts-Punyo vai punyena karmana bhavati, papah papena” (Bri. Up. 111.2.13).
The grace of the Lord is like rain which brings the efficiency of every seed to present itself in line with its nature. The number of ache and pleasure is because of number of Karma.
The place of the Lord is to be considered just like that of Parjanya, the giver of rain. Parjanya is the frequent reason behind the manufacturing of rice, barley and different crops. The distinction between the varied species is because of the various potentialities mendacity hidden within the respective seeds. Even so, the Lord is the frequent reason behind the creation of gods, males, and many others. The variations between these courses of beings are because of the totally different advantage belonging to the person souls.
Scripture additionally declares, “The Lord makes him whom He needs to steer up from these worlds do a superb motion. The Lord makes Him whom He needs to steer down do a foul motion” (Kau. Up. III.8). “A person turns into good by good work, dangerous by dangerous work” (Bri. Up. 111.2.13). Smriti additionally declares that the Lord metes out rewards and punishments solely in consideration of the precise actions of beings. ‘I serve males in the way in which by which they method Me.’ (Bhagavad Gita IV.11).
Na karmavibhagaditi chet na anaditvat������������������ 11.1.35 (169)
If it’s objected that it (viz., the Lord’s having regard to advantage and demerit) just isn’t potential on account of the non-distinction (of advantage and demerit earlier than creation), (we are saying) no, due to (the world) being and not using a starting.
Na: not; Karmavibhagat: due to the non-distinction of labor (earlier than creation); Iti chet: if it’s stated, if it’s objected on this method; Na: no, the objection can’t stand; Anaditvat: due to beginninglessness.
An objection in opposition to Sutra 34 is raised and refuted.
The Sutra consists of two elements, viz., an objection and its reply. The target portion is ‘Na karmavibhagaditi chet and the reply portion is ‘Na anaditvat.
An objection is raised now. The Sruti says, “Being solely this was to start with, one and not using a second.” There was no distinction of works earlier than creation of the world. There was solely the completely One Actual Being or Brahman. The creation at first of 1 man as wealthy and of one other as poor and sad can’t definitely rely upon the respective earlier good or dangerous deeds. The primary creation should have been free from inequalities.
This objection can’t stand. The creation of the world can also be and not using a starting. There was by no means a time which may be stated to be an absolute starting. The query of first creation can’t come up. Creation and destruction of the world following one another regularly by rotation is with none starting and finish. The situation of particular person souls in any explicit cycle of creation is predetermined by their actions within the earlier cycle.
It can’t be stated that there might be no Karma previous to creation, which causes the range of creation, as a result of Karma is Anadi (beginningless). Creation is just the shoot from a pre-existing seed of Karma.
Because the world is and not using a starting, advantage and inequality are like seed and sprout. There may be an never-ending chain of the relation of trigger and impact as within the case of the seed and the sprout. Due to this fact, there isn’t a contradiction current within the Lord’s artistic exercise.
Upapadyate chapyupalabhyate cha���������������������������� 11.1.36 (170)
And (that the world-and additionally Karma-is and not using a starting) is affordable and can also be seen (from the scriptures). Upapadyate: is proved by reasoning, is affordable that it ought to be so; Cha: and; Api: and, additionally, assuredly; Upalabhyate: is seen, is present in Sruti or Scriptures; Cha: additionally, and.
Karma is Anadi (beginningless). That is logical and is supported by scripture. By reasoning additionally it may be deduced that the world have to be beginningless. As a result of, if the world didn’t exist in a possible or seed state, then a completely non-existing factor can be produced throughout creation. There may be additionally the opportunity of liberated individuals being reborn once more. Additional, folks can be having fun with and struggling with out having achieved something to deserve it. As there would exist no figuring out reason behind the unequal dispensation of delight and ache, we must always must submit or assert to the doctrine of rewards and punishments being allotted regardless of earlier virtues and cruel deeds. There can be impact and not using a trigger. That is definitely absurd. After we assume impact and not using a trigger, there might be no regulation in any respect with regards to the aim or regularity of creation. The Sruti declares that creation is ‘Anadi’ (beginningless).
Furthermore, mere Avidya (ignorance) which is homogeneous (Ekarupa), can’t trigger the heterogeneity of creation. It’s Avidya diversified by Vasanas as a consequence of Karma that may have such a end result. Avidya wants the range of particular person previous work to provide assorted outcomes. Avidya could also be the reason for inequality if it’s thought of as having regard to demerit accruing from motion produced by the psychological suppression of wrath, hatred and different afflicting passions.
The scriptures additionally posit the existence of the universe in former cycles or Kalpas in texts like, “The creator long-established the solar and the moon as earlier than” (Rig Veda Samhita, X-190-3). Therefore partiality and cruelty can’t be ascribed to the Lord.
Sarvadharmopapattyadhikaranam: Subject 13
Saguna Brahman essential for creation
Sarvadharmopapattescha����������������� ��������������������������11.1.37(171)
And since all of the qualities (required for the creation of the world) are fairly discovered (solely in Brahman) He have to be admitted to be the reason for the universe. Sarva: all; Dharma: attributes, qualities; Upapatteh: due to the reasonableness, due to being proved; Cha: and, additionally.
One more reason to show that Brahman is the reason for the world is introduced ahead.
The objector says: Material1 trigger undergoes modification because the impact. Such a trigger is endowed with the attributes. Brahman can’t be the fabric reason behind the universe as He’s attributeless. This Sutra provides an acceptable reply to this objection.
There is no such thing as a actual change in Brahman however there may be an obvious modification in Brahman on account of His inscrutable energy of Maya.
Brahman seems as this universe, simply as rope seems as snake. All of the attributes wanted within the trigger for the creation (similar to Omnipotence, Omniscience) are potential in Brahman on account of the ability of Maya. Therefore, Brahman is the fabric reason behind this universe by obvious change. He’s additionally the environment friendly reason behind this universe.
Due to this fact it’s established that Brahman is the reason for the universe. The Vedantic system based upon the Upanishads just isn’t open to any objection. Thus it follows that the entire creation proceeds from Para Brahman.
Within the Vedantic principle as hitherto demonstrated, viz., that Brahman is the fabric and the environment friendly reason behind the world-the objection alleged by our opponents similar to distinction of character and the like have been refuted by the good Instructor. He brings to a conclusion the part principally dedicated to strengthen his personal principle. The chief intention of the following chapter can be to refute the opinions held by different lecturers.
Within the First Part of the Second Chapter Brahman’s creatorship of the world has been established on the authority of the scriptures supported by logic. All arguments in opposition to Brahman being the reason for the universe have been refuted.
Within the current Part the Sutrakara or the framer of the Sutras examines the theories of creation superior by different colleges of thought in vogue in his time. All of the doctrines of the opposite colleges are taken up for refutation by reasoning alone regardless of the authority of the Vedas. Right here he refutes by reasoning the Matter principle or the Pradhana principle of the Sankhya philosophy, the Atom principle of the Vaiseshika philosophy, the momentary and the Nihilistic view of the Buddhists, the Jain principle of simultaneous existence and non-existence, the Pasupata principle of coordinate duality and principle of vitality unaided by intelligence.
It has been proven within the final Sutra of the First Part of the Second Chapter that Brahman is endowed with all of the attributes by Maya, similar to Omnipotence, Omniscience, and many others., for qualifying Him to be the reason for the world.
Now in Part 2 the query is taken up whether or not the Pradhana of the Sankhya philosophy can fulfill all these situations.
SYNOPSIS – I
To place all issues concisely in a nutshell, Sri Vyasa Bhagavan refutes on this part all of the doctrines or theories prevalent in his time and inconsistent with the Vedanta principle; viz., (1) The Sankhya principle of the Pradhana as the primary trigger. (2) Refutation of the objection from the Vaiseshika stand level in opposition to the Brahman being the First Trigger. (3) Refutation of the Atomic principle of the Vaiseshikas. (4) Refutation of the Bauddha idealists and Nihilists. (5) Refutation of the Bauddha Realists. (6) Refutation of the Jainas. (7) Refutation of the Pasupata doctrine, that God is just the environment friendly and never the fabric reason behind the world. (8) Refutation of the Pancharatra or the Bhagavata doctrine that the soul originates from the Lord, and many others.
Within the First Part of the Second Chapter Brahman’s authorship of the world has been established on the authority of the scriptures supported by logic. The duty of the Second Pada or Part is to refute by arguments unbiased of Vedic passages the extra vital philosophical theories in regards to the origin of the universe that are opposite to the Vedantic view.
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-10) is directed in opposition to the Sankhyas. It goals at proving {that a} non-intelligent first trigger such because the Pradhana of the Sankhyas is unable to create and dispose.
Adhikaranas II and III: (Sutras 11-17) refute the Vaiseshika doctrine that the world takes its origin from the atoms that are set in movement by the Adrishta.
Adhikaranas IV and V: are directed in opposition to numerous colleges of Buddhistic philosophy.
Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 18-27) refutes the view of Buddhistic Realists who keep the truth of an exterior in addition to an inner world.
Adhikarana V: (Sutras 28-32) refutes the view of the Vijnanavadins or Buddhistic Idealists, in line with whom Concepts are the one actuality. The final Sutra of the Adhikarana refutes the view of the Madhyamikas or Sunyavadins (Nihilists) who educate that every part is void, i.e., that nothing by any means is actual.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 33-36) refutes the doctrine of the Jainas.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 37-41) refutes the Pasupata college which teaches that the Lord just isn’t the fabric however solely the environment friendly or operative reason behind the world.
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 42-45) refutes the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or Pancharatras.
�SYNOPSIS – II
In Sutras 1 to 10 the precept of Sankhya philosophy is additional refuted by reasoning. Pradhana or blind matter is inert. It’s insentient or non-intelligent. There may be methodical association within the causation of this world. Therefore it isn’t affordable to suppose that blind matter can have any inclination for the creation of the world with out the assistance of intelligence.
The Sankhya says that the inert Pradhana could grow to be lively of its personal accord and spontaneously move into the state of the world and bear modification into mind, egoism, thoughts, Tanmatras, and many others., simply as water flows in rivers spontaneously, rain from the clouds, or milk from the udder to the calf. This argument of the Sankhya is untenable, as a result of the flowing of water or milk is directed by the intelligence of the Supreme Lord.
In response to the Sankhyas, there isn’t a exterior agent to induce Pradhana into exercise or restraining from exercise. Pradhana can work fairly independently. Their Purusha is at all times inactive and detached. He isn’t an agent. Therefore the rivalry that Pradhana in presence of Purusha or Spirit acquires an inclination in the direction of motion or creation can’t stand.
The Sankhya argues that Pradhana is by itself changed into the seen world, simply as grass eaten by a cow is itself changed into milk. This argument is groundless as no such transformation is discovered on the a part of the grass eaten by the bull. Therefore, additionally, it’s the will of the Supreme Lord that brings in regards to the change, not as a result of the cow has eaten it. Due to this fact Pradhana by itself can’t be stated to be the reason for the world.
The Sankhya says that Purusha can direct the Pradhana or encourage exercise in Pradhana although He has no exercise, simply as a lame man can transfer by sitting on the shoulders of a blind man and direct his actions. The unbiased and blind Pradhana, together with the passive however clever Purusha, originates the world. This argument is also untenable as a result of the right inactivity and indifference of Purusha and absolutely the independence of Pradhana can’t be reconciled with one another.
The Pradhana consists of three Gunas, viz., Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. They’re in a state of equipoise earlier than creation. No Guna is superior or inferior to the opposite. The Purusha is altogether detached. He has no real interest in bringing in regards to the disturbance of equilibrium of the Pradhana. Creation begins when the equipoise is upset and one Guna turns into extra predominant than the opposite two. As there was to start with of creation no trigger for the disturbance of the state of equipoise, it was not potential for Pradhana to be remodeled into the world.
Sutras 11 to 17 refute the Atomic principle of the Vaiseshika philosophy the place the indivisible minute atoms are acknowledged to be the reason for the world. If an atom has any elements of an considerable magnitude, then it can’t be an atom. Then it may be additional divisible. If they’re with out elements of any considerable magnitude, as they’re so described in Vaiseshika philosophy, it isn’t potential for such two partless atoms to provide by their union a substance having any magnitude. Therefore compound substances can by no means be shaped by the mix of atoms. Due to this fact the Vaiseshika principle of origination of the world from indivisible atoms is untenable.
The inanimate atoms can don’t have any tendency of themselves to unite collectively and cohere in order to type compounds. Vaiseshikas maintain that the movement which is because of the unseen precept (Adrishta), joins the atoms by which it resides to a different atom. Adrishta is a latent pressure of the sum complete of earlier deeds which waits to bear fruit sooner or later. Thus the entire world originates from atoms.
As Adrishta is insentient it can’t act. It can’t reside within the atoms. It should inhere within the soul. If the latent pressure or Adrishta be an inherent property of atoms, the atoms will at all times stay united. Therefore there can be no dissolution and no probability for recent creation.
If the 2 atoms unite completely or completely the atomic state will proceed as there can be no enhance in bulk. If partially, then atoms can have elements. That is in opposition to the idea of the Vaiseshikas. Therefore, the idea of the Vaiseshikas that the world is brought on by mixture of atoms is untenable.
The atomic principle includes one other problem. If the atoms are by nature lively, then creation can be everlasting. No Pralaya or dissolution may happen. If they’re by nature inactive, no creation may happen. The dissolution can be everlasting. For that reason additionally, the atomic doctrine is untenable.
In response to the Vaiseshika philosophy, the atoms are stated to have color and many others. That which has type, color and many others., is gross, and impermanent. Consequently, the atoms have to be gross and impermanent. This contradicts the idea of the Vaiseshikas that they’re minute and everlasting.
If the respective atoms of the weather additionally possess the identical variety of qualities because the gross parts, then the atom of air can have one high quality, an atom of earth can have 4 qualities. Therefore an atom of earth which possesses 4 qualities can be larger in dimension. It could not be an atom any longer. Therefore the Atom principle of the Vaiseshikas on the causation of the world doesn’t stand to cause in any method. This Atom principle just isn’t accepted by the Vedas.
Sutras 18 to 32 refute the Buddhistic principle of momentarism (Kshanikavada) and Nihilism (Sunyavada). The Vaiseshikas are the Realists (Sarvastitvavadins). They settle for the truth of each the skin world and the within world consisting respectively of exterior objects and consciousness and emotions. The Sautrantikas are the idealists (Vijnanavadins). They maintain that thought alone is actual. They keep that concepts solely exist and the exterior objects are inferred from the concepts. The Yogacharas maintain that concepts alone are actual and there’s no exterior world corresponding to those concepts. The exterior objects are unreal like dreamy objects. The Madhymikas keep that even the concepts themselves are unreal and there may be nothing that exists besides the void (Sunyam). They’re the Nihilists or Sunyavadins who maintain that every part is void and unreal. All of them agree that every part is momentary. Issues of the earlier second don’t exist within the subsequent second.
In response to the Buddhists, atoms and consciousness are each inanimate. There is no such thing as a everlasting intelligence which might carry in regards to the aggregation or which might information the atoms to unite into an exterior factor or to type a steady psychological phenomena. Therefore the doctrine of this college of Bauddhas is untenable.
Nescience and many others., stand in a causal relation to one another merely. They can’t be made to account for the existence of the aggregates. In response to the Buddhistic principle, every part is momentary. A factor of the current second vanishes within the subsequent second, when its successor manifests. On the time of the looks of a subsequent factor, the earlier factor already vanishes. Therefore it’s unimaginable for the earlier factor to be the reason for the following factor. Consequently the idea is untenable.
The Buddhists keep that existence originates from non-existence as a result of they maintain that the impact can’t manifest with out the destruction of the trigger, the tree can’t seem till the seed is destroyed. We at all times understand that the trigger subsists within the impact because the thread subsists within the material. Therefore the Buddhistic view is inaccurate, unreasonable and inadmissible.
Even the passing of trigger into impact in a sequence of successive states like nescience, and many others., can’t happen until there’s a coordinating intelligence. The Buddhists say that every part has solely a momentary existence. Their college can’t carry in regards to the simultaneous existence of two successive moments. If the trigger exists until it passes into the stage of impact, the idea of momentary existence (Kshanikavada) will vanish.
In response to the Buddhistic view, salvation or freedom is attained when ignorance is destroyed. Ignorance is the false thought of permanency in issues that are momentary.
The ignorance may be annihilated by the adoption of some means similar to penance, data, and many others., (acutely aware destruction), or it might destroy itself (spontaneity). However each the alternate options are faulty. As a result of this annihilation of ignorance can’t be attained by the adoption of penance or the like, as a result of the means like each different factor can also be momentary in line with the Buddhistic view and is due to this fact, not prone to produce such annihilation. Annihilation can’t happen of its personal accord, for in that case all Buddhistic directions, the disciplines and strategies of meditation for the attainment of salvation can be ineffective.
The Buddhists don’t recognise the existence of Akasa. They regard Akasa as a non-entity. That is unreasonable. Akasa has the standard of sound. It is usually a definite entity like earth, water, and many others. If Akasa be a non-entity, then your entire world would grow to be destitute of house. Scriptural passages declare “Akasa sprang from Atman.” Therefore Akasa is an actual factor. It’s a Vastu (current object) and never non-existence.
If every part is momentary, the experiencer of one thing should even be momentary. However the experiencer just isn’t momentary as a result of folks have the reminiscence of previous experiences. Reminiscence can happen in a person who has beforehand skilled it. He’s related with at the very least two moments. This definitely refutes the idea of momentari-ness.
A non-entity has not been noticed to provide entity. Due to this fact it doesn’t stand to cause to suppose non-entity to be the trigger. The world which is a actuality is acknowledged by the Buddhists to have arisen out of non-entity. That is absurd. A pot is rarely discovered to be produced with out clay. If existence can come out of non-existence, then something could come out of something, as a result of non-entity is one and the identical in all instances. A jack tree could come out of a mango seed. If an current factor can come up out of nothing, then an detached and lazy man might also attain salvation with out efforts. Emancipation could also be attained like a windfall. Rice will develop even when the farmer doesn’t domesticate his discipline.
The Vijnanavadins say that the exterior issues don’t have any goal actuality. All the pieces is an thought with none actuality equivalent to it. This isn’t appropriate. The exterior objects are literally perceived by senses of notion. The exterior world can’t be non-existent just like the horns of a hare.
The Buddhist Idealists say that notion of the exterior world is just like the dream. That is flawed. The consciousness in dream is determined by the earlier consciousness within the wakeful state, however the consciousness within the wakeful state doesn’t rely upon the rest however on the precise notion by the sense. Additional, the dream experiences grow to be false as quickly as one wakes up.
The Buddhist Idealists maintain that although an exterior factor doesn’t truly exist, but its impressions do exist, and from these impressions diversities of notion and concepts like chair, tree come up. This isn’t potential, as there may be no notion of an exterior factor which is itself non-existent. If there be no notion of an exterior factor, how can it depart an impression?
The psychological impressions can’t exist as a result of the ego which receives impressions is itself momentary of their view.
The Sunyavada or Nihilism of the Buddhists which asserts that nothing exists is fallacious, as a result of it goes in opposition to each technique of proof, viz., notion, inference, testimony or scripture and analogy.
Sutras 33 to 36 refute the Jaina principle. In response to the Jaina principle, every part is without delay current and non-existing. Now this view can’t be accepted, as a result of in a single substance it isn’t potential that contradictory qualities ought to exist concurrently. Nobody ever sees the identical object to be cold and hot on the identical time. Simultaneous existence of sunshine and darkness in a single place is unimaginable.
In response to the Jaina doctrine heaven and liberation could exist or could not exist. We can’t arrive at any particular data. There is no such thing as a certainty about something.
The Jainas maintain that the soul is of the scale of the physique. Because the our bodies of various courses of creatures are of various sizes, the soul of a person taking the physique of an elephant on account of his previous deeds will be unable to replenish the physique of an elephant. The soul of an elephant is not going to have enough house within the physique of an ant. The steadiness of the size of the soul is impaired. The Jaina principle itself falls to the bottom.
Sutras 37 to 41 refute the idea of the followers of the Pasupata system. The followers of this college recognise God because the environment friendly or the operative trigger. They recognise the primordial matter as the fabric reason behind the world. This view is opposite to the view of the Sruti or Vedanta the place Brahman is acknowledged to be each the environment friendly and the fabric reason behind the world. Therefore, the idea of Pasupatas can’t be accepted.
God, of their view, is pure, with out attributes, and exercise. Therefore there may be no connection between Him and the inert primordial matter. He can’t urge and regulate matter to work. To say that God turns into the environment friendly reason behind the world by placing on a physique can also be fallacious as a result of all our bodies are perishable. God is everlasting in line with the Pasupatas, and so can’t have a perishable physique and grow to be depending on this bodily instrument.
If it’s stated that the Lord guidelines the Pradhana, and many others., simply because the Jiva guidelines the senses that are additionally not perceived, this can’t be; as a result of the Lord additionally would expertise pleasure and ache, therefore would forfeit His Godhead. He can be topic to births and deaths, and devoid of Omniscience. He’ll lose all His supremacy. This form of God just isn’t admitted by the Pasupatas.
Sutras 42 to 45 refute the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine. In response to this college, the Lord is the environment friendly in addition to the fabric reason behind the universe. That is in fairly settlement with the Srutis. One other a part of the system is open to objection. The doctrine that Sankarshana or the Jiva is born of Vaasudeva, Pradyumna or thoughts from Sankarshana, Aniruddha or Ahamkara from Pradyumna is inaccurate. Such creation just isn’t potential. If there may be such beginning, if the soul be created it will be topic to destruction and therefore there might be no liberation.
The Bhagavatas could say that every one the Vyuhas or varieties are Vaasudeva, the Lord having intelligence, Lordship, energy, energy, and many others., and are free from faults and imperfections. On this case there can be multiple Isvara or Lord. This goes in opposition to their very own doctrine in line with which there’s just one actual essence, the holy Vaasudeva. Additional, there are additionally inconsistencies or manifold contradictions within the system. There are passages that are contradictory to the Vedas. It incorporates phrases of depreciation of the Vedas. Therefore, the doctrine of the Bhagavatas can’t be accepted.
Rachananupapattyadhikaranam: Subject 1 (Sutras 1-10)
Refutation of the Sankhyan principle of the Pradhana as the reason for the world
Rachananupapattescha nanumanam����������������������� 11.2.1 (172)
That which is inferred (by the Sankhyas, viz., the Pradhana), can’t be the trigger (of the world) as a result of (in that case it’s) not potential (to account for the) design or orderly association (discovered within the creation).
Rachana: development, the design in creation; Anupapatteh: on account of the impossibility; Cha: and; Na: not; Anumanam: that which is inferred, what’s arrived at by inference, i.e., the Pradhana of the Sankhyas.
An argument is introduced ahead to the impact that the Pradhana of the Sankhyas just isn’t the reason for the world.
The primary object of the Vedanta Sutras is to indicate the aim of the revelation of reality within the Vedas. They intention additionally at refuting the flawed doctrines within the different methods of philosophy. Within the earlier portion the doctrine of the Sankhyas has been refuted right here and there on the authority of the scriptures. Sutras 1-10 refute it by logical reasoning.
Pradhana or blind matter is inert. It’s an insentient entity. It doesn’t possess the intelligence that’s wanted for creating such a multifarious, elaborate, fantastic, orderly, methodical and well-designed universe as this. It can’t carry into being the manifold orderliness of the cosmos. Nobody has ever seen a phenomenal palace constructed by the fortuitous coming collectively of bricks, mortar, and many others., with out the lively cooperation of clever brokers just like the architects, masons and the remaining. Therefore, Pradhana can’t be the reason for this world.
Clay can’t change itself right into a pot.
The reasoning that Pradhana is the reason for the world as a result of it has in it pleasure, ache, dullness, that are discovered on the earth just isn’t legitimate, as a result of it isn’t potential for an insentient entity to create the fantastic, orderly universe. Furthermore, how do you say that pleasure and ache and dullness are discovered within the outdoors world? The exterior objects are a consider pleasure and ache that are inner experiences. Furthermore, there may be pleasure and ache even no matter the exterior objects. How will you ascribe them to an insentient entity (Achetana)?
Bodily objects like flowers, fruits, and many others., little doubt have the presence in them of the standard of manufacturing pleasure. However the feeling of delight is altogether an inner feeling. We can’t say that flowers and fruits have the character of delight in them, although they excite pleasure in man. Pleasure is altogether an attribute of the soul and never of matter or Pradhana. Therefore, matter or Pradhana can’t be stated to have the standard of delight, and many others.
Pravrittescha���� �������������������������������������������������������11.2.2(173)
And on account of the (impossibility of) exercise.
Pravritteh: due to the exercise, of an inclination; Cha: and (it has the pressure of ‘solely’ right here).
That is an argument in help of Sutra 1.
Pradhana (blind matter) can’t be the reason for the world, as a result of additionally it is unimaginable for it to have an inclination for creation.
How does Pradhana in a state of equilibrium of its three Gunas grow to be dynamic and inventive? It can’t disturb its personal equipoise. The need or tendency to create can’t be ascribed to the inert Pradhana. The inert chariot can’t transfer by itself. It’s only the clever charioteer who strikes the chariot by directing the actions of the horse. Mud by itself is rarely seen to create a jar with out the company of an clever potter. From what’s seen we decide what just isn’t seen. We proceed from the identified to the unknown. How then do you show that Pradhana which is insentient is self-moving? Therefore the inert Pradhana can’t be the reason for the universe, as a result of the exercise that’s essential for the creation of the universe can be unimaginable in that case. There have to be a directive clever Being or Entity for that function.
The exercise have to be attributed to the directive intelligence slightly than to the inert matter or Pradhana. That which units Pradhana or matter in movement is the true agent. Each exercise is seen as the results of an clever agent. Inert matter or Pradhana due to this fact has no company. Matter or Pradhana has no self-initiated exercise of its personal.
The objector could say “I don’t see Chetana (soul) lively and that I see solely the exercise of the physique.” We reply that there isn’t a exercise with out the soul.
He could once more say that the soul, being pure consciousness, can’t have exercise. We reply that the soul can induce exercise, although not self-active, simply as a lodestone or magnet although unmoving could make iron transfer. A fabric object although mounted causes exercise in our senses.
The objector could once more say that because the soul is one and infinite, there isn’t a risk of causation of exercise. We reply that it causes exercise within the names and varieties created by Maya owing to Avidya.
Therefore, movement may be reconciled with the doctrine of an clever First Trigger however not with the doctrine of a non-intelligent first trigger (Pradhana of the Sankhyas).
Payo’mbuvacchet tatra’pi��������������������������������������� 11.2.3 (174)
If it’s stated (that the Pradhana strikes or spontaneously modifies herself into the varied merchandise) like milk or water (with out the steerage of any intelligence), (we reply that) there additionally (it is because of intelligence).
Payo’mbuvat: like milk and water; Chet: if; Tatra: there, in these instances; Api: even, additionally. (Payah: milk; Ambuvat: like water.)
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
If the objector says that there might be self-activity of nature as in milk or water, we reply that even then there may be the operation of an clever agent.
The Sankhya says that the inert Pradhana could grow to be lively of its personal accord and bear modification into mind, egoism, thoughts, Tanmatra, and many others., simply as water flows in rivers spontaneously, rain from the clouds or milk from the udder to the calf.
That is refuted by the latter a part of Sutra ‘Tatra Apt, even there. Even the flowing of water or milk is directed by the intelligence of the Supreme Lord. This we infer from the instance of chariot, and many others. We could not see the clever driver of the chariot, however we infer his existence from the movement of the automotive.
The scriptures additionally say, “He who dwells within the water, who guidelines the water from inside” (Bri. Up. III.7.4). “By the command of that Akshara, O Gargi! some rivers circulate to the east” (Bri. Up. 111.8.9). All the pieces on this world is directed by the Lord.
Additional the cow is an clever creature. She loves her calf, and makes her milk circulate by her want. The milk is as well as drawn forth by the sucking of the calf. The circulate of water is determined by the downward sloping of the earth.
Vyatirekanavasthiteschanapekshatvat��������������������� 11.2.4 (175)
And since (the Pradhana) just isn’t dependent (on something), there being no exterior agent in addition to it (it can’t be lively).
Vyatirekanavasthiteh: There being no exterior company in addition to it; Cha: and in addition; Anapekshatvat: as a result of it isn’t dependent. (Vyatireka: an exterior agent; Anavasthiteh: from non-existence, because it doesn’t exist.)
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
In response to the Sankhyas, there isn’t a exterior agent to induce Pradhana into exercise, or restrain from exercise. Their Purusha is detached, neither strikes to, nor restrains from, motion. He isn’t an agent. He’s unresponsive to the primary stimulus for beginning the method of creation. Therefore, there isn’t a company to disturb the primordial equilibrium. Due to this fact, the Pradhana of the Sankhyas can’t be the First Explanation for the world.
The state by which the three Gunas are in a state of equipoise known as Pradhana by the Sankhyas. In response to the Sankhyas, no controlling sentient energy operates on the Pradhana. Purusha is static and quiescent.
Due to this fact, Pradhana could evolve in a method now and in one other method afterwards or could not evolve in any respect, as it isn’t managed by any directing and ruling Intelligence. However the Supreme Lord is Omniscient and All-powerful. He has good management over Maya. He can create or not create as He pleases.
The Pradhana of the Sankhyas is inert, so it can’t of itself begin to be lively; or when it’s set in movement it might hardly cease to be lively of itself. Therefore, the Sankhyas can’t clarify creation and dissolution when there isn’t a directing or ruling intelligence. All different rules are solely results of the Pradhana. Due to this fact, they can not train any affect on it. Therefore, the idea of the Sankhyas is self-contradictory.
Anyatrabhavaccha na trinadivat�������������������������������� II.2.5 (176)
And (it might) not (be stated that the Pradhana modifies itself spontaneously) like grass, and many others., (which flip into milk), due to its absence elsewhere (than within the feminine animals).
Anyatra: elsewhere, within the different case, elsewhere than in cows; Abhavat: due to the absence; Cha: and, additionally; Na: not; Trinadivat: just like the grass and many others.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
The phrase ‘cha’, and, has the pressure of ‘solely’.
The objector says that as grass turns into milk, so Pradhana could evolve into the world. However does grass grow to be milk of its personal energy? No. In that case, attempt to produce milk from grass. A cow alone converts grass into milk. Does a bull achieve this?
The spontaneous modification of the Pradhana just isn’t potential. Grass just isn’t turned into milk spontaneously. It’s transformed into milk solely when eaten by cows however not by the bulls. Right here additionally it’s the will of the Supreme Lord that brings in regards to the change, not as a result of the cow has eaten it.
The illustration or analogy is ineffective. It can’t stand. The argument of the Sankhyas just isn’t sound. Therefore, the Pradhana’s present process modification of itself can’t be accepted. The spontaneous modification of Pradhana can’t be proved from the situations of grass and the like.
Abhyupagame’pyarthabhavat����������������������������� ������II.2.6 (177)
Even when we admit (the Sankhya place with regard to the spontaneous modification of the Pradhana, it can’t be the reason for the universe) due to the absence of any function.
Abhyupagame: accepting, admitting, taking as a right; Api: even; Artwork ha: function; Abhavat: due to the absence.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
Although we admit for the sake of argument that the Pradhana is spontaneously lively, it’ll result in a contradiction of their philosophy. If the Pradhana is spontaneously lively, whether it is able to an inherent tendency for modification, movement or change, its exercise can’t have any function. This can contradict the view of the Sankhyas that the modification of the Pradhana is for the expertise or enjoyment (Bhoga) and launch of the soul (Moksha).
There is no such thing as a enjoyment to be loved by the ever-perfect Purusha (or Soul). If he may take pleasure in, how may he ever grow to be free from enjoyment? He’s already free. He’s already in a state of beatitude. As He’s good, He can don’t have any want.
The insentient Pradhana can’t have a want to evolve. So the satisfaction of a want can’t be thought of as the aim of exercise of the Pradhana. Should you say that evolution have to be postulated as a result of artistic energy would grow to be inoperative in any other case, we reply that in that case artistic energy can be at all times operative and there might be no attainment of freedom from it by the attainment of beatitude.
It’s, due to this fact, unimaginable to keep up that the Pradhana turns into lively for the aim of the soul. It can’t be the reason for the universe.
Purushasmavaditi chet tathapi������������������������������� 11.2.7 (178)
If it’s stated (that the Purusha or Soul can direct or transfer the Pradhana) because the (lame) man can direct a blind man, or because the magnet (strikes the iron), even then (the issue can’t be overcome).
Purusha: an individual; Asma: a lodestone, a magnet; Vat: like; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Tathapi: even then, nonetheless.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
The Sankhyas say that Purusha can direct the Pradhana or encourage exercise in Pradhana, although He has no exercise, simply as a lame man can transfer by sitting on the shoulders of a blind man and direct his actions or simply as a magnet attracts iron. However these illustrations will not be apt. A lame man speaks and directs the blind man. The blind man, although incapable of seeing, has the capability of understanding these directions given by the lame man and performing upon them. However Purusha is completely detached. He has no sort of exercise in any respect. Therefore, He can’t do this with regard to the Pradhana.
Furthermore, the lame and the blind are each acutely aware entities and the iron and the magnet are each insentient matter. Consequently, the situations given are to not the purpose. In response to the Sankhyas the Pradhana is unbiased. Therefore, it isn’t proper to say that it is determined by the proximity of the Purusha for its exercise, simply because the iron is determined by the magnet for its movement. A magnet attracts when the iron is introduced close to. The proximity of the magnet to the iron just isn’t everlasting. It is determined by a sure exercise and the adjustment of the magnet in a sure place. However nobody brings the Purusha close to Pradhana. If Purusha is at all times close to, then creation can be everlasting. There can be no liberation in any respect.
The Purusha and the Pradhana are altogether separate and unbiased. Pradhana is non-intelligent, inert and unbiased. Purusha is clever and detached. Nobody else (a 3rd precept) exists to carry them collectively. Therefore there may be no connection between them.
There might be no artistic exercise in any respect in line with the doctrine of the Sankhyas. If there might be such exercise, there might be no remaining launch as the reason for creation may by no means stop.
In Vedanta, Brahman which is the reason for the universe is detached however He’s endowed with attributes and exercise by Maya. He’s characterised by non-activity inherent in His personal nature and on the identical time by shifting energy inherent in Maya. So He turns into the Creator. He’s detached by nature and lively by Maya. Therefore, His artistic energy is nicely defined. He’s superior to the Purusha of the Sankhyas.
Angitvanupapattescha��������������������������������������������� 11.2.8(179)
And once more (the Pradhana can’t be lively) as a result of the relation of principal (and subordinate matter) is unimaginable (between the three Gunas).
Angitvanupapatteh: on account of the impossibility of the relation of principal (and subordinate); Cha: and, additionally. (Angitva: the relation of being the principal, being preponderant; Anupapatteh: on account of the impossibility and unreasonableness).
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
The Pradhana has been outlined to be the equilibrium of the three Gunas. The Pradhana consists of three Gunas, viz., Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Three Gunas are unbiased of one another. They’re in a state of equipoise earlier than creation. Within the state of Pradhana no Guna is superior or inferior to the opposite. Each one among them is the same as the opposite and consequently the relation of subordinate and principal couldn’t exist then. The Purusha is altogether detached. He has no real interest in bringing in regards to the disturbance of equilibrium of the Pradhana. Creation begins when the equipoise is upset and one Guna turns into extra predominant than the opposite two. As there exists no extraneous precept to fire up the Gunas, the manufacturing of the Nice Precept and the opposite results which might require for its operative trigger a non-balanced state of the Gunas is unimaginable. Equipoise can’t be disturbed with none exterior pressure. The Gunas are completely unbiased when they’re in a state of equilibrium. They can not take of themselves a subsidiary place to a different Guna with out dropping their independence. Therefore, creation can be unimaginable.
This Sutra says that such preponderance just isn’t potential. The Sankhyas can’t clarify why ought to one Guna preponderate over the opposite. Therefore, on account of the impossibility of such preponderance of 1 over the opposite Gunas, Pradhana can’t be accepted to be the reason for the world.
Anyathanumitau cha jnasaktiviyogat���������������������������� II.2.9 (180)
Even when it’s inferred in any other case on account of the Pradhana being devoid of the ability of intelligence (the opposite objections to the Pradhana being the reason for the universe stay in pressure).
Anyatha: in any other case, in different methods; Anumitau: if it’s inferred, in case of inference; Cha: even, and; Jnasakti: energy of intelligence; Viyogat: due to being destitute of, due to dissociation.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is sustained.
Even when the objector postulates such energy of modification as being inherent in Pradhana, the inappropriateness will proceed due to the insentiency or non-intelligence of the Pradhana.
The Sankhya says: We don’t acknowledge the Gunas to be characterised by absolute independence, irrelativity and unchangeableness. We infer the traits of the Gunas from these of their results. We presume that their nature have to be similar to to make the manufacturing of the results potential. The Gunas have some traits, totally different attributes and mysterious powers inherent in them like unstability. Consequently the Gunas themselves are in a position to enter right into a state of inequality, even whereas they’re in a state of equipoise. Even in that case we reply, the objections acknowledged above which had been based on the impossibility of an orderly association of the world, and many others., stay in pressure on account of the Pradhana being devoid of the ability of intelligence. As Pradhana is insentient it has not the ability of self-consciousness. Being thus destitute of it, it has not the thought of any plan or design. It can’t say as an clever entity would say, “Let me create the world in such and such a method.” A home can by no means be constructed by mere bricks and mortar with out the supervision and lively company of the architect and masons. Even so, creation by no means proceeds from useless matter or Pradhana. With out the directive motion of intelligence, the Gunas, nevertheless fantastic of their powers and attributes, can’t of themselves create the universe.
On account of lack of intelligence the objections, based on design and many others., within the universe and that it will result in steady creation, are available the way in which of accepting the Pradhana as the reason for the universe (Vide Sutras 1, 4 and seven).
Vipratishedhacchasamanjasam����������������������������� 11.2.10 (181)
And morever (the Sankhya doctrine) is objectionable on account of its contradictions.
Vipratishedhat: due to contradiction; Cha: additionally, and; Asamanjasam: inconsistent, objectionable, not harmonious, untenable.
The argument in help of Sutra 1 is concluded.
Additional, the Sankhya doctrine is inconsistent as a result of there are numerous contradictions within the Sankhya philosophy. Typically the senses are stated to be eleven and once more they’re stated to be seven. It generally says that the Tanmatras come from Mahat and generally that they arrive from Ahamkara. Typically it says that there are three Antahkaranas. Typically it says that there’s just one Antahkarana.
Furthermore, their doctrine contradicts Sruti which teaches that the Lord is the reason for the universe, and Smriti based mostly on Sruti. For these causes additionally the Sankhya system is objectionable. It can’t be accepted.
Right here the Sankhya once more brings a counter-charge. He says “You additionally have gotten such inappropriateness in your doctrine.” He asks whether or not if Brahman is trigger and impact, there might be any liberation from results and whether or not scripture affirming liberation is not going to grow to be ineffective. He argues “fireplace can’t grow to be free from warmth and lightweight or water free from waves. Solely when there may be separateness of trigger and impact, there may be any that means in liberation.”
We reply that even the objector should admit that Purusha being by nature pure, can’t be disturbed and that disturbance is because of Avidya and isn’t completely actual. That’s our place too. However you give Avidya a state of permanence. Consequently even when Purusha will get free from it, there isn’t a surety that such separation can be everlasting. We postulate just one Being. All results are solely relative and can’t, due to this fact, have an effect on absolutely the actuality.
Mahaddirghadhikaranam: Subject 2
Refutation of the Vaiseshika view
Mahaddirghavadva hrasvaparimandalabhyam���� �����11.2.11 (182)
(The world could originate from Brahman) as the good and the lengthy originate from the quick and the atomic.
Mahat dirghavat: like the good and the lengthy; Va: or; Hrasvaparimandalabhyam: from the quick and the atomic.
The atomic principle of the Vaiseshikas that formless, indivisible atoms enter into the composition of the world is now refuted.
The sage Kanada is the founding father of the Vaiseshika philosophy. He holds all objects which have any form or type as perishable and they’re all fabricated from minute, indivisible, formless and immutable particles often called atoms (Anu). These atoms are thought of to be the reason for the world. The atoms are of 4 varieties, viz., the atoms of earth, the atoms of water, the atoms of fireside and the atoms of air. These atoms exist distinct from each other with none form or type. At the start of creation, one atom (a monad) unites with one other and varieties a dyad, an mixture of two atoms. The dyad (dvyanu) unites with one other atom and varieties a triad, an mixture of three atoms, and so forth. Thus a visual universe is shaped.
The Vaiseshikas argue thus: The qualities which inhere within the substance which constitutes the trigger produces qualities of the identical variety within the substance which varieties the impact. White material is produced from a material of a distinct color. Consequently, when the clever Brahman is taken as the reason for the universe, we must always discover intelligence inherent within the impact additionally, viz., the universe. However this isn’t so. Therefore, the clever Brahman can’t be the reason for the universe.
The Sutrakara or the writer of the Sutras exhibits that this reasoning is fallacious on the bottom of the system of Vaiseshikas themselves.
The Sankhya philosophy has been refuted in Sutras 1-10. Now the Vaiseshika system is taken up in Sutras 11-17 and refuted. The inconsistency within the origination of an mixture of the three and of 4 atoms from the union of monads and of dyads of the Vaiseshika is just like the inconsistency within the origination of the world from the insentient Pradhana of Sankhya. If the atom has any elements of an considerable magnitude, then it can’t be an atom. Then it may be additional divisible. If they’re with out elements of any considerable magnitude, as they’re so described in Vaiseshika philosophy, it isn’t potential for such two partless atoms to provide by their union a substance having any magnitude. The identical is the case with three atoms and so forth. Therefore, compound substances can by no means be shaped by the mix of atoms. Due to this fact, the Vaiseshika principle of origination of the world upon indivisible atoms is untenable.
In response to the Vaiseshika philosophy, two final atoms (Parimandalas or Paramanus) grow to be a double atom (Dvyanuka or Hrasva) on account of Adrishta, and many others. However the atomic nature of the final word atom just isn’t discovered within the Dvyanuka which is small. Two Dvyanukas type a Chaturanuka (quadruple atom) which has not the traits of smallness however turns into longer and greater. If the final word atom can create one thing which is opposite to the atom, what’s the inappropriateness in Brahman which is Data and Bliss creating the insentient and non-intelligent world stuffed with distress? Simply because the atomic nature of the final word atom just isn’t discovered within the later mixtures which produce other traits, so additionally the Chaitanya or intelligence of Brahman just isn’t discovered on the earth.
The last word situation of the world is atomic, in line with the Vaiseshika system. The atoms are everlasting. They’re the final word reason behind the universe. The universe exists within the atomic state within the state of Pralaya or dissolution. An atom is infinitesimal. A dyad is minute and quick. Chaturanuka or quadruple atom is nice, and lengthy.
If two atoms that are spherical can produce a dyad which is minute and quick however which has not acquired the spherical nature of the atom, if the dyads that are quick and minute can produce a Chaturanuka which is nice and lengthy however which has not acquired the minuteness and shortness of the dyad, it’s fairly apparent that every one the qualities of the trigger will not be discovered within the impact. So it’s fairly potential that the clever, blissful Brahman may be the reason for a world which is non-intelligent and stuffed with struggling.
Paramanujagadakaranatvadhikaranam: Subject 3 (Sutras 12-17)
Refutation of the atomic principle of the Vaiseshikas
The objection in opposition to the view of Vedanta has been answered within the earlier Sutra. Now the Vaiseshika system is refuted.
Ubhayathapi na karmatastadabhavah�������������������� 11.2.12 (183)
In each instances additionally (within the instances of the Adrishta, the unseen precept inhering both within the atoms or the soul) the exercise (of the atoms) just isn’t potential; therefore negation of that (viz., creation by the union of the atoms).
Ubhayatha: in both case, in each methods, on each assumptions or hypotheses; Api: additionally; Na: not; Karma: motion, exercise, movement; Atah: due to this fact; Tadabhavah: absence of that, negation of that, i.e., negation of the creation of the world by union of atoms.
The argument in opposition to the Vaiseshika system commenced in Sutra 11 is sustained.
What’s the trigger that first operates on the final word atoms? Vaiseshikas maintain that the movement which is because of the unseen precept (Adrishta) joins the atom by which it resides, to a different atom. Thus binary compounds, and many others. are produced and at last the ingredient of air. Equally fireplace, water, earth, the physique with its organs are produced. Thus the entire world originates from atoms. The qualities of the binary compounds are produced from the qualities inhering within the atoms, simply because the qualities of the material end result from the qualities of the threads. Such is the educating of the Vaiseshika system of philosophy.
The movement within the atoms can’t be led to by the Adrishta residing within the atoms, as a result of the Adrishta which is the resultant of the nice and dangerous actions of the soul can’t reside within the atoms. It should inhere within the soul. The Adrishta residing within the soul can’t produce movement within the atom. The movement of the atom just isn’t defined on each these views. As Adrishta is insentient it can’t act. As Adrishta is within the soul, how can it function within the atoms? If it might, such operation will go on for ever as there isn’t a company to manage it. When two atoms mix do they unite completely or not? In the event that they unite completely, if there may be complete interpenetration, the atomic state will proceed as there can be no enhance in bulk. If partially, then atoms can have elements. That is in opposition to the idea of the Vaiseshikas. Furthermore, in the event that they mix as soon as, there can’t be separation or dissolution. Adrishta can be lively to result in creation for the enjoyment of the fruits of actions. For these causes the doctrine of the atoms being the reason for the world have to be rejected.
The Vaiseshikas could argue that the movement originates within the atoms as quickly as they arrive within the proximity of the souls charged with any particular Adrishta. This is also untenable. As a result of there may be no proximity or contact between the souls that are partless and the atoms which are also partless.
An insentient object can’t transfer one other as it’s inert. All movement of objects are initiated, guided and directed by intelligence and clever beings.
The soul can’t be the reason for the primal movement of the atoms at first of creation. As a result of in dissolution, in line with the Vaiseshikas, the soul itself lies dormant with out possessing any intelligence and therefore is on no account superior to the atom.
It can’t be stated additionally that the primal movement of the atom is brought on by the need of the Lord in conformity with the Adrishta of the souls, as a result of the Adrishtas of the souls don’t mature and will not be woke up. Therefore the need of the Lord just isn’t lively.
As there may be thus no movement within the atoms to start with of the creation, they can not come collectively and type an mixture. Consequently, there may be no creation because the binary compounds can’t be produced.
In response to the Vaiseshikas, the universe is created by the union of the atoms. Now what causes this union? If it’s a seen trigger, it isn’t potential earlier than the creation of the physique. A seen trigger may be an endeavour or an impression. There may be no endeavour on the a part of the soul if there isn’t a connection of the soul with thoughts. As there may be neither physique nor thoughts earlier than creation, there can’t be any endeavour. Related is the case with impression or the like.
What causes the union of the atoms? Adrishta or the unseen precept can’t be the reason for the primary movement of the atoms as a result of the Adrishta is non-intelligent. There is no such thing as a intelligence to information the Adrishta. Therefore it can’t act by itself.
Does the Adrishta inhere within the soul or the atoms? Whether it is inherent within the soul, there isn’t a intelligence to direct the Adrishta because the soul is then inert. Furthermore, the soul is partless just like the atoms. Consequently, there can’t be any connection between the soul and the atoms. Therefore, if the Adrishta inheres within the soul, it can’t produce movement within the atoms which aren’t related with the soul.
If the Adrishta is inherent within the atoms, there can be no dissolution as a result of the atoms will ever be lively because the Adrishta is at all times current.
Due to this fact there isn’t a risk for authentic movement within the atoms and so mixture of atoms just isn’t potential.
Therefore the idea of Vaiseshikas that the universe is brought on by the mix of atoms is untenable.
Samavayabhyupagamaccha samyadanavasthiteh 11.2.13 (184) And since in consequence of Samavaya being admitted, a regresssus advert infinitum outcomes on comparable reasoning (therefore the Vaiseshika principle is untenable).
Samavayabhyupagamat: Samavaya being admitted; Cha: and, additionally; Samyat: due to equality of reasoning; Anavasthiteh: regressus advert infinitum would end result.
The argument in opposition to the Vaiseshika philosophy commenced in Sutra 11 is sustained.
Samavaya is inseparable inherence or concomitant trigger or combining pressure. It is among the seven classes of the Vaiseshika philosophy. It’s the affinity which brings in regards to the union of the atoms.
The Vaiseshikas say that two Paramanus grow to be a Dvyanuka on account of the operation of the combining pressure (Samavaya) and that the Samavaya connects the dyad with its constituents, the 2 atoms, because the dyad and the atoms are of various qualities. Samavaya is totally different from the final word atoms and dyads which it connects. Why ought to it function until there be one other Samavaya to make it function? That new Samavaya would require one other Samavaya to attach it with the primary and so forth. Thus their principle is vitiated by the fault of Anavastha Dosha or regressus advert infinitum.
The argument is defective. Therefore the atomic doctrine which admits Samavaya relationship for the union of the atoms just isn’t admissible. It have to be rejected as it’s ineffective and as it’s an incongruous assumption.
Nityameva cha bhavat�������������������������������������������� 11.2.14(185)
And on account of the everlasting existence (of exercise or non-activity, the atomic principle just isn’t admissible).
Nityam: everlasting; Eva: definitely, even; Cha: and, additionally; Bhavat: due to the existence, from the likelihood.
The argument in opposition to the Vaiseshika commencing in Sutra 11 is sustained.
The atomic principle includes one other problem. If the atoms are by nature lively, then creation can be everlasting. No Pralaya or dissolution may happen. If they’re by nature inactive, no creation may happen. The dissolution can be everlasting. Their nature can’t be each exercise and inactivity as a result of they’re self-contradictory. In the event that they had been neither, their exercise and non-activity must rely upon an operative or environment friendly trigger like Adrishta. Because the Adrishta is in everlasting proximity to the atoms, because the Adrishta is at all times related with the atoms, they are going to be ever lively. Consequently, creation can be everlasting. If there isn’t a environment friendly or operative trigger, there can be no exercise of the atoms. Consequently, there can be no creation.
For that reason additionally the atomic doctrine is untenable and inadmissible.
Rupadimatvaccha viparyayo darsanat��������������������� 11.2.15 (186)
And on account of the atoms possessing color, and many others., the other (of which the Vaiseshikas maintain would happen), as a result of it’s seen or noticed.
Rupadimatvat: due to possessing color, and many others.; Cha: and, additionally; Viparyayah: the reverse, the other; Darsanat: as a result of it’s seen or noticed, from frequent expertise.
The argument in opposition to Vaiseshika commencing in Sutra 11 is sustained.
In response to the Vaiseshika philosophy, the atoms are stated to have color, and many others. If this isn’t the case, the results is not going to possess these qualities, because the qualities of the trigger solely are discovered within the results. Then the atoms would now not be atomic and everlasting. As a result of that which has type, color, and many others., is gross, ephemeral and impermanent. Consequently the atoms, and many others., that are endowed with color and many others., have to be gross and inpermanent. This contradicts the idea of the Vaiseshikas that they’re minute and everlasting.
Therefore the atomic principle, being thus self-contradictory, can’t be accepted. The atoms can’t be the final word reason behind the universe. There would end result from the circumstance of the atoms having color, and many others., the other of which the Vaiseshikas imply.
Ubhayatha cha doshat������������������������������������������������� 11.2.16 (187)
And due to defects in each instances (the atomic principle can’t be accepted).
Ubhayatha: in each methods, on both facet, in both case; Cha: additionally, and; Doshat: due to defects (or difficulties).
The argument in opposition to Vaiseshikas is sustained.
Earth has the qualities of odor, style, color and is gross. Water has color.-taste and contact and is ok. Hearth has color and contact and is finer nonetheless. Air is the best of all and has the standard of contact solely. The 4 gross parts earth, water, fireplace and air are produced from atoms.
If we suppose that the respective atoms of the weather additionally possess the identical variety of qualities because the gross parts, then the atom of air can have one high quality, an atom of earth can have 4 qualities. Therefore an atom of earth which possesses 4 qualities can be larger in dimension. It could not be an atom any longer. It is not going to fulfill the definition of an atom.
If we suppose all of them to own the identical variety of qualities, in that case there can’t be any distinction within the qualities of the results, the gross parts as a result of the attributes of the trigger (the atoms) are reproduced in its results (the gross parts).
If the atom is one and the identical and has just one high quality, then multiple high quality shouldn’t be discovered. Hearth mustn’t have type along with contact as so on.
Therefore, in both case the doctrine of the Vaiseshikas is flawed and due to this fact untenable. It can’t be logically maintained.
Aparigrahacchatyantamanapeksha������������������������ 11.2.17 (188)
And since (the atomic principle) just isn’t accepted (by authoritative sages like Manu and others) it’s to be completely rejected.
Aparigrahat: as a result of it isn’t accepted; Cha: and; Atyantam: altogether, completely, fully; Anapeksha: to be rejected.
The argument in opposition to Vaiseshika is concluded.
At the least the Sankhya doctrine of Pradhana was accepted to some extent by Manu and different knowers of the Veda however the atomic doctrine has not been accepted by any particular person of authority in any of its elements. Due to this fact, it’s to be disregarded fully by all those that take their stand on the Veda.
Additional, there are different objections to the Vaiseshika doctrine. The Vaiseshikas assume six classes or Padarthas viz., Dravya (substance), Guna (high quality), Karma (motion), Samanya (generality), Visesha (particularity) and Samavaya (inherence). They keep that the six classes are completely totally different from one another and possess totally different traits simply as a person, a horse and a hare differ from each other. They are saying that the classes are unbiased and but they maintain that on Dravya the opposite 5 classes rely. This contradicts the previous one. That is fairly inappropriate. Simply as animals, grass, bushes and the like, being completely totally different from one another, don’t rely upon one another, so additionally the qualities and many others., additionally being completely totally different from substance can’t rely upon the latter.
The Vaiseshikas say that Dravya (substance) and Guna (high quality) are inseparably related. On the identical time they are saying that every begins its exercise. The threads carry the material into existence and the whiteness within the threads produces the whiteness within the material. “Substances originate one other substance and qualities one other high quality” (Vaiseshika Sutras 1.1.10). If the thread and its high quality occupy the identical house and are inseparably united, how can this happen? If the substance and the standard are inseparably collectively with regards to time, the 2 horns of a cow must develop collectively. If there may be inseparability within the nature of the substance and its high quality, why are you able to not say that each are one and similar? Therefore the idea that the standard relies upon upon substance and that the standard and substance are inseparable, is untenable and inadmissible.
Additional, the Vaiseshikas make distinction between Samyoga (conjunction) and Samavaya (inherence). They are saying that Samyoga is the connection of issues which exists individually and Samavaya is the connection of issues that are incapable of separate existence. This distinction just isn’t tenable because the trigger which exists earlier than the impact can’t be stated to be incapable of separate existence. What’s the proof of the existence of Samyoga or Samavaya other than trigger and impact? Neither is there any Samyoga or Samavaya other than the issues which grow to be related. The identical man though being one solely varieties the article of many alternative names and notions in accordance as he’s thought of in himself or in his relation to others. Thus he’s thought and spoken of as man, Brahmana, realized within the Veda, beneficiant boy, younger man, outdated man, father, son, grandson, brother, son-in-law, and many others. The identical digit connotes totally different numbers, ten or hundred or thousand, in line with its place.
Furthermore, we’ve got not seen Samyoga besides as between issues which occupy house. However thoughts is Anu and doesn’t occupy house in line with you. You can not say that you’ll think about some house for it. Should you make such a supposition, there isn’t a finish to such suppositions. There is no such thing as a cause why you shouldn’t assume an extra hundred or thousand issues along with the six classes assumed by the Vaiseshikas.
Furthermore, two Paramanus which don’t have any type can’t be united with a Dvyanuka which has type. There doesn’t exist that sort of intimate connection between ether and earth which exists between wooden and polish.
Neither is the idea of Samavaya essential to clarify which, out of trigger and impact, is determined by the opposite. There may be mutual dependence. Vedantins don’t settle for any distinction between trigger and impact. Impact is just trigger in one other type. The Vedantins acknowledge neither the separateness of trigger and impact, nor their standing to one another within the relation of abode and the factor abiding. In response to the Vedanta doctrine, the impact is just a sure state of the trigger.
Furthermore, Paramanus are finite and they also can have type. What has type have to be liable to destruction.
Thus it’s fairly clear that the atomic doctrine is supported by very weak arguments. It’s against these scriptural texts which declare the Lord to be the overall trigger. It isn’t additionally accepted by sages like Manu and others. Due to this fact, it ought to be completely disregarded by clever males.
Samudayadhikaranam: Subject 4 (Sutras 18-27)
Refutation of the Bauddha Realists
Samudaya ubhayahetuke’pi tadapraptih����������������� 11.2.18 (189)
Even when the (two sorts of) aggregates proceed from their two causes, there would happen non-establishment (of the 2 aggregates).
Samudaya: the combination; Ubhayahetuke: having two causes; Api: additionally, even; Tadapraptih: it is not going to happen, it can’t be established.
After refuting the atomic principle of Vaiseshika, the Buddhistic theories are actually refuted.
Lord Buddha had 4 disciples who based 4 methods of philosophy, referred to as respectively Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Yogachara and Madhyamika. The Vaibhashikas are the Realists (Sarvastitvavadins) who settle for the truth of each the skin and the within world consisting respectively of exterior objects and thought (additionally consciousness, emotions, and many others.). The Sautrantikas are the Idealists (Vijnanavadins). They maintain that thought alone is actual. They keep that there isn’t a proof whether or not exterior objects actually exist or not, the concepts solely exist and the exterior objects are inferred from these concepts. Thus the Vaibhashikas maintain that the exterior objects are instantly perceived whereas the Sautrantikas keep that the outward world is an inference from concepts. The third class, the Yogacharas maintain that concepts alone are actual and there’s no exterior world corresponding to those concepts. The outward objects are unreal like dream objects.
The Madhyamikas keep that even the concepts themselves are unreal and there may be nothing that exists besides the void (Sunyam). They’re the Nihilists or Sunyavadins who maintain that every part is void and unreal. All of them agree that every part is momentary. Nothing lasts past a second. Issues of the earlier second don’t exist within the subsequent second. One seems and the following second it’s changed by one other. There is no such thing as a connection between the one and the opposite. All the pieces is sort of a scene in a cinema which is produced by the successive look and disappearance of a number of remoted footage.
The Realists recognise two aggregates, viz., the exterior materials world and the interior psychological world, which collectively make up the universe. The exterior world is made up of the combination of atoms, that are of 4 varieties, viz., atoms of earth that are strong, atoms of water that are viscid, atoms of fireside that are scorching and atoms of air that are cell.
The 5 Skandhas or teams are the trigger for the interior world. They’re Rupa Skandha, Vijnana Skandha, Vedana Skandha, Samjna Skandha and Samskara Skandha. The senses and their objects type the Rupa Skandha. Vijnana Skandha is the stream of consciousness which provides the notion of egoism or T. The Vedana Skandha contains the sensation of delight and ache. The Samjna Skandha consists of names similar to Ramakrishna, and many others. All phrases thus represent the Samjna Skandha. The fifth Skandha referred to as Samskara Skandha consists of the attributes of the thoughts similar to affection, hatred, delusion, advantage (Dharma), demerit (Adharma), and many others. All inner objects belong to any one of many final 4 Skandhas. The 4 final Skandhas type the interior objects. All actions depend on the interior objects. The inner objects represent the inside motive of every part. All exterior objects belong to at least one Skandha particularly the Rupa Skandha. Thus the entire universe consists of those two sorts of objects, inner and exterior. The inner mixture or the psychological world is shaped by the combination of the final 4 Skandhas. These are the 2 inner and exterior aggregates referred to within the Sutra.
The idea of the Bauddhas which classifies all objects beneath two heads, one mixture being referred to as the exterior, the opposite inner, just isn’t enough to clarify the world order; as a result of all aggregates are unintelligent and there’s no everlasting intelligence admitted by the Bauddhas which might result in this aggregation. All the pieces is momentary in its existence in line with the Bauddhas. There is no such thing as a everlasting clever being who brings in regards to the conjunction of those Skandhas. The continuation just isn’t potential for these exterior atoms and inner sensations with out the intervention of an clever information. If it’s stated they arrive collectively of their very own inner movement, then the world turns into everlasting; as a result of the Skandhas can be continually bringing about creation as they’re everlasting and as they possess movement of their very own. Thus this principle is untenable.
It can’t be defined how the aggregates are led to, as a result of the elements that represent the fabric aggregates are destitute of intelligence. The Bauddhas don’t admit some other everlasting clever being similar to having fun with soul or a ruling lord, which may impact the aggregation of atoms.
How are the aggregates shaped? Is there any clever precept behind the aggregates because the Trigger, the Information, the Controller or the Director? Or does it happen spontaneously? Should you say that there’s an clever precept, is it everlasting or momentary? Whether it is everlasting, then the Buddhistic doctrine of momentariness is opposed. Whether it is momentary, it should come into existence first after which unite the atoms. Then the trigger ought to final multiple second. If there isn’t a clever precept as director or controller, how can non-intelligent atoms and the Skandhas mixture in an orderly method? Additional, the creation would proceed for ever. There can be no dissolution.
For all these causes the formation of aggregates can’t be correctly defined. With out aggregates there can be an finish of the stream of earthly existence which presupposes these aggregates. Due to this fact, the doctrine of this college of Bauddhas is untenable and inadmissible.
Itaretarapratyayatvaditi
chennotpattimatranimittatvat����������������������������� 11.2.19 (190)
If it’s stated that (the formation of aggregates could also be defined) by (nescience) standing within the relation of mutual causality, we are saying ‘no’; they merely are the environment friendly reason behind the origin (of the instantly subsequent hyperlinks and never of the aggregation).
Itara-itara: mutual, each other; Pratyayatvat: due to being the trigger, one being the reason for the opposite; Iti: thus; Chet: if; (Iti chet: if it’s stated); Na: no; Utpattimatranimittatvat: as a result of they’re merely the environment friendly reason behind the origin.
An objection in opposition to Sutra 18 is raised and refuted.
The sequence starting with nescience comprise the next members: Nescience, Samskara or impression, Vijnana (data), identify and type, the abode of the six (i.e., the physique and the senses, contact, expertise of delight and ache, want, exercise, advantage, demerit, beginning, species, decay, loss of life, grief, lamentation, psychological affliction and the like).
Nescience is the error of contemplating that what’s momentary, impure, and many others., to be everlasting, pure, and many others. Impression, (affection, Samskara) contains want, aversion, and many others., and the exercise brought on by them. Data (Vijnana) is the self-consciousness (Aham iti alayavijnanasya vrittilabhah) arising within the embryo. Title and type is the rudimentary flake or bubble-like situation of the embryo. The abode of the six (Sadayatana) is the additional developed stage of the embryo by which the latter is the abode of the six senses. Contact (Sparsa) is the feeling of chilly, heat, and many others., on the embryo’s half. Feeling (Vedana) is the feeling of delight and ache ensuing therefrom. Want (Trishna) is the want to benefit from the pleasurable sensations and to shun the painful ones. Exercise (Upadana) is the hassle ensuing from want. Delivery is the passing out from the uterus. Species (Jati) is the category of beings to which the new-born creature belongs. Decay (Jara), loss of life (Marana) is defined because the situation of the creature when about to die (Mumursha). Grief (Soka) is the frustration of needs related therewith. Lament (Parivedana): the lamentations on that account. Ache (Duhkha) is such ache as brought on by the 5 senses. Durmanas is psychological affliction. The ‘and the like’ implies loss of life, the departure to a different world and the following return from there.
The Buddhistic realist says: Though there exists no everlasting clever precept of the character both of a ruling Lord of an having fun with soul beneath whose affect the formation of the aggregates may happen, but the course of earthly existence is rendered potential by the mutual causality of nescience (ignorance) and so forth, in order that we want not search for some other combining precept.
Nescience, Samskara, and many others., represent an uninterrupted chain of trigger and impact. Within the above sequence the instantly previous merchandise is the reason for the following. The wheel of trigger and impact revolves unceasingly just like the water-wheel and this can’t happen with out aggregates. Therefore aggregates are a actuality.
We reply: Although within the sequence the previous one is the reason for the following one, there may be nothing which may be the reason for the aggregates. It could be argued that the union of atom and the continual circulate of sensations are proved by the mutual interdependence current amongst them. However the argument can’t stand, as this mutual interdependence can’t be the reason for their cohesion. Of two issues one could produce the opposite, however that’s no cause why they need to unite collectively.
Even when Avidya (nescience), Samskara, Vijnana, Nama, and Rupa, and many others., could and not using a sentient or clever company move from the stage of trigger to the stage of impact, but how can the totality of all these concurrently exist with out the need of a coordinating thoughts?
Should you say that this mixture or the world is shaped by the mutual causation of Avidya and the remaining, we are saying it isn’t so, as a result of your hyperlink of causation explains solely the origin of the following from the earlier. It solely explains how Vijnana arises from Samskara, and many others. It doesn’t clarify how the combination is led to. An mixture referred to as Sanghata at all times exhibits a design and is led to for the aim of enjoyment. A Sanghata like a home could also be defined to have been produced by placing collectively of bricks, mortar, and many others., however they don’t clarify the design. You say that there isn’t a everlasting At-man. Your Atman is momentary solely. You’re a Kshanikatvavadin. There may be no enjoyment or experiencing for such a momentary soul; as a result of the having fun with soul has not produced the advantage or demerit whose fruits it has to take pleasure in. It was produced by one other momentary soul. You can not say that the momentary soul suffers the fruits of the acts achieved by its ancestral soul, for then that ancestral soul have to be held to be everlasting and never momentary. Should you maintain any soul to be everlasting, it’ll contradict your principle of the momentariness of every part. However should you maintain every part to be impermanent, your principle is open to the objection already made. Therefore the doctrine of the Sanghatas (Buddhists) is untenable. It isn’t based mostly on cause.
The atoms can’t mix by themselves even when they’re assumed to be everlasting and everlasting. We have now already proven this when analyzing the doctrine of the Vaiseshikas. Their mixture is rather more unimaginable when they’re momentary.
The Bauddhas say {that a} combining precept of the atoms just isn’t essential if the atoms stand in a relation of causality. The atoms would mix by themselves. That is incorrect. The causality will clarify solely the manufacturing of atoms at totally different moments. It can’t definitely clarify the union of the atom into an mixture. The mixture of an mixture can happen provided that there may be an clever agent behind. In any other case it’s unimaginable to clarify the union of inert and momentary atoms.
You’ll say that within the everlasting Samsara the aggregates succeed each other in an unbroken chain and therefore additionally Nescience and so forth which abide in these aggregates. However in that case you’ll have to assume both that every mixture essentially produces one other mixture of the identical variety, or that it might produce both a like or an not like one with none settled or particular rule. Within the former case a human physique may by no means move over into that of a god or an animal or a being of the infernal areas as like will go on producing like; within the latter case a person may instantly grow to be an elephant or a god and once more grow to be a person; both of which penalties can be opposite to your system.
The person soul for whose enjoyment this mixture of physique and many others., exists can also be evanescent or momentary. It can’t due to this fact be an enjoyer. As the person soul is momentary, whose is liberation? As there isn’t a everlasting enjoyer, there isn’t a necessity for these aggregates. There could exist a causal relation between the members of the sequence consisting of Nescience, and many others., however within the absence of a everlasting having fun with soul, it isn’t potential to ascertain on that floor the existence of aggregates. Therefore the doctrine of momentariness of the Buddhist college of Realists can’t stand.
Uttarotpade cha purvanirodhat����������������������������� 11.2.20 (191)
(Nor can there be a causal relation between nescience, and many others.) as a result of on the origination of the following factor the previous one ceases to be.
Uttarotpade: on the time of the manufacturing of the following factor; Cha: and; Purvanirodhat: as a result of the antecedent one has ceased to exist, due to the destruction of the earlier factor. (Uttara: within the subsequent, within the subsequent; Utpade: on the origination, on the manufacturing.)
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle, commenced in Sutra 18, is sustained.
We have now hitherto argued that nescience and so forth stand in a causal relation to one another merely, in order that they can’t be made to account for the existence of the aggregates. We are actually going to show that they can not even be considered environment friendly causes of the following members of the sequence to which they belong.
In response to the Buddhistic principle every part is momentary. A factor of the current second vanishes within the subsequent second when its successor manifests. On the time of the looks of a subsequent factor, the earlier factor vanishes. Therefore it’s unimaginable for the earlier factor to be the reason for the following factor. Consequently the idea is untenable and inadmissible. It can’t stand to cause.
We at all times understand that the trigger subsists within the impact because the thread subsists within the material. However the Buddhists maintain that existence originates from non-existence as a result of they keep that the impact can’t manifest with out the destruction of the trigger, the tree can’t seem till the seed is destroyed.
Even the passing of trigger into impact in a sequence of successive states like nescience, and many others., can’t happen, until there’s a coordinating intelligence. You say that every part has solely a momentary existence. Your Faculty can’t carry in regards to the simultaneous existence of two successive moments. If the trigger exists until it passes into the stage of impact, the idea of momentary existence (Kshanikatva) will vanish.
You could say that the previous momentary existence when it has reached its full growth turns into the reason for the later momentary existence. That is also unimaginable, as a result of even that can require a successive or second second for operation. This contradicts the doctrine of momentariness.
The idea of momentary existence (Kshanikatva) can’t stand. The gold that exists on the time the decoration is made is alone the reason for the decoration and never that which existed earlier than and has ceased to exist then. If it’s nonetheless held to be the trigger, then existence will come out of non-existence. This isn’t potential. The idea of momentariness will contradict the doctrine that the impact is the trigger in a brand new type. This doctrine signifies that the trigger exists within the impact. This exhibits that it isn’t momentary. Additional, origination and destruction would be the identical owing to momentariness. Whether it is stated that there’s distinction between origination and destruction, then we must say that the factor lasts for multiple second. Therefore we’ve got once more to declare the doctrine of momentariness to be untenable.
Asati pratijnoparodho yaugapadyamanyatha���������� 11.2.21 (192)
If non-existence (of trigger) be assumed, (whereas but the impact takes place), there outcomes contradiction of the admitted precept or proposition. In any other case there would end result simultaneity (of trigger and impact).
Asati: within the case of non-existence of trigger, if it’s admitted that an impact is produced and not using a trigger; Pratijna: proposition, admitted precept; Uparodhah: contradiction, denial; Yaugapadyam: simultaneity, simultaneous existence; Anyatha: in any other case.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
If the Buddhists say that an impact is produced and not using a trigger then they’d contradict their very own proposition that each impact has a trigger. The proposition admitted by Buddhists that the consciousness of blue, and many others., arises when thoughts, eye, mild and object act in union as trigger will fail. All types of results can co-exist.
If a trigger be assumed then we’ve got to just accept that the trigger and impact exist concurrently on the subsequent second. The trigger exists for multiple second. The trigger exists until the state of impact is reached. Then the doctrine of momentariness will fail.
Pratisankhyapratisankhyanirodha
praptiravicchedat������������������������������������������������ 11.2.22(193)
Aware and unconscious destruction can be unimaginable on account of non-interruption.
Pratisankhya nirodha: acutely aware destruction, destruction as a consequence of some trigger or company; causal destruction, destruction relying upon the volition of acutely aware entity; Apratisankhya nirodha: unconscious destruction, destruction not relying upon any voluntary company; Apraptih: non-attainment, impossibility; Avicchedat: due to non-interruption, as a result of it goes on with out interruption.
The argument in opposition to the idea of the Buddhists is sustained.
The Buddhists maintain that common destruction is ever occurring and that this destruction or cessation is of two varieties, viz., acutely aware and unconscious. Aware destruction relies upon upon an act of thought as when a person breaks a jar having beforehand shaped the intention of doing so. Unconscious destruction is the pure decay of objects.
The circulate of trigger and impact goes on with out interruption and due to this fact can’t be topic to both sort of destruction. Nor can any particular person antecedent of a sequence be stated to be completely destroyed, as it’s recognised in its quick consequence.
Each sorts of destruction or cessation are unimaginable as a result of it should refer both to the sequence of momentary existences or to the only members constituting the sequence.
The previous various just isn’t potential as a result of in all sequence of momentary existences the members of the sequence stand in an unbroken relation of trigger and impact in order that the sequence can’t be interrupted. The latter various is equally not admissible, as a result of it isn’t potential to carry that any momentary existence ought to bear full annihilation fully undefinable and disconnected with the earlier state of existence, as we observe {that a} factor is recognised within the numerous states by which it might move and thus has a related existence. When an earthen jar is destroyed we discover the existence of the clay within the potsherds or fragments into which the jar is damaged or within the powder into which the potsherds are floor. We infer that despite the fact that what appears to fade altogether similar to a drop of water which has fallen on heated iron, but continues to exist in another type, viz., as steam.
The sequence of momentary existence forming a sequence of causes and impact is steady and might by no means be stopped, as a result of the final momentary existence earlier than its annihilation have to be supposed both to provide its impact or to not produce it. If it does, then the sequence is sustained and won’t be destroyed. If it doesn’t produce the impact, the final hyperlink does not likely exist because the Bauddhas outline Satta of a factor as its causal effectivity and the non-existence of the final hyperlink would lead backward to the non-existence of the entire sequence.
We can’t have then two sorts of destruction within the particular person members of the sequence additionally. Aware destruction just isn’t potential on account of the momentary existence of every member. There can’t be unconscious destruction as the person member just isn’t completely annihilated. Destruction of a factor actually means solely change of situation of the substance.
You can not say that when a candle is burnt out, it’s completely annihilated. When a candle burns out, it isn’t misplaced however undergoes a change of situation. We don’t definitely understand the candle when it’s burnt out, however the supplies of which it consisted live on in a really refined state and therefore they’re imperceptible.
For these causes the 2 sorts of destruction which the Bauddhas assume can’t be proved.
Ubhayatha cha doshat�������������������������������������������������� 11.2.23 (194)
And on account of the objections presenting themselves in both case.
Ubhayatha: in both case; Cha: and, additionally; Doshat: due to objections.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
There’s a fallacy in both view, i.e., that Avidya or ignorance is destroyed by proper data or self-destroyed.
In response to the Buddhistic view, emancipation is the annihilation of ignorance. Salvation or freedom is attained when ignorance is destroyed. Ignorance (Avidya or nescience) is the false thought of permanency in issues that are momentary.
The ignorance may be annihilated by the adoption of some means similar to penance, data, and many others., (acutely aware destruction); or it might destroy itself (spontaneity). However each the alternate options are faulty. As a result of this annihilation of ignorance can’t be attained by the adoption of penance or the like; for the imply like each different factor, can also be momentary in line with the Buddhistic view and is, due to this fact, not prone to produce such annihilation; annihilation can’t happen of its personal accord, for in that case all Buddhistic directions, the disciplines and strategies of meditation for the attainment of emancipation can be ineffective.
In response to the Buddhistic principle, there may be no voluntary exertion on the a part of the aspirant for the breaking asunder of his continued worldly experiences or nescience. There is no such thing as a hope of their ever coming to an finish by mere exhaustion because the causes proceed to generate their results which once more proceed to generate their very own results and so forth and there’s no event left for practices for attaining launch.
Thus within the Buddhistic system launch or freedom can by no means be established. The educating of the Buddhists can’t stand the check of reasoning.
Aakase chaviseshat������������������������������������������������������ 11.2.24 (195)
The reason for Akasa (ether) additionally not being totally different (from the 2 other forms of destruction it additionally can’t be a non-entity.)
Akase: within the case of Akasa or ether; Cha: additionally, and; Aviseshat: due to no particular distinction.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
We have now proven in Sutras 22-23 that the 2 sorts of destruction (cessation) will not be completely destitute of all optimistic traits and so can’t be non-entities. We now proceed to indicate the identical with regard to house (ether, Akasa).
The Buddhists don’t recognise the existence of Akasa. They regard Akasa as a non-entity. Akasa is nothing however the absence of protecting or occupying physique (Avaranabhava). That is un-reasonable. Akasa has the standard of sound, simply as earth has odor, water style, fireplace type, air contact. Akasa is also a definite entity like earth, water, and many others. Therefore there isn’t a cause why Akasa additionally ought to be rejected as a non-entity, whereas earth, water, and many others., are recognised as being entities.
Simply as earth, air, and many others., are considered entities on account of their being the substratum of attributes like odor, and many others., so additionally Akasa ought to be thought of as an entity on account of its being the substratum of sound. Earth, water, and many others., are skilled by their respective qualities, viz., odor, style, type, contact. The existence of Akasa is skilled by its high quality, sound. Therefore Akasa additionally have to be an entity.
Area is inferred from its attribute of sound, simply as earth is inferred from odor. The place there may be relation of substance and attribute there have to be an object. The Buddhists maintain that house is mere non-existence of matter (Avaranabhavamatram). In that case, a chook could fall down as there isn’t a obstructive matter, however how can it fly up? Non-existence of matter is house which is a optimistic object and never mere negation or non-entity.
The doctrine that Akasa is an absolute non-entity just isn’t tenable. Why do you say so? Aviseshat, as a result of there isn’t a distinction within the case of Akasa from some other sort of substance which is an object of notion. We understand house once we say, “the crow flies in house.” The house, due to this fact, is as a lot an actual substance because the earth, and many others. As we all know the earth by its high quality of odor, water by its high quality of style, and so forth, so we all know from the standard of being the abode of objects, the existence of house, and that it has the standard of sound. Thus Akasa is an actual substance and never a non-entity.
If Akasa be a non-entity, then your entire world would grow to be destitute of house.
Scriptural passages declare “Area sprang from the Atman” (Atmana akasassambhutah). So Akasa is an actual factor. It’s a Vastu (current object) and never non-existence.
O Buddhists! You say that air exists in Akasa. Within the Bauddha scriptures, a sequence of questions and solutions starting “On which, O revered Sir, is the earth based?” by which the next query happens, “On which is the air based?” to which it’s replied that the air is based on house (ether). Now it’s clear that this assertion is acceptable solely on the supposition of house being a optimistic entity, not a mere negation. If Akasa was completely non-existent, what can be the receptacle of air?
You can not say that house is nothing however the absence of any occupying object. This additionally can’t stand to cause. Should you say that house is nothing however the absence generally of any protecting or occupying physique, then when one chook is flying, whereby house is occupied, there can be no room for a second chook which needs to fly on the identical time. You could give a solution that the second chook could fly there the place there may be absence of a protecting physique. However we declare that that one thing by which the absence of protecting our bodies is distinguished have to be a optimistic entity, viz., house in our sense and never the mere non-existing of protecting our bodies.
Furthermore, there’s a self-contradiction within the statements of Buddhists with regards to the three sorts of adverse entities (Nirupakhya). They are saying that the adverse entities will not be positively definable, and in addition are everlasting. It’s absurd to speak of a non-being as being everlasting or evanescent. The excellence of topics and predicates of attribution completely rests on actual issues. The place there may be such distinction, there exists the true factor similar to pot, and many others., which isn’t a mere undefinable negation or non-entity.
Anusmritescha�������������������������������������������������������������� 11.2.25(196)
And on account of reminiscence the issues will not be momentary. Anusmriteh: on account of reminiscence; Cha: and.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
The idea of momentariness of the Buddhists is refuted right here. If every part is momentary the experiencer of one thing should even be momentary. However the experiencer just isn’t momentary, as a result of folks have the reminiscence of previous experiences. Reminiscence can happen solely in a person who has beforehand skilled it, as a result of we observe that what one man has skilled just isn’t remembered by one other man. It isn’t that the expertise is that one sees and one other remembers. Our expertise is “I noticed and I now bear in mind what I noticed.” He who experiences and remembers is similar. He’s related with at the very least two moments. This definitely refutes the idea of momentariness.
The Buddhists could say that reminiscence is because of similarity. However until there be one everlasting realizing topic, who can understand the similarity previously with the current. One can’t say “That is the pot, that is the chair which was previously.” So lengthy there may be not the identical soul which noticed and which now remembers, how can mere similarity result in such a consciousness as “I noticed and I now bear in mind (Pratyabhijna)?” The realizing topic have to be everlasting and never momentary.
Doubt could come up with regards to an exterior object. You could not be capable to say whether or not it’s identically the identical object which was perceived previously or one thing just like it. However with regards to the Self, the cognising topic, there can by no means come up any such doubt whether or not I’m the identical who was previously, for it’s unimaginable that the reminiscence of a factor perceived by one other ought to exist in a single’s personal Self.
Should you say that this, the factor remembered, is like that, the factor seen, in that case additionally two issues are related by one agent. If the factor perceived was separate and ceased completely, it can’t be referred in any respect. Furthermore the expertise just isn’t that “that is like that” however that “that is that.”
We admit that generally with regards to an exterior factor a doubt could come up whether or not it’s that or merely is just like that; as a result of mistake could happen regarding what lies outdoors our minds. However the acutely aware topic by no means has any doubt whether or not it’s itself or solely just like itself. It’s distinctly acutely aware that it’s one and the identical topic which yesterday had a sure sensation and remembers that sensation at present. Does anybody doubt whether or not he who remembers is similar as he who noticed?
For that reason additionally the idea of momentariness of the Buddhists is to be rejected.
We don’t understand objects coming into existence in a second or vanishing in a second. Thus the idea of momentariness of all issues is refuted.
Nasato’drishtatvat������������������������������� ���������������������11.2.26 (197)
(Existence or entity does) not (spring) from non-existence or non-entity, as a result of it isn’t seen.
Na: not; Asatah: from non-existence, of the unreal, of a non-entity; Adrishtatvat: as a result of it isn’t seen.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
A non-entity has not been noticed to provide entity. Due to this fact it doesn’t stand to cause to suppose non-entity to be the trigger.
The Bauddhas (Vainasikas) assert that no impact may be produced from something that’s unchanging and everlasting, as a result of an unchanging factor can’t produce an impact. So that they declare that the trigger perishes earlier than the impact is produced. They are saying from the decomposed seed solely the younger plant springs, spoilt milk solely turns into curds, and the lump of clay has ceased to be a lump when it turns into a pot. So existence comes out of non-existence.
In response to the view of the Buddhists, an actual factor, i.e., the world has come into existence out of nothing. However expertise exhibits that this principle is fake. A pot for example is rarely discovered to be produced with out clay. Such a hypothetical manufacturing can solely exist within the creativeness, for instance, the kid of a barren lady. Therefore the view of the Buddhists is untenable and inadmissible.
If existence can come out of non-existence, if being can proceed from non-being, then the belief of particular causes would don’t have any that means in any respect. Then something could come out of something, be trigger non-entity is one and the identical in all instances. There is no such thing as a distinction between the non-entity of a mango seed and that of a jack-seed. Therefore a jack tree could come out of a mango seed. Sprouts additionally could originate from the horns of hares. If there are totally different sorts of non-existence, having particular distinctions simply as for example, blue-ness and the like are the particular qualities of lotuses and so forth, the non-existence of a mango seed will differ from that of a jack-seed, after which this may flip non-entities into entities.
Furthermore if existence springs from non-existence all results can be affected with non-existence, however they’re seen to be optimistic entities with their numerous particular traits.
The horn of a hare is non-existent. What can come out from that horn? We see solely being rising from being, e.g., decoration from gold, and many others.
In response to the Bauddhas, all thoughts and all psychological modifications spring from the 4 Skandhas and all materials aggregates from the atoms. And but they are saying on the identical time that entity is born of non-entity. That is definitely fairly inconsistent and self-contradictory. They stultify their very own doctrine and needlessly confuse the minds of each one.
Udasinanamapi chaivam siddhih��������������������������� 11.2.27 (198)
And thus (if existence ought to spring from non-existence, there would end result) the attainment of the purpose by the detached and non-active folks additionally.
Udasianam: of the detached and non-active; Api: even, additionally; Cha: and; Evam: thus; Siddih: success accomplishment, and attainment of the purpose.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
If it had been admitted that existence or entity springs from non-existence or non-entity, lazy inactive folks additionally would attain their function. Rice will develop even when the farmer doesn’t domesticate his discipline. Jars will form themselves even when the potter doesn’t style the clay. The weaver too can have completed items of fabric with out weaving. No person must exert himself within the least both for going to the heavenly world or for attaining remaining emancipation. All that is absurd and never maintained by anyone.
Thus the doctrine of the origination of existence or entity from non-existence or non-entity is untenable or inadmissible.
Nabhavadhikaranam: Subject 5 (Sutras 28-32)
Refutation of the Bauddha Idealist
Nabhava upalabdheh���������������������������������������������������� 11.2.28 (199)
The non-existence (of everlasting issues) can’t be maintained; on account of (our) consciousness (of them). Na: not; Abhavah: non-existence; Upalabdheh: as a result of they’re perceived, due to notion, as a result of we’re acutely aware of them on account of their being skilled.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained. From this Sutra begins the refutation of Buddhistic Idealists.
The doctrine of the Buddhist which affirms the momentary existence of exterior objects has been refuted. The Sutrakara or the writer of the Sutras now proceeds to refute the doctrine of the Buddhistic college which affirms the momentariness of thought, which declares that solely concepts exist and nothing else.
In response to the Buddhistic Idealists (Vijnanavadins), the exterior world is non-existent. They keep that each phenomenon resolves itself into consciousness and thought with none actuality equivalent to it. This isn’t appropriate. The exterior phenomena will not be non-existent as they’re truly witnessed by our senses of notion. The exterior world is an object of expertise by the senses. It can’t due to this fact, be non-existent just like the horns of a hare.
The Vijnanavadins say: No exterior object exists other than consciousness. There may be impossibility for the existence of outward issues. As a result of if outward objects are admitted, they have to be both atoms or aggregates of atoms similar to chairs, pots, and many others. However atoms can’t be comprehended beneath the concepts of chair, and many others. It isn’t potential for cognition to signify issues as minute as atoms. There is no such thing as a recognition of atoms and so the objects couldn’t be atoms. They might not be atomic mixtures as a result of we can’t affirm if such mixtures are one with atoms or separate therefrom.
In response to the Vijnanavadins or the Yogachara system the Vijnana Skandha or thought alone is actual. An object like pot or chair which is perceived outdoors is nothing greater than concepts. The Vijnana or thought modifies itself into the type of an object. All worldly actions can go on with mere concepts, simply as in dream all actions are carried out with the thought objects. Concepts solely exist. It’s ineffective to imagine that the article is one thing totally different from the thought. It’s potential to have sensible thought and intercourse with out exterior objects, simply as it’s achieved in dream. All sensible functions are nicely rendered potential by admitting the truth of concepts solely, as a result of no good function is served by further assumption of exterior objects equivalent to inner concepts.
The thoughts assumes totally different shapes owing to the totally different Vasanas or desire-impressions submerged in it. Simply as these Vasanas create the dream world, so the exterior world within the waking state can also be the results of Vasanas. The idea of an exterior object is pointless. We don’t see any separation of cognition and object. In dream we cognise with out objects. Even so within the waking state there might be cognition with out objects. Our manifoldness of Vasanas can account for such cognitions.
Notion within the waking state is sort of a dream. The concepts which might be current throughout a dream seem within the type of topic and object, though there isn’t a exterior object. Therefore, the concepts of chair, pot, which happen in our waking state are likewise unbiased of exterior objects, as a result of in addition they suggest concepts.
This argument is fallacious. Once you see a chair or a pot how are you going to deny it? Once you eat, your starvation is appeased. How will you doubt the starvation or the meals? You say that there isn’t a object aside out of your cognition on account of your capriciousness. Why do you not see a chair as a pot? If an object is a mere psychological creation like a dream why ought to the thoughts find it outdoors?
The Buddhist could say “I don’t affirm that I’ve no consciousness of an object. I additionally really feel that the article seems as an exterior factor, however what I affirm is that this that I’m at all times acutely aware of nothing instantly save my very own concepts. My thought alone shines as one thing exterior. Consequently the looks of the exterior issues is the results of my very own concepts.”
We reply that the actual fact of your consciousness proves that there’s an exterior object giving rise to the thought of externality. That the exterior object exists other than consciousness has essentially to be accepted on the bottom of the character of consciousness itself. Nobody when perceiving a chair or a pot is acutely aware of his notion solely, however all are acutely aware of chair or a pot and the like as objects of notion.
You (Vijnanavadins) say that the interior consciousness or thought seems as one thing exterior. This already signifies that the exterior world is actual. If it weren’t actual, your saying like one thing exterior can be meaningless. The phrase ‘like’ exhibits that you just admit the truth of the exterior objects. In any other case you wouldn’t have used this phrase. As a result of nobody makes a comparability with a factor which is an absolute unreality. Nobody says that Ramakrishna is just like the son of a barren lady.
An thought like a lamp requires an ulterior mental precept or illuminer to render it manifest. Vijnana has a starting and an finish. It additionally belongs to the class of the identified. The knower is as indispensable of cognitions as of objects.
The Buddhist idealist, whereas contending that there’s nothing outdoors the thoughts, forgets the fallacy of the argument. If the world, as they argue, had been solely an outward expression of inner concepts, then the world additionally can be simply thoughts. However the Buddhists argue that the thoughts, which is ostensibly within the particular person, can also be the world outdoors. Right here the query arises: How does the thought of there being nothing outdoors come up with out the thoughts itself being outdoors? The consciousness that nothing exists outdoors can’t come up if there may be actually nothing outdoors. Therefore the Buddhist Vijnanavada doctrine is flawed.
When the Buddhists got here to know of the illogicality of their idea, they modified their doctrine saying that the thoughts referred to right here just isn’t the person thoughts however the cosmic thoughts, often called Alaya-Vijnana, which is the repository of all particular person minds in a possible type. Right here the Buddhist stumbles on the Vedanta doctrine that the world is a manifestation of the Common Thoughts.
Vaidharmyaccha na svapnadivat���������������������� �����11.2.29 (200)
And on account of the distinction in nature (in consciousness between the waking and the dreaming state, the expertise of the waking state) just isn’t like goals, and many others., and many others.
Vaidharmyat: on account of distinction of nature, due to dissimilarity; Cha: and, additionally; Na: not; Svapnadivat: like goals and many others.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
The waking state just isn’t like dream, and many others., due to dissimilarity. The concepts of the waking state will not be like these of a dream on account of their distinction of nature.
The Buddhists say: The notion of the exterior world is just like the dream. There are not any exterior objects in a dream and but the concepts manifest as topic and object. Even so the looks of the exterior universe is unbiased of any goal actuality.
The analogy of dream phenomena to the phenomena of the waking world is flawed. The consciousness in a dream and that in a wakeful state are dissimilar. The consciousness in a dream is determined by the earlier consciousness within the wakeful state, however the consciousness within the wakeful state doesn’t rely upon the rest, however on the precise notion by senses. Additional the dream expertise grow to be false as quickly as one wakes up. The dreaming man says as quickly as he wakes up, “I wrongly dreamt that I had a gathering with the collector. No such assembly came about. My thoughts was dulled by sleep and so the false concepts arose.” These issues quite the opposite, of which we’re acutely aware in our waking state similar to publish and the like, are by no means negated in any state. They stand unchallenged and uncontra-dicted. Even after lots of of years they’ll have the identical look as now.
Furthermore dream phenomena are mere recollections whereas the phenomena of the waking state are skilled as realities. The excellence between remembrance and expertise or quick consciousness is instantly realised by everybody as being based on the absence or presence of the article. When a person remembers his absent son, he doesn’t instantly meet him. Just because there may be similarity between dream state and waking state we can’t say that they’ve the identical nature. If a attribute just isn’t the character of an object it is not going to grow to be its inherent nature just by being just like an object which has that nature. You can not say that fireside which burns is chilly as a result of it has traits in frequent with water.
Therefore the dreaming state and the waking state are completely dissimilar of their inherent nature.
Na bhavo’nupalabdheh���������������������������������������� 11.2.30 (201)
The existence (of Samskaras or psychological impressions) just isn’t potential (in line with the Bauddhas), on account of the absence of notion (of exterior issues).
Na: not; Bhavah: existence (of impressions or Samskaras); Anupalabdheh: as a result of they aren’t perceived, as a result of (exterior issues) will not be skilled.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
In response to your doctrine there might be no existence of Vasanas or psychological impressions as you deny the existence of objects.
You say that although an exterior factor doesn’t truly exist, but its impressions do exist, and from these impressions diversities of notion and concepts like chair, tree come up. This isn’t potential, as there may be no notion of an exterior factor which is itself non-existent. If there be no notion of an exterior factor, how can it depart an impression?
Should you say that the Vasanas or the psychological impressions are Anadi (beginningless, or causeless), it will land you within the logical fallacy of regressus advert infinitum. This may on no account set up your place. Vasanas are Samskaras or impressions and suggest a trigger and foundation or substratum, however for you there isn’t a trigger or foundation for Vasanas or psychological impressions, as you say that it can’t be cognised by any means of information.
Kshanikatvaccha�������������������������������������������������� 11.2.31 (202)
And on account of the momentariness (of the Alayavijnana or ego-consciousness it can’t be the abode of the Samskaras or psychological impressions). Kshanikatvat: on account of the momentariness; Cha: and.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is sustained.
The psychological impressions can’t exist and not using a receptacle or abode. Even the Alayavijnana or ego-consciousness can’t be the abode of psychological impressions as additionally it is momentary in line with the Buddhistic view.
Until there exists one steady everlasting precept equally related with the previous, the current and the long run, or a completely unchangeable Self which cognises every part, we’re unable to account for remembrance, recognition, that are topic to psychological impressions depending on place, time and trigger. Should you say that Alayavijnana is one thing everlasting then that will contradict your doctrine of momentariness.
We have now thus refuted the doctrine of the Buddhists which holds the momentary actuality of the exterior world and the doctrine which declares that concepts solely exist.
Sarvathanupapattescha������������������������������������������ II.2.32 (203)
And (because the Bauddha system is) illogical in each method (it can’t be accepted).
Sarvatha: in each method; Anupapatteh: due to its not being proved illogical; Cha: and, additionally.
The argument in opposition to the Buddhistic principle is concluded right here.
The Sunyavada or Nihilism of the Buddhist which asserts that nothing exists is fallacious as a result of it goes in opposition to each technique of proof, viz., notion, inference, testimony and analogy. It goes in opposition to the Sruti and each technique of proper data. Therefore it needs to be completely ignored by those that take care of their very own happiness and welfare. It needn’t be mentioned intimately because it provides method on all sides, just like the partitions of a nicely dug in sandy soil. It has no basis no matter to relaxation upon. Any endeavour to make use of this method as a information within the sensible issues of life is mere folly.
O Sunyavadins! You need to admit your self to be a being and your reasoning additionally to be one thing and never nothing. This contradicts your principle that every one is nothing.
Additional, the means of information by which Sunyata is to be proved should at the very least be actual and have to be acknowledged to be true, as a result of if such means of information and arguments be themselves nothing, then the idea of nothingness can’t be established. If these means and arguments be true, then one thing definitely is proved. Then additionally the idea of nothingness is disproved.
Ekasminnasambhavadhikaranam: Subject 6 (Sutras 33-36)
Refutation of the Jaina Doctrine
Naikasminnasambhavat������������������������������������������� 11.2.33 (204)
On account of the impossibility (of contradictory attributes) in a single and the identical factor on the identical time (the Jaina doctrine is) not (to be accepted).
Na: not; Ekasmin: in a single; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility.
After the refutation of the Buddhistic doctrine of momentariness, Vijnanavada and Nihilism, the Jaina doctrine is taken up for dialogue and refutation.
The Jainas acknowledge seven classes or Tattvas, viz., soul(Jiva), non-soul (Ajiva), the issuing outward(Asrava), restraint (Samvara), destruction (Nirjara), bondage (Bandha), and launch (Moksha). These classes may be primarily divided into two teams, the soul and the non-soul. The Jainas say additionally that there are 5 Astikayas viz., Jiva or soul, Pudgala (physique, matter), Dharma (advantage), Adharma (demerit) and Akasa (house).
Their chief doctrine is the Saptabhanginyaya. They predicate seven totally different views with regards to the truth of every part, i.e., it might exist, could not exist, could exist and will not exist, could also be inexpressible, could exist and could also be inexpressible, could not exist and could also be inexpressible and will exist and will not exist and could also be inexpressible.
Now this view about issues can’t be accepted, as a result of in a single substance it isn’t potential that contradictory qualities ought to exist concurrently. Nobody ever sees the identical object to be cold and hot on the identical time. Simultaneous existence of sunshine and darkness in a single place is unimaginable.
In response to the Jaina doctrine, heaven and liberation could exist or could not exist. This world, heaven and even liberation will grow to be uncertain. We can’t arrive at any particular data. It could be ineffective to put down guidelines of apply for the attainment of heaven, for the avoidance of hell or for emancipation as a result of there isn’t a certainty about something. The heaven could as nicely be hell and remaining freedom not totally different from these. As every part is ambiguous, there can be nothing to tell apart heaven, hell and remaining liberation from one another.
Confusion will come up not solely with regard to the article of the world, however of the world additionally. If issues are indefinite, and if every part is “someway it’s, someway it isn’t,” then a person who needs water will take fireplace to quench his thirst and so forth with every part else, as a result of it might be that fireside is scorching, it might be that fireside is chilly.
If there may be such doubt how can true data end result? How can the Jaina lecturers educate something with certainty if every part is uncertain? How can their followers act in any respect, studying such teachings?
Making use of this Saptabhanginyaya to their 5 Astikayas, the 5 could grow to be 4 and even much less. If they’re inexpressible, why do they speak about it?
We have now already refuted the atomic principle on which is predicated the Jaina doctrine that Pudgala (matter) is because of atomic mixture.
Therefore the Jaina doctrine is untenable and inadmissible. Their logic is fragile because the thread of a spider and can’t stand the pressure of reasoning.
Evam chatmakartsnyam����������������������������������������� 11.2.34 (205)
And in the identical method (there outcomes from the Jaina doctrine) the non-universality of the soul.
Evam: thus, in the identical method, as it’s prompt by the Jaina principle; Cha: additionally, and; Atma-akartsnyam: non-universality of the soul.
Different defects of the Jaina principle are proven.
We have now hitherto spoken in regards to the objection ensuing from the Syadvada of the Jainas, viz., that one factor can’t have contradictory attributes. We now flip to the objection that from their doctrine it will comply with that the person soul just isn’t common, i.e., not omnipresent.
The Jainas maintain that the soul is of the scale of the physique. In that case it will be restricted and with elements. Therefore it can’t be everlasting and omnipresent.
Furthermore, because the our bodies of various courses of creatures are of various sizes, the soul of a person taking the physique of an elephant on account of its previous deeds will be unable to replenish that physique. The soul of an ant additionally will be unable to replenish the physique of an elephant. The soul of an elephant is not going to have enough house within the physique of an ant. A big portion of it must be outdoors that physique. The soul of a kid or a youth being smaller in dimension will be unable to fill fully the physique of a grown-up man.
The steadiness of the size of the soul is impaired. The Jaina principle itself falls to the bottom.
The Jainas could give a solution {that a} Jiva has infinite limbs and due to this fact may develop or contract. However may these infinite limbs be in the identical place or not? If they may not, how may they be compressed in a small house? If they may, then all of the limbs have to be in the identical place and can’t develop into an enormous physique. Furthermore they don’t have any proper to imagine {that a} Jiva has infinite limbs. What’s there to justify the view {that a} physique of restricted dimension incorporates an infinite variety of soul particles?
Properly then, the Jainas could reply, allow us to assume that by turns at any time when the soul enters an enormous physique, some particles accede to it, whereas some withdraw from it, at any time when it enters a small physique.
To this speculation, the following Sutra provides an acceptable reply.
Na cha paryayadapyavirodho vikaradibhyah����������� 11.2.35 (206)
Neither is non-contradiction to be derived from the succession (of elements in line with and departing from the soul to such totally different our bodies) on account of the change, and many others., (of the soul).
Na: not; Cha: additionally, and; Paryayat: in flip, due to assuming by succession; Api: even; Avirodhah: no inconsistency; Vikaradibhyah: on account of change, and many others.
Additional defects of the Jaina doctrine are proven on this Sutra.
The Jaina could say that the soul is de facto indefinite in its dimension. Due to this fact when it animates the our bodies of an toddler or a youth it has that dimension, and when it occupies the our bodies of horses or elephants it expands itself to that dimension. By successive growth and dilation just like the fuel it absolutely occupies your entire physique which animates in the meanwhile. Then there isn’t a objection to our principle that the soul is of the scale of the physique.
Even should you say that the limbs of the soul maintain out or are available in accordance because the physique is small or massive, you can not recover from the objection that in such a case the soul can be liable to alter and consequently is not going to be everlasting. Then any speak of bondage and emancipation can be meaningless. The futility of the query of launch and of the philosophy that offers with it will end result.
If the soul’s limbs can come and go, how may it’s totally different in nature from the physique? So one among these limbs solely may be the Atman. Who can repair it? Whence do the limbs of the soul come? The place do they take relaxation? They can not spring from the fabric parts and re-en-. ter the weather as a result of the soul is immortal. The limbs come and go. The soul can be of an indefinite nature and stature.
The Jaina could say that though the soul’s dimension successively adjustments it might but be everlasting. Simply because the stream of water is everlasting though the water regularly adjustments.
Then the identical objection as that urged in opposition to the Buddhists will come up. If such a continuity just isn’t actual however is just obvious, there can be no Atman in any respect. We’re led again to the doctrine of a normal void. Whether it is one thing actual, the soul can be liable to alter and therefore not everlasting. This can render the view of the Jaina unimaginable.
Antyavasthiteschobhayanityatvadavisesah������������ 11.2.36 (207)
And on account of the permanency of the ultimate (dimension of the soul on launch) and the ensuing permanency of the 2 (previous sizes), there isn’t a distinction (of dimension of the soul, at any time).
Antyavasthiteh: due to the permanency of the scale on the finish; Cha: and; Ubhayanityatvat: as each are everlasting; Aviseshah: as a result of there being no distinction.
Dialogue on the defects of the Jaina doctrine is concluded.
Additional the Jainas themselves admit the permanency of the ultimate dimension of the soul, which it has within the stage of launch. From this it follows additionally that its preliminary dimension and its intervening dimension have to be everlasting. Due to this fact there isn’t a distinction between the three sizes. What’s the speciality of the state of launch? There is no such thing as a peculiarity of distinction, in line with the Jainas, between the state of launch and the mundane state. The totally different our bodies of the soul have one and the identical dimension and the soul can’t enter into larger and smaller our bodies. The soul have to be considered being at all times of the identical dimension, whether or not minute or infinite and never of the various sizes of the our bodies.
Due to this fact the Jaina doctrine that the soul varies in line with the scale of the physique is untenable and inadmissible. It have to be put aside as not in any far more rational than the doctrine of the Bauddhas.
Patyadhikaranam: Subject 7 (Sutras 37-41)
Refutation of the Pasupata System
Patyurasamanjasyat����������������������������������������������� II.2.37 (208)
The Lord (can’t be the environment friendly or the operative reason behind the world) on account of the inconsistency (of that doctrine).
Patyuh: of the Lord, of Pasupati, of the Lord of animals; Asamanjasyat: on account of inconsistency, on account of untenableness, inappropriateness.
The Pasupatas or the Mahesvaras are divided into 4 courses, viz., Kapala, Kalamukha, Pasupata and Saiva. Their scripture describes 5 classes, viz., Trigger (Karana), Impact (Karya), Union (Yoga by the apply of meditation), Ritual (Vidhi) and the tip of ache or sorrow (Duhkhanta), i.e., the ultimate emancipation. Their classes had been revealed by the good Lord Pasupati Himself as a way to break the bonds of the soul referred to as herein Pasu or animal.
On this system Pasupati is the operative or the environment friendly trigger (Nimitta Karana). Mahat and the remaining are the results. Union means union with Pasupati, their God, by summary meditation. Their rituals include bathing thrice a day, smearing the brow with ashes, interturning the fingers in non secular worship (Mudra), carrying Rudraksha on the neck and arms, taking meals in a human cranium, smearing the physique with ashes of a burnt human physique, worshipping the deity immersed in a wine-vessel. By worshipping the Pasupati the soul attains proximity with the Lord, and there accrues a state of cessation of all wishes and all pains which is Moksha.
The followers of this college recognise God because the environment friendly or the operative trigger. They recognise the primordial matter as the fabric reason behind the world. This principle is opposite to the view of the Sruti the place Brahman is acknowledged to be each the environment friendly and the fabric reason behind the world. Therefore the idea of Pasupatas can’t be accepted.
In response to Vedanta, the Lord is each the environment friendly and the fabric reason behind the universe. The Naiyayikas, Vaiseshikas, Yogins and Mahesvaras say that the Lord is the environment friendly trigger solely and the fabric trigger is both the atoms, in line with the Naiyayikas and Vaiseshikas, or the Pradhana, in line with the Yogins and Mahesvaras. He’s the ruler of the Pradhana and the souls that are totally different from Him.
This view is flawed and inconsistent. As a result of God can be a fan of some and prejudiced in opposition to others. As a result of some are affluent, whereas others are depressing on this universe. You can not clarify this saying that such distinction is because of range of Karma, for if the Lord directs Karma, they’ll grow to be mutually dependent. You can not clarify this on the bottom of beginninglessness, for the defect of mutual dependence will persist.
Your doctrine is inappropriate since you maintain the Lord to be a particular sort of soul. From this it follows that He have to be devoid of all exercise.
The Sutrakara himself has proved within the earlier Part of this e book that the Lord is the fabric trigger in addition to the ruler of the world (environment friendly or the operative trigger).
It’s unimaginable that the Lord ought to be the mere environment friendly reason behind the world, as a result of His reference to the world can’t be established. In peculiar worldly life we see {that a} potter who’s merely the environment friendly reason behind the pot has a sure reference to the clay with which he fashions the pot.
The Srutis emphatically declare ‘I’ll grow to be many’ (Tait. Up. 11.6). This means that the Lord is each the environment friendly and the fabric reason behind the universe.
Sambandhanupapattescha����������������������������������� 11.2.38 (209)
And since relation (between the Lord and the Pradhana or the souls) just isn’t potential.
Sambandha: relation; Anupapatteh: due to the impossibility; Cha: and.
The argument in opposition to the Pasupata view is sustained.
A Lord who’s distinct from the Pradhana and the souls can’t be the ruler of the latter with out being related with them in a sure method. It can’t be conjunction (Samyoga), as a result of the Lord, the Pradhana and the souls are of infinite extent and destitute of elements. Therefore they can’t be dominated by Him.
There couldn’t be Samavaya-sambandha (inherence) which subsists between entities inseparably related as entire and half, substance and attributes and many others., (as within the case of Tantu-pata, thread and material), as a result of it will be unimaginable to outline who ought to be the abode and who the abiding factor.
The problem doesn’t come up within the case of the Vedantins. They are saying that Brahman is Abhinna-Nimitta-Upadana, the environment friendly trigger and the fabric reason behind the world. They affirm Tadatmya-sambandha (relation of id). Additional they rely upon the Srutis for his or her authority. They outline the character of the trigger and so forth, on the idea of Sruti. They’re, due to this fact, not obliged to render their tenets fully conformable to commentary because the opponents must.
The Pasupatas can’t say that they’ve the help of the Agama (Tantras) for affirming Omniscience about God. Such an announcement suffers from the defect of a logical see-saw (petitio principii), as a result of the omniscience of the Lord is established on the doctrine of the scripture and the authority of the scripture is once more established on the omniscience of the Lord.
For all these causes, such doctrines of Sankhyayoga in regards to the Lord is devoid of basis and is inaccurate. Different comparable doctrines which likewise will not be based mostly on the Veda are to be refuted by corresponding arguments.
Adhishthananupapattescha����������������������������������������� 11.2.39 (210)
And on account of the impossibility of rulership (on the a part of the Lord).
Adhisthana: rulership; Anupapatteh: due to the impossibility;
Cha: and.
The argument in opposition to the Pasupata view is sustained.
The Lord of the argumentative philosophers, similar to Naiyayikas, and many others., is untenable speculation. There may be one other logical fallacy within the Nyaya conception of Isvara. They are saying that the Lord creates the world with the assistance of Pradhana, and many others., simply as a potter makes pots with the mud.
However this can’t be admitted, as a result of the Pradhana which is devoid of color and different qualities and due to this fact not an object of notion, is on that account of a completely totally different nature from clay and the like. Due to this fact, it can’t be seemed upon as the article of the Lord’s motion. The Lord can’t direct the Pradhana.
There may be one other that means additionally for this Sutra. On this world we see a king with a physique and by no means a king and not using a physique. Due to this fact, the Lord additionally should have a physique which is able to function the substratum of his organs. How can we ascribe a physique to the Lord, as a result of a physique is just posterior to creation?
The Lord, due to this fact, just isn’t in a position to act as a result of he’s devoid of a cloth substratum, as a result of expertise teaches us that motion wants a cloth substratum. If we assume that the Lord possesses some sort of physique which serves as a substratum for his organs previous to creation, this assumption additionally is not going to do, as a result of if the Lord has a physique He’s topic to the sensations of the peculiar souls and thus now not is the Lord.
The Lord’s placing on a physique additionally can’t be established. So the Lord of animals (Pasupati) can’t be the ruler of matter (Pradhana). That by placing on a physique the Lord turns into the environment friendly reason behind the world can also be fallacious. On the earth it’s noticed {that a} potter having a bodily type fashions a pot with the clay. If from this analogy the Lord is inferred to be the environment friendly reason behind the world, He’s to be admitted to have a bodily type. However all our bodies are perishable. Even the Pasupatas admit that the Lord is everlasting. It’s untenable that the everlasting Lord resides in a perishable physique and so turns into depending on one other further trigger. Therefore it can’t be inferred that the Lord has any bodily type.
There may be nonetheless one other that means. Additional, there may be in his case the impossibility (absence) of place. For an agent just like the potter and many others., stands on the bottom and does his work. He has a spot to face upon. Pasupati doesn’t possess that.
Karanavacchenna bhogadibhyah��������������������������� 11.2.40 (211)
If it’s stated (that the Lord guidelines the Pradhana and many others.,) simply as (the Jiva guidelines) the senses (that are additionally not perceived), (we are saying) no, due to the enjoyment, and many others.
Karanavat: just like the senses; Chet: if, if it’s conceived. Na: not (no it can’t be accepted); Bhogadibhyah: due to enjoyment, and many others.
An objection in opposition to Sutra 38 is raised and refuted.
The Sutra consists of two elements, particularly an argument and its reply. The argument is ‘Karanavacchet and the reply is ‘A/a bhogadibhyah’.
The opponent says: Simply as the person soul guidelines the sense organs which aren’t perceived, so additionally the Lord guidelines the Pradhana, and many others.
The analogy just isn’t appropriate, as a result of the person soul feels pleasure and ache. If the analogy be true, the Lord additionally would expertise pleasure and ache, brought on by the Pradhana and many others., and therefore would forfeit His Godhead.
Antavattvamasarvajnata va�������������������������������������� 11.2.41(212)
(There would comply with from their doctrine the� Lord’s)� being topic to destruction or His non-omniscience.
Antavattvam: finiteness, terminableness, topic to destruction; Asarvajnata: absence of Omniscience; Va: or.
The argument raised in Sutra 40 is additional refuted and thus the Pasupata doctrine is refuted.
In response to these colleges (Nyaya, Pasupata, the Mahesvara, and many others.), the Lord is Omniscient and everlasting. The Lord, the Pradhana and the souls are infinite and separate. Does the Omniscient Lord know the measure of the Pradhana, soul and Himself or not? If the Lord is aware of their measure, all of them are restricted. Due to this fact a time will come when they’ll all stop to exist. If Samsara ends and thus there isn’t a extra Pradhana, of what can God be the idea or His lordship? Or, over what’s His Omniscience to increase? If nature and souls are finite, they should have a starting. If they’ve a starting and finish, there can be scope for Sunyavada, the doctrine of nothingness. If He doesn’t know them, then he would now not be Omniscient. In both case the doctrine of the Lord’s being the mere environment friendly reason behind the world is untenable, inconsistent and unacceptable.
If God be admitted to have organs of senses and so to be topic to pleasure and ache, as acknowledged in Sutra 40, He’s topic to beginning and loss of life like an peculiar man. He turns into devoid of Omniscience. This form of God just isn’t accepted by the Pasupatas even. Therefore the doctrine of the Pasupatas, that God just isn’t the fabric reason behind the world can’t be accepted.
Utpattyasambhavadhikaranam: Subject 8 (Sutras 42-45)
Refutation of the Bhagavata or the Pancharatra college
Utpattyasambhavat����������������������������������������������������� 11.2.42(213)
On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the person soul from the Highest Lord), (the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine can’t be accepted). Utpatti: causation, origination, creation; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility.
The Pancharatra doctrine or the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is now refuted.
In response to this college, the Lord is the environment friendly trigger in addition to the fabric reason behind the universe. That is in fairly settlement with the scripture or the Sruti and so it’s authoritative. Part of their system agrees with the Vedanta system. We settle for this. One other a part of the system, nevertheless, is open to objection.
The Bhagavatas say that Vaasudeva whose nature is pure data is what actually exists. He divides Himself fourfold and seems in 4 varieties (Vyuhas) as Vaasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Vaasudeva denotes the Supreme Self, Sankarshana the person soul, Pradyumna the thoughts, and Aniruddha the precept of egoism, or Ahamkara. Of those 4, Vaasudeva constitutes the Final Trigger, of which the three others are the results.
They are saying that by devotion for a protracted interval to Vaasudeva by Abhigamana (going to the temple with devotion), Upadana (securing the equipment of worship), Ijya (oblation, worship), Svadhyaya (examine of holy scripture and recitation of Mantras) and Yoga (religious meditation) we are able to move past all afflictions, pains and sorrows, attain Liberation and attain the Supreme Being. We settle for this doctrine.
However we controvert the doctrine that Sankarshana (the Jiva) is born from Vaasudeva and so forth. Such creation just isn’t potential. If there may be such beginning, if the soul be created it will be topic to destruction and therefore there might be no Liberation. That the soul just isn’t created can be proven in Sutra 11.3.17.
For that reason the Pancharatra doctrine just isn’t acceptable.
Na cha kartuh karanam������������������������������������������������� II.2.43 (214)
And (it’s) not (noticed that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.
Na:�� not;�� Cha:�� and;�� Kartuh:�� from� the� agent;�� Karanam:�� the instrument.
The argument in opposition to the Pancharatra doctrine is sustained.
An instalment similar to a hatchet and the like just isn’t seen to be produced from the agent, the woodcutter. However the Bhagavatas educate that from an agent, viz., the person soul termed Sankarshana, there springs its inner instrument or thoughts (Pradyumna) and from the thoughts, the ego or Ahamkara (Aniruddha).
The thoughts is the instrument of the soul. Nowhere can we see the instrument being born from the doer. Nor can we settle for that Ahamkara points from the thoughts. This doctrine can’t be accepted. Such doctrine can’t be settled with out noticed situations. We don’t meet with any scriptural passage in its favour. The scripture declares that every part takes its origin from Brahman.
Vijnanadibhave va tadapratishedhah��������������������� 11.2.44 (215)
Or if the (4 Vyuhas are stated to) possess infinite data, and many others., but there isn’t a denial of that (viz., the objection raised in Sutra 42).
Vijnanadibhave: if intelligence and many others. exist; Va: or, then again; Tat: that (Tasya iti); Apratishedhah: no denial (of)- (Vijnana: data; Adi: and the remaining; Bhave: of the character (of).)
The argument in opposition to the Pancharatra doctrine is sustained.
The error of the doctrine will persist even when they are saying that every one the Vyuhas are gods having intelligence, and many others.
The Bhagavatas could say, that every one the varieties are Vaasudeva, the Lord, and that every one of them equally possess Data, Lordship, Power, Energy, and many others., and are free from faults and imperfections.
On this case there can be multiple Isvara. This goes in opposition to your individual doctrine in line with which there’s just one actual essence, viz., the holy Vaasudeva. All of the work may be achieved by solely One Lord. Why ought to there be 4 Isvaras?
Furthermore, there might be no beginning of 1 from one other, as a result of they’re equal in line with the Bhagavatas, whereas a trigger is at all times larger than the impact. Commentary exhibits that the relation of trigger and impact requires some superiority on the a part of the trigger, as for example, within the case of the clay and the pot, the place the trigger is extra intensive than the impact and that with out such superiority the relation is solely unimaginable. The Bhagavatas don’t acknowledge any distinction based on superiority of information, energy, and many others., between Vaasudeva and the opposite Lords, however merely say that they’re all types of Vaasudeva with none particular distinction.
Then once more, the types of Vaasudeva can’t be restricted to 4 solely, as the entire world from Brahma right down to a blade of grass is a type or manifestation of the Supreme Being. The entire world is the Vyuha of Vaasudeva.
Vipratishedhaccha�������������������������������������������������������� 11.2.45 (216)
And due to contradictions (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).
Vipratishedhat: due to contradiction; Cha: and.
The argument in opposition to the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is concluded right here.
There are additionally different inconsistencies, or manifold contradictions within the Pancharatra doctrine. Jnana, Aisvarya, or ruling capability, Sakti (artistic energy), Bala (energy), Virya (valour) and Tejas (glory) are enumerated as qualities and they’re once more in another place spoken of as selfs, holy Vaasudevas and so forth. It says that Vaasudeva is totally different from Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. But it says that these are the identical as Vaasudeva. Typically it speaks of the 4 varieties as qualities of the Atman and generally because the Atman itself.
Additional we meet with passages contradictory to the Vedas. It incorporates phrases of depreciation of the Vedas. It says that Sandilya acquired the Pancharatra doctrine after discovering that the Vedas didn’t comprise the technique of perfection. Not having discovered the very best bliss within the Vedas, Sandilya studied this Sastra.
For that reason additionally the Bhagavata doctrine can’t be accepted. As this method is against and condemned by all of the Srutis and abhored by the clever, it isn’t worthy of regard.
Thus on this Pada has been proven that the paths of Sankhyas, Vaiseshikas and the remaining right down to the Pancharatra doctrine are strewn with thorns and are stuffed with difficulties, whereas the trail of Vedanta is free from all these defects and ought to be trodden by everybody who needs his remaining beatitude and salvation.
Thus ends the Second Pada (Part 2) of the Second Adhyaya (Chapter II) of the Brahmasutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.
Introduction
Within the earlier Part the inconsistency of the doctrines of the varied non-Vedantic colleges has been proven. After exhibiting the untenability and unreliability of different methods, Sri Vyasa, the writer of Vedanta Sutras now proceeds to clarify the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies within the Sruti system as a result of there look like diversities of doctrines with regards to the origin of the weather, the senses, and many others.
We now clearly perceive that different philosophical doctrines are nugatory on account of their mutual contradictions. Now a suspicion could come up that the Vedantic doctrine is also equally nugatory on account of its intrinsic contradictions. Due to this fact a brand new dialogue is begun as a way to take away all doubts within the Vedanta passages which consult with creation and thus to take away the suspicion within the minds of the readers. Right here we’ve got to contemplate first the query whether or not ether (Akasa) has an origin or not.
In Sections III and IV the obvious contradictions in Sruti texts are fantastically harmonised and reconciled. The arguments of the opponent (Purvapakshin) who makes an attempt to show the Self-contradiction of the scriptural texts are given first. Then comes the refutation by the Siddhantin.
Synopsis
The Third Part of Chapter II offers with the order of creation as it’s taught in Sruti, of the 5 primal parts particularly Akasa, air, fireplace, water and earth. It discusses the query whether or not the weather have an origin or not, whether or not they’re co-eternal with Brahman or difficulty from it and are withdrawn into it at acknowledged intervals. The important traits of the person can also be ascertained.
The primary seven Adhikaranas take care of the 5 elementary substances.
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-7) teaches that the ether just isn’t co-eternal with Brahman however originates from it as its first impact. Although there isn’t a point out of Akasa within the Chhandogya Upanisad, the inclusion of Akasa is implied.
Adhikarana II: (Sutra 8) exhibits that air originates from ether.
Adhikarana III: (Sutra 9) teaches that there isn’t a origin of that which is (i.e., Brahman) on account of the impossibility of there being an origin of Brahman, and because it doesn’t stand to cause.
Adhikarana IV, V, VI: (Sutras, 10, 11, 12) educate that fireside springs from air, water from fireplace, earth from water.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutra 13) teaches that the origination of 1 ingredient from one other is due to not the latter in itself however to Brahman performing in it. Brahman who’s their Indweller has truly advanced these successive parts.
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutra 14) exhibits that the absorption of the weather into Brahman takes place within the inverse order of their creation.
Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 15) teaches that the order by which the creation and the re-absorption of the weather takes place just isn’t interfered with by the creation and re-absorption of Prana, thoughts and the senses, as a result of in addition they are the creations of Brahman, and are of elemental nature and due to this fact are created and absorbed along with the weather of which they consist.
The remaining portion of this Part is dedicated to the particular traits of the person soul by evaluating totally different Srutis bearing on this level.
Adhikarana X: (Sutra 16) exhibits that expressions similar to Ramakrishna is born Ramakrishna has died, strictly apply to the physique solely and are transferred to the soul in thus far solely as it’s related with a physique.
Adhikarana XI: (Sutra 17) teaches that the person soul is in line with the Srutis everlasting, everlasting. Due to this fact it isn’t just like the ether and the opposite parts, produced from Brahman on the time of creation. The Jiva is in actuality similar with Brahman. What originates is merely the soul’s reference to its limiting adjuncts similar to thoughts, physique, senses, and many others. This connection is furthermore illusory.
Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 18) defines the character of the person soul. The Sutra declares that intelligence is the very essence of the soul.
Adhikarana XIII: (Sutras 19-32) offers with the query whether or not the person soul is Anu, i.e., of very minute dimension or omnipresent, all-pervading. The Sutras 19-28 signify the view of the Purvapakshin in line with which the person soul is Anu, whereas Sutra 29 formulates the Siddhanta viz., the person soul is in actuality all-pervading; it’s spoken of as Anu in some scriptural passages as a result of the qualities of the interior organ itself are Anu which represent the essence of the Jiva as long as he’s concerned within the Samsara.
Sutra 30 explains that the soul could also be referred to as Anu as it’s related with the Buddhi so long as it’s implicated within the Samsara.
Sutra 31 intimates that within the state of deep sleep the soul is doubtlessly related with the Buddhi whereas within the waking state that connection turns into truly manifest.
Sutra 32 intimates that if no mind existed there would end result fixed notion or fixed non-perception.
Adhikaranas XIV and XV: (Sutras 33-39 and 40) consult with the Kartritva of the person soul, whether or not the soul is an agent or not.
Sutras 33-39 declare that the soul is an agent. The soul is an agent when he’s related with the devices of motion, Buddhi, and many others. Sutra 40 intimates that he ceases to be an agent when he’s dissociated from them, simply because the carpenter works so long as he wields his devices and rests after having laid them apart.
Adhikarana XVI: (Sutras 41-42) teaches that the agentship of the person soul is verily subordinate to and managed by the Supreme Lord. The Lord at all times directs the soul in line with his good or dangerous actions achieved in earlier births.
Adhikarana XVII (Sutras 43-53) treats of the relation of the person soul to Brahman.
Sutra 43 declares that the person soul is part (Amsa) of Brahman. This Sutra propounds Avacchedavada i.e., the doctrine of limitation i.e., the doctrine that the soul is the Supreme Self in as far as restricted by its adjuncts.
The next Sutras intimate that the Supreme Lord just isn’t affected by pleasure and ache like the person soul, simply as mild is unaffected by the shaking of its reflections.
In response to Sankara, `Amsa’ have to be understood to imply `Amsa iva’, an element because it had been. The one common indivisible Brahman has no actual elements however seems to be divided owing to its limiting adjuncts.
Sutra 47 teaches that the person souls are required to comply with the totally different injunctions and prohibitions laid down within the scriptures, when they’re related with our bodies, excessive and low. Hearth is one solely however the fireplace of a funeral pyre is rejected and that of the sacrifice is accepted. Related is the case with the Atman. When the soul is connected to the physique, moral guidelines, concepts of purity and impurity have full utility.
Sutra 49 exhibits that there isn’t a confusion of actions or faults of actions. The person soul has no reference to all of the our bodies on the identical time. He’s related with one physique solely and he’s affected by the peculiar properties of that one alone.
Sutra 50 propounds the doctrine of reflection (Abhasavada) or Pratibimbavada, the doctrine that the person soul is a mere reflection of the Supreme Brahman within the Buddhi or mind.
Within the Sankhya philosophy the person soul has been acknowledged to be all-pervading. If this view be accepted there can be confusion of works and their results. This view of the Sankhyas is, due to this fact, an unfair conclusion.
VIYADADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-7)
ETHER IS NOT ETERNAL BUT CREATED
Na viyadasruteh II.3.1 (217)
(The Purvapakshin, i.e., the objector says that) ether (Akasa) (does) not (originate), as Sruti doesn’t say so.
Na: not; Viyat: ether, house, Akasa; Asruteh: as Sruti doesn’t say so.
The opponent raises a rivalry that Akasa is uncreated and as such not produced out of Brahman. This prima facie view is put aside within the subsequent Sutra.
To start with the texts which deal with of creation are taken up. Akasa (ether) is first handled. The Purvapakshin says that Akasa just isn’t precipitated or created as a result of there isn’t a Sruti to that impact. Akasa is everlasting and isn’t precipitated as a result of the Sruti doesn’t name it precipitated, whereas it refers back to the creation of fireside. Tadaikshata bahu syam prajayeyeti tattejo’srijata It thought `Might I grow to be many, could I develop forth’It despatched forth fireplace. (Chh. Up. VI.2.3). Right here there isn’t a point out of Akasa being produced by Brahman. As scriptural sentence is our solely authority within the origination of information of supersensuous issues, and as there isn’t a scriptural assertion declaring the origin of ether, ether have to be thought of to don’t have any origin. Due to this fact Akasa has no origin. It’s everlasting.
Within the Vedantic texts, we come throughout somewhere else totally different statements relating to the origin of assorted issues. Some texts say that the ether and air originated; some don’t. Another texts once more make comparable statements relating to the person soul and the Pranas (very important airs). In some locations the Sruti texts contradict each other relating to order of succession and the like.
Deeqmle leg~
Asti tu II.3.2 (218)
However there may be (a Sruti textual content which states that Akasa is created).
Asti: there may be; Tu: however.
The contradiction raised in Sutra 1 is partially met right here.
The phrase `however’ (tu) is used on this Sutra as a way to take away the doubt raised within the previous Sutra.
However there’s a Sruti which expressly says so. Although there isn’t a assertion within the Chhandogya Upanishad relating to the causation of Akasa, but there’s a passage within the Taittiriya Sruti on its causation. Tasmad va etasmadatmana akasah sambhutah From the Self (Brahman) sprang Akasa, from Akasa the air, from air the fireplace, from fireplace the water, from water the earth (Tait. Up. II.1).
Gaunyasambhavat II.3.3 (219)
(The Sruti textual content in regards to the origination of Akasa) has a secondary sense, on account of the impossibility (of the origination of the Akasa).
Gauni: utilized in a secondary sense, having a metaphorical sense; Asambhavat: due to the impossibility.
Right here is an objection in opposition to Sutra 20.
The opponent says: The Taittiriya textual content referred to within the earlier Sutra which declares the origination of the Akasa ought to be taken in a secondary sense (figurative), as Akasa can’t be created. It has no elements. Due to this fact it can’t be created.
The Vaiseshikas deny that Akasa was precipitated. They are saying that causation implies three components, viz., Samavayikarana (inherent causesmany and comparable components), Asamavayikarana (non- inherent causes, their mixture) and Nimittakarana (operative causes, a human company). To make a material threads and their mixture and a weaver are wanted. Such causal components don’t exist within the case of Akasa.
We can’t predicate of house a spaceless state, simply as we are able to predicate of fireside an antecedent state with out brightness.
Additional not like earth, and many others., Akasa is all-pervading and therefore couldn’t have been precipitated or created. It’s everlasting. It’s with out origin.
The phrase `Akasa’ is utilized in a secondary sense in such phrases as `make room’, `there may be room’. Though house is just one it’s designated as being of various varieties once we converse of the house of a pot, the house of a home. Even in Vedic passages a type of expression similar to `He’s to position the wild animals within the areas (Akaseshu)’ is seen. Therefore we conclude that these Sruti texts additionally which converse of the origination of Akasa have to be taken to have a secondary sense or figurative that means.
Sabdacca II.3.4 (220)
Additionally from the Sruti texts (we discover that Akasa is everlasting).
Sabdat: from the Sruti texts, as a result of Sruti says so; Cha: additionally, and.
Right here is an objection in opposition to Sutra 2.
Within the earlier Sutra Akasa was inferred to be everlasting. On this Sutra the opponent cites a Sruti textual content to indicate that it’s everlasting. He factors out that Sruti describes Akasa as uncaused and uncreated. Vayuschantariksham chaitadamritamThe air and the Akasa are immortal (Br Up. II.3.3). What’s immortal can’t have an origin.
One other scriptural passage, Omnipresent and everlasting like etherAkasavat sarvagato nityah, signifies that these two qualities of Brahman belong to the ether additionally. Therefore an origin can’t be attributed to the Akasa.
Different scriptural passages are: As this Akasa is infinite, so the Self is to be often called infinite. Brahman has the ether for its physique, the Akasa is the Self. If the Akasa had a starting it couldn’t be predicated of Brahman as we predicate blueness of a lotus (lotus is blue).
Due to this fact the everlasting Brahman is of the identical nature as Akasa. (That is the view of the opponentPurvapakshin).
Syaccaikasya Brahmasabdavat II.3.5 (221)
It’s potential that the one phrase (`sprang’Sambhutah) could also be utilized in a secondary and first sense just like the phrase Brahman.
Syat: is feasible; Cha: additionally, and; Ekasya: of the one and the identical phrase; Brahmasabdavat: just like the phrase Brahman.
An argument in help of the above objection is now superior by the opponent (Purvapakshin).
The opponent says that the identical phrase `sprang’ (Sambhutah) within the Taittiriya textual content (II.1)From that Brahman sprang Akasa, from Akasa sprang air, from air sprang fireplace.can be utilized in a secondary sense with respect to Akasa and within the major sense with respect to air, fireplace, and many others. He helps his assertion by making reference to different Sruti texts the place the phrase `Brahman’ is so used. Attempt to know Brahman by penance, as a result of, penance is Brahman (Tait. Up. III.2). Right here Brahman is used each in a major and in a secondary sense in the identical textual content.
The identical phrase Brahman is in the way in which of figurative identification (Bhakti) utilized to penance which is just the technique of realizing Brahman and once more on to Brahman as the article of information.
Additionally Meals is BrahmanAnnam Brahma (Tait. Up. III.2), and Bliss is BrahmanAnando Brahma (Tait. Up. III.6). Right here Brahman is utilized in a secondary and first sense respectively in two complementary texts.
The Vedantin says: However how can we uphold now the validity of the assertion made within the clause, Brahman is one solely and not using a secondEkameva Advitiyam Brahma. As a result of if Akasa is a second entity co-existing with Brahman from eternity, it follows that Brahman has a second. If it’s so, how can it’s stated that when Brahman is understood every part is understood? (Chh. Up. VI.1.3).
The opponent replies that the phrases Ekamevaone solely are used with regards to the results. Simply as when a person sees in a potter’s home a lump of clay, a workers, a wheel and so forth at present and on the next day a variety of pots and says that clay alone existed on yesterday, he means solely that the results, i.e., the pots didn’t exist and doesn’t deny the wheel or the stick of the potter, even so the passage means solely that there isn’t a different trigger for Brahman which is the fabric reason behind the world. The time period `and not using a second’ doesn’t exclude the existence from eternity of ether however excludes the existence of some other superintending Being however Brahman. There’s a superintending potter along with the fabric reason behind the vessels, i.e., the clay. However there isn’t a different superintendent along with Brahman, the fabric reason behind the universe.
The opponent additional provides that the existence of Akasa is not going to carry in regards to the existence of two issues, for quantity is available in solely when there are various issues. Brahman and Akasa don’t have any such diverseness earlier than creation as each are all-pervading and infinite and are indistinguishable like milk and water blended collectively. Due to this fact the Sruti says: Akasasariram BrahmaBrahman has the ether for its physique. It follows that the 2 are similar.
Furthermore all created issues are one with Akasa which is one with Brahman. Due to this fact if Brahman is understood with its results, Akasa additionally is understood.
The case is just like that of some drops of water poured right into a cup of milk. These drops are taken when the milk is taken. The taking of the drops doesn’t type one thing further to the taking of the milk. Equally the Akasa which is non-separate in place and time from Brahman, and its results, is comprised inside Brahman. Due to this fact, we’ve got to grasp the passages in regards to the origin of the ether in a secondary sense.
Thus the opponent (Purvapakshin) tries to ascertain that Akasa is uncreated and isn’t an impact and that the Sruti textual content calls it `Sambhuta’ (created) solely in a secondary sense.
Pratijna’haniravyatirekacchabdebhyah II.3.6 (222)
The non-abandonment of the proposition (viz., by the data of 1 every part else turns into identified, may result solely) from the non-difference (of your entire world from Brahman) in line with the phrases of the Veda or the Sruti texts (which declare the non-difference of the trigger and its results).
Pratijna ahanih: non-abandonment of the proposition; Avyatirekat: from non distinction, on account of non-difference, due to absence of exclusion; Sabdebhyah: from the phrases particularly from the Srutis.
The objection raised in Sutra 1 and continued in Sutras 3, 4 and 5 is now replied to.
The Sutrakara refutes the Purvapakshin’s (objector’s) view and establishes his place. The scriptural assertion that from the data of One (Brahman) every part else is understood may be true provided that every part on the earth is an impact of Brahman. As a result of the Sruti says that the results will not be totally different from the trigger. Due to this fact if the trigger (Brahman) is understood, the results additionally can be identified. If Akasa doesn’t originate from Brahman, then by realizing Brahman we can’t know Akasa. Due to this fact the above assertion is not going to come true. Akasa nonetheless stays to be often called it isn’t an impact of Brahman. But when Akasa is created then there can be no such problem in any respect. Due to this fact Akasa is an impact. It’s created. If it isn’t created the authoritativeness of the Vedas will disappear.
The opponent is fully flawed in imagining that the Taittiriya Sruti is in battle with Chhandogya Upanishad. You’ll have to add within the Chhandogya Sruti After creating Akasa and Vayu. Then the textual content would imply that after creating Akasa and Vayu Brahman created fireplace. Now there can be no battle in any respect.
Furthermore, the reason that as Brahman and Akasa are one like milk and water and that as Akasa is one with all issues it will likely be identified by realizing Brahman and its results is fully flawed, as a result of the data of milk and water that are one just isn’t an accurate data. The analogy given within the Sruti textual content just isn’t milk and water, however clay and jars to point that every one results will not be separate from the trigger and since the phrase `eva’ in Ekameva Advitiyam excludes two mixed issues like milk and water and says that just one entity is the trigger.
The data of every part by the data of 1 factor of which the Sruti speaks can’t be defined by the analogy of milk blended with water, for we perceive from the parallel occasion of a bit of clay being introduced ahead, (Chh. Up. VI.1.4), that the data of every part needs to be skilled by the relation of the fabric trigger and the fabric impact. The data of the trigger implies the data of the impact. Additional, the data of every part, if taken to be just like the case of information of milk and water, couldn’t be referred to as an ideal data (Samyag-Vijnana), as a result of the water which is apprehended solely by the data of the milk with which it’s blended just isn’t grasped by good data, as a result of the water though blended with the milk, but is totally different from it.
That nothing has an unbiased existence other than Brahman is corroborated by statements in Sruti: Sarvam khalvidam BrahmaIdam sarvam yadayamatma. That Self is all that’s (Bri. Up. II.4.6).
Yavadvikaram tu vibhago lokavat II.3.7 (223)
However wherever there are results, there are separateness as is seen on the earth (as in peculiar life).
Yavat vikaram: as far as all modifications go, wherever there may be an impact; Tu: however; Vibhagah: division, separateness, distinction, specification; Lokavat: as on the earth. (Yavat: no matter; Vikaram: transformation.)
The argument begun in Sutra 6 is concluded right here.
The phrase `tu’ (however) refutes the concept that Akasa just isn’t created. It exhibits that the doubt raised within the final Sutra is being eliminated.
The Chhandogya Upanishad purposely omits Akasa and Vayu from the listing enumerated, as a result of it retains in view the method of Trivritkarana, mixture of the three seen parts (Murta, i.e., with type), as an alternative of Panchikarana, mixture of 5 parts which is elsewhere developed.
It’s to be famous right here that although all the weather originate from Brahman, but Akasa and air will not be talked about by identify within the Sruti, Chhandogya Upanishad, whereas fireplace, water and earth are distinctly acknowledged therein to have originated from Brahman. The specification is like that present in comparable instances of peculiar expertise on the earth, for example, to imply all of the sons of a selected particular person, Ramakrishna, only some of them are named.
This is rather like what we discover within the peculiar world. If a person says all these are sons of Narayana after which he provides sure particulars in regards to the beginning of one among them, he implies thereby that it applies to the beginning of all the remaining. Even so when the Upanishad says that every one this has its self in Brahman after which it goes on to present the origin of a few of them from Brahman similar to fireplace, water and earth, it doesn’t imply that others haven’t their origin in Him, however it solely signifies that it was not thought essential to present an in depth account of their origin. Due to this fact, although there isn’t a categorical textual content within the Chhandogya Upanishad as to the origin of Akasa, but we infer from the common proposition therein that every part has its self in Brahman, that Akasa has its self in Brahman, and so is produced from Brahman.
Akasa is a component like fireplace and air. Due to this fact it should have an origin. It’s the substratum of impermanent high quality just like the sound, and so it have to be impermanent. That is the direct argument to show the origin and destruction of Akasa. The oblique argument to show it’s, no matter has no origin is everlasting as Brahman and no matter has everlasting qualities is everlasting because the soul, however Akasa not being like Brahman in these respects, can’t be everlasting.
Akasa takes its origin from Brahman, although we can’t conceive how house can have any origin.
We see on this universe that every one created issues are totally different from one another. No matter we observe: results or modifications of a substance similar to jars, pots, bracelets, armlets, and ear-rings, needles, arrows, and swords we observe division or separateness. No matter is split or separate is an impact, as jars, pots, and many others. No matter just isn’t an impact just isn’t divided because the Atman or Brahman. A pot is totally different from a bit of fabric and so forth. All the pieces that’s divided or separate is created. It can’t be everlasting. You can not consider a factor as separate from others and but everlasting.
Akasa is separate from earth, and many others. Therefore Akasa additionally have to be an impact. It can’t be everlasting. It have to be a created factor.
Should you say that Atman additionally, being apparently separate from Akasa and many others., have to be an impact we reply that it isn’t so, as a result of Akasa itself has originated from Atman. The Sruti declares that Akasa sprang from the Atman (Tait. Up. II.1). If Atman is also an impact, Akasa and many others., can be with out an Atman i.e., Svarupa. The end result can be Sunyavada or the doctrine of nothingness. Atman is Being, due to this fact it can’t be negatived. Atmatvacchatmano nirakaranasankanupapattih. It’s self-existent. Na hyatma- gantukah kasyachit, svayam siddhatvat. It’s self-evident. Na hyatma atmanah pramanapekshaya siddhyati.
Akasa and many others., will not be acknowledged by anybody to be self-existent. Therefore nobody can deny the Atman, as a result of the denier is himself, Atman. Atman exists and is everlasting.
The All-pervasiveness and eternity of Akasa are solely comparatively true. Akasa is created. It’s an impact of Brahman.
Within the clauses, I do know at this time second no matter is current, I knew at former moments, the nearer and the remoter previous; I shall know sooner or later, the nearer and remoter future the article of information adjustments in accordance as it’s one thing previous or one thing future or one thing current. However the realizing agent doesn’t change in any respect as his nature is everlasting presence. As the character of the Atman is everlasting presence it can’t be annihilated even when the physique is burnt to ashes. You can not even suppose that it ever ought to grow to be one thing totally different from what it’s. Therefore the Atman or Brahman just isn’t an impact. The Akasa, quite the opposite, comes beneath the class of results.
Furthermore, you say that there have to be many and comparable causal components earlier than an impact may be produced. This argument just isn’t appropriate. Threads are Dravya (substance). Their mixture (Samyoga) is a Guna (attribute) and but each are components within the manufacturing of an impact. Even should you say that the necessity for a lot of and comparable causal components applies solely to Samavayikarana, this form of rationalization just isn’t appropriate, for a rope or a carpet is spun out of thread, wool, and many others.
Furthermore, why do you say that many causal components are wanted? Within the case of Paramanu or final atom or thoughts, the preliminary exercise is admittedly not as a consequence of many causal components. Nor are you able to say that just for a Dravya (substance) many causal components are essential. That might be so, if mixture causes the impact as within the case of threads and material. However in lots of situations, (e.g., milk turns into curd) the identical substance adjustments into one other substance. It isn’t the Lord’s regulation that solely a number of causes in conjunction ought to produce an impact. We due to this fact resolve on the authority of the Sruti that your entire world has sprung from the one Brahman, Akasa being produced first and afterward the opposite parts in due succession (Vide II.1.24).
It isn’t proper to say that with regards to the origin of Akasa we couldn’t discover out any distinction between its pre-causal state and its post-causal state (the time earlier than and after the origination of ether). Brahman is described as not gross and never refined (Asthulam na anu) within the Sruti. The Sruti refers to an Anakasa state, a state devoid of Akasa.
Brahman doesn’t take part within the nature of Akasa as we perceive from the passage. It’s with out Akasa (Bri. Up. III.8.8). Due to this fact it’s a settled conclusion that, earlier than Akasa was produced, Brahman existed with out Akasa.
Furthermore, you (Purvapakshin or opponent) are definitely flawed in saying that Akasa is totally different in its nature from earth, and many others. The Sruti is in opposition to the uncreatedness of Akasa. Therefore there isn’t a good in such inference.
The inference drawn by you that Akasa has no starting as a result of it differs in nature from these substances which have a starting similar to earth, and many others., is with none worth, as a result of it have to be thought of fallacious as it’s contradicted by the Sruti. We have now introduced ahead cogent, convincing and powerful arguments exhibiting that Akasa is an originated factor.
Akasa has Anitya-guna (non-eternal attribute). Due to this fact it is also Anitya (non-eternal). Akasa is non-eternal as a result of it’s the substratum of a non-eternal high quality, viz., sound, simply as jars and different issues, that are the substrata of non-eternal qualities are themselves non-eternal. The Vedantin who takes his stand on the Upanishads doesn’t admit that the Atman is the substratum of non-eternal qualities.
You can not say that Atman additionally could also be Anitya (non-eternal) for Sruti declares that Atman is everlasting (Nitya).
The Sruti texts which describe Akasa as everlasting (Amrita) describe it so in a secondary sense solely (Gauna), simply because it calls heaven-dwelling gods as everlasting (Amrita). The origin and destruction of Akasa has been proven to be potential.
Even within the Sruti textual content, Akasavat sarvagatacha nityah which describes Atman as just like Akasa in being all-pervading and everlasting, these phrases are used solely in a secondary and figurative sense (Gauna).
The phrases are used solely to point infiniteness or super-eminent greatness of Atman and to not say that Atman and Akasa are equal. The use is as when the solar is claimed to go like an arrow. After we say that the solar strikes with the velocity of an arrow, we merely imply that he strikes quick, not that he strikes on the identical price as an arrow.
Such passages as Brahman is bigger or vaster than Akasa show that the extent of Akasa is lower than that of Brahman. Passages like There is no such thing as a picture of Him. There may be nothing like BrahmanNa tasya pratimasti (Svet. Up. IV.19) present that there’s nothing to match Brahman to. Passages like All the pieces else is of evil (Bri. Up. III.4.2) present that every part totally different from Brahman similar to Akasa is of evil. All however Brahman is small. Therefore Akasa is an impact of Brahman.
Srutis and reasoning present that Akasa has an origin. Due to this fact the ultimate settled conclusion is that Akasa is an impact of Brahman.
MATARISVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2
AIR ORIGINATES FROM ETHER
Etena matarisva vyakhyatah II.3.8 (224)
By this i.e., the foregoing rationalization about Akasa being a product, (the actual fact of) air (additionally being an impact) is defined.
Etena: by this, i.e., the foregoing rationalization about Akasa being a manufacturing, by this parity of reasoning; Matarisva: the air, the mover in mom, house; Vyakhyatah: is defined.
This Sutra states that air additionally, like Akasa, has been created by and from Brahman.
The current Sutra extends the reasoning regarding Akasa to the air of which the Akasa is the abode. The Purvapakshin maintains that the air just isn’t a product, as a result of it isn’t talked about within the chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad which treats of the origination of issues. The Purvapakshin says that the beginning of air talked about within the Taittiriya Upanishad is figurative solely, as a result of air is claimed to be one of many immortal together with Akasa.
Vayu (the air) is the deity that by no means units (Bri. Up. I.5.22). The denial of Vayu’s by no means setting refers back to the decrease data or Apara Vidya by which Brahman is spoken of as to be meditated upon beneath the type of Vayu and is merely a relative one.
The glory of Vayu is known as an object of worship. The Sruti says Vayu by no means units. Some boring sort of males might imagine that Vayu (air) is everlasting. To take away this doubt there may be made a proper extension of the previous reasoning to air additionally.
Vayu known as deathless or immortal solely in a figurative sense. Vayu (air) additionally has origin like Akasa.
ASAMBHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3
BRAHMAN (SAT) HAS NO ORIGIN
Asambhavstu sato’nupapatteh II.3.9 (225)
However there isn’t a origin of that which is (i.e., Brahman), on account of the impossibility (of such an origin).
Asambhavah: no origination, no creation; Tu: however; Satah: of the Sat, of the true one, eternally current, of Brahman; Anupapatteh: because it doesn’t stand to cause, on account of the impossibility of there being an origin of Brahman.
This Sutra states that Brahman has no origin as it’s, neither proved by reasoning nor instantly acknowledged by Sruti.
The phrase `tu’ (however) is used as a way to take away the doubt.
The opponent says that Svetasvatara Upanishad declares that Brahman is born, Thou artwork born with Thy face turned to all instructions (Svet. Up. 4.3).
We can’t, as within the case of Akasa and Vayu, attribute origin to Brahman additionally. Brahman just isn’t an impact like Akasa, and many others. Origination of Brahman can’t be established by any technique of proof.
Brahman is existence itself. It can’t be an impact, as It could don’t have any trigger. The Sruti textual content expressly denies that Brahman has any progenitor. He’s the trigger, the Lord of the Lords of the organs and there may be of Him neither progenitor nor Lord (Svet. Up. VI.9).
Furthermore it isn’t separated from the rest.
Neither can Sat come from Asat, as Asat has no being, for that which isn’t (Asat) is and not using a self and can’t due to this fact represent a trigger, as a result of a trigger is the self of its results. The Sruti says How can existence come out of non-existence? (Chh. Up. VI.2.2).
You can not say that Sat comes from Sat because the relation of trigger and impact can’t exist and not using a sure superiority on the a part of the trigger. The impact should have some speciality not possessed by the trigger. Brahman is mere existence with none destruction.
Brahman can’t spring from that which is one thing explicit, as this may be opposite to expertise. As a result of we observe that exact varieties are produced from what’s normal, as for example, jars and pots from clay, however not that which is normal is produced from particulars. Therefore Brahman which is existence generally, can’t be the impact of any explicit factor.
If there isn’t a everlasting First Trigger, the logical fallacy of Anavastha Dosha (regressus advert infinitum) is inevitable. The non-admission of a elementary trigger (substance) would drive us to a retrogressus advert infinitum. Sruti says, That nice birthless Self is undecaying (Bri. Up. IV.4.25).
Brahman is with none origin. In response to Sruti, He alone is the True one, who exists eternally. On the supposition of the origin of Brahman, He can’t be stated to be everlasting. Therefore such a supposition is in opposition to Sruti. It is usually in opposition to reasoning, as a result of by admitting such an origin the query of supply of that origin arises; then once more one other supply of that supply and so forth. Thus an argument could also be continued advert infinitum with out coming to a particular conclusion.
That elementary causesubstancewhich is mostly acknowledged to exist, simply that’s our Brahman.
Due to this fact Brahman just isn’t an impact however is everlasting.
TEJO’DHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4
FIRE ORIGINATES FROM AIR
Tejo’tah tatha hyaha II.3.10 (226)
Hearth (is produced) from this (i.e., air), so verily (declares the Sruti).
Tejah: fireplace; Atah: from this, particularly from air which has been simply spoken of in Sutra 8; Tatha: thus, so; Hello: as a result of, verily; Aha: says (Sruti).
Taittiriya Upanishad declares that fireside was born of air VayoragnihFrom air is produced fireplace (Tait. Up. II.1). Chhandogya Upanishad declares That (Brahman) created fireplace (Chh. Up. IV.2.3).
The consistency of the 2 Srutis is proven in Sutra 13.
There may be thus a battle of scriptural passages with regard to the origin of fireside. The Purvapakshin maintains that fireside has Brahman for its supply. Why? As a result of the textual content declares to start with that there existed solely that which is. It despatched forth fireplace. The assertion that every part may be identified by Brahman is feasible provided that every part is produced from Brahman. The scriptural assertion Tajjalan (Chh. Up. III.14.1) specifies no distinction. The Mundaka textual content (II.1.3) declares that every part with out exception is born from Brahman. The Taittiriya Upanishad speaks about your entire universe with none exception After having brooded, despatched forth all no matter there may be (Tait. Up. II.6). Due to this fact, the assertion that `Hearth was produced from air’ (Tait. Up. II.1) teaches the order of succession solely. Hearth was produced subsequently to air.
The Purvapakshin says: The above two Upanishadic passages may be reconciled by deciphering the Taittiriya textual content to imply the order of sequenceBrahman after creating air, created fireplace.
This Sutra refutes this and says that Hearth is produced from Vayu or air. This doesn’t in any respect contradict the Chhandogya textual content. It signifies that Air is a product of Brahman and that fireside is produced from Brahman, which has assumed the type of air. Hearth sprang from Brahman solely by intermediate hyperlinks, indirectly. We could say equally that milk comes from the cow, that curds come from the cow, that cheese comes from the cow.
The overall assertion that every part springs from Brahman requires that every one issues ought to in the end be traced to that trigger, and never that they need to be its quick results. Thus there isn’t a contradiction. There stays no problem.
It isn’t proper to say that Brahman instantly created Hearth after creating Air, as a result of the Taittiriya expressly says that fireside was born of Air. Little question Brahman is the foundation trigger.
ABADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5
WATER IS PRODUCED FROM FIRE
Apah lI.3.11 (227)
Water (is produced from fireplace).
Apah: water.
(Atah: from it; Tatha: thus; Hello: as a result of; Aha: says the Sruti.)
The identical factor could also be stated of water.
We have now to provide from the previous Sutra the phrases thence and for thus the textual content declares.
The writer of the Sutras defined the creation of fireside within the earlier Sutra. He explains creation of earth within the subsequent Sutra. He propounds the Sutra as a way to insert water and thus to level out its place within the Srishtikrama or order of creation.
AgnerapahFrom fireplace sprang water (Tait. Up. II.1). Tatteja aiksata bahu syam prajayeyeti tadapo’srijataThe fireplace thought `Might I be many, could I develop forth.’ It created water. (Chh. Up. VI.2.3).
Doubt: Does water come out instantly from fireplace or from Brahman?
The Purvapakshin says: Water comes out instantly from Brahman because the Chhandyoga textual content teaches.
Siddhanta: There is no such thing as a such battle. From fireplace is produced water, for thus says the scripture.
Right here additionally it signifies that as fireplace is a product of Brahman, it’s from Brahman which has assumed the type of fireplace, that water is produced. There is no such thing as a room for interpretation relating to a textual content which is categorical and unambiguous.
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad is given the explanation why water comes out of fireside. And, due to this fact, at any time when anyone anyplace is scorching and perspires water is produced on him from fireplace alone. Equally, when a person suffers grief and is scorching with sorrow, he weeps and thus water can also be produced from fireplace.
These specific statements depart little doubt that water is created from fireplace.
PRITHIVYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6
EARTH IS CREATED FROM WATER
Prithivi adhikararupasabdantarebhya II.3.12 (228)
The earth (is supposed by the phrase `Anna’) due to the subject material, color and different Sruti texts.
Prithivi: earth; Adhikara: due to the context, due to the subject material; Rupa: color; Sabdantarebhyah: on account of different texts (Sruti).
The identical factor could also be stated of earth.
From water sprang earth (Tait. Up. II.1). It (water) produced Anna (actually meals) (Chh. Up. VI.2.4). The 2 Sruti texts are apparently contradictory, as a result of in a single textual content water is claimed to provide earth and in one other meals.
The Sutra says that `Anna’ within the Chhandogya textual content means not meals however earth. Why? On account of the subject material, on account of the color, and on account of different passages. The subject material within the first place is clearly related with the weather, as we see from the previous passages. It despatched forth fireplace; it despatched forth water. In describing the artistic order we can’t bounce from water to cereals with out having the earth. The artistic order referred to is in regard to the weather. Due to this fact `Anna’ ought to consult with a component and never meals.
Once more we discover in a complementary passage, The black color in fireplace is the color of Anna (Chh. Up. VI.4.1). Right here, the reference to color expressly signifies that the earth is supposed by `Anna’. Black color agrees with earth. The predominant color of earth is black. Eatable issues similar to cooked dishes, rice, barley and the like will not be essentially black. The Pauranikas additionally designate the color of the earth by the time period `evening’. The evening is black. We, due to this fact, conclude that black is the color of earth, additionally.
Different Sruti texts like What was there because the froth of the water, that was hardened and have become the earth. (Bri. Up I.2.2), clearly point out that from water earth is produced.
Then again the textual content declares that rice and the like had been produced from the earth, From earth sprang herbs, from herbs meals (Tait. Up. II.1.2).
The complementary passage additionally, at any time when it rains and many others., mentioning that owing to the earthly nature of meals (rice, barley, and many others.), earth itself instantly springs from water.
Due to this fact, for all these causes the phrase `Anna’ denotes this earth. There may be actually no contradiction between the Chhandogya and Taittiriya texts.
TADABHIDHYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7
BRAHMAN ABIDING WITHIN THE ELEMENT IS THE CREATIVE PRINCIPLE
Tadabhidhyanadeva tu tallingat sah II.3.13 (229)
However on account of the indicating mark provided by their reflecting, i.e., by the reflection attributed to the weather, He (i.e., the Lord is the artistic precept abiding throughout the parts).
Tat (Tasya): His (of Brahman); Abhidhynat: due to the volition, reflection; Eva: even, solely; Tu: however; Tat lingat: due to His indicating marks; Sah: He.
The rivalry raised in Sutra 10 is now refuted.
The phrase `tu’ (however) is used as a way to take away the doubt.
The Purvapakshin or the objector says: The Srutis declare that Brahman is the creator of every part. However the Taittiriya Upanishad says From Akasa sprang air (Tait. Up. II.1). This means that sure parts produce sure results independently. There may be contradiction within the Sruti passages. This Sutra refutes this objection.
Creation of Akasa, fireplace, wind, water is finished solely to God’s will. One ingredient can’t create one other ingredient out of its personal energy. It’s God within the type of one ingredient that creates one other ingredient therefrom by His will.
The weather are inert. They don’t have any energy to create. Brahman Himself performing from throughout the parts was the true creator of all these parts. You can see in Brihadaranyka Upanishad He who dwells throughout the fireplace, who’s totally different from fireplace, whom fireplace doesn’t know, whose physique is fireplace, who guidelines the fireplace from inside, is Thy Immortal Atman, the Inside Ruler inside (Bri. Up. III.7.5).
This Sruti textual content signifies that the Supreme Lord is the only Ruler and denies all independence to the weather.
Although it’s acknowledged within the Chhandogya Upanishad that the weather have created every one, the opposite subsequent of it, but the Supreme Lord is certainly the creator of every part as a result of Sruti declares that Brahman has created this world by the train of His will.
Texts similar to He wished could I grow to be many, could I develop forth (Tait. Up. II.6) and It made itself its Self, i.e., the Self of every part which exists (II.7)signifies that the Supreme Lord is the Self of every part. The passage There is no such thing as a different seer (thinker) however He denies there being some other seer (thinker), that which is (i.e., Brahman) within the character of seer or thinker constitutes the subject material of the entire Chapter, as we conclude from the introductory passage It thought, could I be many, could I develop forth (Chh. Up. VI.2.3).
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad it’s acknowledged That fireplace thought. That water thought. Reflection just isn’t potential for the inert parts. The Supreme Lord, the Inside Ruler of all parts, the Indweller throughout the parts mirrored and produced the results. That is the true that means. The weather grew to become causes solely by the company of the Supreme Lord who abides inside them and guidelines them from inside. Due to this fact there isn’t a contradiction in any respect between the 2 texts.
For a clever man who displays and cogitates there isn’t a contradiction. The Sruti texts are infallible and authoritative. Keep in mind this level nicely at all times. The Sruti texts have come out from the hearts of realised sages who had direct intuitive expertise in Nirvikalpa Samadhi. They’re neither fictitious novels nor merchandise of the mind.
VIPARYAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8
THE PROCESS OF DISSOLUTION OF THE ELEMENTS IS
within the reverse order from that of creation
Viparyayena tu kramo’tah upapadyate cha II.3.14 (230)
The order (by which the weather are certainly withdrawn into Brahman throughout Pralaya or dissolution) is the reverse of that (i.e., the order by which they’re created) and that is affordable.
Viparyayena: within the reverse order; Tu: certainly, however; Kramah: order, the method of dissolution; Atah: from that (the order of creation); Cha: and; Upapadyate: is affordable.
The method of dissolution of the ingredient is described on this Sutra.
The phrase `tu’ (however) has the pressure of `solely’ right here. The query right here is whether or not on the time of cosmic dissolution or Pralaya the weather are withdrawn into Brahman in an indefinite order, or within the order of creation or within the reverse order.
In creation the order is from above and in dissolution the order is from beneath. The order of involution is within the inverse of the order of evolution. It alone is kind of applicable and affordable. As a result of we see in peculiar life {that a} man who has ascended a stair has in descending to take the steps within the reverse order.
Additional, we observe that issues fabricated from clay similar to jars, dishes, and many others., on being destroyed move again into clay and that issues which have originated from water similar to snow and hail-stones once more dissolve into water, the trigger.
The gross turns into resolved into the refined, the refined into the subtler and so forth until the entire manifestation attains its remaining First Trigger, viz., Brahman. Every ingredient is withdrawn into its quick trigger, within the reverse order until Akasa is reached, which in flip will get merged in Brahman.
Smriti additionally declares O Divine Rishi; the earth, the idea of the universe is dissolved into water, water into fireplace, fireplace into air.
These that are produced first in creation are extra {powerful}. Consequently they’ve longer existence. Due to this fact, it follows logically that the newest in creation, being of feeble essence, ought to first grow to be absorbed in these of upper powers. The upper powers ought to afterward take their flip. Vamana Purana declares: The sooner a factor occurs to be in creation, the extra it turns into the receptacle of the Lord’s glory. Consequently these which might be earlier in creation are extra {powerful} and are withdrawn solely later. And for a similar cause undoubtedly their pervasion can also be larger.
ANTARAVIJNANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9
THE MENTION OF THE MIND AND INTELLECT DOES NOT INTERFERE
with the order of creation and reabsorption
as they’re the merchandise of the weather
Antara vijnanamanasi kramena tallingaditi
chet na aviseshat II.3.15 (231)
If it’s stated that between (Brahman and the weather) the mind and the thoughts (are talked about, and that due to this fact their origination and re-absorption are to be positioned) someplace within the sequence on account of their being inferential indicators (whereby the order of the creation of the weather is damaged), we are saying, not so on account of the non-difference (of the mind and the thoughts from the weather).
Antara: intervening between, in between; Vijnanamanasi: the mind and the thoughts; Kramena: within the order of succession, in line with the successive order; Tat lingat: owing to indication of that, as there may be indication in Sruti to that impact, due to an inferential mark of this; Iti: thus, this; Chet: if; Na: not, no, not so, the objection can’t stand; Aviseshat: due to no speciality, as there isn’t a speciality talked about in Sruti in regards to the causation of the weather, as a result of there being no explicit distinction, on account of non-difference.
An extra objection to the causation of the first parts from Brahman is raised and refuted.
The Sutra consists of two elements particularly an objection and its refutation. The objection is Antara vijnanamanasi kramena tallingat iti chet. The refutation portion is Na aviseshat.
Within the Atharvana (Mundaka Upanishad) within the chapter which treats of the creation happens the next textual content: From this (Brahman) are born Prana, thoughts, the senses, ether, air, fireplace, water and earth, the help of all (II.1.3).
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: The order of creation which is described within the Mundaka Upanishad contradicts the order of creation of parts described within the Chhandogya Upanishad VI.2.3, and different Srutis.
To this we reply: That is solely a serial enumeration of the organs and the weather. It isn’t definitely an announcement as to the order of their origination. The Mundaka textual content solely states that every one these are produced from Brahman.
Within the Atharva Veda (Mundaka) thoughts, mind and the senses are talked about in the course of the enumeration of the weather. This doesn’t have an effect on the evolutionary order, as a result of the thoughts, the mind and the senses are the results, of the weather and their involution is included within the involution of the weather.
The mind, the thoughts and the senses are merchandise of the weather. Due to this fact, they will come into being solely after the weather are created. The origination and reabsorption of the thoughts, mind and the senses are the identical as these of the weather as there isn’t a distinction between the senses and the weather.
Even when the thoughts, the mind and the senses are separate from the weather, the evolutionary order is both the thoughts and the senses adopted by the weather or the weather adopted by the thoughts and the senses. Anyhow they’ve an orderly evolution.
That the thoughts, mind and the organs are modifications of the weather and are of the character of the weather is proved by Sruti texts like For the thoughts, my baby, consists of earth, breath or very important pressure of water, speech of fireside (Chh. Up. VI.6.5).
Therefore the Mundaka textual content which treats of creation doesn’t contradict the order of creation talked about within the Chhandogya and Taittiriya Upanishads. The origination of the organs doesn’t trigger a break within the order of the origination of the weather.
The Purvapakshin once more says: that as there may be point out in Sruti of the thoughts and the senses, Akasa and the opposite parts shouldn’t be thought of to be created out of Brahman and to dissolve in Brahman however to be created out of and to dissolve within the thoughts and the senses in line with the order of succession, as there may be indication within the Mundaka to that impact.
This argument is untenable as there isn’t a speciality talked about in Sruti in regards to the creation of the weather. The thoughts, the mind and the senses have all with out exception been acknowledged therein as created out of Brahman.
The phrase `Etasmat’ of that textual content is to be learn together with each one among these i.e., Prana, thoughts, and many others. Thus from Him is born Prana, from Him is born thoughts, from Him are born the senses and many others.Etasmat Pranah, Etasmat Manah, and many others.
CHARACHARAVYAPASRAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10
BIRTHS AND DEATHS ARE NOT OF THE SOUL
Characharavyapasrayastu syat tadvyapadeso bhaktah
tadbhavabhavitvat II.3.16 (232)
However the point out of that (viz., beginning and loss of life of the person soul) is apt solely with regards to the our bodies of beings shifting and non-moving. It’s secondary or metaphorical if utilized to the soul, because the existence of these phrases is determined by the existence of that (i.e., the physique).
Characharavyapasrayah: in reference to the our bodies mounted and movable; Tu: however, certainly; Syat: could also be, turns into; Tadvyapadesah: point out of that, that expression, i.e., to in style expressions of births and deaths of the soul; Bhaktah: secondary, metaphorical, not literal; Tadbhavabhavitvat: on account of (these phrases) relying on the existence of that. (Tadbhave: on the existence of that, i.e., the physique; Bhavitvat: relying.)
The important nature or character of the person soul is mentioned now.
A doubt could come up that the person soul additionally has births and deaths as a result of folks use such expressions as Ramakrishna is born, Ramakrishna is useless and since sure ceremonies such because the Jatakarma and many others., are prescribed by the scriptures on the beginning and loss of life of individuals.
This Sutra refutes such a doubt, and declares that the person soul has neither beginning nor loss of life. Delivery and loss of life pertain to the physique with which the soul is related however to not the soul. If the person soul perishes there can be no sense within the non secular injunctions and prohibitions referring to the enjoyment and avoidance of nice and unsightly issues in one other physique (one other beginning).
The connection of the physique with the soul is popularly referred to as beginning, and the disconnection of the soul from the physique known as loss of life within the frequent parlance. Scripture says, This physique certainly dies when the residing soul has left it, the residing soul doesn’t die (Chh. Up. VI.11.3). Therefore beginning and loss of life are spoken primarily of the our bodies of shifting and non-moving beings and solely metaphorically of the soul.
That the phrases `beginning’ and `loss of life’ have reference to the conjunction with and separation from a physique merely can also be proven by the next Sruti textual content, On being born that particular person assuming his physique, when he passes out of the physique and dies and many others. (Bri. Up. IV.3.8).
The Jatakarma ceremony additionally has reference to the manifestation of the physique solely as a result of the soul just isn’t manifested.
Therefore the beginning and loss of life belong to the physique solely however to not the soul.
ATMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11
THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS ETERNAL. `IT IS NOT PRODUCED’
Natma, asruternityatvat cha tabhyah II.3.17 (233)
The person soul just isn’t (produced), (as a result of) it isn’t (so) talked about by the scriptures, and as it’s everlasting in line with them (the Sruti texts).
Na: not (produced); Atma: the person soul; Asruteh: due to no point out in Sruti, as it isn’t present in Sruti; Nityatvat: due to its permanence, as it’s everlasting; Cha: additionally, and; Tabhyah: from them (Srutis), in line with the Srutis.
The dialogue on the important traits of the person soul is being continued.
Aitareya Upanishad declares: At the start of creation there was solely One Brahman and not using a second (I.1). Due to this fact it isn’t affordable to say that the person soul just isn’t born, as a result of then there was nothing however Brahman.
Once more the Sruti says, As small sparks come forth from fireplace, thus from that Atman all Pranas, all worlds, all gods emanate (Bri. Up. II.1.20). As from a blazing fireplace sparks, being of the identical nature as fireplace, fly forth a thousandfold, thus are numerous beings introduced forth from the Imperishable, my pal, and return thither additionally, (Mun. Up. II.1.1). Due to this fact the Purvapakshin or the objector argues that the person soul is born at first of the cycle, simply as Akasa and different parts are born.
This Sutra refutes it and says that the person soul just isn’t born. Why? on account of the absence of scriptural assertion. For within the chapters which deal with of the creation the Sruti texts expressly deny beginning to the person soul.
We all know from scriptural passages that the soul is everlasting, that it has no origin, that it’s unchanging, that what constitutes the soul is the unmodified Brahman, and that the soul has its self rooted in Brahman. A being of such a nature can’t be produced.
The scriptural passages to which we’re alluding are the next: The nice unborn Self undecaying, timeless, immortal, fearless is certainly Brahman (Bri. Up. IV.4.25). The realizing self just isn’t born, it dies not (Katha Up. I.2.18). The traditional is unborn, everlasting, eternal (Katha Up. I.2.18).
It’s the one Brahman and not using a second that enters the mind and seems as the person soul Having despatched forth that entered into it (Tait. Up. II.6). Let me now enter these with this residing self and let me then evolve names and varieties (Chh. Up. VI.3.2). He entered thither to the very suggestions of finger-nails (Bri. Up. I.4.7).
Thou artwork That (Chh. Up. VI.8.7). I’m Brahman (Bri. Up. I.4.10). This self is Brahman, realizing all (Bri. Up. II.5.19). All these texts declare the eternity of the soul and thus contend in opposition to the view of its having been produced.
Due to this fact there may be in actuality no distinction between the person soul and Brahman. Jiva just isn’t created. It isn’t a product. It isn’t born simply as Akasa and different parts are born. The very fact of the person soul’s being non-created doesn’t contradict the Sruti passage At the start there was solely the Atman the one and not using a second (Ait. Up. I.1).
The point out of creation of souls within the different Sruti passages cited is just in a secondary sense. It doesn’t due to this fact contradict the Sruti passage Having created it, It entered into it.
The doctrine that souls are born from Brahman just isn’t appropriate. Those that propound this doctrine declare that if souls are born from Brahman, the scriptural assertion that by realizing Brahman every part can grow to be true, as a result of Brahman is the trigger and the data of the trigger will result in the data of all of the objects. They are saying additional that Brahman can’t be recognized with the person souls, as a result of He’s sinless and pure, whereas they aren’t so. They additional say that every one that’s separate is an impact and that because the souls are separate they have to be results.
The souls will not be separate. The Sruti declares, There may be one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self inside all beings (Svet. Up. VI.11). It solely seems divided owing to its limiting adjuncts, such because the thoughts and so forth, simply because the ether seems divided by its reference to jars and the like. It’s His reference to the mind that results in his being referred to as a Jiva, or the person soul. Ether in a pot is similar with the ether in house. All of the above objections can’t stand due to the precise id of the person soul and Brahman. Due to this fact there isn’t a contradiction of the declaration of the Sruti that by realizing Brahman we are able to know every part. Origination of souls has reference solely to the physique.
JNADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12
THE NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS INTELLIGENCE
Jno’ta eva II.3 18 (234)
For this very cause (viz., that it isn’t created), (the person soul is) intelligence (itself).
Jnah: clever, intelligence, knower; Ata eva: for this very cause, due to this fact.
The dialogue on the important traits of the person soul is sustained.
The Sankhya doctrine is that the soul is at all times Chaitanya or pure consciousness in its personal nature.
The Vaiseshikas declare that the person soul just isn’t clever by nature, as a result of it isn’t discovered to be clever within the state of deep sleep or swoon. It turns into clever when the soul involves the waking state and unites with the thoughts. The intelligence of the soul is adventitious and is produced by the conjunction of the soul with the thoughts, simply as for example the standard of redness is produced in an iron rod by the conjunction of the iron rod with fireplace.
If the soul had been everlasting, important intelligence, it will stay clever within the states of deep sleep, swoon and many others. Those that get up from sleep say that they weren’t acutely aware of something. Due to this fact, as intelligence is clearly intermittent, we conclude that the intelligence of the soul is adventitious solely.
To this we reply that the soul is of everlasting intelligence. Intelligence constitutes the important nature of Brahman. This we all know from Sruti texts similar to Brahman is data and Bliss (Bri. Up. III.9.28.7). Brahman is true, data, infinite (Tait. Up. II.1). Having neither inside nor outdoors however being altogether a mass of information (Bri. Up. IV.5.13). Now if the person soul is nothing however that Supreme Brahman, then everlasting intelligence constitutes the soul’s important nature, simply as mild and warmth represent the character of fireside.
The clever Brahman Itself being restricted by the Upadhis or limiting adjuncts similar to physique, thoughts and many others., manifests as the person soul or Jiva. Due to this fact, intelligence is the very nature of Jiva and is rarely altogether destroyed, nor even within the state of deep sleep or swoon.
Sruti texts instantly declare that the person soul is of the character of self-luminous intelligence. He not asleep, himself appears down upon the sleeping senses (Bri. Up. IV.3.11). That particular person is self-illuminated (Bri. Up. IV.3.14). For there isn’t a intermission of the realizing of the knower (Bri. Up. IV.3.30).
That the soul’s nature is intelligence follows furthermore from the passage (Chh. Up. VIII.12.4) the place it’s acknowledged as related with data by all sense organs. He who is aware of let me odor this, he’s the self.
You could ask, what’s the usage of the senses if the Atman itself is of the character of information. The senses are wanted to carry in regards to the differentiated sensations and concepts (Vrittijnana).
From the soul’s important nature being intelligence it doesn’t comply with that the senses are ineffective; as a result of they serve the aim of figuring out the particular object of every sense, similar to odor and so forth. Sruti expressly declares: Scent (organ of odor) is for the aim of perceiving odour (Chh. Up. VIII.12.4).
The objection that sleeping individuals will not be acutely aware of something is refuted by scripture, the place we learn regarding a person mendacity in deep sleep, And when there he doesn’t see, but he’s seeing although he doesn’t see. As a result of there isn’t a intermission of the seeing of the seer for it can’t perish. However there may be then no second, nothing else totally different from him that he may see (Bri. Up. IV.3.23).
The non-sentiency in deep sleep just isn’t as a consequence of absence of Chaitanya however absence of Vishaya (objects). The Jiva doesn’t lose its energy of seeing. It doesn’t see, as a result of there isn’t a object to see. It has not misplaced its intelligence, for it’s unimaginable. The absence of precise intellectuality is because of the absence of objects, however to not the absence of intelligence, simply as the sunshine pervading house just isn’t obvious owing to the absence of issues to be illuminated, to not the absence of its personal nature.
If intelligence didn’t exist in deep sleep, and many others., then who can be there to say that it didn’t exist? How may it’s identified? The person after waking from deep sleep says, I slept soundly. I loved good relaxation. I didn’t know something. He who says, I didn’t know something. I loved good relaxation should have been existent at the moment. If it isn’t so how may he bear in mind the situation of that state?
Due to this fact, the intelligence of the person soul or Jiva is rarely misplaced beneath any situation. The reasoning of the Vaiseshikas and others is merely fallacious. It contradicts the Srutis. We due to this fact conclude and resolve that everlasting intelligence is the important nature of the soul.
UTKRANTIGATYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13 (SUTRAS 19-32)
THE SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL
Utkrantigatyagatinam II.3.19 (235)
(On account of the scriptural declarations) of (the soul’s) passing out, going, and returning (the soul just isn’t infinite in dimension; it’s of atomic dimension).
Utkranti: passing out, popping out; Gati: going; Agatinam: returning.
The dialogue on the character of the person soul is sustained.
From this as much as Sutra 32 the query of the scale of the soul, whether or not it’s atomic, medium-sized or infinite is mentioned. The primary ten Sutras (19-28) state the arguments for the view that the person soul is Anu (atomic). The following 4 Sutras give the reply.
Svetasvatara Upanishad declares He’s the one God, all-pervading (VI.11). Mundaka Sruti says, This Atman is atomic (III.1.9). The 2 texts contradict one another and we’ve got to reach at a call on the purpose.
It has been proven above that the soul just isn’t a product and that everlasting intelligence constitutes its nature. Due to this fact it follows that it’s similar with the Supreme Brahman. The infinity of the Supreme Brahman is expressly declared within the Srutis. What want then is there of a dialogue of the scale of the soul? True, we reply. However Sruti texts which converse of the soul’s passing out from the physique (Utkranti), going (Gati) and returning (Agati), set up the prima facie view that the soul is of restricted dimension. Additional, the Sruti clearly declares in some locations that the soul is of atomic dimension. The current dialogue is due to this fact begun as a way to clear this doubt.
The opponent or Purvapakshin holds that the soul have to be of restricted atomic dimension owing to its being stated to move out, go and return. Its passing out is talked about in Kaushitaki Upanishad (III.3), And when he passes out of this physique he passes out along with all these. Its going is claimed in Kaushitaki Upanishad (I.2), All who depart from this world go to the moon. Its returning is seen in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (IV.4.6), From that world he returns once more to this world of motion. From these statements as to the soul’s passing out from the physique, going to heaven, and many others., and getting back from there to this world, it follows that it’s of restricted dimension. As a result of movement just isn’t potential within the case of an all-pervading being. If the soul is infinite, how can it rise, or go or come? Due to this fact the soul is atomic.
Svatmana chottarayoh II.3.20 (236)
And on account of the latter two (i.e., going and returning) being related with their soul (i.e., agent), (the soul is of atomic dimension).
Svatmana: (being related) instantly with the agent, the soul; Cha: and, solely, additionally; Uttarayoh: of the latter two, particularly, of Gati and Agati, of the going away and coming again, as acknowledged within the earlier Sutra.
An argument in help of Sutra 19 is given on this Sutra.
Even when it may be stated that `passing out’ means solely disconnection with the physique, how can they who say that the soul is infinite clarify its going to the moon or getting back from there?
Even when the soul is infinite nonetheless it may be spoken of as passing out, out of the physique, if by that time period is supposed ceasing to be the ruler of the physique, in consequence of the outcomes of its former actions having grow to be exhausted, simply as any person, when ceasing to be the ruler of a village could also be stated to `exit’. The passing away from the physique could imply solely cessation of the train of a particular perform simply as within the case of a person now not retained in workplace.
However the two latter actions viz., going to the moon, getting back from there to the world, are unimaginable for an all-pervading soul.
Therefore the soul is atomic in dimension.
Nanuratacchruteriti chet, na, itaradhikarat II.3.21 (237)
If it’s stated that (the soul is) not atomic, because the scriptures state it to be in any other case, (i.e., all-pervading), (we are saying) not so, as a result of (the one) aside from the person soul (i.e., the Supreme Brahman or the Highest Self) is the subject material (of these passages).
Na: not; Anu: minute, atomic; Atat: not that, in any other case, particularly reverse of Anu; Sruteh: as it’s acknowledged in Sruti, due to a Sruti or scriptural textual content; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Itara: aside from the person soul, i.e., the Supreme Self; Adhikarat: due to the context or matter, from the subject material of the portion within the Chapter.
An objection to Sutra 19 is raised and refuted.
The Sutra consists of an objection and its reply. The objection-portion is Nanuratacchruteriti chet and the answer- portion is Na itaradhikarat.
The passages which describe the soul and infinite apply solely to Supreme Brahman and to not the person soul.
Sruti passages like He’s the one God, who’s hidden in all beings, all-pervading, and many others. (Svet. Up. VI.11), He’s that nice unborn Self who consists of information, is surrounded by the Pranas, the ether throughout the coronary heart. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22), Just like the ether He’s Omnipresent, everlasting, Reality, Data, Infinite is Brahman (Tait. Up. II.1)refer to not the Jiva or the person soul with its limitations, however to the Supreme Brahman or the Highest Self, who’s aside from the person soul, and varieties the chief material of all of the Vedanta texts, as a result of Brahman is the one factor that’s to be identified or realised intuitively and is due to this fact propounded by all of the Vedanta passages.
Svasabdonmanabhyam cha II.3.22 (238)
And on account of direct statements (of the Sruti texts as to the atomic dimension) and infinitesimal measure (the soul is atomic).
Svasabdonmanabhyam: from direct statements (of Sruti texts) and infinitesimal measure; Cha: and. (Svasabda: the phrase itself; the phrase instantly denoting `minute’; Unmanabhyam: on account of the measure of comparability; Ut: refined; Mana: measure, therefore refined division; therefore smaller even than the small. Svasabdonmanabhyam: as these are the phrases instantly denoting `minute’ and to expression denoting smaller than the small as measured by division.)
The argument in help of Sutra 19 is sustained.
The soul have to be atomic as a result of the Sruti expressly says so and calls him infinitely small.
Mundaka Sruti declares, This Atma is atomic (III.1.9). Svetasvatara Upanishad says, The person is of the scale of the hundredth a part of an element, which itself is one hundredth a part of the purpose of a hair (V.9); That decrease one is also seen small even like the purpose of a goad.
Due to this fact the soul is atomic in dimension.
However an objection could right here be raised. If the soul is of atomic dimension, it’ll occupy some extent of the physique solely. Then the feeling which extends over the entire physique would seem opposite to cause. And but it’s a matter of expertise that those that take bathtub within the Ganga expertise the feeling of chilly throughout their entire our bodies. In summer time folks really feel scorching everywhere in the physique. The next Sutra provides an acceptable reply to the objection.
Avirodhaschandanavat II.3.23 (239)
There is no such thing as a contradiction as within the case of sandal paste.
Avirodhah: non-conflict, no contradiction, no incongruity, it isn’t incongruous; Chandanavat: just like the sandal paste.
The argument in help of Sutra 19 is sustained.
Simply as one drop of sandal-wood paste, smeared on one a part of the physique makes the entire physique thrill with pleasure, so additionally the person soul, although naturally minute, manifests itself all through the entire physique and experiences all of the sensations of delight and ache. Although the soul is atomic it might expertise pleasure and ache extending over the entire physique. Although the soul is atomic nonetheless it’s potential that it pervades your entire physique, simply as a drop of sandal paste though in precise contact with one explicit spot of the physique solely pervades, i.e., causes refreshing sensation everywhere in the physique.
Because the soul is related with the pores and skin which is the seat of feeling, the belief that the soul’s sensations ought to lengthen over the entire physique just isn’t opposite to cause as a result of the connection of the soul and the pores and skin abides in your entire pores and skin and the pores and skin extends over your entire physique.
Avasthitivaiseshyaditi chenna,
adhyupagamaddhridi hello II.3.24 (240)
If it’s stated (that the 2 instances will not be parallel), on account of the specialisation of abode (current within the case of the sandal-ointment, absent within the case of the soul), we deny that, on account of the acknowledgement (by scripture, of a particular place of the soul), viz., throughout the coronary heart.
Avasthiti: existence, residence, abode; Vaiseshyat: due to the speciality, on account of specialisation; Iti: thus, this; Chet: if (if it’s argued); Na: not (so), no, the argument can’t stand; Adhyupagamat: on account of the admission, or acknowledgment; Hridi: within the coronary heart; Hello: certainly.
An objection to Sutra 23 is raised and refuted by the opponent or Purvapakshin.
The Sutra consists of two elements particularly, an objection, and its reply. The objection-portion is: `Avasthitivaiseshyaditi chet’, and the reply portion is: `Nabhyupagamaddhridi hello’.
The Purvapakshin or the objector raises an objection in opposition to his personal view. The argumentation relied upon within the final Sutra just isn’t admissible, as a result of the 2 instances in contrast will not be parallel. The similarity just isn’t precise. The analogy is defective or inappropriate. Within the case of the sandal paste, it occupies a selected level of the physique and refreshes your entire physique. However within the case of the soul it doesn’t exist in any explicit locality however is percipient of all sensations all through your entire physique. We have no idea that it has a selected abode or particular seat. When there isn’t a particular seat, for the soul, we can’t infer that it should have a selected abode within the physique just like the sandal paste and due to this fact be atomic. As a result of, even an all-pervading soul like ether, or a soul pervading your entire physique just like the pores and skin could produce the identical end result.
We can’t cause like this: the soul is atomic as a result of it causes results extending over your entire physique like a drop of sandal ointment, as a result of that reasoning would apply to the sense of contact, the pores and skin additionally, which we all know to not be of atomic dimension. Due to this fact it isn’t simple to resolve the scale of the soul when there isn’t a optimistic proof.
The opponent refutes the above objection by quoting such Sruti texts as: The soul abides throughout the coronary heart (Pras. Up. III.6), The self is within the coronary heart (Chh. Up. VIII.3.3), The Self abides within the coronary heart (Bri. Up. IV.3.7), Who’s that self? He who’s throughout the coronary heart, surrounded by the Pranas, the particular person of sunshine, consisting of information, expressly declare that the soul has a particular abode or explicit seat within the physique, viz., the guts. Due to this fact it’s atomic.
The analogy just isn’t defective. It’s fairly applicable. The 2 instances are parallel. Therefore the argumentation resorted to in Sutra 23 just isn’t objectionable.
Gunadva alokavat II.3.25 (241)
Or on account of (its) high quality (viz., intelligence), as in instances of peculiar expertise (similar to within the case of a lamp by its mild).
Gunat: on account of its high quality (of intelligence); Va: or (an extra instance is given); Alokavat: like a light-weight. (Or Lokavat: as on the earth, as in instances of peculiar expertise).
The argument in help of Sutra 23 is sustained.
Or it is sort of a small mild which, by its personal advantage, illuminates the entire home. The soul, although atomic and occupies a selected portion of the physique, could pervade the entire physique by its high quality of intelligence because the flame pervades the entire room by its rays and thus experiences pleasure and ache all through the entire physique.
An extra instance is given by the use of comparability to indicate how an atomic soul can have expertise all through your entire physique.
Vyatireko gandhavat II.3.26 (242)
The extension (of the standard of intelligence) past (the soul by which it inheres) is just like the odour (which extends past the aromatic object).
Vyatirekah: growth, extension past (the article i.e., soul); Gandhavat: just like the odour.
Sutra 23 is additional elucidated by this Sutra.
Simply because the candy perfume of flowers extends past them and diffuses all through a bigger house, so additionally the intelligence of the soul, which is atomic, extends past the soul and pervades your entire physique.
If it’s stated that even the analogy within the above Sutra just isn’t applicable, as a result of a high quality can’t be other than the substance, and therefore the sunshine of a lamp is just the lamp in its tenuous type, the analogy of fragrance will apply. Simply as if a flower is way away its scent is felt round, so although the soul is atomic its cognition of your entire physique is feasible. This analogy can’t be objected on the bottom that even the perfume of a flower is just the refined particles of the flower, as a result of our expertise is that we really feel the perfume and never any particles.
Tatha cha darsayati II.3.27 (243)
Thus additionally, (the Sruti) exhibits or declares.
Tatha: thus, in the identical method; Cha: additionally; Darsayati: (the Sruti) declares.
The Sruti additionally, after having signified the soul’s abiding within the coronary heart and its atomic dimension, declares by the use of such passages as Upto the hairs, upto the guidelines of the nails (Kau. Up. IV.20, Bri. Up. I.4.7), that the soul pervades the entire physique by the use of intelligence, which is its high quality.
Prithagupadesat II.3.28 (244)
On account of the separate educating (of the Sruti) (that the soul pervades the physique on account of its high quality of intelligence).
Prithak: separate, totally different; Upadesat: due to educating or assertion.
This Sutra is a defence in favour of the previous Sutra the place intelligence is used as an attribute of the person soul and so separate from it.
An extra argument is given right here to ascertain the proposition of the earlier Sutra. Kaushitaki Upanishad declares Having by Prajna, (intelligence, data,) taken possession of the physique (III.6). This means that intelligence is totally different from the soul being associated as instrument and agent and the soul pervades your entire physique with this high quality of intelligence.
Once more the textual content Thou the clever particular person having by the intelligence of the senses absorbed inside himself all intelligence (Bri. Up. II.1.17) exhibits intelligence to be totally different from the agent, i.e., the Jiva or the person soul and so likewise confirms our views.
Although there isn’t a elementary distinction between the person soul and his intelligence, they’re totally different within the sense that intelligence is the attribute of the person soul which is the substance. The person soul is the possessor of that attribute, as a result of the Sruti states a distinction between the 2.
Tadgunasaratvat tu tadvyapadesah prajnavat II.3.29 (245)
However that declaration (as to the atomic dimension of the soul) is on account of its having for its essence the qualities of that (viz., the Buddhi), as within the case of the clever Lord (Saguna Brahman).
Tadgunasaratvat: on account of its possessing for its essence the qualities of that (viz., the Buddhi); Tu: however; Tadvyapadesah: that declaration (as to its atomic dimension); Prajnavat: as within the case of the Clever Lord.
The dialogue on the true character of the person soul, commenced in Sutra 16 is sustained.
The phrase `tu’ (however), refutes all that has been stated in Sutras 19-28 and decides that the soul is all-pervading.
The following 4 Sutras are the Siddhanta Sutras which lay down the right doctrine.
The soul just isn’t of atomic dimension because the Sruti doesn’t declare it to have had an origin. The scripture declares that the Supreme Brahman entered the universe as the person soul and that the person soul is similar with Brahman, and that the person soul is nothing else however the Supreme Brahman. If the soul is the Supreme Brahman, it have to be of the identical extent as Brahman. The scripture states Brahman to be all-pervading. Due to this fact the soul is also all-pervading.
Your argument is that although the soul is Anu, it might cognise all that goes on within the physique due to its contact with the pores and skin. However that argument is untenable as a result of when a thorn pricks we really feel ache solely within the pricked spot. Furthermore, your analogy of the lamp and its mild and of the flower and its perfume has no actual applicability, as a result of a Guna (high quality) can by no means be other than the substance (Guna). The sunshine and the fragrance are solely refined parts of the flame and the flower. Additional, as Chaitanya is the character or Svarupa of the soul, the soul additionally have to be of the scale of the physique if there may be cognition of the entire physique. This latter doctrine has been already refuted. Due to this fact the soul have to be infinite.
The Jiva is said to be atomic by cause of its identification with the Buddhi.
In response to the extent of mind, the scale of the person soul has been mounted. It’s imagined that the soul is related with the Buddhi or mind and sure. Passing out, going and coming are qualities of the mind and are superimposed on the Jiva or the person soul. The soul is taken into account to be atomic on account of the limitation of the mind. That the non-transmigrating eternally free Atman, which neither acts nor enjoys is said to be of the identical dimension because the Buddhi is due solely to its having the qualities of the Buddhi (mind) for its essence, viz., so long as it’s in fictitious reference to the Buddhi. It’s just like imagining the all-pervading Lord as restricted for the sake of Upasana or worship.
Svetasvatara Upanishad (V.9) says, That residing soul is to be often called a part of the hundredth a part of the purpose of a hair divided 100 instances and but it’s to be infinite. This Sruti textual content at first states the soul to be atomic after which teaches it to be infinite. That is applicable provided that the atomicity of the soul is metaphorical and its infinity is actual, as a result of each statements can’t be taken of their major sense on the identical time. The infinity definitely can’t be understood in a metaphorical sense, as all of the Upanishads intention at exhibiting that Brahman constitutes the Self of the soul.
The opposite passage (Svet. Up. V.8) which treats of the measure of the soul The decrease one endowed with the standard of thoughts and the standard of the physique, is seen small even like the purpose of a goad teaches the soul’s small dimension to rely upon its reference to the qualities of the Buddhi, not upon its personal Self.
Mundaka Upanishad declares, That small (Anu) Self is to be identified by thought (III.1.9). This Upanishad doesn’t educate that the soul is of atomic dimension, as the topic of the chapter is Brahman in as far as to not be fathomed by the attention, and many others., however to be realised by the sunshine of information. Additional, the soul can’t be of atomic dimension within the major sense of the phrase.
Due to this fact the assertion about Anutva (smallness, subtlety) needs to be understood as referring both to the issue of realizing the soul, or else to its limiting adjuncts.
The Buddhi abides within the coronary heart. So it’s stated that the soul abides within the coronary heart. Actually the soul is all-pervading.
Because the soul is concerned within the Samsara and because it has for its essence the qualities of its limiting adjunct viz., Buddhi, it’s spoken of as minute.
Yavadatmabhavitvacca na doshastaddarsanat II.3.30 (246)
And there’s no defect or fault in what has been stated within the earlier Sutra (because the conjunction of the soul with the mind exists) as long as the soul (in its relative facet) exists; as a result of it’s so seen (within the scriptures).
Yavat: as long as; Atmabhavitvat: because the soul (in its relative facet) exists; Cha: additionally, and; Na doshah: there isn’t a defect or fault; Taddarsanat: as a result of it’s so seen (within the scriptures), as Sruti additionally exhibits that.
A further cause is given in help of Sutra 29.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent raises an objection. Very nicely, allow us to then assume that the transmigratory situation of the soul is because of the qualities of the mind forming its essence. It is going to comply with from this that, because the conjunction of the mind and soul that are totally different entities should essentially come to an finish, the soul when disjoined from the mind will both stop to exist altogether or at the very least stop to be a Samsarin (particular person soul).
To this objection this Sutra provides a reply. There may be no such defect within the argument of the earlier Sutra, as a result of this reference to the Buddhi (mind) lasts as long as the soul’s state of Samsara just isn’t delivered to an finish by the use of good data. So long as the soul’s reference to the Buddhi, its limiting adjunct lasts, so lengthy the person soul stays particular person soul, concerned in transmigratory existence.
There is no such thing as a Jiva or particular person soul with out identification with mind. The connection of the soul with the mind will stop solely by proper data. The scripture declares I do know that Individual of sunlike lustre past darkness. A person who is aware of Him passes over loss of life, there isn’t a different path to go (Svet. Up. III.8).
How is it identified that the soul is related with the Buddhi so long as it exists? We reply, as a result of that’s seen, viz., in scripture. It’s identified from the Srutis that this connection just isn’t severed even at loss of life. The scripture declares, He who’s throughout the coronary heart, consisting of information, surrounded by Pranas, the particular person of sunshine, he remaining the identical wanders alongside the 2 worlds as if considering, as if shifting (Bri. Up. IV.3.7). Right here the time period consisting of information means `consisting of Buddhi’. The passage He remaining in the identical wanders alongside the 2 worlds declares that the Self, even when going to a different world, just isn’t separated from the Buddhi and many others. The time period as if considering, as if shifting imply that the person soul doesn’t suppose and transfer by itself account, however solely by its affiliation with the Buddhi. The person soul thinks because it had been, and strikes because it had been, as a result of the mind to which it’s joined actually strikes and thinks.
The connection of the person soul with the mind, its limiting adjunct, is determined by flawed data. Unsuitable data (Mithyajnana) can’t stop besides by good data. Due to this fact, so long as there doesn’t come up the realisation of Brahman or Brahmajnana, so lengthy the connection of the soul with the mind and its different limiting adjuncts doesn’t come to an finish.
Pumstvadivat tvasya sato’bhivyaktiyogat II.3.31 (247)
On account of the appropriateness of the manifestation of that (connection) which exists (doubtlessly) like virile energy, and many others.
Pumstvadivat: just like the virile energy and many others.; Tu: verily, however; Asya: its, i.e., of the reference to the mind; Satah: current; Abhivyaktiyogat: on account of the manifestation being potential, due to appropriateness of the manifestation.
A proof is now given in help of Sutra 29 by exhibiting the perpetual connection between the person soul and the mind. The phrase `tu’ (however), is used as a way to put aside the objection raised above.
An objection is raised that in Sushupti or deep sleep and Pralaya there may be no reference to the mind, because the scripture declares, Then he turns into united with the True; he’s gone to his personal (Chh. Up. VI.8.1). How then can it’s stated that the reference to the mind lasts as long as the person soul exists?
The Sutra refutes it and says that this connection exists in a refined or potential type even in deep sleep. Had it not been for this, it couldn’t have grow to be manifest within the waking state. Such connection is obvious from the appropriateness of such connection changing into manifest throughout creation, after dissolution and in the course of the waking state after sleep, as within the case of virility dormant in boyhood and manifest in manhood.
The connection of the soul with the mind exists doubtlessly throughout deep sleep and the interval of dissolution and once more turns into manifest on the time of waking and the time of creation.
Virile energy turns into manifest in manhood provided that it exists in a effective or potential state within the physique. Therefore this reference to the mind lasts as long as the soul exists in its Samsara-state.
Nityopalabdhyanupalabdhiprasango’nyataraniyamo
va’nyatha II.3.32 (248)
In any other case (if no mind existed) there would end result both fixed notion or fixed non-perception, or else a limitation of both of the 2 (i.e., of the soul or of the senses).
Nityopalabdhyanupalabdhiprasangat: there would end result perpetual notion or non-perception; Anyatara: in any other case, both of the 2; Niyamah: restrictive rule; Va: or; Anyatha: in any other case. (Upalabdhi: notion, consciousness; Anupalabdhi: non-perception, non-consciousness.)
The inner organ (Antahkarana) which constitutes the limiting adjunct of the soul known as somewhere else by totally different names similar to Manas (thoughts), Buddhi (mind), Vijnana (data), and Chitta (thought) and many others. When it’s in a state of doubt it’s referred to as Manas; when it’s in a state of willpower it’s referred to as Buddhi. Now we should essentially acknowledge the existence of such an inner organ, as a result of in any other case there would end result both perpetual notion or perpetual non-perception. There can be perpetual notion at any time when there’s a conjunction of the soul, and senses and the objects of senses, the three collectively forming the devices of notion. Or else, if on the conjunction of the three causes the impact didn’t comply with, there can be perpetual non-perception. However neither of those two alternate options is definitely noticed.
Or else we must settle for the limitation of the ability both of the soul or of the senses. However the limiting of energy just isn’t potential, because the Atman is changeless. It can’t be stated that the ability of the senses which isn’t obstructed both within the earlier second or within the subsequent second is restricted within the center.
Due to this fact we’ve got to acknowledge the existence of an inner organ (Antahkarana) by whose connection and disconnection notion and non-perception happen. The scripture declares, My thoughts was elsewhere, I didn’t see, my thoughts was elsewhere, I didn’t hear; for a person sees together with his thoughts and hears with the thoughts (Bri. Up. I.5.3). The scripture additional exhibits that want, illustration, doubt, religion, need of religion, reminiscence, forgetfulness, disgrace, reflection, concern, all that is thoughts.
Due to this fact there exists an inner organ, the Antahkarana, and the connection of the soul with the interior organ causes the Atman to look as the person soul or because the soul its Samsara state as defined in Sutra 29. The reason given in Sutra 29 is due to this fact an applicable one.
KARTRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14 (SUTRAS 38-39)
THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL IS AN AGENT
Karta sastrarthavattvat II.3.33 (249)
(The soul is) an agent on account of the scripture having a purport thereby.
Karta: agent; Sastrarthavattvat: so that the scriptures could have a that means, on account of the scriptures having a purport.
One other attribute of the person soul is being acknowledged.
The query as regards the scale of the soul has been acknowledged. Now one other attribute of the soul is taken up for dialogue. The Jiva is a doer or an agent, for in any other case the scriptural injunctions can be ineffective. On that assumption scriptural injunctions similar to He’s to sacrifice, He’s to make an oblation into the fireplace, He’s to present, and many others., have a purport, in any other case they’d be purportless. The scriptures enjoin sure acts to be achieved by the agent. If the soul be not an agent these injunctions would grow to be meaningless. On that supposition there may be that means to the next passage additionally, For, it’s he who sees, hears, perceives, conceives, acts, he’s the particular person whose self is data (Pras. Up. IV.9). He who wishes to achieve heaven, has to carry out sacrifices; and he, who wishes to achieve salvation, has to worship Brahman in meditation.
Viharopadesat II.3.34 (250)
And on account of (the Sruti) educating (its) wandering about.
Vihara: wandering at will, play, sporting about; Upadesat: on account of declaration, as Sruti declares.
An argument in help of Sutra 33 is given.
The Sruti declares The immortal one goes wherever he likes (Bri. Up. IV.3.12), and once more He taking the senses together with him strikes about in line with his pleasure, inside his personal physique (Bri. Up. II.1.18). These passages which give an outline of the wandering of the soul within the dream point out clearly that the soul is an agent.
Upadanat II.3.35 (251)
(Additionally it’s a doer) on account of its taking the organs.
Upadanat: on account of its taking (the organs).
One other argument in help of Sutra 33 is given.
The textual content quoted within the final Sutra additionally signifies that the soul in dream state takes the organs with it. Having taken by the intelligence of the senses, intelligence, and having taken the senses (Bri. Up. II.1.18, 19). This clearly exhibits that the soul is an agent.
It’s a doer or an agent as a result of it’s stated to make use of the senses. The person soul is to be admitted because the agent, as a result of he’s described in Sruti to take the senses together with him as devices of his work, whereas roaming inside his personal physique in the course of the dream state. Thus, he taking the senses together with him, strikes about inside his personal physique, simply as he pleases. (Bri. Up. II.1.18).
Within the Gita additionally we discover when the soul acquires a physique and when he abandons it, he seizes these and goes with them, because the wind takes perfume from the flowers (Gita. XV.8).
Vyapadesaccha kriyayam na chennirdesaviparyayah II.3.36 (252)
(The soul is an agent) additionally as a result of it’s designated as such with regard to actions; if it weren’t so, there can be a change of designation.
Vyapadesat: on account of point out, from an announcement of Sruti; Cha: additionally, and; Kriyayam: in respect of efficiency of rites; Na chet: if it weren’t so, or else, in any other case; Nirdesaviparyayah: reversal of the assertion, change of designation.
The argument in help of Sutra 33 is sustained.
Within the passage Vijnanam yajnam tanute, Karmani tanute’pi chaIntelligence (i.e., the clever particular person, Jiva) performs sacrifices, and it additionally performs all acts (Tait. Up.II.5), by `Intelligence’ the soul is supposed and never the Buddhi. This clearly exhibits that the soul is an agent.
Vijnana refers to Jiva and to not Buddhi, as a result of if Buddhi is referred to, the phrase can be `Vijnanena’. The nominative case in `Vijnanam yajnam tanute’, ought to be instrumental case, `Vijnanena’, `by intelligence’ that means by its instrumentality.
We see that in one other textual content the place the Buddhi is supposed the phrase `intelligence’ is exhibited within the instrumental case Having by the intelligence of those senses it takes all understanding (Bri.Up. II.1.17). Within the passage beneath dialogue, quite the opposite, the phrase `intelligence’ is given within the attribute of the agent, viz., nominative case and due to this fact signifies the soul which is distinct from the Buddhi.
Upalabdhivadaniyamah II.3.37 (253)
As within the case of notion (there may be) no rule (right here additionally).
Upalabdhivat: as within the case of notion; Aniyamah: (there may be) no rule.
The argument in help of Sutra 33 is sustained.
An objection is raised that if the soul had been a free agent, then why ought to he do any act productive of dangerous results? He would have achieved solely what is helpful to him and never each good and evil actions.
This objection is refuted on this Sutra. Simply because the soul, though he’s free, perceives each nice and unsightly issues, so additionally he performs each good and evil actions. There is no such thing as a rule that he ought to carry out solely what is helpful and keep away from what’s dangerous or dangerous.
Within the efficiency of actions, the soul just isn’t completely free as he is determined by variations of place, time and environment friendly causes. However an agent doesn’t stop to be so as a result of he’s in want of help. A cook dinner stays the agent in motion of cooking, though he wants gasoline, water, and many others. His perform as a cook dinner exists always.
Saktiviparyayat II.3.38 (254)
On account of the reversal of energy (of the Buddhi).
Saktiviparyayat: on account of the reversal of energy (of the Buddhi).
The argument in help of Sutra 33 is sustained.
If the Buddhi which is an instrument turns into the agent and ceases to perform as an instrument there would happen a reversal of energy, i.e., the instrumental energy which pertains to the Buddhi must be put aside and to get replaced by the ability of an agent.
If the Buddhi has the ability of an agent, it have to be admitted that additionally it is the article of self-consciousness (Aham-pratyaya), as we see that in all places exercise is preceded by self-consciousness: I am going, I come, I eat, I drink, I do, I take pleasure in.
If the Buddhi is endowed with the ability of an agent and impacts all issues, we’ve got to imagine for it one other instrument by the use of which it impacts every part, as a result of each doer wants an instrument. Therefore the entire dispute is a few identify solely. There is no such thing as a actual distinction, since in both case that which is totally different from the instrument of motion is admitted to be the agent. In both case an agent totally different from the instrument needs to be admitted.
Samadhyabhavaccha II.3.39 (255)
And on account of the impossibility of Samadhi.
Samadhyabhavat: on account of the impossibility of Samadhi; Cha: and, additionally. (Samadhi: superconscious state; Abhavat: for need, for impossibility, because it turns into an unimaginable factor).
The argument in help of Sutra 33 is sustained.
If the soul just isn’t a doer, there can be non-existence of attainment of liberation. If the Jiva or soul just isn’t an agent, then the realisation prescribed by Sruti texts like The Atman is to be realised (Bri. Up. II.4.5.) by Samadhi can be unimaginable. The meditation taught within the Vedanta texts is feasible provided that the soul is the agent. Verily, the Atman is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be searched. The Self we should search out, we should attempt to perceive (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1.) Meditate on the Self as OM (Mun. Up. II.2.6). Therefrom additionally it follows that the soul is an agent.
The soul is not going to be able to practising listening to, reasoning, reflection, and meditation which result in Samadhi and the attainment of Data of the Imperishable. Therefore there can be no emancipation for the soul. Due to this fact it’s established that the soul alone is the agent, however not the Buddhi.
TAKSHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 15
THE SOUL IS AN AGENT AS LONG AS IT IS LIMITED BY THE ADJUNCTS
Yatha cha takshobhayatha II.3.40 (256)
And because the carpenter is each.
Yatha: as; Cha: additionally, and; Taksha: the carpenter; Ubhayatha: in each methods, is each.
The argument in help of Sutra 33 is sustained.
That the person soul is an agent has been proved by the explanations set forth in Sutras 33 to 39. We now have to contemplate whether or not this company is its actual nature or solely a superimposition as a consequence of its limiting adjuncts. The Nyaya Faculty maintains that it’s its very nature.
This Sutra refutes it and declares that it’s superimposed on the soul and never actual. Such doership just isn’t the soul’s nature, as a result of if it’s so, there might be no liberation, simply as fireplace, being scorching in its nature, can by no means be free from warmth. Doing is basically of the character of ache. You can not say that even when there may be the ability of doing, emancipation can come when there may be nothing to do, as a result of the ability of doing will lead to doing at a while or different. The Sruti calls the Atman as having an eternally pure acutely aware and free nature. How may that be if doership is its nature? Therefore, its doership is because of its identification with a limiting perform. So there isn’t a soul as doer or enjoyer other than Para-Brahman. You can not say that in that case God will grow to be a Samsarin, as a result of doership and delight are due solely to Avidya.
The physique of the carpenter just isn’t the reason for his perform. His instruments are the trigger. Even so the soul is a doer solely by the thoughts and the senses. The scriptural injunctions don’t command doing however command acts to be achieved on the idea of such doership which is because of Avidya.
The Sruti declares This Atman is non-attached (Bri. Up. IV.3.15). Simply as in peculiar life, a carpenter suffers when he’s working together with his instruments and is blissful when he leaves his work, so does the Atman undergo when he’s lively within the waking and dream states by his reference to the mind, and many others., and is blissful when he ceases to be an agent as within the state of deep sleep.
The scriptural injunctions in prescribing sure acts consult with the conditioned state of the self. By nature the soul is inactive. It turns into lively by reference to its Upadhis or limiting adjuncts, the mind, and many others. Doership actually belongs to the mind. Everlasting Upalabdhi or Consciousness is within the soul. Doership implies Ahamkara or ego-consciousness. Therefore such doership doesn’t belong to the soul as its nature however belongs to the mind.
The scriptural injunctions in prescribing sure acts presuppose an agentship established someway on account of Avidya or ignorance, however don’t themselves intention at establishing the direct agentship of the Self. The agentship of the Self doesn’t represent its actual nature as a result of scripture teaches that its true Self is Brahman. We, due to this fact, conclude that the Vedic injunctions are operative with regards to that agentship of the soul which is because of Avidya.
Nor are you able to infer doership from the outline of Vihara (play or exercise) in goals, as a result of the reference to the thoughts or mind continues in goals. Even within the state of dream the devices of the Self will not be altogether at relaxation; as a result of scripture declares that even then it’s related with the Buddhi. Having grow to be a dream, along with Buddhi, it passes past this world. Smriti additionally says, when the senses being at relaxation, the thoughts not being at relaxation is occupied with the objects, that state know to be a dream.
It’s clearly established that the agentship of the soul is because of its limiting adjunct Buddhi solely.
PARAYATTADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 16 (SUTRAS 41-42)
THE SOUL IS DEPENDENT ON THE LORD, WHEN HE WORKS
Parattu tat sruteh II.3.41 (257)
However (even) that (company of the soul) is from the Supreme Lord, so declares the Sruti.
Parat: from the Supreme Lord; Tu: however, certainly; Tat: company, agentship; Sruteh: from Sruti, so declares the Sruti.
A limitation to Sutra 33 is acknowledged.
We now enter on the dialogue whether or not the agentship characterising the person soul within the state of ignorance on account of its limiting adjuncts is unbiased of the Lord or depending on Him.
The Purvapakshin maintains that the soul so far as it’s an agent doesn’t rely upon the Lord.
The phrase `tu’ (however), is employed as a way to take away the doubt raised by the Purvapakshin. The view that the soul’s doership is because of its wishes and its possession of the senses as devices and to not the Lord is flawed, as a result of the Sruti declares that Lord is the trigger.
The company of the soul can also be because of the Supreme Lord. It may be understood from Sruti that the agentship of the person soul is verily subordinate to and managed by the Supreme Lord. The soul does good and dangerous deeds being so directed by the Lord.
Sruti declares, He makes him, whom He needs to steer up from these worlds do good deeds; He makes him, whom He needs to steer down from these worlds, do dangerous deeds. (Kau. Up. III.8) and, once more, He who dwelling throughout the Self pulls the Self inside (Sat. Br. XIV.6.7.30). The Common Soul coming into inside, governs the person soulsAntah pravishtah sasta jivanam The Lord is inside all, the Ruler of all creatures.
You can not say that that can trigger the attribution of partiality (Vaishamya) and cruelty (Nairghrinya) to the Lord, as a result of He acts in line with Dharma (advantage) and Adharma (demerit). You could reply that these are as a consequence of doership and if doership is because of the Lord, how can the Lord act in line with Dharma and Adharma?
We reply that the Sruti says that the soul is the doer and declares as reason behind doership the Supreme Lord who’s the bestower of the fruits of actions, who’s immanent in all, who’s the witness of all actions, and who’s the inspirer and guider of all.
Kritaprayatnapekshastu
vihitapratishiddhavaiyarthyadibhyah II.3.42 (258)
However (the Lord’s making the soul act) is determined by the works achieved (by it), for in any other case there can be uselessness of the scriptural injunctions and prohibitions.
Kritaprayatnapekshah: is determined by works achieved; Tu: however; Vihita-pratishiddha-avaiyarthyadibhyah: in order that the scriptural injunctions and prohibitions might not be meaningless. (Vihita: ordained; Pratishiddha: prohibited; Avaiyarthyadibhyah: on account of non-meaninglessness.)
This Sutra proceeds to slender the scope of Sutra 41 inside sure limits.
If causal company belongs to the Lord, it follows that He have to be merciless and unjust and that the soul has to bear penalties of what it has not achieved. He have to be merciless and kooky too as He makes some individuals do good acts and others evil deeds. This Sutra refutes this doubt.
The phrase `tu’ (however), removes the objections. The Lord at all times directs the soul in line with its good or dangerous actions achieved in earlier births. He bestows good and dangerous fruits in line with the soul’s good and dangerous actions. He’s the rain which at all times causes every seed to fructify in line with its energy. Although doership depends on the Lord, doing is the soul’s act. What the soul does the Lord causes to be achieved. Such doing is because of deeds achieved in earlier beginning and Vasanas which, once more, are as a consequence of earlier Karmas and so forth, Samsara being with out starting (Anadi). As Samsara is beginningless there’ll at all times be earlier births with actions carried out in these births for the steerage of the Lord. Therefore He can’t be accused of being merciless, unjust and kooky. To provide fruits the Lord is determined by the soul’s actions. If this weren’t so, the scriptural injunctions and prohibitions can be meaningless. If Lord doesn’t rely upon the soul’s actions for giving fruit, effort or exertion (Purushartha) can have no place in any respect. The soul will acquire nothing by following these injunctions.
Furthermore, time, place and causation can be capriciously operative and never in line with the regulation of trigger and impact, if our Karma just isn’t the instrumental trigger, and the Lord the Supervising Trigger.
AMSADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 17 (SUTRAS 43-53)
RELATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL TO BRAHMAN
Amso nanavyapadesad anyatha chapi
dasakitavaditvamadhiyata eke II.3.43 (259)
(The soul is) part of the Lord on account of distinction (between the 2) being declared and in any other case additionally (i.e., as non-different from Brahman); as a result of in some (Vedic texts) (Brahman) is spoken of as being fishermen, knaves, and many others.
Amsah: half; Nanavyapadesat: on account of distinction being declared; Anyatha: in any other case; Cha: and; Api: additionally; Dasakitavaditvam: being fisher-men, knaves, and many others.; Adhiyata: learn; Eke: some (Srutis, Sakhas of the Vedas).
This Sutra exhibits that the person soul is totally different from in addition to the identical with Brahman.
Within the final matter it has been proven that the Lord guidelines the soul. Now the query of the relation of the person soul to Brahman is taken up. Is it that of grasp and servant or as between fireplace and its sparks?
The Purvapakshin holds that the relation is like that of grasp and servant, as a result of that connection solely is well-known to be the relation of ruler (Lord) and dominated (topic).
To this the Sutra says that the soul have to be thought of part of the Lord, simply as a spark is part of the fireplace. However then the soul just isn’t truly an element, however an element because it had been. It’s an imagined half solely, as a result of Brahman can’t have any elements. Brahman is Nishkala, with out elements. He’s Akhanda (indivisible). He’s Niravayava (with out limbs).
Why then ought to it’s taken as an element and never similar with the Lord? As a result of the scriptures declare a distinction between them in texts like That self it’s which we should get your hands on, that it’s we should attempt to perceive (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). He who is aware of Him turns into a Muni (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). He who dwelling throughout the self, pulls the self from inside (Bri. Up. III.7.23). The Atman is to be seen? (Bri. Up. II.4.5). This distinction is spoken of from the relative viewpoint. They’re similar from absolutely the viewpoint.
The textual content Brahman is the fishermen, Brahman the slaves, Brahman these gamblers and many others., point out that even such low individuals are in actuality Brahman and that every one particular person souls, males, girls and kids are all Brahman.
The identical viewpoint is about forth in different passages similar to Thou artwork lady, Thou artwork man, Thou artwork the youth, Thou artwork the maiden; Thou as an outdated man totters alongside on Thy workers, Thou artwork born with Thy face turned in all places (Svet. Up. IV.3). Texts like There is no such thing as a different however He and comparable ones set up the identical reality. Non-differentiated intelligence belongs to the soul and the Lord alike, simply as warmth belongs to the sparks in addition to the fireplace.
From these two views of distinction, and non-difference, there outcomes the great view of the soul being part of the Lord.
Mantravarnaccha II.3.44 (260)
Additionally from the phrases of the Mantra (it’s identified that the soul is part of the Lord).
Mantravarnat: from the phrases of the Mantra, from the letters in sacred verses, due to description given within the sacred Mantras; Cha: additionally, and.
An argument in help of Sutra 43, that the person soul is part of Brahman is given.
An extra cause is given to indicate that the soul is part of the Lord. Such is the greatness of it; larger than it’s the Individual. One foot of It are all these beings, three ft of It are the immortal in heaven, (Chh. Up. III.12.6) the place beings together with souls are stated to be a foot or a part of the Lord.
(One foot, i.e., the fourth a part of Him are all beings, the entire creation covers solely a fraction of Him). Purusha Sukta: Rigveda: X.90.3, declares the identical factor. All of the beings are however a foot of Him.
The phrase `pada’ and `amsa’ are similar. Each imply half or a portion.
Therefore we conclude that the person soul is part of the Lord, and once more from the next cause.
Api cha smaryate II.3.45 (261)
And it’s so acknowledged within the Smriti.
Api: additionally; Cha: and; Smaryate: it’s (so) acknowledged within the Smriti.
The argument that the person soul is part of Brahman is concluded right here.
The Smriti additionally says sothat the person soul is part of Brahman. An everlasting portion of Myself turns into the person soul on the earth of life (Bhagavad Gita: XV.7).
Prakasadivannaivam parah II.3.46 (262)
The Supreme Lord just isn’t (affected by pleasure and ache) like this (particular person soul) simply as mild (is unaffected by the shaking of its reflections).
Prakasadivat: like mild, and many others.; Na: just isn’t; Evam: thus, like this, like the person soul; Parah: the Supreme Lord.
The speciality of the Supreme Lord is proven on this Sutra.
Right here the Purvapakshin raises one other objection. If the soul is part of the Lord, the Lord additionally should expertise pleasure and ache just like the soul. We see in peculiar life that your entire Ramakrishna suffers from the ache affecting his hand or foot or another limb. Therefore attainment of God would imply most grief and ache, and the outdated restricted ache of particular person soul can be much better.
This Sutra refutes it. The Lord doesn’t expertise pleasure and ache like the person soul. The person soul identifies itself with the physique, the senses and the thoughts, on account of ignorance, and due to this fact experiences pleasure and ache. The Supreme Lord neither identifies himself with a physique, nor imagines himself to suffer from ache.
The ache of the person soul additionally just isn’t actual however imaginary solely. It is because of non-discrimination of the Self from the physique, senses and thoughts that are the merchandise of Avidya or ignorance.
Simply as a person feels the ache of a burn or reduce which impacts his physique by erroneously figuring out himself with the latter, so additionally he feels the ache which impacts others similar to sons or associates, by erroneously figuring out himself with them. He enters because it had been into them by Moha or love and imagines I’m the son, I’m the pal. This clearly exhibits that the sensation of ache is due merely to the error of false creativeness.
Some women and men are sitting collectively and speaking. If then any person calls out the son has died, grief is produced within the minds of those that have Moha or love for sons on account of inaccurate creativeness, identification, and connection, however not within the minds of non secular ascetics or Sannyasins who’ve freed themselves from that creativeness. If even a person of proper data who has grow to be an ascetic has no ache or grief consequent on loss of life of relations or associates, God who’s Supreme and alone, who’s pure consciousness, who’s everlasting pure intelligence, who sees nothing beside the Self for which there are not any objects, can don’t have any ache in any respect.
For example this view the Sutra introduces a comparability like mild and many others. Simply as the sunshine of the solar which is all-pervading turns into straight or bent by coming involved with explicit objects, however does not likely grow to be so, or the ether of a pot appears to maneuver when the pot is moved, however does not likely transfer, or because the solar doesn’t tremble though its picture which is mirrored in water trembles, so additionally the Lord just isn’t affected by pleasure, ache or grief though pleasure and ache and many others., are felt by that a part of Him, which known as the person soul which is a product of ignorance and is restricted by Buddhi, and many others.
Simply because the solar doesn’t grow to be contaminated by its contact by its elements, the rays with the impurities of the earth, so additionally the Supreme Lord doesn’t grow to be affected by the enjoyment and struggling of the person soul, although latter is an element and parcel of the previous.
When the soul’s particular person state as a consequence of ignorance is sublated, it turns into Brahman, Thou artwork That and many others. Thus the Supreme Lord just isn’t affected by the ache of the person soul.
Smaranti Cha II.3.47 (263)
The Smritis additionally state (that).
Smaranti: the Smritis state; Cha: and, additionally.
Of the 2, the Supreme Self is claimed to be everlasting, devoid of qualities. It isn’t touched by the fruits of actions, any greater than a lotus leaf by water. The Smriti texts like these state that the Supreme Lord doesn’t expertise pleasure and ache.
Anujnapariharau dehasambandhajjyotiradivat II.3.48 (264)
Injunctions and prohibitions (are potential) on account of the connection (of the Self) with the physique, as within the case of sunshine, and many others.
Anujnapariharau: injunctions and prohibitions; Dehasamban- dhat: on account of reference to the physique; Jyotiradivat: like mild and many others.
The need for observance of obligatory and prohibitory guidelines is defined.
The Atman or the Supreme Self is one. There may be no injunctions and prohibitions with regard to the Atman. However injunctions and prohibitions are potential when it’s related with a physique. What are these permissions and injunctions? He’s to method his spouse on the correct time. He isn’t to method the spouse of his Guru. He’s to kill the animal dedicated to Agnistoma. and He isn’t to harm any being.
Hearth is one solely however the fireplace of the funeral pyre is rejected and that of a sacrifice is accepted. Some issues consisting of earth, like diamonds, are desired; different issues consisting of earth, like useless our bodies, are shunned. The urine and dung of cows are thought of pure and used as such; these of different animals are rejected. Water poured from a clear vessel or supplied by a clear particular person is to be accepted; that contained in an unclean vessel or supplied by an unclean man is to be rejected. Related is the case with the Atman.
When the soul is in a state of attachment to the physique, moral concepts of purity and impurity have full utility.
Asantateschavyatikarah II.3.49 (265)
And on account of the non-extension (of the soul past its personal physique) there isn’t a confusion (of outcomes of actions).
Asantateh: on account of non-extension (past its personal physique); Cha: and; Avyatikarah: there isn’t a confusion (of outcomes of actions).
The dialogue on the particular attribute of the person soul is sustained.
An objection is raised that on account of the unity of the self there would end result a confusion of the outcomes of actions, there being just one grasp, i.e., one soul to benefit from the fruits of actions. This Sutra refutes such a risk.
This isn’t so, as a result of there isn’t a extension of the performing and having fun with self, i.e., no connection on its half with all our bodies. The person soul is determined by its adjuncts, and there may be additionally non-extension of the soul on account of the non-extension of these adjuncts. The person souls are totally different from one another. Every soul is related with a selected physique, thoughts, and many others.
The person soul has no reference to all of the our bodies on the identical time. He’s related with one physique solely and he’s affected by the peculiar properties of that one alone. Due to this fact the results of works achieved by the soul in a single physique belongs to him in respect of that physique solely and never of some other physique. All of the people will not be affected by the works achieved by a selected particular person.
There can be no risk for the Atman, as it’s one, to expertise all of the pleasures and all of the pains of all of the our bodies, as a result of the our bodies are disconnected.
Due to this fact there isn’t a confusion of actions or fruits of actions.
Abhasa eva cha II.3.50 (266)
And (the person soul is) solely a mirrored image (of Paramatman or the Supreme Lord).
Abhasa: a mirrored image; Eva: solely; Cha: and.
In response to Vedanta, the person soul is just a mirrored image of Brahman or the Supreme Soul within the thoughts just like the reflection of the solar within the water. Simply because the reflections of the solar in several pots of water are totally different, so additionally the reflections of the Supreme Soul in several minds are totally different. Simply as, when one mirrored picture of the solar trembles, one other mirrored picture doesn’t on that account tremble additionally, so additionally when a selected soul experiences fruits of his actions, viz., pleasure and ache, it isn’t shared by different souls. When the person soul in a single physique is present process the results of his actions, the soul in some other physique just isn’t affected on that account.
For these, such because the Sankhyas, the Vaiseshikas and the Naiyayikas quite the opposite, who keep that there are lots of souls and all of them all-pervading, it follows that there have to be a confusion of actions and outcomes, as a result of every soul is current in all places close to to these causes which produce pleasure and ache.
In response to the opinion of the Sankhya,s there exist many all-pervading selfs, whose nature is pure intelligence, devoid of qualities and of unsurpassable excellence. For the frequent function of all of them there exists the Pradhana by which the souls receive enjoyment and launch.
Within the Sankhya philosophy the person soul has been acknowledged to be all-pervading. If this view be accepted there can be confusion of works and their results. This view of Sankhyas is due to this fact an unfair conclusion.
Due to this fact there may be no confusion of the outcomes of motion.
Adrishtaniyamat II.3.51 (267)
There being no fixity in regards to the unseen precept (there would end result confusion of works and their results for many who consider in lots of souls, every all-pervading).
Adrishtaniyamat: There being no fixity in regards to the unseen precept. (Adrishta: the destiny, the gathered inventory of earlier actions, ready as a latent pressure to carry forth fruits in future, advantage or demerit acquired by the souls by ideas, phrases and actions; Aniyamat: for need of any binding rule, on account of non-determinateness.)
The dialogue begun in Sutra 50 is sustained.
Sutras 51 to 53 refute the doctrine of the Sankhyas and different colleges in regards to the plurality of souls, every of which is all-pervading. It results in absurdities.
This confusion can’t be prevented by bringing the Adrishta or unseen precept, as a result of if all of the souls equally are all-pervading, there can’t be any binding rule as to upon which ones the pressure will act.
In response to the Sankhyas, the Adrishta doesn’t inhere within the soul however within the Pradhana which is frequent to all souls. Therefore there may be nothing to repair {that a} explicit Adrishta operates in a selected soul.
The doctrine of the opposite two colleges is open to the identical objection. In response to the Nyaya and Vaiseshika colleges, the unseen precept is created by the conjunction of the soul with the thoughts. Right here additionally there may be nothing to repair {that a} explicit Adrishta belongs to a selected soul, as each soul is all-pervading and due to this fact equally related with all minds.
Due to this fact the confusion of outcomes is unavoidable.
Abhisandhyadishu api chaivam II.3.52 (268)
And that is additionally the case in resolutions, and many others.
Abhisandhyadishu: in resolutions, and many others.; Api: even; Cha: and; Evam: thus, like this, within the like method.
The dialogue begun in Sutra 50 is sustained.
The identical logical defect will apply additionally to the resolve to do actions. There can be no orderliness of resolves to do actions. That’s need of order additionally in issues of non-public willpower, and many others., if the person soul be admitted to be all-pervading.
If it’s held that the decision which one makes to get one thing or to keep away from one thing will allot the Adrishta to explicit souls, even then there can be this confusion of outcomes of actions, as a result of resolutions are shaped by the conjunction of the soul and the thoughts. Due to this fact the identical argument applies right here additionally.
If the person soul is all-pervading, there can’t be any order in motives or issues of non-public willpower similar to I’ll do a sure factor or I can’t do a sure factor as a result of in such a case, everybody turns into acutely aware of the willpower of each different. Due to this fact no order of willpower and its placing it into motion may be maintained. Furthermore collision between wills can’t be prevented. However order is discovered on this world in all places.
Due to this fact it’s established that the soul just isn’t all-pervading.
Pradesaditi chenna antarbhavat II.3.53 (269)
If it’s stated (that the excellence of delight and ache and many others., outcomes) from (the distinction of) place, (we are saying) not so, on account of the self being in all our bodies.
Pradesat: on account of explicit locality or atmosphere, from (distinction of) place; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not so, the argument can’t stand; Antarbhavat: on account of the self being in all our bodies.
An objection to Sutra 52 is raised and refuted. This Sutra consists of two elements, viz., an objection and its reply. The objection portion is `Pradesaditi chet’ and the reply portion is `Na antarbhavat.’
The Naiyayikas and others attempt to recover from the issue proven within the earlier Sutra by giving the next argument. Although every soul is all-pervading, but, confusion of outcomes of actions is not going to happen if we take its reference to the thoughts to happen in that a part of it which is restricted by its physique.
Even this can’t stand. This additionally just isn’t potential on account of its being inside all. As a result of, as being equally infinite all selfs are inside all our bodies. Each soul is all-pervading and due to this fact permeates all our bodies. There may be nothing to repair {that a} explicit physique belongs to a selected soul.
Furthermore, on account of the doctrine of limitation as a consequence of distinction of place, it will comply with that generally two selfs having fun with the identical pleasure or ache could impact their fruition by one and the identical method, as it might occur that the unseen precept of two selfs occupies the identical place.
Additional, from the doctrine that the unseen rules occupy mounted locations it will comply with that no enjoyment of heaven can happen, as a result of the Adrishta is effected in particular locations similar to, e.g., the physique of a Brahmana and the enjoyment of heaven is sure to a particular totally different place.
There can’t be multiple all-pervading entity. If there have been many all-pervading entities they’d restrict one another and due to this fact stop to be all-pervading or infinite.
Due to this fact there is just one Atman and never many. The Vedanta doctrine of 1 Atman is the one faultless doctrine. The one doctrine not open to any objections is the doctrine of the unity of the self. The plurality of selfs in Vedanta is just a product of Avidya, nescience or ignorance and never a actuality.
Thus ends the Third Pada (Part 3) of the Second Adhyaya (Chapter II) of the Brahmasutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.
Hari Om! Salutations to Sri Vyasa, the Avatara of Vishnu, the clever Badarayana and Sri Krishna Dvaipayana.
Vedas include three parts viz., the Karma Kanda which offers with sacrifices or ceremonial rites, the Upasana Kanda which treats of Upasana (worship) and the Jnana Kanda which offers with data of Brahman. Karma Kanda represents the ft of a person, Upasana Kanda the guts, and the Jnana Kanda the top. Simply as the top is an important portion of a person, so additionally the Upanishads which deal with of the data portion of the Vedas is the top of the Vedas. Therefore it’s stated to be the Siras (head) of Vedas.
Mimamsa means the investigation or enquiry into the related that means of the sacred texts. Of this Mimamsa two branches have been recognised, the Purva Mimamsa (earlier) and the Uttara Mimamsa (the latter). The previous systematises the Karma Kandathe portion of the Veda which pertains to motion and sacrifices and which contains Samhitas and the Brahmanas; the latter systematises the Jnana Kanda i.e., that a part of the Vedas which incorporates the Aranyaka portion of the Brahmanas and the Upanishads. Jaimini is the writer of the Purva Mimamsa. Sri Vyasa (Badarayana or Krishna Dvaipayana) the Guru of Jaimini is the writer of the Brahma Sutras in any other case often called Vedanta Sutras. The examine of Brahma Sutras is an artificial examine of the Upanishads. It treats of the Vedanta philosophy.
The Vedas are everlasting. They weren’t written by any particular person. They got here out from the breath of Hiranyagarbha (Lord Brahma). Vedanta is the tip or gist of the Vedas. It offers with the data portion. Vedanta just isn’t mere hypothesis. It’s the genuine file of transcendental experiences or direct and precise realisation of the good Hindu Rishis or seers. Brahma Sutras is the Science of the Soul.
Sutras are concise aphorisms. They provide the essence of the arguments on a subject. Most of thought is compressed or condensed into these Sutras in as few phrases as potential. It’s simple to recollect them. Nice mental folks solely, with realisation, can compose Sutras. They’re clues or aids to reminiscence. They can’t be understood and not using a lucid commentary (Bhashya). The commentary is also in want of additional elaborate rationalization. Thus the interpretations of the Sutras gave rise to numerous sorts of literary writings similar to Vrittis (gloss) and Karikas. The totally different Acharyas (founders of various colleges of thought) have given their very own interpretations of the Sutras to ascertain their very own doctrines. The Bhashya of Sri Sankara on Brahma Sutras is called Sariraka Bhashya. His college of thought is Kevala Advaita. The Bhashya of Sri Ramanuja who based the Visishtadvaita Faculty known as Sri Bhashya. The commentary of Sri Nimbarkacharya is called Vedanta- parijata-saurabha. Sri Vallabhacharya expounded his system of philosophy of Suddhadvaita (pure monism) and his commentary on the Brahma Sutras is called Anu Bhashya.
Sanskrit may be very elastic. It’s like Kamadhenu or Kalpataru. You may milk out of it numerous sorts of Rasas in line with your mental calibre and religious experiences. Due to this fact totally different Acharyas have constructed totally different methods of thought or cults by deciphering the Sutras in their very own methods and have become founders of sects. Madhva based his personal system of Dvaita. The cults of Vishnu often called Bhagavata or Pancharatra and people of Siva, Pasupata or Mahesvara have interpreted Brahma Sutras in accordance with their very own tenets. Nimbarkacharya interpreted the Vedanta system from the standpoint of Bhedabheda-Dvaitadvaita. He was largely influenced by the teachings of Bhaskara who flourished within the first half of the ninth century. The idea held by Bhaskara and Nimbarka was held by the traditional instructor Audulomi. Badarayana himself refers to this principle in his Brahma Sutras.
There are greater than fourteen commentaries on the Brahma Sutras. Sri Appaya Dikshita rendered the commentary of Sri Sankara extra clear by his Parimala, Sri Vachaspati Misra by his work Bhamati and Sri Amalananda Sarasvati by his Kalpataru.
The inaccurate identification of the physique with the pure Atman is the foundation trigger for human sufferings and miseries and for births and deaths. You determine your self with the physique and say, `I’m truthful, darkish, stout or skinny. I’m a Brahmin, I’m a Kshatriya, I’m a health care provider’. You determine your self with the senses and say, `I’m blind, I’m dumb’. You determine your self with the thoughts and say, `I do know nothing. I do know every part. I grew to become indignant. I loved a superb meal. I’m affected by this illness’. Your entire object of the Brahma Sutras is to take away this inaccurate identification of the Soul with the physique which is the foundation reason behind your sufferings and miseries, which is the product of Avidya (ignorance) and assist you to within the attainment of the ultimate emancipation by data of Brahman.
The Upanishads appear to be stuffed with contradictions at first. They don’t comprise constant system of thought. Sri Vyasa systematised the ideas or philosophy of the Upanishads in his Brahma Sutras. The Sutras reconcile the conflicting statements of the Upanishads. In actuality there are not any conflicts for the thinker. Audulomi and Asmarathya additionally did this work in their very own method and based their very own colleges of thought.
Those that want to examine the philosophy of Vedanta ought to examine the Ten Classical Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. All Acharyas have commented on Brahma Sutras. It is a nice authority for each philosophical college in India. If any Acharya needs to ascertain his personal cult or sect or college of thought he must write a commentary of his personal on Brahma Sutras. Then solely it will likely be recognised.
The 5 nice Acharyas: Sri Sankara the exponent of Kevala Advaita or uncompromising monism, Sri Ramanuja the exponent of Visishtadvaita or certified monism, Sri Nimbarka the exponent of Bhedabheda-vada, Sri Madhva the exponent of strict Dvaitism or Dvaita-vada and Sri Vallabha the exponent of Suddhadvaita-vada or pure monism agree that Brahman is the reason for this world and that data of Brahman results in Moksha or the ultimate emancipation, which is the purpose of life. Additionally they emphatically declared that Brahman may be identified solely by the scriptures and never by mere reasoning. However they differ amongst themselves as to the character of this Brahman, the relation of the person soul to Brahman, the state of the soul within the state of ultimate emancipation, the means of accomplishing It and Its causality with regards to this universe.
In response to Sri Sankara, there may be one Absolute Brahman who’s Sat-chit-ananda, who’s of a completely homogeneous nature. The looks of this world is because of Mayathe illusory energy of Brahman which is neither Sat nor Asat. This world is unreal. This world is a Vivarta or obvious modification by Maya. Brahman seems as this universe by Maya. Brahman is the one actuality. The person soul has restricted himself by Avidya and identification with the physique and different automobiles. By way of his egocentric actions he enjoys the fruits of his actions. He turns into the actor and enjoyer. He regards himself as atomic and as an agent on account of Avidya or the limiting Antahkarana. The person soul turns into similar with Brahman when his Avidya is destroyed. In actuality Jiva is all-pervading and similar with Brahman. Isvara or Saguna Brahman is a product of Maya. Worship of Isvara results in Krama Mukti. The pious devotees (the knowers of Saguna Brahman) go to Brahmaloka and attain remaining launch by highest data. They don’t return to this world. They attain the Nirguna Brahman on the finish of the cycle. Data of Nirguna Brahman is the one technique of liberation. The knowers of Nirguna Brahman attain quick remaining launch or Sadyomukti. They needn’t go by the trail of gods or the trail of Devayana. They merge themselves in Para Brahman. They don’t go to any Loka or world. Sri Sankara’s Brahman is Nirvisesha Brahman (Impersonal Absolute) with out attributes.
In response to Sri Ramanuja, Brahman is with attributes (Savisesha). He’s endowed with all auspicious qualities. He isn’t intelligence itself. Intelligence is his chief attribute. He incorporates inside Himself no matter exists. World and particular person souls are important actual constituents of Brahman’s nature. Matter (Achit) and soul (Chit) type the physique of the Lord, Lord Narayana who’s the Inside Ruler (Antaryamin). Matter and souls are referred to as modes of Him (Prakara). The person souls won’t ever be fully resolved in Brahman. In response to Ramanuja, Brahman just isn’t completely one and homogeneous. The person souls bear a state of Sankocha (contraction) throughout Pralaya. They develop (Vikasa) throughout creation. Sri Ramanuja’s Brahman is a Private God with attributes. The person soul of Ramanuja is de facto particular person. It is going to stay a persona for ever. The soul stays in Vaikuntha for ever in a state of bliss and enjoys the divine Aisvarya of Lord Narayana. Bhakti is the chief means to remaining emancipation and never Jnana. Sri Ramanuja follows in his Bhashya the authority of Bodhayana.
In response to Sri Nimbarkacharya, Brahman is taken into account as each the environment friendly and materials reason behind the world. Brahman is each Nirguna and Saguna. The universe just isn’t unreal or illusory however is a real manifestation or Parinama of Brahman. (Sri Ramanuja additionally holds this view. He says Simply as milk is remodeled into curd, so additionally Brahman has remodeled Himself as this universe). This world is similar with and on the identical time totally different from Brahman simply because the wave or bubble is similar and on the identical time totally different from water. The person souls are elements of the Supreme Self. They’re managed by the Supreme Being. The ultimate salvation lies in realising the true nature of 1’s personal soul. This may be achieved by Bhakti (devotion). The individuality of the finite self (Jivatman) just isn’t dissolved even within the state of ultimate emancipation. Sri Ramanuja additionally holds that the Jiva assumes the divine physique of Sri Narayana with 4 fingers and enjoys in Vaikuntha the divine Aisvarya of the Lord.
You could ask why do such nice realised souls maintain totally different views, why have they began totally different cults or methods. The best philosophy of Sri Sankara which bespeaks of the id of the person soul and the Supreme Soul can’t be understood by the overwhelming majority of individuals. Due to this fact Sri Madhva and Sri Ramanuja began their Bhakti cult. The totally different colleges are totally different rungs within the ladder of Yoga. The coed should place his foot step-by-step and at last attain the very best peak of perfectionthe Kevaladvaita realisation of Sri Sankara. As temperaments are totally different, totally different colleges are additionally essential to go well with the style, capability, and stage of evolution of the aspirant. Due to this fact all colleges and cults are essential. They have their very own place and scope.
The views of assorted Acharyas are all true in respect of the actual facet of Brahman handled by them every in his personal method. Sankara has taken Brahman in His transcendental facet, whereas Sri Ramanuja has taken Him mainly in His immanent facet. Individuals had been following blindly the rituals in the course of the time of Sri Sankara. When he was making ready his commentary he had in view the aim of combating the baneful results which blind ritualism produced. He by no means condemned selfless service or Nishkama Karma Yoga. He condemned the efficiency of rituals with egocentric motives.
Sankara Bhashya is the oldest of all commentaries. It upholds Suddha-Para-Brahman or the Supreme Self of the Upanishads as one thing superior to different divine beings. It propounds a really daring philosophy and declares emphatically that the person soul is similar with the Supreme Self. Sankara’s philosophical view precisely represents the that means of Badarayana. His explanations solely faithfully render the meant that means of Sri Vyasa. That is past doubt and dispute.
College students of Kevaladvaita Faculty of Philosophy ought to examine the Sariraka Bhashya of Sri Sankara which is profound, refined and distinctive. It’s an authority which ends up in the fitting understanding of the Brahma Sutras. The most effective thinkers of India, Germany, America and England belong to this college. It occupies a excessive rank in books on philosophy. Advaita philosophy is probably the most chic and the grandest philosophy of the Hindus.
You may perceive the Brahma Sutras if in case you have a data of the twelve classical Upanishads. You may perceive the second chapter if in case you have a data of Sankhya, Nyaya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Vaiseshika Darsana and Buddhistic college, too. All these colleges are refuted right here by Sri Sankara. Sri Sankara’s commentary is the perfect commentary. Dr. Thibaut has translated this commentary into English. Brahma Sutras is among the books of Prasthanatraya. That is an authoritative e book on Hindu Philosophy. The work consists of 4 Adhyayas (chapters), 16 Padas (sections), 223 Adhikaranas (matters) and 555 Sutras (aphorisms). The primary chapter (Samanvayadhyaya) unifies Brahman, the second (Avirodhadhyaya) refutes different philosophies, the third (Sadhanadhyaya) offers with apply (Sadhana) to achieve Brahman and the fourth (Phaladhyaya) treats of fruits of Self-realisation. Every chapter incorporates 4 Padas. Every Pada incorporates Adhikaranas. Every Adhikarana has separate query to debate. The primary 5 Adhikaranas of the primary chapter are very, crucial.
Glory to Sri Vyasa Bhagavan, son of Parasara, the mighty sage, a Chiranjivi who has written all Puranas and in addition divided the Vedas. Might his blessings be upon you all!
INTRODUCTION
Now within the Third Chapter are being decided these Sadhanas or practices that are the means of accomplishing the very best Brahman or the Infinite. Within the First and Second Padas of this Chapter are being taught two issues, viz., a powerful craving or burning want (Mumukshutva) to grasp Brahman or the ultimate emancipation and an equally sturdy disgust (Vairagya) in the direction of all objects aside from Brahman; as a result of these are the 2 elementary issues amongst all Sadhanas.
In an effort to induce Vairagya or dispassion, the Sutras present within the first Pada the imperfections of all mundane existences and this they base on the Panchagnividya or the doctrine of 5 fires of the Chhandogya Upanishad by which is taught how the soul passes after loss of life from one situation to a different.
The primary Pada teaches the good doctrine of reincarnation, the departure of the soul from the bodily physique, its journey to the Chandraloka on the third airplane and its coming again to the earth. That is achieved as a way to create Vairagya or indiffe rence to sensual enjoyments herein and hereafter. Within the Second Pada are described all the fantastic attributes of the Supreme Brahman, His Omniscience, Omnipotence, Loveli ness, and many others., as a way to entice the soul in the direction of Him, in order that He could be the sole object of quest.
SYNOPSIS
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-7) teaches that the soul, on the dissolution of the physique, departs, accompanied by the refined materials parts (Bhuta Sukshma), in addition to by the Indriyas and Pranas. The refined parts function an abode to the Pranas connected to the soul.
Sutra 7: Those that do sacrifice grow to be in Chandraloka the meals of the gods which signifies that they contribute to the enjoyment of the gods by their presence and repair to them.
Adhikarana II: (Sutras 8-11) exhibits that the souls after having fun with the fruits of their meritorious deeds within the Chandraloka descend to the earth with a the rest (Anusaya) of their works which determines the character of the brand new physique or the character of the brand new life.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 12-21) discusses the destiny after loss of life of these evil doers whom their evil deeds don’t entitle to move to the Chandraloka.
Adhikaranas IV, V, and VI: (Sutras 22; 23; and 24 to 27) educate that the refined our bodies of the souls descending from the Chandraloka by the ether, air, and many others., don’t grow to be similar with ether, air, and many others., however solely reside there; that they descend in a short while. On coming into right into a corn or a plant the soul stays merely involved with it which is already animat ed by one other soul. The soul after having entered right into a corn or a plant, will get related with him who eats the corn or fruit of the plant and performs the act of copulation. The soul stays with him until he enters into the mom’s womb with the seminal fluid injected. The soul in the end enters the mom’s womb and is introduced forth as a toddler.
TADANTARAPRATIPATTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 17)
THE SOUL AT THE TIME OF TRANSMIGRATION DOES TAKE
with it refined elements of the weather
Tadantarapratipattau ramhati samparishvaktah
prasnanirupanabhya – III.1.1 (292)
In an effort to receive one other physique (the soul) goes enveloped (by refined parts) (as seems from) the query and rationalization (within the scripture, Chhandogya).
Tadantarapratipattau: for the aim of acquiring a recent physique (Tat: that, i.e. a physique; Antara: totally different, one other; Prati- pattau: in acquiring); Ramhati: goes, departs, Samparishvaktah: enveloped (by refined parts); Prasna: from query; Nirupanabhyam: support for explanations.
Within the Second Chapter all objections raised in opposition to the Vedantic view of Brahman on the bottom of Sruti and reasoning have been refuted. It has been proven additionally that every one different views are incorrect and devoid of basis and the alleged mutual contradictions of Vedic texts don’t exist. Additional it has been proven that every one the entities totally different from the indivi twin soul similar to Prana, and many others., spring from Brahman for the enjoyment of the soul.
On this Chapter the style by which the soul travels after loss of life to the totally different areas with its adjuncts, the totally different states of the soul and the character of Brahman, the separateness or non-separateness of the Vidyas (sorts of Upasana); the query whether or not the qualities of Brahman must be cumu lated or not, the attainment of the purpose by proper data (Samyagdarsana), the differences of the technique of proper know ledge and the absence of sure guidelines as to Moksha which is the fruit of good data are mentioned to create dispassion.
The Jiva (particular person soul) together with the Pranas, the thoughts and the senses leaves his former physique and obtains a brand new physique. He takes with himself, Avidya, virtues and cruel actions and the impressions left by his earlier births.
Right here the query arises whether or not the soul is enveloped or not by refined elements of the weather because the seed for the long run physique in his transmigration. The Purvapakshin or the opponent saysIt just isn’t so enveloped, as a result of the refined elements of the weather are simply accessible in all places. This Sutra refutes this view and says that the soul does take with it refined elements of the weather that are the seeds of the brand new physique. How do we all know this? From the query and reply that happens within the scriptures. The query is Have you learnt why within the fifth oblation water known as man? (Chh. Up. V.3.3). The reply is given in the entire passage which, after explaining how the 5 oblations within the type of Sraddha, Soma, rain, meals and seed are supplied within the 5 fires, viz., the heavenly world, Parjanya (rain God), the earth, man and lady, concludes For that reason is water, within the fifth oblation, referred to as man. Undergo the part Panchagnividya in Chh. Up. V. elements 3-10. Therefore we perceive that the soul goes enveloped by water. Although the weather can be found in all places, but the seeds for a future physique can’t be simply procured anyplace. The organs, and many others., which go together with the soul can’t accompany it and not using a materials physique.
Simply as a caterpillar takes maintain of one other object earlier than it leaves its maintain of an object, so additionally the soul has the imaginative and prescient of the physique to return earlier than it leaves the current physique. Therefore the view of the Sankhyas that the Self and the organs are each all-pervading and when acquiring a brand new physique solely start to perform in it on account of Karma; the view of the Bauddhas that the soul alone with out the organs begins to perform in a brand new physique, new senses being shaped like the brand new physique; the view of the Vaiseshikas that the thoughts alone goes to the brand new physique; and the view of the Digambara Jains that the soul solely flies away from the outdated physique and alights within the new one simply as a parrot flies from one tree to a different will not be appropriate and are opposing to the Vedas. The soul goes from the physique accompanied by the thoughts, Prana, the senses and the Sukshmabhutas or refined parts.
An objection may be raised that water solely accompanies the soul and never some other ingredient. How can it’s stated then that the soul goes enveloped by the refined elements of all ele ments. To this objection the following Sutra provides the reply.
Tryatmakatvattu bhuyastvat III.1.2 (293)
On account of water consisting of three (parts) (the soul is enveloped by all these parts and never merely water); however (water alone is talked about within the textual content) on account of its preponderance (within the human physique).
Tryatmakatvattu: on account of (water) consisting of three parts; Tu: however; Bhuyastvat: on account of the preponderance (of water).
The water which envelops the soul is threefold. It denotes all the opposite parts by implication. The textual content specifies water, as a result of it preponderates within the human physique. In all animated our bodies liquid substances similar to juices, blood and the like preponderate.
The phrase `tu’ (however), removes the objection raised above. Water stands for all the weather as a result of it’s actually a mix of water, fireplace and earth in line with the tripartite creation of the gross parts. Due to this fact all of the three parts accompany the soul. No physique may be shaped by water alone. Additional liquid matter is predominant within the causal state of the physique, i.e., semen and menstrual blood. Furthermore fluid portion is predominant in Soma, milk, butter and the like that are essential for Karma, which is an environment friendly trigger for the constructing of the long run physique.
Pranagatescha III.1.3 (294)
And due to the going out of the Pranas (the sense organs) with the soul, the weather additionally accompany the soul.
Prana: of the Pranas (the sense organs); Gateh: due to the going out; Cha: and.
An extra cause is given to indicate that the refined essences of the weather accompany the soul on the dissolution of the physique. The Sruti has acknowledged that the Pranas and senses depart together with the person soul on the dissolution of the physique. When he thus departs the chief Prana departs after him, and when the chief Prana thus departs all the opposite Pranas depart after it (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). They can not keep with out the idea or substratum or help of the weather. Due to this fact it follows that the person soul departs attended by the refined essences of the weather on the dissolution of the physique. The refined parts type the bottom for the shifting of Pranas. The going of the Pranas just isn’t potential and not using a base. The Pranas can’t both transfer or abide anyplace with out such a base. That is noticed in residing beings.
There may be enjoyment solely when the Prana goes to an different physique. When the soul departs the chief Prana additionally follows. When the chief Prana departs all the opposite Pranas and organs additionally comply with. The essences of parts are the automobile of Pranas. The place the weather are, there the organs and Pranas are. They’re by no means separated.
Agnyadigatisruteriti chet na bhaktatvat III.1.4 (295)
If it’s stated (that the Pranas or the organs don’t comply with the soul) on account of the scriptural statements as to coming into into Agni, and many others., (we are saying) not so, on account of its being so stated in a secondary sense (or metaphorical nature of those statements).
Agnyadi: Agni and others; Gati: coming into; Sruteh: on account of the scriptures; Iti: as thus; Chet: if; Na: not so (it can’t be accepted); Bhaktatvat: on account of its being stated in a secondary sense.
The Purvapakshin or the objector denies that on the time when a brand new physique is obtained the Pranas go together with the soul, as a result of the scripture speaks of their going to Agni, and many others. This Sutra refutes this view.
The textual content which says that Pranas on loss of life go to Agni and different gods says so in a figurative and secondary sense simply as when it says that the hair goes to the bushes. The textual content means solely that the Pranas receive the grace of Agni and different gods.
The coming into of speech, and many others., into Agni is metaphorical. Though the textual content says that the hairs of the physique enter into the shrubs and the hairs of the top into the bushes. It doesn’t imply that the hairs truly fly away from the physique and enter into bushes and shrubs.
The scriptural texts clearly say When the soul departs, the Prana follows. When the Prana departs, all of the organs comply with (Bri. Up. IV.4.2.)
Additional the soul couldn’t go in any respect if the Prana couldn’t comply with it. The soul couldn’t enter into the brand new physique with out Prana. There might be no enjoyment within the new physique with out the Pranas going to this physique.
The passage metaphorically expresses that Agni and different deities who act as guides of the Pranas and the senses and cooperate with them, cease their cooperation on the time of loss of life. The Pranas and the senses consequently lose their respective capabilities and are alleged to be immersed within the guiding deities. The Pranas and the senses stay at the moment fairly inoperative, ready for accompanying the depart ing soul.
The coming into of speech into fireplace, and many others., means solely that on the time of loss of life, these senses and Pranas stop to carry out their capabilities and never that they’re completely misplaced to the soul. The conclusion, due to this fact, is that the Pranas and the senses do accompany the soul on the time of loss of life.
Prathame’sravanaditi chet na ta eva hello upapatteh III.1.5 (296)
If it’s objected on the bottom of water not being point out ed within the first of the oblations, we are saying not so, as a result of that (water) solely is verily meant by the phrase Sraddha as a result of that’s the most applicable that means of the phrase in that passage.
Prathame: within the first of the 5 oblations described within the Chhandogya Sruti; Asravanat: on account of not being talked about; Iti: thus; Chet: if; Na: not; Ta eva: that solely, i.e., water; Hello: as a result of; Upapatteh: due to health.
The Purvapakshin raises an objection: How can it’s ascertained that `within the fifth oblation water known as man’ as there isn’t a that means of water within the first oblation? On that altar the gods provide Sraddha as oblation (Chh. Up. V.4.2).
The Siddhantin provides his reply: Within the case of the primary fireplace the phrase Sraddha is to be taken within the sense of `water’. Why? Due to appropriateness. Then solely there may be har mony to start with, center and finish of the passage and the synthetical unity of the entire passage just isn’t disturbed. In any other case the query and reply wouldn’t agree and so the unity of the entire passage can be destroyed.
Religion by itself can’t be bodily taken out and supplied as an oblation. Due to this fact the phrase Sraddha have to be taken to imply `water’. Water known as Sraddha within the Sruti texts. Sraddha va apahaSraddha certainly is water (Tait. Sam. I.6.8.1). Additional it’s the Sraddha (religion) which ends up in sacrifice which ends up in rain.
It’s the different 4 choices Soma, rain, meals and seed which might be described to be the results of Sraddha. It’s Sraddha which modifies itself into these 4. Due to this fact it have to be a substance belonging to the identical class as these 4, as a result of the trigger can’t be totally different from its impact. An impact is just a modification of the trigger. Due to this fact it’s affordable to interpret Sraddha to imply water right here.
Asrutatvaditi chet na ishtadikarinam pratiteh III.1.6 (297)
If it’s stated that on account of (the soul) not being acknowledged within the Sruti (the soul doesn’t depart enveloped by water, and many others.) (we are saying) not so, as a result of it’s understood (from the scriptures) that the Jivas who carry out sacrifices and different good works (alone go to heaven).
Asrutatvat: on account of this not being acknowledged within the Sruti; Iti: this; Chet: if; Na: not; Ishtadikarinam: in reference to those that carry out sacrifices; Pratiteh: on account of being understood.
An objection is raised that within the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.3.3) there may be point out of water solely however no reference to the soul (Jiva). This objection can’t stand. The passage refers back to the individuals performing sacrifices, i.e., the performers of Ishta (sacrifice) and Purta (digging tanks, constructing temples, and many others.) and Dana (charity), going by the trail of smoke (Dhuma marga or Dakshinayana Path to the world of moon) Chh. Up. V.10.3.
To these individuals who’ve carried out Ishtis, and many others., water is provided within the type of supplies used within the Agnihotra, the Darsapurnamasa and different sacrifices, viz., bitter milk, milk, curd, and many others. The supplies like milk, curds, and many others., which might be supplied as oblations in sacrifices assume a refined type referred to as Apurva and connect themselves to the sacrificer. The Jivas thus go enveloped by water which is provided by the supplies which might be supplied as oblations in sacrifices. The water forming the oblations assumes the refined type of Apurva, envelops the souls and leads them to the heaven to obtain their reward.
One other objection is raised now by the Purvapakshin. He says that’s the meals of the gods. The gods do eat it (Chh. Up. V.10.4.) Having reached the moon they grow to be meals after which the Devas feed on them there (Bri. Up. VI.2.16). If they’re eaten by gods as by tigers, how may they benefit from the fruit of their actions? The next Sutra provides an acceptable reply. The performers of sacrifices receive the identify of `Somaraja’ after they attain Chandraloka. This technical identify `Somaraja’ is utilized right here to the soul.
Bhaktam vanatmavittvat tatha hello darsayati III.1.7 (298)
However (the souls’ being the meals of the gods in heaven is used) in a secondary or metaphorical sense, on account of their not realizing the Self as a result of the Sruti declares like that.
Bhaktam: Metaphorical; Va: however, or; Anatmavittvat: on account of their not realizing the Self; Tatha: so; Hello: as a result of; Darsayati: (Sruti) declares, exhibits.
The soul turns into the meals of gods needs to be understood in a metaphorical or secondary sense and never actually. In any other case the assertion of scriptures similar to He who’s desirous of heaven should carry out sacrifice is meaningless. If the Devas had been to eat the souls why ought to males then exert themselves to go there and why ought to they carry out sacrifices like Jyotistoma and the remaining? Meals is the reason for enjoyment. `Consuming’ is the rejoicing of the gods with the performers of sacrifices. The sacrifices are objects of enjoyment to the gods simply as wives, kids and cattle are to males. It isn’t precise consuming just like the chewing and swallowing of sweetmeats. The gods don’t eat within the peculiar method. The scripture says The gods don’t eat or drink. They’re glad by seeing the nectar.
Those that carry out sacrifices rejoice like servants of a king, though they’re subordinate to the gods. They provide enjoyment to the gods and rejoice with them. Those that have no idea the Self are objects of enjoyment for the gods. That is identified from texts like Now, if a person worships one other deity, considering the deity is one and he’s one other, he doesn’t know. He is sort of a beast for the Devas (Bri. Up. I.4.10). Meaning he on this life propitiates the gods by the use of oblations and different works, serves them like a beast and does so within the different world additionally, relying on them like a beast and enjoys the fruits of his works as assigned by them. They (the performers of such sacrifices) grow to be serviceable companions to the gods. They benefit from the companionship of the gods. So they’re stated to be the meals of the gods within the figurative or metaphorical sense. They contribute to the enjoyment of the gods by their presence and repair in that world. Due to this fact it’s fairly clear that the soul goes enveloped with the refined essence of parts when it goes to different spheres for having fun with the fruits of his good deeds. He enjoys within the Chandraloka and returns to the earth on the finish of his retailer of advantage.
KRITATYAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 8-11)
THE SOULS DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN HAVE A REMNANT OF KARMA
which determines their beginning
Kritatyaye’nusayavan drishtasmritibhyam
yathetamanevam cha III.1.8 (299)
On the exhaustion of excellent work the soul returns to the earth with a the rest of the Karmas, as may be understood from direct assertion in Sruti and Smriti, by the identical route by which he ascended after loss of life and otherwise too.
Krita: of what’s achieved, of