INTRODUCTION
Within the previous Pada or Part the passage of the soul to totally different spheres and its return has been defined to be able to create dispassion or disgust in individuals who carry out sacrifices to acquire heaven. If they’ve a transparent understanding of the destiny of the soul they’ll naturally develop Vairagya and can try to achieve Moksha or the ultimate emancipation.
This part begins with the reason of the soul’s totally different states, viz., waking, dream, deep sleep. The three states of the soul will likely be proven to be merely illusory and the identification of the person soul and the Supreme Soul will likely be established.
A information of the three states, viz., waking, dreaming and deep sleep, could be very needed for the scholars of Vedanta. It should assist them to know the character of the fourth state, viz., Turiya or the state of superconsciousness. For a scholar of Vedanta, the waking state is as a lot unreal because the dream state. The state of deep sleep intimates that the character of the Sup�reme Soul is Bliss and that Brahman is one and not using a second, and that the world is unreal. Vedantins make a research of the 4 states very rigorously. They don’t ignore dream and deep sleep states whereas the scientists draw their conclusions from the experiences of the waking state solely. Therefore, their information is proscribed, partial and incorrect.
Within the final part the waking state of the soul has been absolutely handled. Now its dream state is taken up for dialogue.
So as to make the scholars perceive the true significance of the Maha-Vakya or the good sentence of the Upanishad Tat Tvam AsiThou artwork That, this part explains the true nature of That and Thou.
SYNOPSIS
This Part begins with the reason of the states of dream, deep sleep and so forth. Then it discusses the twofold nature of Brahman, one immanent and the opposite transcendent. Lastly it offers with the relation of Brahman to the person soul in addition to to the world.
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-6) treats of the soul within the dreaming state. The imaginative and prescient in desires is of an exquisite character. In response to Sri Sankara the three first Sutras talk about the query whether or not the inventive exercise, attributed to the Jiva or the person soul in some Sruti texts produces objects as actual as these by which the soul within the waking state is surrounded or not.
Sutra 3 says that the creations of the dreaming soul are mere Maya or phantasm as they don’t absolutely exhibit the character or character of actual objects, as they’re wanting within the actuality of the waking state.
Sutra 4 intimates that desires, though mere Maya, but have a prophetic high quality. Some desires are indicative of future good or dangerous.
Sutras 5 and 6 say that the soul, though it’s equivalent with the Lord, just isn’t capable of produce in desires an actual creation, as a result of its information and energy are obscured by its reference to the gross physique. The rulership is hidden by ignorance within the Jiva state. It isn’t potential for the person soul to dream an excellent or a nasty dream based on his personal selection as he in his current state of bondage is unaware of the long run.
Adhikarana II: (Sutras 7-8) teaches that the soul abides inside Brahman within the coronary heart within the state of deep sleep.
Adhikarana III: (Sutra 9) offers causes to imagine that the soul awakening from sleep is similar that went to sleep. What has been partly executed by an individual earlier than going to sleep is completed after he wakes up. He has additionally a way of self-identity. He has reminiscence of previous occasions. He has reminiscence within the form of `I’m the one that had gone to sleep and who’ve now woke up.’
Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 10) explains the character of a swoon. It intimates that swoon is half dying and half deep sleep, a combination of those two states.
Adhikarana V: (Sutras 11-21) intimate the character of Sup reme Brahman during which the person soul is merged within the state of deep sleep.
Sutra 11 declares that Brahman is devoid of distinctive attributes (Nirvisesha). Brahman with attributes is just for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees. It isn’t its actual nature.
Sutra 12 declares that each type as a consequence of limiting adjunct is denied of Brahman. In each passage of Sruti identification is affirmed. The Supreme Reality is Oneness. Separateness is for devotion. There is just one Infinite formless essence or Precept in actuality.
Sutra 13 says that the entire universe characterised by enjoyers, issues to be loved and a ruler has Brahman for its true nature.
Sutra 14 says that the idea of range or plurality is objectionable. Brahman is destitute of all kinds.
Sutra 15 says Brahman seems to have kinds, because it had been. This is because of its reference to its unreal limiting adjuncts, simply as the sunshine of the solar seems straight or crooked, because it had been, based on the character of the factor it illumines.
Sutra 16 says that the Sruti (Brihadaranyaka) expressly declares that Brahman is one uniform mass of consciousness or intelligence and has neither inside nor exterior.
Sutra 17 says the opposite scriptural passages and the Smriti additionally educate that Brahman is with out attributes.
Sutra 18 declares that simply because the one luminous solar when coming into into relation to many various waters is himself rendered multiform by his limiting adjuncts, so additionally the one Unborn Brahman.
Sutra 19: Right here the Purvapakshin objects. There isn’t any similarity of the 2 issues in contrast as within the case of Brahman any second factor just isn’t apprehended or skilled like water. Brahman is formless and all-pervading. It isn’t a cloth factor. Solar has a type. It’s a materials factor. Water is totally different from the solar and is at a distance from the solar. Therefore the solar could also be mirrored within the water.
Sutra 20: The objection raised in Sutra 19 is refuted. The similarity is barely in level of the participation within the distor tion and contortion, in enhance and reduce of the picture mirrored. Brahman participates because it had been within the attributes and states of the physique and different limiting adjuncts with which it abides. Two issues are in contrast just about some explicit factors or options solely.
Sutra 21 says the scriptures declare that the Atman is throughout the Upadhis or limiting adjuncts.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 22-30) teaches that the clause neti, netinot this, not this in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.3.6 denies the gross and refined types of Brahman given in Bri. Up. II.3.1 and never Brahman itself.
Sutras 23-26 additional dwell on Brahman being in actuality devoid of all distinctive attributes that are fully because of the limiting adjuncts or Upadhis.
Sutras 27-28: categorical the views of the Bhedabhedavadins. They are saying there’s distinction in addition to non-difference between the person soul and Brahman. The separateness and oneness is sort of a serpent in quiescence and movement.
Sutra 29: This Sutra refutes the view of the Bhedabhedavadins and establishes the ultimate reality which has been declared in Sutra 25 viz., that the distinction is merely illusory as a consequence of fictitious limiting adjuncts and identification or non-difference is the fact.
Sutra 30: Sutra 29 is confirmed. The Sruti in reality expressly denies separateness.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 31-37) explains that Brahman is one and not using a second and expressions which apparently suggest one thing else as current are solely metaphorical.
Brahman is in comparison with a bridge or a financial institution or causeway to not point out that He connects the world with one thing else past Him however to indicate that He’s the protector of the worlds and can also be like a causeway, the help of the indivi duals whereas crossing over this ocean of life.
He’s conceived to be symbolised and situated in a restricted house for facility of meditation on the a part of those that aren’t very clever.
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 38-41) intimates that the fruit of actions just isn’t as Jaimini thinks, the unbiased results of actions performing by way of Apurva, however is distributed by the Lord. The Lord who’s all-pervading is the bestower of fruits of actions, based on deserves and demerits.
SANDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-6)
The soul within the dream state
Sandhye srishtiraha hello III.2.1 (319)
Within the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep) there’s (an actual) creation; as a result of (the Sruti) says so.
Sandhye: within the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep, i.e., within the dream state); Srishtih: (there’s actual) creation; Aha: (Sruti) says so; Hello: as a result of.
The state of dream is now thought of.
Sutras 1 and a pair of are Purvapaksha Sutras and set out the view that what we see in desires are true creations due to the phrase `Srijate’ (creates).
The phrase `Sandhya’ means dream. It’s known as `Sandhya’ or the intermediate state as a result of it’s halfway between waking (Jagrat) and the deep sleep state (Sushupti). That place is named the intermediate state or place as a result of it lies there the place the 2 worlds or else the place of waking and the place of deep sleep be a part of.
Scripture declares, when he falls asleep, there are not any chariots, in that state, no horses, no roads, however he himself creates chariots, horses and roads, and many others. (Bri. Up. IV.3.9-10). Right here a doubt arises whether or not the creation which takes place in desires is an actual one (Paramarthika) just like the creation seen within the waking state or whether or not it’s illusory (Maya).
The Purvapakshin holds that within the dreaming state there’s a actual creation.
In that intermediate state or dream the creation should be actual, as a result of scripture which is authoritative declares it to be so, He (the person soul) creates chariots, horses, roads, and many others. We, furthermore, infer this from the concluding clause, He certainly is the creator (Bri. Up. IV.3.10).
Additional there isn’t any distinction between the expertise of the waking state and that of the dream state. Atman in dream will get pleasure by getting into a automobile, listening to music, seeing pleasure-sights and consuming luxurious meals at the same time as within the waking state.
Therefore the creation of the dream state is actual and originates from the Lord Himself, simply as ether, and many others., sprang from Him.
Nirmataram chaike putradayascha III.2.2 (320)
And a few (the followers of 1 Sakha, specifically, the Kathakas) (state that the Supreme Lord is the) Creator; sons, and many others., (being the beautiful issues which He creates).
Nirmataram: Creator, the shaper, the builder, the maker; Cha: and, extra over; Eke: some (followers of the actual Sakhas of the Vedas); Putradayah: sons, and many others.; Cha: and, additionally.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent offers an additional argument to indicate that the creation even in desires is by the Lord Him self. He who’s awake in us whereas we’re asleep, shaping one pretty factor after one other, that’s Brahman (Katha Up. II.2. 8).
`Kama’ (pretty issues) on this passage means sons, and many others., which can be so known as as a result of they’re beloved. The time period `Kama’ doesn’t denote mere needs. It’s used on this sense within the earlier passage additionally, reminiscent of Ask for all Kamas based on thy want (Katha Up. I.1.25). That the phrase Kama there means sons, and many others., we infer from Katha Up. I.1.23, the place we discover these Kamas described as sons and grandsons, and many others.
Even in desires the Lord Himself creates simply as within the case of the waking state. Due to this fact the world of desires can also be actual.
The scripture declares This is similar because the place of waking, for what he sees whereas awake the identical he sees whereas asleep (Bri. Up. IV.3.14). Therefore the world of desires is actual.
To this we reply as follows.
Mayamatram tu kartsnyenanabhivyaktasvarupatvat III.2.3 (321)
Nevertheless it (viz., the dream world) is mere phantasm on account of its nature not manifesting itself with the totality (of the attributes of actuality).
Mayamatram: mere phantasm; Tu: however; Kartsnyena: fully, absolutely; Anabhivyaktasvarupatvat: on account of its nature being unmanifested.
The thesis adduced in Sutras 1 and a pair of is now criticised.
The phrase `tu’ (however), discards the view expressed by the 2 earlier Sutras. The world of desires just isn’t actual. It’s mere phantasm. There may be not a particle of actuality in it. The character of the dreamworld doesn’t agree fully with that of the waking world with respect to time, place, trigger and the circumstance of non-refutation. Therefore the dream world just isn’t actual just like the waking world.
Within the first place there’s in a dream no house for chariots and the like, as a result of these objects can not probably discover room within the restricted confines of the physique. For those who say that the soul goes out and enjoys objects, how can it go tons of of miles and return inside a couple of minutes?
In a dream the soul doesn’t go away the physique; as a result of if it did, then one who desires of getting gone to London would discover himself there on waking, whereas he went to sleep in Bombay. However as a matter of truth, he awakes in Bombay solely.
Additional whereas a person imagines himself in his dream getting into his physique to a different place, the by-standers see the exact same physique mendacity on the cot.
Furthermore a dreaming individual doesn’t see in his dream different locations reminiscent of they are surely. But when he in seeing them did truly go about, they would seem to him just like the issues he sees in his waking state.
Sruti declares that the dream is throughout the physique, However when he strikes about in dream, he strikes about based on his pleasure inside his personal physique (Bri. Up. II.1.18).
Within the second place we discover that desires are in battle with the situations of time. One man who’s sleeping at evening desires that it’s day. One other man lives throughout a dream which lasts for ten minutes solely, by way of fifty years. One man sees at evening an eclipse of the solar in his dream.
Within the third place, the senses which alone can convey the feeling of sight and many others., aren’t functioning in dream. The organs are drawn inward and the dreaming individual has no eyes to see chariots and different issues. How can he get within the short while supplies for making chariots and the like?
Within the fourth place the chariots and many others., disappear on waking. The chariots and many others., disappear even in the midst of the dream. The dream itself refutes what it creates, as its finish contradicts its starting. The chariot is all of the sudden transferred into a person, and a person right into a tree.
Scripture itself clearly says that the chariots, and many others., of a dream haven’t any actual existence. There are not any chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, and many others.
Therefore the visions in a dream are mere phantasm.
The argument that the dream world is actual, as a result of it’s also a creation of the Supreme Lord like this waking world just isn’t true, as a result of the dream world just isn’t the creation of the Lord, however of the person soul. The Sruti declares When he desires he himself places the bodily physique apart and himself creates a dream physique as a substitute (Bri. Up. IV.3.9.) This passage of the Sruti clearly proves that it’s the particular person soul who creates the dream world and never the Lord.
Suchakascha hello sruterachakshate cha tadvidah III.2.4 (322)
However (although the dream world is an phantasm), but it’s indi cative (of the long run), for (so we discover) within the Sruti, the dream consultants additionally declare this.
Suchaka: Indicative, suggestive; Cha: furthermore, and; Hello: as a result of, as for; Sruteh: from the Sruti; Achakshate: say, affirm; Cha: additionally; Tadvidah: dreamexperts, those that know the secrets and techniques of dream.
An argument in help of Sutra 3 is given.
The phrase `Tadvid’ or knowledgeable means those that know how you can interpret desires reminiscent of Vyasa, Brihaspati, and the remainder.
Nicely then, as desires are mere phantasm, they don’t comprise a particle of actuality? Not so we reply: as a result of desires are prophetic of future good and dangerous fortune. For scripture says When a person engaged in some sacrifice undertaken for a particular want sees in his desires a lady, he might infer success from that dream-vision (Chh. Up. V.2.8). Different scriptural passages declare that sure desires point out speedy dying, e.g., If he sees a black man with black enamel, that man will kill him.
Those that perceive the science of desires preserve that to dream of driving on an elephant and the like is fortunate whereas it’s unfortunate to dream of driving on a donkey. No matter a Brahmin or a god, a bull or a king might inform an individual in dream, will probably show true.
Generally one will get Mantras in dream. Lord Siva taught Visvamitra in dream the Mantra known as Ramaraksha. Visvamitra precisely wrote it out within the morning, when he awoke from sleep.
In all these circumstances the factor indicated could also be actual. The indicating dream nonetheless, stays unreal as it’s refuted by the waking state. The doctrine that the dream itself is mere phantasm thus stays uncontradicted.
The phrase `creation’ in dream within the first Sutra is utilized in a secondary and figurative sense. The soul’s good and dangerous deeds result in pleasure and ache loved throughout dream, by way of dream-experiences. Within the waking state the sunshine of the soul operates together with the sunshine of the solar to result in experiences. The dream state is referred to, to indicate the self-activity of the soul even after the senses are shut off and there’s no operation of exterior gentle. It’s this truth that’s the major educating. The reference to creation in desires is secondary.
The world of desires just isn’t actual in the identical sense because the world consisting of ether is actual. We should do not forget that the so-called actual creation with its ether, air, and many others., just isn’t completely actual. The world of ether, and many others., vanishes into nothing when the person soul realises its identification with the Supreme Soul.
The dream-creation, nonetheless, is stultified each day. That the dream is mere phantasm has subsequently to be understood very clearly and decisively.
Parabhidhyanattu tirohitam tato hyasya
bandhaviparyayau III.2.5 (323)
However by the meditation on the Supreme Lord, that which is hidden (by ignorance, viz., the equality of the Lord and the soul turns into manifest), as a result of from him (the Lord) are its (the soul’s) bondage and freedom.
Parabhidhyanat: by meditation on the Supreme Lord; Tu: however; Tirohitam: that which is hidden; Tatah: from Him(the Lord); Hello: for; Asya: his, of the person soul. Bandhaviparyayau: bondage and its reverse, i.e., freedom.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent says: The person soul is part (Amsa) of the Supreme Soul, simply as a spark is part of the fireplace. Simply as hearth and spark have in widespread the powers of burning and giving gentle, so additionally the person soul and the Lord have in widespread the powers of data and rulership. Due to this fact the person soul might by way of his lordship create within the dreaming state chariots and the like at will (Sankalpa) just like the Lord.
This Sutra refutes it and says that the soul now could be totally different from the Lord on account of Avidya or ignorance. The rulership is hidden by ignorance within the Jiva state. It turns into manifest solely when within the state of meditation on the Lord. This ignorance is dispelled by the information, I’m Brahman, simply as by way of the motion of a powerful medication the facility of sight of the blind man turns into manifest.
The Sruti declares when that God is understood all fetters fall off; sufferings are destroyed and delivery and dying stop. From meditating on Him there arises on the dissolution of the physique, a 3rd state, that of common Lordship; he who’s alone is happy (Svet. Up. I.11). Until the information dawns the person soul can not create at will something actual.
Lordship doesn’t come to man spontaneously. It doesn’t by itself accord reveal itself to all males, because the bondage and freedom of the person soul come from the Lord. Meaning: from information of Lord’s true nature, i.e., from realisation of God freedom comes; from ignorance of His true nature comes bondage. Until such realisation comes, the place is then any energy of creation?
Dehayogadva so’pi III.2.6 (324)
And that (viz., the concealment of the soul’s rulership) additionally (outcomes) from its reference to the physique.
Dehayogat: from its reference to the physique; Va: and, or; Sah: that (the concealment of the soul’s rulership); Api: additionally.
Sutra 5 is amplified right here.
Such hiding of energy is because of embodiment of the soul. The state of concealment of the soul’s information and Lordship is because of its being joined to a physique, i.e., to a physique, sense-organs, thoughts, mind, sense-objects, sensations, and many others., on account of ignorance. Simply as hearth is hidden in wooden or ashes, the information and energy of the soul are hidden, although the Jiva is de facto the Supreme Lord. Therefore the soul doesn’t itself create. If it may possibly, it is going to by no means create disagreeable desires. Nobody ever needs for one thing disagreeable to himself.
The soul’s information and Lordship stay hidden so long as he erroneously thinks himself because the physique, and many others., so long as he’s below the incorrect notion of not being distinct from these limiting adjuncts.
Sruti declares that the soul is non-different from the Lord. It’s True, it’s the Self, Thou artwork That, O Svetaketu! However its information and energy are obscured by its reference to the physique.
Although the dream-phenomena are like waking phenomena of their having relative actuality. The Sruti itself declares that they don’t actually exist. Because the desires are as a consequence of Vasanas acquired through the waking state, the similarity between the dream state and the waking state is asserted.
From all this it follows that desires are mere phantasm. They’re false.
TADABHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 7-8)
THE SOUL IN DREAMLESS SLEEP
Tadabhavo nadishu tat sruteh atmani cha III.2.7 (325)
The absence of that (i.e., of desires, i.e., dreamless sleep) takes place within the nerves (Nadis or psychic currents) and within the self, as it’s recognized from the Sruti or scriptural assertion.
Tadabhavah: absence of that (dreaming) i.e., deep sleep; Nadishu: within the nerves (psychic currents); Tat sruteh: as it’s recognized from the Srutis; Atmani: within the self; Cha: and, additionally. (Tat: about it.)
The state of dreamless deep sleep is now mentioned.
The state of dream has been mentioned. We are actually going to investigate into the state of deep sleep (Sushupti).
Numerous Sruti texts describe the soul as resting in deep sleep in nerves (Nadis), in Prana, within the coronary heart, in itself, in Brahman or the Absolute.
In several Sruti passages deep sleep is alleged to happen below totally different situations.
When a person is asleep reposing and at excellent relaxation in order that he sees no desires, then he has entered into these Nadis (nerves) (Chh. Up. VIII.6.3). In one other place it’s stated just about the Nadis, Via them he strikes forth and rests within the area of the center (Bri. Up. II.1.19). In one other place it’s stated In these the individual is when sleeping, he sees no dream. Then he turns into one with the Prana alone (Kau. Up. IV.19). In one other place it’s stated That ether which is throughout the coronary heart in that he reposes (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). In Chhandogya Upanishad it’s stated, Then he turns into united with that which is, he’s gone to his self (Chh. Up. VI.8.1). In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it’s stated Embraced by the best Self he is aware of nothing that’s with out, nothing that’s inside (Bri. Up. IV.3.21). When this being filled with consciousness is asleep… lies within the ether, i.e., the true self which is within the coronary heart (Bri. Up. II.1.17).
Right here the doubt arises whether or not the Nadis, and many others., talked about within the above passages are unbiased from one another and represent numerous locations for the soul within the state of deep sleep or in the event that they stand in mutual relation in order to refer to at least one place solely.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds the previous views on account of the assorted locations talked about serving one and the identical goal. Issues which serve the identical goal, e.g., rice and barley don’t rely on one another. As all of the phrases which stand for the locations enumerated are in the identical case, viz., the locative case within the texts, they’re coordinate and subsequently options. If mutual relation was meant then totally different case-endings can be utilized by the Sruti. Therefore we conclude that within the state of deep sleep the soul optionally goes to any a type of locations, both the Nadis, or that which is, the Prana, the center, and many others.
The Sutra refutes the view of the Purvapakshin and says that they’re to be taken as standing in mutual relation indicating the identical place. The view that the soul goes to at least one or one other of those just isn’t appropriate. The reality is that the soul goes by way of the nerves to the area of the center and there rests in Brahman.
There isn’t any different right here. The assertion made above that we’re compelled to permit choice as a result of the Nadis, and many others., serve one and the identical goal is with out basis. The authority of the Srutis is weakened if we enable choice between two statements of the Sruti. For those who recognise one different, the authority of the opposite different is denied.
Additional the identical case is used the place issues serve totally different functions and should be mixed. We are saying, e.g., he sleeps within the palace, he sleeps on a cot. We’ve got to mix the 2 locatives into one as He sleeps on a cot within the palace. Even so the totally different statements should be mixed into one. The soul goes by way of the Nadis to the area of the center after which rests in Brahman. Simply as a person goes alongside the Ganga to the ocean so additionally the soul goes by way of the Nadis to Brahman. So he attains Svarupa.
Scripture mentions solely three locations of deep sleep, viz., the Nadis, the pericardium and Brahman. Amongst these three once more Brahman alone is the lasting place of deep sleep. The Nadis and the pericardium, are mere roads resulting in it. The `Puritat’ or pericardium is the protecting which surrounds the lotus of the center.
In deep sleep the person soul rests in Brahman, however there’s a skinny veil of ignorance between him and the Supreme Soul. Therefore he has no direct information of his identification with the Supreme Soul, as in Nirvikalpa Samadhi or superconscious state. The Sruti declares He turns into united with the True, he’s gone to his personal (Self) (Chh. Up. VI.8).
Within the Kaushitaki Upanishad (IV.19) the three locations are talked about collectively: In these the individual is when sleeping he sees no desires. Then he turns into one with the Prana (Brahman) alone.
Due to this fact Brahman is the resting place of the soul in deep sleep.
Atah prabodho’smat III.2.8 (326)
Therefore the waking from that (viz., Brahman).
Atah: therefore; Prabodhah: waking; Asmat: from this (i.e., Brahman).
The mode of waking from deep sleep is now described.
Due to this fact waking is coming from that state of union with Brahman or Atman.
Brahman is the place of repose of deep sleep. That’s the reason why the Sruti texts which deal with of deep sleep invariably educate that within the waking state the person soul returns to waking consciousness from Brahman. The Sruti declares In the identical method, my baby, all these creatures after they have come again from the True have no idea that they’ve come again from the True (Chh. Up. VI.10.2). This Sruti passage clearly intimates that the Jiva or the person soul returns from the True or Brahman to the waking state and that the Jiva rests or merges himself in Brahman and never within the Nadis, Hita, and many others., throughout deep sleep. However he doesn’t realise his identification with Brahman in deep sleep as he’s enveloped by the evil of ignorance.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad additionally declares When the time comes for the reply to the query `whence did he come again’? (II.1.16); the textual content says, As small sparks come forth from hearth, thus all Pranas come forth from that Self (II.1.20).
If there have been non-obligatory locations, to which the soul might resort, in deep sleep, the Sruti would educate us that it awakes some occasions from the Nadis, generally from the pericardium (Puritat), generally from the Self (Brahman).
Because of this additionally Brahman is the place of deep sleep. The Nadis are solely the gateway to Brahman.
KARMANUSMRITISABDAVIDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3
THE SAME SOUL RETURNS FROM DEEP SLEEP
Sa eva tu karmanusmritisabdavidhibhyah III.2.9 (327)
However the identical (soul returns from Brahman after deep sleep) on account of labor, remembrance, scriptural textual content and principle.
Sah eva: the selfsame soul (which went to sleep); Tu: however; Karmanusmritisabdavidhibhyah: on account of Karma or work, reminiscence, scriptural authority and principle; (Sah: he; Eva: solely, and no different); Karma: exercise, on account of his ending the motion left unfinished; Anusmriti: remembrance, on account of reminiscence of identification; Sabda: from the Sruti; Vidhibhyah: from the commandments.
Right here we’ve got to investigate whether or not the soul when awaking from deep sleep is similar which entered into union with Brahman or one other one.
The phrase `tu’ (however) removes the doubt.
If one other self arose from sleep, the consciousness of private identification (Atmanusmarana) expressed within the phrases I’m the identical as I used to be earlier than wouldn’t be potential.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds that there isn’t any mounted rule on this level. There could be no rule that the identical soul arises from Brahman. When a drop of water is poured into a giant basin of water, it turns into one with the latter. Once we once more take out a drop it will likely be tough to handle that it must be the exact same drop. It’s laborious to choose it out once more. Even so when the person soul has merged in Brahman in deep sleep it’s tough to say that the self-same Jiva arises from Brahman after deep sleep. Therefore another soul arises after deep sleep from Brahman.
This Sutra refutes this and says that the identical soul which within the state of deep sleep entered Brahman once more arises from Brahman, after deep sleep, not every other for the next causes.
The one who wakes from sleep should be the identical as a result of what has been partly executed by an individual earlier than going to sleep is completed after he wakes up. Males end within the morning what that they had left incomplete on the day earlier than. It isn’t potential that one man ought to proceed to finish a piece half executed by one other man. If it weren’t the identical soul, then the latter would discover little interest in finishing the work which has been partly executed by one other. Within the case of sacrifices occupying greater than in the future, there can be a number of sacrifices. Therefore it could be uncertain to whom the fruit of the sacrifice as promised by the Veda belongs. This could convey stultification of the sacred textual content. Due to this fact it’s fairly clear that it’s one and the identical man who finishes on the latter day the work begun on the previous.
He has additionally a way of self-identity. He experiences identification of character earlier than and after sleep, for if sleep results in libera tion by union with Brahman, sleep will change into the technique of liberation. Then scriptural directions can be ineffective to achieve salvation. If the one that goes to sleep is totally different from the one that rises after sleep, then the commandments of the scriptures just about work or information can be meaningless or ineffective.
The individual rising from sleep is similar who went to sleep. If it isn’t so he couldn’t keep in mind what he had seen, and many others., on the day earlier than, as a result of what one man sees one other can not keep in mind. He has reminiscence of previous occasions. One can not keep in mind what one other felt. He has reminiscence or recollection within the form of I’m the one that had gone to sleep and who’ve now woke up.
The Sruti texts declare that the identical individual rises once more. He hastens again once more as he got here to the place from which he began, to be awake (Bri. Up. IV.3.16). All these creatures go day after day into Brahman and but don’t uncover Him (Chh. Up. VIII.3.2). No matter these creatures are right here whether or not a tiger, or a lion, or a wolf, or a boar, or a worm, or a midge or a gnat, or a mosquito, that they change into once more (Chh. Up. VI.10.2). These and comparable texts which seem within the chapters which take care of sleeping and waking have a correct sense provided that the self-same soul rises once more.
Furthermore, if it isn’t the identical soul, Karma and Avidya could have no goal.
Due to this fact from all this it follows that the individual rising from sleep is similar that went to sleep.
The case of the drop of water just isn’t fairly analogous, as a result of a drop of water merges within the basin of water with none adjuncts. Due to this fact it’s misplaced for ever however the person soul merges in Brahman with its adjuncts (viz., physique, thoughts, mind, Prana, sense). So the identical Jiva rises once more from Brahman on account of the drive of Karma and want.
When the person soul enters Brahman in deep sleep, he enters like a pot filled with salt water with coated mouth plunged into the Ganga. When he awakens from sleep it’s the similar pot taken out of the river with the identical water in it. Equally the person soul enveloped by his needs goes to sleep and in the interim places off all sense-activities and goes to the remainder ing place specifically, the Supreme Brahman and once more comes out of it to be able to get additional experiences. He doesn’t change into equivalent with Brahman like the one that has obtained libera tion. Thus we hear that the identical soul which had gone to sleep awakes once more into the identical physique.
Therefore it’s a longtime undeniable fact that the identical soul awakes from deep sleep.
MUGDHE’RDHASAMPATTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4
THE NATURE OF SWOON
Mugdhe’rddhasampattih pariseshat III.2.10 (328)
In a swoon (in him who’s mindless) there’s half union on account of this remaining (as the one different left, as the one potential speculation).
Mugdhe: in a swoon; Ardhasampattih: partial attainment of the state of deep sleep or dying; Pariseshat: on account of the remaining, due to extra, as it’s a state along with all others.
The state of a swoon is now mentioned.
The Purvapakshin says, There are solely three states of a soul whereas residing within the physique, viz., waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The soul’s passing out of the physique is the fourth state or dying. The state of swoon can’t be taken as a fifth state. A fifth state is understood neither from Sruti nor Smriti.
What’s swoon then? Is it a separate state of the soul or is it solely certainly one of these states?
It can’t be waking, as a result of he doesn’t understand exterior objects, by the senses.
Could this case be just like that of the arrow-maker? Simply as the person working within the preparation of an arrow, though awake, is so absorbed in his work that he perceives nothing else, so additionally the person who’s shocked by a blow could also be awake however might not understand anything as his thoughts is focused on the feeling of ache attributable to the blow of a stick.
No, we reply. The case is totally different owing to the absence of consciousness. The arrow maker says, I used to be not aware of something however the arrow for such a size of time. The person who returns to consciousness from a swoon says, I used to be aware of nothing. I used to be shut up in blind darkness for such a size of time. A person who’s waking retains his physique straight or upright however the physique of a swooning individual falls prostrate on the bottom. Due to this fact a person in a swoon just isn’t awake.
He isn’t dreaming, as a result of he’s completely unconscious.
It isn’t deep sleep as a result of there’s happiness in deep sleep whereas there isn’t any happiness within the state of swoon.
He isn’t useless additionally, as a result of he continues to breathe and his physique is heat. When a person has change into mindless and when individuals are doubtful whether or not he’s alive or useless, they contact the area of his coronary heart to be able to discover out whether or not there’s heat in his physique or not. They place their palms to his nostrils to seek out out whether or not there’s respiratory or not. If they don’t understand heat or breath they arrive to the conclusion that he’s useless and take his physique to the crematorium to burn it. If there are heat and respiratory they conclude that he’s not useless. They sprinkle chilly water on his face in order that he might come again to consciousness.
The person who has swooned away just isn’t useless, as a result of he comes again to consciousness after a while.
Allow us to then say {that a} man who has swooned lies in deep sleep as he’s unconscious and on the similar time not useless. No, we reply. That is additionally not potential owing to the totally different traits of the 2 states.
A person who has swooned does generally not breathe for a very long time. His physique shakes or trembles. His face is dreadful. His eyes are staring huge open. However a sleeping man appears calm, peaceable and completely satisfied.
He attracts his breath at common intervals. His eyes are closed. His physique doesn’t tremble. A sleeping man could also be waked by a delicate stroking with the hand. He who’s mendacity in a state of swoon can’t be wakened even by a blow with a stick. Swoon is because of exterior causes reminiscent of blow on the top with a stick, and many others., whereas sleep is because of fatigue or weariness.
Swoon is barely half-union. The person within the state of swoon belongs with one half to the facet of deep sleep, with the opposite half to the facet of the opposite state, i.e., dying. It’s only half sleep. We don’t imply by this that he half enjoys Brahman. We imply that it partly resembles sleep. It’s half dying, a state nearly bordering upon dying. In actual fact it’s the door to dying. If there’s a remnant of Karma he returns to consciousness. Else, he dies.
The person within the state of swoon belongs with one half to the facet of deep sleep, with the opposite half to the facet of the opposite state, i.e., dying.
Those that know Brahman say that swoon is half-union. In a swoon the individual partially attains the state of deep sleep as there isn’t any consciousness in that state and he returns to consciousness and partially the state of dying as he experiences ache and distress that are expressed by way of distortion of face and limbs.
The objection that no fifth state is usually acknowledged is with out a lot weight, as a result of as that state happens sometimes solely it is probably not typically recognized. All the identical it’s recognized from extraordinary expertise in addition to from the science of Ayurveda. It’s a separate state, although it occurs sometimes. As it’s a combination of the 2 states, viz., deep sleep and dying it isn’t thought of as a fifth state.
UBHAYALINGADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5 (SUTRAS 11-21)
THE NATURE OF BRAHMAN
Na sthanato’pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hello III.2.11 (329)
Not on account of (distinction of) place additionally two-fold traits can belong to the Highest; for all over the place (scripture teaches It to be with none distinction).
Na: not; Sthanatah: on account of (distinction of) place; Api: even; Parasya: of the Highest (i.e., Brahman); Ubhayalingam: two-fold traits; Sarvatra: all over the place; Hello: as a result of.
The Sutrakara now proceeds to take care of the character of Brahman.
Within the scriptures we discover two sorts of description about Brahman. Some texts describe it as certified, i.e., with attributes and a few as unqualified (with out attributes). From whom all actions, all needs, all odours and all tastes proceed (Chh. Up. III.14.2). This textual content speaks of attributes. Once more, It’s neither coarse nor superb, neither quick nor lengthy, neither redness nor moisture and many others. (Bri. Up. III.8.8). This textual content speaks of Brahman with out attributes.
Are we to imagine that each are true of Brahman in accordance as it’s or just isn’t linked with limiting adjuncts or Upadhis or have we to imagine solely certainly one of them as true and the opposite false? and in that case, which is true? and why it’s true?
This Sutra says that the Highest Brahman can not by itself possess double traits. Within the case of Brahman you can not say that it has two points, viz., with type and attributes, and with out type and attributes, i.e., with Upadhis (limiting adjuncts) and with out Upadhis, as a result of It’s described all over the place as being Nirguna (with out attributes).
Each can’t be predicated of 1 and the identical Brahman as a result of it’s in opposition to expertise. One and the identical factor can not have two contradictory natures on the similar time. Brahman can not on the similar time have type and be formless.
The redness of a flower mirrored in a crystal doesn’t change the character of the crystal which is colourless. Even so the mere connection of a factor with one other doesn’t change its nature. It’s an altogether faulty notion to impute redness to the crystal. The redness of the crystal is unreal. A factor can not change its actual nature. Adjustments of its actual nature means annihilation. Equally within the case of Brahman, its reference to the limiting adjuncts like earth, and many others., is because of ignorance. An Upadhi can not have an effect on the character of Brahman, such Upadhi being merely as a consequence of Avidya or nescience. The important character of a factor should at all times stay the identical no matter stands out as the situations imposed on it. If nonetheless it seems to be altered it’s absolutely as a consequence of ignorance.
Due to this fact we’ve got to just accept that Brahman is with out attributes, as a result of all Sruti texts whose intention is to signify the character of Brahman reminiscent of It’s with out sound, with out contact, with out type, with out decay (Katha Up. I.3.15) educate that It’s free from all attributes.
Brahman with attributes is just for the sake of Upasana or pious worship of devotees; it isn’t Its actual nature.
Na bhedaditi chenna pratyekamatadvachanat III.2.12 (330)
If it’s stated that it isn’t so on account of distinction (being taught within the scriptures), we reply that it isn’t so, as a result of just about every (such type), the Sruti declares the other of that.
Na: not so; Bhedat: on account of distinction (being taught within the scrip tures); Iti: thus, as, so, this; Chet: if; Na: not so; Pratyekam: with refe rence to every; Atadvachanat: due to the declaration of reverse of that. (Atad: absence of that; Vachanat: on account of the assertion.)
An objection to the previous Sutra is raised and refuted.
This Sutra consists of two components specifically an objection and its reply. The objection portion is Bhedat iti chet and the reply portion is Na pratyekamatadvachanat.
The Purvapakshin says, The varied Vidyas educate totally different types of Brahman. It’s stated to have 4 toes (Chh. Up. III.18.2); to include sixteen components or Kalas (Pras. Up. VI.1); to be characterised by dwarfishness (Katha Up. V.3); to have the three worlds for its physique (Bri. Up. I.3.22); to be named Vaisvanara (Chh. Up. V.11.2), and many others. Therefore we should admit that Brahman can also be certified.
This Sutra refutes it and declares that each such type as a consequence of limiting adjunct is denied of Brahman in texts like This shiny, immortal being who’s on this earth and that shiny immortal corporeal being within the physique are however the self (Bri. Up. II.5.1). Such texts clearly point out that the identical self is current in all limiting adjuncts like earth, and many others. Due to this fact there’s solely oneness. It, subsequently can’t be maintained that the conception of Brahman with numerous kinds is taught by the Vedas.
In each passage identification can also be affirmed. The Supreme Reality is oneness. Separateness is for devotion. The Sruti de clares that the shape just isn’t true and that there’s just one type much less essence or precept in actuality.
Api chaivameke III.2.13 (331)
Furthermore some (educate) thus.
Api: additionally; Cha: furthermore, and; Evam: thus; Eke: some.
An extra argument is given in help of Sutra 11.
Some Sakhas or recensions of the Vedas straight educate that the manifoldness just isn’t true. They go a crucial comment on those that see distinction, He goes from dying to dying who sees distinction, because it had been, in it (Katha Up. I.4.11). By the thoughts alone it’s to be perceived. There isn’t any range in It. He who perceives therein any range goes from dying to dying (Bri. Up. IV.4.19).
Others additionally By realizing the enjoyer, the loved, and the ruler, every little thing has been declared to be three-fold and that is Brahman (Svet. Up. I.12), say that your entire world characterised by enjoyers, issues to be loved and a ruler has Brahman for its true nature.
Arupavadeva hello tatpradhanatvat III.2.14 (332)
Verily Brahman is barely formless on account of that being the principle purport (of all texts about Brahman).
Arupavat: with out type, formless; Eva: solely, certainly, decidedly; Hello: verily, definitely, as a result of; Tatpradhanatvat: on account of that being the principle purport of scripture. (Tat: of that; Pradhanatvat: on account of being the chief factor.)
An extra argument is given in help of Sutra 11.
We should positively assert that Brahman is formless and so forth. Why? On account of this being the principle purport of scriptures. The scriptures declare,It’s neither coarse nor superb, neither quick nor lengthy (Bri. Up. III.8.8). That which is with out sound, with out type, with out decay (Katha Up. I.3.15). He who is named ether is the revealer of all names and kinds. That inside which names and kinds are, that’s Brahman (Chh. Up. VIII.14.1). That heavenly Individual is with out physique, He’s each inside and with out, not produced (Mun. Up. II.1.2). That Brahman is with out trigger, and with out something inside or exterior, this self is Brahman, Omnipresent and Omniscient (Bri. Up. II.5.19).
These texts intention at educating Brahman, describe It as formless. If Brahman be understood to have a type then the scriptural passages which describe it as formless would change into that means much less. The scriptures have a purport all all through. Quite the opposite, the opposite passages which consult with a Brahman certified by type don’t intention at setting forth the character of Brahman however relatively at having fun with the worship of Brahman.
Due to this fact Brahman is formless.
So long as these latter texts don’t contradict these of the previous class they’re to be accepted as they stand; the place, how ever, contradictions happen, the texts whose essential purport is Brahman should be seen as having better drive than these of the opposite form. That is the explanation for our deciding that, though there are two totally different courses of scriptural texts, Brahman should be held to be altogether formless, not on the similar time of an reverse nature. The principle Sruti texts declare Brahman to be formless.
The color and kinds are the merchandise of the weather and Brahman is way above the affect of and totally different from the weather. Therefore He’s known as the colourless or formless. Materials color and type can’t be present in Him when He’s far above the refined materials trigger in addition to above its presiding deity.
Prakasavacchavaiyarthyat III.2.15 (333)
And as gentle (assumes kinds because it had been by its contact with issues possessing type, so does Brahman take type in connec tion with Upadhis or limiting adjuncts), as a result of (texts which ascribe type to Brahman) aren’t meaningless.
Prakasavat: like the sunshine; Cha: and, furthermore; Avaiyarthyat: due to not being meaningless.
An extra argument is given in help of Sutra 11.
The phrase `Cha’ (and) is employed to take away the doubt raised above.
If Brahman is formless then all of the scriptural texts which deal with of Brahman with type can be meaningless, and superfluous. Then all Upasanas of Brahman with type can be ineffective. How can the worship of such a false Brahman result in Brahmaloka?
This Sutra explains that additionally they have a goal. The sunshine of the solar has no type but it surely seems to be nice or small based on the opening by way of which it enters a room and but has the drive of dispelling the darkness within the room. Equally Brahman which is and not using a type seems to have a type as a consequence of limiting adjuncts like earth, physique, and many others. Simply as the sunshine of the solar is available in contact with a finger or another limiting adjunct and in accordance because the latter is straight or bent, itself turns into straight or bent because it had been, so additionally Brahman assumes, because it had been, the type of the earth, and the limiting adjuncts with which it comes into contact. The wor ship of such an illusory Brahman may help one to achieve Brahmaloka which can also be illusory from the view-point of the Absolute.
Due to this fact these texts aren’t meaningless. They’ve definitely a purport. All components of the Veda are equally authoritative and subsequently should all be assumed to have a that means or goal.
This, nonetheless, doesn’t contradict the tenet maintained above, viz., that Brahman although linked with limiting adjuncts doesn’t possess double traits, as a result of what’s merely as a consequence of a limiting adjunct can not represent an attri bute of a substance. Additional the limiting adjuncts are all as a consequence of ignorance.
Aha cha tanmatram III.2.16 (334)
And (the Sruti) declares (that Brahman is) that (i.e., intelligence) solely.
Aha: (the Sruti) declares; Cha: and, furthermore; Tanmatram: that (i.e., clever) solely.
The drive of the phrase `Matra’ in Tanmatra is to indicate exclusiveness.
Scripture declares that Brahman consists of intelligence. As a lump of salt has neither inside nor exterior, however is altoge ther a mass of saltish style, thus certainly has that Self neither inside nor exterior however is altogether a mass of data (Bri. Up. IV.3.13). Pure intelligence constitutes its nature. Simply as a lump of salt has neither inside nor exterior however one and the identical saltish style, not every other style, so additionally Brahman has neither inside nor exterior any attribute type however intelligence.
Darsayati chatho api smaryate III.2.17 (335)
(The scripture) additionally exhibits (this and) it’s likewise said in Smriti.
Darsayati: (the scripture or Sruti) exhibits; Cha: and, additionally; Atho: thus, furthermore; Api: additionally; Smaryate: the Smritis declare or state.
The argument in help of Sutra 11 is sustained.
That Brahman is with none attributes can also be proved by these scriptural texts additionally which expressly deny that It possesses every other traits, e.g., Now, subsequently, the outline of Brahman; not this, not this (neti, neti) (Bri. Up. II.3.6). There isn’t any different and extra applicable description than this not this, not this.
Kenopanishad (I.4) declares It’s totally different from the recognized, Additionally it is above the unknown. Taittiriya Upanishad (II.9) says From whence all speech, with the thoughts, turns away unable to succeed in it.
The Sruti textual content which treats of the dialog between Bahva and Vashkali has an analogous purport. Vashkali questioned Bahva concerning the nature of Brahman. Bahva defined it to Vashkali by silence. Bahva stated to Vashkali Be taught Brahman, O buddy and have become silent. Then on a second and third query he replied I’m educating you certainly, however you don’t perceive. That Brahman is Silence.
If Brahman has type, there isn’t any necessity to disclaim every little thing and say Not this, not this.
The identical educating is conveyed by these Smriti texts which deny of Brahman all different traits, e.g., I’ll proclaim that which is the thing of data, realizing which one attains immortality; the Highest Brahman with out both start ning or finish, which can’t be stated both to be or to not be (Gita XIII.12). It’s unmanifest, unthinkable, and with out modification, thus It’s spoken of (Gita II. 25).
Of an analogous goal is one other Smriti textual content. Lord Hari instructed Narada The trigger, O Narada, of your seeing Me endowed with the qualities of all beings is the Maya thrown out by Me; don’t cognise Me as being such in actuality.
Ata eva chopama suryakadivat III.2.18 (336)
For this very purpose (we’ve got with respect to Brahman) comparisons like the photographs of the solar and the like.
Ata eva: for this very purpose; subsequently; Cha: additionally, and; Upama: compa rison; Suryakadivat: like the photographs of the solar and the like.
The argument in help of Sutra 11 is sustained.
That Brahman is formless is additional established from the similes used with respect to It. As Brahman is of the character of intelligence, devoid of all distinction, transcending speech and thoughts, as He’s formless, homogeneous and as He’s described solely by denying of Him all different traits, the scriptures examine His kinds to the photographs of the solar mirrored within the water and the like, that means thereby that these kinds are unreal being due solely to limiting adjuncts. Because the one luminous solar enters into relation to many various waters is himself rendered multiform by his limiting adjuncts; so additionally the one unborn Brahman seems totally different in numerous our bodies.
Ambuvadagrahanattu na tathatvam III.2.19 (337)
However there isn’t any similarity (of the 2 issues in contrast since) (within the case of Brahman any second factor) just isn’t apprehended or skilled like water.
Ambuvat: like water; Agrahanat: within the absence of notion, due to non-acceptance, as a result of it can’t be accepted, not being skilled; Tu: however; Na: not, no; Tathatvam: that nature, similarity.
An objection to the previous Sutra is raised by the Purvapakshin.
An objection is raised by the Purvapakshin that the similarity spoken of within the previous Sutra just isn’t applicable or appropriate. Within the above illustration the solar is seen to be separate from the water. Solar has a type. It’s a materials factor. Water is totally different from the solar and is at a distance from the solar. Therefore the solar could also be mirrored within the water. However Brahman is formless and all-pervading.
It isn’t a cloth factor. All are equivalent with it. There are not any limiting adjuncts totally different from it and occupying a distinct place, that may catch its reflection. It isn’t seen to be separate from the Upadhis or limiting adjuncts.
Brahman is all-pervading. So no object could be at a distance from Him. The solar is mirrored in water due to its distance from water. However there could be no such distance between Brahman and any object. Therefore reflection on this connection is a meaningless time period.
Due to this fact the cases aren’t parallel. The comparability is flawed.
The subsequent Sutra removes the objection.
Vriddhihrasabhaktvamantarbhavadubhaya-
samanjasyadevam III.2.20 (338)
As (the best Brahman) is inside (its limiting adjuncts) It participates of their enhance and reduce; owing to the appropriateness (thus ensuing) of the 2 (issues in contrast), it’s thus, (i.e., the comparability holds good).
Vriddhihrasabhaktvam: collaborating within the enhance and reduce; Antarbhavat: on account of its being inside; Ubhaya- samanjasyat: on account of the appropriateness within the two circumstances; Evam: thus. (Vriddhi: enhance; Hrasa: lower; Ubhaya: in the direction of each; Samanjasyat: due to the justness, appropriateness.)
The objection raised within the previous Sutra is refuted.
The comparability with the reflection of the solar shouldn’t be taken on all fours. Each time two issues are in contrast they’re so solely just about some explicit level or characteristic they’ve in widespread. Total equality of the 2 can by no means be demonstrated. If it might be proven, there can be an finish of that exact relation which provides rise to the comparability. Actual similitude in all factors would imply absolute identification.
The similarity is barely in level of the participation within the distortion and contortion in enhance and reduce of the picture or reflection. The mirrored picture of the solar dilates when the floor of the water expands; it contracts when the water shrinks; it trembles when the water is agitated; it divides itself when the water is split. It thus participates in all of the attributes and situations of the water; whereas the true solar stays on a regular basis the identical.
Even so Brahman though in actuality uniform and by no means altering, participates because it had been within the attributes and states of the physique and the opposite limiting adjuncts inside which It abides. It grows with them because it had been, decreases with them because it had been and so forth. As the 2 issues in contrast possess sure widespread options, no objection could be made to the comparability. The comparability is definitely not faulty on account of the above similarity within the two circumstances.
Darsanaccha III.2.21 (339)
And on account of the declaration of scripture.
Darsanat: as it’s discovered to be so, as a result of it’s seen, on account of scrip tural declaration; Cha: and, additionally.
An extra purpose is given to refute the objection raised in Sutra 19.
The scripture furthermore declares that the Supreme Brahman enters into the physique and different limiting adjuncts. He made our bodies with two toes, He made our bodies with 4 toes. That Highest Brahman first entered the our bodies as a chook. He’s known as the Purusha on account of His dwelling in all our bodies (Bri. Up. II.5.18). Having entered into them with this luring particular person self (Chh. Up. VI.3.2). For all these causes the comparability set forth in Sutra 18 just isn’t faulty.
Due to this fact it’s established that Brahman is formless, homogeneous, of the character of intelligence, and with none distinction.
Scripture declares that religious meditations on Brahman with type have outcomes of their very own viz., both the avoiding of calamities, or the gaining of energy, or else launch by successive steps (Krama Mukti or progressive emancipation).
PRAKRITAITAVATTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 22-30)
THE NETI-NETI TEXT EXPLAINED
Prakrtaitavattvam hello pratishedhati
tato braviti cha bhuyah III.2.22 (340)
What has been talked about as much as that is denied (by the phrases not this, not this and the Sruti) says one thing greater than that (afterwards).
Prakritaitavattvam: what bas been talked about as much as this; Hello: as a result of, for; Pratishedhati: denies; Tatah: then that, over and above that; Braviti: declares; Cha: and; Bhuyah: one thing extra. (Prakrita: talked about first, beforehand said; Etavattvam: this a lot.)
On this group of Sutras additionally the Sutrakara expounds the Nirvisesha (formless) Brahman.
The Sruti declares There are two types of Brahman, gross and refined, the fabric and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the restricted and the limitless, Sat and Tyat (Bri. Up. II.3.1).
After describing the 2 types of Brahman, the gross consisting of earth, water and hearth, and the refined, consisting of air and ether, the Sruti declares lastly Now, subsequently, the outline of Brahman; not this, not this (Bri. Up. II.3. 6).
There arises a doubt whether or not the double denial in not this, not this negates each the world and Brahman, or solely certainly one of them.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that each are denied and consequently Brahman which is fake, can’t be the substratum for a universe which can also be false. It leads us to Sunyavada. If one solely is denied it’s correct that Brahman is denied, as a result of It isn’t seen and subsequently Its existence is uncertain and never the universe as a result of we expertise it.
This Sutra refutes this view of the Purvapakshin. It’s not possible that the phrase Not so, not so ought to damaging each, as that may suggest the doctrine of a basic void. The phrases Neti, Neti can’t be stated to disclaim Brahman in addition to its having type, as a result of that may be Sunyavada.
The Sruti affirms Brahman. What’s the good of educating Brahman and saying that it’s non-existent? Why smear your self with mud after which wash it? So Brahman is past speech and thoughts and is everlasting, pure and free. It’s a mass of consciousness. Due to this fact the Sruti denies that Brahman has type however not Brahman itself.
What has been described until now, viz., the 2 types of Brahman: gross and refined, is denied by the phrases, not this, not this.
Brahman can’t be denied, as a result of that may contradict the introductory phrase of the Chapter. Shall I inform you Brahman? (Bri. Up. II.1.1), would present disregard of the menace conveyed in Tait. Up. II.6. He who is aware of the Brahman as non-existing turns into himself non-existing, can be against particular assertions reminiscent of He’s He’s to be apprehended (Katha Up. II.6.13); and would definitely contain a stultification of the entire Vedanta.
The phrase that Brahman transcends all speech and thought does definitely not imply to say that Brahman doesn’t exist, as a result of after the Sruti has established the existence of Brahman in such texts as He who is aware of Brahman obtains the Highest, Reality, Data, Infinity is Brahman. It can’t be supposed suddenly to show its non-existence. As a result of the widespread saying is Higher than bathing it isn’t to the touch dust in any respect. The Sruti textual content From whence all speech with the thoughts turns away unable to succeed in it (Tait. Up. II.4), should subsequently be seen as intimating Brahman.
Not so, not so negatives your entire mixture of results superimposed on Brahman, however not Brahman which is the premise for all fictitious superimpositions. It denies of Brahman the restricted type, materials in addition to immaterial which within the previous a part of the chapter is described just about the gods in addition to the physique, and likewise the second type which is produced by the primary, is characterised by psychological impressions, kinds the essence of that which is immaterial, is denoted by the time period Purusha.
The double repetition of the negation might both serve the aim of furnishing particular denial of the fabric in addition to the immaterial type of Brahman; or the primary `not so’ might damaging the mixture of fabric parts, whereas the second denies the mixture of psychological impressions. Or else the repetition could also be an emphatic one, intimating that no matter could be thought just isn’t Brahman.
The Sruti denies that Brahman has type however not Brahman itself. It interdicts by two negations the gross and the refined our bodies. Or it interdicts Bhutas (parts) and Vasanas. Or the repetition is for stating the denial of all comparable assumptions. So the denial denies the world as superimposed on Brahman and doesn’t deny Brahman itself.
After the negation of Neti Neti, the Sruti goes on to explain in optimistic phrases the additional attributes of this BrahmanHis identify being the True of the true (Satyasya Satyam). Furthermore after making such a denial, it affirms the existence of one thing higherAnyat Paramasti; Satyasya SatyamThe Reality of Reality. This intimates that Brahman alone is the one actuality that exists and is the substratum of the world which is illusory.
`Neti Neti’ denies the so-muchness of Brahman, as was described within the previous Sutras. It says that the fabric and immaterial just isn’t the entire of Brahman. It’s one thing greater than that. The phrase `Iti’ refers to what has been talked about instantly earlier than, i.e., the 2 types of Brahman, the subject material of the dialogue. Therefore it can not consult with Brahman itself which isn’t the chief subject of the previous texts.
The objection viz., Brahman just isn’t skilled and subsequently it’s Brahman that’s denied, has no drive. It can not stand, as a result of the thing of the Sruti is to show about one thing which isn’t ordinarily skilled by us. In any other case its educating can be superfluous.
We, subsequently, resolve that the clause not so, not so, negatives not completely every little thing, however solely every little thing however Brahman.
Tadavyaktamaha hello III.2.23 (341)
That (Brahman) just isn’t manifest, for (so the scripture) says.
Tat: that (i.e., Brahman); Avyaktam: just isn’t manifest; Aha: (so the scripture) says; Hello: for, as a result of.
The character of Brahman is mentioned.
It is a Purvapaksha Sutra.
Brahman is past the senses, so the Sruti declares. If Brahman exists, then why is It not apprehended by the senses or the thoughts? As a result of This can be very refined and is the witness of no matter is apprehended i.e., topic within the apprehension. The person souls are enveloped by ignorance. Therefore they don’t seem to be capable of understand Brahman. The Sruti declares Brahman just isn’t apprehended by the attention, nor by the speech, nor by the opposite senses, nor by penance, nor by good works (Mun. Up. III.1). That Self is to be described by no, no! He’s incomprehensible, for He can’t be comprehended (Bri. Up. III.9.26). That which can’t be seen nor apprehended (Mun. Up. I.1.6).
When in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported (Tait. Up. II.7). Related statements are made in Smriti passages, e.g., He’s known as unevolved, to not be fathomed by thought, unchangeable.
Api cha samradhane pratyakshanumanabhyam III.2.24 (342)
And furthermore (Brahman is skilled) in religious medita tion (as we all know) from the Sruti and Smriti.
Api cha: and furthermore; Samradhane: in religious meditation; Pratyakshanumanabhyam: from the Sruti and the Smriti.
The dialogue on the attribute of Brahman is sustained.
The phrase `Api’ units apart the Purvapaksha. It’s utilized in a deprecative sense. The above Purvapaksha just isn’t even worthy of consideration.
Brahman is exceedingly refined. Therefore He can’t be seen by the bodily eyes. He’s past the senses. However Yogis behold Him of their purified minds. If Brahman just isn’t mani fest, then we are able to by no means know Him and subsequently there will likely be no freedom.
This Sutra declares that Brahman just isn’t recognized solely to these whose coronary heart just isn’t purified, however those that are endowed with a pure coronary heart realise Brahman within the state of Samadhi when ignorance is annihilated.
That is vouched for by Srutis in addition to Smritis. The Self-existent created the senses with out-going tendencies. Due to this fact man beholds the exterior universe however not the interior Self. Some sensible man, nonetheless, along with his eyes closed and wishing for immortality beholds the Self inside (Katha Up. IV.1). When a person’s thoughts has change into purified by the serene gentle of data, then he sees Him, meditating on Him as with out components (Mun. Up. III.1.8).
The Smriti additionally says the identical factor He who’s seen as gentle by the Yogins meditating on Him sleeplessly, with suspended breath, with contented minds and subdued senses, and many others., reverence be to Him and the Yogins see Him, the august, everlasting one!
Prakasadivacchavaiseshyam prakasascha
karmanyabhyasat III.2.25 (343)
And as within the case of (bodily) gentle and the like, there isn’t any distinction, so additionally between Brahman and Its manifestation in exercise; on account of the repeated instruction (of the Sruti to that impact).
Prakasadivat: like gentle and the like; Cha: additionally, and; Avaiseshyam: simi larity, non-difference, non-distinction; Prakasah: Brahman; Cha: and; Karmani: in work; Abhyasat: on account of repeated point out (within the Sruti).
The dialogue on the character of Brahman is sustained.
The identification of Jiva and Brahman is defined. Simply as gentle, ether, the solar, and many others., seem differentiated because it had been, by way of their objects reminiscent of fingers, vessels, water, and many others., which type the limiting adjuncts whereas in actuality they protect their important non-difference, so additionally the excellence of diffe hire selves is because of limiting adjuncts solely, whereas the unity of all selves is pure and authentic. Via ignorance the indivi twin soul thinks he’s totally different from Brahman, however in actuality he’s equivalent with Brahman.
As within the case of sunshine, and many others., the self-luminous Brahman seems various in meditation and different acts. That is clear from the Sruti saying Tat Tvam Asi 9 occasions.
The Vedanta texts insist many times on the doctrine of the non-difference of the person soul and the Supreme Soul. The identification of the person soul with the Supreme Soul is understood from repeated instruction of the Sruti in texts like That Thou artTat Tvam Asi, I’m BrahmanAham Brahma Asmi which deny distinction.
Ato’nantena tatha hello lingam III.2.26 (344)
Due to this fact (the person soul turns into one) with the Infinite; for thus the (scripture) signifies.
Atah: therefore, subsequently; Anantena: with the Infinite; Tatha: thus; Hello: as a result of, for; Lingam: the indication (of the scriptures).
The results of realisation of Brahman is said right here.
By the realisation of Brahman the meditator turns into iden tical with the Infinite. Ignorance with all its limiting adjuncts vanishes when one attains Brahma Jnana. There may be indication to that impact in Sruti, He who is aware of the best Brahman turns into Brahman Himself (Mun. Up. III.2.9). Being Brahman he goes to Brahman (Bri. Up. IV.4.6). If the distinction had been actual, then one couldn’t change into Brahman Himself. Distinction is barely illusory or unreal. Jiva is barely a mere shadow or reflection. He’s mere look. Simply because the reflection of the solar within the water will get absorbed within the solar itself when the water dries up, so additionally the mirrored Jiva will get absorbed in Brahman when ignorance is destroyed by the daybreak of Data of Brahman.
Ubhayavyapadesattvahikundalavat III.2.27 (345)
However on account of each (i.e., distinction and non-difference) being taught (by the Sruti), (the relation of the best Brahman to the person soul must be seen) like that of the snake to its coils.
Ubhayavyapadesat: on account of each being taught; Tu: however; Ahikundalavat: like that between a serpent and its coils. (Ubhaya: each; Vyapadesat: on account of the declaration of the scrip ture; Ahi: serpent; Kundalavat: just like the coils.)
The dialogue on the attribute of Brahman is resumed.
Sutras 27 and 28 categorical the views of the Bhedabhedavadins. Sutra 29 offers the true view.
Having established the identification of the person soul and Brahman the Sutrakara or the writer mentions a distinct view of the identical matter. He now proceeds to investigate into the doctrine of distinction and non-difference.
Some scriptural texts consult with the Supreme Soul and the person soul as distinct entities: Two birds of lovely plumage, and many others. (Mun. Up. III.1.1). This textual content speaks of distinction between the Jiva and Brahman.
In another texts the Supreme Soul is represented as the thing of method and because the ruler of the person soul. Then he sees him meditating on him as with out components (Mun. Up. III.1.8). He goes to the Divine One that is bigger than the good (Mun. Up. III.2.8). Who guidelines all beings inside.
In different texts once more the 2 are spoken of as non-different. Thou artwork That (Chh. Up. VI.8.7). I’m Brahman (Bri. Up. I.4.10). That is thy Self who’s inside all (Bri. Up. III.4.1). He’s thy Self, the ruler inside, the immor tal (Bri. Up. III.7.15).
As thus distinction and non-difference are equally vouched for by the Sruti texts, the acceptation of absolute non-diffe rence would render futile all these texts which communicate of distinction. Due to this fact we’ve got to take that their relation is certainly one of distinction and non-difference, as between a serpent and its coils. As a serpent it’s one non-different, but when we have a look at the coils, hood, erect posture, and so forth, there’s distinction.
Even so there’s distinction in addition to non-difference between the person soul and Brahman. The distinction between them previous to emancipation is actual. The Jiva turns into equivalent with Brahman solely when his ignorance is destroyed by the daybreak of data of Brahman.
Their separateness and oneness is sort of a serpent in quiescence and movement.
Prakasasrayavadva tejastvat III.2.28 (346)
Or like (the relation of) gentle and its substratum, on account of each being luminous.
Prakasasrayavat: like gentle and its substratum; Va: or; Tejastvat: on account of each being luminous.
The relation between Brahman and the person soul is also mentioned.
Or else the relation of the 2 could also be seen as follows. One other illustration is given to determine the idea of distinction and non-difference. Simply as the sunshine of the solar and its substratum, i.e., the solar itself, aren’t completely totally different, as a result of they each consist of fireplace and but are spoken of as diffe hire, so additionally the person soul and the Supreme Soul (Brahman).
The sunshine and the solar are each luminous. Therefore they’re non-different. They’re totally different owing to their various ex tensity. Equally is the relation between the person soul and the Supreme Soul certainly one of distinction and non-difference. The previous is proscribed and the latter is all-pervading.
Purvavadva III.2.29 (347)
Or (the relation between the 2, i.e., Jiva and Brahman is) as (given) earlier than.
Purvavat: as earlier than; Va: or.
Or it might be as said in Sutra 25. This final is the true view, as a result of if the person soul is one other state of Brah man or a ray of Brahman, such inherent limitation won’t ever disappear. The Sruti affirms identification and states the characteristic of range which is because of Avidya.
The 2 earlier Sutras categorical the view of Bhedabhedavadins who preserve the doctrine of distinction and non-difference.
This Sutra refutes the view of Bhedabhedavadins and establishes the ultimate reality which has been declared in Sutra 25, viz., that the distinction is merely illusory, and identification or non-difference is the fact.
If the bondage of the soul is because of Avidya or ignorance solely, last liberation is feasible. But when the soul is de facto certain, whether or not the soul be thought to be a sure situation or state of the Supreme Soul or Brahman, as said in Sutra 27, or as part of the Supreme Soul, as expressed in Sutra 28its actual bondage can’t be destroyed. Thus the scriptural doctrine of ultimate liberation turns into purposeless and absurd.
If the distinction is actual it may possibly by no means come to an finish. All of the scriptural directions with regard to the ultimate emancipation will likely be meaningless. Bondage is barely the thought of separateness. If separateness is actual there could be no last launch in any respect. But when the distinction is because of nescience or ignorance, then information of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana can annihilate it. Then the Supreme Actuality or Brahman, the non-difference could also be realised.
It can’t be stated that the Sruti equally teaches distinction and non-difference. The Sruti goals at establishing non-difference solely. It merely refers to distinction as one thing recognized from different sources of data, viz., notion, and many others.
Therefore the views expressed in Sutras 27 and 28 aren’t definitely appropriate. The view given in Sutra 25 alone is appropriate.
The conclusion is that the soul just isn’t totally different from the Supreme Soul or Brahman as defined in Sutra 25.
Pratishedhaccha III.2.30 (348)
And on account of the denial.
Pratishedhat: on account of denial; Cha: and, furthermore.
Sutra 29 is confirmed.
The Sruti in reality expressly denies separateness.
The conclusion arrived at above is confirmed by the very fact of scripture expressly denying that there exists any clever being other than Brahman or the Supreme Soul. There isn’t any different Seer however HeNanyato’sti Drashta (Bri. Up. III.7.23).
The identical conclusion follows from these passages which deny the existence of a world other than Brahman, and thus go away Brahman alone remaining, viz., Now then the teachingnot this, not this (Bri. Up. II.3.6). That Brahman is with out trigger and with out impact, with out something inside or exterior (Bri. Up. II.5.19).
It’s now a longtime undeniable fact that there isn’t any different entity however Brahman. Due to this fact there is just one Brahman with none distinction in any respect.
PARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 31-37)
BRAHMAN IS ONE WITHOUT A SECOND
Paramatah setunmanasambandha-
bhedavyapadesebhyah III.2.31 (349)
(There’s something) Superior to this (Brahman) on account of phrases denoting a financial institution, measure, connection and distinction (used with respect to It).
Param: better; Atah: for this, than this (Brahman); Setunmanasambandhabhedavyapadesebhyah: on account of phrases denoting a bridge, measure, connection and distinction. (Setu: a bridge; Unmana: dimensions; Sambandha: relation; Bheda: distinction; Vyapadesebhyah: from the declarations.)
It might be stated that there should be one thing larger than Brahman as a result of Brahman is described as a bridge, or as restrict ed or as attained by man or as totally different from man.
There arises now the doubt on account of the conflicting nature of varied scriptural statements whether or not one thing exists past Brahman or not.
The Purvapakshin holds that some entity should be admitted other than Brahman, as a result of Brahman is spoken of as being a financial institution, as having measurement, as being linked, as being separated. As a financial institution it’s spoken of within the passage The Self is a financial institution, a boundary (Chh. Up. VIII.4.1). The time period financial institution intimates that there exists one thing other than Brahman, simply as there exists one thing totally different from an extraordinary financial institution. The identical conclusion is confirmed by the phrases Having handed the financial institution (Chh. Up. VIII.4.2). In extraordinary life a person after having crossed a financial institution, reaches some place which isn’t a financial institution, allow us to say a forest. So we should perceive {that a} man after having crossed, i.e., handed past Brahman, reaches one thing which isn’t Brahman.
As having measurement Brahman is spoken of within the following go ages This Brahman has 4 toes (quarters), eight hoofs, sixteen components (Chh. Up. III.18.2). Now it’s well-known from extraordinary expertise that wherever an object, e.g., a coin has a particular restricted measurement, there exists one thing totally different from that object. Due to this fact we should assume that there additionally exists some factor totally different from Brahman.
Brahman is asserted to be linked within the following passages. Then he’s united with the True (Chh. Up. VI.8.1). The embodied self is embraced by the Supreme Self (Bri. Up. IV.3.21). We observe that non-measured issues are linked with the issues measured, e.g., males with a city. Scripture declares that the person souls are within the state of deep sleep linked with Brahman. Due to this fact we conclude that past Brahman there’s something unmeasured.
The identical conclusion is confirmed by these texts which state distinction. Now that golden one who is seen throughout the solar. The textual content refers to a Lord residing within the solar after which mentions a Lord residing within the eye distinct from the previous: Now the one that is seen throughout the eye.
The Sruti declares The Atman is to be seen and many others. There’s a seer and there’s the seen. There may be distinction.
All these point out that Brahman just isn’t one and not using a second, and that there exists one thing totally different from Brahman.
Samanyattu III.2.32 (350)
However (Brahman is named a financial institution and many others.) on account of similarity.
Samanyat: on account of similarity; Tu: however.
The objection raised within the previous Sutra is refuted right here.
The phrase `tu’ (however) removes the doubt. It units apart the beforehand established conclusion.
There can exist nothing totally different from Brahman. Brahman is named the financial institution, and many others., as a result of He resembles it in a sure respect. He’s the help of all whereas crossing over this ocean of the world, simply as a financial institution is a superb safety or assist in crossing a canal.
There can exist nothing totally different from Brahman as we’re not capable of observe a proof for such existence. All issues professional ceed from Brahman. The Sruti says that by realizing Brahman every little thing will likely be recognized. How then can there be every other entity? Bridge or financial institution means like a bridge or financial institution.
Brahman is named a financial institution on account of similarity, not as a result of there exists one thing past Him. If the mere truth of Brahman being known as a financial institution implied the existence of one thing past Him as within the case of an extraordinary financial institution, we also needs to be compelled to conclude that Brahman is fabricated from earth and stones. This could go in opposition to the scriptural doctrine that Brahman just isn’t one thing produced.
Brahman is named a financial institution as a result of it resembles a financial institution in sure respects. Simply as a financial institution dams again the water and makes the boundary of adjoining fields, so additionally Brahman sup ports the world and its boundaries.
Within the clause quoted above Having handed that financial institution the verb `to go’ can’t be taken within the sense of `going past’ however should relatively imply `to succeed in absolutely’. Having handed the financial institution means having attained Brahman absolutely and never having crossed it simply as we are saying of a scholar he has handed within the grammar that means thereby that he has absolutely mastered it.
Buddhyarthah padavat III.2.33 (351)
(The assertion as to Brahman having measurement) is for the sake of straightforward comprehension (i.e., Upasana or religious meditation); identical to (4) toes.
Buddhyarthah: for the sake of straightforward comprehension; Padavat: identical to (4) toes.
The statements as to the dimensions of Brahman Brahman has 4 toes, It has sixteen digits, and many others., are meant for the sake of Upasana or religious meditation, as a result of it’s obscure the Infinite, most refined, all-pervading Brahman. So as to facilitate pious meditation on the a part of much less clever individuals 4 toes and many others., are ascribed to Brahman.
The outline of Brahman as having a restricted type (Shodasakala, 16 components) is for the sake of meditation simply as Padas, i.e., speech and many others., are described in respect of thoughts.
Simply as thoughts conceived as the non-public manifestation of Brahman is imagined to have the organ of speech, nostril, eyes and ears as its 4 toes, so additionally Brahman is imagined as having measurement, and many others., for facility of meditation however not in actuality.
Practise meditation, taking the thoughts as Brahman,that is the type of worship with the help of the constituents of the in dividual soulThis Brahman is of 4 toes, specifically, the speech as a foot, the chief important vitality as a foot, the eyes as a foot, and the ears as a foot (Chh. Up. III.18.1-2).
Sthanaviseshat prakasadivat III.2.34 (352)
(The statements regarding connection and distinction with respect to Brahman) are as a consequence of particular locations: as within the case of sunshine and the like.
Sthanaviseshat: on account of particular locations; Prakasavat: like gentle and the like.
Sutra 33 is additional confirmed.
The statements concerning connection and distinction are made with a view to distinction of place. The statements concerning distinction are made just about limiting adjuncts (Buddhi, and many others.) solely and to not any distinction within the nature of Brahman.
When the cognition of distinction which is produced by Brahman’s reference to totally different locations i.e., with the Buddhi and the opposite limiting adjuncts, ceases owing to the cessation of these limiting adjuncts themselves, reference to the Sup reme Self is metaphorically stated to happen; however that’s executed with a view to the limiting adjuncts solely, not with a view to any limitation on the a part of Brahman.
That is just like the case of sunshine and the like. The sunshine of the solar is also differentiated by its reference to limiting adjuncts. The sunshine is alleged to be divided on account of those adjuncts. It’s stated to enter into connection or union when the adjuncts are eliminated.
We see two moons on account of an eye-disease. We see just one when the illness is eliminated.
Gentle is de facto one however we communicate of sunshine inside a room and lightweight exterior it. The excellence is because of limiting adjuncts. The sunshine contained in the room could also be stated to be united with the sunshine typically when the room is destroyed.
Different examples of the impact of limiting adjuncts are furnish ed by the ether coming into into reference to the eyes of needles and the like.
Upapattescha III.2.35 (353)
And it’s cheap.
Upapatteh: because it turns into cheap; Cha: additionally, and.
Additional solely such a connection as described above is feasible. As a result of scriptural passages reminiscent of He’s gone to his self (Chh. Up. VI.8.1) declare that the connection of the soul with the Supreme Soul is certainly one of important nature. The essen tial nature of a factor is imperishable. Therefore the connection can’t be like that of the inhabitants with the city.
The connection can solely be defined just about an remark owing to ignorance of the true nature of the soul.
Equally the distinction referred to by scripture can’t be actual however as a consequence of ignorance, as a result of many texts declare that there exists just one Brahman.
Scripture teaches that the one ether is made manifold because it had been by its reference to totally different locations. The ether which is exterior man is the ether which is inside man, and the ether throughout the coronary heart (Chh. Up. III.12.7).
Therefore connection and distinction are to not be taken as actual, however solely metaphorically.
Tathanyapratishedhat III.2.36 (354)
Equally on account of the categorical denial of all different issues (there’s nothing however Brahman).
Tatha: equally; Anyapratishedhat: on account of the categorical denial of all different issues. (Anya: every other, of the opposite; Pratishedhat: owing to the denial, or prohibition or negation.)
Additional the Sruti denies expressly that there’s every other entity apart from Brahman. (Brahmaivedam Sarvam; Atmaivedam Sarvam). Brahman is described because the innermost of all.
Having thus refuted the arguments of the Purvapakshin, the writer or Sutrakara in conclusion strengthens his view by an additional purpose.
A large number of Vedic passages distinctly deny the existence of anything apart from Brahman. He certainly is beneath; I’m beneath; the Self is beneath and many others. (Chh. Up. VII.25.1.2). Whosoever appears for something elsewhere than within the Self was deserted by every little thing (Bri. Up. II.4.6). Brahman alone is all this (Mun. Up. II.2.11). The Self is all this (Chh. Up. VII.25.2). In it there isn’t any range (Bri. Up. IV.4.19). He to whom there’s nothing superior, from whom there’s nothing totally different (Svet. Up. III.9). That is the Brahman with out trigger and with out impact, with out something inside or exterior (Bri. Up. II.5.19). That there isn’t any different self throughout the Highest Self follows from that scriptural passage which teaches Brahman to be inside each factor (Bri. Up. II.5.19).
Due to this fact Brahman is one and not using a second.
Anena sarvagatatvamayamasabdadibhyah III.2.37 (355)
By this the Omnipresence (of Brahman is established) in accordance with the scriptural statements concerning (Brah man’s) extent.
Anena: by this; Sarvagatatvam: all-pervadingness; Ayama: (concerning Brahman’s) extent; Sabdadibhyah: from scriptural statements.
By the rejecting of the taking of the outline as bridge or financial institution and many others., of their precise sense, it’s clear that Brahman has all-pervadingness. Such Omnipresence is obvious additionally from such phrases as Ayama. For those who take the outline as bridge and many others., of their precise sense however not within the figurative sense, Brahman will change into restricted, and consequently not everlasting. However the Sruti and Smriti describe Brahman as limitless and all-pervasive. The phrase Ayama means pervasive. The all-pervadingness of Brahman follows from the actual fact that it’s one and not using a second.
That Brahman is Omnipresent follows from the texts proclaiming its extent. As massive as this ether is, so massive is that ether throughout the coronary heart (Chh. Up. VIII.1.3). Just like the ether, he’s Omnipresent and everlasting. He’s better than the sky, better than the ether (Sat. Br. X.6.3.2). He’s everlasting, Omnipresent, agency, immovable (Gita. II.24).
PHALADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 38-41)
THE LORD IS THE GIVER OF THE FRUITS OF ACTIONS
Phalamata upapatteh III.2.38 (356)
From Him (the Lord) are the fruits of actions, for that’s cheap.
Phalam: the fruit; Atah: from Him solely; Upapatteh: for that’s cheap.
One other attribute of Brahman is established.
The Mimamsakas maintain that the Karma (work) and never the Lord offers the fruits of 1’s actions.
The Sutra refutes it and declares that the fruits of 1’s work viz., ache, pleasure and a combination of the 2, come solely from the Lord.
The Lord of all who is aware of all of the variations of place and time alone is able to bestowing fruits in accordance with the advantage of the brokers. Karma is insentient and short-lived. It ceases to exist as quickly as it’s executed. It can not subsequently bestow the fruits of actions at a future date based on one’s advantage.
How can fruit which is optimistic end result from such non-existence?
You can’t say that Karma died after producing the fruit which attaches itself to the doer in due time, as a result of it’s known as fruit solely when it’s loved.
You can’t say additionally that Karma generates Apurva which provides fruit. Apurva is Achetana (non-sentient). It can not act until moved by some clever being. It can not, subsequently, bestow rewards and punishments. Additional there isn’t any proof no matter for the existence of such an Apurva.
Due to this fact the fruits of actions come to males from Isvara or the Lord solely, who’s Everlasting, All-powerful, Omniscient, All-compassionate.
Srutatvaccha III.2.39 (357)
And since the Sruti so teaches.
Srutatvat: as a result of the Sruti so teaches, from the declaration of the Sruti to that impact; Cha: additionally, and.
The previous Sutra is strengthened on the help of Sruti.
The Sruti additionally declares that the fruits of actions come from the Lord. This certainly is the good, unborn Self, the giver of meals, and the giver of wealth (the fruit of 1’s work) (Bri. Up. IV.4.24).
Dharmam Jaiminirata eva III.2.40 (358)
Jaimini thinks for a similar causes (viz., scriptural autho rity and reasoning, on the identical floor as said in Sutras 38 and 39) that non secular advantage (is what brings concerning the fruits of actions).
Dharmam: follow of non secular duties, non secular deserves; Jaiminih: the sage Jaimini; Ata eva: for a similar causes.
An objection is raised to Sutras 38 and 39.
The view of the Sutras 38 and 39 is being criticised.
Jaimini says that Dharma offers fruits of actions as Sruti and purpose help such a view.
Scripture, Jaimini argues, proclaims injunctions reminiscent of the next one He who’s desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice. It’s admitted that each scriptural injunction has an object. Due to this fact it’s cheap to assume that the scrip ture itself brings concerning the fruit or the end result, i.e., the attain ment of the heavenly world. If this weren’t so, no person would carry out sacrifices and thereby scriptural injunctions can be rendered purposeless.
However it might be objected that an motion can not produce a end result at a future time as it’s destroyed.
Jaimini says: A deed can not produce end result at some future time, until earlier than passing away, it offers delivery to some unseen end result. We, subsequently, assume that there exists some further extraordinary precept known as Apurva which is produced by the Karma earlier than it’s destroyed. The result’s produced at some future time on account of this Apurva.
This speculation removes all difficulties. However quite the opposite it’s not possible that the Lord ought to impact the fruits of Karmas. As a result of one uniform trigger (Isvara) can not trigger number of results. He could have partiality and cruelty; and Karma will change into purposeless, i.e., if the deed itself can not result in its personal fruit, it could be ineffective to carry out it in any respect.
For all these causes the end result springs from the motion solely, whether or not meritorious or non-meritorious. (That is the view of Jaimini).
Purvam Baadarayano hetuvyapadesat III.2.41 (359)
However Baadarayana thinks the previous (i.e., the Lord to be the reason for the fruits of motion) on account of His being declared to be the trigger (of the actions themselves).
Purvam: the previous, i. e., the Lord because the giver of the fruits of actions; Tu: however; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana, the framer of the Sutras (holds); Hetuvyapadesat: on account of His being declared the trigger (of the actions themselves).
The view of Jaimini expressed in Sutra 40 is refuted by citing a opposite one.
The phrase `Tu’ (however) refutes the view of Sutra 40. It units apart the view of the fruit being produced both by the mere motion or the mere Apurva.
The sage Baadarayana holds the previous, i.e., the Lord is the Dispenser of the fruit of actions. The Sruti clearly states that every one rewards whether or not heaven or union with the Lord come from Him, He takes one to a purer world by advantage of 1’s pietyPunyena punyam lokam nayati. Additionally Katha Upanishad (I.2.23) declares He offers Himself away to whomsoever He choosesYamevaisha vrinute tena labhyah.
Baadarayana says that the Lord bestows the fruits of deeds as a result of Sruti says that the Lord induces the doing of actions and provides the fruits thereof. Because the Lord acts based on the number of Karmas, he can produce and provides a wide range of outcomes and has no partiality and cruelty, and Karma is not going to change into purposeless.
The Lord is the causal agent just about all actions whether or not good or evil. Kaushitaki Upanishad (III.8) declares He makes him whom He needs to steer up from these worlds do an excellent deed and the identical makes him whom He needs to steer down from these worlds do a nasty deed.
The identical is alleged in Bhagavad Gita (VII.21-22), Whichever divine type a devotee needs to worship with religion, to that type I render his religion regular. Holding that religion he strives to propitiate the deity and obtains from it the advantages he needs, as ordained by Me.
Furthermore all Vedanta texts declare that the Lord is the one reason for all creations. The Lord creates all beings in kinds and situations comparable to and retributive of their former Karmas. Therefore the Lord is the reason for all fruits of actions. Because the Lord has regard for the advantage and demerit of the souls, the objections raised above {that a} uniform trigger is incapable of manufacturing numerous results, and many others., are with none basis.
To sum up, the character of the Supreme Brahman has been described. Brahman has been proven to be formless, self-luminous and with out distinction. It has been established by way of Neti-Neti not this, not this doctrine that Brahman is one and not using a second. It has been conclusively proved that the Lord is the Dispenser of the fruits of Karmas of the individuals.
Thus ends the Second Pada (Part II) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.
INTRODUCTION
Within the earlier Part (Pada 2) it has been proven that the Jiva (Tvam Pada of the Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya) is equivalent with Brahman (Tat Pada of Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya). Brahman has been proven to be Ekarasa (of homogeneous or unchanging nature). We’ve got defined the character of the thing of cognition, i.e., Brahman.
The writer of the Brahma Sutras now units himself to establish the tip and intention of the Vidyas (meditations of Upasanas) as prescribed within the Srutis.
The Srutis prescribe numerous sorts of Vidyas or meditations to allow the aspirant to achieve the information of identification. This can be very tough or relatively not possible for the extraordinary man to have a complete understanding of the Infinite, which is transcendent, extraordinarily refined and past the attain of the senses and gross undisciplined mind. Due to this fact the Srutis or the sacred scriptures prescribe straightforward strategies of Saguna meditation for approaching the Infinite or the Absolute. They current numerous symbols of Brahman (Pratikas) reminiscent of Vaisvanara or Virat, Solar, Akasa, Meals, Prana and thoughts for the neophyte or the newbie to ponder on. These symbols are props for the thoughts to lean upon to start with. The gross thoughts is rendered refined, sharp and one-pointed by such Saguna types of meditation.
These totally different strategies of approaching the Impersonal Absolute are referred to as Vidyas or Upasanas.
This Part discusses these numerous Vidyas by way of which the Jiva or the person soul attains Brahman or the Supreme Soul. Related Vidyas are described in a different way in numerous recensions of the Vedas. Now the query arises naturally whether or not these comparable Vidyas are one and the identical or totally different, whether or not comparable Vidyas should be mixed right into a single Upasana or meditation or to be taken individually. It’s determined right here which Vidyas are the identical and should be mixed into one and which Vidyas are totally different regardless of sure comparable options.
The intention and object of all Vidyas is the attainment of Brah man or the Imperishable. Brahman alone is the one residing Actuality. Brahman alone is Reality. Brahman is Sat or Existence Absolute. Therefore it might be advantageous and useful to mix the particulars of the identical Vidya talked about in numerous recensions or Sakhas as they’ve been discovered extremely efficacious and immensely helpful by the followers of these Sakhas.
He who meditates on Brahman as thoughts as is taught within the Taittiriya Upanishad, Bhrigu Valli, should collate all of the attributes of the thoughts not solely from his personal explicit Vedic Sakha, however from different Sakhas additionally the place meditation on Brahman within the type of thoughts is taught. In meditating on Brahman as thoughts, he should not convey collectively attributes not belonging to thoughts reminiscent of these of meals, although Brahman is taught to be meditat ed upon as meals additionally. In actual fact solely these attributes are to be equipped from different Sakhas that are taught concerning the parti cular object of meditation, and never any attribute typically.
On this Part Sri Vyasa the framer of the Brahma Sutras concludes that a lot of the Vidyas prescribed within the Srutis have for his or her object the information of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana. They differ solely in type however not in substance. Their last purpose is the attainment of eternal peace, everlasting bliss and immor tality. One meditation or Upasana or Vidya is nearly as good as one other for attaining the ultimate emancipation.
Sruti teaches us to meditate on Brahman both straight or by way of the medium of some Pratikas or symbols, such because the solar, Akasa, meals, thoughts, Prana, the Purusha residing within the eye, the empty house (Daharakasa) throughout the coronary heart, Om or Pranava and the like.
You’ll have to search Brahman and adore Him in and thru the symbols, however these symbols should not usurp His place. You need to focus and repair the thoughts on these symbols and consider His attributes reminiscent of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Sat-Chit-Ananda, purity, perfection, freedom, and many others.
The Vidyas seem like totally different solely from the view-point of distinction within the symbols however the purpose all over the place is similar. Bear in mind this level at all times. Bear this in thoughts continually.
Some attributes of Brahman are discovered widespread in a few of the Vidyas. You shouldn’t contemplate your self as a definite entity from Brahman. It is a basic or important level.
In all of the Vidyas three issues are widespread. The ultimate purpose is the attainment of everlasting bliss and immortality, by way of the realisation of Brahman with or with out the help of the symbols or Pratikas. The attributes that are present in widespread in all of the Vidyas reminiscent of blissfulness, purity, perfection, information, immortality, Absolute Freedom or Kaivalya, Absolute Independence, everlasting satisfaction and the like should be invariably asso ciated with the conception of Brahman. The meditator should assume himself equivalent with Brahman and should worship Brahman as his Immortal Atman.
SYNOPSIS
Adhikaranas I and II: (Sutras 1-4; 5) are involved with the query whether or not these Vidyas that are met with in equivalent or comparable type in a couple of sacred textual content, are to be thought of as constituting a number of Vidyas or one Vidya solely. The Vidyas with equivalent or comparable type met with within the scriptures or in numerous recensions of the scriptures, are one Vidya. Particulars of equivalent Vidyas talked about in other places or Sakhas are to be mixed with one meditation.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 6-8) discusses the case of Vidyas that are separate on account of various subject-matter, al although in different respects there are similarities. The examples chosen are the Udgitha Vidyas of the Chhandogya Upanishad (I.1.3) and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (I.3.1). Though they point out sure similarities reminiscent of bearing the identical identify and the Udgitha being in each recognized with Pranayet they’re to be held aside, as a result of the topic of the Chhandogya Vidya just isn’t the entire Udgitha however solely the sacred syllable OM whereas Brihadaranyaka Upanishad represents the entire Udgitha as the thing of meditation.
Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 9). Within the passage, Let one meditate on the syllable `OM’ (of) the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1), the Omkara and the Udgitha stand within the relation of 1 specifying the opposite. The that means is Let one meditate on that Omkara which and many others.
Adhikarana V: (Sutra 10) intimates that there must be no mistake within the identification of the Prana Vidya as taught in Chhandogya, Brihadaranyaka and Kaushitaki. It determines the unity of the Prana-Vidyas and the resultant comprehension of the totally different qualities of the Prana, that are talked about within the totally different texts inside one meditation.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 11-13) intimates that the important and unalterable attributes of Brahman reminiscent of Bliss and information are to be taken into consideration all over the place whereas these which admit of enhance and reduce as as an example the attribute of getting pleasure for its head, talked about within the Taittiriya Upanishad are confined to particular meditations.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 14-15) teaches that the thing of Katha Upanishad (III.10, 11) is one solely, viz., to point that the Supreme Self is larger than every little thing, in order that the passage kinds one Vidya solely.
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 16-17) intimates that the Self refer purple to in Aitareya Aranyaka (II.4.1.1) just isn’t a decrease type of the self (Sutratman or Hiranyagarbha), however the Supreme Self.
Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 18) discusses a minor level linked with the Prana-samvada. Rinsing the mouth just isn’t enjoined within the Prana-Vidya, however solely considering the water because the gown of Prana.
Adhikarana X: (Sutra 19) declares that the Vidyas in the identical Sakha that are equivalent or comparable should be mixed, for they’re one.
Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 20-22). In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (V.5), Brahman is represented first as abiding within the sphere of the solar after which as abiding inside the proper eye. The names Ahar and Aham of the Supreme Brahman abiding within the solar and in the proper eye respectively can’t be mixed, as these are two separate Vidyas.
Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 23). Attributes of Brahman point out ed in Ranayaniya-Khila are to not be considered in different Brahma-Vidyas, e.g., the Sandilya Vidya, as the previous is an unbiased Vidya owing to the distinction of Brahman’s abode.
Adhikarana XIII: (Sutra 24) factors out that the Purusha-Vidya of Chhandogya is sort of totally different from the Purusha-Vidya of Tait tiriya although they go by the identical identify.
Adhikarana XIV: (Sutra 25) decides that sure indifferent Mantras like Pierce the entire physique of the enemy and many others., and sacrifices talked about at the start of sure Upanishadsas as an example, a Brahmana concerning the Mahavrata ceremony at the start of the Aitareya-Aranyaka, do, however their place which appears to attach them with the Brahma-Vidya, not belong to the latter, as they present unmistakable indicators of being linked with sacrificial acts.
Adhikarana XV: (Sutra 26) treats of the passage stating that the person dying within the possession of true information shakes off all his good and evil deeds and affirms {that a} assertion made in a few of these passages, solely to the impact that the nice and evil deeds go over to the chums and enemies of the deceased, is legitimate for all of the passages.
Adhikarana XVI: (Sutras 27-28) decides that the shaking of the nice and evil deeds takes place not because the Kaushitaki Upanishad states on the highway to Brahmaloka or the world of Brah man however in the meanwhile of the soul’s departure from the physique.
Adhikarana XVII: (Sutras 29-30) intimates that the knower of the Saguna Brahman alone goes by the trail of the gods after dying and never the knower of the Nirguna Brahman. The soul of him who is aware of the Nirguna Brahman turns into one with it with out shifting to every other place.
Adhikarana XVIII: (Sutra 31) decides that the highway of the gods is adopted not solely by those that know the Vidyas which specifically point out the happening that highway however all who’re acquainted with the Saguna Vidyas of Brahman.
Adhikarana XIX: (Sutra 32) decides that, though the gene ral impact of true information is launch from all types of physique, but even perfected souls could also be reborn for the fulfilment of some divine mission.
Adhikarana XX: (Sutra 33) teaches that the damaging attri butes of Brahman talked about in some Vidyas reminiscent of its being not gross, not refined, and many others., are to be mixed in all medi tations on Brahman.
Adhikarana XXI: (Sutra 34) determines that Kathopanishad (III.1), and Mundaka (III.1), represent one Vidya solely, as a result of each passages consult with the best Brahman.
Adhikarana XXII: (Sutras 35-36) maintains that the 2 passages (Bri. Up. III.4 and III.5), represent one Vidya solely, the thing of data being in each circumstances Brahman seen because the Interior Self of all.
Adhikarana XXIII: (Sutra 37) decides that the passage in Aitareya Aranyaka (II.2.4.6) constitutes not one however two meditations. The Sruti enjoins reciprocal meditation and never merely a method.
Adhikarana XXIV: (Sutra 38) determines that the Vidyas of the True (Satya Brahman) contained in Bri. Up. (V.4.1 and V.5.2) is one solely.
Adhikarana XXV: (Sutra 39) decides that the attributes talked about in Chh. Up. (VIII.1.1) and Bri. Up. (IV.4.32) are to be mixed on account of quite a lot of widespread options in each the texts.
Adhikarana XXVI: (Sutras 40-41) maintains that Pranagnihotra needn’t be noticed on days of quick.
Adhikarana XXVII: (Sutra 42) decides that these meditations that are linked with sure sacrifices aren’t components of them and subsequently not inseparably linked with them.
Adhikarana XXVIII: (Sutra 43) teaches that in a Bri. Up. passage and an analogous Chh. Up. passage, meditations on Vayu and Prana are to be stored separate despite the important oneness of those two.
Adhikarana XXIX: (Sutras 44-52) decides that the fire-altars fabricated from thoughts and many others., that are talked about within the Agnirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka aren’t a part of the sacrificial act, however represent a separate Vidya.
Adhikarana XXX: (Sutras 53-54) determines that the self is a separate entity distinct from the physique.
Adhikarana XXXI: (Sutras 55-56) decides that Upasanas or meditations linked with sacrificial acts, e.g., the Udgitha Upasana, are legitimate for all Sakhas.
Adhikarana XXXII: (Sutra 57) decides that the Vaisvanara Upasana of Chh. Up. (V.11) is one total Upasana. Vaisvanara Agni is to be meditated upon as a complete, not in his single components.
Adhikarana XXXIII: (Sutra 58) decides that numerous Vidyas just like the Sandilya-Vidya, Dahara-Vidya and so forth, are to be stored separate and never mixed into one total Upasana.
Adhikarana XXXIV: (Sutra 59) teaches that these medita tions on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the identical fruit, are non-obligatory, there being no purpose for his or her being cumulated.
Anyone Vidya must be chosen based on one’s selection.
Adhikarana XXXV: (Sutra 60) decides that these meditations then again which consult with particular needs might or is probably not mixed based on selection or liking.
Adhikarana XXXVI: (Sutras 61-66) decides that meditations linked with members of sacrificial acts, such because the Udgitha might or is probably not mixed based on liking.
SARVAVEDANTAPRATYAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRAS 1-4)
The Vidyas having equivalent or the identical type
present in scriptures represent one Vidya
Sarvavedantapratyayam chodanadyaviseshat III.3.1 (360)
(The Vidyas or the Upasanas) described within the numerous Vedanta texts (aren’t totally different, are equivalent) on account of the non-difference of injunction, and many others., (i.e., connection, type and identify).
Sarvavedantapratyayam: exposition of Brahman in all of the Vedanta texts; Chodanadyaviseshat: as there isn’t any distinction within the injunctions, and many others., (i.e., con nection, type and identify). (Sarva: all; Veda: the Vedas; Anta: the settled conclusion; Pratyayam: the information, realisation; Chodanadi: or the injunction and others; Aviseshat: as there isn’t any distinction.)
Can Srutis declare totally different Upasanas in respect of 1 entity? If we are saying that one Sruti is appropriate and others are incorrect, disbelief in Srutis as a complete will comply with. The Srutis which declare the character of Brahman aren’t instructions. They solely state stable details.
The writer of the Sutras now proceeds to debate whether or not the Upasana (devotional) Srutis are divergent and separate or not. Scriptures educate that like Karma, Upasanas have numerous outcomes. A few of them have seen outcomes, others unseen outcomes. Some Upasanas create true information and result in Krama mukti or gradual liberation or launch by successive steps. With a view to these meditations, subsequently, we might increase the query whether or not the person Vedanta-texts educate totally different Upasanas of Brahman or not.
There are numerous expositions of Brahman in Sruti. In some Sruti He’s described as Vaisvanara, in one other He’s described as Prana and so forth. Now a doubt might come up as as to if these expositions are totally different or all of them intention at one and the identical factor.
This Sutra removes the doubt. The expositions in all of the Srutis are the identical. All of them level to at least one and the identical goal of worship of Brahman, although in numerous kinds fitted to the capability of the meditator, as a result of there isn’t any distinction within the injunctions about meditation. All of the injunctions inti mate that Brahman is to be meditated upon. Therefore the thing of these expositions and of meditation is one and the identical.
The Upasanas of Prana are described in a method within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and another way within the Chhandogya Upanishad. Now a doubt arises whether or not such Upasanas described in a different way in numerous Sakhas of the Vedas are totally different or the identical.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that they’re totally different owing to the distinction in type. This Sutra refutes it and declares that such meditations are one and the identical owing to the non-difference as regards injunctions, connection, identify and type of these in numerous Sakhas.
Thus, because the Agnihotra although described in numerous Sakhas is but one, the identical sort of human exercise being enjoined in all by way of the phrases He’s to supply, so the injunction met with within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (VI.1.1.). He who is aware of the oldest and one of the best, and many others., is similar as that which happens within the textual content of Chhandogya He who is aware of the primary and one of the best (Chh. Up. V.1.1). The Prana-Vidya in all of the Sakhas is one and the identical. There may be non-difference as regards the fruit of the Upasana in each texts. He who is aware of it to be such turns into the primary and greatest amongst his individuals (Bri. Up. VI.1.1). Prana is the thing of meditation in each texts. The identify of the meditation in each texts is Prana-Vidya. Prana is described in each texts because the oldest and the best. Due to this fact the 2 Vidyas aren’t totally different, as there isn’t any distinction in all respects. The 2 Vidyas are one and the identical. The identical is true of Dahara-Vidya, Panchagni-Vidya or the information of the 5 fires, Vaisvanara-Vidya or the information of the Vaisvanara, Sandilya-Vidya, and many others., described in numerous Sakhas.
Bhedanneti chennaikasyamapi III.3.2 (361)
If it’s stated that the Vidyas are separate on account of distinction (in minor factors), we deny that, since even in the identical Vidyas (there could also be such minor variations).
Bhedat: on account of distinction; Na: not; Iti: as, so, this; Chet: if; Na: no, not; Ekasyam: within the one and the identical (Vidya); Api: additionally, even.
An objection to the previous Sutra is raised and refuted.
The Sutra consists of two components specifically an objection and its reply. The objection is Bhedanneti chet. The reply is Naikasyamapi.
For those who say that distinction exists, we are saying that it isn’t so, as a result of such variations can exist even in the identical Upasana or Vidya.
Likely the Vajasaneyins consult with a sixth Agni when referring to Panchagni Vidya or the doctrine of 5 fires The hearth turns into his hearth (Bri. Up. VI.2.24), however the Chhandogyas don’t. However he who is aware of these 5 fires (Chh. Up. V.10.10). However this is not going to make them separate. The Chhandogyas can also add it in the event that they like. Thus the Vidya as said within the two Srutis Brihadaranyaka and Chhandogya, is equivalent.
The presence or absence of a sixth hearth can not make a distinction as regards type, as a result of the Shodasi vessel might or is probably not taken in the identical Atiratra sacrifice. The identify 5 fires is not any objection in opposition to this enhance of quantity, as a result of the quantity 5 just isn’t a basic a part of the injunction. Variations like this are discovered in numerous chapters even in the identical Sakha and in the identical Vidya, and but the Vidya described in these totally different chapters is recognised by all as one.
The Chhandogya Upanishad additionally truly mentions a sixth hearth, viz., within the passage V.9.2 When he has departed his associates carry him, as appointed, to the fireplace.
Due to this fact it’s fairly clear that the Vidyas of the identical class are one and never totally different however these variations in numerous Sakhas.
The Purvapakshin says: Then once more within the dialog between the Pranas, the Chhandogyas point out along with an important Prana 4 different Pranas viz., speech, the attention, the ear and the thoughts, whereas the Vajasaneyins point out a fifth one additionally. Seed certainly is era. He who is aware of that turns into wealthy in offspring and cattle (Bri. Up. VI.1.6).
We reply: nothing stands in the way in which of some further qualification being included within the Vidya regarding the colloquy of the Pranas. The addition or omission of some explicit qualification just isn’t capable of create distinction within the object of data and thereby within the information itself, as a result of the objects of data might differ partly, but their better half and on the similar time the realizing individual are understood to be the identical.
Due to this fact the Vidya additionally stays the identical.
Svadhyayasya tathatvena hello samachare’dhikaraccha
savavaccha tanniyamah III.3.3 (362)
(The ceremony of carrying hearth on the top is linked) with the research of the Veda (of the Atharvanikas), as a result of within the Samachara (it’s talked about) as being such. And (this additionally follows) from its being a qualification (for the scholars of the Atharva Veda) as within the case with the (seven) oblations (viz., Saurya and many others.).
Svadhyayasya: of the research of the Vedas; Tathatvena: on account of being such; Hello: as a result of; Samachare: within the e book named Samachara containing the principles for the efficiency of Vedic rites; Adhikarat: on account of the qualification; Cha: and; Savavat: as within the case of the seven oblations (viz., Saurya, and many others.); Cha: and, additionally; Tanniyamah: that rule.
An objection primarily based on an announcement of the Mundaka Upanishad is defined and refuted.
An extra objection is raised. Within the Mundaka Upanishad which offers with the information of Brahman, the carrying of fireplace on the top by the coed (Sirovrata) is talked about. The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the Vidyas of the Atharvanikas are totally different from all different Vidyas on account of this explicit ceremony which is practised by the followers of the Atharva Veda.
This Sutra refutes this and says that the ceremony of carrying hearth on the top is an attribute not of the Vidya, however merely of the research of the Veda on the a part of the Atharvanikas. So it’s described within the e book Samachara which treats of Vedic observances.
On the shut of the Upanishad furthermore we’ve got the next sentence, A person who has not carried out the ceremony (carrying hearth on the top) doesn’t learn this (Mun. Up. III.2.11). This clearly intimates that it’s linked with the research of the Upanishad and never with the Vidya.
The Sutra provides one other illustrative occasion within the phrases as within the case of the libations there’s limitation of that. The ceremony of carrying the fireplace is related solely with the research of that exact Veda and never others, just like the seven oblations from the Saurya libation as much as the Sataudana libation, which aren’t linked with the fires taught within the different Vedas, however solely with these of Atharva Veda. The command is to these learning the Mundaka Upanishad simply because the command to per type the seven Savas is to them. The carrying of a fire-pot on their head is not going to make the Vidya totally different.
Due to this fact there’s unity of Vidya in all circumstances. The doctrine of the unity of the Vidyas thus stays unshaken.
Darsayati cha III.3.4 (363)
(The scripture) additionally instructs (thus).
Darsayati: (Sruti) exhibits, instructs; Cha: additionally.
An argument in help of Sutra 1 is given.
The Veda additionally declares the identification of the Vidyas, as a result of all Vedanta texts signify the thing of data, as one, e.g., Katha Upanishad (I.2.15), That phrase which all of the Vedas declare; Aitareya Aranyaka (III.2.3.12) Him solely the Bahvrichas contemplate within the nice hymn, the Adhvaryus within the sacrificial hearth, the Chhandogyas within the Mahavrata ceremony.
To show the unity of the Vidyas another cases could also be quoted. Kathopanishad (I.6.2) mentions as one of many Lord’s qualities that He causes worry. Now this exact same high quality is referred to within the Tait. Up. II.7: For if he makes however the smallest distinction within the Self, there’s worry for him. However that worry is just for him who is aware of a distinction and doesn’t know oneness.
The Impersonal Absolute is the one purport of all of the Vedanta texts. Therefore all Vidyas which pertain to It should even be one. The meditation on the Saguna Brahman as Vaisvanara, who’s represented as extending from heaven to the earth within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is referred to within the Chhandogya Upanishad, However he who adores that Vaisvanara Self as prolong ing from heaven to the earth (Chh. Up. V.18.1). This clearly signifies that every one Vaisvanara Vidyas are one.
Nirguna Brahman is one and never many. Saguna Brahman is also one and never many. Therefore explicit Vidyas which pertain to both Saguna Brahman or Nirguna Brahman are additionally one and never many. This additionally follows from the identical hymns and the like enjoined within the one place being employed somewhere else for the aim of religious meditation or Upasana.
The identical rule applies to different Vidyas additionally apart from the Vaisvanara Vidya. Due to this fact, Vidyas aren’t many, although they’re in a different way described in numerous Sakhas. All Vedantic texts intimate equivalent religious meditations. Thus the unity of Vidyas is established.
UPASAMHARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2
Particulars of equivalent Vidyas talked about in numerous Sakhas or locations are to be mixed into one meditation
Upasamharo’rthabhedadvidhiseshavatsamane cha III.3.5 (364)
And within the Upasanas of the identical class (talked about in differ ent Sakhas) a mix (of all of the particulars talked about in all Sakhas is to be made) as there isn’t any distinction within the object of meditation, simply as (a mix of) all subsidiary rites of a essential sacrifice (talked about in numerous Sakhas is made).
Upasamharah: mixture; Arthabhedat: as there isn’t any distinction within the object of meditation; Vidhiseshavat: just like the subsidiary rites of a essential sacrifice; Samane: within the Upasanas of the identical class, within the case of equality, the types of meditation being the identical in impact; Cha: additionally, and. (Artha: goal; Abheda: non-difference; Vidhi: injunctions, of the duties enjoined by the scriptures.)
A deduction is constituted of the 4 previous Sutras. This Sutra states the sensible end result of the dialogue carried on within the first 4 Sutras.
The Vidyas described in numerous Sakhas should be mixed within the Upasana, as a result of their object is one and the fruit additionally is similar, simply as within the case of Vidhiseshas.
The particulars which can be talked about in different Sakhas than one’s personal are additionally efficacious. Due to this fact one should mix all these, simply as one does within the case of subsidiary rites like Agnihotra linked with a essential sacrifice, talked about in a number of Sakhas.
ANYATHATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 6-8)
These Vidyas with totally different subject-matter are separate,
even when there could also be some similarities
Anyathatvam sabdaditi chennaviseshat III.3.6 (365)
If it’s stated (that the Udgitha Vidya of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and that of the Chhandogya Upanishad) are totally different on account of (distinction in) texts; we deny this on the bottom of their non-difference (as regards necessities).
Anyathatvam: there’s distinction; Sabdat: on account of (distinction in) texts; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not; Aviseshat: on account of non-difference (as regards necessities).
This Sutra represents the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent. The opponent tries to determine that the 2 Vidyas are one.
The Sutra consists of two components specifically, a supposed objection to the objector’s view and its refutation by the objector to strengthen his case. The supposed objection is Anyathatvam sabdaditi chet and the reply is Naviseshat.
It’s stated within the Vajasaneyaka (I.3.1), The Devas stated, `Nicely, allow us to defeat the Asuras on the sacrifices by way of the Udgitha!’ They stated to speech: `sing for us.’ The speech stated `sure’.
The speech and the opposite Pranas had been pierced by the Asuras with evil. They weren’t capable of do what was anticipated from them. Thereupon the Devas appointed the Chief Prana, and stated to the breath within the mouth `sing for us’. The breath stated `sure’ and sang.
There’s a comparable story in Chhandogya Upanishad I.2. The Devas took the Udgitha. They thought they’d overcome the Asuras with it. The opposite Pranas had been pierced with evil and thus vanquished by the Asuras. Thereupon the Devas went to the Chief Prana. Then comes the Chief Prana. On that they meditated as Udgitha.
Each these passages glorify the chief Prana. Therefore it foll ows that they each are injunctions of a meditation on the Prana. A doubt arises now whether or not the 2 Vidyas are separate Vidyas or one Vidya solely.
The Purvapakshin holds that the 2 Vidyas should be thought of as one. It might be objected that they can’t be one on account of the distinction in texts. The Vajasaneyins signify the chief important air because the producer of the Udgitha, Do thou sing out for us; whereas the Chhandogyas communicate of it as itself being the Udgitha, On that they meditated as Udgitha. How can this divergence be reconciled with the idea of the unity of the Vidyas?
However this isn’t acceptable as a result of there’s unity as regards an important many factors. Each texts relate that the Devas and the Asuras had been preventing; each at first glorify speech and the opposite Pranas of their relation to the Udgitha and thereupon discovering fault with them go on to the chief Prana; each inform how by way of the power of the latter, the Asuras had been vanquished.
The distinction identified, just isn’t vital sufficient to convey a few separation of the 2 Vidyas.
The textual content of the Vajasaneyaka additionally coordinates the chief Prana and the Udgitha within the clause, He’s Udgitha (Bri. Up. I.3.23). We subsequently should assume that within the Chhandogya additionally the chief Prana has secondarily to be regarded upon because the producer of the Udgitha.
The 2 texts thus represent one Vidya solely. There may be unity of Vidyas on the grounds given in Sutra III.3.1.
Na va prakaranabhedatparovariyastvadivat III.3.7 (366)
Or relatively there isn’t any (unity of the Vidyas) owing to the distinction of material at the same time as (the meditation on the Udgitha) as the best and biggest (i.e., Brahman) (is totally different from the meditation on the Udgitha as abiding within the eye and many others.).
Na: not; Va: definitely; Prakaranabhedat: on account of distinction in material; Parovariyastvadivat: at the same time as (the meditation on the Udgitha) as the best and nice (Brahman) (is totally different).
The objection raised within the previous Sutra is refuted.
The Sutra refutes the previous view and establishes that the 2 Vidyas, despite similarity in lots of factors, are totally different owing to distinction in material.
Within the Chhandogya, Omkara is alleged to be a restrict of Udgitha and so such Omkara must be thought to be Prana. Within the different the singer of Udgitha, the Udgatri is named Prana. Due to this fact the 2 Vidyas are totally different simply because the Upasana of Udgitha because the Infinite and Supreme (Parovariya) (Chh. Up. I.9.2). That is certainly the best and biggest is totally different from the Upasana of Udgitha as golden in type and as being within the eye and within the solar (Chh. Up. I.6).
Within the Chhandogya solely part of the Udgitha (hymn), the syllable OM is meditated upon as Prana Let one meditate on the syllable OM of the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). However within the Brihadaranyaka the entire Udgitha hymn is meditated upon as Prana (I.3.2). Therefore the 2 Vidyas can’t be one owing to this distinction within the object of meditation.
The particular options of various Vidyas are to not be mixed even when the Vidyas belong to at least one and the identical Sakha; a lot much less then after they belong to totally different Sakhas.
Samjnataschet taduktamasti tu tadapi III.3.8 (367)
If it’s stated (that the Vidyas are one) on account of (the identification of) identify; (we reply that) that’s defined (already); furthermore that (identification of identify) is (discovered within the case of admittedly separate Vidyas).
Samjnatah: on account of the identify (being similar); Chet: if; Tat: that; Uktam: has already been answered; Asti: is, exists; Tu: however; Tat: that; Api: even, additionally.
An argument in opposition to the previous Sutra is refuted.
The phrase `tu’ (however), removes the doubt raised above.
You can’t name them equivalent merely as a result of they’ve the identical identify. The subject material differs. This has already been established within the final Sutra. As an illustration Agnihotra and Darsapurnamasa are separate and but have the identical identify, viz., Kathaka as they’re described within the e book known as Kathaka. Even the Udgitha Vidya of Chh. Up. I.6 and Chh. Up. I.9.2 are totally different Vidyas.
VYAPTYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4
It’s applicable to specialise OM by the time period `Udgitha’
Vyaptescha samanjasam III.3.9 (368)
And since (OM) extends (over the entire of the Vedas), (to specialise it by the time period ‘Udgitha’) is acceptable.
Vyapteh: as a result of (OM) extends (over the entire of the Vedas); Cha: and; Samanjasam: is acceptable, constant, justifiable.
Sutra 7 is elaborated right here.
Within the Sruti `Omityetadaksharamudgithamupasita’, the usage of the phrase Udgitha as Viseshana, i.e., adjective of OM is acceptable, as a result of OM by itself is pervasive in all Srutis and shouldn’t be understood right here in its basic sense.
Within the passage Let a person meditate on the syllable OM because the Udgitha, the 2 phrases `Omkara’ and `Udgitha’, are positioned in coordination. The query then arises whether or not the relation during which the concepts conveyed by these two phrases stand to one another is the relation of superimposition (Adhyasa) or sublation (Apavada) or unity (Ekatva) or speci fication (Viseshana) .
The phrase `and’ stands right here rather than `however’ and is supposed to discard the three different options. The fourth is to be adopted. The fourth and proper view is that the one is Viseshana (an adjective) to the opposite as within the phrases Nila-Utpala (blue lotus). The passage implies that Udgitha is the Viseshana of Omkara. The suitable view of the Chhandogya passage is to take the phrase Udgitha as specialising the time period `Omkara’.
SARVABHEDADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5
Unity of the Prana-Vidya
Sarvabhedadanyatreme III.3.10 (369)
On account of the non-difference (of the Vidya) all over the place (i.e., in all of the texts of the totally different Sakhas the place the Prana-Vidya happens) these qualities (talked about in two of them are to be inserted) within the different locations (e.g., the Kaushitaki Upanishad).
Sarvabhedat: on account of non-difference all over the place; Anyatra: within the different locations; Ime: these (qualities are to be inserted).
A concrete occasion on the overall precept of Sutra 5 is cited.
Within the colloquy of the Pranas recorded by the Vajasaneyins and the Chhandogyas, the Prana which is endowed with numerous qualities reminiscent of being one of the best and so forth, is represented as the thing of meditation. Numerous qualities reminiscent of being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the opposite organs. These latter qualities are ultimately attributed to the Prana additionally. If I’m the richest thou artwork the richest.
Now in different Sakhas additionally, as e.g., that of the Kaushitakins the set of qualities reminiscent of being one of the best and so forth is attributed to the Prana (Katha Up. II.14). However the set of attributes, viz., being the richest and so forth just isn’t talked about.
The query is whether or not they’re to be inserted within the Kaushitaki additionally, the place they don’t seem to be talked about.
This Sutra declares that they should be inserted, because the Vidya is similar in all of the three Upanishads. Attributes belonging to at least one and the identical Vidya or topic should be mixed wherever that Vidya happens though they is probably not expressly said.
ANANDADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 11-13)
Attributes like Bliss, and many others., of Brahman should be
mixed into one meditation
Anandadayah pradhanasya III.3.11 (370)
Bliss and different attributes (which depict the true nature) of the Principal or the Supreme Self, i.e., Brahman (should be mixed from all locations within the meditation on Brahman).
Anandadayah: Bliss and different attributes; Pradhanasya: of the Principal i.e., the Supreme Self or Brahman.
Brahman is described as Bliss, Data, all-pervading, the Self of all, true, and many others., in numerous texts of various Sakhas. All of the attributes aren’t talked about everywhere.
Now the query arises whether or not they should be mixed within the meditation on Brahman or not. This Sutra says that they should be mixed, as the thing of meditation (Brahman) is one and the identical in all Sakhas and subsequently the Vidya is one. The explanation for this conclusion is the one given in Sutra 10.
The qualities attributed to Brahman in anybody place should be mixed at any time when Brahman is spoken of.
Priyasirastvadyapraptirupachayapachayau
hello bhede III.3.12 (371)
(Qualities like) pleasure being His head, and many others., are to not be taken all over the place, (being topic to) enhance and reduce (are potential solely) if there’s distinction (and never in Brahman in which there’s non-difference).
Priyasirastvadi: qualities like pleasure being His head, and many others.; Apraptih: are to not be taken all over the place; Upachayapachayau: enhance and reduce; Hello: be trigger; Bhede: (are potential) in distinction. (Upachaya: enhance; Apachaya: lower.)
The dialogue commenced in Sutra 11 is sustained, stating right here as to which of the attributes are to not be culled and mixed collectively in each type of meditation.
Extra and fewer will apply provided that there’s differentia tion. Therefore the descriptions of Priyasiras, and many others., is not going to apply to Brahman. The outline of Priyasiras (attributes like pleasure being His head, and many others.) within the Taittiriya Upanishad aren’t Dharmas of Brahman however the Dharmas of the Ananda maya-kosa or the blissful sheath. The descriptions are given to show the thoughts in the direction of Brahman. Variations of upper and decrease in Gunas can are available in Upasanas of Saguna Brahman however haven’t any utility to Nirguna Brahman.
The attributes of getting pleasure for His head and such different attributes aren’t acceptable in each type of meditation on Brahman as a result of attributing limbs to Brahman would render Him liable to fluctuation.
Attributes like pleasure being His head and so forth talked about within the Taittiriya Upanishad are to not be taken and mixed somewhere else the place the Upasana of Brahman is enjoined as a result of the successive phrases, Pleasure is Its head, satisfaction is its proper arm, nice satisfaction is its left arm, bliss is His trunk, Brahman is His tail, His help (II.5), point out qualities which have enhance and reduce with regard to one another and to different enjoyers (particular person souls or Jivas) and subsequently can exist the place there’s distinction.
Now for larger and decrease levels there’s room solely the place there’s plurality or distinction however Brahman is with out all plurality or distinction, as we all know from many scriptu ral passages. (One solely, and not using a second). Due to this fact these attributes can not represent the character of Brahman. They’re to be confined to the texts which prescribe them and never taken to different locations.
Furthermore, these qualities are attributed to the Supreme Brahman merely as technique of fixing one’s thoughts, not as themselves being objects of meditation. From this it follows that they don’t seem to be legitimate all over the place. The attributes talked about in anybody aren’t legitimate for others.
The case is just like that of two wives ministering to at least one king; one with a fan, the opposite with an umbrella. Right here additionally the thing of their ministrations is one, however the acts of ministration themselves are distinct. They’ve every their very own explicit attributes. Related is the case below dialogue additionally.
Qualities during which decrease and better levels could be distinguished belong to the certified Brahman solely in which there’s plurality, to not the Supreme Nirguna Brahman which is above all {qualifications}. Such attributes as having true needs (Sat-Kama) and the like that are talked about in some parti cular place haven’t any validity for different meditations on Brahman.
Itare tvarthasamanyat III.3.13 (372)
However different attributes (like Bliss, and many others., are to be mixed) on account of identification of purport.
Itare: different attributes; Tu: however; Arthasamanyat: due to widespread purport, on account of identification of purport. (Artha: end result, object, purport; Samanyat: on account of the equality or sameness.)
The earlier dialogue is sustained.
However attributes like Bliss, information, all-pervadingness, and many others., which describe the character of Brahman, are to be mixed as the thing of such descriptions is similar, as they straight relate to Brahman and as they’re inherent attributes of Brahman, as their purport is the one indivisible, unconditioned Brahman.
These attributes which scripture units for the aim of educating the true nature of Brahman are to be seen as legitimate for all passages which consult with Brahman, as a result of their purport, i.e., the Brahman whose nature is to be taught is one. These attributes are talked about with a view to information of Brahman solely, and never for Upasana.
ADHYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 14-15)
Katha Up. I.3.10-11 teaches merely that the Self is
larger than every little thing else
Adhyanaya prayojanabhavat III.3.14 (373)
(The passage in Katha Upanishad I.3.10 tells concerning the Self solely as the best) for the sake of pious meditation, as there isn’t any use (of the information of the objects being larger than the senses and so forth).
Adhyanaya: for the sake of meditation; Prayojanabhavat: as there isn’t any use, as there isn’t any different necessity. (Prayojana: of every other goal; Abhavat: on account of the absence.)
The earlier dialogue is sustained.
We learn within the Kathaka (I.3.10-11), Greater than the senses are the objects, larger than the objects there’s the thoughts, and many others., larger than the Atman there’s nothing, that is the purpose, the best highway.
Right here the doubt arises whether or not the purport of the passage is to intimate that every of the issues successively enumerated is larger than the previous one, or solely that the Atman is larger than all of them.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds the previous different as a result of the textual content expressly declares the objects to be larger than the senses, the thoughts larger than the objects and so forth. He maintains that these sentences are separate and never one as referring to the Atman alone. Due to this fact the aim of the textual content is to show that the objects are superior to the senses and so forth.
This Sutra refutes it and declares that it’s one sentence and implies that the Atman is superior to all these.
The article of the Sruti is to not say that every later class is larger than the previous, as a result of there isn’t any religious achieve or any helpful goal in such a declaration. The intention is to declare that Brahman is larger than all, as such information results in Moksha.
The Atman alone is to be recognized, as a result of the Data offers freedom or the ultimate launch. The scripture additionally says He who has perceived that, is free of the jaws of dying (Katha Up. I.3.15).
Additional, the textual content intimates highest reverence for the Atman by declaring that nothing is larger than the Atman and that He’s the best purpose and thereby exhibits that the entire collection of objects is enumerated just for the aim of giving details about the Atman. This data is given for the sake of meditation on the Atman which ends up in the information of it.
Atmasabdaccha III.3.15 (374)
And on account of the phrase Atman.
Atmasabdat: on account of the phrase `Atma’; Cha: and.
An argument in help of Sutra 14 is given.
The above conclusion is confirmed by the truth that the topic of dialogue is named the Self or Atman. That Self is hidden in all beings and doesn’t shine forth, however it’s seen by refined seers by way of their sharp and refined mind (Katha Up. I.3.2). From this we conclude that the textual content needs to signify the opposite issues enumerated because the non-Self.
A sensible man ought to maintain down speech and thoughts (Katha Up. I.3.13). This passage enjoins pious meditation as a method of the Data of the Supreme Self. It thus follows that the Sruti signifies numerous excellences within the case of the Atman solely and never in that of the opposite issues enumerated.
The textual content He reaches the tip of his journey and that’s the highest place of Vishnu suggests the query as to who’s the tip of the journey and we subsequently conclude that the enumeration of the senses, objects, and many others., has merely the aim of educating the best place of Vishnu and never of educating something concerning the relation of the senses, objects and so forth.
However the enumeration of the senses just isn’t altogether ineffective. It allows the aspirant to show the outgoing thoughts in the direction of the Interior Self or the Atman. This refined Atman can’t be attained with out abstraction, introspection and profound meditation.
ATMAGRIHITYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 16-17)
The Self talked about in Ait. Up. I.1. is the Supreme Self
and the attributes of the Self given elsewhere
must be mixed with this meditation
Atmagrihitiritaravaduttarat III.3.16 (375)
(Within the Aitareya Upanishad I.1.) the Supreme Self is supposed, as in different texts (coping with creation) due to the next qualification.
Atmagrihitih: the Supreme Self is supposed; Itaravat: as in different texts (coping with creation); Uttarat: due to the next qualification.
We learn within the Aitareya Upanishad Verily within the start ning all this was the Self, one solely; there was nothing else in anyway (I.1). Right here the doubt arises whether or not the time period Self denotes the Supreme Self or another being reminiscent of Hiranyagarbha.
It refers back to the Supreme Self, even because the phrase Self in different texts which deal with of creation refers to It, and to not Hiranyagarbha. From the Self ether was produced (Tait. Up. II.1). Why? As a result of within the subsequent textual content of the Aitareya we’ve got It thought shall I ship forth worlds? It despatched forth these worlds (Ait. Up. I.1.2). This qualification, viz., that It thought earlier than creation is utilized to Brahman within the major sense in different Sruti passages. Therefore we con clude from this that the Self refers back to the Supreme Self or Para Brahman and to not Hiranyagarbha, or every other Being.
Anvayaditi chet syadavadharanat III.3.17 (376)
If it’s stated that due to the context (the Supreme Self just isn’t meant) (we reply that) it’s so (i.e., the Supreme Self is supposed) on account of the particular assertion (that the Atman alone existed to start with).
Anvayat: due to connection, due to the context; Iti: this, so; Chet: if; Syat: it could be so; Avadharanat: on account of the particular state ment.
An objection to Sutra 16 is raised and refuted.
The Sutra consists of two components specifically an objection and its reply. The objection is `Anvayaditi chet’ the reply is `Syad-avadharanat’.
The reference is to Para Brahman or the Highest Self. The phrase Asit exhibits that the reference is to Para Brahman alone, as a result of He alone existed earlier than all creation. The Lokasrishti or creation of the world is barely after the Mahabhutasrishti or creation of the 5 nice parts.
The Purvapakshin says: Within the Aitareya Upanishad (I.1), it’s said that Brahman created the 4 worlds. However it’s stated within the Taittiriya and different texts that Brahman created ether, air, hearth, water and earth, the 5 parts. It’s only Hiranyagarbha that creates the world with the help of the weather created by the Highest Self. Therefore the Self within the Aitareya Upanishad can not imply the Supreme Self however solely Hiranyagarbha or the Karya-Brahman.
This Sutra refutes it and declares that on account of the assertion Verily, to start with all this was the Self, one solely (Ait. Up. I.1.) which intimates that there was one solely and not using a second, it may possibly solely consult with the Highest Self or Para Brahman and to not Hiranyagarbha, the Karya-Brahman. The Highest Self created the 4 worlds after creating the weather as described in different Sakhas. The attributes of Para Brahman or the Highest Self that are talked about somewhere else are to be mixed within the Aitareyaka meditation.
KARYAKHYANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9
Solely considering water to be the gown of Prana is
enjoined within the Prana-Vidya
Karyakhyanadapurvam III.3.18 (377)
On account of (the rinsing of the mouth with water refer purple to within the Prana Vidya) being a reiteration of an act (already ordained by the Smriti), what has not been so ordained elsewhere (is right here enjoined by the Sruti).
Karyakhyanat: on account of being an announcement of an act (already enjoined by the Smriti); Apurvam: which has not been so enjoined elsewhere.
In regard to Prana Upasana, Achamana is ordained solely as reiteration of what’s said elsewhere. What’s ordained is barely meditation on water as protecting meals. What’s enjoined in Prana Vidya Upasana of Chhandogya Upanishad just isn’t the Achamana, as such. Achamana is enjoined by the Smritis and is widespread to all. What’s ordained is Anagnatatchintana i.e., meditating that the meals is roofed by water.
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.2.2) and the Brihadaranyaka (VI.1.14) there’s a reference to the rinsing of the mouth with water earlier than and after meal, considering that thereby that Prana is dressed.
These texts intimate two issues, rinsing of the mouth and meditation on the breath as dressed. A doubt arises whether or not the texts enjoin each these issues or solely the rinsing of the mouth, or solely the meditation on breath as dressed.
This Sutra states that the act of rinsing the mouth is already ordained on each one by the Smriti and the act of considering the water because the gown of Prana is alone enjoined by the Sruti. The act of rinsing the mouth just isn’t a brand new one and there for requires no Vedic injunction.
SAMANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 10
Vidyas of the identical Sakha that are equivalent
must be mixed, in meditation
Samana evam chabhedat III.3.19 (378)
In the identical (Sakha additionally) it’s thus (i.e., there’s unity of Vidya,) owing to non-difference (of the thing of meditation).
Samana: in the identical Sakha; Evam: each, (it’s) like this; Cha: and, additionally; Abhedat: owing to non-difference.
A corollary to Sutra 5 is proved.
Within the Agnirahasya within the Vajasaneyi Sakha there’s a Vidya known as Sandilya Vidya, during which happens the passage Let him meditate on the Self which consists of thoughts, which has the Prana for its physique, and lightweight for its type (Sat. Br. Madhy. 10.6.3.2). Once more, within the Brihadaranyaka (V.10.6) which belongs to the identical Sakha we’ve got That individual consist ing of thoughts, whose being is gentle, is throughout the coronary heart, small like a grain of rice or barley. He’s the ruler of all, the Lord of allHe guidelines all this in anyway exists.
A doubt right here presents itself whether or not these two passages are to be taken as one Vidya during which the particulars talked about in both textual content are to be mixed or not. Are they one Vidya or totally different Vidyas?
This Sutra declares that, they’re one Vidya, as the thing of meditation (Upasya) is similar in each. The article of meditation in each is the Self consisting of thoughts. The combining of the particulars of an analogous Vidya in the identical Sakha is similar as within the case of such Vidyas which happen in numerous Sakhas. Though the 2 passages belong to at least one and the identical Sakha, they but represent the Vidya solely and their particulars should be mixed into one entire. The previous directs worship, by way of such Vidya. The latter offers its Gunas (options).
Although there’s some distinction in minor particulars, the 2 descriptions of the Sandilya Vidya within the two Srutis are virtually the identical. So, a selected level talked about in a single Sruti in reference to the Sandilya Vidya must be included with the opposite, if it’s not talked about within the latter.
Due to this fact the Sandilya Vidya is one.
SAMBANDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 20-22)
The names `Ahar’ and `Aham’ of Brahman occurring in
Bri. Up. V.5.1-2 can’t be mixed
Sambandhadevamanyatrapi III.3.20 (379)
Thus in different circumstances additionally, on account of the connection (of particulars with one and the identical Vidya).
Sambandhat: on account of the connection; Evam: thus, like this; Anyatra: in different circumstances; Api: additionally.
An inference on the analogy of the previous Sutra is drawn by means of objection.
This Sutra is a Purvapaksha Sutra. It units forth the view of the opponent.
We learn within the Brihadaranyaka (V.5.1-2), Satya (the reality) is Brahman. That which is Satya is that Sunthe being who’s in that orb and the being who’s in the proper eye. This provides the abode of the Satya Brahman with respect to the gods and the physique. The textual content teaches the 2 secret names of the Satya Brahman in reference to these abodes. Its secret identify is `Ahar’ just about the gods, and its secret identify is `Aham’ just about the physique.
A doubt right here arises whether or not these two secret names are each to be utilized to the Deva-abode of Brahman in addition to to its bodily abode, or just one identify to every.
Now on the analogy of the Sandilya Vidya, the particulars should be mixed as the thing of meditation, viz., the Satya Brahman is one. Due to this fact each the names `Ahar’ and `Aham’ should be mixed with respect to Satya Brahman.
Each the key names equally belong to the Aditya in addition to to the individual throughout the eye.
Na va viseshat III.3.21 (380)
Relatively not (so) on account of the distinction (of place).
Na: not, not so; Va: or, however; Viseshat: due to distinction. (Na va: relatively not.)
The conclusion arrived at within the previous Sutra is put aside. That is the Siddhanta Sutra.
This Sutra refutes the view of the earlier Sutra. Because the photo voltaic orb and the eye-ball are too distant and distant abodes for the worship of Brahman, the 2 vital names `Ahar’ and `Aham’ referred to within the earlier Sutra, mustn’t each be employed in the identical type of meditation. Every identify refers to a distinct locus of Upasana.
Although the Vidya is one, nonetheless on account of distinction in locations the thing of meditation turns into totally different. Due to this fact there are totally different names. Therefore these can’t be exchanged or mixed.
The Purvapakshin or the opponent raises an objection. He says: The individual throughout the orb of the solar and the individual throughout the eye are one solely, as a result of the textual content teaches that each are abodes of the one true Brahman.
True, we reply, however as every secret identify is taught solely just about the one Brahman and conditioned by a selected state, the identify applies to Brahman solely in as far as it’s in that state. Right here is an analogy. The instructor at all times stays the instructor; but these sorts of providers which the pupil has to do to the instructor when sitting have to not be executed when he stands and vice versa.
The comparability given by the opponent just isn’t nicely chosen because the duties of the disciple in the direction of his instructor rely on the latter’s character as instructor and that’s not modified by his being both within the village or within the forest.
Due to this fact, the 2 secret names `Ahar’ and `Aham’ should be held aside. They can’t be mixed.
Darsayati cha III.3.22 (381)
(The scripture) additionally declares (that).
Darsayati: (Sruti) exhibits, signifies, declares; Cha: additionally, and.
A further argument is given to refute Sutra 20.
The scripture distinctly states that the attributes are to not be mixed, however stored aside; as a result of it compares the 2 individuals, the individual within the solar and the individual throughout the eye. If it wished the particulars to be mixed, it could not make such a comparability.
The conclusion, subsequently, is that the 2 secret names are to be stored aside.
SAMBHRITYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12
Attributes of Brahman occurring within the Ranayaniya Khila
represent an unbiased Vidya
Sambhritidyuvyaptyapi chatah III.3.23 (382)
For a similar purpose (as within the earlier Sutra) the help ing (of the world) and pervading the sky (attributed to Brahman within the Ranayaniya Khila) additionally (are to not be included in different Vidyas or Upasanas of Brahman).
Sambhriti: supporting the world; Dyuvyapti: pervading the sky; Api: additionally; Cha: and; Atah: for a similar purpose (as within the earlier Sutra). (Dyu: the sky, all of the house, heaven).
A restriction to Sutra 5 is made.
In a supplementary textual content of the Ranayaniyas we meet with a passage, The powers, which had been collected collectively, had been preceded by Brahman; the pre-existent Brahman to start with pervaded the entire sky.
Now these two qualities `Sambhriti’ and `Dyuvyapti’ are to not be inserted or included within the Sandilya Vidya and different Vidyas for a similar purpose as is given within the final Sutra, viz., distinction of abode. Within the Sandilya Vidya, Brahman is alleged to have its abode within the coronary heart He’s the Self throughout the coronary heart (Chh. Up. III.14.3). The identical assertion is made within the Dahara-Vidya There may be the palace, the small lotus of the center, and in it that small ether (VIII.1.1). Within the Upakosala-Vidya, once more, Brahman is alleged to abide throughout the eye That individual that’s seen within the eye (IV.15.1).
Additional these qualities and people talked about in different Vidyas just like the Sandilya Vidya are of such a nature as to exclude one another and aren’t suggestive of one another. The mere truth of sure Vidyas being linked with Brahman doesn’t represent their unity. It’s a longtime undeniable fact that Brahman, though one solely, is owing to the plurality of its powers meditated upon in some ways, as proven below Sutra 7.
The conclusion, subsequently, is that the attributes of holding collectively its powers (Sambhriti and Dyuvyapti) are to not be inserted within the Sandilya and comparable Vidyas, and that the Upasana referred to on this Sutra is an unbiased Vidya by itself. The Sandilya Vidya refers back to the worship of Atman within the coronary heart and the Upakosala-Vidya refers back to the worship of the Atman within the eye, whereas the above attributes relate to the macrocosm.
PURUSHAVIDYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13
The Purusha Vidya within the Chhandogya and the Taittiriya
are to not be mixed
Purushavidyayamiva chetareshamanamnanat III.3.24 (383)
And (because the qualities) as (talked about) within the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya) aren’t talked about (in that) of the others (i.e., within the Taittiriya) (the 2 Purusha-Vidyas aren’t one; are to not be mixed).
Parushavidyayamiva: as within the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya); Cha: and; Itaresham: of the others; Anamnanat: due to not being talked about (within the Taittiriya).
The Purusha Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad and that of the Taittiriya Upanishad are actually examined.
Within the Rahasya-Brahmana of the Tandins and the Paingins (the Chhandogya) there’s a Vidya treating of man during which man is recognized with the sacrifice, the three durations of his life with the three libations Man is the sacrifice.
Within the Taittiriya Aranyaka (X.64) additionally happens an analogous Vidya For him who is aware of thus the self of the sacrifice is the sacrificer, religion (Sraddha) is the spouse of the sacrificer, and many others.
The doubt right here arises whether or not the 2 Vidyas are one, whether or not the particulars of the man-sacrifice given within the Chhandogya are to be inserted within the Taittiriya or not.
The elemental attribute referred to is that man is identi fied with sacrifice in each. This Sutra declares that despite this, the 2 Vidyas aren’t one, as a result of the main points differ. The traits of the Purusha-Yajna of the Chhandogyas aren’t recognised within the Taittiriya textual content. The Taittiriya displays an identification of man with the sacrifice during which the spouse, the sacrificer, the Veda, the Vedi, the sacrificial grass, the submit, the butter, the sacrificial animal, the priest and many others., are talked about in succession. These particulars aren’t point out ed within the Chhandogya.
The 2 texts agree in identification of the Avabhritha ceremony with dying. There are better variety of dissimilarities. The Taittiriya doesn’t signify man because the sacrifice because the Chhandogya does.
Furthermore the results of the Vidya within the Taittiriya is the attainment of the greatness of Brahman: He obtains the greatness of Brahman. The results of the Vidya in Chhandogya is lengthy life, He who is aware of this lives on to 100 and sixteen years.
Due to this fact, the 2 Vidyas are separate. The particulars can’t be mixed within the two locations. The particulars talked about within the Purusha-Vidya of Chhandogya, reminiscent of formulation of prayer, Mantras and so forth are to not be mixed with the Taittiriya textual content of the Vidya.
VEDHADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14
Unconnected Mantras and sacrifices talked about in sure Upanishads don’t belong to Brahma-Vidya
Vedhadyarthabhedat III.3.25 (384)
As a result of the matter (of sure Mantras) reminiscent of piercing and so forth is totally different (from the matter of the approximate Vidyas), (the previous are to not be mixed with the latter).
Vedhadi: piercing and many others.; Arthabhedat: as a result of they’ve a distinct that means.
Sure expressions occurring at the start of an Upanishad of the Atharva-Veda are taken up for dialogue.
At first of the Upanishad of the Atharvanikas we’ve got Pierce the entire (physique of the enemy), pierce his coronary heart, crush his veins, crush his head and many others. At first of the Upanishad of the Tandins we’ve got the Mantra O God Savita! produce the sacrifice. At first of Kathas and the Taittiriyaka we’ve got Could Mitra be propitious to us and Varuna and many others. At first of that of the Kaushitakins we’ve got Brahman certainly is the Agnistoma, Brahman is that day; by way of Brahman they go into Brahman, Immortality, these attain who observe that day.
The query is whether or not these Mantras and the sacrifices referred to within the Brahmanas in shut proximity to the Upanishads are to be mixed with the Vidyas prescribed by these Upanishads.
The opponent holds that they’re to be mixed, as a result of the textual content displays them in proximity to the Upanishad-portions of the Brahmanas whose chief contents are shaped by the Vidyas. Within the case of Mantras we are able to at all times think about some that means which connects them with the Vidyas. The primary Mantra quoted glorifies the center, as a result of the center is commonly represented within the Vidyas as abode of meditation. Due to this fact Mantras which glorify the center might represent subordinate members of these Vidyas.
This Sutra declares that they don’t seem to be to be mixed as a result of their that means is totally different, as they point out acts of a sacrifice and so haven’t any affiliation or relationship with the Vidyas.
The Mantras could be so employed if their entire contents had been glorification of the center, however this isn’t the case. The Mantra first quoted clearly expresses enmity to anyone and is subsequently to not be linked with the Vidyas of the Upanishads, however with some ceremony meant to destroy one’s enemy.
Different Mantras are subordinate to sure sacrificial actions. They can not, as a result of they happen within the Upanishads, be join ed with the Vidyas on the bottom of mere proximity.
Because of this the talked about Mantras and acts aren’t on the bottom of mere textual collocation to be seen as supplementary to the Vidyas of the Upanishads.
HANYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 15
The assertion that the nice and evil deeds of an individual go respectively to his associates and enemies is true for texts
that point out discarding of such actions by him
Hanau tupayanasabdaseshatvat
kusacchandastutyupaganavattaduktam III.3.26 (385)
However the place solely the getting rid (of the nice and evil) is talked about (the acquiring of this good and evil by others must be added) as a result of the assertion about acceptance is supplementary (to the assertion concerning the eliminating) as within the case of the Kusas, metres, reward and hymns or recitations. This (i.e., the explanation for this) has been said (by Jaimini in Purvamimamsa).
Hanau: the place solely the getting rid (of fine and evil) is talked about; Tu: however; Upayanasabdaseshatvat: on account of the phrase `acceptance’ being supplementary to the phrase `getting rid’; Kusacchandastutyupaganavat: like Kusa-sticks, metres, praises and hymns; Tat: that; Uktam: has been said (by Jaimini). (Upayana: acceptance; Sabda: on account of the assertion of the phrase; Seshatvat: on account of being supplementary to.)
Here’s a dialogue on the shaking off of virtues and vices by the launched soul at dying and their acceptance by his associates and enemies.
Jaimini has stated that statements with respect to Kusas, metres, praises and hymns should be accomplished from different texts. It’s stated within the Kaushitaki Sruti that Kusa sticks are to be collected from timber with none specification as to what kind of tree; however within the Satyayana department it’s stated that the Kusas are of the Udumbara tree. This latter expression is to be accepted as complementary to the previous expression of the Kaushitaki Sruti. The primary Sruti should be com pleted within the gentle of the opposite.
There may be in a Sruti an injunction to say a prayer composed in metre with none specification of the sort of metre, however in one other place there’s point out of the Deva-metre to be employed in such a case. Due to this fact the Deva-metre is to be understood within the earlier case additionally.
There may be instruction in a single Sruti to utter praises for the sacrificial vessel `Shodasi’ with out specifying the time as to when it must be carried out; however in one other Sruti it’s taught to be carried out when the solar has risen. Right here the latter instruction is to be accepted as supplementary to the previous.
As regards the hymn it isn’t positively said which of the 4 monks is to hitch within the singing of the prayer in a sacrifice; however this doubt has been cleared up by a selected textual content which says that the Adhvaryu is not going to be a part of within the singing. Placing the 2 statements collectively, the conclusion is that every one the monks besides the Adhvaryu will be a part of.
This precept is right here utilized to the consequences of the actions of a liberated sage in reference to the Vidyas talked about within the Upanishads. Within the textual content of the Tandins we discover shakes off all evil as a horse shakes his hair, and shaking off the physique because the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rahu, I receive the uncreated world of Brahman (Chh. Up. VIII.13). Once more in Mundaka Upanishad (III.1.3) we learn Then realizing shaking off good and evil, he reaches the best oneness, free from ardour. These Srutis are silent on the purpose as to who accepts his good and evil deeds.
Within the Satyayana department of Sruti it’s stated His sons receive his inheritance, his associates the nice, his enemies the evil he has executed. Within the Kaushitaki Upanishad (I.4) we discover He shakes off his good and his dangerous deeds. His beloved relations receive the nice, his unbeloved family members the evil he has executed.
This Sutra declares that the acquiring of the nice and evil by his associates and enemies must be inserted or essentially added within the Chhandogya textual content and Mundaka textual content based on Jaimini’s precept defined above.
The Purvapakshin raises one other objection. He argues that the verb `Dhu’ within the textual content of the Chhandogya and Kaushitaki could also be interpreted as `trembling’ and never as `eliminating’. It might imply subsequently that good and evil nonetheless cling to an individual who attains Data, though their results are retarded on account of the Data.
This Sutra declares that such a that means is wrong, as a result of the next portion of the textual content signifies that others receive the nice and evil. That is definitely not potential until the one that attains Data abandons them.
Good and evil deeds can’t be stated to `tremble’ within the literal sense of the phrase like flags within the wind, as they don’t seem to be of a considerable nature. Although `Dhu’ in `Vidhuya’ could also be stated to suggest `shaking’ and never `putting off’, but as others are described as taking the liberated sage’s deserves and sins, it means `putting off’.
SAMPARAYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 16 (SUTRAS 27-28)
The shaking off of fine and evil by the person of Data
happens solely on the time of his dying
Samparaye tarttavyabhavattathahyanye III.3.27 (386)
(He who attains information removes his good and evil deeds) on the time of dying, there being nothing to be attained (by him on the way in which to Brahmaloka by way of these works); for thus others (declare of their sacred texts).
Samparaye: on the time of dying; Tarttavyabhavat: there being nothing to be attained; Tatha: on this method, so; Hello: as a result of, for; Anye: others.
This Sutra decides when the person soul shakes off his good and evil deeds.
The query now arises as to when the person soul removes his good and evil deeds. Within the Kaushitaki Upanishad (I.4) we discover He involves the river Viraja and crosses it by the thoughts alone, and there he shakes off good and evil. On the power of this textual content the Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the nice and evil deeds are discarded on his technique to Brahmaloka and never on the time of departing from the physique.
This Sutra refutes it and declares that the liberated sage frees himself from the consequences of fine and evil works on the time of dying by way of the power of his information.
Although the Kaushitaki Sruti refers back to the discarding of fine and evil on the Devayana method or the way in which to Brahmaloka, after crossing the Viraja river, the nice and evil deeds are forged off at dying, as a result of there’s nothing to be attained by way of them after dying, there remaining nothing to be loved by him by way of his good and evil works. The nice and evil works are not of any use to him and never match to be retained by him thereafter.
The Sanchita Karma or gathered works are destroyed as quickly as one attains information of Brahman. Prarabdha is destroyed at dying. So he’s free of the consequences of all his deserves and sins on the time of dying.
Because the outcomes of his good and evil deeds are opposite to the results of information, they’re destroyed by the facility of the latter. The second of their destruction is that second during which he units out in the direction of the fruit of his information, i.e., the world of Brahman.
Furthermore it isn’t potential to forged off the consequences of fine and evil deeds on the way in which to Brahmaloka as a result of the soul has no gross physique and so it can not take recourse to any follow that may destroy them.
Additional one can not cross the river Viraja until he’s free of all good and evil.
The Sruti declares shaking off all evil as a horse shakes off his hairs (Chh. Up. VIII.13.1).
Due to this fact the settled conclusion is that every one good and evil works are forged off on the time of dying.
Chhandata ubhayavirodhat III.3.28 (387)
(The interpretation that the person soul practising Yama-Niyama) based on his liking (discards good and evil works whereas residing is affordable) on account of there being concord in that case between the 2 (viz., trigger and impact, in addition to between the Chhandogya and one other Sruti).
Chhandatah: based on his liking; Ubhayanirodhat: on account of there being concord between the 2. (Ubhaya: of both; there being no contradiction.)
The view is appropriate as a result of voluntary efficiency of Yama, Niyma, and many others., to eliminate Karma is feasible solely earlier than dying, and since it’s against all texts. The above view is in settlement or unison with all Srutis.
If the soul frees himself from his good and evil deeds on the way in which after having departed from the physique and having entered on the way in which of the gods (Devayana), we land ourselves in impossibilities, as a result of after the physique has been left behind, he can not practise based on his liking self-restraint and pur go well with of data which may impact destruction of his good and evil deeds. Due to this fact there can’t be annihilation of his good and evil works.
It doesn’t definitely stand to purpose that the impact is delayed until a while after dying when the trigger is there already. When there’s a physique it isn’t potential to achieve Brahmaloka. There isn’t any problem in discarding good and evil.
GATERARTHAVATTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 17 (SUTRAS 29-30)
The knower of Saguna Brahman alone goes alongside Devayana,
and never the knower of Nirguna Brahman
Gaterarthavattvamubhayathanyatha hello virodhah III.3.29 (388)
(The soul’s) journey (alongside the trail of the gods, Devayana) is relevant in a two-fold method, in any other case there can be contradiction (of scripture).
Gateh: of the journey of the soul (after dying), alongside the trail of the gods; Arthavatvam: utility; Ubhayatha: in two methods; Anyatha: in any other case; Hello: for, definitely; Virodhah: contradiction.
Here’s a facet difficulty of Sutra 27.
In some scriptural texts the useless man’s happening the trail of the gods is talked about in connection along with his releasing himself from good and evil. In different texts it isn’t talked about. The doubt now arises whether or not the 2 issues go collectively in all circumstances or solely in sure circumstances.
The Purvapakshin holds that the 2 are to be linked in all circumstances, simply as the person’s releasing himself from his good and evil works is at all times adopted by their passing over to his associates and enemies.
This Sutra declares that the worshipper of Saguna Brahman solely takes journey after dying alongside the Devayana. The happening that path has a way within the case of Saguna Upasana solely and never in worshippers of Nirguna Brahman. Brahmaloka is situated elsewhere in house. The Saguna Upasaka has to maneuver and attain that abode. There may be precise going by way of which one other place is reached. Due to this fact, the journey has a that means in his case solely. The Prana of Nirguna Upasaka is absorbed in Brahman. He’s one with the Infinite or the Absolute. The place will he transfer? The liberated sage who’s free from all needs and egoism doesn’t go to a different place. He doesn’t transfer. The Supreme Brahman is to not be reached by the liberated sage. He needn’t transport himself to a different locality. There isn’t any that means in any respect in journey for such a sage who’s absorbed in Nirguna Brahman. His ignorance is destroyed by the daybreak of data of Brahman. He turns into equivalent with the Supreme Self. If there’s journey for him additionally, then it could contradict Sruti texts like Shaking off good and evil, free from passions, he reaches the Highest Self, or Para-Brahman (Mun. Up. III.1.3).
How can the liberated sage who has change into one with the Supreme Brahman who’s secondless, who’s all-pervading, who’s Infinite, who’s with out movement, go to a different place by Devayana? He has already attained his purpose or union with Brahman. The journey alongside the Devayana is meaningless for him.
Due to this fact, he who has realised the Saguna Brahman, he who worships Saguna Brahman alone goes by the Devayana.
Upapannastallakshanarthopalabdherlokavat III.3.30 (389)
(The 2-fold view taken above) is justified as a result of we observe a goal characterised thereby (i.e., a goal of the going) as in extraordinary life.
Upapannah: is affordable; Tallakshanarthopalabdheh: for the traits which render such journey potential are seen; Lokavat: as is seen on the planet, as is the extraordinary expertise. (Tat: that; Lakshana: mark, attribute options; Artha: object; Upalabdheh: being recognized, on account of the acquiring.)
The earlier dialogue is sustained.
The meditations on Saguna or certified Brahman, such because the Paryankavidya of the Kaushitaki Upanishad, there’s a purpose for the person’s continuing on the trail of the gods (Devayana); as a result of the textual content mentions sure outcomes which could be attained solely by the person going to totally different locations, reminiscent of his mounting a sofa, his holding dialog with Brahman seated on a sofa, his experiencing numerous odours and so forth.
Quite the opposite happening the trail of the gods has nothing to do with excellent information. No goal is served by such a journey within the case of a liberated sage or Nirguna Upasaka in whom ignorance has been destroyed by the daybreak of data of Brahman or the Imperishable. He has attained oneness or unity with the Supreme Self. All his needs have been fulfilled. All his Karmas have been destroyed. He’s solely ready for the dissolution of the physique.
The destruction is analogous to what’s noticed in extraordinary life. If we want to attain some village we’ve got to proceed on a path main there, however no shifting on a path is required after we need to attain freedom from a illness.
ANIYAMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 18
The passage of the soul by Devayana applies equally
to all Vidyas of Saguna Brahman
Aniyamah sarvasamavirodhah sabdanumanabhyam III.3.31 (390)
There isn’t any restriction (as to the happening the trail of the gods for any Vidya). There isn’t any contradiction as is seen from the Sruti and Smriti.
Aniyamah: (there’s) no restriction; Sarvasam: of all; Avirodhah: there isn’t any contradiction; Sabdanumanabhyam: as is seen from Sruti and Smriti. (Sabdah: the phrase, i.e., the revealed scripture or Sruti; Anumana: inference or Smriti.)
The journey of the soul who is aware of Brahman is sustained.
We’ve got proven that the happening the trail of the gods is legitimate just for the Vidyas of Saguna Brahman, not for the information of Nirguna Brahman which is devoid of all qualities.
Now we observe that the happening the trail of the gods to Brahmaloka is talked about solely in a few of the certified Vidyas such because the Paryanka Vidya, the Panchagni Vidya, the Upakosala Vidya, the Dahara Vidya, however it isn’t talked about or expressly said in others such because the Madhu Vidya, the Sandilya Vidya, the Shodasakala Vidya, the Vaisvanara Vidya.
The doubt now arises whether or not the happening the trail of the gods is to be linked with these Vidyas during which it’s truly talked about or typically with all Vidyas of that sort.
This Sutra declares that every one worshippers of the Saguna Brahman, no matter their Vidyas could also be, go after dying by this path. That is seen from the Sruti and Smriti. Those that meditate thus by way of Panchagni Vidya and likewise those that perceive different Vidyas and likewise those that meditate within the forest with religion and austerities, on Saguna Brahman by way of every other Vidya proceed on the trail of the gods (Chh. Up. V.10.1.); (Bri. Up. VI.2.15).
Bhagavad Gita additionally declares, Gentle and darkness, these are regarded as the world’s eternal paths; by the one he goes who doesn’t return, by the opposite he returns once more (VIII.26).
The time period The True within the passage Those that within the forest, with religion, worship the True, i.e., Brahman, is commonly employed to indicate Brahman.
Thus it’s fairly clear that the happening the trail of gods just isn’t confined to these Vidyas during which it’s truly talked about or expressly said.
YAVADADHIKARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 19
Perfected souls might take a corporeal existence for divine mission
Yavadadhikaramavasthitiradhikarikanam III.3.32 (391)
Of those that have a mission to fulfil (there’s corporeal) existence, as long as the mission just isn’t fulfilled.
Yavadadhikaram: as long as the mission just isn’t fulfilled; Avasthitih: (there’s corporeal) existence; Adhikarikanam: of those that have a mission in life to fulfil. (Yavad: so long as; Adhikaram: mission, goal to be fulfilled.)
A believable objection to Sutra 31 is refuted.
The Purvapakshin says Rishi Apantaratamas, a instructor of the Vedas was by the order of Vishnu, born on this earth as Vyasa or Krishna Dvaipayana. Equally Vasishtha, the son of Brahma’s thoughts having parted from former physique in consequence of the curse of Nimi, was on the order of Brahma, once more procreated by Mitra and Varuna. Bhrigu and different sons of Brahma’s thoughts had been once more born on the sacrifice of Varuna. Sanatkumara additionally, who likewise was a son of Brahma’s thoughts, was in consequence of a boon being granted to Rudra, born once more as Skanda. Daksha, Narada and different Rishis had been born once more. It’s said that some assumed a brand new physique after the outdated physique had perished, some assumed by way of their supernatural powers numerous new our bodies whereas the outdated physique remained intact all of the whereas.
Now these Rishis had information of Brahman or the Absolute and but they needed to be reborn. If so what’s the usage of such information of Brahman? The information of Brahman might both be or not be the reason for last emancipation or freedom.
The Sutra refutes it and declares that ordinarily an individual just isn’t reborn after attaining information of the Absolute. However the case of those that have a divine mission to fulfil is totally different. They could have a number of births until their mission is fulfilled, after which they don’t seem to be born once more. They’re entrusted with the places of work conducive to the subsistence of the world such because the promulgation of the Vedas and the like. They assume new our bodies of their very own free will and never as the results of Karma. They go from one physique to a different, as if from one home into one other to be able to accomplish the duties of their places of work. They protect all of the true reminiscence of their identification. They create for themselves, by way of their energy over the fabric of the physique and the sense organs, new our bodies and occupy them both suddenly or in succession.
Smriti tells us that Sulabha, a lady who had information of Brahman, wished to enter into dialogue with Janaka. She left her personal physique, entered into that of Janaka, carried on a dialogue with him and once more returned into her personal physique.
Tat Tvam Asi (That thou artwork) doesn’t imply Tat Tvam Mrito Bhavishyasi (they’ll change into That after dying). It cannot be interpreted to imply Thou wilt be that after thou hast useless. One other textual content declares that the fruit of Data viz., union with Brahman springs up in the meanwhile when the com plete information of Brahman is attained. The Rishi Vamadeva noticed and understood it singing, I used to be Manu, I used to be the solar.
However they by no means come below the sway of Avidya or nescience although they could be born. The case is just like that of a liberated sage. A Jivanmukta continues his bodily existence even after attaining Brahma Jnana or Data of the Absolute so long as the Prarabdha Karma lasts. The divine mission of those Rishis like Sri Vyasa, Vasishtha, Apantaratamas, could be in comparison with the Prarabdha Karma of Jivanmuktas.
For all these causes it’s established that those that are endowed with true and ideal information attain in all circumstances last emancipation.
AKSHARADHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 20
The damaging attributes of Brahman talked about in numerous texts
are to be mixed in all meditations on Brahman
Aksharadhiyam tvavarodhah
samanyatadbhavabhyamaupasadavattaduktam III.3.33 (392)
However the conceptions of the (damaging) attributes of the Imperishable (Brahman) are to be mixed (from totally different texts the place the Imperishable Brahman is handled, as they type one Vidya), due to the similarity (of defining the Imperishable Brahman by way of denials) and the thing (the Imperishable Brahman) being the identical, as within the case of the Upasad (choices). This has been defined (by Jaimini within the Purvamimamsa).
Aksharadhiyam: of the meditation of damaging attributes belonging to the Imperishable; Tu: however, certainly; Avarodhah: mixture; Samanyatadbhavabhyam: due to the similarity (of denying Brahman by way of denials) and the thing (viz., Imperishable Brahman) being the identical; Aupasadavat: as within the case of the Upasad (providing) just like the hymn or the Mantra in reference to the Upasada ceremony; Tat: that; Uktam: has been defined (by Jaimini within the Purvamimamsa).
The damaging attributes of the Imperishable are actually examin ed, because the optimistic attributes had been examined in Sutra 11 of this part.
We learn within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, O Gargi! The Brahmanas or the knowers of Brahman name this Akshara or the Imperishable. It’s neither gross nor refined, neither quick nor lengthy (Bri. Up. III.8.8). Once more the Mundaka says, The Supreme Data is that by which the Imperishable (Akshara) is attained. That which is imperceivable, ungraspable, which has no household and no caste and many others. (Mun. Up. I.1.5-6). Elsewhere additionally the best Brahman, below the identify of Akshara is described as that of which all qualities are to be denied.
A doubt arises now as as to if the damaging qualities within the above two texts are to be mixed in order to type one Vidya or they’re to be handled as two separate Vidyas.
The Purvapakshin maintains that every denial is legitimate just for that passage during which the textual content truly displays it, and never for different locations. These damaging attributes don’t straight point out or specify the character of Brahman just like the optimistic attributes, Bliss, Peace, Data, Reality, Purity, Perfection, Eternity, and many others. Therefore the precept said in Sutra III.3.11 doesn’t apply right here, as a result of no goal is de facto served or gained by such a mix.
This Sutra refutes this and declares that such denials are to be mixed as a result of the tactic of educating Brahman by way of denial is similar and the thing of instruction can also be the identical, viz., the Imperishable Brahman (Akshara). The rule of Sutra III.3.11 applies right here additionally. In Sutra III.3.11 optimistic attributes of Brahman had been mentioned. Right here we’re involved with damaging attributes which educate Brahman by an oblique technique. The case is just like the Upasad choices. The Mantras for giving these choices are discovered solely within the Sama Veda. However the monks of the Yajur Veda use this Mantra given within the different Veda. The hymns which happen within the Sama Veda are recited by the Adhvaryu after the time of the Yajur Veda. This prin ciple has been established by Jaimini in Purvamimamsa (III.3. 9).
Equally the damaging attributes should be mixed right here additionally within the meditation on the Imperishable Brahman (Akshara).
The conception of the damaging attributes of the Indestruc tible (Akshara) as said within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is to be retained within the meditations on the Indestructible all over the place (i.e., in each Akshara Vidya) as a result of the identical Akshara is recog nised in each Akshara Vidya and likewise as a result of these damaging attributes are presupposed to be included amongst His important attributes.
IYADADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 21
Mundaka III.1.1 and Katha I.3.1 represent one Vidya
Iyadamananat III.3 34 (393)
As a result of (the identical factor) is described as such and such.
Iyat: a lot solely, this a lot; Amananat: on account of being males tioned within the scripture.
We learn within the Mundaka Upanishad Two birds of lovely plumage, inseparable associates, cling to the identical tree. Certainly one of them eats the candy and bitter fruits there of, the opposite appears on with out consuming (Mun. Up. III.1.1). The identical Mantra is discovered within the textual content of Svetasvatara Upanishad (IV.6).
Once more we’ve got, There are the 2 having fun with the fruits of their good deeds, entered into the cave, dwelling on the best summit. Those that know Brahman name them shade and lightweight, likewise these homeowners who carry out the Trinachiketa sacri fice (Katha Up. I.3.1).
The doubt right here arises, do we’ve got in these two texts two totally different Vidyas or one solely?
The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that these are two Vidyas, as a result of there are totally different objects of meditation. The Mundaka textual content declares that just one eats the fruit, whereas the opposite doesn’t. Katha textual content says that each of them benefit from the fruits of their good actions. So the thing of meditation just isn’t the identical. Because the objects of data differ in character, the Vidyas themselves should be regarded upon as separate.
This Sutra refutes it and declares that they type one Vidya, as a result of each describe the identical Lord as current thus and thus, i.e. within the type of the person soul. The aim or intention of the 2 Sruti passages is to show concerning the Highest Self or Para Brahman and present the identification of the Jiva and Para Brahman.
Because the phrase Dvau, i.e., two is used within the two Srutis we should realise that they consult with the identical Vidya. Although the Mundaka textual content says that one chook (the person soul) eats the fruits of actions and the opposite chook appears on with out consuming and although the latter passage refers back to the two as consuming fruits, the Vidyas are the identical as they consult with the identical entity. Simply as when in a bunch one carries an umbrella we are saying umbrella-holders go, even so the Para Brahman is also described as consuming fruits. The context refers clearly to the everlasting and Supreme Brahman (Aksharam brahma yat param).
The Katha Upanishad textual content intimates the identical highest Brahman which is above all needs. As it’s talked about along with the having fun with particular person soul, it’s itself metaphorically spoken of as having fun with, simply as we communicate of the `males with the umbrella’ though just one out of a number of carries an umbrella. All this has been defined at size below I.2.11.
Due to this fact, the Vidyas are one solely, as the thing of medita tion or Data is one.
ANTARATVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 22 (SUTRAS 35-36)
Brihadaranyaka III.4.1 and III.5.1 represent one Vidya
Antara bhutagramavatsvatmanah III.3.35 (394)
Because the Self is inside all, as within the case of the mixture of the weather, (there’s oneness of Vidya).
Antara: as being innermost of all, inside, the standing of being the inmost; Bhutagramavat: as within the case of the mixture of the weather; Svatmanah: of 1’s personal self.
Two passages from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad are taken up for dialogue to indicate that they relate to the identical Vidya.
Within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Ushasta questions Yajnavalkya, Clarify to me the Brahman which is current to intui tion, not hiddenthis Atman or Self which is inside all (Bri. Up. III.4.1). Yajnavalkya replies, That which breathes by way of Prana is your self, that’s inside all.
In the identical Upanishad Yajnavalkya offers a solution to the identical query put by Kahola, That which transcends starvation and thirst, grief and delusion, decay and dying, realizing this very self and many others. (Bri. Up. III.5.1).
The Purvapakshin maintains that these two are separate Vidyas, as a result of the replies given being totally different, the objects referred to should even be totally different.
This Sutra refutes this and declares that the thing is one, the Highest Self or Para Brahman, as a result of it’s not possible to conceive two selves being concurrently innermost of all in the identical physique.
Atman alone is taught within the two texts as being in the end immanent simply as Atman can also be taught as being immanent within the parts. The 2 passages refer solely to at least one Vidya, as a result of there might be just one Atman, who’s Sarvantara, i.e., in the end immanent. Among the many parts water is immanent in earth, hearth in water and so forth. However none has final imma nency. Even so there is just one final immanent entity.
Comparatively one component could be inside the opposite. However not one of the 5 parts which represent this bodily physique could be really the innermost of all. Equally two selves can’t be concurrently the innermost of all in the identical physique. Even so one self alone could be the innermost of all.
Due to this fact, the identical self is taught in each the replies of Yajnavalkya.
In each the circumstances the subject-matter of the query and the reply is Brahman. That is emphasised by the sage Yajnavalkya himself, when he repeats That soul of thine is the innermost soul of people. The totally different expositions of Yajnavalkya consult with the one and the identical object of worship, viz., Brahman.
As each texts equally declare the self to be inside all, they should be taken as constituting one Vidya solely. In each passages query and reply equally consult with a Self which is inside every little thing. For in a single physique, there can’t be two selves, every of which is inside every little thing else. One Self solely could also be inside every little thing. We learn within the Svetasvatara Upanishad He’s the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self inside all beings. As this Mantra data that one Self lives throughout the mixture of all beings, the identical holds good with regard to the 2 passages of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
As the thing of Data or the thing of worship is one, the Vidya is also one solely.
Anyatha bhedanupapattiriti chennopadesantaravat III.3.36 (395)
If it’s stated (that the 2 Vidyas are separate, for) different sensible the repetition can’t be accounted for, we reply not so; (it’s) like (the repetition) in one other instruction (within the Chhandogya).
Anyatha: in any other case; Bhedanupapattih: the repetition can’t be account ed for, no justification for the range within the wording of the 2 replies; Iti: so, this; Chet: if; Na: no, not so; Upadesantaravat: as will likely be seen from different teachings, as within the educating of one other Vidya, mode of meditation, specifically the Satya Vidya within the Chhandogya. (Bheda: distinction; Anupapattih: not acquiring.)
The opponent says that until the separateness of the 2 Vidyas be admitted, the separation of the 2 statements can’t be accounted for. He remarks that until the 2 texts refer to 2 totally different selves the repetition of the identical topic can be meaningless.
This Sutra says that it isn’t so. The repetition has a particular goal or intention. It helps the aspirant to understand the themes extra clearly and deeply from totally different view factors. The repetition doesn’t justify us to take that two totally different selves are taught right here. In Chhandogya Upanishad the instruction con veyed within the phrases That’s the Self, Thou artwork That (Tat Tvam Asi), O Svetaketu, is repeated 9 occasions, and but the one Vidya just isn’t thereby cut up into many. Equally is that this case additionally.
The introductory and concluding clauses point out that every one these passages have the identical sense. There additionally the Upakrama (starting) is similar. So is the conclusion (Upasamhara). It says, Every thing else is perishable, Every thing else is of evil.
Within the earlier Brahmana, Atman is taught as being sepa charge from the physique and the senses. Within the later Brahmana, Atman is taught as not having starvation, and many others. However the Vidya is similar.
The previous part declares the existence of the Supreme Self which is neither trigger nor impact, whereas the latter qualifies it as that which transcends all of the relative attributes of the Samsara state, reminiscent of starvation, thirst and so forth. The second reply tells one thing particular concerning the Self.
The 2 sections, subsequently, type one Vidya solely.
VYATIHARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 23
The Sruti prescribes reciprocal meditation in Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6
Vyatiharo vishimsanti hitaravat III.3.37 (396)
There may be change (of meditation), as a result of the texts distin guish (two meditations); as in different circumstances.
Vyatiharah: change; reciprocity (of meditation); Visimshanti: (the scriptures) clarify clearly, distinguish; Hello: as a result of, for; Itaravat: as in different circumstances.
The Aitareya Aranyaka says just about the individual within the solar, What I’m, that He’s; what He’s, that am I (Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6).
A doubt arises right here whether or not the meditation is to be of a reciprocal nature, a double one by way of change, i.e., figuring out the worshipper with the being within the solar, after which inversely, figuring out the being within the solar with the worshipper; or solely within the former method.
The Purvapakshin maintains that the meditation is to be practised within the former method solely and never within the reverse method additionally. He argues that the soul can be exalted by the previous meditation and the Lord be lowered by the latter one! There’s a that means within the first sort of meditation however the second sort of meditation is meaningless.
The current Sutra refutes this view and declares that the meditation is to be practised in each methods as a result of such a state ment can be purportless. Trade, or reverse meditation is expressly recorded within the Sruti for the aim of meditation, simply as different qualities of the Self reminiscent of its being the self of all, Satyasankalpa, and many others., are recorded for a similar goal. For each texts make the distinctive double enunciation I’m Thou and Thou artwork I. Now the double enunciation has a way provided that a twofold meditation is to be primarily based upon it; different sensible it could be devoid of that means; since one assertion can be all that’s wanted.
This is not going to in any method decrease Brahman. Even in that method, solely the unity of the Self is meditated upon. Brahman who’s bodiless could be adored or meditated at the same time as having a type. The double assertion is merely meant to verify the oneness of the Self. It offers drive or emphasis to the identification.
Due to this fact, a twofold meditation must be admitted, not a single one. This confirms the unity of the Self. The double relation enounced within the Sruti textual content must be meditated upon, and is to be reworked to different Vidyas additionally which deal with of the identical topic.
SATYADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 24
Brihadaranyaka V.4.1 and V.5.3 deal with of 1 Vidya
about Satya Brahman
Saiva hello satyadayah III.3.38 (397)
The identical (Satya Vidya is taught in each locations), as a result of (attributes like) Satya and many others., (are seen in each locations).
Sa eva: the identical (Satya Vidya); Hello: as a result of; Satyadayah: (attributes like) Satya and many others.
We learn within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad He who is aware of this nice, wonderful, first born (Being) because the Satya Brahman, conquers these worlds (V.4.1). Once more we learn That which is Satya is that Solar the being who’s in that orb and the being who’s in the proper eye… he destroys evils (V.5.3).
Now a doubt arises whether or not these two Satya Vidyas are one or totally different.
The Purvapakshin holds that the Vidyas are two; as a result of the textual content declares two totally different outcomes, one within the earlier passage He conquers these worlds(V.4.1), the opposite one afterward He destroys evil and leaves it (V.5.3).
The Sutra declares that they’re one, as a result of the second textual content refers back to the Satya of the sooner textual content, That which is Satya, and many others.
In actuality there is just one lead to each circumstances. The state ment of a second end result merely has the aim of glorifying the brand new instruction given about Satya or the True, viz., that its secret names are `Ahar’ and `Aham’.
Due to this fact, the conclusion is that the textual content data just one Vidya of the True (Satyam), distinguished by such and such particulars and that therefore all of the qualities talked about reminiscent of Reality and so forth are to be comprehended in a single act of meditation.
Some commentators assume that the above Sutra refers to not the query whether or not Bri. Up. V.4,1 and V.5.3 type one Vidya or one meditation however to the query whether or not the Brihadaranyaka textual content concerning the individuals within the solar and within the eye and the same Chhandogya textual content (I.6.6), Now that golden one who is seen throughout the solar and many others. represent one Vidya or not.
They arrive to the conclusion that they represent one Vidya and that therefore reality and the opposite qualities talked about within the Brihadaranyaka are to be mixed with the Chhandogya textual content additionally.
However this interpretation of the Sutra is objectionable, as a result of the Chhandogya Vidya refers back to the Udgitha and is thus linked with sacrificial rites. The marks of this affiliation are seen to start with, the center and the tip of the Vidya. We learn at the start, The Rik is the earth, the Saman is hearth, within the center, Rik and Saman are his joints, and there fore he’s the Udgitha, and ultimately, He who is aware of this sings as a Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1).
Within the Brihadaranyaka, quite the opposite, there’s verily, nothing to attach the Vidya with the sacrificial rites. As the subject material is totally different, the Vidyas are separate and the main points of the 2 Vidyas are to be held separate.
KAMADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 25
Attributes talked about in Chh. Up. VIII.1.1 and
Bri. Up. IV.4.22 are to be mixed on account of
a number of widespread options in each texts
Kamaditaratra tatra chayatanadibhyah III.3.39 (398)
(Qualities like true) want and many others., (talked about within the Chhandogya Upanishad are to be inserted) within the different (i.e., within the Brihadaranyaka) and (these talked about) within the different (i.e., within the Brihadaranyaka are additionally to be inserted within the Chhandogya) on account of the abode, and many others., (being the identical in each).
Kamadi: (Satyasankalpadi) (True) want and many others.; Itaratra: within the different, elsewhere, within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad; Tatra: there, within the Chhandogya Upanishad; Cha: additionally; Ayatanadibhyah: on account of the abode and many others.
Dahara Vidya of the Chhandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads is now mentioned.
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad (VIII.1.1) we learn, There may be this metropolis of Brahman and in it the palace, the small lotus and in it the small ether; that’s the Self. We learn within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (IV.4.22) That nice unborn self who con sists of Data, who’s surrounded by the Pranas lies within the ether that’s throughout the coronary heart.
A doubt right here arises whether or not the 2 represent one Vidya and subsequently the particulars are to be mixed or not.
The current Sutra declares that they type one Vidya and the qualities talked about in every are to be mixed within the different, as a result of many factors are widespread in each.
Needs and so forth, i.e., The standard of getting true needs and so forth. The phrase `Kama’ stands for `Satyakama’ simply as individuals sometimes say Datta for Devadatta and Bhama for Satyabhama. This high quality and the opposite qualities which the Chhandogya attributes to the ether throughout the coronary heart, should be mixed with the Brihadaranyaka passage, and vice versa, i.e., the qualities talked about within the Brihadaranyaka reminiscent of being the ruler of all, have additionally to be ascribed to the Self free from sin, described within the Chhandogya.
The explanation for that is that the 2 passages exhibit quite a lot of widespread options. Frequent to each is the center thought to be abode. Frequent once more is the Lord as object of data or meditation. Frequent is also the Lord being thought to be a financial institution stopping these worlds from being confounded. And there are a number of different factors additionally.
However an objection is raised. There are additionally variations. Within the Chhandogya the attributes are ascribed to the ether throughout the coronary heart, whereas within the Brihadaranyaka they’re attributed to Brah man abiding within the ether. This objection has no drive. It cannot definitely stand. We’ve got proven below I.3.14 that the time period ether within the Chhandogya designates Brahman.
There may be, nonetheless, one distinction between the 2 texts. The Chhandogya treats of Saguna Brahman whereas the Brihadaranyaka treats of Nirguna Brahman or the Supreme Brahman destitute of all qualities. Yajnavalkya says to Janaka For that individual just isn’t hooked up to something. That Self is to be described by No, No,neti, neti (Bri. Up. IV.3.14).
However because the certified Brahman is essentially one with the unqualified Brahman we should conclude that the Sutra teaches the mix of the qualities for glorifying Brahman and never for the aim of religious meditation or Upasana.
ADARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 26 (SUTRAS 40-41)
Pranagnihotra needn’t be noticed on days of quick
Adaradalopah III.3.40 (399)
On account of the respect proven (to the Pranagnihotra by the Sruti) there could be no omission (of this act) (even when the consuming of meals is omitted).
Adarat: on account of the respect proven; Alopah: there could be no omission.
This Sutra offers the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.
As a result of there’s loving emphasis on Pranagnihotra in Jabala Sruti, such Pranagnihotra shouldn’t be omitted.
Within the Vaisvanara Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad, the worshipper is requested first earlier than he takes his meals to supply meals to every of the Pranas, saying To Prana I provide this. The Sruti attaches a lot significance to this Pranagnihotra. The Sruti enjoins that meals should be provided to the Pranas even earlier than entertaining visitors.
Now the query is whether or not the Pranagnihotra is to be noticed even on days of fasting.
The Sutra declares that there must be no omission of it even on days of fasting, because the Sruti attaches a lot significance to it. The Jabala Sruti says it should be noticed even on days of fasting by sipping not less than just a few drops of water.
To this Purvapaksha the subsequent Sutra offers a reply.
Upasthite’tastadvachanat III.3.41 (400)
When consuming is going down (the Pranagnihotra must be carried out) from that (i.e., the meals first eaten), for thus (the Sruti) declares.
Upasthite: being current, being close to, when meals is served; Atah: from that, on that account; Tadvachanat: for thus (the Sruti) declares.
This Sutra refutes the view expressed within the final Sutra, and declares that Pranagnihotra, needn’t be carried out on fasting days, as a result of the Sruti expressly declares, Due to this fact the primary meals which comes is supposed for Homa. And he who affords that first oblation ought to provide it to Prana, saying Svaha (Chh. Up. 19.1).
The primary portion of the meals must be provided to the Pranas on these days when it’s taken. The Sruti offers significance to this solely and never that it must be noticed even on days of fasting.
TANNIRDHARANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 27
Upasanas talked about in reference to sacrifices
aren’t their components, however separate
Tannirdharananiyamastaddrishteh
prithagghyapratibandhah phalam III.3.42 (401)
There isn’t any rule concerning the inviolability of that (i.e., Upasa nas linked with sure sacrifices) that’s seen (from the Sruti itself); for a separate fruit (belongs to the Upasanas), viz., non-obstruction (of the outcomes of the sacrifice).
Tannirdharananiyamah: no rule, concerning the inviolability of that; Taddrishtih: that being seen (from the Sruti); Prithak: separate; Hello: as a result of; Apratibandhah: non-obstruction; Phalam: fruit, reward, end result.
This Sutra states {that a} meditation or Upasana prescribed in reference to a ceremonial ceremony just isn’t obligatory.
We’ve got the path to make a sure Upasana as an Anga (component or restrict) of Karma (Karmangavabaddhopasti). Is it an indispensable component? No. Whether it is carried out there will likely be better fruit. Even when it isn’t executed the Karma will likely be full. That is clear from the Chhandogya Upanishad.
We now enter into an enquiry whether or not sure Upasanas talked about with some sacrifices are a part of these sacrifices and subsequently inseparable and completely linked with them.
The current Sutra declares that Upasanas don’t represent part of the sacrifice, as a result of there isn’t any rule as to their inseparability. The Sruti expressly declares that the sacrifice could be executed with or with out the Upasanas. The ignorant man, in addition to the sensible man might each interact within the Udgitha worship; each carry out the sacrifice (Chh. Up. I.1.10). This exhibits that the Udgitha worship could also be carried out, the meditation or Upasana half being ignored. That which is carried out with meditation, religion and information turns into all of the more practical.
There isn’t any mounted rule for obligatory efficiency of Udgitha meditation and the like in ceremonials, as a result of efficiency of the meditation on `OM’ is left non-obligatory to the performer and likewise as a result of the fruit in every case is sort of distinct, if the efficiency of the ceremony just isn’t in any method obstructed, as a result of it’s clear that the meditation is certain to supply its personal impact independently of the ceremony however the ceremony is liable to interruption and obstruction. If, nonetheless, the meditation and the ceremony be conjoined, fruit turns into doubly efficient.
The Chhandogya Sruti (I.1.10) signifies that the ceremony could be executed even with out meditation or Upasana and that to carry out the ceremony with meditation is to make it more practical. Therefore the Udgitha meditation and all others carried out in connec tion with ceremonial ceremony (Karmanga Upasana), aren’t com pulsory and are to be executed by these solely who want to attain better fruits.
The unique sacrifice brings its personal rewards however the Upasana will increase its outcomes. Due to this fact, the Upasana doesn’t represent part of the sacrifice. Due to this fact, it might or is probably not executed based on the candy will of the sacrificer.
The Upasana prevents any obstruction to the outcomes of the sacrifice. This doesn’t make it part of the ceremonial ceremony. The rewards of the sacrifice could also be delayed on account of the intervention of an evil Karma of the sacrificer. The Upasana annihilates the impact of this evil deed and hastens the attainment of the fruits of the sacrifice. That’s all. The sacrifice doesn’t depend upon the Upasana for its rewards.
Due to this fact, the Upasana doesn’t type part of the sacrifice and is, subsequently, non-obligatory.
PRADANADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 28
Meditations on Vayu and Prana are to be stored separate
however the important oneness of those two
Pradanavadeva taduktam III.3.43 (402)
As within the case of the choices (Vayu and Prana should be held aside). This has been defined (within the Purvamimamsa Sutra).
Pradanavat: as within the case of the choices of the `Pradana, oblation’; Eva: precisely; Tat: that; Uktam: has been said.
The part of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which begins Voice held, I shall communicate (Bri. Up. I.5.21) determines Prana to be one of the best amomg the organs of the physique and Vayu to be one of the best among the many Devas.
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad Vayu is alleged to be the overall absorber of the Devas, Vayu certainly is the absorber (IV.3.1); Prana is alleged to be the overall absorber of the organs of the physique, Breath certainly is the absorber (IV.3.3).
Within the Samvarga Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad, meditation on Prana just about the physique and on Vayu just about the gods is prescribed.
Many Sruti texts say that Prana and Vavu are one in essence. Due to this fact, the Purvapakshin essential tains that the 2 meditations could be mixed and that Vayu and Prana are non-separate as a result of of their true nature they don’t differ. And as their true nature doesn’t differ they have to not be meditated upon individually. In some locations we’ve got even a direct identification of the 2, What Prana is that’s VayuYah pranah sa vayuh.
The current Sutra refutes the above view and declares that they’re to be stored aside regardless of the non-difference in nature of Prana and Vayu, as a result of their capabilities on account of their totally different abodes are totally different. Though there could also be non-difference of true nature, but there could also be distinction of situation giving rise to distinction of instruction, and thru the latter to distinction of meditation.
The Sutra compares the case below dialogue to a parallel one from the Karmakanda by way of the clause as within the case of the choices.
As an illustration we might take Pradhana the place Purodasa (oblations) is given individually to Raja Indra (the Ruler), Adhiraja Indra (the monarch or the over-ruler), and Svaraja Indra (the sovereign or the self-ruler) based on his totally different capacities, although Indra is basically one, although he’s one god.
Therefore, although the Vidya is one from the Adhyatmic standpoint, there’s separateness from the Adhidaivata standpoint. So the meditations on Prana and Vayu should be stored aside. This precept is established by Jaimini, in Purva mimamsa (Sankarsha alias Devata Kanda).
LINGABHUYASTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 29 (SUTRAS 44-52)
The fires in Agnirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka aren’t half
of the sacrificial act, however type an unbiased Vidya
Lingabhuyastvat taddhi baliyastadapi III.3.44 (403)
On account of nearly all of indicatory marks (the fires of the thoughts, speech, and many others., within the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins don’t type a part of the sacrifice), for it (the indicatory mark) is stronger (than the context or the overall material). This additionally (has been defined within the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).
Lingabhuyastvat: due to an abundance of distinguishing marks; Tat: that, the distinguishing mark; Hello: as a result of; Baliyah: is stronger; Tat: that; Api: additionally.
Within the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins (Satapatha Brahmana) sure fires named after thoughts, speech, eyes, and many others., are talked about.
A doubt arises whether or not these type a part of the sacrifice talked about therein or type an unbiased Vidya.
The current Sutra declares that despite the prima facie view which arises from the context, these type a separate Vidya as a result of there are numerous indicatory marks to indicate that these fires type an unbiased Vidya.
The indicatory marks are of better drive than the context or the main material (Prakarana). This has been defined within the Purvamimamsa (III.3.14).
The reference within the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad takes a person’s age to be 100 years, i.e., 36,000 days and describes every day’s mentality as an Agnichayana or hearth sacrifice. The passage happens in a portion regarding Karma or ceremonial motion. For those who say that such a meditation is an Anga or component within the ceremonial as a result of it happens in a passage regarding Karma, we are saying that almost all of indicatory marks is in any other case, e.g., the Sruti says that such Chayana goes on even in sleep. A particular purpose given in a passage has a better weight or drive than mere context.
Purvavikalpah prakaranat syat kriyamanasavat III.3.45 (404)
(The fires spoken of within the earlier Sutra are) different types of the one talked about first, (i.e., the precise sacrificial hearth) on account of the context; (they) should be a part of the sacrifice just like the imaginary drink or the Manasa-cup.
Purvavikalpah: another type of the already talked about first; Prakaranat: on account of the context, as could be understood from the subject material of the chapter; Syat: there could also be, should be; Kriyamana savat: ceremonial act, just like the act of meditation, just like the imaginary drink, as within the case of psychological operation within the soma-sacrifice.
An objection is raised to the previous Sutra.
The Purvapakshin raises a recent objection. On the tenth day of the Soma sacrifice a Soma drink is obtainable to Prajapati whereby the earth is thought to be the cup and the ocean because the Soma. It is a psychological act solely, and but it kinds part of the sacrifice.
The identical then holds good with regard to the quasi-agnis fabricated from thoughts and so forth although these fires are psychological, i.e., imaginary, but they type a part of the sacrifice and never an unbiased Vidya, due to the context. They’re an alternate type of the particular hearth talked about first.
You might say that it’s only Arthavada and {that a} mere Arthavada can not override the context and that such meditation is a part of the Karma as is the case within the Dasaratra Karma.
Atidesascha III.3.46 (405)
And on account of the extension (of the attributes of the particular hearth to those imaginary fires).
Atidesat: on account of the extension (of the attributes of’ the primary to those fires); Cha: and.
Objection to Sutra 44 is sustained by presenting one other argument in help of Sutra 45.
The Purvapakshin offers one more reason to help his view. The Sruti in that passage ascribes all of the attributes of the particular hearth to those imaginary fires. Due to this fact, they’re a part of the sacrifice.
Vidyaiva tu nirdharanat III.3.47 (406)
However (the fires) relatively represent the Vidya, as a result of (the Sruti) asserts it.
Vidya: Vidya, type of meditation or worship, Data; Eva: alone, certainly; Tu: verily, undoubtedly, however; Nirdharanat: as a result of the Sruti asserts it.
Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are actually refuted.
The phrase `Tu’ (however) units apart the Purvapaksha. It refutes the opponent.
The current Sutra declares that the fires type an indepen dent Vidya, as a result of the textual content asserts that They’re constructed of data (Vidya) solely, and that By information they’re constructed for him who thus is aware of.
Darsanaccha III.3 48 (407)
And since (within the textual content indicatory marks of which can be) seen.
Darsanat: it being seen within the scriptures, as a result of it’s clearly said in Sruti, as a result of (of the indicatory marks) seen; Cha: and.
The indicatory marks are these referred to in Sutra 44. In actual fact the interior indications present that it’s a Vidya and never a Karmanga.
Srutyadibaliyastvaccha na badhah III.3.49 (408)
(The view that the Agnis or fires represent an unbiased Vidya) can’t be refuted, owing to the better drive of the Sruti and many others.
Srutyadibaliyastvat: on account of the better drive of the Sruti and many others.; Cha: and; Na: no, can not; Badhah: refutation.
Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are additional refuted.
There isn’t any negation of this view on the premise of the context, due to the better power of Sruti, and many others.
Our opponent has no proper to find out on the bottom of Prakarana that the Agnis are subordinate to the sacrificial motion and so to put aside our view based on which they’re unbiased. For we all know from the Purvamimamsa that direct enunciation (Sruti), indicatory mark (Linga) and syntactical connection (Vakya) are of better drive than main material (Prakarana) and all these three technique of proof are seen to verify our view of the Agnis being unbiased.
Mere context is of no drive in opposition to categorical Sruti, Linga, and many others. The Sruti used the phrase `Eva’ the place there’s an crucial tense, and many others., used, a mere Upadesa could be handled as an Arthavada, as a result of there’s additionally an categorical command. The place there isn’t any such indication, an Upadesa should be handled as a Vidhi. Due to this fact what we’ve got right here is an unbiased Vidya and never a Karmanga.
The Sruti straight says, All these fires are kindled with information alone. The indicatory mark is that this. All beings kindle these fires for him, even when he’s asleep. This continuity of the fireplace exhibits that they’re psychological ones. An precise sacrifice just isn’t continued throughout sleep. The syntactical connections Via meditation alone these fires of the worshipper are kindled. These three are extra forcible than mere context.
Anubandhadibhyah prajnantaraprithaktvavat
drishtascha taduktam III.3.50 (409)
On account of the connection and so forth (the fires constructed of thoughts, and many others., type an unbiased Vidya), in the identical method as different Vidyas (like Sandilya Vidya) are separate; and it’s seen (that despite the context a sacrifice is handled as unbiased). This has been defined (within the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).
Anubandhadibhyah: from the connection and so forth; Prajnantaraprithaktvavat: at the same time as the opposite Vidyas are separate; Drishtah: (it’s) seen; Cha: and; Tat: that; Uktam: is said (within the Purvamimamsa by Jaimini).
The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is sustained.
This Sutra offers further causes in help of the view set forth in Sutra 47.
Independence has, in opposition to the overall material, to be assumed for the fire-altars constructed of thoughts and so forth, as a result of the textual content connects the constituent members of the sacrificial motion with actions of the thoughts. The textual content connects for the aim of Sampad Upasana (meditations primarily based on resemblance) components of a sacrifice with psychological actions, e.g., These fires are began mentally, the altars are arrange mentally, the cups are taken mentally, the Udgatris are praised males tally, the Hotris are recited mentally, every little thing linked with this sacrifice is completed mentally. That is potential provided that there’s a sharp distinction between issues which resemble one another.
The Sruti mentions in regard to such psychological worship all of the greatness of a Karmanga. Due to this fact Atidesa (similarity) applies even on the footing of the context referring to an inde pendent Vidya which is separate from a Karmanga.
The fires represent an unbiased Vidya, simply because the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya, type separate Vidyas, though talked about together with sacrificial acts.
The same factor is seen in Aveshti being executed as an unbiased ceremony within the Rajasuya sacrifice. It’s noticed within the sacrificial portion of the Vedas, that although the sacrifice Aveshti is talked about together with the Rajasuya sacrifice, it’s but thought of as an unbiased sacrifice by Jaimini within the Purva mimamsa Sutras.
Na samanyadapyupalabdhermrityuvanna hello
lokapattih III.3.51 (410)
Regardless of the resemblance (of the fires to the imaginary drink, they do) not (represent a part of the sacrificial act) as a result of it’s seen (from the explanations given, and on the bottom of Sruti that they type an unbiased Vidya) as within the case of dying; for the world doesn’t change into (hearth, as a result of it resembles hearth in some factors).
Na: not; Samanyadapi: despite the resemblance, due to widespread ness, on the bottom of their resemblance to sacrificial hearth; Upalabdheh: for it’s seen; Mrityuvat: simply as within the case of dying; Na hello lokapattih: for the world doesn’t change into (hearth on account of sure resemblances).
The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is sustained.
Although being a psychological act, there is a component of similarity, it isn’t a Karmanga as a result of it’s said to have a separate fruit. That is clear from the illustrations regarding Mrityu and describing the earth as hearth.
The resemblance cited by the Purvapakshin has no drive. It can not definitely stand as a result of on account of the explanations already given, viz., the Sruti, indicatory mark, and many others., the fires in query subserve the aim of man solely, and never the aim of some sacrificial motion.
Mere resemblance can hardly justify the opposite view. Something certainly might resemble something in some level or different; however despite that there stays the person dissimilarity of every factor from all different issues.
The case is analogous to that of `dying’. The resemblance cited is just like the widespread epithet `dying’ utilized to fireplace and the being within the solar. The being in that orb is dying certainly (Sat. Br. X.5.2.3). Hearth certainly is dying (Tait. Samh. V.1.10.3). This resemblance can not make hearth and the being in the identical one.
Once more we’ve got This world is a hearth certainly, O Gautama, the solar is its gasoline and many others., (Chh. Up. V.4.1). Right here it doesn’t comply with from the similarity of gasoline and so forth that the world doesn’t truly change into hearth.
Thus additionally in our case. Therefore from the truth that the Manaschita Agni (hearth) is a psychological act just like the Manasagraha which is a Karmanga, you can not on that floor of such similarity alone argue that it is also a Karmanga.
Parena cha sabdasya tadvidhyam
bhuyastvattvanubandhah III.3.52 (411)
And from the next (Brahmana) the very fact of the textual content (below dialogue) being such (i.e., enjoining an unbiased Vidya) (is understood). However the connection (of the fanciful Agnis or imaginary fires with the precise hearth is) on account of the abundance (of the attributes of the latter which can be imagined in these fires).
Parena: from the next (Brahmana), by the next expression, by the statements instantly following; Cha: and; Sabdasya: of Sruti, of the textual content, of the phrase; Tadvidhyam: the very fact of being such; Bhuyastvat: due to abundance; Tu: however; Anubandhah: connection.
In a subsequent Brahmana we’ve got By information they ascend there the place all needs are attained. These expert in phrases don’t go there, nor those that destitute of data do penance. This verse depreciates mere works and praises Vidya or information. A former Brahmana additionally viz., the one starting The place that orb leads (Sat. Br. X.5.2.23) concludes with a state ment of the fruit of data Immortal turns into he whose self is dying and thereby exhibits that works aren’t the chief factor. Therefore we conclude that the injunction of the Sruti is that the fires represent an unbiased Vidya.
The connection of the fires with the precise hearth just isn’t as a result of they represent a part of the sacrifice however as a result of most of the attributes of the true hearth are imagined within the fires of the Vidya, within the Agnis constructed of thoughts. The assertion of the fires constructed of thoughts together with the extraordinary sacrificial hearth is because of an abundance of widespread issues with the latter.
All this establishes the conclusion that the fire-altars constructed of thoughts and so forth represent an unbiased Vidya.
AIKATMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 30 (SUTRAS 53-54)
Atman is an entity distinct from the physique
Eka atmanah sarire bhavat III.3.53 (412)
Some (preserve the non-existence) of a separate self (besi des the physique) on account of the existence (of the self) the place a physique is (solely).
Eka: some (preserve the non-existence); Atmanah: of a separate self (apart from the physique); Sarire: within the physique; Bhavat: due to existence.
On this subject the existence of an Atman other than the physique is taken up for dialogue. Until there’s a soul other than the physique there isn’t any use of the scripture educating liberation. Nor can there be any scope for moral instructions that are the technique of attainment of heaven or for the educating that the soul is Brahman.
There should be a soul other than the physique who can benefit from the fruits of the Upasana or Vidyas, in any other case of what avail is Upasana? If there isn’t any soul all Upasanas change into ineffective.
At current we are going to show the existence of a soul totally different from the physique to be able to set up thereby the qualification of the self for bondage and launch. For if there have been no selves totally different from the physique, there can be no room for injunction which have the opposite world for his or her end result, nor might it’s taught of anyone that Brahman is his Self.
This Sutra offers the view of the Charvakas or Lokayatikas (materialists) who deny the existence of an Atman totally different from the physique. They are saying that consciousness is a mere materials product and that the physique is the soul. They declare that consciousness is seen to exist solely when there’s a physique and that it’s nowhere skilled unbiased of the physique. Due to this fact consciousness is barely an attribute or high quality of the physique. There isn’t any separate self or soul on this physique.
They are saying man is barely a physique. Consciousness is the standard of the physique. Consciousness is just like the intoxicating high quality which arises when sure supplies are combined in sure proportions. No single materials has the intoxicating impact.
Though consciousness just isn’t noticed in earth, and the opposite exterior parts, both single or mixed, but it might seem in them when reworked into the form of a physique. Consciousness springs from them. No soul is discovered after the physique dies and that therefore as each are current or absent collectively, consciousness is barely an attribute of the physique simply as gentle and warmth are attributes of fireplace.
As life, actions, consciousness, remembrances and so forth, that are thought to be qualities of the Atman by those that preserve that there’s an unbiased Atman other than the physique, are noticed solely throughout the our bodies and never exterior the our bodies, and as an abode of these attributes totally different from the physique can’t be proved, it follows that they should be attributes of the physique solely.
Due to this fact, the Self just isn’t totally different from the physique.
The subsequent Sutra offers a reply to this conclusion of the Charvakas or Lokayatikas (materialists).
Vyatirekastadbhavabhavitvanna tupalabdhivat III.3.54 (413)
However not (so); a self or soul separate (from the physique does exist), as a result of (Consciousness) doesn’t exist even when there’s the physique (after dying), as within the case of cognition or per ceptive consciousness.
Vyatirekah: separation; Tadbhavabhavitvat: for (consciousness) doesn’t exist even when there’s the physique; Na: not (so); Tu: however; Upalabdhivat: as within the case of data or cognition.
The assertion within the previous Sutra is refuted.
The soul is separate as a result of even when the physique exists the soul goes away. They’re separate simply as topic and object are separate.
The view expressed by the opponent within the earlier Sutra is definitely incorrect, as a result of the Atma-Dharma reminiscent of Chaitanya (consciousness), and many others., aren’t discovered after dying, although the physique exists. Consciousness can’t be an attribute of the physique, as a result of we don’t discover consciousness in a physique after an individual dies.
This consciousness is an attribute of one thing which is totally different from the physique and which abides within the physique.
The topic and the thing can not probably be equivalent. Hearth can not burn itself. The acrobat can not stand upon his personal shoulder. Can type sense type? Can sound hear sound? No. Consciousness is everlasting, as it’s of the identical equivalent high quality at all times. Are you able to say that consciousness is a top quality of the sunshine, as a result of gentle is critical to see kinds? Even so consciousness just isn’t a top quality of the physique. Furthermore consciousness capabilities in desires even with out the help of the physique.
The Charvakas settle for that the cogniser is totally different from the factor cognised. So the experiencer of this physique, he who cognises this physique should be totally different from the physique. He who cognises this physique is the Self.
Due to this fact, consciousness is an attribute of this Self, relatively its very essence of nature.
As consciousness constitutes the character of the Self, the Self should be distinct from the physique. That consciousness is everlasting follows from the uniformity of its character and we, subsequently, might conclude that the aware Self is everlasting additionally. That consciousness is the character of the Self, that it’s everlasting, follows from the truth that the Self, though linked with a distinct state, recognises itself because the aware agent a recognition expressed in judgments reminiscent of I noticed this and from the very fact of remembrance and so forth being potential.
Due to this fact, the view that the Self is one thing separate from the physique is free from all objections.
ANGAVABADDHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 31 (SUTRAS 55-56)
Upasanas linked with sacrificial acts, i.e., Udgitha Upasana
are legitimate for all faculties
Angavabaddhastu na sakhasu hello prativedam III.3.55 (414)
However (the Upasanas or meditations linked with components) (of sacrificial acts are) not (restricted) to (explicit) Sakhas, based on the Veda (to which they belong), (however to all its Sakhas as a result of the identical Upasana is described in all).
Angavabaddhah: (Upasanas) linked components (of sacrificial acts); Tu: however; Na: not; Sakhasu: to (explicit) Sakhas; Hello: as a result of; Prativedam: in every Veda, based on the Veda.
There isn’t any rule that the Angavabaddha (Karmanga) Upa sana in every Sruti Sakha is separate and must be confined to it alone.
The above stated intervening or occasional dialogue is over. Now we pursue the principle theme. In Udgitha, and many others., numerous Karmanga Upasanas are taught. From this you possibly can not say that every Upasana in every Sruti Sakha is totally different, on account of the proximity of textual content and the distinction in Svaras or sounds. All such Upasanas could also be taken collectively, as a result of the Udgitha Sruti is extra highly effective than mere proximity of context or range of Svara.
There are particular Upasanas talked about in reference to sacrificial acts, as for instance the meditation on `OM’ which is linked with the Udgitha as Prana, or the meditation on the Udgitha because the earth and so forth. Let a person meditate on the syllable `OM’ because the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). Let a person meditate on the five-fold Saman because the 5 worlds (Chh. Up. II.2.1).
A doubt right here arises whether or not the meditations or Vidyas are enjoined just about the Udgitha and so forth as belonging to a sure Sakha solely or as belonging to all Sakhas. The doubt arises as a result of the Udgitha and so forth are chanted in a different way in numerous Sakhas, as a result of the accents, and many others., differ. Due to this fact, they could be thought of totally different.
Right here the Purvapakshin holds that the Vidyas are enjoined solely just about the Udgitha and so forth which belong to the actual Sakha to which the Vidya belongs. Why? Due to proximity.
The current Sutra refutes the view that they’re so restricted, as a result of the textual content speaks of those Upasanas typically and so they’re all one in every of the branches.
The phrase `tu’ (however) discards the prima facie view or the view of the Purvapakshin. The Upasanas aren’t restricted to their very own Sakhas based on the Veda to which they belong however are legitimate for all Sakhas, as a result of the direct statements of the textual content concerning the Udgitha and so forth enounce no specification. Direct assertion has better drive or weight than proximity.
There isn’t any purpose why the Vidya shouldn’t be of basic reference. We, subsequently, conclude that, though the Sakhas differ as to accents and the like, the Vidyas talked about consult with the Udgitha and so forth belonging to all Sakhas, as a result of the textual content speaks solely of the Udgitha and so forth typically.
Mantradivadvavirodhah III.3.56 (415)
Or else, there isn’t any contradiction (right here), as within the case of Mantras and the like.
Mantradivat: like Mantras, and many others.; Va: or else; Avirodhah: there isn’t any contradiction.
The dialogue commenced in Sutra 33 is sustained.
Simply as Mantras, and many others., talked about in just one Sakha, are utilized in one other Sakha, with respect to that exact ceremony, so additionally the Upasanas linked with explicit rites in a single Sakha of the Veda could be utilized to the opposite Sakhas.
As for instance the Mantra Kutarurasi (thou artwork the grinding stone), prescribed in a single Department of the Vedas for taking stone to grind rice, is appropriate in that ceremony each the place; even so the Upasana (meditation) prescribed in a single Department of the Vedas could also be transferred or utilized to different Sakhas or Branches with out apprehending any impropriety.
We discover that Mantra and Guna and Karma in a single Sakha are taken into one other Sakha, simply because the members of sacrificial actions on which sure Vidyas relaxation are legitimate all over the place, so the Vidyas themselves additionally which relaxation on these members are legitimate for all Sakhas and Vedas.
BHUMAJYAYASTVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 32
Vaisvanara Upasana is one total Upasana
Bhumnah kratuvajjyayastvam tatha hello darsayati III.3.57 (416)
Significance (is given to the meditation) on your entire type (of Vaisvanara) as within the case of sacrifice; for thus (the Sruti) exhibits.
Bhumnah: on your entire type; Kratuvat: as within the case of sacrifice; Jyayastvam: prominence, pre-eminence, significance; Tatha: so; Hello: be trigger, for, as; Darsayati: (the Sruti) exhibits.
The Vaisvanara Vidya is mentioned right here.
Within the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.11. 8) there’s the Vaisvanara Vidya, the meditation on the cosmic type of the Lord. The meditator ought to assume that His head is the heaven, His eye the solar and so forth. Totally different fruits are talked about for every a part of the Upasana. For instance, the fruit of meditat ing on His head because the heaven is He eats meals, beholds his beloved ones and has Vedic glory in his home (Chh. Up. V.12.2).
Now a doubt arises whether or not the Sruti right here speaks of 1 Upasana on your entire cosmic type or Upasana of every a part of Vaisvanara.
The current Sutra says that the Sruti speaks of 1 Upasana on the entire type of Vaisvanara or the cosmic type of the Lord.
The Sruti offers superiority to the meditation on Vaisvanara as a complete, as within the case of Kratu or sacrifice. Although the Sruti declares fruits for Upasana or worship of every a part of Vaisvanara, but it emphasises the worship of your entire Vaisvanara with the universe as His physique, simply as in sacri fices like Darsa-Purnamasa all of the Angas should be mixed.
The separate fruits talked about for meditation on components of Vaisvanara should be mixed into one entire with meditation.
The textual content informs us that six Rishis, Prakinasala, Uddalaka, and many others., being unable to succeed in a agency basis within the Data of Vaisvanara, went to the King Asvapati Kaikeya; goes on to say the thing of every Rishi’s meditation, viz., the sky and so forth; determines that the sky and so forth are solely the top and so forth of Vaisvanara. Asvapati stated That’s however the head of the self, and rejects all meditations on Vaisva nara in his partial type. He stated Your head would have fallen for those who had not come to me (Chh. Up. V.12.2). As this textual content discourages partial worship of Vaisvanara, it’s fairly clear that it recommends your entire Upasana on the entire Vaisvanara.
Furthermore the part begins thus: which is our personal self, which is Brahman (Chh. Up. V.11.1). This indi cates that your entire Brahman is the thing of meditation. It ends thus of that Vaisvanara Self Sutejas is the top and many others. (Chh. Up. V.18.2). This clearly intimates that solely your entire Upasana is meant.
For all these causes, the view based on which the textual content enjoins a meditation on your entire Vaisvanara solely is appropriate.
Sabdadibhedadhikaranam: Subject 33
Numerous Vidyas just like the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya and so forth are to be stored separate and never mixed into one total Upasana
Nana sabdadibhedat III.3.58 (417)
(The Vidyas are) separate, on account of the distinction of phrases and the like.
Nana: totally different, numerous; Sabdadibhedat: on account of distinction of names of phrases, and many others. (Bhedat: as a consequence of selection.)
Within the earlier Sutra we’ve got arrived on the conclusion {that a} meditation on Vaisvanara as a complete is the pre-eminent that means of the textual content, though particular fruits are said for meditations on components reminiscent of Sutejas and so forth.
The Purvapakshin follows this line of argument and says that we should mix all of the totally different Vidyas like Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya, Satya Vidya, and so forth into one composite meditation or extra basic meditation on the Lord, as the thing of meditation is the one Lord.
The current Sutra refutes this and declares that the Vidyas are separate, though the thing of meditation is on the one Lord, on account of the distinction of phrases and the like. For the textual content displays a distinction of phrases reminiscent of He is aware of.
Let him meditate, Let him type the thought (Chh. Up. III.14.1). This distinction of phrases is acknowledged as a purpose or check of distinction of acts, based on Purva mimamsa Sutras, II.2.1.
And the like or and many others. refers to different causes just like the distinction in qualities.
The Lord certainly is the one object of meditation, however based on its basic purport every passage teaches totally different qualities of the Lord. Though one and the identical Prana is the thing of meditation within the different collection of passages, but certainly one of his qualities must be meditated upon in a single place and one other in one other place. From distinction of connection there thus follows distinction of injunction and from the latter we apprehend the separateness of the Vidyas.
Although the thing of meditation is the one Lord, but He’s totally different on account of the distinction in qualities which can be imagined in numerous Upasanas. Additional it isn’t potential in any respect to mix all the assorted Vidyas into one.
Due to this fact, the totally different Vidyas are to be stored separate and never mixed into one composite or basic meditation.
Although the Vidya (what’s to be recognized) is one, every Upasana which is described by such phrases as Upasita, and many others., is totally different. In every Upasana sure particular attributes of the Lord and sure particular outcomes are said.
The types of meditation such because the Sandilya Vidya, the Satya Vidya, the Dahara Vidya, the Vaisvanara Vidya, are totally different owing to distinction of names and processes, the listing phrases and the attributes, but, every of them teaches the worship of the identical Lord; however below a selected facet meditations have been prescribed in numerous names and kinds in order to go well with totally different meditators.
The Sutra, subsequently, rightly declares the separateness of the Vidyas.
VIKALPADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 34
Any one of many Vidyas must be chosen
based on one’s personal choice or selection
Vikalpo’visishtaphalatvat III.3.59 (418)
There may be choice (with respect to the a number of Vidyas), as a result of the end result (of all of the Vidyas) is similar.
Vikalpah: choice; Visishtaphalatvat: on account of (all Vidyas) having the identical end result.
Crucial Vidyas are: Sandilya Vidya, Bhuma Vidya, Sat Vidya, Dahara Vidya, Upakosala Vidya, Vaisva nara Vidya, Udgitha Vidya, Anandamaya Vidya, Akshara Vidya.
One might comply with any Vidya based on his choice, and stick with it until he reaches the purpose, as the results of all Vidyas or the purpose is similar, specifically the realisation of Self or Brahman. If we undertake many, the thoughts will get distracted and the religious progress will likely be retarded. When the Brahman is realised by way of one meditation, a second meditation can be purposeless.
Due to this fact, one should choose one explicit Vidya and stick with it and stay intent on it until the fruit of the Vidya is attained by way of the instinct of the thing of meditation.
KAMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 35
Vidyas yielding explicit needs might or is probably not
mixed based on one’s liking
Kamyastu yathakamam samucchiyeranna va
purvahetvabhavat III.3.60 (419)
However Vidyas for explicit needs could also be mixed or not based on one’s needs on account of the absence of the earlier purpose (talked about within the earlier Sutra).
Kamyah: Vidyas adopted for some sensuous needs; Tu: however; Yatha kamam: based on one’s want or liking; Samucchiyeran: could also be combin ed; Na: not; Va: or; Purva: the previous; Hetu: purpose; Abhavat: on account of the absence of.
This Sutra exhibits an exception to the earlier Sutra that extra Vidyas than one could also be mixed the place the thing is aside from the realisation of Brahman.
Within the earlier Sutra it was said that any one of many Vidyas about Brahman must be taken up, and that greater than separately shouldn’t be taken up, as a result of every Vidya was fairly enough to take to the purpose or Self-realisation and a couple of Vidya would produce distraction of the thoughts.
We’ve got then again, Vidyas linked with parti cular needs, e.g., He who is aware of that the wind is the kid of the areas by no means weeps for his sons (Chh. Up. III.15.2). He who meditates on identify as Brahman, walks at will so far as identify reaches (Chh. Up. VII.1.5).
The query arises whether or not one is to limit oneself to solely certainly one of these Vidyas or can take up greater than separately.
The current Sutra declares that one can practise a couple of Vidya or not based on one’s liking, because the outcomes are totally different not like that of the Brahma-Vidyas. He might practise a couple of Vidya or not, on account of the absence of the previous purpose, i.e., as a result of there’s not the explanation for choice which was said within the previous Sutra.
YATHASRAYABHAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 36 (SUTRAS 61-66)
Meditations linked with members of sacrificial acts
might or is probably not mixed based on one’s liking
Angeshu yathasrayabhavah III.3.61 (420)
With regard (to meditations) linked with members (of sacrificial acts) it’s as with (the members) with which they’re linked.
Angeshu: with regard (to meditations) linked with members (of sacrificial acts); Yathasrayabhavah: it’s as with (members) with which they’re linked.
Of the six Sutras that are contained on this Adhikarana, the primary 4 Sutras are Purvapaksha Sutras and the final two Sutras are Siddhanta Sutras.
Totally different directions linked with a sacrifice are said within the totally different Vedas. The scriptures say that every one these members talked about within the totally different Vedas are to be mixed for the due efficiency of the principal one.
The query now could be, which is the rule to be adopted with regard to the meditations or Upasanas linked with these members.
The current Sutra declares that the identical rule which applies to the members applies additionally to the Upasanas linked with them. It’s based on the abodes. Because the abiding locations of these meditations, viz., the Stotra and so forth are mixed for the efficiency of the sacrifice, so these meditations or Upasanas additionally; for a meditation is topic to what it rests on. All these Upasanas are to be mixed.
Simply because the Stotras, and many others., are mixed when performing Karmas, so additionally the Upasanas that are Angas of Karma (Angavabaddha Upasana) must be mixed.
Sishtescha III.3.62 (421)
And from the injunction of the Sruti.
Sishteh: from the injunction of the Sruti; Cha: and.
An argument in help of the objection raised in Sutra 61 is adduced.
That’s as a result of the Upasanas rely on the Stotras.
Because the Stotra and the opposite members of the sacrifice on which the meditations below dialogue relaxation are taught within the three Vedas, so are also the meditations resting on them. Simply because the members are scattered within the totally different Vedas, so are also the meditations linked with them. There isn’t any distinction as regards the injunction of the Sruti just about these meditations.
There isn’t any distinction between the members of a sacrificial act and the meditations referring to them.
Samaharat III.3.63 (422)
On account of the rectification.
Samaharat: on account of the rectification.
An extra purpose is given by the opponent. One other argu ment in help of Sutra 61 is adduced.
There may be additionally indication within the Sruti about such mixture. Such mixture is seen when the Udgatri performs the Hautra Karma described in one other Veda for eradicating the consequences of error within the discharge of his perform.
Chhandogya Upanishad declares What’s Udgitha is OM or Pranava and what’s OM is Udgitha. This meditation on the oneness of the Udgitha and OM mends the Udgitha defiled by any mistake dedicated even on the a part of the Hotri, the hymn-reciting priest in recitation of the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5).
Right here it’s stated that the errors dedicated by the Udgatri or chanting priest of the Sama Veda are rectified by the recitation of the Hotri or invoking priest of the Rigveda. This means that although the meditations are given within the totally different Vedas they’re but interlinked. Therefore all of them should be noticed.
The passage From the seat of the Hotri, he units proper any mistake dedicated within the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5), declares that owing to the drive of the meditation on the unity of Pranava and Udgitha, the Hotri rectifies any mistake he might commit in his work, by way of the work of the Hotri.
Now, as a meditation talked about in a single Veda is linked with what’s talked about in one other Veda, in the identical method as a factor talked about in one other Veda, the above passage suggests the conclusion that every one meditations on members of sacrificial acts, in no matter Veda they could be mentionedhave to be mixed.
A factor belonging to the Rigveda, viz., Pranava is, accord ing to the Chhandogya textual content, linked with the Sama Veda meditation on the Udgitha. Therefore meditations additionally which belong to totally different Vedas could also be mixed; as a result of there isn’t any distinction between them and issues so far as connection is worried.
Gunasadharanyasrutescha III.3.64 (423)
And from the Sruti declaring `OM’ which is a standard characteristic (of the Udgitha Vidya) to be widespread to all of the Vedas.
Gunasadharanyasruteh: from the Sruti declaring the characteristic of `OM’ as being widespread to all of the Vedas; Cha: and.
One other argument in help of Sutra 61 is adduced.
Additional Pranava (Omkara) is widespread to all of the Upasanas and hyperlinks them up.
It’s present in Sruti that OM is the widespread property of all of the Vedas. Due to this fact, it’s an inseparable concomitant of the sacrificial rites, prescribed within the Vedas. Therefore the Vidyas additionally, being depending on OM, are concomitants of the sacrificial rites. Chhandogya Upanishad declares Via this (`OM’) the Vedic Vidya proceeds. With OM the Adhvaryu offers orders, with OM the Hotri recites, with OM the Udgatri sings (Chh. Up. I.1.9). That is said with re ference to OM, which is widespread to all of the Vedas and all of the Upasanas in them. This means that because the abode of all Vidyas, viz., OM, is widespread, so the Vidyas that relaxation in it are widespread additionally. Due to this fact, all of them are to be noticed.
Na va tatsahabhavasruteh III.3.65 (424)
(The meditations linked with members of the sacrificial acts are) relatively not (to be mixed) because the Sruti doesn’t state their going collectively.
Na: not; Va: relatively; Tatsahabhavasruteh: their correlation not being talked about by the Sruti. (Tat: their; Sahabhava: about being collectively; Asruteh: as a result of there isn’t any such injunction in Sruti).
The phrases `Na va’ `relatively not’ discard the Purvapaksha. This Sutra refutes the rivalry raised in Sutras 61-64.
This and the next Sutra give the conclusion.
There isn’t any Sruti commanding such mixture of the Karmanga Upasanas. No Sruti refers to such obligatory mixture of the Upasanas. To allow them to be executed singly or together as we like.
There isn’t any binding rule that the Vidyas, relying on the Pranava or on any a part of a sacrificial ceremony, is a needed concomitant of the sacrifice. It might be distributed with or retained on the choice of the performer. However there’s this distinction. If Vidyas be related to the rites better good will accrue.
Although the utterance of the Pranava or the Udgitha hymn has been enjoined by the Sruti to be needed for the sacrificial efficiency, but Sruti doesn’t insist that the Vidya (meditation) portion of the efficiency is a needed adjunct to the thoughts. It isn’t completely needed for the fulfilment of exterior sacrifices. A sacrifice could also be per shaped even with out the Vidya (meditation) merely by utterance of Mantras, singing of the Udgitha hymns, pouring of the clarified butter into the sacred hearth and the like exterior rites, to be able to attain explicit desired objects, however the Vidya or meditation on Brahman results in realisation of Brahman.
The rule for combining the directions concerning sacrifices which can be scattered in all of the Vedas can’t be utilized with regard to the meditations (Upasanas) linked with them. If the directions concerning the sacrifices aren’t mixed, the sacrifice will itself fail. However it isn’t the case if the Upasanas aren’t practised, as a result of Upasanas solely enhance the fruits of the sacrifice (Vide III.3.42). Upasanas aren’t inseparable from the sacrifice.
Due to this fact, Upasanas (Vidyas, meditations) might or is probably not practised.
Darsanaccha III.3.66 (425)
And since the Sruti (scripture) says so (exhibits it).
Darsanat: as a result of the Sruti says so, exhibits it from Sruti; Cha: and, additionally.
This Sutra is adduced in help of Sutra 65.
This may increasingly even be inferred from Sruti.
Chhandogya Upanishad declares The Brahmana (superintending chief priest) who possesses such information saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer and all of the monks, simply because the horse saves the horseman (Chh. Up. IV.17.10).
This exhibits that the scriptures don’t intend that every one the meditations ought to go collectively. For, if all meditations had been to be mixed, all monks would know all of them and the textual content couldn’t specifically announce that the Brahmana, chief superintending priest, possessing a sure information thereby saves the others.
The meditations, subsequently, based on one’s liking might or is probably not mixed.
Thus ends the Third Pada (Part 3) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.
INTRODUCTION
Within the final Part the Vidyas or Upasanas (meditations) that are the means to the information of Brahman had been mentioned.
On this Part the Sutrakara enters into an enquiry whether or not the information of Brahman is linked with ritualistic work by way of one who’s entitled to carry out the works or is an unbiased means to perform the aim of man.
Sri Baadarayana, the Sutrakara, begins by stating the ultimate view within the first Sutra, Thence and many others. He’s of opinion that by way of the unbiased Data of Brahman enjoined within the Vedanta-texts the aim of man is effected.
Within the current Part it will likely be proven that Data of Brahman is unbiased of Karma and that’s not subordinate to sacrificial acts.
Baadarayana establishes that the attainment of the ultimate emancipation is the direct results of Brahma Vidya of data of Brahman, that works or sacrifices are solely oblique aids to considering by purifying the center, that Karma doesn’t straight result in the ultimate beatitude, that the seeker of Brahman might even cast off Karma and will attain freedom solely by contemplation on Brahman and that even in that case he mustn’t abandon the duties enjoined by the scriptures.
SYNOPSIS
Adhikarana I: (Sutras 1-17) proves that the information of Brahman just isn’t Kratvartha, i.e., subordinate to motion (sacrificial acts) however unbiased.
Adhikarana II: (Sutras 18-20) confirms this conclusion that Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures, that the state of the Pravrajins is enjoined by the sacred regulation and that for them Brahma Vidya solely is prescribed, and never motion.
Adhikarana III: (Sutras 21-22) determines that sure clauses forming a part of Vidyas aren’t mere glorificatory passages (Srutis or Arthavadas) however themselves enjoin the meditation.
Adhikarana IV: (Sutras 23-24) The tales recorded within the Upanishads aren’t for use as subordinate members of acts. They don’t serve the aim of Pariplavas and don’t type a part of the ritualistic acts. They’re meant to glorify the Vidya taught in them. They’ve the aim of glorifying as Arthavadas the injunctions with which they’re linked.
Adhikarana V: (Sutra 25) For all these causes the Sannya sin needn’t observe ritualistic acts as information serves their goal. They require no actions however solely information.
Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 26-27) Nonetheless the actions enjoined by scripture reminiscent of sacrifices, conduct of sure varieties, and many others., are helpful as they’re oblique means of data.
Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 28-31) Sure relaxations allowed by scripture of the legal guidelines concerning meals, are meant just for circumstances of maximum want. Restrictions as regards meals could also be deserted solely when life is at risk.
Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 32-35) The duties of the Asramas are to be carried out by even one who doesn’t try after liberation or who just isn’t desirous of data.
Adhikarana IX: (Sutras 36-39) Those that stand halfway between two Asramas are additionally entitled to information. These additionally who owing to poverty and so forth, are Anasramins, have claims to Vidya.
Adhikarana X: (Sutra 40) A Sannyasi who has taken the vow of life-long celibacy can not revoke his vow. He can not revert again to his former phases of life.
Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 41-42) Expiation of the autumn of an Urdhvareta, of 1 who transgresses the vow of life-long celibacy.
Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 43) Exclusion of the fallen Urdhva retas or life-long celibate. He should be shunned by Society.
Adhikarana XIII: (Sutras 44-46) These meditations that are linked with subordinate members of the sacrifice are the enterprise of the priest, not of the Yajamana or sacrificer.
Adhikarana XlV: (Sutras 47-49) Bri. Up. III.5.1 enjoins Mauna or meditation as a 3rd along with Balya (child-like state) and Panditya (scholarship or erudition).
Adhikarana XV: (Sutra 50) By Balya or child-like state is to be understood a child-like harmless frame of mind, being free from ardour, anger, and many others.
Adhikarana XVI: (Sutra 51) intimates that the fruition of data might happen even on this life if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted).
Adhikarana XVII: (Sutra 52) declares that there isn’t any diffe rence in liberation, i.e., within the realisation of Brahman. It’s of 1 form in all circumstances.
PURUSHARTHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 1 (SUTRA 1-17)
Data of Brahman is unbiased of sacrificial acts
Purushartho’tah sabdaditi baadarayanah III.4.1 (426)
From this (Brahma Vidya or Brahma Jnana outcomes) the aim or the chief object of pursuit of man, as a result of the scriptures state so; thus (holds) the sage Baadarayana.
Purusharthah: goal of man, object of human pursuit, right here the chief object, i.e., salvation; Atah: from this, from Brahma Vidya; Sabdat: from the scriptures, as a result of the scriptures state so, from Sruti; Iti: so thus (says), that is the opinion of; Baadarayanah: the sage Baadarayana, (holds).
The end result or fruit of Brahma Vidya is said.
The Sutrakara Sri Vyasa now proceeds to indicate that Brahma Jnana leads to not Karma, however to the attainment of the best Purushartha, i.e., Moksha or the ultimate emancipation. That’s Baadarayana’s educating.
The 4 Purusharthas are: Dharma (discharge of non secular responsibility), Artha (acquisition of wealth, worldly prosperity), Kama (enjoyment), and Moksha (salvation). Data of Brahman just isn’t merely linked with sacrificial acts by affording to the agent a sure qualification. It positively paves the way in which for the attainment of the ultimate launch or freedom from births and deaths.
Whence is that this recognized? From the scripture.
Baadarayana bases his arguments on the Sruti texts, reminiscent of The knower of Atman goes past griefTarati sokamatmavit (Chh. Up. III.4.1). He who is aware of the best Brah man turns into even BrahmanBrahmavitbrahmaivabhavati (Mun.Up.III.2.9). He who is aware of Brahman attains the HighestBrahmavidapnoti Param (Tait. Up. II.1).
For him who has a instructor there’s delay solely as long as he’s not delivered; then he will likely be excellent (Chh. Up. VI.14.2). He who has searched out and understood the Self which is free from sin, and many others., obtains all worlds and all needs (Chh. Up. VIII.7.1). The Atman is to be seen and many others., as much as To date goes immortality (Bri. Up. IV.5.6-15).
These and comparable texts emphatically declare that Data of Brahman results the best goal of man or Supreme Purushartha.
In opposition to this the Purvapakshin raises his objection as follows. Right here Jaimini comes ahead along with his following objections.
Seshatvatpurusharthavado yathanyeshviti jaiminih III.4.2 (427)
As a result of (the self) is supplementary (to sacrificial acts), (the fruits of the Data of the Self) are mere reward of the agent, as in different circumstances; thus Jaimini opines.
Seshatvat: due to being supplementary (to sacrificial acts); Pusushar thavadah: are mere reward or the agent; Yatha: as; Anyeshu: in different circumstances; Iti: thus (says); Jaiminih: Jaimini (holds).
Sutras 2 to 7 are Purvapaksha Sutras and Sutras 8 to 17 are Siddhanta Sutras.
Jaimini thinks that the Sruti texts merely reward the doer of Karma and that Brahmajnana is barely an adjunct of Karma (Karmanga).
He’s of the opinion that the Vedas merely prescribe works to achieve sure functions together with emancipation. He holds that the information of Brahman has no unbiased fruit of its personal as a result of it stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial motion. This relation is meditated by the Self, the thing of data, which is the agent in all works and, subsequently, itself stands in a subordinate relation to motion. The agent turns into certified for actions, the fruit of which can solely seem after dying by realizing that his self will survive the physique.
A person undertakes a sacrificial act solely when he’s aware that he’s totally different from the physique and that after dying he’ll go to heaven when he’ll benefit from the fruits of his sacrifice.
The qualification the self thus acquires is just like that which the rice-grains purchase by being sprinkled with water; as a result of they change into match for use within the sacrifice, solely by way of this latter act of ceremonial purification.
Because the information of the Self has no unbiased place, it can not have an unbiased fruit of its personal. Due to this fact the passages which state such fruits can’t be taken as injunctions of fruits, however merely as Arthavadas (or glorificatory passages), like different Arthavadas regarding the substance (Dravya) or to the purification of the substance (Samskara) or to subordi nate acts themselves (Karma), making some further state ment concerning the fruits of the sacrificial actions to which the information of the Self is auxiliary.
Jaimini maintains that the assertion that the reward of Brahma Jnana is the best good doesn’t imply that such information of the Self by itself yields any actual fruit however the assertion is barely an exhortation to the efficiency of the sacrifices. He says that the information of the self is helpful solely as far as it produces within the performer a perception in his extramundane existence to allow him to benefit from the rewards of his sacrifices. The assertion that it yields any fruit by itself is barely an exhortation to purification of the sacrificer. The purification of the sacrificer is a needed concomitant issue like different materials requisites of a sacrifice; as a result of with out this purifica tion he wouldn’t be assured of his surviving the physique and having fun with the fruit of his sacrifices in the next world after dying.
Acharadarsanat III.4.3 (428)
As a result of we discover (from the scriptures such) conduct (of males of realisation).
Acharadarsanat: due to the conduct discovered (from the scriptures).
The objection raised in Sutra 2 is strengthened.
Janaka the king of the Videhas carried out a sacrifice during which items had been freely distributed (Bri. Up. III.1.1). Sirs, I’m going to carry out a sacrifice (Chh. Up. V.11.5). These and comparable passages point out that those that know Brahman are linked with sacrificial motion.
Janaka and Asvapati had been knowers of Brahman. If that they had attained the ultimate emancipation by information of Brahman there was no necessity for them to carry out sacrifices. If mere information might impact the aim of man, why ought to they carry out sacrifices troublesome in lots of respects? If a person would discover honey within the Arka tree why ought to he go to the forest? However the two texts intimate that they did carry out sacrifices.
This proves that one attains the ultimate emancipation by way of sacrifices or works alone and never by way of the information of Brahman, because the Vedantins preserve.
Tacchruteh III.4.4 (429)
As a result of scripture straight declares that (viz., that information of Brahman stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts.)
Tat: that, that information is subsidiary and supplementary to sacrifice; Sruteh: from Sruti, as a result of the scriptures straight declare.
The Sruti additionally says that Vidya is an Anga of Karma.
If one does Karma with information there will likely be better effectivity. What a person does with information, religion and meditation is extra highly effective (Chh. Up. I.1.10). This textual content clearly signifies that information is part of the sacrificial act. This passage straight states that information is subordinate to work and from this it follows that mere information can not impact the aim of man.
Samanvarambhanat III.4.5 (430)
As a result of the 2 (information and work) go collectively (with the departing soul to offer fruits of actions).
Samanvarambhanat: due to the accompanying collectively, as they collectively comply with the sacrificer to supply their results on account of their taking maintain collectively or being collectively.
The objection begun in Sutra 2 is sustained.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says The departing soul is adopted by information and work (Bri. Up. IV.4.2). This passage signifies that information and work associate with the soul and start collectively to manifest their fruits. Due to this fact, it follows that information just isn’t unbiased. It isn’t capable of produce any such impact independently. It’s concluded that information just isn’t unbiased of works or sacrificial acts.
Tadvato vidhanat III.4.6 (431)
As a result of (the scriptures) enjoin (works) for such (solely who perceive the purport of the Vedas).
Tadvatah: for such (as know the purport of the Vedas); Vidhanat: be trigger (the scriptures) enjoin (work).
The objection, begun within the Sutra 2, is sustained.
Additional Karma is enjoined for one who recites and research the Vedas. He who has learnt i.e., learn the Vedas from a household of lecturers, based on the sacred injunction within the leisure time left from the duties to be carried out for the Guru; who after having obtained his discharge has settled in his personal home, learning his sacred texts in some sacred spot (Chh. Up. VIII.15.7). Such passages additionally point out that those that know the purport of the entire Veda are certified for sacrificial acts and that therefore information doesn’t independently produce any end result.
Niyamaccha III.4.7 (432)
And on account of prescribed guidelines.
Niyamat: on account of prescribed guidelines, due to obligatory injunction; Cha: additionally, and.
The argument begun in Sutra 2 is concluded right here.
Doing Karma is a Niyama or life-long commandment. Performing works right here (i.e., on this life), let a person want to reside 100 years (Isa. Up. 2). Agnihotra is a sacrifice lasting as much as outdated age and dying; for by way of outdated age one is free of it or by way of dying (Sat. Br. XII.4.1.1). From such particular guidelines additionally it follows that Data is merely supple mentary to works, or stands in a subordinate relation to work .
The Sutrakara (Sri Vyasa) upholds his view within the following Sutra in opposition to all these objections.
Adhikopadesaattu baadarayanasyaivam taddarsanat III.4.8 (433)
However as a result of (the scriptures) educate (the Supreme Self to be) different (than the agent), Baadarayana’s view is appropriate (or legitimate) for that’s seen thus (in scriptural passages).
Adhikopadesat: as a result of (the sriptures) educate (the Supreme Self to be) one thing over and above; Tu: however; Baadarayanasya: of Baadarayana; Evam: thus, such (is the opinion); Taddarsanat: for that’s seen (from the scrip tures). (Adhika: Supreme Being, extra totally different; Upadesat: from the assertion in Sruti, owing to the educating about.)
Objections raised in Sutras 2 to 7 are actually being refuted one after the other. This Sutra refutes Sutra 2.
Sutras 2-7 give the view of the Mimamsakas which is refuted in Sutras 8-17.
The Sruti declares Isvara as larger than the person soul. So Baadarayana’s doctrine as said in Sutra 1 is appropriate. The Sruti exhibits this. The true nature of the soul is divinity.
The phrase `tu’ (however) discards the Purvapaksha. The Vedanta texts don’t educate the restricted self which is the agent. What the Vedanta texts actually educate as the thing of Data is one thing totally different from the embodied self, viz., the non-transmigrating Lord who’s free from all attributes of transmigrating existence reminiscent of company and the like and distinguished by freedom from sin and so forth, the Supreme Self.
The information of such a self doesn’t solely not promote motion however relatively places an finish to all actions. Therefore the view of the revered Baadarayana which was said in Sutra 1 stays legitimate and can’t be shaken by fallacious reasoning concerning the subordination of data to motion and the like.
That the Vedanta texts educate the Supreme Self is obvious from such texts as the next: He who perceives all and is aware of all (Mun. Up. I.1.9). From terror of it the wind blows, from terror the solar rises (Tait. Up. II.8). It’s a nice terror, a raised thunderbolt (Katha Up. II.6.2). By the command of that Imperishable one, O Gargi (Bri. Up. III.8.9). It thought, might I be many, might I develop forth. It despatched forth hearth (Chh. VI.2.3).
Tulyam tu darsanam III.4.9 (434)
However the declarations of the Sruti equally help each views.
Tulyam: the identical, comparable, equal; Tu: however; Darsanam: declaration of the Sruti.
This Sutra refutes the view expressed in Sutra 3. It’s a reply to the third Sutra.
There are equal Srutis which present that Vidya just isn’t Karmanga. The Sruti exhibits that Vidya just isn’t Karmanga.
The phrase `tu’ (however) is used to be able to take away the concept Vidya is subordinate to Karma. There may be equal authority within the scriptures from the proposition that Vidya just isn’t subordi nate to Karma, that for one who has attained information there isn’t any work. Thus there are scriptural passages reminiscent of: realizing this the Rishis descended from Kavasa stated: For what goal ought to we research the Vedas, for what goal ought to we sacri fice? Figuring out this certainly the traditional ones didn’t provide the Agnihotra, and when Brahmanas know that self and have risen above the need for sons, wealth and worlds, they wander about as mendicants (Bri. Up. III.5).
Thus the sages known as Kavaseyas didn’t take care of Karma, nor did Yajnavalkya, who abandoning all Karmas went to forest. This a lot certainly is the technique of Immortality, my expensive, saying this Yajnavalkya left dwelling (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). Thus we discover examples of eminent males dedicated to Vidya, renouncing all ceremonial actions. Due to this fact, scriptural texts aren’t all one-sided, in favour of Karmas, however there are passages on the contrary additionally. The examples of individuals like Janaka and others point out that these males adopted Karma for example to mankind, in order that the social order could also be pre served. Their work was characterised by non-attachment and subsequently it was virtually no work in any respect. Therefore the argument of the Mimamsakas is weak.
There are certainly present in Srutis cases of sacrifices being carried out by enlightened souls like Janaka, however there are additionally declarations of equal weight to the impact that efficiency of sacrifices is sort of ineffective and redundant for the enlightened, i.e., those that have recognized Brahman.
So it can’t be asserted on the power of the cases of Janaka and others like him, that information is to be thought of as secondary to the sacrifice.
On the subject of the indicatory signal as to the dependence of data to work, which is implied within the passage Sirs, I’m going to carry out a sacrifice we are saying, that it belongs to a bit which treats of Vaisvanara.
Now the texts might declare {that a} Vidya of Brahman as restrict ed by adjuncts is accompanied by works; however all the identical the Vidya doesn’t stand in a subordinate relation to works because the main material and the opposite technique of proof are absent.
The writer or Sutrakara (Baadarayana) subsequent solutions the objection raised within the Sutra 4.
Asarvatriki III.4.10 (435)
(The scriptural declaration referred to in Sutra 4) just isn’t of common utility.
Asarvatriki: not common, not relevant all over the place.
The refutation of the objections is sustained. This Sutra specifically refutes Sutra 4.
The assertion of the Sruti referred to in Sutra 4 to the impact that the mix of meditation and sacrifice makes the sacrifice efficient just isn’t relevant all over the place. The above-mentioned assertion of the Sruti doesn’t consult with meditations typically, however solely to the Udgitha Vidya which kinds the subject material of the discourse involved.
The declaration of the Sruti that Data will increase the fruit of the sacrifice doesn’t consult with all information (all Vidyas), as it’s linked solely with the Udgitha (Udgitha Vidya) which is the subject of the part Let a person meditate on the syllable OM because the Udgitha.
The textual content says that if this Udgitha Vidya is recited by an individual with information, then it’s extra fruitful than whether it is recited with out such Vidya.
Due to this fact, Vidya just isn’t an auxiliary to work in each occasion.
The writer subsequent solutions the objection raised in III.4.5.
Vibhagah satavat III.4.11 (436)
There may be division of data and work as within the case of 100 (divided between two individuals).
Vibhagah: (there’s) division of data and work; Satavat: as within the case of 100 (divided between two individuals).
This Sutra specifically refutes Sutra 5.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares The departing soul is adopted by Vidya (Data) and Karma (work) and previous experiences (IV.4.2). Right here we’ve got to take information and work in a distributive sense. It means the information follows one and work one other. Simply as after we say, Give Rs. 100 to Rama and Krishna it means Give Rs. 50 to Rama and Rs. 50 to Krishna, the above passage implies that the Vidya pertains to the souls in search of emancipation and Karma to different souls. There isn’t any mixture of the 2.
The textual content quoted refers solely to information and work which concern the soul that transmigrates however not the soul which is about to acquire last launch. As a result of the passage, Thus does the person who needs to transmigrate (Bri. Up. IV.4.6) signifies that the earlier textual content refers back to the soul that transmigrates. The Sruti declares of the soul who’s about to be launched, However the man who by no means needs by no means transmigrates (Bri. Up. IV.4.6).
The subsequent Sutra refutes the Sutra 6.
Adhyayanamatravatah III.4.12 (437)
(The scriptures enjoin work) on those that have merely learn the Vedas.
Adhyayanamatravatah: of 1 who has merely learn the Vedas.
This Sutra specifically refutes Sutra 6.
He who has learn the Vedas and recognized concerning the sacrifices is entitled to do sacrifice. However no work is prescribed for one who has information of Brahman (Brahma Jnana).
Naviseshat III.4.13 (438)
There being no specification (the rule does) not (specifically apply to him who is aware of, i. e., a Jnani).
Na: not, compulsion doesn’t apply; Aviseshat: on account of the absence of any specification, as a result of there isn’t any particular point out.
This Sutra specifically refutes Sutra 7.
The Sruti Kurvanneveha performing works right here let a person reside and many others., of the Isavasya Upanishad doesn’t specifically apply to a Brahma Jnani. It’s basic in its phrases. There isn’t any particular point out in it that it’s relevant to a Jnani additionally. It isn’t binding on a Jnani when there isn’t any specification.
The Sruti of the Isavasya doesn’t lay down any such restrictive rule that even the illumined sage should carry out Karma all through his life. Why so? Aviseshat. As a result of there isn’t any specification. All that it says is Let one carry out Karmas all through his life. There may be nothing to indicate to which class of individuals, that exact rule is addressed. Alternatively there are categorical texts of the Srutis which present that immortality is to not be obtained by Karmas, however by information alone.
Mahanarayana Upanishad of the Tait. Ar. X.5 declares Not by Karmas (sacrifices), not by progeny, nor by wealth can one receive immortality. It’s by renunciation alone that some nice souled beings have obtained immortality.
The obvious battle within the two Sruti texts is to be recon ciled by giving them totally different scopes. One is addressed to Karma-nishtha-devotees, the opposite to the Jnana-nishtha- devotees.
Stutaye’numatirva III.4.14 (439)
Or relatively the permission (to do work) is for the glorification (of data).
Stutaye: for the aim of glorification (of data); Anumatih: permission; Va: or, relatively.
This Sutra additionally refutes Sutra 7.
The passage performing works right here could also be handled in one other method additionally. The injunction to do work for the knowers of Brahman or the illumined sages is for eulogising this information. A Brahma Jnani or knower of the Self may go all his life however he is not going to be certain by its results, on account of the facility of data. Data nullifies the impact of Karma. No work clings to the person. This clearly glorifies Data.
Kamakarena chaike III.4.15 (440)
And a few based on their very own liking (have deserted all works).
Kamakarena: based on their very own liking; Cha: and; Eke: some.
The argument in refutation of Jaimini’s views is sustained.
In Sutra 3 it was said that Janaka and others carried out sacrifices even after attaining information of Brahman. This Sutra says that some have deserted all works based on their very own liking. Some might wish to work to set an instance to others after attaining information, whereas others might abandon all works. There isn’t any compulsion on the knowers of Brahman or liberated sages as regards work.
A scripfural textual content of the Vajasaneyins runs as follows: Know ing this the individuals of outdated didn’t want for offspring. What we could do with offspring, they stated, we who’ve this self and this world (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). From this it follows that know ledge just isn’t subordinate to motion and that the scriptural state ments as to the fruit of data can’t be taken in any however their true sense.
Upamardam cha III.4.16 (441)
And (scripture teaches that the) destruction (of all qualifi cations for work outcomes from information).
Upamardam: full destruction, placing an finish to all actions; Cha: and.
The earlier argument is sustained.
Additional, such information brings the realisation that each factor is Atman or Brahman. How then can the knower act?
Once more, removed from being part of work, information places an finish to all works, all compulsory duties. Mundaka Upanishad declares, Brahman in each His superior and inferior points being realised, the knot of the center (egoism, and many others.) is reduce down, all doubts are dispelled and works are destroyed (Mun. Up. II.2.9).
Data of Brahman annihilates all ignorance and its results like agent, deed and fruit, However when to the Knower of Brahman every little thing has change into the Self, then what ought to one see and thru what? (Bri. Up. IV.5.15). The know ledge of Brahman is antagonistic to all actions. Therefore it can’t be subsidiary to work. It’s unbiased.
Urdhvaretassu cha sabde hello III.4.17 (442)
And (information belongs) to those that observe perpetual celibacy, as a result of in scripture (that stage of life is talked about).
Urdhvaretassu: to those that observe perpetual celibacy, in these phases of life the place the sexual vitality has an upward move; Cha: and; Sabde: within the Sruti; Hello: as a result of.
The earlier argument is sustained.
Additional the Sruti declares Jnana in relation to Sannyasins. Data is alleged to be in Sannyasins. They’ve to not do any Karmas. Such Sannyasa could be taken even with out going by way of the householder’s life.
Scripture exhibits that information is legitimate additionally for the phases of life for which perpetual celibacy is prescribed. Now of their case information can’t be subordinate to work, as a result of work is absent, as a result of the works prescribed by Vedas such because the Agnihotra aren’t carried out by males who’ve reached these phases. To a Sannyasin there isn’t any work prescribed besides enquiry of Brahman and meditation on the Supreme Self. So how can information be subordinate to work?
We discover from the Sruti texts that there’s a stage of life known as Sannyasa. There are three branches of responsibility (Chh. Up. II.23.1). Those that within the forest practise religion and austerity (Chh. Up. V.10.1). Those that practise penance and religion within the forest (Mun. Up. I.10.11). Wishing for that world solely, mendicants resign their houses and wander forth (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). Let him wander forth directly from the state of studentship. All these attain to the worlds of the virtuous; however just one who’s lastly established in Brahman, attains immortality. (Chh. Up. II.23. 1-2).
Everybody can take to this life, with out being a householder and many others. This means the independence of data.
Thus, the idea of Jaimini that Data is subordinate to Karma has no legs to face upon, and has been refuted.
PARAMARSADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 2 (SUTRAS 18-20)
Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures
Paramarsam jaiminirachodana chapavadati hello III.4.18 (443)
Jaimini (considers that scriptural texts mentioning these phases of life during which celibacy is compulsory, comprise) a reference (solely to these phases; they don’t seem to be injunctions; as a result of different (scriptural texts) condemn (these phases).
Paramarsam: a passing allusion, mere reference; Jaiminih: Jaimini; Achodana: there isn’t any clear injunction; Cha: and; Apavadati: condemns; Hello: as a result of, clearly, definitely.
An objection to Sutra 17 is raised.
Jaimini says that within the textual content quoted within the final Sutra (Chh. Up. II.23.1), there isn’t any phrase indicating that Sannyasa is enjoined on man. It’s a mere reference solely however not an injunction.
The Brihadaranyaka textual content quoted within the final Sutra declares that some individuals do like Sannyasa. Sruti right here makes an announcement of truth. It doesn’t enjoin Sannyasa.
Thus there isn’t any direct Sruti for Sannyasa although there are Smritis and Achara (utilization). But when we are saying that there isn’t any Sruti for the householder’s life, he (Jaimini) would reply that Karmas like Agnihotra are enjoined by Sruti.
Additional, the textual content right here glorifies steadfastness in Brahman. However just one who’s firmly established in Brahman attains Immortality. Sacrifice, research, charity, austerity, studentship and life-long continence bestow the fruit of acquiring heaven. However Immortality is attained solely by one who’s firmly established in Brahman.
Furthermore, there are different Sruti passages which condemn Sannyasa. Having delivered to your instructor his correct reward, don’t reduce off the road of youngsters (Tait. Up. I.11.1). To him who’s and not using a son this world doesn’t belong; all beasts even know that (Tait. Br. VII.13.12).
Anushtheyam baadarayanah samyasruteh III.4.19 (444)
Baadarayana (holds that Sannyasa) additionally should be gone by way of, as a result of the scriptural textual content (quoted) refers equally to all of the 4 Asramas or phases of life.
Anushtheyam: must be practised; Baadarayanah: Baadarayana, the writer of the Sutras; Samyasruteh: for the scriptural textual content refers equally to all of the 4 Asramas.
The objection raised in Sutra 18 is refuted.
Within the textual content quoted sacrifice refers back to the householder’s life, austerity to Vanaprastha, studentship to Brahmacharya, and one who’s firmly established in Brahman to Sannyasa. So the textual content refers equally to all of the 4 phases of life. The textual content that pertains to the primary three phases refers to what’s enjoined elsewhere. So additionally does the textual content that pertains to Sannyasa.
Due to this fact, Sannyasa is also enjoined and should be gone by way of by all.
Baadarayana holds that Sannyasa is an applicable Asrama like Grihastha Asrama (householder’s life), as a result of each are referred to in Sruti. The phrase Tapas refers to a distinct Asrama during which the predominant issue is Tapas.
Vidhirva dharanavat III.4.20 (445)
Or relatively (there’s an) injunction (on this textual content) as within the case of carrying (of the sacrificial wooden).
Vidhih: injunction; Va: or relatively; Dharanavat: as within the case of carry ing (of the sacrificial wooden).
The argument commenced in Sutra 19 to refute the objection raised in Sutra 18 is sustained.
This Sutra now tries to determine that there’s an injunction about Sannyasa within the Chhandogya textual content quoted. The passage is relatively to be understood as containing an injunction, not a mere reference.
The case is analogous to that of `carrying’. There’s a scriptural textual content regarding the Agnihotra which kinds a part of the Mahapitriyajna which is carried out for the manes. Let him method carrying the sacrificial wooden beneath the ladle holding the providing; for above he carries it to the gods. Jaimini inter prets the final clause as an injunction though there isn’t any phrase in it to that impact, for such an injunction is nowhere else to be discovered within the scriptures. Following this argument, this Sutra declares that there’s an injunction as regards Sannyasa and never a mere reference in Chh. Up. II.23.1, as it isn’t enjoined wherever else.
Even when within the Sruti there’s solely Anuvada (declaration) of different Asramas, the Purvamimamsika guidelines present that we should infer a Vidhi (injunction) of Sannyasa from the portion: Brahmasamstho’mritatvameti, as a result of there isn’t any different sepa charge injunction simply as there isn’t any command that the Samit must be stored on the higher portion of the Sruk and but the Purvamimamsa says that such command must be inferred.
Within the current case additionally the identical rule of development must be utilized. Additional, even when there’s solely a declaration and never an injunction as regards the opposite Asramas, we should infer an injunction about Sannyasa because it has been specifically glorified.
Additional there are Sruti passages which straight enjoin Sannyasa, Or else he might wander forth from the coed’s life, or from the home, or from the forest (Jabala Upanishad 4). Therefore the existence of Sannyasa Asrama is simple.
The phrase Tapas within the Sruti refers to Vanaprastha whereas the speciality of Sannyasa is management of the senses (Indriya Samyama). The Sruti differentiates Sannyasa and says that these belonging to the opposite three Asramas go to the Punya Lokas whereas the Sannyasin attains Amritatva (Immortality).
Jaimini himself says that even glorification should be in a complimentary relation to an injunction. Within the textual content, steadfast devotion to Brahma is employed. Therefore it has an injunctive worth. Brahma Samstha means meditating at all times on Brahman. It’s a state of being grounded in Brahman to the exclusion of all different actions. Within the case of different Asramas: that’s not potential as they’ve their very own Karmas. However it’s potential to Sannyasins as they’ve deserted Karmas. Their Sama (serenity) and Dama (self-restraint) assist them in the direction of it and aren’t obstacles.
Sannyasa just isn’t prescribed solely for individuals who are blind, lame, and many others., and who’re, subsequently, not match for performing rituals. Sannyasa is a method for the realisation of Brahman. It should be taken in a daily prescribed method. The Sruti declares, The wandering mendicant, with orange-coloured gown, shaven, wifeless, pure, guileless, residing on alms, accepting no items, qualifies himself for the realisation of Brahman (Jabali Sruti).
Due to this fact, Sannyasa is prescribed by the scriptures. As information is enjoined on Sannyasins, it’s unbiased of works.
STUTIMATRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 3 (SUTRAS 21-22)
Scriptural texts as in Chh. Up. I.1.3. which consult with Vidyas aren’t mere praises however themselves enjoin the meditations
Stutimatramupadanaditi chennapurvatvat III.4.21 (446)
If it’s stated that (texts such because the one concerning the Udgitha are) mere glorifications on account of their reference (to components of sacrifices), (we are saying) not so, on account of the novelty (of what they educate, if seen as injunctions).
Stutimatram: mere reward; Upadanat: on account of their reference (to components of sacrificial acts); Iti: thus, so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Apurvatvat: on account of its newness. (Iti chet: if it’s stated).
This Sutra consists ot two components, specifically an objection and its reply. The objection portion is: `Stutimatramupadanaditi chet’, and the reply portion is: `Na apurvatvat’.
That Udgitha (OM) is one of the best of all essences, the best, holding the best place, the eighth (Chh. Up. I.1.3). This earth is the Rik, the fireplace is Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1). This world in fact is that piled up fire-altar (Sat. Br. X.1.2.2). That hymn is actually that earth (Ait. Ar. II.1.2.1).
A doubt arises whether or not these passages are supposed to glorify the Udgitha or to enjoin religious meditations.
The Purvapakshin maintains that these are mere reward and no injunction to meditate on `OM’ and so forth. These passages are analogous to passages reminiscent of This earth is the ladle. The solar is the tortoise. The heavenly world is the Ahavaniya which merely glorify the ladle and so forth.
The latter half of the current Sutra refutes the view of the opponent.
Within the Sruti passage That Udgitha (OM) is one of the best essence of the essences and many others., the outline just isn’t mere reward however is a Vidhi, and it tells us one thing which is new.
The analogy is wrong. Glorificatory passages are of use in as far as coming into right into a complimentary relation to injunctive passages, however the passages below dialogue aren’t able to coming into into such a relation to the Udgitha and so forth that are enjoined in altogether totally different locations of the Vedas and can be purposeless so far as the glorification is worried. Passages reminiscent of This earth is the ladle aren’t analogous as a result of they stand in proximity to injunctive passages, and to allow them to be taken as reward.
Due to this fact, the texts reminiscent of these below dialogue have an injunctive goal. On account of the novelty, these aren’t mere reward however an injunction.
Bhavasabdaccha III.4.22 (447)
And there being phrases expressive of injunction.
Bhavasabaat: from phrases indicative of existence of injunction in Sruti; Cha: and, additionally, furthermore.
The argument commenced in Sutra 21 is concluded.
Let one meditate on OM or the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). We’ve got a really clear injunction to meditate on OM on this passage. On the face of this we can not interpret the textual content quoted within the final Sutra as mere reward of OM. The expression That is one of the best of all of the essences within the passage cited below the previous Sutra just isn’t a mere glorificatory expression, but it surely quantities to an injunction for the Udgitha meditation.
PARIPLAVADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 4 (SUTRAS 23-24)
The tales talked about within the Upanishads don’t serve the aim of Pariplavas and so don’t type a part of the ritualistic acts.
They’re meant to euloisge the Vidya taught in them
Pariplavartha iti chenna viseshitatvat III.4.23 (448)
If it’s stated (that the tales advised within the Upanishads) are for the aim of Pariplava (solely, we are saying) not so, as a result of (sure tales above) are specified (by the Sruti for this goal).
Pariplavarthah: for the aim of Pariplavas; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not so; Viseshitatvat: due to specification, on account of (sure tales alone) being specified. (Iti chet: if it’s stated.)
The aim of narration of tales within the Upanishads is said on this Sutra and within the subsequent one.
This Sutra consists of two components specifically, an objection and its reply. The objection portion is `Pariplavartha iti chet’. And the reply is: `Na viseshitatvat’.
Within the Asvamedha sacrifice the priest recites tales to the king who performs the Asvamedha sacrifice, and his family members at intervals through the efficiency of the sacrifice. These are referred to as Pariplavas and type a part of the ritualistic acts.
The query is whether or not the tales of the Upanishads reminiscent of these regarding Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi (Bri. Up. IV.5.1), Pratardana (Kau. Up. III.1), Janasruti (Chh. Up. IV.1.1), and so forth additionally serve this goal during which case they change into a part of the rites, and the entire of Jnana Kanda turns into subordinate to Karma Kanda.
The Purvapakshin holds that these tales of the Upanishads serve the aim of Pariplava, as a result of they’re tales like others and since the telling of tales is enjoined for the Pariplava. From this it follows that the Upanishadic tales and Vedanta texts don’t mainly intention at information, as a result of like Mantras they stand in a complimentary relation to sacrificial acts.
Tatha chaikavakyatopabandhat III.4.24 (449)
And so (they’re meant for instance the closest Vidyas), being linked as one coherent entire.
Tatha: so, equally; Cha: and; Ekavakyatopabandhat: being linked as one entire. (Ekavakya: unity cf development or of statements or that of sense; Upabandhat: due to connection.)
The dialogue commenced in Sutra 23 is concluded right here.
Due to this fact, it’s for the aim of reward of Vidya as a result of solely then there can be unity of concept within the context. Solely such a view will result in concord of the context.
The tales of the Upanishads are to be thought to be important components of Brahma Vidya. They’re launched solely to facilitate an clever grouping of the topic. The tales are supposed to introduce the Vidyas. The story type creates extra consideration and curiosity on the a part of the aspirant. Their object is to make it clear to our understanding in a concrete type, the Vidyas taught in different parts of the Upanishads within the summary.
Why do we are saying so? Ekavakyatopabandhat. Due to their syntactical reference to the Vidyas taught within the succeeding passages.
Thus within the story starting with Yajnavalkya had two wives, and many others., we discover instantly following in that very part, the Vidya taught concerning the Atman in these phrases The Atman is verily to be seen, to be heard of, to be meditated upon. As these tales are instantly preceded or succeeded by directions about Brahman, we infer that they’re meant to glorify the Vidyas and aren’t Pariplava tales. The tales are advised to be able to facilitate the understanding of those abstruse topics and they’re eminently fitted to subserve that goal.
AGNINDHANADYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 5
Sannyasins needn’t observe ritualistic acts,
as Brahma Vidya or information serves their goal
Ata eva chagnindhanadyanapeksha III.4.25 (450)
And, subsequently, there isn’t any necessity of the lighting of the fireplace and so forth.
Ata eva: subsequently, solely, because of this solely; Cha: and, additionally; Agni: hearth; Indhanadi: fire-wood, and so forth, kindling hearth and performing sacrifices, and many others.; Anapeksha: no want, has to not be depended upon. (Agni-indhanadi-anapeksha: no necessity of lighting fires, and many others.)
This Sutra states that the seeker of Brahman might dispense with sacrificial rites.
Brahma Vidya has no want for hearth, fire-wood, and many others. It’s by itself the reason for emancipation.
In Sutra III.4.1 it was said that the information of Brah man leads to the attainment of the best Purushartha or purpose of life. The expression Ata Eva (because of this alone) should be seen as taking over Sutra III.4.1 as a result of thus a satisfa ctory sense is established. For this exact same purpose, i.e., as a result of information serves the aim of Sannyasins, the lighting of the sacrificial hearth and comparable works that are enjoined on the homeowners, and many others., needn’t be noticed by them.
Thus the Sutrakara sums up the results of this primary Adhikarana, aspiring to make some additional remarks.
As a Sannyasin, dedicated to the meditation on Brahman is said in Sruti to achieve immortality and never any of the rewards arising from sacrificial rites, he’s not required to have recourse to sacrificial works to be carried out with hearth, fire-wood and so forth. Chhandogya Upanishad declares, Brahmasamstho’amrita tvameti One dedicated to Brahman attains Immortality (Chh. Up. II.23.1).
The idea or doctrine that information and work should be mixed to be able to produce Mukti or salvation is hereby put aside. Brahma Vidya or Data of Brahman is enough for that goal.
SARVAPEKSHADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 6 (SUTRAS 26-27)
Works prescribed by the scriptures are means
to the attainment of data
Sarvapeksha cha yajnadi sruterasvavat III.4.26 (451)
And there’s the need of all works as a result of the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, and many others., (as means to the attainment of data) even because the horse (is used to attract a chariot, and never for ploughing).
Sarvapeksha: there’s the need of all works; Cha: and; Yajnadisruteh: for the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, and many others., (as means to information); Asvavat: like a horse, as within the case of the horse.
The Sutra says that sacrificial works and the like are needed for origination of data of Brahman.
We might conclude from the earlier Sutra that works are altogether ineffective.
This Sutra says that every one these works are helpful for origination of data. Even the scriptures prescribe them as they serve an oblique means to the attainment of data. Brihad aranyaka Upanishad declares, Brahmanas search to know Brahman by the research of the Vedas, by scriptures, items, penance and renunciation (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). Equally the passage, what individuals name sacrifice that’s actually Brahmacharya (Chh. Up. VIII.5.1), by connecting sacrifices and so forth with Bra hmacharya which is a method of data, intimates that sacri fices, and many others., are also means of data. Once more the passage That phrase which all of the Vedas report, which all penances proclaim, wanting which males reside as non secular college students, that phrase I inform thee briefly, it’s OM (Katha Up. I.2.15), likewise intimates that the works enjoined on the Asramas are means of data.
When information as soon as is attained requires no assist from exterior works for the manufacturing of this end result specifically, Liberation. The case is analogous to a horse, whose assistance is required till the place of vacation spot is reached however it might be distributed with after the journey has been completed.
When Atma-Jnana is attained it doesn’t want every other accent to result in salvation, however Karma is required for Atma-Jnana. Simply as a horse just isn’t used to tug a plough however is used to tug a automobile, so the Asrama Karmas aren’t wanted for the fruition of Jnana however are wanted for Jnana.
The ultimate emancipation outcomes solely from information of Brahman and never from work. Work purifies the thoughts and information dawns in a pure thoughts.
Therefore works are helpful as they’re an oblique means to information.
If information be originated by sacrifices, items, penance and fasting, what’s the necessity of different {qualifications} like Sama (serenity) and Dama (self-restraint)? To this the writer replies within the subsequent Sutra.
Samadamadyupetah syat tathapi tu tadvidhestadangataya
teshamavasyanushtheyatvat III.4.27 (452)
However all the identical (although there isn’t any injunction to do sacrificial acts to achieve information within the Brihadaranyaka textual content) one should possess serenity, self-control and the like, as these are enjoined as auxiliaries to information and subsequently have essentially to be practised.
Samadamadyupetah syat: one should possess serenity, self-control and the like; Tathapi: nonetheless, all the identical, even when it’s so; Tu: verily; Tadvidheh: as they’re enjoined; Tadangataya: on account of their being a component, as helps to information; Tesham: their; Avasyanushtheyatvat: as a result of it being essential to be practised. (Avasya: essentially; Anushtheyatvat: as a result of they should be practised.)
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, The Brahmanas search to know Brahman by way of the research of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and many others. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). On this passage there isn’t any phrase to point that sacrifice is enjoined on one who needs to know Brahman.
So the Purvapakshin maintains that there isn’t any necessity in any respect for work for one who aspires after information.
This current Sutra says that even ought to this be so. The seeker for information should possess calmness of thoughts, should subdue his senses and so forth; as a result of all that is enjoined as a method of data within the following scriptural passage, There he who is aware of this, having change into calm, subdued, happy, affected person and picked up sees Self in Self (Bri. Up. IV.4.23).
What’s enjoined should essentially be carried out. The introductory phrase `subsequently’ (Tasmat) which expresses the reward of the topic below dialogue makes us un derstand that the passage has an injunctive character, as a result of if there have been no injunction, the reward can be meaningless.
Additional the Madhyandina Sruti makes use of the phrase pasyet let him see and never `he sees’. Therefore calmness of thoughts, and many others., are required even when sacrifices, and many others., shouldn’t be required.
As these qualities are enjoined, they’re essentially to be practised. Sama, Dama and many others., are proximate or direct means of data (Antaranga-Sadhana). Yajnas or sacrifices, and many others., are distant or oblique means of data (Bahiranga-Sadhana).
The phrase `Adi’ (and the remainder) talked about within the Sutra, indi cates that the aspirant after Brahma Vidya should possess all these {qualifications} of truthfulness, generosity, asceticism, celibacy, indifference to worldly objects, tolerance, endurance, religion, equilibrium, compassion and many others.
SARVANNANUMATYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 7 (SUTRAS 28-31)
Meals-restrictions could also be given up solely when life is at risk
Sarvannanumatischa pranatyaye taddarsanat III.4.28 (453)
Solely when life is at risk (there’s) permission to take all meals (i.e., take meals indiscriminately) as a result of the Sruti declares that.
Sarvannanumatih: permission to take all types of meals; Cha: solely; Prana tyaye: when life is at risk; Taddarsanat: as a result of the Sruti declares that.
This and the next three Sutras point out what sort of meals is to be taken.
Chhandogya Upanishad declares, For one who is aware of this, there’s nothing that’s not meals (Chh. Up. V.2.1). The query is that if such Sarvannanumati (description of all as his meals) is a Vidhi or Vidhyanga or a Sruti (reward).
The Purvapakshin maintains that it’s enjoined on one who meditates on Prana on account of the novelty of the assertion. It has an injunctive worth, as such assertion just isn’t discovered wherever else.
The Sutra refutes it and declares that it isn’t an injun ction, however solely an announcement of truth. We’re not justified in assuming an injunction, the place the thought of an injunction doesn’t come up. It isn’t Vidhi or injunction as no obligatory phrases are discovered. Can a person eat and digest all issues? No. Prohi bited meals could also be eaten solely when life is at risk, when one is dying of starvation as was executed by the sage Chakrayana (Ushasti) when he was dying for need of meals. Sruti declares this.
Sage Ushasti was dying of starvation on account of famine. He ate the beans half-eaten by a keeper of elephants however refused to drink what had been provided by the latter on the bottom of its being a mere leaving. The sage justified his conduct by saying, I’d not have lived, if I had not eaten the beans, however water I can do with out at current. I can drink water wherever I like.
From this it follows, that the passage For one who is aware of this and many others., is an Arthavada.
Abadhatccha III.4.29 (454)
And since (thus) (the scriptural statements with respect to meals) aren’t contradicted.
Abadhat: becausc of a non-contradiction, as there isn’t any opposite state ment wherever in Sruti; Cha: and, additionally, furthermore, on account of non-sublation.
The subject commenced in Sutra 28 is sustained.
And thus these scriptural passages which distinguish lawful and illegal meals reminiscent of When the meals is pure the entire nature turns into pure (Chh. Up. VII.26.2) are non-sublated. The assertion of the Chhandogya Upanishad is not going to be contradicted provided that the reason given is taken, and never in any other case.
Solely then different Srutis could have unhindered purposes. Solely on this view will the Sruti When the meals is pure the thoughts turns into pure have utility.
Clear meals ought to typically be taken as there isn’t any opposite assertion wherever in Sruti to the purifying impact of fresh meals. There may be nowhere any passage in Sruti, contradicting the passage of the Chhandogya Sruti which declares that clear meals makes our nature pure.
Illegal meals as a basic rule clogs the understanding and obstructs the clear works of the mind. However within the case of the sage, whose coronary heart is at all times pure and mind eager, the taking of such meals doesn’t impede the working of his mind, and his information stays as pure as ever.
Api cha smaryate III.4.30 (455)
And furthermore the Smritis say so.
Api: additionally; Cha: furthermore; Smaryate: the Smriti says so, it’s seen within the Smritis, it’s prescribed by Smriti.
The earlier subject is sustained.
Smriti additionally states that when life is at risk each he who has information and he who has not can take any meals. He who eats meals procured from wherever when life is at risk, just isn’t tainted by sin, as a lotus leaf just isn’t wetted by water.
Quite the opposite many passages educate that illegal meals is to be averted. The Brahmana should completely forego intoxicating liquor. Allow them to pour boiling spirits down the throat of a Brahmana who drinks spirits. Spirit-drinking worms develop within the mouth of the spirit-drinking man, as a result of he enjoys what’s illegal.
From this it’s inferred that typically clear meals is to be taken besides within the case of maximum hunger or in occasions of misery solely.
When the Upanishad says that the sage might eat all types of meals, it should be interpreted as that means that he might eat all types of meals, in occasions of misery solely. The textual content of the Upanishad shouldn’t be construed as an injunction in favour of consuming illegal meals.
Sabdaschato’kamakare III.4.31 (456)
And therefore the scripture prohibiting license.
Sabdah: the scriptural passage; Cha: and; Atah: therefore; Akamakare: to forestall undue license, prohibiting license, as to non-proceeding based on liking.
The earlier subject is mentioned and concluded right here.
There are scriptural passages which prohibit one from doing every little thing simply as he pleases, which forbid man to take undue liberty within the matter of food and drinks. Due to this fact a Brahmana should not drink liquor (Kathaka Sam.). Good religious self-discipline is completely needed for controlling the thoughts and the senses and attaining information or Self-realisation. Such Sruti texts are meant for this self-discipline.
Due to this fact, it’s established that the Sruti doesn’t enjoin on one who meditates on Prana to take all types of meals indiscriminately.
As there’s Sruti which forbids license in food and drinks, the Sruti referred to above in Sutra 28 is an Arthavada.
The permission to take all types of meals is confined to occasions of misery solely when one’s life is at risk. One should strictly observe the injunctions of the scriptures in extraordinary occasions.
ASRAMAKARMADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 8 (SUTRAS 32-35)
The duties of Asrama are to be carried out by even one
who just isn’t desirous of salvation
Vihitatvacchasramakarmapi III.4.32 (457)
And the duties of the Asramas (are to be carried out additionally by him who doesn’t want emancipation) as a result of they’re enjoined (on him by the scriptures).
Vihitatvat: as a result of they’re enjoined; Cha: and; Asrama- karma: duties of the Asrama, or order of life; Api: additionally.
This and the next three Sutras present who’re required to carry out sacrifices and do different prescribed duties.
Below Sutra 26 it has been proved that the works enjoined on the Asramas are means to information. The query arises now, why ought to one who doesn’t want information or last launch do these works?
The current Sutra declares that since these duties are enjoined on all who’re in these Aramas or orders of life, viz., student-life, householder’s life, and hermit life, one ought to observe them.
Within the case of a person who retains to the Asramas however doesn’t search liberation, the Nityakarmas or the everlasting compulsory duties are indispensable. The Sruti says Yavajjivam agnihotram juhotias lengthy as his life lasts, one is to supply the Agnihotra.
Sahakaritvena cha III.4.33 (458)
And (the duties are to be carried out additionally) as a method to information.
Sahakaritvena: as, an auxiliary, on account of cooperativeness, as means to information; Cha: and.
The subject commenced in Sutra 32 is sustained.
The duties or works are useful in producing information however not its fruit, viz., emancipation. Within the former case the connection between Karma and fruit is inseparable (Nitya-Samyoga), however within the latter case it’s separable (Anitya-Samyoga). Salva tion or Moksha is attainable solely by way of information of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana.
Works (Karmas) are an assist to Vidya or information of Self. Those that are desirous of emancipation also needs to carry out non secular rites as a assist to enlightenment. Brahma Vidya is unbiased in producing its outcomes. Karma is merely the handmaid and cooperator of Vidya. Works are means for the origination of data.
Sarvathapi ta evobhayalingat III.4.34 (459)
In all circumstances the identical duties (should be carried out), due to the twofold indicatory marks.
Sarvatha: in all circumstances, in each respect, below any circumstance; Api: additionally; Ta eva: the identical duties (should be carried out); Ubhayalingat: due to the twofold inferential indicators. (Ta: they, the sacrificial works; Eva: definitely.)
The earlier subject is sustained.
The phrase `Api’ within the Sutra has the drive of `certainly’, `even’. The phrases `Sarvatha Api’ are equal to `Sarvatha Eva’.
The query arises whether or not the works carried out as enjoined on the Asramas, and people executed as auxiliaries to information are of two totally different varieties.
The current Sutra declares that in both case, whether or not seen as duties incumbent on the Asramas or as cooperating with information, the exact same Agnihotra and different duties should be carried out, as is seen from the Sruti and the Smriti texts.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, Him the Brahmanas search to know by way of the research of the Vedas, sacrifices and many others. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). This textual content signifies that sacrifices and many others., enjoined in Karmakanda for various functions are to be carried out as means to information additionally.
The Smriti additionally says the identical factor, He who performs compulsory works with out aiming on the fruit of labor and many others. (Gita VI.1). These very compulsory duties subserve the origi nation of data additionally.
Furthermore the Smriti passage He who’s certified by that forty-eighty purifications and many others., refers back to the purifications required for Vedic works, with a view to the origination of data in him who has undergone these purifications.
In each respect, whether or not seen as duties incumbent on a householder or as practices auxiliary to information or illumination, the sacrificial works, prescribed to be carried out, are recognised to be the identical and never totally different, as a result of they’re indispensable requisites for each orders of life, as everlasting duties for a householder and as auxiliary aids to meditation for a Sannyasi.
The Sutrakara, subsequently, rightly emphasises the non-difference of the works.
Anabhibhavam cha darsayati III.4.35 (460)
And the scripture additionally declares (that he who’s endowed with Brahmacharya) just isn’t overpowered (by ardour, anger, and many others.).
Anabhibhavam: not being overpowered; Cha: and; Darsayati: the scrip ture exhibits, the Srutis declare.
The earlier subject is concluded right here.
This Sutra factors out an additional indicatory mark strengthening the conclusion that works cooperate in the direction of information. Scripture additionally declares that he who’s endowed with such means as Brahmacharya, and many others.. just isn’t overpowered by such afflictions as ardour, anger and the like. For that Self doesn’t perish which one attains by Brahmacharya (Chh. Up. VIII.5.3). This passage signifies that like work, Brahmacharya, and many others., are additionally means to information. He who’s endowed with celibacy just isn’t overcome by anger, ardour, jealousy, hatred. His thoughts is ever peaceable. As his thoughts just isn’t agitated, he is ready to practise deep and fixed meditation which results in the attainment of data.
It’s thus a settled conclusion that works are compulsory on the Asramas and are additionally means to information.
VIDHURADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 9 (SUTRAS 36-39)
Those that stand halfway between two Asramas
are also certified for information
Antara chapi tu taddrishteh III.4.36 (461)
And (individuals standing) in between (two Asramas) are additionally (certified for information), for that’s seen (in scripture).
Antara: (individuals standing) in between (two Asramas); Cha: and; Api tu: additionally; Taddrishteh: such circumstances being seen, (as it’s seen in Sruti, as a result of it’s so seen).
Widowers who haven’t married once more, individuals who’re too poor to marry and people who are compelled by circumstances to not enter into wedlock and haven’t renounced the world come below the purview of Sutras 36-39.
The phrase `tu’ is employed to be able to refute the Purvapaksha that Karma is critical for the origination of data of Brahman. The drive of the phrase `cha’ is to indicate certainty.
A doubt arises whether or not individuals in need who don’t possess means, and many others., and, subsequently, aren’t capable of enter into one or the opposite of the Asramas, or who stand halfway between two Asramas as for instance, a widower, are certified for information or not.
The Purvapakshin maintains that they don’t seem to be certified, as they can not carry out the works of any Asrama that are means to information.
The current Sutra declares that they’re entitled, as a result of such circumstances are seen from the scriptures. Scriptural passages declare that individuals of that class reminiscent of Raikva and Gargi, the daughter of Vachaknavi had the information of Brahman (Chh. Up. IV.1 and Bri. Up. III.6.8).
Vidura, a person who had no spouse, didn’t undertake the Vanaprastha Asrama, and who had no Asrama, was knowledgeable in Brahma Vidya. He had information of Brahman.
Antara (who stand exterior) are these individuals who don’t belong to any order or Asrama and consequently don’t carry out the duties of any Asrama. They’re born on this life with discrimination and dispassion owing to the efficiency of such duties of their earlier delivery. Their minds have been purified by reality, penance, prayers, and many others., carried out of their previous lives. If a person has duly discharged the duties of his Asrama in earlier delivery, however owing to some obstacles or Pratibandhas Brahma-Jnana didn’t come up in him in that life, and he dies earlier than the daybreak of data, then he’s born within the current life ripe for information. Brahma-Jnana manifests in him in all its glory by mere contact with a sage. Due to this fact such a person doesn’t carry out any Karmas or relatively doesn’t stand in any want of performing any duties of Asramas.
Api cha smaryate III.4.37 (462)
That is said in Smriti additionally.
Api: additionally, too; Cha: furthermore, and; Smaryate: is said in Smriti, the Smriti data such circumstances.
The earlier subject is sustained.
Furthermore, it’s said additionally in Smriti that individuals, not belonging to any one of many 4 prescribed orders of life, purchase Brahma-Jnana.
It’s recorded within the Itihasas (Mahabharata) additionally how Samvarta and others who paid no regard to the duties incumbent on the Asramas went bare and afterwards turned nice Yogins or saints. The good Bhishma can also be an occasion in level.
Manu Samhita declares There isn’t any doubt {that a} Brahmana attains last success solely by follow of repeatedly repeating the Japa. It issues little whether or not he performs different prescribed duties or not. One who’s pleasant to all, can be a Brahmana (II.87).
However the cases quoted from scripture and Smriti furnish merely indicatory marks. What then is the ultimate conclusion? That conclusion is said within the subsequent Sutra.
Viseshanugrahascha III.4.38 (463)
And the promotion (of data is bestowed on them) by way of particular acts.
Visesha: particular; Anugrahah: favour; Cha: and. (Viseshanu- grahah: particular benefit, benefit or favour accruing from extraordinary good works executed within the earlier life.)
The earlier subject is sustained.
Furthermore information of Brahman could also be attained by the particular grace of the gods as a consequence of Japa, fasting and worship of gods. Or it might be that Asrama Karmas might need been executed in earlier births.
A widower who just isn’t a householder within the correct sense of the time period, can attain information of Brahman by way of particular acts like Japa, fasting, prayer, which aren’t against the situation of those that don’t belong to any Asrama.
The Smriti says By mere prayer little question the Brahmana perfects himself. Could he carry out different works or not, the kind-hearted one is named Brahmana (Manu Samhita II.87).
This passage signifies that the place the works of the Asramas aren’t potential, prayer qualifies for information.
Smriti additionally declares Perfected by many births he lastly goes to the best state (Bhagavad Gita VI.45). This passage intimates that the mixture of the totally different meritorious works carried out in earlier births promotes information.
Due to this fact, there isn’t any contradiction in admitting qualifica tion for information on the a part of widowers and the like.
Atastvitarajjyayo lingaccha III.4.39 (464)
Higher than that is the opposite (state of belonging to an Asrama) on account of the indicatory marks (within the Sruti and the Smriti).
Atah: from this, than this, than the intermediate state talked about above; Tu: however; Itarat: the opposite, the state belonging to a prescribed order of life; Jyayah: higher, superior; Lingat: due to the indicatory marks, from such indications within the scripture, from indication, indicators, in ferences; Cha: and.
The earlier subject is concluded right here.
The phrase `tu’ (however) is employed to be able to take away the doubt. The phrase `cha’ (and) is used within the sense of exclusion.
Although it’s potential for one who stands between two Asramas to achieve information, but it’s a higher means to know ledge to belong to some Asrama. He who belongs to an Asrama has higher means of achieving information of the Self or Brahman, as a result of the services are better within the latter situation.
That is confirmed by the Sruti and Smriti The Brahmanas search to know Brahman by way of sacrifices and many others. (Bri. Up. IV.4.22). On that path goes whoever is aware of Brahman and who has executed holy works as prescribed for the Asramas and obtained splendour (Bri. Up. IV.4.9). Smriti declares, Let not a Brahmana keep for a day exterior the Asrama; having stayed exterior for a yr he goes to utter destroy.
Tadbhutadhikaranam: Subject 10
He who has taken Sannyasa can not revert again
to his former phases of life
Tadbhutasya tu natadbhavo jaiminerapi
niyamatadrupabhavebhyah III.4.40 (465)
However for one who has change into that (i.e. entered the best Asrama, i.e., Sannyasa) there isn’t any reverting (to the preced ing ones) on account of restrictions prohibiting such reversion or descending to a decrease order. Jaimini additionally (is of this opinion).
Tadbhutasya: of 1 who has change into that, for one who has attained that (highest Asrama); Tu: however; Na: no; Atadbhavah: lapse from that stage, falling away from that; Jaimineh: based on Jaimini, of Jaimini (is that this opinion); Api: additionally, even; Niyamatadrupabhavebhyah: on account of the restrictions prohibiting such reversion. (Niyamat: due to the strict rule; Atadrupdbhavebhyah: as a result of there isn’t any assertion allowing it, and since it’s in opposition to customized; Abhavebhyah: due to the absence of that.)
The query whether or not one who has taken Sannyasa can return to the earlier Asrama is now thought of.
The current Sutra declares that he can not return to the earlier Asrama. That is the opinion of Jaimini additionally.
There are not any phrases within the Sruti permitting such a descent. The Sruti expressly forbids it, He’s to go to the forest, he’s not to return from there.
Additionally it is in opposition to accepted customized or utilization.
The Upanishad declares Having been dismissed by the instructor he’s to comply with one of many 4 Asramas based on rule, as much as launch from the physique (Chh. Up. II.23.1). There are texts which educate of the ascent to larger Asramas. Having accomplished the Brahmacharya state he’s to change into a householder. He might wander forth from the Brahmacharya state, however there are not any texts which deal with of the descent to decrease Asramas.
Dharma is what’s enjoined for every and never what every is able to doing.
Scripture declares, As soon as returning to the forest, one ought to by no means return to family life. A Sannyasi mustn’t fire up the family hearth once more after having as soon as renounced it.
Due to this fact, one can not return from Sannyasa.
ADHIKARADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 11 (SUTRAS 41-42)
Expiation for one who has damaged the vow of Sannyasa
Na chadhikarikamapi patananumanattadayogat III.4.41 (466)
And there’s no health for expiation within the case of a Naishthika Brahmacharin (who’s immoral), as a result of a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti and due to the inefficacy (in his case) of the expiatory ceremony.
Na: not; Cha: and; Adhikarikam: (expiation) talked about within the chapter that offers with the qualification; Api: additionally, even; Patananumanat: due to a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smriti; Tadayogat: due to its (of the expiatory ceremony) inefficiency in his case.
The earlier dialogue is sustained.
The current Sutra expresses the view of the Purvapakshin.
The opponent maintains that there isn’t any expiation for such transgression within the case of a Naishthika Brahmacharin who has taken the vow of life-long celibacy, as a result of no such expiatory ceremony is talked about with respect to him. The expiatory ceremony which is talked about in Purvamimamsa VI.8.22, refers to extraordinary Brahmacharins and to not Naishthika Brahmacharins.
Smriti declares that such sins can’t be expiated by him any greater than a head as soon as reduce off can once more be mounted to the physique, He who having as soon as entered on the duties of a Naishthika once more lapses from them, for him a slayer of the Self, I see no expiation which could make him clear once more (Agneya XVI.5.23).
Additional the expiatory ceremony referred to in Purvamimamsa just isn’t efficacious in his case, as a result of he should gentle sacrificial hearth and subsequently should marry. In that case he’ll stop to be a Naishthika Brahmacharin thereafter.
However the Upakurvana (i.e., who’s a Brahmacharin for a sure interval solely, not for all times, one who’s a Brahmacharin until marriage) about whose sin Smriti makes no comparable declaration, might purify himself by the ceremony talked about. If he’s immoral there’s expiation.
Upapurvamapi tveke bhavamasanavattaduktam III.4.42 (467)
However some (contemplate the sin) a minor one (and subsequently declare) the existence (of expiation for the Naishthika Brahmacharin additionally); as within the case of consuming (of illegal meals). This has been defined (within the Purvamimamsa).
Upapurvam: (Upapurvaka-patakam, Upapatakam) a minor sin; Api tu: however, nonetheless; Eke: some (say); Bhavam: chance of expiation; Asanavat: as within the consuming (prohibited meals); Tat: this; Uktam: is defined (in Purvamimamsa).
The earlier dialogue is sustained.
Some lecturers, nonetheless, are of opinion that the transgres sion of the vow of chastity, even on the a part of a Naishthika is a minor sin, not a significant one excepting circumstances the place the spouse of the instructor is worried and so could be expiated by correct ceremonies simply as extraordinary Brahmacharins who take prohibited meals reminiscent of honey, wine, flesh, are once more purified by expiatory ceremonies. They plead that that sin just isn’t wherever enumerated among the many lethal ones (Mahapataka) reminiscent of violating a instructor’s mattress and so forth. They declare the expia tory ceremony to be legitimate for the Naishthika in addition to the Upakurvana. Each are Brahmacharins and have dedicated the identical offence.
It’s only sexual activity with the spouse of the Guru or religious preceptor that could be a Mahapataka (main sin). That Upapataka, a minor sin is an expiable sin has been defined within the Purvamimamsa of Jaimini in Chap. I.3.8.
The Smriti passage which declares that there isn’t any expiation for the Naishthika should be defined as aiming on the origination of significant effort on the a part of Naishthika Brahmacharins. It places him in thoughts of the intense duty on his half in order that he could also be ever alert and vigilant and battle laborious in sustaining strict unbroken Brahmacharya and thus attaining the purpose or summum bonum of life, i.e., Self-realisation.
Equally within the case of the hermit and the Sannyasin. The Smriti does prescribe the purificatory ceremony for each the hermit (Vanaprastha) and the mendicant (Sannyasi). When the hermit has damaged his vows, undergoes the Kricchra-penance for twelve nights after which cultivates a spot which is filled with timber and grass. The Sannyasi additionally proceeds just like the hermit, aside from cultivating the Soma plant, and undergoes the purifications prescribed for his state.
BAHIRADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 12
The life-long celibate who fails to maintain up his vow
should be excluded by society
Bahistubhayathapi smriteracharaccha III.4.43 (468)
However (they’re to be stored) exterior the society in both case, on account of the Smriti and customized.
Bahih: exterior; Tu: however; Ubhayatha: in both case, whether or not it’s a grave sin or a minor sin; Api: additionally, even; Smriteh: on account of the state ment of the Smriti, from the Smriti; Acharat: from customized; Cha: and.
The earlier dialogue is concluded right here.
Whether or not the lapses be thought to be main sins or minor sins, in both case good individuals (Sishtas) should shun such transgres sors, as a result of the Smriti and good customized each condemn them.
Smriti declares, he who touches a Brahmana who has damaged his vow and fallen from his order, should bear the Chandrayana penance. Permitted customized additionally condemns them, as a result of good males don’t sacrifice, research, or attend weddings with such individuals.
SVAMYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 13 (SUTRAS 44-46)
The meditations linked with the subordinate members of sacrificial acts (Yajnangas) must be noticed by the priest
and never by the sacrificer
Svaminah phalasruterityatreyah III.4.44 (469)
To the sacrificer (belongs the agentship in meditations) as a result of the Sruti declares a fruit (for it): thus Atreya (holds).
Svaminah: of the grasp, of the sacrificer or Yajamana; Phalasruteh: from the declaration in Sruti of the outcomes; Iti: so, thus; Atreyah: the sage Atreya (holds).
That is the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.
A doubt arises as to who’s to look at the meditations linked with the subordinate members of sacrificial acts (Yajnangas), whether or not it’s the sacrificer (Yajamana) or the priest (Ritvik).
The opponent, represented by the Sage Atreya, maintains that it’s to be noticed by the sacrificer, because the Sruti declares a particular fruit for these meditations.
There may be rain for him and he brings rain for others who thus realizing meditates on the five-fold Saman as rain (Chh. Up. II.3.2).
Therefore the sacrificer solely is the agent in these meditations which have a fruit. That is the opinion of the instructor Atreya.
Artvijyamityaudulomistasmai hello parikriyate III.4.45 (470)
(They’re) the responsibility of the Ritvik (priest), that is the view of Audulomi, as a result of he’s paid for that (i.e., the efficiency of your entire sacrifice).
Artvijyam: the responsibility of the Ritvik (priest); Iti: thus; Audulomih: the sage Audulomi (thinks); Tasmai: for that; Hello: as a result of; Parikriyate: he’s paid.
The earlier subject is sustained.
The assertion that the meditations on subordinate members of the sacrifice are the work of the sacrificer (Yajamana) is unfounded.
However Audulomi says that they’re to be executed by the priest (Ritvik), as a result of he’s engaged (actually purchased) for the sake of the Karma. Because the priest is paid for all his acts, the fruit of all his acts, is because it had been, bought by the Yajamana (sacri ficer). Due to this fact the meditations additionally fall throughout the perfor mance of the work, as they belong to the sphere of that to which the sacrificer is entitled. They should be noticed by the priest and never the sacrificer.
That is the view of the sage Audulomi.
Srutescha III.4.46 (471)
And since the Sruti (so) declares.
Sruteh: from the Sruti; Cha: and.
The earlier subject is concluded right here.
The Ritvik is to make the Anga Upasana. However the fruit goes to the Yajamana.
No matter blessing the monks pray for on the sacrifice, they pray for the nice of the sacrificer (Sat. Br. I.3., I.26). Due to this fact an Udgatri who is aware of this will likely say: what want shall I receive for you by my singing (Chh. Up. I.7.8). The scriptural passages additionally declare that the fruit of meditations during which the priest is the agent, goes to the sacrificer.
All this establishes the conclusion that the meditations on subordinate components of the sacrifice are the work of the priest.
Due to this fact, Audulomi’s view is appropriate, being supported by the Sruti texts.
SAHAKARYANTARAVIDHYADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 14 (SUTRAS 47-49)
In Bri. Up. III.5.1 meditation is enjoined apart from the
child-like state and scholarship
Sahakaryantaravidhih pakshena tritiyam
tadvato vidhyadivat III.4.47 (472)
There may be the injunction of one thing else, i.e., meditation, cooperation (in the direction of information) (which is) a 3rd factor (with regard to Balya or state of a kid and Panditya or scholarship), (which injunction is given) for the case (of per fect information not but having arisen) to him who’s such (i.e., the Sannyasin possessing information); as within the case of injunctions, and the like.
Sahakaryantaravidhih: a separate auxiliary injunction; Pakshena: as a substitute; Tritiyam: the third; Tadvatah: for one who possesses it, (i.e., information); Vidhyadivat: simply as within the case of injunctions and the like.
This Sutra examines a passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and concludes that steady meditation can also be to be thought of as enjoined by Sruti for the realisation of Brahman. This and the next two Sutras present that the scripture enjoins the 4 orders of life.
Mauna (Nididhyasa or meditation) is enjoined as an assist. The third, i.e., Mauna is enjoined for a Sannyasi in case his sense of cosmic range is persistent, simply as Yajnas are enjoined for one desirous of heaven.
Due to this fact, a knower of Brahman, having executed with scholar ship, ought to stay like a toddler (free from ardour, anger, and many others.); and after having completed with this state and with erudition he turns into meditative (Muni) (Bri. Up. III.5.1).
A doubt arises now whether or not the meditative state is enjoined or not.
The Purvapakshin maintains that it isn’t enjoined, as there isn’t any phrase indicating an injunction. Although the crucial temper happens in regard to Balya or child-like state, there isn’t any such indication in regard to the Muni. The textual content merely says that he turns into a Muni or meditative whereas it expressly enjoins One ought to stay and many others., with respect to the state of kid and scholarship.
Additional scholarship refers to information. Due to this fact, it contains Muniship which additionally refers to information. As there isn’t any newness (Apurva) with respect to Muniship within the textual content it has no injunctive worth.
This Sutra refutes this view and declares that Muniship or meditativeness is enjoined within the textual content as a 3rd requisite apart from child-like state and scholarship.
Muni means an individual who continually meditates on Brahman. So fixed meditation is the third auxiliary observance for one who’s already possessed of Panditya (erudition) and Balya (child-like state); and as such fixed meditation is enjoined to be noticed just like the injunctions about sacrifice and management of the senses and so forth.
This Sutra refers to a passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the place in reply to a query by one Kahola, the sage Yajnaval�kya enjoins first, scholarly attainments, the child-like simplicity, after which thirdly, steady meditation cooperating with the 2 earlier situations, with a view to realisation of Brahman. Although there isn’t any verb of crucial or injunctive drive within the case of this third state, there’s to be inferred an injunction to be understood just like the injunctions within the different circumstances.
Muniship is steady contemplation on Brahman. Due to this fact, it’s totally different from scholarship. It’s a new factor (Apurva). It has not been referred to earlier than. Therefore the textual content has injun ctive worth. Incessant meditation is extremely helpful for a Sannyasin who has not but attained oneness or unity of Self and who experiences plurality on account of previous expressions or the prevailing drive of the faulty concept of multiplicity.
Munihood is enjoined as one thing useful to information.
Kritsnabhavattu grihinopasamharah III.4.48 (473)
On account of his being all, nonetheless, there’s winding up with the householder.
Kritsnabhavat: on account of the householder’s life together with all; Tu: verily; Grihina: by a householder, with the householder; Upasamharah: the conclusion, the purpose, salvation, (the Chapter) ends. (Kritsna: of all (duties); Bhavat: owing to the existence; Grihinopasamharah: conclusion with the case of the householder.)
The Sruti winds up with the householder as he has all of the duties. He has to do tough sacrifices and has additionally to look at Ahimsa, self-control, and many others. Because the householder’s life contains duties of all the opposite phases of life, the Chapter ends with the enumeration of the duties of the householder.
The Chhandogya Upanishad concludes with the householder’s stage, due to the truth that this stage contains all of the others. He, the householder, conducting his life on this method, concent score all his senses upon the self, and abstaining from harm to any residing being all through his life, attains the world of Brahma and has to not return once more to this world (Chh. Up. VIII.15.1).
The phrase `tu’ is supposed to put stress on the householder being every little thing. He has to do many duties belonging to his personal Asrama which contain an important hassle. On the similar time the duties of the opposite Asramas reminiscent of tenderness for all residing creatures, restraint of the senses and research of scriptures, and so forth are incumbent on him additionally so far as circumstances enable. Due to this fact, there’s nothing contradictory within the Chhandogya winding up with the householder.
The householder’s life is essential. Grihasthasrama contains roughly the duties of all Asramas. The Sruti enumerates the duties of the Brahmacharin after which these of the householder and there it ends with out referring to Sannyasa to be able to lay stress on the lifetime of the householder, to indicate its significance, and never as a result of it isn’t one of many prescribed Asramas.
Maunavaditareshamapyupadesat III.4.49 (474)
As a result of the scripture enjoins the opposite (phases of life, viz., Brahmacharya and Vanaprastha), simply because it enjoins the state of a Muni (Sannyasi).
Maunavat: simply as silence, like fixed meditation, just like the state of a Muni (Sannyasi); Itaresham: of the others, of the opposite orders of life; Api: even, additionally; Upadesat: due to scriptural injunction.
This Sutra states that the scripture enjoins the observance of the duties of all of the orders of life.
Simply because the Sruti enjoins Sannyasa and householder’s life, so additionally it enjoins the lifetime of a Vanaprastha (hermit) and that of a scholar (Brahmacharin). For we’ve got already pointed above to passages reminiscent of Austerity is the second, and to dwell as a scholar in the home of a instructor is the third. As thus the 4 Asramas are equally taught by the scripture, they’re to be gone by way of in sequence or alternately.
That the Sutra makes use of a plural type (of the `others’) when talking of two orders solely, is because of its having regard both to the totally different sub-classes of these two or to their tough duties.
ANAVISHKARADHIKARNAM: TOPIC 15
Little one-like state means the state of innocence,
being free from egoism, lust, anger, and many others.
Anavishkurvannanvayat III.4.50 (475)
(The kid-like state means) with out manifesting himself, based on the context.
Anavishkurvan: with out manifesting himself; Ananvayat: based on the context.
This Sutra says that the perversity of a kid just isn’t meant by the phrase `Balyena’ (by the child-like state), within the passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quoted below Sutra 47.
Within the passage of the Brihadaranyaka quoted within the Sutra 47, the child-like state is enjoined on an aspirant after information. Due to this fact, a Brahmana after he has executed with studying ought to stay like a toddler. What is precisely meant by this?
Does it imply to be like a toddler with none concept of purity and impurity, freely attending to the calls of nature with none respect of place, and many others., behaving, speaking and consuming, accord ing to at least one’s liking and doing no matter one likes, or does it imply inward purity, i.e., absence of cunningness, conceitedness, sense of egoism, drive of the sensual passions and so forth as within the case of a kid?
The current Sutra says it’s the latter and never the previous, as a result of that’s detrimental to information. It implies that one must be free from guile, delight, egoism, and many others. He mustn’t manifest the undesirable evil traits. He mustn’t manifest by a show of data, studying and virtuousness. Simply as a toddler whose sensual powers haven’t but developed themselves doesn’t try and make a show of himself earlier than others, he should not publish and proclaim his studying, knowledge and goodness. Such that means solely is acceptable to the context, purity and innocence being useful to information.
Then solely the passage has a reference to your entire chapter on the bottom of cooperating in the direction of the principal matter, specifically, the realisation of Brahman. Being free from ostentation is critical, as a result of solely then there will likely be Anvaya or concordance of doctrine.
The Smriti writers have stated, He whom no person is aware of both as noble or ignoble, as ignorant or discovered, in addition to well-conducted or ill-conducted, he’s a Brahmana. Quietly dedicated to his responsibility, let the sensible man go by way of life unknown, let him step on this earth as if he had been blind, unconscious, deaf. One other Smriti passage is With hidden nature, hidden conduct, and so forth.
AIHIKADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 16
The time of the origination of data
when Brahma Vidya is practised
Aihikamapyaprastutapratibandhe taddarsanat III.4.51 (476)
On this life (the origination of data takes place) if there be no obstruction to it (the means adopted), as a result of it’s so seen from the scriptures.
Aihikam: on this life; Api: even; Aprastutapratibandhe: within the absence of an obstruction to it (the means adopted); Taddarsanat: as it’s seen in Sruti. (Aprastuta: not being current; Pratibandhe: obstruction; Tat: that; Darsanat: being declared by the scriptures.)
This Sutra states whether or not the consequence of Brahma Vidya, which is the realisation of Brahman, is feasible on this life or will wait until dying.
Starting from Sutra 26 of the current Pada (Part) we’ve got mentioned the assorted means of data.
The query now could be whether or not information that outcomes from these means comes on this life or within the life to return.
The current Sutra declares that information might come on this life provided that there isn’t any obstruction to its manifestation from extraneous causes. When the fruition of data is about to happen, it’s hindered by the fruit of another highly effective work (Karma), which can also be about to mature. When such an obstruction takes place, then information comes within the subsequent life.
That’s the reason why the scripture additionally declares that it’s tough to know the Self, He of whom many aren’t even capable of hear, whom many even after they hear of him don’t comprehend; great is a person when discovered who is ready to educate him; great is he who comprehends him when taught by an ready instructor (Katha Up. I.27).
The Gita additionally says, There he recovers the traits belonging to his former physique, and with that he once more strives for perfection, O Pleasure of the Kurus (Chap. VI.43). The Yogin striving with assiduity, purified from sin, step by step gaining perfection, by way of manifold births, then reaches the Supreme Aim (Chap. VI.45).
Additional scripture relates that Vamadeva already turned Brahman in his mom’s womb and thus exhibits that information might spring up in a later type of existence by way of means professional cured in a former one; as a result of a toddler in a womb can not probably procure such means in its current state.
It, subsequently, is a longtime conclusion that information originates both within the current or in a future life, in dependence on the evanescence of obstacles.
MUKTIPHALADHIKARANAM: TOPIC 17
Liberation is a state with out distinction. It’s only one
Evam muktiphalaniyamastadavasthavadhrites-
tadavasthavadhriteh III.4.52 (477)
No such particular rule exists with respect to emancipation, the fruit (of data), as a result of the Sruti asserts that state (to be immutable).
Evam: thus, like this; Muktiphalaniyamah: there isn’t any rule with respect to the ultimate emancipation, the fruit (of data); Tadavasthavadhriteh: on account of the assertions by the Sruti as to that situation. (Mukti: salvation; Phala: fruit; Aniyamah: there isn’t any rule; Tat: that; Avastha: situation; Avadhriteh: as a result of the Sruti has ascertained so.)
Within the earlier Sutra it was seen that information might end result on this life or the subsequent based on the absence or presence of obstructions and the depth of the means adopted.
Equally a doubt might come up that there could also be some rule with respect to the ultimate emancipation additionally, which is the fruit of data. A doubt might come up whether or not salvation could be delayed after information, and whether or not there are levels of data based on the qualification of the aspirant, whether or not there exists an analogous particular distinction with regard to the fruit characterised as last launch, owing to the superior or inferior qualification of the individuals realizing.
This Sutra declares that no such rule exists with regard to launch. As a result of all Vedanta texts assert the state of ultimate launch to be of 1 form solely. The state of ultimate launch is nothing however Brahman and Brahman can’t be linked with totally different kinds since many scriptural passages assert it to have one nature solely.
The knower of Brahman turns into Brahman. There could be no selection in it, as Brahman is with out qualities.
There isn’t any such divergence within the fruit of Mukti, due to the affirmation of its equivalent nature. There could also be variations within the efficiency of the Sadhana resulting in information or Brahma Vidya. Brahma Vidya itself is of the identical nature, although it might come early or late owing to the facility of the Sadhana. There isn’t any distinction within the nature of Mukti (liberation) which is attained by Brahma Vidya. There can be distinction of leads to Karmas and Upasanas (Saguna Vidyas) however Nirguna Vidya is however one and its end result viz., Mukti is equivalent in all circumstances.
Distinction is feasible solely when there are qualities as within the case of the Saguna Brahman. There could also be distinction within the experiences based on distinction in Vidyas however with regard to Nirguna Brahman it may be one solely and never many.
The means of data might, maybe, based on their particular person power, impart the next or decrease diploma to their end result, viz., information, however to not the results of information, viz., Liberation. As a result of liberation just isn’t one thing which is to be caused, however one thing whose nature is completely established, and is reached by way of information.
Data can not admit of decrease or larger diploma as a result of it’s in its personal nature excessive solely and wouldn’t be information in any respect if it had been low. Though information might differ in as far as it originates after a protracted or quick time, it’s not possible that liberation must be distinguished by the next or decrease diploma. From the absence of distinction of data additionally there follows absence of particular distinction on the a part of the results of information, viz., Liberation.
There can’t be any delay within the attainment of emancipation after information has dawned, as a result of information of Brahman itself is emancipation.
The repetition of the clause, Tadavasthavadhriteh as a result of the Sruti asserts that state signifies that the Chapter ends right here.
Thus ends the Fourth Pada (Part 4) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.