BrS Eng-3

Su.3.1.01 Su..02 Su..03 Su..04 Su..05 Su..06 Su..07

3.1 L.1 ✅ तत्र प्रथमे तावत्पादे पञ्चाग्निविद्यामाश्रित्य
So, in the first Pāda, with reference to the Vidyā of the five fires (i.e. Agnis),

3.1 L.2 ✅ संसारगतिप्रभेदः प्रदर्श्यते
The difference in the ways of the progress (of a man) during transmigratory existence, would be explained,

3.1 L.3 ✅ वैराग्यहेतोः – ‘तस्माज्जुगुप्सेत’ इति च अन्ते श्रवणात्।
As that is the means for creating revulsion (to worldly things), because the Scriptures towards the end (of the Pañcāgni Vidyā) declare — “Let (a man) therefore feel revulsion (for the sorrowful mundane existence, in which, as in a sea, the various creatures are constantly engulfed)”.

3.1 L.4 ✅ जीवो मुख्यप्राणसचिवः
सेन्द्रियः समनस्कोऽविद्याकर्मपूर्वप्रज्ञापरिग्रहः
पूर्वदेहं विहाय देहान्तरं प्रतिपद्यत इत्येतदवगतम् –
It is already understood that when the soul gives up the previous body and takes up the next,
The chief Prāṇa helps it,
And the senses and the mind follow it and it has in its store ignorance, the effects of past Karma and the impressions accumulated in the previous birth [Trans. from Panoli].

3.1 L.5 ✅ ‘अथैनमेते प्राणा अभिसमायन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.1) इत्येवमादेः
‘अन्यन्नवतरꣳ कल्याणतरं रूपं कुरुते’ (BrhU.4.4.4) इत्येवमन्तात्
संसारप्रकरणस्थाच्छब्दात्,
It is also understood, from the words of the chapter relating to transmigratory existence (of the Jīva-Self),
Beginning with “Thus these Prāṇas gather together round him”
And ending with “It creates for itself another newer and a more benign form” (BrhUEng.4.4.4),

3.1 L.6 ✅ धर्माधर्मफलोपभोग-सम्भवाच्च;
And from the possibility of (the Jīva-Self’s) experiencing the fruit of meritorious and unmeritorious actions (by giving up one body and acquiring another),

3.1 L.7 ✅ स किं देहबीजैः भूतसूक्ष्मैः असम्परिष्वक्तो गच्छति,
आहोस्वित्सम्परिष्वक्तः –
इति चिन्त्यते॥
Now, it is considered (here),
Whether the Jīva-Self goes away (from the body) enveloped in the subtle elements, which are the seeds of the body etc., [Viz. that the Jīva-Self, along with the Chief Prāṇa, sense-organs, and the mind, enveloped in Nescience, action (Karma), and the impression of the previous life, leaves the former body and attains a new one.]
Or whether it goes away unenveloped.

3.1 L.8 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)?

3.1 L.9 ✅ असम्परिष्वक्त इति।
It is that it goes away unenveloped.

3.1 L.10 ✅ कुतः? करणोपादानवद् भूतोपादानस्य अश्रुतत्वात् –
Whence is it so? Because the Scriptures which declare that it takes up with itself the particles of energy (Tejas) i.e. the organs-of-sense (Tejo-mātras) do not say that it takes up with itself the subtle elements (Bhūta-Mātras) also.

3.1 L.11 ✅ ‘स एतास्तेजोमात्राः समभ्याददानः’ (BrhU.4.4.1) इति हि
The Scriptural passage “He who takes up to himself particles of energy (Tejas)” (BrhUEng.4.4.1)

3.1 L.12 ✅ अत्र तेजोमात्राशब्देन करणानामुपादानं सङ्कीर्तयति,
Intimates, by the words “Particles of energy (Tejas)”, the Self’s taking up the organs-of-sense with it.

3.1 L.13 ✅ वाक्यशेषे चक्षुरादिसङ्कीर्तनात्;
In the concluding portion of the passage also, it speaks of the organs of sight etc.,

3.1 L.14 ✅ नैवं भूतमात्रोपादानसङ्कीर्तनमस्ति;
But there is no mention about the Selfs taking up with it the subtle elements also.

3.1 L.15 ✅ सुलभाश्च सर्वत्र भूतमात्राः, यत्रैव देह आरब्धव्यस्तत्रैव सन्ति;
They are, besides, easily obtainable everywhere, i.e. they exist wherever a body has to be created,

3.1 L.16 ✅ ततश्च तासां नयनं निष्प्रयोजनम्;
And hence the Jīva-Self’s taking them up with itself would be purposeless.

3.1 L.17 ✅ तस्मादसम्परिष्वक्तो याति – इत्येवं प्राप्ते, पठत्याचार्यः –
Therefore, the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being, that the Jīva-Self goes out unenveloped, the Ācārya replies: —

←Prev Next→
तदन्तरप्रतिपत्तौ रंहति सम्परिष्वक्तः प्रश्ननिरूपणाभ्याम्॥३.१.१॥
Tad-antara-pratipattau raṃhati sampariṣvaktaḥ praśna-nirūpaṇābhyām.

Tad-antara-pratipattau: for the purpose of obtaining a fresh body (Tat: that, i.e. a body; Antara: different, another; Pratipattau: in obtaining); Raṃhati: goes, departs, Sampariṣvaktaḥ: enveloped (by subtle elements); Praśna: from question; Nirūpaṇābhyām: aid for explanations.

🔗 During the attainment of another body (the Jīva-Self) sallies forth (from the body) enveloped (by the subtle elements, as indicated) by the question and its reply i.e. explanation. — 3.1.1.

3.1.1 L.1 ✅ तदन्तरप्रतिपत्तौ रंहति सम्परिष्वक्त इति।
“During the attainment of another (body), (the Jīva-Self) goes enveloped etc.”.

3.1.1 L.2 ✅ तदन्तरप्रतिपत्तौ देहान्तरप्रतिपत्तौ, देहबीजैर्भूतसूक्ष्मैः सम्परिष्वक्तः, रंहति गच्छति – इत्यवगन्तव्यम्।
It should be understood that during the attainment of another body (the Jīva-Self) moves out i.e. goes away enveloped by the subtle elements, the seeds of the body.

3.1.1 L.3 ✅ कुतः? प्रश्ननिरूपणाभ्याम्;
Whence is it so? Because of the question and the reply i.e. explanation.

3.1.1 L.4 ✅ तथा हि प्रश्नः –
The question is, thus —

3.1.1 L.5 ✅ ‘वेत्थ यथा पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो भवन्ति’ (ChanU.5.3.3) इति;
“Do you know how during the fifth oblation Āpaḥ (water) attains the name of a man (Puruṣa-vacasaḥ)?” (ChanU.5.3.3).

3.1.1 L.6 ✅ निरूपणं च प्रतिवचनम्,
The explanation is in the form of a reply, thus —

3.1.1 L.7 ✅ द्युपर्जन्यपृथिवी-पुरुषयोषित्सु पञ्चस्वग्निषु
श्रद्धासोमवृष्ट्यन्नरेतो-रूपाः पञ्च आहुतीर्दर्शयित्वा, –
Having indicated (the offering of) the five oblations in the form of faith, Soma, rain (Vṛṣṭi), food and semen respectively,
In the five Agnis (fires), viz. the heavenly world, the cloud (Parjanya), the earth, the man and the woman respectively, (the Scriptures declare),

3.1.1 L.8 ✅ ‘इति तु पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो भवन्ति’ (ChanU.5.9.1) इति;
“Thus during the fifth oblation, Āpaḥ (water) attains the name of a man” (ChanU.5.9.1).

3.1.1 L.9 ✅ तस्मादद्भिः परिवेष्टितो जीवो रंहति व्रजतीति गम्यते।
Therefore, it is understood, that it is as enveloped in water, that the Jīva-Self sallies forth (from the body).

3.1.1 L.10 ✅ नन्वन्या श्रुतिः जलूकावत् पूर्वदेहं न मुञ्चति यावन्न देहान्तरमाक्रमतीति दर्शयति –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), another Scriptural passage shows, that (the Jīva-Self), like the caterpillar, does not give up its hold on the previous body, as long it does not reach the other body, thus —

3.1.1 L.11 ✅ ‘तद्यथा तृणजलायुका’ (BrhU.4.4.3) इति;
“Just as the caterpillar on the grass” (BrhUEng.4.4.3).

3.1.1 L.12 ✅ तत्रापि अप्परिवेष्टितस्यैव जीवस्य कर्मोपस्थापित-प्रतिपत्तव्यदेह-विषयभावना-दीर्घीभावमात्रं जलूकयोपमीयत इत्यविरोधः।
This (we reply) is not contradictory, in as much as, here, merely the lengthening out of the expectancy about the object to be reached, viz. the body to be brought about by previous action (Karma) of the Jīva-Self so enveloped in Āpaḥ (water), is compared with the caterpillar.

3.1.1 L.13 ✅ एवं श्रुत्युक्ते देहान्तरप्रतिपत्तिप्रकारे सति,
Therefore, this, according to the Scriptures, being the manner of the attainment of another body,

3.1.1 L.14 ✅ याः पुरुषमतिप्रभवाः कल्पनाः –
All those other various conceptions generated by the mind of man,

3.1.1 L.15 ✅ व्यापिनां करणानामात्मनश्च देहान्तरप्रतिपत्तौ कर्मवशाद् वृत्तिलाभस्तत्र भवति, –
Such as, that the all-pervading sense-organs and Jīva-Selfs, acquire their function on attaining another body, depending upon their actions (Karma) (the Sāṅkhya view),

3.1.1 L.16 ✅ केवलस्यैवात्मनो वृत्तिलाभस्तत्र भवति, इन्द्रियाणि तु देहवदभिनवान्येव तत्र तत्र भोगस्थाने उत्पद्यन्ते, –
Or that the Jīva-Self alone by itself acquires its function there (i.e. in the new body) while the sense-organs, like the body, are born in those particular different environments of experience (the Buddha view),

3.1.1 L.17 ✅ मन एव वा केवलं भोगस्थानमभिप्रतिष्ठते, –
Or that the mind alone proceeds to the new environment of experience (the Vaiśeṣika view),

3.1.1 L.18 ✅ जीव एव वा उत्प्लुत्य देहाद्देहान्तरं प्रतिपद्यते, शुक इव वृक्षाद्वृक्षान्तरम् – इत्येवमाद्याः,
Or that the Jīva-Self alone flies away from one body and reaches another, even as a parrot flies from one tree to another (the Jaina view),

3.1.1 L.19 ✅ ताः सर्वा एव अनादर्तव्याः, श्रुतिविरोधात्॥१॥
Should all be ignored as being in conflict with the Scriptures. — 1.

[Go top]

3.1.2 L.1 ✅ ननु उदाहृताभ्यां प्रश्नप्रतिवचनाभ्यां
Says (the opponent of Vedānta), from the question and the reply i.e. the explanation cited,

3.1.2 L.2 ✅ केवलाभिरद्भिः सम्परिष्वक्तो रंहतीति प्राप्नोति, अप्शब्दश्रवण-सामर्थ्यात्;
It comes to this, that on the strength of the word Āpaḥ from the Scriptures, it is, as enveloped in Āpaḥ only, that (the Jīva-Self) sallies forth (from the body).

3.1.2 L.3 ✅ तत्र कथं सामान्येन प्रतिज्ञायते –
How is it, then, so comprehensively understood from that,

3.1.2 L.4 ✅ सर्वैरेव भूतसूक्ष्मैः सम्परिष्वक्तो रंहतीति?
That the Jīva-Self sallies forth as enveloped in all the subtle elements?

3.1.2 L.5 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
Hence, the reply is: —

←Prev Next→
त्र्यात्मकत्वात्तु भूयस्त्वात्॥३.१.२॥
Try-ātmakatvāt tu bhūyastvāt.

Tri-ātmakatvāt: on account of (water) consisting of three elements; Tu: but; Bhūyastvāt: on account of the preponderance (of water).

🔗 Because (Āpaḥ) has a triple composition (of elements). (Āpaḥ is particularly mentioned) because of its preponderance. — 3.1.2.

3.1.2 L.6 ✅ तुशब्देन चोदितामाशङ्कामुच्छिनत्ति।
(The Sūtra-kāra) removes the doubt (alleged by the opponent of Vedānta) by the word ‘because’ (Tu).

3.1.2 L.7 ✅ त्र्यात्मिका हि आपः, त्रिवृत्करणश्रुतेः;
According to the Scriptures, Āpaḥ consists of a triple agglomeration.

3.1.2 L.8 ✅ तास्वारम्भिकासु अभ्युपगतास्वितरदपि भूतद्वयमवश्यम् अभ्युपगन्तव्यं भवति।
When Āpaḥ is understood to be the one that starts (the creation of a body) the other two elements also have necessarily to be understood (to have been involved with it).

3.1.2 L.9 ✅ त्र्यात्मकश्च देहः, त्रयाणामपि तेजोबन्नानां तस्मिन्कार्योपलब्धेः।
A body has a triple nature, because, all the three (elements), viz. Tejas, water and earth, are perceived to have been involved in its making.

3.1.2 L.10 ✅ पुनश्च त्र्यात्मकः, त्रिधातुत्वात् – त्रिभिः वातपित्तश्लेष्मभिः;
It is triple (in its nature) also because it has three constituent humours, viz. the wind, bile and phlegm (Vāta, Pitta, Kapha).

3.1.2 L.11 ✅ न स भूतान्तराणि प्रत्याख्याय केवलाभिरद्भिरारब्धुं शक्यते।
It is not possible to begin the creation of a body merely with Āpaḥ, ignoring the other two elements.

3.1.2 L.12 ✅ तस्माद् भूयस्त्वापेक्षोऽयम् – ‘आपः पुरुषवचसः’ इति –
Therefore the Scriptural statement about the Āpaḥ attaining the name of a man (Puruṣa-vacasaḥ), is merely because of its preponderance (and it does not mean that the other two elements do not go into the making of it),

3.1.2 L.13 ✅ प्रश्नप्रतिवचनयोः अप्शब्दः, न कैवल्यापेक्षः;
Nor is it, that the word Āpaḥ employed in the question and the reply, is employed merely with respect to Āpaḥ, alone by itself.

3.1.2 L.14 ✅ सर्वदेहेषु हि रसलोहितादि-द्रवभूयस्त्वं दृश्यते।
Besides in all bodies a profusion of fluid matter such as the secretions and blood, etc., is observable.

3.1.2 L.15 ✅ ननु पार्थिवो धातुर्भूयिष्ठो देहेषूपलक्ष्यते;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), it is seen that solid matter preponderates in a body.

3.1.2 L.16 ✅ नैष दोषः – इतरापेक्षया अपां बाहुल्यं भविष्यति;
(We reply) — It is no fault, because, may be, in comparison with the other elements, fluid matter preponderates.

3.1.2 L.17 ✅ दृश्यते च शुक्रशोणितलक्षणेऽपि देहबीजे द्रवबाहुल्यम्।
It is of course seen that even in the seed of the body characterized by semen and ovum also, fluid portion preponderates,

3.1.2 L.18 ✅ कर्म च निमित्तकारणं देहान्तरारम्भे;
While action (Karma) is but the efficient cause which starts the creation of another body.

3.1.2 L.19 ✅ कर्माणि च अग्निहोत्रादीनि सोमाज्यपयःप्रभृतिद्रवद्रव्यव्यपाश्रयाणि;
Also action (Karma) such as the Agni-hotra etc. is dependent upon such fluid things, as Soma, ghee, milk etc.

3.1.2 L.20 ✅ कर्मसमवायिन्यश्च आपः श्रद्धाशब्दोदिताः सह कर्मभिर्द्युलोकाख्येऽग्नौ हूयन्त इति वक्ष्यति;
The Ācārya will say hereafter how Āpaḥ which invariably accompanies action (Karma) and is therein called “Faith”, is offered as an oblation, in the Agni (fire) in the form of the heavenly world,

3.1.2 L.21 ✅ तस्मादप्यपां बाहुल्यप्रसिद्धिः।
And this also makes the preponderance of Āpaḥ known,

3.1.2 L.22 ✅ बाहुल्याच्च अप्शब्देन सर्वेषामेव देहबीजानां
And it is understood, that such preponderance shows, that by the word Āpaḥ, all the other seeds of the body

3.1.2 L.23 ✅ भूतसूक्ष्माणामुपादानमिति निरवद्यम्॥२॥
Such as the subtle elements have to be understood, and hence (the proposition of the Vedāntin) is flawless — 2.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्राणगतेश्च॥३.१.३॥
Prāṇa-gateś ca.

Prāṇa: of the Prāṇas (the sense organs); Gateḥ: because of the going out; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because of the going away of the Prāṇas. — 3.1.3.

3.1.3 L.1 ✅ प्राणानां च देहान्तरप्रतिपत्तौ गतिः श्राव्यते –
One Scriptural passage says, that during the acquisition of another body, the Prāṇas depart (from the previous body), thus —

3.1.3 L.2 ✅ ‘तमुत्क्रामन्तं प्राणोऽनूत्क्रामति प्राणमनूत्क्रामन्तꣳ
सर्वे प्राणा अनूत्क्रामन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभिः;
“When he (the Jīva-Self) goes out, the Chief Prāṇa goes out after him and when the Chief Prāṇa goes out,
All the other Prāṇas (organs-of-sense) follow in the wake of the Chief Prāṇa” (BrhUEng.4.4.2).

3.1.3 L.3 ✅ सा च प्राणानां गतिर्नाश्रयमन्तरेण सम्भवतीति
This going away of all the Prāṇas is not possible, unless they have some support,

3.1.3 L.4 ✅ अतः प्राणगतिप्रयुक्ता तदाश्रयभूतानाम् अपामपि भूतान्तरोपसृष्टानां गतिरर्थादवगम्यते;
And hence it is understood that because of the going away of the Prāṇas, the Āpas which constitutes their support, also go away with the Prāṇas, along with the other elements.

3.1.3 L.5 ✅ न हि निराश्रयाः प्राणाः क्वचिद्गच्छन्ति तिष्ठन्ति वा, जीवतो दर्शनात्॥३॥
As observed in the case of living bodies, Prāṇas, unless they have a support, can neither depart nor abide anywhere. — 3.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अग्न्यादिगतिश्रुतेरिति चेन्न भाक्तत्वात्॥३.१.४॥
Agny-ādi-gati-śruter iti cen na bhāktatvāt.

Agni-ādi: Agni and others; Gati: entering; Śruteḥ: on account of the scriptures; Iti: as thus; Cet: if; Na: not so (it cannot be accepted); Bhāktatvāt: on account of its being said in a secondary sense.

🔗 If it be said (that the Prāṇas do not depart with the Jīva-Self) because of the Scriptural statement about their entering the Agni etc., (we reply) — No, because (that statement is) in a metaphorical sense. — 3.1.4.

3.1.4 L.1 ✅ स्यादेतत् – नैव प्राणा देहान्तरप्रतिपत्तौ सह जीवेन गच्छन्ति,
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) — It may as well be, that during the acquisition of another body, the Prāṇas, of course, do not accompany the Jīva-Self,

3.1.4 L.2 ✅ अग्न्यादिगतिश्रुतेः;
Because of the Scriptural statement about their entering into Agni etc.,

3.1.4 L.3 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः मरणकाले वागादयः प्राणा अग्न्यादीन्देवान्गच्छन्तीति दर्शयति –
Which indicates that at the time of death, Prāṇas such as speech etc. enter into deities such as Agni etc., thus —

3.1.4 L.4 ✅ ‘यत्रास्य पुरुषस्य मृतस्याग्निं वागप्येति वातं प्राणः’ (BrhU.3.2.13) इत्यादिना इति चेत्,
“Where the speech of this dead person gets absorbed into Agni and his vital breath into the air etc.” (BrhUEng.3.2.13),

3.1.4 L.5 ✅ न, भाक्तत्वात्;
We reply — No, because (the statement) is metaphorical.

3.1.4 L.6 ✅ वागादीनामग्न्यादिगतिश्रुतिर्गौणी,
The Scriptural statement about speech etc. entering into Agni etc., is in a secondary sense,

3.1.4 L.7 ✅ लोमसु केशेषु च अदर्शनात् –
Because it is not observed in the case of the hairs of the body or the head, that they do go like that.

3.1.4 L.8 ✅ ‘ओषधीर्लोमानि वनस्पतीन्केशाः’ (BrhU.3.2.13) इति हि तत्राम्नायते,
The Scriptures there say thus — “The hairs of the body enter into herbs, the hairs of the head enter into trees” (BrhUEng.3.2.13).

3.1.4 L.9 ✅ न हि लोमानि केशाश्चोत्प्लुत्य ओषधीर्वनस्पतींश्च गच्छन्तीति सम्भवति;
It is not possible that the hairs of the body and the head fly away (from the body) and approach the herbs and trees respectively.

3.1.4 L.10 ✅ न च जीवस्य प्राणोपाधिप्रत्याख्याने गमनमवकल्पते;
Nor could the Jīva-Self itself be imagined to be going away, if it is denied that its limiting adjunct, the Prāṇa, goes away with the Jīva-Self (from the body).

3.1.4 L.11 ✅ नापि प्राणैर्विना देहान्तरे उपभोग उपपद्यते;
Nor is it reasonably sustainable, that there could be any experience (by the Jīva-Self) in a new body, in the absence of the Prāṇas.

3.1.4 L.12 ✅ विस्पष्टं च प्राणानां सह जीवेन गमनमन्यत्र श्रावितम्;
Besides the going away of the Prāṇas with the Jīva-Self is clearly stated elsewhere (in the Scriptures) (BrhUEng.4.4.2).

3.1.4 L.13 ✅ अतो वागाद्यधिष्ठात्रीणाम् अग्न्यादिदेवतानां वागाद्युपकारिणीनां
Hence, it is only with reference to the fact that deities such as Agni etc. which preside over and support speech etc.,

3.1.4 L.14 ✅ मरणकाले उपकारनिवृत्तिमात्रमपेक्ष्य वागादयोऽग्न्यादीन्गच्छन्तीत्युपचर्यते॥४॥
Withdraw their support at the time of death, that it is stated in a metaphorical way, that speech etc. enter into Agni etc. — 4.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्रथमेऽश्रवणादिति चेन्न ता एव ह्युपपत्तेः॥३.१.५॥
Prathame'śravaṇād iti cen na tā eva hy upapatteḥ.

Prathame: in the first of the five oblations described in the Chandogya Śruti; A-śravanāt: on account of not being mentioned; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Tāḥ eva: that only, i.e., water; Hi: because; Upapatteḥ: because of fitness.

🔗 (we reply) — No, because it is reasonably sustainable that Āpas are meant. — 3.1.5.

3.1.5 L.1 ✅ स्यादेतत् – कथं पुनः ‘पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो भवन्ति’ (ChanU.5.3.3) इत्येतत् निर्धारयितुं पार्यते,
(If the opponent of Vedānta says) — It may well be, that it is not definitely determined, that “During the fifth oblation Āpas attain the name of man”

3.1.5 L.2 ✅ यावता नैव प्रथमेऽग्नावपां श्रवणमस्ति?
Because, there is no Scriptural statement here, about Āpas, in the first (oblation).

3.1.5 L.3 ✅ इह हि द्युलोकप्रभृतयः पञ्चाग्नयः पञ्चानामाहुतीनाम् आधारत्वेनाधीताः;
Here, the five Agnis such as the heavenly world etc. are mentioned by the Scriptures as the supporters of the five oblations (i.e. in them these oblations are offered).

3.1.5 L.4 ✅ तेषां च प्रमुखे ‘असौ वाव लोको गौतमाग्निः’ (ChanU.5.4.1) इत्युपन्यस्य
Having stated with regard to the first of them (i.e. the heavenly world) thus — “This world, verily, Oh Gautama, is the fire” (ChanU.5.4.1),

3.1.5 L.5 ✅ ‘तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ देवाः श्रद्धां जुह्वति’ (ChanU.5.4.2) इति
श्रद्धा होम्यद्रव्यत्वेन आवेदिता;
Faith (Śraddhā) has thereafter been indicated to be the oblation material, thus —
“In this Agni, the Gods offer ‘faith’ as an oblation” (ChanU.5.4.2).

3.1.5 L.6 ✅ न तत्र आपो होम्यद्रव्यतया श्रुताः;
The Scriptures do not mention water there, as the material of oblation.

3.1.5 L.7 ✅ यदि नाम पर्जन्यादिषूत्तरेषु चतुर्ष्वग्निष्वपां होम्यद्रव्यता परिकल्प्येत, परिकल्प्यतां नाम,
Well may you imagine, that Āpas are the material of oblation in the case of the four Agnis which come after (the Agni as the heavenly world),

3.1.5 L.8 ✅ तेषु होतव्यतयोपात्तानां सोमादीनामब्बहुलत्वोपपत्तेः;
Because it is reasonably sustainable in their case, that Soma etc. which are used as the offerings (as oblations) have a preponderance of fluid matter,

3.1.5 L.9 ✅ प्रथमे त्वग्नौ श्रुतां श्रद्धां परित्यज्य
अश्रुता आपः परिकल्प्यन्त इति
साहसमेतत्;
But it would be doing violence (to the text)
To reject ‘Faith’ as mentioned by the Scriptures in the case of the first Agni,
And to imagine Āpas (as meant by the term Faith) which are not mentioned at all by the Scriptures (as being the material of oblation to be offered in the heavenly world — Agni).

3.1.5 L.10 ✅ श्रद्धा च नाम प्रत्ययविशेषः, प्रसिद्धिसामर्थ्यात्;
‘Faith’, as is well-known, is a particular conception or notion.

3.1.5 L.11 ✅ तस्मादयुक्तः पञ्चम्यामाहुतावपां पुरुषभाव इति चेत् –
Hence it is not logical (to understand) that Āpas during the fifth oblation attain the condition of man.

3.1.5 L.12 ✅ नैष दोषः; यतः तत्रापि प्रथमेऽग्नौ ता एवापः श्रद्धाशब्देनाभिप्रेत्यन्ते।
(We reply) — This is no fault because even there, in the case of the first Agni, by the word ‘Faith’ the self-same Āpas are meant.

3.1.5 L.13 ✅ कुतः? उपपत्तेः;
Whence is it so? Because it is reasonably so sustainable,

3.1.5 L.14 ✅ एवं ह्यादिमध्यावसानसंगानात्
अनाकुलमेतदेकवाक्यमुपपद्यते;
And it is reasonably sustainable to hold that this sentence becomes unambiguous,
Only if its beginning, the middle portion and its concluding portion are thus consistent with each other.

3.1.5 L.15 ✅ इतरथा पुनः, पञ्चम्यामाहुतौ अपां पुरुषवचस्त्वप्रकारे पृष्टे, प्रतिवचनावसरे प्रथमाहुतिस्थाने
Otherwise, when, the question asked is, thus — “The manner in which during the fifth oblation Āpas attain the condition of man”,

3.1.5 L.16 ✅ यद्यनपो होम्यद्रव्यं श्रद्धां नामावतारयेत् –
If something which is not Āpaḥ, viz., ‘Faith’, is thus introduced as the material of oblation,

3.1.5 L.17 ✅ ततः अन्यथा प्रश्नोऽन्यथा प्रतिवचनम्
Then as the question would be of one sort, and the reply thus having no relation to the question,

3.1.5 L.18 ✅ इत्येकवाक्यता न स्यात्।
There would be no syntactical harmony (in the sentence).

3.1.5 L.19 ✅ ‘इति तु पञ्चम्यामाहुतावापः पुरुषवचसो भवन्ति’ इति च
उपसंहरन् एतदेव दर्शयति।
The Scriptures also indicate the same thing, viz. that ‘Faith’ is water (Āpaḥ), when it concludes thus —
“In this manner Āpas attain the name of man during the fifth oblation”.

3.1.5 L.20 ✅ श्रद्धाकार्यं च सोमवृष्ट्यादि स्थूलीभवदब्बहुलं लक्ष्यते;
Similarly it is noticed that the downpour of Soma as the result of ‘Faith’, as it grows gross and tangible, has a preponderance of Āpaḥ,

3.1.5 L.21 ✅ सा च श्रद्धाया अप्त्वे युक्तिः।
Which is a logical reason for ‘Faith’ being ‘Āpaḥ’,

3.1.5 L.22 ✅ कारणानुरूपं हि कार्यं भवति।
Because, an effect is always similar to its cause.

3.1.5 L.23 ✅ न च श्रद्धाख्यः प्रत्ययः, मनसो जीवस्य वा धर्मः सन्
Besides, the term known as ‘Śraddhā’, being either an attribute of the mind or of the Jīva-Self,

3.1.5 L.24 ✅ धर्मिणो निष्कृष्य होमायोपादातुं शक्यते –
It is not possible to extract it out of that to which it belongs (i.e. the mind or the body of a man) and take it up (in the hand) for sacrificing,

3.1.5 L.25 ✅ पश्वादिभ्य इव हृदयादीनि इति,
Just as an animal’s heart etc., can be extracted from an animal and taken up,

3.1.5 L.26 ✅ आप एव श्रद्धाशब्दा भवेयुः।
And hence, the word ‘Faith’ does mean Āpas.

3.1.5 L.27 ✅ श्रद्धाशब्दश्चाप्सूपपद्यते,
It is reasonably sustainable to accept the word ‘Faith’ for Āpas,

3.1.5 L.28 ✅ वैदिकप्रयोगदर्शनात् – ‘श्रद्धा वा आपः’ इति।
Because of its use in a Scriptural passage, thus — “Faith indeed is Āpaḥ.”

3.1.5 L.29 ✅ तनुत्वं श्रद्धासारूप्यं गच्छन्त्य आपो देहबीजभूता इत्यतः श्रद्धाशब्दाः स्युः –
Āpas are the seed of the body and they attain minuteness or subtlety and similarity in form to faith, and hence they can be synonymous with the word ‘Faith’,

3.1.5 L.30 ✅ यथा सिंहपराक्रमो नरः सिंहशब्दो भवति।
Just as a person possessing leonine prowess is referred to as the ‘Leo’.

3.1.5 L.31 ✅ श्रद्धापूर्वककर्मसमवायाच्च अप्सु श्रद्धाशब्द उपपद्यते,
Besides, Āpaḥ can be properly referred to as ‘Faith’, as it is in close relation with action (Karma) backed by ‘Faith’,

3.1.5 L.32 ✅ मञ्चशब्द इव पुरुषेषु;
Just as the word, ‘a dais’ (Mañca), can be used for men (who occupy the dais).

3.1.5 L.33 ✅ श्रद्धाहेतुत्वाच्च श्रद्धाशब्दोपपत्तिः,
Also, because of Āpaḥ being the cause of Faith, it would be reasonably sustainable to use the word ‘Faith’,

3.1.5 L.34 ✅ ‘आपो हास्मै श्रद्धां संनमन्ते पुण्याय कर्मणे’ इति श्रुतेः॥५॥
As in the Scriptural passage — “Āpas, indeed generate faith in him (viz. the sacrificing host i.e. the Yajamāna) for holy actions”. — 5.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अश्रुतत्वादिति चेन्नेष्टादिकारिणां प्रतीतेः॥३.१.६॥
Aśrutatvād iti cen neṣṭādi-kāriṇāṃ pratīteḥ.

A-śrutatvāt: on account of this not being stated in the Śruti; Iti: this; Cet: if; Na: not; Iṣṭa-ādi-kāriṇām: in reference to those who perform sacrifices; Pratīteḥ: on account of being understood.

🔗 If it be said (that the Jīva-Self does not ascend enveloped in water), because there is no Scriptural mention (about it), (we reply) — No, because it is perceived to be so by reason of the fact that those who perform Iṣṭi (a sacrifice) etc. (attain the lunar world). — 3.1.6.

3.1.6 L.1 ✅ अथापि स्यात् – (If the opponent of Vedānta says), it may be (even as you the Vedāntin say),

3.1.6 L.2 ✅ प्रश्नप्रतिवचनाभ्यां नाम आपः श्रद्धादिक्रमेण
That because of the question and the reply, Āpas (i.e. water) in the order of Faith etc. respectively,

3.1.6 L.3 ✅ पञ्चम्यामाहुतौ पुरुषाकारं प्रतिपद्येरन्;
May during the fifth oblation attain the form of man,

3.1.6 L.4 ✅ न तु तत्सम्परिष्वक्ता जीवा रंहेयुः, अश्रुतत्वात् –
But (I still maintain that) Jīva-Selfs do not go out (of the bodies) enveloped in water, because there is no Scriptural statement about it.

3.1.6 L.5 ✅ न ह्यत्र अपामिव जीवानां श्रावयिता कश्चिच्छब्दोऽस्ति;
There is no word in this Scriptural passage here, which refers to Jīva-Selfs, just as the word Āpas occurs therein,

3.1.6 L.6 ✅ तस्मात् ‘रंहति सम्परिष्वक्तः’ इत्ययुक्तम् – इति चेत्,
And hence it is not logical (to say) that the Jīva-Self goes out enveloped (in water).

3.1.6 L.7 ✅ नैष दोषः। कुतः? इष्टादिकारिणां प्रतीतेः –
(We reply) — This is no fault. Why? Because a reference to those who perform Iṣṭis (Sacrifices) is understood (here).

3.1.6 L.8 ✅ ‘अथ य इमे ग्राम इष्टापूर्ते दत्तमित्युपासते ते धूममभिसम्भवन्ति’ (ChanU.5.10.3) इत्युपक्रम्य
For the Scriptures, beginning with the passage “Those who in the city (which term is indicative of householders) practise meditation by performing Iṣṭa (i.e. Agni-hotra etc.) and Pūrta (i.e. digging of wells, ponds etc.), and Datta (giving monetary help to the deserving, out of the Vedi), reach Dhūma (i.e. the deity abiding in smoke)” (ChanU.5.10.3),

3.1.6 L.9 ✅ इष्टादिकारिणां धूमादिना पितृयाणेन पथा चन्द्रप्राप्तिं कथयति
Afterwards declare, that those who perform such Iṣṭis (i.e. Agni-hotra etc.) arrive at the moon by the Pitṛ-yāṇa way (the way of the manes) indicated by the Smoke, thus —

3.1.6 L.10 ✅ ‘आकाशाच्चन्द्रमसमेष सोमो राजा’ (ChanU.5.10.4) इति;
“From Ākāśa (space) to the moon, who is King Soma (the food of the Gods)” (ChanU.5.10.4).

3.1.6 L.11 ✅ त एवेहापि प्रतीयन्ते, ‘तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ देवाः श्रद्धां जुह्वति तस्या आहुतेः सोमो राजा सम्भवति’ (ChanU.5.4.2) इति श्रुतिसामान्यात्।
Those self-same persons (i.e. those who perform Iṣṭi etc.) are understood here, also in a corresponding Scriptural passage — “In that Agni, the Gods sacrifice ‘Faith’ and from that oblation, King Soma is born” (ChanU.5.4.2).

3.1.6 L.12 ✅ तेषां च अग्निहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासादि-कर्मसाधनभूता दधिपयःप्रभृतयो द्रवद्रव्यभूयस्त्वात् प्रत्यक्षमेव आपः सन्ति;
In the case of those who perform such Iṣṭis (i.e. Sacrifices), that, curds, milk etc. (which they use) and which form the means of performing Agni-hotra and Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa sacrifices, are virtually Āpas, containing as they do a preponderance of liquid matter, is evident.

3.1.6 L.13 ✅ ता आहवनीये हुताः सूक्ष्मा आहुत्योऽपूर्वरूपाः सत्यः
Those Āpas when offered as oblation in the Āhavanīya fire become subtle and assume the form of merit (Apūrva),

3.1.6 L.14 ✅ तानिष्टादिकारिण आश्रयन्ति –
And take their resort with the performer of Iṣṭis.

3.1.6 L.15 ✅ तेषां च शरीरं नैधनेन विधानेनान्त्येऽग्नावृत्विजो जुह्वति – ‘असौ स्वर्गाय लोकाय स्वाहा’ इति;
And when he dies the Ṛtvij (sacrificial priest) consigns his body according to a funeral ceremony to the cremation fire, while reciting the Mantra — “May he (the Yajamāna) attain the heavenly world, Svāhā”.

3.1.6 L.16 ✅ ततस्ताः श्रद्धापूर्वककर्मसमवायिन्य आहुतिमय्य आपोऽपूर्वरूपाः सत्यः
Hence, what is meant by the statement “Those Āpas in the form of oblations, which invariably accompany these sacrificial acts based on ‘Faith’, and are of the form of merit (Apūrva),

3.1.6 L.17 ✅ तानिष्टादिकारिणो जीवान्परिवेष्ट्य
Envelop those Jīva-Selfs who have performed the Iṣṭis,

3.1.6 L.18 ✅ अमुं लोकं फलदानाय नयन्तीति यत्, तदत्र जुहोतिना अभिधीयते –
And carry them to that world, for affording them the fruit of these Iṣṭis” is, here in the present context, expressed by the verb ‘to sacrifice’ thus —

3.1.6 L.19 ✅ ‘श्रद्धां जुह्वतीति’ (BrhU.6.2.9)।
“He sacrifices faith” (BrhUEng.6.2.9).

3.1.6 L.20 ✅ तथा च अग्निहोत्रे षट्‍प्रश्नीनिर्वचनरूपेण वाक्यशेषेण
Similarly in the Agni-hotra chapter, by the complementary passage in the form of replies to six questions, viz.

3.1.6 L.21 ✅ ‘ते वा एते आहुती हुते उत्क्रामतः’ इत्येवमादिना
“This brace of oblations which are sacrificed, go up” (Śata. Bra. 6.2.6) etc.,

3.1.6 L.22 ✅ अग्निहोत्राहुत्योः फलारम्भाय लोकान्तरप्राप्तिर्दर्शिता।
It is properly indicated, that these oblations of the Agni-hotra attain the other world in order to start the function of affording the fruit (of actions).

3.1.6 L.23 ✅ तस्मादाहुतीमयीभिरद्भिः सम्परिष्वक्ता जीवा रंहन्ति
स्वकर्मफलोपभोगायेति श्लिष्यते॥६॥
Hence it is just proper (to say) that the Jīva-Selfs enveloped in water in the form of oblations, move out (of the body)
For experiencing the fruits of their actions (in another body). — 6.

[Go top]

3.1.7 L.1 ✅ कथं पुनरिदमिष्टादि-कारिणां स्वकर्मफलोपभोगाय रंहणं प्रतिज्ञायते, यावता तेषां धूमप्रतीकेन वर्त्मना चन्द्रमसमधिरूढानाम् अन्नभावं दर्शयति –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), how is this, i.e. the going of these performers of Iṣṭis for the purpose of experiencing the fruit of their actions to other bodies, understood (to be so), when the Scriptures indicate, that those who have thus ascended to the moon by the path of the smoke, become food, thus —

3.1.7 L.2 ✅ ‘एष सोमो राजा तद्देवानामन्नं तं देवा भक्षयन्ति’ (ChanU.5.10.4) इति?
“This is King Soma, that is the food of the Gods, which the Gods eat” (ChanU.5.10.4),

3.1.7 L.3 ✅ ‘ते चन्द्रं प्राप्यान्नं भवन्ति ताꣳस्तत्र देवाः
यथा सोमꣳ राजानमाप्यायस्वापक्षीयस्वेत्येवमेनाꣳस्तत्र भक्षयन्ति’ (BrhU.6.2.16) इति च
समानविषयं श्रुत्यन्तरम्।
And the other parallel passage of the Scriptures also indicates thus —
“Having attained the moon, they become food, and the Gods there
Eat them up, just as here, the priests at a sacrifice drink King Soma, cup after cup, i.e. no sooner one cup is filled up, it is emptied” (BrhUEng.6.2.16)?

3.1.7 L.4 ✅ न च व्याघ्रादिभिरिव देवैर्भक्ष्यमाणानामुपभोगः सम्भवतीति।
There could be no experiencing of any fruit by those, who are gobbled up by the Gods, like tigers etc.

3.1.7 L.5 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
To this the reply is:

←Prev Next→
भाक्तं वानात्मवित्त्वात्तथाहि दर्शयति॥३.१.७॥
Bhāktaṃ vānātma-vittvāt tathāhi darśayati.

Bhāktam: Metaphorical; Vā: but, or; An-ātma-vittvāt: on account of their not knowing the Self; Tathā: so; Hi: because; Darśayati: (Śruti) declares, shows.

🔗 Or else, the Jīva-Selfs being called ‘Food’ (of the Gods) is in a metaphorical or secondary sense because of their not having realized the Self (Ātmā i.e. Brahman). The Scriptures also indicate the same. — 3.1.7.

3.1.7 L.6 ✅ वाशब्दश्चोदितदोषव्यावर्तनार्थः।
The word ‘or else’ (Vā) has the purport of refuting the alleged fault.

3.1.7 L.7 ✅ भाक्तमेषामन्नत्वम्, न मुख्यम्;
Their being ‘the food’ is not meant in the principal sense, but only in a metaphorical sense.

3.1.7 L.8 ✅ मुख्ये ह्यन्नत्वे ‘स्वर्गकामो यजेत’ इत्येवंजातीयकाधिकारश्रुतिरुपरुध्येत;
Were their being ‘food’ to be in the principal sense, the Scriptural passage which confers competency (on a person), thus — “One who desires the heavenly world should sacrifice”, would be contradicted.

3.1.7 L.9 ✅ चन्द्रमण्डले चेदिष्टादिकारिणामुपभोगो न स्यात्,
If those who perform Iṣṭa were not to have experience (of the fruits of their actions) on the Lunar Sphere,

3.1.7 L.10 ✅ किमर्थमधिकारिण इष्टादि आयासबहुलं कर्म कुर्युः।
Why would they unnecessarily perform ritualistic action (such as Iṣṭi etc.) involving a good deal of trouble?

3.1.7 L.11 ✅ अन्नशब्दश्चोपभोगहेतुत्व-सामान्यात्
The word ‘food’ moreover, which is commonly used as the means of such experience (of fruits of actions),

3.1.7 L.12 ✅ अनन्नेऽप्युपचर्यमाणो दृश्यते,
Is observed to be used also for that which is not food,

3.1.7 L.13 ✅ यथा – विशोऽन्नं राज्ञां पशवोऽन्नं विशामिति।
As for instance — that the subjects (Viṣas) are food for Kings, animals are food for the subjects (Viṣas). (Cf. Napoleon’s — “Soldiers are fodder for the cannon.”)

3.1.7 L.14 ✅ तस्मादिष्टस्त्रीपुत्रमित्रभृत्यादिभिः इव गुणभावोपगतैः इष्टादिकारिभिः यत् सुखविहरणं देवानाम्,
तदेवैषां भक्षणमभिप्रेतम्,
Hence in their case, what is meant by ‘eating’,
Is the pleasurable association of the Gods with those who have performed Iṣṭis etc., who, like a man having pleasurable associations with his dear ones such as wife, son, friend or servant etc., have come to be in a subordinate position to the Gods (as compared with the Gods),

3.1.7 L.15 ✅ न मोदकादिवच्चर्वणं निगरणं वा।
And not the chewing and swallowing up of them like a Modaka (a sweet thing).

3.1.7 L.16 ✅ ‘न ह वै देवा अश्नन्ति न पिबन्त्येतदेवामृतं दृष्ट्वा तृप्यन्ति’ (ChanU.3.6.1) इति च
The Scriptural passage “Verily the Gods neither eat nor drink but are satisfied merely by seeing this nectar (in the form of Soma) (as if they have actually eaten)” (ChanU.3.6.1)

3.1.7 L.17 ✅ देवानां चर्वणादिव्यापारं वारयति।
Denies any masticatory activity etc. on the part of the Gods.

3.1.7 L.18 ✅ तेषां च इष्टादिकारिणां देवान्प्रति गुणभावोपगतानाम्
That those performers, of Iṣṭa etc. who have come to occupy a subordinate position to the Gods,

3.1.7 L.19 ✅ अप्युपभोग उपपद्यते,
Also do have experience (of the fruits of actions) is reasonably sustainable,

3.1.7 L.20 ✅ राजोपजीविनामिव परिजनानाम्।
Even as it is, in the case of King’s servants who live on him.

3.1.7 L.21 ✅ अनात्मवित्त्वाच्च इष्टादिकारिणां देवोपभोग्यभाव उपपद्यते;
It is reasonably sustainable, that these performers of Iṣṭa etc. are fit objects of enjoyment for the Gods, inasmuch as they have not yet realized the Self (Ātmā i.e. Brahman, and consequently are ignorant),

3.1.7 L.22 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिरनात्मविदां देवोपभोग्यतां दर्शयति –
‘अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवꣳ स देवानाम्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति;
For the Scriptural passage “Now, he who worships a deity, feeling that the deity is a different entity than himself, is ignorant like a beast and even so is he to the Gods” (BrhUEng.1.4.10)
Shows how those who have not yet realized the Self (Ātmā i.e. Brahman) serve as objects of enjoyment for the Gods.

3.1.7 L.23 ✅ स चास्मिन्नपि लोके इष्टादिभिः कर्मभिः प्रीणयन्पशुवद्देवानामुपकरोति,
अमुष्मिन्नपि लोके तदुपजीवी तदादिष्टं फलमुपभुञ्जानः
पशुवदेव देवानामुपकरोतीति गम्यते॥
It is understood that even in this world he serves the Gods as a beast, by pleasing them by Iṣṭa and similar actions,
And in the other world also he serves them similarly by depending on them for his maintenance and by experiencing the fruits (of his actions) as directed by them.

3.1.7 L.24 ✅ अनात्मवित्त्वात् तथा हि दर्शयति इत्यस्य अपरा व्याख्या –
The following is another explanation of (the latter part of the Sūtra) — “Because of their not having realized the Self (Ātmā i.e. Brahman). The Scriptures also indicate the same.”

3.1.7 L.25 ✅ अनात्मविदो ह्येते
केवलकर्मिण इष्टादिकारिणः,
न ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयानुष्ठायिनः।
These (persons) who indulge in mere ritualistic actions such as Iṣṭa etc.,
But do not endeavour to combine knowledge [i.e. Ritual Meditations] with such actions,
Are those who have not realized the Self (Ātmā i.e. Brahman).

3.1.7 L.26 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्यामिह आत्मविद्येत्युपचरन्ति, प्रकरणात्;
The Lore (Vidyā) of the five Agnis is here metaphorically treated as the Lore (Vidyā) of the Self (Ātmā i.e. Brahman) as is understood from the chapter (which deals with the knowledge of the Self).

3.1.7 L.27 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्याविहीनत्वाच् चेदम् इष्टादिकारिणां गुणवादेन अन्नत्वमुद्भाव्यते
These performers of Iṣṭa etc., being devoid of the knowledge of the five Agnis, are by way of a Guṇa-vāda (i.e. in a secondary sense) referred to as food (for the Gods)

3.1.7 L.28 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविज्ञान-प्रशंसायै;
With a view thus to glorify the Lore (Vidyā) of the five Agnis,

3.1.7 L.29 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्या हीह विधित्सिता,
वाक्यतात्पर्यावगमात्;
Because as is understood from the gift of the passage,
It is desired here, to enjoin the Lore (Vidyā) of the five Agnis.

3.1.7 L.30 ✅ तथा हि श्रुत्यन्तरं चन्द्रमण्डले भोगसद्भावं दर्शयति –
Another Scriptural passage similarly indicates the possibility of their having experience in the Soma (Lunar) World, thus —

3.1.7 L.31 ✅ ‘स सोमलोके विभूतिमनुभूय पुनरावर्तते’ (PrasU.5.4) इति;
“Having enjoyed exalted status in the Soma (Lunar) World, he comes back (to this world)” (PrasU.5.4).

3.1.7 L.32 ✅ तथा अन्यदपि श्रुत्यन्तरम् ‘अथ ये शतं पितॄणां जितलोकानामानन्दाः ...
स एकः कर्मदेवानामानन्दो ये कर्मणा देवत्वमभिसम्पद्यन्ते’ (BrhU.4.3.33) इति
Another Scriptural passage also, viz., “What constitutes a hundred joys of the fathers (manes) who have conquered the world of the manes (Pitṛ-loka),
Is but only a single joy of these princes of Action (Karma-devas), who attain Godhood by their actions” (BrhUEng.4.3.33),

3.1.7 L.33 ✅ इष्टादिकारिणां देवैः सह संवसतां भोगप्राप्तिं दर्शयति।
Indicates, how the performers of Iṣṭa, sojourning which the Gods, obtain the experience of enjoyment.

3.1.7 L.34 ✅ एवं भाक्तत्वाद् अन्नभाववचनस्य,
In this way, the statement about these performers of Iṣṭa being the food (for the Gods) being in a metaphorical sense,

3.1.7 L.35 ✅ इष्टादिकारिणोऽत्र जीवा रंहन्तीति प्रतीयते।
It is understood that the Jīva-Selfs go up (to the moon for experience)

3.1.7 L.36 ✅ तस्मात् ‘रंहति सम्परिष्वक्तः’ इति युक्तमेवोक्तम्॥७॥
And therefore it is quite properly said, that' the Jīva-Self ascends enveloped (in Āpaḥ). — 7.

– 87. Tad-antara-pratipatty-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.1.08 Su..09 Su..10 Su..11

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
कृतात्ययेऽनुशयवान्दृष्टस्मृतिभ्यां यथेतमनेवं च॥३.१.८॥
Kṛtātyaye'nuśayavān dṛṣṭa-smṛtibhyāṃ yathetam anevaṃ ca.

Kṛta: of what is done, of the Karma; Atyaye: at the end, at the exhaustion; Anuśayavān: with a remainder of the Karma; Dṛṣṭa-smṛtibhyām: as can be understood from direct statement in Śruti and Smṛti; Yathā itam: by the way he went; An-evam: differently; Ca: and.

🔗 After actions are worked out i.e. exhausted (the Jīva-Selfs return to this world) with an Anuśaya (residue of actions) as is seen on the authority of the Scriptures, and the Smṛti. They return in the reverse way (to that in which they ascended). — 3.1.8.

3.1.8 L.1 ✅ इष्टादिकारिणां धूमादिवर्त्मना चन्द्रमण्डलम् अधिरूढानां भुक्तभोगानां ततः प्रत्यवरोह आम्नायते –
The descent (to this world) of those, who have performed Iṣṭa etc., and have ascended to the sphere of the moon by the way of smoke etc., and have completely experienced the fruits of actions, is stated by the Scriptures,

3.1.8 L.2 ✅ ‘तस्मिन्यावत्सम्पातम् उषित्वा
अथैतमेवाध्वानं पुनर्निवर्तन्ते यथेतम्’ (ChanU.5.10.5) इत्यारभ्य, –
Beginning with “Having stayed there (i.e. in the sphere of the moon) till their quantum of actions is exhausted (Yāvat-sampātam),
They return by the same way by which they have ascended” (ChanU.5.10.15),

3.1.8 L.3 ✅ यावत् – रमणीयचरणा ब्राह्मणादियोनिम् आपद्यन्ते कपूयचरणाः श्वादियोनिमिति।
And upto “Those whose Caraṇa (conduct) has been good, attain a good birth such as that of a Brāhmaṇa etc. and those whose conduct has been reprehensible, attain the birth of a dog etc.”.

3.1.8 L.4 ✅ तत्रेदं विचार्यते – किं निरनुशया भुक्तकृत्स्नकर्माणोऽवरोहन्ति, आहोस्वित्सानुशया इति।
Now, it is considered here, whether the Jīva-Selfs who have experienced the fruit of all their actions, descend (to this world) with or without any Anuśaya [left-over Karma].

3.1.8 L.5 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? निरनुशया इति।
The conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta) is, (that they descend) without any such Anuśaya.

3.1.8 L.6 ✅ कुतः? ‘यावत्सम्पातम्’ इति विशेषणात् –
Whence is it so? Because of the special mention — “Till their quantum of actions (Sampāta) is exhausted”.

3.1.8 L.7 ✅ सम्पातशब्देनात्र कर्माशय उच्यते,
The word (Sampāta) here means the aggregate of actions, thus —

3.1.8 L.8 ✅ सम्पतन्ति अनेन अस्माल्लोकात् अमुं लोकं फलोपभोगायेति;
“That by which (they) ascend to that world (i.e. the sphere of the moon) from this (world), for experiencing the fruit (of actions)”.

3.1.8 L.9 ✅ ‘यावत्सम्पातमुषित्वा’ इति च कृत्स्नस्य तस्य कृतस्य तत्रैव भुक्ततां दर्शयति;
The words “Having stayed there till their quantum of actions is exhausted” show that the fruits of all the actions of a Jīva-Self are experienced, even there (in the world of the moon).

3.1.8 L.10 ✅ ‘तेषां यदा तत्पर्यवैति’ (BrhU.6.2.16) इति च श्रुत्यन्तरेणैष एवार्थः प्रदर्श्यते।
And by another Scriptural passage also, viz. “When all that action (of theirs) is requited or exhausted (by the experience of fruit)” (BrhUEng.6.2.16), the same meaning is expressed.

3.1.8 L.11 ✅ स्यादेतत् – यावदमुष्मिँल्लोके उपभोक्तव्यं कर्म
(Says the Vedāntin), I would say that it means thus — Whatever action is fit to be exhausted by experiencing its fruit there (i.e. in the world of the moon),

3.1.8 L.12 ✅ तावदुपभुङ्क्त इति कल्पयिष्यामीति;
That alone is exhausted there (and not that all actions [Karma] are exhausted there).

3.1.8 L.13 ✅ नैवं कल्पयितुं शक्यते, ‘यत्किञ्च’ इत्यन्यत्र परामर्शात् –
(The opponent of Vedānta replies) — It cannot be so imagined, because, another Scriptural passage refers to “Whatsoever (Yat kiñca) without any exception”,

3.1.8 L.14 ✅ ‘प्राप्यान्तं कर्मणस्तस्य यत्किञ्चेह करोत्ययम्।
तस्माल्लोकात्पुनरैत्यस्मै लोकाय कर्मणे’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इति हि
Thus — “Having in this world of the moon, exhausted the effect of all actions whatsoever which he has done in this world,
He returns therefrom to this world for doing action (Karma) again”. (BrhUEng.4.4.6),

3.1.8 L.15 ✅ अपरा श्रुतिः ‘यत्किञ्च’ इत्यविशेषपरामर्शेन
Which, as it, in general, refers to whatsoever action without exception,

3.1.8 L.16 ✅ कृत्स्नस्येह कृतस्य कर्मणः तत्र क्षयितां दर्शयति।
Shows that all actions without exception are exhausted here (i.e. on the Lunar Sphere).

3.1.8 L.17 ✅ अपि च प्रायणम् अनारब्धफलस्य कर्मणोऽभिव्यञ्जकम्;
Besides, death is the revealer of i.e. it makes manifest, all actions whose fruits have not yet begun to be experienced,

3.1.8 L.18 ✅ प्राक्प्रायणात् आरब्धफलेन कर्मणा प्रतिबद्धस्याभिव्यक्त्यनुपपत्तेः;
Because, it is not reasonably sustainable, that before death there could be any revelation [manifestation] of such actions as have been obstructed by other actions whose fruition has already begun.

3.1.8 L.19 ✅ तच्च अविशेषाद्यावत्किञ्चिद् अनारब्धफलं तस्य सर्वस्याभिव्यञ्जकम्;
Besides, it (death) ought to be understood to be the revealer [manifestor] of all actions (without any exception), whose fruition has not till then begun,

3.1.8 L.20 ✅ न हि साधारणे निमित्ते नैमित्तिकम् असाधारणं भवितुमर्हति;
Because, the cause (viz., death which reveals actions) being the same common cause, the result does not deserve to be different.

3.1.8 L.21 ✅ न ह्यविशिष्टे प्रदीपसन्निधौ, घटोऽभिव्यज्यते न पट इत्युपपद्यते।
It is not reasonably sustainable, that in the proximate presence of a lamp as a common cause, a jar alone is revealed (to sight), while a piece of cloth is not.

3.1.8 L.22 ✅ तस्मान्निरनुशया अवरोहन्ति
Therefore the Jīva-Selfs descend without any Anuśaya.

3.1.8 L.23 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being this, we reply: —

3.1.8 L.24 ✅ कृतात्ययेऽनुशयवानिति।
When actions are exhausted, (the Jīva-Self does of course descend) with an Anuśaya.

3.1.8 L.25 ✅ येन कर्मबृन्देन चन्द्रमसमारूढाः फलोपभोगाय,
When that particular set of actions, with which he (the Jīva-Self) has ascended to the Lunar Sphere for experiencing their fruits, is exhausted,

3.1.8 L.26 ✅ तस्मिन्नुपभोगेन क्षयिते, तेषां यद् अम्मयं शरीरं चन्द्रमस्युपभोगायारब्धम्,
The watery body which this Jīva-Self has acquired for itself on the Lunar Sphere, for the purpose of experiencing such fruits of actions,

3.1.8 L.27 ✅ तत् उपभोगक्षयदर्शनशोकाग्नि-सम्पर्कात् प्रविलीयते –
Is dissolved by contact with the fire (in the form) of grief, caused by visualizing the exhaustion of all such experience of the fruits of this set of actions,

3.1.8 L.28 ✅ सवितृकिरणसम्पर्कादिव हिमकरकाः,
Even as hailstones are dissolved by contact with the rays of the sun,

3.1.8 L.29 ✅ हुतभुगर्चिःसम्पर्कादिव च घृतकाठिन्यम्;
Or the solidity of ghee is dissolved by contact with the flame of a sacrificial fire.

3.1.8 L.30 ✅ ततः कृतात्यये कृतस्येष्टादेः कर्मणः फलोपभोगेनोपक्षये सति,
Hence when actions such as Iṣṭa etc. are exhausted by the experiencing of their fruit,

3.1.8 L.31 ✅ सानुशया एवेममवरोहन्ति।
The Jīva-Self descends to this earth along with an Anuśaya.

3.1.8 L.32 ✅ केन हेतुना? दृष्टस्मृतिभ्यामित्याह।
Whence is it so? Because of what is seen (Dṛṣṭa i.e. the Scriptures) and the Smṛtis.

3.1.8 L.33 ✅ तथा हि प्रत्यक्षा श्रुतिः सानुशयानामवरोहं दर्शयति –
For it is in this manner, that the descent of the Jīva-Self with its Anuśaya, is indicated by the Scriptures, thus —

3.1.8 L.34 ✅ ‘तद्य इह रमणीयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते रमणीयां योनिमापद्येरन्
ब्राह्मणयोनिं वा क्षत्रिययोनिं वा वैश्ययोनिं वा
अथ य इह कपूयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते कपूयां योनिमापद्येरञ्
श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा चण्डालयोनिं वा’ (ChanU.5.10.7) इति;
“For, those who have done good deeds in this world necessarily attain a good birth
Such as that of a Brāhmaṇa or a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya,
And those whose actions have been disreputable, necessarily attain a disreputable birth
Such as that of a dog or a swine or a Chāṇḍāla (out-caste)” (ChanU.5.10.7).

3.1.8 L.35 ✅ चरणशब्देनानुशयः सूच्यत इति वर्णयिष्यति।
It will later on be described (by the Ācārya) that the word “Caraṇa” means Anuśaya (the residue of unrequited actions).

3.1.8 L.36 ✅ दृष्टश्चायं जन्मनैव प्रतिप्राण्युच्चावचरूप उपभोगः प्रविभज्यमानः
This division of the experience of pleasure and pain, in a high or low degree by every being, is evident amongst all beings from their very birth,

3.1.8 L.37 ✅ आकस्मिकत्वासम्भवाद् अनुशयसद्भावं सूचयति,
And as it is not possible that it could be adventitious, it indicates the presence of an Anuśaya,

3.1.8 L.38 ✅ अभ्युदय-प्रत्यवाययोः सुकृत-दुष्कृतहेतुत्वस्य
सामान्यतः शास्त्रेणावगमितत्वात्।
Because it is generally understood from the Śāstra,
That worldly prosperity and demerit are the result of good and bad actions respectively, as their cause.

3.1.8 L.39 ✅ स्मृतिरपि – ‘वर्णा आश्रमाश्च स्वकर्मनिष्ठाः प्रेत्य कर्मफलमनुभूय
The Smṛti also, by the passage “The (members of) various caste and order of life, having died after doing actions, and having experienced the fruits of their actions,

3.1.8 L.40 ✅ ततः शेषेण विशिष्ट-देश-जाति-कुल-रूपायुः-श्रुत-वृत्त-वित्त-सुख-मेधसो जन्म प्रतिपद्यन्ते’ इति
Are born again with this unrequited residue of their actions, and have a particular environment, caste, family, form, age-limit, knowledge, character, wealth, pleasure, intellect”,

3.1.8 L.41 ✅ सानुशयानामेवावरोहं दर्शयति॥
Shows how, the Jīva-Selfs descend with an Anuśaya.

3.1.8 L.42 ✅ कः पुनरनुशयो नामेति?
Now, what indeed again is this Anuśaya any way?

3.1.8 L.43 ✅ केचित्तावदाहुः – स्वर्गार्थस्य कर्मणो भुक्तफलस्यावशेषः कश्चिदनुशयो नाम,
Some say here — Anuśaya is a sort of a residue of actions, left over from actions performed for the acquisition of heaven, and the fruits of which have been experienced,

3.1.8 L.44 ✅ भाण्डानुसारिस्नेहवत् –
And is like (for instance) the residue of oil sticking to a pot.

3.1.8 L.45 ✅ यथा हि स्नेहभाण्डं रिच्यमानं न सर्वात्मना रिच्यते,
Just as when a pot of oil is emptied, it does not get emptied completely

3.1.8 L.46 ✅ भाण्डानुसार्येव कश्चित्स्नेहशेषोऽवतिष्ठते,
But some residue of oil does still remain sticking to the pot,

3.1.8 L.47 ✅ तथा अनुशयोऽपीति।
Even so is Anuśaya.

3.1.8 L.48 ✅ ननु कार्यविरोधित्वाददृष्टस्य
But (says the Vedāntin), because ‘Adṛṣṭa’, the unseen principle (the quantum of merit and demerit), is always antagonistic to action,

3.1.8 L.49 ✅ न भुक्तफलस्यावशेषावस्थानं न्याय्यम्;
It is not logical (to say) that there could be any residue from actions whose fruits have been experienced.

3.1.8 L.50 ✅ नायं दोषः;
(Their reply is) — This is no fault.

3.1.8 L.51 ✅ न हि सर्वात्मना भुक्तफलत्वं कर्मणः प्रतिजानीमहे।
We do not understand that the fruits of actions in their entirety are experienced.

3.1.8 L.52 ✅ ननु निरवशेषकर्मफलोपभोगाय चन्द्रमण्डलमारूढाः;
But (says the Vedāntin) is not it, that the Jīva-Self is understood to have ascended the Lunar Sphere for experiencing the fruits of the entire set of actions without any exception?

3.1.8 L.53 ✅ बाढम् – तथापि स्वल्पकर्मावशेषमात्रेण तत्रावस्थानं न लभ्यते;
(Their reply is) — Well, but it is not possible to continue to stay on there when there is but only a small residue of actions.

3.1.8 L.54 ✅ यथा किल कश्चित्सेवकः सकलैः सेवोपकरणैः राजकुलमुपसृप्तः
Just as, some servant having approached the King’s household with all the implements of service (including the limbs of his body useful for work),

3.1.8 L.55 ✅ चिरप्रवासात् परिक्षीणबहूपकरणः
But having lost most of his implements during his long sojourn there,

3.1.8 L.56 ✅ छत्रपादुकादिमात्रावशेषः
Has only the umbrella and the wooden shoes i.e. Pādukās (Cf. Dutch Sabots?) left with him,

3.1.8 L.57 ✅ न राजकुलेऽवस्थातुं शक्नोति,
Is not thereafter able to continue in the household of the King,

3.1.8 L.58 ✅ एवमनुशयमात्रपरिग्रहो न चन्द्रमण्डलेऽवस्थातुं शक्नोतीति॥
Similarly having merely the Anuśaya left with him, the Jīva-Self is no longer able to stay on the Lunar Sphere.

3.1.8 L.59 ✅ न चैतद्युक्तमिव।
(The Bhāṣya-kāra says) — This is by no means logical.

3.1.8 L.60 ✅ न हि स्वर्गार्थस्य कर्मणो भुक्तफलस्यावशेषानुवृत्तिः उपपद्यते,
कार्यविरोधित्वात् –
इत्युक्तम्।
It has already been said that
It is not reasonably sustainable that there should be a residue of actions performed for the sake of obtaining the heavenly world whose fruits have been experienced,
Inasmuch as it (i.e. Adṛṣṭa) is antagonistic to actions.

3.1.8 L.61 ✅ नन्वेतदप्युक्तम् –
But (says that somebody referred to above) it has also been stated by us that

3.1.8 L.62 ✅ न स्वर्गफलस्य कर्मणो निखिलस्य भुक्तफलत्वं भविष्यतीति;
The experience of the fruit of the entire set of actions which have the heavenly world as its fruit, could not be had.

3.1.8 L.63 ✅ तदेतदपेशलम् –
(We the Vedāntins reply) — It is not proper (to maintain),

3.1.8 L.64 ✅ स्वर्गार्थं किल कर्म स्वर्गस्थस्यैव स्वर्गफलं निखिलं न जनयति,
That actions performed with an aim to attain the heavenly world do not produce the whole fruit for a person while he is in the heavenly world,

3.1.8 L.65 ✅ स्वर्गच्युतस्यापि कञ्चित्फललेशं जनयतीति;
But produce a modicum of fruit even after he is displaced from such heavenly world.

3.1.8 L.66 ✅ न शब्दप्रमाणकानामीदृशी कल्पना अवकल्पते;
Such an assumption is not proper for those who accept the Scriptures as an authority.

3.1.8 L.67 ✅ स्नेहभाण्डे तु स्नेहलेशानुवृत्तिर्दृष्टत्वादुपपद्यते;
It of course is reasonably sustainable, that some oil should still keep sticking to a pot of oil (which has been emptied) because it evidently is so,

3.1.8 L.68 ✅ तथा सेवकस्योपकरणलेशानुवृत्तिश्च दृश्यते;
Or that a servant may happen to have only a small part of his service implements left with him,

3.1.8 L.69 ✅ न त्विह तथा स्वर्गफलस्य कर्मणो लेशानुवृत्तिर्दृश्यते; नापि कल्पयितुं शक्यते,
But here, any such residue of actions having the heavenly world as its fruit, is neither evident nor conceivable,

3.1.8 L.70 ✅ स्वर्गफलत्वशास्त्रविरोधात्।
Inasmuch as it is contradictory to the Śāstra of the fruits of actions.

3.1.8 L.71 ✅ अवश्यं चैतदेवं विज्ञेयम् –
It must necessarily be understood that

3.1.8 L.72 ✅ न स्वर्गफलस्येष्टादेः कर्मणो भाण्डानुसारिस्नेहवद् एकदेशोऽनुवर्तमानोऽनुशय इति;
There could be no such Anuśaya i.e. residue of actions such as Iṣṭa etc. whose fruit is the attainment of heaven, like ghee sticking to a pot.

3.1.8 L.73 ✅ यदि हि येन सुकृतेन कर्मणा इष्टादिना स्वर्गमन्वभूवन्, तस्यैव कश्चिदेकदेशोऽनुशयः कल्प्येत,
However, if Anuśaya be at all assumed to be only a part of such good actions as Iṣṭa etc. as a result of which the experience of heaven is obtained (by the Self),

3.1.8 L.74 ✅ ततो रमणीय एवैकोऽनुशयः स्यात्, न विपरीतः;
Then it could only be a residue of a good type of actions and not otherwise,

3.1.8 L.75 ✅ तत्रेयमनुशयविभागश्रुतिरुपरुध्येत –
And if so, it would contradict the Scriptural statement which makes a division of Anuśaya (into good and bad Anuśaya) such as —

3.1.8 L.76 ✅ ‘तद्य इह रमणीयचरणाः ... अथ य इह कपूयचरणाः’ (ChanU.5.10.7) इति।
“Those whose conduct is good and those whose conduct is disreputable” (ChanU.5.10.7).

3.1.8 L.77 ✅ तस्मादामुष्मिकफले कर्मजाते उपभुक्ते
Hence when that particular set of actions whose fruit is to be experienced in the next world is exhausted (by the enjoyment of its fruit),

3.1.8 L.78 ✅ अवशिष्टमैहिकफलं कर्मान्तरजातम् अनुशयः,
Another set of actions whose fruit is to be experienced in this world, still remains, as Anuśaya,

3.1.8 L.79 ✅ तद्वन्तोऽवरोहन्तीति॥
And it is with this Anuśaya that these Jīva-Selfs descend (from the Lunar Sphere) to this world.

3.1.8 L.80 ✅ यदुक्तम् – ‘यत्किञ्च’ इत्यविशेषपरामर्शात्
With regard to the objection raised (by the opponent of Vedānta), viz. that because of the reference to “What-so-ever” (Yat kiñca), i.e. “without any exception”,

3.1.8 L.81 ✅ सर्वस्येह कृतस्य कर्मणः फलोपभोगेनान्तं प्राप्य निरनुशया अवरोहन्तीति,
The Jīva-Selfs descend without any sort of such Anuśaya, after having exhausted all the actions performed here (in this world) by experiencing the fruits thereof,

3.1.8 L.82 ✅ नैतदेवम्; अनुशयसद्भावस्यावगमितत्वात्,
(The Vedāntin’s reply is) — It is not so, because the existence of Anuśaya is definitely established (by us).

3.1.8 L.83 ✅ यत्किञ्चिदिह कृतमामुष्मिकफलं कर्म आरब्धभोगम्,
तत्सर्वं फलोपभोगेन क्षपयित्वा –
इति गम्यते।
It is thus understood,
That it is after having begun experiencing the fruits, of all those actions performed in this world, whose fruit is to be experienced in the next world,
And after exhausting these actions (that the Selfs descend).

3.1.8 L.84 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् –
That other objection also —

3.1.8 L.85 ✅ प्रायणम् अविशेषादनारब्धफलं कृत्स्नमेव कर्माभिव्यनक्ति;
Viz. that death reveals all such actions, the experiencing of the fruit of which is not till then begun without any exception,

3.1.8 L.86 ✅ तत्र केनचित्कर्मणामुष्मिँल्लोके फलमारभ्यते, केनचिदस्मिन् इत्ययं विभागो न सम्भवतीति –
And that there could be no such division of actions, such as those whose fruition is begun in the next world and those whose fruition is begun in this world —

3.1.8 L.87 ✅ तदप्यनुशयसद्भावप्रतिपादनेनैव प्रत्युक्तम्।
Is answered by the very same statement about the existence of Anuśaya.

3.1.8 L.88 ✅ अपि च केन हेतुना प्रायणमनारब्धफलस्य कर्मणोऽभिव्यञ्जकं प्रतिज्ञायत इति वक्तव्यम्;
It must besides be explained (by the opponent of Vedānta), on what ground it is understood (by him) that death reveals all those actions whose fruit has not yet begun.

3.1.8 L.89 ✅ आरब्धफलेन कर्मणा प्रतिबद्धस्येतरस्य वृत्त्युद्भवानुपपत्तेः,
तदुपशमात् प्रायणकाले वृत्त्युद्भवो भवति
इति यद्युच्येत –
If it be said,
That it is not reasonably sustainable, that the operation of such other action, which is obstructed by that action whose fruition has started, does not begin,
And that such operation begins at the time of death when the latter action is exhausted,

3.1.8 L.90 ✅ ततो वक्तव्यम् –
Then it has to be explained,

3.1.8 L.91 ✅ यथैव तर्हि प्राक्प्रायणात् आरब्धफलेन कर्मणा प्रतिबद्धस्य इतरस्य वृत्त्युद्भवानुपपत्तिः,
Viz., Just as (as you the opponent of Vedānta say) it is not reasonably sustainable, that the operation of that action, which is obstructed by another action whose fruition has already begun before death, can possibly begin,

3.1.8 L.92 ✅ एवं प्रायणकालेऽपि
Similarly, even at the time of death,

3.1.8 L.93 ✅ विरुद्धफलस्यानेकस्य कर्मणो युगपत्फलारम्भासम्भवात्
As the simultaneous commencement of the fruition of actions having fruits contrary in nature to each other is not possible,

3.1.8 L.94 ✅ बलवता प्रतिबद्धस्य दुर्बलस्य वृत्त्युद्भवानुपपत्तिरिति।
It is not reasonably sustainable, that, the operation of a comparatively weak action, which is obstructed by a powerful action, can ever begin.

3.1.8 L.95 ✅ न हि अनारब्धफलत्वसामान्येन
जात्यन्तरोपभोग्यफलम् अपि अनेकं कर्म
एकस्मिन् प्रायणे युगपदभिव्यक्तं सत् एकां जातिमारभत इति
शक्यं वक्तुम्,
It is not possible to say that
Many actions whose fruits have to be experienced during another birth,
And which are simultaneously revealed at the time of one and the same single death, can begin only on a new birth,
Merely because of the common circumstance of the absence of the beginning of fruition of these several actions,

3.1.8 L.96 ✅ प्रतिनियतफलत्वविरोधात्;
As it would contradict the fact, that each action has its own fruit.

3.1.8 L.97 ✅ नापि कस्यचित्कर्मणः प्रायणेऽभिव्यक्तिः कस्यचिदुच्छेद इति शक्यते वक्तुम्,
Nor can it be maintained that only some actions become manifest at death and some are annihilated,

3.1.8 L.98 ✅ ऐकान्तिकफलत्वविरोधात्;
As it would contradict the rule, that every action must necessarily have its fruit.

3.1.8 L.99 ✅ न हि प्रायश्चित्तादिभिर्हेतुभिर्विना कर्मणामुच्छेदः सम्भाव्यते;
It is not possible, that, in the absence of causes such as an expiatory ritual etc., annihilation of any action can take place.

3.1.8 L.100 ✅ स्मृतिरपि विरुद्धफलेन कर्मणा प्रतिबद्धस्य कर्मान्तरस्य चिरमवस्थानं दर्शयति –
The Smṛti also declares how actions obstructed by other actions having a contrary fruit, endure for a long time, thus —

3.1.8 L.101 ✅ ‘कदाचित्सुकृतं कर्म कूटस्थमिह तिष्ठति।
मज्जमानस्य संसारे यावद् दुःखाद् विमुच्यते’ इत्येवंजातीयका।
“Sometimes good actions merely stand by (without producing any fruit),
As long as a person continues to be engulfed in transmigratory existence and is not released from misery”.

3.1.8 L.102 ✅ यदि च कृत्स्नमनारब्धफलं कर्म
If all these actions which have not started their fruition

3.1.8 L.103 ✅ एकस्मिन्प्रायणेऽभिव्यक्तं सत्
Were to be made manifest at the time of one and the same single death,

3.1.8 L.104 ✅ एकां जातिमारभेत,
And were they to start but one fresh existence only,

3.1.8 L.105 ✅ ततः स्वर्गनरकतिर्यग्योनिषु
Then, in that single fresh existence, be it that of a heavenly, hellish, or beastly kind,

3.1.8 L.106 ✅ अधिकारानवगमात् धर्माधर्मानुत्पत्तौ
In the absence of any competency i.e. Adhikāra (in any being) for doing actions in such sort of single fresh existence only, no merit or demerit would result,

3.1.8 L.107 ✅ निमित्ताभावात् नोत्तरा जातिरुपपद्येत,
And thus in the absence of any cause (for a new birth) no other fresh existence would come into being,

3.1.8 L.108 ✅ ब्रह्महत्यादीनां च एकैकस्य कर्मणोऽनेकजन्मनिमित्तत्वं स्मर्यमाणम् उपरुध्येत;
And the statement of Smṛtis — that each single act of killing a Brāhmaṇa etc. is the cause of several births (required for expiating the sin) — would thus be contradicted.

3.1.8 L.109 ✅ न च धर्माधर्मयोः स्वरूपफलसाधनादि-समधिगमे
शास्त्रादतिरिक्तं कारणं शक्यं सम्भावयितुम्।
It is not possible to imagine that there could be any means other than the Śāstra,
By which the nature, the fruit, and the means, of merit (Dharma) and demerit (Adharma), can be understood.

3.1.8 L.110 ✅ न च दृष्टफलस्य कर्मणः कारीर्यादेः प्रायणमभिव्यञ्जकं सम्भवतीति,
It is not possible, that death could be the cause of the manifestation of the fruit of a ritualistic action such as the ‘Kārīri’ Iṣṭi, whose fruit (viz. rain) is observed here in this world,

3.1.8 L.111 ✅ अव्यापिकापीयं प्रायणस्याभिव्यञ्जकत्वकल्पना।
And hence the idea about death being the cause of the manifestation (of actions) also falls short of covering all possible cases.

3.1.8 L.112 ✅ प्रदीपोपन्यासोऽपि कर्मबलाबलप्रदर्शनेनैव प्रतिनीतः;
The illustration of the lamp also stands refuted, by indicating the relative strength or weakness of actions.

3.1.8 L.113 ✅ स्थूलसूक्ष्मरूपाभिव्यक्त्यनभिव्यक्तिवच्चेदं द्रष्टव्यम् –
This should be looked upon as being similar to the manifestation or non-manifestation of gross or minute form (Rūpa) of things.

3.1.8 L.114 ✅ यथा हि प्रदीपः समानेऽपि सन्निधाने स्थूलं रूपमभिव्यनक्ति, न सूक्ष्मम् –
While the proximity of a lamp to things, is the same, it only reveals gross things, but not the minute ones,

3.1.8 L.115 ✅ एवं प्रायणं समानेऽप्यनारब्धफलस्य कर्मजातस्य प्राप्तावसरत्वे
बलवतः कर्मणो वृत्तिमुद्भावयति, न दुर्बलस्येति।
Even so, when all the various actions, whose fruition has not yet commenced, have the same chance (of being made manifest), death
Reveals only the stronger action and not the one which is comparatively weaker.

3.1.8 L.116 ✅ तस्माच्छ्रुति-स्मृति-न्याय-विरोधाद् अश्लिष्टोऽयम् अशेषकर्माभिव्यक्त्युपगमः।
Therefore, the doctrine that all actions become manifest (at the time of death) is not proper, as it is contrary to the Scriptures, Smṛtis and also Nyāya (reasoning).

3.1.8 L.117 ✅ शेषकर्मसद्भावेऽनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्ग इत्ययमप्यस्थाने सम्भ्रमः,
Similarly the fear that there would be the predicament of the want of Final Release if there is a residue of actions, is groundless,

3.1.8 L.118 ✅ सम्यग्दर्शनाद् अशेषकर्मक्षयश्रुतेः।
Inasmuch as the Scriptures declare that all action is exhausted when real i.e. perfect knowledge supervenes.

3.1.8 L.119 ✅ तस्मात् स्थितमेतदेव – अनुशयवन्तोऽवरोहन्तीति।
Therefore, it is clearly established that the Jīva-Selfs descend (to this world) along with an Anuśaya

3.1.8 L.120 ✅ ते च अवरोहन्तो यथेतमनेवं च अवरोहन्ति;
And when they do so descend, they do so in a manner which is reverse to that by which they happen to have ascended (to the Lunar Sphere).

3.1.8 L.121 ✅ यथेतमिति यथागतमित्यर्थः;
“As they went” means as they ascended,

3.1.8 L.122 ✅ अनेवमिति तद्विपर्ययेणेत्यर्थः।
And, “unlike that” means, in the reverse way,

3.1.8 L.123 ✅ धूमाकाशयोः पितृयाणेऽध्वन्युपात्तयोः अवरोहे सङ्कीर्तनात्
Because Smoke and the Ākāśa included in the ‘Pitṛ-yāṇa’ path (the path of the manes) are also mentioned in the path of descent,

3.1.8 L.124 ✅ यथेतंशब्दाच्च यथागतमिति प्रतीयते;
And also because of the expression “as they ascended” — which suggests the manner of descent to be in the reverse way.

3.1.8 L.125 ✅ रात्र्याद्यसङ्कीर्तनाद् अभ्राद्युपसंख्यानाच्च
विपर्ययोऽपि प्रतीयते॥८॥
The reverse way also is understood,
By the absence of any reference to night etc. and the additional reference to clouds etc. — 8.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
चरणादिति चेन्नोपलक्षणार्थेति कार्ष्णाजिनिः॥३.१.९॥
Caraṇād iti cen nopalakṣaṇārtheti kārṣṇājiniḥ.

Caraṇāt: on account of conduct; Iti: thus, so; Cet: if; Na: not so; Upalakṣaṇa-arthā: to signify secondarily, indirectly, meant to imply or connote; Iti: thus; Kārṣṇājiniḥ: Kārṣṇājini thinks, holds, says.

🔗 If it be said (that a particular species of birth) is the result of Caraṇa (meritorious and unmeritorious actions, and no Anuśaya need be assumed), (we say) — No, because (the Scriptural statement about Caraṇa) according to Kārṣṇājini, is indicative of Anuśaya by implication. — 3.1.9.

3.1.9 L.1 ✅ अथापि स्यात् – या श्रुतिरनुशयसद्भाव-प्रतिपादनायोदाहृता –
(If the objection of the opponent of Vedānta is) — It may be, that the Scriptural statement cited for the purpose of propounding the existence of Anuśaya,

3.1.9 L.2 ✅ ‘तद्य इह रमणीयचरणाः’ (ChanU.5.10.7) इति, Viz., “For, those whose conduct has been good etc.” (ChanU.5.10.7),

3.1.9 L.3 ✅ सा खलु चरणात् योन्यापत्तिं दर्शयति, नानुशयात्;
Shows, that a particular species of birth is due to Caraṇa and not Anuśaya,

3.1.9 L.4 ✅ अन्यच्चरणम्, अन्योऽनुशयः –
Because, Caraṇa is different from Anuśaya.

3.1.9 L.5 ✅ चरणं चारित्रम् आचारः शीलमित्यनर्थान्तरम्,
Caraṇa, Ācāra and Śīla are synonymous,

3.1.9 L.6 ✅ अनुशयस्तु भुक्तफलात्कर्मणोऽतिरिक्तं कर्म अभिप्रेतम्;
While by the word Anuśaya, a residue of actions other than those whose fruit has already been experienced, is meant.

3.1.9 L.7 ✅ श्रुतिश्च कर्मचरणे भेदेन व्यपदिशति –
Even the Scriptures indicate, how action and Caraṇa are different, thus —

3.1.9 L.8 ✅ ‘यथाकारी यथाचारी तथा भवति’ (BrhU.4.4.5) इति,
“Even as his actions are, and his conduct is, he becomes” (BrhUEng.4.9.5);

3.1.9 L.9 ✅ ‘यान्यनवद्यानि कर्माणि तानि सेवितव्यानि।
नो इतराणि।
यान्यस्माकꣳ सुचरितानि तानि त्वयोपास्यानि’ (TaitU.1.11.2) इति च;
Also, “You should follow only such of our actions as are faultless
And not the others,
And, you should contemplate upon (and accept) only such conduct of ours as is good and no other” (TaitUEng.1.11.2).

3.1.9 L.10 ✅ तस्मात् चरणाद्योन्यापत्तिश्रुतेः
Therefore, as the Scriptural statement indicates that it is due to Caraṇa that a particular species of birth comes about,

3.1.9 L.11 ✅ नानुशयसिद्धिः इति चेत्,
The existence of Anuśaya is not thereby established.

3.1.9 L.12 ✅ नैष दोषः –
(We reply) — This is no fault,

3.1.9 L.13 ✅ यतोऽनुशयोपलक्षणार्थैव एषा चरणश्रुतिरिति कार्ष्णाजिनिराचार्यो मन्यते॥९॥
Because Ācārya Kārṣṇājini is of opinion that the Scriptural statement (about Caraṇa) is in a secondary sense indicative only of Anuśaya. — 9.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आनर्थक्यमिति चेन्न तदपेक्षत्वात्॥३.१.१०॥
Ānarthakyam iti cen na tad-apekṣatvāt.

Ān-arthakyam: purposeless, useless, irrelevancy; Iti: thus, as; Cet: if; Na: not so; Tat: that (conduct); Apekṣatvāt: on account of dependence on that.

🔗 If it be said, that conduct (Caraṇa) would be rendered futile (if it be held that it does not cause a particular species of birth, we reply) — No, because actions depend upon that (i.e. Caraṇa). — 3.1.10.

3.1.10 L.1 ✅ स्यादेतत् – कस्मात्पुनश्चरणशब्देन श्रौतं शीलं विहाय लाक्षणिकः अनुशयः प्रत्याय्यते?
If it be said — It may be like this: Why should the direct Scriptural meaning of the word ‘Caraṇa’ which is conduct (Śīla), be rejected and the word be understood in a secondary significance, to mean Anuśaya?

3.1.10 L.2 ✅ ननु शीलस्यैव श्रौतस्य विहित-प्रतिषिद्धस्य साध्वसाधुरूपस्य
शुभाशुभयोन्यापत्तिः फलं भविष्यति;
It may well be, that an auspicious or inauspicious species of birth respectively can be the fruit
Of the good or bad nature of conduct (Śīla) which is directly enjoined or prohibited respectively by the Śāstra.

3.1.10 L.3 ✅ अवश्यं च शीलस्यापि किञ्चित्फलमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्,
It is absolutely necessary that even conduct (Śīla) must be understood to have some fruit,

3.1.10 L.4 ✅ अन्यथा ह्यानर्थक्यमेव शीलस्य प्रसज्येत – इति चेत्,
As otherwise conduct would be without any purpose.

3.1.10 L.5 ✅ नैष दोषः।
(To this, Kārṣṇājini replies) — This is no fault.

3.1.10 L.6 ✅ कुतः? तदपेक्षत्वात्;
How is it so? Because Caraṇa (meritorious or unmeritorious actions) is dependent upon that (i.e. Anuśaya).

3.1.10 L.7 ✅ इष्टादि हि कर्मजातं चरणापेक्षम्;
Ritualistic action, such as Iṣṭa etc., depends upon Caraṇa,

3.1.10 L.8 ✅ न हि सदाचारहीनः कश्चिदधिकृतः स्यात् –
Because nobody whose conduct is not good is competent to perform such ritualistic action.

3.1.10 L.9 ✅ ‘आचारहीनं न पुनन्ति वेदाः’ इत्यादिस्मृतिभ्यः।
On the authority of such Smṛtis as “The Scriptures do not sanctify i.e. purify a person who is devoid of good conduct”,

3.1.10 L.10 ✅ पुरुषार्थत्वेऽप्याचारस्य न आनर्थक्यम्;
Conduct cannot be without any purpose, even when it is supposed that conduct is subservient to man (and not to action).

3.1.10 L.11 ✅ इष्टादौ हि कर्मजाते फलमारभमाणे
When the whole set of actions such as Iṣṭa etc. starts fructifying,

3.1.10 L.12 ✅ तदपेक्ष एवाचारस्तत्रैव कञ्चिदतिशयमारप्स्यते।
Conduct which is so subservient to man may well start producing some supplementary speciality in the fruit of such actions.

3.1.10 L.13 ✅ कर्म च सर्वार्थकारि – इति श्रुतिस्मृतिप्रसिद्धिः।
It is well-known in the Scriptures and Smṛtis that it is action that creates all objects.

3.1.10 L.14 ✅ तस्मात् कर्मैव शीलोपलक्षितम् अनुशयभूतं
योन्यापत्तौ कारणमिति
कार्ष्णाजिनेर्मतम्;
Hence, Kārṣṇājini is of opinion,
That it is action alone, i.e. Anuśaya — which is the secondary significance of the word Caraṇa (conduct) — ,
That is the cause of a particular species of birth.

3.1.10 L.15 ✅ न हि कर्मणि सम्भवति शीलात् योन्यापत्तिर्युक्ता;
When it is possible to understand actions to be the cause of a particular species of birth, it is improper to understand, that Śīla causes a particular species of birth.

3.1.10 L.16 ✅ न हि पद्भ्यां पलायितुं पारयमाणो जानुभ्यां रंहितुमर्हति – इति॥१०॥
No one who is able to run on his legs, would ever deserve to crawl i.e. creep on his knees. — 10.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सुकृतदुष्कृते एवेति तु बादरिः॥३.१.११॥
Sukṛta-duṣkṛte eveti tu bādariḥ.

Sukṛta: good or righteous deeds; Duṣkṛte: (and) bad or unrighteous deeds; Eva: only, merely; Iti: thus; Tu: but; Bādariḥ: (Sage) Bādari.

🔗 Bādari (is of opinion, that Caraṇa) does mean good and evil actions. — 3.1.11.

3.1.11 L.1 ✅ बादरिस्त्वाचार्यः सुकृतदुष्कृते एव चरणशब्देन प्रत्याय्येते इति मन्यते;
Ācārya Bādari considers that by the word ‘Caraṇa’, both good or evil actions taken together, are (directly) meant,

3.1.11 L.2 ✅ चरणम् अनुष्ठानं कर्मेत्यनर्थान्तरम्।
And that Caraṇa (Conduct), Anuṣṭhāna (Performance) and Karma (Actions) are all synonymous.

3.1.11 L.3 ✅ तथा हि अविशेषेण कर्ममात्रे चरतिः प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते –
It is also similarly observed, that the root ‘Carati’ is commonly used in the case of all actions generally

3.1.11 L.4 ✅ यो हि इष्टादिलक्षणं पुण्यं कर्म करोति, तं लौकिका आचक्षते –
With respect to him who performs meritorious religious rituals such as Iṣṭa etc., and with respect to a man who performs meritorious actions, people say,

3.1.11 L.5 ✅ धर्मं चरत्येष महात्मेति।
That the high-souled man performs (Carati) Dharma (i.e. meritorious actions).

3.1.11 L.6 ✅ आचारोऽपि च धर्मविशेष एव।
And Ācāra also is but one kind of meritorious action.

3.1.11 L.7 ✅ भेदव्यपदेशस्तु कर्मचरणयोः ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजक-न्यायेनाप्युपपद्यते।
The distinction which is sometimes observed to be made between Karma and Caraṇa, is reasonably sustainable on the strength of the Nyāya maxim of “a Brāhmaṇa and a Parivrājaka (i.e. a Brāhmaṇa who has taken Sannyāsa)”.

3.1.11 L.8 ✅ तस्मात् रमणीयचरणाः प्रशस्तकर्माणः,
कपूयचरणा निन्दितकर्माणः इति निर्णयः॥११॥
Hence, the conclusion is that the men of good actions are those, whose acts are approved (by all generally)
And men whose actions are filthy are men whose actions are censurable (by all generally). — 11.

– 88. Kṛta-atyaya-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.1.12 Su..13 Su..14 Su..15 Su..16 Su..17 Su..18 Su..19 Su..20 Su..21

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनिष्टादिकारिणामपि च श्रुतम्॥३.१.१२॥
Aniṣṭādi-kāriṇām api ca śrutam.

An-iṣṭa-ādi-kāriṇām: of those who do not perform sacrifices etc.; Api: even; Ca: also; Śrutam: is declared by the Śruti.

🔗 The Scriptures declare that even those who do not perform Iṣṭa etc. also (ascend to the Lunar Sphere). — 3.1.12.

3.1.12 L.1 ✅ इष्टादिकारिणश्चन्द्रमसं गच्छन्तीत्युक्तम्।
It has been stated, that those who perform Iṣṭa etc., ascend to the moon.

3.1.12 L.2 ✅ ये त्वितरेऽनिष्टादिकारिणः,
Now it is considered, whether those also who do not perform Iṣṭa etc.

3.1.12 L.3 ✅ तेऽपि किं चन्द्रमसं गच्छन्ति, उत न गच्छन्तीति चिन्त्यते।
Ascend to the moon or whether they do not.

3.1.12 L.4 ✅ तत्र तावदाह – इष्टादिकारिण एव चन्द्रमसं गच्छन्तीत्येतत् न।
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that it is not, that only those who perform Iṣṭa etc. ascend to the moon.

3.1.12 L.5 ✅ कस्मात्? यतोऽनिष्टादिकारिणामपि चन्द्रमण्डलं गन्तव्यत्वेन श्रुतम्।
Whence is it so? Because the Scriptures speak of the moon as the destination, equally of even those who do not perform Iṣṭa etc.

3.1.12 L.6 ✅ तथा हि अविशेषेण कौषीतकिनः समामनन्ति –
So say the Kauṣitakins generally, thus —

3.1.12 L.7 ✅ ‘ये वै के चास्माल्लोकात्प्रयन्ति चन्द्रमसमेव ते सर्वे गच्छन्ति’ (कौ. उ. १-२) इति।
“Verily those who depart from this world, they all go to the moon”. (Kaush. 1.2).

3.1.12 L.8 ✅ देहारम्भोऽपि च पुनर्जायमानानां न अन्तरेण चन्द्रप्राप्तिम् अवकल्पते,
Besides it cannot be imagined that those who are about to be born again, begin a new body without first having reached the moon,

3.1.12 L.9 ✅ ‘पञ्चम्यामाहुतौ’ इत्याहुतिसंख्यानियमात्।
Because the number of oblations is duly fixed according to (the Scriptural statement) “During the fifth oblation” (ChanU.5.9.1),

3.1.12 L.10 ✅ तस्मात्सर्व एव चन्द्रमसमासीदेयुः।
Whence, all must needs ascend to the moon.

3.1.12 L.11 ✅ इष्टादिकारिणामितरेषां च समानगतित्वं न युक्तमिति चेत्,
If it be said (by the Vedāntin) that it is not proper that both those who perform the Iṣṭa and the others (i.e. those who do not), alike have the same destination,

3.1.12 L.12 ✅ न, इतरेषां चन्द्रमण्डले भोगाभावात्॥१२॥
(We the opponents of Vedānta reply) — No, because there is absence of experience (of the fruit of actions) on the Lunar Sphere for those others (who do not perform Iṣṭa etc.). — 12.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
संयमने त्वनुभूयेतरेषामारोहावरोहौ तद्गतिदर्शनात्॥३.१.१३॥
Saṃyamane tv anubhūyetareṣām ārohāvarohau tad-gati-darśanāt.

Saṃyamane: in the abode of Yama; Tu: but; Anubhūya: having experienced; Itareṣām: of others (of those who do not perform sacrifices); Āroha-avarohau: the ascent and descent; Tat: of them; Gati: (about their) courses; Darśanāt: as can be understood from the Śruti.

🔗 But, the others (i.e. those who do not perform Iṣṭa etc.) have also their ascent and descent, after having suffered in Saṃyamana (i.e. Death’s abode), because, in the Scriptures, their course is seen to be in that way. — 3.1.13.

3.1.13 L.1 ✅ तुशब्दः पक्षं व्यावर्तयति।
The word ‘But’ refutes the opponent’s view.

3.1.13 L.2 ✅ नैतदस्ति – सर्वे चन्द्रमसं गच्छन्तीति।
It is not, that all ascend to the moon.

3.1.13 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? भोगायैव हि चन्द्रारोहणम्, न निष्प्रयोजनम्;
Whence is it so? The ascent to the moon is for the experience (of the fruits of action) and not without any purpose,

3.1.13 L.4 ✅ नापि प्रत्यवरोहायैव, –
Nor is it merely for the purpose of descent either,

3.1.13 L.5 ✅ यथा कश्चिद्वृक्षमारोहति पुष्पफलोपादानाय,
Because, a man goes up a tree for gathering flowers and fruits

3.1.13 L.6 ✅ न निष्प्रयोजनम्, नापि पतनायैव;
And not without any purpose, or merely for sustaining a fall (therefrom).

3.1.13 L.7 ✅ भोगश्च अनिष्टादिकारिणां चन्द्रमसि नास्तीत्युक्तम्;
It has been stated already that those who have not performed any Iṣṭa etc. do not have any experience on the moon.

3.1.13 L.8 ✅ तस्मादिष्टादिकारिण एव चन्द्रमसमारोहन्ति, नेतरे।
Therefore, it is only those who have performed Iṣṭa etc., that ascend to the moon and not the others.

3.1.13 L.9 ✅ ते तु संयमनं यमालयम् अवगाह्य स्वदुष्कृतानुरूपा यामीर्यातना अनुभूय पुनरेव इमं लोकं प्रत्यवरोहन्ति;
As far as those other people are concerned, they, having descended to Saṃyamana (the abode of Yama, the God of Death) and having suffered the torments befitting their evil deeds, again return to this world,

3.1.13 L.10 ✅ एवंभूतौ तेषामारोहावरोहौ भवतः।
And it is thus, that their descent and ascent take place.

3.1.13 L.11 ✅ कुतः? तद्गतिदर्शनात्;
Whence is it so? Because, that they follow such a course is to be observed (from the Scriptures),

3.1.13 L.12 ✅ तथा हि यमवचनसरूपा श्रुतिः प्रयताम् अनिष्टादिकारिणां यमवश्यतां दर्शयति –
For in a Scriptural passage similar in purport, and put in the mouth of Yama (Death), it is indicated, how those who depart (from this life) without having performed Iṣṭa etc., find themselves in the clutches of Yama, thus:

3.1.13 L.13 ✅ ‘न साम्परायः प्रतिभाति बालं प्रमाद्यन्तं वित्तमोहेन मूढम्।
अयं लोको नास्ति पर इति मानी पुनः पुनर्वशमापद्यते मे’ (KathU.1.2.6) इति।
“The light of Sāmparāya (i.e. the means of attaining the higher world) is not for him who is ignorant and is constantly erring and is infatuated by wealth,
And who considers this (i.e. the present) world to be the only world, and that there is no beyond. Thus does he come into my clutches time and again” (KathU.1.2.6).

3.1.13 L.14 ✅ ‘वैवस्वतं सङ्गमनं जनानाम्’ इत्येवंजातीयकं च
बह्वेव यमवश्यताप्राप्ति-लिङ्गं भवति॥१३॥
There are several indicatory marks which show, how a man gets into the clutches of Yama (Death) such as —
“(Let oblations be offered so as to please) Yama, to whom all men go” (Ṛg. Sam. X.14.1). — 13.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्मरन्ति च॥३.१.१४॥
Smaranti ca.

Smaranti: the Śrutis declare; Ca: also.

🔗 The Smṛtis also declare the same. — 3.1.14.

3.1.14 L.1 ✅ अपि च मनुव्यासप्रभृतयः शिष्टाः
Learned men such as Manu, Vyāsa etc.,

3.1.14 L.2 ✅ संयमने पुरे यमायत्तं कपूयकर्मविपाकं स्मरन्ति नाचिकेतोपाख्यानादिषु॥१४॥
In the legend of Naciketas declare, how (those who do not perform Iṣṭi etc.) suffer from the fruition of filthy actions in Saṃyamana, which is under the control of Yama. — 14.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अपि च सप्त॥३.१.१५॥
Api ca sapta.

Api ca: also, moreover; Sapta: the seven (hells).

🔗 Besides (there are) seven (hells). — 3.1.15.

3.1.15 L.1 ✅ अपि च सप्त नरका रौरवप्रमुखा दुष्कृतफलोपभोगभूमित्वेन स्मर्यन्ते पौराणिकैः;
Besides, the Paurāṇikas also declare that there are seven hells such as the Raurava etc. which are the places for the experience of the fruits of evil deeds,

3.1.15 L.2 ✅ ताननिष्टादिकारिणः प्राप्नुवन्ति;
And those who do not perform Iṣṭa etc., reach those places.

3.1.15 L.3 ✅ कुतस्ते चन्द्रं प्राप्नुयुः इत्यभिप्रायः॥१५॥
The meaning is — how ever can they ascend to the moon? — 15.

[Go top]

3.1.16 L.1 ✅ ननु विरुद्धमिदम् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), it is contradictory to say that

3.1.16 L.2 ✅ यमायत्ता यातनाः पापकर्माणोऽनुभवन्तीति,
The experience of tortures by the sinful are controlled by Yama,

3.1.16 L.3 ✅ यावता तेषु रौरवादिषु अन्ये चित्रगुप्तादयो नानाधिष्ठातारः स्मर्यन्त इति;
As it has also been said that Citra-gupta and various other dignitaries preside over Raurava etc.

3.1.16 L.4 ✅ नेत्याह –
(The reply is) — It is not so.

←Prev Next→
तत्रापि च तद्व्यापारादविरोधः॥३.१.१६॥
Tatrāpi ca tad-vyāpārād avirodhaḥ.

Tatra: there (in those hells); Api: also, even; Ca: and; Tad-vyāpārāt: on account of his (Yama’s) control; A-virodhaḥ: no contradiction.

🔗 There is no contradiction as there also, it is Yama’s writ that runs. — 3.1.16.

3.1.16 L.5 ✅ तेष्वपि सप्तसु नरकेषु तस्यैव यमस्याधिष्ठातृत्व-व्यापाराभ्युपगमाद् अविरोधः;
There is no contradiction, because there also, [even in these seven hells] he (i.e. Yama) is understood to be the chief dignitary.

3.1.16 L.6 ✅ यमप्रयुक्ता एव हि ते चित्रगुप्तादयोऽधिष्ठातारः स्मर्यन्ते॥१६॥
Smṛtis declare, that it is only as appointed by Yama, that Citra-gupta and others are the dignitaries there. — 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विद्याकर्मणोरिति तु प्रकृतत्वात्॥३.१.१७॥
Vidyā-karmaṇor iti tu prakṛtatvāt.

Vidyā-karmaṇoḥ: of knowledge and work; Iti: thus; Tu: but, only; Prakṛtatvāt: on account of these being the subject under discussion.

🔗 Those who do not perform Iṣṭa etc. do not ascend by the path either of knowledge or action, because the paths of knowledge and action are relevant to the context here. — 3.1.17.

3.1.17 L.1 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्यायाम् ‘वेत्थ यथासौ लोको न सम्पूर्यते’ (ChanU.5.3.3) इति अस्य प्रश्नस्य प्रतिवचनावसरे श्रूयते –
In the Lore (Vidyā) of the Five Fires (Agnis), while replying to the question ‘Do you know how this world (i.e. the moon) does not get filled up (to capacity)?’, the Scriptures say —

3.1.17 L.2 ✅ ‘अथैतयोः पथोर्न कतरेण चन
तानीमानि क्षुद्राण्यसकृदावर्तीनि भूतानि भवन्ति
जायस्य म्रियस्त्वेति
एतत् तृतीयꣳ स्थानं
तेनासौ लोको न सम्पूर्यते’ (ChanU.5.10.8) इति।
“In neither of these two ways (do they, who do not perform Iṣṭa etc., go).
They, as (being) insignificant creatures, are continually being reborn.
Do thou be born, and do thou die —
Is this, their third condition.
That is why this world (i.e. the moon) does not get filled up (to capacity)” (ChanU.5.10.8).

3.1.17 L.3 ✅ तत्र एतयोः पथोरिति विद्याकर्मणोरित्येतत्।
Here, (by the expression) by those two ways, are meant the paths of knowledge and action.

3.1.17 L.4 ✅ कस्मात्? प्रकृतत्वात्;
Whence is it so? Because they are relevant (to the context) here.

3.1.17 L.5 ✅ विद्या-कर्मणी हि देवयान-पितृयाणयोः पथोः प्रतिपत्तौ प्रकृते –
It is knowledge and action that are (referred to as) relevant for the purpose of the attainment of the Deva-yāna and the Pitṛ-yāṇa paths.

3.1.17 L.6 ✅ ‘तद्य इत्थं विदुः’ (ChanU.5.10.1) इति
(In the Scriptural passage) “Therefore those who know it to be so (viz. that water (Āpaḥ) in the fifth oblation attains the name of man)” (ChanU.5.10.1)

3.1.17 L.7 ✅ विद्या, तया प्रतिपत्तव्यो देवयानः पन्थाः प्रकीर्तितः;
It is described, that it is by this Lore (Vidyā) that the Deva-yāna path is to be attained.

3.1.17 L.8 ✅ ‘इष्टापूर्ते दत्तम्’ (ChanU.5.10.3) इति कर्म,
(The Scriptural passage) “Iṣṭa and works of public utility and charity” (ChanU.5.10.3), mean action (Karma)

3.1.17 L.9 ✅ तेन प्रतिपत्तव्यः पितृयाणः पन्थाः प्रकीर्तितः –
And it is described that the Pitṛ-yāṇa path is to be attained by that (i.e. Karma).

3.1.17 L.10 ✅ तत्प्रक्रियायाम् ‘अथैतयोः पथोर्न कतरेणचन’ इति श्रुतम्।
It is in this context, that there occurs (the Scriptural passage) — “In neither of these ways etc.”.

3.1.17 L.11 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – ये न विद्यासाधनेन देवयाने पथ्यधिकृताः,
What is meant to be said is, that for those who are not competent to attain the Deva-yāna path by the attainment of knowledge,

3.1.17 L.12 ✅ नापि कर्मणा पितृयाणे,
And those who are not competent to attain the Pitṛ-yāṇa path by means of action,

3.1.17 L.13 ✅ तेषामेष क्षुद्रजन्तुलक्षणोऽसकृदावर्ती तृतीयः पन्था भवतीति;
There is the third path which is characterized by these insignificant creatures, which constantly recur (i.e. get born and die).

3.1.17 L.14 ✅ तस्मादपि न अनिष्टादिकारिभिश्चन्द्रमाः प्राप्यते।
It is because of this also that those who do not perform the Iṣṭa etc., do not attain the moon.

3.1.17 L.15 ✅ स्यादेतत् – तेऽपि चन्द्रबिम्बम् आरुह्य
(Says the opponent of Vedānta) — May be, that even they ascend to the moon,

3.1.17 L.16 ✅ ततोऽवरुह्य क्षुद्रजन्तुत्वं प्रतिपत्स्यन्त इति।
And having descended therefrom become these insignificant creatures.

3.1.17 L.17 ✅ तदपि नास्ति, आरोहानर्थक्यात्।
(We reply) — That is not so, because (were it to be so) their ascent would be without any purpose.

3.1.17 L.18 ✅ अपि च सर्वेषु प्रयत्सु चन्द्रलोकं प्राप्नुवत्सु
Again were all those who die to attain the lunar sphere after dying,

3.1.17 L.19 ✅ असौ लोकः प्रयद्भिः सम्पूर्येत – इत्यतः प्रश्नविरुद्धं प्रतिवचनं प्रसज्येत;
(it would mean that) the reply would be that this world would be filled up by those who die, which would be contradictory to the question (viz., How is it that this world does not get filled up to capacity?).

3.1.17 L.20 ✅ तथा हि प्रतिवचनं दातव्यम्, यथा असौ लोको न सम्पूर्यते।
The reply should be given in a way which would show as to how this world does not get filled up.

3.1.17 L.21 ✅ अवरोहाभ्युपगमाद् असम्पूरणोपपत्तिरिति चेत्,
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) that it is so inferred, because it is understood that there is a descent,

3.1.17 L.22 ✅ न, अश्रुतत्वात्;
(We reply) — No, because there is no Scriptural statement (about it).

3.1.17 L.23 ✅ सत्यम् अवरोहादप्यसम्पूरणम् उपपद्यते;
It is true of course, that it is reasonably sustainable that this world is not filled up fully because of the descent,

3.1.17 L.24 ✅ श्रुतिस्तु तृतीयस्थानसङ्कीर्तनेन असम्पूरणं दर्शयति –
But the `Sruti-text reveals the unfilled state by a description of the third state thus: [Trans. from Panoli]

3.1.17 L.25 ✅ ‘एतत्तृतीयं स्थानꣳ तेनासौ लोको न सम्पूर्यते’ (ChanU.5.10.8) इति;
तेन अनारोहादेव असम्पूरणमिति युक्तम्;
But the Scriptural passage “This is the third condition why this world (of the Moon) does not get filled up” (ChanU.5.10.8)
Shows that it is logical that it does not get filled up fully precisely because of non-ascent.

3.1.17 L.26 ✅ अवरोहस्येष्टादिकारिष्वप्यविशिष्टत्वे सति
Besides as descent would be common also to those who have performed Iṣṭa etc.

3.1.17 L.27 ✅ तृतीयस्थानोक्त्यानर्थक्य-प्रसङ्गात्।
There would be the predicament of this mention of the third path being rendered purposeless.

3.1.17 L.28 ✅ तुशब्दस्तु शाखान्तरीयवाक्य-प्रभवाम् अशेषगमनाशङ्काम् उच्छिनत्ति;
The word ‘because’ (Tu) refutes the doubt about the ascent of all without any exception, caused by the words in the recension of another branch (viz. the Kauṣītaki branch).

3.1.17 L.29 ✅ एवं सति अधिकृतापेक्षः शाखान्तरीये वाक्ये सर्व-शब्दोऽवतिष्ठते –
Therefore it comes to this, that the word ‘all’ in the case of this other branch has reference to those who are competent (to ascend to the Moon)

3.1.17 L.30 ✅ ये वै केचिदधिकृता अस्माल्लोकात् प्रयन्ति चन्द्रमसमेव ते सर्वे गच्छन्तीति॥१७॥
I.e. it means, that all those who are competent and who depart from this world, do verily go up to the Moon. — 17.

[Go top]

3.1.18 L.1 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् –
With regard to the objection (of the opponent of Vedānta)

3.1.18 L.2 ✅ देहलाभोपपत्तये सर्वे चन्द्रमसं गन्तुमर्हन्ति,
That, all without exception deserve to ascend to the Moon for the acquisition of a body,

3.1.18 L.3 ✅ ‘पञ्चम्यामाहुतौ’ इत्याहुतिसंख्या-नियमादिति,
As it is reasonably sustainable by reason of the fact that the total number of oblations is fixed (to be five), according to the Scriptural statement “During the fifth oblation etc.”, —

3.1.18 L.4 ✅ तत्प्रत्युच्यते –
The reply is:

←Prev Next→
न तृतीये तथोपलब्धेः॥३.१.१८॥
Na tṛtīye tathopalabdheḥ.

Na: not; Tṛtīye: in the third; Tathā: so thus; Upalabdheḥ: it being perceived or seen to be.

🔗 Not, in the case of the third path, because it is seen to be so. — 3.1.18.

3.1.18 L.5 ✅ न तृतीये स्थाने देहलाभाय पञ्चसंख्या-नियम आहुतीनाम् आदर्तव्यः।
With regard to the third path, the rule of five oblations for the attainment of a human body need not be accepted.

3.1.18 L.6 ✅ कुतः? तथोपलब्धेः;
Whence is it so? Because it is seen to be so.

3.1.18 L.7 ✅ तथा हि अन्तरेणैवाहुतिसंख्यानियमं वर्णितेन प्रकारेण तृतीयस्थानप्राप्तिरुपलभ्यते –
For even so, in the manner described, the acquisition of the third path is seen to be, regardless of the rule of the five oblations, thus:

3.1.18 L.8 ✅ ‘जायस्व म्रियस्वेत्येतत्तृतीयꣳ स्थानम्’ (ChanU.5.10.8) इति।
“Do thou be born and do thou die, that is third path” (ChanU.5.10.8).

3.1.18 L.9 ✅ अपि च ‘पञ्चम्याम् आहुतावापः पुरुष-वचसो भवन्ति’ (ChanU.5.3.3) इति
Besides (in the Scriptural statement) “During the fifth oblation Āpas attain the name of man”,

3.1.18 L.10 ✅ मनुष्यशरीरहेतुत्वेन आहुतिसंख्या सङ्कीर्त्यते,
The number of oblations is mentioned as being the cause of a human body

3.1.18 L.11 ✅ न कीटपतङ्गादिशरीरहेतुत्वेन,
And not as a cause of the body of an insect or a butterfly,

3.1.18 L.12 ✅ पुरुषशब्दस्य मनुष्यजाति-वचनत्वात्।
Because the word ‘Puruṣa’ is a word for the human species.

3.1.18 L.13 ✅ अपि च पञ्चम्यामाहुतावपां पुरुषवचस्त्वमुपदिश्यते,
Besides, the instruction is, about Āpas attaining the name of man during the fifth oblation,

3.1.18 L.14 ✅ न अपञ्चम्याम् आहुतौ पुरुषवचस्त्वं प्रतिषिध्यते,
And it is not that in the case of the other oblations, water attaining the name of man is denied,

3.1.18 L.15 ✅ वाक्यस्य द्व्यर्थतादोषात्।
Because, otherwise there would result a fault of a sentence being equivocal i.e. bearing two meanings.

3.1.18 L.16 ✅ तत्र येषाम् आरोहावरोहौ सम्भवतः,
It may therefore be understood that in the case of those to whom the ascent and descent is possible

3.1.18 L.17 ✅ तेषां पञ्चम्यामाहुतौ देह उद्भविष्यति;
A body may well be attained during the fifth oblation

3.1.18 L.18 ✅ अन्येषां तु विनैवाहुतिसंख्यया भूतान्तरोपसृष्टाभिः अद्भिः देह आरप्स्यते॥१८॥
And in the case of others a body may well be begun as a result of water coming into contact i.e. combining with other elements, even in spite of the fixed number of oblations. — 18.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्मर्यतेऽपि च लोके॥३.१.१९॥
Smaryate'pi ca loke.

Smaryate: is stated in Smṛtis; Api: also; Ca: and; Loke: in the world.

🔗 Besides (that it is so), so far as the ordinary world is (concerned), is well-known. — 3.1.19.

3.1.19 L.1 ✅ अपि च स्मर्यते लोके,
Besides with regard to the ordinary world,

3.1.19 L.2 ✅ द्रोणधृष्टद्युम्नप्रभृतीनां सीताद्रौपदीप्रभृतीनां च अयोनिजत्वम्।
It is known [from the Mahābhārata] how Droṇa and Dhṛṣṭa-dyumna etc. and Sītā and Drau-padī etc. were not born from the womb.

3.1.19 L.3 ✅ तत्र द्रोणादीनां योषिद्विषया एका आहुतिर्नास्ति;
In the case of Droṇa etc. there was no fifth oblation into a woman,

3.1.19 L.4 ✅ धृष्टद्युम्नादीनां तु योषित्पुरुषविषये द्वे अप्याहुती न स्तः।
And with regard to Dhṛṣṭa-dyumna etc. there were no oblations with respect either to a man or a woman.

3.1.19 L.5 ✅ यथा च तत्र आहुतिसंख्यानियमानादरो भवति,
Just as in their case the fixed number of oblations were disregarded,

3.1.19 L.6 ✅ एवमन्यत्रापि भविष्यति।
So may it well be in other cases also.

3.1.19 L.7 ✅ बलाकापि अन्तरेणैव रेतःसेकं गर्भं धत्त इति लोकरूढिः॥१९॥
The popular belief is that a female crane also conceives without being inseminated, (merely in the presence of clouds). — 19.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
दर्शनाच्च॥३.१.२०॥
Darśanāc ca.

Darśanāt: on account of observation; Ca: also, and.

🔗 Also, because it is (so) seen. — 3.1.20.

3.1.20 L.1 ✅ अपि च चतुर्विधे भूतग्रामे
Besides amongst the four kinds of beings,

3.1.20 L.2 ✅ जरायुजाण्डज-स्वेदजोद्भिज्ज-लक्षणे
Viz. the viviparous, the oviparous, those born out of sweat, and those born out of plants,

3.1.20 L.3 ✅ स्वेदजोद्भिज्जयोः अन्तरेणैव ग्राम्यधर्मम् उत्पत्तिदर्शनात्
Because the latter two are seen to be generated without the sexual act,

3.1.20 L.4 ✅ आहुतिसंख्यानादरो भवति।
(The rule about) the fixed number of oblations is disregarded

3.1.20 L.5 ✅ एवमन्यत्रापि भविष्यति॥२०॥
And it may well be so in other cases also.
[Such additional arguments, which for the Vedāntin pertain to this ‘unreal’ world, are valid to the extent that the opponents also believe the exact same.] — 20.

[Go top]

3.1.21 L.1 ✅ ननु तेषां खल्वेषां भूतानां त्रीण्येव बीजानि भवन्ति
‘आण्डजं जीवजमुद्भिज्जम्’ (ChanU.6.3.1) इति
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) (there is a Scriptural passage thus) — There are only three sources of these beings,
Viz. those which are born from eggs, those which are born from other living beings and those which spring out of plants.

3.1.21 L.2 ✅ अत्र त्रिविध एव भूतग्रामः श्रूयते;
Thus the Scriptures here speak of three kinds of beings.

3.1.21 L.3 ✅ कथं चतुर्विधत्वं भूतग्रामस्य प्रतिज्ञातमिति,
How then are four classes of beings understood?

3.1.21 L.4 ✅ अत्रोच्यते –
To this, the reply is:

←Prev Next→
तृतीयशब्दावरोधः संशोकजस्य॥३.१.२१॥
Tṛtīya-śabdāvarodhaḥ saṃśokajasya.

Tṛtīya-śabda: the third term; Avarodhaḥ: inclusion; Saṃśoka-jasya: of that which springs from heat and moisture.

🔗 The Sweat-born (Saṃśoka-ja i.e. born from sweat caused by the heat of the body) are covered by the third term. — 3.1.21.

3.1.21 L.5 ✅ ‘आण्डजं जीवजमुद्भिज्जम्’ (ChanU.6.3.1) इत्यत्र
(In the Scriptural passage) “Those born out of an egg, those born out of a living being, and those born from sprouts i.e. plants”,

3.1.21 L.6 ✅ तृतीयेनोद्भिज्जशब्देनैव स्वेदजोपसङ्ग्रहः कृतः प्रत्येतव्यः,
It should be understood that the third term includes even the sweat-born,

3.1.21 L.7 ✅ उभयोरपि स्वेदजोद्भिज्जयोः भूम्युदकोद्भेदप्रभवत्वस्य तुल्यत्वात्।
Because both equally are generated from earth and water,

3.1.21 L.8 ✅ स्थावरोद्भेदात्तु विलक्षणो जङ्गमोद्भेद इत्यन्यत्र स्वेदजोद्भिज्जयोः भेदवाद इत्यविरोधः॥२१॥
And there is no contradiction, because the view about distinction is confined to generation from an immovable (element) which is dissimilar to the generation from the movable entities. — 21.

– 89. Aniṣṭa-ādi-kārya-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
साभाव्यापत्तिरुपपत्तेः॥३.१.२२॥
Sābhāvyāpattir upapatteḥ.

Sā-bhāvya-āpattiḥ: attainment of a similarity of nature with them; Upapatteḥ: being reasonable.

🔗 Because, (that, beings which descend from the moon) attain similarity (to Ākāśa etc.), is reasonably sustainable. — 3.1.22.

3.1.22 L.1 ✅ इष्टादिकारिणश्चन्द्रमसम् आरुह्य तस्मिन् यावत्सम्पातम् उषित्वा ततः सानुशया अवरोहन्तीनति उक्तम्;
It has already been stated, that those who have performed Iṣṭa etc., after ascending to the lunar sphere, and after staying there till their actions are worked out i.e. exhausted by the experiencing of the fruits thereof, descend with a residue of actions (Anuśaya).

3.1.22 L.2 ✅ अथावरोहप्रकारः परीक्ष्यते। Now the manner of their descent is being examined.
तत्रेयमवरोहश्रुतिर्भवति –
With regard to that there is this Scriptural passage about the descent —

3.1.22 L.3 ✅ ‘अथैतमेवाध्वानं पुनर्निवर्तन्ते
यथेतमाकाशमाकाशाद् वायुं वायुर्भूत्वा धूमो भवति
धूमो भूत्वाभ्रं भवत्यभ्रं भूत्वा मेघो भवति मेघो भूत्वा प्रवर्षति’ (ChanU.5.10.5) इति।
“They again return to the same path by which they ascended,
I.e. Ākāśa, from Ākāśa to Vāyu, from Vāyu he becomes smoke,
And from smoke he becomes the (air) atmosphere, from the atmosphere he becomes the cloud and then comes down as rain” (ChanU.5.10.5).

3.1.22 L.4 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Here a doubt arises.

3.1.22 L.5 ✅ किमाकाशादिस्वरूपमेवावरोहन्तः प्रतिपद्यन्ते,
Whether they descend after being transformed into the actual form of Ākāśa etc.

3.1.22 L.6 ✅ किं वा आकाशादिसाम्यमिति।
Or whether, after becoming only similar to Ākāśa etc.

3.1.22 L.7 ✅ तत्र प्राप्तं तावत् – आकाशादिस्वरूपमेव प्रतिपद्यन्त इति।
The conclusion (arrived at by the opponent of Vedānta) is that they are transformed into the actual form of Ākāśa etc.,

3.1.22 L.8 ✅ कुतः? एवं हि श्रुतिर्भवति;
Because so the Scriptures declare,

3.1.22 L.9 ✅ इतरथा लक्षणा स्यात्;
As otherwise, a secondary significance would result,

3.1.22 L.10 ✅ श्रुतिलक्षणाविशये च
And when there is a conflict as between the literal meaning of the words of the Scriptures and their secondary significance,

3.1.22 L.11 ✅ श्रुतिर्न्याय्या, न लक्षणा;
It is logical to accept the literal meaning of the words of the Scriptures.

3.1.22 L.12 ✅ तथा च ‘वायुर्भूत्वा धूमो भवति’ इत्येवमादीनि
The passage such as “having become Vāyu he becomes Smoke”

3.1.22 L.13 ✅ अक्षरणि तत्तत्स्वरूपापत्तौ आञ्जस्येन अवकल्पन्ते;
Could only be understood to be apt only if it be possible for such beings to be transformed into the actual form of these entities.

3.1.22 L.14 ✅ तस्मादाकाशादिस्वरूप-प्रतिपत्तिरिति; एवं प्राप्ते,
Therefore, the conclusion is, that such beings are transformed into the actual form of Ākāśa etc.

3.1.22 L.15 ✅ ब्रूमः – आकाशादिसाम्यं प्रतिपद्यन्त इति;
We (the Vedāntins) reply — They only attain similarity to Ākāśa etc.

3.1.22 L.16 ✅ चन्द्रमण्डले यत् अम्मयं शरीरमुपभोगार्थमारब्धम्,
When the aqueous body attained for the purpose of experiencing the fruits of actions on the sphere of the moon, is being dissolved,

3.1.22 L.17 ✅ तत् उपभोगक्षये सति प्रविलीयमानं सूक्ष्ममाकाशसमं भवति;
After such experience has come to an end, it becomes subtle like Ākāśa,

3.1.22 L.18 ✅ ततो वायोर्वशमेति;
And thence it surrenders itself to Vāyu

3.1.22 L.19 ✅ ततो धूमादिभिः सम्पृच्यत इति।
And thereafter comes into contact with smoke etc.

3.1.22 L.20 ✅ तदेतदुच्यते – ‘यथेतमाकाशमाकाशाद् वायुम्’ (ChanU.5.10.5) इत्येवमादिना।
The same is here explained by — “Just as the ascent was made, they come to Ākāśa, and from Ākāśa, to Vāyu etc..” (ChanU.5.10.5).

3.1.22 L.21 ✅ कुत एतत्? उपपत्तेः;
Whence is it so? Because it is reasonably sustainable.

3.1.22 L.22 ✅ एवं हि एतदुपपद्यते;
And it is only thus that it becomes reasonably sustainable,

3.1.22 L.23 ✅ न हि अन्यस्यान्यभावो मुख्य उपपद्यते;
Because otherwise, that one entity is transformed into the actual form of another, cannot be reasonably sustainable in the principal sense.

3.1.22 L.24 ✅ आकाशस्वरूपप्रतिपत्तौ च वाय्वादिक्रमेणावरोहो नोपपद्यते;
If it were to change actually into the very form of Ākāśa, its descent in the order of Vāyu etc. is not reasonably possible,

3.1.22 L.25 ✅ विभुत्वाच्च आकाशेन नित्यसम्बद्धत्वात्
Because Ākāśa being all-pervading and the Jīva-Selfs being necessarily always in contact with it,

3.1.22 L.26 ✅ न तत्सादृश्यापत्तेरन्यः तत्सम्बन्धो घटते।
It is not possible that that there can be any relation (as between the Jīva-Selfs and the Ākāśa) other than their changing into only a similarity with Ākāśa.

3.1.22 L.27 ✅ श्रुत्यसम्भवे च लक्षणाश्रयणं न्याय्यमेव।
It is of course logical to accept the secondary significance of a Scriptural statement when the literal interpretation of it is not possible.

3.1.22 L.28 ✅ अत आकाशादितुल्यतापत्तिरेव अत्र आकाशादिभाव इत्युपचर्यते॥२२॥
Hence, becoming similar to Ākāśa is itself here spoken of metaphorically, as ‘the entity itself becoming the Ākāśa etc.’ — 22.

– 90. Sābhāvya-āpatty-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
नातिचिरेण विशेषात्॥३.१.२३॥
Nāticireṇa viśeṣāt.

Na: not; Aticireṇa: in a very long time; Viśeṣāt: because of special statement of Śruti.

🔗 (These individual Jīva-Selfs who become similar to Ākāśa etc. during the descent) do not remain so, for long, because there is a special statement (about it). — 3.1.23.

3.1.23 L.1 ✅ तत्र आकाशादिप्रतिपत्तौ प्राग्व्रीह्यादिभावापत्तेः भवति विशयः –
Here, a doubt arises (as to the intervening period) between their becoming (similar to) Ākāśa, and their further going down to (the stage of) rice etc.,

3.1.23 L.2 ✅ किं दीर्घं दीर्घं कालं पूर्वपूर्व-सादृश्येन अवस्थायोत्तरोत्तर-सादृश्यं गच्छन्ति,
Viz. whether they remain for a long time in a condition similar to the one they have acquired earlier, before they become similar to their later condition,

3.1.23 L.3 ✅ उताल्पमल्पमिति।
Or whether they stay for a short time only.

3.1.23 L.4 ✅ तत्रानियमः, नियमकारिणः शास्त्रस्याभावादित्येवं प्राप्ते, इदमाह –
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being, that there is no rule (as to that) because of the absence of any Scriptural authority (stating any such rule),

3.1.23 L.5 ✅ नातिचिरेणेति।
We reply — (That they remain in the condition similar to Ākāśa etc.) not for long.

3.1.23 L.6 ✅ अल्पमल्पं कालमाकाशादिभावेनावस्थाय
They remain only for a very short time in the condition similar to Ākāśa etc.,

3.1.23 L.7 ✅ वर्षधाराभिः सह इमां भुवमापतन्ति।
And they reach this place (i.e. the earth) along with showers of rain.

3.1.23 L.8 ✅ कुत एतत्? विशेषदर्शनात्;
Whence is it so? Because of a special statement,

3.1.23 L.9 ✅ तथा हि व्रीह्यादिभावापत्तेरनन्तरं विशिनष्टि –
In which, the Scriptures instruct that it is so, with reference to their condition after reaching the condition of rice etc., thus —

3.1.23 L.10 ✅ ‘अतो वै खलु दुर्निष्प्रपतरम्’ (ChanU.5.10.6) इति;
“From here, verily (their passage) is difficult and more difficult (Durniṣprapataram, i.e. increasingly difficult)” (ChanU.5.10.6).

3.1.23 L.11 ✅ तकार एकश्छान्दस्यां प्रक्रियायां लुप्तो मन्तव्यः;
It is to be seen that the syllable ‘ta’ (Ta) is missing in the word (Durniṣprapa(ta)taram) and this usage is peculiar to Veda [Trans. from Panoli].

3.1.23 L.12 ✅ दुर्निष्प्रपततरं दुर्निष्क्रमतरम् – दुःखतरमस्माद्व्रीह्यादिभावान्निःसरणं भवतीत्यर्थः;
The meaning is that moving away from the condition similar to rice etc., is rendered more and more difficult (which by implication means that the earlier movements are easier)

3.1.23 L.13 ✅ तत् अत्र दुःखं निष्प्रपतनं प्रदर्शयन् पूर्वेषु सुखं निष्प्रपतनं दर्शयति;
And that indicates that during the earlier stages (of descent) the movement is easy.

3.1.23 L.14 ✅ सुखदुःखता-विशेषश्चायं निष्प्रपतनस्य कालाल्पत्वदीर्घत्व-निमित्तः,
The special statement about the descent being pleasant and painful has reference to the shortness or length of the rate of descent, during that period,

3.1.23 L.15 ✅ तस्मिन्नवधौ शरीरानिष्पत्तेरुपभोगासम्भवात्।
Inasmuch as by reason of the non-development of a body (till then), there is no possibility of any experience (of the fruits of actions).

3.1.23 L.16 ✅ तस्माद् व्रीह्यादिभावापत्तेः प्राक्
Therefore (the conclusion is that) before attaining the condition of rice etc.

3.1.23 L.17 ✅ अल्पेनैव कालेनावरोहः स्यादिति॥२३॥
The descent of the Jīva-Selfs (from the earlier condition) is quick i.e. after only a short time. — 23.

– 91. Na-aticira-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.1.24 Su..25 Su..26 Su..27

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्याधिष्ठितेषु पूर्ववदभिलापात्॥३.१.२४॥
Anyādhiṣṭhiteṣu pūrvavad abhilāpāt.

Anya-adhiṣṭhiteṣu: into what is possessed or occupied by another; Pūrvavat: like the previous cases; Abhilāpāt: on account of the scriptural statement.

🔗 (These Jīva-Selfs during their descent come into contact with Vrīhi plants etc.) which have been already occupied by other (Jīva-Selfs) as in previous cases, because there is a Scriptural reference to it. — 3.1.24.

3.1.24 L.1 ✅ तस्मिन्नेवावरोहे प्रवर्षणानन्तरं पठ्यते –
In that same statement about the descent in the form of a shower of rain, it is said —

3.1.24 L.2 ✅ ‘त इह व्रीहियवा ओषधिवनस्पतयस्तिलमाषा इति जायन्ते’ (ChanU.5.10.6) इति।
“They here are born either as rice or barley, or as herbs or trees, or as sesamum or pulse” (ChanU.5.10.6).

3.1.24 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
With regard to this a doubt arises, thus —

3.1.24 L.4 ✅ किमस्मिन्नवधौ स्थावरजात्यापन्नाः स्थावरसुखदुःख-भाजोऽनुशयिनो भवन्ति,
Whether these Jīva-Selfs having such a residue of actions (Anuśayins), at this juncture attain the species of immovable entities (Sthāvara) and experience pleasure or pain respectively of such immovable entities,

3.1.24 L.5 ✅ आहोस्वित् क्षेत्रज्ञान्तराधिष्ठितेषु स्थावरशरीरेषु संश्लेषमात्रं गच्छन्तीति।
Or whether they merely come into contact with such immovable entities occupied by other Jīva-Selfs.

3.1.24 L.6 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? स्थावरजात्यापन्नाः तत्सुखदुःखभाजोऽनुशयिनो भवन्तीति।
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that these Jīva-Selfs who having such a residue of actions (i.e. being Anuśayins) have attained the species of immovable entities, experience pleasure or pain peculiar to such species.

3.1.24 L.7 ✅ कुत एतत्? जनेर्मुख्यार्थत्वोपपत्तेः,
Whence is it so? Because it is reasonably sustainable, that the root ‘to be born’ has its principal meaning,

3.1.24 L.8 ✅ स्थावरभावस्य च श्रुतिस्मृत्योरुपभोगस्थानत्वप्रसिद्धेः,
And also because it is well-known from the Scriptures and Smṛtis, that this species of immovable entities is the place where fruits of actions are experienced,

3.1.24 L.9 ✅ पशुहिंसादियोगाच्च इष्टादेः कर्मजातस्यानिष्टफलत्वोपपत्तेः;
And also because it is reasonably sustainable that religious actions involving the killing of animals such as sacrifices as Iṣṭi etc. produce undesirable fruit.

3.1.24 L.10 ✅ तस्मान्मुख्यमेवेदमनुशयिनां व्रीह्यादिजन्म,
Therefore, that those having such a residue of actions (i.e. the Anuśayins) are born as rice etc., is to be understood in the principal sense.

3.1.24 L.11 ✅ श्वादिजन्मवत् –
It is similar to being born as a dog etc.

3.1.24 L.12 ✅ यथा ‘श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा चण्डालयोनिं वा’ इति मुख्यमेवानुशयिनां श्वादिजन्म
Just as the birth of the Jīva-Selfs having such residue of actions (i.e. Anuśayins) in the species of a dog or a hog or a Cāṇḍāla (out-caste) is in the principal sense (of the terms)

3.1.24 L.13 ✅ तत्सुखदुःखान्वितं भवति,
And they become subject to the pleasures and pains of that species,

3.1.24 L.14 ✅ एवं व्रीह्यादिजन्मापीति।
Even so it is, in their birth as rice etc.

3.1.24 L.15 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply —

3.1.24 L.16 ✅ अन्यैर्जीवैरधिष्ठितेषु व्रीह्यादिषु संसर्गमात्रमनुशयिनः प्रतिपद्यन्ते,
These Jīva-Selfs having such residue of actions (i.e. Anuśayins), merely come into contact with such rice etc., which are already occupied (by other Jīva-Selfs),

3.1.24 L.17 ✅ न तत्सुखदुःख भाजो भवन्ति, पूर्ववत् –
And do not experience the pleasure and pain of such Jīva-Selfs as it is in the previous cases.

3.1.24 L.18 ✅ यथा वायुधूमादि-भावोऽनुशयिनां तत्संश्लेषमात्रम्,
Just as their being transformed into Vāyu and smoke means merely their having contact with them,

3.1.24 L.19 ✅ एवं व्रीह्यादिभावोऽपि जातिस्थावरैः संश्लेषमात्रम्।
Similarly here, by their becoming rice etc., and belonging to the immovable species, merely their contact with them is meant.

3.1.24 L.20 ✅ कुत एतत्? तद्वदेवेहाप्यभिलापात्।
Whence is it so? Because the statement here, also, is similar to that.

3.1.24 L.21 ✅ कोऽभिलापस्य तद्वद्भावः? कर्मव्यापारमन्तरेण सङ्कीर्तनम् –
How is it similar? (It is similar) because it is so mentioned without its involving any action.

3.1.24 L.22 ✅ यथा आकाशादिषु प्रवर्षणान्तेषु
न कञ्चित्कर्मव्यापारं परामृशति,
Just as, there is no mention of any action,
(In the text) beginning with (their becoming) Ākāśa, down to their coming down as showers of rain,

3.1.24 L.23 ✅ एवं व्रीह्यादिजन्मन्यपि।
Similarly (there is no such mention) in the case of their being born as rice etc.

3.1.24 L.24 ✅ तस्मान्नास्त्यत्र सुखदुःखभाक्त्वमनुशयिनाम्।
Therefore, those beings having such a residue of actions (i.e. Anuśayins) are not the experiencers of any pleasure or pain here.

3.1.24 L.25 ✅ यत्र तु सुखदुःखभाक्त्वमभिप्रैति,
On the other hand, where their being such experiencers of pleasure or pain is meant,

3.1.24 L.26 ✅ परामृशति तत्र कर्मव्यापारम् –
There is a reference to such action,

3.1.24 L.27 ✅ ‘रमणीयचरणाः’ ‘कपूयचरणाः’ इति।
Such as — “those whose actions are good and those whose actions are filthy”.

3.1.24 L.28 ✅ अपि च मुख्येऽनुशयिनां व्रीह्यादिजन्मनि,
Besides, if the birth of these beings having such a residue of actions (i.e. Anuśayins) as rice etc., were to be in the principal sense,

3.1.24 L.29 ✅ व्रीह्यादिषु लूयमानेषु कण्ड्यमानेषु पच्यमानेषु भक्ष्यमाणेषु च
Then whenever such rice is gathered, or pounded or cooked, or eaten,

3.1.24 L.30 ✅ तदभिमानिनोऽनुशयिनः प्रवसेयुः;
These Jīva-Selfs having such a residue of actions (i.e. Anuśayins) who have occupied such rice etc. would abandon such rice,

3.1.24 L.31 ✅ यो हि जीवो यच्छरीरमभिमन्यते, स तस्मिन्पीड्यमाने प्रवसति – इति प्रसिद्धम्;
Because, it is well-known that an individual Jīva-Self occupying a particular body, deserts such body when it is so harassed,

3.1.24 L.32 ✅ तत्र व्रीह्यादिभावाद् रेतःसिग्भावोऽनुशयिनां नाभिलप्येत;
And also because, were it to be so, the Scriptures would not refer to such individual Jīva-Selfs later on, as becoming inseminators (Retaḥ-sig-bhāva).

3.1.24 L.33 ✅ अतः संसर्गमात्रम् अनुशयिनाम् अन्याधिष्ठितेषु व्रीह्यादिषु भवति।
Hence these beings having such residue of actions (i.e. Anuśayins) merely come into contact with rice etc. which have already been occupied by other Jīva-Selfs.

3.1.24 L.34 ✅ एतेन जनेर्मुख्यार्थत्वं प्रतिब्रूयात्,
By this (i.e. by this argument), that the verb-root ‘to be born’ is used in the principal sense, is refuted,

3.1.24 L.35 ✅ उपभोगस्थानत्वं च स्थावरभावस्य;
As also (the argument) that such immovable entities are places for the experiencing (of fruits of actions).

3.1.24 L.36 ✅ न च वयमुपभोगस्थानत्वं स्थावरभावस्यावजानीमहे;
It is not, that we deny that immovable entities can be the proper places for experiencing (such fruits of actions).

3.1.24 L.37 ✅ भवत्वन्येषां जन्तूनाम् अपुण्यसामर्थ्येन स्थावरभावम् उपगतानाम् एतत् उपभोगस्थानम्;
It may well be the place for such experience in the case of those creatures who by their unmeritorious actions have attained the species of immovable entities.

3.1.24 L.38 ✅ चन्द्रमसस्तु अवरोहन्तोऽनुशयिनो न स्थावरभावमुपभुञ्जत इत्याचक्ष्महे॥२४॥ We only wish to emphasize that those who descend from the moon with such residue of actions (Anuśayins) do not attain the condition of immovable entities. — 24.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अशुद्धमिति चेन्न शब्दात्॥३.१.२५॥
Aśuddham iti cen na śabdāt.

A-śuddham: unholy; Iti: so, thus; Cet: if; Na: no, not so, (the objection cannot stand); Śabdāt: on account of the word, on account of the scriptural authority.

🔗 If it be said that (action such as a sacrifice etc.) is impure, (we reply) — No, because of the Scriptures. — 3.1.25.

3.1.25 L.1 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् –
Again, the objection raised (by the opponents of Vedānta)

3.1.25 L.2 ✅ पशुहिंसादियोगाद् अशुद्धम् आध्वरिकं कर्म,
That as Sacrificial actions are impure, inasmuch as they involve the killing of animals,

3.1.25 L.3 ✅ तस्यानिष्टमपि फलमवकल्पत इत्यतो मुख्यमेवानुशयिनां व्रीह्यादिजन्म अस्तु;
Therefore they produce undesirable fruit, and hence, birth as rice etc., which these Jīva-Selfs having a residue of actions (Anuśayins) attain, must be understood to be in the principal sense,

3.1.25 L.4 ✅ तत्र गौणी कल्पना अनर्थिकेति – तत्परिह्रियते –
And the notion of its being of a secondary significance, is useless, is now being refuted.

3.1.25 L.5 ✅ न, शास्त्रहेतुत्वाद् धर्माधर्मविज्ञानस्य;
(We reply) — No, because the knowledge of meritorious or unmeritorious action is acquired from the Scriptures.

3.1.25 L.6 ✅ अयं धर्मः अयमधर्म इति शास्त्रमेव विज्ञाने कारणम्,
It is the Scriptures (Śāstra) alone which are the means of determining that a particular action is meritorious or unmeritorious,

3.1.25 L.7 ✅ अतीन्द्रियत्वात्तयोः;
Inasmuch as they (i.e. merit or demerit) are supra-sensual

3.1.25 L.8 ✅ अनियतदेशकालनिमित्तत्वाच्च –
And have unregulated environment, time and occasion as their cause.

3.1.25 L.9 ✅ यस्मिन्देशे काले निमित्ते च यो धर्मोऽनुष्ठीयते,
What is done as a meritorious action according to a particular environment, time and occasion,

3.1.25 L.10 ✅ स एव देशकालनिमित्तान्तरेष्वधर्मो भवति;
Becomes unmeritorious under some other environment, time and occasion,

3.1.25 L.11 ✅ तेन न शास्त्रादृते धर्माधर्मविषयं विज्ञानं कस्यचिदस्ति।
And therefore, as apart from the Scriptures (Śāstra), nobody is able to attain the knowledge of meritorious or unmeritorious action.

3.1.25 L.12 ✅ शास्त्राच्च हिंसानुग्रहाद्यात्मको ज्योतिष्टोमो धर्म इत्यवधारितः,
It is precisely on the authority of the Scriptures (Śāstra) that the Jyoti-ṣṭoma sacrifice involving the killing (of animals) is understood to be a meritorious action,

3.1.25 L.13 ✅ स कथमशुद्ध इति शक्यते वक्तुम्।
So, how possibly can it be characterized as being unmeritorious?

3.1.25 L.14 ✅ ननु ‘न हिंस्यात्सर्वा भूतानि’ इति
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) by declaring that “no creatures should ever be killed”

3.1.25 L.15 ✅ शास्त्रमेव भूतविषयां हिंसाम् अधर्म इत्यवगमयति;
The Scriptures (Śāstra) themselves instruct (us) that such killing of creatures is unmeritorious.

3.1.25 L.16 ✅ बाढम् – उत्सर्गस्तु सः;
(We reply) — Of course (it is so) but that is a general rule,

3.1.25 L.17 ✅ अपवादोऽयं ‘अग्नीषोमीयं पशुमालभेत’ इति;
While (the injunction) that ‘an animal be sacrificed to Agni and Soma’ is an exception (to that rule).

3.1.25 L.18 ✅ उत्सर्गापवादयोश्च व्यवस्थित-विषयत्वम्;
A rule and its exception have their application in their own proper individual sphere.

3.1.25 L.19 ✅ तस्माद्विशुद्धं कर्म वैदिकम्,
Therefore, Vedic sacrificial action is pure

3.1.25 L.20 ✅ शिष्टैरनुष्ठीयमानत्वात् अनिन्द्यमानत्वाच्च;
As it is performed by men of authority, and is considered uncensurable,

3.1.25 L.21 ✅ तेन न तस्य प्रतिरूपं फलम् जातिस्थावरत्वम्।
And (a Jīva-Self’s) birth as an immovable thing is properly not its fruit,

3.1.25 L.22 ✅ न च श्वादिजन्मवदपि व्रीह्यादिजन्म भवितुमर्हति;
And (the Jīva-Self’s) birth as rice etc. does not deserve to be like the birth of a dog etc.,

3.1.25 L.23 ✅ तद्धि कपूयचरणानधिकृत्य उच्यते;
Because that has been spoken of (by the Scriptures) with respect to those whose conduct has been filthy,

3.1.25 L.24 ✅ नैवमिह वैशेषिकः कश्चिदधिकारोऽस्ति।
And there is no such special liability here (in the case of these Jīva-Selfs who become rice).

3.1.25 L.25 ✅ अतश्चन्द्रमण्डल-स्खलितानाम् अनुशयिनां
Therefore, in the case of those who descend from the moon along with a residue of actions (Anuśayins),

3.1.25 L.26 ✅ व्रीह्यादिसंश्लेषमात्रं तद्भाव इत्युपचर्यते॥२५॥
Their becoming rice etc. merely figuratively means their coming into contact with rice etc. — 25.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
रेतःसिग्योगोऽथ॥३.१.२६॥
Retaḥ-sig-yogo'tha.

Retaḥ-sig: one who ejects the seminal fluid; Yogaḥ: connection with; Atha: then afterwards.

🔗 Thereafter, (these Jīva-Selfs) come into contact with those who are the inseminators. — 3.1.26.

3.1.26 L.1 ✅ इतश्च व्रीह्यादिसंश्लेषमात्रं तद्भावः,
This is again why the Jīva-Selfs becoming rice etc., means their merely coming into contact with them,

3.1.26 L.2 ✅ यत्कारणं व्रीह्यादिभावस्यानन्तरमनुशयिनां रेतःसिग्भाव आम्नायते –
viz., that after their becoming rice etc., the Scriptures mention about their becoming inseminators, thus —

3.1.26 L.3 ✅ ‘यो यो ह्यन्नमत्ति यो रेतः सिञ्चति तद्भूय एव भवति’ (ChanU.5.10.6) इति;
“Whosoever eats food and inseminates, that again, the Jīva-Self becomes” (ChanU.5.10.6).

3.1.26 L.4 ✅ न चात्र मुख्यो रेतःसिग्भावः सम्भवति;
This becoming an inseminator cannot possibly be in the principal sense.

3.1.26 L.5 ✅ चिरजातो हि प्राप्तयौवनो रेतःसिग्भवति;
It is only long after a person is born and after he reaches adolescence that he becomes capable of inseminating.

3.1.26 L.6 ✅ कथमिव अनुपचरितं तद्भावम् अद्यमानान्नानुगतोऽनुशयी प्रतिपद्येत?
How can then the Jīva-Selfs with a residue of actions (i.e. Anuśayins) who accompany the food eaten (by a person) be understood to become so in the principal sense?

3.1.26 L.7 ✅ तत्र तावदवश्यं रेतःसिग्योग एव रेतःसिग्भावोऽभ्युपगन्तव्यः;
Therefore a Jīva-Self’s becoming an inseminator should be understood to be merely its coming into contact with potential inseminators,

3.1.26 L.8 ✅ तद्वत् व्रीह्यादिभावोऽपि व्रीह्यादियोग एवेत्यविरोधः॥२६॥
And there is no contradiction because becoming rice etc. only means coming into contact with such rice etc. — 26.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
योनेः शरीरम्॥३.१.२७॥
Yoneḥ śarīram.

Yoneḥ: from the womb; Śarīram: the body.

🔗 From the womb, a body (is born). — 3.1.27.

3.1.27 L.1 ✅ अथ रेतःसिग्भावस्यानन्तरं योनौ निषिक्ते रेतसि,
Then, what the Scriptures (Śāstra) mean is that after coming into contact with an inseminator

3.1.27 L.2 ✅ योनेरधि शरीरम् अनुशयिनाम् अनुशयफलोपभोगाय जायत इत्याह शास्त्रम् –
And after the womb is inseminated, the Jīva-Self with a residue of action (Anuśaya) attains a body, in which it can experience the fruits (of residual actions), thus —

3.1.27 L.3 ✅ ‘तद्य इह रमणीयचरणाः’ (ChanU.5.10.7) इत्यादि;
“Those whose actions are good” etc. (ChanU.5.10.7).

3.1.27 L.4 ✅ तस्मादप्यवगम्यते –
From this also, it is understood that,

3.1.27 L.5 ✅ नावरोहे व्रीह्यादिभावावसरे तच्छरीरमेव सुखदुःखान्वितं भवतीति।
It is not, that, the Jīva-Selfs having a residue (i.e. Anuśayins) when during their descent they become rice etc., acquire a body which experiences pleasure and pain.

3.1.27 L.6 ✅ तस्मात् व्रीह्यादिसंश्लेषमात्रम् अनुशयिनां तज्जन्मेति सिद्धम्॥२७॥
Therefore, it is thus established that what is termed as the birth of the Jīva-Selfs having a residue of action (Anuśayins), as rice etc. merely means their contact (with them). — 27.

– 92. Anya-adhiṣṭhita-Adhikaraṇam. End of Pāda 3.1

Su.3.2.01 Su..02 Su..03 Su..04 Su..05 Su..06

[Go top]

3.2.1 L.1 ✅ अतिक्रान्ते पादे पञ्चाग्निविद्यामुदाहृत्य जीवस्य संसारगतिप्रभेदः प्रपञ्चितः;
In the preceding Pāda the various ways of the progress of the Jīva-Self during its transmigratory condition have been elaborated upon, by the illustration of the Lore of the Five Agnis (Pañcāgni-Vidyā).

3.2.1 L.2 ✅ इदानीं तस्यैवावस्थाभेदः प्रपञ्च्यते।
Now the different states of the soul are being discussed [Trans. from Panoli].

3.2.1 L.3 ✅ इदमामनन्ति – ‘स यत्र प्रस्वपिति’ (BrhU.4.3.9) इत्युपक्रम्य
The Scriptures beginning with “When he sleeps” further on declare —

3.2.1 L.4 ✅ ‘न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा न पन्थानो भवन्त्यथ रथान्रथयोगान्पथः सृजते’ इत्यादि।
“There are no chariots, no horses, no roads, (but) he creates such chariots, horses and roads” (BrhUEng.4.3.10) etc.

3.2.1 L.5 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
With regard to this, a doubt (arises) —

3.2.1 L.6 ✅ किं प्रबोधे इव स्वप्नेऽपि पारमार्थिकी सृष्टिः,
Whether in the dream ‘condition creation is as real, as it is in the waking condition,

3.2.1 L.7 ✅ आहोस्विन्मायामयीति।
Or whether it is merely an appearance i.e. it is illusory (Māyāmayī).

←Prev Next→
सन्ध्ये सृष्टिराह हि॥३.२.१॥
Sandhye sṛṣṭir āha hi.

Sandhye: in the intermediate stage (between waking and deep sleep, i.e., in the dream state); Sṛṣṭiḥ: (there is real) creation; Āha: (Śruti) says so; Hi: because.

🔗 In the twilight (i.e. dream) condition, there is creation because the Scriptures also speak about it. — 3.2.1.

3.2.1 L.8 ✅ तत्र तावत्प्रतिपद्यते – सन्ध्ये तथ्यरूपा सृष्टिरिति;
(The opponent of Vedānta says) [About this it has to be said] — It is understood that in the dream condition creation is real.

3.2.1 L.9 ✅ सन्ध्यमिति स्वप्नस्थानमाचष्टे, वेदे प्रयोगदर्शनात् –
(Says he) — The word ‘Sandhyā’ means the dream condition as the Scriptures use the term thus —

3.2.1 L.10 ✅ सन्ध्यं तृतीयꣳ स्वप्नस्थानम्’ इति;
“The twilight i.e. dream condition is the third condition” (BrhUEng.4.3.9).

3.2.1 L.11 ✅ द्वयोर्लोकस्थानयोः प्रबोधसम्प्रसादस्थानयोर्वा सन्धौ भवतीति सन्ध्यम्;
Or else it is the condition of being between the two worlds, i.e., it comes to mean the twilight i.e. dream condition as it exists where the two conditions of wakefulness and deep sleep meet,

3.2.1 L.12 ✅ तस्मिन्सन्ध्ये स्थाने तथ्यरूपैव सृष्टिर्भवितुमर्हति –
And in that twilight condition where wakefulness and deep sleep meet, creation deserves to be real.

3.2.1 L.13 ✅ कुतः? – यतः प्रमाणभूता श्रुतिरेवमाह –
Whence is it so? Because the Scriptures which of course are authoritative, themselves declare —

3.2.1 L.14 ✅ ‘अथ रथान्रथयोगान्पथः सृजते’ (BrhU.4.3.10) इत्यादि;
“And he creates chariots, horses, and roads” (BrhUEng.4.3.10).

3.2.1 L.15 ✅ ‘स हि कर्ता’ इति च उपसंहारात् एवमेवावगम्यते॥१॥
It is also understood to be so, as the concluding portion refers to him as the Kartā (Agent). — 1.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
निर्मातारं चैके पुत्रादयश्च॥३.२.२॥
Nirmātāraṃ caike putrādayaś ca.

Nirmātāram: Creator, the shaper, the builder, the maker; Ca: and, more over; Eke: some (followers of the particular Śākhās of the Vedas); Putra-ādayaḥ: sons, etc.; Ca: and, also.

🔗 (The followers) of one branch also consider him (i.e. the Ātmā) to be the creator (of things desired in a dream, i.e. of Kāma), and also (Kāma means) sons etc. — 3.2.2.

3.2.2 L.1 ✅ अपि च एके शाखिनः अस्मिन्नेव सन्ध्ये स्थाने कामानां निर्मातारम् आत्मानम् आमनन्ति –
Besides, the followers of one branch speak about the Jīva-Self in this twilight condition to be the creator of all objects of desire, thus —

3.2.2 L.2 ✅ ‘य एष सुप्तेषु जागर्ति कामं कामं पुरुषो निर्मिमाणः’ (KathU.2.2.8) इति;
“This Puruṣa is the one, that keeps vigil while the sense-organs sleep, the creator of all objects of desire” (KathU.2.2.8).

3.2.2 L.3 ✅ पुत्रादयश्च तत्र कामा अभिप्रेयन्ते – काम्यन्त इति।
Here, inasmuch as they are objects of desire, sons etc. are considered to be such objects of desire.

3.2.2 L.4 ✅ ननु कामशब्देनेच्छाविशेषा एवोच्येरन्;
But (says the Vedāntin) by the word Kāma, only special desires are spoken of.

3.2.2 L.5 ✅ न, ‘शतायुषः पुत्रपौत्रान्वृणीष्व’ (KathU.1.1.23) इति प्रकृत्य
No (it is replied), because (the Scriptures) with reference to the passage “You may ask for a boon about being long-lived (lit., living for hundred years), and about sons and grandsons” (KathU.1.1.23)

3.2.2 L.6 ✅ अन्ते ‘कामानां त्वा कामभाजं करोमि’ (KathU.1.1.24) इति
प्रकृतेषु तत्र पुत्रादिषु कामशब्दस्य प्रयुक्तत्वात्।
Have time and again used the word ‘Kāma’ as meaning sons etc. which is relevant to the context, in the concluding portion, thus: —
“I shall make you the experiencer of all desired objects” (KathU.1.1.24).

3.2.2 L.7 ✅ प्राज्ञं चैनं निर्मातारं प्रकरणवाक्यशेषाभ्यां प्रतीमः।
We infer from the chapter and the complementary portion, that the creator is the intelligential Highest Self (Prājña).

3.2.2 L.8 ✅ प्राज्ञस्य हीदं प्रकरणम् –
This chapter deals with the intelligential Highest Self (Prājña), (as is seen from the Scriptural passage)

3.2.2 L.9 ✅ ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मात्’ (KathU.1.2.14) इत्यादि;
“(This one) who is different (Anyatra) from meritorious action and unmeritorious action too” (KathU.1.2.14),

3.2.2 L.10 ✅ तद्विषय एव च वाक्यशेषोऽपि –
And the complementary passage also refers to Him, thus —

3.2.2 L.11 ✅ ‘तदेव शुक्रं तद्ब्रह्म तदेवामृतमुच्यते।
तस्मिँल्लोकाः श्रिताः सर्वे तदु नात्येति कश्चन’ (KathU.2.2.8) इति।
“That indeed is the bright one, that is Brahman, the one that is described as the immortal.
All the worlds are contained in Him and none can go beyond Him” (KathU.2.2.8).

3.2.2 L.12 ✅ प्राज्ञकर्तृका च सृष्टिस्तथ्यरूपा समधिगता जागरिताश्रया,
Now, it is understood, that the world of the waking condition, created by this intelligential Highest Self, is of a real nature

3.2.2 L.13 ✅ तथा स्वप्नाश्रयापि सृष्टिर्भवितुमर्हति;
And so the other one created in the dream condition also deserves to be similar (i.e. real).

3.2.2 L.14 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘अथो खल्वाहुर्जागरितदेश एवास्यैष इति यान्येव जाग्रत्पश्यति तानि सुप्तः’ (BrhU.4.3.14) इति
स्वप्नजागरितयोः समानन्यायतां श्रावयति।
The same reasoning, according to the Scriptures, applies to the waking and dream conditions, thus —
“This is as good as his waking condition, say they, for what he sees during the Waking condition, he sees in the condition of sleep also” (BrhUEng.4.3.14).

3.2.2 L.15 ✅ तस्मात्तथ्यरूपैव सन्ध्ये सृष्टिरिति॥२॥
Hence (the conclusion of the opponent of Vedānta) is that the creation in the dream condition is of course of the nature of reality. — 2.

[Go top]

3.2.3 L.1 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, प्रत्याह –
To this conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) the Sūtra-kāra gives reply —

←Prev Next→
मायामात्रं तु कार्त्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात्॥३.२.३॥
Māyā-mātraṃ tu kārtsnyenānabhivyakta-sva-rūpatvāt.

Māyā-mātram: mere illusion; Tu: but; Kārtsnyena: entirely, fully; An-abhivyakta-sva-rūpatvāt: on account of its nature being unmanifested.

🔗 But (creation in the dream condition) is mere appearance i.e. illusion, because of its nature of not being a complete manifestation (of the attributes of reality). — 3.2.3.

3.2.3 L.2 ✅ तुशब्दः पक्षं व्यावर्तयति।
The word ‘but’ refutes the view of the opponent.

3.2.3 L.3 ✅ नैतदस्ति – यदुक्तम्, सन्ध्ये सृष्टिः पारमार्थिकीति;
It is not, as is said, that the creation in a dream, is creation in its real sense.

3.2.3 L.4 ✅ मायैव सन्ध्ये सृष्टिः, न परमार्थगन्धोऽप्यस्ति।
The dream creation is but mere appearance (Māyā) i.e. illusion, and there is not even an iota (lit., whiff) of reality (about it).

3.2.3 L.5 ✅ कुतः? कार्त्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात् –
Whence is it so? Because of its nature of not being a complete manifestation (of the attributes of a real entity).

3.2.3 L.6 ✅ न हि कार्त्स्न्येन परमार्थवस्तुधर्मेण अभिव्यक्तस्वरूपः स्वप्नः।
A dream is not of that nature in which the attributes of a real entity are fully manifested.

3.2.3 L.7 ✅ किं पुनरत्र कार्त्स्न्यमभिप्रेतम्?
What again is meant by this totality (of manifestation)?

3.2.3 L.8 ✅ देशकालनिमित्त-सम्पत्तिः
(It means) the existence of the requisite environment, time, and necessary materials (Sampatti)

3.2.3 L.9 ✅ अबाधश्च।
And the absence of subsequent obliteration.

3.2.3 L.10 ✅ न हि परमार्थवस्तुविषयाणि देशकालनिमित्तानि अबाधश्च स्वप्ने सम्भाव्यन्ते।
In the case of a dream, this requisite environment, time and necessary materials (Sampatti) and the non-liability of obliteration associated with real things, cannot be possible.

3.2.3 L.11 ✅ न तावत्स्वप्ने रथादीनामुचितो देशः सम्भवति;
There is not available for instance (in the case of a dream) a proper space necessary for a chariot.

3.2.3 L.12 ✅ न हि संवृते देहदेशे रथादयोऽवकाशं लभेरन्।
There cannot possibly be sufficient space for a chariot in the limited space of a body.

3.2.3 L.13 ✅ स्यादेतत् – बहिर्देहात् स्वप्नं द्रक्ष्यति,
But (it may be argued), may be, the dreamer may see objects which are outside the body,

3.2.3 L.14 ✅ देशान्तरितद्रव्यग्रहणात्;
Because he does perceive things occupying a different place.

3.2.3 L.15 ✅ दर्शयति च श्रुतिः बहिर्देहात्स्वप्नम् –
The Scriptures also indicate how a dream occurs outside the body (of the dreamer), thus —

3.2.3 L.16 ✅ ‘बहिष्कुलायादमृतश्चरित्वा। स ईयतेऽमृतो यत्र कामम्’ (BrhU.4.3.12) इति;
“The Immortal one, having moved out of the nest (of the body) goes about as he pleases” (BrhUEng.4.3.12),

3.2.3 L.17 ✅ स्थितिगति-प्रत्ययभेदश्च न अनिष्क्रान्ते जन्तौ सामञ्जस्यमश्नुवीत – इति।
And these different perceptions, as this staying in or going out (of the body), would not be reasonably understandable in the case of a person dreaming if he were not to go out (of the body).

3.2.3 L.18 ✅ नेत्युच्यते – न हि सुप्तस्य जन्तोः क्षणमात्रेण योजनशतान्तरितं देशं पर्येतुं विपर्येतुं च ततः सामर्थ्यं सम्भाव्यते;
(We reply) — No, it cannot be possible for a person in sleep to be able to go out to a place hundreds of Yojanas away, and to return from thence, in a trice.

3.2.3 L.19 ✅ क्वचिच्च प्रत्यागमन-वर्जितं स्वप्नं श्रावयति –
Occasionally a person speaks of his dream, in which he does not mention his returning (from a place to which he has gone in his dream), thus —

3.2.3 L.20 ✅ कुरुष्वहम् अद्य शयानो निद्रयाभिप्लुतः, स्वप्ने पञ्चालानभिगतश्च अस्मिन्प्रतिबुद्धश्च – इति;
“I was overcome by sleep today, and I slept here in the Kurus and went to the Pāñcālas in my dream, and woke up there.”

3.2.3 L.21 ✅ देहाच्चेदपेयात्, पञ्चालेष्वेव प्रतिबुध्येत, तानसावभिगत इति;
If he were really to go out of his body, then he would wake up in Pāñcālas as he is supposed to have gone there,

3.2.3 L.22 ✅ कुरुष्वेव तु प्रतिबुध्यते।
But as a matter of fact he actually wakes up in the Kurus.

3.2.3 L.23 ✅ येन च अयं देहेन देशान्तरमश्नुवानो मन्यते,
His body along with which, he dreams about having gone to another country,

3.2.3 L.24 ✅ तमन्ये पार्श्वस्थाः शयनदेश एव पश्यन्ति।
Is seen by people near about, to be where he actually sleeps.

3.2.3 L.25 ✅ यथाभूतानि च अयं देशान्तराणि स्वप्ने पश्यति,
Besides the other countries, which he is supposed to see in his dream,

3.2.3 L.26 ✅ न तानि तथाभूतान्येव भवन्ति;
Are not as a matter of fact as he sees them,

3.2.3 L.27 ✅ परिधावंश्चेत्पश्येत्,
And were he in fact to speed away (to these countries),

3.2.3 L.28 ✅ जाग्रद्वत् वस्तुभूतमर्थमाकलयेत्।
He would see them as he would see them in his waking condition.

3.2.3 L.29 ✅ दर्शयति च श्रुतिरन्तरेव देहे स्वप्नम् –
Besides the Scriptures declare the dream to be in a body, beginning thus —

3.2.3 L.30 ✅ ‘स यत्रैतत्स्वप्न्यया चरति’ इत्युपक्रम्य
“When he moves about in a dream”, and then declaring later —

3.2.3 L.31 ✅ ‘स्वे शरीरे यथाकामं परिवर्तते’ (BrhU.2.1.18) इति।
“He moves about in his own body at his pleasure” (BrhUEng.2.1.18).

3.2.3 L.32 ✅ अतश्च श्रुत्युपपत्तिविरोधाद्
Hence, as it involves a contradiction with the Scriptures and reasoning,

3.2.3 L.33 ✅ बहिष्कुलायश्रुतिः गौणी व्याख्यातव्या –
The Scriptural passage which refers to the going out of the nest (of the body) should be understood in its secondary sense,

3.2.3 L.34 ✅ बहिरिव कुलायात् अमृतश्चरित्वेति –
To mean that the Immortal one goes out, as it were, from the body.

3.2.3 L.35 ✅ यो हि वसन्नपि शरीरे न तेन प्रयोजनं करोति, स बहिरिव शरीराद्भवति – इति।
Any one who even while he is in his body, has no (present) use for it, may be said to be out of the body, as it were.

3.2.3 L.36 ✅ स्थितिगतिप्रत्ययभेदोऽप्येवं सति विप्रलम्भ एवाभ्युपगन्तव्यः॥
The difference in the perception as between staying in and going out of the body, may, under the circumstances, be understood to be mere deception.

3.2.3 L.37 ✅ कालविसंवादोऽपि च स्वप्ने भवति –
There is also a confusion of time, in a dream.

3.2.3 L.38 ✅ रजन्यां सुप्तो वासरं भारते वर्षे मन्यते;
For instance, when he goes to sleep during the night, (in the dream) he considers it to be day time in Bhārata-Varṣa (India).

3.2.3 L.39 ✅ तथा मुहूर्तमात्रवर्तिनि स्वप्ने कदाचित् बहून् वर्षपूगान् अतिवाहयति।
Similarly while a dream lasts only for a moment, he feels as if he has lived through a crowded period of many years.

3.2.3 L.40 ✅ निमित्तान्यपि च स्वप्ने न बुद्धये कर्मणे वा उचितानि विद्यन्ते;
Besides, in a dream, there are not the means i.e. materials necessary for perceptive knowledge and action.

3.2.3 L.41 ✅ करणोपसंहाराद्धि
As the organs-of-sense happen to have been withdrawn inwards (during sleep),

3.2.3 L.42 ✅ नास्य रथादिग्रहणाय चक्षुरादीनि सन्ति;
A person dreaming has then no eyes etc. (properly functioning as in the waking state), by which he would, in fact, see any chariot etc.

3.2.3 L.43 ✅ रथादिनिर्वर्तनेऽपि कुतोऽस्य निमेषमात्रेण सामर्थ्यं दारूणि वा।
Whence could he then have the power to manufacture a chariot in a moment and whence also for the matter of that can he have the timber etc. necessary for it?

3.2.3 L.44 ✅ बाध्यन्ते चैते रथादयः स्वप्नदृष्टाः प्रबोधे;
Besides the chariot etc. seen by him in his dream, are obliterated when (later on) he wakes up.

3.2.3 L.45 ✅ स्वप्न एव च एते सुलभबाधा भवन्ति,
Not only that, but even during the dream itself, its own creations are equally subject to obliteration,

3.2.3 L.46 ✅ आद्यन्तयोर्व्यभिचारदर्शनात् –
Inasmuch as, the end of a dream, contradicts its beginning.

3.2.3 L.47 ✅ रथोऽयमिति हि कदाचित्स्वप्ने निर्धारितः क्षणेन मनुष्यः सम्पद्यते,
What is understood to be a chariot, in a dream, is again in a moment seen as a man,

3.2.3 L.48 ✅ मनुष्योऽयमिति निर्धारितः क्षणेन वृक्षः।
And what is understood to be a man, is again seen as a tree.

3.2.3 L.49 ✅ स्पष्टं चाभावं रथादीनां स्वप्ने श्रावयति शास्त्रम् –
Besides the Scriptures (Śāstra) categorically declare the absence of any chariots etc. in a dream thus —

3.2.3 L.50 ✅ ‘न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा न पन्थानो भवन्ति’ (BrhU.4.3.10) इत्यादि।
“(In the dream condition) there are no chariots, no horses and no roads” (BrhUEng.4.3.10).

3.2.3 L.51 ✅ तस्मान्मायामात्रं स्वप्नदर्शनम्॥३॥
Therefore the experience in a dream is merely an appearance i.e. it is illusory. — 3.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सूचकश्च हि श्रुतेराचक्षते च तद्विदः॥३.२.४॥
Sūcakaś ca hi śruter ācakṣate ca tad-vidaḥ.

Sūcakaḥ: indicative, suggestive; Ca: moreover, and; Hi: because, as for; Śruteḥ: from the Śruti; Ācakṣate: say, affirm; Ca: also; Tad-vidaḥ: dream-experts, those who know the secrets of dream.

🔗 On the authority of Scriptures (a dream although an appearance i.e. an illusion, is yet) a portent too. Expert interpreters (of dreams) also say so. — 3.2.4.

3.2.4 L.1 ✅ मायामात्रत्वात् तर्हि न कश्चित्स्वप्ने परमार्थगन्धोऽस्तीति –
(Says the opponent of Vedānta) — A dream, then, being an illusion, is it not, that there could not be even an iota of reality about it?

3.2.4 L.2 ✅ नेत्युच्यते –
(We reply) — It is not so.

3.2.4 L.3 ✅ सूचकश्च हि स्वप्नो भवति भविष्यतोः साध्वसाधुनोः;
A dream is a portent of coming good or bad (events),

3.2.4 L.4 ✅ तथा हि श्रूयते –
For the Scriptures declare thus —

3.2.4 L.5 ✅ ‘यदा कर्मसु काम्येषु स्त्रियꣳ स्वप्नेषु पश्यति।
समृद्धिं तत्र जानीयात्तस्मिन्स्वप्ननिदर्शने’ (ChanU.5.2.9) इति;
“If (a person) while he is engaged in performing a religious ritual so that a desire of his may be fulfilled, beholds a woman in his dream,
He may infer the augmentation (of his desire) from such vision of his dream” (ChanU.5.2.9),

3.2.4 L.6 ✅ तथा ‘पुरुषं कृष्णं कृष्णदन्तं पश्यति स एनं हन्ति’ इत्येवमादिभिः
स्वप्नैरचिरजीवित्वमावेद्यत इति श्रावयति;
And they also declare, how some dreams are indicative of death before long, thus —
“When he sees a dark man with black teeth, he kills him” (ChanU.5.2.9).

3.2.4 L.7 ✅ आचक्षते च स्वप्नाध्यायविदः –
Those who are experts in dream lore say thus —

3.2.4 L.8 ✅ ‘कुञ्जरारोहणादीनि स्वप्ने धन्यानि,
To dream about riding an elephant etc. is auspicious,

3.2.4 L.9 ✅ खरयानादीन्यधन्यानि’ इति;
While to dream about riding a donkey etc. is inauspicious.

3.2.4 L.10 ✅ मन्त्रदेवताद्रव्यविशेष-निमित्ताश्च केचित्स्वप्नाः सत्यार्थगन्धिनो भवन्तीति मन्यन्ते।
They also hold that some dreams caused by some incantations (Mantras) or deities or some particular material, are indicative of just a suggestion of truthful meaning.

3.2.4 L.11 ✅ तत्रापि भवतु नाम सूच्यमानस्य वस्तुनः सत्यत्वम्;
(What is meant is) that even with regard to these matters, may the things suggested by the dream, be, for the matter of that, real enough,

3.2.4 L.12 ✅ सूचकस्य तु स्त्रीदर्शनादेर्भवत्येव वैतथ्यम्,
But those things seen in a dream which are said to be suggestive in this way, viz., the vision of a woman etc., are of course unreal,

3.2.4 L.13 ✅ बाध्यमानत्वादित्यभिप्रायः;
Because they do become obliterated (after the dreamer wakes up).

3.2.4 L.14 ✅ तस्मादुपपन्नं स्वप्नस्य मायामात्रत्वम्॥
Therefore, that dreams are but a mere appearance i.e. an illusion, is reasonably sustainable.

3.2.4 L.15 ✅ यदुक्तम् – ‘आह हि’ इति
It being so, the words “The Scriptures also speak about it (Āha hi)” (in BrS.3.2.1)

3.2.4 L.16 ✅ तदेवं सति भाक्तं व्याख्यातव्यम् –
Should therefore be explained as being used in a secondary sense.

3.2.4 L.17 ✅ यथा ‘लाङ्गलं गवादीनुद्वहति’ इति निमित्तमात्रत्वादेवमुच्यते,
For instance, when it is said that the plough sustains the bullocks etc., it is so said, because it is the indirect means,

3.2.4 L.18 ✅ न तु प्रत्यक्षमेव लाङ्गलं गवादीनुद्वहति;
And not because a plough actually sustains the bullocks,

3.2.4 L.19 ✅ एवं निमित्तमात्रत्वात् – सुप्तो रथादीन्सृजते, ‘स हि कर्ता’ – इति च उच्यते;
Similarly the man sleeping being only the accidental cause (of a dream) it is said that he creates chariots etc., and that he is the creator (Kartā) of the chariots etc.,

3.2.4 L.20 ✅ न तु प्रत्यक्षमेव सुप्तो रथादीन्सृजति।
And it is not that the person that is asleep does actually create the chariots etc.

3.2.4 L.21 ✅ निमित्तत्वं तु अस्य रथादिप्रतिभाननिमित्त-मोदत्रासादिदर्शनात्
तन्निमित्तभूतयोः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः कर्तृत्वेनेति वक्तव्यम्।
It should rather be said, that, his being the creator, is so, in as much as he is the cause of the good or bad deeds,
Which in their turn are the cause of the experience by him of the pleasure or fear etc. brought about by the dream vision of the chariot etc.

3.2.4 L.22 ✅ अपि च जागरिते विषयेन्द्रिय-संयोगात्
आदित्यादि-ज्योतिर्व्यतिकराच्च
आत्मनः स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्वं दुर्विवेचनम्
इति तद्विवेचनाय स्वप्न उपन्यस्तः;
It is because the self-luminous refulgence of the Self (Ātmā) is difficult of being properly recognized, that the Scriptures have made a reference to a dream,
Because during the condition of wakefulness, as a result of the contact of the organs-of-sense with their objects,
And the fact of being mixed up with the light of the Sun etc.,
The Self’s being so self-luminous i.e. refulgent, is difficult of being recognized.

3.2.4 L.23 ✅ तत्र यदि रथादिसृष्टिवचनं श्रुत्या नीयेत,
Hence, if the statement about the creation of chariots etc. is construed to be as it is stated by the Scriptures (i.e. directly or literally)

3.2.4 L.24 ✅ ततः स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्वं न निर्णीतं स्यात्;
Then the self-luminousness and refulgence of the Self would fail to be properly ascertained;

3.2.4 L.25 ✅ तस्माद् रथाद्यभाव-वचनं श्रुत्या,
Therefore, the statement about the absence of chariots etc. should be construed as a direct Scriptural statement

3.2.4 L.26 ✅ रथादिसृष्टि-वचनं तु भक्त्येति व्याख्येयम्।
And the statement about the creation of the chariots etc. should be construed in a secondary sense.

3.2.4 L.27 ✅ एतेन निर्माणश्रवणं व्याख्यातम्।
This would serve to explain the Scriptural mention about the creation (“the creator of all objects of desire,” in KathU.2.2.8, in BrS.3.2.2, as being in the secondary sense).

3.2.4 L.28 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – ‘प्राज्ञमेनं निर्मातारमामनन्ति’ इति,
Again, with regard to the statement (by the opponent of Vedānta) that it is the intelligential Highest Self that is spoken of as the creator (in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad),

3.2.4 L.29 ✅ तदप्यसत्, श्रुत्यन्तरे
We say that, that also is not correct, because, in another Scriptural passage —

3.2.4 L.30 ✅ ‘स्वयं विहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्वेन भासा स्वेन ज्योतिषा प्रस्वपिति’ (BrhU.4.3.9) इति
“He having himself destroyed (his body in the waking state) and created (a body out of his impressions), he sleeps (and dreams) by (the help) of his own refulgence and light” (BrhUEng.4.3.9),

3.2.4 L.31 ✅ जीवव्यापारश्रवणात्;
The Scriptures speak of the activity being that of the Jīva-Self.

3.2.4 L.32 ✅ इहापि ‘य एष सुप्तेषु जागर्ति’ (KathU.2.2.8) इति
Even here, by the passage “He who keeps vigil while the senses sleep”,

3.2.4 L.33 ✅ प्रसिद्धानुवादाज्जीव एवायं कामानां निर्माता सङ्कीर्त्यते;
Which is a reference to something which is well-known (Anuvāda), it is the Jīva-Self that is described to be the creator of desired objects.

3.2.4 L.34 ✅ तस्य तु वाक्यशेषेण
And it is precisely because of that, that the Scriptures, by the complementary passage

3.2.4 L.35 ✅ ‘तदेव शुक्रं तद्ब्रह्म’ इति
“That verily is the bright one, that is Brahman”,

3.2.4 L.36 ✅ जीवभावं व्यावर्त्य
Refute that the Jīva-Self is really the Jīva-Self,

3.2.4 L.37 ✅ ब्रह्मभाव उपदिश्यते –
And instruct (us) that it is but Brahman only,

3.2.4 L.38 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.9.4) इत्यादिवत् –
As referred to in “That thou art” (ChanU.6.9.4) etc.,

3.2.4 L.39 ✅ इति न ब्रह्मप्रकरणं विरुध्यते।
And not that, that this chapter deals with Brahman is contradicted,

3.2.4 L.40 ✅ न चास्माभिः स्वप्नेऽपि प्राज्ञव्यापारः प्रतिषिध्यते,
Nor that we deny the activity of the intelligential Highest Self (Prājña), even in the dream state,

3.2.4 L.41 ✅ तस्य सर्वेश्वरत्वात् सर्वास्वप्यवस्थास्वधिष्ठातृत्वोपपत्तेः;
Because, that he is the Lord of all and that it is he (i.e. the intelligential Highest Self) who presides in all the different states, is reasonably sustainable.

3.2.4 L.42 ✅ पारमार्थिकस्तु नायं सन्ध्याश्रयः सर्गः वियदादिसर्गवत् – इत्येतावत्प्रतिपाद्यते;
It is merely emphasized (by us) that the creations of the dream condition, are not real in the sense in which creations such as Ākāśa etc. are real.

3.2.4 L.43 ✅ न च वियदादिसर्गस्याप्यात्यन्तिकं सत्यत्वमस्ति;
Moreover, even the creation of Ākāśa etc. also, is not a reality in the absolute ultimate sense,

3.2.4 L.44 ✅ प्रतिपादितं हि ‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (BrS.2.1.14) इत्यत्र
As has been explained (in BrS.2.1.14),

3.2.4 L.45 ✅ समस्तस्य प्रपञ्चस्य मायामात्रत्वम्।
And it has been elaborately established by us already that the whole phenomenal world is wholly illusory.

3.2.4 L.46 ✅ प्राक् तु ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शनात्
Prior to the realization of Brahman,

3.2.4 L.47 ✅ वियदादिप्रपञ्चो व्यवस्थितरूपो भवति;
The entire phenomenal world, such as the Ākāśa etc., stands as it is, in a valid form and is said to be relatively true,

3.2.4 L.48 ✅ सन्ध्याश्रयस्तु प्रपञ्चः प्रतिदिनं बाध्यते –
But the creations in a dream are obliterated every day.

3.2.4 L.49 ✅ इत्यतो वैशेषिकमिदं सन्ध्यस्य मायामात्रत्वमुदितम्॥४॥
The illusory character of dream creations, therefore, comes to be so stated separately in a special sense (of being totally illusory). — 4.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
पराभिध्यानात्तु तिरोहितं ततो ह्यस्य बन्धविपर्ययौ॥३.२.५॥
Parābhidhyānāt tu tiro-hitaṃ tato hy asya bandha-viparyayau.

Para-abhidhyānāt: by meditation on the Supreme Lord; Tu: but; Tiro-hitam: that which is hidden; Tataḥ: from Him(the Lord); Hi: for; Asya: his, of the individual soul; Bandha-viparyayau: bondage and its opposite, i.e., freedom.

🔗 (Attributes which are (in fact) common to the Highest Self i.e. the Lord and the Jīva-Self, but are) obscured, become manifest in the Jīva-Self by meditation on the transcendental one (i.e. the Highest Self i.e. the Lord), for bondage (Bandha) and its opposite (i.e. Final Release) of the Jīva-Self are due to that Highest Self i.e. the Lord. — 3.2.5.

3.2.5 L.1 ✅ अथापि स्यात् –
(Says the opponent of Vedānta) — It may even be like this,

3.2.5 L.2 ✅ परस्यैव तावदात्मनोंऽशः जीवः –
That the Jīva-Self is but only a part (Aṃśa) of the transcendental one (i.e. the Lord),

3.2.5 L.3 ✅ अग्नेरिव विस्फुलिङ्गः;
Even as a scintilla (is a part) of the fire.

3.2.5 L.4 ✅ तत्रैवं सति यथा अग्निविस्फुलिङ्गयोः समाने दहनप्रकाशनशक्ती भवतः,
And this being so, just as ‘to burn’ or ‘to give out light’ are powers common both to the fire and its scintilla,

3.2.5 L.5 ✅ वं जीवेश्वरयोरपि ज्ञानैश्वर्यशक्ती;
Even so the powers of ‘knowledge’ and of the ‘rulership (of the world)’ are common both to the Jīva-Self and the Highest Lord,

3.2.5 L.6 ✅ ततश्च जीवस्य ज्ञानैश्वर्यवशात् साङ्कल्पिकी स्वप्ने रथादिसृष्टिर्भविष्यतीति।
And hence the Jīva-Self’s dream-creation of chariots etc. may well be possible as a result of its Lordly power and knowledge, as being deliberately desired by it (Sāṅkalpikī).

3.2.5 L.7 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – सत्यपि जीवेश्वरयोरंशांशिभावे
To this we reply — Even though there is a relationship as that of a part to the whole, as between the Jīva-Self and the Lord,

3.2.5 L.8 ✅ प्रत्यक्षमेव जीवस्येश्वरविपरीतधर्मत्वम्।
Still, that the Jīva-Self and the Lord have attributes contrary to each other is directly evident.

3.2.5 L.9 ✅ किं पुनर्जीवस्य ईश्वरसमानधर्मत्वं नास्त्येव?
But (asks the opponent of Vedānta) is it, then, that the Jīva-Self and the Lord have no common attributes?

3.2.5 L.10 ✅ न नास्त्येव;
(We reply) — No, it is not that it (Jīva-Self) has not such common attributes,

3.2.5 L.11 ✅ विद्यमानमपि तत् तिरोहितम् अविद्यादिव्यवधानात्।
But, even though it has such common attributes, they happen to be obscured as a result of being hidden from view (Tiro-dhānāt) by Nescience.

3.2.5 L.12 ✅ तत्पुनस्तिरोहितं सत् परमेश्वरमभिध्यायतो यतमानस्य जन्तोर्विधूतध्वान्तस्य –
Obscured though they thus are however, they become manifest only in a few rare cases such as that in the case of a person, for instance, who keeps striving after and meditating upon the Lord,

3.2.5 L.13 ✅ तिमिरतिरस्कृतेव दृक्शक्तिः औषधवीर्यात् –
ईश्वरप्रसादात् संसिद्धस्य कस्यचिदेवाविर्भवति,
And who has acquired supernatural faculties, and whose darkness of ignorance is dispelled as a result of the grace of God (vouchsafed to him),
Even as a man whose power of vision is obscured by Timira (a disease of the eye — Diplopia) happens to have his vision restored to him as a result of the potency of the medicines,

3.2.5 L.14 ✅ न स्वभावत एव, सर्वेषां जन्तूनाम्।
And it is not that they become manifest by themselves in the case of all persons.

3.2.5 L.15 ✅ कुतः? ततो हि ईश्वराद्धेतोः,
Whence is it so? Because it is “through Him” (Tataḥ) i.e. because of the Lord as a cause,

3.2.5 L.16 ✅ अस्य जीवस्य, बन्धमोक्षौ भवतः –
That a Jīva-Self falls into bondage or acquires Final Release.

3.2.5 L.17 ✅ ईश्वरस्वरूपापरिज्ञानात् बन्धः,
The bondage is due to the ignorance of the knowledge of the nature of the Lord

3.2.5 L.18 ✅ तत्स्वरूपपरिज्ञानात्तु मोक्षः।
And Final Release occurs as a result of the acquisition of such knowledge (of the nature of the Lord).

3.2.5 L.19 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः –
To the same effect is the Scriptural passage —

3.2.5 L.20 ✅ ‘ज्ञात्वा देवं सर्वपाशापहानिः क्षीणैः क्लेशैर्जन्ममृत्युप्रहाणिः।
तस्याभिध्यानात् तृतीयं देहभेदे विश्वैश्वर्यं केवल आप्तकामः’ (SvetU.1.11) इत्येवमाद्या॥५॥
“All bonds are sundered by knowing the Lord, and all sufferings having thereby come to an end, births and deaths cease.
It is by meditation on Him, that, after death, the third stage, viz. the supreme Lordship of the universe, supervenes, and a man becomes absolutely detached i.e. isolated (Kevala) and one whose desire is only for the Self (Ātmā) only” (SvetU.1.11). — 5.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
देहयोगाद्वा सोऽपि॥३.२.६॥
Deha-yogād vā so'pi.

Deha-yogāt: from its connection with the body; Vā: and, or; Saḥ: that (the concealment of the soul’s rulership); Api: also.

🔗 Or, this obscurement (of the powers of Knowledge and Lordship of a Jīva-Self) also is, on account of its contact with the body. — 3.2.6.

3.2.6 L.1 ✅ कस्मात्पुनर्जीवः परमात्मांश एव सन्
Why again (says the opponent), even when the Jīva-Self is but a part of the transcendental Self,

3.2.6 L.2 ✅ तिरस्कृतज्ञानैश्वर्यो भवति?
Should it have its powers of Knowledge and Lordship obscured,

3.2.6 L.3 ✅ युक्तं तु ज्ञानैश्वर्ययोरतिरस्कृतत्वम्,
When it is reasonable that such Knowledge and Lordship should not be so obscured,

3.2.6 L.4 ✅ विस्फुलिङ्गस्येव दहनप्रकाशनयोः – इति।
Even as the power of a scintilla ‘to burn’ and ‘to give light’ is not obscured?

3.2.6 L.5 ✅ उच्यते – सत्यमेवैतत्;
We reply — (What you say) is true of course,

3.2.6 L.6 ✅ सोऽपि तु जीवस्य ज्ञानैश्वर्यतिरोभावः,
But this obscurement of the powers of Knowledge and Lordship of the Jīva-Self

3.2.6 L.7 ✅ देहयोगात् देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिविषयवेदनादि-योगात् भवति।
Results, on account of its contact with the body, i.e., with the body, organs-of-sense, mind, intelligence, objects-of-sense and sensations etc.

3.2.6 L.8 ✅ अस्ति च अत्रोपमा –
The simile for that is —

3.2.6 L.9 ✅ यथा अग्नेर्दहनप्रकाशनसम्पन्नस्यपि
Just as, though Agni has the power to burn and to give light,

3.2.6 L.10 ✅ अरणिगतस्य दहनप्रकाशने तिरोहिते भवतः,

Still such powers become obscured when the Agni remains concealed in the ‘Araṇi’ (sticks of Śamī tree which by their mutual friction produce fire)

3.2.6 L.11 ✅ यथा वा भस्मच्छन्नस्य –
Or when again it is covered over with ashes,

3.2.6 L.12 ✅ एवम् अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापित-नामरूपकृतदेहाद्युपाधियोगात्
तदविवेकभ्रमकृतो जीवस्य ज्ञानैश्वर्य-तिरोभावः।
Similarly, the obscurement of the Knowledge and Lordship of the Jīva-Self is due to the confusion
Resulting from the failure of discrimination caused by its contact with limiting adjuncts such as [the body etc. due to] names and forms which are brought about by Nescience.

3.2.6 L.13 ✅ वाशब्दो जीवस्य ईश्वरात् अन्यत्वशङ्का-व्यावृत्त्यर्थः।
The word “or” (in the Sūtra) serves the purpose of the refutation of the doubt about the Jīva-Self and the Lord being entities separate from each other.

3.2.6 L.14 ✅ नन्वन्य एव जीवः ईश्वरादस्तु,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), let the Jīva-Self then be for the matter of that an entity separate from the Lord,

3.2.6 L.15 ✅ तिरस्कृतज्ञानैश्वर्यत्वात्;
Inasmuch as its Knowledge and Lordship is obscured,

3.2.6 L.16 ✅ किं देहयोगकल्पनया?
Why is there any need of the assumption of its contact with the body?

3.2.6 L.17 ✅ नेत्युच्यते – न हि अन्यत्वं जीवस्य ईश्वरादुपपद्यते –
We reply — No, that the Jīva-Self can ever be an entity separate from the Lord, is not reasonably sustainable,

3.2.6 L.18 ✅ ‘सेयं देवतैक्षत’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इत्युपक्रम्य
Because, beginning with the passage “This here deity thought” (ChanU.6.3.2),

3.2.6 L.19 ✅ ‘अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति
आत्मशब्देन जीवस्य परामर्शात्;
The Scriptures later on refer to the Jīva-Self as the Ātmā in the passage
“Having itself entered as this Jīva-Self (Ātmā)” (ChanU.6.3.2),

3.2.6 L.20 ✅ ‘तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ (ChanU.6.9.14) इति च
And by the passage “That is truth, that is Ātmā, Oh Śveta-keto, that thou art”,

3.2.6 L.21 ✅ जीवाय उपदिशति ईश्वरात्मत्वम्;
The Scriptures instruct that it has the Lord’s own nature (Īśvarātmatva).

3.2.6 L.22 ✅ अतः अनन्य एव ईश्वराज्जीवः सन्
Hence, non-different as the Jīva-Self is from the Lord,

3.2.6 L.23 ✅ देहयोगात् तिरोहितज्ञानैश्वर्यो भवति।
It comes to have its Knowledge and Lordship obscured by its contact with the body.

3.2.6 L.24 ✅ अतश्च न साङ्कल्पिकी जीवस्य स्वप्ने रथादिसृष्टिर्घटते;
Hence again, the creation of chariots etc. in a dream, by the Jīva-Self through his desire, does not fit in properly,

3.2.6 L.25 ✅ यदि च साङ्कल्पिकी स्वप्ने रथादिसृष्टिः स्यात्,
Because, if it could so create [chariots, etc.] at its will,

3.2.6 L.26 ✅ नैवानिष्टं कश्चित्स्वप्नं पश्येत्,
It would never care to experience any unpleasant unwanted dream,

3.2.6 L.27 ✅ न हि कश्चिदनिष्टं सङ्कल्पयते।
As nobody would ever wish for unpleasant or unwanted things.

3.2.6 L.28 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् –
Again, with regard to what is said,

3.2.6 L.29 ✅ जागरितदेशश्रुतिः
Viz. that the Scriptural passage about a dream being similar to the Jīva-Self’s waking state (BrhUEng.4.3.14),

3.2.6 L.30 ✅ स्वप्नस्य सत्यत्वं ख्यापयतीति,
Would establish the reality of dream creations,

3.2.6 L.31 ✅ न तत्साम्यवचनं सत्यत्वाभिप्रायम्,
(We say) that, that statement (about a dream being just like its waking state), does not imply the reality of dream-creations,

3.2.6 L.32 ✅ स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्व-विरोधात्,
As it would contradict the Self’s self-refulgence

3.2.6 L.33 ✅ श्रुत्यैव च स्वप्ने रथाद्यभावस्य दर्शितत्वात्;
And also because the Scriptures themselves have declared the absence of chariots in a dream.

3.2.6 L.34 ✅ जागरितप्रभववासना-निर्मितत्वात्तु स्वप्नस्य
तत्तुल्यनिर्भासत्वाभिप्रायं तत्।
The meaning is, that, inasmuch as dreams are the product of the impressions received during the condition of wakefulness,
That the statement that they appear like the waking state is so stated, only because they appear to be similar.

3.2.6 L.35 ✅ तस्मादुपपन्नं स्वप्नस्य मायामात्रत्वम्॥६॥
It is, therefore, reasonably sustainable that dreams are but a mere appearance i.e. an illusion (Māyā). — 6.

– 93. Sandhyā-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.2.7 Su..8

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तदभावो नाडीषु तच्छ्रुतेरात्मनि च॥३.२.७॥
Tad-abhāvo nāḍīṣu tac-chruter ātmani ca.

Tad-abhāvaḥ: absence of that (dreaming) i.e., deep sleep; Nāḍīṣu: in the nerves (psychic currents); Tat-śruteḥ: as it is known from the Śrutis; Ātmani: in the self; Ca: and, also. (Tat: about it.)

🔗 There is absence of that (i.e. a dream) in the Nāḍīs and in the Self (Ātmā), according to the Scriptures. — 3.2.7.

3.2.7 L.1 ✅ स्वप्नावस्था परीक्षिता;
The condition of dreams has (so far) been examined,

3.2.7 L.2 ✅ सुषुप्तावस्थेदानीं परीक्ष्यते।
And now the condition of deep sleep is being examined.

3.2.7 L.3 ✅ तत्रैताः सुषुप्तविषयाः श्रुतयो भवन्ति;
With regard to that condition of deep sleep, there are the following Scriptural passages.

3.2.7 L.4 ✅ क्वचिच्छ्रूयते – ‘तद्यत्रैतत्सुप्तः समस्तः सम्प्रसन्नः स्वप्नं न विजानात्यासु तदा नाडीषु सृप्तो भवति’ (ChanU.8.6.3) इति;
In one place — “Now when this (i.e. the Jīva-Self) is completely and serenely asleep (i.e. wherein the organs-of-sense are completely out of action), it does not dream dreams, but happens to have entered the Nāḍīs” (ChanU.8.6.3).

3.2.7 L.5 ✅ अन्यत्र तु नाडीरेवानुक्रम्य श्रूयते –
In another passage referring to Nāḍīs themselves, the Scriptures say —

3.2.7 L.7 ✅ ‘ताभिः प्रत्यवसृप्य पुरीतति शेते’ (BrhU.2.1.19) इति;
“He moves along those (i.e. Nāḍīs) and sleeps in the Purītat (the envelope of the Hṛdaya)” (BrhUEng.2.1.19).

3.2.7 L.8 ✅ तथान्यत्र नाडीरेवानुक्रम्य –
In another place again, referring to the Nāḍīs, thus —

3.2.7 L.9 ✅ ‘तासु तदा भवति यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति’ (कौ. उ. ४-१९) इति;
“When in sleep, he happens to be in the Nāḍīs, and does not dream any dreams whatsoever and becomes one with the Prāṇa (Brahman) itself” (Kaush. 4.19).

3.2.7 L.10 ✅ तथान्यत्र – ‘य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्शेते’ (BrhU.2.1.17) इति;
Again elsewhere — “He sleeps in this Ākāśa within the Hṛdaya” (BrhUEng.2.1.17).

3.2.7 L.11 ✅ तथान्यत्र – ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति स्वमपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति;
Similarly in another place — “Then, at that time, he becomes one with the ‘Sat’ i.e. becomes one with its Self” (ChanU.6.8.1).

3.2.7 L.12 ✅ तथा – ‘प्राज्ञेनात्मना सम्परिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किञ्चन वेद नान्तरम्’ (BrhU.4.3.21) इति च॥
And also — “Embraced by the intelligential Self, he is not aware of anything external nor internal” (BrhUEng.4.3.21).

3.2.7 L.13 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now (says the opponent of Vedānta), a doubt arises here,

3.2.7 L.14 ✅ किमेतानि नाड्यादीनि परस्परनिरपेक्षतया भिन्नानि सुषुप्तिस्थानानि,
As to whether these Nāḍīs etc. are the various different places for sleep, independent of each other,

3.2.7 L.15 ✅ आहोस्वित्परस्परापेक्षया एकं सुषुप्तिस्थानमिति।
Or whether by mutual interdependence they collectively form but only one place of sleep.

3.2.7 L.16 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta)?

3.2.7 L.17 ✅ भिन्नानीति।
It is that they all constitute different places of sleep.

3.2.7 L.18 ✅ कुतः? एकार्थत्वात् –
Whence is it so? Because all these have one and the same use.

3.2.7 L.19 ✅ न हि एकार्थानां क्वचित्परस्परापेक्षत्वं दृश्यते व्रीहियवादीनाम्;
Things which have the same use, such as rice and barley (in a sacrifice, for instance), are not seen to be dependent on each other, (and a sacrificer may optionally use either of them).

3.2.7 L.20 ✅ नाड्यादीनां च एकार्थता सुषुप्तौ दृश्यते,
Nāḍīs etc. are seen to have one and the same purpose, as for instance, in the Scriptural passages

3.2.7 L.21 ✅ ‘नाडीषु सृप्तो भवति’ (ChanU.8.6.3)
“He happens to have entered into the Nāḍīs” (ChanU.8.6.3),

3.2.7 L.22 ✅ ‘पुरीतति शेते’ (BrhU.2.1.19) इति च
“He sleeps in the Purītat” (BrhUEng.2.1.19),

3.2.7 L.23 ✅ तत्र तत्र सप्तमीनिर्देशस्य तुल्यत्वात्।
Wherein there is the use of the same locative case in both.

3.2.7 L.24 ✅ ननु नैवं सति सप्तमीनिर्देशो दृश्यते –
But (says the Vedāntin) it is not seen that there is such use of the locative in the case of the word ‘Sat’,

3.2.7 L.25 ✅ ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति;
In “Then (he) becomes one with the ‘Sat’” (ChanU.6.8.1).

3.2.7 L.26 ✅ नैष दोषः, तत्रापि सप्तम्यर्थस्य गम्यमानत्वात् –
(The opponent of Vedānta replies) — This is no fault, because even there (where the ‘Sat’ is governed by the instrumental case) it is understood that it is meant to have the same sense of the locative case.

3.2.7 L.27 ✅ वाक्यशेषो हि तत्र आयतनैषी जीवः सत् उपसर्पतीत्याह –
The complementary sentence there, purports to say that the Jīva-Self wishing to find a haven, approaches the ‘Sat’, thus —

3.2.7 L.28 ✅ ‘अन्यत्रायतनमलब्ध्वा प्राणमेवोपश्रयते’ (ChanU.6.8.2) इति;
“Failing to obtain a haven (Āyatana) anywhere else (he, the Jīva-Self) takes shelter with the Prāṇa” (ChanU.6.8.2),

3.2.7 L.29 ✅ प्राणशब्देन तत्र प्रकृतस्य सत उपादानात्;
Where by the word ‘Prāṇa’ the ‘Sat’ which is relevant here, is understood.

3.2.7 L.30 ✅ आयतनं च सप्तम्यर्थः,
The word Āyatana (haven of rest or sanctuary) has the sense of the locative case.

3.2.7 L.31 ✅ सप्तमीनिर्देशोऽपि तत्र वाक्यशेषे दृश्यते –
In the complementary sentence also, it is seen that the locative is used thus —

3.2.7 L.32 ✅ ‘सति सम्पद्य न विदुः सति सम्पद्यामहे’ (ChanU.6.9.2) इति।
“Having become merged in the ‘Sat’, they are not aware that they have become merged in the ‘Sat’” (ChanU.6.9.2).

3.2.7 L.33 ✅ सर्वत्र च विशेषविज्ञानोपरमलक्षणं सुषुप्तं न विशिष्यते।
In all these cases, the nature of deep sleep, which is characterized by the cessation of all special cognition, does not differ.

3.2.7 L.34 ✅ तस्मादेकार्थत्वात् नाड्यादीनां विकल्पेन कदाचित् किञ्चित्स्थानं स्वापायोपसर्पति – इति॥
Therefore, because they all have the same use, (the Jīva-Self) approaches optionally any one of these Nāḍīs etc. as the place for the purpose of sleep.

3.2.7 L.35 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, प्रतिपाद्यते – तदभावो नाडीष्वात्मनि चेति।
As against this conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) it is propounded as follows — “There is absence of that (i.e. experience of dreams) in the Nāḍīs and in the Ātmā (Self)”.

3.2.7 L.36 ✅ तदभाव इति, तस्य प्रकृतस्य स्वप्नदर्शनस्य अभावः सुषुप्तमित्यर्थः;
The absence of ‘that’ means the absence of any dream-vision which is the relevant subject here, and which means deep sleep.

3.2.7 L.37 ✅ नाडीष्वात्मनि चेति समुच्चयेन एतानि नाड्यादीनि स्वापायोपसर्पति,
By ‘in the Nāḍīs and the Self’ is meant that the Jīva-Self approaches the Nāḍīs etc. for the purpose of deep sleep,

3.2.7 L.38 ✅ न विकल्पेन – इत्यर्थः।
Not optionally but as taken together collectively.

3.2.7 L.39 ✅ कुतः? तच्छ्रुतेः;
Whence is it so? Because there is a Scriptural statement (to that effect).

3.2.7 L.40 ✅ तथा हि सर्वेषामेव नाड्यादीनां तत्र तत्र सुषुप्तिस्थानत्वं श्रूयते;
The Scriptures mention the Nāḍīs etc. (i.e. the Nāḍīs, the Purītat and Brahman) as the places of deep sleep,

3.2.7 L.41 ✅ तच्च समुच्चये सङ्गृहीतं भवति;
And that (statement) can be properly understood, only if they (i.e. the Nāḍīs) are taken together collectively along with the other places (as the place of sleep).

3.2.7 L.42 ✅ विकल्पे ह्येषाम्, पक्षे बाधः स्यात्।
If it is understood that they each are to be taken optionally, then, (if only one of these three is accepted as the place of sleep) the others (i.e. the other two places) would then be ruled out, and in either supposition there would be contradiction of other Scriptural passages.

3.2.7 L.43 ✅ ननु एकार्थत्वाद्विकल्पो नाड्यादीनां व्रीहियवादिवत् – इत्युक्तम्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) it has already been said, that they all have the same use, and can be optionally understood (to be the places of sleep), like for instance, rice or barley.

3.2.7 L.44 ✅ नेत्युच्यते – न हि एकविभक्तिनिर्देशमात्रेण एकार्थत्वं
The reply is — No, merely because it is indicated that they (i.e. the Nāḍīs etc.) have the same case-ending, it does not mean, that they all have the same use,

3.2.7 L.45 ✅ विकल्पश्च आपतति,
And an option (as to their choice as a place of sleep) is available,

3.2.7 L.46 ✅ नानार्थत्वसमुच्चययोः अप्येकविभक्ति-निर्देशदर्शनात् –
For, (in sentences such as “He sleeps in the palace”, “He sleeps in the bed” etc.), even though it is seen, that, for things having different uses, but which are taken collectively, the same one case-ending is used,

3.2.7 L.47 ✅ प्रासादे शेते पर्यङ्के शेते इत्येवमादिषु,
Such as in “He sleeps in the palace” and “He sleeps in the bed”.

3.2.7 L.48 ✅ तथा इहापि नाडीषु पुरीतति ब्रह्मणि च स्वपितीति उपपद्यते समुच्चयः;
Similarly, here also, with regard to the passage “He sleeps in the Nāḍīs, the Purītat and Brahman”, that they can be taken together collectively is reasonably sustainable.

3.2.7 L.49 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘तासु तदा भवति यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं
न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति’ (कौ. उ. ४-१९) इति
The Scriptural passage “When asleep he remains in them (i.e. the Nāḍīs),
Sees no dreams whatsoever, and becomes one with the Prāṇa (i.e. Brahman) itself” (Kaush. 4.19)

3.2.7 L.50 ✅ समुच्चयं नाडीनां प्राणस्य च सुषुप्तौ श्रावयति,
एकवाक्योपादानात्;
Being understood to be but one sentence only,
The Scriptures indicate, that during such sleep the Nāḍīs and the Prāṇa (i.e. Brahman) are to be construed collectively.

3.2.7 L.51 ✅ प्राणस्य च ब्रह्मत्वं समधिगतं – ‘प्राणस्तथानुगमात्’ (BrS.1.1.28) इत्यत्र।
It has of course been already understood, in BrS.1.1.28, viz. “Prāṇa (is Brahman) because it is so understood”, that Prāṇa is Brahman.

3.2.7 L.52 ✅ यत्रापि निरपेक्षा इव नाडीः सुषुप्तिस्थानत्वेन श्रावयति –
Where the Scriptures mention the Nāḍīs as the place of sleep, as it were independently, thus —

3.2.7 L.53 ✅ ‘आसु तदा नाडीषु सृप्तो भवति’ (ChanU.8.6.3) इति, “He then crawls into the Nāḍīs” (ChanU.8.6.3),

3.2.7 L.54 ✅ तत्रापि प्रदेशान्तर-प्रसिद्धस्य ब्रह्मणोऽप्रतिषेधात्
नाडीद्वारेण ब्रह्मण्येवावतिष्ठत इति प्रतीयते;
There even it is understood, from the fact that ‘Brahman’ which is mentioned elsewhere as well-established (as being the place of deep sleep) is not expressly ruled out,
That the Jīva-Self ultimately reposes in Brahman itself, approaching it by way of the Nāḍīs.

3.2.7 L.55 ✅ न चैवमपि नाडीषु सप्तमी विरुध्यते,
Even when it is so, the use of the locative case in the case of the word Nāḍī is not contradictory,

3.2.7 L.56 ✅ नाडीभिरपि ब्रह्मोपसर्पन् सृप्त एव नाडीषु भवति –
Because one who approaches ‘Brahman’ through the Nāḍīs, does of course go through the Nāḍīs,

3.2.7 L.57 ✅ यो हि गङ्गया सागरं गच्छति,
Even as, whosoever enters the sea through the Ganges

3.2.7 L.58 ✅ गत एव स गङ्गायां भवति।
Can also of course be said to be one who has entered the Ganges also.

3.2.7 L.59 ✅ भवति च अत्र रश्मिनाडीद्वारात्मकस्य ब्रह्मलोकमार्गस्य विवक्षितत्वात्
Besides, here, as it is intended to speak about the way to Brahma-Loka which is approached by way of rays and Nāḍīs,

3.2.7 L.60 ✅ नाडीस्तुत्यर्थं सृप्ति-सङ्कीर्तनम् –
This description about the entering into the Nāḍīs is by way of the glorification of Nāḍīs.

3.2.7 L.61 ✅ ‘नाडीषु सृप्तो भवति’ (ChanU.8.6.3) इत्युक्त्वा
The Scriptures, after having said — “He enters the Nāḍīs” (ChanU.8.6.3),

3.2.7 L.61 ✅ ‘तं न कश्चन पाप्मा स्पृशति’ (ChanU.8.6.3) इति
ब्रुवन् नाडीः प्रशंसति;
Purport to glorify the Nāḍīs by saying afterwards —
“No sin whatsoever contaminates him” (ChanU.8.6.3).

3.2.7 L.63 ✅ ब्रवीति च पाप्मस्पर्शाभावे हेतुम्
The Scriptures also speak about the reason why no sin attaches, thus: —

3.2.7 L.64 ✅ ‘तेजसा हि तदा सम्पन्नो भवति’ (ChanU.8.6.3) इति –
“Because then he becomes one with Tejas” (ChanU.8.6.3).

3.2.7 L.65 ✅ तेजसा नाडीगतेन पित्ताख्येन अभिव्याप्तकरणो न बाह्यान् विषयानीक्षत इत्यर्थः;
The meaning is, that having his organs-of-sense enveloped by the Tejas of the Nāḍīs, known as ‘bile’ (Pitta), he does not see the external objects of sense.

3.2.7 L.66 ✅ अथवा तेजसेति ब्रह्मण एवायं निर्देशः,
Or else, by the word Tejas, it is Brahman that is indicated,

3.2.7 L.67 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरे; ‘ब्रह्मैव तेज एव’ (BrhU.4.4.7) इति
Because in another Scriptural passage — “It is Brahman itself, Tejas itself” (BrhUEng.4.4.7),

3.2.7 L.68 ✅ तेजःशब्दस्य ब्रह्मणि प्रयुक्तत्वात्;
The word Tejas is used as meaning Brahman.

3.2.7 L.69 ✅ ब्रह्मणा हि तदा सम्पन्नो भवति नाडीद्वारेण, अतस्तं न कश्चन पाप्मा स्पृशतीत्यर्थः –
The meaning is, that, as by way of the Nāḍīs, he becomes one with Brahman, no sin, whatsoever, attaches to him.

3.2.7 L.70 ✅ ब्रह्मसम्पत्तिश्च पाप्मस्पर्शाभावे हेतुः समधिगतः
The attainment of Brahman is understood to be the reason of the absence of any attachment of sin,

3.2.7 L.71 ✅ ‘सर्वे पाप्मानोऽतो निवर्तन्तेऽपहतपाप्मा ह्येष ब्रह्मलोकः’ (ChanU.8.4.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः;
Because of a Scriptural passage such as — “All sins are rolled back from here, as this Brahma-Loka is free from sin” (ChanU.8.4.1).

3.2.7 L.72 ✅ एवं च सति प्रदेशान्तर-प्रसिद्धेन ब्रह्मणा सुषुप्तिस्थानेनानुगतो नाडीनां
This being so, it is understood that the Nāḍīs, which in common with Brahman which is well-known from passages elsewhere to be the place of (the Jīva-Self’s) repose,

3.2.7 L.73 ✅ समुच्चयः समधिगतो भवति।
Are to be construed collectively with it.

3.2.7 L.74 ✅ तथा पुरीततोऽपि ब्रह्मप्रक्रियायां सङ्कीर्तनात्
Similarly, inasmuch as the Purītat is mentioned in connection with the chapter dealing with Brahman,

3.2.7 L.75 ✅ तदनुगुणमेव सुषुप्तिस्थानत्वं ज्ञायते –
It also is, in a subordinate way to Brahman, understood to be the place of deep sleep,

3.2.7 L.76 ✅ ‘य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्शेते’ (BrhU.2.1.18) इति
हृदयाकाशे सुषुप्तिस्थाने प्रकृते इदमुच्यते –
Because when the Ākāśa of the Hṛdaya is referred to as the place of deep sleep, thus —
“He sleeps in this Ākāśa which is inside the Hṛdaya” (BrhUEng.2.1.17),

3.2.7 L.77 ✅ ‘पुरीतति शेते’ (BrhU.2.1.19) इति;
The Scriptures also mention, thus — “He sleeps in the Purītat” (BrhUEng.2.1.19).

3.2.7 L.78 ✅ पुरीतदिति हृदयपरिवेष्टनमुच्यते;
Purītat is spoken of as that which envelops the Hṛdaya,

3.2.7 L.79 ✅ तदन्तर्वर्तिन्यपि हृदयाकाशे शयानः
And one who sleeps in the Ākāśa of the Hṛdaya — which itself is inside the Purītat — ,

3.2.7 L.80 ✅ शक्यते ‘पुरीतति शेते’ इति वक्तुम् –
One can also be said to be sleeping in the Purītat,

3.2.7 L.81 ✅ प्राकारपरिक्षिप्तेऽपि हि पुरे वर्तमानः
Just as one who resides in a town surrounded by a wall

3.2.7 L.82 ✅ प्राकारे वर्तत इत्युच्यते;
Is also said to reside inside the wall.

3.2.7 L.83 ✅ हृदयाकाशस्य च ब्रह्मत्वं समधिगतम् ‘दहर उत्तरेभ्यः’ (BrS.1.3.14) इत्यत्र।
It is already understood from the Sūtra “The small (Ākāśa, is Brahman) because of reasons which come after” (BrS.1.3.14) that the Ākāśa in the Hṛdaya is Brahman.

3.2.7 L.84 ✅ तथा नाडीपुरीतत्समुच्चयोऽपि
Similarly, that the Nāḍīs and the Purītat are understood to be taken collectively,

3.2.7 L.85 ✅ ‘ताभिः प्रत्यवसृप्य पुरीतति शेते’ (BrhU.2.1.19) इति
Is understood from “He having approached through them, sleeps in the Purītat” (BrhUEng.2.1.19) —

3.2.7 L.86 ✅ एकवाक्योपादानात् अवगम्यते।
As it is (construed to be) but one sentence.

3.2.7 L.87 ✅ सत्प्राज्ञयोश्च प्रसिद्धमेव ब्रह्मत्वम्।
Now it is well-known that the ‘Sat’ and ‘Prājña’ (intelligential Highest Self) mean Brahman.

3.2.7 L.88 ✅ एवमेतासु श्रुतिषु त्रीण्येव सुषुप्तिस्थानानि सङ्कीर्तितानि –
Thus the Scriptural passages speak of only these three,

3.2.7 L.89 ✅ नाड्यः पुरीतत् ब्रह्म चेति;
Viz. the Nāḍīs, the Purītat and Brahman, as the places of deep sleep,

3.2.7 L.90 ✅ तत्रापि द्वारमात्रं नाड्यः पुरीतच्च, ब्रह्मैव तु एकम् अनपायि सुषुप्तिस्थानम्।
Wherein the Nāḍīs and the Purītat are but merely the entrances (Dvāra-mātram), and Brahman alone is the place of deep sleep.

3.2.7 L.91 ✅ अपि च नाड्यः पुरीतद्वा जीवस्योपाध्याधार एव भवति –
Moreover, the Nāḍīs or Purītat are only the abode of the limiting adjuncts of the Jīva-Self,

3.2.7 L.92 ✅ तत्रास्य करणानि वर्तन्त इति;
Because, its organs-of-sense abide there.

3.2.7 L.93 ✅ न हि उपाधिसम्बन्धमन्तरेण
स्वत एव जीवस्याधारः कश्चित्सम्भवति,
When there is absence of any relation with these limiting adjuncts,
Nothing can possibly ever be the abode of the Jīva-Self,

3.2.7 L.94 ✅ ब्रह्माव्यतिरेकेण
स्वमहिमप्रतिष्ठितत्वात्।
Because being an entity not different from Brahman
It is then firmly ensconced in its own greatness.

3.2.7 L.95 ✅ ब्रह्माधारत्वमप्यस्य सुषुप्ते
नैव आधाराधेयभेदाभिप्रायेण उच्यते।
Its (i.e. the Jīva-Self’s) having Brahman as its abode during deep sleep
Is not spoken of with a view to imply or convey the notion of any difference (between them), such as one of the two i.e. Brahman being the abode and the other i.e. the Jīva-Self being that which abides in such abode,

3.2.7 L.96 ✅ कथं तर्हि? तादात्म्याभिप्रायेण;
But only in order to convey or imply their absolute identity,

3.2.7 L.97 ✅ यत आह – ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति स्वमपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति –
Because, it is said — “Oh Mild one, it (i.e. the Jīva-Self) then becomes one with ‘Sat’, it is completely merged into itself” (ChanU.6.8.1).

3.2.7 L.98 ✅ स्वशब्देन आत्मा अभिलप्यते,
By the word ‘Sva’ the Self is referred to, as meaning,

3.2.7 L.99 ✅ स्वरूपमापन्नः सुप्तो भवतीत्यर्थः।
That it has attained its own true form, by being in deep sleep.

3.2.7 L.100 ✅ अपि च न कदाचिज्जीवस्य ब्रह्मणा सम्पत्तिर्नास्ति,
Besides, it is not, that the Jīva-Self is ever not-one-with-Brahman,

3.2.7 L.101 ✅ स्वरूपस्यानपायित्वात्;
Because its own real nature is imperishable.

3.2.7 L.102 ✅ स्वप्नजागरितयोः तूपाधिसम्पर्कवशात् पररूपापत्तिमिवापेक्ष्य
It is with reference to the Self’s having, as it were, acquired a foreign nature as a result of its contact with limiting adjuncts during the conditions of dreams and wakefulness,

3.2.7 L.103 ✅ तदुपशमात्सुषुप्तेः स्वरूपापत्तिर्विवक्ष्यते – ‘स्वमपीतो भवति’ इति;
That it is said, that, when during deep sleep, these limiting adjuncts are relaxed, it acquires its own true nature.

3.2.7 L.104 ✅ अतश्च सुप्तावस्थायां कदाचित्सता सम्पद्यते, कदाचिन्न सम्पद्यते – इत्ययुक्तम्।
Hence it would not be logical (to say) that during the condition of sleep, it sometimes becomes one with Sat and sometimes not.

3.2.7 L.105 ✅ अपि च स्थानविकल्पाभ्युपगमेऽपि
Besides, even if it is understood that the Jīva-Self’s place of repose is optional,

3.2.7 L.106 ✅ विशेषविज्ञानोपशम-लक्षणं तावत्सुषुप्तं
Still in all cases, deep sleep as characterized by the cessation of all special cognition,

3.2.7 L.107 ✅ न क्वचिद्विशिष्यते;
Is always the same (i.e. it is not of different kinds).

3.2.7 L.108 ✅ तत्र सति सम्पन्नस्तावत् एकत्वात् न विजानातीति युक्तम्,
Therefore, it is logical that (the Jīva-Self) which has attained oneness with the ‘Sat’ does not cognize (anything),

3.2.7 L.109 ✅ ‘तत्केन कं विजानीयात्’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति श्रुतेः;
For, have not the Scriptures said — “Whereby and whom, should one, then, know?” (BrhUEng.2.4.14).

3.2.7 L.110 ✅ नाडीषु पुरीतति च शयानस्य
In the case in which the Jīva-Self is understood to sleep in the Nāḍīs or the Purītat,

3.2.7 L.111 ✅ न किञ्चित् अविज्ञाने कारणं शक्यं विज्ञातुम्,
It is not possible to know of any reason why it should not cognize,

3.2.7 L.112 ✅ भेदविषयत्वात्,
As it would then be a fit subject of duality (because of its difference with Brahman),

3.2.7 L.113 ✅ ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.3.31) इति श्रुतेः।
Because of the Scriptural passage — “Where there is difference as it were, there one cognizes another” (BrhUEng.4.3.31).

3.2.7 L.114 ✅ ननु भेदविषयस्याप्यतिदूरादि-कारणम् अविज्ञाने स्यात्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) in the case of such difference (i.e. duality of the Jīva-Self and Brahman), may be, great distance etc., may very well be a reason for such absence of cognition.

3.2.7 L.115 ✅ बाढमेवं स्यात्,
(We reply) — Oh, it could well be such a reason,

3.2.7 L.116 ✅ यदि जीवः स्वतः परिच्छिन्नोऽभ्युपगम्येत –
Provided the Jīva-Self were (understood by us) to be in itself circumscribed or limited,

3.2.7 L.117 ✅ यथा विष्णुमित्रः प्रवासी स्वगृहं न पश्यतीति;
Even as Viṣṇu-mitra, who is on a journey and is not able to see his own house, is.

3.2.7 L.118 ✅ न तु जीवस्योपाधिव्यतिरेकेण परिच्छेदो विद्यते;
It is not possible, that apart from limiting adjuncts, the Jīva-Self has any circumscribed limits as such.

3.2.7 L.119 ✅ उपाधिगतमेवातिदूरादि-कारणम् अविज्ञाने इति यद्युच्येत,
If it be said that the reason of this non-cognition by the Jīva-Self is that limiting adjuncts are at a great distance etc.,

3.2.7 L.120 ✅ तथाप्युपाधेः उपशान्तत्वात् सत्येव सम्पन्नः न विजानातीति युक्तम्।
Even then it is logical that the Jīva-Self, relieved of its adjuncts, becomes one with ‘Sat’, and hence it is that it does not cognize.

3.2.7 L.121 ✅ न च वयमिह तुल्यवत् नाड्यादि-समुच्चयं प्रतिपादयामः;
Now with regard to this, we do not suggest that the Nāḍīs etc. equally with Brahman are the Self’s place for repose.

3.2.7 L.122 ✅ न हि नाड्यः सुप्तिस्थानं पुरीतच्च इत्यनेन विज्ञानेन
It is not that the knowledge that the Nāḍīs or Purītat are the Self’s places of repose,

3.2.7 L.123 ✅ किञ्चित्प्रयोजनम् अस्ति;
Has any use in itself,

3.2.7 L.124 ✅ न ह्येतद्विज्ञानप्रतिबद्धं किञ्चित्फलं श्रूयते;
Because the Scriptures do not mention that there is any fruit attached to such knowledge,

3.2.7 L.125 ✅ नाप्येतद्विज्ञानं फलवतः कस्यचिदङ्गम् उपदिश्यते।
Or that it is in any way subsidiary to anything (such as Karma) which has such fruit.

3.2.7 L.126 ✅ ब्रह्म तु अनपायि सुप्तिस्थानम् – इत्येतत्प्रतिपादयामः;
We are only claiming to expound, that Brahman which is imperishable, is the Jīva-Self’s place for repose

3.2.7 L.127 ✅ तेन तु विज्ञानेन प्रयोजनमस्ति
And that knowledge of course has the fruit,

3.2.7 L.128 ✅ जीवस्य ब्रह्मात्मत्वावधारणं
Viz. the realization that the Jīva-Self is in reality Brahman,

3.2.7 L.129 ✅ स्वप्नजागरितव्यवहार-विमुक्तत्वावधारणं च।
And that it is free from the transactions of dreams or wakefulness.

3.2.7 L.130 ✅ तस्मादात्मैव सुप्तिस्थानम्॥७॥
Therefore it is the ‘Ātmā’ i.e. the Highest Self that alone is the Jīva-Self’s place of repose. — 7.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अतः प्रबोधोऽस्मात्॥३.२.८॥
Ataḥ prabodho'smāt.

Ataḥ: hence; Prabodhaḥ: waking; Asmāt: from this (i.e., Brahman).

🔗 Hence, (the Jīva-Self s) awakening (is) from that (Highest Self). — 3.2.8.

3.2.8 L.1 ✅ यस्माच्च आत्मैव सुप्तिस्थानम्,
It is precisely for the reason that the Ātmā (Highest Self) alone is the (Jīva-Self’s) place of repose,

3.2.8 L.2 ✅ अत एव च कारणात् नित्यवदेव अस्मादात्मनः प्रबोधः स्वापाधिकारे शिष्यते,
That in the Scriptural chapter dealing with the subject of sleep, the instruction given is that the awakening of the Jīva-Self is always from this [source] the Ātmā (Highest Self).

3.2.8 L.3 ✅ ‘कुत एतदागात्’ (BrhU.2.1.16) इति
अस्य प्रश्नस्य प्रतिवचनावसरे –
Thus, for instance, while replying to the question —
“From where did this (Jīva-Self) return?” (BrhUEng.2.1.16),

3.2.8 L.4 ✅ ‘यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवम्
एवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः’ (BrhU.2.1.20) इत्यादिना,
The Scriptures say thus: — “Just as from a fire minute scintillae fly around,
Even so, do the Prāṇas (come forth) from this Ātmā (Highest Self)” (BrhUEng.2.1.20).

3.2.8 L.5 ✅ ‘सत आगम्य न विदुः सत आगच्छामहे’ (ChanU.6.10.2) इति च।
And also — “Having come from the ‘Sat’, they are not aware that they have come from the ‘Sat’” (ChanU.6.10.2).

3.2.8 L.6 ✅ विकल्प्यमानेषु तु सुषुप्तिस्थानेषु,
If these places of repose (viz. the Nāḍīs, Purītat and Brahman) were to be understood to be optional,

3.2.8 L.7 ✅ कदाचिन्नाडीभ्यः प्रतिबुध्यते कदाचित्पुरीततः कदाचिदात्मनः –
इत्यशासिष्यत्।
Then the Scriptures would have instructed,
That it (the Jīva-Self) sometimes wakes up from the Nāḍīs, sometimes from the Purītat and sometimes from the Ātmā (Highest Self).

3.2.8 L.8 ✅ तस्मादप्यात्मैव सुप्तिस्थानमिति॥८॥
Therefore also, it is the Ātmā (Highest Self) that alone is the (Jīva-Self’s) place of repose. — 8.

– 94. Tad-abhāva-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स एव तु कर्मानुस्मृतिशब्दविधिभ्यः॥३.२.९॥
Sa eva tu karmānusmṛti-śabda-vidhibhyaḥ.

Saḥ eva: the selfsame soul (which went to sleep); Tu: but; Karma-anusmṛti-śabda-vidhibhyaḥ: on account of Karma or work, memory, scriptural authority and precept; (Saḥ: he; Eva: only, and no other); Karma: activity, on account of his finishing the action left unfinished; Anusmṛti: remembrance, on account of memory of identity; Śabda: from the Śruti; Vidhibhyaḥ: from the commandments.

🔗 It is (understood, that it is but) the same (Jīva-Self) that wakes up, because of (the reasons of) Karma (religious action), remembrance (Anusmṛti), Scriptural word (Śabda) and injunction (Vidhi). — 3.2.9.

3.2.9 L.1 ✅ तस्याः पुनः सत्सम्पत्तेः प्रतिबुध्यमानः किं य एव सत्सम्पन्नः स एव प्रतिबुध्यते,
It is now being considered, whether the Jīva-Self that wakes up again after attaining unity (with Brahman), is the same (Jīva-Self) that has attained unity with the ‘Sat’,

3.2.9 L.2 ✅ उत स वा अन्यो वा इति चिन्त्यते।
Or whether it is either the same or some other (Jīva-Self).

3.2.9 L.3 ✅ तत्र प्राप्तं तावत् – अनियम इति।
With regard to that the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that there is no rule as such (with regard to it).

3.2.9 L.4 ✅ कुतः? यदा हि जलराशौ कश्चिज्जलबिन्दुः प्रक्षिप्यते,
Whence is it so? When a drop of water is thrown into a volume of water,

3.2.9 L.5 ✅ जलराशिरेव स तदा भवति,
It itself becomes (an undistinguishable part of) the volume of water,

3.2.9 L.6 ✅ पुनरुद्धरणे च स एव जलबिन्दुर्भवति – इति दुःसम्पादम् –
And it is hardly possible so to manage, that the very same drop of water can be taken out when it is so sought to be taken out.

3.2.9 L.7 ✅ तद्वत् सुप्तः परेणैकत्वमापन्नः सम्प्रसीदतीति
Similarly, in as much as when one (particular Jīva-Self) has gone to sleep and attained unity with the Highest Self and has thus attained serenity,

3.2.9 L.8 ✅ न स एव पुनरुत्थातुमर्हति;
That same Jīva-Self does not then deserve to wake up again.

3.2.9 L.9 ✅ तस्मात् स एव ईश्वरो वा अन्यो वा जीवः प्रतिबुध्यते इति॥
Thus the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta) being, (that it must be paid) that it is either the same Jīva-Self, or the Lord himself, or a different Jīva-Self that wakes up,

3.2.9 L.10 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, इदमाह –
It is said (by the Sūtra-kāra) —

3.2.9 L.11 ✅ स एव तु जीवः सुप्तः स्वास्थ्यं गतः पुनरुत्तिष्ठति, नान्यः।
It is the same Jīva-Self that has gone into deep sleep and attained blissful unity, that wakes up, and no other.

3.2.9 L.12 ✅ कस्मात्? कर्मानुस्मृतिशब्दविधिभ्यः।
Whence is it so? Because of (the reasons of) religious action(Karma), remembrance (Anusmṛti), Scriptural word (Śabda, and injunction (Vidhi).

3.2.9 L.13 ✅ विभज्य हेतुं दर्शयिष्यामि।
(The Bhāṣya-kāra says) — I will now split up these reasons and illustrate.

3.2.9 L.14 ✅ कर्मशेषानुष्ठानदर्शनात् तावत्स एवोत्थातुमर्हति नान्यः;
It must necessarily be the same (Jīva-Self) that wakes up, because it is seen that it resumes its unfinished work and does it.

3.2.9 L.15 ✅ तथा हि – पूर्वेद्युरनुष्ठितस्य कर्मणः अपरेद्युः शेषमनुतिष्ठन् दृश्यते;
For it is seen that a person takes up the unfinished portion of the work which was being done by him the previous day, and finishes it the next day.

3.2.9 L.16 ✅ न चान्येन सामिकृतस्य कर्मणः अन्यः शेषक्रियायां प्रवर्तितुमुत्सहते, अतिप्रसङ्गात्;
No one would proceed to finish any work half done by another, because it would be absurd to accept that (Atiprasaṅgāt).

3.2.9 L.17 ✅ तस्मादेक एव पूर्वेद्युरपरेद्युश्च एकस्य कर्मणः कर्तेति गम्यते।
Therefore, it is understood that it is the one and the same entity that is the doer of one and the same work, done on the previous and the succeeding day.

3.2.9 L.18 ✅ इतश्च स एवोत्तिष्ठति,
Hence, (the conclusion is) that the same Jīva-Self wakes up,

3.2.9 L.19 ✅ यत्कारणम् अतीतेऽहनि ‘अहमदोऽद्राक्षम्’ इति पूर्वानुभूतस्य पश्चात्स्मरणम्
अन्यस्योत्थाने नोपपद्यते;
Because assuming some other Jīva-Self to wake up, it would not be reasonably sustainable to hold
That the other Jīva-Self could possibly recall what is experienced earlier by the first Jīva-Self, thus — ‘I saw this yesterday [remotely]’.

3.2.9 L.20 ✅ न ह्यन्यदृष्टम् अन्योऽनुस्मर्तुमर्हति;
It could not possibly be, that one can recall what another has seen.

3.2.9 L.21 ✅ सोऽहमस्मीति च
आत्मानुस्मरणम् आत्मान्तरोत्थाने नावकल्पते।
Assuming another Jīva-Self to have waked up, (in place of the other one that went to sleep), it cannot possibly be imagined that it can have any consciousness or recollection that it is the same Jīva-Self that had gone to sleep, thus — ‘I who have now waked up am the same Jīva-Self that had gone to sleep’.

3.2.9 L.22 ✅ शब्देभ्यश्च तस्यैवोत्थानमवगम्यते;
From the Scriptural words also it is understood that the same Jīva-Self (that went to sleep) wakes up again.

3.2.9 L.23 ✅ तथा हि – ‘पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति बुद्धान्तायैव’ (BrhU.4.3.16)
Scriptural passages — such as “He reverts to the waking condition and to the same species, in the reverse way (to that by which he went)” (BrhUEng.4.3.16);

3.2.9 L.24 ✅ ‘इमाः सर्वाः प्रजा अहरहर्गच्छन्त्य एतं ब्रह्मलोकं न विन्दन्ति’ (ChanU.8.3.2)
“All creatures who day after day go to the Brahma-Loka but fail to attain it” (ChanU.8.3.2);

3.2.9 L.25 ✅ ‘त इह व्याघ्रो वा सिꣳहो वा वृको वा वराहो वा कीटो वा पतङ्गो वा दꣳशो वा मशको वा यद्यद्भवन्ति तदाभवन्ति’ (ChanU.6.9.3) इति
“Whatever they are here (i.e. in this world), whether they be a tiger or a lion, a wolf or a boar, a worm or a midge, a gnat or a mosquito, that again they become” (ChanU.6.9.3) —

3.2.9 L.26 ✅ एवमादयः शब्दाः स्वापप्रबोधाधिकार-पठिताः
Which occur in a chapter dealing with the conditions of sleep or wakefulness,

3.2.9 L.27 ✅ न आत्मान्तरोत्थाने सामञ्जस्यम् ईयुः।
Could not be properly reconciled on the hypothesis of another Jīva-Self waking up.

3.2.9 L.28 ✅ कर्मविद्याविधिभ्यः चैवमेवावगम्यते;
The same thing is understood from injunctions as to religious actions (Karma) or knowledge (Vidyā),

3.2.9 L.29 ✅ अन्यथा हि कर्मविद्याविधयोऽनर्थकाः स्युः।
Because otherwise such injunctions as to religious action (Karma) or knowledge (Vidyā), would be meaningless.

3.2.9 L.30 ✅ अन्योत्थानपक्षे हि
On the hypothesis, that it is some other Jīva-Self (and not the one that sleeps) that wakes up,

3.2.9 L.31 ✅ सुप्तमात्रो मुच्यत इत्यापद्येत।
It would come to mean that each and every one that goes to sleep attains Final Release.

3.2.9 L.32 ✅ एवं चेत्स्यात्,
Now if it is so,

3.2.9 L.33 ✅ वद किं कालान्तरफलेन कर्मणा
You had better tell us what use that religious action (Karma), the fruit of which is to materialize at some future time, is,

3.2.9 L.34 ✅ विद्यया वा कृतं स्यात्?
And of what possible use can knowledge (Vidyā) be.

3.2.9 L.35 ✅ अपि च अन्योत्थानपक्षे यदि तावच्छरीरान्तरे व्यवहरमाणो जीव उत्तिष्ठेत्,
Besides, on the hypothesis that another Jīva-Self, that has so far been carrying on in another body, wakes up,

3.2.9 L.36 ✅ तत्रत्यव्यवहारलोप-प्रसङ्गः स्यात्;
There would be the predicament of the cessation of its phenomenal existence as that other Jīva-Self, in that other body.

3.2.9 L.37 ✅ अथ तत्र सुप्त उत्तिष्ठेत्, कल्पनानर्थक्यं स्यात्।
It would again be futile to imagine, that one Jīva-Self that went to sleep in its own body, would wake up in another body.

3.2.9 L.38 ✅ यो हि यस्मिन् शरीरे सुप्तः सः तस्मिन् नोत्तिष्ठति,
What would be the use in imagining that one who goes to sleep while it occupies one body, does not wake up in that very self-same body,

3.2.9 L.39 ✅ अन्यस्मिन् शरीरे सुप्तः अन्यस्मिन्नुत्तिष्ठतीति कोऽस्याम् कल्पनायां लाभः स्यात्?
But that another Jīva-Self that has gone to sleep while occupying another body, wakes up in the first body?

3.2.9 L.40 ✅ अथ मुक्त उत्तिष्ठेत्,
If it is supposed, that one who has attained Final Release, wakes up,

3.2.9 L.41 ✅ अन्तवान्मोक्ष आपद्येत;
Then it would mean, that Final Release is but only a temporary one.

3.2.9 L.42 ✅ निवृत्ताविद्यस्य च पुनरुत्थानम् अनुपपन्नम्।
That a Jīva-Self whose Nescience i.e. ignorance has disappeared (i.e. one who has attained Final Release) should again wake up (in this phenomenal existence) is not reasonably sustainable.

3.2.9 L.43 ✅ एतेन ईश्वरस्योत्थानं प्रत्युक्तम्,
This argument will have also refuted (the notion) that may be the Lord may wake up, because,

3.2.9 L.44 ✅ नित्यनिवृत्ताविद्यत्वात्।
He is eternally free from Nescience.

3.2.9 L.45 ✅ अकृताभ्यागम-कृतविप्रणाशौ च दुर्निवारौ
अन्योत्थानपक्षे स्याताम्।
On the hypothesis that a Jīva-Self other than the one that goes to sleep wakes up,
It would not be possible to prevent a Jīva-Self’s acquiring the fruit of an act not done by it, as also to prevent an act done by it from being destroyed (without producing its fruit).

3.2.9 L.46 ✅ तस्मात्स एवोत्तिष्ठति, नान्य इति।
Therefore, (it necessarily follows) that the same Jīva-Self wakes up, and none other.

3.2.9 L.47 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् – यथा जलराशौ प्रक्षिप्तो जलबिन्दुर्नोद्धर्तुं शक्यते,
Now, the argument, viz. that just as it is not possible to take out the very same drop of water, that has been dropped into a big volume of water,

3.2.9 L.48 ✅ एवं सति सम्पन्नो जीवो नोत्पतितुमर्हतीति,
Even so, it is not possible, that the Jīva-Self which has attained unity with the ‘Sat’, can ever wake up,

3.2.9 L.49 ✅ तत्परिह्रियते –
Is being refuted.

3.2.9 L.50 ✅ युक्तं तत्र विवेककारणाभावात्
In the former case, it is perfectly logical, that, in the absence of any means to separate it (i.e. that one particular drop, from the general volume of water),

3.2.9 L.51 ✅ जलबिन्दोरनुद्धरणम्,
That self-same drop of water cannot be taken out,

3.2.9 L.52 ✅ इह तु विद्यते विवेककारणम् – कर्म च अविद्या च, इति वैषम्यम्;
But here (in the case of the Jīva-Self) the distinction (Vaiṣamya between the two cases) is that in the case of the Jīva-Self there are means for thus isolating (Viveka) such Jīva-Self, viz., its own actions (Karma) and Nescience (Avidyā).

3.2.9 L.53 ✅ दृश्यते च दुर्विवेचयोरप्यस्मज्जातीयैः क्षीरोदकयोः संसृष्टयोः
It is seen that though it is not possible for those belonging to our own species (i.e. the humans) to separate milk from water, from a mixture of milk and water,

3.2.9 L.54 ✅ हंसेन विवेचनम्।
A Haṃsa (a swan?) can do so.

3.2.9 L.55 ✅ अपि च न जीवो नाम कश्चित्परस्मादन्यो विद्यते,
Besides, it is not as if an embodied Jīva-Self is an entity separate from the Highest Self,

3.2.9 L.56 ✅ यो जलबिन्दुरिव जलराशेः सतो विविच्येत;
So that it can be separated from the ‘Sat’, like a drop from a volume of water.

3.2.9 L.57 ✅ सदेव तु उपाधिसम्पर्काज्जीव इत्युपचर्यते इत्यसकृत्प्रपञ्चितम्;
It has been stressed more than once that it is the ‘Sat’ itself, that, on account of its contact with limiting adjuncts, is spoken of as a Jīva-Self in a metaphorical sense.

3.2.9 L.58 ✅ एवं सति यावदेकोपाधिगता बन्धानुवृत्तिः,
This being so, while a Jīva-Self continues to be bound up with one particular set of adjuncts,

3.2.9 L.59 ✅ तावदेकजीवव्यवहारः;
It functions as one particular Jīva-Self,

3.2.9 L.60 ✅ उपाध्यन्तरगतायां तु बन्धानुवृत्तौ
And when it comes to be bound up with another set of adjuncts,

3.2.9 L.61 ✅ जीवान्तरव्यवहारः;
It functions as another Jīva-Self.

3.2.9 L.62 ✅ स एवायमुपाधिः स्वाप-प्रबोधयोः बीजाङ्कुरन्यायेन –
The same set of adjuncts prevails during the conditions of sleep and wakefulness, in accordance with ‘the maxim of the seed and the sprout’ (i.e. as seed in the condition of sleep and like the sprout in the condition of wakefulness),

3.2.9 L.63 ✅ इत्यतः स एव जीवः प्रतिबुध्यत इति युक्तम्॥९॥
And hence it is logical to say that it is the same Jīva-Self that wakes up (after going into deep sleep). — 9.

– 95. Karma-anusmṛti-śabda-vidhi-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
मुग्धेऽर्धसम्पत्तिः परिशेषात्॥३.२.१०॥
Mugdhe'rdha-sampattiḥ pariśeṣāt.

Mugdhe: in a swoon; Ardha-sampattiḥ: partial attainment of the state of deep sleep or death; Pariśeṣāt: on account of the remaining, because of excess, as it is a state in addition to all others.

🔗 In the case of a person who is in a swoon, there is only half-attained unity (with deep sleep) on account of that being (the only) remaining (alternative). — 3.2.10.

3.2.10 L.1 ✅ अस्ति मुग्धो नाम, यं मूर्छित इति लौकिकाः कथयन्ति;
People say of one who has swooned away, as having become unconscious.

3.2.10 L.2 ✅ स तु किमवस्थ इति परीक्षायाम्, उच्यते –
Examining the condition of such a person, it is said —

3.2.10 L.3 ✅ तिस्रस्तावदवस्थाः शरीरस्थस्य जीवस्य प्रसिद्धाः –
There are only three well-known conditions of a Jīva-Self,

3.2.10 L.4 ✅ जागरितं स्वप्नः सुषुप्तमिति;
Viz. the conditions of wakefulness, of dreaming and of deep sleep.

3.2.10 L.5 ✅ चतुर्थी शरीरादपसृप्तिः;
The fourth (condition) is (the Jīva-Self’s) passing out of the body.

3.2.10 L.6 ✅ न तु पञ्चमी काचिदवस्था जीवस्य श्रुतौ स्मृतौ वा प्रसिद्धा अस्ति;
No fifth condition as such, of a Jīva-Self, is known so far as the Scriptures and Smṛtis are concerned.

3.2.10 L.7 ✅ तस्माच्चतुसृणामेवावस्थानाम् अन्यतमावस्था मूर्छा – इति॥
A swoon, therefore, is necessarily one of those four conditions, is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta).

3.2.10 L.8 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः – न तावन्मुग्धो जागरितावस्थो भवितुमर्हति;
Our reply to that is — An unconscious person cannot be said to be in a wakeful condition,

3.2.10 L.9 ✅ न ह्ययमिन्द्रियैर्विषयानीक्षते।
For such person does not perceive objects-of-sense with the organs-of-sense.

3.2.10 L.10 ✅ स्यादेतत् – इषुकारन्यायेन मुग्धो भविष्यति –
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — May be, he may not be conscious in accordance with the ‘maxim of the maker of an arrow’ (Iṣu-kāra-Nyāya).

3.2.10 L.11 ✅ यथा इषुकारो जाग्रदपि इष्वासक्तमनस्तया नान्यान्विषयानीक्षते,
Just as a maker of arrows, even though he is awake, fails to see any other object-of-sense because his mind is engrossed with arrows,

3.2.10 L.12 ✅ एवं मुग्धो मुसलसम्पातादि-जनितदुःखानुभवव्यग्रमनस्तया जाग्रदपि नान्यान्विषयानीक्षत इति;
Even so, a person who is in a swoon, though awake, does not perceive other objects-of-sense because of his mind being engrossed in the experiencing of pain caused by a blow with a club.

3.2.10 L.13 ✅ न, अचेतयमानत्वात्;
(We reply) — No, because of the absence of consciousness.

3.2.10 L.14 ✅ इषुकारो हि व्यापृतमना ब्रवीति –
The maker of arrows whose mind is employed (in making arrows), says

3.2.10 L.15 ✅ इषुमेवाहमेतावन्तं कालमुपलभमानोऽभूवमिति,
That he was conscious upto that time only of an arrow,

3.2.10 L.16 ✅ मुग्धस्तु लब्धसंज्ञो ब्रवीति –
But a person who has swooned and has (subsequently) regained consciousness, says

3.2.10 L.17 ✅ अन्धे तमस्यहमेतावन्तं कालं प्रक्षिप्तोऽभूवम्,
That he was till then drowned in total darkness

3.2.10 L.18 ✅ न किञ्चिन्मया चेतितमिति।
And that he perceived nothing.

3.2.10 L.19 ✅ जाग्रतश्चैकविषयविषक्तचेतसोऽपि देहो विध्रियते;
In the case of a person who is awake, even though his mind is engrossed in one object, his body is held upright (i.e. properly balanced),

3.2.10 L.20 ✅ मुग्धस्य तु देहो धरण्यां पतति।
While the body of a person that has swooned, drops down to the ground.

3.2.10 L.21 ✅ तस्मात् न जागर्ति।
Therefore such a person is neither awake

3.2.10 L.22 ✅ नापि स्वप्नान्पश्यति,
Nor does he experience any dream,

3.2.10 L.23 ✅ निःसंज्ञकत्वात्।
Because he is incapable of any cognition,

3.2.10 L.24 ✅ नापि मृतः,
Nor is he, for the matter of that, even dead,

3.2.10 L.25 ✅ प्राणोष्मणोर्भावात् –
Because, his breathing and the warmth of his body, still persist.

3.2.10 L.26 ✅ मुग्धे हि जन्तौ मृतोऽयं स्यान्न वा मृत इति संशयानाः,
In the case of a person who is in a swoon, people who are in doubt as to whether he is dead or otherwise,

3.2.10 L.27 ✅ ऊष्मास्ति नास्तीति हृदयदेशमालभन्ते निश्चयार्थं,
Feel the region of his heart to find out if there is any warmth,

3.2.10 L.28 ✅ प्राणोस्ति नास्तीति च नासिकादेशम्;
And feel the region of his nose to find out whether there is any breath.

3.2.10 L.29 ✅ यदि प्राणोष्मणोरस्तित्वं नावगच्छन्ति,
When they find that there is neither breathing nor warmth,

3.2.10 L.30 ✅ ततो मृतोऽयमित्यध्यवसाय दहनायारण्यं नयन्ति;
They conclude that he is dead and carry him to a forest for cremation.

3.2.10 L.31 ✅ अथ तु प्राणमूष्माणं वा प्रतिपद्यन्ते,
And when they find that he has both breathing and warmth,

3.2.10 L.32 ✅ ततो नायं मृत इत्यध्यवसाय संज्ञालाभाय भिषज्यन्ति;
They conclude that he is not dead, and treat him for bringing him back to consciousness.

3.2.10 L.33 ✅ पुनरुत्थानाच्च न दिष्टं गतः;
In as much as he regains consciousness, he no doubt is not dead,

3.2.10 L.34 ✅ न हि यमराष्ट्रात्प्रत्यागच्छति।
Because nobody ever returns from Death’s regions (cf., “a country from whose bourne no traveller returns” — Shakespeare).

3.2.10 L.35 ✅ अस्तु तर्हि सुषुप्तः, निःसंज्ञत्वात्, अमृतत्वाच्च;
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — May he then be understood to be in deep sleep, because though he is not dead, he yet is unable to cognize anything.

3.2.10 L.36 ✅ न, वैलक्षण्यात् –
(We reply) — No, because there is dissimilarity (as between the two states).

3.2.10 L.37 ✅ मुग्धः कदाचिच्चिरमपि नोच्छ्वसिति,
A person that has swooned sometimes suspends his breath for quite a long time,

3.2.10 L.38 ✅ सवेपथुरस्य देहो भवति,
His body is in tremors,

3.2.10 L.39 ✅ भयानकं च वदनम्, विस्फारिते नेत्रे;
He has wide staring eyes and a ghastly face,

3.2.10 L.40 ✅ सुषुप्तस्तु प्रसन्नवदनस्तुल्यकालं
While a person who is merely asleep has a face which is completely in repose,

3.2.10 L.41 ✅ पुनः पुनरुच्छ्वसिति, निमीलिते अस्य नेत्रे भवतः, न चास्य देहो वेपते;
He breathes rhythmically, his eyes are closed, and his body is not in tremors.

3.2.10 L.42 ✅ पाणिपेषणमात्रेण च सुषुप्तमुत्थापयन्ति,
A person who is in deep sleep, is awakened by being moved by a hand,

3.2.10 L.43 ✅ न तु मुग्धं मुद्गरघातेनापि।
While one who has swooned away, cannot be awakened even by striking him with a club.

3.2.10 L.44 ✅ निमित्तभेदश्च भवति मोह-स्वापयोः –
There is difference also between the causes which induce sleep and unconsciousness.

3.2.10 L.45 ✅ मुसलसम्पातादि-निमित्तत्वात् मोहस्य,
The cause of unconsciousness is the beating with a club,

3.2.10 L.46 ✅ श्रमनिमित्तत्वाच्च स्वापस्य।
While sleep is induced by fatigue etc.

3.2.10 L.47 ✅ न च लोकेऽस्ति प्रसिद्धिः – मुग्धः सुप्तः इति।
Besides, people never describe a person that has swooned away as one who is asleep.

3.2.10 L.48 ✅ परिशेषाद् अर्धसम्पत्तिर्मुग्धतेत्यवगच्छामः –
Therefore we understand that unconsciousness is a condition of semi-attained unity (with deep sleep),since that is the only remaining alternative.

3.2.10 L.49 ✅ निःसंज्ञत्वात् सम्पन्नः,
He has (on the one hand) attained unity (with deep sleep) in as much as he does not cognize,

3.2.10 L.50 ✅ इतरस्माच्च वैलक्षण्याद् असम्पन्नः इति॥
And (on the other hand) because of other dissimilarities, he is not quite so in unity (with deep sleep).

3.2.10 L.51 ✅ कथं पुनरर्धसम्पत्तिर्मुग्धतेति शक्यते वक्तुम्?
How again (says the opponent of Vedānta), can you describe the condition of a swoon as only semi-attained unity with deep sleep?

3.2.10 L.52 ✅ यावता सुप्तं प्रति तावदुक्तं श्रुत्या –
Have not the Scriptures mentioned about one who is asleep, thus? —

3.2.10 L.53 ✅ ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्प्रन्नो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति,
“Oh Mild one, he then is in unity with the ‘Sat’” (ChanU.6.8.1);

3.2.10 L.54 ✅ ‘अत्र स्तेनोऽस्तेनो भवति’ (BrhU.4.3.22)
“Wherein a thief ceases to be a thief” (BrhUEng.4.3.22);

3.2.10 L.55 ✅ ‘नैतं सेतुमहोरात्रे तरतो न जरा न मृत्युर्न शोको न सुकृतं न दुष्कृतम्’ (ChanU.8.4.1) इत्यादि;
“Neither day nor night, nor old age, nor death, nor grief, nor good or evil deeds, transgress this bund (Setu, i.e. Paramātmā i.e. the Highest Self)” (ChanU.8.4.1).

3.2.10 L.56 ✅ जीवे हि सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः प्राप्तिः
The acquisition of good or evil deeds by a Jīva-Self

3.2.10 L.57 ✅ सुखित्वदुःखित्वप्रत्ययोत्पादनेन भवति;
Is effected by the generation in him of the knowledge of a state of happiness or pain respectively.

3.2.10 L.58 ✅ न च सुखित्वप्रत्ययो दुःखित्वप्रत्ययो वा सुषुप्ते विद्यते;
There is no perception of either pleasure or pain by a Jīva-Self during deep sleep,

3.2.10 L.59 ✅ मुग्धेऽपि तौ प्रत्ययौ नैव विद्येते;
Nor indeed is there any such perception by the Jīva-Self during the condition of a swoon.

3.2.10 L.60 ✅ तस्मात् उपाध्युपशमात् सुषुप्तवत्
मुग्धेऽपि कृत्स्नसम्पत्तिरेव भवितुमर्हति,
Therefore, there ought to be complete unity with the Highest Self in the case of a person in a swoon,
On account of the cessation of limiting adjuncts, even as it is in the case of a person in deep sleep.

3.2.10 L.61 ✅ नार्धसम्पत्तिरिति। अत्रोच्यते – न ब्रूमः – मुग्धेऽर्धसम्पत्तिर्जीवस्य ब्रह्मणा भवतीति।
The reply is — We do not mean to say that in the case of a swoon the Jīva-Self is in a condition of semi-unity with Brahman,

3.2.10 L.62 ✅ किं तर्हि? अर्धेन सुषुप्तपक्षस्य भवति मुग्धत्वम्, अर्धेनावस्थान्तरपक्षस्य – इति ब्रूमः;
But we mean that the condition of a swoon is partly like deep sleep and partly like the other condition (i.e. of death).

3.2.10 L.63 ✅ दर्शिते च मोहस्य स्वापेन साम्यवैषम्ये।
The similarity and dissimilarity of a swoon with sleep has been already indicated.

3.2.10 L.64 ✅ द्वारं चैतत् मरणस्य;
It (a swoon) is the very door of Death.

3.2.10 L.65 ✅ यदास्य सावशेषं कर्म भवति,
Whenever there is a residue (of the expiation i.e. working out) of Karma in a Jīva-Self,

3.2.10 L.66 ✅ तदा वाङ्मनसे प्रत्यागच्छतः;
Speech and mind return to it

3.2.10 L.67 ✅ यदा तु निरवशेषं कर्म भवति,
And whenever there is no such residue (of expiation i.e. working out) of Karma,

3.2.10 L.68 ✅ तदा प्राणोष्माणावपगच्छतः।
Prāṇa (Vital Breath) and warmth depart from it.

3.2.10 L.69 ✅ तस्मादर्धसम्पत्तिं ब्रह्मविद इच्छन्ति।
Therefore those who have realized Brahman consider it to be only a condition of semi-unity (with deep sleep).

3.2.10 L.70 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – न पञ्चमी काचिदवस्था प्रसिद्धास्तीति,
With regard to the objection (of the opponent of Vedānta) that no fifth condition as such is known,

3.2.10 L.71 ✅ नैष दोषः;
(We reply) — This is no fault.

3.2.10 L.72 ✅ कादाचित्कीयमवस्थेति न प्रसिद्धा स्यात्।
May be, it is not so known because it is rare,

3.2.10 L.73 ✅ प्रसिद्धा चैषा लोकायुर्वेदयोः।
But it is well-known in ordinary experience and in the Āyur-Veda (the Veda of the Science of Medicine).

3.2.10 L.74 ✅ अर्धसम्पत्त्यभ्युपगमाच्च न पञ्चमी गण्यत इत्यनवद्यम्॥१०॥
That it is not reckoned as a separate fifth condition is because it is understood as being only semi-unity and all this is therefore flawless. — 10.

– 96. Mugdha-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.2.11 Su..12 Su..13 Su..14 Su..15 Su..16 Su..17 Su..18 Su..19 Su..20 Su..21

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिङ्गं सर्वत्र हि॥३.२.११॥
Na sthānato'pi parasyobhaya-liṅgaṃ sarvatra hi.

Na: not; Sthānataḥ: on account of (difference of) place; Api: even; Parasya: of the Highest (i.e., Brahman); Ubhaya-liṅgam: two-fold characteristics; Sarvatra: everywhere; Hi: because.

🔗 Even by reason of (difference in) place (Sthāna) (i.e. limiting adjuncts) the transcendent one (i.e. Brahman) cannot be of a two-fold nature (of being both qualified and unqualified Brahman) because everywhere it is taught to be without any attributes (Nir-guṇa). — 3.2.11.

3.2.11 L.1 ✅ येन ब्रह्मणा सुषुप्त्यादिषु जीव उपाध्युपशमात्सम्पद्यते,
The nature of that Brahman which the Jīva-Self attains, on account of the cessation of all limiting adjuncts during deep sleep

3.2.11 L.2 ✅ तस्येदानीं स्वरूपं श्रुतिवशेन निर्धार्यते।
Is now sought to be determined on the authority of the Scriptures.

3.2.11 L.3 ✅ सन्त्युभयलिङ्गाः श्रुतयो ब्रह्मविषयाः –
Scriptural passages relating to Brahman, have two sorts of indicatory marks.

3.2.11 L.4 ✅ ‘सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः’ (ChanU.3.14.2)
Thus, there are passages such as “(The Lord whose Self is the Ākāśa) whose handiwork the whole universe is, whose desires are all flawless and whose odours and tastes are all pleasant” (ChanU.3.14.2) etc.,

3.2.11 L.5 ✅ इत्येवमाद्याः सविशेषलिङ्गाः;
Which have an indicatory mark of qualified (Sa-guṇa) Brahman,

3.2.11 L.6 ✅ ‘अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घम्’ (BrhU.3.8.8) इत्येवमाद्याश्च
निर्विशेषलिङ्गाः।
And there are others such as “(Brahman is) neither gross nor subtle, nor short nor long etc.” (BrhUEng.3.8.8),
Which have an indicatory mark of unqualified (Nir-guṇa) Brahman.

3.2.11 L.7 ✅ किमासु श्रुतिषु उभयलिङ्गं ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यम्,
Now when it is being considered, as to whether it should be understood that the Scriptural passages speak of Brahman (being) of both these sorts,

3.2.11 L.8 ✅ उतान्यतरलिङ्गम्;
Or whether of only one of the two,

3.2.11 L.9 ✅ यदाप्यन्यतरलिङ्गम्, तदापि सविशेषम्, उत निर्विशेषम् – इति मीमांस्य
And if only one of the two, whether of qualified (Sa-guṇa) or unqualified (Nir-guṇa) Brahman,

3.2.11 L.10 ✅ तत्र उभयलिङ्गश्रुत्यनुग्रहात् उभयलिङ्गमेव ब्रह्म इत्येवं प्राप्ते
And when the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that in as much as Scriptural passages in support of both these indications are available, it should be understood to be of both sorts,

3.2.11 L.11 ✅ ब्रूमः – न तावत्स्वत एव परस्य ब्रह्मण उभयलिङ्गत्वमुपपद्यते;
(We reply) — That the transcendent Brahman considered by and in itself alone should possess both kinds of indicatory marks, is not reasonably sustainable.

3.2.11 L.12 ✅ न हि एकं वस्तु स्वत एव रूपादिविशेषोपेतं तद्विपरीतं च इत्यवधारयितुं शक्यम्,
It is not possible to understand that, one and the same entity, in itself, is both endowed with specific attributes such as form (Rūpa) etc. and also as being the reverse of that (i.e. being without any attributes),

3.2.11 L.13 ✅ विरोधात्।
Because of the contradiction (involved).

3.2.11 L.14 ✅ अस्तु तर्हि स्थानतः, पृथिव्याद्युपाधियोगादिति;
(The opponent of Vedānta suggests) — Well, let it then be understood to be (endowed with specific attributes) by reason of a particular local limiting adjunct (such as the earth etc.).

3.2.11 L.15 ✅ तदपि नोपपद्यते –
(We reply) — Even that is not reasonably sustainable.

3.2.11 L.16 ✅ न हि उपाधियोगाद् अप्यन्यादृशस्य वस्तुनोऽन्यादृशः स्वभावः सम्भवति;
It is not possible that an entity being of one nature only should have a different characteristic merely because of its being affected by limiting adjuncts.

3.2.11 L.17 ✅ न हि स्वच्छः सन् स्फटिकः अलक्तकाद्युपाधियोगाद् अस्वच्छो भवति,
A crystal which in itself is white, is not rendered as being coloured, by its being affected by a limiting adjunct such as red lac or resin (Alaktaka),

3.2.11 L.18 ✅ भ्रममात्रत्वाद् अस्वच्छताभिनिवेशस्य;
Because the notion about its being coloured is only illusory.

3.2.11 L.19 ✅ उपाधीनां च अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितत्वात्।
Besides limiting adjuncts are brought about by Nescience.

3.2.11 L.20 ✅ अतश्च अन्यतर-लिङ्गपरिग्रहेऽपि
Hence, when only one indicatory mark alone out of the two has to be accepted,

3.2.11 L.21 ✅ समस्तविशेषरहितं निर्विकल्पकमेव ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यम्, न तद्विपरीतम्;
Brahman should be understood to be devoid of any specific attributes and as not admitting of any such alternative, as being also the reverse of it,

3.2.11 L.22 ✅ सर्वत्र हि ब्रह्मस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरेषु वाक्येषु
Because in all Scriptural passages purporting to explain the nature of Brahman,

3.2.11 L.23 ✅ ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (KathU.1.3.15), (मुक्तिको. २-१२) इत्येवमादिषु
Such as “(Brahman is) neither gross nor subtle, without form, and undecaying” (KathU.1.3.15, Muktik. 2.72) etc.,

3.2.11 L.24 ✅ अपास्तसमस्त-विशेषमेव ब्रह्म उपदिश्यते॥११॥
The only instruction given is, that Brahman is without any [free of all] attributes i.e. it is free of any particular attributes. — 11.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न भेदादिति चेन्न प्रत्येकमतद्वचनात्॥३.२.१२॥
Na bhedād iti cen na praty-ekam atad-vacanāt.

Na: not so; Bhedāt: on account of difference (being taught in the scriptures); Iti: thus, as, so, this; Cet: if; Na: not so; Prati-ekam: with reference to each; A-tad-vacanāt: because of the declaration of opposite of that. (A-tad: absence of that; Vacanāt: on account of the statement.)

🔗 If it be said that it is not so, (i.e. the transcendent Brahman is not without attributes), because there is difference (we reply) — No, because every such (assertion about difference) is denied. — 3.2.12.

3.2.12 L.1 ✅ अथापि स्यात् –
(The opponent of Vedānta says — It may even be like this:

3.2.12 L.2 ✅ यदुक्तम्, निर्विकल्पमेकलिङ्गमेव ब्रह्म नास्य स्वतः स्थानतो वा उभयलिङ्गत्वमस्तीति,
That, which is said, viz. that Brahman does not admit of any alternative and that it has only a single indicatory mark, and that Brahman has no such double indicatory marks even when considered either by itself alone or as affected by a place i.e. a limiting adjunct (Sthānataḥ),

3.2.12 L.3 ✅ तन्नोपपद्यते।
Is not reasonably sustainable.

3.2.12 L.4 ✅ कस्मात्? भेदात्;
Whence is it so? Because of difference.

3.2.12 L.5 ✅ भिन्ना हि प्रतिविद्यं ब्रह्मण आकारा उपदिश्यन्ते,
Every Brahmic lore (Vidyā) teaches different forms of Brahman,

3.2.12 L.6 ✅ चतुष्पात् ब्रह्म,
Such as, that Brahman has four feet,

3.2.12 L.7 ✅ षोडशकलं ब्रह्म,
Or that Brahman has sixteen parts,

3.2.12 L.8 ✅ वामनीत्वादिलक्षणं ब्रह्म,
Or that Brahman has the characteristic of being the ‘Vāmanī’ (i.e. being the carrier of or the conferor of fruits of meritorious actions on persons who perform such meritorious actions),

3.2.12 L.9 ✅ त्रैलोक्यशरीर-वैश्वानरशब्दोदितं ब्रह्म, इत्येवंजातीयकाः;
Or that the triple world forms its body, or as when Brahman is expressed by the name Vaiśvā-nara.

3.2.12 L.10 ✅ तस्मात् सविशेषत्वमपि ब्रह्मणोऽभ्युपगन्तव्यम्।
Therefore Brahman should be understood to have a qualified (Sa-guṇa) aspect also.

3.2.12 L.11 ✅ ननु उक्तं नोभयलिङ्गत्वं ब्रह्मणः सम्भवतीति;
But (says the Vedāntin) it has been stated that it is not possible that Brahman can have both these kinds of indicatory marks.

3.2.12 L.12 ✅ अयमप्यविरोधः, उपाधिकृतत्वादाकारभेदस्य;
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) — Even that does not come in the way, because a difference in Brahman’s form is brought about by limiting adjuncts.

3.2.12 L.13 ✅ अन्यथा हि निर्विषयमेव भेदशास्त्रं प्रसज्येत – इति चेत्,
Otherwise a Śāstra which speaks of such differences (in the aspects of Brahman) would be without any object (to which such Śāstra applies).

3.2.12 L.14 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः। कस्मात्? प्रत्येकमतद्वचनात्;
We reply — No, because every such statement of such a difference (in the aspect of Brahman) is denied

3.2.12 L.15 ✅ प्रत्युपाधिभेदं हि
अभेदमेव ब्रह्मणः श्रावयति शास्त्रम् –
As not being so (in fact) and the Śāstra has uniformly spoken of Brahman as being without any difference (Abheda in its aspects),
And wherever such a difference is alleged, it has spoken about such difference as being the result of limiting adjuncts, thus —

3.2.12 L.16 ✅ ‘यश्चायमस्यां पृथिव्यां तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मꣳ शारीरस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मा’ (BrhU.2.5.1) इत्यादि।
“[The shining and immortal Puruṣa in this earth and] this lustrous and immortal Puruṣa in relation with the body (Adhyātmam), is but the same as this Ātmā (i.e. the Highest Self)” (BrhUEng.2.5.1).

3.2.12 L.17 ✅ अतश्च न भिन्नाकारयोगो ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रीय इति शक्यते वक्तुम्,
Hence it is not possible to say that the Śāstra view is that Brahman has any such relation to different aspects,

3.2.12 L.18 ✅ भेदस्य उपासनार्थत्वात्,
In as much as such difference in aspect is made merely for the purpose of meditation (Upāsanā),

3.2.12 L.19 ✅ अभेदे तात्पर्यात्॥१२॥
And the purport of the Śāstra (i.e. the Scriptures) is that there is no such difference. — 12.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अपि चैवमेके॥३.२.१३॥
Api caivam eke.

Api: also; Ca: moreover, and; Evam: thus; Eke: some.

🔗 Moreover (followers of) one branch (of the Scriptures) declare likewise. — 3.2.13.

3.2.13 L.1 ✅ अपि चैवं भेददर्शननिन्दापूर्वकम्
अभेददर्शनमेव एके शाखिनः समामनन्ति –
Moreover followers of one branch of the Scriptures declare the absence of any such difference,
By censuring the recognition of differences (such as Brahman being of both kinds, qualified and unqualified) thus —

3.2.13 L.2 ✅ ‘मनसैवेदमाप्तव्यं नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन।
मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (KathU.2.1.10) इति;
“This can be grasped by the mind alone; here, there are no differences.
He who sees here, in this, as one having differences as it were, goes from death to death” (Kaṭha 4.11).

3.2.13 L.3 ✅ तथान्येऽपि – ‘भोक्ता भोग्यं प्रेरितारं च मत्वा सर्वं प्रोक्तं त्रिविधं
ब्रह्म मे तत्’ (SvetU.1.12) इति
Similarly also — “When all this, described as being threefold viz. as the thing experienced, the experiencer (i.e. the Jīva-Self) and as the one who rules and actuates (from within) as Antar-yāmi,
Is understood as being but Brahman only” (SvetU.1.12),

3.2.13 L.4 ✅ समस्तस्य भोग्यभोक्तृनियन्तृ-लक्षणस्य प्रपञ्चस्य
ब्रह्मैकस्वभावताम् अधीयते॥१३॥
And it is taught in this manner that this entire variety of worldly manifestations (Prapañca) characterized by things experienced, the experiencer, and the internal regulator,
Has Brahman alone as its only nature. — 13.

[Go top]

3.2.14 L.1 ✅ कथं पुनः आकारवदुपदेशिनीषु अनाकारोपदेशिनीषु च ब्रह्मविषयासु श्रुतिषु सतीषु,
(Says the opponent of Vedānta) when Scriptural passages about Brahman, which teach that it both has form and is also formless, are actually there, how is it that

3.2.14 L.2 ✅ अनाकारमेव ब्रह्म अवधार्यते,
It is understood that it is formless only

3.2.14 L.3 ✅ न पुनर्विपरीतम्
And not that it is otherwise also?

3.2.14 L.4 ✅ इत्यत उत्तरं पठति –
The reply to this is —

←Prev Next→
अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात्॥३.२.१४॥
Arūpavad eva hi tat-pradhānatvāt.

A-rūpavat: without form, formless; Eva: only, indeed, decidedly; Hi: verily, certainly, because; Tat-pradhānatvāt: on account of that being the main purport of scripture. (Tat: of that; Pradhānatvāt: on account of being the chief thing.)

🔗 (Brahman) of course is devoid of any form, because, that is the main purport (of the Scriptures). — 3.2.14.

3.2.14 L.5 ✅ रूपाद्याकाररहितमेव हि ब्रह्म अवधारयितव्यम्,
Brahman ought only to be understood to be without any form etc.

3.2.14 L.6 ✅ न रूपादिमत्।
And not as having a form.

3.2.14 L.7 ✅ कस्मात्? तत्प्रधानत्वात्;
Whence is it so? Because that is the main purport (of the Scriptures).

3.2.14 L.8 ✅ ‘अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घम्’ (BrhU.3.8.8)
That, those Scriptural passages such as “Neither gross nor fine, nor short nor long” (BrhUEng.3.8.8);

3.2.14 L.9 ✅ ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (KathU.1.3.15), (मुक्ति. २-७२),
“(It is) without any sound, touch, form, or decay” (KathU.1.3.15, Muktik. 2.72);

3.2.14 L.10 ✅ ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.8.14.1)
“(This) Ākāśa verily is the revealer of names and forms. That, within which these are, is Brahman” (ChanU.8.14.1);

3.2.14 L.11 ✅ ‘दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः’ (MunU.2.1.2)
“That divine and incorporeal Puruṣa who is both outside and inside and is not subject to be born” (MunU.2.1.2);

3.2.14 L.12 ✅ ‘तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वमनपरम् अनन्तरमबाह्यम्
अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इति
“That which is this Brahman, which neither is a cause nor an effect, and is without anything inside or outside (of it).
This Self which is Brahman, which perceives everything” (BrhUEng.2.5.19) —

3.2.14 L.13 ✅ एवमादीनि वाक्यानि निष्प्रपञ्चब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वप्रधानानि, न अर्थान्तरप्रधानानि –
Have the Brahma-Self, which is without any transmigratory nature i.e. without any extension (Niṣprapañca), and nothing else, as their only purport,

3.2.14 L.14 ✅ इत्येतत्प्रतिष्ठापितम् ‘तत्तु समन्वयात्’ (BrS.1.1.4) इत्यत्र;
Has already been established, in “It is Brahman, because (All Vedānta texts) have that connected sequence” (BrS.1.1.4).

3.2.14 L.15 ✅ तस्मादेवंजातीयकेषु वाक्येषु यथाश्रुतं
Therefore, as expressed in such passages in the Scriptures,

3.2.14 L.16 ✅ निराकारमेव ब्रह्म अवधारयितव्यम्।
Brahman should be understood to be without any form.

3.2.14 L.17 ✅ इतराणि तु आकारवद्ब्रह्म-विषयाणि वाक्यानि न तत्प्रधानानि;
All other passages which refer to qualified Brahman as having a form, are not passages which display the chief purport.

3.2.14 L.18 ✅ उपासनाविधि-प्रधानानि हि तानि;
Their purport is to speak of an injunction to meditation,

3.2.14 L.19 ✅ तेष्वसति विरोधे
And when there is no conflict,

3.2.14 L.20 ✅ यथाश्रुतमाश्रयितव्यम्;
They should be understood as they are stated in the Scriptures.

3.2.14 L.21 ✅ सति तु विरोधे
When however there is a conflict,

3.2.14 L.22 ✅ तत्प्रधानानि अतत्प्रधानेभ्यो बलीयांसि भवन्ति – इत्येष विनिगमनायां हेतुः,
This is the ratio decidendi [as to which are clearly the purport from those that are not],

3.2.14 L.23 ✅ येन उभयीष्वपि श्रुतिषु सतीषु
By means of which, even when Scriptural passages are of both sorts,

3.2.14 L.24 ✅ अनाकारमेव ब्रह्म अवधार्यते,
It is the formless Brahman alone that is understood,

3.2.14 L.25 ✅ न पुनर्विपरीतमिति॥१४॥
And not the other (i.e. qualified Brahman). — 14.

[Go top]

3.2.15 L.1 ✅ का तर्ह्याकारवद्विषयाणां श्रुतीनां गतिः
(The opponent of Vedānta here says) — But then, how are passages which speak of qualified Brahman to be construed?

3.2.15 L.2 ✅ इत्यत आह –
To this, the reply is —

←Prev Next→
प्रकाशवच्चावैयर्थ्यात्॥३.२.१५॥
Prakāśavac cāvaiyarthyāt.

Prakāśavat: like the light; Ca: and, moreover; A-vaiy-arthyāt: because of not being meaningless.

🔗 (It is) as it is in the case of light (viz. that Brahman as it were assumes various forms), in order (that passages referring to qualified Brahman) may not be rendered purposeless. — 3.2.15.

3.2.15 L.3 ✅ यथा प्रकाशः सौरश्चान्द्रमसो वा वियद्व्याप्य अवतिष्ठमानः अङ्गुल्याद्युपाधिसम्बन्धात्
Just as the light of the Sun or the Moon, while it occupies the sky, comes into contact with limiting adjuncts such as the little finger etc.,

3.2.15 L.4 ✅ तेषु ऋजु-वक्रादिभावं प्रतिपद्यमानेषु तद्भावमिव प्रतिपद्यते,
And according to as they (i.e. the little finger etc.) are straight or are bent, itself assumes a straight or bent form as it were,

3.2.15 L.5 ✅ एवं ब्रह्मापि पृथिव्याद्युपाधिसम्बन्धात्
Similarly, Brahman also, as it comes into contact with limiting adjuncts such as the earth etc.,

3.2.15 L.6 ✅ तदाकारताम् इव प्रतिपद्यते;
Assumes the form of the limiting adjuncts as it were,

3.2.15 L.7 ✅ तदालम्बनो ब्रह्मण आकारविशेषोपदेश उपासनार्थो न विरुध्यते;
And thus the Scriptural instruction about Brahman having a particular form for the purpose of meditation, is not contradictory.

3.2.15 L.8 ✅ एवम् अवैयर्थ्यम् आकारवद्ब्रह्म-विषयाणामपि वाक्यानां भविष्यति;
In this manner, passages dealing with Brahman as being of a particular form are not rendered purposeless.

3.2.15 L.9 ✅ न हि वेदवाक्यानां कस्यचिदर्थवत्त्वम् कस्यचिदनर्थवत्त्वमिति युक्तं प्रतिपत्तुम्,
It would not be proper to understand that Vedic passages sometimes have a purpose and sometimes not,

3.2.15 L.10 ✅ प्रमाणत्वाविशेषात्।
Because they are all uniformly authoritative.

3.2.15 L.11 ✅ नन्वेवमपि यत्पुरस्तात्प्रतिज्ञातम् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) if it is understood like this,

3.2.15 L.12 ✅ नोपाधियोगादप्युभयलिङ्गत्वं ब्रह्मणोऽस्तीति,
Then the previous declaration that even when affected by limiting adjuncts, Brahman is not of two kinds,

3.2.15 L.13 ✅ तद्विरुध्यते;
Is contradicted.

3.2.15 L.14 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः – उपाधिनिमित्तस्य वस्तुधर्मत्वानुपपत्तेः;
No (we reply), because it is not reasonably sustainable, that any attribute brought about by the limiting adjuncts as its cause, can be the real attribute of an entity,

3.2.15 L.15 ✅ उपाधीनां च अविद्या-प्रत्युपस्थापितत्वात्।
Because limiting adjuncts themselves are brought about by Nescience.

3.2.15 L.16 ✅ सत्यामेव च नैसर्गिक्यामविद्यायां
That, it is only in the presence of Nescience (Avidyā) which is natural,

3.2.15 L.17 ✅ लोकवेदव्यवहारावतार इति
That ordinary worldly phenomenal life, and conduct in accordance with the Scriptures, becomes possible,

3.2.15 L.18 ✅ तत्र तत्र अवोचाम॥१५॥
Has been referred to by us in various places. — 15.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आह च तन्मात्रम्॥३.२.१६॥
Āha ca tan-mātram.

Āha: (the Śruti) declares; Ca: and, moreover; Tad-mātram: that (i.e., intelligent) only.

🔗 (The Scriptures) also, have declared (Brahman) to have that only (Tan-mātram i.e. that it has that subtle and primary element, viz. sentiency only). — 3.2.16.

3.2.16 L.1 ✅ आह च श्रुतिः चैतन्यमात्रं विलक्षणरूपान्तर-रहितं निर्विशेषं ब्रह्म –
The Scriptures also have declared Brahman to be but the supreme spirit having sentiency only, and as being devoid of any form (Rūpa), and as being without any other dissimilar distinguishing characteristic, thus —

3.2.16 L.2 ✅ ‘स यथा सैन्धवघनोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नो रसघन
एवैवं वा अरेऽयमात्मानन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एव’ (BrhU.4.5.13) इति।
“(Oh Maitreyī), just as a solid block of salt has nothing else outside or inside it but is wholly a solid of saltness,
Even so, has this Self nothing outside or inside its self and is wholly a solid mass of sentiency” (BrhUEng.4.5.13),

3.2.16 L.3 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति –
Which means that

3.2.16 L.4 ✅ नास्य आत्मनोऽन्तर्बहिर्वा चैतन्यादन्यद्रूपमस्ति,
This Self has no form other than that of sentiency, either externally or internally.

3.2.16 L.5 ✅ चैतन्यमेव तु निरन्तरमस्य स्वरूपम् –
Sentiency alone is its own constant form.

3.2.16 L.6 ✅ यथा सैन्धवघनस्यान्तर्बहिश्च लवणरस एव निरन्तरो भवति, न रसान्तरम्,
Just as a block of salt has constantly the salty taste inside or outside and no other,

3.2.16 L.7 ✅ तथैवेति॥१६॥
Even so (is the case of the Self). — 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
दर्शयति चाथो अपि स्मर्यते॥३.२.१७॥
Darśayati cātho api smaryate.

Darśayati: (the scripture or Śruti) shows; Ca: and, also; Atho: thus, moreover (Atha + u); Api: also; Smaryate: the Smṛtis declare or state.

🔗 The Scriptures also indicate (so) and then again the Smṛtis also. — 3.2.17.

3.2.17 L.1 ✅ दर्शयति च श्रुतिः पररूपप्रतिषेधेनैव ब्रह्म – निर्विशेषत्वात् –
The Scriptures also indicate that Brahman has no other distinctive characteristic, by the denial of any other form (for it), thus —

3.2.17 L.2 ✅ ‘अथात आदेशो नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6)
“Hence now the instruction is — (Whatever is said to be Brahman) is not so (i.e. Brahman)” (BrhUEng.2.3.6);

3.2.17 L.3 ✅ ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (KenU.1.3)
“Other indeed it is than that which is known and not known” (KenU.1.3);

3.2.17 L.4 ✅ ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (TaitU.2.4.1) इत्येवमाद्या।
“Wherefrom, having failed to attain it, words along with the mind turn back” (TaitUEng.2.4.1).

3.2.17 L.5 ✅ बाष्कलिना च बाध्वः पृष्टः सन् अवचनेनैव ब्रह्म प्रोवाचेति श्रूयते –
Scriptures also tell us, how, questioned by Baṣkali, Bādhva explained Brahman to him (i.e. Baṣkali) merely by his silence, thus —

3.2.17 L.6 ✅ स होवाचाधीहि भो इति
स तूष्णीं बभूव
तं ह द्वितीये तृतीये वा वचन उवाच
ब्रूमः खलु त्वं तु न विजानासि।<,br> उपशान्तोऽयमात्मा’ इति।
“He (i.e. Baṣkali) said, Oh Bādhva, teach me (what Brahman is),
But he (Bādhva) remained silent
And when he was thus questioned a second and a third time,
Replied —‘Indeed, have I told you (by my silence), but of course you do not understood.
This Self (Ātmā) is one from which duality has been swept away (Upaśānta).’”

3.2.17 L.7 ✅ तथा स्मृतिष्वपि परप्रतिषेधेनैवोपदिश्यते
Similarly, it is by denying everything else (to be Brahman) that instruction is given in Smṛtis, such as —

3.2.17 L.8 ✅ ‘ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (BhG.13.12) इत्येवमाद्यासु।
“I will explain to you that which is the object of knowledge, and having known which, immortality is attained.
Brahman which is beginningless and transcendent and that, which is said to be neither Sat nor Asat [neither (an object) that is, nor is not]” (BhG.13.12).

3.2.17 L.9 ✅ तथा विश्वरूपधरो नारायणो नारदमुवाचेति स्मर्यते –
Smṛti also says, how, Nārāyaṇa assuming the cosmic form of the universe, spoke to Nārada —

3.2.17 L.10 ✅ ‘माया ह्येषा मया सृष्टा यन्मां पश्यसि नारद। सर्वभूतगुणैर्युक्तं
नैवं मां ज्ञातुमर्हसि’ इति॥१७॥
“Oh Nārada, when you see me as one endowed with the attributes of all beings, it is only an illusion of my own creation,
But you should not understand me to be really so”. — 17.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्॥३.२.१८॥
Ata eva copamā sūryakādivat.

Ataḥ eva: for this very reason; therefore; Ca: also, and; Upamā: comparison; Sūryaka-ādivat: like the images of the sun and the like.

🔗 Hence is (Brahman’s) comparison with a reflection of the sun (in water). — 3.2.18.

3.2.18 L.1 ✅ यत एव च अयमात्मा चैतन्यरूपो
It is precisely because this Self is of the nature of sentiency

3.2.18 L.2 ✅ निर्विशेषो वाङ्मनसातीतः
And is devoid of any other distinguishing characteristic and is beyond (perception by) speech and mind,

3.2.18 L.3 ✅ परप्रतिषेधोपदेश्यः,
And also because instructions about it can only be imparted by the negation of every other entity,

3.2.18 L.4 ✅ अत एव च अस्योपाधिनिमित्ताम् अपारमार्थिकीं विशेषवत्ताम् अभिप्रेत्य
That, with reference to its unreal characteristic as caused by limiting adjuncts,

3.2.18 L.5 ✅ जलसूर्यकादिवदित्युपमा
A comparison — that it is like the reflection of the sun (in water) —

3.2.18 L.6 ✅ उपादीयते मोक्षशास्त्रेषु –
Is employed in the Śāstra dealing with Final Release (Mokṣa), thus —

3.2.18 L.7 ✅ ‘यथा ह्ययं ज्योतिरात्मा विवस्वान् अपो भिन्न बहुधैकोऽनुगच्छन्।
उपाधिना क्रियते भेदरूपो देवः क्षेत्रेष्वेवम् अजोऽयमात्मा’ इति, ‘एक एव हि भूतात्मा भूते भूते व्यवस्थितः।
एकधा बहुधा चैव दृश्यते जलचन्द्रवत्’ (ब्र. बिं. १२) इति चैवमादिषु॥१८॥
“Just as this lustrous sun (Vivasvān) even though one only, yet, having entered different waters, appears to be many,
Due to (being reflected in) the limiting adjunct viz. water, even so is this Self (Ātmā), which is not subject to birth, made to appear as if it is different because of the limiting adjuncts of many bodies.
Similarly this Self (Ātmā) of all beings, one as it is, is, by residing in different beings,
Seen as if it is one and many, at one and the same time, like the reflections of the moon in water.” — 18.

[Go top]

3.2.19 L.1 ✅ अत्र प्रत्यवस्थीयते –
Here, (the opponent of Vedānta) contends —

←Prev Next→
अम्बुवदग्रहणात्तु न तथात्वम्॥३.२.१९॥
Ambuvad agrahaṇāt tu na tathātvam.

Ambuvat: like water; A-grahaṇāt: in the absence of perception, because of non-acceptance, because it cannot be accepted, not being experienced; Tu: but; Na: not, no; Tathātvam: that nature, similarity.

🔗 As no other distinct positive material similar to water is to he seen (in which Brahman is seen to he reflected, like the sun or the moon in water), it is not like that (and there is no parallelism). — 3.2.19.

3.2.19 L.2 ✅ न जलसूर्यकादितुल्यत्वम् इहोपपद्यते,
That Brahman is similar to the sun’s reflection in water, is not reasonably sustainable,

3.2.19 L.3 ✅ तद्वदग्रहणात्;
Because nothing like water is to be seen here.

3.2.19 L.4 ✅ सूर्यादिभ्यो हि मूर्तेभ्यः पृथग्भूतं विप्रकृष्टदेशं मूर्तं जलं गृह्यते;
A material entity such as water, is perceived to be distinctly separate and is at a distant place, from the sun etc.,

3.2.19 L.5 ✅ तत्र युक्तः सूर्यादिप्रतिबिम्बोदयः;
And there, the occurrence of a reflection of the sun etc. is feasible.

3.2.19 L.6 ✅ न तु आत्मा मूर्तः,
The Self (Ātmā) however is not such a material entity,

3.2.19 L.7 ✅ न चास्मात्पृथग्भूता विप्रकृष्टदेशाश्चोपाधयः,
सर्वगतत्वात् सर्वानन्यत्वाच्च।
And being all-pervading and nondifferent from all,
The limiting adjuncts cannot be separate from it, or at a place distant from it.

3.2.19 L.8 ✅ तस्मादयुक्तोऽयं दृष्टान्त इति॥१९॥
Therefore the illustration is not apt. — 19.

[Go top]

3.2.20 L.1 ✅ अत्र प्रतिविधीयते –
The reply to this is —

←Prev Next→
वृद्धिह्रासभाक्त्वमन्तर्भावादुभयसामञ्जस्यादेवम्॥३.२.२०॥
Vṛddhi-hrāsa-bhāktvam antar-bhāvād ubhaya-sāmañjasyād evam.

Vṛddhi-hrāsa-bhāktvam: participating in the increase and decrease; Antar-bhāvāt: on account of its being inside; Ubhaya-sāmañjasyāt: on account of the appropriateness in the two cases; Evam: thus. (Vṛddhi: increase; Hrāsa: decrease; Ubhaya: towards both; Sāmañjasyāt: because of the justness, appropriateness.)

🔗 Because the Highest Self i.e. Brahman is inside i.e. immanent (in the limiting adjuncts, such as a body etc.) it participates i.e. equally shares in the increase or decrease of the limiting adjuncts, and thus both (i.e. the illustration and that which is illustrated) being compatible, it is like this (i.e. the comparison is apt). — 3.2.20.

3.2.20 L.2 ✅ युक्त एव तु अयं दृष्टान्तः,
But this illustration is of course apt,

3.2.20 L.3 ✅ विवक्षितांश-सम्भवात्;
In as much as (similarity to) a particular small extent meant to be spoken of (Vivakṣitāṃśa) is possible.

3.2.20 L.4 ✅ न हि दृष्टान्त-दार्ष्टान्तिकयोः क्वचित् कञ्चित् विवक्षितमंशं मुक्त्वा सर्वसारूप्यं केनचित् दर्शयितुं शक्यते;
It is not possible for anybody to demonstrate that an illustration and an entity illustrated are completely alike, apart from their being similar to some particular small extent,

3.2.20 L.5 ✅ सर्वसारूप्ये हि दृष्टान्त-दार्ष्टान्तिकभावोच्छेद एव स्यात्;
Because were they to be completely alike, their relation, inter se, as an illustration and an entity illustrated, would itself be destroyed.

3.2.20 L.6 ✅ न चेदं स्वमनीषया जलसूर्यकादि-दृष्टान्तप्रणयनम्;
Besides this reference to the illustration of a reflection of the Sun in the water, is not made (by the Sūtra-kāra) out of his own imagination,

3.2.20 L.7 ✅ शास्त्रप्रणीतस्य तु अस्य प्रयोजनमात्रमुपन्यस्यते।
But, already referred to by the Śāstra as it is, its propriety only is indicated here.

3.2.20 L.8 ✅ किं पुनरत्र विवक्षितं सारूप्यमिति,
Wherein, again (it is asked by the opponent of Vedānta), is the similarity here, which is intended to be stated?

3.2.20 L.9 ✅ तदुच्यते – वृद्धिह्रास-भाक्त्वमिति।
The reply is — Its participation or sharing in the increase or decrease (of the limiting adjuncts).

3.2.20 L.10 ✅ जलगतं हि सूर्यप्रतिबिम्बं
The reflection of the Sun in the water

3.2.20 L.11 ✅ जलवृद्धौ वर्धते,
Increases as the water increases,

3.2.20 L.12 ✅ जलह्रासे ह्रसति,
Diminishes as the water diminishes,

3.2.20 L.13 ✅ जलचलने चलति,
Moves when the water moves,

3.2.20 L.14 ✅ जलभेदे भिद्यते – इत्येवं जलधर्मानुविधायि भवति,
Becomes distorted when the water is disturbed, and thus it imitates the conditions of water,

3.2.20 L.15 ✅ न तु परमार्थतः सूर्यस्य तथात्वमस्ति;
But it never is, that the Sun in fact becomes so.

3.2.20 L.16 ✅ एवं परमार्थतोऽविकृतमेकरूपमपि सत् ब्रह्म
Similarly, though the Highest Self i.e. Brahman is not liable to undergo any modification and has a uniform nature in the ultimate sense,

3.2.20 L.17 ✅ देहाद्युपाध्यन्तर्भावात्
Still, because it is involved in limiting adjuncts such as a body etc.,

3.2.20 L.18 ✅ भजत इवोपाधिधर्मान् वृद्धिह्रासादीन्
It, as it were, undergoes increase or decrease which are the properties of the limiting adjuncts.

3.2.20 L.19 ✅ एवमुभयोः दृष्टान्त-दार्ष्टान्तिकयोः सामञ्जस्याद् अविरोधः॥२०॥
Hence, inasmuch as the illustration and the entity illustrated are both compatible there is no contradiction. — 20.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
दर्शनाच्च॥३.२.२१॥
Darśanāc ca.

Darśanāt: as it is found to be so, because it is seen, on account of scriptural declaration; Ca: and, also.

🔗 (The illustration is apt) Because the Scriptures also indicate (similarly). — 3.2.21.

3.2.21 L.1 ✅ दर्शयति च श्रुतिः परस्यैव ब्रह्मणो देहादिषूपाधिषु अन्तरनुप्रवेशम् –
The Scriptures also indicate the entering of the Highest Brahman into limiting adjuncts such as a body etc.,

3.2.21 L.2 ✅ ‘पुरश्चक्रे द्विपदः पुरश्चक्रे चतुष्पदः। पुरः स पक्षी भूत्वा पुरः पुरुष आविशत्’ (BrhU.2.5.18) इति;
Thus — “He made the bodies of bipeds and quadrupeds, and then the Puruṣa himself became a bird (‘Pakṣī’ — the subtle body i.e. Liṅga Śarīra) and entered into the material bodies” (BrhUEng.2.5.18),

3.2.21 L.3 ✅ ‘अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति च।
Ānd also — “Having entered (the material bodies) as the Jīva-Self” (ChanU.6.3.2).

3.2.21 L.4 ✅ तस्माद् युक्तमेतत् ‘अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्’ (BrS.3.2.18) इति।
Hence it is proper (to say) — Therefore is the comparison with the reflection of the Sun (in water) apt (BrS.3.2.18).

3.2.21 L.5 ✅ तस्मात् निर्विकल्पकैकलिङ्गमेव ब्रह्म,
Hence it is established that Brahman has only one indicatory mark (of being only unqualified) and it does not admit of any alternatives (of being both qualified and unqualified)

3.2.21 L.6 ✅ न उभयलिङ्गं विपरीतलिङ्गं वा इति सिद्धम्॥
And has not the indicatory marks of both kinds, nor an altogether contrary indicatory mark (of the qualified form).

3.2.21 L.7 ✅ अत्र केचित् द्वे अधिकरणे कल्पयन्ति –
Some think that there are two topics (Adhikaraṇas) here.

3.2.21 L.8 ✅ प्रथमं तावत् किं प्रत्यस्तमिताशेष-प्रपञ्चम् एकाकारं ब्रह्म,
The first one being — whether Brahman is of one nature only and one in which all this variety of worldly manifestations (Prapañca) has ceased to be,

3.2.21 L.9 ✅ उत प्रपञ्चवद् अनेकाकारोपेतमिति;
Or, whether it is of many natures corresponding to the variety of worldly manifestations.

3.2.21 L.10 ✅ द्वितीयं तु प्रत्यस्तमित-प्रपञ्चत्वे
And the second one being — that it being firmly established that in Brahman this variety of worldly manifestations has no place and it is of one uniform nature,

3.2.21 L.11 ✅ किं सल्लक्षणं ब्रह्म,
Whether Brahman has the characteristic of ‘Sat’ (Being),

3.2.21 L.12 ✅ उत बोधलक्षणम्,
Or of Knowledge i.e. Sentiency (Bodha),

3.2.21 L.13 ✅ उत उभयलक्षणमिति।
Or whether it has both these characteristics.

3.2.21 L.14 ✅ अत्र वयं वदामः –
With regard to this we say —

3.2.21 L.15 ✅ सर्वथाप्यानर्थक्यम् अधिकरणान्तरारम्भस्येति;
Considered in every possible way, it is altogether useless to begin another Adhikaraṇa.

3.2.21 L.16 ✅ यदि तावदनेकलिङ्गत्वं परस्य ब्रह्मणो निराकर्तव्यमित्ययं प्रयासः,
If all this endeavour is for the purpose of refuting that the Highest Brahman has several indicatory marks,

3.2.21 L.17 ✅ तत् पूर्वेणैव ‘न स्थानतोऽपि’ इत्यनेनाधिकरणेन निराकृतमिति,
Then, that having been refuted already by the earlier Adhikaraṇa — “Because everywhere etc.” (BrS.3.2.11–15),

3.2.21 L.18 ✅ उत्तरमधिकरणम् ‘प्रकाशवच्च’ इत्येतद्व्यर्थमेव भवेत्।
A subsequent Adhikaraṇa from the Sūtra “(It is) as it is in the case of light” (BrS.3.2.15–21) would be without any purpose.

3.2.21 L.19 ✅ न च सल्लक्षणमेव ब्रह्म न बोधलक्षणम् – इति शक्यं वक्तुम्,
It is not possible to say that Brahman has only the characteristic of ‘Sat’ (Being) and not the characteristic of Knowledge i.e. Sentiency,

3.2.21 L.20 ✅ ‘विज्ञानघन एव’ इत्यादिश्रुतिवैयर्थ्य-प्रसङ्गात्;
As there would result the predicament of the Scriptural passage about its being a mass of Knowledge i.e. Sentiency (Vijñāna-ghana) being rendered purposeless.

3.2.21 L.21 ✅ कथं वा निरस्तचैतन्यं ब्रह्म चेतनस्य जीवस्यात्मत्वेनोपदिश्येत।
How can Brahman devoid of any Knowledge i.e. Sentiency be ever taught as being the Self of the sentient Jīva-Self?

3.2.21 L.22 ✅ नापि बोधलक्षणमेव ब्रह्म न सल्लक्षणम् – इति शक्यं वक्तुम्,
Nor can it be said that Brahman has the characteristic of Knowledge i.e. Sentiency only and not of ‘Sat’ (Being)

3.2.21 L.23 ✅ ‘अस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यः’ (KathU.2.3.13) इत्यादिश्रुतिवैयर्थ्य-प्रसङ्गात्;
As there would result the predicament of the Scriptural passage “It (i.e. Brahman) should be realized as the one that exists” (KathU.2.3.13) being rendered purposeless.

3.2.21 L.24 ✅ कथं वा निरस्तसत्ताको बोधोऽभ्युपगम्येत।
Besides how ever can mere Knowledge i.e. Sentiency be conceived as apart from existence?

3.2.21 L.25 ✅ नाप्युभयलक्षणमेव ब्रह्म – इति शक्यं वक्तुम्,
Nor is it possible to say that the latter Adhikaraṇa is meant to establish that Brahman has both the characteristics,

3.2.21 L.26 ✅ पूर्वाभ्युपगमविरोध-प्रसङ्गात्;
As that would contradict what has been already determined earlier.

3.2.21 L.27 ✅ सत्ता-व्यावृत्तेन च बोधेन बोध-व्यावृत्तया च सत्तया उपेतं ब्रह्म प्रतिजानानस्य
In the case of one who understands Brahman to be Knowledge i.e. Sentiency only, to the exclusion of ‘Being’ (Sat), or to be ‘Being’ (Sat) only, to the exclusion of Knowledge i.e. Sentiency,

3.2.21 L.28 ✅ तदेव पूर्वाधिकरण-प्रतिषिद्धं सप्रपञ्चत्वं प्रसज्येत।
There would result the predicament of having to understand Brahman as admitting of differences i.e. having a variety of worldly manifestations, which exactly was disproved by the earlier Adhikaraṇa.

3.2.21 L.29 ✅ श्रुतत्वाददोष इति चेत्,
(If the opponent were to say) that there could not be such a fault because of Scriptural authority,

3.2.21 L.30 ✅ न, एकस्य अनेकस्वभावत्वानुपपत्तेः।
(We reply) — No, because it would not be reasonably sustainable that one entity can ever have more than one nature.

3.2.21 L.31 ✅ अथ सत्तैव बोधः, बोध एव च सत्ता,
नानयोः परस्पर-व्यावृत्तिरस्तीति यद्युच्येत,
If it be said that ‘Being’ (Sat) is the same as Knowledge i.e. Sentiency (Bodha) and Knowledge i.e. Sentiency is the same as ‘Being’ (Sat)
And that there could be no mutual exclusion of each from the other,

3.2.21 L.32 ✅ तथापि किं सल्लक्षणं ब्रह्म, उत बोधलक्षणम्, उतोभयलक्षणम् – इत्ययं विकल्पो
निरालम्बन एव स्यात्।
Then any doubt, as to whether Brahman has the characteristic of ‘Being’ (Sat) or Knowledge i.e. Sentiency (Bodha), or the characteristics of both Being (Sat) and Knowledge i.e. Sentiency (Bodha), Would necessarily be without any foundation or support
(I.e. it could not be possible for the opponent of Vedānta to imagine any objection and to establish any conclusion by refuting it, and thus no separate Adhikaraṇa would be necessary).

3.2.21 L.33 ✅ सूत्राणि त्वेकाधिकरणत्वेनैवास्माभिर्नीतानि।
We have on the other hand duly construed the Sūtras as belonging to only one Adhikaraṇa.

3.2.21 L.34 ✅ अपि च ब्रह्मविषयासु श्रुतिषु आकारवदनाकार-प्रतिपादनेन विप्रतिपन्नासु,
Besides, when there is a conflict with regard to Scriptural passages, just as when some speak of Brahman as having a form, and the others as Brahman being devoid of any form,

3.2.21 L.35 ✅ अनाकारे ब्रह्मणि परिगृहीते,
And when once it is accepted that Brahman is devoid of any form,

3.2.21 L.36 ✅ अवश्यं वक्तव्या इतरासां श्रुतीनां गतिः;
It would be absolutely necessary to explain the aim of the other Scriptural passages (claiming Brahman to have various forms).

3.2.21 L.37 ✅ तादर्थ्येन ‘प्रकाशवच्च’ इत्यादीनि सूत्राण्यर्थवत्तराणि सम्पद्यन्ते॥
Therefore, it is in that sense, that the Sūtras “(It is) as it is in the case of light” etc. (BrS.3.2.15–21) become more intelligible.

3.2.21 L.38 ✅ यदप्याहुः –
Again, when it is said,

3.2.21 L.39 ✅ आकारवादिन्योऽपि श्रुतयः
That even those Scriptural passages which speak of Brahman as having various forms,

3.2.21 L.40 ✅ प्रपञ्चप्रविलय-मुखेन अनाकार-प्रतिपत्त्यर्था एव,
Do really have the aim of being ultimately understood as showing that Brahman is devoid of any form, by way of destroying all the variety of worldly manifestations,

3.2.21 L.41 ✅ न पृथगर्था इति,
And that they have no other separate aim,

3.2.21 L.42 ✅ तदपि न समीचीनमिव लक्ष्यते।
Even that does not appear to be correct.

3.2.21 L.43 ✅ कथम्?
How is it so?

3.2.21 L.44 ✅ ये हि परविद्याधिकारे केचित्प्रपञ्चा उच्यन्ते, यथा –
The variety of worldly manifestations referred to in the chapter dealing with the Vidyā of the Highest Brahman, thus —

3.2.21 L.45 ✅ ‘युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः शता दशेति।
अयं वै हरयोऽयं वै दश च सहस्राणि बहूनि चानन्तानि च’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्येवमादयः –
“This Highest Self (in the form of a Jīva-Self) has ten, hundred horses (i.e. sense-organs) attached to him,
The same Highest Self is in the form of ten, a thousand, many and innumerable horses” (BrhUEng.2.5.19),

3.2.21 L.46 ✅ ते भवन्तु प्रविलयार्थाः;
Is of course intended to be ultimately dissolved,

3.2.21 L.47 ✅ ‘तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यम्’ (BrhU.2.5.19)
इत्युपसंहारात्।
Because, the topic has been concluded thus —
“This is Brahman, which is without cause, without effect, without anything inside or outside (of it)” (BrhUEng.2.5.19).

3.2.21 L.48 ✅ ये पुनरुपासनाधिकारे प्रपञ्चा उच्यन्ते,
यथा – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्येवमादयः –
न तेषां प्रविलयार्थत्वं न्याय्यम्;
But it is not logical to understand that the variety of worldly manifestations again, which is referred to in the chapter dealing with deep meditation,
Such as “He whose structure is the mind, whose body is Prāṇa and whose nature is refulgence” (ChanU.3.14.2),
Is also intended to be dissolved,

3.2.21 L.49 ✅ ‘स क्रतुं कुर्वीत’ (ChanU.3.14.1) इति
एवंजातीयकेन प्रकृतेनैव उपासन-विधिना तेषां सम्बन्धात्।
Because these passages have a direct connection with the injunction for deep meditation (Upāsanā) which is relevant there,
Such as — “He should make a resolution (Kratu)” (ChanU.3.14.1).

3.2.21 L.50 ✅ श्रुत्या च एवंजातीयकानां गुणानाम् उपासनार्थत्वेऽवकल्पमाने
And when the Scriptures themselves intend that such kinds of attributes (of Brahman) are for the purpose of deep meditation,

3.2.21 L.51 ✅ न लक्षणया प्रविलयार्थत्वम् अवकल्पते।
It cannot be maintained by way of an implication (Lakṣaṇā) that they are meant for the purpose of their ultimate effacement.

3.2.21 L.52 ✅ सर्वेषां च साधारणे प्रविलयार्थत्वे सति ‘अरूपवदेव हि तत्प्रधानत्वात्’ (BrS.3.2.14) इति विनिगमनकारणवचनम्
If all these (Texts) are to have the common purpose of the ultimate effacement (of the variety of worldly manifestations), the ratio decidendi indicated in BrS.3.2.14,
Viz. — “It is of course devoid of any form because that is the chief purport (of Scriptural passages)”,

3.2.21 L.53 ✅ अनवकाशं स्यात्।
Would have no scope at all.

3.2.21 L.54 ✅ फलमप्येषां यथोपदेशं
क्वचिद्दुरितक्षयः,
क्वचिदैश्वर्यप्राप्तिः,
क्वचित्क्रममुक्तिः
इत्यवगम्यत एव –
It is also understood according to the Scriptural instruction, that these deep meditations on Brahman as having such forms have fruit,
Such as, that sometimes it is the destruction of sin,
Sometimes the attainment of power
And sometimes Final Release by stages (Krama-Mukti),

3.2.21 L.55 ✅ इत्यतः पार्थगर्थ्यमेव उपासनावाक्यानां ब्रह्मवाक्यानां च न्याय्यम्,
And hence it is logical (to understand) that the passages setting out deep meditations and passages purely dealing with Brahman as such, have different meanings

3.2.21 L.56 ✅ न एकवाक्यत्वम्॥
And are not reconcilable.

3.2.21 L.57 ✅ कथं च एषामेकवाक्यतोत्प्रेक्ष्यत इति वक्तव्यम्।
Besides (the Vedāntin says further) you (the opponent) have to state in what way you believe that they are reconcilable.

3.2.21 L.58 ✅ एकनियोगप्रतीतेः,
If it be said (that they are so reconcilable) because it is perceived that there is but the same one injunction in both these sorts of passages,

3.2.21 L.59 ✅ प्रयाज-दर्शपूर्णमास-वाक्यवदिति चेत्,
As there is for instance in the passage about Prayāja (some minor Karma) and Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa,

3.2.21 L.60 ✅ न, ब्रह्मवाक्येषु नियोगाभावात् –
(We reply) — No, because in passages referring to Brahman, there is absence of any injunction.

3.2.21 L.61 ✅ वस्तुमात्र-पर्यवसायीनि हि ब्रह्मवाक्यानि, न नियोगोपदेशीनि
इत्येतद्विस्तरेण प्रतिष्ठापितम् ‘तत्तु समन्वयात्’ (BrS.1.1.4) इत्यत्र।
It has already been fully established in BrS.1.1.4 (“But it is, that Brahman is to be known from the Scriptures, because the Vedānta texts have that connected sequence”)
How passages dealing with Brahman, only culminate in determining an already existing entity, and do not purport to give any injunction.

3.2.21 L.62 ✅ किंविषयश्चात्र नियोगोऽभिप्रेयत इति वक्तव्यम्;
Besides it must be stated (by you — the opponent) as to what kind of activity it is, to which this injunction applies.

3.2.21 L.63 ✅ पुरुषो हि नियुज्यमानः ‘कुरु’ इति स्वव्यापारे कस्मिंश्चिन्नियुज्यते।
Whenever an injunction is given to a person, he is enjoined to do a particular thing such as — ‘do this’.

3.2.21 L.64 ✅ ननु द्वैतप्रपञ्चप्रविलयो नियोगविषयो भविष्यति –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) the dissolution of the duality of the variety of worldly manifestations (Dvaita-prapañca) may well be the kind of activity meant by that injunction,

3.2.21 L.65 ✅ अप्रविलापिते हि द्वैतप्रपञ्चे
Because as long as this duality of the variety of worldly manifestations is not dissolved,

3.2.21 L.66 ✅ ब्रह्मतत्त्वावबोधो न भवतीति
The knowledge of the truth of Brahman is not attained

3.2.21 L.67 ✅ अतो ब्रह्मतत्त्वावबोध-प्रत्यनीकभूतो द्वैतप्रपञ्चः प्रविलाप्यः –
And hence the duality of the variety of worldly manifestations which is hostile (Pratyanīka, ‘about face’) to the knowledge of Brahman has to be first dissolved.

3.2.21 L.68 ✅ यथा स्वर्गकामस्य यागोऽनुष्ठातव्य उपदिश्यते,
Just as a man who is desirous of attaining heaven is advised to perform a sacrifice,

3.2.21 L.69 ✅ एवमपवर्गकामस्य प्रपञ्चप्रविलयः;
Similarly one who is desirous of Final Release is advised to dissolve the duality of the variety of worldly manifestations.

3.2.21 L.70 ✅ यथा च तमसि व्यवस्थितं घटादितत्त्वमवबुभुत्समानेन
Just as one desiring to ascertain the truth of the existence of a jar placed in the dark,

3.2.21 L.71 ✅ तत्प्रत्यनीकभूतं तमः प्रविलाप्यते,
First removes the darkness which is hostile to such ascertainment,

3.2.21 L.72 ✅ एवं ब्रह्मतत्त्वम् अवबुभुत्समानेन
Similarly a person wishing to realize the truth about Brahman

3.2.21 L.73 ✅ तत्प्रत्यनीकभूतः प्रपञ्चः प्रविलापयितव्यः –
Has first to dissolve this duality of the variety of worldly manifestations which is hostile (to such realization).

3.2.21 L.74 ✅ ब्रह्मस्वभावो हि प्रपञ्चः,
This variety of worldly manifestations, now, has Brahman as its true nature,

3.2.21 L.75 ✅ न प्रपञ्चस्वभावं ब्रह्म;
While Brahman is not of the nature of the variety of worldly manifestations,

3.2.21 L.76 ✅ तेन नामरूपप्रपञ्च-प्रविलापनेन
And it is by dissolving this variety of worldly manifestations of names and forms

3.2.21 L.77 ✅ ब्रह्मतत्त्वावबोधो भवति – इति।
That the knowledge of the truth of Brahman is attained.

3.2.21 L.78 ✅ अत्र वयं पृच्छामः –
With regard to all this we (the Vedāntins) ask —

3.2.21 L.79 ✅ कोऽयं प्रपञ्चप्रविलयो नाम?
What exactly is this dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations any way?

3.2.21 L.80 ✅ किमग्निप्रतापसम्पर्कात् घृतकाठिन्य-प्रविलय इव प्रपञ्च-प्रविलयः कर्तव्यः,
Is this dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations to be accomplished in the same manner in which the solidity of ghee is dissolved by contact with the heat of fire,

3.2.21 L.81 ✅ आहोस्विदेकस्मिंश्चन्द्रे तिमिरकृतानेकचन्द्रप्रपञ्चवत्
Or whether, just as, though the moon is but one only, the falsity of seeing more than one moon as a result of Diplopia, is removed (by treatment),

3.2.21 L.82 ✅ अविद्याकृतो ब्रह्मणि नामरूप-प्रपञ्चो विद्यया प्रविलापयितव्यः – इति।
This variety of worldly manifestations of names and forms, imposed on Brahman by Nescience, is to be dissolved by means of knowledge?

3.2.21 L.83 ✅ तत्र यदि तावद्विद्यमानोऽयं प्रपञ्चः देहादिलक्षण आध्यात्मिकः बाह्यश्च
Now, with regard to that, if it be maintained (by the opponent of Vedānta), that this actually existing variety of worldly manifestations of Ādhyātmika nature such as a body etc.,

3.2.21 L.84 ✅ पृथिव्यादिलक्षणः प्रविलापयितव्य इत्युच्यते,
And the actually existing variety of external manifestations such as this world etc., have to be dissolved,

3.2.21 L.85 ✅ स पुरुषमात्रेणाशक्यः प्रविलापयितुमिति
Then, as it would be impossible for a man as such, so to dissolve them,

3.2.21 L.86 ✅ तत्प्रविलयोपदेशोऽशक्यविषय एव स्यात्।
Any such instruction to dissolve them would be with regard to something having the nature of an impossibility.

3.2.21 L.87 ✅ एकेन च आदिमुक्तेन पृथिव्यादिप्रविलयः कृत इति
And assuming that it is possible for a man to do so, and assuming also that the very first person who has attained Final Release must have already dissolved this earth etc.,

3.2.21 L.88 ✅ इदानीं पृथिव्यादिशून्यं जगदभविष्यत्।
Then this universe must indeed now be devoid of this world etc. (which it actually is not).

3.2.21 L.89 ✅ अथ अविद्याध्यस्तो ब्रह्मण्येकस्मिन् अयं प्रपञ्चो विद्यया प्रविलाप्यत इति ब्रूयात्,
If it be said that this variety of worldly manifestations superimposed on the one and only one Brahman through Nescience, is to be dissolved by means of knowledge,

3.2.21 L.90 ✅
ततो ब्रह्मैव अविद्याध्यस्त-प्रपञ्चप्रत्याख्यानेन आवेदयितव्यम् – Then it would merely suffice to make a person understand Brahman, by merely indicating it and denying the truth of the variety of worldly manifestations superimposed on it by Nescience, by means of such Scriptural passages as

3.2.21 L.91 ✅ ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म’ ‘तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति –
“Brahman is the only one without a second”, “That is the Truth, the Ātmā, that thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7),

3.2.21 L.92 ✅ तस्मिन्नावेदिते, विद्या स्वयमेवोत्पद्यते;
And when that is made known, knowledge (Vidyā) would spring up of itself and counteract Nescience,

3.2.21 L.93 ✅ तया च अविद्या बाध्यते, ततश्च अविद्याध्यस्तः सकलोऽयं नामरूपप्रपञ्चः स्वप्नप्रपञ्चवत् प्रविलीयते –
And the variety of worldly manifestations of names and forms would melt away like the variety of worldly manifestations in a dream.

3.2.21 L.94 ✅ अनावेदिते तु ब्रह्मणि
‘ब्रह्मविज्ञानं कुरु प्रपञ्चप्रविलयं च’ इति
शतकृत्वोऽप्युक्ते
But as long as Brahman is not made known (by the Scriptures),
Even if such exhortations are made a hundred times, thus —
‘Realize Brahman, dissolve this variety of worldly manifestations’,

3.2.21 L.95 ✅ न ब्रह्मविज्ञानं प्रपञ्चप्रविलयो वा जायते।
Neither is the knowledge of Brahman attained, nor does any dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations ever take place.

3.2.21 L.96 ✅ नन्वावेदिते ब्रह्मणि
तद्विज्ञान-विषयः प्रपञ्चविलय-विषयो वा नियोगः स्यात्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) such injunction may well relate to the act of knowing the nature of Brahman or to the dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations,
When the Scriptures have once made Brahman known.

3.2.21 L.97 ✅ न, निष्प्रपञ्च-ब्रह्मात्मत्वावेदनेनैव
(We reply) — No, it is merely by making a person realize (on the authority of the Scriptures) that Brahman is devoid of any variety of worldly manifestations,

3.2.21 L.98 ✅ उभयसिद्धेः –
That both these (i.e. the knowledge of Brahman and the dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations) are simultaneously attained.

3.2.21 L.99 ✅ रज्जुस्वरूप-प्रकाशनेनैव हि
It is merely by displaying the true nature of a rope,

3.2.21 L.100 ✅ तत्स्वरूप-विज्ञानम् अविद्याध्यस्तसर्पादि-प्रपञ्चप्रविलयश्च भवति;
That both the knowledge of a rope qua a rope and the dissolution of the snake etc., superimposed on it by Nescience, is simultaneously accomplished.

3.2.21 L.101 ✅ न च कृतमेव पुनः क्रियते॥
What is done once, is never done again.

3.2.21 L.102 ✅ नियोज्योऽपि च प्रपञ्चावस्थायां योऽवगम्यते जीवो नाम,
Now (we ask), does this Jīva-Self which is supposed to be the object of such an injunction, during the Jīva-Self’s condition of phenomenal existence,

3.2.21 L.103 ✅ स प्रपञ्चपक्षस्यैव वा स्यात्,
Belong to the phenomenal world,

3.2.21 L.104 ✅ ब्रह्मपक्षस्यैव वा।
Or is it Brahman itself?

3.2.21 L.105 ✅ प्रथमे विकल्पे
As regards the first alternative —

3.2.21 L.106 ✅ निष्प्रपञ्चब्रह्मतत्त्व-प्रतिपादनेन
By the expounding of the truth of Brahman as being an entity devoid of the variety of worldly manifestations,

3.2.21 L.107 ✅ पृथिव्यादिवत् जीवस्यापि प्रविलापितत्वात्
Along with the dissolution of the world, the Jīva-Self itself also will have been dissolved,

3.2.21 L.108 ✅ कस्य प्रपञ्चविलये नियोग उच्येत
And then, to whom, can this injunction to dissolve the variety of worldly manifestations, be given,

3.2.21 L.109 ✅ कस्य वा नियोगनिष्ठतया मोक्षोऽवाप्तव्य उच्येत?
And who, by faithfully obeying such an injunction, could you possibly say, would have to attain Final Release?

3.2.21 L.110 ✅ द्वितीयेऽपि
As regards the second alternative,

3.2.21 L.111 ✅ ब्रह्मैव अनियोज्यस्वभावं जीवस्य स्वरूपम्,
जीवत्वं तु अविद्याकृतमेव – इति प्रतिपादिते
When Brahman has been expounded thus — viz. that Brahman which cannot possibly be the object of an injunction, is itself the real nature of the Jīva-Self,
And that the phenomenal condition of the Jīva-Self is caused by Nescience, —

3.2.21 L.112 ✅ ब्रह्मणि नियोज्याभावात्
Then, by reason of the absence of any entity to whom such an injunction can possibly be given,

3.2.21 L.113 ✅ नियोगाभाव एव।
There would be the absence of any such injunction itself.

3.2.21 L.114 ✅ द्रष्टव्यादि-शब्दा अपि परविद्याधिकारपठिताः
So, words such as “Ātmā should be seen etc.” used in the chapter dealing with Brahma-Vidyā,

3.2.21 L.115 ✅ तत्त्वाभिमुखीकरण-प्रधानाः,
न तत्त्वावबोधविधि-प्रधाना भवन्ति;
Also would not have the purport of an injunction to realize the truth,
But would be for the purpose of bringing a person face to face with the Truth (Tattva) i.e. Brahman.

3.2.21 L.116 ✅ लोकेऽपि – इदं पश्य, इदमाकर्णयेति च एवंजातीयकेषु निर्देशेषु
Even in the ordinary world, directions such as ‘see this’, ‘listen to this’ are only meant to imply,

3.2.21 L.117 ✅ प्रणिधानमात्रं कुर्वित्युच्यते,
That one should give one’s attention (to what is being said),

3.2.21 L.118 ✅ न साक्षाज्ज्ञानमेव कुर्विति;
And there is no direct injunction that one should actually attain any knowledge.

3.2.21 L.119 ✅ ज्ञेयाभिमुखस्यापि
Even when a person is face to face with any object of knowledge,

3.2.21 L.120 ✅ ज्ञानं कदाचिज्जायते, कदाचिन्न जायते;
Such knowledge may, or perhaps may not, supervene,

3.2.21 L.121 ✅ तस्मात् तं प्रति ज्ञानविषय एव दर्शयितव्यो ज्ञापयितुकामेन;
And therefore, one who intends to impart such knowledge need only indicate the object of knowledge to him,

3.2.21 L.122 ✅ तस्मिन्दर्शिते
And when once that is so indicated,

3.2.21 L.123 ✅ स्वयमेव यथा-विषयं यथा-प्रमाणं च ज्ञानमुत्पद्यते।
Knowledge supervenes in proportion to the nature of the object of knowledge (according to whether it is gross or subtle), and in proportion to the capacity of the means of proof.

3.2.21 L.124 ✅ न च प्रमाणान्तरेण अन्यथाप्रसिद्धेऽर्थे अन्यथाज्ञानं नियुक्तस्याप्युपपद्यते।
Nor can it be, that a person so enjoined can possibly understand, that a thing known to be of one nature by some particular means of proof, is of another nature, by reason of any such injunction.

3.2.21 L.125 ✅ यदि पुनर्नियुक्तोऽहमिति अन्यथा ज्ञानं कुर्यात्,
If a person considering himself to be so enjoined, understands a thing in a different way (than what it actually is),

3.2.21 L.126 ✅ न तु तत् ज्ञानम् – किं तर्हि? – मानसी सा क्रिया;
Then that would not, in fact, be knowledge as such but merely a mental act,

3.2.21 L.127 ✅ स्वयमेव चेदन्यथोत्पद्येत, भ्रान्तिरेव स्यात्।
And even if such different knowledge arises of itself, then it can only be of an illusory nature.

3.2.21 L.128 ✅ ज्ञानं तु प्रमाण-जन्यं
Knowledge as such, on the other hand, is generated by the means of proof

3.2.21 L.129 ✅ यथाभूत-विषयं च;
Ānd is faithful to the object (of knowledge) as it is.

3.2.21 L.130 ✅ न तत् नियोगशतेनापि कारयितुं शक्यते,
It can never be produced by even a hundred injunctions,

3.2.21 L.131 ✅ न च प्रतिषेधशतेनापि वारयितुं शक्यते;
Nor can it ever be prevented from arising even by a hundred prohibitions also.

3.2.21 L.132 ✅ न हि तत् पुरुष-तन्त्रम्,
It does not depend upon a man,

3.2.21 L.133 ✅ वस्तु-तन्त्रमेव हि तत्;
But depends merely on the existing thing itself.

3.2.21 L.134 ✅ अतोऽपि नियोगाभावः।
Hence also, there is absence of any injunction (as to the knowledge of Brahman).

3.2.21 L.135 ✅ किञ्चान्यत् – नियोग-निष्ठतयैव पर्यवस्यत्याम्नाये,
Moreover, were the aim of the Scriptures to be to culminate merely in injunctions only,

3.2.21 L.136 ✅ यदभ्युपगतम् अनियोज्य-ब्रह्मात्मत्वं जीवस्य,
Then, what has so far been understood, viz. that the Jīva-Self is nothing else but Brahman, about which there could be no injunction,

3.2.21 L.137 ✅ तत् अप्रमाणकमेव स्यात्;
Would be rendered unauthoritative.

3.2.21 L.138 ✅ अथ शास्त्रमेव अनियोज्य-ब्रह्मात्मत्वमाचक्षीत,
Now, if the Śāstra itself were to speak about Brahman as being one which cannot be an object of an injunction,

3.2.21 L.139 ✅ तदवबोधे च पुरुषं नियुञ्जीत,
And at the same time, were it to enjoin a person to understand it,

3.2.21 L.140 ✅ ततो ब्रह्मशास्त्रस्यैकस्य द्व्यर्थपरता विरुद्धार्थपरता च प्रसज्येयाताम्।
Then in that case, one and the same Brahma-Śāstra would have a double and a mutually contradictory significance.

3.2.21 L.141 ✅ नियोगपरतायां च,
Now, supposing the Scriptures were to give injunctions only,

3.2.21 L.142 ✅ श्रुतहानिः अश्रुतकल्पना
कर्मफलवत् मोक्षस्य अदृष्टफलत्वम् अनित्यत्वं च – इति
एवमादयो दोषा न केनचित्परिहर्तुं शक्याः।
It would not be possible for anybody to obviate such faults as would necessarily arise,
Viz., the abandonment of what the Scriptures have declared, and the acceptance of what they have not declared,
And it would also mean, that Final Release also, like the fruit of actions, is the fruit of an unseen principle (Adṛṣṭa) and is non-permanent.

3.2.21 L.143 ✅ तस्माद् अवगति-निष्ठान्येव ब्रह्मवाक्यानि,
Hence the passages dealing with Brahman, necessarily aim at the attainment of its knowledge,

3.2.21 L.144 ✅ न नियोग-निष्ठानि।
And do not aim at giving any injunction.

3.2.21 L.145 ✅ अतश्च एकनियोग-प्रतीतेरेकवाक्यतेति अयुक्तम्॥
Hence, it is not logical to reconcile them by saying that they are uniformly perceived to be giving injunctions only.

3.2.21 L.146 ✅ अभ्युपगम्यमानेऽपि च ब्रह्मवाक्येषु नियोगसद्भावे, तदेकत्वं
Besides, assuming that Scriptural passages purport merely to give injunctions, that there is but one uniform injunction in the sentences teaching Brahman

3.2.21 L.147 ✅ निष्प्रपञ्चोपदेशेषु सप्रपञ्चोपदेशेषु च असिद्धम्;
As being devoid of the variety of worldly manifestations, and teaching it as being of the nature of the variety of worldly manifestations also, is not established.

3.2.21 L.148 ✅ न हि शब्दान्तरादिभिः प्रमाणैर्नियोगभेदेऽवगम्यमाने,
सर्वत्र एको नियोग इति शक्यमाश्रयितुम्;
And when a difference in the injunctions is perceived on the authority of different Scriptural passages,
It is not possible to accept that there is only one uniform injunction throughout.

3.2.21 L.149 ✅ प्रयाज-दर्शपूर्णमास-वाक्येषु तु अधिकारांशेनाभेदात् युक्तमेकत्वम्;
In the case of passages dealing with Prayāja and Darśa-Pūrṇa-māsa it is logical to understand, considering the common factor (that one and the same person is competent to perform both), that there is but only one injunction.

3.2.21 L.150 ✅ न त्विह सगुण-निर्गुण-चोदनासु कश्चिदेकत्वाधिकारांशोऽस्ति;
But there is no such common competency with regard to injunctions about qualified and unqualified Brahman.

3.2.21 L.151 ✅ न हि भारूपत्वादयो गुणाः प्रपञ्चप्रविलयोपकारिणः,
The attributes of refulgence etc. are not useful for attaining the dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations,

3.2.21 L.152 ✅ नापि प्रपञ्चविलयो भारूपत्वादिगुणोपकारी,
Nor is the dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations useful in any way to the attribute of refulgence,

3.2.21 L.153 ✅ परस्परविरोधित्वात्;
As they are mutually contradictory.

3.2.21 L.154 ✅ न हि कृत्स्नप्रपञ्च-प्रविलापनं
प्रपञ्चैकदेशापेक्षणं च
एकस्मिन्धर्मिणि
युक्तं समावेशयितुम्।
It is not possible to accommodate both
The dissolution of the variety of worldly manifestations
And the necessity of accepting only a part of the variety of worldly manifestations as true,
In one and the same person.

3.2.21 L.155 ✅ तस्मात् अस्मदुक्त एव विभागः आकारवदनाकारोपदेशानां
युक्ततर इति॥२१॥
Therefore, it is more logical to accept the distinction between instructions into those for qualified, and those for unqualified Brahman, as made by us,
As being logically more plausible. — 21.

– 97. Ubhaya-liṅga-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.2.22 Su..23 Su..24 Su..25 Su..26 Su..27 Su..28 Su..29 Su..30

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्रकृतैतावत्त्वं हि प्रतिषेधति ततो ब्रवीति च भूयः॥३.२.२२॥
Prakṛtaitāvattvaṃ hi pratiṣedhati tato bravīti ca bhūyaḥ.

Prakṛta-etāvattvam: what has been mentioned up to this; Hi: because, for; Pratiṣedhati: denies; Tataḥ: then that, over and above that; Bravīti: declares; Ca: and; Bhūyaḥ: something more. (Prakṛta: mentioned first, previously stated; Etāvattvam: this much.)

🔗 (The Scriptural clause) ‘Not so, Not so’, denies that Brahman has such aspects (Etāvattva i.e. that it has aspects and is also aspectless), which is relevant here (Prakṛta), and then the Scriptures again say something more thereafter. — 3.2.22.

3.2.22 L.1 ✅ ‘द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च’ (BrhU.2.3.1) इत्युपक्रम्य,
The Scriptures, after beginning thus — “Two verily are the aspects of Brahman, the corporeal (Mūrta) and the incorporeal (Amūrta) etc.” (BrhUEng.2.3.1),

3.2.22 L.2 ✅ पञ्चमहाभूतानि द्वैराश्येन प्रविभज्य,
And then dividing the five great primary elements into two groups (i.e. Earth, Water and Tejas as one group and Vāyu and Ākāśa as the other respectively),

3.2.22 L.3 ✅ अमूर्त-रसस्य च पुरुषशब्दोदितस्य माहारजनादीनि रूपाणि दर्शयित्वा,
And after indicating that which is the essence of the incorporeal aspect and is known by the name of Puruṣa (the Hiraṇya-garbha) as having the form like turmeric (i.e. Māhā-rajana) etc.,

3.2.22 L.4 ✅ पुनः पठ्यते – ‘अथात आदेशो नेति नेति न ह्येतस्मादिति नेत्यन्यत्परमस्ति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) इति।
Go on further to say — “Now is there the instruction ‘Not so, Not so’ (Neti Neti), for there is nothing higher than this, that he is thus” (BrhUEng.2.3.6).

3.2.22 L.5 ✅ तत्र कोऽस्य प्रतिषेधस्य विषय इति जिज्ञासामहे;
With regard to that, we (the opponents of Vedānta) desire to know as to what object is this the denial of.

3.2.22 L.6 ✅ न ह्यत्र इदं तदिति विशेषितं किञ्चित्प्रतिषेध्यमुपलभ्यते;
There is nothing here which is seen to be stated specifically, thus — ‘This, is That’ — , which can be intended to be denied.

3.2.22 L.7 ✅ इति-शब्देन तु अत्र प्रतिषेध्यं किमपि समर्प्यते,
The word ‘So’ (Iti), however, necessarily implies that there is something which is intended to be denied,

3.2.22 L.8 ✅ ‘नेति नेति’ इति इतिपरत्वात् नञ्प्रयोगस्य;
Because the use of the negative in the passage ‘Not so, Not so’ goes with the word ‘So’ (Iti).

3.2.22 L.9 ✅ इति-शब्दश्चायं सन्निहितालम्बनः
The word ‘So’ (Iti) which goes with what is in close proximity (with it)

3.2.22 L.10 ✅ एवं-शब्दसमानवृत्तिः प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते –
And has a function similar to the word ‘Thus’ (Evam, ‘in this way’), appears to have been used here,

3.2.22 L.11 ✅ ‘इति ह स्मोपाध्यायः कथयति’ इत्येवमादिषु;
Just as it is for instance used in the passage “Thus indeed, the teacher has said etc.” (which means that this is what the teacher has already said).

3.2.22 L.12 ✅ सन्निहितं चात्र प्रकरण-सामर्थ्याद् रूप-द्वयं सप्रपञ्चं ब्रह्मणः,
According to the chapter, what are proximate here, are the two phenomenal aspects of Brahman (the corporeal and the incorporeal), and that very Brahman,

3.2.22 L.13 ✅ तच्च ब्रह्म, यस्य ते द्वे रूपे।
Of which these (i.e. the corporeal and incorporeal) are the two aspects.

3.2.22 L.14 ✅ तत्र नः संशय उपजायते –
Now, with regard to this (says the opponent) a doubt arises (in our minds) in this way —

3.2.22 L.15 ✅ किमयं प्रतिषेधो रूपे रूपवच्च उभयमपि प्रतिषेधति,
Whether this denial denies both, viz. these two aspects and that of which they are these two aspects (viz. Brahman),

3.2.22 L.16 ✅ आहोस्विदेकतरम्;
Or whether it denies only one (of the two),

3.2.22 L.17 ✅ यदाप्येकतरम्,
And if the denial is of one only,

3.2.22 L.18 ✅ तदापि किं ब्रह्म प्रतिषेधति, रूपे परिशिनष्टि,
Then, whether it denies Brahman, and leaves over the two aspects (undenied),

3.2.22 L.19 ✅ आहोस्विद् रूपे प्रतिषेधति, ब्रह्म परिशिनष्टि – इति॥
Or whether, it denies the two aspects and leaves over Brahman (undenied).

3.2.22 L.20 ✅ तत्र प्रकृतत्वाविशेषाद् उभयमपि प्रतिषेधतीत्याशङ्कामहे –
Here, we (says the opponent) suspect, that both these (viz. the two aspects of Brahman, and Brahman itself) are equally relevant to the context, and both are denied.

3.2.22 L.21 ✅ द्वौ चैतौ प्रतिषेधौ, द्विः नेति-शब्दप्रयोगात्;
There are two denials here, because the words ‘Not so’ (Neti) are used twice.

3.2.22 L.22 ✅ तयोरेकेन सप्रपञ्चं ब्रह्मणो रूपं प्रतिषिध्यते,
We feel that by the first, the phenomenal (i.e. the corporeal and the incorporeal) aspects of Brahman are denied,

3.2.22 L.23 ✅ अपरेण रूपवद्ब्रह्म – इति भवति मतिः।
And by the other, Brahman, of which they are the two phenomenal aspects, is denied.

3.2.22 L.24 ✅ अथवा ब्रह्मैव रूपवत् प्रतिषिध्यते;
Or rather, it is Brahman alone, of which they are the two phenomenal aspects, that is denied,

3.2.22 L.25 ✅ तद्धि वाङ्मनसातीतत्वाद् असम्भाव्यमान-सद्भावं प्रतिषेधार्हम्;
Because, in as much as, its existence is beyond comprehension by speech and mind, it (i.e. Brahman) is the one which deserves to be so denied,

3.2.22 L.26 ✅ न तु रूप-प्रपञ्चः प्रत्यक्षादिगोचरत्वात् प्रतिषेधार्हः;
While the two phenomenal aspects (of Brahman) do not so deserve to be denied, in as much as they are perceivable by such means of proof as direct perception etc.

3.2.22 L.27 ✅ अभ्यासस्त्वादरार्थः
The repetition (of the words ‘Not so’) is with a view to inspire respectful confidence (in the statement denying Brahman).

3.2.22 L.28 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Our (i.e. the Vedāntin’s) reply to this conclusion of the opponent of Vedānta is —

3.2.22 L.29 ✅ न तावदुभयप्रतिषेध उपपद्यते,
So far as it goes it would not be reasonably sustainable, that both could be thus denied,

3.2.22 L.30 ✅ शून्यवादप्रसङ्गात् –
Because there would be the predicament of (such a conclusion leading to) the doctrine of the void (Śūnya-Vāda i.e. Nihility).

3.2.22 L.31 ✅ कञ्चिद्धि परमार्थम् आलम्ब्य अपरमार्थः प्रतिषिध्यते,
It is with reference to some existent entity, that a non-existent entity is here denied,

3.2.22 L.32 ✅ यथा रज्ज्वादिषु सर्पादयः;
As for instance, when a snake etc. (for which a rope etc. is mistaken), is denied.

3.2.22 L.33 ✅ तच्च परिशिष्यमाणे कस्मिंश्चिद्भावे अवकल्पते।
And this is possible, only if some actually existent entity is left over undenied.

3.2.22 L.34 ✅ कृत्स्नप्रतिषेधे तु कोऽन्यो भावः परिशिष्येत?
Supposing both are denied, what other actually existent entity can possibly be left over (undenied)?

3.2.22 L.35 ✅ अपरिशिष्यमाणे चान्यस्मिन्,
And when no entity is left over (undenied),

3.2.22 L.36 ✅ य इतरः प्रतिषेद्धुम् आरभ्यते प्रतिषेद्धुम् अशक्यत्वात्
The moment one proceeds to deny any entity, in as much as, any such denial becomes impossible (as no existent entity, with reference to which such entity is sought to be denied as being non-existent, is left over undenied),

3.2.22 L.37 ✅ तस्यैव परमार्थत्वापत्तेः
The entity so sought to be denied (as non-existent) itself attains existence,

3.2.22 L.38 ✅ प्रतिषेधानुपपत्तिः।
And thus, the contemplated denial becomes reasonably unsustainable.

3.2.22 L.39 ✅ नापि ब्रह्मप्रतिषेध उपपद्यते –
Nor again is any such denial of Brahman reasonably sustainable,

3.2.22 L.40 ✅ ‘ब्रह्म ते ब्रवाणि’ (BrhU.2.1.1)
इत्याद्युपक्रम् अविरोधात्,
As it would contradict the introductory statement —
“I shall speak to you of Brahman” (BrhUEng.2.1.1, Bālāki to Ajāta-śatru),

3.2.22 L.41 ✅ ‘असन्नेव स भवति। असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1)
इत्यादिनिन्दाविरोधात्,
And also because it would contradict the censure in the passage —
“He who understands Brahman as non-existent, himself becomes non-existent” (TaitUEng.2.6.1),

3.2.22 L.42 ✅ ‘अस्तीत्येवोपलब्धव्यः’ (KathU.2.3.13)
इत्याद्यवधारणविरोधात्,
And it would also contradict the definite understanding —
“It (i.e. Brahman) is, and it is as such, that it should be understood” (KathU.2.3.13).

3.2.22 L.43 ✅ सर्ववेदान्तव्याकोप-प्रसङ्गाच्च।
Also it would cause the predicament of the whole Vedānta being stultified.

3.2.22 L.44 ✅ वाङ्मनसातीतत्वमपि ब्रह्मणो
The statement (of the Scriptures) that Brahman is beyond comprehension by speech and mind,

3.2.22 L.45 ✅ न अभावाभिप्रायेणाभिधीयते;
Is not meant to imply its total non-existence.

3.2.22 L.46 ✅ न हि महता परिकरबन्धेन
‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1)
‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्येवमादिना
वेदान्तेषु ब्रह्म प्रतिपाद्य
तस्यैव पुनः अभावोऽभिलप्येत;
After expounding Brahman in the Vedānta
With such great trouble, By means of such Scriptural passages as “One who knows Brahman attains that transcendent one” (TaitUEng.2.1.1),
“Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Eternity” (TaitUEng.2.1.1),
No one would seek to imply its non-existence,

3.2.22 L.47 ✅ ‘प्रक्षालनाद्धि पङ्कस्य दूरादस्पर्शनं वरम्’ इति हि न्यायः।
Because, does not the maxim say thus — Better not touch mud at all, and give it a wide berth, than (do so), and then bother about washing it off?

3.2.22 L.48 ✅ प्रतिपादनप्रक्रिया तु एषा –
‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते। अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (TaitU.2.4.1) इति;
The Scriptural passage “From whence, without ever reaching it, speech along with the mind is thrown back”
Is but a technical manner of expounding it,

3.2.22 L.49 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति –
And it means that,

3.2.22 L.50 ✅ वाङ्मनसातीतम्
अविषयान्तःपाति
प्रत्यगात्मभूतं
नित्यशुद्धमुक्तस्वभावं ब्रह्मेति।
Brahman is beyond (comprehension by) speech and the mind,
That it does not fall into the category of any (external phenomenal) object,
That it forms the Universal Self,
And that it has the nature of being eternally pure, enlightened and free.

3.2.22 L.51 ✅ तस्माद् ब्रह्मणो रूप-प्रपञ्चं प्रतिषेधति,
परिशिनष्टि ब्रह्म – इत्यवगन्तव्यम्॥
Therefore, it should be understood
That only the two phenomenal aspects of Brahman are here denied,
And Brahman itself is left over (undenied).

3.2.22 L.52 ✅ तदेतदुच्यते –
The same is expressed (in the Sūtra) thus —

3.2.22 L.53 ✅ प्रकृतैतावत्त्वं हि प्रतिषेधतीति।
“Denies that Brahman has such aspects (Etāvattva i.e. it has aspects and is also aspectless) which is relevant here”.

3.2.22 L.54 ✅ प्रकृतं यदेतावत्
इयत्तापरिच्छिन्नं
मूर्तामूर्त-लक्षणं ब्रह्मणो रूपं तदेष शब्दः प्रतिषेधति।
This Scriptural word has denied that particular form of Brahman which is characterized by the corporeal and incorporeal aspects of Brahman,
And which thus is circumscribed by a particular limit i.e. extension
And which is relevant to the present context.

3.2.22 L.55 ✅ तद्धि प्रकृतं प्रपञ्चितं च पूर्वस्मिन्ग्रन्थे
That is what is relevant and has been elaborated upon in the preceding chapter,

3.2.22 L.56 ✅ अधिदैवतम् अध्यात्मं च।
In its relation to the Divinities (Adhidaivatā) and the body (Adhyātma)

3.2.22 L.57 ✅ तज्जनितमेव च
As also that which has originated from it,

3.2.22 L.58 ✅ वासनालक्षणम् अपरं रूपम्
And [the other form - Trans. from Panoli] has the characteristic of impressions (Vāsanās),

3.2.22 L.59 ✅ अमूर्तरसभूतं
And which abides in that which is the cause of the incorporeal aspect

3.2.22 L.60 ✅ पुरुषशब्दोदितं लिङ्गात्मव्यपाश्रयं
And is known by the name of Puruṣa, which is the subtle Self (Liṅgātmā)

3.2.22 L.61 ✅ माहारजनाद्युपमाभिः दर्शितम् –
And which is indicated by such illustrations as one having the yellow form i.e. the colour of turmeric etc.,

3.2.22 L.62 ✅ अमूर्त-रसस्य पुरुषस्य चक्षुर्ग्राह्यरूप-योगित्वानुपपत्तेः।
Because the Puruṣa, the quintessence of the incorporeal aspect, cannot reasonably have any relation with an aspect perceivable by the eye.

3.2.22 L.63 ✅ तदेतत् सप्रपञ्चं ब्रह्मणो रूपं सन्निहितालम्बनेन इति-करणेन प्रतिषेधकं नञं प्रति उपनीयत इति गम्यते।
Thus it is understood that it is these phenomenal aspects of Brahman which are referred to by the word ‘Iti’ which indicates things proximate to it, and is led towards the negative which has the sense of denial.

3.2.22 L.64 ✅ ब्रह्म तु रूप-विशेषणत्वेन षष्ठ्या निर्दिष्टं पूर्वस्मिन्ग्रन्थे,
Brahman which has been indicated in the previous chapter, is indicated by the use of the genitive case-ending as the qualifying adjective of the two aspects of Brahman,

3.2.22 L.65 ✅ न स्वप्रधानत्वेन।
And not in its principal sense.

3.2.22 L.66 ✅ प्रपञ्चिते च तदीये रूपद्वये
After these two forms of Brahman are dealt with elaborately,

3.2.22 L.67 ✅ रूपवतः स्वरूप-जिज्ञासायाम् इदमुपक्रान्तम् –
And when there is a desire to know the form of that, of which there are these two aspects,

3.2.22 L.68 ✅ ‘अथात आदेशो नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) इति।
It is stated, “Now then there is the instruction, ‘Not so, not so’” (BrhUEng.2.3.6),

3.2.22 L.69 ✅ तत्र कल्पितरूप-प्रत्याख्यानेन ब्रह्मणः स्वरूपावेदनमिति निर्णीयते।
And thus it is determined that in this way, by denying the truth of the imagined aspects of Brahman, the real nature of Brahman is intimated,

3.2.22 L.70 ✅ तदास्पदं हि इदं समस्तं कार्यम्
And this aggregate of all effects which depends upon it,

3.2.22 L.71 ✅ ‘नेति नेति’ इति प्रतिषिद्धम्।
Is denied to be true, by the words ‘not so, not so’.

3.2.22 L.72 ✅ युक्तं च
It is logical also,

3.2.22 L.73 ✅ कार्यस्य वाचारम्भण-शब्दादिभ्योऽसत्त्वमिति नेति नेतीति प्रतिषेधनम्;
That this is a repudiation of all effects as such, by the words ‘not so, not so’ as they are in the ultimate sense non-existent, because of the Scriptural passage, which characterizes them as but a mere expression in speech,

3.2.22 L.74 ✅ न तु ब्रह्मणः,
And that it is not a repudiation of Brahman,

3.2.22 L.75 ✅ सर्वकल्पना-मूलत्वात्।
In as much as it is the root (Mūla) of all these imaginings (Kalpanās).

3.2.22 L.76 ✅ न च अत्र इयमाशङ्का कर्तव्या –
No doubt should here be entertained,

3.2.22 L.77 ✅ कथं हि शास्त्रं स्वयमेव ब्रह्मणो रूप-द्वयं दर्शयित्वा,
As to how the Śāstra, having itself first indicated these two aspects of Brahman, viz. the corporeal and the incorporeal,

3.2.22 L.78 ✅ स्वयमेव पुनः प्रतिषेधति –
Should subsequently repudiate them,

3.2.22 L.79 ✅ ‘प्रक्षालनाद्धि पङ्कस्य दूरादस्पर्शनं वरम्’ इति –
Because as the maxim says, ‘it is better not to touch mud at all by giving it a wide berth, than (do so) and then bother about washing it off’,

3.2.22 L.80 ✅ यतः नेदं शास्त्रं प्रतिपाद्यत्वेन ब्रह्मणो रूपद्वयं निर्दिशति,
Because the Śāstra does not indicate the two aspects of Brahman as fit for being expounded,

3.2.22 L.81 ✅ लोकप्रसिद्धं तु इदं रूपद्वयं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितं परामृशति प्रतिषेध्यत्वाय
But only incidentally refers to them in as much as they are well-known in the world, as only fit to be repudiated because of their being superimposed on Brahman,

3.2.22 L.82 ✅ शुद्धब्रह्मस्वरूप-प्रतिपादनाय च –
And also for the purpose of expounding the true nature of Brahman,

3.2.22 L.83 ✅ इति निरवद्यम्।
And thus, all that is flawless.

3.2.22 L.84 ✅ द्वौ च एतौ प्रतिषेधौ यथासंख्यन्यायेन
These two denials according to the number,

3.2.22 L.85 ✅ द्वे अपि मूर्तामूर्ते प्रतिषेधतः;
Deny both the corporeal and incorporeal aspects of Brahman,

3.2.22 L.86 ✅ यद्वा पूर्वः प्रतिषेधो भूत-राशिं प्रतिषेधति,
Or rather, the first repudiation refers to the group of elements,

3.2.22 L.87 ✅ उत्तरो वासनाराशिम्।
And the latter one, to the group of impressions.

3.2.22 L.88 ✅ अथवा ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) इति
Or again the meaning is, that in as much as ‘not so, not so’

3.2.22 L.89 ✅ वीप्सा इयम् –
Is tautologous [a repetition],

3.2.22 L.90 ✅ ‘इति’ इति यावत्किञ्चित् उत्प्रेक्ष्यते,
Everything whatsoever that is thought of (as existent)

3.2.22 L.91 ✅ तत्सर्वं न भवतीत्यर्थः –
Does not exist in the real sense.

3.2.22 L.92 ✅ परिगणितप्रतिषेधे हि क्रियमाणे, यदि
Were the repudiation to be limited to a definite number of phenomenal entities [just corporeal and incorporeal],

3.2.22 L.93 ✅ नैतद्ब्रह्म,
किमन्यद्ब्रह्म भवेदिति जिज्ञासा स्यात्;
One would be curious to know, as to what other phenomenal entity, possibly, could be Brahman,
If these phenomenal entities are not Brahman.

3.2.22 L.94 ✅ वीप्सायां तु सत्यां समस्तस्य विषयजातस्य प्रतिषेधात्
The tautologous statement being there, and as all objects as such, are repudiated by it,

3.2.22 L.95 ✅ अविषयः प्रत्यगात्मा ब्रह्मेति,
It becomes established that Brahman is not of the nature of a phenomenal object, but that it is the Universal Self,

3.2.22 L.96 ✅ जिज्ञासा निवर्तते।
And thus in this manner curiosity is satisfied.

3.2.22 L.97 ✅ तस्मात् प्रपञ्चमेव ब्रह्मणि कल्पितं प्रतिषेधति, परिशिनष्टि ब्रह्म –
इति निर्णयः॥
The conclusion therefore is,
That the passage ‘not so, not so’ denies the truth of all phenomenal entities superimposed on Brahman, and Brahman alone is left over (unrepudiated).

3.2.22 L.98 ✅ इतश्च एष एव निर्णयः,
This is again why the conclusion could only be this,

3.2.22 L.99 ✅ यतः – ततः प्रपञ्चप्रतिषेधात्, भूयो ब्रह्म ब्रवीति –
Because after the denial (of the corporeal and incorporeal aspects and impressions) the text goes on further to say —

3.2.22 L.100 ✅ ‘अन्यत्परमस्ति’ (BrhU.2.3.6) इति।
“There is another which is beyond (all this)” (BrhUEng.2.3.6).

3.2.22 L.101 ✅ अभावावसाने हि प्रतिषेधे क्रियमाणे
Now if the denial were to be made to culminate merely in the non-existence of all entities,

3.2.22 L.102 ✅ किमन्यत्परमस्तीति ब्रूयात्।
What else could the text possibly refer to, as being something which is beyond?

3.2.22 L.103 ✅ तत्रैषा अक्षरयोजना –
In this connection the words are to be construed thus:

3.2.22 L.104 ✅ ‘नेति नेति’ इति ब्रह्म आदिश्य,
After indicating Brahman by the words ‘not so, not so’

3.2.22 L.105 ✅ तमेव आदेशं पुनर्निर्वक्ति।
The text explains the instruction thus —

3.2.22 L.106 ✅ ‘नेति नेति’ इत्यस्य कोऽर्थः?
What does this ‘not so, not so’ mean?

3.2.22 L.107 ✅ न हि एतस्माद् ब्रह्मणो व्यतिरिक्तम् अस्तीत्यतः ‘नेति नेति’ इत्युच्यते,
The meaning is, that there is nothing besides this Brahman and hence it is described as ‘not so, not so’,

3.2.22 L.108 ✅ न पुनः स्वयमेव नास्ति – इत्यर्थः;
And it does not mean that Brahman itself is non-existent,

3.2.22 L.109 ✅ तच्च दर्शयति – अन्यत्परम्
And this same is indicated to be the transcendent

3.2.22 L.110 ✅ अप्रतिषिद्धं ब्रह्म अस्तीति।
Brahman, which is not denied.

3.2.22 L.111 ✅ यदा पुनरेवमक्षराणि योज्यन्ते –
When again the words are construed thus —

3.2.22 L.112 ✅ नहि, एतस्मात् ‘इति न’ ‘इति न’ इति प्रपञ्च-प्रतिषेधरूपात् आदेशनात्, अन्यत्परमादेशनं ब्रह्मणः अस्तीति –
“Beyond this declaration by ‘not so, not so’”, what is meant by that is that there is no further instruction about Brahman than the one expressed by the words ‘not so, not so’, which purport to deny all phenomenal existence.

3.2.22 L.113 ✅ तदा, ‘ततो ब्रवीति च भूयः’ इत्येतत् नामधेय-विषयं योजयितव्यम् –
If it is so construed the further Sūtra words — “The Scriptures again say something more thereafter” — should be construed as referring to the name,

3.2.22 L.114 ✅ ‘अथ नामधेयं सत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेव सत्यम्’ (BrhU.2.1.20) इति हि ब्रवीति – इति।
“The Truth of the Truth (Satyasya Satyam)”, “Prāṇas verily are the truth and this (i.e. Brahman) is the truth of that (Truth)” (BrhUEng.2.1.20).

3.2.22 L.115 ✅ तच्च ब्रह्मावसाने प्रतिषेधे समञ्जसं भवति।
This becomes intelligible only if the denial stops short of Brahman (i.e. it does not repudiate it),

3.2.22 L.116 ✅ अभावावसाने तु प्रतिषेधे,
And does not culminate into a mere void or Nihility (Śūnya).

3.2.22 L.117 ✅ किम् ‘सत्यस्य सत्यम्’ इत्युच्येत?
If it culniates in non-existence, what could be called the ‘Truth of truth’? [Trans. from Panoli]

3.2.22 L.118 ✅ तस्माद्ब्रह्मावसानः अयं प्रतिषेधः,
Therefore we conclude that the denial stops short of Brahman

3.2.22 L.119 ✅ नाभावावसानः – इत्यध्यवस्यामः॥२२॥
And does not (by repudiating Brahman) culminate in a mere void or Nihility. — 22.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तदव्यक्तमाह हि॥३.२.२३॥
Tad avyaktam āha hi.

Tat: that (i.e., Brahman); A-vyaktam: is not manifest; Āha: (so the scripture) says; Hi: for, because.

🔗 The Scriptures also declare that it (i.e. Brahman) is unmanifest i.e. unevolved. — 3.2.23.

3.2.23 L.1 ✅ यत्तत् प्रतिषिद्धात् प्रपञ्चजातादन्यत् परं ब्रह्म, तदस्ति चेत्,
(Asks the opponent of Vedānta) — Now, if this, the Highest transcendent Brahman, other than this whole set of manifold phenomenal manifestations (of it) which have already been repudiated, does exist,

3.2.23 L.2 ✅ कस्मान्न गृह्यत इति,
Why is it then, that it is not perceived?

3.2.23 L.3 ✅ उच्यते – तत् अव्यक्तम् अनिन्द्रियग्राह्यम्,
The reply is — Because it is unmanifest i.e. unevolved and unperceivable by the sense-organs,

3.2.23 L.4 ✅ सर्वदृश्य-साक्षित्वात्।
In as much as it is the immediate witness of all that which is visible i.e. knowable.

3.2.23 L.5 ✅ आह हि एवं श्रुतिः –
The Scriptures also declare it thus —

3.2.23 L.6 ✅ ‘न चक्षुषा गृह्यते नापि वाचा नान्यैर्देवैस्तपसा कर्मणा वा’ (MunU.3.1.8)
“It is not perceived by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other Gods (i.e. sense-organs which make all objects manifest), nor through penance nor good actions” (MunU.3.1.8),

3.2.23 L.7 ✅ ‘स एष नेति नेत्यात्माऽगृह्यो न हि गृह्यते’ (BrhU.3.9.26)
“This Self is expressed as not perceivable” (BrhUEng.3.9.26),

3.2.23 L.8 ✅ ‘यत्तदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यम्’ (MunU.1.1.6)
“Which is invisible and unperceivable” (MunU.1.1.6),

3.2.23 L.9 ✅ ‘यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नदृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयने’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इत्याद्या;
“When this (i.e. this person) reaches the fearless condition of that invisible, incorporeal, unexpoundable, and the one that needs no support (i.e. Brahman)” (TaitUEng.2.7.1).

3.2.23 L.10 ✅ स्मृतिरपि – ‘अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते’ (BhG.2.25) इत्याद्या॥२३॥
The Smṛti also says thus — “He is said to be unmanifest i.e. unevolved, unfathomable and unmodifiable” (BhG.2.25). — 23.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अपि च संराधने प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्॥३.२.२४॥
Api ca saṃrādhane pratyakṣānumānābhyām.

Api ca: and moreover; Api ca: in devout meditation; Pratyakṣa-anumānābhyām: from the Śruti and the Smṛti.

🔗 Besides (it i.e. Brahman is realized by the Yogins etc.) during the condition of perfect meditation, because the Scriptures and the Smṛtis say so. — 3.2.24.

3.2.24 L.1 ✅ अपि च एनमात्मानं निरस्तसमस्त-प्रपञ्चमव्यक्तं संराधनकाले पश्यन्ति योगिनः;
Moreover Yogins do perceive [during Saṃrādhana] this Self (i.e. Brahman) which is devoid of all phenomenal manifestations and which is unmanifest.

3.2.24 L.2 ✅ संराधनं च भक्ति-ध्यान-प्रणिधानाद्यनुष्ठानम्।
‘Saṃrādhana’ means the performance of the act of devotion, meditation, and abstract contemplation.

3.2.24 L.3 ✅ कथं पुनरवगम्यते – संराधनकाले पश्यन्तीति?
How again is it known that the Yogins realize it during such Saṃrādhana?

3.2.24 L.4 ✅ प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्, श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यामित्यर्थः।
On the authority of the Scriptures (Pratyakṣa) and the Smṛtis (Anumāna).

3.2.24 L.5 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः –
The Scriptures declare even so, thus —

3.2.24 L.6 ✅ ‘पराञ्चि खानि व्यातृणत् स्वयंभूस्तस्मात् पराङ् पश्यति नान्तरात्मन्।
कश्चिद्धीरः प्रत्यगात्मानमैक्षद् आवृत्तचक्षुरमृतत्वमिच्छन्’ (KathU.2.1.1) इति,
“The Self-born made the sense-organs extrovert i.e. only capable of perceiving outward entities (and not introvert i.e. receptive of the Self within) and hence a man perceives only external objects.
May be, a wise man who has become introspective (by closing his eyes in contemplation) and desirous of immortality occasionally sees the innermost Universal Self” (KathU.2.1.1),

3.2.24 L.7 ✅ ‘ज्ञानप्रसादेन विशुद्धसत्त्वस्ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं ध्यायमानः’ (MunU.3.1.8) इति चैवमाद्या।
“With his mind purified by being graced with knowledge, contemplating steadily on the partless Self (Ātmā) he sees him” (MunU.3.1.8).

3.2.24 L.8 ✅ स्मृतिरपि –
Smṛti also says thus —

3.2.24 L.9 ✅ ‘यं विनिद्रा जितश्वासाः सन्तुष्टाः संयतेन्द्रियाः। ज्योतिः पश्यन्ति युञ्जानास्तस्मै योगात्मने नमः’
“Salutation to him (the Īśvara), who has the nature of Yoga, whom, those whose sleep (of the darkness of ignorance) has been dispelled (Vinidras), who have controlled their breathing, who have a contented mind, and who have their sense-organs well controlled, see, while meditating on his bright light”,

3.2.24 L.10 ✅ ‘योगिनस्तं प्रपश्यन्ति भगवन्तं सनातनम्’ इति चैवमाद्या॥२४॥
And also — “The Yogins see him, the Bhagavān, who is the ancient Lord (of all)”. — 24.

[Go top]

3.2.25 L.1 ✅ ननु संराध्यसंराधक-भावाभ्युपगमात्
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) if it is so understood, that there is a relationship as between one who meditates, and one who is the object of such meditation,

3.2.25 L.2 ✅ परापरात्मनोरन्यत्वं स्यादिति;
Then it would mean that the Highest Self and the other Self (i.e. the Jīva-Self) are different entities.

3.2.25 L.3 ✅ नेत्युच्यते –
We reply — No.

←Prev Next→
प्रकाशादिवच्चावैशेष्यं प्रकाशश्च कर्मण्यभ्यासात्॥३.२.२५॥
Prakāśādivac cāvaiśeṣyaṃ prakāśaś ca karmaṇy abhyāsāt.

Prakāśa-ādivat: like light and the like; Ca: also, and; A-vaiśeṣyam: similarity, non-difference, non-distinction; Prakāśaḥ: Brahman; Ca: and; Karmaṇi: in work; Abhyāsāt: on account of repeated mention (in the Śruti).

🔗 Just as (in the case of) light etc., there is non-difference (between the Highest Self and the Jīva-Self). (The Ātmā in the form of) Light i.e. Brahman, is so (i.e. appears different) during activity (Karmaṇi). There is (no difference), on account of repeated statements (to that effect, in the Scriptures). — 3.2.25.

3.2.25 L.4 ✅ यथा प्रकाशाकाशसवितृ-प्रभृतयः
अङ्गुलिकरकोदक-प्रभृतिषु कर्मसु उपाधिभूतेषु
सविशेषा इव अवभासन्ते,
Just as light, the Ākāśa and the Sun etc., appear as if they have special aspects,
I.e. they seem different, because of the actions in the form of such limiting adjuncts as a finger, an earthen pot, or water respectively,

3.2.25 L.5 ✅ न च स्वाभाविकीम् अविशेषात्मतां जहति;
But they do not lose their natural non-difference,

3.2.25 L.6 ✅ एवमुपाधिनिमित्त एवायमात्मभेदः,
Even so, is this appearance of difference in the Selfs, the result of limiting adjuncts only,

3.2.25 L.7 ✅ स्वतस्तु ऐकात्म्यमेव।
When in fact in themselves they are one and the same Highest Self.

3.2.25 L.8 ✅ तथा हि वेदान्तेषु अभ्यासेन असकृत्
Similarly the Vedānta texts have oftener than once

3.2.25 L.9 ✅ जीवप्राज्ञयोरभेदः प्रतिपाद्यते॥२५॥
Explained the non-difference between the Jīva-Self and the intelligential Highest Self i.e. Prājna. — 25.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अतोऽनन्तेन तथा हि लिङ्गम्॥३.२.२६॥
Ato'nantena tathā hi liṅgam.

Ataḥ: hence, therefore; An-antena: with the Infinite; Tathā: thus; Hi: because, for; Liṅgam: the indication (of the scriptures).

🔗 Hence it is, that (the Jīva-Self becomes one) with the infinite (i.e. Highest Self). Moreover there is indicatory mark to that effect (in the Scriptures). — 3.2.26.

3.2.26 L.1 ✅ अतश्च स्वाभाविकत्वादभेदस्य,
Hence it is, that, because of this non-difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) being natural,

3.2.26 L.2 ✅ अविद्याकृतत्वाच्च भेदस्य,
And the difference between them being merely due to Nescience,

3.2.26 L.3 ✅ विद्यया अविद्यां विधूय
जीवः परेण अनन्तेन प्राज्ञेन आत्मना एकतां गच्छति।
The Jīva-Self becomes one with the infinite, transcendent, intelligential, Highest Self,
After destroying Nescience with knowledge.

3.2.26 L.4 ✅ तथा हि लिङ्गम् –
There is an indicatory mark to that effect (in the Scriptures), thus —

3.2.26 L.5 ✅ ‘स यो ह वै तत्परमं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9)
“He who knows that transcendent Brahman, himself becomes Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9);

3.2.26 L.6 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इत्यादि॥२६॥
“Being Brahman in fact, it (i.e. the Jīva-Self) gets absorbed into itself” (BrhUEng.4.4.6) etc. — 26.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उभयव्यपदेशात्त्वहिकुण्डलवत्॥३.२.२७॥
Ubhaya-vyapadeśāt tv ahi-kuṇḍalavat.

Ubhaya-vyapadeśāt: on account of both being taught; Tu: but; Ahi-kuṇḍalavat: like that between a serpent and its coils. (Ubhaya: both; Vyapadeśāt: on account of the declaration of the scripture; Ahi: serpent; Kuṇḍalavat: like the coils.)

🔗 But because of the twofold reference (in the Scriptures) (the relation of the Highest Self with the Jīva-Self) is like (the relation of) a snake to its coils. — 3.2.27.

3.2.27 L.1 ✅ तस्मिन्नेव संराध्यसंराधक-भावे
मतान्तरम् उपन्यस्यति,
स्वमत-विशुद्धये।
It is with the intention to purify his own view
With reference to the relation between what is meditated upon (i.e. Brahman) and the one who so meditates (the Jīva-Self),
That the Sūtra-kāra, here, presents another aspect of the same (view).

3.2.27 L.2 ✅ क्वचित् जीवप्राज्ञयोर्भेदो व्यपदिश्यते –
In some places, instruction is given (in the Scriptures) about the difference between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self,

3.2.27 L.3 ✅ ‘ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं ध्यायमानः’ (MunU.3.1.8) इति
ध्यातृ-ध्यातव्यत्वेन
द्रष्टृ-द्रष्टव्यत्वेन च;
To be as that between the one that meditates and one that is meditated upon,
And as between the one that sees, and the one that is seen, thus —
“Thereafter he (the Jīva-Self) sees Him (i.e. the Highest Brahman), while meditating upon Him (i.e. the Highest Brahman) as being one without any parts” (MunU.3.1.8);

3.2.27 L.4 ✅ ‘परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम्’ (MunU.3.2.8) इति
गन्तृ-गन्तव्यत्वेन;
In some places, as the one that approaches, and the one that is approached, thus —
“He approaches the divine and transcendent Puruṣa who is even beyond the one that is beyond (Parāt para)” (MunU.3.2.8),

3.2.27 L.5 ✅ ‘यः सर्वाणि भूतान्यन्तरो यमयति’ इति
नियन्तृ-नियन्तव्यत्वेन च।
And in some places, as one who controls, and the one that is controlled thus —
“Who rules all things, by Himself being inside of them”.

3.2.27 L.6 ✅ क्वचित्तु तयोरेवाभेदो व्यपदिश्यते –
In other places, even non-difference between them is indicated, thus —

3.2.27 L.7 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7)
“That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7);

3.2.27 L.8 ✅ ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ (BrhU.1.4.10)
“I am Brahman” (BrhUEng.1.4.10);

3.2.27 L.9 ✅ ‘एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः’ (BrhU.3.4.1)
“This your (i.e. the Jīva’s) Self, which is inside everything” (BrhUEng.3.4.1)

3.2.27 L.10 ✅ ‘एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ (BrhU.3.7.3) इति।
And “This is thy Self, the ruler from within, and the immortal” (BrhUEng.3.7.3).

3.2.27 L.11 ✅ तत्रैवमुभयव्यपदेशे सति,
Indications, thus, being of both kinds,

3.2.27 L.12 ✅ यद्यभेद एव एकान्ततो गृह्येत,
If only the indication about the non-difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) alone is accepted (as being correct as a rule),

3.2.27 L.13 ✅ भेदव्यपदेशो निरालम्बन एव स्यात्।
The other indication (of difference between them) would be without any support.

3.2.27 L.14 ✅ अत उभयव्यपदेशदर्शनात्
Therefore, inasmuch as indications are either way,

3.2.27 L.15 ✅ अहि-कुण्डलवदत्र तत्त्वं भवितुमर्हति –
The truth is that the relation (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) is similar to the relation as between a snake and its own coils.

3.2.27 L.16 ✅ यथा अहिरित्यभेदः,
Just as, as a snake, there is no difference (between it and its coils),

3.2.27 L.17 ✅ कुण्डलाभोगप्रांशुत्वादीनीति च भेदः,
But taken separately, as a snake on the one hand, and its coils, hood, and its erect striking posture etc., on the other, there is difference.

3.2.27 L.18 ✅ एवमिहापीति॥२७॥
[Even so, is the case here (i.e. as between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self)]. — 27.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्रकाशाश्रयवद्वा तेजस्त्वात्॥३.२.२८॥
Prakāśāśrayavad vā tejastvāt.

Prakāśa-āśrayavat: like light and its substratum; Vā: or; Tejastvāt: on account of both being luminous.

🔗 Or else it is like the light and its source, inasmuch as both are Tejas. — 3.2.28.

3.2.28 L.1 ✅ अथवा प्रकाशाश्रयवद् एतत् प्रतिपत्तव्यम् –
Or else this should be understood to be similar to light and its source.

3.2.28 L.2 ✅ यथा प्रकाशः सावित्रः तदाश्रयश्च सविता
Just as Sun-light and its basis i.e. source, viz. the Sun

3.2.28 L.3 ✅ नात्यन्तभिन्नौ, उभयोरपि तेजस्त्वाविशेषात्;
Are not essentially different inasmuch as both have Tejas in common,

3.2.28 L.4 ✅ अथ च भेदव्यपदेशभाजौ भवतः –
But are considered as different,

3.2.28 L.5 ✅ एवमिहापीति॥२८॥
Even so, is the case here (i.e. as between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self). — 28.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
पूर्ववद्वा॥३.२.२९॥
Pūrvavad vā.

Pūrvavat: as before; Vā: or.

🔗 Or rather (the relationship between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self, is) as has been stated earlier (in Sūtra 25). — 3.2.29.

3.2.29 L.1 ✅ यथा वा पूर्वमुपन्यस्तम् – Or rather, this deserves to be even as was stated earlier,

3.2.29 L.2 ✅ ‘प्रकाशादिवच्चावैशेष्यम्’ इति,
Viz. that there is no difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self), just as it is in the case of light.

3.2.29 L.3 ✅ तथैव एतद्भवितुमर्हति;
So must also be the case here [Trans. from Panoli].

3.2.29 L.4 ✅ तथा हि अविद्याकृतत्वाद् बन्धस्य
For only if it is understood that the bondage (of the Jīva-Self) is the result of Nescience,

3.2.29 L.5 ✅ विद्यया मोक्ष उपपद्यते।
That it becomes reasonably sustainable that Final Release results from knowledge.

3.2.29 L.6 ✅ यदि पुनः परमार्थत एव बद्धः कश्चिदात्मा
If, however, the Jīva-Self is understood to be in bondage in the real sense,

3.2.29 L.7 ✅ अहिकुण्डल-न्यायेन परस्य आत्मनः संस्थानभूतः,
And is according to the maxim of the snake and its coils, understood to be only a particular condition of the Highest Self,

3.2.29 L.8 ✅ प्रकाशाश्रय-न्यायेन च एकदेशभूतोऽभ्युपगम्येत;
Or, according to the maxim of light and its source, to be only a part of the Highest Self,

3.2.29 L.9 ✅ ततः पारमार्थिकस्य बन्धस्य तिरस्कर्तुमशक्यत्वात्
Then, inasmuch as it would not be possible to get rid of such bondage (in the real sense)

3.2.29 L.10 ✅ मोक्षशास्त्र-वैयर्थ्यं प्रसज्येत।
There would result the predicament of the Mokṣa-Śāstra (the science of Final Release), being rendered unmeaning or worthless.

3.2.29 L.11 ✅ न चात्र उभावपि भेदाभेदौ श्रुतिः तुल्यवद् व्यपदिशति;
Nor do the Scriptures declare this difference and non-difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) to be both equally true.

3.2.29 L.12 ✅ अभेदमेव हि प्रतिपाद्यत्वेन निर्दिशति,
They indicate ‘non-difference’ as a fact to be expounded,

3.2.29 L.13 ✅ भेदं तु पूर्वप्रसिद्धम् एवानुवदति अर्थान्तर-विवक्षया।
And merely refer to a ‘difference’ conventionally well-known already (as appertaining to the phenomenal condition), only with a desire to explain or establish ‘non-difference’.

3.2.29 L.14 ✅ तस्मात् प्रकाशादिवत् चावैशेष्यमित्येष एव सिद्धान्तः॥२९॥
Hence the conclusion is that there is no difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self), just as it is in the case of light. — 29.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्रतिषेधाच्च॥३.२.३०॥
Pratiṣedhāc ca.

Pratiṣedhāt: on account of denial; Ca: and, moreover.

🔗 And (the conclusion is so) also because of the denial. — 3.2.30.

3.2.30 L.1 ✅ इतश्च एष एव सिद्धान्तः,
This is again why, this alone is the conclusion,

3.2.30 L.2 ✅ यत्कारणं परस्मादात्मनोऽन्यं चेतनं प्रतिषेधति शास्त्रम् –
Because the Scriptures deny that there is any sentient entity as apart from the Highest Self, thus —

3.2.30 L.3 ✅ ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्येवमादि।
“Apart from this (Highest Self) there is no other seer” (BrhUEng.3.7.23) etc.

3.2.30 L.4 ✅ ‘अथात आदेशो नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6)
‘तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यम्’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इति च
ब्रह्मव्यतिरिक्तप्रपञ्च-निराकरणात्
ब्रह्ममात्र-परिशेषाच्च
एष एव सिद्धान्त इति गम्यते॥३०॥
It is understood, that, that alone is the conclusion (Siddhānta),
Because, the Scriptural passages such as “Then the instruction is, ‘not so’, ‘not so’” (BrhUEng.2.3.6),
“That Brahman is without cause, and is not an effect, and has nothing inside or outside (of it)” (BrhUEng.2.5.19),
Have denied (the truth of) the existence of this variety of worldly manifestations
And have left Brahman only, as the only remaining entity. — 30.

– 98. Prakṛta-etāvattva-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.2.31 Su..32 Su..33 Su..34 Su..35 Su..36 Su..37

[Go top]

3.2.31 L.1 ✅ यदेतत् निरस्तसमस्त-प्रपञ्चं ब्रह्म निर्धारितम्,
अस्मात्परम् अन्यत्तत्त्वम् अस्ति नास्तीति श्रुति-विप्रतिपत्तेः संशयः।
There arises a doubt, because of the conflict of the Scriptural statements, as to whether, there is or is not any other real entity transcending even that
Brahman, which, so far, was ascertained (by us) to be an entity that is free from the variety of worldly manifestations.

3.2.31 L.2 ✅ कानिचिद्धि वाक्यानि आपातेनैव
Some Scriptural passages, at the first blush,

3.2.31 L.3 ✅ प्रतिभासमानानि ब्रह्मणोऽपि परम् अन्यत्तत्त्वं प्रतिपादयन्तीव;
Appear as if they propound, that there is some entity transcending even Brahman,

3.2.31 L.4 ✅ तेषां हि परिहारमभिधातुमयमुपक्रमः क्रियते –
And the following attempt towards a refutation of the same is now begun.

←Prev Next→
परमतः सेतून्मानसम्बन्धभेदव्यपदेशेभ्यः॥३.२.३१॥
Param ataḥ setūnmāna-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeśebhyaḥ.

Param: greater; Ataḥ: for this, than this (Brahman); Setu-unmāna-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeśebhyaḥ: on account of terms denoting a bridge, measure, connection and difference. (Setu-unmāna-sambandha-bheda-vyapadeśebhyaḥ: a bridge; Unmāna: dimensions; Sambandha: relation; Bheda: difference; Vyapadeśebhyaḥ: from the declarations.)

🔗 Because of the reference (in the Scriptures) to a bund (Setu), a limited size (Unmāna), a relation i.e. a connection (Sambandha), and a difference (Bheda), there is some entity even beyond this (viz. the transcendent Brahman). — 3.2.31.

3.2.31 L.5 ✅ परम् अतो ब्रह्मणः अन्यत्तत्त्वं भवितुमर्हति।
(Says the opponent of Vedānta) — Some entity transcending even this Brahman, deserves to be the true entity.

3.2.31 L.6 ✅ कुतः? सेतु-व्यपदेशात् उन्मान-व्यपदेशात् सम्बन्ध-व्यपदेशात् भेद-व्यपदेशाच्च।
Whence is it so? Because of the reference (in the Scriptures) to, a bund, a limited size, a relation, and a difference.

3.2.31 L.7 ✅ सेतु-व्यपदेशस्तावत् –
The reference to a bund is, thus —

3.2.31 L.8 ✅ ‘अथ य आत्मा स सेतुर्विधृतिः’ (ChanU.8.4.1) इति
“Now that which is this Self is a bund, the sustainer (of the world)” (ChanU.8.4.1),

3.2.31 L.9 ✅ आत्मशब्दाभिहितस्य ब्रह्मणः सेतुत्वं सङ्कीर्तयति;
And it describes Brahman which is called the Self, as being the bund.

3.2.31 L.10 ✅ सेतुशब्दश्च हि लोके जलसन्तान-विच्छेदकरे मृद्दार्वादि-प्रचये प्रसिद्धः;
A bund is well-known in the ordinary world, to be a barrage of earth and wood for arresting the flow of water.

3.2.31 L.11 ✅ इह च सेतु-शब्दः आत्मनि प्रयुक्त इति
Here, as the word ‘bund’ is used for the word ‘Self’ (Ātmā),

3.2.31 L.12 ✅ लौकिकसेतोः इव आत्मसेतोः अन्यस्य वस्तुनोऽस्तित्वं गमयति;
It intimates to us, as the bund in the ordinary world does, the existence of some entity other than the Self which is the bund itself,

3.2.31 L.13 ✅ ‘सेतुं तीर्त्वा’ (ChanU.8.4.2) इति च
तरतिशब्दप्रयोगात् –
And also on account of the use of the verb ‘to cross over’, in the Scriptural passage —
“Having crossed over beyond this bund (i.e. the Self)” (ChanU.8.4.2).

3.2.31 L.14 ✅ यथा लौकिकं सेतुं तीर्त्वा जाङ्गलमसेतुं प्राप्नोति,
Just as (a man) after crossing a bund in the ordinary world arrives at the sylvan terrain beyond, which by no means is a bund,

3.2.31 L.15 ✅ एवमात्मानं सेतुं तीर्त्वा
Even so, after crossing over the Self in the form of the bund

3.2.31 L.16 ✅ अनात्मानमसेतुं प्राप्नोतीति गम्यते।
(He) reaches some entity which is not the Self and is not a bund.

3.2.31 L.17 ✅ उन्मान-व्यपदेशश्च भवति –
The reference to a limited size occurs, thus —

3.2.31 L.18 ✅ तदेतद्ब्रह्म चतुष्पात् अष्टाशफं षोडशकलमिति;
“That Brahman has four feet, eight hoofs, and sixteen parts”.

3.2.31 L.19 ✅ यच्च लोके उन्मितम् एतावदिदमिति
परिच्छिन्नं कार्षापणादि,
ततोऽन्यद्वस्त्वस्तीति प्रसिद्धम्;
It is well-known in the ordinary world, that where there is something which has a definite measurable size,
Such as ‘This, is so much, and is limited (in size) such as a small coin’ for instance,
There always exists something which is different from it (such as a rupee),

3.2.31 L.20 ✅ तथा ब्रह्मणोऽप्युन्मानात्
ततोऽन्येन वस्तुना भवितव्यमिति गम्यते।
Similarly, it is understood, that as Brahman also has a limited measured size,
Some entity other than that must necessarily exist.

3.2.31 L.21 ✅ तथा सम्बन्ध-व्यपदेशो भवति –
The reference to a ‘relation’ occurs, thus —

3.2.31 L.22 ✅ ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति,
“Oh mild one, he then becomes one with the ‘Sat’ (the Highest Self)” (ChanU.6.8.1),

3.2.31 L.23 ✅ ‘शारीर आत्मा’ (TaitU.2.3.1)
“The embodied self” (TaitUEng.2.3.1) [Trans. from Panoli],

3.2.31 L.24 ✅ ‘प्राज्ञेनात्मना सम्परिष्वक्तः’ (BrhU.4.3.21) इति च;
“The Jīva-Self embraced by the intelligential Highest Self” (BrhUEng.4.3.21).

3.2.31 L.25 ✅ मितानां च मितेन सम्बन्धो दृष्टः,
It is seen, that it is only an entity of a particular definite measured size, that has any relation with a similar entity of a similar measured size,

3.2.31 L.26 ✅ यथा नराणां नगरेण;
As is for instance, the relation of a man to a city.

3.2.31 L.27 ✅ जीवानां च ब्रह्मणा सम्बन्धं व्यपदिशति सुषुप्तौ;
The Scriptures declare that the Jīva-Selfs, during deep sleep, become connected with Brahman.

3.2.31 L.28 ✅ अतः ततः परमन्यदमितमस्तीति गम्यते।
Hence, it is thus understood, that some other entity, which is beyond even the Highest Brahman and is not measurable, does exist.

3.2.31 L.29 ✅ भेद-व्यपदेशश्च एनमर्थं गमयति;
A reference to a ‘difference’ also conveys the same meaning (to us).

3.2.31 L.30 ✅ तथा हि – ‘अथ य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये हिरण्मयः पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.1.6.6) इति
आदित्याधारमीश्वरं व्यपदिश्य,
The Scriptures after referring to the Lord as being inside the Sun, thus —
“Now this aureate Puruṣa that is to be seen in the Sun” (ChanU.1.6.6),

3.2.31 L.31 ✅ ततो भेदेन अक्ष्याधारमीश्वरं व्यपदिशति –
Again refer separately and differently to the Lord as being inside the eye also, thus —

3.2.31 L.32 ✅ ‘अथ य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.1.7.5) इति;
“Now this Puruṣa that is seen in the eye” (ChanU.1.7.5).

3.2.31 L.33 ✅ अतिदेशं च अस्य अमुना रूपादिषु करोति –
Then the Scriptures extend the application, mutatis mutandis, of the form etc. of the Lord (in the Sun), to the Lord (in the eye), thus —

3.2.31 L.34 ✅ ‘तस्यैतस्य तदेव रूपं यदमुष्य रूपं, यौ अमुष्य गेष्णौ तौ गेष्णौ, यन्नाम तन्नाम’ (ChanU.1.7.5) इति;
“The form of this one is the same as the form of the other one, the joints of this one are the same as the joints of the other one, the name of this one is the same as the name of the other one” (ChanU.1.7.5).

3.2.31 L.35 ✅ सावधिकं च ईश्वरत्वमुभयोर्व्यपदिशति –
The Scriptures moreover indicate how the Lordship of both is limited, thus:

3.2.31 L.36 ✅ ‘ये चामुष्मात्पराञ्चो लोकास्तेषां चेष्टे देवकामानां च’ (ChanU.1.6.8) इत्येकस्य,
It speaks of the one, thus — “He becomes the Lord of those who are above this (Sun) and of the desires of the God also, which is its God-hood” (ChanU.1.6.8),

3.2.31 L.37 ✅ ‘ये चैतस्मादर्वाञ्चो लोकास्तेषां चेष्टे मनुष्यकामानां च’ (ChanU.1.7.6) इत्येकस्य,
And of the other, thus — “He becomes the Lord of those who are below the Sun and of the desires of men also, which is its Godhood” (ChanU.1.7.6),

3.2.31 L.38 ✅ यथा इदं मागधस्य राज्यम्, इदं वैदेहस्येति।
Just as (if one were to say) — ‘This is the kingdom of the King of Magadha, and this, of the King of Videha’.

3.2.31 L.39 ✅ एवमेतेभ्यः सेत्वादि-व्यपदेशेभ्यो ब्रह्मणः परमस्तीति॥३१॥
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that on account of these references to a bund etc., there is some entity which is even beyond Brahman. — 31.

[Go top]

3.2.32 L.1 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, प्रतिपाद्यते –
Thus, we explain —

←Prev Next→
सामान्यात्तु॥३.२.३२॥
Sāmānyāt tu.

Sāmānyāt: on account of similarity; Tu: but.

🔗 But (Brahman is described as a bund) because of the similarity or alikeness of both. — 3.2.32.

3.2.32 L.2 ✅ तुशब्देन प्रदर्शितां प्राप्तिं निरुणद्धि।
By the word ‘but’ the conclusion indicated to have been reached (by the opponent of Vedānta) is opposed (by the Sūtra-kāra).

3.2.32 L.3 ✅ न ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत् किञ्चिद्भवितुमर्हति,
Nothing whatsoever, other than Brahman (i.e. anything transcending Brahman), deserves to exist,

3.2.32 L.4 ✅ प्रमाणाभावात् –
Because of the absence of any means-of-proof (about it).

3.2.32 L.5 ✅ न ह्यन्यस्यास्तित्वे किञ्चित्प्रमाणम् उपलभामहे;
We do not come across any such means-of-proof about the existence of any entity (other than Brahman).

3.2.32 L.6 ✅ सर्वस्य हि जनिमतो वस्तुजातस्य जन्मादि ब्रह्मणो भवतीति निर्धारितम्,
It has already been established, that all entities whatsoever that are liable to be created, deserve to have their origin etc. from Brahman,

3.2.32 L.7 ✅ अनन्यत्वं च कारणात् कार्यस्य;
And also, that an effect is non-different from its cause.

3.2.32 L.8 ✅ न च ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्तं किञ्चित् अजं सम्भवति,
Moreover, apart from Brahman, no other entity which is not-born (Aja) can possibly exist,

3.2.32 L.9 ✅ ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1)
इति अवधारणात्;
Inasmuch as it is definitely understood from the Scriptures thus —
“Oh Mild one, that Sat (Being) only, without a second, existed in the beginning”,

3.2.32 L.10 ✅ एकविज्ञानेन च सर्वविज्ञान-प्रतिज्ञानात्
And also because, the declaration (by the Scriptures), that by the knowledge of one (i.e. Brahman) all else becomes known,

3.2.32 L.11 ✅ न ब्रह्मव्यतिरिक्तवस्त्वस्तित्वम् अवकल्पते।
Precludes any assumption of the existence of any entity other than Brahman.

3.2.32 L.12 ✅ ननु सेत्वादि-व्यपदेशाः ब्रह्मव्यतिरिक्तं तत्त्वं सूचयन्तीत्युक्तम्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) has it not been said, already that the reference to a ‘bund’ etc. suggests (the existence of) a real entity as apart from the Brahman?

3.2.32 L.13 ✅ नेत्युच्यते – सेतुव्यपदेशस्तावत्
We reply — No, so far as the reference to a ‘bund’ is concerned,

3.2.32 L.14 ✅ न ब्रह्मणो बाह्यस्य सद्भावं प्रतिपादयितुं क्षमते;
It is not capable of propounding the existence of any entity as apart from Brahman,

3.2.32 L.15 ✅ सेतुरात्मेति हि आह,
Because it only says that Ātmā is a ‘bund’

3.2.32 L.16 ✅ न अतः परमस्तीति;
And not that there is any entity beyond it.

3.2.32 L.17 ✅ तत्र परस्मिन् असति
To this (the opponent of Vedānta says) — Provided nothing transcending Brahman does exist,

3.2.32 L.18 ✅ सेतुत्वं नावकल्पत इति
It is not possible to imagine that the Self (Ātmā) is a bund,

3.2.32 L.19 ✅ परं किमपि कल्प्येत;
Therefore, some entity transcending even the transcendent Brahman, has necessarily to be imagined.

3.2.32 L.20 ✅ न चैतत् न्याय्यम्;
We reply — It is not logical.

3.2.32 L.21 ✅ हठो हि अप्रसिद्धकल्पना;
To assert or posit the existence of an entity which is not at all known as existing (i.e. is not properly established as existing) is but a mere dogmatic assertion.

3.2.32 L.22 ✅ अपि च सेतुव्यपदेशादात्मनः
Besides, merely because the Self (Ātmā) is said to be a bund,

3.2.32 L.23 ✅ लौकिकसेतुनिदर्शनेन सेतुबाह्यवस्तुतां प्रसञ्जयता
If one were to assert or posit the existence of an entity transcending the Self (Ātmā), on the ground of the illustration of an entity popularly known (in this world) such as a bund,

3.2.32 L.24 ✅ मृद्दारुमयतापि प्रासङ्क्ष्यत;
One would then even predicate the earthiness and woodenness of the Self (Ātmā),

3.2.32 L.25 ✅ न चैतन्न्याय्यम्,
But it would by no means be logical,

3.2.32 L.26 ✅ अजत्वादिश्रुति-विरोधात्;
As it would contradict the Scriptural passage about its being not born (Aja).

3.2.32 L.27 ✅ सेतुसामान्यात्तु सेतुशब्द आत्मनि प्रयुक्त इति श्लिष्यते;
It is just proper to say that the word ‘bund’ is used for the Self (Ātmā) because of the similarity or alikeness (of the Ātmā and a bund).

3.2.32 L.28 ✅ जगतः तन्मर्यादानां च विधारकत्वं सेतुसामान्यम् आत्मनः;
That the Self (Ātmā) sustains the world and its limits, is the similarity or alikeness it has, to the popularly known bund.

3.2.32 L.29 ✅ अतः सेतुरिव सेतुः –
इति प्रकृत आत्मा स्तूयते।
Hence, the Self (Ātmā) which is the relevant subject here, is glorified
By being designated a ‘bund’ similar to the popularly known bund.

3.2.32 L.30 ✅ ‘सेतुं तीर्त्वा’ इत्यपि
तरतिः अतिक्रमासम्भवात्
प्राप्नोत्यर्थ एव वर्तते –
The expression ‘having crossed over beyond the bund’
Has the meaning of merely reaching it,
As the root ‘to cross over’ cannot be understood to mean, crossing over and reaching some entity beyond.

3.2.32 L.31 ✅ यथा व्याकरणं तीर्ण इति
Just as when it is said (about a student) that he has crossed over beyond grammar,

3.2.32 L.32 ✅ प्राप्तः उच्यते,
It only means that he has mastered it

3.2.32 L.33 ✅ न अतिक्रान्तः, तद्वत्॥३२॥
And not that he has reached anything beyond it. — 32.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
बुद्ध्यर्थः पादवत्॥३.२.३३॥
Buddhy-arthaḥ pādavat.

Buddhi-arthaḥ: for the sake of easy comprehension; Pādavat: just like (four) feet.

🔗 It is for the sake of comprehension by intelligence (Buddhi) (that Brahman is imagined to have a measure of size), as in the case of a Pāda (i.e. foot or a token coin). — 3.2.33.

3.2.33 L.1 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – उन्मान-व्यपदेशादस्ति परमिति,
With regard to what is said (by the opponent of Vedānta), viz., because there is a reference to a limited size, there positively is an entity transcending (Brahman),

3.2.33 L.2 ✅ तत्राभिधीयते – उन्मान-व्यपदेशोऽपि
We say — Even the reference to a limited size

3.2.33 L.3 ✅ न ब्रह्मव्यतिरिक्तवस्त्वस्तित्व-प्रतिपत्त्यर्थः।
Has not the object of making the existence of any entity other than Brahman understood (by it).

3.2.33 L.4 ✅ किमर्थस्तर्हि? बुद्ध्यर्थः,
What then, is it meant for? (We say) — (It is meant) for the sake of comprehension by intelligence (Buddhi)

3.2.33 L.5 ✅ उपासनार्थ इति यावत्;
I.e. for meditation (Upāsanā), that is all.

3.2.33 L.6 ✅ चतुष्पाद् अष्टाशफं षोडशकलम् इत्येवंरूपा –
बुद्धिः कथं नु नाम ब्रह्मणि स्थिरा स्यादिति –
How ever otherwise, can comprehension by intelligence, of Brahman as having four feet, eight hoofs and sixteen parts,
Be made steady in Brahman (during the meditation (on Brahman)?

3.2.33 L.7 ✅ विकारद्वारेण ब्रह्मण उन्मानकल्पनैव क्रियते;
Therefore, it is by way of such a modification (of Brahman), that Brahman is merely imagined to have a limited size,

3.2.33 L.8 ✅ न हि अविकारेऽनन्ते ब्रह्मणि सर्वैः पुम्भिः शक्या बुद्धिः स्थापयितुम्,
मन्दमध्यमोत्तमबुद्धित्वात् पुंसामिति।
Because, as people are endowed variously with either dull, or moderate, or sharp intelligence,
All are not able to concentrate their intelligence on Brahman, which is eternal and is not subject to modification.

3.2.33 L.9 ✅ पादवत् –
This is like the Pāda (i.e. foot or a token coin).

3.2.33 L.10 ✅ यथा मनआकाशयोः अध्यात्ममधिदैवतं च ब्रह्मप्रतीकयोः आम्नातयोः,
Just as the mind and the Ākāśa which are mentioned in the Scriptures as the Ādhyātmika (with reference to the relation of Brahman to Jīva-Self) and the Ādhidaivika (with reference to Deities) symbols of Brahman

3.2.33 L.11 ✅ चत्वारो वागादयो मनःसम्बन्धिनः पादाः कल्प्यन्ते,
And have been imagined to have four Pādas (Feet), viz. ‘Speech’ etc. in the case of the mind,

3.2.33 L.12 ✅ चत्वारश्च अग्न्यादय आकाशसम्बन्धिनः –
And ‘Agni’ etc. in the case of the Ākāśa,

3.2.33 L.13 ✅ आध्यानाय – तद्वत्।
For the purpose of meditation, even so, it is in this case.

3.2.33 L.14 ✅ अथवा पादवदिति –
Or else, “as in the case of Pāda” should be understood thus —

3.2.33 L.15 ✅ यथा कार्षापणे पादविभागो व्यवहार-प्राचुर्याय कल्प्यते –
Just as a Kārṣāpaṇa (i.e. a silver coin such as a Rupee) is supposed to consist of sub-divisions of token coins, for the purpose of securing the ease of transactions,

3.2.33 L.16 ✅ न हि सकलेनैव कार्षापणेन सर्वदा सर्वे जना व्यवहर्तुमीशते, क्रयविक्रये
परिमाणानियमात् –
And the meaning is, that just as in the absence of any rule about a measure (Parimāṇa, controlling prices)
Men generally are not able always to effect transactions of either sale or purchase, with the whole coin,

3.2.33 L.17 ✅ तद्वदित्यर्थः॥३३॥
Even so it is in this case. — 33.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्थानविशेषात्प्रकाशादिवत्॥३.२.३४॥
Sthāna-viśeṣāt prakāśādivat.

Sthāna-viśeṣāt: on account of special places; Prakāśa-ādivat: like light and the like.

🔗 (Scriptural statements about ‘Relation i.e. connection and difference’ are) because of a particular environment (Sthāna-Viśeṣa), just as (in the case of) light etc. — 3.2.34.

3.2.34 L.1 ✅ इह सूत्रे द्वयोरपि सम्बन्धभेद-व्यपदेशयोः परिहारोऽभिधीयते।
Here, in this Sūtra the refutation of both the references about a relation i.e. connection, as well as a difference, is stated.

3.2.34 L.2 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – सम्बन्ध-व्यपदेशात् भेद-व्यपदेशाच्च परमतः स्यादिति,
What is stated (by the opponent of Vedānta), viz., that on account of the statements about Relation i.e. connection with, and difference from (Brahman), there must be some entity even transcending Brahman,

3.2.34 L.3 ✅ तदप्यसत्;
[That] is not correct,

3.2.34 L.4 ✅ यत एकस्यापि स्थानविशेषापेक्षया एतौ व्यपदेशावुपपद्येते।
Because such references even with regard to only a single entity (such as Brahman) are reasonably sustainable, as depending upon a particular environment.

3.2.34 L.5 ✅ सम्बन्ध-व्यपदेशे तावदयमर्थः –
In the case of the reference to Relation i.e. connection, the meaning is as follows:

3.2.34 L.6 ✅ बुद्ध्याद्युपाधिस्थानविशेष-योगाद् उद्भूतस्य विशेषविज्ञानस्य उपाध्युपशमे य उपशमः,
The destruction (Upaśama) of a particular special cognition of difference arising from the contact of the Jīva-Self with special environments in the form of limiting adjuncts such as intelligence (Buddhi) etc., which results from the destruction of that particular limiting adjunct,

3.2.34 L.7 ✅ स परमात्मना सम्बन्धः – इत्युपाध्यपेक्षया उपचर्यते,
And is spoken of with reference to that limiting adjunct, is what is metaphorically meant to be the Relation i.e. connection of the Jīva-Self to the Highest Self,

3.2.34 L.8 ✅ न परिमितत्वापेक्षया।
And it is not with reference to any limitation of the nature of the Highest Self.

3.2.34 L.9 ✅ तथा भेदव्यपदेशोऽपि ब्रह्मण उपाधिभेदापेक्षयैव उपचर्यते,
Similarly, the reference to ‘difference’ is also a metaphorical statement about a difference in Brahman in connection with limiting adjuncts,

3.2.34 L.10 ✅ न स्वरूपभेदापेक्षया।
And is not in connection with any difference in its nature as such,

3.2.34 L.11 ✅ प्रकाशादिवदिति उपमोपादानम् –
And that is why the comparison, “it is like the light”, is thus employed,

3.2.34 L.12 ✅ यथा एकस्य प्रकाशस्य सौर्यस्य चान्द्रमसस्य वा
Viz. just as the solar and lunar light is really the same light (in essence),

3.2.34 L.13 ✅ उपाधियोगाद् उपजातविशेषस्य
But it shows special attributes on account of its contact with limiting adjuncts,

3.2.34 L.14 ✅ उपाध्युपशमात् सम्बन्ध-व्यपदेशो भवति,
So the reference to ‘Relation i.e. connection’ is with regard to the cessation of limiting adjuncts,

3.2.34 L.15 ✅ उपाधिभेदाच्च भेद-व्यपदेशः;
And the reference to ‘difference’ is due to the differences in the limiting adjuncts.

3.2.34 L.16 ✅ यथा वा सूचीपाशाकाशादिषु उपाध्यपेक्षयैवैतौ सम्बन्धभेद-व्यपदेशौ भवतः – तद्वत्॥३४॥
Or again, it is like the references to ‘Relation i.e. connection’ and ‘difference’, in the case of light, in connection with such limiting adjuncts as a needle, a lasso (Pāśa) or the Ākāśa. — 34.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उपपत्तेश्च॥३.२.३५॥
Upapatteś ca.

Upapatteḥ: as it becomes reasonable; Ca: also, and.

🔗 And (it is only thus) that it becomes reasonably sustainable. — 3.2.35.

3.2.35 L.1 ✅ उपपद्यते च अत्र ईदृश एव सम्बन्धः, नान्यादृशः –
And it is only thus and in no other way that a ‘relation i.e. connection’ becomes reasonably sustainable,

3.2.35 L.2 ✅ ‘स्वमपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1)
इति हि स्वरूपसम्बन्धम् एनमामनन्ति;
Because the Scriptures declare such a relation with its own nature, thus —
“He becomes one with his own Self” (ChanU.6.8.1),

3.2.35 L.3 ✅ स्वरूपस्य च अनपायित्वात्
As the Self’s own nature is imperishable.

3.2.35 L.4 ✅ न नर-नगर-न्यायेन सम्बन्धो घटते;
A relation, in accordance with the maxim of ‘a citizen and a city’, does not fit in properly.

3.2.35 L.5 ✅ उपाधिकृतस्वरूपतिरोभावात्तु
It is precisely because of this obfuscation of the real nature of an entity as caused by Nescience (which is effaced),

3.2.35 L.6 ✅ ‘स्वमपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इत्युपपद्यते।
That the Scriptural passage “He becomes one with his own Self” (ChanU.6.8.1) becomes reasonably sustainable.

3.2.35 L.7 ✅ तथा भेदोऽपि नान्यादृशः सम्भवति,
Similarly, no other kind of ‘difference’ also is possible,

3.2.35 L.8 ✅ बहुतरश्रुतिप्रसिद्धैकेश्वरत्व-विरोधात्;
On account of the conflict (which such other kind of difference would cause) with the notion of the only one Lord, as is well-known from the Scriptural passages.

3.2.35 L.9 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः एकस्याप्याकाशस्य स्थानकृतं भेद-व्यपदेशम् उपपादयति –
It is in the same manner also that the Scriptures explain the reference to a difference caused by environment, in the case of the one and only one Ākāśa, thus —

3.2.35 L.10 ✅ ‘योऽयं बहिर्धा पुरुषादाकाशः’ (ChanU.3.12.7)
“This Ākāśa here, which is outside the Puruṣa” (ChanU.3.12.7);

3.2.35 L.11 ✅ ‘योऽयमन्तः पुरुष आकाशः’ (ChanU.3.12.8)
“This Ākāśa here, which is inside the Puruṣa” (ChanU.3.12.8);

3.2.35 L.12 ✅ ‘योऽयमन्तर्हृदय आकाशः’ (ChanU.3.12.9) इति॥३५॥
“This Ākāśa here, which is inside the Hṛdaya” (ChanU.3.12.9). — 35.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तथाऽन्यप्रतिषेधात्॥३.२.३६॥
Tathā'nya-pratiṣedhāt.

Tathā: similarly; Anya-pratiṣedhāt: on account of the express denial of all other things. (Anya: any other, of the other; Pratiṣedhāt: owing to the denial, or prohibition or negation.)

🔗 Similarly, on account of the denial of all other (entities). — 3.2.36.

3.2.36 L.1 ✅ एवं सेत्वादि-व्यपदेशान् परपक्षहेतून् उन्मथ्य सम्प्रति
Having thus refuted the reasons advanced by the opponent of Vedānta in support of his view, such as the reference to a bund etc.,

3.2.36 L.2 ✅ स्वपक्षं हेत्वन्तरेणोपसंहरति।
(The Sūtra-kāra) now concludes his own view by (stating) another reason, thus —

3.2.36 L.3 ✅ तथाऽन्यप्रतिषेधादपि
Similarly on account of the denial (by the Scriptures) of all other entities,

3.2.36 L.4 ✅ न ब्रह्मणः परं वस्त्वन्तरमस्तीति गम्यते;
It is understood that there does not exist any other entity transcending Brahman.

3.2.36 L.5 ✅ तथा हि – ‘स एवाधस्तात्’ (ChanU.7.25.1)
So also, Scriptural passages — such as “He alone is below” (ChanU.7.25.1),

3.2.36 L.6 ✅ ‘अहमेवाधस्तात्’ (ChanU.7.25.1)
“I alone am below” (ChanU.7.25.1),

3.2.36 L.7 ✅ ‘आत्मैवाधस्तात्’ (ChanU.7.25.2)
“Ātmā alone is below” (ChanU.7.25.2),

3.2.36 L.8 ✅ ‘सर्वं तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः सर्वं वेद’ (BrhU.2.4.6)
“All reject him who knows all to be different from the self” (BrhU.2.4.6) [Trans. from Panoli]

3.2.36 L.9 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (MunU.2.2.11)
“All this is Brahman” (MunU.2.2.11),

3.2.36 L.10 ✅ ‘आत्मैवेदꣳ सर्वम्’ (ChanU.7.25.2)
“The Ātmā is all this” (ChanU.7.25.2),

3.2.36 L.11 ✅ ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (BrhU.4.4.19)
“There is no diversity or many-ness here” (BrhUEng.4.4.19),

3.2.36 L.12 ✅ ‘यस्मात्परं नापरमस्ति किञ्चित्’ (SvetU.3.9)
“Beyond whom nothing else is higher i.e. transcendent”, and “From whom nothing else is lower i.e. smaller” (SvetU.3.9),

3.2.36 L.13 ✅ ‘तदेतद् ब्रह्मापूर्वम् अनपरम् अनन्तरम् अबाह्यम्’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्येवमादीनि वाक्यानि
“That this here, is Brahman, without cause, without effect, without anything inside or outside (of it)” (BrhUEng.2.5.19) etc. —

3.2.36 L.14 ✅ स्वप्रकरणस्थानि अन्यार्थत्वेन परिणेतुम् अशक्यानि
Which recur in the chapter dealing with the self-same Brahman, and which cannot possibly be construed as meaning anything else,

3.2.36 L.15 ✅ ब्रह्मव्यतिरिक्तं वस्त्वन्तरं वारयन्ति।
Preclude (the existence of) any entity other than Brahman.

3.2.36 L.16 ✅ सर्वान्तरश्रुतेश्च
From the Scriptural passage about the Highest Self being inside everything,

3.2.36 L.17 ✅ न परमात्मनऽन्यः अन्तरात्मा अस्तीत्यवगम्यते॥३६॥
It is concluded that no other Self is inside the Highest Self (i.e. Brahman). — 36.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनेन सर्वगतत्वमायामशब्दादिभ्यः॥३.२.३७॥
Anena sarva-gatatvam āyāma-śabdādibhyaḥ.

Anena: by this; Sarva-gatatvam: all-pervadingness; Āyāma: (regarding Brahman’s) extent; Śabda-ādibhyaḥ: from scriptural statements.

🔗 By this (i.e. by all that has gone before), it is established that Brahman is all-pervading. (It is also known) from the statement about (its) extent or expanse (Āyāma). — 3.2.37.

3.2.37 L.1 ✅ अनेन सेत्वादिव्यपदेश-निराकरणेन
By this, i.e. by the refutation (of the argument) about the reference to a bund etc.,

3.2.37 L.2 ✅ अन्यप्रतिषेध-समाश्रयणेन च
And also by accepting, that (the existence of) everything else (than Brahman) is denied (by the Scriptures),

3.2.37 L.3 ✅ सर्वगतत्वमप्यात्मनः सिद्धं भवति;
It is also firmly established that the Highest Self is all-pervading,

3.2.37 L.4 ✅ अन्यथा हि तन्न सिध्येत्।
Otherwise, it could not be so established.

3.2.37 L.5 ✅ सेत्वादिव्यपदेशेषु हि मुख्येष्वङ्गीक्रियमाणेषु
If the references to a bund etc. are accepted to be in their principal sense

3.2.37 L.6 ✅ परिच्छेद आत्मनः प्रसज्येत,
It would mean that the Highest Self is limited (in size),

3.2.37 L.7 ✅ सेत्वादीनामेवमात्मकत्वात्;
Because a bund etc. are themselves so limited (in size).

3.2.37 L.8 ✅ तथा अन्यप्रतिषेधेऽप्यसति,
Similarly if it is not accepted that the existence of all other entities is denied (by the Scriptures),

3.2.37 L.9 ✅ वस्तु वस्त्वन्तराद् व्यावर्तत इति
Then inasmuch as such entities would mutually exclude each other,

3.2.37 L.10 ✅ परिच्छेद एव आत्मनः प्रसज्येत।
It would mean that the Highest Self also (being an entity) is limited (in size).

3.2.37 L.11 ✅ सर्वगतत्वं च अस्य आयाम-शब्दादिभ्योऽवगम्यते;
It is understood from the word Āyāma (extent or expanse) etc., that it is all-pervading.

3.2.37 L.12 ✅ आयाम-शब्दः व्याप्तिवचनः शब्दः;
The word Āyāma means expanse.

3.2.37 L.13 ✅ ‘यावान्वा अयमाकाशस्तावानेषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशः’ (ChanU.8.1.3)
‘आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः’ (शत. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) ‘ज्यायान्दिवः’ (ChanU.3.14.3)
‘ज्यायानाकाशात्’ (?)
‘नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः’ (BhG.2.24) इत्येवमादयो हि
श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायाः सर्वगतत्वम् आत्मनोऽवबोधयन्ति॥३७॥
That the Highest Self is all-pervading, is also indicated by the following [preceding] Scriptural and Smṛti passages,
Viz. “As much (in size) this Ākāśa is, even so much (in size) is this Ākāśa in the Hṛdaya” (ChanU.8.1.3),
“Like the Ākāśa he is all-pervading and eternal” (Śata. Bra. 10.6.3.2),
“He is greater than the heaven’ (ChanU.3.14.3),
“Greater than the Ākāśa” (?),
“He is eternal, all-pervading, firm and immovable” (BhG.2.24). — 37.

– 99. Para-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.2.38 Su..39 Su..40 Su..41

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
फलमत उपपत्तेः॥३.२.३८॥
Phalam ata upapatteḥ.

Phalam: the fruit; Ataḥ: from Him only; Upapatteḥ: for that is reasonable.

🔗 Because, that fruits (of actions are vouchsafed) by Him (i.e. the Lord), is alone that is reasonably sustainable. — 3.2.38.

3.2.38 L.1 ✅ तस्यैव ब्रह्मणो व्यावहारिक्याम्
ईशित्रीशितव्य-विभागावस्थायाम्,
अयमन्यः स्वभावो वर्ण्यते।
Another characteristic of the nature of this self-same Brahman,
Other than its distinctive aspects, by way of its being both the ruler, and the one that is ruled,
Which is discernible during its phenomenal existence,
Is now being described.

3.2.38 L.2 ✅ यदेतत् इष्टानिष्टव्यामिश्र-लक्षणं कर्मफलं संसार-गोचरं त्रिविधं प्रसिद्धं जन्तूनाम्,
किमेतत् कर्मणो भवति,
आहोस्विदीश्वरादिति भवति
विचारणा।
The question to be considered (Vicāraṇā) is,
Whether, the well-known threefold fruits of actions, viz. the desirable, the undesirable and those which are partly desirable and partly undesirable, which all creatures are well-known to be subject to, during their transmigratory mundane existence,
Result directly from the actions themselves,
Or whether they are received from the Lord.

3.2.38 L.3 ✅ तत्र तावत्प्रतिपाद्यते – फलम् अतः ईश्वरात् भवितुमर्हति।
It is propounded (by the Sūtra-kāra) that these fruits deserve to be received from the Lord.

3.2.38 L.4 ✅ कुतः? उपपत्तेः;
Whence is it so? Because it is reasonably so sustainable.

3.2.38 L.5 ✅ स हि सर्वाध्यक्षः सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारान् विचित्रान् विदधत्
देशकालविशेषाभिज्ञत्वात् कर्मिणां कर्मानुरूपं फलं सम्पादयति
इति उपपद्यते;
It is reasonably sustainable,
That it is He, the entity presiding over everything, which brings about creation, preservation and absorption,
And who is well aware of the specific environments and times, that suitably confers such fruits of actions on those who are responsible for such actions.

3.2.38 L.6 ✅ कर्मणस्तु अनुक्षण-विनाशिनः कालान्तरभावि फलं भवतीत्यनुपपन्नम्,
It is not reasonably sustainable, that actions which come to an end every moment, yield their fruits at some future time,

3.2.38 L.7 ✅ अभावाद् भावानुत्पत्तेः।
Because no existence can ever spring from non-existence.

3.2.38 L.8 ✅ स्यादेतत् – कर्म विनश्यत् स्वकालमेव स्वानुरूपं फलं जनयित्वा विनश्यति,
It may well be (says the opponent of Vedānta), that an act during its own time and while it is coming to an end, creates a fruit proper to itself,

3.2.38 L.9 ✅ तत्फलं कालान्तरितं कर्त्रा भोक्ष्यत इति;
And that the doer of such act experiences the fruit at some future time.

3.2.38 L.10 ✅ तदपि न परिशुध्यति,
That also is not feasible,

3.2.38 L.11 ✅ प्राग्भोक्तृसम्बन्धात्
फलत्वानुपपत्तेः –
Inasmuch as it is not reasonably sustainable, that any fruit can ever be called a fruit as such,
Before it is connected with the experiencer of such a fruit.

3.2.38 L.12 ✅ यत्कालं हि यत् सुखं दुःखं वा आत्मना भुज्यते,
It is precisely at that particular time, during which the fruit, be it pleasure or pain, is being experienced by any Jīva-Self,

3.2.38 L.13 ✅ तस्यैव लोके फलत्वं प्रसिद्धम्;
That, in the ordinary world, it is understood to be such a fruit.

3.2.38 L.14 ✅ न हि असम्बद्धस्यात्मना
सुखस्य दुःखस्य वा फलत्वं प्रतियन्ति लौकिकाः।
In the ordinary world men do not realize pleasure or pain as the fruit (of any action)
As long as it is not connected with the Jīva-Self.

3.2.38 L.15 ✅ अथोच्येत –
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) — Oh, all right,

3.2.38 L.16 ✅ मा भूत् कर्मानन्तरं फलोत्पादः,
Let no fruit accrue after the act (as you say),

3.2.38 L.17 ✅ कर्मकार्याद् अपूर्वात् फलमुत्पत्स्यत इति,
But may be, that fruit may accrue from the ‘Apūrva’ (merit) of actions which itself is the result of such actions,

3.2.38 L.18 ✅ तदपि नोपपद्यते,
Even that is not reasonably sustainable

3.2.38 L.19 ✅ अपूर्वस्याचेतनस्य काष्ठलोष्ट-समस्य
Because ‘Apūrva’ which by itself is non-sentient and inert like wood or earth,

3.2.38 L.20 ✅ चेतनेनाप्रवर्तितस्य
And which is not energized into activity by a sentient entity,

3.2.38 L.21 ✅ प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः,
Cannot have any tendency towards activity.

3.2.38 L.22 ✅ तदस्तित्वे च प्रमाणाभावात्।
Besides there is no means-of-proof as to its existence.

3.2.38 L.23 ✅ अर्थापत्तिः प्रमाणमिति चेत्,
If it be said, that a presumption (Arthāpatti) as to the existence of an ‘Apūrva’ is a sine qua non of such fruit, is precisely such means-of-proof,

3.2.38 L.24 ✅ न, ईश्वरसिद्धेः अर्थापत्ति-क्षयात्॥३८॥
(We reply) — No, inasmuch as the existence of the Lord is firmly established, the presumption of the existence of such an ‘Apūrva’ as a sine qua non, goes by the board. — 38.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
श्रुतत्वाच्च॥३.२.३९॥
Śrutatvāc ca.

Śrutatvāt: because the Śruti so teaches, from the declaration of the Śruti to that effect; Ca: also, and.

🔗 And also because of its being declared by the Scriptures. — 3.2.39.

3.2.39 L.1 ✅ न केवलम् उपपत्तेरेव
It is not merely because it is reasonably sustainable,

3.2.39 L.2 ✅ ईश्वरं फलहेतुं कल्पयामः –
That we imagine the Lord to be the cause of the fruits (of actions),

3.2.39 L.3 ✅ किं तर्हि? – श्रुतत्वादपि ईश्वरमेव फलहेतुं मन्यामहे,
But because the Scriptures also declare the Lord to be the cause of such fruits.

3.2.39 L.4 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिर्भवति –
‘स वा एष महानज आत्मान्नादो वसुदानः’ (BrhU.4.4.24) इत्येवंजातीयका॥३९॥
The Scriptural passage “He indeed is the great unborn Self (Ātmā), the one who vouchsafes food and wealth” (BrhUEng.4.4.24)
Also declares similarly. — 39.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
धर्मं जैमिनिरत एव॥३.२.४०॥
Dharmaṃ jaiminir ata eva.

Dharmam: practice of religious duties, religious merits; Jaiminiḥ: the sage Jaiminiḥ; Ataḥ eva: for the same reasons.

🔗 It is on the same grounds however, that Ācārya Jaimini (considers) Dharma (conduct according to Scriptures), as the giver of fruits. — 3.2.40.

3.2.40 L.1 ✅ जैमिनिस्त्वाचार्यो धर्मं फलस्य दातारं मन्यते,
Ācārya Jaimini however considers Dharma to be the one that vouchsafes fruits,

3.2.40 L.2 ✅ अत एव हेतोः – श्रुतेः उपपत्तेश्च।
On the very same grounds, viz. Scriptural authority and possibility.

3.2.40 L.3 ✅ श्रूयते तावदयमर्थः
This is what the Scriptures declare —

3.2.40 L.4 ✅ ‘स्वर्गकामो यजेत’ इत्येवमादिषु वाक्येषु;
“One who has a desire for heaven should sacrifice”.

3.2.40 L.5 ✅ तत्र च विधिश्रुतेः विषयभावोपगमात्
This is a Scriptural injunction, and as some object for the injunction is necessary to be understood,

3.2.40 L.6 ✅ यागः स्वर्गस्योत्पादक इति गम्यते;
It must be understood that a sacrifice does result in the acquisition of heaven,

3.2.40 L.7 ✅ अन्यथा हि अननुष्ठातृको याग आपद्येत;
Because were it not to be so, no one would care to engage in a sacrifice,

3.2.40 L.8 ✅ तत्र अस्य उपदेश-वैयर्थ्यं स्यात्।
And thus any such instruction would be rendered meaningless.

3.2.40 L.9 ✅ ननु अनुक्षण-विनाशिनः कर्मणः फलं नोपपद्यत इति,
परित्यक्तोऽयं पक्षः;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) this view has already been rejected on the ground, that,
As actions come to an end every moment, it is not reasonably sustainable that there could be any fruits (of actions).

3.2.40 L.10 ✅ नैष दोषः, श्रुतिप्रामाण्यात् –
No (we the Mīmāṃsakas reply) because according to us the Scriptures are authoritative.

3.2.40 L.11 ✅ श्रुतिश्चेत् प्रमाणम्,
Once it is granted, that the Scriptures are authoritative,

3.2.40 L.12 ✅ यथायं कर्मफल-सम्बन्धः श्रुत उपपद्यते,
The relation between actions and their fruits, as declared by the Scriptures,

3.2.40 L.13 ✅ तथा कल्पयितव्यः;
Should be understood to be so.

3.2.40 L.14 ✅ न च अनुत्पाद्य किमप्यपूर्वं कर्म विनश्यत् कालान्तरितं फलं दातुं शक्नोति;
Action which comes to an end without generating some ‘Apūrva’ cannot possibly grant its fruit at some future time.

3.2.40 L.15 ✅ अतः कर्मणो वा सूक्ष्मा काचिद् उत्तरावस्था फलस्य वा पूर्वावस्था
अपूर्वं नाम अस्तीति तर्क्यते।
Hence it is inferred that some such condition (like an ‘Apūrva’) does of course exist,
Either as some subtle subsequent condition of action, or as some antecedent condition of the fruit.

3.2.40 L.16 ✅ उपपद्यते च अयमर्थ उक्तेन प्रकारेण।
This is how the meaning becomes reasonably sustainable in the way referred to above,

3.2.40 L.17 ✅ ईश्वरस्तु फलं ददातीत्यनुपपन्नम्,
But it is not equally reasonably sustainable that the Lord vouchsafes the fruits (of actions).

3.2.40 L.18 ✅ अविचित्रस्य कारणस्य विचित्र-कार्यानुपपत्तेः
It is not reasonably sustainable that one uniform cause (such as the Lord) can have ununiform different results,

3.2.40 L.19 ✅ वैषम्य-नैर्घृण्य-प्रसङ्गात्,
And there would also be the predicament of the faults of partiality and cruelty being fastened on to the Lord,

3.2.40 L.20 ✅ तदनुष्ठान-वैयर्थ्यापत्तेश्च।
And all performance of actions would be rendered unfructuous.

3.2.40 L.21 ✅ तस्मात् धर्मादेव फलमिति॥४०॥
Therefore it is from Dharma alone that fruits (of actions) flow. — 40.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
पूर्वं तु बादरायणो हेतुव्यपदेशात्॥३.२.४१॥
Pūrvaṃ tu bādarāyaṇo hetu-vyapadeśāt.

Pūrvam: the former, i. e., the Lord as the giver of the fruits of actions; Tu: but; Bādarāyaṇaḥ: Bādarāyaṇa, the framer of the Sūtras (holds); Hetu-vyapadeśāt: on account of His being declared the cause (of the actions themselves).

🔗 But the sage Bādarāyaṇa however thinks that the one mentioned earlier (i.e. the Lord) is the cause of the fruits of actions, because He is referred to as the cause (of action i.e. Karma also). — 3.2.41.

3.2.41 L.1 ✅ बादरायणस्त्वाचार्यः पूर्वोक्तमेव ईश्वरं फलहेतुं मन्यते।
[Here] Ācārya Bādarāyaṇa however considers the Lord referred to earlier, as the cause of the fruits of actions.

3.2.41 L.2 ✅ केवलात् कर्मणः अपूर्वाद् वा केवलात् फलमित्ययं पक्षः तु-शब्देन व्यावर्त्यते।
The word ‘but’ (in the Sūtra) has the effect of refuting the view that fruits result either from actions or from Apūrva.

3.2.41 L.3 ✅ कर्मापेक्षात् अपूर्वापेक्षाद्वा यथा तथास्तु
ईश्वरात्फलम् इति सिद्धान्तः।
The conclusion (Siddhānta) is, that it is the Lord alone that vouchsafes fruits of actions,
And whether He relies upon actions or ‘Apūrva’, for dealing out such fruits, may be as it may.

3.2.41 L.4 ✅ कुतः? हेतुव्यपदेशात्; धर्माधर्मयोरपि हि कारयितृत्वेन ईश्वरो हेतुः व्यपदिश्यते,
Whence is it so? Because it is indicated that the Lord is the cause [by being the one who brings about Dharma and Adharma (both good and bad actions)].

3.2.41 L.5 ✅ फलस्य च दातृत्वेन –
It is as being the one that deals out the fruit, that the Scriptures refer to the Lord, thus —

3.2.41 L.6 ✅ ‘एष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषते।
एष उ एवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमधो निनीषते’ इति;
“He makes that man perform good actions whom he desires to raise up from this world,
And makes that other man perpetrate evil actions whom he desires to dump down into the abyss” (KausU. 3.8).

3.2.41 L.7 ✅ स्मर्यते च अयमर्थो भगवद्गीतासु –
The Smṛti Bhagavad-Gītā, also says the same thing:

3.2.41 L.8 ✅ ‘यो यो यां यां तनुं भक्तः श्रद्धयार्चितुमिच्छति।
तस्य तस्याचलां श्रद्धां तामेव विदधाम्यहम्॥
स तया श्रद्धया युक्तस्तस्याराधनमीहते।
लभते च ततः कामान् मयैव विहितान्हितान्’ (BhG.7.21–22) इति।
“Whatever form (of the deity) the devotee desires to worship through faith,
On that very form, I render his faith firm.
With such faith the devotee essays to propitiate Him,
And thus, as ordained by me, he obtains his desires.” (BhG.7.21–22)

3.2.41 L.9 ✅ सर्ववेदान्तेषु च ईश्वरहेतुका एव सृष्टयो व्यपदिश्यन्ते;
Besides all Vedānta texts declare, that all this creation is brought about by the Lord.

3.2.41 L.10 ✅ तदेव च ईश्वरस्य फलहेतुत्वम्,
That the Lord is the giver of the fruits of action,

3.2.41 L.11 ✅ यत् स्वकर्मानुरूपाः प्रजाः सृजति।
Consists in the fact, that He creates [the bodies and organs of] all creatures according to their own actions.

3.2.41 L.12 ✅ विचित्रकार्यानुपपत्त्यादयोऽपि दोषाः
Faults, such as, that the creation of manifold different effects by one cause (viz. Brahman) etc. are not reasonably sustainable,

3.2.41 L.13 ✅ कृतप्रयत्नापेक्षत्वाद् ईश्वरस्य न प्रसज्यन्ते॥४१॥
Do not apply to the Lord, inasmuch as the Lord has regard for the endeavours made (by each man). — 41.

– 100. Phala-Adhikaraṇam. End of Pāda 3.2

Su.3.3.1 Su..2 Su..3 Su..4

[Go top]

3.3 L.1 ✅ व्याख्यातं विज्ञेयस्य ब्रह्मणः तत्त्वम्;
The true nature of Brahman, the object to be known, has so far been explained.

3.3 L.2 ✅ इदानीं तु प्रतिवेदान्तं विज्ञानानि भिद्यन्ते, न वेति विचार्यते।
Whether the Vidyās in all the Vedānta texts are different from each other or not, is now being considered.

3.3 L.3 ✅ ननु विज्ञेयं ब्रह्म पूर्वापरादिभेद-रहितम्
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — But surely, Brahman, the object to be known, has already been determined to be one that is free from all differences of cause or effect (Purvāparādi-bheda-rahitam),

3.3 L.4 ✅ एकरसं सैन्धवघनवत् अवधारितम्;
And is uniform in essence, like a lump of salt,

3.3 L.5 ✅ तत्र कुतो विज्ञानभेदाभेदचिन्तावसरः?
So, whence can there be any necessity to consider, as to whether the Vidyās are different or non-different from each other?

3.3 L.6 ✅ न हि कर्मबहुत्ववत् ब्रह्मबहुत्वमपि वेदान्तेषु प्रतिपिपादयिषितमिति शक्यं वक्तुम्,
It is not possible to say, that in the Vedānta it is intended to expound, that just as there is a variety of religious actions, there are varieties of Brahman,

3.3 L.7 ✅ ब्रह्मण एकत्वात् एकरूपत्वाच्च;
Because there is but one and only one Brahman and it is of one uniform nature.

3.3 L.8 ✅ न च एकरूपे ब्रह्मणि अनेकरूपाणि विज्ञानानि सम्भवन्ति;
That there could be a variety in the nature of Vidyās in the case of Brahman which is of one uniform nature, is not possible.

3.3 L.9 ✅ न हि – अन्यथा अर्थः अन्यथा ज्ञानम् – इत्यभ्रान्तं भवति;
[Isn’t it that-] if an entity is of one nature, and the knowledge of such entity is of a different nature, such knowledge can only be of an illusory nature.

3.3 L.10 ✅ यदि पुनः एकस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि बहूनि विज्ञानानि वेदान्तेषु प्रतिपिपादयिषितानि,
Now, again Brahman being but one and one only, if different Vijñānas (i.e. Vidyās or Upāsanās or Cognitions) of it are intended to be expounded by the Vedānta texts,

3.3 L.11 ✅ तेषाम् एकमभ्रान्तम्,
Then only one of them could be free from doubt,

3.3 L.12 ✅ भ्रान्तानि इतराणीति
And the rest would necessarily be doubtful,

3.3 L.13 ✅ अनाश्वासप्रसङ्गो वेदान्तेषु;
And thus the predicament of a distrust of the Vedānta texts would result.

3.3 L.14 ✅ तस्मान्न तावत्प्रतिवेदान्तं ब्रह्मविज्ञानभेद आशङ्कितुं शक्यते।
Therefore it cannot be possible to entertain a doubt as to whether there are differences in the Vidyās relating to Brahman in the Vedānta texts,

3.3 L.15 ✅ नाप्यस्य चोदनाद्यविशेषादभेद उच्येत,
Nor can it be maintained (even if it be so doubted) that because of the uniformity of injunctions, there is non-difference between them,

3.3 L.16 ✅ ब्रह्मविज्ञानस्य अचोदनालक्षणत्वात्;
Because, the knowledge of Brahman is characterized by the absence of any such injunction about it (unlike the case of Dharma in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā).

3.3 L.17 ✅ अविधि-प्रधानैर्हि वस्तुपर्यवसायिभिः ब्रह्मवाक्यैः ब्रह्मविज्ञानं जन्यत इत्यवोचद्
आचार्यः ‘तत्तु समन्वयात्’ (BrS.1.1.4) इत्यत्र।
It has already been said by the Ācārya. (i.e. the Sūtra-kāra) — in the Sūtra “But that (Brahman is to be known from the Scriptures) is established, because (all Vedānta texts) have that connected sequence” (BrS.1.1.4) —
That the knowledge of Brahman supervenes, not through passages which purport to give injunctions (to act), but through passages about Brahman which culminate in the realization of Brahman as an entity.

3.3 L.18 ✅ तत्कथमिमां भेदाभेदचिन्तामारभत इति॥
So how can any such discussion either about the difference or non-difference (between the Vidyās) be at all started?

3.3 L.19 ✅ तदुच्यते –
With regard to this, it is said —

3.3 L.20 ✅ सगुणब्रह्मविषया प्राणादिविषया च इयं विज्ञानभेदाभेदचिन्तेत्यदोषः।
This consideration as to whether there is difference or non-difference as between the Vidyās is with reference to the qualified (Sa-guṇa) Brahman or the Prāṇa etc., and hence there is no fault.

3.3 L.21 ✅ अत्र हि कर्मवत् उपासनानां भेदाभेदौ सम्भवतः;
Here also — like ritualistic actions (Karma) — difference and nondifference as between meditations (Upāsanās) is possible,

3.3 L.22 ✅ कर्मवदेव च उपासनानि दृष्टफलानि अदृष्टफलानि च उच्यन्ते,
And, as in the case of actions, meditations also are spoken of as having visible and invisible fruits,

3.3 L.23 ✅ क्रममुक्तिफलानि च कानिचित्
And some' are spoken of as having the fruit of Krama-mukti (Final Release by stages)

3.3 L.24 ✅ सम्यग्दर्शनोत्पत्तिद्वारेण।
By way of the generation of correct i.e. perfect knowledge,

3.3 L.25 ✅ तेषु एषा चिन्ता सम्भवति –
And thus, in the case of meditations, a scope for discussion is possible,

3.3 L.26 ✅ किं प्रतिवेदान्तं विज्ञानभेदः, आहोस्वित् नेति॥
Viz., as to whether the Vidyās as referred to in different Vedānta texts are or are not different from each other.

3.3 L.27 ✅ तत्र पूर्वपक्षहेतवस्तावदुपन्यस्यन्ते –
Now, with regard to that, the possible arguments of the opponents of Vedānta in support of their view are stated, thus: —

3.3 L.28 ✅ नाम्नस्तावत् भेदप्रतिपत्तिहेतुत्वं प्रसिद्धं ज्योतिरादिषु;
A designation (Nāman) for instance, is a well-known criterion for determining that there is difference, to wit, as in the case of the ‘Jyotis’ sacrifice etc. (in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā).

3.3 L.29 ✅ अस्ति च अत्र वेदान्तान्तरविहितेषु विज्ञानेषु अन्यदन्यत् नाम –
Here also in the various Vedānta texts, different designations for the Vidyās are mentioned,

3.3 L.30 ✅ तैत्तिरीयकं वाजसनेयकं कौथुमकं कौषीतकं शाट्यायनकम् इत्येवमादि।
Such as Taittīriyaka, Vāja-saneyaka, Kauṭhumaka, Śāṭyāyanaka etc.

3.3 L.31 ✅ तथा रूपभेदोऽपि कर्मभेदस्य प्रतिपादकः प्रसिद्धः –
Similarly, a difference in the form (Rūpa) of Karma, is also calculated to propound a difference in actions (in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā)

3.3 L.32 ✅ ‘वैश्वदेव्यामिक्षा वाजिभ्यो वाजिनम्’ इत्येवमादिषु;
As in “Āmikṣā is for the Viśve-devas (i.e. all the Gods) and Vājina is for the horses”.

3.3 L.33 ✅ अस्ति च अत्र रूपभेदः;
Here, (in Vedānta) also a difference in form is to be seen,

3.3 L.34 ✅ तद्यथा – केचिच्छाखिनः पञ्चाग्निविद्यायां षष्ठमपरमग्निमामनन्ति,
As for instance, the followers of one branch recite a sixth and an entirely different Agni, in the case of the ‘Vidyā of the Five Fires’ (Pañcāgni-Vidyā),

3.3 L.35 ✅ अपरे पुनः पञ्चैव पठन्ति;
While some others recite only five Agnis.

3.3 L.36 ✅ तथा प्राणसंवादादिषु केचित् ऊनान्वागादीनामनन्ति,
Similarly, in the dialogue between the Prāṇas (viz. the Chief Vital Air and other sense-organs) etc., some mention a lesser number, such as, Vāk etc. (and four others only)

3.3 L.37 ✅ केचिदधिकान्।
While some mention a greater number (viz. five).

3.3 L.38 ✅ तथा धर्मविशेषोऽपि कर्मभेदस्य प्रतिपादक आशङ्कितः कारीर्यादिषु;
Similarly, that a special attribute (Dharma) is suggestive of a difference in actions, is what is advanced as an argument for a doubt (by the opponent in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā), as for instance, in minor sacrifices (Iṣṭis) called ‘Karīrī’ etc.

3.3 L.39 ✅ अस्ति च अत्र धर्मविशेषः;
So, here (in Vedānta) also there is a special attribute,

3.3 L.40 ✅ यथा आथर्वणिकानां शिरोव्रतमिति।
Viz. that only the followers of Atharva-Veda are required to perform the ‘Śiro-vrata’ (the ritual of bearing the Agni on the head).

3.3 L.41 ✅ एवं पुनरुक्त्यादयोऽपि भेदहेतवः
Similarly other criteria of ‘difference’ such as ‘Punar-ukti’ (repetition) etc.,

3.3 L.42 ✅ यथासम्भवं वेदान्तान्तरेषु योजयितव्याः।
In so far as they become applicable, should be drawn upon in the case of the various Vedānta texts.

3.3 L.43 ✅ तस्मात् प्रतिवेदान्तं विज्ञानभेद इति
Therefore (the conclusion of the opponent of Vedānta is) — The Vidyās in different Vedānta texts are different from each other.

3.3 L.44 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः –
This conclusion, we answer as follows. —

←Prev Next→
सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाद्यविशेषात्॥३.३.१॥
Sarva-vedānta-pratyayaṃ codanādy-aviśeṣāt.

Sarva-vedānta-pratyayam: exposition of Brahman in all the Vedānta texts; Codana-ādi-aviśeṣāt: as there is no difference in the injunctions, etc., (i.e., connection, form and name). (Sarva: all; Veda: the Vedas; Anta: the settled conclusion; Pratyayam: the knowledge, realisation; Codana-ādi: or the injunction and others; A-viśeṣāt: as there is no difference.)

🔗 The injunctions etc. being common, the Vidyās (i.e. Lores, or Upāsanās or Cognitions) in all Vedānta texts are the same everywhere. — 3.3.1.

3.3.1 L.1 ✅ सर्ववेदान्त-प्रत्ययानि विज्ञानानि तस्मिन् तस्मिन् वेदान्ते तानि तान्येव भवितुमर्हन्ति।
The Vidyās (Cognitions, which are called by the same name) wherever they happen to be mentioned in the Vedānta texts, are the same everywhere,

3.3.1 L.2 ✅ कुतः? चोदनाद्यविशेषात्;
Because the injunctions etc. (as to them) are common.

3.3.1 L.3 ✅ आदि-ग्रहणेन शाखान्तराधिकरणसिद्धान्त-सूत्रोदिता अभेदहेतव इहाकृष्यन्ते –
By the word ‘etc.’, the application of all these arguments for establishing ‘non-difference’, referred to in the Sūtra, which states the conclusion, in the Śākhāntara Adhikaraṇa (of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā), is attracted i.e. they should be understood to apply here,

3.3.1 L.4 ✅ संयोगरूपचोदनाख्याऽविशेषादित्यर्थः।
Viz., such as, connection, nature or form, injunction and special designation.

3.3.1 L.5 ✅ यथा एकस्मिन्नग्निहोत्रे
Just as in one and the same Agni-hotra,

3.3.1 L.6 ✅ शाखाभेदेऽपि पुरुषप्रयत्नस्तादृश एव चोद्यते –
In spite of differences in the branches (of the Vedas) the injunction as to the performance of ritualistic action (Karma) by a man is the same —

3.3.1 L.7 ✅ जुहुयादिति,
Viz. “He should offer an oblation” — ,

3.3.1 L.8 ✅ एवम् ‘यो ह वै ज्येष्ठं च श्रेष्ठं च वेद’ (ChanU.5.1.1) (BrhU.6.1.1) इति
वाजसनेयिनां छन्दोगानां च तादृश्येव चोदना।
Similarly, the injunction, both in the case of the Vāja-saneyins and Chando-gas —
Viz. “He who verily knows the oldest and the Highest” (BrhUEng.6.1.1) and (ChanU.5.1.1) — is the same.

3.3.1 L.9 ✅ प्रयोजनसंयोगोऽप्यविशिष्ट एव –
Also the connection of the Vidyā (Cognition) with the fruit, is the same, in the case of both —

3.3.1 L.10 ✅ ‘ज्येष्ठश्च श्रेष्ठश्च स्वानां भवति’ (BrhU.6.1.1) इति।
Viz. “He becomes the oldest and the Highest amongst his own people” (BrhUEng.6.1.1).

3.3.1 L.11 ✅ रूपमप्युभयत्र तदेव विज्ञानस्य,
The nature or form of the Vidyā in both is the same,

3.3.1 L.12 ✅ यदुत ज्येष्ठश्रेष्ठादि-विशेषणान्वितं प्राणतत्त्वम् –
Viz. the true nature of the Prāṇa, which is endowed with the special qualities of being the oldest and the Highest.

3.3.1 L.13 ✅ यथा च द्रव्यदेवते यागस्य रूपम्,
Just as the materials and the deity (involved in the sacrifice) constitute the nature or form of a sacrifice,

3.3.1 L.14 ✅ एवं विज्ञेयं रूपं विज्ञानस्य;
So the object to be known (i.e. Brahman) is the nature of the Vidyā,

3.3.1 L.15 ✅ तेन हि तत् रूप्यते।
And the Vidyās are coloured by its nature (i.e. of the object to be known).

3.3.1 L.16 ✅ समाख्यापि सैव –
The designation also (in both) is the same —

3.3.1 L.17 ✅ प्राणविद्येति।
Viz. “the Vidyā of the Prāṇas”.

3.3.1 L.18 ✅ तस्मात् सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययत्वं विज्ञानानाम्।
Therefore, the Vidyās, Cognitions in all the Vedānta texts, are the same everywhere.

3.3.1 L.19 ✅ एवं पञ्चाग्निविद्या वैश्वानरविद्या शाण्डिल्यविद्येत्येवमादिष्वपि योजयितव्यम्।
The same construction should be put upon, in the case of the ‘Vidyā of the Five Fires’, the ‘Vidyā of Vaiśvā-nara’ and the Śāṇḍilya Vidyā’.

3.3.1 L.20 ✅ ये तु नामरूपादयो भेदहेत्वाभासाः,
Such illusory reasons (as are stated by the opponent of Vedānta) for establishing that the Vidyās are different, such as, designation and form etc.,

3.3.1 L.21 ✅ ते प्रथम एव काण्डे ‘न नाम्ना स्यादचोदनाभिधानत्वात्’ इत्यारभ्य परिहृताः॥१॥
Have already been refuted in the First Kaṇḍa (i.e. Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā), beginning with the Sūtra “There could be no difference based upon name, as the names belong to the Vedas”, or, “the names do not apply to injunctions of acts” (according as the reading of the Sūtra is “Codanābhidhānatvāt” or “Acodanābhidhānatvāt” — Pū. Mī. II.4.10). — 1.

[Go top]

3.3.2 L.1 ✅ इहापि कञ्चिद्विशेषमाशङ्क्य परिहरति –
The Sūtra-kāra here anticipates another possible objection (of the opponent of Vedānta) also, and refutes it, as follows —

←Prev Next→
भेदान्नेति चेन्नैकस्यामपि॥३.३.२॥
Bhedān neti cen naikasyām api.

Bhedāt: on account of difference; Na: not; Iti: as, so, this; Cet: if; Na: no, not; Ekasyām: in the one and the same (Vidyā); Api: also, even.

🔗 If it be said, that the Vidyās are different from each other on account of differences (in subsidiary matters, we say) — No, there may be such differences (even in the case of one and the same Vidyā. — 3.3.2.

3.3.2 L.2 ✅ स्यादेतत् – सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययत्वं विज्ञानानां गुणभेदात् नोपपद्यते;
It may well be (says the opponent of Vedānta) that it is not reasonably sustainable, that the Vidyās in all the Vedānta texts are identical, inasmuch as there is difference in subsidiary matters (Guṇas).

3.3.2 L.3 ✅ तथा हि – वाजसनेयिनः पञ्चाग्निविद्यां प्रस्तुत्य षष्ठमपरमग्निमामनन्ति –
For instance, the Vāja-saneyins, with reference to the ‘Vidyā of the Five Fires’ mention a sixth Agni, thus —

3.3.2 L.4 ✅ ‘तस्याग्निरेवाग्निर्भवति’ (BrhU.6.2.14) इत्यादिना;
‘To him the material Agni itself, is the Agni” (BrhUEng.6.2.14) etc.,

3.3.2 L.5 ✅ छन्दोगास्तु तं न आमनन्ति,
While the Chando-gas do not mention it (i.e. such sixth Agni),

3.3.2 L.6 ✅ पञ्चसंख्ययैव च ते उपसंहरन्ति –
But conclude their Vidyā of Five Fires by the number five only, thus —

3.3.2 L.7 ✅ ‘अथ ह य एतानेवं पंचाग्नीन्वेद’ (ChanU.5.10.10) इति।
“So, whosoever knows these five fires in this way” (ChanU.5.10.10).

3.3.2 L.8 ✅ येषां च स गुणोऽस्ति, येषां च नास्ति,
कथमुभयेषाम् एका विद्योपपद्येत?
Now, how can it be reasonably sustainable, that the Vidyā
Of those who include this subsidiary matter and those who do not,
Can be identical?

3.3.2 L.9 ✅ न च अत्र गुणोपसंहारः शक्यते प्रत्येतुम्,
It is not possible to understand that all the different subsidiary matters can be combined together,

3.3.2 L.10 ✅ पञ्चसंख्याविरोधात्।
As it would contradict the number five.

3.3.2 L.11 ✅ तथा प्राणसंवादे श्रेष्ठात् अन्यान् चतुरः प्राणान् वाक्चक्षुःश्रोत्र-मनांसि छन्दोगा आमनन्ति;
Similarly the Chando-gas (in addition to the Chief Prāṇa) mention four Prāṇas viz. Speech, the Eye, the Ear and the Mind

3.3.2 L.12 ✅ वाजसनेयिनस्तु पञ्चममप्यामनन्ति – And the Vāja-saneyins mention a fifth also thus —

3.3.2 L.13 ✅ ‘रेतो वै प्रजापतिः प्रजायते ह प्रजया पशुभिर्य एवं वेद’ (BrhU.6.1.6) इति;
“Semen is the creator (Prajā-pati). He who knows it to be so gets an increase in progeny and animal stock” (BrhUEng.6.1.6).

3.3.2 L.14 ✅ आवापोद्वापभेदाच्च वेद्यभेदो भवति,
वेद्यभेदाच्च विद्याभेदः,
द्रव्यदेवताभेदादिव यागस्येति चेत् –
If it be also said, that on account of the difference caused by the inclusion and exclusion (of the subsidiary matters), there is a difference in the things to be known (viz. the Prāṇas)
And because of the difference in the things to be known, there is a difference in Vidyā,
Just as a difference in the material and the deity (necessary in a sacrifice), causes a difference in the sacrifice,

3.3.2 L.15 ✅ नैष दोषः; यत एकस्यामपि विद्यायामेवंजातीयको गुणभेद उपपद्यते;
(We reply) — No, in as much as such differences in subsidiary matters, even when the Vidyā is one and the same (in all Vedānta texts) is reasonably sustainable.

3.3.2 L.16 ✅ यद्यपि षष्ठस्याग्नेरुपसंहारो न सम्भवति,
Even though the sixth material Agni cannot possibly be taken collectively (with the other five fires which are notional)

3.3.2 L.17 ✅ तथापि द्युप्रभृतीनां पञ्चानामग्नीनाम् उभयत्र प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वात्
न विद्याभेदो भवितुमर्हति;
There is no difference in the Vidyās (viz. the Pañcāgni-Vidyās mentioned both in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka and the Chāndogya),
Inasmuch as the other five Agnis, such as the heaven etc., are recognizable as the same in both.

3.3.2 L.18 ✅ न हि षोडशि-ग्रहणाग्रहणयोः अतिरात्रो भिद्यते।
(For instance) there is no difference in the Atirātra sacrifice, even when the Ṣo-ḍaśi cup is used or when it is not so used.

3.3.2 L.19 ✅ पठ्यतेऽपि च षष्ठोऽग्निः छन्दोगैः –
Besides even the Chando-gas do mention a sixth Agni, thus —

3.3.2 L.20 ✅ ‘तं प्रेतं दिष्टमितोऽग्नय एव हरन्ति’ (ChanU.5.9.2) इति;
“Indeed when he has died and departed for the world indicated (by his actions) they take him to the Agni” (ChanU.5.9.2).

3.3.2 L.21 ✅ वाजसनेयिनस्तु साम्पादिकेषु पञ्चस्वग्निषु अनुवृत्तायाः समिद्धूमादि-कल्पनाया निवृत्तये
‘तस्याग्निरेवाग्निर्भवति समित्समित्’ (BrhU.6.2.14) इत्यादि समामनन्ति;
The Vāja-saneyins however in order to dispel the idea of the sticks of fire-wood (Samidhs) and smoke which follow in the wake of the five notional i.e. imaginary fires, mention thus —
“To him, the material Agni is the Agni and the material Samidh is the Samidh” (BrhUEng.6.2.14),

3.3.2 L.22 ✅ स नित्यानुवादः;
Which is but only a reference to something which is usual (Nityānuvāda, and which means that even in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, the sixth fire is not mentioned for meditation).

3.3.2 L.23 ✅ अथाप्युपासनार्थ एव वादः,
Even if (it be said) that this Vāda (i.e. reciting in this way) is for the purpose of meditation,

3.3.2 L.24 ✅ तथापि स गुणः शक्यते छन्दोगैरप्युपसंहर्तुम्।
Still, this subsidiary matter can very well be included even by the Chando-gas also,

3.3.2 L.25 ✅ न च अत्र पञ्चसंख्याविरोध आशङ्क्यः;
And no such doubt about any contravention of the number five should be entertained here,

3.3.2 L.26 ✅ साम्पादिकाग्न्यभिप्राया हि एषा पञ्चसंख्या
Inasmuch as, this number five, is only intended to refer to imaginary i.e. notional Agnis (which are well-known to be five)

3.3.2 L.27 ✅ नित्यानुवादभूता,
And is but a reference to something which is usual (Nityānuvāda),

3.3.2 L.28 ✅ न विधिसमवायिनी –
And has nothing to do i.e. does not go with any injunction (to a meditation).

3.3.2 L.29 ✅ इत्यदोषः। एवं प्राणसंवादादिष्वपि अधिकस्य गुणस्य इतरत्रोपसंहारो न विरुध्यते।
In this manner, it is not contradictory to include the sixth additional Agni elsewhere (where it is not mentioned) in the “Dialogue of the Prāṇas”.

3.3.2 L.30 ✅ न च आवापोद्वापभेदाद् वेद्यभेदो विद्याभेदश्च आशङ्क्यः,
No such difference in the Vidyās or the object to be known, should be suspected, merely because of a difference due to a subsidiary matter being included or excluded

3.3.2 L.31 ✅ कस्यचिद्वेद्यांशस्य आवापोद्वापयोरपि भूयसो वेद्यराशेरभेदावगमात्।
Or also because a particular small portion of the thing to be known is accepted in one Vidyā and is rejected in the other, because the maximum quantum of the thing-to-be-known (Vedya-rāśi), is common i.e. the same in both.

3.3.2 L.32 ✅ तस्मादैकविद्यमेव॥२॥
Therefore the Vidyās (everywhere) are identical. — 2.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्वाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन हि समाचारेऽधिकाराच्च सववच्च तन्नियमः॥३.३.३॥
Svādhyāyasya tathātvena hi samācāre'dhikārāc ca savavac ca tan-niyamaḥ.

Sva-adhyāyasya: of the study of the Vedas; Tathātvena: on account of being such; Hi: because; Samācāre: in the book named Samācāra containing the rules for the performance of Vedic rites; Adhikārāt: on account of the qualification; Ca: and; Savavat: as in the case of the seven oblations (viz., Saurya, etc.); Ca: and, also; Tad-niyamaḥ: that rule.

🔗 (The rite of the holding of the fire on the head) relates to the study of Veda (amongst those who are followers of Atharva-Veda), because (it is so mentioned) in the ‘Samācāra’ and also because of the chapter. The rule is analogous to the libations. — 3.3.3.

3.3.3 L.1 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – आथर्वणिकानां विद्यां प्रति शिरोव्रताद्यपेक्षणात्
The objection taken — viz., that inasmuch as in the case of the followers of Atharva-Veda, ‘the ritual of holding of the fire on the head’ is a sina qua non for (learning) the Vidyā,

3.3.3 L.2 ✅ अन्येषां च तदनपेक्षणात्
And it is not so necessary in the case of others,

3.3.3 L.3 ✅ विद्याभेद इति,
Therefore there is difference in the Vidyās —

3.3.3 L.4 ✅ तत्प्रत्युच्यते।
Is now being answered.

3.3.3 L.5 ✅ स्वाध्यायस्य एष धर्मः,
This is a feature of the study of Atharva-Veda,

3.3.3 L.6 ✅ न विद्यायाः।
And not of the Vidyā.

3.3.3 L.7 ✅ कथमिदमवगम्यते?
How is it understood to be so?

3.3.3 L.8 ✅ यतः, तथात्वेन स्वाध्यायधर्मत्वेन,
समाचारे वेदव्रतोपदेशपरे ग्रन्थे,
आथर्वणिकाः ‘इदमपि वेदव्रतत्वेन व्याख्यातम्’ इति समामनन्ति;
Because the Ārtharvaṇikas mention that it is a feature of the study of Atharva-Veda in the ‘Samācāra’,
A book which gives instruction about the Vratas (rituals) to be observed in the study of Veda,
And which mentions this ritual as being related to the (Atharva-) Veda.

3.3.3 L.9 ✅ ‘नैतदचीर्णव्रतोऽधीते’ (MunU.3.2.11) इति च
अधिकृतविषयाद् एतच्-छब्दात्
अध्ययन-शब्दाच्च
स्वोपनिषदध्ययनधर्म एव एष इति निर्धार्यते।
It is also conclusively determined to be such a feature of the study of their own Upaniṣad only (and not of the Vidyā),
On account of the word ‘this’ which refers to the qualification (for the study of the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad),
And the word ‘study’ also, in the passage —
“No one who has not performed this ritual, can study this (i.e. the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad)” (MunU.3.2.11).

3.3.3 L.10 ✅ ननु ‘तेषामेवैतां ब्रह्मविद्यां वदेत शिरोव्रतं विधिवद्यैस्तु चीर्णम्’ (MunU.3.2.10) इति
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), as the Muṇḍaka passage “This Brahma-Vidyā should be imparted only to those who have performed the ritual of ‘the holding of the fire on the head’ according to the instruction (Vidhivat)” (MunU.3.2.10)

3.3.3 L.11 ✅ ब्रह्मविद्यासंयोग-श्रवणात्,
Speaks of its (i.e. of the ritual of Śīro-vrata) relation to Brahma-Vidyā,

3.3.3 L.12 ✅ एकैव सर्वत्र ब्रह्मविद्येति, सङ्कीर्येत एष धर्मः –
This feature (of Śīro-vrata) would get mixed up (with the other Brahma-Vidyās in the other Vedas) and apply to all Vidyās generally, because, Brahma-Vidyā is the same everywhere.

3.3.3 L.13 ✅ न, तत्रापि एतामिति प्रकृतप्रत्यवमर्शात्;
We reply — No, because the word (this) (Etām) in the passage refers only to that which is relevant to the context there (viz., to the Brahma-Vidyā mentioned in the Muṇḍakopaniṣad).

3.3.3 L.14 ✅ प्रकृतत्वं च ब्रह्मविद्यायाः ग्रन्थविशेषापेक्षम् –
As this relevancy of Brahma-Vidyā is with reference to this particular book (i.e. Muṇḍakopaniṣad),

3.3.3 L.15 ✅ इति ग्रन्थविशेषसंयोग्येव एष धर्मः।
Therefore this feature (of Śīro-vrata) also relates particularly to that particular book only.

3.3.3 L.16 ✅ सववच्च तन्नियम इति निदर्शननिर्देशः –
That the rule is analogous to the libations (Sava), is an illustration indicated (in support of the argument).

3.3.3 L.17 ✅ यथा च सवाः सप्त सौर्यादयः शतौदनपर्यन्ताः
Just as, the seven libations — beginning with the libation to the Sun, and ending with the Śataudana libation — ,

3.3.3 L.18 ✅ वेदान्तरोदित-त्रेताग्न्यनभिसम्बन्धात्
Having nothing to do with the three Agnis referred to in the other Vedas,

3.3.3 L.19 ✅ आथर्वणोदितैकाग्न्यभिसम्बन्धाच्च
But having a relation with only the one Agni referred to in the Atharva-Veda,

3.3.3 L.20 ✅ आथर्वणिकानामेव नियम्यन्ते,
Are restricted to the followers of Atharva-Veda only,

3.3.3 L.21 ✅ तथैव अयमपि धर्मः स्वाध्यायविशेष-सम्बन्धात् तत्रैव नियम्यते।
Similarly this feature (of Śīro-vrata) related as it is, to the study of the Atharva-Veda by the Ārtharvaṇikas, is restricted to that study only.

3.3.3 L.22 ✅ तस्मादप्यनवद्यं विद्यैकत्वम्॥३॥
Therefore also, (the statement) that the Vidyās are identical (everywhere), is flawless. — 3.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
दर्शयति च॥३.३.४॥
Darśayati ca.

Darśayati: (Śruti) shows, instructs; Ca: also.

🔗 (The Scriptures) also declare (similarly). — 3.3.4.

3.3.4 L.1 ✅ दर्शयति च वेदोऽपि विद्यैकत्वं सर्ववेदान्तेषु
The Scriptures also declare similarly that the Vidyās (Cognitions) are one and the same in all Vedānta texts,

3.3.4 L.2 ✅ वेद्यैकत्वोपदेशात् –
Inasmuch as they all give instruction that the object to be known is one and the same, thus —

3.3.4 L.3 ✅ ‘सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति’ (KathU.1.2.15) इति,
“That abode (i.e. Brahman) about which all the Scriptures speak” (KathU.1.2.15);

3.3.4 L.4 ✅ तथा ‘एतं ह्येव बह्वृचा महत्युक्थे मीमांसन्ते
एतमग्नावध्वर्यव एतं महाव्रते छन्दोगाः’ इति च।
“So do the Bahv-ṛcas (i.e. Hotṛs, the followers of Ṛg-Veda) consider it (i.e. Brahman) only, in the Mahaty-uktha (Śāstra i.e. collection of glorificatory Sāman hymns),
And the Adhvaryus (the officiating priests, who follow the Yajur-Veda) meditate on it (i.e. Brahman) in the Sacrificial Agni, and the Chando-gas in Mahā-vrata (a particular religious act for propitiating Indra)”.

3.3.4 L.5 ✅ तथा ‘महद्भयं वज्रमुद्यतम्’ (KathU.2.3.2) इति
काठके उक्तस्य ईश्वरगुणस्य भयहेतुत्वस्य
Similarly, it is seen that the fear-inspiring nature of the Lord, spoken of in the Kaṭhopaniṣad thus —
“The great fear, the uplifted thunder-bolt (Vajra)” (KathU.2.3.2),

3.3.4 L.6 ✅ तैत्तिरीयके भेददर्शन-निन्दायै परामर्शो दृश्यते –
Is referred to in the Taittīriyaka, for the purpose of censuring the viewing of difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Lord), thus —

3.3.4 L.7 ✅ ‘यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नुदरमन्तरं कुरुते।
अथ तस्य भयं भवति।
तत्त्वेव भयं विदुषोऽमन्वानस्य’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति।
“Whenever he makes even the least little difference about it (Ātmā),
Then a great fear assails him.
That indeed is where, the person, who does not accept the unity (of Jīva-Self and Brahman) but considers them to be different, becomes subject to fear” (TaitUEng.2.7.1).

3.3.4 L.8 ✅ तथा वाजसनेयके प्रादेशमात्रसम्पादितस्य वैश्वानरस्य
Similarly the Vaiśvā-nara (the gastric fire) fancifully or notionally conceived to be of the size of a thumb, in the Vāja-saneyaka (i.e. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka),

3.3.4 L.9 ✅ छान्दोग्ये सिद्धवदुपादानम् –
Is accepted in the Chāndogya, as something which is already established, thus —

3.3.4 L.10 ✅ ‘यस्त्वेतमेवं प्रादेशमात्रम् अभिविमानमात्मानं वैश्वानरमुपास्ते’ (ChanU.5.18.1) इति।
“But, he who worships the Vaiśvā-nara considered in this way to be of the size of a thumb, and as the Abhivimāna Self (Ātmā)” (ChanU.5.18.1).

3.3.4 L.11 ✅ तथा सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययत्वेन
In the same manner, inasmuch as, all Vedānta texts are understood to refer actually to the same matter,

3.3.4 L.12 ✅ अन्यत्र विहितानामुक्थादीनाम्
Such as the Ukthas (Collections of Sāman hymns) etc., mentioned in one place, as being the same in all Vedānta texts,

3.3.4 L.13 ✅ अन्यत्रोपासनविधानाय उपादानात्
And are accepted in other places for the purpose of devout meditation,

3.3.4 L.14 ✅ प्रायदर्शन-न्यायेन
उपासनानामपि सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययत्व-सिद्धिः॥४॥
So, it is thus proved that the Upāsanās (meditations) in all Vedānta texts are the same everywhere,
On the authority of the maxim of “A thing that is often seen everywhere (Prāya-darśana)”. — 4.

– 101. Sarva-vedānta-pratyaya-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उपसंहारोऽर्थाभेदाद्विधिशेषवत्समाने च॥३.३.५॥
Upasaṃhāro'rthābhedād vidhi-śeṣavat samāne ca.

Upasaṃḥāraḥ: combination; Artha-abhedāt: as there is no difference in the object of meditation; Vidhi-śeṣavat: like the subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice; Samāne: in the Upāsanās of the same class, in the case of equality, the forms of meditation being the same in effect; Ca: also, and. (Artha: purpose; A-bheda: non-difference; Vidhi: injunctions, of the duties enjoined by the scriptures.)

🔗 All the subsidiary matters have to be combined, because there is no difference in their application (Arthābhedāt) as between the Vidyās (Cognitions). This is just like the complementary matters of an injunction which is common. — 3.3.5.

3.3.5 L.1 ✅ इदं प्रयोजनसूत्रम्।
This Sūtra states the fruit (Phala, of the discussion above).

3.3.5 L.2 ✅ स्थिते चैवं सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययत्वे सर्वविज्ञानानाम्,
It having been established that the Vidyās (Cognitions) in all the Vedānta texts are the same everywhere,

3.3.5 L.3 ✅ अन्यत्रोदितानां विज्ञान-गुणानाम्,
(It follows that) the subsidiary matters of a Vidyā in one place

3.3.5 L.4 ✅ अन्यत्रापि समाने विज्ञाने उपसंहारो भवति;
Are to be combined with the subsidiary matters of the same Vidyā in another place,

3.3.5 L.5 ✅ अर्थाभेदात् –
Because there is no difference in the fruit of the Vidyās (Cognitions) themselves.

3.3.5 L.6 ✅ य एव हि तेषां गुणानामेकत्र अर्थो विशिष्टविज्ञानोपकारः,
The use i.e. the benefit which the subsidiary matters relating to one Vidyā (Cognition) afford to that Vidyā

3.3.5 L.7 ✅ स एव अन्यत्रापि;
Is the same that they afford to another Vidyā,

3.3.5 L.8 ✅ उभयत्रापि हि तदेवैकं विज्ञानम्;
And, as the Vidyā is one and the same in both the places,

3.3.5 L.9 ✅ तस्मादुपसंहारः।
There is a combination (of the subsidiary matters of both).

3.3.5 L.10 ✅ विधिशेषवत् –
It is like the complementary matters relating to an injunction (Vidhi-śeṣavat).

3.3.5 L.11 ✅ यथा विधिशेषाणाम् अग्निहोत्रादि-धर्माणाम्,
Just as, in as much as complementary matters of an injunction about the religious rites of Agni-hotra etc.

3.3.5 L.12 ✅ तदेव एकमग्निहोत्रादि कर्म सर्वत्रेति, अर्थाभेदात्
Which are one and the same everywhere and not different,

3.3.5 L.13 ✅ उपसंहरणम्;
All such matters complementary to such an injunction have to be combined,

3.3.5 L.14 ✅ एवमिहापि।
Even so it is, in the case of the present Vidyā.

3.3.5 L.15 ✅ यदि हि विज्ञानभेदो भवेत्,
When the Vidyās are different from each other,

3.3.5 L.16 ✅ ततो विज्ञानान्तर-निबद्धत्वाद् गुणानाम्,
Then in as much as the matters of each Vidyā happen to be restricted to each Vidyā itself,

3.3.5 L.17 ✅ प्रकृतिविकृतिभावाभावाच्च
And there is absence of any relation as between these Vidyās, such as that of one being the principal and the other being its modification (as there is between the Darśeṣṭi and a Paśu-yāga),

3.3.5 L.18 ✅ न स्यादुपसंहारः;
No combination of such complementary matters takes place.

3.3.5 L.19 ✅ विज्ञानैकत्वे तु नैवमिति।
It is not so, however, when the Vidyās are one and the same.

3.3.5 L.20 ✅ अस्यैव तु प्रयोजनसूत्रस्य
This Sūtra which states the fruit,

3.3.5 L.21 ✅ प्रपञ्चः ‘सर्वाभेदात्’ इत्यारभ्य भविष्यति॥५॥
Will be further elaborated (by the Sūtra-kāra), beginning with Sūtra 10 hereafter. — 5.

– 102. Upasaṃhāra-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.6 Su..7 Su..8

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्यथात्वं शब्दादिति चेन्नाविशेषात्॥३.३.६॥
Anyathātvaṃ śabdād iti cen nāviśeṣāt.

Anyathātvam: there is difference; Śabdāt: on account of (difference in) texts; Iti: so; Cet: if; Na: not; A-viśeṣāt: on account of non-difference (as regards essentials).

🔗 If it be said (that the Udgīṭha Vidyās in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka and Chāndogya Upaniṣads) are different, because the words of the Scriptures are different, (we the opponents of Vedānta say) — No, because of non-difference (as between them). — 3.3.6.

3.3.6 L.1 ✅ वाजसनेयके ‘ते ह देवा ऊचुर्हन्तासुरान्यज्ञ उद्गीथेनात्ययामेति’ (BrhU.1.3.1)
In the Vāja-saneyaka (i.e. Bṛhad-āraṇyaka), beginning with “The deities said — Oh well, we will overcome the demons (interrupting us) in the sacrifice, by means of the Udgīṭha” (BrhUEng.1.3.1),

3.3.6 L.2 ✅ ‘ते ह वाचमूचुस्त्वं न उद्गाय’ (BrhU.1.3.2) इति प्रक्रम्य,
And proceeding “They said to Vāk (speech), do thou sing for us” (BrhUEng.1.3.2),

3.3.6 L.3 ✅ वागादीन्प्राणान् असुरपाप्म-विद्धत्वेन निन्दित्वा,
And after censuring Vāk (speech) and the other Prāṇas (i.e. sense-organs) as having been annihilated by the evil nature of the Demons,

3.3.6 L.4 ✅ मुख्यप्राणपरिग्रहः पठ्यते –
It is then recited, that they had recourse to the Chief Prāṇa, thus —

3.3.6 L.5 ✅ ‘अथ हेममासन्यं प्राणमूचुः
त्वं न उद्गायेति
तथेति तेभ्य एष प्राण उदगायत्’ (BrhU.1.3.7) इति।
“They said to the Prāṇa of the mouth (Āsanya),
Do thou sing for us,
And the Chief Prāṇa said, may it be so, and sang for them” (BrhUEng.1.3.7).

3.3.6 L.6 ✅ तथा छान्दोग्येऽपि
Similarly, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad also,

3.3.6 L.7 ✅ ‘तद्ध देवा उद्गीथमाजह्रुरनेनैनानभिभविष्यामः’ (ChanU.1.2.1) इति प्रक्रम्य,
Beginning with “The deities approached the Udgīṭha, (thinking) that they would defeat them (the demons) with it” (ChanU.1.2.1),

3.3.6 L.8 ✅ इतरान्प्राणान् असुरपाप्म-विद्धत्वेन निन्दित्वा,
And having censured the other Prāṇas (senses) as having been annihilated by the evil nature of the demons,

3.3.6 L.9 ✅ तथैव मुख्यप्राणपरिग्रहः पठ्यते –
It is similarly recited, that they had recourse to the Chief Prāṇa, thus —

3.3.6 L.10 ✅ ‘अथ ह य एवायं मुख्यः प्राणस्तमुद्गीथम् उपासाञ्चक्रिरे’ (ChanU.1.2.7) इति।
“Then they meditated upon the Chief Prāṇa as the Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.2.7).

3.3.6 L.11 ✅ उभयत्रापि च प्राणप्रशंसया प्राणविद्या-विधिः अध्यवसीयते।
In both places, it is definitely understood by this glorification of the Chief Prāṇa, that there is an injunction about Prāṇa-Vidyā.

3.3.6 L.12 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now, a doubt arises here

3.3.6 L.13 ✅ किमत्र विद्याभेदः स्यात्,
As to whether the Vidyās (Cognitions) in both the places are the same,

3.3.6 L.14 ✅ आहोस्वित् विद्यैकत्वमिति।
Or whether they are different.

3.3.6 L.15 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of the Vedānta)?

3.3.6 L.16 ✅ पूर्वेण न्यायेन विद्यैकत्वमिति।
It is, that, on the same argument as before, the Cognitions are one and the same in both places.

3.3.6 L.17 ✅ ननु न युक्तं विद्यैकत्वम्,
But (objects the Vedāntin) it is not logical (to say) that the Vidyās (Cognitions) are one and the same,

3.3.6 L.18 ✅ प्रक्रमभेदात्;
Because there is a difference in the introductory passage.

3.3.6 L.19 ✅ अन्यथा हि प्रक्रमन्ते वाजसनेयिनः,
The Vāja-saneyins begin in one way and the Chando-gas in another.

3.3.6 L.20 ✅ अन्यथा छन्दोगाः – ‘त्वं न उद्गाय’ (BrhU.1.3.2) इति
वाजसनेयिन उद्गीथस्य कर्तृत्वेन प्राणमामनन्ति,
The Vāja-saneyins mention the Chief Prāṇa as the singer of the Udgīṭha, thus —
“Do thou sing for us” (BrhUEng.1.3.2),

3.3.6 L.21 ✅ छन्दोगास्तु उद्गीथत्वेन
While the Chando-gas treat the Chief Prāṇa itself as the Udgīṭha, thus —

3.3.6 L.22 ✅ ‘तमुद्गीथमुपासाञ्चक्रिरे’ (ChanU.1.2.7) इति,
“They meditated on this, the chief Prāṇa as the Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.2.7).

3.3.6 L.23 ✅ तत्कथं विद्यैकत्वं स्यादिति चेत् –
If, therefore, it be said (by the Vedāntin) as to how the Vidyās (Cognitions) could be one and the same,

3.3.6 L.24 ✅ नैष दोषः;
(We the opponents of Vedānta reply) — This is no fault.

3.3.6 L.25 ✅ न हि एतावता विशेषेण विद्यैकत्वम् अपगच्छति,
That much peculiarity would not vitiate the unity of the Vidyās (Cognitions),

3.3.6 L.26 ✅ अविशेषस्यापि बहुतरस्य प्रतीयमानत्वात्;
Because, it is understood that there is a great deal too much that is common (as between the Prāṇa-Vidyās of both the Vāja-saneyaka and Chāndogya).

3.3.6 L.27 ✅ तथा हि – देवासुरसङ्ग्रामोपक्रमत्वम्,
For instance — Both begin with the fight between the deities and the demons,

3.3.6 L.28 ✅ असुरात्ययाभिप्रायः,
Both speak about overcoming the demons

3.3.6 L.29 ✅ उद्गीथोपन्यासः,
And then both mention the Udgīṭha,

3.3.6 L.30 ✅ वागादिसङ्कीर्तनम्,
And follow it up by the invocation to Vāk (speech) etc.,

3.3.6 L.31 ✅ तन्निन्दया मुख्यप्राणव्यपाश्रयः,
And then after censuring Vāk (speech) etc., both speak about having recourse to the Chief Prāṇa,

3.3.6 L.32 ✅ तद्वीर्याच्च असुरविध्वंसनम्
And both speak about the annihilation of the demons through the strength of the Chief Prāṇa,

3.3.6 L.33 ✅ अश्मलोष्टनिदर्शनेन –
In a manner similar to the illustration of a stone and a clod of earth,

3.3.6 L.34 ✅ इत्येवं बहवोऽर्था उभयत्राप्यविशिष्टाः प्रतीयन्ते।
And thus, many such items are understood to be common to both.

3.3.6 L.35 ✅ वाजसनेयकेऽपि च उद्गीथसामानाधिकरण्यं प्राणस्य श्रुतम् –
In the Vāja-saneyaka the Chief Prāṇa and the Udgītha are governed by the same case (Sāmānādhikaraṇya), thus —

‘एष उ वा उद्गीथः’ (BrhU.1.3.23) इति।
“He indeed is the Udgīṭha” (BrhUEng.1.3.23).

3.3.6 L.36 ✅ तस्माच्छान्दोग्येऽपि कर्तृत्वं लक्षयितव्यम्।
Therefore, in the Chāndogya also the Chief Prāṇa should be understood metaphorically to be the singer of the Udgīṭha

3.3.6 L.37 ✅ तस्माच्च विद्यैकत्वमिति॥६॥
And it should be understood that the Vidyās (Cognitions) are, thus, one and the same. — 6.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न वा प्रकरणभेदात्परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत्॥३.३.७॥
Na vā prakaraṇa-bhedāt parovarīyastvādivat.

Na: not; Vā: certainly; Prakaraṇa-bhedāt: on account of difference in subject matter; Paro'varīyastva-ādivat: even as (the meditation on the Udgīṭha) as the highest and great (Brahman) (is different).

🔗 (Vidyās i.e. Cognitions) are not (the same in both the places) because the chapters are different. This is like (the meditation on) the greater than the great (Parovarīyān). — 3.3.7.

3.3.7 L.1 ✅ न वा विद्यैकत्वमत्र न्याय्यम्;
That the cognitions are one and the same, is not logical,

3.3.7 L.2 ✅ विद्याभेद एव अत्र न्याय्यः।
While it is logical, that they are different.

3.3.7 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? प्रकरणभेदात्, प्रक्रमभेदादित्यर्थः;
Why so? Because of the difference in the chapters (which speak of different subject matters).

3.3.7 L.4 ✅ तथा हि इह प्रक्रमभेदो दृश्यते –
It is seen that there is here a difference in the introductory part of the chapters.

3.3.7 L.5 ✅ छान्दोग्ये तावत् –
In the Chāndogya, for the matter of that,

3.3.7 L.6 ✅ ‘ओमित्येतदक्षरमुद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1) इत्येवम्
उद्गीथावयवस्य ओंकारस्य उपास्यत्वं प्रस्तुत्य,
रसतमत्वादिगुणोपव्याख्यानं तत्र कृत्वा,
Having in the introductory portion mentioned Oṅ-kāra, which is but a part of the Udgīṭha, as the proper object of meditation as the Udgīṭha, And having explained the special attribute (of Oṅ-kāra) as having the quintessence (of every other essence), thus —
“Meditate on the word ‘Om’ as Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.1.1),

3.3.7 L.7 ✅ अथ ‘खल्वेतस्यैवाक्षरस्योपव्याख्यानं भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इति
पुनरपि तमेव उद्गीथावयवमोंकारमनुवर्त्य,
And after having again referred to a part of the Udgīṭha in the form of Oṅ-kāra, thus —
“Now, verily this is but a further explanation of the same word Om” (ChanU.1.1.10),

3.3.7 L.8 ✅ देवासुराख्यायिका-द्वारेण तम्
The Chāndogya, by way of the legend of the Gods and the Demons,

3.3.7 L.9 ✅ ‘प्राणमुद्गीथम् उपासाञ्चक्रिरे’ (ChanU.1.2.2) इत्याह;
Says further — “(The Gods) meditated on the Chief Prāṇa in the form of the Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.2.2).

3.3.7 L.10 ✅ तत्र यदि उद्गीथ-शब्देन सकला भक्तिरभिप्रेयेत,
Now here, if by the word Udgīṭha, meditation (Bhakti) on the whole Udgīṭha (and not on its part ‘Om’ only) is understood,

3.3.7 L.11 ✅ तस्याश्च कर्ता उद्गाता ऋत्विक्,
And the Udgātṛ-Ṛtvij (the chanting priest) is understood to be the meditator,

3.3.7 L.12 ✅ तत उपक्रमश्चोपरुध्येत,
Then the introductory passage (which speaks about the meditation on ‘Om’, a part of the Udgīṭha) would thus be contradicted,

3.3.7 L.13 ✅ लक्षणा च प्रसज्येत;
And the word would have to be understood as a Lakṣaṇa i.e. in its secondary significance.

3.3.7 L.14 ✅ उपक्रमतन्त्रेण च एकस्मिन्वाक्ये उपसंहारेण भवितव्यम्;
Now, in one and the same sentence, the concluding portion ought to agree with the introductory portion.

3.3.7 L.15 ✅ तस्मात् अत्र तावत् उद्गीथावयवे ओंकारे प्राणदृष्टिः उपदिश्यते –
Therefore, here (in the Chāndogya) the looking upon on Oṅ-kāra, a part of the Udgīṭha, as being of the form of the Chief Prāṇa, is the instruction given.

3.3.7 L.16 ✅ वाजसनेयके तु उद्गीथ-शब्देन अवयवग्रहणे कारणाभावात्
In the Vāja-saneyaka (i.e. Brih.) however, in the absence of any reason for understanding only a part of the Udgīṭha (i.e. Om) by the word ‘Udgīṭha’,

3.3.7 L.17 ✅ सकलैव भक्तिरावेद्यते;
Meditation on the entire Udgīṭha is intimated.

3.3.7 L.18 ✅ ‘त्वं न उद्गाय’ (BrhU.1.3.2) इत्यपि
In the Scriptural passage “Do thou sing for us” (BrhUEng.1.3.2) also,

3.3.7 L.19 ✅ तस्याः कर्ता उद्गाता ऋत्विक् प्राणत्वेन निरूप्यत इति –
The meditator the Udgātṛ-Ṛtvij is explained to be of the form of the Chief Prāṇa,

3.3.7 L.20 ✅ प्रस्थानान्तरम्।
Which is another point of difference (in the Vidyās).

3.3.7 L.21 ✅ यदपि तत्र उद्गीथसामानाधिकरण्यं प्राणस्य,
That the Chief Prāṇa and the Udgīṭha which are mentioned as having the same case-ending,

3.3.7 L.22 ✅ तदपि उद्गातृत्वेनैव दिदर्शयिषितस्य प्राणस्य सर्वात्मत्व-प्रतिपादनार्थमिति
Is for the purpose of expounding, that the Chief Prāṇa which is sought to be represented as the Udgātṛ-Ṛtvij, is the Self of all,

3.3.7 L.23 ✅ न विद्यैकत्वमावहति।
And it is not able to show, that the Vidyās are identical.

3.3.7 L.24 ✅ सकलभक्तिविषय एव च तत्रापि उद्गीथ-शब्द इति वैषम्यम्।
Besides, another disparity consists in this, viz. that by the word ‘Udgīṭha’ the whole Udgīṭha becomes the object of meditation

3.3.7 L.25 ✅ न च प्राणस्योद्गातृत्वम् असम्भवेन हेतुना परित्यज्यते,
Nor can the capacity of the Chief Prāṇa as a singer be rejected on the ground of impossibility,

3.3.7 L.26 ✅ उद्गीथभाववत् उद्गातृ-भावस्यापि
Inasmuch as, that it has the same capacity of being understood notionally as being the singer, as there is about the Udgīṭha,

3.3.7 L.27 ✅ उपासनार्थत्वेन उपदिश्यमानत्वात्;
For the purpose of meditation, has been spoken of by the Scriptures.

3.3.7 L.28 ✅ प्राणवीर्येणैव च उद्गाता औद्गात्रं करोतीति नास्त्यसम्भवः;
In as much as, that the Udgātṛ-Ṛtvij may very well sing by virtue of the strength of the Chief Prāṇa, is not impossible,

3.3.7 L.29 ✅ तथा च तत्रैव श्रावितम् –
Because the Scriptures have therein stated so, in that very manner, thus —

3.3.7 L.30 ✅ ‘वाचा च ह्येव स प्राणेन चोदगायत्’ (BrhU.1.3.24) इति।
“He (the Udgātṛ) sang by means of the Speech and Prāṇa”.

3.3.7 L.31 ✅ न च विवक्षितार्थ-भेदेऽवगम्यमाने
वाक्यच्छायानुकारमात्रेण
समानार्थत्वमध्यवसातुं युक्तम्;
Besides, when it is understood that a difference between things is meant to be spoken of,
It is not proper to understand that the things are the same,
Merely because of the similarity of the language of the passages.

3.3.7 L.32 ✅ तथा हि – अभ्युदयवाक्ये
For instance, in the case of the Abhyudaya passage (i.e. a passage relating to the rising of the moon in the Darśeṣṭi Sacrifice)

3.3.7 L.33 ✅ पशुकामवाक्ये च
And in the case of the Paśu-kāma passage (i.e. a passage relating to the desire of a Yajamāna to obtain stocks of cattle),

3.3.7 L.34 ✅ ‘त्रेधा तण्डुलान्विभजेद्ये
मध्यमाः स्युस्तानग्नये दात्रे पुरोडाशमष्टाकपालं कुर्यात्’
इत्यादिनिर्देशसाम्येऽपि,
There is the Scriptural passage —
“Divide the rice (according to the size of the grains) in three ways.
The middle one should be offered as Puro-ḍāśa on eight potsherds, to Agni the conferor (of gifts)”,

3.3.7 L.35 ✅ उपक्रमभेदात् अभ्युदयवाक्ये
In which even though the reference is similar, still, because of the difference in the introductory passages, in the Abhyudaya passage

3.3.7 L.36 ✅ देवतापनयोऽध्यवसितः,
It is understood that it (the Puro-ḍāśa) is not to be offered to the deity,

3.3.7 L.37 ✅ पशुकामवाक्ये तु याग-विधिः –
And so far as the Paśu-kāma passage is concerned, it is understood to be by way of an injunction for a sacrifice.

3.3.7 L.38 ✅ तथा इहापि उपक्रमभेदात् विद्या-भेदः।
Similarly, here also there is difference in the Vidyās (Cognitions) on account of a difference in the introductory passages.

3.3.7 L.39 ✅ परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत् –
This is similar to (the meditation on) the greater than the great (the most excellent).

3.3.7 L.40 ✅ यथा परमात्मदृष्ट्यध्यास-साम्येऽपि,
Just as, even though there is similarity (of Vidyās in both) about the superimposition of the Highest Self (on the Udgīṭha),

3.3.7 L.41 ✅ आकाशो ह्येवैभ्यो ज्यायानाकाशः परायणम्’ (ChanU.1.9.1)
‘स एष परोवरीयानुद्गीथः स एषोऽनन्तः’ (BrhU.1.9.2) इति
परोवरीयस्त्वगुणविशिष्टम् उद्गीथोपासनम्
Meditation on the Udgīṭha characterized by the special feature of being the ‘most excellent’,
By such passages as “Ākāśa verily is greater than these (beings), Ākāśa is the last resort” (ChanU.1.9.1),
“He is the Udgīṭha, greater than the great, and eternal” (ChanU.9.1.2),

3.3.7 L.42 ✅ अक्ष्यादित्यादिगत-हिरण्य-श्मश्रुत्वादिगुण-विशिष्टोद्गीथोपासनात् भिन्नम्;
Is different from the meditation on the Udgīṭha, characterized by the special feature of an ‘aureate beard’ (of the deity) in the Sun and in the eye.

3.3.7 L.43 ✅ न च इतरेतरगुणोपसंहार एकस्यामपि शाखायाम् –
Thus, just as special features in different meditations, in even one and the same branch, cannot be combined,

3.3.7 L.44 ✅ तद्वत् शाखान्तरस्थेष्वपि एवंजातीयकेषु उपासनेष्विति॥७॥
Similarly they cannot be combined in the case of such meditations in different branches. — 7.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
संज्ञातश्चेत्तदुक्तमस्ति तु तदपि॥३.३.८॥
saṃjñātaś cet tad uktam asti tu tad api.

Saṃjñātaḥ: on account of the name (being same); Cet: if; Tat: that; Uktam: has already been answered; Asti: is, exists; Tu: but; Tat: that; Api: even, also.

🔗 If it be said that the Vidyā is the same because the name (Udgītha-Vidyā) is the same, it has already been stated (that it cannot be so). Besides there can be one name (for different Vidyās). But (in the absence of a reason for understanding, that the Vidyās are different) when the name is the same, the Vidyās may be one and the same. — 3.3.8.

3.3.8 L.1 ✅ अथोच्येत – संज्ञैकत्वात् विद्यैकत्वमत्र न्याय्यम्,
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta), that it is logical that the name being the same the Cognitions are one and the same,

3.3.8 L.2 ✅ उद्गीथविद्येत्युभयत्रापि एका संज्ञेति,
And that here the name ‘Udgītha-Vidyā’ occurs in both places,

3.3.8 L.3 ✅ तदपि नोपपद्यते;
It is not reasonably sustainable.

3.3.8 L.4 ✅ उक्तं ह्येतत् –
It has been stated in the preceding Sūtra, thus —

3.3.8 L.5 ✅ ‘न वा प्रकरणभेदात् परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत्’ (BrS.3.3.7) इति;
“The Vidyās are not the same everywhere. It is like (the meditation on) the greater than the great” (BrS.3.3.7).

3.3.8 L.6 ✅ तदेव च अत्र न्याय्यतरम्।
That alone (viz. what we the Vedāntins say) is more logical

3.3.8 L.7 ✅ श्रुत्यक्षरानुगतं हि तत्।
Ānd conforms to the letter of the Scriptures,

3.3.8 L.8 ✅ संज्ञैकत्वं तु श्रुत्यक्षरबाह्यम्
And that the fact that the name is identical, is (a matter which is) outside the scope of the Scriptures,

3.3.8 L.9 ✅ उद्गीथ-शब्दमात्र-योगात्
And the name is used in a secondary sense only,

3.3.8 L.10 ✅ लौकिकैर्व्यवहर्तृभिरुपचर्यते।
By ordinary men in ordinary parlance, in as much as the mere word ‘Udgīṭha’ is used.

3.3.8 L.11 ✅ अस्ति च एतत्संज्ञैकत्वं प्रसिद्धभेदेष्वपि परोवरीयस्त्वाद्युपासनेषु – उद्गीथ-विद्येति;
Besides, this identity of name viz. ‘Udgītha-Vidyā’ does also exist, even in the case of meditations (on Brahman) as the ‘most excellent’, which are well-known to be different.

3.3.8 L.12 ✅ तथा प्रसिद्धभेदानामपि
अग्निहोत्र-दर्शपूर्णमासादीनां
काठकैकग्रन्थ-परिपठितानां काठक-संज्ञैकत्वं दृश्यते,
It is similarly seen, that religious acts such as Agni-hotra and Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa
Mentioned in the book named Kāṭhaka (of the Kāṭhakas), are mentioned by the same name ‘Kāṭhaka’,
Even though they are well-known to be different,

3.3.8 L.13 ✅ तथेहापि भविष्यति।
And even so can it be here also.

3.3.8 L.14 ✅ यत्र तु नास्ति कश्चित् एवंजातीयको भेदहेतुः,
Where there is no such reason for considering the Vidyās to be different,

3.3.8 L.15 ✅ तत्र भवतु संज्ञैकत्वात् विद्यैकत्वम् –
यथा संवर्गविद्यादिषु॥८॥
As for instance in the case of the Saṃvarga-Vidyā etc.,
Identity of the Vidyās (Cognitions) may well occur, because of the identity of names. — 8.

– 103. Anyathātva-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
व्याप्तेश्च समञ्जसम्॥३.३.९॥
Vyāpteś ca samañjasam.

Vyāpteḥ: because (OM) extends (over the whole of the Vedas); Ca: and; Samañjasam: is appropriate, consistent, justifiable.

🔗 But, because (the word ‘Om’) is coextensive (with the Vedas), it is perfectly congruous. — 3.3.9.

3.3.9 L.1 ✅ ‘ओमित्येतदक्षरम् उद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1) इत्यत्र
अक्षरोद्गीथ-शब्दयोः सामानाधिकरण्ये श्रूयमाणे
Inasmuch as the Scriptures speak of the words ‘Om’ and Udgīṭha as having the same case-endings,
In the passage “(He) should meditate on ‘Om’ (as if) it is ‘Udgīṭha’” (ChanU.1.1.1),

3.3.9 L.2 ✅ अध्यासापवादैकत्वविशेषण-पक्षाणां
And as the various views, viz. that the relation between the two is either of superimposition (Adhyāsa) or ablation (Apavāda), or unity (Ekatva), or of each of them qualifying the other (Viśeṣaṇa),

3.3.9 L.3 ✅ प्रतिभासनात्
Appear to suggest themselves as possible,

3.3.9 L.4 ✅ कतमोऽत्र पक्षो न्याय्यः स्यादिति विचारः।
A consideration arises as to which of these views is the logical one.

3.3.9 L.5 ✅ तत्र अध्यासो नाम –
Adhyāsa (super-imposition) indeed is there, where,

3.3.9 L.6 ✅ द्वयोर्वस्तुनोः
As between two entities,

3.3.9 L.7 ✅ अनिवर्तितायामेव अन्यतर-बुद्धौ
While the knowledge about one entity (out of the two), qua that entity, still subsists,

3.3.9 L.8 ✅ अन्यतरबुद्धिः अध्यस्यते;
The notion of its being another entity is superimposed upon it.

3.3.9 L.9 ✅ यस्मिन् इतरबुद्धिरध्यस्यते,
The knowledge that the entity, on which the notion of the other entity is super-imposed,

3.3.9 L.10 ✅ अनुवर्तत एव तस्मिन् तद्बुद्धिः,
Is that self-same entity, continues to persist

3.3.9 L.11 ✅ अध्यस्तेतरबुद्धावपि –
In spite of the fact, that the notion of another entity is super-imposed on it.

3.3.9 L.12 ✅ यथा नाम्नि ब्रह्मबुद्धावध्यस्यमानायामपि
Just as for instance here, even when the notion of Brahman is superimposed on a name (such as ‘Om’),

3.3.9 L.13 ✅ अनुवर्तत एव नामबुद्धिः,
The knowledge, that the name is a name, does still persist,

3.3.9 L.14 ✅ न ब्रह्मबुद्ध्या निवर्तते –
And is not removed by the notion of Brahman.

3.3.9 L.15 ✅ यथा वा प्रतिमादिषु विष्ण्वादिबुद्ध्यध्यासः –
Or else, just as when an iconic representation (Pratimā) is superimposed with the notion of its being Viṣṇu (incarnate) etc.

3.3.9 L.16 ✅ एवमिहापि अक्षरे उद्गीथबुद्धिरध्यस्येत,
Similarly here, (it could be understood) that either the notion of ‘Udgīṭha’ is superimposed on the word ‘Om’

3.3.9 L.17 ✅ उद्गीथे वा अक्षरबुद्धिरिति।
Or the notion of the name ‘Om’ is superimposed on the word Udgīṭha.

3.3.9 L.18 ✅ अपवादो नाम –
Ablation (Apavāda, negation) occurs,

3.3.9 L.19 ✅ यत्र कस्मिंश्चिद्वस्तुनि
Where, with regard to an entity,

3.3.9 L.20 ✅ पूर्वनिविष्टायां मिथ्याबुद्धौ निश्चितायाम्,
A false notion (of its being some other entity) having already been definitely and successfully super-imposed on it,

3.3.9 L.21 ✅ पश्चादुपजायमाना यथार्था बुद्धिः
A correct knowledge of it (that it is the self-same entity),

3.3.9 L.22 ✅ पूर्वनिविष्टाया मिथ्याबुद्धेः निवर्तिका भवति –
Which arises later on, negatives (i.e. ablates) the earlier false notion superimposed on it.

3.3.9 L.23 ✅ यथा देहेन्द्रियसङ्घाते आत्मबुद्धिः,
Just as, for instance, a notion (entertained by a man) that the aggregate of the body and sense-organs is the Self,

3.3.9 L.24 ✅ आत्मन्येव आत्मबुद्ध्या पश्चाद्भाविन्या
‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति
अनया यथार्थबुद्ध्या निवर्त्यते –
Disappears (i.e. it is ablated) when [by] the correct knowledge
That ‘the Self’ is (in fact) ‘the Self’ (and the body and sense-organs are not the Self) supervenes at some subsequent later stage,
By the Scriptural knowledge “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7),

3.3.9 L.25 ✅ यथा वा दिग्भ्रान्ति-बुद्धिः दिग्याथात्म्य-बुद्ध्या निवर्त्यते –
Or, as for instance, when the confused notion about ‘a direction’ (of the points of a compass), disappears after the correct knowledge about it (dawns on a person).

3.3.9 L.26 ✅ एवमिहापि अक्षर-बुद्ध्या उद्गीथ-बुद्धिर्निवर्त्येत,
Similarly, here also, the notion that the Udgīṭha’ is ‘Om’ is repelled by the knowledge that it is (in fact) ‘Om’,

3.3.9 L.27 ✅ उद्गीथ-बुद्ध्या वा अक्षर-बुद्धिरिति।
And the notion that ‘Om’ is ‘Udgīṭha’ is repelled by the knowledge that it is (in fact) the ‘Udgīṭha’.

3.3.9 L.28 ✅ एकत्वं तु अक्षरोद्गीथशब्दयोः अनतिरिक्तार्थवृत्तित्वम् –
Unity (Ekatva) is, where the words ‘Om’ and ‘Udgīṭha’ do not happen to exceed in extent the meaning of each other, (i.e. that they are co-extensive in their denotation and connotation and mean the same thing).

3.3.9 L.29 ✅ यथा द्विजोत्तमो ब्राह्मणो भूमिदेव इति।
Just as for instance when it is said that a person is either ‘a twice-born’ or a Brāhmaṇa or a ‘God on earth’, (which means one and the same thing).

3.3.9 L.30 ✅ विशेषणं पुनः
The relation is that of a Viśeṣaṇa i.e. an adjective (to a substantive),

3.3.9 L.31 ✅ सर्ववेदव्यापिन ओमित्येतस्याक्षरस्य ग्रहणप्रसङ्गे
When, an occasion to use the word ‘Om’ which coincides with the extent of all the Scriptures (because all Vedas begin with ‘Om’), arises,

3.3.9 L.32 ✅ औद्गात्र-विशेषस्य समर्पणम् –
It is made to culminate in meaning the particular operation, viz. ‘singing’ (Audgātra) (i.e. what the Udgātṛ-Ṛtvij does),

3.3.9 L.33 ✅ यथा नीलं यदुत्पलम् तदानयेति,
Just as when some one says — ‘Bring the lotus which is blue’ (where ‘blue’ qualifies ‘the lotus’).

3.3.9 L.34 ✅ एवमिहापि उद्गीथो य ओंकारः तमुपासीतेति।
Similarly here also, in the passage — “(He) should meditate on ‘Om’ which is of the form of the ‘Udgīṭha’.

3.3.9 L.35 ✅ एवमेतस्मिन्सामानाधिकरण्यवाक्ये विमृश्यमाने,
Thus, when this Sāmānādhikaraṇya passage (i.e. one in which there is a common case-ending) is considered,

3.3.9 L.36 ✅ एते पक्षाः प्रतिभान्ति;
These various views appear to be possible,

3.3.9 L.37 ✅ तत्रान्यतम् अनिर्धारणकारणाभावात्
And in the absence of any definite determining factor,

3.3.9 L.38 ✅ अनिर्धारणप्राप्तौ इदमुच्यते – व्याप्तेश्च समञ्जसमिति।
When the conclusion (of the opponent) is, that it is inconclusive,
It is said (by the Sūtra-kāra) — “But because (the word ‘Om’) is co-extensive (with the Vedas), it is perfectly congruous”.

3.3.9 L.39 ✅ च-शब्दोऽयं तु-शब्दस्थाननिवेशी
The word ‘also’ (Ca) which here stands in the place of the word ‘but’ (Tu),

3.3.9 L.40 ✅ पक्षत्रयव्यावर्तन-प्रयोजनः।
Has the effect or result (Prayojana) of rejecting three views.

3.3.9 L.41 ✅ तदिह त्रयः पक्षाः सावद्या इति पर्युदस्यन्ते;
That means that three views (out of the four mentioned above), in as much as they contain a flaw, are rejected,

3.3.9 L.42 ✅ विशेषण-पक्ष एवैको निरवद्य इत्युपादीयते।
And only the view that ‘one word serves as an adjective qualifying the other’, being flawless, is accepted.

3.3.9 L.43 ✅ तत्राध्यासे तावत् –
With regard to the view of superimposition (Adhyāsa),

3.3.9 L.44 ✅ या बुद्धिः इतरत्र अध्यस्यते,
The notion (of the entity) which is superimposed on another entity,

3.3.9 L.45 ✅ तच्छब्दस्य लक्षणा-वृत्तित्वं प्रसज्येत,
Will make the word which stands for the superimposed entity, understood in a secondary (Lakṣaṇā) sense,

3.3.9 L.46 ✅ तत्फलं च कल्प्येत;
And some fruit of it will have to be imagined.

3.3.9 L.47 ✅ श्रूयत एव फलम् ‘आपयिता ह वै कामानां भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.7) इत्यादि, इति चेत् –
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) that the Scriptural passage “(He) verily becomes the conferor of the thing desired” (ChanU.1.1.7) etc. shows the necessary fruit,

3.3.9 L.48 ✅ न, तस्य अन्यफलत्वात्;
(We reply) — No, because that fruit is the result of something else.

3.3.9 L.49 ✅ आप्त्यादिदृष्टिफलं हि तत्,
नोद्गीथाध्यासफलम्।
It is by no means the fruit of the superimposition of the Udgītha (on ‘Om’),
But of the sentiment about ‘Om’ being the gratifier of the desire (which is entertained with respect to the word ‘Om’).

3.3.9 L.50 ✅ अपवादेऽपि समानः फलाभावः।
In the case of ‘ablation’ (Apavāda) also there is a corresponding absence of any fruit (resulting from such ablation).

3.3.9 L.51 ✅ मिथ्या-ज्ञाननिवृत्तिः फलमिति चेत्,
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) that the refutation of the false-knowledge, is such fruit,

3.3.9 L.52 ✅ न; पुरुषार्थोपयोगानवगमात्;
(We reply) — No, inasmuch as it is not understood to be helpful in any way towards a man’s chief aim.

3.3.9 L.53 ✅ न च कदाचिदपि ओंकारात् ओंकारबुद्धिः निवर्तेत, उद्गीथाद्वा उद्गीथबुद्धिः;
At no time does the knowledge of Oṅ-kāra qua Oṅ-kāra, or the knowledge of Udgītha qua Udgītha, ever disappear.

3.3.9 L.54 ✅ न चेदं वाक्यं वस्तुतत्त्व-प्रतिपादनपरम्,
Moreover this passage is not meant to expound the true nature of an entity,

3.3.9 L.55 ✅ उपासनाविधि-परत्वात्।
But it is intended to be by way of an injunction for meditation.

3.3.9 L.56 ✅ नापि एकत्व-पक्षः सङ्गच्छते;
Neither does the view about unity (Ekatva) fit in properly,

3.3.9 L.57 ✅ निष्प्रयोजनं हि तदा शब्दद्वयोच्चारणं स्यात्,
As in that case, the uttering of two words ‘Om’ and Udgītha (which in the case of Ekatva (Unity) mean the same entity), would be superfluous,

3.3.9 L.58 ✅ एकेनैव विवक्षितार्थ-समर्पणात्।
Because only one word could very well express the desired meaning.

3.3.9 L.59 ✅ न च हौत्रविषये आध्वर्यवविषये वा अक्षरे ओंकारशब्दवाच्ये उद्गीथशब्दप्रसिद्धिरस्ति,
It is not known that the word Udgītha is a word used for the word which is expressed by the letter ‘Om’ which is related to the subject of a Hotṛ (i.e. of the Ṛg-Veda) or an Adhvaryu (of the Yajur-Veda).

3.3.9 L.60 ✅ नापि सकलायाम् साम्नो द्वितीयायां भक्तौ उद्गीथ-शब्दवाच्यायाम् ओंकार-शब्दप्रसिद्धिः,
Nor is the word ‘Om’ ever used metaphorically for the whole of the second part of the Sāman-Veda known as the ‘Udgītha’,

3.3.9 L.61 ✅ येनानतिरिक्तार्थता स्यात्।
So that the two words can be synonymous i.e. coextensive in meaning.

3.3.9 L.62 ✅ परिशेषाद् विशेषणपक्षः परिगृह्यते,
Therefore, the only remaining alternative, viz. the view that one of the two words (‘Om’ and ‘Udgītha’)' acts as an adjective of the other and (qualifies its meaning) is accepted,

3.3.9 L.63 ✅ व्याप्तेः सर्ववेद-साधारण्यात्;
Because the word ‘Om’ is common to all the Vedas.

3.3.9 L.64 ✅ सर्वव्याप्यक्षरम् इह मा प्रसञ्जि –
In order that the letter ‘Om’ which is common to all the Vedas should not happen to be applicable here in that sense,

3.3.9 L.65 ✅ इत्यत उद्गीथ-शब्देन अक्षरं विशेष्यते –
It is here qualified by the word ‘Udgītha’,

3.3.9 L.66 ✅ कथं नाम उद्गीथावयवभूत ओंकारो गृह्येतेति।
Otherwise, 'how else indeed can the word ‘Om’ be understood to mean a part of Udgītha?

3.3.9 L.67 ✅ नन्वस्मिन्नपि पक्षे
(The opponent of Vedānta here retorts) — But even so far as this view is concerned also,

3.3.9 L.68 ✅ समाना लक्षणा, उद्गीथ-शब्दस्य अवयवलक्षणार्थत्वात्;
Secondary meaning would still be there (as the word ‘Om’ has to be understood to mean a part of Udgītha).

3.3.9 L.69 ✅ सत्यमेवमेतत्;
(We reply) — What you say is correct of course,

3.3.9 L.70 ✅ लक्षणायामपि तु सन्निकर्ष-विप्रकर्षौ भवत एव;
But even in the case of a secondary meaning, it may either be proximate or distant.

3.3.9 L.71 ✅ अध्यास-पक्षे हि अर्थान्तरबुद्धिः अर्थान्तरे निक्षिप्यत इति विप्रकृष्टा लक्षणा,
In the case of a superimposition, the notion of one entity is superimposed on another and so the secondary meaning is ‘distant’,

3.3.9 L.72 ✅ विशेषण-पक्षे तु अवयविवचनेन शब्देन अवयवः समर्प्यत इति सन्निकृष्टा;
While in the case of a relationship in which one entity qualifies another, inasmuch as a word meaning the whole entity (Avayavī) is given the meaning of only a part of it (Avayava), the secondary meaning is ‘proximate’.

3.3.9 L.73 ✅ समुदायेषु हि प्रवृत्ताः शब्दाः
A word which expresses an aggregate of things

3.3.9 L.74 ✅ अवयवेष्वपि वर्तमाना दृष्टाः
Is also seen to be used for a part of that aggregate,

3.3.9 L.75 ✅ पटग्रामादिषु।
As for instance in the case of cloth or a city.

3.3.9 L.76 ✅ अतश्च व्याप्तेर्हेतोः
Hence the meaning is that because the words ‘Udgītha’ and ‘Om’ are co-extensive,

3.3.9 L.77 ✅ ‘ओमित्येतदक्षरम्’ इत्येतस्य ‘उद्गीथम्’ इत्येतद्विशेषणमिति
The word ‘Udgītha’ is here used as an adjective, qualifying the word ‘Om’,

3.3.9 L.78 ✅ समञ्जसमेतत्, निरवद्यमित्यर्थः॥९॥
Which, being thus perfectly congruous, is flawless. — 9.

– 104. Vyāpty-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सर्वाभेदादन्यत्रेमे॥३.३.१०॥
Sarvābhedād anyatreme.

Sarva-abhedāt: on account of non-difference everywhere; Anyatra: in the other places; Ime: these (qualities are to be inserted).

🔗 As there is no difference (in the Prāṇa-Vidyās in different places) (the attributes in one Vidyā are) available elsewhere. — 3.3.10.

3.3.10 L.1 ✅ वाजिनां छन्दोगानां च प्राणसंवादे
In the dialogue of the Prāṇas of the Vājis i.e. the Vāja-saneyins, and the Chando-gas,

3.3.10 L.2 ✅ श्रैष्ठ्य-गुणान्वितस्य प्राणस्य उपास्यत्वमुक्तम्;
It has been stated that the Prāṇa, which is endowed with the attribute of possessing a superior status etc., is the one to be meditated upon,

3.3.10 L.3 ✅ वागादयोऽपि हि तत्र वसिष्ठत्वादि-गुणान्विता उक्ताः;
And Vāk (Speech) etc. are also stated therein as being endowed with the attributes of ‘richness of language’ (Vasiṣṭhatva) etc.,

3.3.10 L.4 ✅ ते च गुणाः प्राणे पुनः प्रत्यर्पिताः –
And the same qualities of theirs are referred back (by Vāk etc.) as really belonging to Prāṇa, thus —

3.3.10 L.5 ✅ ‘यद्वा अहं वसिष्ठास्मि त्वं तद्वसिष्ठोऽसि’ (BrhU.6.1.14) इत्यादिना।
“What in me consists as being endowed with the attribute of ‘Vasiṣṭhatva’, is indeed your (i.e. Prāṇa’s) Vasiṣṭhatva” (BrhUEng.6.1.14).

3.3.10 L.6 ✅ अन्येषामपि तु शाखिनां कौषीतकिप्रभृतीनां प्राणसंवादेषु
In the case of the dialogues of Prāṇa of the followers of some other branches such as Kauṣītaki etc.,

3.3.10 L.7 ✅ ‘अथातो निःश्रेयसादानमेता ह वै देवता अहंश्रेयसे विवदमानाः’ (कौ. उ. २-१४) इत्येवंजातीयकेषु
In the passages such as “Now for the determination of the quality of being the Highest” and “These deities who discussed amongst themselves as to who amongst them was the best” (KausU. 2.14),

3.3.10 L.8 ✅ प्राणस्य श्रैष्ठ्यमुक्तम्,
The superior status of Prāṇa has been stated,

3.3.10 L.9 ✅ न त्विमे वसिष्ठत्वादयोऽपि गुणा उक्ताः।
But not these attributes of Vasiṣṭhatva etc.

3.3.10 L.10 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
So, here the doubt

3.3.10 L.11 ✅ किमिमे वसिष्ठत्वादयो गुणाः
Is whether the qualities of Vasiṣṭhatva etc.,

3.3.10 L.12 ✅ क्वचिदुक्ता अन्यत्रापि अस्येरन्, उत नास्येरन्निति।
Which are mentioned as being present in one place, are to be understood to be present in other places also.

3.3.10 L.13 ✅ तत्र प्राप्तं तावत् – नास्येरन्निति।
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that they are not to be understood to be so present.

3.3.10 L.14 ✅ कुतः? एवंशब्दसंयोगात्;
Whence is it so? Because of the use of the term ‘in this way’ (Evam) in the Scriptures (“Who, in this way, knows the greatness of Prāṇa”).

3.3.10 L.15 ✅ ‘अथो य एवं विद्वान्प्राणे निःश्रेयसं विदित्वा’
इति हि तत्र तत्र एवं-शब्देन
वेद्यं वस्तु निवेद्यते;
In different places, by the term ‘in this way’ in passages such as “Now, whosoever understands, in this way, by knowing that such superior status abides in the Prāṇa”, The entity to be known is indicated.

3.3.10 L.16 ✅ एवं-शब्दश्च सन्निहितावलम्बनः
न शाखान्तर-परिपठितम् एवंजातीयकं गुणजातं शक्नोति निवेदयितुम्;
Moreover the term ‘in this way’ which goes with what is proximate (to it) Is not able to intimate the set of attributes of this kind mentioned in other branches (i.e. in Vāja-saneyi and Chāndogya branches).

3.3.10 L.17 ✅ तस्मात् स्वप्रकरणस्थैरेव गुणैः निराकाङ्क्षत्वम्
Therefore, the qualities mentioned in each chapter fulfil their purpose there only, i.e. where they occur, and leave no further expectations (of their being applicable elsewhere).

3.3.10 L.18 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते प्रत्याह –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), the reply is —

3.3.10 L.19 ✅ अस्येरन् इमे गुणाः क्वचिदुक्ता वसिष्ठत्वादयः अन्यत्रापि।
These attributes, viz. richness of language (Vasiṣṭhatva) etc., mentioned in some particular place only, are of course present in other places also (viz. Prāṇa-Vidyās in other places).

3.3.10 L.20 ✅ कुतः? सर्वाभेदात् –
Whence is it so? Because there is absence of any difference between them (i.e. between all Prāṇa-Vidyās).

3.3.10 L.21 ✅ सर्वत्रैव तदेव एकं प्राण-विज्ञानम् अभिन्नं प्रत्यभिज्ञायते, प्राणसंवादादि-सारूप्यात्;
It is recognized, that because of the similarity of the dialogue, there is the same Prāṇa-Vidyā everywhere.

3.3.10 L.22 ✅ अभेदे च विज्ञानस्य
And when there is thus no such difference between the Vidyās,

3.3.10 L.23 ✅ कथम् इमे गुणाः क्वचिदुक्ता
How ever can the attributes mentioned in one place,

3.3.10 L.24 ✅ अन्यत्र न अस्येरन्।
Fail to be present in other places as well?

3.3.10 L.25 ✅ ननु एवं-शब्दः तत्र तत्र भेदेन एवंजातीयकं गुणजातं वेद्यत्वाय समर्पयतीत्युक्तम्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) we have stated already that the term ‘in this way’, wherever it occurs, intimates separately in each place, each particular set of attributes (mentioned there).

3.3.10 L.26 ✅ अत्रोच्यते –
To which we reply —

3.3.10 L.27 ✅ यद्यपि कौषीतकि-ब्राह्मणगतेन एवं-शब्देन वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणगतं गुणजातम् असंशब्दितम्
Even though the term ‘in this way’ in Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa does not intimate the set of attributes occurring in the Vāja-saneyi Brāhmaṇa,

3.3.10 L.28 ✅ असन्निहितत्वात्,
Because of want of proximity,

3.3.10 L.29 ✅ तथापि तस्मिन्नेव विज्ञाने
Still, inasmuch as the Prāṇa-Vidyā is the same,

3.3.10 L.30 ✅ वाजसनेयि-ब्राह्मणगतेन एवं-शब्देन तत् संशब्दितमिति –
The same set of attributes is of course intimated by the term ‘in this way' in the Vāja-saneyi Brāhmaṇa,

3.3.10 L.31 ✅ न परशाखागतमपि अभिन्नविज्ञानावबद्धं गुणजातं
स्वशाखागताद् विशिष्यते;
And thus the set of attributes (Guṇas), even though restricted to the non-different Vidyā of some other branch,
Is not distinguishable from the set of qualities in one’s own branch.

3.3.10 L.32 ✅ न चैवं सति श्रुतहानिः
अश्रुतकल्पना वा भवति;
Neither is there, even if it be considered to be so, any abandonment of what the Scriptures have stated,
Nor the assumption of anything not so stated.

3.3.10 L.33 ✅ एकस्यामपि हि शाखायां श्रुता गुणाः
The attributes mentioned in one branch

3.3.10 L.34 ✅ श्रुता एव सर्वत्र भवन्ति,
Are of course supposed to be stated in the other,

3.3.10 L.35 ✅ गुणवतो भेदाभावात्;
Inasmuch as there is absence of any difference in that to which these attributes appertain (viz. the Prāṇa-Vidyā).

3.3.10 L.36 ✅ न हि देवदत्तः शौर्यादि-गुणत्वेन स्वदेशे प्रसिद्धः
Deva-datta, who is well-known in his own country, for the attributes of prowess etc.,

3.3.10 L.37 ✅ देशान्तरं गतः
द्देश्यैः अविभावितशौर्यादि-गुणोऽपि
अतद्गुणो भवति;
Does not cease to have these attributes,
Merely because he goes to a foreign country
And the people there do not have the advantage of having been made aware of these attributes (of his).

3.3.10 L.38 ✅ यथा च तत्र परिचयविशेषात् देशान्तरेऽपि देवदत्त-गुणा विभाव्यन्ते,
Just as even there, when they get better acquainted, they do get to know these attributes of Deva-datta,

3.3.10 L.39 ✅ एवम् अभियोगविशेषात् शाखान्तरेऽप्युपास्या गुणाः
Similarly, the attributes in one branch which are the object of meditation there,

3.3.10 L.40 ✅ शाखान्तरेऽप्यस्येरन्।
Are present in a different branch also.

3.3.10 L.41 ✅ तस्मादेकप्रधान-सम्बद्धा धर्मा एकत्राप्युच्यमानाः
Therefore, the conclusion is, that attributes which appertain to one and the same principal entity, even when they are mentioned in one place only,

3.3.10 L.42 ✅ सर्वत्रैव उपसंहर्तव्या इति॥१०॥
Are to be understood as applicable to such principal entity; when it occurs elsewhere also. — 10.

– 105. Sarva-bheda-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.11 Su..12 Su..13

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य॥३.३.११॥
Ānandādayaḥ pradhānasya.

Ānanda-ādayaḥ: Bliss and other attributes; Pradhānasya: of the Principal, i.e., the Supreme Self or Brahman.

🔗 Attributes (Guṇas) such as bliss etc., which appertain to the chief entity (i.e. Brahman, are to be combined). — 3.3.11.

3.3.11 L.1 ✅ ब्रह्मस्वरूप-प्रतिपादनपरासु श्रुतिषु
The Scriptures in one place or the other in passages which aim at propounding the nature of Brahman,

3.3.11 L.2 ✅ आनन्दरूपत्वं विज्ञानघनत्वं सर्वगतत्वं सर्वात्मत्वम् इत्येवंजातीयका
ब्रह्मणो धर्माः क्वचित् केचित् श्रूयन्ते।
Speak of Brahman here and there as possessing some out of such types of attributes,
As of bliss, of being knowledge incarnate, of being all-pervading and of being the Self of all etc.

3.3.11 L.3 ✅ तेषु संशयः –
With regard to these, there is a doubt,

3.3.11 L.4 ✅ किमानन्दादयो ब्रह्मधर्माः यत्र यावन्तः श्रूयन्ते तावन्त एव तत्र प्रतिपत्तव्याः,
As to whether, such attributes of Brahman as of bliss etc., wherever they are spoken of by the Scriptures, are to be understood as being only as many as are mentioned in any such particular place,

3.3.11 L.5 ✅ किं वा सर्वे सर्वत्रेति।
Or whether, all of them collectively are to be understood to be available everywhere.

3.3.11 L.6 ✅ तत्र यथाश्रुति-विभागं धर्मप्रतिपत्तौ प्राप्तायाम्,
Now, the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta) being, that they should be understood separately to be only as many as are spoken of in any particular place,

3.3.11 L.7 ✅ इदमुच्यते – आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य ब्रह्मणो धर्माः
It is said (by the Vedāntin) — All the attributes of Brahman i.e. the Chief entity, such as bliss etc.,

3.3.11 L.8 ✅ सर्वे सर्वत्र प्रतिपत्तव्याः।
Should be understood to belong to it everywhere.

3.3.11 L.9 ✅ कस्मात्? सर्वाभेदादेव –
Whence is it so? Precisely because of non-difference.

3.3.11 L.10 ✅ सर्वत्र हि तदेव एकं प्रधानं विशेष्यं ब्रह्म
Brahman, the entity to which these attributes belong, is one and the same Chief entity everywhere,

3.3.11 L.11 ✅ न भिद्यते;
And it does not differ.

3.3.11 L.12 ✅ तस्मात् सार्वत्रिकत्वं ब्रह्मधर्माणाम् –
Therefore all the attributes of Brahman, are present everywhere collectively,

3.3.11 L.13 ✅ तेनैव पूर्वाधिकरणोदितेन देवदत्तशौर्यादि-निदर्शनेन॥११॥
On the strength of the illustration quoted in the previous Adhikaraṇa, viz. about the prowess etc. of Deva-datta. — 11.

[Go top]

3.3.12 L.1 ✅ ननु एवं सति
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) if this is so,

3.3.12 L2. ✅ प्रियशिरस्त्वादयोऽपि धर्माः सर्वे सर्वत्र सङ्कीर्येरन्;
Then all such attributes of Brahman, as its ‘having Joy as its caput’ etc., would also be available everywhere,

3.3.12 L.3 ✅ तथा हि तैत्तिरीयके आनन्दमयम् आत्मानं प्रक्रम्य आम्नायते –
For even so, the Scriptures in the Taittīriyaka Upaniṣad, after introducing the Self as being of the structure of Joy, mention thus —

3.3.12 L.4 ✅ ‘तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः। मोदो दक्षिणः पक्षः। प्रमोद उत्तरः पक्षः।
आनन्द आत्मा। ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इति।
“Of him [joy is the head, the caput], satisfaction is the right wing (Pakṣa), extreme satisfaction is the left wing (Pakṣa),
Bliss is the Self, and Brahman is the tail, the support” (TaitUEng.2.5).

3.3.12 L.5 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
The reply is: —

←Prev Next→
प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिरुपचयापचयौ हि भेदे॥३.३.१२॥
Priya-śirastvādy-aprāptir upacayāpacayau hi bhede.

Priya-śirastva-ādi: qualities like joy being His head, etc.; A-prāptiḥ: are not to be taken everywhere; Upacaya-apacayau: increase and decrease; Hi: be cause; Bhede: (are possible) in difference. (Upacaya: increase; Apacaya: decrease.)

🔗 The attributes such as ‘having Joy as the caput’ etc. are not available (everywhere). Augmentation and depletion pertain to only where there is ‘Bheda’ i.e. ‘Dvaita’ (a notion of difference). — 3.3.12.

3.3.12 L.6 ✅ प्रियशिरस्त्वादीनां धर्माणां
Attributes such as ‘It has Joy as its caput’ etc.,

3.3.12 L.7 ✅ तैत्तिरीयके आम्नातानां नास्ति अन्यत्र प्राप्तिः,
Mentioned in the Taittīriyaka Upaniṣad, are not available everywhere,

3.3.12 L.8 ✅ यत्कारणम् – प्रियं मोदः प्रमोद आनन्द इत्येते –
Inasmuch as, Joy, satisfaction, extreme satisfaction, Bliss etc.

3.3.12 L.9 ✅ परस्परापेक्षया भोक्त्रन्तरापेक्षया च
उपचितापचितरूपा उपलभ्यन्ते;
Are understood to derive augmentation or suffer depletion,
Relatively with each other, and with reference to the other experiencers.

3.3.12 L.10 ✅ उपचयापचयौ च सति भेदे सम्भवतः;
Augmentation and depletion become possible only in the presence of difference (i.e. a sense of duality, understood to exist as between the Highest Self and other Jīva-Selfs),

3.3.12 L.11 ✅ निर्भेदं तु ब्रह्म
While Brahman as such, is indeed without any duality,

3.3.12 L.12 ✅ ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
According to the Scriptural passages — “One only without a second” (ChanU.6.2.1) etc.

3.3.12 L.13 ✅ न च एते प्रियशिरस्त्वादयो ब्रह्मधर्माः;
कोशधर्मास्तु एते इत्युपदिष्टमस्माभिः
Besides, instruction has already been given by us in Brahma-Sūtra I.i.12, that the attributes of ‘having Joy as the caput’ etc. are in fact not the attributes of the Chief entity, Brahman,
But of the sheaths (i.e. Kośas in which it happens to be enveloped during phenomenal existence),

3.3.12 L.14 ✅ ‘आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात्’ (BrS.1.1.12) इत्यत्र।
अपि च परस्मिन् ब्रह्मणि चित्तावतारोपाय-मात्रत्वेन एते परिकल्प्यन्ते,
And besides they are imagined to be so, merely to serve as the means of bringing the Highest Brahman to the mind (of the person who contemplates),

3.3.12 L.15 ✅ न द्रष्टव्यत्वेन;
And not with a view that they should actually be looked upon as appertaining to the object of meditation,

3.3.12 L.16 ✅ एवमपि सुतराम् अन्यत्राप्राप्तिः प्रियशिरस्त्वादीनाम्।
And hence there is thus a greater reason why ‘having Joy as the caput’ etc. are not available everywhere.

3.3.12 L.17 ✅ ब्रह्मधर्मांस्तु एतान्कृत्वा न्यायमात्रम् इदम् आचार्येण प्रदर्शितम् – प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिरिति;
When the Ācārya (the Sūtra-kāra) predicates characteristics such as ‘Joy is the caput’ to be the attributes of Brahman (when they are not so in fact) and says that they are not available everywhere, he is merely being logical,

3.3.12 L.18 ✅ स च न्यायः अन्येषु निश्चितेषु ब्रह्मधर्मेषु उपासनायोपदिश्यमानेषु नेतव्यः –
And the same rule of logic is to be applied to such other characteristics as are mentioned for the purpose of meditation,

3.3.12 L.19 ✅ संयद्वामत्वादिषु सत्यकामत्वादिषु च;
Viz. ‘Samyad-vāma’ (i.e. one having the attribute of being that to which all blessings go), and ‘Satya-Kāma’ (i.e. one having the attribute of having all true desires) etc.

3.3.12 L.20 ✅ तेषु हि सत्यपि उपास्यस्य ब्रह्मण एकत्वे,
When that which is to be meditated upon, viz. Brahman, is one only,

3.3.12 L.21 ✅ प्रक्रम-भेदाद् उपासना-भेदे सति,
And when the difference in the introductory passages argues a difference in the modes of meditation,

3.3.12 L.22 ✅ न अन्योन्यधर्माणाम् अन्योन्यत्र प्राप्तिः;
The characteristics in each different place are not mutually available.

3.3.12 L.23 ✅ यथा च द्वे नार्यौ एकं नृपतिमुपासाते –
Just as two maids simultaneously wait upon one and the same king,

3.3.12 L.24 ✅ छत्रेण अन्या चामरेण अन्या –
One with the royal umbrella, and the other with the fly-whisk,

3.3.12 L.25 ✅ तत्रोपास्यैकत्वेऽपि
And just as in this case, though the person to be served is one only,

3.3.12 L.26 ✅ उपासनभेदो धर्मव्यवस्था च भवति –
There is difference in the mode of service and each such mode is confined to its own proper sphere,

3.3.12 L.27 ✅ एवमिहापीति।
Even so it is here also.

3.3.12 L.28 ✅ उपचितापचितगुणत्वं हि सति भेदव्यवहारे सगुणे ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यते,
It is in the case of qualified Brahman alone, when duality has practical application,
That augmentation and depletion of the attributes becomes reasonably sustainable,

3.3.12 L.29 ✅ न निर्गुणे परस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि।
And not in the case of unqualified Brahman.

3.3.12 L.30 ✅ अतो न सत्यकामत्वादीनां धर्माणां
क्वचिच्छ्रुतानां
सर्वत्र प्राप्तिरित्यर्थः॥१२॥
Hence attributes such as ‘one whose desires are true’ etc.,
Which are mentioned by the Scriptures in one particular place,
Do not become available everywhere. — 12.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
इतरे त्वर्थसामान्यात्॥३.३.१३॥
Itare tv artha-sāmānyāt.

Itare: other attributes; Tu: but; Artha-sāmānyāt: because of common purport, on account of identity of purport. (Artha: result, object, purport; Sāmānyāt: on account of the equality or sameness.)

🔗 But the other (attributes) of Brahman are available everywhere, because the entity (Brahman) is the common purport everywhere. — 3.3.13.

3.3.13 L.1 ✅ इतरे तु आनन्दादयो धर्मा ब्रह्मस्वरूप-प्रतिपादनायैव उच्यमानाः,
अर्थसामान्यात् प्रतिपाद्यस्य ब्रह्मणो धर्मिण एकत्वात्,
सर्वे सर्वत्र प्रतीयेरन्
इति वैषम्यम् –
प्रतिपत्तिमात्र-प्रयोजना हि ते इति॥१३॥
Attributes such as ‘Bliss’ etc. spoken of by the Scriptures for the purpose of propounding the nature of Brahman
Are all available everywhere,
In as much as Brahman, the entity of which they are the attributes, and the entity which is to be propounded, is one and the same,
And that the attainment of the knowledge of it (i.e. Brahman) is their only fruit,
Is the difference between them and the other attributes. — 13.

– 106. Ānanda-ādy-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.14 Su..15

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात्॥३.३.१४॥
Ādhyānāya prayojanābhāvāt.

Ādhyānāya: for the sake of meditation; Prayojana-abhāvāt: as there is no use, as there is no other necessity. (Prayojana: of any other purpose; A-bhāvāt: on account of the absence.)

🔗 What is mentioned in the passage in Kaṭhopaniṣad (at 1.3.10) is for the purpose of meditation (on the Puruṣa) because of the absence of any fruit (in the case of others). — 3.3.14.

3.3.14 L.1 ✅ काठके हि पठ्यते –‘इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा ह्यर्था अर्थेभ्यश्च परं मनः। मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिः’ (KathU.1.3.10) इत्यारभ्य
The Kāṭhaka, beginning with “Sense-objects transcend the sense-organs, the mind transcends the sense-objects, and intelligence transcends the mind” (KathU.1.3.10),

3.3.14 L.2 ✅ ‘पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः’ (KathU.1.3.11) इति।
Says further — “There is nothing transcending the Puruṣa, that is the terminus ad quern (Kāṣṭhā), the highest shelter or asylum (Parā Gatiḥ)” (KathU.1.3.11).

3.3.14 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
The doubt that arises here, is,

3.3.14 L.4 ✅ किमिमे सर्वे एव अर्थादयः ततस्ततः परत्वेन प्रतिपाद्यन्ते,
Whether it is only propounded here that the Puruṣa alone transcends everything else,

3.3.14 L.5 ✅ उत पुरुष एव एभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः परः प्रतिपाद्यत इति।
Or whether all these sense-objects etc., do each of them transcend the entity just preceding it in the series.

3.3.14 L.6 ✅ तत्र तावत् सर्वेषामेवैषां परत्वेन प्रतिपादनमिति भवति मतिः;
We think (says the opponent of Vedānta) that it is being propounded here, that each succeeding entity in the series transcends the one preceding it.

3.3.14 L.7 ✅ तथा हि श्रूयते – इदमस्मात्परम्, इदमस्मात्परमिति।
For the Scriptures declare it in that way, thus — ‘This transcends this’, ‘This transcends this’.

3.3.14 L.8 ✅ ननु बहुष्वर्थेषु परत्वेन प्रतिपिपादयिषितेषु
But (says the Vedāntin), were these entities i.e. sense-objects etc. intended to be propounded as each one of them transcending the one preceding it,

3.3.14 L.9 ✅ वाक्यभेदः स्यात्;
It would cause a split in the sentence.

3.3.14 L.10 ✅ नैष दोषः, वाक्यबहुत्वोपपत्तेः;
(The opponent of Vedānta replies) — This is no fault. It would be reasonably sustainable to understand that there are so many separate sentences.

3.3.14 L.11 ✅ बहून्येव हि एतानि वाक्यानि प्रभवन्ति बहूनर्थान् परत्वोपेतान् प्रतिपादयितुम्।
These so many separate sentences may be able to propound as to how so many entities such as sense-objects etc. are each endowed with the quality of transcending (that which is stated earlier)

3.3.14 L.12 ✅ तस्मात् प्रत्येकमेषां परत्वप्रतिपादनमिति
And hence it is propounded, that each one amongst these (several entities) transcends the one that precedes it.

3.3.14 L.13 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) we say —

3.3.14 L.14 ✅ पुरुष एव हि एभ्यः सर्वेभ्यः परः प्रतिपाद्यत इति युक्तम्,
It is logical to understand that, that the Puruṣa alone transcends all these, is what is propounded

3.3.14 L.15 ✅ न प्रत्येकमेषां परत्वप्रतिपादनम्।
And not that each one of these entities transcends the one that precedes it.

3.3.14 L.16 ✅ कस्मात्? प्रयोजनाभावात्;
Whence is it so? Because there is absence of any fruit.

3.3.14 L.17 ✅ न हि इतरेषु परत्वेन प्रतिपन्नेषु किञ्चित्प्रयोजनं दृश्यते, श्रूयते वा;
It is neither seen nor is it stated by the Scriptures, that as amongst these other entities (excluding the Puruṣa), there is any fruit of the knowledge that each one of these transcends the one preceding it.

3.3.14 L.18 ✅ पुरुषे तु इन्द्रियादिभ्यः परस्मिन् सर्वानर्थव्रातातीते प्रतिपन्ने
It is only as regards the Puruṣa, understood as transcending the sense-organs etc., and as transcending this entire set of evils,

3.3.14 L.19 ✅ दृश्यते प्रयोजनम्, मोक्षसिद्धिः;
That a fruit described as ‘the attainment of Mokṣa i.e. Final Release’ is discernible.

3.3.14 L.20 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः –
So say the Scriptures also, thus —

3.3.14 L.21 ✅ ‘निचाय्य तं मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते’ (KathU.1.3.15) इति।
“Having reached Him a man is freed from the jaws of death” (KathU.1.3.15).

3.3.14 L.22 ✅ अपि च परप्रतिषेधेन काष्ठाशब्देन च
Besides by the term Terminus ad quem which denies that there is anything beyond it,

3.3.14 L.23 ✅ पुरुषविषयमादरं दर्शयन्
The Scriptures by evincing all due respect to the Puruṣa

3.3.14 L.24 ✅ पुरुषप्रतिपत्त्यर्थैव पूर्वापरप्रवाहोक्तिरिति दर्शयति।
Indicate that the statement about this stream of earlier and later entities in the series, is meant only for the purpose of comprehending Him (i.e. the Puruṣa),

3.3.14 L.25 ✅ आध्यानायेति –
Thus — “(This is) for the purpose of meditation”,

3.3.14 L.26 ✅ आध्यानपूर्वकाय सम्यग्दर्शनायेत्यर्थः;
Which means for the purpose of the realization of the truth, by prior meditation.

3.3.14 L.27 ✅ सम्यग्दर्शनार्थमेव हि इह आध्यानमुपदिश्यते,
It is precisely for this realization that meditation is advised,

3.3.14 L.28 ✅ न तु आध्यानमेव स्वप्रधानम्॥१४॥
And not for showing that meditation is the principal thing i.e. an end in itself. — 14.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आत्मशब्दाच्च॥३.३.१५॥
Ātma-śabdāc ca.

Ātma-śabdāt: on account of the word ‘Ātmā’; Ca: and.

🔗 Also, because of the word ‘Self (Ātmā), (that the series is mentioned for the sake of the Puruṣa). — 3.3.15.

3.3.15 L.1 ✅ इतश्च पुरुषप्रतिपत्त्यर्थैव इयमिन्द्रियादिप्रवाहोक्तिः,
This is again why this enumeration of the stream of the sense-organs etc., is for the purpose of the realization of the Puruṣa.

3.3.15 L.2 ✅ यत्कारणम् ‘एष सर्वेषु भूतेषु गूढोत्मा न प्रकाशते। दृश्यते त्वग्र्यया बुद्ध्या सूक्ष्मया सूक्ष्मदर्शिभिः’ (KathU.1.3.12) इति
Besides, in the Scriptural passage “This Self hidden in all beings, does not manifest itself. It is however perceived by those possessed of a subtle intellect, by their penetrating intelligence” (KathU.1.3.12),

3.3.15 L.3 ✅ प्रकृतं पुरुषम् आत्मेत्याह;
The Puruṣa that is relevant (to the topic) is described as being ‘the Self’ (Ātmā).

3.3.15 L.4 ✅ अतश्च अनात्मत्वमितरेषां विवक्षितमिति गम्यते;
Hence it is understood that it is meant to be stated, as to how the rest (i.e. sense-organs etc.) are not the ‘Self’.

3.3.15 L.5 ✅ तस्यैव च दुर्विज्ञानतां संस्कृतमति-गम्यतां च दर्शयति;
The Scriptures indicate how it (i.e. the Self) is difficult of comprehension and is capable of being understood only by those whose understanding is refined.

3.3.15 L.6 ✅ तद्विज्ञानायैव च –
It is for the realization of that ‘Self’

3.3.15 L.7 ✅ ‘यच्छेद्वाङ्मनसी प्राज्ञः’ (KathU.1.3.13) इति
That the passage “The wise man should suppress speech (and speech here is only illustrative and includes all sense-organs) by surrendering it into the mind etc.” (KathU.1.3.13),

3.3.15 L.8 ✅ आध्यानं विदधाति।
Have prescribed meditation (on the Self).

3.3.15 L.9 ✅ तत् व्याख्यातम् ‘आनुमानिकमप्येकेषाम्’ (BrS.1.4.1) इत्यत्र।
This has already been explained in BrS.1.4.1 — “That the one, which is inferred (i.e. Pradhāna), as said by some etc.”.

3.3.15 L.10 ✅ एवम् अनेकप्रकार आशयातिशयः श्रुतेः पुरुषे लक्ष्यते, नेतरेषु।
In this manner, it is seen how in various ways the main purport of the Scriptures is the Puruṣa and nothing else.

3.3.15 L.11 ✅ अपि च ‘सोऽध्वनः पारमाप्नोति तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम्’ (KathU.1.3.9) इत्युक्ते,
Besides, having stated that “He arrives at his journey’s end which is the Highest seat of Viṣṇu” (KathU.1.3.9),

3.3.15 L.12 ✅ किं तत् अध्वनः पारं विष्णोः परमं पदमित्यस्यामाकाङ्क्षायाम्
There is this curiosity as to what exactly is that Highest seat of Viṣṇu, which is at the end of the journey,

3.3.15 L.13 ✅ इन्द्रियाद्यनुक्रमणात् परमपद-प्रतिपत्त्यर्थ एवायम् आम्नाय इत्यवसीयते॥१५॥
It is finally understood, from this enumeration of sense-organs etc., that all this anxious effort is for the purpose of the realization of this Highest seat (of Viṣṇu). — 15.

– 107. Ā-dhyāna-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.16 Su..17

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्॥३.३.१६॥
Ātma-gṛhītir itaravad uttarāt.

Ātma-gṛhītiḥ: the Supreme Self is meant; Itaravat: as in other texts (dealing with creation); Uttarāt: because of the subsequent qualification.

🔗 The (Highest) Self is to he understood here also, as it is understood elsewhere, because of what follows. — 3.3.16.

3.3.16 L.1 ✅ ऐतरेयके श्रूयते – ‘आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किञ्चन मिषत्स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति’ (AitU.1.1.1)
It is stated in the Aitareyaka, thus: — “In the beginning indeed, this was but the Self alone. Nothing else was then vibrating (with life). He thought, may I create the worlds.” (AitU.1.1.1).

3.3.16 L.2 ✅ ‘स इमाँल्लोकानसृजताम्भो मरीचीर्मरमापः’ (AitU.1.1.2) इत्यादि।
“He created the worlds — the heaven (Ambhas), the universe (Marīci), the mortal world (Mara), the waters (Āpaḥ i.e. Pātāla or the nether world)” (AitU.1.1.2) etc.

3.3.16 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now with regard to this a doubt arises,

3.3.16 L.4 ✅ किं पर एवात्मा इह आत्मशब्देनाभिलप्यते,
As to whether, here, by the word ‘Self’ the ‘Highest Self’ is meant to be spoken of

3.3.16 L.5 ✅ उत अन्यः कश्चिदिति।
Or some other entity.

3.3.16 L.6 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your (i.e. of the opponent of Vedānta) conclusion?

3.3.16 L.7 ✅ न परमात्मा इह आत्मशब्दाभिलप्यो भवितुमर्हतीति।
It is, that the ‘Highest Lord’ cannot be meant by the word ‘the Self’ here.

3.3.16 L.8 ✅ कस्मात्? वाक्यान्वयदर्शनात्।
Whence is it so? Because of what is seen to be the connected sequence of the sentences.

3.3.16 L.9 ✅ ननु वाक्यान्वयः सुतरां परमात्मविषयो दृश्यते,
But (says the Vedāntin) the connected sequence of the sentences appears very much to relate to the Highest Self,

3.3.16 L.10 ✅ प्रागुत्पत्तेः आत्मैकत्वावधारणात्,
Inasmuch as it is understood that before the genesis, the Self alone was,

3.3.16 L.11 ✅ ईक्षणपूर्वकस्रष्टृत्ववचनाच्च;
And because of the statement that the activity of creation (by the Self) was preceded by thought.

3.3.16 L.12 ✅ नेत्युच्यते, लोकसृष्टिवचनात् –
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — No, because the statement is about the creation of the worlds.

3.3.16 L.13 ✅ परमात्मनि हि स्रष्टरि परिगृह्यमाणे,
If it were to be accepted that the Highest Lord was the creator,

3.3.16 L.14 ✅ महाभूतसृष्टिः आदौ वक्तव्या;
Then the creation of the elements should have been stated to be the first creation

3.3.16 L.15 ✅ लोकसृष्टिस्तु इह आदावुच्यते;
But here the creation of the worlds is stated to be the first.

3.3.16 L.16 ✅ लोकाश्च महाभूतसन्निवेश-विशेषाः;
The worlds are but the special combinations of the elements.

3.3.16 L.17 ✅ तथा च अम्भःप्रभृतीन् लोकत्वेनैव निर्ब्रवीति –
The Scriptures speak of the heaven (Ambhas) etc. as being the worlds, thus —

3.3.16 L.18 ✅ ‘अदोऽम्भः परेण दिवम्’ (AitU.1.1.2) इत्यादिना।
“This, is Ambhas which is beyond the heavenly world (Diva)” (AitU.1.1.2).

3.3.16 L.19 ✅ लोकसृष्टिश्च परमेश्वराधिष्ठितेन अपरेण केनचिदीश्वरेण क्रियत इति
श्रुतिस्मृत्योरुपलभ्यते;
It is understood both from the Scriptures and the Smṛtis,
That the creation of the worlds was accomplished by some other Lord (Brahma-deva), dependent upon i.e. under the supervision of the ‘Highest Lord’.

3.3.16 L.20 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिर्भवति –
So says the Scriptural passage —

3.3.16 L.21 ✅ ‘आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत्पुरुषविधः’ (BrhU.1.4.1) इत्याद्या;
“The Self in the form of the Puruṣa (i.e. Brahma-deva) being one only was alone in the beginning” (BrhUEng.1.4.1).

3.3.16 L.22 ✅ स्मृतिरपि –
Smṛti also says thus —

3.3.16 L.23 ✅ ‘स वै शरीरी प्रथमः स वै पुरुष उच्यते।
आदिकर्ता स भूतानां ब्रह्माग्रे समवर्तत’ इति;
“He is the first embodied one and he is called the Puruṣa.
He the Brahman (Prajā-pati) was the first creator of all beings, that came into existence.”

3.3.16 L.24 ✅ ऐतरेयिणोऽपि
The Aitareya also

3.3.16 L.25 ✅ ‘अथातो रेतसः सृष्टिः प्रजापते रेतो देवाः’
इत्यत्र पूर्वस्मिन्प्रकरणे प्रजापतिकर्तृकां विचित्रां सृष्टिमामनन्ति;
In an earlier chapter speaks of this variety of creation as brought about by Prajā-pati, thus —
“Now about the creation of semen (Retas). Gods are but the (product of) the semen of Prajā-pati.”

3.3.16 L.26 ✅ आत्म-शब्दोऽपि तस्मिन्प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते –
It is also seen that the word ‘Self’ is used for him (i.e. the Prajā-pati) thus —

3.3.16 L.27 ✅ ‘आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत्पुरुषविधः’ (BrhU.1.4.1) इत्यत्र।
“The Self alone, in the form of the Puruṣa, was, in the beginning” (BrhUEng.1.4.1).

3.3.16 L.28 ✅ एकत्वावधारणमपि प्रागुत्पत्तेः स्वविकारापेक्षम् उपपद्यते;
It is reasonably sustainable, to understand this — “being one only” — as being so, with reference to his own creation.

3.3.16 L.29 ✅ ईक्षणमपि तस्य चेतनत्वाभ्युपगमाद् उपपन्नम्।
The act of ‘thinking’ also is reasonably sustainable as being his, because of his being understood to be sentient.

3.3.16 L.30 ✅ अपि च ‘ताभ्यो गामानयत्’ ‘ताभ्योऽश्वमानयत्’ ‘ताभ्यः पुरुषमानयत्’ ‘ता अब्रुवन्’
इत्येवंजातीयको भूयान् व्यापारविशेषः
Besides, a great deal of special activity, such as —
“He brought them a cow, he brought them a horse, he brought them a man, they said etc.”,

3.3.16 L.31 ✅ लौकिकेषु विशेषवत्सु आत्मसु प्रसिद्धः इहानुगम्यते।
Which is well-known in the case of particular phenomenal embodied individual Selfs, can be understood here,

3.3.16 L.32 ✅ तस्मात् विशेषवानेव कश्चिदिह आत्मा स्यादित्येवं
And hence some such particular phenomenal Self such as Brahma-deva may very well be meant here.

3.3.16 L.33 ✅ प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – पर एव आत्मा इह आत्मशब्देन गृह्यते; इतरवत् –
To this, we reply — ‘It is the Highest Self that is understood here, as is understood elsewhere also.’

3.3.16 L.34 ✅ यथा इतरेषु सृष्टिश्रवणेषु
Just as in the case of other Scriptural accounts of creation,

3.3.16 L.35 ✅ ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्येवमादिषु
Such as “from the Self the Ākāśa came into being” (TaitUEng.2.1.1),

3.3.16 L.36 ✅ परस्यात्मनो ग्रहणम्,
We understand that the universal Self is meant by the term ‘Self’,

3.3.16 L.37 ✅ यथा च इतरस्मिन् लौकिकात्मशब्द-प्रयोगे प्रत्यगात्मैव मुख्य आत्म-शब्देन गृह्यते –
Or just as in the case of the ordinary use of the word ‘Ātmā’, it is the universal Self that is understood,

3.3.16 L.38 ✅ तथा इहापि भवितुमर्हति।
So can it well be, here also.

3.3.16 L.39 ✅ यत्र तु ‘आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत्’ (BrhU.1.4.1) इत्येवमादौ
Where in cases in which along with “The Self alone was all this in the beginning” (BrhUEng.1.4.1)

3.3.16 L.40 ✅ ‘पुरुषविधः’ (BrhU.1.4.1) इत्येवमादि विशेषणान्तरं श्रूयते,
A qualification “in the form of ‘Puruṣa’” etc. is stated by the Scriptures,

3.3.16 L.41 ✅ भवेत् तत्र विशेषवत आत्मनो ग्रहणम्;
The particular Self may be understood.

3.3.16 L.42 ✅ अत्र पुनः परमात्मग्रहणानुगुणमेव विशेषणमपि उत्तरम् उपलभ्यते –
‘स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति’ (AitU.1.1.1)
‘स इमाँल्लोकानसृजत’ (AitU.1.1.2) इत्येवमादि;
Here, however, we find that later on a particularized mention —
Such as “He thought he would create the worlds”,
“He created these worlds” — is stated,
Which is favourable to the understanding of the Highest Self only.

3.3.16 L.43 ✅ तस्मात् तस्यैव ग्रहणमिति न्याय्यम्॥१६॥
Therefore, it is but logical that it (i.e. the Highest Self) alone should be understood here. — 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्वयादिति चेत्स्यादवधारणात्॥३.३.१७॥
Anvayād iti cet syād avadhāraṇāt.

Anvayāt: because of connection, because of the context; Iti: this, so; Cet: if; Syāt: it might be so; Avadhāraṇāt: on account of the definite statement.

🔗 If it be said (that the Highest Self is not to be understood), by reason of the sequence (of the passages, not indicating that way), we reply — It can very well be so, because it is ascertained (to be so). — 3.3.17.

3.3.17 L.1 ✅ वाक्यान्वय-दर्शनात्
न परमात्मग्रहणम्
इति पुनः यदुक्तम्,
What again is said (by the opponent of Vedānta),
Viz., that looking at the connected sequence of the sentences,
The Highest Self is not to be understood,

3.3.17 L.2 ✅ तत्परिहर्तव्यमिति –
Is now to be refuted.

3.3.17 L.3 ✅ अत्रोच्यते –
With regard to that it is said —

3.3.17 L.4 ✅ स्यादवधारणादिति।
It can well be so, because there is a determination to that effect.

3.3.17 L.5 ✅ भवेदुपपन्नं परमात्मनो ग्रहणम्।
That the Highest Self should be understood to be meant, can be reasonably sustainable.

3.3.17 L.6 ✅ कस्मात्? अवधारणात्;
Whence is it so? Because of such determination.

3.3.17 L.7 ✅ परमात्मग्रहणे हि
It is only if the Highest Self is understood (here),

3.3.17 L.8 ✅ प्रागुत्पत्तेः आत्मैकत्वावधारणम् आञ्जसमवकल्पते;
That the determination, that the Self alone was the one that existed before the genesis, can be said to be plausible,

3.3.17 L.9 ✅ अन्यथा हि अनाञ्जसं तत्परिकल्प्येत।
Otherwise it would be considered to be unplausible.

3.3.17 L.10 ✅ लोकसृष्टि-वचनं तु श्रुत्यन्तरप्रसिद्धमहाभूतसृष्ट्यनन्तरमिति योजयिष्यामि;
I can very well construe, that the statement about the creation of the worlds comes but after the creation of the elements well-known to have been mentioned in other Scriptural passages.

3.3.17 L.11 ✅ यथा ‘तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इति
एतत् श्रुत्यन्तरप्रसिद्ध-वियद्वायुसृष्ट्यनन्तरम्
इति अयूयुजम्,
Just as, for instance, it was construed (by me) that the Scriptural statement
“It created the Tejas” comes after the creation of the Ākāśa and the Vāyu as mentioned in other Scriptural passages,

3.3.17 L.12 ✅ एवमिहापि;
Even so can it be construed here.

3.3.17 L.13 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरप्रसिद्धो हि समान-विषयो विशेषः
When the subject is common, any special particular about such subject, mentioned in one Scriptural passage,

3.3.17 L.14 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरेषु उपसंहर्तव्यो भवति।
Has to be combined with the same subject mentioned in the other Scriptural passages.

3.3.17 L.15 ✅ योऽपि अयं व्यापारविशेषानुगमः ‘ताभ्यो गामानयत्’ इत्येवमादिः,
Besides, even this special kind of activity, such as “He brought a cow (for the deity) etc.” (mentioned in connection with the Self here),

3.3.17 L.16 ✅ सोऽपि विवक्षितार्थावधारणानुगुण्येनैव ग्रहीतव्यः;
Has also to be understood in consonance with that particular entity ascertained as intended to be mentioned here,

3.3.17 L.17 ✅ न ह्ययं सकलः कथाप्रबन्धो विवक्षित इति शक्यते वक्तुम्,
Because it cannot be maintained that all this story is intended to be told here by the Scriptures,

3.3.17 L.18 ✅ तत्प्रतिपत्तौ पुरुषार्थाभावात्;
Inasmuch as there is absence of any aim (of man being served) in understanding it that way.

3.3.17 L.19 ✅ ब्रह्मात्मत्वं तु
That, Brahman is the Self (of all),

3.3.17 L.20 ✅ इह विवक्षितम्;
Is what is intended to be spoken of here.

3.3.17 L.21 ✅ तथा हि – अम्भःप्रभृतीनां लोकानां लोक-पालानां चाग्न्यादीनां सृष्टिं शिष्ट्वा,
For instance, after having taught about the creation of the worlds such as heaven etc., as also the creation of the guardians of the worlds such as ‘Agni’ etc.,

3.3.17 L.22 ✅ करणानि करणायतनं च शरीरमुपदिश्य,
And thereafter, having also given instructions about the creation of the sense-organs, as well as the abode of such sense-organs viz. the body,

3.3.17 L.23 ✅ स एव स्रष्टा ‘कथं न्विदं मदृते स्यात्’ (AitU.1.3.11) इति वीक्ष्य,
The Scriptures, after mentioning how that same creator wondering to himself, thus —
“How ever can this exist without me?” (AitU.1.3.11),

3.3.17 L.24 ✅ इदं शरीरं प्रविवेशेति दर्शयति –
Further say that he himself entered this body, thus —

3.3.17 L.25 ✅ ‘स एतमेव सीमानं विदार्यैतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत’ (AitU.1.3.12) इति;
“He prised open the sutures (of the head) and entered the body through that opening” (AitU.1.3.12).

3.3.17 L.26 ✅ पुनश्च ‘यदि वाचाभिव्याहृतं यदि प्राणेनाभिप्राणितम्’ (AitU.1.3.11)
इत्येवमादिना करणव्यापारविवेचनपूर्वकम्
Again the Scriptures, after having mentioned, as to how (the creator) after having pondered over the activities of the sense-organs, thus —
“If speech has spoken, if Prāṇa (Vital Breath) has breathed, (without my help)” (AitU.1.3.11),

3.3.17 L.27 ✅ ‘अथ कोऽहम्’ (AitU.1.3.11) इति वीक्ष्य,
And having asked himself, thus — “What then am I”? (AitU.1.3.11),

3.3.17 L.28 ✅ ‘स एतमेव पुरुषं ब्रह्म ततममपश्यत्’ (AitU.1.3.13) इति
State as follows — “Then he saw himself as the Puruṣa, and as Brahman sprawling fully stretched and pervading all over” (AitU.1.3.13),

3.3.17 L.29 ✅ ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शनमवधारयति;
And thus finally arrive at the determination, that it is Brahman, the Self of all.

3.3.17 L.30 ✅ तथोपरिष्टात् – ‘एष ब्रह्मैष इन्द्रः’ (AitU.3.1.3) इत्यादिना समस्तं भेदजातं सह महाभूतैरनुक्रम्य,
Similarly afterwards, the Scriptures, after enumerating all the different entities, and also the elements, thus —
“He is (the Lower) Brahman, He is Indra” (AitU.3.1.3),

3.3.17 L.31 ✅ ‘सर्वं तत् प्रज्ञा-नेत्रं प्रज्ञाने प्रतिष्ठितं
प्रज्ञानेत्रो लोकः प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म’ (AitU.3.1.3) इति
ब्रह्मात्मत्व-दर्शनमेव अवधारयति।
Go on further to determine that Brahman is the Self of all, thus —
“All that, is led or guided by intelligence (i.e. Prajñā), all is firmly ensconced in intelligence,
This world is led by intelligence, it is supported by intelligence, and that intelligence is Brahman” (AitU.3.1.3).

3.3.17 L.32 ✅ तस्मात् इह आत्मगृहीतिरित्यनपवादम्॥
Therefore, that the Highest Self should be understood (to be meant here) is unexceptionable.

3.3.17 L.33 ✅ अपरा योजना – आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुत्तरात्।
Another construction (of Sūtras 16 and 17) is as follows:
[With reference to some other Śruti text]

3.3.17 L.34 ✅ वाजसनेयके ‘कतम आत्मेति योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषः’ (BrhU.4.3.7) इत्यात्म-शब्देनोपक्रम्य,
The Scriptures in the Vāja-saneyaka, beginning with the word ‘the Self’, thus —
“What is this Self? He is the Puruṣa, that has knowledge as his structure, as amongst the Prāṇas; who is like a shining light inside the Hṛdaya” (BrhUEng.4.3.7),

3.3.17 L.35 ✅ तस्यैव सर्वसङ्गविनिर्मुक्तत्व-प्रतिपादनेन
Proceed to propound the same, to be free from all attachments,

3.3.17 L.36 ✅ ब्रह्मात्मताम् अवधारयति;
And to determine that it is the Brahma-Self.

3.3.17 L.37 ✅ तथा हि उपसंहरति –
They also conclude thus —

3.3.17 L.38 ✅ ‘स वा एष महानज आत्माऽजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयो ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.4.4.25) इति।
“He is that great unborn Self, Brahman, Sans-Senility i.e. unaging, Sans-Death, Sans-Destruction, Sans-Fear” (BrhUEng.4.4.25).

3.3.17 L.39 ✅ छान्दोग्ये तु ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इति
अन्तरेणैवात्मशब्दम् उपक्रम्य उदर्के
The Chāndogya, on the other hand, begins without any reference to the word ‘the Self’, thus —
“O Mild one, Sat (being) alone was in the beginning, one without a second” (ChanU.6.2.1),

3.3.17 L.40 ✅ ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति
तादात्म्यम् उपदिशति।
And in the concluding portion (Udarke) teaches its complete identity with the Self, thus —
“That is the Self, that thou art (Oh Śveta-ketu)” (ChanU.6.8.7).

3.3.17 L.41 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now with regard to these statements, a doubt arises thus —

3.3.17 L.42 ✅ तुल्यार्थत्वं किमनयोराम्नानयोः स्यात्,
Do these Scriptural statements mean one and the same thing

3.3.17 L.43 ✅ अतुल्यार्थत्वं वेति।
Or do they not?

3.3.17 L.44 ✅ अतुल्यार्थत्वमिति तावत् प्राप्तम्,
The conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta) is that they do not mean one and the same thing

3.3.17 L.45 ✅ अतुल्यत्वादाम्नानयोः;
Because the Scriptural statements are different.

3.3.17 L.46 ✅ न हि आम्नानवैषम्ये सति
अर्थसाम्यं युक्तं प्रतिपत्तुम्,
When there is a difference in the structure of the Scriptural statements,
It is not logical to understand that they mean one and the same entity,

3.3.17 L.47 ✅ आम्नानतन्त्रत्वादर्थपरिग्रहस्य;
Because the understanding of the meaning depends upon the Scriptural statement.

3.3.17 L.48 ✅ वाजसनेयके च आत्म-शब्दोपक्रमात्
आत्मतत्त्वोपदेश इति गम्यते;
It is understood, that because the Vāja-saneyaka begins with the word ‘the Self’
It teaches the essence of the Self itself (i.e. Brahman),

3.3.17 L.49 ✅ छान्दोग्ये तु उपक्रमविपर्ययात्
While in the Chāndogya which begins in a different way,

3.3.17 L.50 ✅ उपदेशविपर्ययः।
The teaching is about a different entity.

3.3.17 L.51 ✅ ननु छान्दोगानामपि अस्त्युदर्के तादात्म्योपदेश इत्युक्तम्;
But (says the Vedāntin) we have said that in the case of the Chando-gas also, the conclusion is that the teaching is about the identity of the Self.

3.3.17 L.52 ✅ सत्यमुक्तम्,
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — It is true you have said so,

3.3.17 L.53 ✅ उपक्रमतन्त्रत्वाद् उपसंहारस्य,
But as the conclusion ought to correspond with the introductory statement,

3.3.17 L.54 ✅ तादात्म्यसम्पत्तिः सा – इति मन्यते।
It only means, that there, merely the fanciful conception of its identity with the Self, is taught.

3.3.17 L.55 ✅ तथा प्राप्ते, अभिधीयते –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) the reply is: —

3.3.17 L.56 ✅ आत्मगृहीतिः
‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्यत्र
छन्दोगानामपि भवितुमर्हति; इतरवत् –
Even in the case of the Chando-gas,
In the passage “Oh Mild one, Sat (being) alone was in the beginning” (ChanU.6.2.1),
It is ‘the Self’ that should be understood,

3.3.17 L.57 ✅ यथा ‘कतम आत्मा’ (BrhU.4.3.7) इत्यत्र वाजसनेयिनाम्
Even as, in the case of the Vāja-saneyins, in the passage “What is the Self” etc. (BrhUEng.4.3.7),

3.3.17 L.58 ✅ आत्मगृहीतिः, तथैव।
It is the Self that is understood.

3.3.17 L.59 ✅ कस्मात्? उत्तरात्
Whence is it so? Because of what follows later on,

3.3.17 L.60 ✅ तादात्म्योपदेशात्।
Viz. the teaching about its (i.e. Sat’s) identity with the Self (Sūtra 17).

3.3.17 L.61 ✅ अन्वयादिति चेत् स्यादवधारणात् – यदुक्तम्, उपक्रमान्वयात् उपक्रमे च
आत्म-शब्दश्रवणाभावात्
न आत्मगृहीतिरिति,
तस्य कः परिहार इति चेत्,
सोऽभिधीयते – स्यादवधारणादिति।
If we the Vedāntins are asked, as to what the refutation of the statement of the opponent of Vedānta —
Viz. “Because of the connected sequence of the introductory passage
And the absence of the mention of the word ‘the Self’ (in the Chāndogya)
‘The Self’ cannot be understood there” — is,
[If it be held that ‘from the point of view of the totality of meaning’ of the earlier text in which the Self is not mentioned, this part cannot be taken into account as referring to the self – Trans. from Panoli]

3.3.17 L.62 ✅ भवेदुपपन्ना इह आत्मगृहीतिः, अवधारणात्;
We say that ‘the Self’ may well be understood here, because there is such determination (later on).

3.3.17 L.63 ✅ तथा हि –
‘येनाश्रुतꣳ श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातम्’ (ChanU.6.1.1) इति
एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानम् अवधार्य,
For instance, having stated, that by the knowledge of one, the knowledge of everything else supervenes,
In the Scriptural passage “By (the knowledge of) which, that which is not heard becomes heard; that which is not understood becomes understood; that which is not realized becomes realized” (ChanU.6.1.1),

3.3.17 L.64 ✅ तत्सम्पिपादयिषया
The Scriptures in order to establish that,

3.3.17 L.65 ✅ ‘सदेव’ इत्याह;
Say (further) — “Sat (Being) alone”; —

3.3.17 L.66 ✅ तच्च आत्मगृहीतौ सत्यां सम्पद्यते;
Which is possible, only if ‘the Self’ is understood to be meant.

3.3.17 L.67 ✅ अन्यथा हि, योऽयं मुख्य आत्मा स न विज्ञात इति,
Otherwise the Chief Highest Self, not having been realized,

3.3.17 L.68 ✅ नैव सर्वविज्ञानं सम्पद्येत।
The knowledge of everything cannot (be said to) supervene.

3.3.17 L.69 ✅ तथा प्रागुत्पत्तेः एकत्वावधारणम्,
Besides, the determination, that before creation, one (entity) alone (existed),

3.3.17 L.70 ✅ जीवस्य च आत्मशब्देन परामर्शः,
The reference to the Jīva-Self by the word ‘the Self’,

3.3.17 L.71 ✅ स्वापावस्थायां च
The statement that in the condition of deep sleep it

3.3.17 L.72 ✅ तत्स्वभावसम्पत्तिकथनम्,
I.e. the Jīva-Self attains its own nature (i.e. the nature of the Self),

3.3.17 L.73 ✅ परिचोदना-पूर्वकं च
पुनः पुनः ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इत्यवधारणम् –
The frequently reiterated determination “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7)
Preceded always by a question relating to it,

3.3.17 L.74 ✅ इति च सर्वमेतत् तादात्म्य-प्रतिपादनायामेव अवकल्पते,
Can be possible, only if by all this, it is intended to be propounded that the Sat is identical with the Self;

3.3.17 L.75 ✅ न तादात्म्य-सम्पादनायाम्।
And can never be possible, if only a fanciful conception of such an identity of the Sat with the Self, is meant here.

3.3.17 L.76 ✅ न च अत्र उपक्रमतन्त्रत्वोपन्यासो न्याय्यः;
It is not logical to maintain here, that the conclusion must necessarily always correspond with the introductory passage,

3.3.17 L.77 ✅ न हि उपक्रमे आत्मत्व-सङ्कीर्तनम् अनात्मत्व-सङ्कीर्तनं वा अस्ति;
Because the introductory passage here does not refer either to the Self or not-Self,

3.3.17 L.78 ✅ सामान्योपक्रमश्च न वाक्यशेषगतेन विशेषेण विरुध्यते,
And such an ordinary introductory passage is not contradicted by a special particular mention in the complementary portion,

3.3.17 L.79 ✅ विशेषाकाङ्क्षित्वात् सामान्यस्य।
Because, it is an ordinary statement (such as that of the mere word ‘Sat’) that creates curiosity about a special particular (entity).

3.3.17 L.80 ✅ सच्छब्दार्थोऽपि च पर्यालोच्यमानः न मुख्यादात्मनोऽन्यः सम्भवति,
The meaning of the word ‘Sat’ (Being) cannot, if properly considered, be other than the principal Self,

3.3.17 L.81 ✅ अतोऽन्यस्य वस्तुजातस्य आरम्भण-शब्दादिभ्योऽनृतत्वोपपत्तेः।
Because, that all the entities other than this Self are unreal, is reasonably sustainable, as has been shown already by words such as ‘Ārambhaṇa’ (making current) etc.

3.3.17 L.82 ✅ आम्नान-वैषम्यमपि नावश्यम् अर्थ-वैषम्यम् आवहति,
Similarly, a difference in Scriptural statements by itself does not necessarily mean a difference in their meaning.

3.3.17 L.83 ✅ ‘आहर पात्रम्’ ‘पात्रमाहर’ इत्येवमादिषु अर्थसाम्येऽपि तद्दर्शनात्।
It is to be seen that in sentences such as (Āhara Pātram); ‘Bring the pot’ and (Pātram Āhara) ‘the pot, bring (it)’, even though the meaning is the same, there is difference in the construction of the sentences.

3.3.17 L.84 ✅ तस्मात् एवंजातीयकेषु वाक्येषु प्रतिपादनप्रकार-भेदेऽपि
प्रतिपाद्यार्थाभेद इति सिद्धम्॥१७॥
Therefore, it is thus established that in sentences of this kind, even in spite of the difference in the manner of propounding,
There is nondifference in the entity propounded. — 17.

– 108. Ātma-gṛhīty-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम्॥३.३.१८॥
Kāryākhyānād apūrvam.

Kārya-ākhyānāt: on account of being a statement of an act (already enjoined by the Smṛti); A-pūrvam: which has not been so enjoined elsewhere.

🔗 On account of there being merely a reference to an act of Ācamana (in the form of an injunction which is not possible here) as something which is ‘Apūrva’ (i.e. something which is not stated anywhere before), merely a resolution to provide a garment for Prāṇa is enjoined. — 3.3.18.

3.3.18 L.1 ✅ छन्दोगा वाजसनेयिनश्च प्राणसंवादे श्वादिमर्यादं प्राणस्य अन्नमाम्नाय,
Both the Chando-gas as well as the Vāja-saneyins recite in their ‘Dialogue of the Prāṇa’ that the food of all creatures right down to the dog etc., is the food of the Prāṇa,

3.3.18 L.2 ✅ तस्यैव आपो वास आमनन्ति;
And they also mention that Āpaḥ (water) is its garment (i.e. of the Prāṇa).

3.3.18 L.3 ✅ अनन्तरं च च्छन्दोगा आमनन्ति –
After that the Chando-gas recite thus —

3.3.18 L.4 ✅ ‘तस्माद्वा एतदशिष्यन्तः पुरस्ताच्चोपरिष्टाच्चाद्भिः परिदधति’ (ChanU.5.2.2) इति;
“Verily therefore both before and after partaking of food, they wrap water round the Prāṇa as a garment” (ChanU.5.2.2).

3.3.18 L.5 ✅ वाजसनेयिनश्चामनन्ति – Vāja-saneyins, on the other hand, recite thus — ‘तद्विद्वाꣳसः श्रोत्रियाः। अशिष्यन्त आचामन्त्यशित्वा चाचामन्त्येतमेव तदनमनग्नं कुर्वन्तो मन्यन्ते’ (BrhU.6.1.14)
“Brāhmaṇas learned in Vedas perform Ācamana (sipping water from the palm of the hand, three times, repeating salutations to Keśhava, Nārāyaṇa and Mādhava) while (commencing the) partaking of food and also after the partaking of it, and they consider that they are thus covering the nakedness of Prāṇa” (BrhUEng.6.1.14),

3.3.18 L.6 ✅ ‘तस्मादेवंविदशिष्यन्नाचामेदशित्वा चाचामेदेतमेव तदनमनग्नं कुरुते’ इति।
“Therefore, one who knows it (to be so) should perform Ācamana both while (commencing the) partaking of food and also afterwards, and should consider that he is thus covering the nakedness of Prāṇa”.

3.3.18 L.7 ✅ तत्र च आचमनम् अनग्नताचिन्तनं च प्राणस्य प्रतीयते;
And, as thus both the Ācamana and the imagining of the covering of the nakedness are understood (in that passage),

3.3.18 L.8 ✅ तत्किमुभयमपि विधीयते,
उत आचमनमेव, उत अनग्नताचिन्तनमेवेति विचार्यते।
It is being considered, whether both these are enjoined here,
Or only one of the two, viz. either an Ācamana, or the imagining of the covering of the Prāṇa’s nakedness (with the Ācamana water).

3.3.18 L.9 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? उभयमपि विधीयत इति।
What then is your (i.e. of the opponent of Vedānta) conclusion? (It is) that both are enjoined.

3.3.18 L.10 ✅ कुतः? उभयस्याप्यवगम्यमानत्वात्;
Whence is it so? Because both are understood (here).

3.3.18 L.11 ✅ उभयमपि च एतत् अपूर्वत्वात् विध्यर्हम्।
Because, as both have not ever been stated before, and as both are thus (of the nature of) quite a new departure (Apūrva), both deserve to have been so enjoined.

3.3.18 L.12 ✅ अथवा आचमनमेव विधीयते;
Or rather (I should think), it is only the Ācamana that is enjoined,

3.3.18 L.13 ✅ विस्पष्टा हि तस्मिन् विधिविभक्तिः –
Because the injunctive case determination is clearly (to be seen) in its case, thus —

3.3.18 L.14 ✅ ‘तस्मादेवंविदशिष्यन्नाचामेदशित्वा चाचामेत्’ इति;
“Therefore, one who knows it to be so, should perform Ācamana both while commencing and after the partaking of food”,

3.3.18 L.15 ✅ तस्यैव स्तुत्यर्थम् अनग्नतासङ्कीर्तनम्
And this reference to the covering of nakedness (of Prāṇa) is merely for its glorification (i.e. of the Ācamana)”.

3.3.18 L.16 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply — That an Ācamana is enjoined here, is not reasonably sustainable,

3.3.18 L.17 ✅ न आचमनस्य विधेयत्वमुपपद्यते, कार्याख्यानात् –
Because there is here only a [commandment] reference to an act of Ācamana as is already known before (from the Smṛtis).

3.3.18 L.18 ✅ प्राप्तमेव हि इदं कार्यत्वेन आचमनं प्रायत्यार्थं स्मृतिप्रसिद्धम् अन्वाख्यायते।
This Ācamana which is already established by the Smṛtis, as an act to be performed for the purpose of purification, is but merely referred to here.

3.3.18 L.19 ✅ ननु इयं श्रुतिः तस्याः स्मृतेर्मूलं स्यात्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) — This Scriptural passage may well be the source of that Smṛti?

3.3.18 L.20 ✅ नेत्युच्यते, विषयनानात्वात्;
(We reply) — No, because the subject matter (of both) is different.

3.3.18 L.21 ✅ सामान्यविषया हि स्मृतिः
This Smṛti which deals with only a common matter,

3.3.18 L.22 ✅ पुरुषमात्रसम्बद्धं प्रायत्यार्थमाचमनं प्रापयति;
Makes us understand, that an Ācamana which is connected with every man, is for the purpose of purification.

3.3.18 L.23 ✅ श्रुतिस्तु प्राणविद्याप्रकरण-पठिता तद्विषयमेव आचमनं विदधती विदध्यात्;
The Scriptural passage occurring in the Prāṇa-Vidyā, even if it at all enjoins an Ācamana, may at best do so only in connection with that subject (i.e. Prāṇa-Vidyā).

3.3.18 L.24 ✅ न च भिन्नविषययोः श्रुतिस्मृत्योः मूलमूलि-भावोऽवकल्पते;
We cannot imagine, that Scriptural and Smṛti passages referring to different subjects, have a relation inter se i.e. between themselves, as that of a source, with something which has that as its source, respectively.

3.3.18 L.25 ✅ न च इयं श्रुतिः प्राणविद्यासंयोगि अपूर्वमाचमनं विधास्यतीति शक्यमाश्रयितुम्,
It is not possible to accept that a Scriptural passage which has a connection with the Prāṇa-Vidyā would enjoin an Ācamana, as something which is (of the nature of) quite a new departure (an Apūrva)

3.3.18 L.26 ✅ पूर्वस्यैव पुरुषमात्रसंयोगिन आचमनस्य इह प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वात्;
Because, an already known Ācamana connected with every man, is well recognizable here.

3.3.18 L.27 ✅ अत एव च नोभयविधानम्;
Hence there is no injunction as to both (i.e. the Ācamana and the use of water as a garment of Prāṇa),

3.3.18 L.28 ✅ उभयविधाने च
Because assuming both these as being enjoined,

3.3.18 L.29 ✅ वाक्यं भिद्येत;
There would occur (the fault of) the splitting up of a sentence.

3.3.18 L.30 ✅ तस्मात् प्राप्तमेव अशिशिषतामशितवतां च उभयत आचमनम् अनूद्य,
Therefore after referring to the Ācamana which has to be performed while partaking of food and afterwards also, as understood already (from the Smṛtis),

3.3.18 L.31 ✅ ‘एतमेव तदनमनग्नं कुर्वन्तो मन्यन्ते’ (BrhU.6.1.14) इति
The Scriptures, by the passage “They consider that they have thus covered the nakedness of the Prāṇa” (BrhUEng.6.1.14),

3.3.18 L.32 ✅ प्राणस्य अनग्नताकरण-सङ्कल्पः अनेन वाक्येन आचमनीयास्वप्सु प्राणविद्यासम्बन्धित्वेन अपूर्व उपदिश्यते।
Enjoin a new fanciful conception about covering the nakedness of the Prāṇa, by means of the Ācamana water, in connection with the Prāṇa-Vidyā, as quite (in the nature of) a new departure (Apūrva).

3.3.18 L.33 ✅ न च अयमनग्नतावादः आचमन-स्तुत्यर्थ इति न्याय्यम्,
It would not be logical to understand this statement about covering the nakedness of Prāṇa, as being in glorification of the Ācamana,

3.3.18 L.34 ✅ आचमनस्याविधेयत्वात्।
Inasmuch as, while an Ācamana is not enjoined here,

3.3.18 L.35 ✅ स्वयं च अनग्नतासङ्कल्पस्य विधेयत्वप्रतीतेः।
It is clearly discernible, that an injunction as to the fanciful conception of covering the nakedness of Prāṇa, is so enjoined.

3.3.18 L.36 ✅ न च एवं सति एकस्य आचमनस्य उभयार्थता अभ्युपगता भवति –
This being so, the Ācamana cannot be understood to be meant both

3.3.18 L.37 ✅ प्रायत्यार्थता परिधानार्थता चेति,
For the purpose of purification, as well as for serving as a garment (for the Prāṇa),

3.3.18 L.38 ✅ क्रियान्तरत्वाभ्युपगमात् –
As both are distinctly separate actions.

3.3.18 L.39 ✅ क्रियान्तरमेव हि आचमनं नाम प्रायत्यार्थं पुरुषस्य अभ्युपगम्यते;
तदीयासु तु अप्सु वासःसङ्कल्पनं नाम क्रियान्तरमेव परिधानार्थं प्राणस्य अभ्युपगम्यते
इत्यनवद्यम्।
It is thus flawless,
Because, an Ācamana indeed is but one act, understood as meant for the purification of a man,
While to imagine that water used for it serves as a garment in which the Prāṇa is to be clothed, is indeed an altogether different act.

3.3.18 L.40 ✅ अपि च ‘यदिदं किञ्चा श्वभ्य आ कृमिभ्य आ कीटपतङ्गेभ्यस्तत्तेऽन्नम्’ (BrhU.6.1.14) इति
अत्र तावत् न सर्वान्नाभ्यवहारश्चोद्यत इति शक्यं वक्तुम्,
Besides, it would not be possible to say, that
By the passage “All that is food (for creatures) right down to a horse, a worm, and insects and butterflies, is your food” (BrhUEng.6.1.14)
An injunction is given that food of all sorts should be eaten,

3.3.18 L.41 ✅ अशब्दत्वादशक्यत्वाच्च;
Inasmuch as there is no Scriptural passage (to that effect), and also as it is not possible.

3.3.18 L.42 ✅ सर्वं तु प्राणस्यान्नमिति इयमन्नदृष्टिश्चोद्यते;
But of course there is an injunction to look upon everything as the food of the Prāṇa,

3.3.18 L.43 ✅ तत्साहचर्याच्च ‘आपो वासः’ इत्यत्रापि न अपामाचमनं चोद्यते;
And along with it, in the passage “Āpaḥ (water) is the garment”, while no injunction to perform an Ācamana is given,

3.3.18 L.44 ✅ प्रसिद्धास्वेव तु आचमनीयास्वप्सु परिधान-दृष्टिश्चोद्यत इति युक्तम्;
It stands to reason, that it is enjoined, that the well-known Ācamana water should be looked upon as clothing (for the Prāṇa).

3.3.18 L.45 ✅ न हि अर्ध-वैशसं सम्भवति।
One cannot possibly both eat the cake and have it too, i.e. literally, only a half of a murder is not possible (that is one cannot hold that the former sentence does not give an injunction, but the latter does).

3.3.18 L.46 ✅ अपि च आचामन्तीति वर्तमानापदेशित्वात्
Besides as the present tense (Vartamānāpadeśa) is used here, viz. ‘They perform an Ācamana’,

3.3.18 L.47 ✅ नायं शब्दो विधिक्षमः।
This Scriptural passage is not capable of expressing an injunction.

3.3.18 L.48 ✅ ननु मन्यन्त इत्यपि समानं वर्तमानापदेशित्वम्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), the Scriptural words “They consider (that they have thus covered the nakedness of Prāṇa)” also indicate that there is the same present tense.

3.3.18 L.49 ✅ सत्यमेव तत्;
(We reply) — What you say is right of course,

3.3.18 L.50 ✅ अवश्यविधेये तु अन्यतरस्मिन् वासः-कार्याख्यानात् अपां वासः-सङ्कल्पनमेव
But when one (of these two acts) has necessarily to be an object of an injunction, and as the ‘act of clothing’ is referred to, it has been propounded (by us) that the imagining of water as the garment (of Prāṇa),

3.3.18 L.51 ✅ अपूर्वं विधीयते;
Which is never mentioned anywhere before (being an Apūrva i.e. in the nature of quite a new departure), is here enjoined,

3.3.18 L.52 ✅ न आचमनम्; पूर्ववद्धि तत् – इत्युपपादितम्।
And not an Ācamana, as it is the same as has been spoken of before.

3.3.18 L.53 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – विस्पष्टा च आचमने विधिविभक्तिरिति,
With regard to the statement made (by the opponent of Vedānta), that there is a clear imperative form with respect to an Ācamana,

3.3.18 L.54 ✅ तदपि पूर्ववत्त्वेनैव आचमनस्य प्रत्युक्तम्;
(We say) that it has been answered (by the argument) that the Ācamana is something which has already been referred to before (by the Smṛtis).

3.3.18 L.55 ✅ अत एव आचमनस्याविधित्सितत्वात्
Hence it is, that, inasmuch as an Ācamana is not an act specially enjoined,

3.3.18 L.56 ✅ ‘एतमेव तदनमनग्नं कुर्वन्तो मन्यन्ते’ इत्यत्रैव काण्वाः पर्यवस्यन्ति,
The Kāṇvas conclude their recital with “They consider that the nakedness of Prāṇa is thus covered (by the Ācamana water serving as a garment)” only,

3.3.18 L.57 ✅ न आमनन्ति ‘तस्मादेवंवित्’ इत्यादि;
And do not recite in addition — “Therefore one who knows it to be so etc.”.

3.3.18 L.58 ✅ तस्मात् माध्यन्दिनानामपि पाठे
Therefore even in the recension of the Mādhyaṃ-dinas also,

3.3.18 L.59 ✅ आचमनानुवादेन एवंवित्त्वमेव प्रकृतप्राणवासोवित्त्वं विधीयत इति प्रतिपत्तव्यम्।
It should be understood, that after merely making a reference to Ācamana, what is enjoined, is the fanciful conception, that such Ācamana water serves the purpose of a garment for the Prāṇa, which is the relevant topic here.

3.3.18 L.60 ✅ योऽप्ययमभ्युपगमः – क्वचिदाचमनं विधीयताम्, क्वचिद्वासोविज्ञानमिति – सोऽपि न साधुः,
Nor is it proper to understand, that in one place the Ācamana is enjoined, and in the other, the fanciful conception that it (the Ācamana water) serves as a garment is enjoined,

3.3.18 L.61 ✅ ‘आपो वासः’ इत्यादिकाया वाक्यप्रवृत्तेः सर्वत्रैकरूप्यात्।
Inasmuch as the trend of the statement that water serves as a garment, is in the same form everywhere,

3.3.18 L.62 ✅ तस्मात् वासो-विज्ञानमेव इह विधीयते, न आचमनमिति न्याय्यम्॥१८॥
And therefore, it is logical, that there is an injunction, only as to the fanciful conception of (the Ācamana water) being the garment, and not about performing an Ācamana. — 18.

– 109. Kārya-ākhyāna-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
समान एवं चाभेदात्॥३.३.१९॥
Samāna evaṃ cābhedāt.

Samāne: in the same Śākhā; Evam: every, (it is) like this; Ca: and, also; A-bhedāt: owing to non-difference.

🔗 Because of non-difference (in the object of meditation) there is the same (identity of Vidyās) even in the same (branch). — 3.3.19.

3.3.19 L.1 ✅ वाजसनेयि-शाखायाम् अग्निरहस्ये शाण्डिल्य-नामाङ्किता विद्या विज्ञाता;
It is understood, that in the Agni-rahasya chapter (esoteric teaching about Agni) in the Vāja-saneyi branch, there is a Vidyā known by the name of Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā,

3.3.19 L.2 ✅ तत्र च गुणाः श्रूयन्ते –
Wherein, the Scriptures speak about some minor things (Guṇas) thus —

3.3.19 L.3 ✅ ‘स आत्मानमुपासीत मनोमयं प्राणशरीरं भारूपम्’ इत्येवमादयः;
“He should meditate on the Self whose structure is the mind, whose body is the Prāṇa and who is of the nature of lustre” etc.

3.3.19 L.4 ✅ तस्यामेव शाखायां बृहदारण्यके पुनः पठ्यते –
In the same branch, in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka again it is thus recited —

3.3.19 L.5 ✅ ‘मनोमयोऽयं पुरुषो भाःसत्यः तस्मिन्नन्तर्हृदये
यथा व्रीहिर्वा यवो वा
स एष सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः सर्वमिदं प्रशास्ति यदिदं किञ्च’ (BrhU.5.6.1) इति।
“That Puruṣa whose structure is the mind and whose nature is lustre,
And who is seen to be like a grain of rice or of barley
In (the Ākāśa of) the Hṛdaya — He is the ruler of all, the Lord of all and he who rules over whatsoever is (in this universe)” (BrhUEng.5.6.1).

3.3.19 L.6 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now there arises a doubt about this —

3.3.19 L.7 ✅ किमियम् एका विद्या अग्निरहस्य-बृहदारण्यकयोः गुणोपसंहारश्च,
As to whether there is the same identical Vidyā both in the Agni-rahasya and the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, and also a combination of the minor things (Guṇas),

3.3.19 L.8 ✅ उत द्वे इमे विद्ये गुणानुपसंहारश्चेति।
Or whether, there are two Vidyās and there is no combination of their minor things.

3.3.19 L.9 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your conclusion?

3.3.19 L.10 ✅ विद्या-भेदः गुणव्यवस्था चेति।
(It is) that these Vidyās are different and the minor things of each are detailed for each separately.

3.3.19 L.11 ✅ कुतः? पौनरुक्त्य-प्रसङ्गात् –
Whence is it so? Because (otherwise) there would be the predicament of (the fault of) ‘repetition’.

3.3.19 L.12 ✅ भिन्नासु हि शाखासु अध्येतृवेदितृ-भेदात् पौनरुक्त्य-परिहारम् आलोच्य
Having observed, in the case of the Vidyās in different branches, that the fault of repetition is refuted on the ground of difference between the persons who learn or know these Vidyās,

3.3.19 L.13 ✅ विद्यैकत्वम् अध्यवसाय एकत्रातिरिक्ता गुणा इतरत्रोपसंह्रियन्ते प्राणसंवादादिषु – इत्युक्तम्;
It has been stated, after understanding that the Dialogues of Prāṇas are identical, that surplus minor things in the Vidyā in one place, are to be combined with the minor things mentioned in the same Vidyā in another place where they i.e. such surplus minor things are absent.

3.3.19 L.14 ✅ एकस्यां पुनः शाखायाम्
But in the case of Vidyās of one and the same branch,

3.3.19 L.15 ✅ अध्येतृवेदितृ-भेदाभावात्
अशक्यपरिहारे पौनरुक्त्ये
Inasmuch as this fault of repetition is not capable of being refuted,
Because there is no possibility of difference between persons who either know or learn these Vidyās (as they belong to one and the same branch),

3.3.19 L.16 ✅ न विप्रक्रष्टदेशस्था एका विद्या भवितुमर्हति।
The Vidyās in separate places (in one and the same branch) do not deserve to be identical.

3.3.19 L.17 ✅ न च अत्र एकमाम्नानं विद्याविधानार्थम्,
अपरं गुणविधानार्थम् –
इति विभागः सम्भवति;
Nor can any such division as, that,
One recital has the meaning of prescribing a Vidyā,
And the other recital has the meaning of prescribing the minor things, is possible,

3.3.19 L.18 ✅ तदा हि अतिरिक्ता एव गुणा इतरत्रेतरत्र च आम्नायेरन्,
As in that case only the mutually exclusive minor things of the Vidyā would have been mentioned in each

3.3.19 L.19 ✅ न समानाः;
And not those which are common (to both),

3.3.19 L.20 ✅ समाना अपि तु उभयत्राम्नायन्ते मनोमयत्वादयः।
But (it is seen that) such common minor things — as for instance (the minor thing) ‘of having the mind as the structure’ — are recited in both.

3.3.19 L.21 ✅ तस्मात् नान्योन्यगुणोपसंहारः
Therefore (we conclude) that there is no reciprocal combination of their minor things.

3.3.19 L.22 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमहे –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply —

3.3.19 L.23 ✅ यथा भिन्नासु शाखासु विद्यैकत्वं गुणोपसंहारश्च भवति
Just as there can be identity (of Vidyās) and the combination of minor things, as regards the Vidyās in different branches,

3.3.19 L.24 ✅ एवमेकस्यामपि शाखायां भवितुमर्हति,
Even so does it deserve to be, in the case of the Vidyās in one and the same branch also,

3.3.19 L.25 ✅ उपास्याभेदात्।
Because of the object of meditation being the same,

3.3.19 L.26 ✅ तदेव हि ब्रह्म
मनोमयत्वादिगुणकम् उभयत्रापि उपास्यम्
अभिन्नं प्रत्यभिजानीमः;
And we can recognize the same identical Brahman,
Characterized by the attribute of having mind as its structure etc., as being the object of meditation in both.

3.3.19 L.27 ✅ उपास्यं च रूपं विद्यायाः;
Besides, the object of meditation is precisely the nature of a Vidyā.

3.3.19 L.28 ✅ न च विद्यमाने रूपाभेदे विद्याभेदम् अध्यवसातुं शक्नुमः;
We cannot understand that the Vidyās are different when there is non-difference in their nature,

3.3.19 L.29 ✅ नापि विद्याभेदे गुणव्यवस्थानम्।
Nor can the minor things of each be restricted to each separately, when there is non-difference in the Vidyās.

3.3.19 L.30 ✅ ननु पौनरुक्त्य-प्रसङ्गात् विद्याभेदोऽध्यवसितः;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) I have propounded that the Vidyās are different, as otherwise there would be the predicament of (the fault of) repetition.

3.3.19 L.31 ✅ नेत्युच्यते, अर्थविभागोपपत्तेः –
(We reply) — No, because it can be shown that it is reasonably sustainable that the purpose of each is separate.

3.3.19 L.32 ✅ एकं हि आम्नानं विद्याविधानार्थम्,
अपरं गुणविधानार्थम् –
इति न किञ्चिन्नोपपद्यते।
It is reasonably sustainable that
One Scriptural statement has the meaning of prescribing the Vidyā,
And the other of prescribing the minor things,
(Because it can be maintained at one and the same time, that there is a unity of Vidyās and there is also the absence of the fault of repetition).

3.3.19 L.33 ✅ ननु एवं सति यदपठितमग्निरहस्ये,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) assuming it to be so, that alone which is not recited in the Agni-rahasya,

3.3.19 L.34 ✅ तदेव बृहदारण्यके पठितव्यम् – ‘स एष सर्वस्येशानः’ इत्यादि;
Viz., that ‘he is the ruler (Īśānaḥ) of everything’, should have been recited in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka,

3.3.19 L.35 ✅ यत्तु पठितमेव ‘मनोमयः’ इत्यादि, तन्न पठितव्यम् –
And what actually has been recited in the Agni-rahasya, viz., that ‘he has the structure of the mind’ etc., should not have been recited in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka.

3.3.19 L.36 ✅ नैष दोषः, तद्बलेनैव प्रदेशान्तरपठितविद्या-प्रत्यभिज्ञानात्;
(We reply) — This is no fault, because it is precisely on the strength of such a recital, that the Vidyā recited in one place is recognised as being the same Vidyā in the other place.

3.3.19 L.37 ✅ समानगुणाम्नानेन हि विप्रकृष्टदेशां शाण्डिल्यविद्यां प्रत्यभिज्ञाप्य
Having established the identity of the remotely situated Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā with the Vidyā in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka by means of the statement of common minor things,

3.3.19 L.38 ✅ तस्याम् ईशानत्वादि उपदिश्यते।
The instruction about the quality of rulership of the Lord (Īśānatva) etc., is understood herein also (i.e. in the Agni-rahasya also).

3.3.19 L.39 ✅ अन्यथा हि कथं तस्याम् अयं गुणविधिः अभिधीयते।
Otherwise, how could it be stated that that minor thing is enjoined in that Vidyā.

3.3.19 L.40 ✅ अपि च अप्राप्तांशोपदेशेन अर्थवति वाक्ये सञ्जाते,
Besides, when a sentence has attained a purpose as a result of instruction unavailable (Aprāpta) therein,

3.3.19 L.41 ✅ प्राप्तांशपरामर्शस्य नित्यानुवादतयापि उपपद्यमानत्वात्
And the portion available (Prāpta) therein can be understood to be reasonably sustainable, even as a reference to something which is already known (Nityānuvāda),

3.3.19 L.42 ✅ न तद्बलेन प्रत्यभिज्ञा उपेक्षितुं शक्यते।
It cannot be possible to neglect such recognition, on the strength of such a Nityānuvāda.

3.3.19 L.43 ✅ तस्मादत्र समानायामपि शाखायां विद्यैकत्वं गुणोपसंहारश्चेति उपपन्नम्॥१९॥
Therefore, it is reasonably sustainable that even in one and the same branch, there can be identity of Vidyās and the combination of such minor things. — 19.

– 110. Samāna-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.20 Su..21 Su..22

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सम्बन्धादेवमन्यत्रापि॥३.३.२०॥
Sambandhād evam anyatrāpi.

Sambandhāt: on account of the connection; Evam: thus, like this; Anyatra: in other cases; Api: also.

🔗 In other cases also, it is the same (i.e. there is combination), because of the connection (of the minor things with one and the same Vidyā). — 3.3.20.

3.3.20 L.1 ✅ बृहदारण्यके ‘सत्यं ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.5.5.1) इत्युपक्रम्य,
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, beginning with “Truth (Satya) is Brahman” (BrhUEng.5.5.1),

3.3.20 L.2 ✅ ‘तद्यत्तत्सत्यमसौ स आदित्यो य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषो यश्चायं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषः’ (BrhU.5.5.2) इति
And then stating further — “What that truth (i.e. Brahman) is, that he this Sun (Āditya) is, viz., this Puruṣa that is in this sphere (of the Sun), and, this Puruṣa that is in the eye” BrhUEng.5.5.2),

3.3.20 L.3 ✅ तस्यैव सत्यस्य ब्रह्मणः अधिदैवतम् अध्यात्मं च आयतन-विशेषम् उपदिश्य,
व्याहृति-शरीरत्वं च सम्पाद्य,
And thereafter having given instruction about the Ādhidaivika (i.e. presided over by deities) and Ādhyātmika (i.e. with reference to the relation between the supreme spirit and the Jīva-Self) special abodes of the very same ‘Satya’ (i.e. Brahman),
And having furnished a fanciful body (for the Puruṣa) in the form of some mystic words (Vyāhṛtis, which are imagined to be the limbs of such a body),

3.3.20 L.4 ✅ द्वे उपनिषदावादिश्येते –
Instruction is given about two esoteric names (for the Puruṣa).

3.3.20 L.5 ✅ ‘तस्योपनिषद् अहः’ इति – अधिदैवतम्,
The mystic name of the Ādhidaivika Puruṣa (the “Divine Person”) is ‘Ahaḥ’ (lit. “The Day”),

3.3.20 L.6 ✅ ‘तस्योपनिषद् अहम्’ इति – अध्यात्मम्।
And of the Ādhyātmika Puruṣa (the “Person Within”) is ‘Aham’ (lit. “Myself”).

3.3.20 L.7 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now, with regard to this, a doubt arises, thus —

3.3.20 L.8 ✅ किमविभागेनैव उभे अपि उपनिषदावुभयत्रानुसन्धातव्ये,
Are the two mystic names to be used indiscriminately in the case of both,

3.3.20 L.9 ✅ उत विभागेन – एका अधिदैवतम्, एका अध्यात्ममिति।
Or whether they are to be used separately, one for the Ādhidaivika Puruṣa and the other for the Ādhyātmika Puruṣa?

3.3.20 L.10 ✅ तत्र सूत्रेणैवोपक्रमते –
(The view of the opponent of Vedānta) is stated by the present Sūtra itself.

3.3.20 L.11 ✅ यथा शाण्डिल्यविद्यायां विभागेनाप्यधीतायां
Just as in the case of the Śāṇḍilya-Vidyās which are recited separately in different places,

3.3.20 L.12 ✅ गुणोपसंहार उक्तः,
A combination of the minor things (of the Vidyās in both the places) is spoken of,

3.3.20 L.13 ✅ एवमन्यत्रापि एवंजातीयके विषये भवितुमर्हति,
So should it similarly be, in the case of the present nature,

3.3.20 L.14 ✅ एकविद्याभिसम्बन्धात् –
Because they (the minor things) relate to one and the same Vidyā.

3.3.20 L.15 ✅ एका हि इयं सत्यविद्या अधिदैवतम् अध्यात्मं च अधीता,
It is but the same ‘Satya-Vidyā’ that is studied here, in its Ādhidaivika and Ādhyātmika Puruṣa aspects,

3.3.20 L.16 ✅ उपक्रमाभेदात्
Because of the nondifference in the introductory portion,

3.3.20 L.17 ✅ व्यतिषक्तपाठाच्च;
And the mutually connected recitals about the Ādhidaivika and the Ādhyātmika Puruṣas.

3.3.20 L.18 ✅ कथं तस्यामुदितो धर्मः तस्यामेव न स्यात्।
How ever can a minor thing obtaining in one (Vidyā) not be available in the very same Vidyā (even though it happens to be mentioned in another place)?

3.3.20 L.19 ✅ यो ह्याचार्ये कश्चिदनुगमनादिः आचारश्चोदितः,
A particular code of conduct enjoined (on a student) with reference to the preceptor,

3.3.20 L.20 ✅ स ग्रामगतेऽरण्यगते च तुल्यवदेव भवति।
Is equally observable, whether the preceptor happens to be in a town or in a forest.

3.3.20 L.21 ✅ तस्मात् उभयोरप्युपनिषदोः उभयत्र प्राप्तिरिति॥२०॥
Therefore both these mystic names become available in both these Vidyās. — 20.

[Go top]

3.3.21 L.1 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते,
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being this,

3.3.21 L.2 ✅ प्रतिविधत्ते –
Its refutation is as follows: —

←Prev Next→
न वा विशेषात्॥३.३.२१॥
Na vā viśeṣāt.

Na: not, not so; Vā: or, but; Viśeṣāt: because of difference. (Na vā: rather not.)

🔗 Or rather, both (the mystic names) are not (available in both the places) because of a peculiarity. — 3.3.21.

3.3.21 L.3 ✅ नैव उभयोः उभयत्र प्राप्तिः।
Or, rather, both (the mystic names) are not available in both the places.

3.3.21 L.4 ✅ कस्मात्? विशेषात्, उपासनस्थानविशेषोप-निबन्धादित्यर्थः।
Whence is it so? Because of the mention of the peculiarity of their having a relation with two different places of meditations (Upāsanās). The meaning is that, because they are each firmly attached to a particular place of meditation.

3.3.21 L.5 ✅ कथं स्थानविशेषोपनिबन्ध इति,
In what way is this attachment to a particular place only?

3.3.21 L.6 ✅ उच्यते –
It is replied —

3.3.21 L.7 ✅ ‘य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषः’ (BrhU.5.5.3)
इति हि आधिदैविकं पुरुषं प्रकृत्य,
The Scriptures by referring to the Ādhidaivika Puruṣa, thus —
“This Puruṣa who is in this sphere (of the Sun)” (BrhUEng.5.3.3),

3.3.21 L.8 ✅ ‘तस्योपनिषद् अहः’ इति श्रावयति;
Mention his mystic name as ‘‘Ahaḥ’,

3.3.21 L.9 ✅ ‘योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषः’ (BrhU.5.5.4)
इति च आध्यात्मिकं पुरुषं प्रकृत्य,
And by referring to the Ādhyātmika Puruṣa, thus —
“This Puruṣa who is in the right eye” (BrhUEng.5.5.4),

3.3.21 L.10 ✅ ‘तस्योपनिषद् अहम्’ इति;
Mention its mystic name as ‘Aham’.

3.3.21 L.11 ✅ तस्येति च एतत् सन्निहितावलम्बनं सर्वनाम;
Now this pronoun ‘his’ (Tasya) governs what is proximate to it,

3.3.21 L.12 ✅ तस्मात् आयतन-विशेषव्यपाश्रयेणैव एते उपनिषदौ उपदिश्येते;
Therefore, (it must be understood that) these two mystic names (Upaniṣads) are taught as being dependent, each upon a particular abode only (i.e. the sun and the eye respectively).

3.3.21 L.13 ✅ कुत उभयोरुभयत्र प्राप्तिः।
So, how can they then be available in both the places?

3.3.21 L.14 ✅ ननु एक एवायम् अधिदैवतमध्यात्मं च पुरुषः,
एकस्यैव सत्यस्य ब्रह्मण आयतनद्वय-प्रतिपादनात्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) in as much as two abodes of one and the same ‘Satya’ (i.e. Brahman) are mentioned here,
These Ādhidaivika and Ādhyātmika Puruṣas are of course identical.

3.3.21 L.15 ✅ सत्यमेवमेतत्;
(We reply) — What you say is of course true,

3.3.21 L.16 ✅ एकस्यापि तु अवस्थाविशेषोपादानेनैव उपनिषद्विशेषोपदेशात्
But in as much as the instruction given about the mystic names is with reference to particular conditions (of Brahman),

3.3.21 L.17 ✅ तदवस्थस्यैव सा भवितुमर्हति;
It deserves to have these mystic names understood to be applicable in these respective particular conditions only.

3.3.21 L.18 ✅ अस्ति चायं दृष्टान्तः –
There is of course this illustration,

3.3.21 L.19 ✅ सत्यपि आचार्यस्वरूपानपाये,
Viz., that in spite of the preceptor qua the preceptor being of the same constant nature,

3.3.21 L.20 ✅ यत् आचार्यस्य आसीनस्य अनुवर्तनमुक्तम्,
The manner in which he is to be served by his students while he happens to be seated,

3.3.21 L.21 ✅ न तत् तिष्ठतो भवति; यच्च तिष्ठत उक्तम्, न तदासीनस्येति।
Differs from the manner of serving him when he is standing, and vice versa.

3.3.21 L.22 ✅ ग्रामारण्ययोस्तु आचार्यस्वरूपानपायात्
तत्स्वरूपानुबद्धस्य च धर्मस्य ग्रामारण्यकृतविशेषाभावात्
उभयत्र तुल्यवद्भाव इति अदृष्टान्तः सः।
The illustration given by the opponent, however, is not a proper illustration,
Because the nature of the preceptor is constant, both when he is in the town and in the forest,
And there is no particular difference caused in the service of the preceptor whether he be in the town or in the forest.

3.3.21 L.23 ✅ तस्मात् व्यवस्था अनयोरुपनिषदोः॥२१॥
Therefore (the conclusion is that) the mystic names are restricted, each to its own proper place. — 21.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
दर्शयति च॥३.३.२२॥
Darśayati ca.

Darśayati: (Śruti) shows, indicates, declares; Ca: also, and.

🔗 The Scriptures also say so, by the indicatory mark viz. an extended application (Atideśa). — 3.3.22.

3.3.22 L.1 ✅ अपि च एवंजातीयकानां धर्माणां व्यवस्थेति लिङ्गदर्शनं भवति –
Besides there is an indicatory mark (for holding) that the attributes of such a nature i.e. which are connected with a particular condition, are restricted, each to its proper place, thus —

3.3.22 L.2 ✅ ‘तस्यैतस्य तदेव रूपं यदमुष्य रूपं यावमुष्य गेष्णौ तौ गेष्णौ यन्नाम तन्नाम’ (ChanU.1.7.5) इति।
“The form (of him) here, is the same as there, those which are hoofs (or joints) here, are the hoofs (or joints) there, the name here, the name there” (ChanU.1.7.5).

3.3.22 L.3 ✅ कथमस्य लिङ्गत्वमिति?
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) how does it become an indicatory mark?

3.3.22 L.4 ✅ तदुच्यते – अक्ष्यादित्यस्थानभेद-भिन्नान् धर्मान् अन्योन्यस्मिन्ननुपसंहार्यान् पश्यन्
The reply is — Seeing that the attributes have become different because of the different places such as the Sun and the eye, and which therefore cannot be combined,

3.3.22 L.5 ✅ इह अतिदेशेन आदित्यपुरुषगतान्रूपादीन् अक्षिपुरुषे उपसंहरति –
The Scriptures have applied the attributes of the Puruṣa in the Sun, to the Puruṣa in the eye, by an extended application (Atideśa), thus —

3.3.22 L.6 ✅ ‘तस्यैतस्य तदेव रूपम्’ (ChanU.1.7.5) इत्यादिना।
“Of him there, is the same form (as here)” (ChanU.1.7.5).

3.3.22 L.7 ✅ तस्माद् व्यवतिष्ठेते एव एते उपनिषदाविति निर्णयः॥२२॥
Therefore, the conclusion is that these mystic names are restricted, each to its proper place. — 22.

– 111. Sambandha-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सम्भृतिद्युव्याप्त्यपि चातः॥३.३.२३॥
Sambhṛti-dyu-vyāpty api cātaḥ.

Sambhṛti: supporting the world; Dyu-vyāpti: pervading the sky; Api: also; Ca: and; Ataḥ: for the same reason (as in the previous Sūtra). (Dyu: the sky, all the space, heaven).

🔗 Also (minor things such as) the wielding of exalted powers, and pervading the heaven, (about the Vibhūtis i.e. exulted manifestations of Brahman) are not combined, because of the same reason. — 3.3.23.

3.3.23 L.1 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मज्येष्ठा वीर्या सम्भृतानि ब्रह्माग्रे ज्येष्ठं दिवमाततान’
इत्येवं राणायनीयानां खिलेषु
वीर्यसम्भृति-द्युनिवेश-प्रभृतयो ब्रह्मणो विभूतयः पठ्यन्ते;
In the Khila chapters (i.e. chapters which do not contain injunctions or prohibitions of any sort) of the followers of the Rāṇāyanīya branch (of the Sāman-Veda),
Exalted aspects of Brahman such as ‘the wielding of super-human powers’ and ‘pervading the heaven’, are recited thus —
“Brahman has assumed great exalted powers (such as for instance the power to create the Ākāśa etc.), and that in the beginning, the Highest Brahman stretched itself all over the heaven”,

3.3.23 L.2 ✅ तेषामेव च उपनिषदि शाण्डिल्यविद्या-प्रभृतयो ब्रह्मविद्याः पठ्यन्ते;
And in their Upaniṣad also, Brahma-Vidyās such as the Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā, etc. are recited.

3.3.23 L.3 ✅ तासु ब्रह्मविद्यासु ता ब्रह्मविभूतय उपसंह्रियेरन्,
So, when there is a doubt as to whether or not, in these Brahma-Vidyās, these exalted superhuman aspects of power are to be combined,

3.3.23 L.4 ✅ न वेति विचारणायाम्, ब्रह्मसम्बन्धादुपसंहारप्राप्तौ एवं पठति।
And when the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that on account of their being related to Brahman, they are to be combined,

3.3.23 L.5 ✅ सम्भृतिद्युव्याप्ति-प्रभृतयो विभूतयः शाण्डिल्यविद्या-प्रभृतिषु नोपसंहर्तव्याः,
The Ācārya replies — Superhuman exalted aspects such as ‘the wielding of exalted powers’ and ‘pervading of the heaven’, should not be combined with the Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā,

3.3.23 L.6 ✅ अत एव च आयतनविशेष-योगात्।
Precisely because of the same reason, viz. that they are related to a special abode.

3.3.23 L.7 ✅ तथा हि शाण्डिल्यविद्यायां हृदयायतनत्वं ब्रह्मण उक्तम् –
For even so, in the Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā, it is mentioned that Brahman has the Hṛdaya as its abode, thus —

3.3.23 L.8 ✅ ‘एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदये’ (ChanU.3.14.3) इति;
“This my Self is in the Hṛdaya” (ChanU.3.14.3).

3.3.23 L.9 ✅ तद्वदेव दहरविद्यायामपि –
Similarly also, in the Dahara-Vidyā, thus —

3.3.23 L.10 ✅ ‘दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ (ChanU.8.1.1) इति;
“There is a small lotus-like palace, and in it there is the small Ākāśa” (ChanU.8.1.1).

3.3.23 L.11 ✅ उपकोसलविद्यायां तु अक्ष्यायतनत्वम् –
In the Upakosala-Vidyā it is mentioned that the eye is the abode of Brahman, thus —

3.3.23 L.12 ✅ ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.4.15.1) इति;
“This Puruṣa that is seen to be in the eye” (ChanU.4.15.1).

3.3.23 L.13 ✅ एवं तत्र तत्र तत्तत् आध्यात्मिकम् आयतनम् एतासु विद्यासु प्रतीयते;
It is thus understood, that there is in each of these Vidyās an Ādhyātmika abode (of Brahman), viz. a body.

3.3.23 L.14 ✅ आधिदैविक्यस्तु एता विभूतयः सम्भृतिद्युव्याप्तिप्रभृतयः;
तासां कुत एतासु प्राप्तिः।
How can then the exalted aspects of Brahman of the Ādhidaivika nature
Be available in these Vidyās?

3.3.23 L.15 ✅ नन्वेतास्वपि आधिदैविक्यो विभूतयः श्रूयन्ते –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) even in them the Scriptures speak of Ādhidaivika exalted aspects of Brahman, thus —

3.3.23 L.16 ✅ ‘ज्यायान्दिवो ज्यायानेभ्यो लोकेभ्यः’ (ChanU.3.14.3)
“Greater than the heaven, and greater than these worlds” (ChanU.3.14.3),

3.3.23 L.17 ✅ ‘एष उ एव भामनीरेष हि सर्वेषु लोकेषु भाति’ (ChanU.4.15.4)
“He verily is Bhāmanī (the bringer of light) and shines in all the worlds” (ChanU.4.15.4),

3.3.23 L.18 ✅ ‘यावान्वा अयमाकाशस्तावानेषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाश उभे अस्मिन्द्यावापृथिवी अन्तरेव समाहिते’ (ChanU.8.1.3) इत्येवमाद्याः;
“As is the extent of this Ākāśa, even so is the extent of this Ākāśa in the Hṛdaya, both the heaven and the earth are accommodated in it” (ChanU.8.3.1)” etc.

3.3.23 L.19 ✅ सन्ति च अन्या आयतनविशेषहीना अपि इह ब्रह्मविद्याः षोडश-कलाद्याः –
There also are other Brahma-Vidyās not containing any special abodes, such as “(Brahman) having sixteen parts”.

3.3.23 L.20 ✅ सत्यमेवमेतत्;
(We reply) — What you say is true of course,

3.3.23 L.21 ✅ तथाप्यत्र विद्यते विशेषः
But there is a special peculiarity

3.3.23 L.22 ✅ सम्भृत्याद्यनुपसंहार-हेतुः –
Which furnishes the reason why minor things, such as ‘the wielding of superhuman exalted powers’, are not to be combined.

3.3.23 L.23 ✅ समानगुणाम्नानेन हि प्रत्युपस्थापितासु विप्रकृष्ट-देशास्वपि विद्यासु
विप्रकृष्टदेशगुणा उपसंह्रियेरन्
इति युक्तम्;
It is logical,
In the case of Vidyās in places separated from each other but recognized as identical, because of the mention of common minor things,
That qualities mentioned in places separated from each other should be combined.

3.3.23 L.24 ✅ सम्भृत्यादयस्तु शाण्डिल्यादिवाक्यगोचराश्च गुणाः
But minor things such as ‘the welding of exalted powers’ and minor things such as ‘having mind as its structure’ etc., mentioned in Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā sentences,

3.3.23 L.25 ✅ परस्परव्यावृत्तस्वरूपत्वात्
Being mutually incompatible in their nature,

3.3.23 L.26 ✅ न प्रदेशान्तरवर्तिविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापन-क्षमाः।
Are not capable of establishing identity of Vidyās occurring in places separated from them.

3.3.23 L.27 ✅ न च ब्रह्मसम्बन्धमात्रेण
It cannot be merely on account of such minor things being related to Brahman,

3.3.23 L.28 ✅ प्रदेशान्तरवर्तिविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापनम् इत्युच्यते,
That recognition of the identity of Vidyās with Vidyās in places separated from them, can be established,

3.3.23 L.29 ✅ विद्याभेदेऽपि तदुपपत्तेः;
Because such recognition is possible, even where there actually is a difference in the Vidyās.

3.3.23 L.30 ✅ एकमपि हि ब्रह्म विभूति-भेदैरनेकधा उपास्यत इति स्थितिः,
It is a settled conclusion, that though Brahman is one only, it is meditated upon in many ways,

3.3.23 L.31 ✅ परोवरीयस्त्वादिवद् भेद-दर्शनात्।
Because of difference in the exalted aspects of Brahman, like the difference observed in the case of ‘greater than the great’ etc. (in Sūtra 7, supra, even though the Udgītha everywhere is but one only).

3.3.23 L.32 ✅ तस्मात् वीर्यसम्भृत्यादीनां शाण्डिल्यविद्यादिषु अनुपसंहार इति॥२३॥
Therefore attributes such as ‘powers of an exalted nature’ cannot be combined with the Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā etc. — 23.

– 112. Sambhṛty-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
पुरुषविद्यायामिव चेतरेषामनाम्नानात्॥३.३.२४॥
Puruṣa-vidyāyām iva cetareṣām anāmnānāt.

Puruṣa-vidyāyām iva: as in the Puruṣa-Vidyā (of the Chandogya); Ca: and; Itareṣām: of the others; An-āmnānāt: because of not being mentioned (in the Taittirīya).

🔗 Because there is no Scriptural statement in the other Vidyās (such as in the Taittīriyaka Puruṣa-Vidyā) (of observances) as in the Puruṣa-Vidyā (of Chāndogya) (there is no combination of the observances). — 3.3.24.

3.3.24 L.1 ✅ अस्ति ताण्डिनां पैङ्गिनां च रहस्यब्राह्मणे पुरुषविद्या;
A Vidyā called Puruṣa-Vidyā is mentioned in the Rahasya-Brāhmaṇa (Chāndogya) of the Tāṇḍīs and Paiṅgīs (who both are Sāman-Vedīs).

3.3.24 L.2 ✅ तत्र पुरुषो यज्ञः कल्पितः;
There the Puruṣa (man) is notionally conceived to be (of the nature of) a sacrifice.

3.3.24 L.3 ✅ तदीयमायुः त्रेधा विभज्य
Dividing a man’s span of life (of 116 years) into three periods (of 24, 44 and 48),

3.3.24 L.4 ✅ सवन-त्रयं कल्पितम्;
They are conceived to be the three Savanas (Ritualistic actions of purificatory bathing),

3.3.24 L.5 ✅ अशिशिषादीनि च दीक्षादिभावेन कल्पितानि;
Hunger etc. are conceived to be the ‘Dīkṣā’ (initiation) etc.

3.3.24 L.6 ✅ अन्ये च धर्मास्तत्र समधिगता आशीर्मन्त्र-प्रयोगादयः।
Some other Dharmas (observances) such as the invocation of blessings and the incantation of Mantras, are also understood to have been mentioned therein.

3.3.24 L.7 ✅ तैत्तिरीयका अपि कञ्चित् पुरुषयज्ञं कल्पयन्ति –
The Taittirīyakas also imagine a Puruṣa-Sacrifice in one Anuvāka, thus —

3.3.24 L.8 ✅ ‘तस्यैवंविदुषो यज्ञस्यात्मा यजमानः श्रद्धा पत्नी’ (ना. उ. ८०) इत्येतेनानुवाकेन।
“Of the Sacrifice of him who knows it to be so, the Self is the Yajamāna (Sacrificing host), faith (Śraddhā) is his consort etc.” (Tait. Ār. 10.64, Nār. Up. 30 ?).

3.3.24 L.9 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now with regard to this, there is a doubt,

3.3.24 L.10 ✅ किमितरत्र उक्ताः पुरुषयज्ञस्य धर्माः तैत्तिरीयकेषु उपसंहर्तव्याः, किं वा नोपसंहर्तव्या इति।
Viz., whether the Dharmas of the Puruṣa-Sacrifice spoken of elsewhere, are or are not to be combined with the Dharmas of the Taittīriyakas.

3.3.24 L.11 ✅ पुरुषयज्ञत्वाविशेषात् उपसंहारप्राप्तौ,
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being, that as there is the common feature viz. the Puruṣa-Sacrifice (in both), there should be a combination of the Dharmas of the other Puruṣa-Sacrifice, with the Dharmas of the Taittīriyaka Puruṣa-Sacrifice,

3.3.24 L.12 ✅ आचक्ष्महे – नोपसंहर्तव्या इति।
(We reply) — They should not be so combined.

3.3.24 L.13 ✅ कस्मात्? तद्रूपप्रत्यभिज्ञानाभावात्;
Why so? Because there is absence of recognition of the form (of the Puruṣa-Sacrifice of the Chāndogya), in the Taittīriyaka.

3.3.24 L.14 ✅ तदाहाचार्यः
The same is expressed by the Ācārya —

3.3.24 L.15 ✅ पुरुषविद्यायामिवेति – यथा एकेषां शाखिनां ताण्डिनां पैङ्गिनां च पुरुषविद्यायामाम्नानम्,
“As is the Scriptural statement in Puruṣa-Vidyā (of the followers of one branch viz. the Tāṇḍīs and Paiṅgīs),

3.3.24 L.16 ✅ नैवम् इतरेषां तैत्तिरीयाणामाम्नानमस्ति;
So it is not, in the case of others i.e. the Taittīriyakas”.

3.3.24 L.17 ✅ तेषां हि इतरविलक्षणमेव यज्ञसम्पादनं दृश्यते,
In their case (i.e. in the case of the Taittīriyakas) the fanciful conception of the sacrifice is different from that of the others (viz. the Tāṇḍīs and the Paiṅgīs)

3.3.24 L.18 ✅ पत्नी-यजमान-वेदि-वेद-बर्हिर्यूपाज्य-पश्वृत्विगाद्यनुक्रमणात्।
By reason of the mention of a different series, thus —
The wife (of the sacrificing host) (Śraddhā), the sacrificing host (Yajamāna), the Veda, the altar (Vedī), the bundle of sacrificial grass (Barhis), the sacrificial post (Yūpa), the ghee (Ājya), the animal to be sacrificed (Paśu), the officiating priest (Ṛtvij), etc., which is not mentioned in the Chāndogya.

3.3.24 L.19 ✅ यदपि सवनसम्पादनं तदपि इतरविलक्षणमेव –
The fanciful conception of the Savana (ritualistic action of purificatory bathings) also, is different there, from that of the other (i.e. the Chāndogya),

3.3.24 L.20 ✅ ‘यत्प्रातर्मध्यन्दिनं सायं च तानि’ (ना. उ. ८०) इति।
Viz., “The morning, noon and evening (Karmas i.e. bathings)” (Nār. Up. 80).

3.3.24 L.21 ✅ यदपि किञ्चित् मरणावभृथत्वादि-सामान्यं,
The little similarity in both — such as Death which is the ‘Avabhṛtha’ (the final bath at the conclusion of a sacrifice) being fancifully imagined as Death —

3.3.24 L.22 ✅ तदपि अल्पीयस्त्वात्
Being a very small one,

3.3.24 L.23 ✅ भूयसा वैलक्षण्येन अभिभूयमानं न प्रत्यभिज्ञापनक्षमम्।
It is discounted by the substantial volume of differences, and it is unable to establish such recognition.

3.3.24 L.24 ✅ न च तैत्तिरीयके पुरुषस्य यज्ञत्वं श्रूयते;
Besides in the Taittīriyaka, the Scriptures do not speak of the Puruṣa (the man) himself as the sacrifice (as in the Chāndogya).

3.3.24 L.25 ✅ ‘विदुषः’ ‘यज्ञस्य’ इति हि न च एते समानाधिकरणे षष्ठ्यौ – विद्वानेव यो यज्ञस्तस्येति;
The genitive cases in “Of the Sacrifice of one, who knows” are not Samānādhikaraṇa (i.e. coordinate) genitives and do not mean ‘the knower who himself is the sacrifice’.

3.3.24 L.26 ✅ न हि पुरुषस्य मुख्यं यज्ञत्वमस्ति;
A Puruṣa (man) cannot possibly be the sacrifice in the principal sense of the term.

3.3.24 L.27 ✅ व्यधिकरणे तु एते षष्ठ्यौ –
They are Vyadhikaraṇa i.e. (non-coordinate) genitives, meaning thus —

3.3.24 L.28 ✅ विदुषो यो यज्ञस्तस्येति;
‘Of the sacrifice performed by one, who knows thus’.

3.3.24 L.29 ✅ भवति हि पुरुषस्य मुख्यो यज्ञसम्बन्धः;
A Puruṣa of course has a direct connection with a sacrifice, in the principal sense.

3.3.24 L.30 ✅ सत्यां च गतौ, मुख्य एवार्थ आश्रयितव्यः, न भाक्तः।
As far as is feasible, the principal meaning should be understood and not the secondary meaning.

3.3.24 L.31 ✅ ‘आत्मा यजमानः’ इति च यजमानत्वं पुरुषस्य निर्ब्रुवन्
The sentence “The Self (the sentient Puruṣa) who is the sacrificing host”, which speaks of the host-ship of the Puruṣa itself,

3.3.24 L.32 ✅ वैयधिकरण्येनैव अस्य यज्ञसम्बन्धं दर्शयति।
Indicates his connection with the sacrifice, in a noncoordinating genitive significance.

3.3.24 L.33 ✅ अपि च ‘तस्यैवं विदुषः’ इति सिद्धवदनुवादश्रुतौ सत्याम्,
Moreover, “(Of the sacrifice) of one who knows it to be so” being only a reference to a sacrifice, a thing already established,

3.3.24 L.34 ✅ पुरुषस्य यज्ञभावम् आत्मादीनां च यजमानादिभावं प्रतिपित्समानस्य
If any one would understand the Puruṣa (man) himself to be the sacrifice and the Self as the sacrificing host,

3.3.24 L.35 ✅ वाक्यभेदः स्यात्।
There would be a split of the sentence (by his doing so i.e. one sentence would have a double meaning).

3.3.24 L.36 ✅ अपि च ससंन्यासामात्मविद्यां पुरस्तादुपदिश्य
Besides (the Scriptures) having first taught the Vidyā of the Self along with Sannyāsa (the renunciation of the world, the 4th Āśrama),

3.3.24 L.37 ✅ अनन्तरम् ‘तस्यैवं विदुषः’ इत्याद्यनुक्रमणं पश्यन्तः –
When we see the mention of “Of him who knows it to be so” as a chapter following it in a regular sequence,

3.3.24 L.38 ✅ पूर्वशेष एव एष आम्नायः,
We understand it to be merely a passage complementary of the earlier statement,

3.3.24 L.39 ✅ न स्वतन्त्र इति प्रतीमः;
And not as an independent Scriptural statement.

3.3.24 L.40 ✅ तथा च एकमेव फलमुभयोरप्यनुवाकयोः उपलभामहे –
Similarly, we understand that there is but only one fruit of both the Anuvākas,

3.3.24 L.41 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मणो महिमानमाप्नोति’ (ना. उ. ८) इति;
Viz., “He acquires the greatness of Brahman” (Nār. Up. 80).

3.3.24 L.42 ✅ इतरेषां तु अनन्य-शेषः पुरुषविद्याम्नायः;
In the case of the Scriptural statements about the Puruṣa-Vidyā of others (i.e. of the Chando-gas), there are no such passages complementary of any earlier passages.

3.3.24 L.43 ✅ आयुरभिवृद्धि-फलो ह्यसौ,
And they have as their fruit, an increase in the span of life,

3.3.24 L.44 ✅ ‘स ह षोडशं वर्षशतं जीवति च एवं वेद’ (ChanU.3.16.7) इति समभिव्याहारात्।
Mentioned thus — “He who knows it to be so, lives for a hundred and sixteen years”.

3.3.24 L.45 ✅ तस्मात् शाखान्तराधीतानां पुरुषविद्याधर्माणाम् आशीर्मन्त्रादीनाम् अप्राप्तिः तैत्तिरीयके॥२४॥
Therefore Dharmas such as these blessings and Mantras etc., taught in other branches, are not available in the Taittīriyaka. — 24.

– 113. Puruṣa-vidyā-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
वेधाद्यर्थभेदात्॥३.३.२५॥
Vedhādy-artha-bhedāt.

Vedha-ādi: piercing etc.; Artha-bhedāt: because they have a different meaning.

🔗 Because, Mantras such as ‘wounding etc have a different meaning (they have no connection with the Vidyās). — 3.3.25.

3.3.25 L.1 ✅ अस्त्याथर्वणिकानाम् उपनिषदारम्भे मन्त्रसमाम्नायः –
In the Scriptures, there is a mention of a Mantra (incantation) in the beginning of the Upaniṣads of the Ārtharvaṇikas, as follows: —

3.3.25 L.2 ✅ ‘सर्वं प्रविध्य हृदयं प्रविध्य धमनीः प्रवृज्य शिरोऽभिप्रवृज्य त्रिधा विपृक्तः’ इत्यादि;
“Having wounded (the body of my enemy) all over, having wounded the Hṛdaya, and the blood-vessels, and the head, may he (my enemy) be also drawn and quartered in three ways”.

3.3.25 L.3 ✅ ताण्डिनाम् –
In that of the Tāṇḍīs (there is a Mantra) thus —

3.3.25 L.4 ✅ ‘देव सवितः प्रसुव यज्ञम्’ इत्यादिः;
“O Lord the Sun, may you bring forth a sacrifice” (i.e. cause me to make a sacrifice).

3.3.25 L.5 ✅ शाट्यायनिनाम् –
In that of the Śāṭyāyanins again, thus —

3.3.25 L.6 ✅ ‘श्वेताश्वो हरितनीलोऽसि’ इत्यादिः;
“(Oh Indra), white is thy steed and verdant green and dark blue art thou”.

3.3.25 L.7 ✅ कठानां तैत्तिरीयाणां च –
And again in that of the Kaṭhas and the Taittirīyas, thus —

3.3.25 L.8 ✅ ‘शं नो मित्रः शं वरुणः’ (TaitU.1.1.1) इत्यादिः;
“May the Sun be propitious to us, and also Varuṇa” (TaitUEng.1.1.1).

3.3.25 L.9 ✅ वाजसनेयिनां तु उपनिषदारम्भे प्रवर्ग्यब्राह्मणं पठ्यते –
But in the Upaniṣad of the Vāja-saneyins a Pravargya-Brāhmaṇa (i.e. one in which Pravargya, a particular Karma in a sacrifice is considered) is recited, thus —

3.3.25 L.10 ✅ ‘देवा ह वै सत्रं निषेदुः’ इत्यादि;
“The Gods verily sat down to (perform) a Satra (a sacrifice)”.

3.3.25 L.11 ✅ कौषीतकिनामपि अग्निष्टोमब्राह्मणम् –
And in that of the Kauṣitakins also, there is an Agni-ṣṭoma-Brāhmaṇa passage —

3.3.25 L.12 ✅ ‘ब्रह्म वा अग्निष्टोमो ब्रह्मैव तदहर्ब्रह्मणैव ते ब्रह्मोपयन्ति तेऽमृतत्वमाप्नुवन्ति य एतदहरुपयन्ति’ इति।
“Brahman, indeed, is Agni-ṣṭoma, Brahman itself is that day (of the Sacrifice), they attain Brahman through Brahman, those who perform the sacrifice on that day attain immortality”.

3.3.25 L.13 ✅ किमिमे सर्वे प्रविध्यादयो मन्त्राः प्रवर्ग्यादीनि च कर्माणि
विद्यासु उपसंह्रियेरन्, किं वा न उपसंह्रियेरन् – इति मीमांसामहे।
It is now being considered whether all such Mantras as “wounding etc.” and actions such as Pravargya etc.,
Are or are not to be combined with the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.14 ✅ किं तावत् नः प्रतिभाति?
How then does it strike us? (The opponent of Vedānta says) —

3.3.25 L.15 ✅ उपसंहार एव एषां विद्यास्विति।
(We think) that they should be combined with the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.16 ✅ कुतः? विद्याप्रधानानामुपनिषद्ग्रन्थानां समीपे पाठात्।
Whence is it so? Because they are recited in proximity to the Upaniṣads which mainly deal with Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.17 ✅ ननु एषां विद्यार्थतया विधानं नोपलभामहे –
But (says the Vedāntin) we do not find any injunction as to their use in the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.18 ✅ बाढम्, अनुपलभमाना अपि तु
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — It is right, but even though we do not find it to be so,

3.3.25 L.19 ✅ अनुमास्यामहे, सन्निधिसामर्थ्यात्;
We would infer to that effect, on the strength of their proximity (to the Vidyās).

3.3.25 L.20 ✅ न हि सन्निधेः अर्थवत्त्वे सम्भवति, अकस्मादसावनाश्रयितुं युक्तः।
When proximity is thus suggestive of a purpose, it would not be logical to reject it capriciously.

3.3.25 L.21 ✅ ननु नैषां मन्त्राणां विद्याविषयं किञ्चित्सामर्थ्यं पश्यामः।
But (says the Vedāntin) we do not see that the Mantras have any the least force with respect to the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.22 ✅ कथं च प्रवर्ग्यादीनि कर्माणि अन्यार्थत्वेनैव विनियुक्तानि सन्ति विद्यार्थत्वेनापि प्रतिपद्येमहीति।
How ever can we understand, that actions such as Pravargya etc. employed only for some other purpose, have any application to Vidyās?

3.3.25 L.23 ✅ नैष दोषः;
(The opponent of Vedānta replies) — This is no fault,

3.3.25 L.24 ✅ सामर्थ्यं तावत् मन्त्राणां विद्याविषयमपि किञ्चित् शक्यं कल्पयितुम्,
हृदयादि-सङ्कीर्तनात्;
Because, inasmuch as Hṛdaya etc. are mentioned therein,
It is possible to imagine, that they do have some force in regard to the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.25 ✅ हृदयादीनि हि प्रायेण उपासनेषु आयतनादिभावेनोपदिष्टानि;
Hṛdaya etc. are often taught as serving as abodes etc. in meditations,

3.3.25 L.26 ✅ तद्द्वारेण च ‘हृदयं प्रविध्य’ इत्येवंजातीयकानां मन्त्राणाम् उपपन्नम् उपासनाङ्गत्वम्;
And that way, it would be reasonably sustainable, that Mantras such as ‘Having wounded the Hṛdaya’ may serve as matters subsidiary to meditations,

3.3.25 L.27 ✅ दृष्टश्च उपासनेष्वपि मन्त्रविनियोगः –
For we do see such Mantras used even in meditation, thus —

3.3.25 L.28 ✅ ‘भूः प्रपद्येऽमुनाऽमुनाऽमुना’ (ChanU.3.15.3) इत्येवमादिः;
“I will attain the earth by this, by this, by this” (ChanU.3.15.3).

3.3.25 L.29 ✅ तथा प्रवर्ग्यादीनां कर्मणाम् अन्यत्रापि विनियुक्तानां सताम्
Similarly actions such as ‘Pravargya’ etc., employed as they are elsewhere,

3.3.25 L.30 ✅ अविरुद्धो विद्यासु विनियोगः –
Can without impropriety, be employed in Vidyās,

3.3.25 L.31 ✅ वाजपेय इव बृहस्पतिसवस्य –
Even as the ‘Bṛhas-pati-Sava’ (a sacrifice to be performed by one who wishes to be a teacher), though employed elsewhere, is employed in the Vājapeya sacrifice also.

3.3.25 L.32 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply —

3.3.25 L.33 ✅ नैषामुपसंहारो विद्यास्विति।
There is no combination of these (Mantras) in the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.34 ✅ कस्मात्? वेधाद्यर्थभेदात् –
Whence is it so? Because of ‘wounding etc.’ being different things.

3.3.25 L.35 ✅ ‘हृदयं प्रविध्य’ इत्येवंजातीयकानां हि मन्त्राणां येऽर्था हृदयवेधादयः, भिन्नाः
The things mentioned in the Mantras “Having wounded the Hṛdaya” etc., viz., the wounding of Hṛdaya etc., are different

3.3.25 L.36 ✅ अनभिसम्बद्धाः ते उपनिषदुदिताभिर्विद्याभिः;
And are entirely unconnected with the Vidyās as known in the Upaniṣads,

3.3.25 L.37 ✅ न तेषां ताभिः सङ्गन्तुं सामर्थ्यमस्ति।
And so they have no power to connect themselves with the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.38 ✅ ननु हृदयस्य उपासनेष्वप्युपयोगात् तद्द्वारक उपासनासम्बन्ध उपन्यस्तः –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) we have already propounded that as the word ‘the Hṛdaya’ has been employed in meditation also, they do have, in that way, a connection with a meditation.

3.3.25 L.39 ✅ नेत्युच्यते; हृदयमात्रसङ्कीर्तनस्य हि एवमुपयोगः कथञ्चिदुत्प्रेक्ष्येत;
(We reply) — No, we could, provided the word Hṛdaya alone were to be mentioned (in the Mantra), somehow construe that it would be so,

3.3.25 L.40 ✅ न च हृदयमात्रमत्र मन्त्रार्थः;
But this Mantra does not mean a Hṛdaya only.

3.3.25 L.41 ✅ ‘हृदयं प्रविध्य धमनीः प्रवृज्य’ इत्येवंजातीयको हि न सकलो मन्त्रार्थो विद्याभिरभिसम्बध्यते;
The whole meaning of the Mantra, viz. “Having wounded the Hṛdaya, having wounded the blood-vessels”, does not have any connection with the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.42 ✅ अभिचारविषयो ह्येषोऽर्थः;
Its meaning has a relation with the subject of magic spells (Abhicārika-viṣayaḥ),

3.3.25 L.43 ✅ तस्मादाभिचारिकेण कर्मणा ‘सर्वं प्रविध्य’ इत्येतस्य मन्त्रस्याभिसम्बन्धः;
Therefore, the Mantra “Having wounded (the body) all over etc.” has a connection with some act relating to some sort of magical spells for malevolent purposes.

3.3.25 L.44 ✅ तथा ‘देव सवितः प्रसुव यज्ञम्’ इति
Similarly the Mantra “O Lord the Sun, may you bring forth a sacrifice”

3.3.25 L.45 ✅ अस्य यज्ञप्रसव-लिङ्गत्वात् यज्ञेन कर्मणा अभिसम्बन्धः;
Has a connection with some sacrificial act, because of the indicatory mark, viz. the bringing forth of a sacrifice.

3.3.25 L.46 ✅ तद्विशेष-सम्बन्धस्तु प्रमाणान्तरादनुसर्तव्यः;
What particular connection it has, has to be determined by some other means-of-proof.

3.3.25 L.47 ✅ एवमन्येषामपि मन्त्राणाम् –
Similarly, in the case of other Mantras also,

3.3.25 L.48 ✅ केषाञ्चित् लिङ्गेन, केषाञ्चिद्वचनेन, केषाञ्चित्प्रमाणान्तरेणेत्येवम् –
अर्थान्तरेषु विनियुक्तानाम्,
रहस्यपठितानामपि सताम्,
Even though they happen to be recited in the Rahasya portion,
They have to be construed as having a relation with, and being employed for, some other purpose,
On the strength of some indicatory mark, or some other authority or some other means-of-proof,

3.3.25 L.49 ✅ न सन्निधिमात्रेण विद्याशेषत्वोपपत्तिः;
And cannot be understood as being complementary to a Vidyā, merely on the ground of proximity.

3.3.25 L.50 ✅ दुर्बलो हि सन्निधिः श्रुत्यादिभ्य इत्युक्तं प्रथमे तन्त्रे –
It has already been stated in the first Tantra (i.e. Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā) that mere proximity (Sannidhi) is a weaker means-of-proof as compared with a Scriptural passage, by the Sūtra —

3.3.25 L.51 ✅ ‘श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरणस्थान-समाख्यानां समवाये पारदौर्बल्यम् अर्थविप्रकर्षात्’ (जै. सू. ३-३-१३) इत्यत्र।
“When there is a conflict (between the Scriptures) as between the Scriptural word, the indicatory mark, the sentence, the chapter, the place and the name, every succeeding member (in this series of Pramāṇas) is weaker than the one which comes earlier” (Jai. Sū. 3.3.13).

3.3.25 L.52 ✅ तथा कर्मणामपि प्रवर्ग्यादीनामन्यत्र विनियुक्तानां न विद्याशेषत्वोपपत्तिः;
Similarly, that, actions such as ‘Pravargya’ etc. which are employed elsewhere, can be complementary to Vidyās, is not reasonably sustainable.

3.3.25 L.53 ✅ न ह्येषां विद्याभिः सह ऐकार्थ्यं किञ्चिदस्ति;
There is nothing in common between these (actions) and the Vidyās.

3.3.25 L.54 ✅ वाजपेये तु बृहस्पति-सवस्य स्पष्टं विनियोगान्तरम् –
So far as the Bṛhas-pati-Sava is concerned, it is clearly enjoined in addition to Vājapeya sacrifice, thus —

3.3.25 L.55 ✅ ‘वाजपेयेनेष्ट्वा बृहस्पतिसवेन यजेत’ इति;
“Having performed the Vājapeya Sacrifice, he should perform the Bṛhas-pati-Sava”.

3.3.25 L.56 ✅ अपि च एकोऽयं प्रवर्ग्यः सकृदुत्पन्नो बलीयसा प्रमाणेन अन्यत्र विनियुक्तः
Besides, this single Pravargya, enjoined but once only, and employed in one place, on a stronger means-of-proof (Pramāṇa)

3.3.25 L.57 ✅ न दुर्बलेन प्रमाणेन अन्यत्रापि विनियोगमर्हति;
Does not deserve to be employed elsewhere also, on the strength of a weaker means-of-proof.

3.3.25 L.58 ✅ अगृह्यमाण-विशेषत्वे हि प्रमाणयोः एवं स्यात्;
It would be so possible, only if no special distinction as between means-of-proof can be observed,

3.3.25 L.59 ✅ न तु बलवदबलवतोः प्रमाणयोः अगृह्यमाण-विशेषता सम्भवति,
But it is not possible not to understand the particular distinction between a strong and a weak means-of-proof,

3.3.25 L.60 ✅ बलवदबलवत्त्व-विशेषादेव।
Because, that one (of the two) is stronger or weaker than the other, is itself the special distinction between them.

3.3.25 L.61 ✅ तस्मात् एवंजातीयकानां मन्त्राणां कर्मणां वा
Therefore, Mantras or actions of these sorts

3.3.25 L.62 ✅ न सन्निधिपाठमात्रेण विद्याशेषत्वमाशङ्कितव्यम्;
Should never be understood to be complementary to a Vidyā, merely because they are recited in proximity (to the Vidyā).

3.3.25 L.63 ✅ अरण्यानुवचनादिधर्म-सामान्यात्तु
सन्निधिपाठ इति संतोष्टव्यम्॥२५॥
One should satisfy oneself, that they are recited in proximity with each other,
Because, that both should be employed while in a forest, is an observance (Dharma) common to them both. — 25.

– 114. Vedha-ādy-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
हानौ तूपायनशब्दशेषत्वात्कुशाच्छन्दस्तुत्युपगानवत्तदुक्तम्॥३.३.२६॥
Hānau tūpāyana-śabda-śeṣatvāt kuśācchanda-stuty-upagānavat tad uktam.

Hānau: where only the getting rid (of good and evil) is mentioned; Tu: but; Upāyana-śabda-śeṣatvāt: on account of the word ‘acceptance’ being supplementary to the word ‘getting rid’; Kuśācchanda-stuti-upagānavat: like Kusa-sticks, metres, praises and hymns; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated (by Jaimini). (Upāyana: acceptance; Śabda: on account of the statement of the word; Śeṣatvāt: on account of being supplementary to.)

🔗 But, where the ‘discarding’ (of good and evil deeds is mentioned) ‘receiving’ of them by others has to be understood), because ‘receiving’ is complementary to the Scriptural word (discarding), as (for instance) in the case of Kuśas, metres, glorification and the chanting (of Mantras). That has been stated (by Jaimini in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā). — 3.3.26.

3.3.26 L.1 ✅ अस्ति ताण्डिनां श्रुतिः –
There is a Scriptural passage of the Tāṇḍins, thus —

3.3.26 L.2 ✅ ‘अश्व इव रोमाणि विधूय पापं चन्द्र इव राहोर्मुखात्प्रमुच्य धूत्वा शरीरमकृतं कृतात्मा ब्रह्मलोकमभिसम्भवामि’ (ChanU.8.13.1) इति;
“Having shaken off demerit even as a horse shakes off his hair, being freed (from ignorance) even as the moon escapes from the mouth of Rāhu, and having shaken off the body, I, i.e. the Self, that have fulfilled everything that has to be done (Kṛtātmā), attain the eternal (Akṛta) Brahma-world” (ChanU.8.13.1).

3.3.26 L.3 ✅ तथा आथर्वणिकानाम् –
Similarly in the Scriptural passage of the Ārtharvaṇikas —

3.3.26 L.4 ✅ ‘तदा विद्वान्पुण्यपापे विधूय निरञ्जनः परमं साम्यमुपैति’ (MunU.3.2.8) इति;
“Similarly the knowing one, freed from (the limiting adjuncts of) names and forms, attains the transcendent and heavenly Puruṣa” (MunU.3.2.8).

3.3.26 L.5 ✅ तथा शाट्यायनिनः पठन्ति –
Similarly the Śāṭyāyanins recite —

3.3.26 L.6 ✅ ‘तस्य पुत्रा दायमुपयन्ति सुहृदः साधुकृत्यां द्विषन्तः पापकृत्याम्’ इति;
“His sons receive his property, his friends his good deeds, and his foes his evil deeds”.

3.3.26 L.7 ✅ तथैव कौषीतकिनः –
Similarly the Kauṣitakins —

3.3.26 L.8 ✅ ‘तत्सुकृतदुष्कृते विधूनुते तस्य प्रिया ज्ञातयः सुकृतमुपयन्त्यप्रिया दुष्कृतम्’ इति।
“He shakes off his good and evil deeds, his beloved caste-people receive his good deeds, and those who are disliked by him, receive his evil deeds” (Kauṣ. Brā. 1.4).

3.3.26 L.9 ✅ तदिह क्वचित् सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्हानं श्रूयते;
Thus, in one place the Scriptures speak about the discarding of good and evil deeds,

3.3.26 L.10 ✅ क्वचित्तयोरेव विभागेन प्रियैरप्रियैश्चोपायनम्;
In some other place they speak of the ‘receiving’ of them in parts by people who are dear to him and by those who are not so dear,

3.3.26 L.11 ✅ क्वचित्तु उभयमपि हानमुपायनं च;
While in still some other Scriptural passage, they speak of both the discarding and the receiving,

3.3.26 L.12 ✅ तद्यत्रोभयं श्रूयते तत्र तावत् न किञ्चिद्वक्तव्यमस्ति;
And thus, when both these (i.e. discarding and receiving) are spoken of, there is nothing further to be said about it.

3.3.26 L.13 ✅ यत्राप्युपायनमेव श्रूयते, न हानम्,
Where again only the receiving is spoken of but not the discarding,

3.3.26 L.14 ✅ तत्राप्यर्थादेव हानं सन्निपतति,
Such ‘discarding’ of course is necessarily implied,

3.3.26 L.15 ✅ अन्यैरात्मीययोः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोरुपेयमानयोः
Inasmuch as when one’s good and evil deeds are received by another,

3.3.26 L.16 ✅ आवश्यकत्वात् तद्धानस्य;
Their discarding (by that one) is of course necessary (by implication).

3.3.26 L.17 ✅ यत्र तु हानमेव श्रूयते, नोपायनम् –
Where, however, the Scriptures speak of ‘discarding’ only and not of ‘receiving’,

3.3.26 L.18 ✅ तत्रोपायनं सन्निपतेद्वा, न वेति
And when it is considered as to whether (in such a case) the ‘receiving’ necessarily takes place or not,

3.3.26 L.19 ✅ विचिकित्सायाम् –
(The opponent of Vedānta) concludes — ‘receiving’ does not take place,

3.3.26 L.20 ✅ अश्रवणादसन्निपातः,
As it is not stated by the Scriptures,

3.3.26 L.21 ✅ विद्यान्तरगोचरत्वाच्च
And also because, when the Scriptures declare so in another branch,

3.3.26 L.22 ✅ शाखान्तरीयस्य श्रवणस्य।
It has reference to another Vidyā (of qualified Brahman viz. of Sa-guṇa-Brahma-Vidyā).

3.3.26 L.23 ✅ अपि च आत्मकर्तृकं सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्हानम्;
Besides, the ‘discarding’ of good and evil deeds is made by one person himself,

3.3.26 L.24 ✅ परकर्तृकं तु उपायनम्;
While the ‘receiving’ is done by another,

3.3.26 L.25 ✅ तयोः असत्यावश्यकभावे,
And when a connection between such ‘discarding’ (by one) and ‘receiving’ (by another) is not necessarily inevitable,

3.3.26 L.26 ✅ कथं हानेनोपायनमाक्षिप्येत?
Why should ‘discarding’ necessarily imply the ‘receiving’ also?

3.3.26 L.27 ✅ तस्मादसन्निपातो हानावुपायनस्येति॥
Therefore, ‘receiving’ does not take place wherever ‘discarding’ only is present.

3.3.26 L.28 ✅ अस्यां प्राप्तौ पठति – हानाविति।
That being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), it is recited “even when discarding (alone is mentioned, receiving has to be understood)”.

3.3.26 L.29 ✅ हानौ तु एतस्यां केवलायामपि श्रूयमाणायाम्
Even when the Scriptures speak only of ‘discarding’,

3.3.26 L.30 ✅ उपायनं सन्निपतितुमर्हति;
‘Receiving’ also deserves to be implied,

3.3.26 L.31 ✅ तच्छेषत्वात् –
Because, it is complementary to ‘discarding’,

3.3.26 L.32 ✅ हान-शब्दशेषो हि उपायनशब्दः समधिगतः कौषीतकिरहस्ये;
And in the Kauṣītaki-Rahasya, the word ‘receiving’ is understood to be complementary to the word ‘discarding’.

3.3.26 L.33 ✅ तस्मादन्यत्र केवलहानश्रवणेऽप्युपायनानुवृत्तिः।
Therefore, in other places also, even when the Scriptures speak merely of ‘discarding’, the word ‘receiving’ necessarily follows (after it).

3.3.26 L.34 ✅ यदुक्तम् –
With regard to the argument (of the opponent of Vedānta)

3.3.26 L.35 ✅ अश्रवणात्
That inasmuch as the Scriptures are silent about it,

3.3.26 L.36 ✅ विद्यान्तरगोचरत्वात्
And as that (i.e. receiving) is observed in some other Vidyās,

3.3.26 L.37 ✅ अनावश्यकत्वाच्च
And (as between discarding and receiving) there is no necessarily inevitable relation,

3.3.26 L.38 ✅ असन्निपात इति,
It is not necessarily implied:

3.3.26 L.39 ✅ तदुच्यते –
It is replied —

3.3.26 L.40 ✅ भवेदेषा व्यवस्थोक्तिः,
This sort of restricting a thing only to the place wherein it is detailed (i.e. that it thus has its Vyavasthā) would be justified,

3.3.26 L.41 ✅ यद्यनुष्ठेयं किञ्चिदन्यत्र श्रुतम्
Where, anything which has to be done (i.e. some action), is mentioned in one place (in the Scriptures)

3.3.26 L.42 ✅ अन्यत्र निनीष्येत;
And it is sought to be carried over (i.e. made applicable) in some other place,

3.3.26 L.43 ✅ न त्विह हानमुपायनं वा अनुष्ठेयत्वेन सङ्कीर्त्यते;
But here, neither the ‘discarding’ nor the ‘receiving’ is mentioned as something to be performed (as an act),

3.3.26 L.44 ✅ विद्यास्तुत्यर्थं तु अनयोः सङ्कीर्तनम् –
But they are mentioned only in glorification of the Vidyā.

3.3.26 L.45 ✅ इत्थं महाभागा विद्या,
Such indeed (it is meant) is the blessedness of Vidyā,

3.3.26 L.46 ✅ यत्सामर्थ्यादस्य विदुषः सुकृतदुष्कृते संसारकारणभूते विधूयेते,
That it is through its power, that such wise-man’s good or evil deeds, which constitute the cause of his transmigratory existence (as a man, living in this world), are shaken off

3.3.26 L.47 ✅ ते च अस्य सुहृद्दुर्हृत्सु निविशेते इति;
And they then enter into his friends and foes respectively.

3.3.26 L.48 ✅ स्तुत्यर्थे च अस्मिन्संकीर्तने,
The recital being thus, for glorification,

3.3.26 L.49 ✅ हानानन्तरभावित्वेनोपायनस्य,
And as ‘receiving’ takes place only after ‘discarding’,

3.3.26 L.50 ✅ क्वचिच्छ्रुतत्वात् अन्यत्रापि हानश्रुतावुपायनानुवृत्तिं मन्यते –
It is considered that wherever there is a mention of ‘discarding’ only in the Scriptures, ‘receiving’ inevitably follows in its wake,

3.3.26 L.51 ✅ स्तुतिप्रकर्ष-लाभाय।
And thus the best glorification of Vidyā is secured.

3.3.26 L.52 ✅ प्रसिद्धा च अर्थवादान्तरापेक्षा अर्थवादान्तरप्रवृत्तिः –
It is well-known that depending on one explanatory passage (Artha-vāda) another explanatory passage is brought into operation,

3.3.26 L.53 ✅ ‘एकविंशो वा इतोऽसावादित्यः’ (ChanU.2.10.5) इत्येवमादिषु।
As for instance in the case of the passage — “Beginning with this (world), the Sun (Āditya-Loka) is the twenty-first” (ChanU.2.10.5) etc.

3.3.26 L.54 ✅ कथं हि इह एकविंशता आदित्यस्याभिधीयेत,
How ever can we speak of the Sun (Āditya-Loka) as being the twenty-first here,

3.3.26 L.55 ✅ अनपेक्ष्यमाणेऽर्थवादान्तरे –
Except only by the application of another explanatory passage as follows —

3.3.26 L.56 ✅ ‘द्वादश मासाः पञ्चर्तवस्त्रय इमे लोका असावादित्य एकविंशः’ इत्यस्मिन्।
“There are twelve months, five seasons, three worlds, and the Sun which is the twenty-first” (ChanU.2.10.5)?

3.3.26 L.57 ✅ तथा ‘त्रिष्टुभौ भवतः सेन्द्रियत्वाय’ इत्येवमादिवादेषु
Similarly, in the passage, viz. “The two ‘Tri-ṣṭubh’ metres are for the purpose of equipment with the sense-organs”,

3.3.26 L.58 ✅ ‘इन्द्रियं वै त्रिष्टुप्’ इत्येवमाद्यर्थवादान्तरापेक्षा दृश्यते।
The necessity of another explanatory passage, viz. “Tri-ṣṭubh verily is the sense-organ”, is evident.

3.3.26 L.59 ✅ विद्यास्तुत्यर्थत्वाच्च अस्योपायनवादस्य,
The question about ‘receiving' being thus merely for the glorification of Vidyā,

3.3.26 L.60 ✅ कथमन्यदीये सुकृतदुष्कृते अन्यैरुपेयेते इति
The doubt as to how the good and bad deeds of one (man) can possibly be received by another,

3.3.26 L.61 ✅ नातीवाभिनिवेष्टव्यम्।
May not be needlessly emphasized and elaborated upon.

3.3.26 L.62 ✅ उपायनशब्दशेषत्वादिति च शब्द-शब्दं समुच्चारयन्
The reference (by the Sūtra-kāra) to the word ‘word’ (Śabda) in the Sūtra “The ‘receiving’ is complementary to the Scriptural word (discarding)”,

3.3.26 L.63 ✅ स्तुत्यर्थामेव हानावुपायनानुवृत्तिं सूचयति;
Suggests that the word ‘receiving’ which necessarily follows the word ‘discarding’ should be understood to be just for the glorification (of the Vidyā).

3.3.26 L.64 ✅ गुणोपसंहारविवक्षायां हि
Had the Sūtra-kāra intended to state that there should be a combination of subsidiary matters,

3.3.26 L.65 ✅ उपायनार्थस्यैव हानावनुवृत्तिं ब्रूयात्।
He would have merely spoken of ‘a thing to be received’ as a thing to be taken for granted after ‘the thing to be discarded’ is discarded.

3.3.26 L.66 ✅ तस्मात् गुणोपसंहारविचार-प्रसङ्गेन
स्तुत्युपसंहार-प्रदर्शनार्थमिदं सूत्रम्।
This Sūtra is meant for demonstrating the combination of glorifications only
Incidentally to his desire to consider the combination of attributes.

3.3.26 L.67 ✅ कुशाच्छन्दस्तुत्युपगानवदिति उपमोपादानम्;
The sentence “Like Kuśas (small wooden sticks for counting the number of hymns sung by the Udgātṛ), metres, glorification, and chanting (of the words in the hymns)” is by way of employing a simile.

3.3.26 L.68 ✅ तद्यथा – भाल्लविनाम् ‘कुशा वानस्पत्याः स्थ ता मा पात’ इत्येतस्मिन्निगमे
When in the Mantra of the Bhāllavīs, viz. “Oh Kuśas, you are fashioned from trees, do you protect me”,

3.3.26 L.69 ✅ कुशानामविशेषेण वनस्पतियोनित्वश्रवणे,
The Scriptures (only in a general way) mention that Kuśas are fashioned out of trees,

3.3.26 L.70 ✅ शाट्यायनिनाम् ‘औदुम्बराः’ इति विशेषवचनात्
And as there is a special mention by the Śāṭyāyanins, that they are made of an Udumbara tree,

3.3.26 L.71 ✅ औदुम्बर्यः कुशा आश्रीयन्ते;
We know that they are so made from Udumbara wood.

3.3.26 L.72 ✅ यथा च क्वचित् देवासुरच्छन्दसामविशेषेण पौर्वापर्य-प्रसङ्गे,
Or when, in the absence of any special rule, the predicament is as to which metres as between God’s metres and Asura’s metres are recited first and which (are recited) afterwards,

3.3.26 L.73 ✅ देवच्छन्दांसि पूर्वाणीति पैङ्ग्याम्नानात् प्रतीयते;
It is understood from the Scriptural statement of the Paiṅgīs, viz. “God’s metres come first”, that God’s metres have such precedence.

3.3.26 L.74 ✅ यथा च षोडशिस्तोत्रे केषाञ्चित्कालाविशेष-प्राप्तौ,
Again when in the absence of any special direction in the case of some (followers of some branch) the question arises as to when the Ṣo-ḍaśi-Stotra (Panegyric on the Ṣo-ḍaśi cup used in sacrifices for drinking Soma) should be sung,

3.3.26 L.75 ✅ समयाध्युषिते सूर्ये’ इत्यार्चश्रुतेः कालविशेष-प्रतिपत्तिः;
It is from the Scriptural statement in the Ṛg-Veda, viz. “About the time of Sun-rise”, that the particular time (for such singing) is determined.

3.3.26 L.76 ✅ यथैव च अविशेषेणोपगानं केचित्समामनन्ति विशेषेण भाल्लविनः –
Or just as when some (Scriptural statements) speak of the chanting (of hymns) in a general way, thus — ‘The Ṛtvijaḥ sing’, while the Bhāllavins recite a special particular (viz. that the Adhvaryus do not sing), it is that (i.e. the special recital of the Bhāllavins) that determines, as to who amongst the sacrificial priests are to sing and who are not.

3.3.26 L.77 ✅ यथा एतेषु कुशादिषु श्रुत्यन्तरगत-विशेषान्वयः,
The meaning is, that just as in the case of Kuśas etc., they have a connection with a special particular in another Scriptural statement,

3.3.26 L.78 ✅ एवं हानावप्युपायनान्वय इत्यर्थः।
Similarly ‘discarding’ also has a connection with ‘receiving’,

3.3.26 L.79 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरकृतं हि विशेषं श्रुत्यन्तरेऽनभ्युपगच्छतः
And if one were not to accept the special rule in a particular Scriptural statement, as being applicable in the case of another Scriptural statement,

3.3.26 L.80 ✅ सर्वत्रैव विकल्पः स्यात्;
An ‘option’ would occur everywhere.

3.3.26 L.81 ✅ स च अन्याय्यः सत्यां गतौ;
But wherever it is possible (to determine a thing positively), it is not logical to have recourse to an ‘option’.

3.3.26 L.82 ✅ तदुक्तं द्वादशलक्षण्याम् –
All this has already been explained in the Dvā-daśa-lakṣaṇī (of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā 10.8.15), thus —

3.3.26 L.83 ✅ ‘अपि तु वाक्यशेषत्वादितरपर्युदासः स्यात्प्रतिषेधे विकल्पः स्यात्’ इति
“What is meant is the exclusion of the other in consistence with what is stated in the complementary portion for it will lead to an option if the meaning is simply contradictory.” [Trans. from Panoli].

3.3.26 L.84 ✅ अथवा एतास्वेव विधूननश्रुतिषु
Or else, these Scriptural statements about this ‘shaking off (by a person who has attained knowledge)’

3.3.26 L.85 ✅ एतेन सूत्रेण एतच्चिन्तयितव्यम् –
By this Sūtra, should be construed in the following way.

3.3.26 L.86 ✅ किमनेन विधूनन-वचनेन सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्हानम् अभिधीयते,
(The question is) whether this statement about ‘shaking off’ purports to speak about the ‘shaking off’ i.e. discarding of the good or evil (deeds),

3.3.26 L.87 ✅ किं वा अर्थान्तरमिति।
Or whether it purports to speak of some other thing.

3.3.26 L.88 ✅ तत्र च एवं प्रापयितव्यम् –
With regard to this, it can be stated (as on behalf of the opponent of Vedānta) thus —

3.3.26 L.89 ✅ न हानं विधूननमभिधीयते,
‘Discarding’ cannot mean ‘Shaking off’,

3.3.26 L.90 ✅ ‘धूञ्‌ कम्पने’ इति स्मरणात्,
Because according to Smṛti, the root ‘Dhu’ (धुञ्) means ‘fluttering’,

3.3.26 L.91 ✅ ‘दोधूयन्ते ध्वजाग्राणि’ इति च
वायुना चाल्यमानेषु ध्वजाग्रेषु प्रयोगदर्शनात्;
As is seen from the use of the verb, in the case of the movement of the tips of a flag in the wind,
In the passage “The tips of the flag are fluttering”.

3.3.26 L.92 ✅ तस्मात् चालनं विधूननमभिधीयते;
Thereafter, having stated (the further argument of the opponent of Vedānta),

3.3.26 L.93 ✅ चालनं तु सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः कञ्चित्कालं फलप्रतिबन्धनात् –
Viz. that the shaking off of the good and evil deeds is caused by the obstruction to their fruition for some time,

3.3.26 L.94 ✅ इत्येवं प्रापय्य, प्रतिवक्तव्यम् –
It should be refuted (by the Vedāntin) as follows:

3.3.26 L.95 ✅ हानावेव एष विधूनन-शब्दो वर्तितुमर्हति,
The word fluttering should be understood to be synonymous with the word ‘discarding’,

3.3.26 L.96 ✅ उपायनशब्द-शेषत्वात्;
Because the word ‘receiving’ is complementary to it.

3.3.26 L.97 ✅ न हि परपरिग्रहभूतयोः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः अप्रहीणयोः परैरुपायनं सम्भवति;
The ‘receiving’, of good or evil deeds which belong to one but are not discarded by him, by another, is not possible.

3.3.26 L.98 ✅ यद्यपि इदं परकीययोः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः परैरुपायनं न आञ्जसं सम्भाव्यते,
And even if the ‘receiving’ of the good or evil deeds of one by another is not properly possible,

3.3.26 L.99 ✅ तथापि तत्सङ्कीर्तनात्तावत्
Yet because it has been so stated (by the Scriptures)

3.3.26 L.100 ✅ तदानुगुण्येन
And also with a view to the following of that meaning,

3.3.26 L.101 ✅ हानमेव विधूननं नामेति निर्णेतुं शक्यते।
It is possible to determine, that discarding indeed is but ‘fluttering’ only.

3.3.26 L.102 ✅ क्वचिदपि च इदं विधूननसन्निधावुपायनं श्रूयमाणं
Now the Scriptural statement about ‘receiving’ in proximity to ‘shaking off’ occurs in a particular place only (viz. the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad),

3.3.26 L.103 ✅ कुशाच्छन्दस्तुत्युपगानवत्
Still — as in the case of Kuśas, metres, glorification, and chanting —

3.3.26 L.104 ✅ विधूननश्रुत्या सर्वत्रापेक्ष्यमाणं सार्वत्रिकं
Its application is induced in the other cases, on account of the Scriptural statement about ‘shaking off’,

3.3.26 L.105 ✅ निर्णयकारणं सम्पद्यते।
And it furnishes itself as a criterion for determining (the meaning).

3.3.26 L.106 ✅ न च चालनं ध्वजाग्रवत् सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्मुख्यं सम्भवति,
Because, the fluttering of good or evil deeds in the principal sense of the term — like the fluttering of the tips of a flag — is not possible,

3.3.26 L.107 ✅ अद्रव्यत्वात्।
Inasmuch as it is not a material substance (Dravya).

3.3.26 L.108 ✅ अश्वश्च रोमाणि विधून्वानः त्यजन् रजः सहैव तेन रोमाण्यपि जीर्णानि शातयति –
The horse, while he throws off the dust as he shakes his hair, drops his hair also (along with the dust)

3.3.26 L.109 ✅ ‘अश्व इव रोमाणि विधूय पापम्’ (ChanU.8.13.1) इति च ब्राह्मणम्;
And the Scriptural Brāhmaṇa passage is — “Having shaken off demerit, even as a horse shakes off his hair”.

3.3.26 L.110 ✅ अनेकार्थत्वाभ्युपगमाच्च धातूनां न स्मरणविरोधः।
As verbs often have many meanings, no contradiction with the Smṛti (Smaraṇa-virodhaḥ) is involved.

3.3.26 L.111 ✅ तदुक्तमिति व्याख्यातम्॥२६॥
The passage “This has been stated” (in the Sūtra) has already been explained. — 26.

– 115. Hānya-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.27 Su..28

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
साम्पराये तर्तव्याभावात्तथा ह्यन्ये॥३.३.२७॥
Sāmparāye tartavyābhāvāt tathā hy anye.

Sāmparāye: at the time of death; Tartavya-abhāvāt: there being nothing to be attained (Taritavya); Tathā: in this way, so; Hi: because, for; Anye: others.

🔗 Others (i.e. other texts) also (say) the same. — 3.3.27.

3.3.27 L.1 ✅ देवयानेन पथा पर्यङ्कस्थं ब्रह्म अभिप्रस्थितस्य
व्यध्वनि सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्वियोगं कौषीतकिनः पर्यङ्कविद्यायाम् आमनन्ति –
The Kauṣitakins, in the Paryaṅka-Vidyā (the Lore of the Couch), speak about the separation between a man and his good or evil deeds,
When he is midway to Brahman seated on the couch,

3.3.27 L.2 ✅ ‘स एतं देवयानं पन्थानमासाद्याग्निलोकमागच्छति’ (कौ. उ. १-३) इत्युपक्रम्य,
Beginning with “Having arrived at the Deva-yāna path he reaches the Agni-world” (KausU. 1.3),

3.3.27 L.3 ✅ ‘स आगच्छति विराजं नदीं तां मनसैवात्येति तत्सुकृतदुष्कृते विधूनुते’ (कौ. उ. १-४) इति।
And then declaring — “He reaches the river Virajā which he crosses by only his mind, shakes off his good and evil deeds” (KausU. 1.4).

3.3.27 L.4 ✅ तत् किं यथाश्रुतं व्यध्वन्येव वियोगवचनं प्रतिपत्तव्यम्, आहोस्वित् आदावेव देहादपसर्पणे – इति विचारणायाम्,
Now when the question is, whether as stated in the Scriptures this separation (between himself and his deeds) should, as stated by the Scriptures, be understood as taking place during the journey,
Or at the time of going away from the body,

3.3.27 L.5 ✅ श्रुतिप्रामाण्यात् यथाश्रुति प्रतिपत्तिप्रसक्तौ, पठति –
And the conclusion of the opponent of Vedānta being, that as the Scriptures are authoritative, it is necessary to understand it as taking place according to the Scriptural statement, (the Sūtra-kāra) says —

3.3.27 L.6 ✅ साम्पराय इति।
“At the time of going out of the body (i.e. while dying)”.

3.3.27 L.7 ✅ साम्पराये गमन एव देहादपसर्पणे,
इदं विद्यासामर्थ्यात् सुकृतदुष्कृतहानं भवति –
इति प्रतिजानीते;
It is understood that
It is while attaining the future life, i.e. while departing from or leaving the body,
That, as a result of the power of knowledge, this discarding of good or evil deeds takes place.

3.3.27 L.8 ✅ हेतुं च आचष्टे –
He states the cause as well,

3.3.27 L.9 ✅ तर्तव्याभावादिति;
Viz. that because there is nothing to be attained or overcome (by such person, on the way).

3.3.27 L.10 ✅ न हि विदुषः सम्परेतस्य विद्यया ब्रह्म संप्रेप्सतः अन्तराले
The wise man who has started upon giving up his body i.e. who is dying and attaining Brahman as a result of his knowledge,

3.3.27 L.11 ✅ सुकृतदुष्कृताभ्यां किञ्चित्प्राप्तव्यमस्ति,
Has nothing to gain either from his good or evil deeds, in between,

3.3.27 L.12 ✅ यदर्थं कतिचित्क्षणानक्षीणे ते कल्पेयाताम्।
So that it should have to be imagined that they (i.e. good or bad deeds) subsist undestroyed for some moments (after death supervenes).

3.3.27 L.13 ✅ विद्याविरुद्धफलत्वाच्च
Besides, inasmuch as good or evil deeds have a fruit which is antagonistic to (the fruit of) Vidyā,

3.3.27 L.14 ✅ विद्यासामर्थ्येन तयोः क्षयः;
And their destruction takes place through the power of Vidyā,

3.3.27 L.15 ✅ स च यदैव विद्या फलाभिमुखी तदैव भवितुमर्हति।
It deserves to occur just when the Vidyā is about to fructify.

3.3.27 L.16 ✅ तस्मात् प्रागेव सन् अयं सुकृतदुष्कृतक्षयः पश्चात्पठ्यते।
Therefore, (it must be understood) that even though this destruction of good or evil deeds occurs earlier, it is only stated (here) later on.

3.3.27 L.17 ✅ तथा हि अन्येऽपि शाखिनः ताण्डिनः शाट्यायनिनश्च
Even so, do the followers of other branches, such as the Tāṇḍins and Śāṭyāyanins,

3.3.27 L.18 ✅ प्रागवस्थायामेव सुकृतदुष्कृतहानम् आमनन्ति –
Speak about this discarding of good or evil deeds during an earlier stage, thus —

3.3.27 L.19 ✅ ‘अश्व इव रोमाणि विधूय पापम्’ (ChanU.8.13.1) इति,
“Having shaken off demerit even as a horse shakes off his hair” (ChanU.8.13.1)

3.3.27 L.20 ✅ ‘तस्य पुत्रा दायमुपयन्ति सुहृदः साधुकृत्यां द्विषन्तः पापकृत्याम्’ इति च॥२७॥
And “His sons receive his property, his friends his good deeds, his foes his evil deeds”. — 27.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
छन्दत उभयाविरोधात्॥३.३.२८॥
Chandata ubhayāvirodhāt.

Chandatah: according to his liking; Ubhaya-avirodhāt: on account of there being harmony between the two. (Ubhaya: of either; A-virodhāt: there being no contradiction.)

🔗 (As the cause of the destruction of good and evil deeds, is the attempt which a person makes by properly controlled effort, according to rules) and as such an attempt according to his own desire is not possible, (while on the way, therefore, that such destruction takes place just about the time of death, is reasonably sustainable), because considered either way, there is no contradiction. — 3.3.28.

3.3.28 L.1 ✅ यदि च देहादपसृप्तस्य देवयानेन पथा प्रस्थितस्य
अर्धपथे सुकृतदुष्कृतक्षयोऽभ्युपगम्येत,
If it be understood in the case of one who has gone out of the body and has started on the Deva-yāna path,
That the destruction of the good and evil deeds takes place midway,

3.3.28 L.2 ✅ ततः पतिते देहे यमनियम-विद्याभ्यासात्मकस्य सुकृतदुष्कृतक्षय-हेतोः पुरुषयत्नस्य इच्छातोऽनुष्ठानानुपपत्तेः
अनुपपत्तिरेव तद्धेतुकस्य सुकृतदुष्कृतक्षयस्य स्यात्; तस्मात् पूर्वमेव साधकावस्थायां छन्दतोऽनुष्ठानं तस्य स्यात्,
Then the making of a wilful effort, of the nature of self-restraint, regulated conduct and the pursuit of knowledge by a man, not being reasonably sustainable while on the way, after the body has fallen (i.e. after the Self has gone out of it), such destruction of the good and evil deeds, of which such wilful effort is the cause, midway, would not be reasonably sustainable.
Now, as a man’s making such wilful effort is possible only earlier, while he is living and while he is in the stage of an aspirant, and as this discarding of the good and evil deeds, depends upon such previous wilful effort,

3.3.28 L.3 ✅ तत्पूर्वकं च सुकृतदुष्कृतहानम् – इति द्रष्टव्यम्;
It should be understood that such discarding of good and evil deeds due to such wilful effort is necessarily before death.

3.3.28 L.4 ✅ एवं निमित्तनैमित्तिकयोः
It is only thus that the relation of the cause (i.e. wilful effort) and its effect (i.e. destruction),

3.3.28 L.5 ✅ पपत्तिः ताण्डिशाट्यायनिश्रुत्योश्च सङ्गतिरिति॥२८॥
And the reconcilement of the Scriptural passages of the Tāṇḍins and the Śāṭyāyanins, become reasonably sustainable. — 28.

– 116. Sāmparāya-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.29 Su..30

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
गतेरर्थवत्त्वमुभयथाऽन्यथा हि विरोधः॥३.३.२९॥
Gater arthavattvam ubhayathā'nyathā hi virodhaḥ.

Gateḥ: of the journey of the soul (after death), along the path of the gods; Arthavatvam: utility; Ubhayathā: in two ways; Anyathā: otherwise; Hi: for, certainly; Virodhaḥ: contradiction.

🔗 Transition or evolving (Gati) must be understood to have a meaning in two ways (i.e. it must be interpreted in two ways), otherwise a contradiction (would take place). — 3.3.29.

3.3.29 L.1 ✅ क्वचित् पुण्यपापापहान-सन्निधौ देवयानः पन्थाः श्रूयते,
The Scriptures, in some places (where they refer to the Vidyā of qualified Brahman) mention the Deva-yāna path, in proximity to the discarding of merit and demerit,

3.3.29 L.2 ✅ क्वचिन्न;
And do not do so in others (where the Vidyās of unqualified Brahman are mentioned).

3.3.29 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
So a doubt here arises

3.3.29 L.4 ✅ किं हानावविशेषेणैव देवयानः पन्थाः सन्निपतेत्,
As to whether, the Deva-yāna path becomes available regularly after the discarding of merit and demerit,

3.3.29 L.5 ✅ उत विभागेन
Or whether it becomes available in parts (Vibhāgena)

3.3.29 L.6 ✅ क्वचित्सन्निपतेत् क्वचिन्नेति।
I.e. becomes available in some cases and does not become available in other cases.

3.3.29 L.7 ✅ यथा तावत् हानावविशेषेणैव उपायनानुवृत्तिः उक्ता
The conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta) being, that just as the Scriptures speak of ‘receiving’ as following regularly after ‘discarding’ (of the good and evil deeds),

3.3.29 L.8 ✅ एवं देवयानानुवृत्तिरपि भवितुमर्हतीति
Even so, the Deva-yāna Path also, deserves to be available (after such discarding), regularly,

3.3.29 L.9 ✅ अस्यां प्राप्तौ, आचक्ष्महे – गतेः देवयानस्य पथः, अर्थवत्त्वम्, उभयथा विभागेन भवितुमर्हति –
(We reply) — the availability of the use of the Deva-yāna Path deserves to be considered in two ways,

3.3.29 L.10 ✅ क्वचिदर्थवती गतिः क्वचिन्नेति;
I.e. in some cases it is available, and in some other cases it is not,

3.3.29 L.11 ✅ न अविशेषेण।
And it does not follow regularly,

3.3.29 L.12 ✅ अन्यथा हि अविशेषेणैव एतस्यां गतावङ्गीक्रियमाणायां विरोधः स्यात् –
Because, if it were to be accepted as being regularly available, a contradiction would take place.

3.3.29 L.13 ✅ ‘पुण्यपापे विधूय निरञ्जनः परमं साम्यमुपैति’ (MunU.3.1.3) इत्यस्यां श्रुतौ
In Scriptural statements, such as “Having discarded merit and demerit, (the Self) uncontaminated by any impurity, attains likeness i.e. unity with the transcendent (Brahman)” (MunU.3.1.3),

3.3.29 L.14 ✅ देशान्तरप्रापणी गतिर्विरुध्येत;
Any transition or evolution which requires one to arrive at one place from another (i.e. implies movement), would be contradictory.

3.3.29 L.15 ✅ कथं हि निरञ्जनोऽगन्ता देशान्तरं गच्छेत्;
How can any one who is uncontaminated by any impurity (Nirañjanaḥ), and who does not go anywhere (Agantā), be understood to go from one place to another?

3.3.29 L.16 ✅ गन्तव्यं च परमं साम्यं
The likeness i.e. highest unity with the transcendent (Brahman) is what is to be attained,

3.3.29 L.17 ✅ न देशान्तरप्राप्त्यायत्तम् –
And it does not depend upon starting (from one place) and reaching any other place,

3.3.29 L.18 ✅ इत्यानर्थक्यमेवात्र गतेर्मन्यामहे॥२९॥
And therefore, we are of opinion, that under such circumstances a journey (along the Deva-yāna Path) is meaningless. – 29.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उपपन्नस्तल्लक्षणार्थोपलब्धेर्लोकवत्॥३.३.३०॥
Upapannas tal-lakṣaṇārthopalabdherlokavat.

Upapannaḥ: is reasonable; Tal-lakṣaṇa-artha-upalabdheḥ: for the characteristics which render such journey possible are seen; Lokavat: as is seen in the world, as is the ordinary experience. (Tat: that; Lakṣaṇa: mark, characteristic features; Artha: object; Upalabdheḥ: being known, on account of the obtaining.)

🔗 This availability (of the twofold division into justification for or against a journey along the Deva-yāna Path) is reasonably sustainable, because things which constitute the cause of such journey along such a path, are discernible. It is similar to what is experienced in the ordinary world. — 3.3.30.

3.3.30 L.1 ✅ उपपन्नश्चायम् उभयथाभावः – क्वचिदर्थवती गतिः क्वचिन्नेति;
This possibility either way, viz. that this journey along the Deva-yāna Path has meaning i.e. justification in one way and not so in another, is reasonably sustainable,

3.3.30 L.2 ✅ तल्लक्षणार्थोपलब्धेः –
Because, things which constitute the cause of such a journey, are to be seen.

3.3.30 L.3 ✅ गतिकारणभूतोऽर्थः पर्यङ्कविद्यादिषु सगुणेषु उपासनेषु उपलभ्यते;
That such a journey has meaning i.e. justification, is discernible in the case of meditations on qualified Brahman as in the Paryaṅka-Vidyā,

3.3.30 L.4 ✅ तत्र हि पर्यङ्कारोहणम्,
Wherein ‘ascending the couch,

3.3.30 L.5 ✅ पर्यङ्कस्थेन ब्रह्मणा सह संवदनम्,
Having conversation with Brahman which is seated on the couch,

3.3.30 L.6 ✅ विशिष्टगन्धादि-प्राप्तिश्च – इत्येवमादि बहु
And the experiencing of particular special smells etc.,

3.3.30 L.7 ✅ देशान्तरप्राप्त्यायत्तं फलं श्रूयते; तत्र अर्थवती गतिः;
Which depend upon (the Jīva-Self) arriving at a different place’ are mentioned in the Scriptures.

3.3.30 L.8 ✅ न तु सम्यग्दर्शने तल्लक्षणार्थोपलब्धिरस्ति;
Experience of any such nature, however, is absent in the case of perfect knowledge.

3.3.30 L.9 ✅ न हि
आत्मैकत्वदर्शिनाम्
आप्तकामानाम्
इहैव दग्धाशेषक्लेश-बीजानाम्
आरब्धभोगकर्माशयक्षपण-व्यतिरेकेण अपेक्षितव्यं किञ्चिदस्ति;
In the case of those, who have understood that there is perfect unity of the Jīva-Self (with Brahman)
And who have had all their desires already fulfilled,
And the seeds of whose sufferings have all been completely burnt out here in this world,
And who do not have to expect anything else but the destruction of the whole quantum of actions,

3.3.30 L.10 ✅ तत्र अनर्थिका गतिः।
The experiencing of the fruits of which has already started, such journey or movement (along the Deva-yāna Path) is meaningless.

3.3.30 L.11 ✅ लोकवच्च एष विभागो द्रष्टव्यः –
A division in this manner (into the justification or otherwise for a journey) is just similar to what is seen in the ordinary world.

3.3.30 L.12 ✅ यथा लोके ग्रामप्राप्तौ देशान्तरप्रापणः पन्था अपेक्ष्यते,
Just as in the ordinary world, a road which takes you from one place to another, is necessary for reaching another city,

3.3.30 L.13 ✅ न आरोग्य-प्राप्तौ,
But it is not necessary in the case of the attainment of good health,

3.3.30 L.14 ✅ एवमिहापीति।
Even so it is, in this case.

3.3.30 L.15 ✅ भूयश्च एनं विभागं चतुर्थाध्याये निपुणतरम् उपपादयिष्यामः॥३०॥
We will again propound the subject of the division (of the justification or otherwise for a journey along the Deva-yāna Path) with greater clarity in the fourth Adhyāya. — 30.

– 117. Gater-arthavattva-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनियमः सर्वासामविरोधः शब्दानुमानाभ्याम्॥३.३.३१॥
Aniyamaḥ sarvāsām avirodhaḥ śabdānumānābhyām.

A-niyamaḥ: (there is) no restriction; Sarvāsām: of all; Avirodhaḥ: there is no contradiction; Śabda-anumānābhyām: as is seen from Śruti and Smṛti. (Śabdaḥ: the word, i.e., the revealed scripture or Śruti; Anumāna: inference or Smṛti.)

🔗 There is absence of any rule (restricting the journey along the Deva-yāna Path, only to those Vidyās in which it is mentioned), and it is available in all Vidyās (about qualified Brahman). No contradiction is involved according to the Scriptures and Smṛtis. — 3.3.31.

3.3.31 L.1 ✅ सगुणासु विद्यासु गतिरर्थवती,
That a journey along the Deva-yāna Path is appropriate in Vidyās dealing with qualified Brahman

3.3.31 L.2 ✅ न निर्गुणायां परमात्म-विद्यायाम् – इत्युक्तम्;
But not in Vidyās dealing with the unqualified Highest Self, has been stated already.

3.3.31 L.3 ✅ सगुणास्वपि विद्यासु
But even in the case of Vidyās dealing with qualified Brahman,

3.3.31 L.4 ✅ कासुचिद्गतिः श्रूयते –
The Scriptures refer to such journey (along the Deva-yāna Path) in some Vidyās only,

3.3.31 L.5 ✅ यथा पर्यङ्क-विद्यायाम् उपकोसल-विद्यायां पञ्चाग्नि-विद्यायां दहर-विद्यायामिति;
Such as the Paryaṅka-Vidyā, the Upakosala-Vidyā, the Pañcāgni-Vidyā and the Dahara-Vidyā,

3.3.31 L.6 ✅ न अन्यासु – यथा मधु-विद्यायां शाण्डिल्य-विद्यायां षोडशकल-विद्यायां वैश्वानर-विद्यायामिति।
But not in others, such as the Madhu-Vidyā, the Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā, the Ṣoḍaśa-kala-Vidyā and the Vaiśvā-nara-Vidyā.

3.3.31 L.7 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now, with regard to this, a doubt arises,

3.3.31 L.8 ✅ किं यास्वेषा गतिः श्रूयते, तास्वेव नियम्येत;
Whether this journey (along the Deva-yāna Path) is restricted to only those Vidyās in which it is mentioned by the Scriptures,

3.3.31 L.9 ✅ उत अनियमेन सर्वाभिरेव एवंजातीयकाभिः विद्याभिः अभिसम्बध्येतेति।
Or whether, it relates to all the Vidyās of such kind, irrespective of any such restrictive rule.

3.3.31 L.10 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta)?

3.3.31 L.11 ✅ नियम इति; यत्रैव श्रूयते, तत्रैव भवितुमर्हति,
It is (restricted), that such journey (along the Deva-yāna Path) as a rule occurs only where it is mentioned,

3.3.31 L.12 ✅ प्रकरणस्य नियामकत्वात्;
Because, the chapter (dealing with that subject) regulates it.

3.3.31 L.13 ✅ यद्यन्यत्र अश्रूयमाणापि गतिः विद्यान्तरं गच्छेत्,
If such journey (along the Deva-yāna Path) mentioned by the Scriptures in one Vidyā were to be extended to any other Vidyā,

3.3.31 L.14 ✅ श्रुत्यादीनां प्रामाण्यं हीयेत,
The authoritativeness of the Scriptures would thus be stultified,

3.3.31 L.15 ✅ सर्वस्य सर्वार्थत्वप्रसङ्गात्।
Because, in that case, there would be the predicament, that everything would mean everything else.

3.3.31 L.16 ✅ अपि च अर्चिरादिका एकैव गतिः
Besides, the journey along “the light (Jyotis) etc.” of the Deva-yāna Path,

3.3.31 L.17 ✅ उपकोसलविद्यायां
Which is mentioned by the Scriptures in the Upakosala-Vidyā

3.3.31 L.18 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्यायां च तुल्यवत्पठ्यते;
Is also mentioned in the Pañcāgni-Vidyā,

3.3.31 L.19 ✅ तत् सर्वार्थत्वेऽनर्थकं पुनर्वचनं स्यात्।
And such repetition (of the mention of a journey along the Deva-yāna Path in the Pañcāgni-Vidyā) would be meaningless if such journey were to be applicable to all Vidyās.

3.3.31 L.20 ✅ तस्मान्नियम
Therefore, such journey is restricted (to those Vidyās only where it is specifically mentioned).

3.3.31 L.21 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते पठति –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta),

3.3.31 L.22 ✅ अनियम इति।
The Sūtra-kāra says: — The journey (along the Deva-yāna Path) is not so restricted.

3.3.31 L.23 ✅ सर्वासामेव अभ्युदयप्राप्ति-फलानां सगुणानां विद्यानाम् अविशेषेण एषा देवयानाख्या गतिर्भवितुमर्हति।
This journey [called Deva-yāna] deserves to be applicable to all Vidyās dealing with qualified Brahman, which have the attainment of the world of Brahman (Brahma-Loka) as their fruit.

3.3.31 L.24 ✅ ननु अनियमाभ्युपगमे प्रकरण-विरोध उक्तः –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) it has been stated (by me), that if it were to be understood, that there is no such restrictive rule, it would contradict the chapter (dealing with these Vidyās).

3.3.31 L.25 ✅ नैषोऽस्ति विरोधः;
(We reply) — The meaning is, that there is no such contradiction,

3.3.31 L.26 ✅ शब्दानुमानाभ्यां श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यामित्यर्थः;
Because of the word and the inference, i.e. the Scriptures and the Smṛtis.

3.3.31 L.27 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः –
The Scriptures do declare as much.

3.3.31 L.28 ✅ ‘तद्य इत्थं विदुः’ (ChanU.5.10.1) इति
It is understood from the Scriptural passage “Those who know it to be so” (ChanU.5.10.1),

3.3.31 L.29 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्यावतां देवयानं पन्थानमवतारयन्ती
Which leads those who study the Pañcāgni-Vidyā to the Deva-yāna Path,

3.3.31 L.30 ✅ ‘ये चेमेऽरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्युपासते’ (ChanU.5.10.1) इति
विद्यान्तरशीलिनामपि
And also leads those who study other Vidyās (in which such Deva-yāna Path is not mentioned)
Such as “Those who meditate (on Brahman) with faith and austerities” (ChanU.5.10.1),

3.3.31 L.31 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्या-विद्भिः समानमार्गतां गमयति।
To a path similar to the path of those who study the Pañcāgni-Vidyā.

3.3.31 L.32 ✅ कथं पुनरवगम्यते –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) how is it known

3.3.31 L.33 ✅ विद्यान्तरशीलिनामियं गतिरिति?
That those who study such other Vidyās also journey along the Deva-yāna Path?

3.3.31 L.34 ✅ ननु श्रद्धातपः-परायणानामेव स्यात्,
Inasmuch as faith and austerity alone are mentioned here,

3.3.31 L.35 ✅ तन्मात्रश्रवणात् –
It must be understood that it is only those who meditate on Brahman with faith and austerity who have this path laid down for them [Since they alone have been spoken of there – Trans. from Panoli].

3.3.31 L.36 ✅ नैष दोषः;
(We reply) — This is no fault.

3.3.31 L.37 ✅ न हि केवलाभ्यां श्रद्धातपोभ्याम् अन्तरेण विद्या-बलम् एषा गतिर्लभ्यते –
Those who meditate on Brahman with faith and austerity alone, do not obtain this journey along the Deva-yāna Path, without the help of knowledge,

3.3.31 L.38 ✅ ‘विद्यया तदारोहन्ति यत्र कामाः परागताः।
न तत्र दक्षिणा यन्ति नाविद्वांसस्तपस्विनः’
इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्;
Because another Scriptural passage says —
“It is through knowledge, that they ascend to that (place) from where all desires have turned back,
The Dakṣiṇas (those skilled in Vedic rituals only) do not go that way, nor even those who practise austerities but who are ignorant.”

3.3.31 L.39 ✅ तस्मात् इह श्रद्धातपोभ्यां विद्यान्तरोपलक्षणम्।
Meditation on Brahman with faith and austerities here, means the other Vidyās (wherein such journey is not mentioned).

3.3.31 L.40 ✅ वाजसनेयिनस्तु पञ्चाग्निविद्याधिकारेऽधीयते –
The Vāja-saneyins moreover recite in the Pañcāgni-Vidyā Chapter, thus —

3.3.31 L.41 ✅ ‘य एवमेतद्विदुर्ये चामी अरण्ये श्रद्धाꣳ सत्यमुपासते’ (BrhU.6.2.15) इति;
“Those who (in the forest) know it to be so and those who meditate on Brahman i.e. Satya (the Truth) with faith” (BrhUEng.6.2.15),

3.3.31 L.42 ✅ तत्र श्रद्धालवो ये सत्यं ब्रह्मोपासते इति व्याख्येयम्,
Which should be explained, as meaning those, who full of faith meditate on Satya i.e. Brahman,

3.3.31 L.43 ✅ सत्य-शब्दस्य ब्रह्मणि असकृत् प्रयुक्तत्वात्।
Because the word Satya is often used as meaning Brahman.

3.3.31 L.44 ✅ पञ्चाग्निविद्याविदां च इत्थंवित्तयैव उपात्तत्वात्,
As, by “Those who know it to be so”, only those who know the Pañcāgni-Vidyā are understood,

3.3.31 L.45 ✅ विद्यान्तर-परायणानामेव एतदुपादानं न्याय्यम्।
Therefore, it is logical that by “Those who in the forest etc.” those who know the other Vidyās should be understood.

3.3.31 L.46 ✅ ‘अथ य एतौ पन्थानौ न विदुस्ते कीटाः पतङ्गा यदिदं दन्दशूकम्’ (BrhU.6.2.16) इति च
मार्गद्वय-भ्रष्टानां कष्टाम् अधोगतिं गमयन्ती श्रुतिः
Now, the Scriptural passage “Now, those who do not know these two Paths (i.e. Deva-yāna and Pitṛ-yāṇa) become worms, butterflies and snakes etc.” (BrhUEng.6.2.16),
Which intimates (to us) the miserable fall of those who miss these two Paths, informs (us) thereby,

3.3.31 L.47 ✅ देवयान-पितृयाणयोरेव एनान् अन्तर्भावयति।
That those (who study the Vidyās in which this Deva-yāna Path is either mentioned or not mentioned) have to take a journey along these Deva-yāna or Pitṛ-yāṇa Paths,

3.3.31 L.48 ✅ तत्रापि विद्याविशेषाद्
And Vidyā being common here,

3.3.31 L.49 ✅ एषां देवयान-प्रतिपत्तिः।
It is understood that those who possess the knowledge of other Vidyās (which are silent as to the Deva-yāna Path) also attain the Deva-yāna Path.

3.3.31 L.50 ✅ स्मृतिरपि – ‘शुक्लकृष्णे गती ह्येते जगतः शाश्वते मते।
एकया यात्यनावृत्तिमन्ययावर्तते पुनः’ (BhG.8.26) इति।
The Smṛti also says — “The bright and the dark journeys are the eternal paths of this world.
Going by one (i.e. the Deva-yāna) one does not return and going by the other (i.e. the Pitṛ-yāṇa) one returns again to this world” (BhG.8.26).

3.3.31 L.51 ✅ यत्पुनः देवयानस्य पथो द्विराम्नानम् उपकोसल-विद्यायां पञ्चाग्नि-विद्यायां च,
The argument that the mention of the Deva-yāna Path once in the Upakosala-Vidyā and again in the Pañcāgni-Vidyā (is repetition),

3.3.31 L.52 ✅ तत् उभयत्रापि अनुचिन्तनार्थम्।
(Is answered by saying that) in both the places it is so mentioned for the purpose of meditation only.

3.3.31 L.53 ✅ तस्मादनियमः॥३१॥
Therefore, there is no such rule (restricting the journey along Deva-yāna Path to only those Vidyās in which it is specifically mentioned). — 31.

– 118. Aniyama-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
यावदधिकारमवस्थितिराधिकारिकाणाम्॥३.३.३२॥
Yāvadadhikāram avasthitir ādhikārikāṇām.

Yāvad-adhikaram: so long as the striving, the mission is not fulfilled; Avasthitiḥ: (there is corporeal) existence; Ādhikārikānām: of those who have a mission in life to fulfil. (Yāvad: as long as; Adhikāram: mission, purpose to be fulfilled.)

🔗 Those who have a certain duty of office to perform, continue (in. their physical body) as long as duty of the office lasts. — 3.3.32.

3.3.32 L.1 ✅ विदुषो वर्तमानदेहपातानन्तरं देहान्तरम् उत्पद्यते, न वा –
इति चिन्त्यते।
It is now being considered,
Whether, in the case of a person who has realized Brahman, another physical body is or is not created for him, after his original (present) body has fallen.

3.3.32 L.2 ✅ ननु विद्यायाः साधनभूतायाः सम्पत्तौ कैवल्य-निर्वृत्तिः
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) a doubt, as to whether, after true i.e. perfect knowledge, the means of Final Release (Mokṣa), is attained,

3.3.32 L.3 ✅ स्यात् न वेति नेयं चिन्ता उपपद्यते;
(Whether) such Final Release takes place or not, is not reasonably sustainable.

3.3.32 L.4 ✅ न हि पाकसाधन-सम्पत्तौ, ओदनो भवेत् न वेति चिन्ता सम्भवति;
When the means of cooking have become available, a doubt as to whether cooked rice can or cannot be got ready, cannot be possible,

3.3.32 L.5 ✅ नापि भुञ्जानः तृप्येत् न वेति चिन्त्यते –
Nor whether the diner would or would not be satisfied.

3.3.32 L.6 ✅ उपपन्ना तु इयं चिन्ता,
But (we opponents reply), such an inquiry is of course reasonably sustainable,

3.3.32 L.7 ✅ ब्रह्मविदामपि केषाञ्चित् इतिहासपुराणयोः देहान्तरोत्पत्ति-दर्शनात्;
Because it is seen from History and from the Purāṇas, that even from amongst these who have realized Brahman, some acquire other bodies.

3.3.32 L.8 ✅ तथा हि – अपान्तरतमा नाम वेदाचार्यः पुराणर्षिः विष्णुनियोगात् कलिद्वापरयोः सन्धौ कृष्णद्वैपायनः सम्बभूवेति स्मरन्ति;
For instance, the Smṛti says that Apāntaratama, a Vedic scholar and an ancient sage, was, as directed by Viṣṇu, reborn as Kṛṣṇa-Dvaipāyana, at the junction of the Dvā-pāra and Kali Yugas.

3.3.32 L.9 ✅ वसिष्ठश्च ब्रह्मणो मानसः पुत्रः सन्
Similarly, Vasiṣṭha the mind-born son of Brahmā as he was,

3.3.32 L.10 ✅ निमि-शापादपगत-पूर्वदेहः पुनर्ब्रह्मादेशान्मित्रावरुणाभ्यां सम्बभूवेति;
Having lost his original body through the curse of Nimi, was reborn of Maitrā-Varuṇa at the behest of Brahmā.

3.3.32 L.11 ✅ भृग्वादीनामपि ब्रह्मण एव मानसपुत्राणां वारुणे यज्ञे पुनरुत्पत्तिः स्मर्यते;
Scriptures similarly speak of the rebirth of Bhṛgu and others, also the mind-born sons of Brahmā, during the sacrifice of Varuṇa.

3.3.32 L.12 ✅ सनत्कुमारोऽपि ब्रह्मण एव मानसः पुत्रः
Sanat-kumāra also, another mind-born son of Brahmā,

3.3.32 L.13 ✅ स्वयं रुद्राय वरप्रदानात् स्कन्दत्वेन प्रादुर्बभूव;
Was reborn as Skanda, because of the boon he had himself conferred on Rudra.

3.3.32 L.14 ✅ एवमेव दक्षनारद-प्रभृतीनां भूयसी देहान्तरोत्पत्तिः कथ्यते तेन तेन निमित्तेन स्मृतौ।
Similarly the Smṛtis speak of many such acquisitions of other bodies for some reason or other, in the case of Dakṣa and Nārada etc.

3.3.32 L.15 ✅ श्रुतावपि मन्त्रार्थवादयोः प्रायेणोपलभ्यते।
And the Scriptures also in Mantras and Artha-Vādas, speak of such things.

3.3.32 L.16 ✅ ते च केचित् पतिते पूर्वदेहे देहान्तरम् आददते,
Some amongst them are said to acquire another body after their original body has fallen,

3.3.32 L.17 ✅ केचित्तु स्थित एव तस्मिन् योगैश्वर्यवशात् अनेकदेहादानन्यायेन।
While some, even when their original body still continues, are said to assume several bodies simultaneously, through their own lordly powers of Yoga.

3.3.32 L.18 ✅ सर्वे च एते समधिगत-सकलवेदार्थाः स्मर्यन्ते।
Smṛtis speak of their being adepts in the full meaning of the Scriptures.

3.3.32 L.19 ✅ तत् एतेषां देहान्तरोत्पत्ति-दर्शनात्
Seeing therefore, that in as much as they (i.e. these sages etc.) acquire other bodies,

3.3.32 L.20 ✅ प्राप्तं ब्रह्मविद्यायाः पाक्षिकं मोक्षहेतुत्वम्,
A conclusion is inevitably arrived at that the knowledge of Brahman is on the one hand the cause of Final Release,

3.3.32 L.21 ✅ अहेतुत्वं वेति॥
And that on the other hand it is not so.

3.3.32 L.22 ✅ अत उत्तरमुच्यते – न,
The Sūtra-kāra therefore says — No,

3.3.32 L.23 ✅ तेषाम् अपान्तरतमः-प्रभृतीनां वेदप्रवर्तनादिषु लोकस्थितिहेतुष्वधिकारेषु
Because these Apāntaratama and others who happen to be appointed to their particular offices, which constitute the cause of the preservation of the world through the promulgation of the Vedas,

3.3.32 L.24 ✅ नियुक्तानाम् अधिकारतन्त्रत्वात् स्थितेः।
Continue to be in their own bodies as long as such special office of theirs lasts.

3.3.32 L.25 ✅ यथासौ भगवान् सविता सहस्र-युगपर्यन्तं जगतोऽधिकारं चरित्वा तदवसाने
Just as the Bhagavān Sun, having exercised the powers of his office, over the world for a thousand Yugas, at the end,

3.3.32 L.26 ✅ उदयास्तमय-वर्जितं कैवल्यमनुभवति –
Experiences complete isolation (Kaivalya) i.e. Final Release which is free from the diurnal rising and setting,

3.3.32 L.27 ✅ ‘अथ तत ऊर्ध्व उदेत्य नैवोदेता नास्तमेतैकल एव मध्ये स्थाता’ (ChanU.3.11.1) इति श्रुतेः;
As stated by the Scriptures, thus — “Having risen upwards from there (in the form of Brahman), he neither rises nor sets, but continues to be all alone by himself in himself” (ChanU.3.11.1),

3.3.32 L.28 ✅ यथा च वर्तमाना ब्रह्मविदः
Or just as, some people of the present time who have realized Brahman,

3.3.32 L.29 ✅ आरब्धभोगक्षये कैवल्यमनुभवन्ति –
Experience Final Release, after the enjoyment of the fruits of their actions which have started fruition is exhausted,

3.3.32 L.30 ✅ ‘तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति श्रुतेः –
Because the Scriptures have declared — “He is delayed only until he is relieved of his body and then he attains Final Release” (ChanU.6.14.2).

3.3.32 L.31 ✅ एवम् अपान्तरतमः-प्रभृतयोऽपीश्वराः परमेश्वरेण तेषु तेष्वधिकारेषु नियुक्ताः सन्तः
That, Apāntaratama etc., Lords though they are and appointed though they are to their offices by the Highest Lord,

3.3.32 L.32 ✅ सत्यपि सम्यग्दर्शने कैवल्यहेतौ
And even though they possess correct i.e. perfect knowledge which is the means of Final Release,

3.3.32 L.33 ✅ अक्षीण-कर्मणो यावदधिकारम् अवतिष्ठन्ते,
Have to continue in their bodies as long as their duty lasts, because their actions have not yet been exhausted,

3.3.32 L.34 ✅ तदवसाने च अपवृज्यन्त इत्यविरुद्धम्।
And that they obtain Final Release when such actions get exhausted, is not contradictory.

3.3.32 L.35 ✅ सकृत्प्रवृत्तमेव हि ते फलदानाय कर्माशयम् अतिवाहयन्तः,
They (these Lords), while they are ridding themselves of the quantum of their actions which has once started fructifying,

3.3.32 L.36 ✅ स्वातन्त्र्येणैव गृहादिव गृहान्तरम् अन्यमन्यं देहं सञ्चरन्तः स्वाधिकार-निर्वर्तनाय,
And migrating from one body to another, as from one house to another, with perfect liberty,

3.3.32 L.37 ✅ अपरिमुषित-स्मृतय एव
देहेन्द्रियप्रकृति-वशित्वात् निर्माय देहान् युगपत् क्रमेण वा अधितिष्ठन्ति।
And creating new bodies with the material of the body and sense-organs at their command, occupy such bodies, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of discharging the duties of their office,
Albeit with the consciousness (of their having the nature of Brahman) unobliterated.

3.3.32 L.38 ✅ न च एते जाति-स्मरा इत्युच्यन्ते –
It cannot be said that they remember only their births (and not their individuality),

3.3.32 L.39 ✅ त एवैते इति स्मृतिप्रसिद्धेः।
Because it is well-known from the Smṛtis that they are known to be the self-same persons.

3.3.32 L.40 ✅ यथा हि सुलभा नाम ब्रह्मवादिनी जनकेन विवदितुकामा
व्युदस्य स्वं देहम्, जानकं देहमाविश्य,
व्युद्य तेन, पश्चात् स्वमेव देहम् आविवेश –
इति स्मर्यते।
Smṛti also states,
How Sulabhā, a great scholar of Brahman, (Brahma-vādinī), desirous of having disputations with Janaka,
Leaving her own body, entered the body of Janaka, And after having had a discussion with him, again returned to her own body.

3.3.32 L.41 ✅ यदि हि उपयुक्ते सकृत्प्रवृत्ते कर्मणि
If, after actions which have once started (bearing fruit) have been used up,

3.3.32 L.42 ✅ कर्मान्तरं देहान्तरारम्भ-कारणम् आविर्भवेत्,
Other actions were to spring up and cause the starting up of another body,

3.3.32 L.43 ✅ ततः अन्यदप्यदग्धबीजं कर्मान्तरं तद्वदेव प्रसज्येतेति
Then other actions whose seeds have not yet been burnt out may as well spring up too,

3.3.32 L.44 ✅ ब्रह्मविद्यायाः पाक्षिकं मोक्षहेतुत्वम् अहेतुत्वं वा शङ्क्येत;
And in such a case, may be, a doubt may legitimately arise, as to whether Brahma-Vidyā sometimes is, and at other times is not, the cause of Mokṣa,

3.3.32 L.45 ✅ न तु इयमाशङ्का युक्ता,
But such a doubt is not logical,

3.3.32 L.46 ✅ ज्ञानात् कर्मबीजदाहस्य श्रुतिस्मृति-प्रसिद्धत्वात्।
Because it is well-known from the Scriptures and the Smṛtis, that perfect knowledge (Jñāna) has the effect of burning up the seeds of actions.

3.3.32 L.47 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः –
The Scriptures for instance say —

3.3.32 L.48 ✅ ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः। क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे’ (MunU.2.2.8) इति,
“The knots of the Hṛdaya (in the form of impressions) are cut asunder and all doubts are resolved and all his actions are exhausted, when the one that is both the cause and the effect viz. Parāvara (i.e. Brahman) is realized” (MunU.2.2.8);

3.3.32 L.49 ✅ ‘स्मृतिलम्भे सर्वग्रन्थीनां विप्रमोक्षः’ (ChanU.7.26.2) इति चैवमाद्या।
“When memory (that I myself am Brahman) returns, all knots are resolved” (ChanU.7.26.2) etc.

3.3.32 L.50 ✅ स्मृतिरपि –
The Smṛti also says —

3.3.32 L.51 ✅ ‘यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निर्भस्मसात्कुरुतेऽर्जुन।
ज्ञानाग्निः सर्वकर्माणि भस्मसात्कुरुते तथा’ (BhG.4.37) इति,
“Oh Arjuna, just as a well-lighted fire consumes all fuel and reduces it to ashes,
Even so does the fire of perfect knowledge reduce all actions to ashes” (BhG.4.37).

3.3.32 L.52 ✅ ‘बीजान्यग्न्युपदग्धानि न रोहन्ति यथा पुनः।
ज्ञानदग्धैस्तथा क्लेशैर्नात्मा सम्पद्यते पुनः’ इति चैवमाद्या।
“Just as seeds which have once been consumed by fire do not ever again sprout up,
Even so the Self does not again suffer the afflictions which have once been consumed by perfect knowledge.”

3.3.32 L.53 ✅ न च अविद्यादिक्लेशदाहे सति
क्लेशबीजस्य कर्माशयस्य एकदेश-दाहः एकदेश-प्ररोहश्च
इत्युपपद्यते;
It is not reasonably sustainable, that
When once the afflictions caused by Nescience are consumed,
The quantum of actions which is the seed of afflictions, should get burnt out only in one part, while another part of it should sprout up.

3.3.32 L.54 ✅ न हि अग्निदग्धस्य शालि-बीजस्य एकदेश-प्ररोहो दृश्यते;
It is never seen, that a seed of rice which is burnt up by fire, ever sprouts up in one part of it.

3.3.32 L.55 ✅ प्रवृत्तफलस्य तु कर्माशयस्य
मुक्तेषोरिव वेगक्षयात् निवृत्तिः,
The quantum of actions which has started fructifying, is ultimately dissipated,
Even as an arrow that is once shot, comes to rest after its force (momentum) is expended,

3.3.32 L.56 ✅ ‘तस्य तावदेव चिरम्’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति
शरीरपातावधिक्षेपकरणात्।
Because, as stated by the Scriptures — “He is delayed only so long etc.” (ChanU.6.14.2),
A man has to wait only till his body falls.

3.3.32 L.57 ✅ तस्मादुपपन्ना यावदधिकारम्
Hence those who have been appointed to such offices

3.3.32 L.58 ✅ आधिकारिकाणाम् अवस्थितिः।
Continue to exist as long as their duty of office lasts.

3.3.32 L.59 ✅ न च ज्ञानफलस्य अनैकान्तिकता;
Moreover, it cannot be said that the fruit of perfect knowledge is not uniform everywhere,

3.3.32 L.60 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः अविशेषेणैव सर्वेषां ज्ञानान्मोक्षं दर्शयति –
Because the Scriptures declare that all without exception, attain Mokṣa on the realization of knowledge, thus —

3.3.32 L.61 ✅ ‘तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणाम्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति।
“Those from amongst the Gods that realized the Truth, themselves became the Truth, and the same was the case with the sages and men” (BrhUEng.1.4.10).

3.3.32 L.62 ✅ ज्ञानान्तरेषु च ऐश्वर्यादि-फलेष्वासक्ताः स्युर्महर्षयः;
May be, there are some great sages who have succumbed to the temptation of worldly powers etc. resulting from other knowledges,

3.3.32 L.63 ✅ ते पश्चादैश्वर्यक्षय-दर्शनेन निर्विण्णाः
परमात्मज्ञाने परिनिष्ठाय कैवल्यं प्रापुरित्युपपद्यते –
And it is reasonably sustainable, that subsequently, on realizing that their power has been exhausted, they become dejected,
And steadfastly pinning their faith on the knowledge of the Highest Self, thus attain Final Release (Kaivalya),

3.3.32 L.64 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मणा सह ते सर्वे सम्प्राप्ते प्रतिसञ्चरे। परस्यान्ते कृतात्मानः प्रविशन्ति परं पदम्’ इति स्मरणात्।
Because the Smṛti says thus — When the great deluge comes on and the Para i.e. Brahman gets destroyed, all these, their minds chastened, enter into the Highest Brahman.

3.3.32 L.65 ✅ प्रत्यक्षफलत्वाच्च ज्ञानस्य
The fruit of perfect knowledge being patent,

3.3.32 L.66 ✅ फलविरहाशङ्कानुपपत्तिः;
Any doubt about missing the fruit of such perfect knowledge cannot be reasonably sustainable.

3.3.32 L.67 ✅ कर्मफले हि स्वर्गादौ अनुभवानारूढे स्याद् आशङ्का भवेद्वा न वेति;
The fruits of actions, however, viz. the heaven etc., not being based on experience, a doubt, as to whether they are or are not possible, would be justified,

3.3.32 L.68 ✅ अनुभवारूढं तु ज्ञानफलम् –
But the fruit of perfect knowledge is based on experience,

3.3.32 L.69 ✅ ‘यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.4.1) इति श्रुतेः,
Because the Scriptures declare “That Brahman, which is immediate and is directly experienced” (BrhUEng.3.4.1),

3.3.32 L.70 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति
सिद्धवदुपदेशात्;
And give instruction about it, as being an entity firmly established, thus —
“That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7).

3.3.32 L.71 ✅ न हि ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यस्य वाक्यस्य अर्थः –
तत् त्वं मृतो भविष्यतीति –
एवं परिणेतुं शक्यः।
It is not possible to construe that
The passage “That thou art” means, That one would become so after death.

3.3.32 L.72 ✅ ‘तद्धैतत् पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवꣳ सूर्यश्च’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति च
For another Scriptural passage — “The Sage Vāma-deva visualizing himself as Brahman, understood that he himself was Manu and the Sun” (BrhUEng.1.4.10) —

3.3.32 L.73 ✅ सम्यग्दर्शन-कालमेव तत्फलं सर्वात्मत्वं दर्शयति।
Shows that the fruit of perfect knowledge, viz. the union with the Universal Self, springs up the very moment true knowledge supervenes.

3.3.32 L.74 ✅ तस्मात् ऐकान्तिकी विदुषः कैवल्य-सिद्धिः॥३२॥
Therefore, the attainment of Mokṣa is the invariable and uniform fruit, which, a person who has attained perfect knowledge, without exception, obtains. — 32.

– 119. Yādad-adhikāra-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अक्षरधियां त्ववरोधः सामान्यतद्भावाभ्यामौपसदवत्तदुक्तम्॥३.३.३३॥
Akṣara-dhiyāṃ tv avarodhaḥ sāmānya-tad-bhāvābhyām aupasadavat tad uktam.

Akṣara-dhiyam: of the meditation of negative attributes belonging to the Imperishable; Tu: but, indeed; Avarodhaḥ: combination; Sāmānya-tad-bhāvābhyām: because of the similarity (of denying Brahman through denials) and the object (viz., Imperishable Brahman) being the same; Aupasadavat: as in the case of the Upasad (offering) like the hymn or the Mantra in connection with the Upasada rite; Tat: that; Uktam: has been explained (by Jaimini in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā).

🔗 Conceptions about the Imperishable one (‘Akṣara’ i.e. Brahman) (which are expressed in the form of negations) are to be included (everywhere) because of similarity (of the definition) and also because the Object representing these negative conceptions (i.e. the Akṣara-Brahman) is the same. It is like the Aupasada (Upasada-Iṣṭi). That has been stated (by Jaimini, in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā). — 3.3.33.

3.3.33 L.1 ✅ वाजसनेयके श्रूयते –
In the Vāja-saneyaka it is stated thus —

3.3.33 L.2 ✅ ‘एतद्वै तदक्षरं गार्गि ब्राह्मणा अभिवदन्त्यस्थूलम् अनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घम् अलोहितमस्नेहम्’ (BrhU.3.8.8) इत्यादि;
“This verily, Oh Gārgi, is the Imperishable one (i.e. Brahman) of which the Brāhmaṇas (those who have realized Brahman) speak, and which is neither gross, nor atomic, nor short, nor long, nor red, nor oily etc.” (BrhUEng.3.8.8).

3.3.33 L.3 ✅ तथा आथर्वणे श्रूयते –
Then in the Ātharvaṇa it is stated —

3.3.33 L.4 ✅ ‘अथ परा यया तद् अक्षरमधिगम्यते यत्तद् अद्रेश्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमवर्णम्’ (MunU.1.1.5) इत्यादि;
“Now about the highest i.e. Para (Vidyā) by which this Imperishable one is understood, and which is that which cannot be seen or comprehended and is without any origin (i.e. cause) or attribute” (MunU.1.1.5).

3.3.33 L.5 ✅ तथैव अन्यत्रापि विशेषनिराकरण-द्वारेण अक्षरं परं ब्रह्म श्राव्यते;
Similarly, elsewhere in some places also, this Imperishable Highest Brahman is spoken of by the Scriptures by way of negating some special characteristic (about it).

3.3.33 L.6 ✅ तत्र च क्वचित् केचित् अतिरिक्ता विशेषाः प्रतिषिध्यन्ते;
Therein in some places, Brahman in the form of the Imperishable, is described by way of the denial of some particular characteristics, other than those mentioned in some of the other various places.

3.3.33 L.7 ✅ तासां विशेषप्रतिषेध-बुद्धीनां
With regard to all these knowledges, by way of the denials of some one or other particular characteristic in some one place or other,

3.3.33 L.8 ✅ किं सर्वासां सर्वत्र प्राप्तिः, उत व्यवस्थेति संशये,
When there is a doubt as to whether all such negative conceptions are restricted to the various places where they are mentioned or should be understood as obtaining everywhere,

3.3.33 L.9 ✅ श्रुतिविभागात् व्यवस्था-प्राप्तौ,
And the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that they should be restricted, each to the particular place where it is mentioned,

3.3.33 L.10 ✅ उच्यते – अक्षरविषयास्तु विशेषप्रतिषेध-बुद्धयः सर्वाः सर्वत्रावरोद्धव्याः,
We say — All special negative conceptions about the Imperishable one (Brahman) should all be understood as obtaining everywhere,

3.3.33 L.11 ✅ सामान्य-तद्भावाभ्याम् –
Because the Imperishable (Brahman) is common to all and the definitions are similar.

3.3.33 L.12 ✅ समानो हि सर्वत्र विशेषनिराकरणरूपो ब्रह्मप्रतिपादन-प्रकारः;
The manner of expounding Brahman which is of a nature involving denial of every special conception, is common everywhere.

3.3.33 L.13 ✅ तदेव च सर्वत्र प्रतिपाद्यं ब्रह्म अभिन्नं प्रत्यभिज्ञायते;
The same identical Brahman is understood to be propounded everywhere,

3.3.33 L.14 ✅ तत्र किमिति अन्यत्र कृता बुद्धयः अन्यत्र न स्युः।
So why should such negative conceptions (about Brahman) referred to in one place, not be available in other places?

3.3.33 L.15 ✅ तथा च ‘आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य’ (BrS.3.3.11) इति अत्र व्याख्यातम्;
It has been so explained in the Sūtra “Bliss etc. belong to the principal one (i.e. Brahman)” (BrS.3.3.11).

3.3.33 L.16 ✅ तत्र विधि-रूपाणि विशेषणानि चिन्तितानि,
इह प्रतिषेध-रूपाणीति विशेषः;
The distinction between the two is that, special characteristics of a positive injunctional nature were considered there (i.e. in BrS.3.3.11),
While negative conceptions are considered here.

3.3.33 L.17 ✅ प्रपञ्चार्थश्चायं चिन्ताभेदः।
This distinction between these two kinds of considerations is with a view to secure a detailed elaborate treatment (of Brahman).

3.3.33 L.18 ✅ औपसदवदिति निदर्शनम्;
That, it is like the Aupasada i.e. the Upasada sacrifice (Iṣṭi), is the illustration in point.

3.3.33 L.19 ✅ यथा जामदग्न्येऽहीने
Just as in the Ahīna Sacrifice of Jamad-agni (a sacrifice which lasts for more than one day),

3.3.33 L.20 ✅ पुरोडाशिनीषूपसत्सु चोदितासु,
Wherein an Upasada Puro-ḍāśa (offering) is enjoined,

3.3.33 L.21 ✅ पुरोडाशप्रदान-मन्त्राणाम्
The incantations (Mantras) along with which these Puro-ḍāśas are offered,

3.3.33 L.22 ✅ ‘अग्ने वेर्होत्रं वेरध्वरम्’ इत्येवमादीनाम्
Viz., “Oh Agni, may thou protect the sacrifice etc.” (Tāṇ. Brā. 21.10.11),

3.3.33 L.23 ✅ उद्गातृवेदोत्पन्नानामपि अध्वर्युभिः अभिसम्बन्धो भवति,
Are connected with the Adhvaryu (sacrificial priest representing the Yajur-Veda), even though the incantations have their origin in the Sāman-Veda of the Udgātṛ (i.e. the chanting priest),

3.3.33 L.24 ✅ अध्वर्युकर्तृकत्वात् पुरोडाशप्रदानस्य,
Because it is the Adhvaryu who is supposed to offer such Puro-ḍāśa,

3.3.33 L.25 ✅ प्रधान-तन्त्रत्वाच्चाङ्गानाम् –
And also because subsidiary matters go with the principal matter,

3.3.33 L.26 ✅ एवमिहापि अक्षरतन्त्रत्वात् तद्विशेषणानां
यत्र क्वचिदप्युत्पन्नानाम् अक्षरेण सर्वत्राभिसम्बन्ध इत्यर्थः।
Similarly, the meaning is, that here also, inasmuch as, all these special negative conceptions about the Imperishable one (i.e. Brahman),
Wherever they may occur, go with the Imperishable one (i.e. Brahman), and because they all relate to it.

3.3.33 L.27 ✅ तदुक्तं प्रथमे काण्डे –
This has been stated in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, thus —

3.3.33 L.28 ✅ ‘गुणमुख्य-व्यतिक्रमे तदर्थत्वान्मुख्येन वेदसंयोगः’ (जै. सू. ३-३-८) इत्यत्र॥३३॥
“In the event of disparity being observed between the subsidiary text and the principal text, the former has to be connected with the main injunction in the latter” (Jai. Sū. 3.3.9) [Trans. from Panoli]. — 33.

– 120. Akṣara-dhy-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
इयदामननात्॥३.३.३४॥
Iyad-āmananāt.

Iyat: so much only, this much; Āmananāt: on account of being mentioned in the scripture.

🔗 Because mention is made (by the Scriptures) that it (i.e. the nature of the Vidyā) has this particular limit (the same one Vidyā is mentioned). — 3.3.34.

3.3.34 L.1 ✅ ‘द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते।
तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति’ (MunU.3.1.1) –
इत्यध्यात्माधिकारे
मन्त्रमाथर्वणिकाः श्वेताश्वतराश्च पठन्ति;
In the chapter dealing with the Adhyātma aspect (i.e. the relation of the Jīva-Self to the Highest Self)
The Ārtharvaṇikas and the Śvetāśvataras recite the Mantras —
“Two birds, close companions and friends, attach themselves to a common tree.
One of them eats the sweet Pippala fruit, while the other does not partake of it, but merely keeps looking on” (MunU.3.1.1).

3.3.34 L.2 ✅ तथा कठाः – ‘ऋतं पिबन्तौ सुकृतस्य लोके गुहां प्रविष्ठौ परमे परार्ध्ये।
छायातपौ ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति पञ्चाग्नयो ये च त्रिणाचिकेताः’ (KathU.1.3.1) इति।
Similarly, the Kaṭhas recite — “Drinking the fruit of one’s own good actions in this world, the two (i.e. the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) having entered the cave which is at the highest peak (viz. intelligence i.e. Buddhi, the highest in a body),
And who are, as stated by those who have realized Brahman, to be like sunshine and shadow (i.e. opposed to each other in attributes), and similarly by the Pañcāgnis (i.e. house-holders who have kept the five fires), i.e. Tri-ṇāciketas (i.e. who have kindled the three Naciketas fires” (KathU.1.3.1).

3.3.34 L.3 ✅ किमत्र विद्यैकत्वम्, उत विद्यानानात्वमिति संशयः।
The doubt that arises here is, whether these two (Mantras) form identical or separate Vidyās.

3.3.34 L.4 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your conclusion?

3.3.34 L.5 ✅ विद्या-नानात्वमिति।
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — It is that they form separate Vidyās.

3.3.34 L.6 ✅ कुतः? विशेषदर्शनात् –
Whence is it so? Because a distinction (between them) is discernible.

3.3.34 L.7 ✅ ‘द्वा सुपर्णा’ इत्यत्र हि एकस्य भोक्तृत्वं दृश्यते,
In the Mantras “Two birds etc.”, one is seen to be the experiencer

3.3.34 L.8 ✅ एकस्य च अभोक्तृत्वं दृश्यते;
And the other to be the abstainer,

3.3.34 L.9 ✅ ‘ऋतं पिबन्तौ’ इत्यत्र उभयोरपि भोक्तृत्वमेव दृश्यते;
While in the other Mantra “Drinking the fruit etc.”, both are seen to be equally the experiences,

3.3.34 L.10 ✅ तत् वेद्यरूपं भिद्यमानं विद्यां भिन्द्याद्
And the nature of that which is to be known being thus different (in each), the Vidyās are separate.

3.3.34 L.11 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रवीति – विद्यैकत्वमिति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), it is replied, that there is identity of the Vidyās.

3.3.34 L.12 ✅ कुतः? यतः उभयोरप्यनयोः मन्त्रयोः
Whence is it so? Because in both these Mantras

3.3.34 L.13 ✅ इयत्तापरिच्छिन्नं द्वित्वोपेतं वेद्यं रूपम् अभिन्नम् आमनन्ति।
The nature of that which is to be known, is mentioned as being non-different, circumscribed by a limit, and endowed with duality.

3.3.34 L.14 ✅ ननु दर्शितो रूपभेदः –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), the difference in their nature has been indicated (by me).

3.3.34 L.15 ✅ नेत्युच्यते; उभावप्येतौ मन्त्रौ जीव-द्वितीयम् ईश्वरं प्रतिपादयतः,
(We reply) — No, both these Mantras propound the one Lord (Parameśvara) only, having the Jīva-Self as its second (Jīva-dvitīya),

3.3.34 L.16 ✅ नार्थान्तरम्।
And not different entities.

3.3.34 L.17 ✅ ‘द्वा सुपर्णा’ इत्यत्र
In the Mantra “Two birds etc.”,

3.3.34 L.18 ✅ तावत् – ‘अनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति’ इति
By “the other one does not partake of it but merely keeps looking on”,

3.3.34 L.19 ✅ अशनायाद्यतीतः परमात्मा प्रतिपाद्यते;
The Highest Self (Paramātmā) which is beyond any sensation of hunger etc., is referred to.

3.3.34 L.20 ✅ वाक्यशेषेऽपि च स एव प्रतिपाद्यमानो दृश्यते
In the complementary passage also the same (Paramātmā) appears to be referred to, thus —

3.3.34 L.21 ✅ ‘जुष्टं यदा पश्यत्यन्यमीशमस्य महिमानम्’ (SvetU.4.7) इति;
“When he sees the other one, the Lord, approached in different ways (i.e. by the paths of Karma and Yoga), and knows (all this world) as his greatness” (SvetU.4.7).

3.3.34 L.22 ✅ ‘ऋतं पिबन्तौ’ इत्यत्र तु जीवे पिबति,
In the Mantra “Drinking etc.”, when it is the Jīva-Self that is meant to be the one that drinks,

3.3.34 L.23 ✅ अशनायाद्यतीतः परमात्मापि साहचर्यात्
The Highest Self, also, inasmuch as it is always in association with it, and even though it is beyond any sensation of hunger etc.,

3.3.34 L.24 ✅ छत्रिन्यायेन पिबतीत्युपचर्यते;
Is metaphorically referred to also as drinking with it, on the analogy of the ‘maxim of the Umbrella’.

3.3.34 L.25 ✅ परमात्म-प्रकरणं हि एतत् –
Of course this is a chapter dealing with the Highest Self,

3.3.34 L.26 ✅ ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मात्’ (KathU.1.2.14) इत्युपक्रमात्;
Inasmuch as it begins with the verse “Other than the doing of meritorious actions i.e. Dharma and unmeritorious actions i.e. Adharma” (KathU.1.2.14),

3.3.34 L.27 ✅ तद्विषय एव च अत्रापि वाक्यशेषो भवति –
And the complementary passage here, also refers to the same subject, thus —

3.3.34 L.28 ✅ ‘यः सेतुरीजानानामक्षरं ब्रह्म यत्परम्’ (KathU.1.3.2) इति।
“Who is the bund (of security) for those who engage themselves in sacrifices, the imperishable Brahman, and one that is the transcendent” (KathU.1.3.2).

3.3.34 L.29 ✅ ‘गुहां प्रविष्टावात्मानौ हि’ (BrS.1.2.11) इत्यत्र च एतत्प्रपञ्चितम्।
The same has been dealt with in detail in “The two Selfs that have entered the cave” (BrS.1.2.11).

3.3.34 L.30 ✅ तस्मान्नास्ति वेद्यभेदः;
Therefore, there is no difference in the Vidyās,

3.3.34 L.31 ✅ तस्माच्च विद्यैकत्वम्।
And there is thus an identity of Vidyās (in both).

3.3.34 L.32 ✅ अपि च त्रिष्वप्येतेषु वेदान्तेषु पौर्वापर्यालोचने
Besides when these three Mantras of the Scriptures are carefully interpreted,

3.3.34 L.33 ✅ परमात्मविद्यैव अवगम्यते;
It is understood, that they all contain the Vidyā of the Highest Self,

3.3.34 L.34 ✅ तादात्म्य-विवक्षयैव
जीवोपादानम्, नार्थान्तर-विवक्षया;
And the reference to the Jīva-Self is in fact made, not with a desire to speak about it as a different entity as such,
But with a view to speak of its being identical with the Highest Self.

3.3.34 L.35 ✅ न च परमात्म-विद्यायां भेदाभेद-विचारावतारोऽस्तीत्युक्तम्।
It has already been mentioned (by us) that there is no scope for any consideration as to whether there is any difference or otherwise, so far as the Vidyā of the Highest Self is concerned.

3.3.34 L.36 ✅ तस्मात्प्रपञ्चार्थं एव एष योगः;
The present Sūtra (Yoga) is merely by way of a detailed elaborate treatment (of the subject).

3.3.34 L.37 ✅ तस्माच्चाधिकधर्मोपसंहार इति॥३४॥
Therefore also, the extra characteristics (in one place) are to be combined (in all places). — 34.

– 121. Iyad-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.35 Su..36

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्तरा भूतग्रामवत्स्वात्मनः॥३.३.३५॥
Antarā bhūta-grāmavat svātmanaḥ.

Antarā: as being innermost of all, inside, the status of being the inmost; Bhūta-grāmavat: as in the case of the aggregate of the elements; Sva-ātmanaḥ: of one’s own self.

🔗 As the same Universal Highest Self is taught to be the innermost of all, as in the case of the aggregate of elements (Bhūta-grāmavat), even so, as that very same one’s own Self is the entity to be known (in the Uṣasta and Kahola Brāhmaṇas, the Vidyās are identical). — 3.3.35.

3.3.35 L.1 ✅ ‘यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः’ (BrhU.3.4.1) (BrhU.3.5.1)
इत्येवं द्विः उषस्तकहोल-प्रश्नयोः नैरन्तर्येण वाजसनेयिनः समामनन्ति।
With respect to the questions of Uṣasta and Kahola, the Vāja-saneyins mention the same question, twice consecutively, thus —
“(Tell me about) that which immediately and directly is Brahman, and which is the innermost Self of all” (BrhUEng.3.4.1) and (BrhUEng.3.5.1).

3.3.35 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशयः – विद्यैकत्वं वा स्यात्,
With regard to that, the doubt is whether the Vidyās in the same sentence used twice here are but one and the same Vidyā

3.3.35 L.3 ✅ विद्या-नानात्वं वेति।
Or whether they are two separate Vidyās.

3.3.35 L.4 ✅ विद्यानानात्वमिति तावत्प्राप्तम्,
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that they are two separate Vidyās,

3.3.35 L.5 ✅ अभ्यास-सामर्थ्यात्;
On the strength of the same sentence which is repeated twice.

3.3.35 L.6 ✅ अन्यथा हि अन्यूनानतिरिक्तार्थे
Otherwise, assuming that nothing more nor less is meant (in the two sentences),

3.3.35 L.7 ✅ द्विराम्नानम् अनर्थकमेव स्यात्;
A mention of it twice would be meaningless.

3.3.35 L.8 ✅ तस्मात् यथा अभ्यासात्कर्म-भेदः,
So, just as on account of repetition, religious actions are construed to be separate (according to Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā),

3.3.35 L.9 ✅ एवमभ्यासाद्विद्या-भेद
Even so, inasmuch as there is repetition here, the Vidyās are separate.

3.3.35 L.10 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, प्रत्याह –
That being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), the reply is —

3.3.35 L.11 ✅ अन्तरा आम्नानाविशेषात् स्वात्मनः
As the same universal Highest Self (Svātmā) is stated to be inside all, in a general and common way,

3.3.35 L.12 ✅ विद्यैकत्वमिति;
There is unity of Vidyās.

3.3.35 L.13 ✅ सर्वान्तरो हि स्वात्मा उभयत्राप्यविशिष्टः
पृच्छ्यते, प्रत्युच्यते च;
The question asked and the reply given,
Refer in a common way to one and the same one’s own Self which is said to be inside all.

3.3.35 L.14 ✅ न हि द्वावात्मानौ एकस्मिन्देहे सर्वान्तरौ सम्भवतः;
Two Selfs cannot possibly be the innermost Selfs, in one and the same body.

3.3.35 L.15 ✅ तदा हि एकस्य आञ्जसं सर्वान्तरत्वम् अवकल्पेत,
Therefore, the statement about being the innermost of all, can be proper or cogent in the case of only one ‘Self’,

3.3.35 L.16 ✅ एकस्य तु भूतग्रामवत् नैव सर्वान्तरत्वं स्यात्;
And another ‘Self’ cannot possibly be an entity innermost of all, even as it is in the case of the aggregate of elements.

3.3.35 L.17 ✅ यथा च पञ्चभूत-समूहे देहे –
Just as in the case of a body (which is) an aggregate of five elements,

3.3.35 L.18 ✅ पृथिव्या आपोऽन्तराः,
Āpaḥ (water) is inside the Pṛthivī (earth),

3.3.35 L.19 ✅ अद्भ्यस्तेजोऽन्तरमिति –
And Tejas is inside the Āpaḥ,

3.3.35 L.20 ✅ सत्यप्यापेक्षिकेऽन्तरत्वे, नैव मुख्यं सर्वान्तरत्वं भवति,
In a relative sense, but this being inside relatively, cannot be ‘inside all’ in the principal sense,

3.3.35 L.21 ✅ तथेहापीत्यर्थः।
Even so it is in this case.

3.3.35 L.22 ✅ अथवा भूतग्रामवदिति श्रुत्यन्तरं निदर्शयति;
Or else it may be understood, that the words “like the aggregate of elements” are mentioned (in the Sūtra) as an illustration from another Scriptural passage.

3.3.35 L.23 ✅ यथा – ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (SvetU.6.11) इत्यस्मिन्मन्त्रे
The meaning is, that just as in the Mantra “There is one and only one God, hidden in the aggregate of elements, he is all-pervading, and is the Self of all” (SvetU.6.11),

3.3.35 L.24 ✅ समस्तेषु भूतग्रामेष्वेक एव सर्वान्तर आत्मा आम्नायते –
Only one Universal Highest Self is spoken of as being inside the aggregate of elements,

3.3.35 L.25 ✅ एवमनयोरपि ब्राह्मणयोरित्यर्थः।
Even so it is, in the case of these Brāhmaṇa passages.

3.3.35 L.26 ✅ तस्मात् वेद्यैक्यात् विद्यैकत्वमिति॥३५॥
Therefore, as the entity to be known is but one only, the Vidyās are identical. — 35.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्यथा भेदानुपपत्तिरिति चेन्नोपदेशान्तरवत्॥३.३.३६॥
Anyathā bhedānupapattir iti cen nopadeśāntaravat.

Anyathā: otherwise; Bheda-anupapattih: the repetition cannot be accounted for, no justification for the variety in the wording of the two replies; Iti: so, this; Cet: if; Na: no, not so; Upadeśa-antaravat: as will be seen from other teachings, as in the teaching of another Vidyā, mode of meditation, namely the Satya Vidyā in the Chandogya. (Bheda: difference; An-upapattiḥ: not obtaining.)

🔗 If it be said (that unless the Vidyās are understood to be separate), the two identical but separate statements are not reasonably sustainable, (we reply) — No, because it is only like (the repetition in) another Scriptural instruction. — 3.3.36.

3.3.36 L.1 ✅ अथ यदुक्तम् – अनभ्युपगम्यमाने विद्या-भेदे आम्नान-भेदानुपपत्तिरिति,
The objection taken (by the opponent of Vedānta), viz., that unless the Vidyās are understood to be separate, the two identical but separate Scriptural statements are not reasonably sustainable,

3.3.36 L.2 ✅ तत्परिहर्तव्यम्;
Has to be refuted.

3.3.36 L.3 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – नायं दोषः;
With regard to that, we reply — This is no fault,

3.3.36 L.4 ✅ उपदेशान्तरवदुपपत्तेः;
Because it becomes reasonably sustainable, as it is in the case of (similar repetitions in) another Scriptural instruction (about the same one thing).

3.3.36 L.5 ✅ यथा ताण्डिनाम् उपनिषदि षष्ठे प्रपाठके –
Just as in the sixth chapter of the Upaniṣad of the Tāṇḍins (i.e. Chāndogya),

3.3.36 L.6 ✅ ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति नवकृत्वोऽप्युपदेशे
Even though the Scriptural instruction “That is the Self, that thou art, Oh Śveta-keto” (ChanU.6.8.7) is repeated nine times,

3.3.36 L.7 ✅ न विद्या-भेदो भवति,
The Vidyā does not thereby become separate,

3.3.36 L.8 ✅ एवमिहापि भविष्यति।
Even so, will it be, in this case also.

3.3.36 L.9 ✅ कथं च नवकृत्वोऽप्युपदेशे विद्या-भेदो न भवति?
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — How is it that the Vidyās do not become separate, even though Scriptural instruction is given nine times?

3.3.36 L.10 ✅ उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्याम् एकार्थतावगमात् –
(We reply) — Because we understand from the introductory and the concluding portions, that they mean the same one entity,

3.3.36 L.11 ✅ ‘भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयतु’ (ChanU.6.5.4) इति च
एकस्यैवार्थस्य पुनः पुनः प्रतिपिपादयिषितत्वेन उपक्षेपात्
Inasmuch as the Scriptures refer to the same one entity again and again, as the entity to be propounded, in the passage
“May the Bhagavān be pleased to teach me (the same Brahman) once again” (ChanU.6.5.4),

3.3.36 L.12 ✅ आशङ्कान्तर-निराकरणेन च
And because, it is in this way that by the removal of every fresh doubt,

3.3.36 L.13 ✅ असकृदुपदेशोपपत्तेः।
Scriptural instruction given more than once is made reasonably sustainable.

3.3.36 L.14 ✅ एवमिहापि
Similarly, here also,

3.3.36 L.15 ✅ प्रश्नरूपाभेदात्,
‘अतोऽन्यदार्तम्’ (BrhU.3.4.2) (BrhU.3.5.1) इति च
परिसमाप्त्यविशेषात्
Inasmuch as there is no difference in the nature of the question,
And the concluding portion,
“Every thing else than this is perishable” (BrhU.3.4.2, BrhU.3.5.1), also is identical,

3.3.36 L.16 ✅ उपक्रमोपसंहारौ तावदेकार्थविषयौ दृश्येते;
It appears that the introductory and the concluding portions refer to the same one entity.

3.3.36 L.17 ✅ ‘यदेव साक्षाद् अपरोक्षाद् ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.5.1) इति
द्वितीये प्रश्ने एवकारं प्रयुञ्जानः
पूर्वप्रश्नगतम् एवार्थम्
उत्तरत्रानुकृष्यमाणं दर्शयति;
Kahola who uses the word ‘eva’ in the second question, thus —
“That very (entity) again which immediately and directly is Brahman” (BrhUEng.3.5.1),
Shows that the same entity referred to (by Uṣasta) in the previous question, viz. “that which immediately and directly is Brahman”,
Is brought forward in the later question (of Kahola).

3.3.36 L.18 ✅ पूर्वस्मिंश्च ब्राह्मणे कार्यकरण-व्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनः सद्भावः कथ्यते;
In the former Brāhmaṇa passage, the existence of the Self as apart from the body and the sense-organs is stated,

3.3.36 L.19 ✅ उत्तरस्मिंस्तु तस्यैव अशनायादि-संसारधर्मातीतत्वं विशेषः कथ्यते –
While in the latter, the same Self is referred to as the one which is beyond the attributes of transmigratory condition such as hunger etc. (see BrS.3.3.34 commmentary).

3.3.36 L.20 ✅ इत्येकार्थतोपपत्तिः।
In this way, it becomes reasonably sustainable that the same entity is meant.

3.3.36 L.21 ✅ तस्मात् एका विद्येति॥३६॥
Therefore, the Vidyā is the same (in both these Brāhmaṇas). — 36.

– 122. Antaratva-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
व्यतिहारो विशिंषन्ति हीतरवत्॥३.३.३७॥
Vyatihāro viśiṃṣanti hītaravat.

Vyatihāraḥ: exchange; reciprocity (of meditation); Viśiṃṣanti: (the scriptures) explain clearly, distinguish; Hi: because, for; Itaravat: as in other cases.

🔗 There is reciprocal interchange of (meditations). The Scriptural recensions (of both) also state distinctly to that effect. It is as in the case of other (attributes). — 3.3.37.

3.3.37 L.1 ✅ यथा – ‘तद्योऽहं सोऽसौ योऽसौ सोऽहम्’
इत्यादित्य-पुरुषं प्रकृत्यैतरेयिणः समामनन्ति,
The Scriptural statement of the Aitareyas, with reference to the Puruṣa in the Sun,
Is like this — “That which I am, He is, and what He is, I am”,

3.3.37 L.2 ✅ तथा जाबालाः – ‘त्वं वा अहमस्मि भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि’ इति।
While the Jābālas mention this way — “Oh great divinity, thou indeed art myself and I verily am thou”.

3.3.37 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now the question here is,

3.3.37 L.4 ✅ किमिह व्यतिहारेण उभयरूपा मतिः कर्तव्या,
Whether reciprocal interchange of meditations of both these kinds are to be made here,

3.3.37 L.5 ✅ उत एकरूपैवेति।
Or meditation of only one kind is to be made.

3.3.37 L.6 ✅ एकरूपैवेति तावदाह;
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that meditation of only one kind is to be made.

3.3.37 L.7 ✅ न हि अत्र आत्मन ईश्वरेणैकत्वं मुक्त्वा
अन्यत्किञ्चिच्चिन्तयितव्यमस्ति;
Beyond meditating upon the oneness of the Jīva-Self and the Lord,
Nothing else is to be meditated upon here.

3.3.37 L.8 ✅ यदि चैवं चिन्तयितव्य-विशेषः परिकल्प्येत,
Now, if it be specially meditated upon,

3.3.37 L.9 ✅ संसारिणश्च ईश्वरात्मत्वम्,
That the transmigratory Jīva-Self is the Lord,

3.3.37 L.10 ✅ ईश्वरस्य संसार्यात्मत्वमिति –
And the Lord is the transmigratory Jīva-Self,

3.3.37 L.11 ✅ तत्र संसारिणः तावदीश्वरात्मत्वे उत्कर्षो भवेत्;
Then, in meditating that the transmigratory Jīva-Self is the Lord, the status of the transmigratory Jīva-Self would of course be enhanced,

3.3.37 L.12 ✅ ईश्वरस्य तु संसार्यात्मत्वे निकर्षः कृतः स्यात्।
But on the other hand, in meditating that the Lord is the transmigratory Jīva-Self, the status of the Lord would be lowered.

3.3.37 L.13 ✅ तस्मात् ऐकरूप्यमेव मतेः।
Therefore, meditation ought to be only of one nature (i.e. one-sided) only

3.3.37 L.14 ✅ व्यतिहाराम्नायस्तु एकत्व-दृढीकारार्थः
And (it should be understood) that the Scriptural statement in a reciprocal manner both ways is for the purpose of strengthening the unity of both.

3.3.37 L.15 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, प्रत्याह –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), the reply is —

3.3.37 L.16 ✅ व्यतिहारोऽयम् आध्यानायाम्नायते;
The statement about the reciprocal interchange of meditation, is merely for meditation.

3.3.37 L.17 ✅ इतरवत् – यथा इतरे गुणाः सर्वात्मत्वप्रभृतयः आध्यानाय आम्नायन्ते, तद्वत्।
Just as in the case of the other attributes, i.e. just as other attributes such as ‘being the Self of all’ etc. are mentioned by the Scriptures for meditation,

3.3.37 L.18 ✅ तथा हि विशिंषन्ति समाम्नातारः उभयोच्चारणेन –
Even so, here, the Scriptures have stated in both ways,

3.3.37 L.19 ✅ ‘त्वमहमस्म्यहं च त्वमसि’ इति;
Viz. “Thou art myself and I am thou”,

3.3.37 L.20 ✅ तच्च उभयरूपायां मतौ कर्तव्यायाम् अर्थवद्भवति;
And such statement would have meaning only if the meditations are meant to be reciprocally interchanged,

3.3.37 L.21 ✅ अन्यथा हि इदं विशेषेणोभयाम्नानम् अनर्थकं स्यात्,
As otherwise this special mention of meditation both ways would be meaningless,

3.3.37 L.22 ✅ एकेनैव कृतत्वात्।
Because meditation in one way only would suffice.

3.3.37 L.23 ✅ ननु उभयाम्नानस्य अर्थविशेषे परिकल्प्यमाने
देवतायाः संसार्यात्मत्वापत्तेः
निकर्षः प्रसज्येतेत्युक्तम् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) I have stated that if it were to be imagined that the Scriptural statement speaks of reciprocal interchange,
Then, as in that case the transmigratory Jīva-Self will have to be considered to be the deity and the deity to be the transmigratory Jīva-Self,
\ And thus there would be a lowering of the status (of the Lord).

3.3.37 L.24 ✅ नैष दोषः;
We reply — This is no fault,

3.3.37 L.25 ✅ ऐकात्म्यस्यैव अनेन प्रकारेणानुचिन्त्यमानत्वात्।
Because in this way, it is precisely the unity (of the transmigratory Jīva-Self and the deity) that would thus happen to be meditated upon.

3.3.37 L.26 ✅ ननु एवं सति
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) in that case

3.3.37 L.26 ✅ स एव एकत्व-दृढीकार आपद्येत –
The predicament of the very same strengthening of the unity (already referred to by me) would occur.

3.3.37 L.27 ✅ न वयम् एकत्व-दृढीकारं वारयामः –
(We reply) — We are not in this way seeking to avoid the strengthening of the unity,

3.3.37 L.28 ✅ किं तर्हि? – व्यतिहारेण इह द्विरूपा मतिः कर्तव्या वचन-प्रामाण्यात्, नैकरूपेत्येतावत् उपपादयामः;
But we wish to propound only this much, by depending upon the authoritativeness of Scriptural statements, that, meditations of both these kinds should be made by reciprocal interchange and not of one kind only.

3.3.37 L.29 ✅ फलतस्तु एकत्वमपि दृढीभवति।
No doubt, it would virtually (Phalataḥ) result in strengthening the unity.

3.3.37 L.30 ✅ यथा आध्यानार्थेऽपि सत्यकामादि-गुणोपदेशे
It is just this way. Though the instruction, about the Lord’s having the attribute ‘of possessing desires that are always true’, is for the purpose of meditation only,

3.3.37 L.31 ✅ तद्गुण ईश्वरः प्रसिध्यति, तद्वत्।
Still it also does establish the existence of the Lord as endowed with such an attribute.

3.3.37 L.32 ✅ तस्माद् अयमाध्यातव्यो व्यतिहारः
Therefore, this reciprocal interchange (of meditation) should be made,

3.3.37 L.33 ✅ समाने च विषये उपसंहर्तव्यो भवतीति॥३७॥
And such meditation deserves to be combined in the case of other similar Vidyās. — 37.

– 123. Vyatihāra-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सैव हि सत्यादयः॥३.३.३८॥
Saiva hi satyādayaḥ.

Sā eva: the same (Satya Vidyā); Hi: because; Satya-ādayaḥ: (attributes like) Satya etc.

🔗 (In both the places viz. in the 4th and the 5th Kaṇḍikas of the 5th Adhyāya of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka) the same (Satya-Vidyā is mentioned) and, therefore, (attributes such as) Satya etc. (ought to be combined). — 3.3.38.

3.3.38 L.1 ✅ ‘स यो हैतं महद्यक्षं प्रथमजं वेद सत्यं ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.5.4.1) इत्यादिना
वाजसनेयके सत्य-विद्यां सनामाक्षरोपासनां विधाय,
In the Vāja-saneyaka after enjoining the Satya-Vidyā comprising of the meditation on the name ‘Satya’ with its component letters
(Sa (स), Ta (त), Ya (य), the first and the third representing Truth, and the middle one representing ‘untruth’ held fast between them)
By the Scriptural passage — “He who knows that all-pervading, worshipworthy (Yakṣa), first-born Satya i.e. Brahman (the Hiraṇya-garbha)” (BrhUEng.5.4.1),

3.3.38 L.2 ✅ अनन्तरमाम्नायते –
It is later on mentioned thus —

3.3.38 L.3 ✅ ‘तद्यत् तत्सत्यमसौ स आदित्यो य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषो यश्चायं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषः’ (BrhU.5.5.2) इत्यादि।
“That which is that Satya, is the Āditya, he, who is the Puruṣa in the sphere (of the Sun), and he, who is also the Puruṣa in the right eye” BrhUEng.5.5.2).

3.3.38 L.4 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now with respect to this, a doubt arises,

3.3.38 L.5 ✅ किं द्वे एते सत्यविद्ये,
As to whether these are two different Satya-Vidyās

3.3.38 L.6 ✅ किं वा एकैवेति।
Or whether they both are but one and the same Vidyā.

3.3.38 L.7 ✅ द्वे इति तावत्प्राप्तम्;
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that they are two Vidyās,

3.3.38 L.8 ✅ भेदेन हि फलसंयोगो भवति –
Because they have been connected with separate fruits or results,

3.3.38 L.9 ✅ ‘जयतीमाँल्लोकान्’ (BrhU.5.4.1) इति पुरस्तात्,
Viz. with “He conquers these worlds” (BrhUEng.5.4.1) in the former sentence,

3.3.38 L.10 ✅ ‘हन्ति पाप्मानं जहाति च’ (BrhU.5.5.4) इत्युपरिष्टात्।
And with “He destroys and casts off all sin” (BrhUEng.5.5.3, 4) in the latter one,

3.3.38 L.11 ✅ प्रकृताकर्षणं तु उपास्यैकत्वात्
While the bringing forward of the relevant Satya (in the former sentence), into the latter one, is, because, the object of meditation (viz. Hiraṇya-garbha) is one and the same (in both the Vidyās).

3.3.38 L.12 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being to this effect,

3.3.38 L.13 ✅ एकैवेयं सत्यविद्येति।
We reply — There is but one Satya-Vidyā (in both the places).

3.3.38 L.14 ✅ कुतः? ‘तद्यत्तत्सत्यम्’ (BrhU.5.5.2) इति
Whence is it so? Because, in the passage “What that is, is that Satya” BrhUEng.5.5.2),

3.3.38 L.15 ✅ प्रकृताकर्षणात्।
What was relevant in the former is brought forward into the latter.

3.3.38 L.16 ✅ ननु विद्या-भेदेऽपि प्रकृताकर्षणम् उपास्यैकत्वाद् उपपद्यत इत्युक्तम् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) it has been said (by me) already that even when the Vidyās are separate, this bringing forward of the thing relevant in the former, into the latter one [on account of being the same thing to be meditated], is reasonably sustainable.

3.3.38 L.17 ✅ नैतदेवम्;
(We reply) — It is not so.

3.3.38 L.18 ✅ यत्र तु विस्पष्टात् कारणान्तरात् विद्याभेदः प्रतीयते,
तत्र एतदेवं स्यात्;
Of course, it may well be so, where,
Because of some other patent reason a difference in the Vidyās is perceived.

3.3.38 L.19 ✅ अत्र तु उभयथा सम्भवे
But here in this case, where both these (views) are possible,

3.3.38 L.20 ✅ ‘तद्यत् तत्सत्यम्’ इति प्रकृताकर्षणात्
Precisely because of the bringing forward of the former “What that is, is that Satya” later on, by the passage “What that is, is that Satya”,

3.3.38 L.21 ✅ पूर्वविद्या-सम्बद्धमेव सत्यम् उत्तरत्र आकृष्यत इति
एकविद्यात्व-निश्चयः।
It is determined that there is unity of Vidyās here,
Because the same Satya connected with the earlier Vidyā is brought forward in the later Vidyā.

3.3.38 L.22 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् –
With respect to the argument (of the opponent of Vedānta)

3.3.38 L.23 ✅ फलान्तर-श्रवणाद् विद्यान्तरमिति,
That as a separate fruit is stated by the Scriptures, the Vidyās are separate,

3.3.38 L.24 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – ‘तस्योपनिषद् अहः ... अहम्’ इति च
अङ्गान्तरोपदेशस्य स्तावकम् इदं फलान्तर-श्रवणम्
We reply — that the Scriptural statement about the other fruit or result, being only in glorification of the instruction about another subsidiary matter,
Viz., that its esoteric names are ‘‘Ahaḥ’ and ‘Aham’,

3.3.38 L.25 ✅ इत्यदोषः।
There is no fault.

3.3.38 L.26 ✅ अपि च अर्थवादादेव फले कल्पयितव्ये सति,
Besides, if the fruits or results have to be imagined from the Artha-vāda passages only,

3.3.38 L.27 ✅ विद्यैकत्वे च
And, if there is unity of Vidyās,

3.3.38 L.28 ✅ अवयवेषु श्रूयमाणानि बहून्यपि फलानि
The several fruits or results stated by the Scriptures to be the fruits or results of the several parts (Avayavas) of such Vidyā,

3.3.38 L.29 ✅ अवयविन्यामेव विद्यायाम् उपसंहर्तव्यानि भवन्ति;
Have to be combined into one fruit or result of the whole Vidyā (i.e. the Avayavī),

3.3.38 L.30 ✅ तस्मात्सैवेयम् एका सत्य-विद्या तेन तेन विशेषेणोपेता आम्नाता –
And therefore, inasmuch as one Satya-Vidyā alone is mentioned here by the Scriptures as being endowed with particular different special features,

3.3.38 L.31 ✅ इत्यतः सर्व एव सत्यादयो गुणा एकस्मिन्प्रयोगे उपसंहर्तव्याः
All attributes, such as Satya etc., have to be combined in the single act (of meditation).

3.3.38 L.32 ✅ केचित्पुनरस्मिन्सूत्रे इदं च वाजसनेयकम् अक्ष्यादित्यपुरुष-विषयं वाक्यम्,
Some others, however, holding that this Vāja-saneyaka passage, which relates to the subject of the Puruṣa in the eye and the Sun,

3.3.38 L.33 ✅ छान्दोग्ये च ‘अथ य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये हिरण्यमः पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.1.6.6)
‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.4.15.1) इति –
उदाहृत्य, सैवेयम्
Is the same that is mentioned
In the Chāndogya passages, “Now, this aureate Puruṣa that is seen to be in the Sun” (ChanU.1.6.6)
And “Now this Puruṣa that is seen in the eye” (ChanU.4.15.1),

3.3.38 L.34 ✅ अक्ष्यादित्यपुरुष-विषया विद्या उभयत्र एकैवेति कृत्वा,
And holding that this Vidyā relating to the Puruṣa in the Sun and in the eye (in the two places) is but one and the same Vidyā in both the places,

3.3.38 L.35 ✅ सत्यादीन् गुणान् वाजसनेयिभ्यः छन्दोगानाम् उपसंहार्यान् मन्यन्ते।
Consider, that the attributes occurring in the Vāja-saneyaka Vidyā viz. “Satya etc.” are to be combined with these mentioned in the Vidyā of the Chando-gas.

3.3.38 L.36 ✅ तन्न साधु लक्ष्यते;
But it does not appear to be proper to think so,

3.3.38 L.37 ✅ छान्दोग्ये हि कर्मसम्बन्धिनी उद्गीथ-व्यपाश्रया विद्या विज्ञायते;
Because the Vidyā in the Chāndogya appears to relate to the Jyoti-ṣṭoma ritual belonging to the Udgītha (the religious ritual of the singing by the Udgātṛ, a Sāman-Veda priest, in the Jyoti-ṣṭoma).

3.3.38 L.38 ✅ तत्र हि आदि-मध्यावसानेषु कर्मसम्बन्धि-चिह्नानि भवन्ति –
Because indicatory marks relating to a religious Karma are present there, in the beginning, the middle and the end,

3.3.38 L.39 ✅ ‘इयमेवर्गग्निः साम’ (ChanU.1.6.1) इत्युपक्रमे,
As for instance, “This (Earth) indeed is Ṛk and the Agni is the Sāman” (ChanU.1.6.1) in the beginning,

3.3.38 L.40 ✅ ‘तस्यर्क्च साम च गेष्णौ तस्मादुद्गीथः’ (ChanU.1.6.8) इति मध्ये,
“A Ṛk and the Sāman are the singers and therefore, it is the Udgītha” (ChanU.1.6.8) in the middle,

3.3.38 L.41 ✅ ‘य एवं विद्वान्साम गायति’ (ChanU.1.7.9) इत्युपसंहारे।
And “He who, knowing thus, sings the Sāman” (ChanU.1.7.9), in the concluding portion,

3.3.38 L.42 ✅ नैवं वाजसनेयके किञ्चित् कर्मसम्बन्धि चिह्नम् अस्ति;
While there is no such indicatory mark relating to Karma, in the Vāja-saneyaka.

3.3.38 L.43 ✅ तत्र प्रक्रम-भेदात् विद्याभेदे सति
Hence, inasmuch as there is difference in the Vidyās, due to the difference in the introductory portion (Prakrama),

3.3.38 L.44 ✅ गुण-व्यवस्थैव युक्तेति॥३८॥
That the attributes (of these Vidyās) are restricted to only where they are mentioned, is logical. — 38.

– 124. Satya-ādy-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
कामादीतरत्र तत्र चायतनादिभ्यः॥३.३.३९॥
Kāmādītaratra tatra cāyatanādibhyaḥ.

Kāma-ādi: (Satya-saṅkalpa-ādi) (True) desire etc.; Itaratra: in the other, elsewhere, in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad; Tatra: there, in the Chandogya Upaniṣad; Ca: also; Āyatana-ādibhyaḥ: on account of the abode etc.

🔗 (Attributes such as) (true) desires etc. (in one place, are to be combined) elsewhere and vice versa, because of (the similarity of) the abode etc. — 3.3.39.

3.3.39 L.1 ✅ ‘अथ यदिदमस्मिन्ब्रह्मपुरे दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ (ChanU.8.1.1) इति प्रस्तुत्य, छन्दोगाः
The Chando-gas beginning thus — “Now the lotus-like small palace that is in this body (i.e. Brahma-pura, lit., the city of Brahman) and the small Ākāśa that is within it” (ChanU.8.1.1),

3.3.39 L.2 ✅ अधीयते – ‘एष आत्माऽपहतपाप्मा विजरो विमृत्युर्विशोको विजिघत्सोऽपिपासः सत्यकामः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ (ChanU.8.1.5) इत्यादि;
Recite — “This Self which is without sin, and is unaging and undying and is sans-grief, sans-hunger, and sans-thirst, and is the one, whose desires are true, and whose resolutions are true” (ChanU.8.1.5).

3.3.39 L.3 ✅ तथा वाजसनेयिनः –
Similarly the Vāja-saneyins recite —

3.3.39 L.4 ✅ ‘स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्शेते सर्वस्य वशी’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यादि।
“Verily that great Self, that is unborn and is one that alone amongst the Prāṇas (i.e. sense-organs) has the structure of knowledge (Vijñānamaya). (Who is) the ruler of all, and sleeps in the Ākāśa of the Hṛdaya” (BrhUEng.4.4.22).

3.3.39 L.5 ✅ तत्र विद्यैकत्वं परस्परगुणयोगश्च, किं वा नेति संशये –
Now, the doubt here being, as to whether there is unity of Vidyās here, and a mutual combination of attributes,

3.3.39 L.6 ✅ विद्यैकत्वमिति
(The conclusion of the opponent of Vedānta is) that there is unity of Vidyā.

3.3.39 L.7 ✅ तत्रेदमुच्यते – कामादीति,
With regard to that it is said — “(attributes such as) desires etc.”.

3.3.39 L.8 ✅ सत्यकामादीत्यर्थः –
The meaning is — “true desires etc.”,

3.3.39 L.9 ✅ यथा देवदत्तो दत्तः, सत्यभामा भामेति।
Just as Deva-datta is called Datta, and Satya-bhāmā is called Bhāmā (for short).

3.3.39 L.10 ✅ यदेतत् छान्दोग्ये हृदयाकाशस्य सत्यकामत्वादि-गुणजातम् उपलभ्यते,
Such set of attributes of the Ākāśa of the Hṛdaya, as having true desires (Satya-kāmatva) etc., observed (by us) in the Chāndogya,

3.3.39 L.11 ✅ तदितरत्र वाजसनेयके ‘स वा एष महानज आत्मा’ इत्यत्र सम्बध्येत;
Combine with “This great unborn Self” in the Vāja-saneyaka,

3.3.39 L.12 ✅ यच्च वाजसनेयके वशित्वादि उपलभ्यते,
And the “rulership over all etc.” observed in the Vāja-saneyaka,

3.3.39 L.13 ✅ तदपि इतरत्र छान्दोग्ये ‘एष आत्माऽपहतपाप्मा’ (ChanU.7.1.5) इत्यत्र सम्बध्येत।
Also combine with “This Self that is without Sin etc.” in the Chāndogya.

3.3.39 L.14 ✅ कुतः? आयतनादि-सामान्यात्;
Whence is it so? Because, “the abode etc.” is common to both.

3.3.39 L.15 ✅ समानं हि उभयत्रापि हृदयम् आयतनम्,
The same common abode, viz. the Hṛdaya,

3.3.39 L.16 ✅ समानश्च वेद्य ईश्वरः,
The same Lord who is the common subject to be known,

3.3.39 L.17 ✅ समानं च तस्य सेतुत्वं लोकासम्भेद-प्रयोजनम् –
And the same common characteristic of being a ‘bund’ (Setu) calculated to protect the worlds from promiscuity,

3.3.39 L.18 ✅ इत्येवमादि बहु सामान्यं दृश्यते।
And so many other such common characteristics are observed.

3.3.39 L.19 ✅ ननु विशेषोऽपि दृश्यते –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) as between them, we observe particular differences also.

3.3.39 L.20 ✅ छान्दोग्ये हृदयाकाशस्य गुणयोगः,
For instance in the Chāndogya, the attributes belong to the Ākāśa of the Hṛdaya,

3.3.39 L.21 ✅ वाजसनेयके तु आकाशाश्रयस्य ब्रह्मण इति –
While in the Vāja-saneyaka they belong to Brahman which is the support of that Ākāśa.

3.3.39 L.22 ✅ न, ‘दहर उत्तरेभ्यः’ (BrS.1.3.14) इत्यत्र च्छान्दोग्येऽपि आकाश-शब्दं ब्रह्मैवेति प्रतिष्ठापितत्वात्।
We reply — No, because in BrS.1.3.14, it has been established that the word Ākāśa in the Chāndogya means Brahman.

3.3.39 L.23 ✅ अयं तु अत्र विद्यते विशेषः –
This however is the particular difference here.

3.3.39 L.24 ✅ सगुणा हि ब्रह्म-विद्या छान्दोग्ये उपदिश्यते –
In the Chāndogya the Vidyā of qualified Brahman is taught,

3.3.39 L.25 ✅ ‘अथ य इहात्मानमनुविद्य व्रजन्त्येताꣳश्च सत्यान्कामान्’ (ChanU.8.1.6) इति
Because the passage “Now, those who having realized the Self and its true desires, here during life, depart from this body”

3.3.39 L.26 ✅ आत्मवत् कामानामपि वेद्यत्व-श्रवणात्,
Speaks of the Self, as also of the desires, as the things to be known.

3.3.39 L.27 ✅ वाजसनेयके तु निर्गुणमेव ब्रह्म उपदिश्यमानं दृश्यते –
In the Vāja-saneyaka, however, the instruction is about the unqualified transcendent Brahman,

3.3.39 L.28 ✅ ‘अत ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्षाय ब्रूहि’ (BrhU.4.3.14)
‘असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः’ (BrhU.4.3.15)
इत्यादिप्रश्नप्रतिवचन-समन्वयात्।
As is evident from the coordination of the question and the reply,
“Now after this, tell me about (that which leads to) Final Release” (BrhUEng.4.3.14)
And “This Puruṣa is unattached” (BrhUEng.4.3.15) respectively.

3.3.39 L.29 ✅ वशित्वादि तु स्तुत्यर्थमेव गुणजातं वाजसनेयके सङ्कीर्त्यते;
In the Vāja-saneyaka the set of attributes such as being the ruler etc., is stated for the purpose of the glorification of the Self,

3.3.39 L.30 ✅ तथा च उपरिष्टात् ‘स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इत्यादिना निर्गुणमेव ब्रह्म उपसंहरति।
And, afterwards by the concluding portion “That Ātmā which is (negatively) described as ‘not so’, ‘not so’” etc., it is the unqualified Brahman that is spoken of.

3.3.39 L.31 ✅ गुणवतस्तु ब्रह्मण एकत्वात्
As however the qualified Brahman is (essentially) the same as the unqualified Brahman,

3.3.39 L.32 ✅ विभूति-प्रदर्शनाय अयं गुणोपसंहारः सूत्रितः,
नोपासनाय – इति द्रष्टव्यम्॥३९॥
It should be understood that the combining of the attributes as stated in the Sūtra, is merely for the purpose of illustrating the exalted stature of Brahman
And not for the purpose of contemplation. — 39.

– 125. Kāma-ādi-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.40 Su..41

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आदरादलोपः॥३.३.४०॥
Ādarād alopaḥ.

Ādarāt: on account of the respect shown; A-lopaḥ: there can be no omission.

🔗 Because of the deference (shown by the Scriptures) the Agni-hotra (to the Prāṇa), is not to be dropped. — 3.3.40.

3.3.40 L.1 ✅ छान्दोग्ये वैश्वानरविद्यां प्रकृत्य श्रूयते –
In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, referring to Vaiśvā-nara-Vidyā the Scriptures declare thus —

3.3.40 L.2 ✅ ‘तद्यद्भक्तं प्रथममागच्छेत्तद्धोमीयꣳ स यां प्रथमामाहुतिं जुहुयात्तां जुहुयात्प्राणाय स्वाहा’ (ChanU.5.19.1) इत्यादि;
“That the food (Bhakta) that comes in first is for the Sacrifice. The oblation that he offers first, he should offer, saying ‘To the Prāṇa, Svāhā’” (ChanU.5.19.1).

3.3.40 L.3 ✅ तत्र पञ्च प्राणाहुतयो विहिताः;
Five such oblations to the Prāṇa are enjoined therein,

3.3.40 L.4 ✅ तासु च परस्ताद् अग्निहोत्र-शब्दः प्रयुक्तः
‘य एतदेवं विद्वानग्निहोत्रं जुहोति’ (ChanU.5.24.2) इति,
And the word Agni-hotra is afterwards applied to them, thus —
“One who knows it to be so and performs the Agni-hotra” (ChanU.5.24.2)

3.3.40 L.5 ✅ ‘यथेह क्षुधिता बाला मातरं पर्युपासते एवꣳ सर्वाणि भूतान्यग्निहोत्रमुपासते’ (ChanU.5.24.5) इति च।
And “Just as hungry children sit round their mother, even so, all creatures sit round the Agni-hotra” (ChanU.5.24.5).

3.3.40 L.6 ✅ तत्रेदं विचार्यते –
With regard to that the following consideration arises,

3.3.40 L.7 ✅ किं भोजन-लोपे लोपः प्राणाग्नि-होत्रस्य,
Viz., whether, when no dinner is taken, this Agni-hotra is to be dropped,

3.3.40 L.8 ✅ उत अलोप इति।
Or whether it is not to be so dropped.

3.3.40 L.9 ✅ ‘तद्यद्भक्तम्’ इति भक्तागमनसंयोग-श्रवणात्,
Because the Scriptures speak about the connection (of the Agni-hotra) with the food that comes in — “As that food etc. that comes in first”,

3.3.40 L.10 ✅ भक्तागमनस्य च भोजनार्थत्वात्,
And as such coming in of the food is for the purpose of dining,

3.3.40 L.11 ✅ भोजनलोपे
(It would appear that) when such a meal is missed,

3.3.40 L.12 ✅ लोपः प्राणाग्निहोत्रस्येति
The Agni-hotra to the Prāṇa also is dropped.

3.3.40 L.13 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, न लुप्येतेति तावदाह।
This being the conclusion arrived at, (the opponent of Vedānta) says, that it, rather, is not so dropped.

3.3.40 L.14 ✅ कस्मात्? आदरात्;
Why? Because of the deference (shown by the Scriptures).

3.3.40 L.15 ✅ तथा हि वैश्वानर-विद्यायामेव जाबालानां श्रुतिः –
For, even so, is the Scriptural statement of the Jābālas in the Vaiśvā-nara-Vidyā thus —

3.3.40 L.16 ✅ ‘पूर्वोऽतिथिभ्योऽश्नीयात्।
“He (the performer of Agni-hotra) should dine (i.e. give five oblations to the Prāṇa), before his guest (dines)”.

3.3.40 L.17 ✅ यथा ह वै स्वयमहुत्वाग्निहोत्रं परस्य जुहुयादेवं तत्’ इति
The Scriptural passage “It verily is, as if a man without himself offering an oblation (in an Agni-hotra), performs the Agni-hotra for another”,

3.3.40 L.18 ✅ अतिथि-भोजनस्य प्राथम्यं निन्दित्वा,
Which, after having censured that dining by the guest first,

3.3.40 L.19 ✅ स्वामि-भोजनं प्रथमं प्रापयन्ती
Purports to give precedence to the dining by the host (Svāmi i.e. Yajamāna)

3.3.40 L.20 ✅ प्राणाग्निहोत्रे आदरं करोति;
And thus shows deference to the Agni-hotra of the Prāṇa.

3.3.40 L.21 ✅ या हि न प्राथम्य-लोपं सहते,
नतरां सा प्राथम्यवतोऽग्निहोत्रस्य लोपं सहेतेति मन्यते।
And they consider, that when the Scriptures do not countenance such conceding of precedence to the guest in the matter of dining,
Much less then would they tolerate the dropping out of the Agni-hotra altogether.

3.3.40 L.22 ✅ ननु भोजनार्थभक्तागमन-संयोगाद्
But (says the Vedāntin) it has been shown, that, as it has a connection with the food that comes in first for the dinner,

3.3.40 L.23 ✅ भोजन-लोपे लोपः प्रापितः –
When the dinner is not taken, the Agni-hotra also is not performed.

3.3.40 L.24 ✅ न, तस्य द्रव्यविशेष-विधानार्थत्वात्;
(The opponent of Vedānta) says — No, because that passage purports to prescribe a particular kind of material for the Agni-hotra.

3.3.40 L.25 ✅ प्राकृते हि अग्निहोत्रे पयःप्रभृतीनां द्रव्याणां नियतत्वात्
As, in the case of the ordinary Agni-hotra, materials such as milk etc. are prescribed,

3.3.40 L.26 ✅ इहापि अग्निहोत्र-शब्दात्
And inasmuch as the word Agni-hotra occurs here also,

3.3.40 L.27 ✅ कौण्डपायिनाम् अयनवत् तद्धर्मप्राप्तौ सत्याम्,
Therefore, on the analogy of the ‘Ayana’ (a Sacrifice which lasts for a year) of the Kauṇḍa-pāyins (i.e. those, who in a sacrifice drink Soma from a pot called Kuṇḍa), when such duty is to be performed,

3.3.40 L.28 ✅ भक्तद्रव्यतागुणविशेष-विधानार्थम्
इदं वाक्यम् ‘तद्यद्भक्तम्’ इति;
The Scriptural passage “That food which comes in first etc.”
Is meant to enjoin a particular kind of subsidiary matter relating to a particular kind of food.

3.3.40 L.29 ✅ अतो गुणलोपे न मुख्यस्येत्येवं प्राप्तम्;
Therefore the conclusion arrived at (by me) is that even though a subsidiary matter (as for instance food for a dinner) is absent, the principal matter (viz. the Agni-hotra) is not dropped.

3.3.40 L.30 ✅ भोजनलोपेऽपि
Even though dinner is not taken,

3.3.40 L.31 ✅ अद्भिर्वा अन्येन वा द्रव्येणाविरुद्धेन प्रतिनिधानन्यायेन प्राणाग्निहोत्रस्यानुष्ठानमिति॥४०॥
Prāṇa-Agni-hotra should be performed just the same, with some material which is not incompatible, such as water, or any other material, on the analogy of the ‘maxim of furnishing a substitute (Pratinidhi-Nyāya). — 40.

[Go top]

3.3.41 L.1 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
The Sūtra-kāra replies —

←Prev Next→
उपस्थितेऽतस्तद्वचनात्॥३.३.४१॥
Upasthite'tas tad-vacanāt.

Upasthite: being present, being near, when food is served; Ataḥ: from that, on that account; Tad-vacanāt: for so (the Śruti) declares.

🔗 When dinner is ready, (Prāṇa-Agni-hotra should be performed with that i.e. with the food available) because the Scriptures have mentioned to that effect. — 3.3.41.

3.3.41 L.2 ✅ उपस्थिते भोजने अतः तस्मादेव भोजन-द्रव्यात् प्रथमोपनिपतितात् प्राणाग्निहोत्रं निर्वर्तयितव्यम्।
When dinner is ready, Prāṇa-Agni-hotra should be performed with that i.e. with that very same food which becomes available first.

3.3.41 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? तद्वचनात्;
Whence is it so? Because the Scriptures have said so, thus —

3.3.41 L.4 ✅ तथा हि – ‘तद्यद्भक्तं प्रथममागच्छेत्तद्धोमीयम्’ (ChanU.5.19.1) इति
“That food which comes in first is fit for the purpose of offering as an oblation (Homīya) in a sacrifice” (ChanU.5.19.1).

3.3.41 L.5 ✅ सिद्धवद्भक्तोपनिपात-परामर्शेन
By referring to food which has become available first (i.e. which is ready at hand) as a thing already established,

3.3.41 L.6 ✅ परार्थद्रव्य-साध्यतां प्राणाहुतीनां विदधाति।
The Scriptures prescribe that the oblations to the Prāṇa should be accomplished with material which is meant for another purpose (viz. a dinner).

3.3.41 L.7 ✅ ताः अप्रयोजकलक्षणापन्नाः सत्यः, कथं भोजनलोपे द्रव्यान्तरं प्रतिनिधापयेयुः।
How can these oblations which by themselves do not possess a characteristic of enjoining anything, be themselves able to suggest the substitution of any other material (to be used as oblations), when such a dinner itself is dropped?

3.3.41 L.8 ✅ न च अत्र प्राकृताग्निहोत्रधर्म-प्राप्तिरस्ति;
Besides, no features of an ordinary Agni-hotra are available here.

3.3.41 L.9 ✅ कुण्डपायिनाम् अयने हि ‘मासमग्निहोत्रं जुहोति’ इति विध्युद्देशगतोऽग्निहोत्र-शब्दः
In the Ayana of Kauṇḍa-pāyins the word Agni-hotra, occurring in the injunctional clause “He performs Agni-hotra for a month”, may well be construed as enjoining an ordinary Agni-hotra,

3.3.41 L.10 ✅ तद्वद्भावं विधापयेदिति युक्ता तद्धर्मप्राप्तिः;
And hence it would be logical that subsidiary features of such an ordinary Agni-hotra, may well become available in that case,

3.3.41 L.11 ✅ इह पुनः अर्थवादगतोऽग्निहोत्र-शब्दः
Whereas, in the present case (of a Prāṇa-Agni-hotra) the word Agni-hotra which occurs in an Artha-vāda passage,

3.3.41 L.12 ✅ न तद्वद्भावं विधापयितुमर्हति;
Does not deserve to enjoin a similar ordinary Agni-hotra,

3.3.41 L.13 ✅ तद्धर्मप्राप्तौ च अभ्युपगम्यमानायाम्,
Because if it were to be understood that features of such an Agni-hotra do become available here,

3.3.41 L.14 ✅ अग्न्युद्धरणादयोऽपि प्राप्येरन्;
Such other subsidiary features as the kindling of a fire etc., also, may become equally available here,

3.3.41 L.15 ✅ न च अस्ति सम्भवः;
Which of course is not possible.

3.3.41 L.16 ✅ अग्न्युद्धरणं तावत् होमाधिकरणभावाय;
The kindling of a fire is for the purpose of its acting as the base for the sacrificial oblations.

3.3.41 L.17 ✅ न च अयम् अग्नौ होमः,
This (i.e. Prāṇa-Agni-hotra) Sacrifice is not meant to be made into a fire,

3.3.41 L.18 ✅ भोजनार्थताव्याघात-प्रसङ्गात्;
As in that case there would be the predicament of the destruction of the oblations which are meant to be eaten (by the sacrificer),

3.3.41 L.19 ✅ भोजनार्थोपनीतद्रव्य-सम्बन्धाच्च
And also because of their relation to the material made ready for a dinner,

3.3.41 L.20 ✅ आस्य एव एष होमः;
This offering of the oblation (in the Prāṇa-Agni-hotra) is necessarily to be offered in the mouth (Āsye).

3.3.41 L.21 ✅ तथा च जाबालश्रुतिः ‘पूर्वोऽतिथिभ्योऽश्नीयात्’ इति
The Jābāla Scriptural statement “He should dine before the guest (dines)”

3.3.41 L.22 ✅ आस्याधारामेव इमां होमनिर्वृत्तिं दर्शयति;
Shows the accomplishment of the offering of oblations as being made in the mouth only.

3.3.41 L.23 ✅ अत एव च इहापि साम्पादिकान्येवाग्निहोत्राङ्गानि दर्शयति –
That is why here also, the Scriptures indicate that the subsidiary parts of the Agni-hotra are to be fancifully imagined, thus —

3.3.41 L.24 ✅ ‘उर एव वेदिर्लोमानि बर्हिर्हृदयं गार्हपत्यो मनोऽन्वाहार्यपचन आस्यमाहवनीयः’ (ChanU.5.18.2) इति;
“That the chest is the Vedi (altar), the hairs are the Sacrificial grass, the Hṛdaya is the Gārha-patya fire, the mind is the Anvāhārya-pacana fire, and the mouth is the Āhavanīya fire” (ChanU.5.18.2).

3.3.41 L.25 ✅ वेदिश्रुतिश्चात्र स्थण्डिलमात्रोपलक्षणार्था द्रष्टव्या,
The Scriptural statement about the Vedi (altar) here, should be understood to mean the ‘Sthaṇḍila’ (i.e. a piece of ground, levelled as a square, and prepared for a sacrifice,

3.3.41 L.26 ✅ मुख्याग्निहोत्रे वेद्यभावात्,
Because, in an Agni-hotra in the principal sense, there is no Vedi),

3.3.41 L.27 ✅ तदङ्गानां च इह सम्पिपादयिषितत्वात्;
And the subsidiary matters of an Agni-hotra are only to be fancifully imagined.

3.3.41 L.28 ✅ भोजनेनैव च कृतकालेन संयोगात्
And as this Prāṇa-Agni-hotra is connected with a dinner which is taken at a particular stated time (i.e. noon and evening)

3.3.41 L.29 ✅ न अग्निहोत्रकालावरोधसम्भवः;
It has no connection with the time of an ordinary Agni-hotra (i.e. early morning and night).

3.3.41 L.30 ✅ एवमन्येऽपि उपस्थानादयो धर्माः
The other features of an ordinary Agni-hotra such as the saying of prayers (‘Upasthāna’) etc. also

3.3.41 L.31 ✅ केचित्कथञ्चित् विरुध्यन्ते।
Would be contradicted here in some way or other.

3.3.41 L.32 ✅ तस्माद्भोजनपक्ष एव एते मन्त्रद्रव्यदेवता-संयोगात् पञ्च होमा निर्वर्तयितव्याः।
Therefore, these five oblations connected with Mantras, materials, and Deities, are to be offered when a dinner is ready.

3.3.41 L.33 ✅ यत्तु आदरदर्शन-वचनम्,
The statement showing deference,

3.3.41 L.34 ✅ तत् भोजनपक्षे प्राथम्यविधानार्थम्;
Is for prescribing precedence to the host for dinner, (before the guest).

3.3.41 L.35 ✅ न ह्यस्ति वचनस्य अतिभारः;
This Scriptural passage cannot bear the burden of any more meaning.

3.3.41 L.36 ✅ न तु अनेन अस्य नित्यता शक्यते दर्शयितुम्।
It is not possible to indicate by that sentence, that the Prāṇa-Agni-hotra has to be invariably performed (whether there be any dinner or otherwise).

3.3.41 L.37 ✅ तस्मात् भोजन-लोपे लोप एव प्राणाग्निहोत्रस्येति॥४१॥
Therefore, (it is concluded that) when a dinner is missed the Prāṇa-Agni-hotra is also dropped. — 41.

– 126. Ādara-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तन्निर्धारणानियमस्तद्दृष्टेः पृथग्घ्यप्रतिबन्धः फलम्॥३.३.४२॥
Tan-nirdhāraṇāniyamas tad-dṛṣṭeḥ pṛthag-ghy apratibandhaḥ phalam.

Tad-nirdhāraṇa-aniyamaḥ: no rule, about the inviolability of that; Tad-dṛṣṭiḥ: that being seen (from the Śruti); Pṛthak: separate; Hi: because; A-pratibandhaḥ: non-obstruction; Phalam: fruit, reward, result.

🔗 As regards the relation of specific determinations (Nirdhāraṇā) about meditations i.e. Upāsanās (with religious actions), there is no rule, because, it is so seen (from the Scriptures). Besides there is a separate fruit (for these meditations) viz. the nonobstruction (of the fruit of the sacrificial act). — 3.3.42.

3.3.42 L.1 ✅ सन्ति कर्माङ्ग-व्यपाश्रयाणि विज्ञानानि –
(In the Scriptures) there are some Cognitions i.e. Vidyās connected with matters subsidiary to religious acts (such as sacrifices),

3.3.42 L.2 ✅ ‘ओमित्येतदक्षरमुद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1) इत्येवमादीनि।
As for instance — “He should meditate on the imperishable (Om) which is the Udgītha” (ChanU.1.1.1).

3.3.42 L.3 ✅ किं तानि नित्यान्येव स्युः कर्मसु,
पर्णमयीत्वादिवत्;
उत अनित्यानि,
गोदोहनादिवदिति विचारयामः।
We will now consider whether they (i.e. such meditations) are connected with such religious acts (i.e. sacrifices) permanently,
Just as for instance, the Palāśa wood ladle (used for offering ghee in sacrificial fire) is, to a sacrificial act,
Or whether they are not so permanently connected,
Just as the milkpail (Go-dohana, used optionally in a sacrifice for carrying water, according to whether the sacrificer’s aim is or is not the acquisition of cattle), for instance, is not.

3.3.42 L.4 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? नित्यानीति।
What then, is the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta)? It is, that they are permanently connected.

3.3.42 L.5 ✅ कुतः? प्रयोगवचन-परिग्रहात् –
Whence is it so? Because they are accepted to be so i.e. included in Scriptural statements about the ritualistic forms of sacrifices (Prayoga-vacana).

3.3.42 L.6 ✅ अनारभ्याधीतान्यपि हि एतानि
Even though these (meditations) are not mentioned by starting a specific chapter about them,

3.3.42 L.7 ✅ उद्गीथादिद्वारेण क्रतुसम्बन्धात्
Yet, inasmuch as, they are connected with sacrifices through the Udgītha etc.,

3.3.42 L.8 ✅ क्रतुप्रयोग-वचनेनैव
अङ्गान्तरवत् संस्पृश्यन्ते;
They do connect themselves with the statements about other ritualistic forms (of sacrifices) as subsidiary matters,
Quite in the same way, as other subsidiary matters (such as the Palāśa-wood ladle etc.) are connected.

3.3.42 L.9 ✅ यत्तु एषां स्ववाक्येषु फलश्रवणम् –
So far as the fruits of such meditations, mentioned by the Scriptures in passages in their own context,

3.3.42 L.10 ✅ ‘आपयिता ह वै कामानां भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.7) इत्यादि,
Viz. “He verily becomes the conferor of all desires” (ChanU.1.1.7) etc.,

3.3.42 L.11 ✅ तद्वर्तमानापदेश-रूपत्वाद् अर्थवादमात्रमेव,
Are concerned, inasmuch as, that statement is merely an Artha-vāda passage, because of its being mentioned in the form of the present tense (and not in an injunctional form),

3.3.42 L.12 ✅ अपापश्लोक-श्रवणादिवत्,
Similar to the Scriptural statement — “One who hears no evil”,

3.3.42 L.13 ✅ न फलप्रधानम्;
And because of their not having the object of mentioning a fruit principally,

3.3.42 L.14 ✅ तस्मात् यथा ‘यस्य पर्णमयी जुहूर्भवति न स पापं श्लोकं शृणोति’ इत्येवमादीनाम् अप्रकरणपठितानामपि
Therefore, just as passages, such as “He whose sacrificial ladle is of Palāśa wood does not hear of any evil”, which are not mentioned in any chapter,

3.3.42 L.15 ✅ जुह्वादिद्वारेण क्रतुप्रवेशात् प्रकरणपठितवत् नित्यता,
Become permanently connected with a sacrificial act, by way of the sacrificial ladle, as if they are recited in such a chapter,

3.3.42 L.16 ✅ एवम् उद्गीथाद्युपासनानामपीति
Even so, these meditations on the Udgītha etc. also, are permanently connected (with a sacrificial act).

3.3.42 L.17 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply —

3.3.42 L.18 ✅ तन्निर्धारणानियम इति।
“As regards the relation of these specific determinations about meditations such as on Udgīṭha etc. (with religious actions) there is no rule”.

3.3.42 L.19 ✅ यान्येतानि उद्गीथादिकर्मगुणयाथात्म्य-निर्धारणानि –
These particular specific determinations about the nature of matters subsidiary to religious actions, such as Udgīṭha etc. —

3.3.42 L.20 ✅ रसतमः, आप्तिः, समृद्धिः, मुख्यप्राणः, आदित्यः – इत्येवमादीनि,
Viz. ‘that the Udgītha is the best of all essences’, ‘a fulfiller of desires’, ‘a conferor of desires’, ‘he is the Sun etc.’ —

3.3.42 L.21 ✅ नैतानि नित्यवत् कर्मसु नियम्येरन्।
Cannot possibly belong to sacrificial actions permanently.

3.3.42 L.22 ✅ कुतः? तद्दृष्टेः;
Whence is it so? Because it is seen to be so (from the Scriptures).

3.3.42 L.23 ✅ तथा हि अनित्यत्वम् एवंजातीयकानां दर्शयति श्रुतिः –
Because the Scriptures indicate, that they are not so connected permanently, thus —

3.3.42 L.24 ✅ ‘तेनोभौ कुरुतो यश्चैतदेवं वेद यश्च न वेद’ (ChanU.1.1.10)
“By means of that (the imperishable ‘Om’), both those who know it to be so, and those who do not, perform actions” (ChanU.1.1.10),

3.3.42 L.25 ✅ इत्यविदुषोऽपि क्रियाभ्यनुज्ञानात्;
Which shows, that it is permissible, even to those who are ignorant, to perform such religious actions as sacrifices.

3.3.42 L.26 ✅ प्रस्तावादिदेवताविज्ञान-विहीनानामपि प्रस्तोत्रादीनां याजनाध्यवसान-दर्शनात् –
The Prastotṛ and others (priests at a sacrifice) even when they are devoid of any knowledge of the deities of the Prastāva etc. are observed to undertake the performance of sacrifices,

3.3.42 L.27 ✅ ‘प्रस्तोतर्या देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता तां चेदविद्वान् प्रस्तोष्यसि’ (ChanU.1.10.9)
‘तां चेदविद्वानुद्गास्यसि’ (ChanU.1.10.10)
‘तां चेदविद्वान्प्रतिहरिष्यसि’ (ChanU.1.10.11) इति च।
As is seen in the Scriptural passages — “Oh Prastotṛ, if without knowing the deity appropriate to a Prastāva, you perform the Prastāva,
Or chant Sāma Ṛks
Or recite the Pratihāra etc.” (ChanU.1.1.9–11)”.

3.3.42 L.28 ✅ अपि च एवंजातीयकस्य कर्म-व्यपाश्रयस्य विज्ञानस्य पृथगेव कर्मणः फलम् उपलभ्यते –
Besides, it is observed that such Cognitions i.e. Vidyās which are subsidiary to religious acts, have a fruit of their own, different from the fruit of these religious acts,

3.3.42 L.29 ✅ कर्मफलसिद्ध्यप्रतिबन्धः तत्समृद्धिः अतिशय-विशेषः कश्चित् –
Such as, the non-obstruction of the resulting of fruits of actions, i.e. its abundance, i.e. some special excellence, thus —

3.3.42 L.30 ✅ ‘तेनोभौ कुरुतो यश्चैतदेवं वेद यश्च न वेद।
नाना तु विद्या चाविद्या च
यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इति;
“By means of that (imperishable ‘Om’) both those who know it to be so, and those who do not, perform actions.
Actions performed by those who know (Vidyayā) and actions performed by those who are ignorant (Avidyayā) are however different from each other
And whatever he does equipped with knowledge, faith and esoteric meditation, has greater power” (ChanU.1.1.10).

3.3.42 L.31 ✅ तत्र ‘नाना तु’ इति
Now because in the sentence “Actions performed by those who have knowledge and by those who are ignorant, are but different from each other (Nānā tu)”,

3.3.42 L.32 ✅ विद्वदविद्वत्प्रयोगयोः पृथक्करणात्,
The actions of those who know and those who know not, are made out to be separate from each other,

3.3.42 L.33 ✅ ‘वीर्यवत्तरम्’ इति च तरप्प्रत्यय-प्रयोगात्
And also because of the use of the “Tarap” termination (of the comparative degree of comparison) in the word ‘of greater power’ (Vīryavattara),

3.3.42 L.34 ✅ विद्याहीनमपि वीर्यवदिति गम्यते;
It is understood that the actions, even of those who are ignorant, do of course have some power after all.

3.3.42 L.35 ✅ तच्च अनित्यत्वे विद्याया उपपद्यते;
And this becomes reasonably sustainable, only if the Cognitions i.e. Vidyās are not permanently connected with religious actions.

3.3.42 L.36 ✅ नित्यत्वे तु
If it be supposed, that the connection of a Vidyā with religious actions is permanent,

3.3.42 L.37 ✅ कथं तद्विहीनं कर्म वीर्यवदित्यनुज्ञायेत;
Then how can it be understood that action performed without knowledge is powerful (at least to some extent)?

3.3.42 L.38 ✅ सर्वाङ्गोपसंहारे हि वीर्यवत्कर्मेति स्थितिः।
It stands well established that it is only when all the subsidiary matters are combined with an action, that such action can (possibly) be powerful.

3.3.42 L.39 ✅ तथा लोकसामादिषु
Moreover in the case of meditations in which the idea of different worlds is superimposed on the Sāmās (Loka-sāmādiṣu),

3.3.42 L.40 ✅ प्रतिनियतानि प्रत्युपासनं फलानि शिष्यन्ते –
Each separate meditation has its own separate and different fruit,

3.3.42 L.41 ✅ ‘कल्पन्ते हास्मै लोका ऊर्ध्वाश्चावृत्ताश्च’ (ChanU.2.2.3) इत्येवमादीनि।
As for instance — “To Him the worlds above and below become competent (to afford experience)” (ChanU.2.2.3) etc.,

3.3.42 L.42 ✅ न चेदं फलश्रवणम् अर्थवादमात्रं युक्तं प्रतिपत्तुम्;
And it is not logical, to understand this Scriptural statement about the fruit, as being merely an Artha-vāda passage (i.e. merely glorificatory),

3.3.42 L.43 ✅ तथा हि गुणवाद आपद्येत;
Because in that case, it would inevitably have to be understood to be a Guṇa-vāda (i.e. a passage stating a secondary matter only),

3.3.42 L.44 ✅ फलोपदेशे तु मुख्यवादोपपत्तिः;
But as the Scriptures speak about a fruit, it is reasonably sustainable that they are to be understood in the principal sense (Mukhya-vāda).

3.3.42 L.45 ✅ प्रयाजादिषु तु
In the case of specific particular actions such as Prayāja etc. (i.e. actions subsidiary to a sacrifice),

3.3.42 L.46 ✅ इतिकर्तव्यता-काङ्क्षस्य क्रतोः प्रकृतत्वात् तादर्थ्ये सति
They being necessary for a sacrifice which expects all subsidiary actions to be duly performed for its own proper fulfilment (Iti-kartavyatā-kāṅkṣasya),

3.3.42 L.47 ✅ युक्तं फलश्रुतेः अर्थवादत्वम्।
It is logical that the Scriptural statement about their fruit is but an Artha-vāda (i.e. it is merely in glorification of the Prayāja).

3.3.42 L.48 ✅ तथा अनारभ्याधीतेष्वपि पर्णमयीत्वादिषु –
The same is true of such statements as the one about the sacrificial ladle being made of Palāśa wood etc., which are mentioned without beginning any special chapter about them.

3.3.42 L.49 ✅ न हि पर्णमयीत्वादीनाम् अक्रियात्म-कानाम्
आश्रयमन्तरेण फल-सम्बन्धोऽवकल्पते;
It is not possible to imagine that things, such as the ladle being of Palāśa wood, which in themselves do not possess the nature of actions, (and which are only casually stated without beginning any special chapter about them),
Can have any relation to any fruit, unless they depend upon something else.

3.3.42 L.50 ✅ गोदोहनादीनां हि
So far however as (the use of) the milk-pail (Go-dohana) etc. is concerned,

3.3.42 L.51 ✅ प्रकृताप्प्रणयनाद्याश्रय-लाभाद्
Inasmuch as they have the advantage of depending upon the carrying of water which is necessary (for a sacrifice),

3.3.42 L.52 ✅ उपपन्नः फलविधिः;
A statement as to its fruit is reasonably sustainable.

3.3.42 L.53 ✅ तथा बैल्वादीनामपि प्रकृतयूपाद्याश्रयलाभाद्
Similarly, in the case of the fact of its being made out of Bilva-wood, being connected with a sacrificial post (Yūpa),

3.3.42 L.54 ✅ उपपन्नः फलविधिः;
A statement as to its fruit also is reasonably sustainable.

3.3.42 L.55 ✅ न तु पर्णमयीत्वादिषु एवंविधः कश्चिदाश्रयः प्रकृतोऽस्ति;
But here, there is no such other thing present, on which the fact (viz., being made of Palāśa wood) can depend.

3.3.42 L.56 ✅ वाक्येनैव तु जुह्वाद्याश्रयतां
If, that sentence having stated the thing desired to be stated, viz., the fact of being made of Palāśa wood, as being dependent on a sacrificial ladle,

3.3.42 L.57 ✅ विवक्षित्वा फलेऽपि विधिं
It were to be also supposed that the sentence equally desires to express an injunction about a fruit also,

3.3.42 L.58 ✅ विवक्षतो वाक्यभेदः स्यात्।
Then there would be (the fault of) the splitting up of a sentence.

3.3.42 L.59 ✅ उपासनानां तु क्रियात्मकत्वात् विशिष्ट-विधानोपपत्तेः उद्गीथाद्याश्रयाणां
Now, meditations connected with Udgīṭha etc., being of the nature of action, any particular injunction with regard to that, being reasonably sustainable,

3.3.42 L.60 ✅ फले विधानं न विरुध्यते।
A statement as to the fruit thereof is not contradictory.

3.3.42 L.61 ✅ तस्मात् यथा क्रत्वाश्रयाण्यपि गोदोहनादीनि
Therefore, it should be understood, that, just as the milk-pail (Go-dohana) etc., connected though they are with a sacrifice,

3.3.42 L.62 ✅ फलसंयोगादनित्यानि,
Yet, inasmuch as they have a separate fruit of their own, their connection with a sacrifice is not permanent,

3.3.42 L.63 ✅ एवमुद्गीथाद्युपासनान्यपि इति द्रष्टव्यम्।
Similarly, it is the same in the case of meditations connected with the Udgīṭha.

3.3.42 L.64 ✅ अत एव च कल्पसूत्रकारा
That is precisely why the author of the Kalpa-Sūtras

3.3.42 L.65 ✅ नैवंजातीयकान्युपासनानि क्रतुषु कल्पयांचक्रुः॥४२॥
Has not included these meditations in the category of actions. — 42.

– 127. Tan-nirdhāraṇa-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम्॥३.३.४३॥
Pradānavad eva tad uktam.

Pradānavat: as in the case of the offerings of the ‘Pradāna, oblation’; Eva: exactly; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated.

🔗 This is similar to the Pradāna (i.e. offering of the Puro-ḍāśas). This has been mentioned (by Jaimini in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā). — 3.3.43.

3.3.43 L.1 ✅ वाजसनेयके ‘वदिष्याम्येवाहमिति वाग्दध्रे’ (BrhU.1.5.21) इति
In the Vāja-saneyaka passage “Speech (Vāk) vowed that it would continue speaking” (BrhUEng.1.5.21),

3.3.43 L.2 ✅ अत्र अध्यात्मं वागादीनां प्राणः श्रेष्ठोऽवधारितः,
It has been definitely ascertained that so far as Ādhyātmika entities such as speech etc. are concerned, Prāṇa is the most eminent,

3.3.43 L.3 ✅ अधिदैवतम् अग्न्यादीनां वायुः;
And so far as the Ādhidaivika entities such as Agni etc. are concerned, Vāyu is the most eminent.

3.3.43 L.4 ✅ तथा छान्दोग्ये ‘वायुर्वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.1) इति
Similarly in the Chāndogya passage, “Vāyu verily is the general absorber” (ChanU.4.3.1),

3.3.43 L.5 ✅ अत्र अधिदैवतम् अग्न्यादीनां वायुः संवर्गोऽवधारितः,
It has been definitely ascertained that as regards the Ādhidaivika entities, Vāyu is the general absorber of all entities,

3.3.43 L.6 ✅ ‘प्राणो वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.2) इति
And in the passage “Prāṇa verily is the general absorber” (ChanU.4.3.2),

3.3.43 L.7 ✅ अत्र अध्यात्मं वागादीनां प्राणः।
It has been definitely ascertained that as regards the Ādhyātmika entities, Prāṇa is the general absorber of speech etc.

3.3.43 L.8 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किं पृथगेवेमौ वायुप्राणावुपगन्तव्यौ स्याताम्,
Now, a doubt here arises as to whether these Vāyu and Prāṇa are to be understood to be separate entities,

3.3.43 L.9 ✅ उत अपृथगिति।
Or whether they are to be understood to be one and the same entity.

3.3.43 L.10 ✅ अपृथगिति तावत्प्राप्तम्, तत्त्वाभेदात्;
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that, because they do not differ in their essential nature, they are not different.

3.3.43 L.11 ✅ न हि अभिन्ने तत्त्वे
There being no difference in their essential nature,

3.3.43 L.12 ✅ पृथगनुचिन्तनं न्याय्यम्;
It is not logical to meditate upon them separately.

3.3.43 L.13 ✅ दर्शयति च श्रुतिः अध्यात्ममधिदैवतं च तत्त्वाभेदम् –
Besides the Scriptures also indicate, how the Ādhyātmika and Ādhidaivika entities are non-different in their essential nature, in the passage, thus —

3.3.43 L.14 ✅ ‘अग्निर्वाग्भूत्वा मुखं प्राविशत्’ (AitU.1.2.4) इत्यारभ्य;
“Agni became speech and entered the mouth” (AitU.1.2.4),

3.3.43 L.15 ✅ तथा ‘त एते सर्व एव समाः सर्वेऽनन्ताः’ (BrhU.1.5.13) इति
आध्यात्मिकानां प्राणानाम् आधिदैविकीं विभूतिमात्मभूतां दर्शयति।
And afterwards they indicate by the passage “All these are all alike and eternal” (BrhUEng.1.5.13),
That the exalted Ādhidaivika entity (Vāyu) is but the Self of the Ādhyātmika entity viz. Prāṇa.

3.3.43 L.16 ✅ तथा अन्यत्रापि तत्र तत्र अध्यात्ममधिदैवतं च बहुधा तत्त्वाभेददर्शनं भवति;
Similarly, in other places also it has been indicated generally that there is no difference in the essential nature of the Ādhyātmika and Ādhidaivika entities,

3.3.43 L.17 ✅ क्वचिच्च ‘यः प्राणः स वायुः’ इति स्पष्टमेव वायुं प्राणं च एकं करोति।
While in one place the Scriptures specifically indicate how the Vāyu and the Prāṇa are one and the same, by the passage, “That which is Prāṇa is but Vāyu”.

3.3.43 L.18 ✅ तथा उदाहृतेऽपि वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणे
‘यतश्चोदेति सूर्यः’ (BrhU.1.5.23) इत्यस्मिन् उपसंहारश्लोके,
Similarly in the Vāja-saneyaka Brāhmaṇa cited in illustration, in the concluding verse,
Viz. “From where the sun rises” (BrhUEng.1.5.23),

3.3.43 L.19 ✅ ‘प्राणाद्वा एष उदेति प्राणेऽस्तमेति’ (BrhU.1.5.23) इति
प्राणेनैव उपसंहरन्
The Scriptures conclude, with a reference to the same Prāṇa, in the passage
“That it rises from the Prāṇa and also sets in it” (BrhUEng.1.5.23),

3.3.43 L.20 ✅ एकत्वं दर्शयति;
And thus indicate how it is one and the same.

3.3.43 L.21 ✅ ‘तस्मादेकमेव व्रतं चरेत्प्राण्याच्चैवापान्याच्च’ (BrhU.1.5.23) इति च
प्राणव्रतेनैव एकेनोपसंहरन् एतदेव द्रढयति।
The Scriptures further confirm the same by concluding (the Brāhmaṇa) with that one Prāṇa-Vrata (an observance), by the passage —
“Therefore, he should observe only one Vrata (observance), he should exercise the Prāṇa and the Apāna” (BrhUEng.1.5.23).

3.3.43 L.22 ✅ तथा छान्दोग्येऽपि परस्तात्
Similarly in the Chāndogya also it is conveyed by the passage

3.3.43 L.23 ✅ ‘महात्मनश्चतुरो देव एकः कः स जगार भुवनस्य गोपाः’ (ChanU.4.3.6) इति
“Prajā-pati, the protector of the world and the sole God (running like the thread, as the Self, through all entities) i.e. as the Sūtrātmā of the great-souled four (the deities Agni, Sun, Moon, and Water on the one hand, and speech, eye, ear and mind, on the other)”,

3.3.43 L.24 ✅ एकमेव संवर्गं गमयति;
How the same entity (Vāyu) is the absorber of all,

3.3.43 L.25 ✅ न ब्रवीति –
And it does not state

3.3.43 L.26 ✅ एक एकेषां चतुर्णां संवर्गः, अपरोऽपरेषामिति।
That there is one absorber of the one quartette and another absorber of the other.

3.3.43 L.27 ✅ तस्मादपृथक्त्वम् उपगमनस्येति
Therefore, the meditations on Vāyu and Prāṇa should be understood to be non-separate.

3.3.43 L.28 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply —

3.3.43 L.29 ✅ पृथगेव वायुप्राणावुपगन्तव्याविति।
“That Vāyu and Prāṇa should be meditated upon as separate (entities)”.

3.3.43 L.30 ✅ कस्मात्? पृथगुपदेशात्;
Whence is it so? Because of the instruction in the Scriptures that they are separate (entities).

3.3.43 L.31 ✅ आध्यानार्थो हि अयम् अध्यात्माधिदैवविभागोपदेशः;
This instruction about the separate division of the Adhyātma and the Adhidaiva, is for the purpose of meditation

3.3.43 L.32 ✅ सः असत्याध्यान-पृथक्त्वे अनर्थक एव स्यात्।
And it would be meaningless, if the meditations were to be non-separate.

3.3.43 L.33 ✅ ननु उक्तम्,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) it has been said, that,

3.3.43 L.34 ✅ न पृथगनुचिन्तनं तत्त्वाभेदादिति –
Because of non-difference in their essential natures, there is no separate meditation.

3.3.43 L.35 ✅ नैष दोषः;
(We reply) — This is no fault,

3.3.43 L.36 ✅ तत्त्वाभेदेऽपि
Because even though there is no such essential difference,

3.3.43 L.37 ✅ अवस्थाभेदात्
उपदेशभेदवशेन अनुचिन्तनभेदोपपत्तेः,
Still it is reasonably sustainable to understand, that the meditations are separate, because of the separate instructions to that effect,
Due to the different conditions (of Prāṇa and Vāyu).

3.3.43 L.38 ✅ श्लोकोपन्यासस्य च तत्त्वाभेदाभिप्रायेणापि उपपद्यमानस्य
Even though the suggestion in the concluding verse is reasonably sustainable as purporting to state, that there is non-difference in the essential nature (of Prāṇa and Vāyu),

3.3.43 L.39 ✅ पूर्वोदितध्येयभेदनिराकरण-सामर्थ्याभावात्,
Still, it has no power to nullify the distinction between them as separate objects of meditation as stated earlier,

3.3.43 L.40 ✅ ‘स यथैषां प्राणानां मध्यमः प्राण एवमेतासां देवतानां वायुः’ (BrhU.1.5.22) इति च
उपमानोपमेय-करणात्।
And also, because of their being treated as ‘the standard of comparison’ (Upamāna) and ‘the thing compared’ (Upameya), in the Scriptural passage —
“Just as this Prāṇa is the middle one as amongst the Prāṇas even so is Vāyu amongst the deities” (BrhUEng.1.5.22).

3.3.43 L.41 ✅ एतेन व्रतोपन्यासो व्याख्यातः;
By this the Prāṇa-Vrata also should be understood as explained.

3.3.43 L.42 ✅ ‘एकमेव व्रतम्’ (BrhU.1.5.23) इति च एवकारः
The words ‘that one only’ (Eva ca), in the Scriptural passage “The Vrata (observance) is but that one only” (BrhUEng.1.5.23),

3.3.43 L.43 ✅ वागादिव्रत-निवर्तनेन प्राणव्रत-प्रतिपत्त्यर्थः;
Is for the purpose of conveying, that by rejecting the Vāk-Vrata etc., the Prāṇa-Vrata should be understood to be the only Vrata to be performed,

3.3.43 L.44 ✅ भग्नव्रतानि हि वागादीन्युक्तानि,
Because, the Scriptures have declared that the Vrata of speech etc. has been shattered,

3.3.43 L.45 ✅ ‘तानि मृत्युः श्रमो भूत्वोपयेमे’ (BrhU.1.5.21) इति श्रुतेः;
By the passage “Death in the form of fatigue has overcome them” (BrhUEng.1.5.21),

3.3.43 L.46 ✅ न वायुव्रत-निवृत्त्यर्थः,
And the Scriptures do not mean that the Vāyu-Vrata should be rejected,

3.3.43 L.47 ✅ ‘अथातो व्रतमीमाꣳसा’ (BrhU.1.5.21) इति प्रस्तुत्य
Because, by beginning with the passage “Now the consideration of the Vratas” (BrhUEng.1.5.21),

3.3.43 L.48 ✅ तुल्यवत् वायुप्राणयोः अभग्नव्रतत्वस्य निर्धारितत्वात्;
They have ultimately determined, that both Vāyu and Prāṇa equally, are entities whose Vratas have not been shattered.

3.3.43 L.49 ✅ ‘एकमेव व्रतं चरेत्’ (BrhU.1.5.23) इति च उक्त्वा,
Again after declaring that “Only one Vrata should be observed” (BrhUEng.1.5.23),

3.3.43 L.50 ✅ ‘तेनो एतस्यै देवतायै सायुज्यं सलोकतां जयति’ (BrhU.1.5.23) इति
वायु-प्राप्तिं फलं ब्रुवन्
And then declaring its fruit to be “reaching union with Vāyu”, by the passage
“By that he obtains a body like that of the Deity (Sāyujya) and the same world as that of the Deity (Sa-lokatā)” (BrhUEng.1.5.23),

3.3.43 L.51 ✅ वायुव्रतम् अनिवर्तितं दर्शयति;
The Scriptures indicate that the Vāyu-Vrata is not given up.

3.3.43 L.52 ✅ देवतेत्यत्र वायुः स्यात्,
Now, by the word ‘Deity’ here, Vāyu ought to be understood,

3.3.43 L.53 ✅ अपरिच्छिन्नात्मकत्वस्य प्रेप्सितत्वात्,
Because the person meditating has the aim of reaching the condition of the limitless nature of the indeterminate Self (Brahman)

3.3.43 L.54 ✅ पुरस्तात्प्रयोगाच्च –
And also because it is observed earlier that

3.3.43 L.55 ✅ ‘सैषाऽनस्तमिता देवता यद्वायुः’ (BrhU.1.5.22) इति।
“This Deity, Vāyu, is a Deity that never sets (i.e. it is indestructible)” (BrhUEng.1.5.22).

3.3.43 L.56 ✅ तथा ‘तौ वा एतौ द्वौ संवर्गौ वायुरेव देवेषु प्राणः प्राणेषु’ (ChanU.4.3.4) इति
भेदेन व्यपदिशति;
Similarly, the Scriptures indicate by showing the difference (between Vāyu and Prāṇa) in the passage
“Vāyu as amongst the Deities and Prāṇa as amongst the sense-organs, are verily the two general absorbers” (ChanU.4.3.4),

3.3.43 L.57 ✅ ‘ते वा एते पञ्चान्ये पञ्चान्ये दश सन्तस्तत्कृतम्’ (BrhU.4.3.8) इति च
भेदेनैव उपसंहरति;
And conclude by showing difference between them thus —
“They (i.e. Vāyu along with Agni, Sun, Moon, and Water) are one quintette, and these (i.e. Prāṇa along with speech, eye, ear and mind) are the other quintette, which together make the Kṛta” (BrhUEng.4.3.8).

3.3.43 L.58 ✅ तस्मात्पृथगेव उपगमनम्।
Therefore, the meditations are also separate,

3.3.43 L.59 ✅ प्रदानवत् –
As in the case of ‘Pradāna’ (the offering of the Puro-ḍāśas).

3.3.43 L.60 ✅ यथा ‘इन्द्राय राज्ञे पुरोडाशमेकादशकपालमिन्द्रायाधिराजायेन्द्राय स्वराज्ञे’
इत्यस्यां त्रिपुरोडाशिन्यामिष्टौ,
Just as in the Triple-Puro-ḍāśa-Iṣṭi referred to in the Scriptural passage
“A Puro-ḍāśa on eleven potsherds to King Indra” (where the opponent in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā maintains that the Hotṛ priest offers all the Puro-ḍāśas simultaneously, so that they may not be rendered infructuous, because if only one out of the three Puro-ḍāśas is offered to one Deity, the remaining two Puro-ḍāśas become as if they are the leavings of the first),

3.3.43 L.61 ✅ ‘सर्वेषाम् अभिगमयन्नवद्यत्यछम्बट्कारम्’ इत्यतो वचनात्,
इन्द्राभेदाच्च,
सह प्रदानाशङ्कायाम् –
And when the doubt is, as to whether they should be offered simultaneously or not,
The conclusion (arrived at there) is, that because of difference in the attributes of the Deities,
Viz. the different aspects of Indra,

3.3.43 L.62 ✅ राजादिगुण-भेदात्
And because of the fact that the attributes of rulership (Rājatva) etc. are different,

3.3.43 L.63 ✅ याज्यानुवाक्याव्यत्यास-विधानाच्च
An exchange of the Mantras such as the Ājyā and the Anuvākya in each successive offering, is enjoined,

3.3.43 L.64 ✅ यथा-न्यासमेव देवता-पृथक्त्वात्
प्रदान-पृथक्त्वं भवति;
And also because the Deities are separate, therefore, according to the Scriptural enumeration (Nyāsa)
The offerings also are separate and distinct,

3.3.43 L.65 ✅ एवं तत्त्वाभेदेऽपि
Similarly, even in spite of the non-difference in the essential nature of Vāyu and Prāṇa, as the Deity meditated upon is different, the meditations also are different.

3.3.43 L.66 ✅ आध्येयांश-पृथक्त्वात् आध्यान-पृथक्त्वमित्यर्थः।
In this way, even though the entity to be meditated upon is the same, inasmuch as each particular portion of it (Aṃśa) to be meditated upon, is different, the meditations also are separate.

3.3.43 L.67 ✅ तदुक्तं सङ्कर्षे –
The same has been mentioned (in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā) in the Saṅkarṣa Kaṇḍa, thus —

3.3.43 L.68 ✅ ‘नाना वा देवता पृथग्ज्ञानात्’ इति।
“The Deities are separate because they are recognized as being separate”.

3.3.43 L.69 ✅ तत्र तु द्रव्यदेवता-भेदात् याग-भेदो विद्यते;
There, however, the sacrifices become different because the Deities and the materials of sacrifice are separate,

3.3.43 L.70 ✅ नैवमिह विद्या-भेदोऽस्ति,
While here, there is no such difference in the Vidyās,

3.3.43 L.71 ✅ उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्याम्
Because of the introductory and the concluding portions,

3.3.43 L.72 ✅ अध्यात्माधिदैवोपदेशेषु एकविद्याविधान-प्रतीतेः;
And it is understood, that only one Vidyā is enjoined both in the Adhyātma and Adhidaiva teachings.

3.3.43 L.73 ✅ विद्यैक्येऽपि तु
Even though the Vidyā is one,

3.3.43 L.74 ✅ अध्यात्माधिदैव-भेदात् प्रवृत्ति-भेदो भवति –
Because of the difference in the Adhyātma and Adhidaiva entities, the activity i.e. Karma is different,

3.3.43 L.75 ✅ अग्निहोत्र इव सायंप्रातःकाल-भेदात् –
Just as the same Agni-hotra, by reason of the difference in the time (of its performance), viz. in the morning and in the evening, is each individually a different act of Agni-hotra.

3.3.43 L.76 ✅ इत्येतावदभिप्रेत्य प्रदानवदित्युक्तम्॥४३॥
It is by bearing this in mind, that the Sūtra-kāra has stated in the Sūtra that it is like the offering i.e. Pradāna (in the Puro-ḍāśa Iṣṭi). — 43.

– 128. Pradāna-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.44 Su..45 Su..46 Su..47 Su..48 Su..49 Su..50 Su..51 Su..52

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात्तद्धि बलीयस्तदपि॥३.३.४४॥
Liṅga-bhūyastvāt tad-dhi balīyas tad api.

Liṅga-bhūyastvāt: because of an abundance of distinguishing marks; Tat: that, the distinguishing mark; Hi: because; Balīyaḥ: is stronger; Tat: that; Api: also.

🔗 Because of a profusion of indicatory marks (these conceptual i.e. notional Agnis which represent the various modes of the mind, are Vidyās and are not related to actions). Also that i.e. an indicatory mark has greater force (than the Prakaraṇa i.e. chapter) is explained in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā). — 3.3.44.

3.3.44 L.1 ✅ वाजसनेयिनोऽग्निरहस्ये ‘नैव वा इदमग्रे सदासीत्’ इत्येतस्मिन्ब्राह्मणे मनोऽधिकृत्य अधीयते –
In the Agni-rahasya of the Vāja-saneyins, in the Brāhmaṇa passage “Indeed in the beginning this ‘Sat’ (being) was not existing”, with reference to the mind it is recited —

3.3.44 L.2 ✅ ‘तत्षट्‍त्रिंशत्सहस्राण्यपश्यद् आत्मनोऽग्नीनर्कान्मनोमयान् मनश्चितः’ इत्यादि;
“It saw the thirty-six thousand Agnis belonging to its own Self, which were of the structure of the mind and were built up by it” etc.

3.3.44 L.3 ✅ तथैव ‘वाक्चितः प्राणचितश्चक्षुश्चितः श्रोत्रचितः कर्मचितोऽग्निचितः’ इति पृथगग्नीन् आमनन्ति साम्पादिकान्।
Similarly, the Scriptures speak of different conceptual Agnis built up respectively by speech, Prāṇa, eye, ear, action and fire.

3.3.44 L.4 ✅ तेषु संशयः –
The doubt that arises with regard to them,

3.3.44 L.5 ✅ किमेते मनश्चिदादयः क्रियानुप्रवेशिनः तच्छेषभूताः,
Is whether these Agnis, i.e. the Agnis built up by the mind etc., are related to action (Kriyā) and are subservient to it,

3.3.44 L.6 ✅ उत स्वतन्त्राः केवलविद्यात्मका इति।
Or whether they are independent and are merely of the nature of a Vidyā.

3.3.44 L.7 ✅ तत्र प्रकरणात् क्रियानुप्रवेशे प्राप्ते,
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being, that they are related to action, because of the chapter (Prakaraṇa),

3.3.44 L.8 ✅ स्वातन्त्र्यं तावत्प्रतिजानीते – लिङ्गभूयस्त्वादिति।
It is stated (in the above Sūtra) that because of the profusion of indicatory marks, it is understood, that they are independent.

3.3.44 L.9 ✅ भूयांसि हि लिङ्गानि अस्मिन्ब्राह्मणे
केवलविद्यात्मकत्वम् एषाम् उपोद्बलयन्ति दृश्यन्ते –
Many an indicatory mark is to be seen here in this Brāhmaṇa passage,
Which strengthens the conclusion, that they are merely of the nature of a Vidyā,

3.3.44 L.10 ✅ ‘तद्यत्किञ्चेमानि भूतानि मनसा सङ्कल्पयन्ति तेषामेव सा कृतिः’ इति,
‘तान्हैतानेवंविदे सर्वदा सर्वाणि भूतानि चिन्वन्त्यपि स्वपते’ इति च एवंजातीयकानि।
Viz., such indicatory marks, as for instance, “These Agnis are the handiwork of whatever these beings conceive mentally”
And “All these beings, even while they sleep, do constantly keep building up these Agnis for him who knows this to be so”.

3.3.44 L.11 ✅ तद्धि लिङ्गं प्रकरणाद्बलीयः।
That indicatory mark is, of course, greater in force than the chapter (Prakaraṇa).

3.3.44 L.12 ✅ तदप्युक्तं पूर्वस्मिन्काण्डे –
The same has been stated in the previous Kaṇḍa

3.3.44 L.13 ✅ ‘श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरणस्थान-समाख्यानां समवाये पारदौर्बल्यम् अर्थविप्रकर्षात्’ (जै. सू. ३-३-१३) इति॥४४॥
I.e. the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā (Jaimini Sūtra 3.3.13) — “In a case in which definite statement, indicatory marks, the grammatical arrangement of words, context position and name are seen in groups, those that succeed in order are excluded by the earlier ones since the meanings imparted by those that succeed are weakened by the earlier ones” (Jai. Sū. 3.3.13) [Trans. from Panoli]. — 44.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
पूर्वविकल्पः प्रकरणात्स्यात्क्रिया मानसवत्॥३.३.४५॥
Pūrva-vikalpaḥ prakaraṇāt syāt kriyā mānasavat.

Pūrva-vikalpaḥ: an alternative form of the already mentioned first; Prakaraṇāt: on account of the context, as can be understood from the subject matter of the chapter; Syāt: there may be, ought to be; Kriyā mānasavat: ceremonial act, like the act of meditation, like the imaginary drink, as in the case of mental operation in the soma-sacrifice.

🔗 Because of the chapter i.e. Prakaraṇa, (these conceptual Agnis) are but only a variation in form of the preceding one (i.e. fire built up in a brick Kuṇḍa). They may well be action (Karma), as in the case of the conceptual cup (Mānasa). — 3.3.45.

3.3.45 L.1 ✅ नैतद्युक्तम् – स्वतन्त्रा एतेऽग्नयः अनन्यशेषभूता इति;
(Says the opponent of Vedānta) — That these Agnis are independent and are not complementary to any other thing (like an action), is not logical.

3.3.45 L.2 ✅ पूर्वस्य क्रियामयस्य अग्नेः प्रकरणात्
The chapter (Prakaraṇa) being one that relates to the actually kindled material Agni referred to earlier,

3.3.45 L.3 ✅ तद्विषय एव अयं विकल्पविशेषोपदेशः स्यात्, न स्वतन्त्रः।
The present instruction is merely about a special alternative form of that actual Agni, and it is not an independent Agni.

3.3.45 L.4 ✅ ननु प्रकरणाल्लिङ्गं बलीयः –
But (says the Vedāntin) an indicatory mark has greater force than a chapter (Prakaraṇa).

3.3.45 L.5 ✅ सत्यमेवमेतत्;
(The opponent of Vedānta says — That it is so is of course true,

3.3.45 L.6 ✅ लिङ्गमपि तु एवंजातीयकं न प्रकरणाद्बलीयो भवति;
But an indicatory mark of this present, kind cannot have greater force than the chapter (Prakaraṇa).

3.3.45 L.7 ✅ अन्यार्थदर्शनं हि एतत्,
साम्पादिकाग्निप्रशंसा-रूपत्वात्;
Inasmuch as it is in the nature of a glorification of the conceptual Agni (because it occurs in an obviously Artha-vāda passage),
It is indicatory of some other matter.

3.3.45 L.8 ✅ अन्यार्थदर्शनं च
Any thing which is indicatory of some other matter,

3.3.45 L.9 ✅ असत्याम् अन्यस्यां प्राप्तौ गुणवादेनाप्युपपद्यमानं
Is, when such other matter is not available, reasonably sustainable even as a Guṇa-vāda,

3.3.45 L.10 ✅ न प्रकरणं बाधितुम् उमुत्सहते;
And as such it is unable to affect the subject matter of a chapter (Prakaraṇa).

3.3.45 L.11 ✅ तस्मात् साम्पादिका अप्येतेऽग्नयः
Therefore, even though these Agnis are conceptual,

3.3.45 L.12 ✅ प्रकरणात्क्रियानुप्रवेशिन एव स्युः।
They are subservient to action,

3.3.45 L.13 ✅ मानसवत् –
Even as in the case of the conceptual cup, i.e. a Mānasa.

3.3.45 L.14 ✅ यथा दशरात्रस्य दशमेऽहनि अविवाक्ये
Just as in the case of the tenth day of the Daśa-rātra sacrifice which is known by the name Avivākya,

3.3.45 L.15 ✅ पृथिव्या पात्रेण समुद्रस्य सोमस्य प्रजापतये देवतायै गृह्यमाणस्य
The sea, which is fancifully conceived to be Soma, is taken up by means of the Earth conceived as a cup, for (being offered to) the deity Prajā-pati,

3.3.45 L.16 ✅ ग्रहणासादन-हवनाहरणोपह्वान-भक्षणानि
And the taking up (Grahaṇa) of the cup, standing it up (Āsādana) in its proper place
And the offering of Soma as an oblation to the sacrificial fire (Homa), the taking up of the remaining Soma,
And the mutual invitation (Upahvāna) by the sacrificial priests to each other (to partake of the Soma),
And the drinking (Bhakṣaṇa) of it,

3.3.45 L.17 ✅ मानसान्येव आम्नायन्ते,
Are all mentioned to be merely conceptual.

3.3.45 L.18 ✅ स च मानसोऽपि ग्रहकल्पः क्रियाप्रकरणात् क्रियाशेष एव भवति –
The meaning is, that just as this Mānasa is a conceptual cup, and becomes subservient to action (because the chapter relates to action),

3.3.45 L.19 ✅ एवमयमप्यग्नि कल्प इत्यर्थः॥४५॥
Even so does this particular conceptual Agni also (relate to action). — 45.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अतिदेशाच्च॥३.३.४६॥
Atideśāc ca.

Atideśāt: on account of the extension (of the attributes of the first to these fires); Ca: and.

🔗 Also because of the extended application by analogy (Atideśa). — 3.3.46.

3.3.46 L.1 ✅ अतिदेशश्च एषामग्नीनां
The extended application by analogy (of the actually kindled fire) to these conceptual Agnis,

3.3.46 L.2 ✅ क्रियानुप्रवेशमुपोद्बलयति –
Further strengthens (the conclusion), that these Agnis are subservient to action (Karma), thus —

3.3.46 L.3 ✅ ‘षट्‍त्रिंशत्सहस्राण्यग्नयोऽर्काः
तेषामेकैक एव तावान्यावानसौ पूर्वः’ इति;
“These thirty-six thousand Agnis are so many Suns”.
Each one of them is quite as much as the previously mentioned (actually kindled) Agni.

3.3.46 L.4 ✅ सति हि सामान्ये अतिदेशः प्रवर्तते;
Now an extended application by analogy is possible, only when there is commonness (between them).

3.3.46 L.5 ✅ ततश्च पूर्वेण इष्टका-चितेन क्रियानुप्रवेशिना अग्निना साम्पादिकान् अग्नीन् अतिदिशन्
(The Scriptures) by extending the application by analogy (Atideśa) of this Agni built up in bricks for religious actions, to the conceptual Agnis,

3.3.46 L.6 ✅ क्रियानुप्रवेशमेव एषां द्योतयति॥४६॥
Indicate, that these conceptual Agnis also are subservient to action (Karma). — 46.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विद्यैव तु निर्धारणात्॥३.३.४७॥
Vidyaiva tu nirdhāraṇāt.

Vidyā: Vidyā, form of meditation or worship, Knowledge; Eva: alone, indeed; Tu: verily, undoubtedly, but; Nirdhāraṇāt: because the Śruti asserts it.

🔗 But (says the Vedāntin), (these conceptual Agnis) are but a Vidyā only (and they are not subservient to action) because of such determination (by the Scriptures). — 3.3.47.

3.3.47 L.1 ✅ तु-शब्दः पक्षं व्यावर्तयति।
The word ‘but’ refutes the view (of the opponent of Vedānta).

3.3.47 L.2 ✅ विद्यात्मका एव एते स्वतन्त्रा मनश्चिदादयोऽग्नयः स्युः,
These Agnis built up by the mind etc. are of the nature of a Vidyā and are independent

3.3.47 L.3 ✅ न क्रियाशेषभूताः।
And are not subservient to action.

3.3.47 L.4 ✅ तथा हि निर्धारयति –
The Scriptures have determined it to be so, thus —

3.3.47 L.5 ✅ ‘ते हैते विद्याचित एव’ इति, ‘विद्यया हैवैत एवंविदश्चिता भवन्ति’ इति च॥४७॥
“These Agnis are such, as are built up by Vidyā alone, (and are not actual), and, they are built up by Vidyā for one who knows this to be so”. — 47.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
दर्शनाच्च॥३.३.४८॥
Darśanāc ca.

Darśanāt: it being seen in the scriptures, because it is clearly stated in Śruti, because (of the indicatory marks) seen; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because it is seen (from the Scriptures). — 3.3.48.

3.3.48 L.1 ✅ दृश्यते च एतेषां स्वातन्त्र्ये लिङ्गम्;
Moreover, an indicatory mark showing the independent nature of these (conceptual) Agnis is to be seen.

3.3.48 L.2 ✅ तत्पुरस्ताद्दर्शितम् –
It has been shown earlier, thus —

3.3.48 L.3 ✅ ‘लिङ्गभूयस्त्वात्’ (BrS.3.3.44) इत्यत्र॥४८॥
“Because of the profuse indicatory marks (in BrS.3.3.44)”. — 48.

[Go top]

3.3.49 L.1 ✅ ननु लिङ्गमपि असत्यामन्यस्यां प्राप्तौ असाधकं कस्यचिदर्थस्येति,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) even an indicatory mark, without more, i.e. without any other thing being available, is unable to establish any thing,

3.3.49 L.2 ✅ अपास्य तत्,
And therefore, ignoring such indicatory mark,

3.3.49 L.3 ✅ प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात् क्रियाशेषत्वम् अध्यवसितम् –
It was determined on the strength of the chapter (Prakaraṇa) that the Agnis were subservient to action.

3.3.49 L.4 ✅ इत्यत उत्तरं पठति –
This is answered as follows:

←Prev Next→
श्रुत्यादिबलीयस्त्वाच्च न बाधः॥३.३.४९॥
Śruty-ādi-balīyastvāc ca na bādhaḥ.

Śruti-ādi-baliyastvāt: on account of the greater force of the Śruti etc.; Ca: and; Na: no, cannot; Bādhaḥ: refutation.

🔗 The conclusion (that these conceptual Agnis are independent and not subservient to action) is not affected, because of the Scriptures etc. being more authoritative (than the Prakaraṇa). — 3.3.49.

3.3.49 L.5 ✅ नैवं प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात् क्रिया-शेषत्वम्म् अध्यवसाय स्वातन्त्र्य-पक्षो बाधितव्यः,
The view that these conceptual Agnis are independent, should not be allowed to be affected, by concluding that by reason of the authority of the Chapter, they are subservient to action.

3.3.49 L.6 ✅ श्रुत्यादेः बलीयस्त्वात्; बलीयांसि हि प्रकरणात् श्रुतिलिङ्ग-वाक्यानीति स्थितं श्रुतिलिङ्ग-सूत्रे।
It has already been established by the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā Sūtra about the Scriptures and indicatory marks (Pū. Mī. III. 3.14) that the Scriptures (Śruti) and indicatory marks (Liṅga) and a sentence (Vākya) are of greater force than the Chapter (Prakaraṇa).

3.3.49 L.7 ✅ तानि च इह स्वातन्त्र्य-पक्षं साधयन्ति दृश्यन्ते।
In the present case they are seen to establish the view that these conceptual Agnis are independent.

3.3.49 L.8 ✅ कथम्? श्रुतिस्तावत् –
How is it so? Because, in the first place the Scriptures declare, thus —

3.3.49 L.9 ✅ ‘ते हैते विद्या-चित एव’ इति;
“It is Vidyā only that kindles these Agnis”.

3.3.49 L.10 ✅ तथा लिङ्गम् – ‘सर्वदा सर्वाणि भूतानि चिन्वन्त्यपि स्वपते’ इति;
Similarly the indicatory mark also is, that “All creatures at all times, and even while they are asleep, keep on kindling these conceptual Agnis”.

3.3.49 L.11 ✅ तथा वाक्यमपि – ‘विद्यया हैवैत एवंविदश्चिता भवन्ति’ इति।
There also is a passage — “In the case of those who know it to be so, it is by Vidyā only that they are so kindled”.

3.3.49 L.12 ✅ ‘विद्याचित एव’ इति हि सावधारणा इयं श्रुतिः
The Scriptural passage determining that the Agnis are kindled by Vidyā only,

3.3.49 L.13 ✅ क्रियानुप्रवेशेऽमीषाम् अभ्युपगम्यमाने पीडिता स्यात्।
Would be contradicted, if it were to be understood that these Agnis are subservient to action.

3.3.49 L.14 ✅ ननु अबाह्यसाधनत्वाभिप्रायमिदम् अवधारणं भविष्यति –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) this determinate conclusion may merely purport to imply the absence of any extraneous means (of kindling these Agnis).

3.3.49 L.15 ✅ नेत्युच्यते;
(We reply) — No, because in that case the Final determination would be superfluous,

3.3.49 L.16 ✅ तदभिप्रायतायां हि ‘विद्याचितः’ इति
इयता स्वरूप-सङ्कीर्तनेनैव कृतत्वात्,
Inasmuch as, were it to have such a purport, that (i.e. the determination that no extraneous means are required) will have been accomplished merely by describing their nature of being built up by Vidyā only.
That such Agnis are kindled without any extraneous means is their very nature,

3.3.49 L.17 ✅ अनर्थकमवधारणं भवेत् – स्वरूपमेव हि एषाम् अबाह्य-साधनत्वमिति;
Then the restiction (pointed out above) would be useless for those fires would be by nature free from external means [Trans. from Panoli].

3.3.49 L.18 ✅ अबाह्य-साधनत्वेऽपि तु
And even though they are so kindled without any extraneous means,

3.3.49 L.19 ✅ मानस-ग्रहवत् क्रियानुप्रवेश-शङ्कायां तन्निवृत्ति-फलम् अवधारणम् अर्थवद्भविष्यति।
Such determination may well be understood to have the purpose of removing a possible doubt, that like the conceptual cup (Mānasa), they also may be subservient to action.

3.3.49 L.20 ✅ तथा ‘स्वपते जाग्रते चैवंविदे सर्वदा सर्वाणि भूतान्येतानग्नींश्चिन्वन्ति’ इति सातत्यदर्शनम्
Similarly, the continuousness observed in the Scriptural passage “In the case of one who knows it to be so, all beings at all times keep on kindling up such conceptual Agnis, be he sleeping or be he awake”,

3.3.49 L.21 ✅ एषां स्वातन्त्र्येऽवकल्पते –
Is possible only on the supposition that such Agnis are independent (and not subservient to action).

3.3.49 L.22 ✅ यथा साम्पादिके वाक्प्राणमयेऽग्निहोत्रे
Just as in the conceptual Agni-hotra of the nature of speech or of the Prāṇa,

3.3.49 L.23 ✅ ‘प्राणं तदा वाचि जुहोति ... वाचं तदा प्राणे जुहोति’ (कौ. उ. २-५) इति च उक्त्वा
The Scriptures, after mentioning “He makes an oblation of Prāṇa into Speech, and of Speech into the Prāṇa” (KausU. 2.5),

3.3.49 L.24 ✅ उच्यते – ‘एते अनन्ते अमृते आहुती जाग्रच्च स्वपंश्च सततं जुहोति’ (कौ. उ. २-५) इति –
Mention further, thus — “Be he awake or be he asleep, he keeps on offering such countless and immortal oblations continuously” (KausU. 2.5),

3.3.49 L.25 ✅ तद्वत्;
Even so it is (here).

3.3.49 L.26 ✅ क्रियानुप्रवेशे तु क्रियाप्रयोगस्य अल्पकालत्वात्
Now assuming these Agnis as being subservient to action, inasmuch as such action is of but a small duration,

3.3.49 L.27 ✅ न सातत्येन एषां प्रयोगः कल्पेत।
It cannot be properly imagined that such conceptual Agnis are constantly employed (in action).

3.3.49 L.28 ✅ न च इदमर्थवादमात्रमिति न्याय्यम्;
It would also not be logical to say, that this (indicatory mark) is merely of the nature of an Artha-vāda.

3.3.49 L.29 ✅ यत्र हि विस्पष्टो विधायको लिङादिः उपलभ्यते,
Wherever there is a distinct imperative and injunctional indicatory mark etc.

3.3.49 L.30 ✅ युक्तं तत्र सङ्कीर्तनमात्रस्यार्थवादत्वम्;
It would be logical to understand that the mere mention of anything (without any injunction) is of the nature of an Artha-vāda.

3.3.49 L.31 ✅ इह तु विस्पष्टविध्यन्तरानुपलब्धेः
But, here inasmuch as a clear injunction is not available

3.3.49 L.32 ✅ सङ्कीर्तनादेव एषां विज्ञान-विधानं कल्पनीयम्;
It is necessary to imagine an injunction about acquiring knowledge, merely from the mention of an Artha-vāda passage.

3.3.49 L.33 ✅ तच्च यथासङ्कीर्तनमेव कल्पयितुं शक्यत इति, सातत्य-दर्शनात् तथाभूतमेव कल्प्यते;
It is possible to imagine the passage as it occurs, and as the continuous (kindling of Agni) is to be seen here, it has to be imagined only in that manner.

3.3.49 L.34 ✅ ततश्च सामर्थ्यादेषां स्वातन्त्र्य-सिद्धिः।
From that, the independence of these (Agnis) is established by means of their own power.

3.3.49 L.35 ✅ एतेन ‘तद्यत्किञ्चेमानि भूतानि मनसा सङ्कल्पयन्ति तेषामेव सा कृतिः’ इत्यादि व्याख्यातम्।
The passage “Whatsoever these beings mentally imagine, that is the handiwork of these Agnis” is also thus explained.

3.3.49 L.36 ✅ तथा वाक्यमपि ‘एवंविदे’ इति पुरुषविशेष-सम्बन्धमेव एषामाचक्षाणं
Similarly the sentence which speaks of a relation of (these Agnis) to a particular (knowing) individual, by the words “In the case of one who knows it to be so”,

3.3.49 L.37 ✅ न क्रतुसम्बन्धं मृष्यते।
Militates against the possibility of any connection (of these Agnis) with a sacrifice (Kratu).

3.3.49 L.38 ✅ तस्मात् स्वातन्त्र्यपक्ष एव ज्यायानिति॥४९॥
Therefore, the conclusion is, that the view that these Agnis are independent (and not subservient to action) is the stronger one, and preferable (to the view that they are subservient to action). — 49.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनुबन्धादिभ्यः प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्ववद्दृष्टश्च तदुक्तम्॥३.३.५०॥
Anubandhādibhyaḥ prajñāntara-pṛthaktvavad dṛṣṭaś ca tad uktam.

Anubandha-ādibhyaḥ: from the connection and so on; Prajñā-antara-pṛthaktvavat: even as the other Vidyās are separate; Dṛṣṭaḥ: (it is) seen; Ca: and; Tat: that; Uktam: is stated (in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā by Jaimini).

🔗 On account of the relationship (Anubandha) etc. (the conceptual Agnis are independent) like other Vidyās which are (considered to be) separate. It is seen (that other similar matters are so taken away from a chapter). It has also been mentioned (by Jaimini in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā). — 3.3.50.

3.3.50 L.1 ✅ इतश्च प्रकरणमुपमृद्य स्वातन्त्र्यं मनश्चिदादीनां प्रतिपत्तव्यम्,
This is again why, notwithstanding the chapter (Prakaraṇa), conceptual Agnis such as these built up by the mind, should be understood to be independent,

3.3.50 L.2 ✅ यत् क्रिया-वयवान् मनआदि-व्यापारेष्वनुबध्नाति –
Inasmuch as the Scriptures bind up the modes of the mind etc., with the subordinate parts of (a sacrificial) action thus —

3.3.50 L.3 ✅ ‘ते मनसैवाधीयन्त मनसाचीयन्त
मनसैव ग्रहा अगृह्यन्त मनसास्तुवन् मनसाशंसन्
यत्किञ्च यज्ञे कर्म क्रियते यत्किञ्च यज्ञियं कर्म मनसैव तेषु तन्मनोमयेषु मनश्चित्सु मनोमयमेव क्रियते’ इत्यादिना;
These (Agnis) are to be established mentally, built up mentally,
The sacrificial cups (Mānasa) are to be taken up mentally, the Udgātṛs (Priests who sing) have to sing their glory mentally, the Hotṛs (Priests who sacrifice) etc. have to recite them mentally,
What-so-ever action (Karma) is sacrificial action and is performed in a sacrifice (for the sake of a Puruṣa) is all to be done mentally in respect of these mental i.e. conceptual and mentally built up Agnis.

3.3.50 L.4 ✅ सम्पत्फलो हि अयमनुबन्धः;
This relationship has conceptual exaltation (Sampat) only, as its fruit.

3.3.50 L.5 ✅ न च प्रत्यक्षाः क्रिया-वयवाः सन्तः सम्पदा लिप्सितव्याः।
The subordinate parts of action being actual, they ought not to be desired to be obtained by conceptual exaltation (Sampadā).

3.3.50 L.6 ✅ न च अत्र उद्गीथाद्युपासनवत् क्रियाङ्ग-सम्बन्धात् तदनुप्रवेशित्वम् आशङ्कितव्यम्,
No doubt should be entertained, that like meditations such as the Udgīṭha, the meditations on them (i.e. these Agnis) are subservient to action, as being related to the subordinate parts of actions,

3.3.50 L.7 ✅ श्रुतिवैरूप्यात्;
Because, the Scriptural passages about them are dissimilar in their nature.

3.3.50 L.8 ✅ न हि अत्र क्रियाङ्गं किञ्चिदादाय
तस्मिन् अदो नामाध्यवसितव्यमिति वदति;
The Scriptures do not mention here that any particular subordinate part of action should be selected,
And any particular stated thing — such as, this — should be superimposed on it.

3.3.50 L.9 ✅ षट्‍त्रिंशत्सहस्राणि तु मनोवृत्तिभेदान् आदाय
They merely select the thirty-six thousand modes of the mind,

3.3.50 L.10 ✅ तेष्वग्नित्वं ग्रहादींश्च कल्पयति,
And imagine them to be the Agnis, and imagine the sacrificial cups etc.,

3.3.50 L.11 ✅ पुरुषयज्ञादिवत्;
As is imagined in a Puruṣa sacrifice (i.e. where the notion of a sacrifice is superimposed on a man) etc.

3.3.50 L.12 ✅ संख्या च इयं पुरुषायुषस्याहःसु दृष्टा सती
तत्सम्बन्धिनीषु मनोवृत्तिषु आरोप्यत इति द्रष्टव्यम्।
It should be understood that this number of the Agnis being seen to correspond to the days of a man’s life-span,
They are superimposed on the modes of the mind which are connected with the days in a man’s life.

3.3.50 L.13 ✅ एवमनुबन्धात्
It is thus, that by reason of such a relation,

3.3.50 L.14 ✅ स्वातन्त्र्यं मनश्चिदादीनाम्।
The Agnis so built up mentally etc. are independent (and are not subservient to action).

3.3.50 L.15 ✅ आदि-शब्दात् अतिदेशाद्यपि यथासम्भवं योजयितव्यम्;
The word ‘etc.’ should, so far as is possible, be understood to include an extended application (Atideśa) etc. also.

3.3.50 L.16 ✅ तथा हि – ‘तेषामेकैक एव तावान्यावानसौ पूर्वः’ इति
Similarly, by the Scriptural passage “Each of these (conceptual Agnis) is quite as much (powerful) as this earlier one (i.e. the actual material Agni used in actual Karma)”,

3.3.50 L.17 ✅ क्रियामयस्याग्नेः माहात्म्यं ज्ञानमयानाम् एकैकस्य अतिदिशन् क्रियायाम् अनादरं दर्शयति;
The Scriptures, by such extended application of the greatness of the actual Agnis to such conceptual Agnis, thereby indicate their contempt for mere ritualistic action as such.

3.3.50 L.18 ✅ न च सत्येव क्रियासम्बन्धे
विकल्पः पूर्वेणोत्तरेषामिति शक्यं वक्तुम्;
Even if these conceptual Agnis be supposed to have such connection with actual action,
It would not be possible to maintain that the former (i.e. conceptual Agnis) can be used optionally in place of the latter (i.e. the actually built up Agnis).

3.3.50 L.19 ✅ न हि, येन व्यापारेण आहवनीय-धारणादिना पूर्वः क्रियायाम् उपकरोति,
The former i.e. the conceptual Agnis cannot possibly be able to render any service in actual action, in a way in which such service is rendered by such properly built up material Agni such as the Āhavanīya etc.

3.3.50 L.20 ✅ तेन उत्तरे उपकर्तुं शक्नुवन्ति। यत्तु पूर्वपक्षेऽप्यतिदेश उपोद्बलक इत्युक्तम् –
The argument (of the opponent of Vedānta), that the extended application (Atideśa) strengthens the conclusion, that such conceptual Agnis are subservient to action,

3.3.50 L.21 ✅ सति हि सामान्येऽतिदेशः प्रवर्तत इति,
Inasmuch as such extended application becomes possible only when there is something common (between two things),

3.3.50 L.22 ✅ तत् अस्मत्पक्षेऽप्यग्नित्वसामान्येनातिदेशसम्भवात् प्रत्युक्तम् –
Is, so far as our view is concerned, answered by the statement, that such extended application is equally possible here, inasmuch as both (the actual and the conceptual Agnis) have the nature of being an Agni, common to both of them,

3.3.50 L.23 ✅ अस्ति हि साम्पादिकानामप्यग्नीनाम् अग्नित्वमिति।
Because even such conceptual Agnis, albeit conceptual, are Agnis after all.

3.3.50 L.24 ✅ श्रुत्यादीनि च कारणानि दर्शितानि।
Besides, authorities such as the Scriptures etc., have also been adduced.

3.3.50 L.25 ✅ एवमनुबन्धादिभ्यः कारणेभ्यः
In this way, on account of such reasons as ‘relation’ etc.,

3.3.50 L.26 ✅ स्वातन्त्र्यं मनश्चिदादीनाम्;
These conceptual Agnis are independent,

3.3.50 L.27 ✅ प्रज्ञान्तर-पृथक्त्ववत् –
Even as other Vidyās which are separate are independent.

3.3.50 L.28 ✅ यथा प्रज्ञान्तराणि शाण्डिल्यविद्या-प्रभृतीनि
For instance, Vidyās such as the Śāṇḍilya-Vidyā and others

3.3.50 L.29 ✅ स्वेन स्वेन अनुबन्धेन अनुबध्यमानानि पृथगेव कर्मभ्यः प्रज्ञान्तरेभ्यश्च स्वतन्त्राणि भवन्ति, एवमिति;
Have each their own particular relation and are independent (of action).

3.3.50 L.30 ✅ दृष्टश्च अवेष्टेः राजसूयप्रकरण-पठितायाः
It is also seen from the Scriptures that the ‘Aveṣṭi’ (an Iṣṭi i.e. a minor sacrificial action) which originally is recited in the chapter about the Rāja-sūya Sacrifice,

3.3.50 L.31 ✅ प्रकरणादुत्कर्षः –
Is taken away from that chapter (and used elsewhere)

3.3.50 L.32 ✅ वर्णत्रयानुबन्धात्;
Because it has relation with the three Varṇas (castes),

3.3.50 L.33 ✅ राजयज्ञत्वाच्च राजसूयस्य;
While the Rāja-sūya Sacrifice being a King’s sacrifice

3.3.50 L.34 ✅ तदुक्तं प्रथमे काण्डे –
This is mentioned in the first

3.3.50 L.35 ✅ ‘क्रत्वर्थायामिति चेन्न वर्णत्रयसंयोगात्’ (जै. सू. ११-४-७) इति॥५०॥
“If it is held that the Aveṣṭi sacrifice is part of the Rājasūya, we say no, for the Aveṣṭi rite is connected with the (first) three Varṇas (castes)” (Jai. Sū. 11.4.7 to 11) - [Trans. from Panoli]. — 50.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धेर्मृत्युवन्न हि लोकापत्तिः॥३.३.५१॥
Na sāmānyād apy upalabdher mṛtyuvan na hi lokāpattiḥ.

Na: not; Sāmānyād api: in spite of the resemblance, because of commonness, on the ground of their resemblance to sacrificial fire; Upalabdheḥ: for it is seen; Mṛtyuvat: just as in the case of death; Na hi loka-āpattiḥ: for the world does not become (fire on account of certain resemblances).

🔗 Not even on the ground of similarity of features (with the ‘Mānasa’ Cup, can these conceptual Agnis be subservient to action) because it is perceived (that they are useful to a man i.e. Puruṣa). This is as it is in the case of ‘death’. Nor does the heavenly world attain the condition of Agni. — 3.3.51.

3.3.51 L.1 ✅ यदुक्तं मानसवदिति, तत्प्रत्युच्यते।
Now the claim (of the opponent of Vedānta) — that it is just as it is in the case of the Mānasa Cup (i.e. the conceptual Agnis are subservient to action) — is here refuted.

3.3.51 L.2 ✅ न मानसग्रहसामान्यादपि मनश्चिदादीनां क्रियाशेषत्वं कल्प्यम्,
It is not conceivable even on the ground of having similarity of features with the Mānasa Cup, that these conceptual Agnis are subservient to action,

3.3.51 L.3 ✅ पूर्वोक्तेभ्यः श्रुत्यादिहेतुभ्यः केवलपुरुषार्थत्वोपलब्धेः;
Because, on account of such reasons as Scriptural declarations, it is understood that they are useful only to the aim of man (Puruṣārtha).

3.3.51 L.4 ✅ न हि किञ्चित् कस्यचित् केनचित् सामान्यं न सम्भवति;
It could not be, that it is never possible, that an entity cannot have anything in common with any other entity (because even the most dissimilar entities have at least ‘the attribute of being an entity’, common to them),

3.3.51 L.5 ✅ न च तावता यथास्वं वैषम्यं निवर्तते;
And the innate dissimilarity (between two entities) can never be thus obliterated simply on that account.

3.3.51 L.6 ✅ मृत्युवत् –
This is similar to the case of ‘death’.

3.3.51 L.7 ✅ यथा ‘स वा एष एव मृत्युर्य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषः’ इति, ‘अग्निर्वै मृत्युः’ (BrhU.3.2.10) इति च
अग्न्यादित्य-पुरुषयोः समानेऽपि मृत्युशब्द-प्रयोगे,
Even though the word ‘death’ is used equally in the case of Agni and the Puruṣa in the sphere of the Sun,
As for instance in the Scriptural passages — “He that is in this sphere (of the Sun) is but this Death (Yama) only” and “Agni, indeed, is Death (Yama)” (BrhUEng.3.2.10),

3.3.51 L.8 ✅ न अत्यन्तसाम्यापत्तिः;
There is no predicament of complete similarity as between these two and Death (Yama),

3.3.51 L.9 ✅ यथा च ‘असौ वाव लोको गौतमाग्निस्तस्यादित्य एव समित्’ (ChanU.5.4.1) इति
Or, just as in the Scriptural passage “Oh Gautama, this (heavenly) world, indeed, is Agni, and the Sun is its fuel (Samidh)”,

3.3.51 L.10 ✅ अत्र न समिदादि-सामान्यात् लोकस्याग्निभावापत्तिः –
Even though there are such common features as ‘fuel etc.’, the heavenly world never really is transformed into the condition of the material Agni,

3.3.51 L.11 ✅ तद्वत्॥५१॥
Even so, it is here. — 51.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
परेण च शब्दस्य ताद्विध्यं भूयस्त्वात्त्वनुबन्धः॥३.३.५२॥
Pareṇa ca śabdasya tād-vidhyaṃ bhūyastvāt tv anubandhaḥ.

Pareṇa: from the subsequent (Brāhmaṇa), by the subsequent expression, by the statements immediately following; Ca: and; Śabdasya: of Śruti, of the text, of the word; Tād-vidhyam: the fact of being such; Bhūyastvāt: because of abundance; Tu: but; Anubandhaḥ: connection.

🔗 By the subsequent (Brāhmaṇa passage as well as the preceding one) also, (it is understood) that the Scriptures purport to enjoin (the Vidyā), and the relation (of the actual Agni with the Vidyā) is due to the profusion (of the subordinate parts of Agni). — 3.3.52.

3.3.52 L.1 ✅ परस्तादपि ‘अयं वाव लोक एषोऽग्निश्चितः’ इत्यस्मिन् अनन्तरे ब्राह्मणे,
Even in the subsequent proximate Brāhmaṇa — “This world, indeed, is the built up Agni”,

3.3.52 L.2 ✅ ताद्विध्यं केवलविद्याविधित्वम् शब्दस्य प्रयोजनं लक्ष्यते,
It is observed that the aim of the Scriptures is the enjoining of the Vidyā,

3.3.52 L.3 ✅ न शुद्धकर्माङ्ग-विधित्वम्;
And it does not aim at the giving of any injunction with regard to any purely subsidiary part of action.

3.3.52 L.4 ✅ तत्र हि – ‘विद्यया तदारोहन्ति यत्र कामाः परागताः।
न तत्र दक्षिणा यन्ति नाविद्वांसस्तपस्विनः’
इत्यनेन श्लोकेन केवलं कर्म निन्दन् विद्यां च प्रशंसन् इदं गमयति।
Even there the same is implied from the Scriptures which censure ‘mere action’ and glorify the Vidyā, in the Śloka —
“It is by Vidyā that they ascend to that stage from where all desires are rolled back.
Performers of mere ritualistic action (Dakṣiṇāḥ) do not go there nor do the ignorant ascetics.”

3.3.52 L.5 ✅ तथा पुरस्तादपि ‘यदेतन्मण्डलं तपति’ इत्यस्मिन्ब्राह्मणे
Similarly, even in the preceding Brāhmaṇa, viz. “This sphere that fiercely shines”,

3.3.52 L.6 ✅ विद्याप्रधानत्वमेव लक्ष्यते –
It is the Vidyā that appears to be the chief thing

3.3.52 L.7 ✅ ‘सोऽमृतो भवति मृत्युर्ह्यस्यात्मा भवति’ इति
विद्याफलेनैव उपसंहारात्
न कर्म-प्रधानता।
And not mere action,
As the Brāhmaṇa concludes by stating the fruit of the Vidyā only, thus —
“He becomes immortal, Death becomes his own self”,

3.3.52 L.8 ✅ तत्सामान्यात् इहापि तथात्वम्।
And in common with it, the same is the case here.

3.3.52 L.9 ✅ भूयांसस्तु अग्न्यवयवाः सम्पादयितव्या विद्यायाम् –
In this Vidyā very many subordinate parts of the actual Agni are to be imagined

3.3.52 L.10 ✅ इत्येतस्मात्कारणात् अग्निना अनुबध्यते विद्या,
And for that reason the Vidyā is made to connect with the sacrifice,

3.3.52 L.11 ✅ न कर्माङ्गत्वात्।
And not because it is subservient to action.

3.3.52 L.12 ✅ तस्मात् मनश्चिदादीनां केवलविद्यात्मकत्व-सिद्धिः॥५२॥
Therefore, the conclusion thus established is that these conceptual Agnis are of the nature of a mere Vidyā. — 52.

– 129. Liṅga-bhūyastva-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.53 Su..54

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
एक आत्मनः शरीरे भावात्॥३.३.५३॥
Eka ātmanaḥ śarīre bhāvāt.

Eke: some (maintain the non-existence); Ātmanaḥ: of a separate self (besides the body); Śarīre: in the body; Bhāvāt: because of existence.

🔗 Some (deny the existence) of the Jīva-Self i.e. the Ātmā, (as apart from the body) because (as they say), it exists only when a body exists. — 3.3.53.

3.3.53 L.1 ✅ इह देहव्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनः सद्भावः समर्थ्यते,
Now here the existence of the Jīva-Self i.e. the Ātmā as apart from the body is being justified,

3.3.53 L.2 ✅ बन्धमोक्षाधिकार-सिद्धये;
In order to establish its competency for suffering bondage or attaining Final Release.

3.3.53 L.3 ✅ न हि असति देहव्यतिरिक्त आत्मनि
Were the Jīva-Self as apart from the body, not in fact to exist,

3.3.53 L.4 ✅ परलोकफलाश्चोदना उपपद्येरन्;
Injunctions (for actions) having the fruit of the acquisition of the heavenly world could not be reasonably sustainable,

3.3.53 L.5 ✅ कस्य वा ब्रह्मात्मत्वमुपदिश्येत।
And (under such circumstances) how can anybody possibly be taught the Brahma-hood of the Jīva-Self?

3.3.53 L.6 ✅ ननु शास्त्रप्रमुख एव प्रथमे पादे
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), in the first Pāda of the Chief Śāstra (Pū. Mī. 1.15)

3.3.53 L.7 ✅ शास्त्रफलोपभोग-योग्यस्य
देहव्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनोऽस्तित्वमुक्तम् –
Mention has been made of the existence of the Jīva-Self as apart from the body,
As (an entity) capable of i.e. fit for experiencing the fruit as stated by the Śāstra.

3.3.53 L.8 ✅ सत्यमुक्तं भाष्यकृता;
(We reply) — No doubt it is so stated there by its commentator (Śabara-svāmī)

3.3.53 L.9 ✅ न तु तत्रात्मास्तित्वे सूत्रमस्ति;
But there is no Sūtra there (by Jaimini), relating specifically to the existence of the Jīva-Self.

3.3.53 L.10 ✅ इह तु स्वयमेव सूत्रकृता तदस्तित्वमाक्षेप-पुरःसरं प्रतिष्ठापितम्;
Here, however, the compiler of the Sūtras (Bādarāyaṇa) has himself established its existence by first raising a doubt as to its existence.

3.3.53 L.11 ✅ इत एव च आकृष्य आचार्येण शबरस्वामिना
It is from here that Ācārya Śabara-svāmī has borrowed it,

3.3.53 L.12 ✅ प्रमाणलक्षणे वर्णितम्;
And referred to it in the Pramāṇa-Lakṣaṇa (Chapter in Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā dealing with the characteristics of the means-of-proof such as the Scriptures and the Smṛtis).

3.3.53 L.13 ✅ अत एव च भगवता उपवर्षेण
It is to this again that Bhagavān Upavarṣa

3.3.53 L.14 ✅ प्रथमे तन्त्रे आत्मास्तित्वाभिधान-प्रसक्तौ शारीरके वक्ष्याम इत्युद्धारः कृतः।
Has referred, when the necessity of discussing the existence of the Jīva-Self arose in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā, by saying that he would speak about it in the Śārīraka.

3.3.53 L.15 ✅ इह च इदं चोदना-लक्षणेषु उपासनेषु विचार्यमाणेषु
Now here, when the meditations (Upāsanās) having injunctions as their authority are being considered,

3.3.53 L.16 ✅ आत्मास्तित्वं विचार्यते,
The existence of the Jīva-Self is being discussed

3.3.53 L.17 ✅ कृत्स्नशास्त्रशेषत्व-प्रदर्शनाय।
As being complementary to the entire Śāstra.

3.3.53 L.18 ✅ अपि च पूर्वस्मिन्नधिकरणे
In the former topic of discussion (Adhikaraṇa)

3.3.53 L.19 ✅ प्रकरणोत्कर्षाभ्युपगमेन
मनश्चिदादीनां पुरुषार्थत्वं वर्णितम्;
It has been described, as to how the conceptual Agnis are for the chief aim of the Puruṣa,
By determining, that some matters can be taken apart from the chapter (Prakaraṇa),

3.3.53 L.20 ✅ कोऽसौ पुरुषः, यदर्था एते मनश्चिदादयः – इत्यस्यां प्रसक्तौ
And it is now, when it has become necessary to explain, as to what that Puruṣa is, for whom these conceptual Agnis are meant,

3.3.53 L.21 ✅ इदं देहव्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनोऽस्तित्वमुच्यते;
That the existence of the Jīva-Self as apart from the body is spoken of.

3.3.53 L.22 ✅ तदस्तित्वाक्षेपार्थम् इदमादिमं सूत्रम् –
This is the first Sūtra that has the purpose of stating the objection (of the opponent of Vedānta),

3.3.53 L.23 ✅ आक्षेपपूर्विका हि परिहारोक्तिः विवक्षितेऽर्थे
For, it is by the refutation of such a preliminary objection,

3.3.53 L.24 ✅ स्थूणानिखनन-न्यायेन दृढां बुद्धिमुत्पादयेदिति॥
That a firm conviction as to the statement intended to be made (by the Vedāntin), is generated, in accordance with the maxim of ‘making an iron pile firm by digging it (deep into the earth)’.

3.3.53 L.25 ✅ अत्र एके देहमात्रात्मदर्शिनो लोकायतिकाः
देहव्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनोऽभावं
As regards this (Topic), some, to wit, the Lokāyatikas (Materialists), who consider the body itself to be the Jīva-Self,
And that any Jīva-Self as such as apart from the body does not exist,

3.3.53 L.26 ✅ मन्यमानाः, समस्तव्यस्तेषु बाह्येषु पृथिव्यादिष्वदृष्टमपि चैतन्यं
And who also hold, that sentiency (Caitanya) which is not perceived to exist in this external world etc., taken both singly or collectively (Samasta-vyasteṣu),

3.3.53 L.27 ✅ शरीराकार-परिणतेषु भूतेषु स्यादिति –
May yet possibly exist when the elements transform themselves into the form of a body,

3.3.53 L.28 ✅ सम्भावयन्तस्तेभ्यश्चैतन्यम्, मदशक्तिवत् विज्ञानम्
चैतन्यविशिष्टः कायः पुरुषः – इति च आहुः।
And say, that sentiency like some intoxicating power, results from those elements,
And that a Puruṣa is merely a body possessed of such sentiency,

3.3.53 L.29 ✅ न स्वर्ग-गमनाय अपवर्ग-गमनाय वा समर्थो देहव्यतिरिक्त आत्मा अस्ति,
And that there is no Jīva-Self as such as apart from the body, capable of proceeding to the heavenly world or capable of obtaining Final Release,

3.3.53 L.30 ✅ यत्कृतं चैतन्यं देहे स्यात्;
And by whom sentiency is generated in the body.

3.3.53 L.31 ✅ देह एव तु चेतनश्च आत्मा च इति प्रतिजानते।
They understand that the body itself is the sentient Jīva-Self,

3.3.53 L.32 ✅ हेतुं च आचक्षते – शरीरे भावादिति;
And give a reason for it (as is stated in the Sūtra above), viz., that the Jīva-Self exists only when a body exists.

3.3.53 L.33 ✅ यद्धि यस्मिन्सति भवति,
That which exists only when something exists,

3.3.53 L.34 ✅ असति च न भवति,
And does not exist when such other thing does not exist,

3.3.53 L.35 ✅ तत् तद्धर्मत्वेनाध्यवसीयते –
Is understood to be the attribute of such other thing,

3.3.53 L.36 ✅ यथा अग्निधर्मावौष्ण्य-प्रकाशौ।
Just as heat and light are the attributes of fire.

3.3.53 L.37 ✅ प्राणचेष्टाचैतन्यस्मृत्यादयश्च आत्मधर्मत्वेनाभिमता आत्म-वादिनाम् –
Prāṇa, movement, sentiency, memory etc. understood to be the attributes of the Jīva-Self by the advocates of the Ātmā,

3.3.53 L.38 ✅ तेऽपि अन्तरेव देहे उपलभ्यमानाः बहिश्च अनुपलभ्यमानाः
But which are perceivable only in a body and not as the attributes of anything as apart from the body,

3.3.53 L.39 ✅ असिद्धे देहव्यतिरिक्ते धर्मिणि
देहधर्मा एव भवितुमर्हन्ति।
Thus deserve to be merely the attributes of the body,
As long as the existence of an entity endowed with such attributes such as the Jīva-Self is not established.

3.3.53 L.40 ✅ तस्मादव्यतिरेको देहादात्मन इति॥५३॥
Therefore the Jīva-Self is not something which is different from the body. — 53.

[Go top]

3.3.54 L.1 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the materialist), we reply: —

←Prev Next→
व्यतिरेकस्तद्भावाभावित्वान्न तूपलब्धिवत्॥३.३.५४॥
Vyatirekas tad-bhāvābhāvitvān na tūpalabdhivat.

Vyatirekaḥ: separation; Tad-bhāva-abhāvitvāt: for (consciousness) does not exist even when there is the body; Na: not (so); Tu: but; Upalabdhivat: as in the case of knowledge or cognition.

🔗 But it is not (so). (The Jīva-Self) is something apart (from a body), because (the attributes of the Jīva-Self) do not exist even when it (i.e. the body) exists. It is, as it is in the case of perception. — 3.3.54.

3.3.54 L.2 ✅ न त्वेतदस्ति – यदुक्तमव्यतिरेको देहादात्मन इति;
It is not (as asserted by the opponent of Vedānta) that there is no Jīva-Self as such as apart from the body.

3.3.54 L.3 ✅ व्यतिरेक एव अस्य देहाद्भवितुमर्हति;
It does deserve to exist separately from the body,

3.3.54 L.4 ✅ तद्भावाभावित्वात्।
Because, the attributes (of the Jīva-Self) do not exist, even when the body exists.

3.3.54 L.5 ✅ यदि देहभावे भावात्
देहधर्मत्वम् आत्मधर्माणां मन्येत –
If it be held (as is held by the opponent of Vedānta) that the attributes of the Ātmā are but merely the attributes of the body
Because they exist when the body exists,

3.3.54 L.6 ✅ ततो देहभावेऽपि अभावात्
अतद्धर्मत्वमेव एषां किं न मन्येत?
Then why could it not be held by him (equally justifiably) that these attributes are not the attributes of the body,
Because they are not seen to exist, even when a body still exists?

3.3.54 L.7 ✅ देहधर्म-वैलक्षण्यात्;
Besides, the attributes (of the Ātmā) are dissimilar to the attributes of the body.

3.3.54 L.8 ✅ ये हि देहधर्मा रूपादयः, ते यावद्देहं भवन्ति;
Form (Rūpa) etc., which are the attributes of a body, continue to exist as long as a body exists,

3.3.54 L.9 ✅ प्राणचेष्टादयस्तु सत्यपि देहे मृतावस्थायां न भवन्ति;
But vital breath and movement etc. are absent in the Death-condition, even though (in that death-condition) the body does still exist.

3.3.54 L.10 ✅ देहधर्माश्च रूपादयः परैरप्युपलभ्यन्ते,
Besides as long as the body exists, the attributes of the body are perceivable by others also,

3.3.54 L.11 ✅ न त्वात्मधर्माश्चैतन्यस्मृत्यादयः।
But not so the attributes of the Ātmā, such as sentiency, memory etc.

3.3.54 L.12 ✅ अपि च सति हि तावत् देहे
Besides as long as the body exists,

3.3.54 L.13 ✅ जीवदवस्थायाम् एषां भावः शक्येत निश्चेतुम्,
It is possible to ascertain the existence of these attributes (of the Ātmā) conclusively, as long as life exists,

3.3.54 L.14 ✅ न तु असत्यभावः;
But it is not possible to ascertain their non-existence conclusively,

3.3.54 L.15 ✅ पतितेऽपि कदाचिदस्मिन्देहे देहान्तरसञ्चारेण आत्मधर्मा अनुवर्तेरन्।
After the body has ceased to exist, because may be (for aught we know) the attributes may well continue to exist in the Ātmā, even when perchance the body has fallen, the Ātmā having transmigrated into another body.

3.3.54 L.16 ✅ संशयमात्रेणापि परपक्षः प्रतिषिध्यते।
The view of the opponent (of Vedānta) thus stands refuted merely by the raising of a doubt (about its validity, because in the absence of definite proof, his view, at best is but a mere hypothesis).

3.3.54 L.17 ✅ किमात्मकं च पुनरिदं चैतन्यं मन्यते, यस्य भूतेभ्य उत्पत्तिमिच्छति –
इति परः पर्यनुयोक्तव्यः।
The opponent (of Vedānta) may well be counter-questioned
As to what he considers to be the nature of this ‘sentiency’ which he prefers wishfully to hold as originating from the elements.

3.3.54 L.18 ✅ न हि भूतचतुष्टय-व्यतिरेकेण लोकायतिकः किञ्चित् तत्त्वं प्रत्येति।
The materialist does not recognize any entity (Tattva) as such, other than this quartette of elements (Earth, Water, Tejas, and Vāyu).

3.3.54 L.19 ✅ यत् अनुभवनं भूतभौतिकानाम्, तत् चैतन्यमिति चेत्,
Now if it be said (by the opponent) that the perception of the elements and their products, itself is ‘sentiency’,

3.3.54 L.20 ✅ तर्हि विषयत्वात् तेषाम् न तद्धर्मत्वमश्नुवीत,
Then inasmuch as they (i.e. the elements) are but the objects of such sentiency, sentiency cannot possibly be their attribute,

3.3.54 L.21 ✅ स्वात्मनि क्रिया-विरोधात्।
Because action by an entity on itself, is contradictory,

3.3.54 L.22 ✅ न हि अग्निरुष्णः सन् स्वात्मानं दहति,
As for instance, fire which is hot, cannot burn itself,

3.3.54 L.23 ✅ न हि नटः शिक्षितः सन् स्वस्कन्धमधिरोक्ष्यति।
Nor can an actor (acrobat), be he ever so well trained, be able to ride on his own shoulder.

3.3.54 L.24 ✅ न हि भूतभौतिकधर्मेण सता
चैतन्येन भूतभौतिकानि विषयीक्रियेरन्।
If sentiency be the attribute of elements and their products,
They cannot be made the objects of such sentiency,

3.3.54 L.25 ✅ न हि रूपादिभिः स्वरूपं पररूपं वा विषयीक्रियते;
Nor can form (Rūpa) etc., make form etc. themselves

3.3.54 L.26 ✅ विषयीक्रियन्ते तु बाह्याध्यात्मिकानि भूतभौतिकानि चैतन्येन।
Or the form of any external and internal (bodily) elements and their products, their objects.

3.3.54 L.27 ✅ अतश्च यथैव अस्या भूतभौतिक-विषयाया उपलब्धेः भावोऽभ्युपगम्यते,
Hence, inasmuch as we do in fact understand the existence of the perception of elements and their products,

3.3.54 L.28 ✅ एवं व्यतिरेकोऽपि अस्यास्तेभ्यः अभ्युपगन्तव्यः।
We must necessarily understand the separateness of such perception from such elements and their products.

3.3.54 L.29 ✅ उपलब्धि-स्वरूप एव च न आत्मेति आत्मनो देहव्यतिरिक्तत्वम्।
Now the Ātmā as we understand it (for us), is of the nature of perception, and hence of course, this Ātmā is an entity apart from the body.

3.3.54 L.30 ✅ नित्यत्वं च उपलब्धेः, ऐकरूप्यात्,
Now this perception being of a uniform nature, the Ātmā is eternal,

3.3.54 L.31 ✅ ‘अहम् इदम् अद्राक्षम्’ इति च अवस्थान्तरयोगेऽप्युपलब्धृत्वेन प्रत्यभिज्ञानात्,
Because even under circumstances of a different condition (such as a dream-condition) it recognizes itself as the perceiver, thus — ‘It is I that saw this’,

3.3.54 L.32 ✅ स्मृत्याद्युपपत्तेश्च।
And besides it is only thus that Smṛtis etc. become reasonably sustainable.

3.3.54 L.33 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – शरीरे भावाच्छरीर-धर्म उपलब्धिरिति,
The argument advanced (by the opponent of Vedānta) that because the attributes (of the Ātmā) exist only when a body exists and therefore ‘Perception’ is the attribute of the body,

3.3.54 L.34 ✅ तत् वर्णितेन प्रकारेण प्रत्युक्तम्।
Is refuted in the manner described (above).

3.3.54 L.35 ✅ अपि च सत्सु प्रदीपादिषु उपकरणेषु उपलब्धिर्भवति
Besides, because, perception (of objects) takes place only when auxiliary implements such as a lamp etc. are available,

3.3.54 L.36 ✅ असत्सु न भवतीति –
And as it does not take place in the absence of such auxiliary implements,

3.3.54 L.37 ✅ न च एतावता प्रदीपादिधर्म एव उपलब्धिर्भवति;
It cannot, merely on that ground, become the property of a lamp etc.

3.3.54 L.38 ✅ एवं सति देहे उपलब्धिर्भवति, असति च न भवतीति –
In the same manner, because, perception takes place when a body exists and does not take place when a body does not exist,

3.3.54 L.39 ✅ न देहधर्मो भवितुमर्हति;
It does not thereby deserve to be the property of the body.

3.3.54 L.40 ✅ उपकरणत्वमात्रेणापि प्रदीपादिवत् देहोपयोगोपपत्तेः।
Because, it is reasonably sustainable that like the lamp etc., a body is merely useful as an auxiliary implement.

3.3.54 L.41 ✅ न च अत्यन्तं देहस्य उपलब्धावुपयोगोऽपि दृश्यते,
Nor is it that a body is invariably necessary in the matter of perception,

3.3.54 L.42 ✅ निश्चेष्टेऽप्यस्मिन्देहे स्वप्ने
नानाविधोपलब्धिदर्शनात्।
Because when during dream-condition the body has absolutely no movement,
A variety of perceptions is observable.

3.3.54 L.43 ✅ तस्मादनवद्यं देहव्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनोऽस्तित्वम्॥५४॥
Therefore, (the view) that the Self as apart from a body, does exist, is clearly flawless. — 54.

– 130. Aika-ātmya-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.55 Su..56

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अङ्गावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम्॥३.३.५५॥
Aṅgāvabaddhās tu na śākhāsu hi prativedam.

Aṅga-avabaddhaḥ: (Upāsanās) connected parts (of sacrificial acts); Tu: but; Na: not; Śākhāsu: to (particular) Śākhās; Hi: because; Prati-vedam: in each Veda, according to the Veda.

🔗 But (injunctions about meditations) connected with subordinate parts (of sacrificial acts such as the Udgīṭha Karma) are not (restricted) to the particular branches (of the Vedas, in which they occur, but because the meditations are identical), they are available in each Veda. — 3.3.55.

3.3.55 L.1 ✅ समाप्ता प्रासङ्गिकी कथा;
This incidental digression (about the Jīva-Self) is now finished

3.3.55 L.2 ✅ सम्प्रति प्रकृतामेवानुवर्तामहे।
And we will now revert to the discussion relevant (to the Pāda).

3.3.55 L.3 ✅ ‘ओमित्येतदक्षरमुद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1)
‘लोकेषु पञ्चविधꣳ सामोपासीत’ (ChanU.2.2.1)
‘उक्थमुक्थमिति वै प्रजा वदन्ति तदिदमेवोक्थम्’ ‘इयमेव पृथिवी’
‘अयं वाव लोकः’ ‘एषोऽग्निश्चितः’ इत्येवमाद्या
ये उद्गीथादिकर्माङ्गावबद्धाः प्रत्ययाः प्रतिवेदं शाखाभेदेषु विहिताः,
The doubt that arises here is, as to whether, injunctions to meditations connected with Vidyās such as the Udgīṭha etc., prescribed in the different branches of each Veda,
Such as “One should meditate on ‘Om’ which is the Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.1.1),
“One should meditate on the Sāman of five kinds, as so many different worlds” (ChanU.2.2.1),
“Verily, what people speak about as Uktha (viz. Śāstra i.e. a collection of Mantras sung by the Ṛtvijaḥ during a sacrifice) is but this earth” (Ait. Ār. 2.1.2),
“This built up fire indeed is the world (Loka)” (Śat. Brā. 10.5.4.1),

3.3.55 L.4 ✅ ते तत्तच्छाखागतेष्वेव उद्गीथादिषु भवेयुः,
Are applicable only to the Udgīṭha of the particular branch in which they are mentioned,

3.3.55 L.5 ✅ अथवा सर्वशाखागतेषु –
Or whether they are applicable in all the various branches.

3.3.55 L.6 ✅ इति विशयः।
This doubt

3.3.55 L.7 ✅ प्रतिशाखं च स्वरादि-भेदात् उद्गीथादिभेदानुपादाय अयमुपन्यासः।
Has been so stated on the assumption, that inasmuch as the accents (Svaras) in each branch are different, the Udgīṭhas in each branch also are different.

3.3.55 L.8 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)?

3.3.55 L.9 ✅ स्वशाखागतेष्वेव उद्गीथादिषु विधीयेरन्निति।
It is, that these injunctions to meditation relate to the Udgīṭha of each individual branch separately.

3.3.55 L.10 ✅ कुतः? सन्निधानात् –
Whence is it so? Because of proximity (Sannidhāna).

3.3.55 L.11 ✅ ‘उद्गीथमुपासीत’ इति हि सामान्य-विहितानां विशेषाकाङ्क्षायां
Because, when it is only generally prescribed that the Udgīṭha should be meditated upon, there naturally is a desire to know as to what particular Udgīṭha is meant,

3.3.55 L.12 ✅ सन्निकृष्टेनैव स्वशाखागतेन विशेषेण आकाङ्क्षादिनिवृत्तेः,
And such desire etc. is subsequently satisfied by the proximate special direction in each individual branch,

3.3.55 L.13 ✅ तदतिलङ्घनेन शाखान्तर-विहितविशेषोपादाने कारणं नास्ति।
And also because there is no reason for transgressing that (special direction) and accepting the special direction in another branch.

3.3.55 L.14 ✅ तस्मात्प्रतिशाखं व्यवस्थेति
Therefore, the meditation on the Udgīṭha in each branch is confined to that branch alone.

3.3.55 L.15 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रवीति –
This being the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta), the Sūtra-kāra replies —

3.3.55 L.16 ✅ अङ्गावबद्धास्त्विति।
“But (injunctions about meditations) connected with the subordinate parts etc.”.

3.3.55 L.17 ✅ तु-शब्दः पक्षं व्यावर्तयति।
The word ‘but’ in the Sūtra refutes the view (of the opponent of Vedānta).

3.3.55 L.18 ✅ नैते प्रतिवेदं स्वशाखास्वेव व्यवतिष्ठेरन्,
These (meditations) are not confined, each to its own individual branch only,

3.3.55 L.19 ✅ अपि तु सर्वशाखास्वनुवर्तेरन्।
But are available in all branches.

3.3.55 L.20 ✅ कुतः? उद्गीथादिश्रुत्यविशेषात्;
Whence is it so? Because of the absence of any special distinction in the Scriptural statements about the Udgīṭha.

3.3.55 L.21 ✅ स्वशाखाव्यवस्थायां हि ‘उद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1) इति
सामान्यश्रुतिरविशेष-प्रवृत्ता सती
If it be supposed that the meditation mentioned in each branch is confined to that branch alone, and the general Scriptural statement “Let one meditate on the Udgīṭha”, Which does not purport to express any particularization,

3.3.55 L.22 ✅ सन्निधान-वशेन विशेषे व्यवस्थाप्यमाना पीडिता स्यात्;
Is made to indicate any such particularization on the ground of proximity, the Scriptural statement would thus be contradicted.

3.3.55 L.23 ✅ न चैतन्न्याय्यम्;
This would not be logical,

3.3.55 L.24 ✅ सन्निधानाद्धि श्रुतिर्बलीयसी;
Because a ‘Scriptural statement’ has greater force than mere ‘proximity (Sannidhāna)’.

3.3.55 L.25 ✅ न च सामान्याश्रयः प्रत्ययो नोपपद्यते।
Besides, it is not that a Vidyā can have a general application would not be reasonably sustainable.

3.3.55 L.26 ✅ तस्मात् स्वरादि-भेदे सत्यपि
Hence, notwithstanding differences in accents,

3.3.55 L.27 ✅ उद्गीथत्वाद्यविशेषात् सर्वशाखागतेष्वेव
Inasmuch as the Udgīṭha is one and the same everywhere,

3.3.55 L.28 ✅ उद्गीथादिषु एवंजातीयकाः प्रत्ययाः स्युः॥५५॥
The injunctions must be understood to be applicable to all the branches generally. — 55.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
मन्त्रादिवद्वाऽविरोधः॥३.३.५६॥
Mantrādivad vā'virodhaḥ.

Mantra-ādivat: like Mantras, etc.; Vā: or else; A-virodhaḥ: there is no contradiction.

🔗 Or rather, as in the case of Mantras etc., there is no contradiction here. — 3.3.56.

3.3.56 L.1 ✅ अथवा नैवात्र विरोधः शङ्कितव्यः –
Or rather, no such contradiction should be doubted here,

3.3.56 L.2 ✅ कथमन्यशाखागतेषु उद्गीथादिषु अन्यशाखा-विहिताः प्रत्यया भवेयुरिति,
Viz. as to how an injunction about the Udgīṭha Vidyā prescribed in one branch can at all be available for the Udgīṭha Vidyā etc. of another branch,

3.3.56 L.3 ✅ मन्त्रादिवत् अविरोधोपपत्तेः।
Because, it is reasonably sustainable, that, as in the case of Mantras etc. there can be no contradiction here.

3.3.56 L.4 ✅ तथा हि – मन्त्राणां कर्मणां गुणानां च शाखान्तरोत्पन्नानामपि
शाखान्तरे उपसङ्ग्रहो दृश्यते;
For it is seen that Mantras, actions and subsidiary parts (Guṇas) which occur in one branch,
Are made applicable in another branch also.

3.3.56 L.5 ✅ येषामपि हि शाखिनाम्
(For instance) even in the case of the followers of that particular branch,

3.3.56 L.6 ✅ ‘कुटरुरसि’ इत्यश्मादान-मन्त्रो नाम्नातः,
In which the Mantra recited in another branch during the taking up of the stone (for pounding rice etc.) — viz. “Thou art the Kuṭaru” — is not mentioned,

3.3.56 L.7 ✅ तेषामपि असौ विनियोगो दृश्यते –
Its application in their branch is observed,

3.3.56 L.8 ✅ ‘कुक्कुटोऽसीत्यश्मानमादत्ते, कुटरुरसीति वा’ इति;
Thus — “He takes up the stone (accompanying such act by reciting) ‘Thou art the Kukkuṭa or thou art the Kuṭaru’

3.3.56 L.9 ✅ येषामपि समिदादयः प्रयाजा नाम्नाताः,
Similarly in the case of those (for instance the Maitrāyaṇis) in whose case Prayājas (Sacrificing of Samidhs) are not prescribed,

3.3.56 L.10 ✅ तेषामपि तेषु गुणविधिराम्नायते –
An injunction with regard to this subsidiary item of such a Prayāja is given,

3.3.56 L.11 ✅ ‘ऋतवो वै प्रयाजाः समानत्र होतव्याः’ इति;
Thus — “Verily the seasons are the Prayājas and they should be offered in one and the same place”. (Here the word ‘seasons’ which indicates the number of the Prayājas and ‘the offering of them in one and the same place’ are subsidiary actions i.e. Karmāṅgas.)

3.3.56 L.12 ✅ तथा येषामपि ‘अजोऽग्नीषोमीयः’ इति जातिविशेषोपदेशो नास्ति,
Similarly also in the case of those, in whose branch, a Mantra giving instruction about the kind of animal to be sacrificed, such as “A he-goat should be sacrificed to Agni and Soma”, is not mentioned,

3.3.56 L.13 ✅ तेषामपि तद्विषयो मन्त्रवर्ण उपलभ्यते – ‘छागस्य वपाया मेदसोऽनुब्रूहि’ इति;
A Mantra indicative of that (recited by the Adhvaryu) is observed thus — “(Oh Hotṛ), recite the Anuvākya for the offering of the fat of the pericardium of a he-goat”.

3.3.56 L.14 ✅ तथा वेदान्तरोत्पन्नानामपि ‘अग्ने वेर्होत्रं वेरध्वरम्’ इत्येवमादि-मन्त्राणां वेदान्तरे परिग्रहो दृष्टः;
Similarly, it is observed that the Mantra “Oh Agni, promote the Hotra and the Sacrifice”, which occurs in one Veda, is accepted in another Veda.

3.3.56 L.15 ✅ तथा बह्वृचपठितस्य सूक्तस्य ‘यो जात एव प्रथमो मनस्वान्’ (ऋ. सं. २-६-७) इत्यस्य,
Similarly, also the hymn (Sūkta) “He (Indra), as soon as he was born, became capable of being thoughtful”, recited in the Veda of the Śataudana (i.e. followers of Ṛg-Veda),

3.3.56 L.16 ✅ अध्वर्यवे ‘सजनीयꣳ शस्यम्’ इत्यत्र परिग्रहो दृष्टः।
Is observed by the followers of Yajur-Veda by the Mantra “For the Adhvaryu, the Sajanīya hymn (in which the words ‘Sajanāsa Indraḥ’ occur, is to be recited)”.

3.3.56 L.17 ✅ तस्मात् यथा आश्रयाणां कर्माङ्गानां सर्वत्रानुवृत्तिः,
Therefore, just as the subordinate parts of a sacrificial act on which the Vidyās depend, are observed to be accepted everywhere,

3.3.56 L.18 ✅ एवम् आश्रितानामपि प्रत्ययानाम् –
Even so, the Vidyās which depend upon such subordinate parts, are accepted everywhere,

3.3.56 L.19 ✅ इत्यविरोधः॥५६॥
And hence there is no contradiction (involved). — 56.

– 131. Aṅga-avabaddha-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
भूम्नः क्रतुवज्ज्यायस्त्वं तथा हि दर्शयति॥३.३.५७॥
Bhūmnaḥ kratuvaj jyāyastvaṃ tathā hi darśayati.

Bhūmnaḥ: on the entire form; Kratuvat: as in the case of sacrifice; Jyāyastvam: prominence, pre-eminence, importance; Tathā: so; Hi: because, for, as; Darśayati: (the Śruti) shows.

🔗 There is top-ranking eminence (Jyāyastva) of Bhūmā (i.e. Cosmic Self) (as the object of meditation), as it is, in the case of a Kratu (Sacrifice), for the Scriptures also indicate so. — 3.3.57.

3.3.57 L.1 ✅ ‘प्राचीनशाल औपमन्यवः’ (ChanU.5.11.1) इत्यस्यामाख्यायिकायां
In the legend beginning with “Oh Prācīna-śāla Aupamanyava” (ChanU.5.11.1),

3.3.57 L.2 ✅ व्यस्तस्य समस्तस्य च वैश्वानरस्य उपासनं श्रूयते।
The Scriptures speak of meditation on the Vaiśvā-nara (the Cosmic Self) in its individual (Vyasta) and collective (Samasta) aspect.

3.3.57 L.3 ✅ व्यस्तोपासनं तावत् –
Meditation on the individual aspect of it is as follows: —

3.3.57 L.4 ✅ ‘औपमन्यव कं त्वमात्मानमुपास्स इति दिवमेव भगवो राजन्निति होवाचैष वै सुतेजा आत्मा वैश्वानरो यं त्वमात्मानमुपास्से’ (ChanU.5.12.1) इत्यादि;
“Oh Aupamanyava (asked Aśva-pati Kaikeya), ‘On whom dost thou meditate as the Self?’ He replied, ‘Oh respected King, it is on the heaven (that I meditate)’. Aśva-pati said, ‘Verily that Self on which you meditate and which is called the Sutejā (the brightly shining Self) is the Vaiśvā-nara Self’.” (ChanU.5.12.1).

3.3.57 L.5 ✅ तथा समस्तोपासनमपि –
Similarly, meditation on the collective aspect is as follows —

3.3.57 L.6 ✅ ‘तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाश्चक्षुर्विश्वरूपः प्राणः पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा सन्देहो बहुलो बस्तिरेव रयिः पृथिव्येव पादौ’ (ChanU.5.18.2) इत्यादि।
“Of this Vaiśvā-nara Self, the caput is Sutejā, the eye is Viśva-rūpa, the Prāṇa is the Prithag-vartmā Self, the torso is Bahula, Rayi (wealth) is the bladder, the feet are this Earth” (ChanU.5.18.2).

3.3.57 L.7 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now, with regard to this, the doubt arises,

3.3.57 L.8 ✅ किमिह उभयथापि उपासनं स्यात् व्यस्तस्य समस्तस्य च,
As to whether the meditation (on Vaiśvā-nara) shall be both ways i.e. individually and collectively,

3.3.57 L.9 ✅ उत समस्तस्यैवेति।
Or collectively only.

3.3.57 L.10 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta)?

3.3.57 L.11 ✅ प्रत्यवयवं सुतेजःप्रभृतिषु ‘उपास्से’ इति क्रियापदश्रवणात्,
‘तस्मात्तव सुतं प्रसुतमासुतं कुले दृश्यते’ (ChanU.5.12.1) इत्यादिफलभेद-श्रवणाच्च,
व्यस्तान्यप्युपासनानि स्युः – इति प्राप्तम्॥
It is that meditation should be separate on every separate part,
Because in the case of every part (Avayava) viz. “Sutejā” etc. the predicate ‘thou meditatest’ is used by the Scriptures,
And also because the Scriptures speak of different fruits of such meditations, thus — “In your family a progressively intensive pressing out of the Soma juice (for Soma-Yāga) is seen” (which means that your family is extremely religious) (ChanU.5.12.1).

3.3.57 L.12 ✅ ततोऽभिधीयते – भूम्नः
With regard to that, it is said (by the Vedāntin) —

3.3.57 L.13 ✅ पदार्थोपचयात्मकस्य समस्तस्य वैश्वानरोपासनस्य
ज्यायस्त्वं प्राधान्येन अस्मिन्वाक्ये विवक्षितं भवितुमर्हति,
It appears that this sentence purports to speak of the top-ranking eminence
Of the Cosmic Self, Vaiśvā-nara, the aggregate of all limbs (such as the caput, the eye etc.),

3.3.57 L.14 ✅ न प्रत्येकम् अवयवोपासनानामपि;
And not of the meditation on every individual part of it also.

3.3.57 L.15 ✅ क्रतुवत् – यथा क्रतुषु
It is, as it is, in the case of a sacrifice (Kratu).

3.3.57 L.16 ✅ दर्शपूर्णमासप्रभृतिषु सामस्त्येन साङ्गप्रधानप्रयोग एव एको विवक्ष्यते,
It is just as it is, in a sacrifice such as the Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa, etc., viz. that the collective performance of the principal part along with the subsidiary part is intended to be spoken of,

3.3.57 L.17 ✅ न व्यस्तानामपि प्रयोगः प्रयाजादीनाम्,
And not of the individual parts such as the Prayājas etc. separately,

3.3.57 L.18 ✅ नाप्येकदेशाङ्गयुक्तस्य प्रधानस्य – तद्वत्।
Nor of the principal part along with only one such subsidiary part.

3.3.57 L.19 ✅ कुत एतत् –
(Here the opponent of Vedānta says) — Whence is it so understood?

3.3.57 L.20 ✅ भूमैव ज्यायानिति?
(We reply) — because, the Cosmic Self (Bhūmā) alone is of top-ranking eminence.

3.3.57 L.21 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः भूम्नो ज्यायस्त्वं दर्शयति,
Even so it is understood that the Bhūmā i.e. Cosmic Self is of top-ranking eminence,

3.3.57 L.22 ✅ एकवाक्यतावगमात्;
Because it is understood that the Scriptural statements have been reconciled as having that one uniform meaning.

3.3.57 L.23 ✅ एकं हि इदं वाक्यं वैश्वानरविद्या-विषयं पौर्वापर्यालोचनात् प्रतीयते;
By viewing the earlier and the later portion, it is understood that this sentence, one as it is, is with respect to the Vaiśvā-nara Vidyā.

3.3.57 L.24 ✅ तथा हि – प्राचीनशालप्रभृतय उद्दालकावसानाः षट् ऋषयः
वैश्वानर-विद्यायां परिनिष्ठाम् अप्रतिपद्यमानाः
अश्वपतिं कैकेयं राजानम् अभ्याजग्मुः –
इत्युपक्रम्य,
Because it is so said (by the Scriptures). The Scriptures, beginning with (the statement) ‘The six sages’, beginning with ‘Prāchīna-śāla’, etc., and including Uddālaka at the end,
Being unable to attain a firm understanding faith (Pariniṣṭhā) in the Vaiśvā-nara Vidyā,
State that they approached Aśva-pati Kaikeya,

3.3.57 L.25 ✅ एकैकस्य ऋषेः उपास्यं द्युप्रभृतीनाम् एकैकं श्रावयित्वा,
And later on, state, that the sages spoke of the heaven etc. individually, as being the object of meditation of each sage respectively,

3.3.57 L.26 ✅ ‘मूर्धा त्वेष आत्मन इति होवाच’ (ChanU.5.12.2) इत्यादिना मूर्धादि-भावं तेषां विदधाति;
And still later on, speak of heaven etc. as being only the caput etc. of Vaiśvā-nara, thus — “(He said) — this is merely the caput of the Self” (ChanU.5.12.2).

3.3.57 L.27 ✅ ‘मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यद्यन्मां नागमिष्यः’ (ChanU.5.12.2) इत्यादिना च
व्यस्तोपासनम् अपवदति;
They also censure meditation on individual parts
(By putting in the mouth of Aśva-pati-Kaikeya), thus — “Had you not approached me (for instruction), your head would have dropped off”.

3.3.57 L.28 ✅ पुनश्च व्यस्तोपासनं व्यावर्त्य,
Again, rejecting meditation on each individual part,

3.3.57 L.29 ✅ समस्तोपासनमेवानुवर्त्य,
And approving of the meditation on the collective aspect,

3.3.57 L.30 ✅ ‘स सर्वेषु लोकेषु सर्वेषु भूतेषु सर्वेष्वात्मस्वन्नमत्ति’ (ChanU.5.18.1) इति
भूमाश्रयमेव फलं दर्शयति।
The Scriptures indicate how the fruit is dependent only upon the Cosmic Self (Bhūmā), thus —
“Who eats food (by residing) in all the worlds, in all beings, and in all the Selfs” (ChanU.5.18.1).

3.3.57 L.31 ✅ यत्तु प्रत्येकं सुतेजःप्रभृतिषु फलभेद-श्रवणम्,
Individual fruits with respect to Sutejā etc. individually mentioned by the Scriptures,

3.3.57 L.32 ✅ तत् एवं सति अङ्गफलानि प्रधान एवाभ्युपगतानि – इति द्रष्टव्यम्।
Should be understood as meaning that the fruits of the meditations on individual parts should be pooled together as the one single fruit of the meditation on the principal entity (i.e. Bhūmā, the Cosmic Self).

3.3.57 L.33 ✅ तथा ‘उपास्से’ इत्यपि प्रत्यवयवम् आख्यातश्रवणं पराभिप्रायानुवादार्थम्,
Similarly, the Scriptural statement with regard to each individual part, by the use of the predicate ‘thou meditatest’ is also for the purpose of referring to the opinion of each individual sage only,

3.3.57 L.34 ✅ न व्यस्तोपासनविधानार्थम्।
And not for the purpose of enjoining meditation on each individual part.

3.3.57 L.35 ✅ तस्मात् समस्तोपासन-पक्ष एव श्रेयानिति॥
Therefore, (the conclusion is, that) the view about the combined meditation on the Bhūmā, the Cosmic Self, is the better one.

3.3.57 L.36 ✅ केचित्तु अत्र समस्तोपासन-पक्षं ज्यायांसं प्रतिष्ठाप्य, ज्यायस्त्व-वचनादेव किल
Some are of opinion that by using the word ‘better’ and establishing, that the view about the meditation in the aggregate form is the better one,

3.3.57 L.37 ✅ व्यस्तोपासन-पक्षमपि सूत्रकारोऽनुमन्यत इति कल्पयन्ति।
The Sūtra-kāra looks upon with some approval at least on the view about the meditation on individual parts also.

3.3.57 L.38 ✅ तदयुक्तम्,
But, this is not logical,

3.3.57 L.39 ✅ एकवाक्यतावगतौ सत्यां
Because when it is understood that reconcilement of different Scriptural statements is possible,

3.3.57 L.40 ✅ वाक्यभेदकल्पनस्यान्याय्यत्वात्,
It is not logical to think that one sentence has two different meanings,

3.3.57 L.41 ✅ ‘मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यत्’ (ChanU.5.12.2) इति च एवमादिनिन्दा-विरोधात्,
And also because, (if so understood) the censure expressed by the sentence “your head would have dropped off” would be contradicted.

3.3.57 L.42 ✅ स्पष्टे च उपसंहारस्थे समस्तोपासनावगमे
Besides when meditation on the aggregate aspect is clearly to be understood from the concluding portion,

3.3.57 L.43 ✅ तदभावस्य पूर्वपक्षे वक्तुमशक्यत्वात्,
It is not justifiable (for the opponent of Vedānta) to speak about the meditation on the aggregate aspect as being conspicuous by its absence, in the Scriptural statement, while stating his (i.e. the opponent’s) own view.

3.3.57 L.44 ✅ सौत्रस्य च ज्यायस्त्व-वचनस्य प्रमाणवत्त्वाभिप्रायेणापि उपपद्यमानत्वात्॥५७॥
Even the statement in the Sūtra about ‘the top-ranking eminence’ (Jyāyastva) in the Sūtra is also reasonably sustainable as meaning ‘authoritative’. — 57.

– 132. Bhūma-jyāyastva-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
नाना शब्दादिभेदात्॥३.३.५८॥
Nānā śabdādi-bhedāt.

Nānā: different, various; Śabda-ādi-bhedāt: on account of difference of names of words, etc. (Bhedāt: due to variety.)

🔗 (The Vidyās mentioned by the Scriptures in different places) are separate, because the words etc. are different. — 3.3.58.

3.3.58 L.1 ✅ पूर्वस्मिन्नधिकरणे सत्यामपि
सुतेजःप्रभृतीनां फलभेद-श्रुतौ समस्तस्योपासनं ज्याय इत्युक्तम्;
It has been said in the foregoing Adhikaraṇa
That notwithstanding that the Scriptures speak of different fruits of Sutejā etc., collective meditation (on the Cosmic Self) is better and greater.

3.3.58 L.2 ✅ अतः प्राप्ता बुद्धिः –
This may create a notion that

3.3.58 L.3 ✅ अन्यान्यपि भिन्नश्रुतीन्युपासनानि समस्य उपासिष्यन्ते इति।
It is also taught that other meditations (Upāsanās) mentioned in different Scriptural statements are also to be combined together.

3.3.58 L.4 ✅ अपि च नैव वेद्याभेदे विद्या-भेदो विज्ञातुं शक्यते;
Besides, it cannot be possible to understand the Vidyās to be separate, when there is no difference in the object of such Vidyās.

3.3.58 L.5 ✅ वेद्यं हि रूपं विद्यायाः,
The object to be known constitutes the nature of Vidyās,

3.3.58 L.6 ✅ द्रव्यदैवतमिव यागस्य;
Even as the materials to be used as offerings, and the deities (of a sacrifice), constitute the nature of a sacrifice.

3.3.58 L.7 ✅ वेद्यश्च एक एव ईश्वरः श्रुतिनानात्वेऽप्यवगम्यते –
Now it is understood here, that even though there are separate Scriptural statements, the entity to be known (by the Vidyā) is but one and the same, viz. the Lord,

3.3.58 L.8 ✅ ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ (ChanU.3.14.2)
As in “He has the mind as his structure and the Prāṇa as his body” (ChanU.3.14.2),

3.3.58 L.9 ✅ ‘कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.10.5)
“Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman” (ChanU.4.10.5),

3.3.58 L.10 ✅ ‘सत्यकामः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ (ChanU.8.1.5) इत्येवमादिषु –
“He whose wishes are true and whose purposes are true” (ChanU.8.1.15) etc.

3.3.58 L.11 ✅ तथा एक एव प्राणः ‘प्राणो वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.3)
Similarly also in “Prāṇa alone is, Prāṇa verily is the absorber” (ChanU.4.3.3),

3.3.58 L.12 ✅ ‘प्राणो वाव ज्येष्ठश्च श्रेष्ठश्च’ (ChanU.5.1.1)
“Prāṇa verily is the seniormost and the best” (ChanU.5.1.1)

3.3.58 L.13 ✅ ‘प्राणो ह पिता प्राणो माता’ (ChanU.7.15.1) इत्येवमादिषु;
“Prāṇa is the father, Prāṇa is the mother” (ChanU.7.15.1) etc.

3.3.58 L.14 ✅ वेद्यैकत्वाच्च विद्यैकत्वम्।
Because the entity to be known is one and the same, therefore, the Vidyās are identical.

3.3.58 L.15 ✅ श्रुतिनानात्वमपि अस्मिन्पक्षे गुणान्तरपरत्वात् न अनर्थकम्।
In this view, the separateness of Scriptural statements is not purposeless, inasmuch as each Scriptural statement refers to different attributes (i.e. Guṇas) (of the same entity),

3.3.58 L.16 ✅ तस्मात् स्वपरशाखा-विहितम् एकवेद्य-व्यपाश्रयं गुणजातम् उपसंहर्तव्यं
विद्या-कार्त्स्न्याय
Therefore, in order that the Vidyā may be complete in itself,
The various different natures belonging to one and the same object of knowledge, should, even though prescribed separately in our and the opponent’s branches of Scriptural statements, be combined together.

3.3.58 L.17 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते प्रतिपाद्यते – नानेति;
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), it is stated — the Vidyās are separate etc.

3.3.58 L.18 ✅ वेद्याभेदेऽपि एवंजातीयका विद्या भिन्ना भवितुमर्हति।
Even though there is no difference in the object to be known, Vidyās of this kind deserve to be separate.

3.3.58 L.19 ✅ कुतः? शब्दादिभेदात्;
Whence is it so? Because the words etc. are different.

3.3.58 L.20 ✅ भवति हि शब्दभेदः –
There is such difference in the words, as for instance —

3.3.58 L.21 ✅ ‘वेद’ ‘उपासीत’ ‘स क्रतुं कुर्वीत’ (ChanU.3.14.1) इत्येवमादिः;
“He knows”, “He should meditate”, “He should resolve” etc. (ChanU.3.14.1).

3.3.58 L.22 ✅ शब्द-भेदश्च कर्म-भेदहेतुः समधिगतः पुरस्तात् ‘शब्दान्तरे कर्मभेदः कृतानुबन्धत्वात्’ इति।
Earlier (in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā) difference in words is understood to be a reason for considering ritualistic acts as separate (Pū. Mī. 2.2.1).

3.3.58 L.23 ✅ आदि-ग्रहणात् गुणादयोऽपि यथासम्भवं भेद-हेतवो योजयितव्याः।
By the expression “etc.” (in the Sūtra) it is implied that the attributes (i.e. Guṇas of the Vidyās) should, as far as it would be possible, be understood as furnishing reasons for considering the Vidyās as separate.

3.3.58 L.24 ✅ ननु ‘वेद’ इत्यादिषु शब्दभेद एव अवगम्यते,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) the words “He knows” etc., signify a difference in words only,

3.3.58 L.25 ✅ न ‘यजति’ इत्यादिवत् अर्थभेदः,
And not a difference in their meaning also, as is indicated by the words “He sacrifices” etc.,

3.3.58 L.26 ✅ सर्वेषामेवैषां मनोवृत्त्यर्थत्वाभेदात्,
Because all these words have no difference as between themselves, and uniformly mean the same thing viz. the activity or mode of the mind,

3.3.58 L.27 ✅ अर्थान्तरासम्भवाच्च;
And there is no possibility of their having any other meaning.

3.3.58 L.28 ✅ तत् कथं शब्दभेदाद् विद्या-भेद इति –
How can then a difference in words cause a difference in Vidyās?

3.3.58 L.29 ✅ नैष दोषः,
(We reply) — This is no fault.

3.3.58 L.30 ✅ मनोवृत्त्यर्थत्वाभेदेऽपि
Because, even though as meaning an activity or mode of the mind there is no difference (between them),

3.3.58 L.31 ✅ अनुबन्धभेदाद् वेद्यभेदे सति
Still, when a difference in the object of knowledge, resulting from a difference in connection, is present,

3.3.58 L.32 ✅ विद्याभेदोपपत्तेः;
Separateness of the Vidyās (from each other) becomes reasonably sustainable.

3.3.58 L.33 ✅ एकस्यापीश्वरस्य उपास्यस्य
Even though the object of meditation, viz. the Lord, is one and the same (in all the Vidyās),

3.3.58 L.34 ✅ प्रतिप्रकरणं व्यावृत्ता गुणाः शिष्यन्ते;
The Scriptures mention in each chapter, mutually exclusive and different attributes i.e. Guṇas (of the Lord).

3.3.58 L.35 ✅ तथा एकस्यापि प्राणस्य तत्र तत्र उपास्यस्य अभेदेऽपि
Similarly, even though the Prāṇa as the object of meditation is without any difference, and is but one and the same everywhere,

3.3.58 L.36 ✅ अन्यादृग्गुणोऽन्यत्रोपासितव्यः अन्यादृग्गुणश्चान्यत्र –
इत्येवमनुबन्ध-भेदाद्
Still, as on account of the difference in connection,
One attribute is to be meditated upon in one meditation, and another, in another,

3.3.58 L.37 ✅ वेद्य-भेदे सति
And as there is thus a difference in the object of knowledge,

3.3.58 L.38 ✅ विद्या-भेदो विज्ञायते।
It is understood that the Vidyās are separate.

3.3.58 L.39 ✅ न च अत्र एको विद्या-विधिः, इतरे गुण-विधय इति शक्यं वक्तुम् –
It is not possible to maintain here, that one enjoins a Vidyā and the other enjoins the attributes i.e. Guṇas only,

3.3.58 L.40 ✅ विनिगमनायां हेत्वभावात्,
Because of the absence of any cause for such determination.

3.3.58 L.41 ✅ अनेकत्वाच्च प्रतिप्रकरणं
And as in each chapter there are many attributes i.e. Guṇas,

3.3.58 L.42 ✅ गुणानां प्राप्तविद्यानुवादेन विधानानुपपत्तेः।
That it should enjoin attributes i.e. Guṇas relating to a Vidyā which has already been established elsewhere, is not reasonably sustainable.

3.3.58 L.43 ✅ न च अस्मिन्पक्षे समानाः सन्तः सत्यकामादयो गुणाः
असकृच्छ्रावयितव्याः।
As far as the (opponent’s) view is concerned, attributes such as ‘His having true desires etc.’, being common to all,
Do not deserve to be mentioned more than once.

3.3.58 L.44 ✅ प्रतिप्रकरणं च –
Besides as each chapter separately mentions,

3.3.58 L.45 ✅ इदंकामेनेदमुपासितव्यम्,
How one who desires a particular thing should meditate on this,

3.3.58 L.46 ✅ इदंकामेन च इदम् – इति
And how one who desires some other thing should meditate on some other thing,

3.3.58 L.47 ✅ नैराकाङ्क्ष्यावगमात्
And as it is understood therefrom that they (the Upāsanās) do not need to borrow anything from each other

3.3.58 L.48 ✅ नैकवाक्यतापत्तिः।
These chapters are not reconcilable.

3.3.58 L.49 ✅ न च अत्र वैश्वानरविद्यायाम् इव समस्त-चोदना अपरा अस्ति,
Nor, as in the case of the Vaiśvā-nara Vidyā, is there any other injunction for knowing these meditations as combined into one composite meditation,

3.3.58 L.50 ✅ यद्बलेन प्रतिप्रकरणवर्तीनि अवयवोपासनानि भूत्वा
On the strength of which, these separate meditations on parts, occurring in each chapter,

3.3.58 L.51 ✅ एकवाक्यताम् इयुः।
Should attain reconcilement.

3.3.58 L.52 ✅ वेद्यैकत्व-निमित्ते च विद्यैकत्वे सर्वत्र निरङ्कुशे प्रतिज्ञायमाने,
Besides, if it were to be understood unrestrictedly (Niraṅkuśatvena) on the ground of the object of knowledge of all Vidyās being one and the same, that there is unity of Vidyās,

3.3.58 L.53 ✅ समस्तगुणोपसंहारोऽशक्यः प्रतिज्ञायेत।
An impossible combination of all attributes (Guṇas) wherever they may occur, will have to be understood.

3.3.58 L.54 ✅ तस्मात् सुष्ठु उच्यते –
Therefore, it is very properly said (by the Sūtra-kāra)

3.3.58 L.55 ✅ नाना शब्दादि-भेदादिति।
That the meditations are separate by reason of the words being different.

3.3.58 L.56 ✅ स्थिते च एतस्मिन्नधिकरणे, सर्ववेदान्त-प्रत्ययम् इत्यादि द्रष्टव्यम्॥५८॥
It should be understood, that it is subject to this, i.e. by assuming this Adhikaraṇa as established, that the opening Sūtra of this Pāda is stated in the form in which it is stated. — 58.

– 133. Śabda-ādi-bheda-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विकल्पोऽविशिष्टफलत्वात्॥३.३.५९॥
Vikalpo'viśiṣṭa-phalatvāt.

Vikalpaḥ: option; Viśiṣṭa-phalatvāt: on account of (all Vidyās) having the same result.

🔗 Option (about the Vidyās is available) because the fruit (of all) is not special in each Vidyā, (i.e. it is the same in the case of all Vidyās). — 3.3.59.

3.3.59 L.1 ✅ स्थिते विद्या-भेदे
It being (thus) established that the Vidyās are separate,

3.3.59 L.2 ✅ विचार्यते – किमासामिच्छया समुच्चयो विकल्पो वा स्यात्,
अथवा विकल्प एव नियमेनेति।
It is now being considered whether one can collectively perform all these, or optionally any one of them, as one pleases,
Or whether one can as a rule, exercise an option with regard to them.

3.3.59 L.3 ✅ तत्र स्थितत्वात् तावद्विद्या-भेदस्य
So far as this is concerned the separateness of these Vidyās having been established,

3.3.59 L.4 ✅ न समुच्च-यनियमे किञ्चित्कारणमस्ति।
There is no reason for a rule that they should all be collectively performed (by one man).

3.3.59 L.5 ✅ ननु भिन्नानाम् अप्यग्निहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासादीनां
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), separate as such sacrifices as the Agni-hotra and the Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa etc. are,

3.3.59 L.6 ✅ समुच्चय-नियमो दृश्यते –
It is seen that there is a rule that they are all to be collectively performed (by one man).

3.3.59 L.7 ✅ नैष दोषः;
(We reply) — This is no fault,

3.3.59 L.8 ✅ नित्यता-श्रुतिर्हि तत्र कारणम्;
Because (in their case), a Scriptural statement about their regular performance, is the reason (for their collective performance by one man),

3.3.59 L.9 ✅ नैवं विद्यानां काचिन्नित्यता-श्रुतिरस्ति;
While there is no such Scriptural statement with regard to these (Vidyās),

3.3.59 L.10 ✅ तस्मान्न समुच्चय-नियमः।
And therefore there is neither a rule requiring their regular performance collectively (by one man),

3.3.59 L.11 ✅ नापि विकल्प-नियमः,
Nor a rule necessarily prescribing an option as to their performance.

3.3.59 L.12 ✅ विद्यान्तराधिकृतस्य विद्यान्तराप्रतिषेधात्।
Competency of a man for (the performance of) one Vidyā does not prevent his competency as to the performance of another Vidyā.

3.3.59 L.13 ✅ पारिशेष्यात् याथाकाम्यम् आपद्यते।
Therefore according to the only remaining alternative the performance of all collectively (by one man) or any one of the Vidyās as desired, optionally, enures.

3.3.59 L.14 ✅ ननु अविशिष्ट-फलत्वाद्
But as the fruit of all these (Vidyās) is the same

3.3.59 L.15 ✅ आसां विकल्पो न्याय्यः;
It is logical that there should be an option with regard to them.

3.3.59 L.16 ✅ तथा हि – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ (ChanU.3.14.2)
For Scriptural statements, such as “He has mind as his structure and Prāṇa as his body” (ChanU.3.14.2),

3.3.59 L.17 ✅ ‘कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.10.5)
“Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman” (ChanU.4.10.5),

3.3.59 L.18 ✅ ‘सत्यकामः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ (ChanU.8.1.5) इत्येवमाद्याः
“He whose wishes are true and whose resolutions are true” (ChanU.8.1.5),

3.3.59 L.19 ✅ तुल्यवत् ईश्वरत्वप्राप्ति-फला लक्ष्यन्ते –
Are all uniformly observed to have the attainment of the Lord as their fruit.

3.3.59 L.20 ✅ नैष दोषः,
(The opponent of Vedānta replies) — This is no fault,

3.3.59 L.21 ✅ समान-फलेष्वपि स्वर्गादि-साधनेषु कर्मसु याथाकाम्य-दर्शनात्।
Because it is observed that religious actions, the means of the attainment of heaven etc., which have a common fruit, are performed as one desires.

3.3.59 L.22 ✅ तस्मात् याथाकाम्य-प्राप्तौ,
Hence the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being that the Vidyās may be performed just as one pleases,

3.3.59 L.23 ✅ उच्यते – विकल्प एव आसां भवितुमर्हति,
It is replied (by the Vedāntin) that they deserve to have an option

3.3.59 L.24 ✅ न समुच्चयः।
And not that they must all be combined.

3.3.59 L.25 ✅ कस्मात्? अविशिष्ट-फलत्वात्।
Whence is it so? Because the fruit (of all) is the same,

3.3.59 L.26 ✅ अविशिष्टं हि आसां फलम् उपास्यविषय-साक्षात्करणम्;
Viz., the actual realization of the object of meditation.

3.3.59 L.27 ✅ एकेन च उपासनेन साक्षात्कृते उपास्ये विषये ईश्वरादौ,
When the object of meditation, such as the Lord, is actually realized by one Vidyā,

3.3.59 L.28 ✅ द्वितीयमनर्थकम्।
The other is rendered purposeless.

3.3.59 L.29 ✅ अपि च असम्भव एव
Besides (such a view) involves the non-possibility (of such realization).

3.3.59 L.30 ✅ साक्षात्करणस्य समुच्चय-पक्षे, चित्तविक्षेप-हेतुत्वात्;
The view that all Vidyās may be collectively performed (by one man) for actual realization, would cause distraction of the mind.

3.3.59 L.31 ✅ साक्षात्करण-साध्यं च विद्याफलं दर्शयन्ति श्रुतयः –
The Scriptures indicate that the fruit of a Vidyā is secured by the actual realization (of the Lord), thus —

3.3.59 L.32 ✅ ‘यस्य स्यादद्धा न विचिकित्सास्ति’ (ChanU.3.14.4) इति,
“He who has realized (the object of meditation) and who has no doubt left (realizes Brahman)” (ChanU.3.14.4),

3.3.59 L.33 ✅ ‘देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति’ (ChanU.4.1.2) इति च एवमाद्याः;
“Having attained Godhood, he becomes absorbed in the Godhead” (ChanU.4.1.2) etc.

3.3.59 L.34 ✅ स्मृतयश्च – ‘सदा तद्भावभावितः’ (BhG.8.6) इत्येवमाद्याः।
Similarly, the Smṛti passage “Who is always imbued with that faith” (BhG.8.6) etc.

3.3.59 L.35 ✅ तस्मात् अविशिष्ट-फलानां विद्यानाम् अन्यतमाम् आदाय तत्परः स्यात्,
Therefore, one should choose one out of the several Vidyās which have all one common fruit and perform it with undivided attention,

3.3.59 L.36 ✅ यावदुपास्यविषयसाक्षात्करणेन तत्फलं प्राप्तमिति॥५९॥॥
Till such fruit is obtained by the actual realization of the object of meditation, (is the conclusion). — 59.

– 134. Vikalpa-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
काम्यास्तु यथाकामं समुच्चीयेरन्न वा पूर्वहेत्वभावात्॥३.३.६०॥
Kāmyās tu yathā-kāmaṃ samuccīyeran na vā pūrva-hetv-abhāvāt.

Kāmyāḥ: Vidyās adopted for some sensuous desires; Tu: but; Yathā-kāmam: according to one’s desire or liking; Samuccīyeran: may be combined; Na: not; Vā: or; Pūrva: the former; Hetu: reason; A-bhāvāt: on account of the absence of.

🔗 Vidyās for the attainment of desires (Kāmyāḥ), may, as desired, be collectively performed (by one man) or not, because there is absence of any reason, as was available (in the previous Sūtra). — 3.3.60.

3.3.60 L.1 ✅ अविशिष्ट-फलत्वादित्यस्य प्रत्युदाहरणम्।
This Sūtra mentions an illustration of a Vidyā which is the converse of those whose fruit is one and the same (as stated in the previous Sūtra).

3.3.60 L.2 ✅ यासु पुनः काम्यासु विद्यासु
In these Vidyās which are performed with a view to particular desires, as for instance, thus —

3.3.60 L.3 ✅ ‘स य एवमेवं वायुं दिशां वत्सं वेद न पुत्ररोदꣳ रोदिति’ (ChanU.3.15.2)
“He who knows this Vāyu as being the offspring of the direction, does not have to bemoan the loss of a son” (ChanU.3.15.2),

3.3.60 L.4 ✅ ‘स यो नाम ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते यावन्नाम्नो गतं तत्रास्य यथाकामचारो भवति’ (ChanU.7.1.5) इति
“He who meditates on the names (such as Ṛg-Veda etc.) as Brahman, is able to roam about at will, quite up to that extent as the extent upto which the Names i.e. the Vedas go” etc. (ChanU.7.1.5), —

3.3.60 L.5 ✅ चैवमाद्यासु क्रियावत् अदृष्टेनात्मना आत्मीयं फलं साधयन्तीषु,
And which like sacrificial action, encompass their fruit by means of the unseen principle (Adṛṣṭa),

3.3.60 L.6 ✅ साक्षात्करणापेक्षा नास्ति;
There is no expectancy of direct realization (of Brahman).

3.3.60 L.7 ✅ ता यथाकामं समुच्चीयेरन्, न वा समुच्चीयेरन् –
And they can either be all combined or not, as desired

3.3.60 L.8 ✅ पूर्वहेत्वभावात् – पूर्वस्य अविशिष्टफलत्वादित्यस्य विकल्पहेतोः अभावात्॥६०॥
Because any such reason, as that the fruit is one and the same, is absent. — 60.

– 135. Kāmya-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.3.61 Su..62 Su..63 Su..64 Su..65 Su..66

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अङ्गेषु यथाश्रयभावः॥३.३.६१॥
Aṅgeṣu yathāśraya-bhāvaḥ.

Aṅgeṣu: with regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts); Yathā-āśraya-bhāvaḥ: it is as with (members) with which they are connected.

🔗 Vidyās connected with parts of sacrificial action are on a par with that which is the support on which they rest. — 3.3.61.

3.3.61 L.1 ✅ कर्माङ्गेषु उद्गीथादिषु ये आश्रिताः प्रत्यया वेदत्रय-विहिताः,
किं ते समुच्चीयेरन्,
किं वा यथाकामं स्युरिति संशये –
When a doubt, exists, as to whether, Vidyās which depend upon subsidiary parts of sacrificial action, such as the Udgīṭha, and which are mentioned in the three (types of) Veda (Mantras),
Should all be necessarily performed collectively,
Or just according to one’s wish,

3.3.61 L.2 ✅ यथाश्रयभाव इत्याह।
The Sūtra-kāra says that they are on a par with that which is their support (Āśraya) and on which they depend.

3.3.61 L.3 ✅ यथैव एषामाश्रयाः स्तोत्रादयः सम्भूय भवन्ति,
Just as Scriptural hymns or Ṛks (Stotras), on which these Vidyās depend, are all taken collectively (for the purpose of a sacrifice)

3.3.61 L.4 ✅ एवं प्रत्यया अपि,
Even so should the Vidyās depending on them (be collectively performed)

3.3.61 L.5 ✅ आश्रयतन्त्रत्वात् प्रत्ययानाम्॥६१॥
Because all the Vidyās depend upon their support. — 61.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
शिष्टेश्च॥३.३.६२॥
Śiṣṭeś ca.

Śiṣṭeḥ: from the injunction of the Śruti; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because of the instructions (about the Vidyās). — 3.3.62.

3.3.62 L.1 ✅ यथा वा आश्रयाः स्तोत्रादयः त्रिषु वेदेषु शिष्यन्ते,
Just as Scriptural hymns or Ṛks etc. which are the support of the Vidyās, are taught in the Vedas,

3.3.62 L.2 ✅ एवमाश्रिता अपि प्रत्ययाः –
Even so, is the instruction with regard to the Vidyās which depend on them.

3.3.62 L.3 ✅ नोपदेशकृतोऽपि कश्चिद्विशेषः
अङ्गानां तदाश्रयाणां च प्रत्ययानामित्यर्थः॥६२॥
The meaning is, that there is no difference as such, made by the Scriptural instructions,
Between the several subsidiary parts of action (Karma) and the Vidyās (Upāsanās). — 62.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
समाहारात्॥३.३.६३॥
Samāhārāt.

Samāhārāt: on account of the rectification.

🔗 On account of (the indicatory mark viz.) the rectification (of flaws). — 3.3.63.

3.3.63 L.1 ✅ ‘होतृषदनाद्धैवापि दुरुद्गीतमनुसमाहरति’ (ChanU.1.5.5) इति च –
The Scriptural statement “It is from the seat of the priest who presides at the Sacrifices (Hotṛ) (i.e. by virtue of the work done by him), that any defect (i.e. mistakes in accents etc.) in the singing (of Sāman by the Udgātṛ) is automatically cured” (ChanU.1.5.5)

3.3.63 L.2 ✅ प्रणवोद्गीथैकत्वविज्ञान-माहात्म्यात्
उद्गाता स्वकर्मण्युत्पन्नं क्षतं हौत्रात्कर्मणः प्रतिसमादधाति – इति ब्रुवन्
वेदान्तरोदितस्य प्रत्ययस्य वेदान्तरोदितपदार्थसम्बन्ध-सामान्यात्
सर्ववेदोदितप्रत्ययोपसंहारं सूचयति – इति लिङ्गदर्शनम्॥६३॥
Intimates, how, by virtue of the knowledge, that the Praṇava (i.e. the syllable ‘Om’) and the Udgīṭha are one and the same,
The defect caused by a mistake of the Udgātṛ (the Sāman-chanting priest) in chanting, is automatically cured by the work of the Hotṛ,
And this indicatory mark suggests that inasmuch as a Vidyā mentioned in one Veda has a common relation with another mentioned in another Veda
The meditations (i.e. the Pratyayas) occurring in all the Vedas have to be combined. — 63.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
गुणसाधारण्यश्रुतेश्च॥३.३.६४॥
Guṇa-sādhāraṇya-śruteś ca.

Guṇa-sādhāraṇya-śruteḥ: from the Śruti declaring the feature of ‘OM’ as being common to all the Vedas; Ca: and.

🔗 And also because of the Scriptural statement about the attributes (of the Vidyās) being common (the Vidyās are taken collectively). — 3.3.64.

3.3.64 L.1 ✅ विद्या-गुणं च विद्याश्रयं सन्तम् ओंकारं वेदत्रय-साधारणं श्रावयति –
The Scriptures mention how the Oṅ-kāra, which is an attribute (Guṇa) i.e. the support of the Vidyā, is common to all the three Vedas, thus —

3.3.64 L.2 ✅ ‘तेनेयं त्रयी विद्या वर्तत ओमित्याश्रावयत्योमिति शꣳसत्योमित्युद्गायति’ (ChanU.1.1.9) इति च;
“It is by that (i.e. the Syllable ‘Om’) that the Vidyās of the three kinds (characterized by Ṛg-Veda etc. and by the religious sacrificial acts enjoined by them) begin, thus — He the Adhvaryu gives order after saying ‘Om’, by saying ‘Om’ the Hotṛ priest recites, and by saying ‘Om’ the Udgātṛ priest sings” (ChanU.1.1.9).

3.3.64 L.3 ✅ ततश्च आश्रय-साधारण्यात् आश्रित-साधारण्यमिति – लिङ्गदर्शनमेव।
Hence it is, that the support viz. ‘Om’ constitutes an indicatory mark about the Vidyās being common to all the three Vedas (and they have to be taken collectively).

3.3.64 L.4 ✅ अथवा गुणसाधारण्यश्रुतेश्चेति;
Or the Sūtra is explained as follows: —

3.3.64 L.5 ✅ यदीमे कर्मगुणा उद्गीथादयः सर्वे सर्वप्रयोग-साधारणा न स्युः,
Were the Udgīṭha etc. which constitute the nature of the sacrificial acts not to be common to all sacrificial acts,

3.3.64 L.6 ✅ न स्यात् ततः तदाश्रयाणां प्रत्ययानां सहभावः;
The Vidyās which depend on them, also would not be common.

3.3.64 L.7 ✅ ते तु उद्गीथादयः सर्वाङ्ग-ग्राहिणा प्रयोग-वचनेन सर्वे सर्वप्रयोग-साधारणाः श्राव्यन्ते;
But Scriptural passages intimate, by means of the terms used in the performance of acts which cover all subsidiary parts, that the Udgīṭha etc. are common to all sacrificial acts,

3.3.64 L.8 ✅ ततश्च आश्रयसहभावात्प्रत्ययसहभाव इति॥६४॥
And hence, that, inasmuch as the support is common, the Vidyās also are taken collectively (is our conclusion). — 64.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न वा तत्सहभावाश्रुतेः॥३.३.६५॥
Na vā tat-saha-bhāvāśruteḥ.

Na: not; Vā: rather; Tat-saha-bhāva-aśruteḥ: their correlation not being mentioned by the Śruti. (Tat: their; Saha-bhāva: about being together; A-śruteḥ: because there is no such injunction in Śruti).

🔗 Or rather not (i.e. meditations do not go with the sacrificial acts on which they depend) because of the non-existence of any Scriptural passage (to that effect). — 3.3.65.

3.3.65 L.1 ✅ न वेति पक्षव्यावर्तनम्।
The words “or rather not” refute the view (of the opponent of Vedānta).

3.3.65 L.2 ✅ न यथाश्रय-भाव आश्रितानामुपासनानां भवितुमर्हति।
Meditations which are dependent (on subsidiary sacrificial actions) do not go together with the subsidiary parts on which they depend.

3.3.65 L.3 ✅ कुतः? तत्सहभावाश्रुतेः;
Whence is it so? Because of the non-existence of any Scriptural passage (to that effect).

3.3.65 L.4 ✅ यथा हि त्रिवेद-विहितानाम् अङ्गानां
Just as the subsidiary sacrificial acts prescribed in the trio of Vedas

3.3.65 L.5 ✅ स्तोत्रादीनां सहभावः श्रूयते –
And the Scriptural hymns etc. are seen to go together,

3.3.65 L.6 ✅ ‘ग्रहं वा गृहीत्वा चमसं वोन्नीय स्तोत्रमुपाकरोति, स्तुतमनुशंसति, प्रस्तोतः साम गाय, होतरेतद्यज’ इत्यादिना;
As for instance in — “Having taken the pot in the hand or having taken up the Sacrificial ladle, he recites the hymn i.e. Stotra, and after reciting it, says — Oh Prastotṛ, do thou sing the Sāman, Oh Hotṛ, sacrifice this”,

3.3.65 L.7 ✅ नैवमुपासनानां सहभाव-श्रुतिरस्ति।
Similarly there is no such Scriptural passage about the going together of the meditations.

3.3.65 L.8 ✅ ननु प्रयोग-वचन एषां सहभावं प्रापयेत् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) the text prescribing the performance may as well establish their going together.

3.3.65 L.9 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः, पुरुषार्थत्वादुपासनानाम्;
We reply — No, because the meditations subserve the purpose of a man,

3.3.65 L.10 ✅ प्रयोग-वचनो हि क्रत्वर्थानाम् उद्गीथादीनां सहभावं प्रापयेत्;
While the text about the performance, may, if at all, establish the going together of the Udgītha etc., which subserve the purpose of a sacrifice.

3.3.65 L.11 ✅ उद्गीथाद्युपासनानि तु
क्रत्वर्थाश्रयाण्यपि गोदोहनादिवत् पुरुषार्थानीत्यवोचाम
It has already been mentioned by us, that meditations such as Udgītha etc.,
Even though they depend upon a sacrifice, may, like the milk-pail, subserve the purpose of a man,

3.3.65 L.12 ✅ ‘पृथग्घ्यप्रतिबन्धः फलम्’ (BrS.3.3.42) इत्यत्र।
As in BrS.3.3.42.

3.3.65 L.13 ✅ अयमेव च उपदेशाश्रयो विशेषः
This precisely is the special difference depending upon instruction,

3.3.65 L.14 ✅ अङ्गानां तदालम्बनानां च उपासनानाम् –
As between subsidiary acts of a sacrifice and the meditations which depend upon such acts,

3.3.65 L.15 ✅ यदेकेषां क्रत्वर्थत्वम्, एकेषां पुरुषार्थत्वमिति।
Viz., that while one subserves the purpose of a sacrifice, the other subserves the purpose of a man.

3.3.65 L.16 ✅ परं च लिङ्गद्वयम् अकारणमुपासन-सहभावस्य,
The two indicatory marks (referred to in Sūtras 63 and 64 above) cannot be a reason for the going together of the meditations,

3.3.65 L.17 ✅ श्रुतिन्यायाभावात्।
Because they cannot be construed as having any Scriptural statement, or a logical reason, as the basis for it.

3.3.65 L.18 ✅ न च प्रतिप्रयोगम् आश्रयकात्स्न्योपसंहाराद् आश्रितानामपि तथात्वं विज्ञातुं शक्यम्,
Now, it cannot be supposed that because all the dependent things are included in any performance (of a sacrificial act), they also include all the meditations which depend on them,

3.3.65 L.19 ✅ अतत्प्रयुक्तत्वाद् उपासनानाम् –
Because meditations are not employed for that purpose.

3.3.65 L.20 ✅ आश्रय-तन्त्राण्यपि हि उपासनानि कामम् आश्रयाभावे मा भूवन्;
Meditations even though they depend upon some support, may at the most, not exist when their supports do not exist,

3.3.65 L.21 ✅ न त्वाश्रयसहभावेन सहभावनियमम् अर्हन्ति,
But it is not that they deserve to go together with that which forms their support.

3.3.65 L.22 ✅ तत्सहभावाश्रुतेरेव।
The reason is, that the Scriptures have not mentioned anything to that effect.

3.3.65 L.23 ✅ तस्मात् यथाकाममेव उपासनान्यनुष्ठीयेरन्॥६५॥
Therefore, meditations should be performed, just as one pleases. — 65.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
दर्शनाच्च॥३.३.६६॥
Darśanāc ca.

Darśanāt: because the Śruti says so, shows it from Śruti; Ca: and, also.

🔗 And also because it is so indicated by the Scriptures. — 3.3.66.

3.3.66 L.1 ✅ दर्शयति च श्रुतिरसहभावं प्रत्ययानाम् –
The Scriptures mention, how meditations do not go together (with sacrificial subordinate acts) thus —

3.3.66 L.2 ✅ ‘एवंविद्ध वै ब्रह्मा यज्ञं यजमानꣳ सर्वाꣳश्चर्त्विजोऽभिरक्षति’ (ChanU.4.17.10) इति।
“Verily the Brahman priest (the master of ceremonies) who knows it to be so, protects the sacrifice, the host (in a sacrifice), and all the Ṛtvijaḥ” (ChanU.4.7.10).

3.3.66 L.3 ✅ सर्वप्रत्ययोपसंहारे हि,
Now if all meditations were intended to be combined,

3.3.66 L.4 ✅ सर्वे सर्वविद इति
Then in that case as every body (amongst the priests) would be understood to be knowing every such meditation,

3.3.66 L.5 ✅ न विज्ञानवता ब्रह्मणा परिपाल्यत्वम् इतरेषां सङ्कीर्त्येत।
The Scriptures could not have stated that the Brahman priest who knows it to be so, is the protector of all the rest.

3.3.66 L.6 ✅ तस्मात् यथाकामम् उपासनानां समुच्चयो विकल्पो वेति॥६६॥
Therefore, (the conclusion is that) meditations should be combined together or an option about them should be understood, just as one would wish. — 66.

– 136. Yathā-āśraya-bhāva-Adhikaraṇam. End of Pāda 3.3

137. Puruṣa-artha (3.4.1–17) 138. Parā-marśa (3.4.18–20) 139. Stuti-mātra (3.4.21–22) 140. Pāri-plava (3.4.23–24) 141. Āgni-indhana (3.4.25) 142. Sarva-āpekṣa (3.4.26–27) 143. Sarva-anna-anumati (3.4.28–31) 144. Āśrama-karma (3.4.32–5) 145. Vidhura (3.4.36–39) 146. Tad-bhūta (3.4.40) 147. Ādhikārika (3.4.41–42) 148. Bahir (3.4.43) 149. Svāmin (3.4.44–46) 150. Saha-kāry-antara-vidhi (3.4.47–49) 151. Anāviṣkāra(3.4.50) 152. Aihika (3.4.51) 153. Mukti-phala (3.4.52)

Su.3.4.1 Su..2 Su..3 Su..4 Su..5 Su..6 Su..7 Su..8 Su..9 Su..10 Su..11 Su..12 Su..13 Su..14 Su..15 Su..16 Su..17

[Go top]

3.4.1 L.1 ✅ अथेदानीम् औपनिषदमात्मज्ञानं किमधिकारि-द्वारेण कर्मण्येवानुप्रविशति,
The Sūtra-kāra, now starting on the inquiry as to whether the Upanishadic knowledge of the ‘Self’ is connected with religious action (Karma), through a person competent to perform such religious action,

3.4.1 L.2 ✅ आहोस्वित् स्वतन्त्रमेव पुरुषार्थसाधनं भवतीति मीमांसमानः,
Or whether it constitutes an altogether independent means of the attainment of the chief aim of man,

3.4.1 L.3 ✅ सिद्धान्तेनैव तावदुपक्रमते –
Begins (this Sūtra) by stating the conclusion itself, thus —

←Prev Next→
पुरुषार्थोऽतः शब्दादिति बादरायणः॥३.४.१॥
Puruṣārtho'taḥ śabdād iti bādarāyaṇaḥ.

Puruṣa-arthaḥ: purpose of man, object of human pursuit, here the chief object, i.e., salvation; Ataḥ: from this, from Brahma Vidyā; Śabdāt: from the scriptures, because the scriptures state so, from Śruti; Iti: so thus (says), this is the opinion of; Bādarāyaṇaḥ: the sage Bādarāyaṇa, (holds).

🔗 Bādarāyaṇa (is of opinion) that according to (the authority of) the Scriptures, the chief aim of man (i.e. Final Release, is attained) through this (i.e. the knowledge of the Self). — 3.4.1.

3.4.1 L.4 ✅ पुरुषार्थोऽत इति।
The chief aim of man is (attained) through this (i.e. the knowledge of the Self).

3.4.1 L.5 ✅ अस्माद् वेदान्तविहिताद् आत्मज्ञानात् स्वतन्त्रात् पुरुषार्थः सिध्यतीति
बादरायण आचार्यो मन्यते।
Ācārya Bādarāyaṇa considers that
It is through this altogether independent knowledge of the ‘Self’ prescribed in the Vedānta (texts) that the chief aim of man is attained.

3.4.1 L.6 ✅ कुत एतदवगम्यते?
How is it so understood?

3.4.1 L.7 ✅ शब्दादित्याह।
The Sūtra-kāra replies by beginning thus — It is so understood on the authority of the Scriptural statements

3.4.1 L.8 ✅ तथा हि – ‘तरति शोकमात्मवित्’ (ChanU.7.1.3)
Of such kind as “One who knows the Self transcends grief” (ChanU.7.1.3),

3.4.1 L.9 ✅ ‘स यो ह वै तत्परमं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9)
“He who knows that transcendent Brahman, himself becomes Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9),

3.4.1 L.10 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1)
“One who knows the Brahma-Self attains transcendent Brahman” (TaitUEng.2.1.1),

3.4.1 L.11 ✅ ‘आचार्यवान्पुरुषो वेद तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (ChanU.6.14.2)
“It is the one (who is blessed) with a teacher that knows (Brahman); He needs but wait only till he is relieved (of the body) and (when he is so relieved) he directly attains (Brahman)” (ChanU.6.14.2).

3.4.1 L.12 ✅ ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इत्युपक्रम्य,
Again beginning thus — “This Self which is free from sin”,

3.4.1 L.13 ✅ स सर्वाꣳश्च लोकानाप्नोति सर्वाꣳश्च कामान्यस्तमात्मानमनुविद्य विजानाति’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इति;
The Scriptures further declare — “He who has searched for and understood that Self obtains all the worlds and ail desires” (ChanU.8.7.1).

3.4.1 L.14 ✅ ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ (BrhU.4.5.6) इत्युपक्रम्य,
Similarly, Scriptural statements beginning with “It is the Self, Oh, Maitreyī, that should be seen" (BrhUEng.4.5.6).

3.4.1 L.15 ✅ ‘एतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वम्’ (BrhU.4.5.15) इति
The Scriptures by the passage “Such indeed, Oh Maitreyī, is the measure of immortality” (BrhUEng.4.5.15)

3.4.1 L.16 ✅ एवंजातीयका श्रुतिः केवलाया विद्यायाः पुरुषार्थ-हेतुत्वं श्रावयति॥१॥
Declare, how the knowledge (of the Self) alone is the means of attaining the chief aim of man. — 1.

[Go top]

3.4.2 L. ✅ अथात्र प्रत्यवतिष्ठते –
Here some opponent says —

←Prev Next→
शेषत्वात्पुरुषार्थवादो यथान्येष्विति जैमिनिः॥३.४.२॥
`Seṣatvāt puruṣārtha-vādo yathānyeṣv-iti jaiminiḥ.

Śeṣatvāt: because of being supplementary (to sacrificial acts); Pusuṣa-artha-vādaḥ: are mere praise or the agent; Yathā: as; Anyeṣu: in other cases; Iti: thus (says); Jaiminiḥ: Jaimini (holds).

🔗 Jaimini is of opinion that the Scriptural statement about the chief aim of man, is, as in other cases, of the nature of an Artha-vāda only, because (the Jīva-Self) is in a subservient relation (to religious actions). — 3.4.2.

3.4.2 L.2 ✅ कर्तृत्वेन आत्मनः कर्मशेषत्वात्,
तद्विज्ञानमपि व्रीहिप्रोक्षणादिवत् विषयद्वारेण कर्मसम्बन्ध्येव –
इत्यतः, तस्मिन् अवगतप्रयोजने आत्मज्ञाने या फलश्रुतिः, सा अर्थवादः –
इति जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते।
Jaimini considers that
In as much as the Jīva-Self, by way of being an agent (Kartā), is in a subservient relation to religious action,
The knowledge of the Self also, like such things as the action of the sprinkling of rice with water (Vrīhi-prokṣaṇa) etc., has through such things necessarily a connection with religious action,
And the Scriptural statement about the fruit of such knowledge of the Self, also is an Artha-vāda, even as, such other Scriptural statements, about the fruit of the materials (used in a Sacrifice)

3.4.2 L.3 ✅ यथा अन्येषु द्रव्यसंस्कार-कर्मसु ‘यस्य पर्णमयी जुहूर्भवति न स पापꣳ श्लोकꣳ शृणोति’
And about acts such as the refinement (Saṃskāra) of the materials, as, “He whose sacrificial ladle is of Palāśa wood, does not hear any evil (about himself)”.

3.4.2 L.4 ✅ ‘यदाङ्क्ते चक्षुरेव भ्रातृव्यस्य वृङ्क्ते’
“When he anoints his eye, he thereby avoids the evil eye of his enemy (lit., a Nephew)”

3.4.2 L.5 ✅ ‘यत्प्रयाजानूयाजा इज्यन्ते, वर्म वा एतद्यज्ञस्य क्रियते वर्म यजमानस्य भ्रातृव्याभिभूत्यै’
And “The Prayāja and Anuyāja oblations offered by him serve as an armour for the Sacrifice as also for the sacrificer, so that his enemies may be confounded”,

3.4.2 L.6 ✅ इत्येवंजातीयका फलश्रुतिः अर्थवादः – तद्वत्।
Are but an Artha-vāda only (i.e. they are in glorification of the material, deity and action respectively).

3.4.2 L.7 ✅ कथं पुनः अस्य अनारभ्याधीतस्य आत्मज्ञानस्य
(But, says the Vedāntin) — How can this knowledge of the Self, which is taught (in the Scriptures) without starting any specific chapter about it,

3.4.2 L.8 ✅ प्रकरणादीनामन्यतमेनापि हेतुना विना क्रतुप्रवेश आशङ्क्यते?
Be said to enter into any connection with a sacrificial act, in the absence of any such reason or other as a specific chapter about it?

3.4.2 L.9 ✅ कर्तृद्वारेण वाक्यात् तद्विज्ञानस्य क्रतु-सम्बन्ध इति चेत्,
If it be said (by you, the opponent of Vedānta), that it is understood from a Scriptural passage (such as “He who knows Brahman, transcends grief”), that such knowledge (of the Self) is connected with a sacrificial act through the agent (i.e. the sacrificer),

3.4.2 L.10 ✅ न, वाक्याद् विनियोगानुपपत्तेः – अव्यभिचारिणा हि केनचिद्द्वारेण
We reply — No, because, it is not reasonably sustainable that the knowledge (of the Self) can be understood to be so connected with a sacrificial act through the agent by means of the Scriptural passage, because such knowledge (of the Self i.e. Brahman) cannot be employed in a sacrificial act.

3.4.2 L.11 ✅ अनारभ्याधीतानामपि वाक्यनिमित्तः क्रतुसम्बन्धोऽवकल्पते;
Now, instruction about such things, given without beginning any special chapter mentioning such things, may be imagined to have such a connection with religious actions, on the authority of a Scriptural passage,

3.4.2 L.12 ✅ कर्ता तु व्यभिचारि द्वारम्, लौकिकवैदिककर्म-साधारण्यात्;
By way of such things having an invariable connection with religious action (such as a ‘Parṇamayī Juhū’ i.e. a sacrificial ladle of Palāśa wood has, with a sacrifice) but an agent is a variable intermediary, being common both to worldly as well as religious acts,

3.4.2 L.13 ✅ तस्मान्न तद्द्वारेण आत्मज्ञानस्य क्रतुसम्बन्ध-सिद्धिरिति –
And therefore it is not established that such knowledge (of the Self) has any such connection with a sacrificial act.

3.4.2 L.14 ✅ न, व्यतिरेक-विज्ञानस्य वैदिकेभ्यः कर्मभ्योऽन्यत्र अनुपयोगात्;
(This argument of the Vedāntin, the opponent of Vedānta counters thus) — No, because the knowledge, that the Self is an entity different from the body, is not useful anywhere, except in a religious act.

3.4.2 L.15 ✅ न हि देहव्यतिरिक्तात्म-ज्ञानं लौकिकेषु कर्मसु उपयुज्यते,
The knowledge that the Self is different from the body, cannot be of any use in a worldly act,

3.4.2 L.16 ✅ सर्वथा दृष्टार्थप्रवृत्त्युपपत्तेः;
Because, in all such cases it is reasonably sustainable, that motivation towards any such worldly action depends upon a fruit that is patent.

3.4.2 L.17 ✅ वैदिकेषु तु देहपातोत्तरकाल-फलेषु
In the case of Scriptural religious actions, however, which bear fruit at some later time, i.e. after death (lit., after the body falls),

3.4.2 L.18 ✅ देहव्यतिरिक्तात्म-ज्ञानम् अन्तरेण प्रवृत्तिः नोपपद्यत इति,
That there can possibly be any activity in the absence of the knowledge that the Self is different from the body, is not reasonably sustainable,

3.4.2 L.19 ✅ उपयुज्यते व्यतिरेकविज्ञानम्।
And thus the knowledge that the ‘Self’ is different from the body, has application precisely in such a case.

3.4.2 L.20 ✅ ननु अपहतपाप्मत्वादि-विशेषणात्
But (says the Vedāntin) inasmuch as, such adjectives of quality, as, that the ‘Self’ is free from sin,

3.4.2 L.21 ✅ असंसार्यात्म-विषयम् औपनिषदं दर्शनं न प्रवृत्त्यङ्गं स्यात् –
Are employed (in the case of the Self), the doctrine of Upanishadic knowledge, that the Self is not of a transmigratory nature, cannot be subservient to any tendency (for any action).

3.4.2 L.22 ✅ न, प्रियादि-संसूचितस्य संसारिण एव आत्मनो द्रष्टव्यत्वोपदेशात्;
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — No, the Scriptural instruction viz. that the Ātmā should be seen, is precisely with respect to that very transmigratory Self, as is suggested by the terms ‘dear’ etc.,

3.4.2 L.23 ✅ अपहतपाप्मत्वादि विशेषणं तु स्तुत्यर्थं भविष्यति।
While the adjective of quality that it is free from sin may well be in glorification of the Jīva-Self.

3.4.2 L.24 ✅ ननु तत्र तत्र प्रसाधितमेतत् –
अधिकम् असंसारि ब्रह्म जगत्कारणम्;
तदेव च संसारिण आत्मनः पारमार्थिकं स्वरूपम्
उपनिषत्सु उपदिश्यत इति –
But (says the Vedāntin) that the Upaniṣads profess to teach that
This superior (Adhikam) and non-transmigratory Brahman is indeed the cause of the world,
And that that alone constitutes the real nature of the transmigratory Jīva-Self,
Has been established (by us) in several different places.

3.4.2 L.25 ✅ सत्यं प्रसाधितम्; तस्यैव तु स्थूणा-निखननवत् फल-द्वारेण आक्षेप-समाधाने क्रियेते दार्ढ्याय॥२॥
Of course it is so established, but it is with a view to strengthen the same conclusion, in a way similar to the digging in of a pile (into the earth) to make it more firm, that objections to that are first raised, for the consideration of it by way of the fruit of such knowledge of the Self (viz. whether it is the means of the attainment of the chief aim of man viz. Final Release i.e. Mokṣa, or whether it is only like the fruit of Sacrifices), and they are then refuted. — 2.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आचारदर्शनात्॥३.४.३॥
Ācāra-darśanāt.

Ācāra-darśanāt: because of the conduct found (from the scriptures).

🔗 Because such conduct of life (of persons who have acquired knowledge of Brahman, but who still perform religious acts) is discernible. — 3.4.3.

3.4.3 L.1 ✅ ‘जनको ह वैदेहो बहुदक्षिणेन यज्ञेनेजे’ (BrhU.3.1.1)
Passages such as “Janaka, the Videha King, performed a sacrifice characterized by munificent presents (to officiating priests)”

3.4.3 L.2 ✅ ‘यक्ष्यमाणो वै भगवन्तोऽहमस्मि’ (ChanU.5.11.5) इत्येवमादीनि
And “Oh venerable Sirs, I am about to perform a sacrifice”,

3.4.3 L.3 ✅ ब्रह्मविदामपि अन्यपरेषु वाक्येषु
Referring to statements about those who have realized Brahman, even when they purport to speak of something else (viz. the propounding of Brahma-Vidyā),

3.4.3 L.4 ✅ कर्मसम्बन्ध-दर्शनानि भवन्ति।
Are still indicative of being supplementary to action.

3.4.3 L.5 ✅ तथा उद्दालकादीनामपि पुत्रानुशासनादि-दर्शनात्
Similarly, seeing that the Scriptures indicate that Uddālaka and others imparted instruction to their sons etc.,

3.4.3 L.6 ✅ गार्हस्थ्य-सम्बन्धोऽवगम्यते।
It is understood that they are connected with the particular order of the life of a householder.

3.4.3 L.7 ✅ केवलाच्चेत् ज्ञानात् पुरुषार्थ-सिद्धिः स्यात्,
Now, if it be (understood) that the chief aim of man is achieved only through the knowledge (of the Self),

3.4.3 L.8 ✅ किमर्थम् अनेकायास-समन्वितानि कर्माणि ते कुर्युः?
Why would such persons perform actions (sacrifices etc.), involving such strenuous work?

3.4.3 L.9 ✅ ‘अर्के चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थं पर्वतं व्रजेत्’ इति न्यायात्॥३॥
Because, is there not the maxim (Nyāya) — why would a person go to a mountain (for honey), if honey be available near at hand (Arke)? — 3.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तच्छ्रुतेः॥३.४.४॥
Tac-chruteḥ.

Tat: that, that knowledge is subsidiary and supplementary to sacrifice; Śruteḥ: from Śruti, because the scriptures directly declare.

🔗 Because, there is a Scriptural statement to the effect (that by the mere knowledge of the Self the chief aim is not attained). — 3.4.4.

3.4.4 L.1 ✅ ‘यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इति च
The Scriptural passage “That which he does with knowledge, faith, and meditation becomes more powerful” (ChanU.1.1.10),

3.4.4 L.2 ✅ कर्मशेषत्व-श्रवणात् विद्यायाः
Which directly declares that knowledge is subservient to religious action,

3.4.4 L.3 ✅ न केवलायाः पुरुषार्थहेतुत्वम्॥४॥
Shows that mere knowledge (Vidyā) alone is not the means of attaining the chief aim of man. — 4.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
समन्वारम्भणात्॥३.४.५॥
Samanvārambhaṇāt.

Sam-anu-ārambhaṇāt: because of the accompanying together, as they jointly follow the sacrificer to produce their effects on account of their taking hold together or being together.

🔗 Also because (of the Scriptural statement that) they (i.e. knowledge and religious action) go together (after him who goes to the other world) and cooperate in starting the manifestation of their fruits (which shows that knowledge i.e. Vidyā alone is not the cause of the attainment of the chief aim of man). — 3.4.5.

3.4.5 L.1 ✅ ‘तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारभेते’ (BrhU.4.4.2) इति च
The Scriptural passage — “Knowledge and religious actions together go along with the Jīva-Self (when it departs from the body)” (BrhUEng.4.4.2),

3.4.5 L.2 ✅ विद्याकर्मणोः फलारम्भे साहित्य-दर्शनात्
Which declares that both knowledge (Vidyā) and religious actions together cooperate in starting the manifestation of their fruit,

3.4.5 L.3 ✅ न स्वातन्त्र्यं विद्यायाः॥५॥
Shows that mere knowledge is not the cause of the chief aim of man. — 5.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तद्वतो विधानात्॥३.४.६॥
Tadvato vidhānāt.

Tadvataḥ: for such (as know the purport of the Vedas); Vidhānāt: because (the scriptures) enjoin (work).

🔗 Also because the Scriptures prescribe (religious action) to those who understand the meaning of the Vedas, (Knowledge i.e. Vidyā is not an independent cause of the attainment of the chief aim of man). — 3.4.6.

3.4.6 L.1 ✅ ‘आचार्यकुलाद् वेदमधीत्य यथाविधानं गुरोः कर्मातिशेषेणाभिसमावृत्य
कुटुम्बे शुचौ देशे स्वाध्यायमधीयानः’ (ChanU.8.15.1) इति च एवंजातीयका श्रुतिः
Scriptural passages such as “He who after studying the Vedas at the preceptor’s house, during the time spared after performing all his duties towards his preceptor as prescribed (by the Smṛtis), and after returning from his preceptor’s place (after completing his studies),
Studies the Scriptural texts in his own family, in a pure place” (ChanU.8.15.1),

3.4.6 L.2 ✅ समस्तवेदार्थ-विज्ञानवतः कर्माधिकारं दर्शयति;
Show, that he who has understood the meaning of the Vedas, is competent to perform religious actions.

3.4.6 L.3 ✅ तस्मादपि न विज्ञानस्य स्वातन्त्र्येण फलहेतुत्वम्।
Hence also, knowledge (of Brahman) itself independently does not constitute a means of attaining the fruit (of Final Release).

3.4.6 L.4 ✅ ननु अत्र ‘अधीत्य’ इत्यध्ययनमात्रं वेदस्य श्रूयते,
But (says the Vedāntin), here, by the words ‘after studying the Scriptures’, the Scriptures merely speak about the reading or reciting of the Vedas,

3.4.6 L.5 ✅ न अर्थविज्ञानम् –
And not the understanding of their meaning.

3.4.6 L.6 ✅ नैष दोषः; दृष्टार्थत्वात् वेदाध्ययनम्
(We reply) — This is no fault, because (according to Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā) as the study of the Vedas has a patent use,

3.4.6 L.7 ✅ अर्थावबोध-पर्यन्तमिति स्थितम्॥६॥
It is well established that such study of the Vedas extends upto the complete understanding (comprehension) of their meaning. — 6.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
नियमाच्च॥३.४.७॥
Niyamāc ca.

Niyamāt: on account of prescribed rules, because of compulsory injunction; Ca: also, and.

🔗 Also because of (the mention of) definite rules (Vidyā is subservient to religious action). — 3.4.7.

3.4.7 L.1 ✅ ‘कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतꣳ समाः।
एवं त्वयि नान्यथेतोऽस्ति न कर्म लिप्यते नरे’ (IsU.2) इति –
“One should desire to live for a hundred years doing religious acts.
It is in this way alone that action would not affect you (who have this form of man) and in no other way than this” (IsU.2).

3.4.7 L.2 ✅ तथा ‘एतद्वै जरामर्यं सत्रं यदग्निहोत्रं जरया वा ह्येवास्मान्मुच्यते मृत्युना वा’ –
“What is known as Agni-hotra is a sacrificial act which has to be performed upto old age or death and a man is relieved of it only by old age or death.”

3.4.7 L.3 ✅ इत्येवंजातीयकात् नियमादपि
Definite rules such as these show that

3.4.7 L.4 ✅ कर्मशेषत्वमेव विद्याया इति॥७॥
Knowledge is complementary to action (because, there would not be any such rules, if a person were to be able to get rid of Karma on attaining knowledge). — 7.

[Go top]

3.4.8 L.1 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते,
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)

3.4.8 L.2 ✅ प्रतिविधत्ते –
The Sūtra-kāra refutes it (as follows): —

←Prev Next→
अधिकोपदेशात्तु बादरायणस्यैवं तद्दर्शनात्॥३.४.८॥
Adhikopadeśāt tu bādarāyaṇasyaivaṃ tad-darśanāt.

Adhika-upadeśāt: because (the sriptures) teach (the Supreme Self to be) something over and above; Tu: but; Bādarāyaṇasya: of Bādarāyaṇa; Evam: thus, such (is the opinion); Tad-darśanāt: for that is seen (from the scriptures). (Adhika: Supreme Being, more different; Upadeśāt: from the statement in Śruti, owing to the teaching about.)

🔗 But, because the Scriptural instruction is about one, (who is) even greater (than the Jīva-Self), it shows that Bādarāyaṇa’s view is proper i.e. correct. The Scriptures also declare so. — 3.4.8.

3.4.8 L.3 ✅ तु-शब्दात् पक्षो विपरिवर्तते।
The view (of the opponent of Vedānta) is refuted by the word ‘but’ (Tu).

3.4.8 L.4 ✅ यदुक्तम् ‘शेषत्वात् पुरुषार्थवादः’ (BrS.3.4.2) इति,
The claim (made by the opponent of Vedānta) viz., that because knowledge (of the Self i.e. Brahman) is subservient (to religious action), it is but an Artha-vāda (BrS.3.4.2),

3.4.8 L.5 ✅ तत् नोपपद्यते।
Is not reasonably sustainable.

3.4.8 L.6 ✅ कस्मात्? अधिकोपदेशात्;
Whence is it so? Because the Scriptures teach about one who is even greater (than the Jīva-Self).

3.4.8 L.7 ✅ यदि संसार्येव आत्मा शारीरः कर्ता भोक्ता च शरीरमात्र-व्यतिरेकेण वेदान्तेषु उपदिष्टः स्यात्,
If the Vedānta texts were to give instruction, only about the transmigratory Jīva-Self as being embodied and as one that is an agent and an experiencer, also as being different from the body,

3.4.8 L.8 ✅ ततो वर्णितेन प्रकारेण फलश्रुतेः अर्थवादत्वं स्यात्;
Then, in the manner described, the Scriptural statements about the fruit (i.e. the chief aim of man viz. Final Release) would be of the nature of an Artha-vāda.

3.4.8 L.9 ✅ अधिकस्तावत् शारीरादात्मनः
असंसारी ईश्वरः कर्तृत्वादिसंसारिधर्म-रहितोऽपहतपाप्मत्वादि-विशेषणः परमात्मा वेद्यत्वेन
उपदिश्यते वेदान्तेषु।
The Vedānta texts however teach
About one who is even greater than the Jīva-Self,
Viz., the non-transmigratory Highest Lord, (who is) free from the nature of being either an agent or a transmigratory being and is characterized by the nature of being free from all sin, as an entity fit to be known.

3.4.8 L.10 ✅ न च तद्विज्ञानं कर्मणां प्रवर्तकं भवति, प्रत्युत कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति – इति वक्ष्यति ‘उपमर्दं च’ (BrS.3.4.16) इत्यत्र।
The Sūtra-kāra will hereafter (in BrS.3.4.16) say that the knowledge of that (Brahman) not only does not stimulate any action, but on the contrary, uproots all actions as such.

3.4.8 L.11 ✅ तस्मात् ‘पुरुषार्थोऽतः शब्दात्’ (BrS.3.4.1) इति यन्मतं भगवतो बादरायणस्य,
Thus the view of Bhagavān Bādarāyaṇa, viz., that through the knowledge of Brahman, a man’s chief aim of life (i.e. Final Release) is attained (stated in BrS.3.4.1),

3.4.8 L.12 ✅ तत् तथैव तिष्ठति;
Still holds good and valid,

3.4.8 L.13 ✅ न शेषत्वप्रभृतिभिः हेत्वाभासैः चालयितुं शक्यते।
And is not disturbed by any fallacious views, such as, that knowledge is subservient or complementary to religious action.

3.4.8 L.14 ✅ तथा हि तमधिकं शारीरात् ईश्वरमात्मानं दर्शयन्ति श्रुतयः –
Even so do the Scriptural statements indicate the Lord, the Highest Self, to be greater than the Jīva-Self, thus —

3.4.8 L.15 ✅ ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ (MunU.1.1.9)
“One who is omniscient and knows all” (MunU.1.1.9),

3.4.8 L.16 ✅ ‘भीषास्माद्वातः पवते’ (TaitU.2.8.1)
“It is through the terror of it that the wind blows etc.” (TaitUEng.2.8.1),

3.4.8 L.17 ✅ ‘महद्भयं वज्रमुद्यतम्’ (KathU.2.3.2)
“A great terror, a raised thunderbolt” (KathU.2.3.2),

3.4.8 L.18 ✅ ‘एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि’ (BrhU.3.8.9)
“It is at the command of this Imperishable one, Oh Gārgi etc.” (BrhUEng.3.8.9),

3.4.8 L.19 ✅ ‘तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इत्येवमाद्याः।
“It thought, may I be many, may I bring forth. It created Tejas” (ChanU.6.2.3), etc.

3.4.8 L.20 ✅ यत्तु प्रियादि-संसूचितस्य संसारिण एव आत्मनो
वेद्यतया अनुकर्षणम् –
Now, the reference to that transmigratory Jīva-Self suggested by the word ‘dear’ (Priya) etc.
Which is brought forward (by the opponent) as the one to be known, by beginning with passages,

3.4.8 L.21 ✅ ‘आत्मनस्तु कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवति। आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5
Such as “It is for the pleasure of the Self that everything becomes dear. The Self, Oh Maitreyī, should be seen” (BrhUEng.2.4.5),

3.4.8 L.22 ✅ ‘यः प्राणेन प्राणिति स त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः’ (BrhU.3.4.1)
“He who breathes by means of the Prāṇa (the Vital breath) is exactly your own Self, which is inside everything” (BrhUEng.3.4.1),

3.4.8 L.23 ✅ ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.8.7.4)
“This person that is seen in the eye” (ChanU.8.7.4),

3.4.8 L.24 ✅ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘एतं त्वेव ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामि’ (ChanU.8.9.3) इति च
And which are afterwards followed up thus — “I shall again explain Him to you” (ChanU.8.9.3) etc.,

3.4.8 L.25 ✅ एवमादि – तदपि, ‘अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितम् एतद् यदृग्वेदः’ (BrhU.2.4.10)
And when, by reason of the complementary passages, such as “That which is the Ṛg-Veda etc. is but the divine afflatus of this great being” (BrhUEng.2.4.10),

3.4.8 L.26 ✅ ‘एतं त्वेव ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामि’ (ChanU.8.9.3) इति चैवमादि –
And ending with, “I shall explain this further to you” (ChanU.8.9.3)

3.4.8 L.27 ✅ ‘योऽशनायापिपासे शोकं मोहं जरां मृत्युमत्येति’ (BrhU.3.5.1)
“He who transcends hunger and thirst, sorrow and confusion, old age and death” (BrhUEng.3.5.1);

3.4.8 L.28 ✅ ‘परं ज्योतिरुपसम्पद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते स उत्तमः पुरुषः’ (ChanU.8.12.3) इति
“Having attained the transcendent light, manifests itself in its own form, He is the Puruṣa (par excellence)” (ChanU.8.12.3),

3.4.8 L.29 ✅ एवमादिभिर्वाक्यशेषैः सत्यामेव अधिकोपदिदिक्षायाम्,
A desire to speak about something even greater than the Jīva-Self is clearly discernible there,

3.4.8 L.30 ✅ अत्यन्ताभेदाभिप्रायम्
It is understood that all that is with a view to speak of and emphasize the absolute nondifference (between the Jīva-Self and Brahman),

3.4.8 L.31 ✅ इत्यविरोधः।
And hence there is no contradiction.

3.4.8 L.32 ✅ पारमेश्वरमेव हि शारीरस्य पारमार्थिकं स्वरूपम्;
The Highest Lord is but the real nature of the embodied Jīva-Self,

3.4.8 L.33 ✅ उपाधिकृतं तु शारीरत्वम्,
While the Highest Self’s condition as the embodied Jīva-Self is merely caused by limiting adjuncts,

3.4.8 L.34 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7)
‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
On the authority of Scriptural statements such as “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7),
“There is no seer other than this” (BrhUEng.3.8.11).

3.4.8 L.35 ✅ सर्वं च एतत् विस्तरेणास्माभिः पुरस्तात् तत्र तत्र वर्णितम्॥८॥
We have already described all this at great length in appropriate places before. — 8.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तुल्यं तु दर्शनम्॥३.४.९॥
Tulyaṃ tu darśanam.

Tulyam: the same, similar, equal; Tu: but; Darśanam: declaration of the Śruti.

🔗 But Scriptural declarations (about the conduct of those who have attained the knowledge of Brahman) equally (support the opposite view). — 3.4.9.

3.4.9 L.1 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् –
With respect to the view (of the opponent of Vedānta),

3.4.9 L.2 ✅ आचारदर्शनात् कर्मशेषो विद्येति,
That because, (in the case of those who have attained the knowledge of Brahman) conduct of life as declared by the Scriptures is seen i.e. they are seen to perform religious acts, therefore, knowledge is subservient to religious action,

3.4.9 L.3 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – तुल्यम् आचार-दर्शनम् अकर्मशेषत्वेऽपि विद्यायाः।
(We reply), that Scriptural declarations about such conduct of life, are equally in support of the view that knowledge is not subservient to religious action.

3.4.9 L.4 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिर्भवति –
To that very effect is the Scriptural declaration —

3.4.9 L.5 ✅ ‘एतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वांस आहुर्ऋषयः कावषेयाः किमर्था वयमध्येष्यामहे किमर्था वयं यक्ष्यामहे’
‘एतद्ध स्म वै तत्पूर्वे विद्वांसोऽग्निहोत्रं न जुहवाञ्चक्रिरे
‘एतं वै तमात्मानं विदित्वा ब्राह्मणाः पुत्रैषणायाश्च वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति’ (BrhU.3.5.1) इत्येवंजातीयका।
“The sage Kāvaṣeya (the son of Kavaṣā) who had understood that (i.e. Brahman), said, why need I study the Vedas and why need I perform sacrifices?
“The ancient sages who had understood that (i.e. Brahman) never performed the Agni-hotra”.
“Knowing this Self (i.e. Brahman) the Brāhmaṇas, having discarded their innate desire for progeny (sons), wealth and the (acquisition of the) worlds, thereafter lead a life of mendicancy” (BrhUEng.3.5.1).

3.4.9 L.6 ✅ याज्ञवल्क्यादीनामपि ब्रह्मविदाम् अकर्मनिष्ठत्वं दृश्यते –
It is to be seen (from the Scriptures) that Yājña-valkya and others who had realized Brahman did not bank on religious actions (such as sacrifices etc.), thus —

3.4.9 L.7 ✅ ‘एतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति होक्त्वा याज्ञवल्क्यः ‘प्रवव्राज’ (BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
“He (Yājña-valkya) having said (to his wife Maitreyī), ‘My dear, verily that much (i.e. the knowledge that the Ātmā is the only one reality), is the means of immortality’ renounced the world (and became a Sannyāsin)”.

3.4.9 L.8 ✅ अपि च ‘यक्ष्यमाणो वै भगवन्तोऽहमस्मि’ (ChanU.5.11.5)
इत्येतत् लिङ्गदर्शनं वैश्वानरविद्याविषयम्;
Besides, the indicatory mark (about knowledge being subservient to religious actions) as seen (by the opponent of Vedānta) in the passage
“Oh, venerable sirs, I am about to perform a sacrifice”, occurs in the Vaiśvā-nara Vidyā.

3.4.9 L.9 ✅ सम्भवति च सोपाधिकायां ब्रह्मविद्यायां कर्मसाहित्य-दर्शनम्;
Now, it is possible that in the case of a Vidyā dealing with qualified Brahman i.e. Brahman under the influence of limiting adjuncts, knowledge and religious actions may well go together.

3.4.9 L.10 ✅ न तु अत्रापि कर्माङ्गत्वमस्ति,
But (claims the Vedāntin), even there knowledge is not subservient to action (as such people may engage in action for Loka-saṅgraha, i.e. for inducing people towards religious action),

3.4.9 L.11 ✅ प्रकरणाद्यभावात्॥९॥
Because there is no chapter (in the Scriptures) etc. about it. — 9.

[Go top]

3.4.10 L.1 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् – ‘तच्छ्रुतेः’ (BrS.3.4.4) इति,
With regard to the objection (of the opponent of Vedānta on the ground) that “There is a Scriptural statement about it” (BrS.3.4.4),

3.4.10 L.2 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः –
We reply: —

←Prev Next→
असार्वत्रिकी॥३.४.१०॥
Asārvatrikī.

A-sārvatrikī: not universal, not applicable everywhere.

🔗 (The Scriptural statement) is not, of universal application. — 3.4.10.

3.4.10 L.3 ✅ ‘यदेव विद्या करोति’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इति
The Scriptural statement “That which he does with knowledge etc.” (ChanU.1.1.10)

3.4.10 L.4 ✅ एषा श्रुतिर्न सर्वविद्या-विषया,
Is not applicable to all Vidyās,

3.4.10 L.5 ✅ प्रकृतविद्याभिसम्बन्धात्।
Because it has connection with that particular Vidyā which is relevant (to the context where it occurs)

3.4.10 L.6 ✅ प्रकृता च उद्गीथविद्या – ‘ओमित्येतदक्षरमुद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1) इत्यत्र॥१०॥
Viz. the Udgīṭha Vidyā — “You should contemplate on the letter (Om) which is the Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.1.1). — 10.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विभागः शतवत्॥३.४.११॥
Vibhāgaḥ śatavat.

Vibhāgaḥ: (there is) division of knowledge and work; Śatavat: as in the case of a hundred (divided between two persons).

🔗 There is a splitting up (as between knowledge and religious actions) as between a hundred (things, divided between two persons). — 3.4.11.

3.4.11 L.1 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् –
The argument (of the opponent of Vedānta in BrS.3.4.5 above),

3.4.11 L.2 ✅ ‘तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारभेते’ (BrhU.4.4.2)
Viz., that the Scriptural statement “Knowledge and religious action together go along with the Jīva-Self (when it departs from the body at the time of death)” (BrhUEng.4.4.2)

3.4.11 L.3 ✅ इत्येतत् समन्वारम्भ-वचनम् अस्वातन्त्र्ये विद्याया लिङ्गमिति,
(This ‘Going along with’ statement) is an indicatory mark about Vidyā not being independent,

3.4.11 L.4 ✅ तत् प्रत्युच्यते –
Is answered thus —

3.4.11 L.5 ✅ विभागोऽत्र द्रष्टव्यः –
It should be understood that there is a splitting up here, thus,

3.4.11 L.6 ✅ विद्या अन्यं पुरुषमन्वारभते, कर्म अन्यमिति।
Viz. Vidyā accompanies one Puruṣa (at the death of a person who has attained knowledge) and religious action accompanies another Puruṣa (an ignorant person who dies).

3.4.11 L.7 ✅ शतवत् –
It is, as it is in the case of a hundred (things).

3.4.11 L.8 ✅ यथा शतम् आभ्यां दीयतामित्युक्ते विभज्य दीयते – पञ्चाशदेकस्मै पञ्चाशदपरस्मै, तद्वत्।
Just as, when it is said that that a hundred (things) should be given to these (two persons), they (things) are divided fifty-fifty, and a moiety is given to one and the other moiety is given to another.

3.4.11 L.9 ✅ न च इदं समन्वारम्भ-वाचनं मुमुक्षुविषयम् –
Besides this statement about ‘Going along with’ has no reference to one who is desirous of liberation (from worldly bondage),

3.4.11 L.10 ✅ ‘इति नु कामयमानः’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इति
संसारिविषयत्वोपसंहारात्,
Because the concluding Scriptural statement — “This much about a person who has desires (Kāmayamānaḥ)” (BrhUEng.4.4.6) —
Has reference to the transmigratory Jīva-Self.

3.4.11 L.11 ✅ ‘अथाकामयमानः’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इति च
And the distinctly separate statement — “Now about (one) who has no desires (Akāmayamānaḥ)” (BrhUEng.4.4.6) —

3.4.11 L.12 ✅ मुमुक्षोः पृथगुपक्रमात्;
Is separately stated with reference to one who is desirous of Final Release.

3.4.11 L.13 ✅ तत्र संसारिविषये विद्या
Now the Vidyā contemplated in the case of one who is in the transmigratory condition

3.4.11 L.14 ✅ विहिता प्रतिषिद्धा च परिगृह्यते,
Is understood to be what is Scripturally enjoined and prohibited (i.e. Karma — and not the knowledge of the Self i.e. Ātmā-Vidyā)

3.4.11 L.15 ✅ विशेषाभावात्;
As there is absence of any special reason (why a particular Vidyā should be understood).

3.4.11 L.16 ✅ कर्मापि विहितं प्रतिषिद्धं च,
‘Action’ (referred to here) also means that which is enjoined and that which is prohibited,

3.4.11 L.17 ✅ यथाप्राप्तानुवादित्वात्;
And only refers to ‘action’ which is already established elsewhere.

3.4.11 L.18 ✅ एवं सति अविभागेनापि इदं समन्वारम्भवचनम् अवकल्पते॥११॥
This being so, the Scriptural statement about knowledge and action together going along (with the Jīva-Self, after death) may also be understood as not contemplating any such division between knowledge and action. — 11.

[Go top]

3.4.12 L.1 ✅ यच्चैतत् – ‘तद्वतो विधानात्’ (BrS.3.4.6) इति,
With regard to the argument, that Scriptures prescribe religious action to such only as understand the meaning of the Vedas (in BrS.3.4.6),

3.4.12 L.2 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
The reply given is thus: —

←Prev Next→
अध्ययनमात्रवतः॥३.४.१२॥
Adhyayana-mātravataḥ.

Adhyayana-mātravataḥ: of one who has merely read the Vedas.

🔗 It is only to him who has merely recited the Scriptures i.e. ‘Adhyayana-mātravataḥ’ (that engaging in religious action is prescribed). — 3.4.12.

3.4.12 L.3 ✅ ‘आचार्यकुलाद्वेदमधीत्य’ (ChanU.8.15.1) इत्यत्र
Because, in the Scriptural statement “Having studied the Vedas at the preceptor’s house” (ChanU.8.15.1),

3.4.12 L.4 ✅ अध्ययनमात्रस्य श्रवणात्
It is merely the reciting (of the Vedas) that is referred to,

3.4.12 L.5 ✅ अध्ययनमात्रवत एव कर्मविधिः इत्यध्यवस्यामः।
We conclude that it is only with respect to those who have but only recited the Scriptures (without understanding their meaning) that there is an injunction about religious action.

3.4.12 L.6 ✅ ननु एवं सति अविद्यत्वात् अनधिकारः कर्मसु प्रसज्येत –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) — If it is so, then incompetency for the performance of religious action would result for the want of the knowledge of the Scriptures.

3.4.12 L.7 ✅ नैष दोषः;
(We reply) — This is no fault,

3.4.12 L.8 ✅ न वयम् अध्ययन-प्रभवं कर्मावबोधनम् अधिकार-कारणं वारयामः।
Because we do not deny that the knowledge of religious action resulting from the reciting (of the Vedas) is attained by one who has recited the Vedas and that he attains competency for performing religious actions,

3.4.12 L.9 ✅ किं तर्हि? औपनिषदमात्मज्ञानम् स्वातन्त्र्येणैव प्रयोजनवत् प्रतीयमानम्
न कर्माधिकार-कारणतां प्रतिपद्यते –
इत्येतत्प्रतिपादयामः।
But we wish to propound only this much,
That, as the Upanishadic knowledge of the Self, is understood to have a fruit of its own independently,
It cannot become the cause for the conferment of competency for religious actions.

3.4.12 L.10 ✅ यथा च न क्रत्वन्तर-ज्ञानं क्रत्वन्तराधिकारेण अपेक्ष्यते,
Just as the knowledge of one sacrifice is not necessary for performing another sacrifice,

3.4.12 L.11 ✅ एवमेतदपि द्रष्टव्यमिति॥१२॥
Even so should this be looked upon. — 12.

[Go top]

3.4.13 L.1 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – ‘नियमाच्च’ (BrS.3.4.7) इति,
With regard to what is said (by the opponent of Vedānta) — viz., Also because definite rules (are prescribed) (BrS.3.4.7) —

3.4.13 L.2 ✅ अत्राभिधीयते –
We reply: —

←Prev Next→
नाविशेषात्॥३.४.१३॥
Nāviśeṣāt.

Na: not, compulsion does not apply; A-viśeṣāt: on account of the absence of any specification, because there is no special mention.

🔗 No, because there is no (mention of) special qualification. — 3.4.13.

3.4.13 L.3 ✅ ‘कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेत्’ (IsU.2) इति
एवमादिषु नियमश्रवणेषु न विदुष इति विशेषोऽस्ति,
There is nothing specifically mentioned in the Scriptural statement
“Performing religious actions here (in this world) one should desire to live to be a hundred” (IsU.2)
To understand any such rule that such a person should be possessed of knowledge.

3.4.13 L.4 ✅ अविशेषेण नियमविधानात्॥१३॥
The rule is enjoined (by the Scriptures) without any special qualification attaching. — 13.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्तुतयेऽनुमतिर्वा॥३.४.१४॥
Stutaye'numatir vā.

Stutaye: for the purpose of glorification (of knowledge); Anumatiḥ: permission; Vā: or, rather.

🔗 Or else the consent (accorded for the performance of religious action) is for the purpose of glorification (of Vidyā). — 3.4.14.

3.4.14 L.1 ✅ ‘कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि’ (IsU.2) इत्यत्र
The Scriptural passage “Performing religious actions here (in this world) etc.” (IsU.2)

3.4.14 L.2 ✅ अपरो विशेष आख्यायते।
Can have another interpretation as follows: —

3.4.14 L.3 ✅ यद्यपि अत्र प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात्
Even though on the strength of the chapter (Prakaraṇa)

3.4.14 L.4 ✅ विद्वानेव – कुर्वन् – इति सम्बध्येत,
It is only one who possesses knowledge, that has any connection with the word ‘doing’,

3.4.14 L.5 ✅ तथापि विद्या-स्तुतये कर्मानुज्ञानम् एतद्द्रष्टव्यम्;
Still it should be understood that this permission to perform religious action is for the glorification of the knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.14 L.6 ✅ ‘न कर्म लिप्यते नरे’ (IsU.2)
इति हि वक्ष्यति।
The Sūtra-kāra will later on say —
“Religious action does not affect you, who have the nature of a man” (IsU.2).

3.4.14 L.7 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति –
By this is meant —

3.4.14 L.8 ✅ यावज्जीवं कर्म कुर्वत्यपि त्वयि विदुषि
Even if a person who has knowledge (of the Self) performs religious actions right throughout his life,

3.4.14 L.9 ✅ पुरुषे न कर्म लेपाय भवति,
Such action does not affect him,

3.4.14 L.10 ✅ विद्या-सामर्थ्यादिति –
Because of the potency of knowledge,

3.4.14 L.11 ✅ तदेवं विद्या स्तूयते॥१४॥
And in this manner, knowledge (of the Self) is thus glorified. — 14.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
कामकारेण चैके॥३.४.१५॥
Kāmakāreṇa caike.

Kāma-kāreṇa: according to their own liking; Ca: and; Eke: some.

🔗 Also, some others by their wilful unrestrained conduct of life (show their contempt for religious actions). — 3.4.15.

3.4.15 L.1 ✅ अपि च एके विद्वांसः प्रत्यक्षीकृतविद्या-फलाः सन्तः, तदवष्टम्भात्
Besides, some men having actually experienced the fruit of the knowledge (of Brahman), and solely depending upon the fruit of such knowledge actually experienced by them,

3.4.15 L.2 ✅ फलान्तर-साधनेषु प्रजादिषु प्रयोजनाभावं परामृशन्ति कामकारेण –
Say that they have no use for any such other means of attaining other fruits, such as progeny etc.

3.4.15 L.3 ✅ इति श्रुतिर्भवति वाजसनेयिनाम् –
There is a Scriptural statement in the Vāja-saneyi branch, about wilful conduct of life, thus —

3.4.15 L.4 ✅ ‘एतद्ध स्म वै तत्पूर्वे विद्वांसः प्रजां न कामयन्ते किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयमात्मायं लोक इति’ (BrhU.4.4.22)।
“Realizing this (Brahman) the sages of old did not have any desire for progeny. Said they — what use have we, who have this Self (Ātmā) and this Loka as the fruit (for ourselves), for progeny?” (BrhUEng.4.4.22).

3.4.15 L.5 ✅ अनुभवारूढमेव च विद्या-फलं
न क्रिया-फलवत् कालान्तरभावि –
इत्यसकृदवोचाम।
We have said more than once,
How the fruit of the knowledge (of the Self) is based on simultaneous actual experience,
And is not, like the fruit of religious actions, something which results at some future time.

3.4.15 L.6 ✅ अतोऽपि न विद्यायाः कर्मशेषत्वं
Hence also, it is, that knowledge of the Self (Vidyā) is not subservient to action,

3.4.15 L.7 ✅ नापि तद्विषयायाः फलश्रुतेः अयथार्थत्वं शक्यम् आश्रयितुम्॥१५॥
Nor is it possible to accept the Scriptural statement about the fruit of the knowledge (of the Self), as not being so, (i.e. as being an Artha-vāda only). — 15.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उपमर्दं च॥३.४.१६॥
Upamardaṃ ca.

Upamardam: complete destruction, putting an end to all actions; Ca: and.

🔗 Moreover (the Scriptures state that there is) destruction (of the means which confer competency for religious action). — 3.4.16.

3.4.16 L.1 ✅ अपि च कर्माधिकार-हेतोः
क्रियाकारकफल-लक्षणस्य
समस्तस्य प्रपञ्चस्य अविद्याकृतस्य विद्यासामर्थ्यात् स्वरूपोपमर्दमामनन्ति –
Moreover the Scriptures mention that there is destruction (Upamarda), of the inherent nature (Sva-rūpa) of this entire apparent worldly manifestation (Prapañca) which is brought about by Nescience,
Which is characterized by actions (such as sacrifices), materials (of such sacrifices), and fruits of sacrifices,
And which are the means by which competency for religious actions is conferred through (the acquisition of) the power of Vidyā, thus —

3.4.16 L.2 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14) इत्यादिना।
“But when to him (the knower of Brahman) every thing has become but the Self only, then what should one see, and by what, and what should one smell, and by what?” (BrhUEng.2.4.14) etc.

3.4.16 L.3 ✅ वेदान्तोदितात्मज्ञानपूर्विकां तु कर्माधिकारसिद्धिं प्रत्याशासानस्य
Now, in the case (of the opinion) of him who would insist on maintaining that the knowledge of the Self resulting from Vedānta must necessarily precede the attainment of competency for religious actions,

3.4.16 L.4 ✅ कर्माधिकारोच्छित्तिरेव प्रसज्येत।
That very competency for religious actions itself would undergo complete destruction.

3.4.16 L.5 ✅ तस्मादपि स्वातन्त्र्यं विद्यायाः॥१६॥
Therefore, also, knowledge (of the Self) is independent (and is not subservient to religious actions). — 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
ऊर्ध्वरेतःसु च शब्दे हि॥३.४.१७॥
Ūrdhva-retaḥsu ca śabde hi.

Ūrdhva-retassu: to those who observe perpetual celibacy, in those stages of life where the sexual energy has an upward flow; Ca: and; Śabde: in the Śruti; Hi: because.

🔗 Knowledge (i.e. Vidyā of the Self, is prescribed) for those who have entered the order (Āśrama) of those who observe continence (i.e. Sannyāsins). (This order of life) is referred to in the Scriptures. — 3.4.17.

3.4.17 L.1 ✅ ऊर्ध्व-रेतःसु च आश्रमेषु विद्या श्रूयते;
The Scriptures mention knowledge (i.e. Vidyā of the Self) in connection with the order of those who observe continence (i.e. the Sannyāsins).

3.4.17 L.2 ✅ न च तत्र कर्माङ्गत्वं विद्याया उपपद्यते,
That, in that order (of Sannyāsins), knowledge (i.e. Vidyā of the Self) can be subservient to religious actions is not reasonably sustainable,

3.4.17 L.3 ✅ कर्माभावात्;
In as much as religious action is contra-indicated i.e. totally absent in that order.

3.4.17 L.4 ✅ न हि अग्निहोत्रादीनि वैदिकानि कर्माणि तेषां सन्ति।
The Sannyāsins do not perform such Scriptural religious actions as the Agni-hotra etc.

3.4.17 L.5 ✅ स्यादेतत्, ऊर्ध्वरेतस आश्रमा न श्रूयन्ते वेद इति –
(If the opponent of Vedānta also says that) the order of the Sannyāsins is not referred to in the Scriptures,

3.4.17 L.6 ✅ तदपि नास्ति;
(We reply) that, that argument also is not so, (i.e. cannot be available to the opponent),

3.4.17 L.7 ✅ तेऽपि हि वैदिकेषु शब्देष्ववगम्यन्ते –
Because such order is mentioned in the Scriptures, thus —

3.4.17 L.8 ✅ ‘त्रयो धर्म-स्कन्धाः’ (ChanU.2.23.1)
“(There are) three branches of Dharma” (ChanU.2.23.1);

3.4.17 L.9 ✅ ‘ये चेमेऽरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्युपासते’ (ChanU.5.10.1)
“Those who meditate with faith and austerity in the forest” (ChanU.5.10.1);

3.4.17 L.10 ✅ ‘तपःश्रद्धे ये ह्युपवसन्त्यरण्ये’ (MunU.1.2.11) “Those who practise faith and penance in the forest” (MunU.1.2.11);

3.4.17 L.11 ✅ ‘एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.22)
“Aspiring for that very world (Loka), Sannyāsins become such Sannyāsins” (BrhUEng.4.4.22);

3.4.17 L.12 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेत्’ (जा. उ. ४) इत्येवमादिषु।
“One may become a Sannyāsin (i.e. renounce the world) even from the order of Brahma-carya (the celibate life of a student) directly (i.e. skipping the two intermediate orders of the house-holders (Gṛha-sthāśrama) and of those who sojourn in the forest (Vāna-prasthāśrama))” (Jāb. Up. 4).

3.4.17 L.13 ✅ प्रतिपन्नाप्रतिपन्न-गार्हस्थ्यानाम्
अपाकृतानपाकृतर्णत्रयाणां च ऊर्ध्वरेतस्त्वं
श्रुतिस्मृतिप्रसिद्धम्।
Besides, the Scriptures as well as the Smṛtis countenance,
That both those who have entered and those who have not entered the order of householders,
And those who have paid and those who have not paid the three debts (due to the Gods, the Ṛṣis and the manes), can equally join the order of those who observe continence.

3.4.17 L.14 ✅ तस्मादपि स्वातन्त्र्यं विद्यायाः॥१७॥
Therefore also knowledge (i.e. Vidyā of the Self) is independent (and not subservient to religious action). — 17.

– 137. Puruṣa-artha-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.18 Su..19 Su..20

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
परामर्शं जैमिनिरचोदना चापवदति हि॥३.४.१८॥
Parā-marśaṃ jaiminir acodanā cāpavadati hi.

Parā-marśam: a passing allusion, mere reference; Jaiminiḥ: Jaimini; A-codanā: there is no clear injunction; Ca: and; Apavadati: condemns; Hi: because, clearly, certainly.

🔗 Jaimini thinks that there is only just a reference (to orders of life i.e. Sannyāsa etc.) here, which is no injunction. The Scriptures also censure (these orders of life). — 3.4.18.

3.4.18 L.1 ✅ ‘त्रयो धर्म-स्कन्धाः’ (ChanU.2.23.1)
इत्यादयो ये शब्दा ऊर्ध्वरेतसाम् आश्रमाणां सद्भावाय उदाहृताः,
न ते तत्प्रतिपादनाय प्रभवन्ति;
यतः परामर्शम् एषु शब्देष्वाश्रमान्तराणां
जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते,
Ācārya Jaimini considers,
That the Scriptural statement “(There are) three branches of Dharma” (ChanU.2.23.1)
Which has been cited (by the Vedāntin) to establish the existence of the order of Sannyāsins,
Is not able to establish it,
Because, he considers that here there is only a reference to other orders of life (Āśramas) but no injunction (about them).

3.4.18 L.2 ✅ न विधिम्।
Here, there is no word signifying any injunction,

3.4.18 L.3 ✅ कुतः? न हि अत्र लिङादीनामन्यतमश्चोदना-शब्दोऽस्ति;
Such as a verb in an imperative tense etc.,

3.4.18 L.4 ✅ अर्थान्तरपरत्वं च एषु प्रत्येकमुपलभ्यते।
And it is perceived that each of these (Scriptural statements) has a different meaning.

3.4.18 L.5 ✅ ‘त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धाः’ इत्यत्र तावत्
So far as the Scriptural statements viz. “(There are) three branches of Dharma”:

3.4.18 L.6 ✅ ‘यज्ञोऽध्ययनं दानमिति प्रथमः
तप एव द्वितीयो
ब्रह्मचार्याचार्य-कुलवासी तृतीयोऽत्यन्तमात्मानमाचार्यकुलेऽवसादयन्
सर्व एते पुण्यलोका भवन्ति’ इति
Sacrifice, study of the Scriptures, and charity, form the first (branch),
Penance is the second (branch),
And a student-bachelor, residing at the house of the preceptor, where (i.e. in the preceptor’s house), the student-bachelor wears himself out, is the third (branch);
And that all these obtain the world of the righteous”, are concerned,

3.4.18 L.7 ✅ परामर्शपूर्वकम् आश्रमाणाम् अनात्यन्तिक-फलत्वं सङ्कीर्त्य,
The Scriptures after first making a reference to this, and mentioning that the fruit of these orders is but only a limited fruit,

3.4.18 L.8 ✅ आत्यन्तिक-फलतया ब्रह्म-संस्थता स्तूयते –
Thereafter glorify the condition of complete ensconcement-in-Brahman (Brahma-saṃsthatā) as having the limitless fruit, thus —

3.4.18 L.9 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मसंस्थोऽमृतत्वमेति’ (ChanU.2.23.1) इति।
“One who is firmly ensconced-in-Brahman attains immortality” (ChanU.2.23.1).

3.4.18 L.10 ✅ ननु परामर्शेऽपि आश्रमा गम्यन्ते एव –
But (argues the Vedāntin), even such mere reference, does of course establish (the existence of) these orders.

3.4.18 L.11 ✅ सत्यं गम्यन्ते;
(The Mīmāṃsaka replies) — No doubt it does so establish,

3.4.18 L.12 ✅ स्मृत्याचाराभ्यां तु तेषां प्रसिद्धिः,
But this knowledge is derived from the Smṛtis and customary conduct,

3.4.18 L.13 ✅ न प्रत्यक्षश्रुतेः;
And not directly from the Scriptures.

3.4.18 L.14 ✅ अतश्च प्रत्यक्षश्रुति-विरोधे सति
Hence when they are in conflict with the Scriptures,

3.4.18 L.15 ✅ अनादरणीयास्ते भविष्यन्ति,
They would either become unfit for acceptance,

3.4.18 L.16 ✅ अनधिकृतविषया वा।
Or as pertaining to those that are not competent (to perform religious actions).

3.4.18 L.17 ✅ ननु गार्हस्थ्यमपि सहैवोर्ध्वरेतोभिः परामृष्टम् –
But (says the Vedāntin) the order of householdership is referred to along with the order of the Sannyāsins, thus —

3.4.18 L.18 ✅ ‘यज्ञोऽध्ययनं दानमिति प्रथमः’ इति –
Viz., that sacrifice, study of the Scriptures and charity is the first branch etc.

3.4.18 L.19 ✅ सत्यमेवम्;
(The Mīmāṃsaka says) — That is true of course,

3.4.18 L.20 ✅ तथापि तु गृहस्थं प्रत्येव अग्निहोत्रादीनां कर्मणां विधानात्
But as only the householder is enjoined to perform Agni-hotra etc.,

3.4.18 L.21 ✅ श्रुतिप्रसिद्धमेव हि तदस्तित्वम्;
His existence is well established by (other) Scriptural statements.

3.4.18 L.22 ✅ तस्मात्स्तुत्यर्थ एव अयं परामर्शः,
Hence, this reference in this passage is in glorification only,

3.4.18 L.23 ✅ न चोदनार्थः।
And not by way of any injunction.

3.4.18 L.24 ✅ अपि च अपवदति हि प्रत्यक्षा श्रुतिराश्रमान्तरम् –
Besides a direct Scriptural statement censures these other orders, thus —

3.4.18 L.25 ✅ ‘वीरहा वा एष देवानां योऽग्निमुद्वासयते’
“He who abandons Sacrificial fire (i.e. gives up householdership and takes up other orders of life) becomes as it were, a murderer of the Gods”;

3.4.18 L.26 ✅ ‘आचार्याय प्रियं धनमाहृत्य प्रजातन्तुं मा व्यवच्छेत्सीः’ (TaitU.1.11.1)
“After having brought money (the fee), dear to the preceptor, you should not snap up the thread of progeny” (TaitUEng.1.11.1);

3.4.18 L.27 ✅ ‘नापुत्रस्य लोकोऽस्तीति तत्सर्वे पशवो विदुः’ इत्येवमाद्या।
“A sonless person does not attain (any) world, (and) even the beasts are aware of it”.

3.4.18 L.28 ✅ तथा ‘ये चेमेऽरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्युपासते’ (ChanU.5.10.1)
Similarly the Scriptural statements — “Those who meditate with faith and penance, in the forest” (ChanU.5.10.1);

3.4.18 L.29 ✅ ‘तपःश्रद्धे ये ह्युपवसन्त्यरण्ये’ (MunU.1.2.11) इति च
And “Those who reside in the forest practising penance and faith” (MunU.1.2.11) —

3.4.18 L.30 ✅ देवयानोपदेशः,
Are but instructions about the Deva-yāna Path (because the Scriptures, in the next sentence after this, speak about those persons going to the Arci i.e. the Deva-yāna Path)

3.4.18 L.31 ✅ न आश्रमान्तरोपदेशः।
And not an instruction about any other order of life.

3.4.18 L.32 ✅ सन्दिग्धं च आश्रमान्तराभिधानम् –
‘तप एव द्वितीयः’ (ChanU.2.23.1) इत्येवमादिषु।
In such statements as — “Penance is the second” etc.,
It is doubtful if a mention of some other order of life is intended.

3.4.18 L.33 ✅ तथा ‘एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इति
लोक-संस्तवोऽयम्,
न पारिव्राज्य-विधिः।
Similarly the Scriptural passage, “It is with a desire to attain that very world (Loka), that those who accept Sannyāsa, do so”,
Is not an injunction to take to Sannyāsa,
But is merely in glorification of the Ātmā-Loka.

3.4.18 L.34 ✅ ननु ‘ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेत्’ इति विस्पष्टमिदं प्रत्यक्षं पारिव्राज्य-विधानं जाबालानाम् –
But (says the Vedāntin), in the Jābāla Scriptural statement “One may accept Sannyāsa even directly from student-bachelorship”, there is a clear injunction about Sannyāsa.

3.4.18 L.35 ✅ सत्यमेवमेतत्;
(The Mīmāṃsaka replies) — It is no doubt true,

3.4.18 L.36 ✅ अनपेक्ष्य तु एतां श्रुतिम् अयं विचार इति द्रष्टव्यम्॥१८॥
But it should be understood that this present discussion is carried on without reference to that Scriptural statement. — 18.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनुष्ठेयं बादरायणः साम्यश्रुतेः॥३.४.१९॥
Anuṣṭheyaṃ bādarāyaṇaḥ sāmya-śruteḥ.

Anuṣṭheyam: should be practised; Bādarāyanaḥ: Bādarāyana, the author of the Sūtras; Sāmya-śruteḥ: for the scriptural text refers equally to all the four Āśramas.

🔗 Bādarāyaṇa (is of opinion that) the other orders of life (Āśramas) also must he duly observed, because of similar indications in Scriptural statements. — 3.4.19.

3.4.19 L.1 ✅ अनुष्ठेयम् आश्रमान्तरं बादरायण आचार्यो मन्यते –
Ācārya Bādarāyaṇa considers that the other orders of life also are to be observed,

3.4.19 L.2 ✅ वेदेऽश्रवणाद्
Because there are Scriptural statements (about them) in the Vedas.

3.4.19 L.3 ✅ अग्निहोत्रादीनां च अवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वात्
तद्विरोधाद् अनधिकृतानुष्ठेयम् आश्रमान्तरम् –
इति हि इमां मतिं निराकरोति,
गार्हस्थ्यवदेव आश्रमान्तरमपि अनिच्छता प्रतिपत्तव्यमिति मन्यमानः।
Bādarāyaṇa who considers, that like the order of householdership, even the other orders of life also, ought to be observed, even though one may not wish to do so,
Thereby refutes the view (of Jaimini),
Viz. that inasmuch as Agni-hotra etc. (which pertain to the order of householdership), have to be compulsorily performed,
And as the other orders of life are inconsistent to it, they are to be observed by those who are not competent (to perform Agni-hotra etc.).

3.4.19 L.4 ✅ कुतः? साम्यश्रुतेः;
Whence is it so? Because of similar indications in Scriptural statements.

3.4.19 L.5 ✅ समा हि गार्हस्थ्येनाश्रमान्तरस्य परामर्शश्रुतिः दृश्यते –
‘त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धाः’ (ChanU.2.23.1) इत्याद्या;
“(There are) three branches of Dharma” (ChanU.2.23.1),
Is a Scriptural statement which refers to the other orders of life, quite as much as it refers to the order of householdership.

3.4.19 L.6 ✅ यथा इह श्रुत्यन्तर-विहितमेव गार्हस्थ्यं परामृष्टम्,
It should be understood, that just as the order of householdership prescribed by other Scriptural statements is referred to here,

3.4.19 L.7 ✅ एवमाश्रमान्तरमपीति प्रतिपत्तव्यम् –
Even so are the other orders of life also,

3.4.19 L.8 ✅ यथा च शास्त्रान्तरप्राप्तयोरेव निवीत-प्राचीनावीतयोः परामर्शः
Just as ‘Nivīta’ (wearing the sacred thread hanging from the neck only) and Prācīnāvīta (wearing the sacred thread hanging from the right shoulder and going under the left hand) which are referred to in a different injunctional Śāstra,

3.4.19 L.9 ✅ उपवीत-विधिपरे वाक्ये;
Are understood to be referred to in a passage which enjoins ‘Upavīta’ (wearing the sacred thread hanging from the left shoulder and going under the right hand).

3.4.19 L.10 ✅ तस्मात् तुल्यमनुष्ठेयत्वं गार्हस्थ्येन आश्रमान्तरस्य।
Therefore, the order of householdership and the other orders of life are equally necessarily to be observed.

3.4.19 L.11 ✅ तथा ‘एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इति
Similarly, in the Scriptural passage, “Wishing for this very Ātmā-Loka, it is, that the Sannyāsins become Sannyāsins” (BrhUEng.4.4.22),

3.4.19 L.12 ✅ अस्य वेदानुवचनादिभिः समभिव्याहारः;
The order of Sannyāsa is referred to, along with the studying of the Vedas.

3.4.19 L.13 ✅ ‘ये चेमेऽरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्युपासते’ (ChanU.5.10.1) इति
And again in the Scriptural passage “Those who meditate with faith and with penance in the forest” (ChanU.5.10.1),

3.4.19 L.14 ✅ अस्य च पञ्चाग्नि-विद्यया।
The Vāna-prastha order of life is referred to, along with Pañcāgni-Vidyā (the Vidyā of Five Fires).

3.4.19 L.15 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – ‘तप एव द्वितीयः’ इत्यादिषु
Now, as regards the objection (by the opponent of Vedānta) that in the Scriptural passage, “Penance is the second (order of the life)” (ChanU.2.23.1) etc.,

3.4.19 L.16 ✅ आश्रमान्तराभिधानं सन्दिग्धमिति;
The mention of the other orders of life is ambiguous,

3.4.19 L.17 ✅ नैष दोषः, निश्चयकारण-सद्भावात्;
(We reply) — This is no fault, because therein a means of proof (Pramāṇa) for the determination of that is clearly present.

3.4.19 L.18 ✅ ‘त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धाः’ (ChanU.2.23.1) इति हि
In the passage “(There are) three branches of Dharma” (ChanU.2.23.1),

3.4.19 L.19 ✅ धर्मस्कन्ध-त्रित्वं प्रतिज्ञातम्;
It is declared that there is a trio of Dharma-branches.

3.4.19 L.20 ✅ न च यज्ञादयो भूयांसो धर्मा उत्पत्ति-भिन्नाः सन्तः अन्यत्राश्रम-सम्बन्धात् त्रित्वेऽन्तर्भावयितुं शक्यन्ते;
Many religious observances such as sacrifices etc. having different origins cannot be included in this trio (of Dharma-branches)unless they are connected with some order of life out of the trio.

3.4.19 L.21 ✅ तत्र यज्ञादिलिङ्गो गृहाश्रम एको धर्मस्कन्धो निर्दिष्टः,
Now, by the order of householdership which has sacrifice etc. as an indicatory mark, one branch of Dharma is thus indicated.

3.4.19 L.22 ✅ ब्रह्मचारीति च स्पष्ट आश्रमनिर्देशः,
The term ‘student-bachelor’ is a clear indication of an order of life.

3.4.19 L.23 ✅ तप इत्यपि कोऽन्यस्तपःप्रधानादाश्रमात् धर्मस्कन्धोऽभ्युपगम्येत।
So by the term ‘Penance’, then, what branch of Dharma, other than the order of life in which penance (i.e. Sannyāsa) is the principal item, can be understood?

3.4.19 L.24 ✅ ‘ये चेमेऽरण्ये’ (ChanU.5.10.1) इति च अरण्य-लिङ्गात्
By the indicatory mark in the passage, “Those who in the forest” (ChanU.5.10.1),

3.4.19 L.25 ✅ श्रद्धातपोभ्याम् आश्रमगृहीतिः।
And by the terms ‘faith’ and ‘penance’, an order of life is clearly understood.

3.4.19 L.26 ✅ तस्मात् परमार्शेऽप्यनुष्ठेयमाश्रमान्तरम्॥१९॥
Therefore, even if there be only a reference (to other orders of life), it is established that they have necessarily to be practised. — 19.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विधिर्वा धारणवत्॥३.४.२०॥
Vidhir vā dhāraṇavat.

Vidhiḥ: injunction; Vā: or rather; Dhāraṇavat: as in the case of carrying (of the sacrificial wood).

🔗 Or else (this passage may be understood to be) an injunction (for other orders of life) as in the case of the holding (of the Samidhs i.e. fire-sticks). — 3.4.20.

3.4.20 L.1 ✅ विधिर्वा अयमाश्रमान्तरस्य,
Or else (this passage may be understood to be) an injunction for the other orders of life,

3.4.20 L.2 ✅ न परामर्शमात्रम्।
And not merely a reference to them.

3.4.20 L.3 ✅ ननु विधित्वाभ्युपगमे
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) if it is understood to be a passage indicating an injunction,

3.4.20 L.4 ✅ एकवाक्यताप्रतीतिरुपरुध्येत;
It would contradict the realization of the unanimity of view which is understood here,

3.4.20 L.5 ✅ प्रतीयते च अत्र एकवाक्यता – पुण्यलोकफलास्त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धाः,
Inasmuch as, the three branches of Dharma have the world of the righteous as their fruit,

3.4.20 L.6 ✅ ब्रह्मसंस्थता त्वमृतत्वफलेति –
And the state of having a steadfast ideal of being ensconced-in-Brahman has immortality as its fruit.

3.4.20 L.7 ✅ सत्यमेतत्;
(We reply) — It is of course true,

3.4.20 L.8 ✅ सतीमपि तु एकवाक्यताप्रतीतिं परित्यज्य
But the realization of the unanimity of view which is there, should be abandoned

3.4.20 L.9 ✅ विधिरेवाभ्युपगन्तव्यः,
And it should be understood that there is an injunction here,

3.4.20 L.10 ✅ अपूर्वत्वात्,
Because of there being a mention of an extraordinary thing unheard of before (Apūrva),

3.4.20 L.11 ✅ विध्यन्तरस्यादर्शनात्,
And also because no other injunction is seen to be mentioned (in the Scriptures),

3.4.20 L.12 ✅ विस्पष्टाच्चाश्रमान्तरप्रत्ययात्
And in as much as other orders of life are to be clearly understood here,

3.4.20 L.13 ✅ गुणवाद-कल्पनया एकवाक्यत्वयोजनानुपपत्तेः।
It is not reasonably sustainable, that a unanimity of view should be understood, by considering the passage to be a Guṇa-vāda (a kind of Artha-vāda).

3.4.20 L.14 ✅ धारणवत् –
This is like the holding (of the fire-sticks i.e. Samidhs).

3.4.20 L.15 ✅ यथा ‘अधस्तात्समिधं धारयन्ननुद्रवेदुपरि हि देवेभ्यो धारयति’ इत्यत्र
Just as, in the Scriptural passage “He should approach, holding the fire-sticks below (the Haviḥ i.e. an oblation), the fire-sticks are held above when the oblation is meant for the Gods”,

3.4.20 L.16 ✅ सत्यामप्यधोधारणेन एकवाक्यताप्रतीतौ,
Even when a unanimity (Eka-vākyatā) about holding the fire-sticks under (the oblation) exists,

3.4.20 L.17 ✅ विधीयत एव उपरिधारणम्,
It is understood that there is an injunction here for holding the fire-sticks above (the oblation) when it is meant for the Gods,

3.4.20 L.18 ✅ अपूर्वत्वात्;
Because of its being an extraordinary thing.

3.4.20 L.19 ✅ तथा च उक्तं शेषलक्षणे
The same is stated (by Jaimini) in the Śeṣa-Lakṣaṇa (the third chapter of Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā) thus —

3.4.20 L.20 ✅ ‘विधिस्तु धारणेऽपूर्वत्वात्’ इति;
“But holding the fire-sticks above the oblation is an injunction because of the extraordinary nature (of the statement)”.

3.4.20 L.21 ✅ तद्वत् इहापि आश्रमपरामर्श-श्रुतिः विधिरेवेति कल्प्यते॥
Similarly, here, the Scriptural statement which only refers to an order of life, is understood to be an injunction.

3.4.20 L.22 ✅ यदापि परामर्श एवायमाश्रमान्तराणाम्,
Even though this is but a reference only to other orders of life,

3.4.20 L.23 ✅ तदापि ब्रह्मसंस्थता तावत्, संस्तवसामर्थ्याद् अवश्यं विधेया अभ्युपगन्तव्या।
Still on the strength of the glorification, the statement “Having a steadfast ideal of being ensconced-in-Brahman” should necessarily be understood to be something which is enjoined.

3.4.20 L.24 ✅ सा च किं चतुर्ष्वाश्रमेषु यस्य कस्यचित्,
आहोस्वित्परिव्राजकस्यैवेति विवेक्तव्यम्।
Now, it has to be considered, whether this (being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman) is meant for any order of life out of these four orders of life (as desired),
Or for the order of the Sannyāsin (Parivrājaka) only.

3.4.20 L.25 ✅ यदि च ब्रह्मचार्यन्तेष्वाश्रमेषु परामृश्यमानेषु परिव्राजकोऽपि परामृष्टः,
If it be supposed, that when all the orders of life down to that of the student-bachelorship are referred to, the Parivrājaka also

3.4.20 L.26 ✅ ततश्चतुर्णामप्याश्रमाणां परामृष्टत्वाविशेषात्
Is necessarily supposed to be so referred to along with the rest, then the fact is that all the four orders of life are equally commonly referred to,

3.4.20 L.27 ✅ अनाश्रमित्वानुपपत्तेश्च
And as the person who has the steadfast ideal of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman cannot possibly not belong to some such order of life,

3.4.20 L.28 ✅ यः कश्चिच्चतुर्ष्वाश्रमेषु ब्रह्मसंस्थो भविष्यति;
A person having such a steadfast ideal of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman will necessarily have to belong to some one of these four orders of life.

3.4.20 L.29 ✅ अथ न परामृष्टः,
And if it be supposed that the Parivrājaka is not understood to be referred to along with the other orders of life,

3.4.20 L.30 ✅ ततः परिशिष्यमाणः परिव्राडेव
Then the Parivrājaka thus would be the only one who remains to be so referred to,

3.4.20 L.31 ✅ ब्रह्मसंस्थ इति सेत्स्यति।
And it would mean that he would necessarily be the one who has the steadfast ideal of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman.

3.4.20 L.32 ✅ तत्र तपःशब्देन वैखानसग्राहिणा परामृष्टः परिव्राडपि इति केचित्।
Here, some (are of opinion) that a Parivrājaka also is referred to by the word ‘Penance’ which (term) indicates a Vaikhānasa (one of the four kinds of the Vāna-prastha order of life),

3.4.20 L.33 ✅ तदयुक्तम्;
But that is not logical.

3.4.20 L.34 ✅ न हि सत्यां गतौ वानप्रस्थ-विशेषणेन परिव्राजको ग्रहणमर्हति;
As far as it is possible, the Parivrājaka does not deserve to be understood by the word ‘Penance’ which particularly signifies the Vāna-prastha.

3.4.20 L.35 ✅ यथा अत्र ब्रह्मचारिगृहमेधिनौ असाधारणेनैव स्वेन स्वेन विशेषणेन
विशेषितौ, एवं भिक्षुवैखानसावपि
इति युक्तम्;
It is logical to understand,
That just as here the ‘householder’ and the ‘student-bachelor’ have been definitely referred to by their own special attributes,
Even so the mendicants (Bhikṣus) and the ‘Vaikhānasas’ (hermits) also are similarly referred to by their special attributes.

3.4.20 L.36 ✅ तपश्च असाधारणो धर्मो वानप्रस्थानां
The word ‘Penance’ is a special attribute of Vāna-prasthas,

3.4.20 L.37 ✅ कायक्लेश-प्रधानत्वात्, तपःशब्दस्य तत्र रूढेः;
Because of their chief characteristic of mortification of the body, for which the word ‘Penance’ is used by custom.

3.4.20 L.38 ✅ भिक्षोस्तु धर्म इन्द्रियसंयमादिः लक्षणयैव तपःशब्देनाभिलप्येत।
The attribute of the mendicant (Sannyāsin) characterized by the control of the sense-organs, is certainly not understood by the word ‘Penance’.

3.4.20 L.39 ✅ चतुष्ट्वेन च प्रसिद्धा आश्रमाः त्रित्वेन परामृश्यन्त इत्यन्याय्यम्।
It is not logical (to suppose) that the orders of life which are known to be four, can be referred to by only three terms.

3.4.20 L.40 ✅ अपि च भेद-व्यपदेशोऽत्र भवति –
Besides there is an indication of distinction here, thus —

3.4.20 L.41 ✅ त्रय एते पुण्यलोकभाजः,
These three attain the world of the righteous,

3.4.20 L.42 ✅ एकोऽमृतत्वभागिति;
And the other one (i.e. the Parivrājaka Sannyāsin) attains immortality.

3.4.20 L.43 ✅ पृथक्त्वे च भेद-व्यपदेशोऽवकल्पते;
This indication of distinction is possible, only if there is a distinction (between the Vaikhānasa and the Bhikṣu).

3.4.20 L.44 ✅ न ह्येवं भवति –
It can never be,

3.4.20 L.45 ✅ देवदत्तयज्ञदत्तौ मन्दप्रज्ञौ, अन्यतरस्त्वनयोर्महाप्रज्ञ इति;
That while both Deva-datta and Yajña-datta are dull of intellect, one of the two is highly intellectual,

3.4.20 L.46 ✅ भवति त्वेवम् –
But it can very well be,

3.4.20 L.47 ✅ देवदत्तयज्ञदत्तौ मन्दप्रज्ञौ, विष्णुमित्रस्तु महाप्रज्ञ इति;
That while both Deva-datta and Yajña-datta are dull of intellect, Viṣṇu-mitra is highly intellectual.

3.4.20 L.48 ✅ तस्मात् पूर्वे त्रय आश्रमिणः पुण्यलोकभाजः,
Therefore these first three orders of life are of those who attain the world of the righteous,

3.4.20 L.49 ✅ परिशिष्यमाणः परिव्राट् अमृतत्वभाक्।
And the Parivrājaka, the only one left over, is the one who attains immortality.

3.4.20 L.50 ✅ कथं पुनः ब्रह्मसंस्थ-शब्दो योगात् प्रवर्तमानः सर्वत्र सम्भवन्
(The opponent of Vedānta says), how can the expression “A person having a steadfast ideal of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman”, which in its current etymological derivation is applicable to all (orders of life, as they can equally have that ideal),

3.4.20 L.51 ✅ परिव्राजक एवावतिष्ठेत?
Be restricted only to the Parivrājaka?

3.4.20 L.52 ✅ रूढ्यभ्युपगमे च आश्रममात्राद् अमृतत्वप्राप्तेः
If it be allowed its customary meaning, viz. immortality, then, being attainable by merely (belonging to) an order of life,

3.4.20 L.53 ✅ ज्ञानानर्थक्य-प्रसङ्ग इति –
There would be the predicament of knowledge being rendered purposeless.

3.4.20 L.54 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – ब्रह्मसंस्थ इति हि ब्रह्मणि परिसमाप्तिः
(We reply) — Being ensconced-in-Brahman means merging in Brahman, and being ensconced in it,

3.4.20 L.55 ✅ अनन्य-व्यापारता-रूपं तन्निष्ठत्वमभिधीयते;
Is spoken of as having a firm stability in it, and being of the nature of having no other extraneous operational activity.

3.4.20 L.56 ✅ तच्च त्रयाणामाश्रमाणां न सम्भवति,
That is not possible in the case of the other three orders of life,

3.4.20 L.57 ✅ स्वाश्रमविहितकर्माननुष्ठाने
Because failure to perform the religious duties prescribed for one’s own order of life

3.4.20 L.58 ✅ प्रत्यवायश्रवणात्;
Is understood to result in sin, according to the Scriptural statements.

3.4.20 L.59 ✅ परिव्राजकस्य तु
In the case of a Parivrājaka, however,

3.4.20 L.60 ✅ सर्वकर्म-संन्यासात्
Inasmuch as he happens to have renounced all religious actions,

3.4.20 L.61 ✅ प्रत्यवायो न सम्भवति अननुष्ठाननिमित्तः;
Sin as caused by the failure to perform religious actions, is not possible (in his case),

3.4.20 L.62 ✅ शमदमादिस्तु तदीयो धर्मो ब्रह्मसंस्थाया उपोद्बलकः, न विरोधी;
While the duty of being peaceful and of exercising control over the sense-organs (far from being opposed to the condition of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman) is, on the other hand, rather helpful to it.

3.4.20 L.63 ✅ ब्रह्मनिष्ठत्वमेव हि तस्य शमदमाद्युपबृंहितं स्वाश्रम-विहितं कर्म;
The state of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman, as supported by his duty of maintaining the condition of being peaceful and in the proper control of his senses, is the only duty prescribed in his order of life

3.4.20 L.64 ✅ यज्ञादीनि च इतरेषाम्;
While sacrifices etc. are of the others,

3.4.20 L.65 ✅ तद्व्यतिक्रमे च तस्य प्रत्यवायः।
And their failure in these actions amounts to sin.

3.4.20 L.66 ✅ तथा च ‘न्यास इति ब्रह्मा ब्रह्मा हि परः परो हि ब्रह्मा तानि वा एतान्यवराणि तपाꣳसि न्यास एवात्यरेचयत्’ (नारा. उ. ७८)
Of similar import are Scriptural statements such as “Renunciation is Brahman, Brahman is the Highest, the Highest is Brahman, these penances etc. are lower (in value) and renunciation excels them” (Nār. Up. 78),

3.4.20 L.67 ✅ ‘वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः संन्यासयोगाद्यतयः शुद्धसत्त्वाः’ (MunU.3.2.6) (नारा. उ. १२-३) (KaivU.3) इत्याद्याः श्रुतयः,
“Yatis (anchorites) who have determined well the meaning of the knowledge of Vedānta, and who by renunciation have become pure, (and obtained Final Release)” (MunU.3.2.6; Nār. Up. 12.3.1; KaivU.3).

3.4.20 L.68 ✅ स्मृतयश्च ‘तद्बुद्धयस्तदात्मानस्तन्निष्ठास्तत्परायणाः’ (BhG.5.17) इत्याद्याः –
The Smṛti also, by saying thus — “Having minds fixed in it and serving it with all their heart” (BhG.5.17) etc.,

3.4.20 L.69 ✅ ब्रह्मसंस्थस्य कर्माभावं दर्शयन्ति।
Indicates how a person having the ideal of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman has no religious duty to perform.

3.4.20 L.70 ✅ तस्मात् परिव्राजकस्य आश्रममात्राद् अमृतत्वप्राप्तेः ज्ञानानर्थक्य-प्रसङ्ग इत्येषोऽपि दोषो नावतरति।
Therefore, (in the case of a Parivrājaka), such fault, as, that he would attain immortality merely by belonging to that order of life, and that knowledge would be rendered purposeless, cannot occur.

3.4.20 L.71 ✅ तदेवं परामर्शेऽपि इतरेषामाश्रमाणाम्,
Therefore, even though, here in this passage, there is a reference to other orders of life,

3.4.20 L.72 ✅ पारिव्राज्यं तावद्ब्रह्मसंस्थता-लक्षणं लभ्येतैव।
That order of life, viz., of being a Parivrājaka and having the characteristic of having the ideal of being firmly ensconced-in-Brahman, is available all the same.

3.4.20 L.73 ✅ अनपेक्ष्यैव जाबालश्रुतिम् आश्रमान्तर-विधायिनीम् अयमाचार्येण विचारः प्रवर्तितः;
The Ācārya has discussed this subject without reference to the Jābāla Scriptural statement which gives injunctions about the other orders of life.

3.4.20 L.74 ✅ विद्यत एव तु आश्रमान्तर-विधिश्रुतिः प्रत्यक्षा –
Of course there is a direct Scriptural statement enjoining the other orders of life, thus —

3.4.20 L.75 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मचर्यं समाप्य गृही भवेद्गृही भूत्वा वनी भवेद्वनी भूत्वा प्रव्रजेत्।
यदि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेद्गृहाद्वा वनाद्वा’ (जा. उ. ४) इति;
“Completing student-bachelorship, he should become a householder, and after that he should become a hermit, and after that a Parivrājaka,
Or if he so chooses, he may become a Parivrājaka directly after finishing student-bachelorship, or after householdership, or after being a hermit” (Jāb. Up. 4).

3.4.20 L.76 ✅ न च इयं श्रुतिः अनधिकृतविषया शक्या वक्तुम्,
It cannot be argued, that this Scriptural statement relates to one who is not competent (to perform religious action),

3.4.20 L.77 ✅ अविशेषश्रवणात्,
Because of the absence of any special Scriptural statement therein,

3.4.20 L.78 ✅ पृथग्विधानाच्च अनधिकृतानाम् –
And because there is a separate statement with regard to those who are incompetent (to perform religious actions), thus —

3.4.20 L.79 ✅ ‘अथ पुनरेव व्रती वाऽव्रती वा स्नातको वाऽस्नातको वोत्सन्नाग्निरनग्निको वा’ (जा. उ. ४) इत्यादिना;
“Whether he be one, who has undertaken a vow or one who has not, whether he be an acolyte (a Snātaka) or a householder, or whether he has given up keeping a sacrificial fire or whether he is not competent to keep such fire” (Jāb. Up. 4).

3.4.20 L.80 ✅ ब्रह्मज्ञानपरिपाकाङ्गत्वाच्च पारिव्राज्यस्य
Besides, a Parivrājaka’s order of life, being helpful to the attainment of the ripe knowledge of Brahman,

3.4.20 L.81 ✅ न अनधिकृत-विषयत्वम्,
It cannot be said to be available for those who are incompetent to perform religious actions.

3.4.20 L.82 ✅ तच्च दर्शयति – ‘अथ परिव्राड्विवर्णवासा मुण्डोऽपरिग्रहः शुचिरद्रोही भैक्षाणो ब्रह्मभूयाय भवति’ (जा. उ. ५) इति।
The same is indicated in the Scriptural statement — “The mendicant with colourless (i.e. white) vestures, clean shaven, without a wife, clear, not disloyal and living on alms, is fit to attain Brahma-hood” (Jāb. Up. 5).

3.4.20 L.83 ✅ तस्मात्सिद्धा ऊर्ध्वरेतसाम् आश्रमाः।
सिद्धं च ऊर्ध्वरेतःसु विधानाद् विद्यायाः स्वातन्त्र्यमिति॥२०॥
Therefore, it is proved that there is such an order of life as that of those who observe continence (i.e. Sannyāsins)
And as knowledge (of Brahman) is spoken of in their connection, it i.e. knowledge (Vidyā) is independent (and not subservient to religious action). — 20.

– 138. Parā-marśa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.21 Su..22

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्तुतिमात्रमुपादानादिति चेन्नापूर्वत्वात्॥३.४.२१॥
Stuti-mātram upādānād iti cen nāpūrvatvāt.

Stuti-mātram: mere praise; Upādānāt: on account of their reference (to parts of sacrificial acts); Iti: thus, so; Cet: if; Na: not so; A-pūrvatvāt: on account of its newness. (Iti cet: if it be said).

🔗 If it be said (that Scriptural statements such as those about Udgīṭha etc.) are merely in glorification, because of their being accepted (as subordinate parts of sacrificial acts, we say), — No, because of (the statements) being extraordinary. — 3.4.21.

3.4.21 L.1 ✅ ‘स एष रसानां रसतमः परमः परार्ध्योऽष्टमो यदुद्गीथः’ (ChanU.1.1.3)
When, with regard to Scriptural passages such as “This Udgīṭha is the quintessence of essences, is the highest, is fit for the topmost rank, and is the eighth (essence)” (ChanU.1.1.3),

3.4.21 L.2 ✅ ‘इयमेवर्गग्निः साम’ (ChanU.1.6.1)
“This (world) itself is the Ṛk, this Agni is the Sāman” (ChanU.1.6.1),

3.4.21 L.3 ✅ ‘अयं वाव लोकः, एषोऽग्निश्चितः।
तदिदमेवोक्थमियमेव पृथिवी’
“This brick-built fire is indeed this world” (ChanU.1.6.1),
“That the Earth is the Uktha (collection of hymns)”,

3.4.21 L.4 ✅ इत्येवंजातीयकाः श्रुतयः किमुद्गीथादेः स्तुत्यर्थाः,
A doubt arises as to whether they are in glorification of the Udgīṭha,

3.4.21 L.5 ✅ आहोस्वित् उपासनाविध्यर्था इत्यस्मिन्संशये –
Or are by way of an injunction to meditation,

3.4.21 L.6 ✅ स्तुत्यर्था इति युक्तम्,
And if it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) that it is logical that they are for the purpose of the glorification of the Udgīṭha,

3.4.21 L.7 ✅ उद्गीथादीनि कर्माङ्गान्युपादाय श्रवणात्;
Inasmuch as they are accepted by the Scriptures to be with reference to the Udgīṭha etc., which are the subordinate parts of religious acts (such as Sacrifices),

3.4.21 L.8 ✅ यथा ‘इयमेव जुहूरादित्यः कूर्मः स्वर्गो लोक आहवनीयः’ इत्याद्याः
Similar to such Scriptural statements as — “This Earth is the sacrificial ladle, the Sun is the tortoise (the form of the fire altar), the heavenly world is the Āhavanīya (fire)” etc.,

3.4.21 L.9 ✅ जुह्वादि-स्तुत्यर्थाः, तद्वत् – इति चेत्,
Which are, for the purpose of glorification of the ladle (Juhū) etc.,

3.4.21 L.10 ✅ नेत्याह;
The Sūtra-kāra replies — No.

3.4.21 L.11 ✅ न हि स्तुतिमात्रमासां श्रुतीनां प्रयोजनं युक्तम्,
It is not logical that the purpose of these Scriptural passages should be mere glorification;

3.4.21 L.12 ✅ अपूर्वत्वात्;
Because of their being of an extraordinary nature (Apūrvatvāt).

3.4.21 L.13 ✅ विध्यर्थतायां हि अपूर्वोऽर्थो विहितो भवति;
It is only if these Scriptural passages (are understood to) mean an injunction, that they can properly be said to be of an extraordinary nature,

3.4.21 L.14 ✅ स्तुत्यर्थतायां त्वानर्थक्यमेव स्यात्;
And if the passages are considered to be merely in glorification, then they would be meaningless,

3.4.21 L.15 ✅ विधायकस्य हि शब्दस्य वाक्यशेषभावं प्रतिपद्यमाना स्तुतिरुपयुज्यते
Because a glorificatory passage comes into use as such, only when it can be construed to be a passage complementary to a passage which prescribes an injunction,

3.4.21 L.16 ✅ इत्युक्तम् ‘विधिना त्वेकवाक्यत्वात् स्तुत्यर्थेन विधीनां स्युः’ इत्यत्र;
As stated (in Pū. Mī. 1.2.7), thus — “Being in syntactical relation of unity with an injunction, they are for the glorification of an injunction”.

3.4.21 L.17 ✅ प्रदेशान्तर-विहितानां तु उद्गीथादीनाम् इयं प्रदेशान्तर-पठिता स्तुतिः
But these glorificatory passages mentioned in a place different from that in which the Udgīṭha is mentioned,

3.4.21 L.18 ✅ वाक्यशेषभावम् अप्रतिपद्यमाना अनर्थिकैव स्यात्;
Would be meaningless, inasmuch as they fail to be passages complementary to Udgīṭha passages.

3.4.21 L.19 ✅ ‘इयमेव जुहूः’ इत्यादि तु
As regards the Scriptural passage “This (earth) is the Ṛk etc.”,

3.4.21 L.20 ✅ विधिसन्निधावेवाम्नातम्
As it is mentioned in proximity to an injunctional passage,

3.4.21 L.21 ✅ इति वैषम्यम्।
It is different from the present passage.

3.4.21 L.22 ✅ तस्मात् विध्यर्था एव एवंजातीयकाः श्रुतयः॥२१॥
Therefore (the conclusion is that) Scriptural passages of this type are meant by way of an injunction. — 21.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
भावशब्दाच्च॥३.४.२२॥
Bhāva-śabdāc ca.

Bhāva-śabdāt: from words indicative of existence of injunction in Śruti; Ca: and, also, moreover.

🔗 Also, because of words having an injunctional meaning (Bhāva-śabdāt). — 3.4.22.

3.4.22 L.1 ✅ ‘उद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1)
‘सामोपासीत’ (ChanU.2.1.1)
‘अहमुक्थमस्मीति विद्यात्’
इत्यादयश्च विस्पष्टा विधि-शब्दाः श्रूयन्ते;
The Scriptures recite words indicating clear injunctions in passages
Such as “He should meditate on the Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.1.1),
“He should meditate on Sāman” (ChanU.2.2.1),
“He should know himself to be the Uktha”,

3.4.22 L.2 ✅ ते च स्तुतिमात्र-प्रयोजनतायां व्याहन्येरन्।
Which, were they to be considered to be meant merely in glorification, would be purposeless.

3.4.22 L.3 ✅ तथा च न्याय-विदां स्मरणम् –
Similarly even those who are learned in Nyāya, consider,

3.4.22 L.4 ✅ ‘कुर्यात् क्रियेत कर्तव्यं भवेत्स्यादिति पञ्चमम्।
एतत्स्यात् सर्ववेदेषु नियतं विधिलक्षणम्’ इति;
That expressions such as “should do”, “should be done”, “must be done”, “may become”, and the fifth “they will become”,
Occurring in all the Vedic texts, are definitely indicative of an injunction

3.4.22 L.5 ✅ लिङाद्यर्थो विधिरिति मन्यमानास्त एवं स्मरन्ति।
And they consider ‘Liṇg’ (technical expression in Pāṇini’s grammar) etc. to mean an injunction.

3.4.22 L.6 ✅ प्रतिप्रकरणं च फलानि श्राव्यन्ते –
Besides in every chapter fruits are mentioned by the Scriptures,

3.4.22 L.7 ✅ ‘आपयिता ह वै कामानां भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.7)
Such as “He verily becomes the fulfiller of desires” (ChanU.1.1.7),

3.4.22 L.8 ✅ ‘एष ह्येव कामागानस्येष्टे’ (ChanU.1.7.9)
“He (the meditator on Udgīṭha) is able to obtain his desires by singing Sāman hymns” (ChanU.1.7.9),

3.4.22 L.9 ✅ ‘कल्पन्ते हास्मै लोका ऊर्ध्वाश्चावृत्ताश्च’ (ChanU.2.2.3) इत्यादीनि;
“The worlds (in their ascending and descending order) serve him” (ChanU.2.2.3).

3.4.22 L.10 ✅ तस्मादप्युपासनविधानार्था उद्गीथादिश्रुतयः॥२२॥
Therefore also, Scriptural passages such as Udgītha etc. purport to enjoin meditation. — 22.

– 139. Stuti-mātra-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.23 Su..24

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
पारिप्लवार्था इति चेन्न विशेषितत्वात्॥३.४.२३॥
Pāriplavārthā iti cen na viśeṣitatvāt.

Pāriplava-arthāḥ: for the purpose of Pāriplavas (common legend tellings prescribed as part of a ritual); Iti: so; Cet: if; Na: not so; Viśeṣitatvāt: because of specification, on account of (certain stories alone) being specified. (Iti cet: if it be said.)

🔗 If it be said (that the legends mentioned in the Upaniṣads) are for the purpose of Pāri-plava, (we say) — No, because of specification i.e. because only particular specific legends (are so intended). — 3.4.23.

3.4.23 L.1 ✅ ‘अथ ह याज्ञवल्क्यस्य द्वे भार्ये बभूवतुर्मैत्रेयी च कात्यायनी च’ (BrhU.4.5.1)
‘प्रतर्दनो ह वै दैवोदासिरिन्द्रस्य प्रियं धामोपजगाम’ (कौ. उ. ३-१)
‘जानश्रुतिर्ह पौत्रायणः श्रद्धादेयो बहुदायी बहुपाक्य आस’ (ChanU.4.1.1)
इत्येवमादिषु वेदान्तपठितेष्वाख्यानेषु
In the case of certain legends mentioned in the Vedānta, as for instance —
“Now, Yājña-valkya had two wives, Maitreyī and Kātyāyanī” (BrhUEng.4.5.1),
“Pratardana, the son of Divo-dāsa arrived at the favourite abode of Indra” (Kaush. 3.8),
“There once lived a king named Jāna-śruti the great-grandson (of Jana-śruta), who donated (wealth) with faith (Śraddhā-deyaḥ), and who was a generous giver (Bahu-dāyī), and kept an open house (Bahu-pākyaḥ — lit., who got a large quantity of food cooked for guests)”,

3.4.23 L.2 ✅ संशयः – किमिमानि पारिप्लवप्रयोगार्थानि,
The doubt arises, whether their purpose is Pāri-plava (recitation of certain legends before a king engaged in a Horse-sacrifice)

3.4.23 L.3 ✅ आहोस्वित्सन्निहितविद्या-प्रतिपत्त्यर्थानीति।
Or for the purpose of making the Vidyās, in proximity with which such legends are mentioned, understood.

3.4.23 L.4 ✅ पारिप्लवार्था इमा आख्यानश्रुतयः,
(The conclusion of the opponent of Vedānta is) that these Scriptural legends are for the purpose of Pāri-plava,

3.4.23 L.5 ✅ आख्यानसामान्यात्,
Inasmuch as, they are legends quite as much as legends which are ordinarily recited,

3.4.23 L.6 ✅ आख्यानप्रयोगस्य च पारिप्लवे चोदितत्वात्;
And because there is a Scriptural injunction that such legends should be so recited as Pāri-plava.

3.4.23 L.7 ✅ ततश्च विद्याप्रधानत्वं वेदान्तानां न स्यात्,
Hence, if it be said, that the principal aim of Vedānta texts would not be ‘knowledge’ (Vidyā),

3.4.23 L.8 ✅ मन्त्रवत् प्रयोगशेषत्वादिति चेत् –
Because, like Mantras they are complementary portions (of sacrificial acts),

3.4.23 L.9 ✅ तन्न। कस्मात्? विशेषितत्वात् –
(We reply) — It is not so, because there is specification.

3.4.23 L.10 ✅ ‘पारिप्लवमाचक्षीत’ इति हि प्रकृत्य,
It is in connection with the passage — “Pāri-plava should be recited”,

3.4.23 L.11 ✅ ‘मनुर्वैवस्वतो राजा’ इत्येवमादीनि कानिचिदेव आख्यानानि तत्र विशेष्यन्ते।
That, only certain specific legends such as “The king Manu, the son of Vivasvat” etc. are mentioned there.

3.4.23 L.12 ✅ आख्यान-सामान्याच्चेत् सर्वगृहीतिः स्यात्,
If by the Scriptural statement all legends (in the Upaniṣads) in general were to be understood (as meant for Pāri-plava) because of these particular legends being similar to legends generally,

3.4.23 L.13 ✅ अनर्थकमेवेदं विशेषणं भवेत्।
Their special specification by the Scriptures would be meaningless.

3.4.23 L.14 ✅ तस्मात् न पारिप्लवार्था एता आख्यानश्रुतयः॥२३॥
Hence these Scriptural legends are not for the purpose of Pāri-plava. — 23.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तथा चैकवाक्यतोपबन्धात्॥३.४.२४॥
Tathā caikavākyatopabandhāt.

Tathā: so, similarly; Ca: and; Eka-vākyatā-upabandhāt: being connected as one whole. (Eka-vakyatā: unity of construction or of statements or that of sense; Upabandhāt: because of connection.)

🔗 And, thus, because of being connected with syntactical unity (the legends are meant for the proximate Vidyās). — 3.4.24.

3.4.24 L.1 ✅ असति च पारिप्लवार्थत्वे आख्यानानां
सन्निहितविद्या-प्रतिपादनोपयोगितैव न्याय्या,
It is logical, that inasmuch as these legends are not meant for the purpose of Pāri-plava,
They should be understood as being useful for the propounding of the Vidyās proximate to them,

3.4.24 L.2 ✅ एकवाक्यतोपबन्धात्;
Because there is a connection of syntactical unity (between them and the Vidyās).

3.4.24 L.3 ✅ तथा हि तत्र तत्र सन्निहिताभिः विद्याभिः एकवाक्यता दृश्यते प्ररोचनोपयोगात्
For it is seen that there is such unity with the proximate Vidyās, in that they are useful for creating a taste (for the Vidyās),

3.4.24 L.4 ✅ प्रतिपत्तिसौकर्योपयोगाच्च।
And for their easy comprehension.

3.4.24 L.5 ✅ मैत्रेयीब्राह्मणे तावत् – ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ (BrhU.4.5.6) इत्याद्यया विद्यया एकवाक्यता दृश्यते;
Besides in the Maitreyī Brāhmaṇa, for instance, it is seen, that there is such syntactical unity with the Vidyā which begins with the Scriptural passage — “Oh Maitreyī, the Self indeed should be seen” (BrhUEng.4.5.6).

3.4.24 L.6 ✅ प्रातर्दनेऽपि ‘प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा’ इत्याद्यया;
In the legend of Pratardana also (such syntactical unity is to be seen) with the Vidyā passage beginning with “I am Prāṇa the intellegential Self”,

3.4.24 L.7 ✅ ‘जानश्रुतिः’ इत्यत्रापि ‘वायुर्वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.1) इत्याद्यया।
And in the legend of Jāna-śruti with the Vidyā passage — “Vāyu indeed is the absorber” (ChanU.4.3.1).

3.4.24 L.8 ✅ यथा ‘स आत्मनो वपामुदखिदत्’ इत्येवमादीनां कर्मश्रुतिगतानाम् आख्यानानां
It is just as it is in the case of the legends mentioned in Scriptural texts with reference to religious actions, such as “He gouged out his own pericardium” etc.,

3.4.24 L.9 ✅ सन्निहितविधिस्तुत्यर्थता, तद्वत्।
Which have the purpose of the glorification of the proximate injunction (according to Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā).

3.4.24 L.10 ✅ तस्मान्न पारिप्लवार्थत्वम्॥२४॥
Therefore the legends are not meant for Pāri-plava. — 24.

– 140. Pāri-plava-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अत एव चाग्नीन्धनाद्यनपेक्षा॥३.४.२५॥
Ata eva cāgnīndhanādy-anapekṣā.

Ataḥ eva: therefore, only, for this reason only; Ca: and, also; Agni: fire; Indhana-ādi: fire-wood, and so on, kindling fire and performing sacrifices, etc.; An-apekṣa: no need, has not to be depended upon. (Agni-indhana-ādi-anapekṣa: no necessity of lighting fires, etc.)

🔗 Hence, because of this also, it is, that there is no need of ‘lighting a fire’ etc. (for Vidyās). — 3.4.25.

3.4.25 L.1 ✅ ‘पुरुषार्थोऽतः शब्दात्’ (BrS.3.4.1) इत्येतत् व्यवहितमपि सम्भवात्
‘अतः’ इति परामृश्यते।
The words ‘because of this’ (Ata eva) are used here,
Because it is possible to connect them with the distant Sūtra “The chief aim of man (i.e. Final Release is attained) through this” (BrS.3.4.1).

3.4.25 L.2 ✅ अत एव च विद्यायाः पुरुषार्थहेतुत्वात्
It is because a Vidyā is the means of (the attainment of) the chief aim (of man),

3.4.25 L.3 ✅ अग्नीन्धनादीन्याश्रमकर्माणि
That religious duties connected with the various orders of life, such as ‘lighting up of a fire’,

3.4.25 L.4 ✅ विद्यया स्वार्थ-सिद्धौ नापेक्षितव्यानीति
Are not required by the Vidyā (of the knowledge of the Self) for generating for itself such knowledge of the Self.

3.4.25 L.5 ✅ आद्यस्यैवाधिकरणस्य फलमुपसंहरत्यधिक-विवक्षया॥२५॥
The Sūtra-kāra thus sums up the ‘fruit’ of the first Adhikaraṇa, with the intention of saying something in addition. — 25.

– 141. Āgni-indhana-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.26 Su..27

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्रुतेरश्ववत्॥३.४.२६॥
Sarvāpekṣā ca yajñādi-śruter aśvavat.

Sarva-apekṣā: there is the necessity of all works; Ca: and; Yajna-ādi-śruteḥ: for the scriptures prescribe sacrifices, etc., (as means to knowledge); Aśvavat: like a horse, as in the case of the horse.

🔗 Because of the Scriptural mention of sacrifices etc. (as the means of the knowledge of the Self) performance of all religious actions is necessary. It is, as it is in the case of a horse. — 3.4.26.

3.4.26 L.1 ✅ इदमिदानीं चिन्त्यते – किं विद्याया अत्यन्तमेवानपेक्षा आश्रमकर्मणाम्,
It is now being considered, whether knowledge (Vidyā of the Self) does not at all need the performance of religious actions,

3.4.26 L.2 ✅ उत अस्ति काचिदपेक्षेति।
Or whether there is some such need after all.

3.4.26 L.3 ✅ तत्र अत एवाग्नीन्धनादीन्याश्रम-कर्माणि विद्यया स्वार्थ-सिद्धौ नापेक्ष्यन्ते;
इत्येवम् अत्यन्तम् एवानपेक्षायां प्राप्तायाम्,
With regard to it, the conclusion already arrived at (by the preceding Sūtra) being, that knowledge of the Self has absolutely no need at all of religious actions pertaining to the different orders of life, such as the ‘lighting up of a fire’, for its own generation,

3.4.26 L.4 ✅ इदमुच्यते – सर्वापेक्षा चेति;
It is said, that there is such need of all such religious actions pertaining to all the orders of life (Āśramas).

3.4.26 L.5 ✅ अपेक्षते च विद्या सर्वाण्याश्रमकर्माणि,
Therefore the Sūtra-kāra says: — Knowledge (of the Self) does of course need all the religious actions pertaining to the various orders of life,

3.4.26 L.6 ✅ नात्यन्तमनपेक्षैव।
And it is not that it does not need them at all.

3.4.26 L.7 ✅ ननु विरुद्धमिदं वचनम् – अपेक्षते च आश्रमकर्माणि विद्या, नापेक्षते चेति।
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), the statement that religious actions pertaining to the orders of life, are, at one and the same time, both needed and not so needed, is contradictory.

3.4.26 L.8 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः; उत्पन्ना हि विद्या
(We reply) — No, knowledge (of the Self) when once it is generated,

3.4.26 L.9 ✅ फलसिद्धिं प्रति न किञ्चिदन्यदपेक्षते,
Needs nothing whatsoever, for the attainment of its fruit (i.e. Final Release),

3.4.26 L.10 ✅ उत्पत्तिं प्रति तु अपेक्षते।
But so far as its own generation is concerned, it does so need (the performance of religious actions).

3.4.26 L.11 ✅ कुतः? यज्ञादिश्रुतेः;
Whence is it so? Because of the Scriptural statement about sacrifices etc.

3.4.26 L.12 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः – ‘तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसाऽनाशकेन’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इति
For so goes the Scriptural statement — “The Brāhmaṇas desire to realize the Self by means of the recitation of the Scriptures (Vedānuvacana), sacrifices, charities, and fasting or living only on what they casually get as food (Anāśakena)” (BrhUEng.4.4.22),

3.4.26 L.13 ✅ यज्ञादीनां विद्यासाधनभावं दर्शयति।
And it indicates, that sacrifices etc. are the means of the attainment of the knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.26 L.14 ✅ विविदिषा-संयोगाच्चैषाम् उत्पत्तिसाधनभावोऽवसीयते;
Now the determination that these (sacrifices etc.) are such means, results from their connection with the desire to know.

3.4.26 L.15 ✅ ‘अथ यद्यज्ञ इत्याचक्षते ब्रह्मचर्यमेव तत्’ (ChanU.8.5.1) इत्यत्र च
As, in the Scriptural statement “That which is called a sacrifice is but a life of bachelorship” (ChanU.8.5.1),

3.4.26 L.16 ✅ विद्यासाधनभूतस्य ब्रह्मचर्यस्य यज्ञादिभिः संस्तवात्
The life of bachelorship which is the means of knowledge (Vidyā) is mentioned along with sacrifices,

3.4.26 L.17 ✅ यज्ञादीनामपि हि साधनभावः सूच्यते;
Therefore, that sacrifices etc. also are such means, is suggested thereby.

3.4.26 L.18 ✅ ‘सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्वदन्ति। यदिच्छन्तो ब्रह्मचर्यं चरन्ति तत्ते पदं सङ्ग्रहेण ब्रवीमि’ (KathU.1.2.15) इत्येवमाद्या च श्रुतिः
The Scriptural statements, such as “I shall now briefly tell you about that ultimate goal, about which all the Vedas speak, which is proclaimed by all penances, and with a desire for which a bachelor’s life is led (by men)” (KathU.1.2.15),

3.4.26 L.19 ✅ आश्रमकर्मणां विद्यासाधनभावं सूचयति।
Suggest, that religious actions which pertain to the orders of life, are the means of the attainment of knowledge (Vidyā of the Self).

3.4.26 L.20 ✅ स्मृतिरपि –
So says the Smṛti also, thus —

3.4.26 L.21 ✅ ‘कषायपक्तिः कर्माणि ज्ञानं तु परमा गतिः।
कषाये कर्मभिः पक्वे ततो ज्ञानं प्रवर्तते’ इत्येवमाद्या।
“Religious actions cook up or digest uncleanliness, and knowledge (of the Self) is the Highest goal”.
Knowledge supervenes from actions, after such actions have purified uncleanliness etc.

3.4.26 L.22 ✅ अश्ववदिति योग्यता-निदर्शनम् –
The statement, “It is, as it is, in the case of a horse” is just an apt illustration.

3.4.26 L.23 ✅ यथा च योग्यतावशेन अश्वो न लाङ्गलाकर्षणे युज्यते, रथचर्यायां तु युज्यते,
Just as, a horse, considering his dignity, is not employed for the dragging of a plough, but is used for a chariot,

3.4.26 L.24 ✅ एवमाश्रमकर्माणि विद्यया फलसिद्धौ नापेक्ष्यन्ते,
Even so religious actions are not needed by the knowledge (of the Self) for the attainment of its own result (viz. Final Release),

3.4.26 L.25 ✅ उत्पत्तौ च अपेक्ष्यन्त इति॥२६॥
But they are needed by the knowledge (of the Self) for its own generation. — 26.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
शमदमाद्युपेतः स्यात्तथापि तु तद्विधेस्तदङ्गतया तेषामवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वात्॥३.४.२७॥
Śama-damādy-upetaḥ syāt tathāpi tu tad-vidhes tad-aṅgatayā teṣām avaśyānuṣṭheyatvāt.

Śama-dama-ādi-upetaḥ syāt: one must possess serenity, self-control and the like; Tathāpi: still, all the same, even if it be so; Tu: verily; Tad-vidheḥ: as they are enjoined; Tad-aṅgatayā: on account of their being a part, as helps to knowledge; Teṣām: their; Avaśya-anuṣṭheyatvāt: because it being necessary to be practised. (A-vaśya: necessarily; Anuṣṭheyatvāt: because they must be practised.)

🔗 Even though it be so, (a person desirous of Final Release) must be equipped with calmness and control over the sense-organs, and because, as subsidiary parts of knowledge they are helpful to it, there is an injunction about them, and they have therefore to be necessarily observed. — 3.4.27.

3.4.27 L.1 ✅ यदि कश्चिन्मन्येत – यज्ञादीनां विद्यासाधनभावो न न्याय्यः,
Even if one (i.e. some opponent of Vedānta) were to think, that it is not logical to consider sacrifices etc. to be the means of attaining knowledge (of the Self),

3.4.27 L.2 ✅ विध्यभावात्;
Because of the absence of an injunction about them,

3.4.27 L.3 ✅ ‘यज्ञेन विविदिषन्ति’ इत्येवंजातीयका हि श्रुतिः
And because the Scriptural statement of the type of “They desire to know (Brahman) by means of sacrifice”

3.4.27 L.4 ✅ अनुवाद-स्वरूपा
Is of the nature of an Anuvāda (i.e. mere reference to something known already),

3.4.27 L.5 ✅ विद्याभिष्टव-परा,
And is of the nature of being a eulogy of knowledge,

3.4.27 L.6 ✅ न यज्ञादिविधि-परा –
And is not of the nature of an injunction for sacrifice,

3.4.27 L.7 ✅ इत्थं महाभागा विद्या,
And that in as much as the knowledge (of the Self) is so blessed,

3.4.27 L.8 ✅ यत् यज्ञादिभिरेताम् अवाप्तुमिच्छन्तीति –
People desire to acquire it by means of sacrifices etc.,

3.4.27 L.9 ✅ तथापि तु शमदमाद्युपेतः स्यात् विद्यार्थी,
We reply — A person desirous of the knowledge (of the Self) must be one who is equipped with calmness and control over his sense-organs,

3.4.27 L.10 ✅ ‘तस्मादेवंविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः समाहितो भूत्वाऽऽत्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति’ (BrhU.4.4.23) इति
विद्या-साधनत्वेन शमदमादीनां विधानात्
विहितानां च अवश्यानुष्ठेयत्वात्।
Because, they (Śama-Dama etc.) are said to be the means of knowledge,
According to the Scriptural statement “Therefore, one who knows it to be so, sees the Self, in the Self itself, by becoming calm, subdued, satisfied (Uparati), patient (Titikṣu and collected (Samāhita)” (BrhUEng.4.4.23),
And also because, what is so enjoined (by the Scriptures) has necessarily to be followed.

3.4.27 L.11 ✅ ननु अत्रापि
शमाद्युपेतो ‘भूत्वा पश्यति’ इति वर्तमानापदेश उपलभ्यते,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) even here, it is seen that in the Scriptural passage “A man by becoming equipped with calmness and control over the sense-organs, sees” (BrhUEng.4.4.23), the present tense is used,

3.4.27 L.12 ✅ न विधिः –
And there is no injunction as such.

3.4.27 L.13 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः,
Not so, we reply,

3.4.27 L.14 ✅ ‘तस्मात्’ इति प्रकृतप्रशंसापरिग्रहाद्
विधित्व-प्रतीतेः;
Because it is understood that there is an injunction,
As, by the word ‘therefore’ a eulogy of what is relevant here is understood.

3.4.27 L.15 ✅ ‘पश्येत्’ इति च माध्यन्दिना विस्पष्टमेव विधिमधीयते।
Besides in the Scriptural text of the Mādhyan-dinas, a clear injunction is indicated by the expression “He should see”.

3.4.27 L.16 ✅ तस्मात् यज्ञाद्यनपेक्षायामपि
Therefore even though sacrifices etc. may not be needed,

3.4.27 L.17 ✅ शमादीन्यपेक्षितव्यानि।
Calmness etc. are.

3.4.27 L.18 ✅ यज्ञादीन्यपि तु अपेक्षितव्यानि, यज्ञादिश्रुतेरेव।
Besides even sacrifices etc. are needed, because of the Scriptural statement itself about such sacrifices.

3.4.27 L.19 ✅ ननु उक्तम् – यज्ञादिभिर्विविदिषन्तीत्यत्र न विधिरुपलभ्यत इति –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) it has already been stated that in the passage “Desire to know by sacrifices” no injunction is discernible.

3.4.27 L.20 ✅ सत्यमुक्तम्;
(We reply) — It is true that it is so said,

3.4.27 L.21 ✅ तथापि तु अपूर्वत्वात् संयोगस्य
But as its connection with the desire to know is of an extraordinary nature (Apūrva),

3.4.27 L.22 ✅ विधिः परिकल्प्यते;
An injunction has to be understood.

3.4.27 L.23 ✅ न हि अयं यज्ञादीनां विविदिषासंयोगः पूर्वं प्राप्तः,
It is not as if this connection between sacrifices etc. and ‘the desire to know’ is something which has been established already,

3.4.27 L.24 ✅ येनानूद्येत;
So that it could be said to be merely an Anuvāda i.e. that it is merely repeated here.

3.4.27 L.25 ✅ ‘तस्मात्पूषा प्रपिष्टभागोऽदन्तको हि’ इत्येवमादिषु च
Scriptural passages such as “Therefore, Pūṣan (i.e. the Sun) who is sans-teeth receives a well-mascerated (portion of the oblation)”,

3.4.27 L.26 ✅ अश्रुतविधिकेष्वपि
Even though (they are) not of the nature of a Scriptural injunction,

3.4.27 L.27 ✅ वाक्येषु अपूर्वत्वाद्विधिं परिकल्प्य,
Still, on account of being considered to be injunctional because of an extraordinary feature about them,

3.4.27 L.28 ✅ ‘पौष्णं पेषणं विकृतौ प्रतीयेत’ –
इत्यादिविचारः प्रथमे तन्त्रे प्रवर्तितः;
A discussion about them is started in the first Tantra (i.e. Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā III. 3.34) thus —
“It is understood that in the case of Vikṛtis (Iṣṭis based on the Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa Iṣṭi) the oblation to Pūṣan is well-mascerated”.

3.4.27 L.29 ✅ तथा च उक्तम् ‘विधिर्वा धारणवत्’ (BrS.3.4.20) इति।
Even so it has been stated in BrS.3.4.20 of the present Pāda.

3.4.27 L.30 ✅ स्मृतिष्वपि भगवद्गीताद्यासु अनभिसन्धाय फलम् अनुष्ठितानि यज्ञादीनि
मुमुक्षोर्ज्ञान-साधनानि भवन्तीति प्रपञ्चितम्।
It has been explained in the Smṛtis such as Bhagavad-gītā that sacrifices performed without keeping an eye on the fruit,
Become the means of the attainment of the knowledge (of the Self) for him who desires Final Release

3.4.27 L.31 ✅ तस्माद् यज्ञादीनि शमदमादीनि च
यथाश्रमं सर्वाण्येव आश्रमकर्माणि विद्योत्पत्तावपेक्षितव्यानि।
Therefore religious actions such as sacrifices etc., as also calmness and the control over sense-organs
As prescribed for the different orders of life, are all to be considered as necessary for the generation of knowledge.

3.4.27 L.32 ✅ तत्रापि ‘एवंवित्’ इति
विद्यासंयोगात्
Even then, it should be well understood with due discrimination, that as between them (i.e. Sacrifices etc. and calmness and control over sense-organs), in the expression “One who knows it to be so”,
Because of their connection with knowledge,

3.4.27 L.33 ✅ प्रत्यासन्नानि विद्यासाधनानि शमादीनि,
Calmness and control over the sense-organs are the proximate i.e. inward means of the knowledge (of the Self),

3.4.27 L.34 ✅ विविदिषा-संयोगात्तु बाह्यतराणि यज्ञादीनीति विवेक्तव्यम्॥२७॥
While sacrifices etc., because of their being connected with the desire of a man who knows thus, are the external means. — 27.

– 142. Sarva-āpekṣa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.28 Su..29 Su..30 Su..31

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सर्वान्नानुमतिश्च प्राणात्यये तद्दर्शनात्॥३.४.२८॥
Sarvānnānumatiś ca prāṇātyaye tad-darśanāt.

Sarva-anna-anumatiḥ: permission to take all sorts of food; Ca: only; Prāṇa-atyaye: when life is in danger; Tad-darśanāt: because the Śruti declares that.

🔗 There is liberty to eat food of all sorts only when otherwise there is possibility of death, because the Scriptures have said so. — 3.4.28.

3.4.28 L.1 ✅ प्राणसंवादे श्रूयते छन्दोगानाम् –
In the dialogue of the Prāṇas of the Chando-gas’ branch of the Scriptures, there is a passage, thus

3.4.28 L.2 ✅ ‘न ह वा एवंविदि किञ्चनानन्नं भवति’ (ChanU.5.2.1) इति;
“Nothing is not food to a person, who knows it to be so (i.e. that he — the Prāṇa of all beings — is the eater of all kinds of food)” (ChanU.5.2.1).

3.4.28 L.3 ✅ तथा वाजसनेयिनाम् –
Similarly, there is a passage of the Vāja-saneyins, thus —

3.4.28 L.4 ✅ ‘न ह वा अस्यानन्नं जग्धं भवति नानन्नं प्रतिगृहीतम्’ (BrhU.6.1.14) इति;
“In his case he eats nothing that is not eatable, nothing that is not eatable is accepted by him” (BrhUEng.6.1.14).

3.4.28 L.5 ✅ सर्वमस्यादनीयमेव भवतीत्यर्थः।
What is meant is, that in his case every thing is food fit to be eaten.

3.4.28 L.6 ✅ किमिदं सर्वान्नानुज्ञानं शमादिवत् विद्याङ्गं विधीयते,
उत स्तुत्यर्थं सङ्कीर्त्यत इति संशये –
When therefore the doubt is, whether this liberty about all sorts of food, is enjoined as being a subordinate part, i.e. a means of Vidyā, like calmness etc.,
Or whether it is mentioned by way of eulogy,

3.4.28 L.7 ✅ विधिरिति तावत्प्राप्तम्;
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that it is an injunction.

3.4.28 L.8 ✅ तथा हि प्रवृत्तिविशेषकर उपदेशो भवति;
For in this manner, this teaching promotes a special tendency (and thus being an extraordinary thing (Apūrva) must be understood to be an injunction).

3.4.28 L.9 ✅ अतः प्राणविद्या-सन्निधानात्
Therefore, being in proximity to a Vidyā it is a subordinate part of the Vidyā,

3.4.28 L.10 ✅ तदङ्गत्वेन इयं नियमनिवृत्तिः उपदिश्यते।
And being such a subordinate part, the abrogation of the general rule is indicated by it.

3.4.28 L.11 ✅ ननु एवं सति भक्ष्याभक्ष्यविभागशास्त्र-व्याघातः स्यात् –
But (says the Vedāntin) — If it is understood to be so, the Śāstra dealing with what should and should not be eaten, is contradicted.

3.4.28 L.12 ✅ नैष दोषः,
(The opponent of Vedānta) replies — This is no fault,

3.4.28 L.13 ✅ सामान्यविशेषभावात्
Because, there being a relation as between a general rule and a special exception here,

3.4.28 L.14 ✅ बाधोपपत्तेः;
Such contradiction of the Śāstra is reasonably sustainable.

3.4.28 L.15 ✅ यथा प्राणिहिंसा-प्रतिषेधस्य
Just as the general rule against the killing of any living being

3.4.28 L.16 ✅ पशुसंज्ञपन-विधिना बाधः,
Is contradicted by an injunction for the sacrificial slaughter of an animal,

3.4.28 L.17 ✅ यथा च ‘न काञ्चन परिहरेत्तद्व्रतम्’ (ChanU.2.13.2) इत्यनेन वामदेव्यविद्या-विषयेण
Or just as in the case of the Vāma-devyā-Vidyā, the Scriptural passage “No woman who makes an approach, should be jilted, because that is a special observance (Vrata)” (ChanU.2.13.2),

3.4.28 L.18 ✅ सर्वस्त्र्यपरिहार-वचनेन सामान्यविषयं गम्यागम्यविभाग-शास्त्रं बाध्यते –
Which while speaking specially about not avoiding any such woman, contradicts the general Śāstra which deals with the division of women, into those who should be accepted for cohabitation and those who should not be so accepted,

3.4.28 L.19 ✅ एवमनेनापि प्राणविद्या-विषयेण सर्वान्नभक्षण-वचनेन
Even so, by this passage, which permits food of all kinds in connection with the Prāṇa-Vidyā,

3.4.28 L.20 ✅ भक्ष्याभक्ष्यविभाग-शास्त्रं बाध्येतेति
The Śāstra dealing with the division between food that can be eaten and food that cannot be eaten, may well be contradicted.

3.4.28 L.21 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we say —

3.4.28 L.22 ✅ नेदं सर्वान्नानुज्ञानं विधीयत इति;
Such permission to eat all sorts of food is not enjoined by this.

3.4.28 L.23 ✅ न हि अत्र विधायकः शब्द उपलभ्यते,
No word enjoining anything is to be seen here,

3.4.28 L.24 ✅ ‘न ह वा एवंविदि किञ्चनानन्नं भवति’ (ChanU.5.2.1) इति वर्तमानापदेशात्।
Because, in the passage “Nothing is not food to a person who knows it to be so” there is a present tense form (Vartamānāpadeśa).

3.4.28 L.25 ✅ न च असत्यामपि विधि-प्रतीतौ
When the realization of an injunction is absent,

3.4.28 L.26 ✅ प्रवृत्तिविशेषकरत्व-लोभेनैव विधिरभ्युपगन्तुं शक्यते।
It is not possible to wishfully construe an injunction (in the passage) having the nature of promoting a special tendency (allowing any kind of food).

3.4.28 L.27 ✅ अपि च श्वादि-मर्यादं प्राणस्यान्नमित्युक्त्वा, इदमुच्यते –
Besides, it is after mentioning that the limit of the food of Prāṇa extends in range right down to the limit of a dog etc., that, it is said —

3.4.28 L.28 ✅ नैवंविदः किञ्चिदनन्नं भवतीति;
“To him who knows it to be so, there is nothing that is not food.”

3.4.28 L.29 ✅ न च श्वादिमर्यादमन्नं मानुषेण देहेनोपभोक्तुं शक्यते;
It is also not possible for a human body to consume food right down to the limit of a dog etc.,

3.4.28 L.30 ✅ शक्यते तु प्राणस्यान्नमिदं सर्वमिति विचिन्तयितुम्।
While it is quite possible to consider all this as the food of the Prāṇa.

3.4.28 L.31 ✅ तस्मात् प्राणान्नविज्ञान-प्रशंसार्थोऽयमर्थवादः,
Therefore, this is but an Artha-vāda only, having the purpose of a eulogy of the food of the Prāṇa,

3.4.28 L.32 ✅ न सर्वान्नानुज्ञान-विधिः।
And not an injunction permitting all sorts of foods.

3.4.28 L.33 ✅ तद्दर्शयति – ‘सर्वान्नानुमतिश्च प्राणात्यये’ इति;
That is indicated by the Sūtra — “There is liberty to eat food of all sorts when there is a possibility of a danger to life (lit., possibility of Prāṇas departing)”.

3.4.28 L.34 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति –
This means,

3.4.28 L.35 ✅ प्राणात्यय एव हि परस्यामापदि सर्वम् अन्नम् अदनीयत्वेनाभ्यनुज्ञायते,
That it is only when life is endangered, or in cases of such an extreme calamity, that all food is permitted to be eaten,

3.4.28 L.36 ✅ तद्दर्शनात्;
Because it is so seen from the Scriptures.

3.4.28 L.37 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः चाक्रायणस्य ऋषेः कष्टायामवस्थायाम् अभक्ष्य-भक्षणे प्रवृत्तिं दर्शयति
Even so, the Scriptures speak of a tendency on the part of the sage Cākrāyaṇa, while he was in a condition of extreme calamity, to eat food which is forbidden,

3.4.28 L.38 ✅ ‘मटचीहतेषु कुरुषु’ (ChanU.1.10.1) इत्यस्मिन् ब्राह्मणे –
In the Brāhmaṇa passage — “When the province of Kuru was devastated by a hail-storm (or by an invasion by red locusts)” (ChanU.1.10.1) etc.

3.4.28 L.39 ✅ चाक्रायणः किल ऋषिः आपद्गतः इभ्येन सामिखादितान् कुल्माषांश्चखाद;
The sage Cākrāyaṇa while he was in such an extremity partook of Kulmāṣas half eaten by an elephant-driver,

3.4.28 L.40 ✅ अनुपानं तु तदीयम् उच्छिष्टदोषात् प्रत्याचचक्षे;
But refused water (offered by him) as having the fault of being a sort of his leavings.

3.4.28 L.41 ✅ कारणं चात्रोवाच
And he stated the reason to be as follows —

3.4.28 L.42 ✅ ‘न वा अजीविष्यमिमानखादन्’ (ChanU.1.10.4) इति,
‘कामो म उदपानम्’ (ChanU.1.10.4) इति च;
“Verily I could not have lived if I had not eaten these (Kulmāṣas).
I can get water to drink anywhere I may desire” (ChanU.1.10.4).

3.4.28 L.43 ✅ पुनश्च उत्तरेद्युः तानेव स्वपरोच्छिष्टान् पर्युषितान् कुल्माषान् भक्षयांबभूव – इति;
The Scriptures also state, that again the next day, he partook of the same stale leavings of himself and another (his wife).

3.4.28 L.44 ✅ तदेतत् उच्छिष्टोच्छिष्टपर्युषित-भक्षणं दर्शयन्त्याः श्रुतेः
That the Scriptures, by mentioning this eating of the already twice tasted stale food,

3.4.28 L.45 ✅ आशयातिशयो लक्ष्यते – प्राणात्यय-प्रसङ्गे
Purpose to indicate its meaning, that in such a predicament as a danger to life,

3.4.28 L.46 ✅ प्राणसन्धारणाय अभक्ष्यमपि भक्षयितव्यमिति;
It is permissible to eat food which is forbidden, in order to sustain oneself,

3.4.28 L.47 ✅ स्वस्थावस्थायां तु
While under comfortable and safe conditions,

3.4.28 L.48 ✅ तन्न कर्तव्यं विद्यावतापि –
Even those who possess knowledge, should not do so,

3.4.28 L.49 ✅ इत्यनुपान-प्रत्याख्यानाद् गम्यते।
Is understood from Cākrāyaṇa’s rejection of the water.

3.4.28 L.50 ✅ तस्मात् अर्थवादः ‘न ह वा एवंविदि’ (ChanU.5.2.1) इत्येवमादिः॥२८॥
Therefore, the Scriptural passage “In the case of one who knows it to be so” (ChanU.5.2.1) etc. is an Artha-vāda passage. — 28.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अबाधाच्च॥३.४.२९॥
Abādhāc ca.

A-bādhāt: because of a non-contradiction, as there is no contrary statement anywhere in Śruti; Ca: and, also, moreover, on account of non-sublation.

🔗 Also because in this way (the Śāstra) is not contradicted (the present sentence is an Artha-vāda passage). — 3.4.29.

3.4.29 L.1 ✅ एवं च सति ‘आहारशुद्धौ सत्त्वशुद्धिः’ इत्येवमादि भक्ष्याभक्ष्यविभाग-शास्त्रम्
It is only when it is (understood to be) so, that the Śāstra which purports to discriminate between that which can be eaten and that which cannot be eaten, by such a passage as “When the food is pure, then the mind becomes pure”,

3.4.29 L.2 ✅ अबाधितं भविष्यति॥२९॥
That the Śāstra will not happen to be contradicted. — 29.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अपि च स्मर्यते॥३.४.३०॥
Api ca smaryate.

Api: also; Ca: moreover; Smaryate: the Smṛti says so, it is seen in the Smṛtis, it is prescribed by Smṛti.

🔗 Besides, Smṛti also says so. — 3.4.30.

3.4.30 L.1 ✅ अपि च आपदि सर्वान्नभक्षणमपि स्मर्यते विदुषोऽविदुषश्च अविशेषेण –
Moreover the Smṛtis also, both with regard to those who know and those who do not know, say without any distinction as to when all sorts of food may be eaten, thus —

3.4.30 L.2 ✅ ‘जीवितात्ययमापन्नो योऽन्नमत्ति यतस्ततः।
लिप्यते न स पापेन पद्मपत्रमिवाम्भसा’ इति।
“That a person, who when his life is in danger partakes of food obtained by him from wheresoever,
Is not contaminated by sin, even as a lotus leaf is not contaminated by water”.

3.4.30 L.3 ✅ तथा ‘मद्यं नित्यं ब्राह्मणः’
In the same way, by passages such as “A Brāhmaṇa must not drink liquor”,

3.4.30 L.4 ✅ ‘सुरापस्य ब्राह्मणस्योष्णामासिञ्चेयुः’,
“Hot liquor should be poured down the throat of a Brāhmaṇa who drinks spirits”,

3.4.30 L.5 ✅ ‘सुरापाः कृमयो भवन्त्यभक्ष्यभक्षणात्’ इति च
“Those who drink liquor become worms, because of drinking what is forbidden”,

3.4.30 L.6 ✅ स्मर्यते वर्जनमनन्नस्य॥३०॥
The Smṛti speaks of what, not being food, should be avoided. — 30.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
शब्दश्चातोऽकामकारे॥३.४.३१॥
Śabdaś cāto'kāma-kāre.

Śabdaḥ: the scriptural passage; Ca: and; Ataḥ: hence; A-kāma-kāre: to prevent undue license, prohibiting license, as to non-proceeding according to liking.

🔗 Thus also the Scriptural statement prohibiting unrestricted conduct (would be justified). — 3.4.31.

3.4.31 L.1 ✅ शब्दश्च अनन्नस्य प्रतिषेधकः कामकार-निवृत्तिप्रयोजनः कठानां संहितायां श्रूयते –
There is a Scriptural passage in Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā which denounces food that cannot be eaten, and which aims at persuading a man against indulging in unrestricted conduct thus —

3.4.31 L.2 ✅ ‘तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः सुरां न पिबेत्’ इति।
“Therefore, a Brāhmaṇa should not drink spirituous liquors etc.”.

3.4.31 L.3 ✅ सोऽपि ‘न ह वा एवंविदि’ (ChanU.5.2.1) इत्यस्यार्थवादत्वात् उपपन्नतरो भवति।
This passage becomes all the more reasonably sustainable, when the passage “Nothing is not food to one who knows it to be so” is understood to be an Artha-vāda.

3.4.31 L.4 ✅ तस्मादेवंजातीयका अर्थवादा न विधय इति॥३१॥
Therefore, passages such as these are Artha-Vādas and not injunction. — 31.

– 143. Sarva-anna-anumaty-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.32 Su..33 Su..34 Su..35

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विहितत्वाच्चाश्रमकर्मापि॥३.४.३२॥
Vihitatvāc cāśrama-karmāpi.

Vihitatvāt: because they are enjoined; Ca: and; Āśrama-karma: duties of the Āśrama, or order of life; Api: also.

🔗 Religious duties pertaining to the orders of life, inasmuch as they are prescribed (by the Scriptures) are to be performed, (even by those who do not desire Final Release). — 3.4.32.

3.4.32 L.1 ✅ ‘सर्वापेक्षा च’ (BrS.3.4.26) इत्यत्र आश्रमकर्मणां विद्यासाधनत्वमवधारितम्;
It has been determined in BrS.3.4.26 (performance of all religious duties is needed), that religious duties which pertain to the orders of life, are the means of attaining knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.32 L.2 ✅ इदानीं तु किम् अमुमुक्षोरप्याश्रममात्रनिष्ठस्य विद्याम् अकामयमानस्य तान्यनुष्ठेयानि,
Now it is being considered whether they are to be performed by one who is merely attached to his own order of life without caring for attaining knowledge, and who does not desire Final Release,

3.4.32 L.3 ✅ उताहो नेति चिन्त्यते।
Or that he need not perform them.

3.4.32 L.4 ✅ तत्र ‘तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यादिना
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta is) — inasmuch as, by the Scriptural passage “That which the Brāhmaṇas desire to know by the reciting of the Vedas” (BrhUEng.4.4.22),

3.4.32 L.5 ✅ आश्रमकर्मणां विद्यासाधनत्वेन विहितत्वात्
Such religious duties of the orders of life are prescribed as being the means of (attaining) knowledge, (it follows)

3.4.32 L.6 ✅ विद्यामनिच्छतः फलान्तरं कामयमानस्य नित्यान्यननुष्ठेयानि;
That they are not to be performed by those who desire to attain a different fruit, but do not desire to acquire knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.32 L.7 ✅ अथ तस्याप्यनुष्ठेयानि,
And that if they have to be performed by such a person also,

3.4.32 L.8 ✅ न तर्हि एषां विद्या-साधनत्वम्,
Then they could not be the means of attaining such knowledge,

3.4.32 L.9 ✅ नित्यानित्यसंयोग-विरोधात् –
Because of the contradiction (involved) as between a connection with religious actions (Karma) which is at once both permanent and non-permanent.

3.4.32 L.10 ✅ इत्यस्यां प्राप्तौ, पठति –
To that, the reply given is —

3.4.32 L.11 ✅ आश्रममात्रनिष्ठस्याप्यमुमुक्षोः कर्तव्यान्येव नित्यानि कर्माणि,
These permanent religious duties have necessarily to be performed even by one who is merely attached to an order of life and does not desire to attain Final Release,

3.4.32 L.12 ✅ ‘यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहोति’ इत्यादिना विहितत्वात्;
Because, they are enjoined by such Scriptural passages as — “He must perform the Agni-hotra as long as he continues to live”.

3.4.32 L.13 ✅ न हि वचनस्यातिभारो नाम कश्चिदस्ति॥३२॥
Indeed it is not (even if it is understood to be so) that the Scriptural passage would thereby have to bear the burden of a meaning which it cannot well bear. — 32.

[Go top]

3.4.33 L.1 ✅ अथ यदुक्तम् – नैवं सति विद्यासाधनत्वमेषां स्यादिति,
With regard to the objection (of the opponent of Vedānta) that, if so, religious duties would not be the means of (acquiring) knowledge,

3.4.33 L.2 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
The reply is: —

←Prev Next→
सहकारित्वेन च॥३.४.३३॥
Saha-kāritvena ca.

Saha-kāritvena: as, an auxiliary, on account of cooperativeness, as means to knowledge; Ca: and.

🔗 And also because of their being (mentioned as being) co-operators (in the attainment of knowledge). — 3.4.33.

3.4.33 L.3 ✅ विद्या-सहकारीणि च एतानि स्युः, विहितत्वादेव
These (religious duties) would be co-operators in the attainment of knowledge, because they are prescribed to be so by the Scriptures, thus —

3.4.33 L.4 ✅ ‘तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति’ इत्यादिना;
“That, the Brāhmaṇas desire to know, by the reciting of Vedas etc.”.

3.4.33 L.5 ✅ तदुक्तम् – ‘सर्वापेक्षा च यज्ञादिश्रुतेरश्ववत्’ (BrS.3.4.26) इति।
That has been explained by BrS.3.4.26 above, viz. “There is need of all religious actions, because of the Scriptural statement about sacrifices etc. It is, as it is, in the case of a horse.”

3.4.33 L.6 ✅ न चेदं विद्यासहकारित्व-वचनम् आश्रमकर्मणां
प्रयाजादिवत् विद्याफलविषयं मन्तव्यम्,
Now, it should not be considered, that the Scriptural statement about the duties pertaining to the orders of life being cooperators,
Is with regard to the fruit of knowledge (i.e. Final Release), just as the Prayājas (are with regard to the fruit of Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa),

3.4.33 L.7 ✅ अविधिलक्षणत्वाद्विद्यायाः,
Because knowledge (of the Self) cannot be the subject of an injunction,

3.4.33 L.8 ✅ असाध्यत्वाच्च विद्याफलस्य।
And also because the fruit of the knowledge of the Self (i.e. Final Release) is not something which has to be brought about by any means.

3.4.33 L.9 ✅ विधि-लक्षणं हि साधनं दर्शपूर्णमासादि
Such means as Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa etc. which are characterized by injunction,

3.4.33 L.10 ✅ स्वर्गफलसिषाधयिषया सहकारिसाधनान्तरम् अपेक्षते,
May require other cooperating means (as a help), inasmuch as they aim at such fruit as the heaven,

3.4.33 L.11 ✅ नैवं विद्या।
But knowledge does not (require any such co-operative means).

3.4.33 L.12 ✅ तथा चोक्तम् – ‘अत एव चाग्नीन्धनाद्यनपेक्षा’ (BrS.3.4.25) इति।
The same has been said in the Sūtra “Hence there is no need of the lighting of Agni” (BrS.3.4.25).

3.4.33 L.13 ✅ तस्मादुत्पत्ति-साधनत्व एव एषां सहकारित्ववाचोयुक्तिः।
Therefore, the statement about religious duties being co-operators is only with reference to their being the means of the bringing about of knowledge.

3.4.33 L.14 ✅ न च अत्र नित्यानित्यसंयोग-विरोध आशङ्क्यः,
In this case, no doubt should be entertained about any contradiction as between permanent and non-permanent connection with religious actions (Karma),

3.4.33 L.15 ✅ कर्माभेदेऽपि संयोगभेदात्;
Because there may well be differences in connection even when there is no difference in religious actions.

3.4.33 L.16 ✅ नित्यो हि एकः संयोगो यावज्जीवादिवाक्य-कल्पितः,
The connection implied by the statement about (Agni-hotra) having to be performed as long as life lasts is a permanent connection,

3.4.33 L.17 ✅ न तस्य विद्याफलत्वम्;
And knowledge (of the Self) is not its fruit.

3.4.33 L.18 ✅ अनित्यस्तु अपरः संयोगः ‘तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यादिवाक्य-कल्पितः,
The other connection implied in the passage “That, the Brāhmaṇas desire to know by reciting the Vedas” is a non-permanent one,

3.4.33 L.19 ✅ तस्य विद्याफलत्वम् –
The fruit of which is the knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.33 L.20 ✅ यथा एकस्यापि खादिरत्वस्य नित्येन संयोगेन क्रत्वर्थत्वम्,
Just as in the case of a Khadira sacrificial post (fashioned out of Khadira wood), it is connected with a sacrifice in a permanent connection,

3.4.33 L.21 ✅ अनित्येन संयोगेन पुरुषार्थत्वम्, तद्वत्॥३३॥
While with reference to a particular purpose of a man (such as, the attainment of strength i.e. Vīrya, which may or may not be desired by a man) its connection is non-permanent, even so it is here. — 33.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सर्वथापि त एवोभयलिङ्गात्॥३.४.३४॥
Sarvathāpi ta evobhaya-liṅgāt.

Sarvathā: in all cases, in every respect, under any circumstance; Api: also; Te eva: the same duties (have to be performed); Ubhaya-liṅgāt: because of the twofold inferential signs. (Te: they, the sacrificial works; Eva: certainly.)

🔗 Considered both ways, these very same (religious duties are meant to be performed), because of the indicatory marks being both ways. — 3.4.34.

3.4.34 L.1 ✅ सर्वथापि आश्रमकर्मत्व-पक्षे विद्यासहकारित्व-पक्षे च,
Considered in every way, whether the view be about religious duties as pertaining to the orders of life, or the view be of their being co-operators in (the acquisition) of knowledge (of the Self),

3.4.34 L.2 ✅ त एव अग्निहोत्रादयो धर्मा अनुष्ठेयाः।
These very same religious duties such as Agni-hotra etc., have to be performed.

3.4.34 L.3 ✅ ‘त एव’ इत्यवधारयन्नाचार्यः किं निवर्तयति?
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), by determining ‘that these same’ (religious duties have to be performed), what does the Ācārya seek to refute?

3.4.34 L.4 ✅ कर्मभेद-शङ्कामिति ब्रूमः;
We reply, that he seeks to refute the doubt about these religious duties being different (from those mentioned in the Karma-Kaṇḍa).

3.4.34 L.5 ✅ यथा कुण्डपायिनामयने ‘मासमग्निहोत्रं जुह्वति’ इत्यत्र नित्याद् अग्निहोत्रात् कर्मान्तरमुपदिश्यते,
नैवमिह कर्म-भेदोऽस्तीत्यर्थः।
No such difference in the religious duties is meant here,
As is meant in the case of the minor Sacrifice (Ayana) of the Kauṇḍa-pāyins, by (the injunction) “He performs Agni-hotra for a month”, where, a religious duty different from that in the case of the ordinary Agni-hotra, is meant to be mentioned.

3.4.34 L.6 ✅ कुतः? उभयलिङ्गात् –
Whence is it so? Because of the indicatory marks of both kinds,

3.4.34 L.7 ✅ श्रुतिलिङ्गात् स्मृतिलिङ्गाच्च।
I.e. the indicatory marks both in the Scriptures and the Smṛtis.

3.4.34 L.8 ✅ श्रुतिलिङ्गं तावत् –
As for the Scriptural indicatory mark, the passage

3.4.34 L.9 ✅ ‘तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इति
“That, the Brāhmaṇas desire to know, by the reciting of the Vedas” (BrhUEng.4.4.22),

3.4.34 L.10 ✅ सिद्धवदुत्पन्नरूपाण्येव यज्ञादीनि विविदिषायां विनियुङ्क्ते,
Which enjoins (a person in) sacrifices etc., that is something which is already established, and is something, the nature of which is already known to be the means, with reference to this “desire to know”,

3.4.34 L.11 ✅ न तु ‘जुह्वति’ इत्यादिवत् अपूर्वमेषां रूपमुत्पादयतीति।
And it does not evolve, as the expression “he sacrifices” etc. does, a new and extraordinary form of these (sacrifices).

3.4.34 L.12 ✅ स्मृतिलिङ्गमपि – ‘अनाश्रितः कर्मफलं कार्यं कर्म करोति यः’ (BhG.6.1) इति
The Smṛti indicatory mark “Whosoever performs religious duties without any desire for their fruit” (BhG.6.1)

3.4.34 L.13 ✅ विज्ञात-कर्तव्यताकमेव कर्म विद्योत्पत्त्यर्थं दर्शयति।
Shows that the same religious duty, as is already known to be such a duty, has to be performed for the generation of the knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.34 L.14 ✅ ‘यस्यैतेऽष्टाचत्वारिंशत्संस्काराः’ इत्याद्या च संस्कारत्व-प्रसिद्धिः वैदिकेषु कर्मसु
Similarly, the purificatory rites referred to in the Smṛti passage “One who has gone through the forty-eight purificatory rites”, being well-known in connection with Vedic religious actions,

3.4.34 L.15 ✅ तत्संस्कृतस्य विद्योत्पत्तिम् अभिप्रेत्य स्मृतौ भवति।
Are the same as are meant by the Smṛtis, in connection with the generation of the knowledge (of the Self) in a person, who has gone through such rites.

3.4.34 L.16 ✅ तस्मात्साध्विदम् अभेदावधारणम्॥३४॥
Therefore, this determination of non-difference (as between religious duties) is quite proper. — 34.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनभिभवं च दर्शयति॥३.४.३५॥
Anabhibhavaṃ ca darśayati.

An-abhibhavam: not being overpowered; Ca: and; Darśayati: the scripture shows, the Śrutis declare.

🔗 The Scriptures also indicate (that persons who perform, religious duties) are not overcome by torments (such as passions etc.). — 3.4.35.

3.4.35 L.1 ✅ सहकारित्वस्यैव एतदुपोद्बलकं लिङ्गदर्शनम्।
Another indicatory mark, which goes to strengthen the conclusion about religious duties being the co-operators (in the acquisition of the knowledge of the Self),

3.4.35 L.2 ✅ अनभिभवं च दर्शयति श्रुतिः ब्रह्मचर्यादिसाधन-सम्पन्नस्य रागादिभिः क्लेशैः –
And which shows, how a person who is equipped with such means as Brahma-carya etc. is not overcome by such torments as passions etc., is stated by the Scriptures, thus —

3.4.35 L.3 ✅ ‘एष ह्यात्मा न नश्यति यं ब्रह्मचर्येणानुविन्दते’ (ChanU.8.5.3) इत्यादिना।
“This Self (i.e. the knowledge of the Self) which a person acquires by means of Brahma-carya etc., is not destroyed” (ChanU.8.5.3).

3.4.35 L.4 ✅ तस्मात् यज्ञादीन्याश्रम-कर्माणि च भवन्ति विद्या-सहकारीणि चेति स्थितम्॥३५॥
Hence, it is definitely concluded that religious duties such as sacrifices etc., besides pertaining to an order of life, are also co-operators (in the acquisition of the knowledge of the Self). — 35.

– 144. Āśrama-karma-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.36 Su..37 Su..38 Su..39

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्तरा चापि तु तद्दृष्टेः॥३.४.३६॥
Antarā cāpi tu tad-dṛṣṭeḥ.

Antarā: (persons standing) in between (two Āśramas); Ca: and; Api tu: also; Tad-dṛṣṭeḥ: such cases being seen, (as it is seen in Śruti, because it is so seen).

🔗 Those who are in between (i.e. are neither here nor there) (are also competent to acquire knowledge), because it is seen to be so (from the Scriptures). — 3.4.36.

3.4.36 L.1 ✅ विधुरादीनां द्रव्यादिसम्पद्रहितानां च
अन्यतमाश्रमप्रतिपत्तिहीनानामन्तरालवर्तिनां
किं विद्यायाम् अधिकारोऽस्ति, किं वा नास्ति –
इति संशये,
When the doubt is,
As to whether, widowers etc. and those who are not able to take up any one of these orders of life, because they do not possess the means such as wealth or materials etc.,
Are competent to acquire knowledge (of the Self), or whether, they are not,

3.4.36 L.2 ✅ नास्तीति तावत्प्राप्तम्,
The conclusion (of the opponent of the Vedānta) is that they are not so competent,

3.4.36 L.3 ✅ आश्रमकर्मणां विद्याहेतुत्वावधारणात्,
Because it is definitely ascertained that religious duties pertaining to an order of life (Āśrama) are the means of (acquiring) knowledge (of the Self)

3.4.36 L.4 ✅ आश्रमकर्मासम्भवाच्चैतेषाम् –
And also because they are not possible (in their case).

3.4.36 L.5 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, इदमाह – अन्तरा चापि तु –
To that the Sūtra-kāra replies — One who is in between,

3.4.36 L.6 ✅ अनाश्रमित्वेन वर्तमानोऽपि विद्यायाम् अधिक्रियते।
And is living out of the orders of life, is also competent to acquire knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.36 L.7 ✅ कुतः? तद्दृष्टेः –
Whence is it so? Because it is so seen from the Scriptures.

3.4.36 L.8 ✅ रैक्ववाचक्नवी-प्रभृतीनाम् एवंभूतानामपि ब्रह्मवित्त्वश्रुत्युपलब्धेः॥३६॥
It is seen from the Scriptures that individuals such as Raikva, Vācaknavī (Gārgī) etc. who were similarly circumstanced had acquired the knowledge (of the Self). (ChanU.4.1 and BrhUEng.3.6.8). — 36.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अपि च स्मर्यते॥३.४.३७॥
Api ca smaryate.

Api: also, too; Ca: moreover, and; Smaryate: is stated in Smṛti, the Smṛti records such cases.

🔗 Smṛti also has stated similarly. — 3.4.37.

3.4.37 L.1 ✅ संवर्त-प्रभृतीनां च नग्नचर्यादि-योगात् अनपेक्षिताश्रम-कर्मणामपि
That, Saṃvarta (a Smṛti-kāra) and others who did not care to perform the religious duties of an order of life, and went about in the nude,

3.4.37 L.2 ✅ महा-योगित्वं स्मर्यत इतिहासे॥३७॥
Became great Yogins in spite of that, is testified by History. — 37.

[Go top]

3.4.38 L.1 ✅ ननु लिङ्गमिदं श्रुतिस्मृतिदर्शनमुपन्यस्तम्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) the instances stated from the Scriptures and the Smṛtis are but mere indicatory marks,

3.4.38 L.2 ✅ का नु खलु प्राप्तिरिति,
But what is the conclusion arrived at (from them)?

3.4.38 L.3 ✅ सा अभिधीयते –
The Sūtra-kāra states the conclusion, thus —

←Prev Next→
विशेषानुग्रहश्च॥३.४.३८॥
Viśeṣānugrahaś ca.

Viśeṣa: special; Anugrahaḥ: favour; Ca: and. (Viśeṣa-anugrahaḥ: special advantage, advantage or favour accruing from extraordinary good works done in the previous life.)

🔗 (Widowers etc. also) because of their special acts are vouchsafed this favour. — 3.4.38.

3.4.38 L.4 ✅ तेषामपि च विधुरादीनाम्
अविरुद्धैः पुरुषमात्र-सम्बन्धिभिः जपोपवासदेवताराधनादिभिः
धर्म-विशेषैः अनुग्रहो विद्यायाः सम्भवति।
It is possible that in the case of widowers etc. this favour viz. the knowledge (of the Self) is vouchsafed to them as the result of some special acts of theirs,
Such as Japa (Prayer), fasts, worship of deities etc. which are not opposed to their condition (i.e. not belonging to any order of life as widowers etc.) and which any man merely as a man can perform.

3.4.38 L.5 ✅ तथा च स्मृतिः –
For so says the Smṛti —

3.4.38 L.6 ✅ ‘जप्येनैव तु संसिध्येद्ब्राह्मणो नात्र संशयः। कुर्यादन्यन्न वा कुर्यान्मैत्रो ब्राह्मण उच्यते’ इति
“There is no doubt that a Brāhmaṇa by mere prayers becomes equipped (with the knowledge of the Self), whether he performs anything else or does not, and he is called a learned Brāhmaṇa (Maitra)” (Manu. Smṛ. II. 87),

3.4.38 L.7 ✅ असम्भवदाश्रमकर्मणोऽपि जप्येऽधिकारं दर्शयति।
And it indicates, that though the performance of the duties of an order of life is not possible (in such a man’s case), still he is competent to engage himself in prayer.

3.4.38 L.8 ✅ जन्मान्तरानुष्ठितैरपि च आश्रमकर्मभिः
सम्भवत्येव विद्याया अनुग्रहः;
Such favour is certainly possible,
As a result of the performance of the religious duties pertaining to an order of life during a former life,

3.4.38 L.9 ✅ तथा च स्मृतिः – ‘अनेकजन्मसंसिद्धस्ततो याति परां गतिम्’ (BhG.6.45) इति
For the Smṛti by the passage “And being thus equipped (with knowledge) after successive births, he attains the highest goal” (BhG.6.45),

3.4.38 L.10 ✅ जन्मान्तरसञ्चितानपि संस्कार-विशेषान् अनुग्रहीतॄन् विद्यायां दर्शयति।
Indicates, that particular special impressions (Saṃskāras) stored up during previous births do vouchsafe the knowledge (of the Self).

3.4.38 L.11 ✅ दृष्टार्था च विद्या
Knowledge of the Self has its own directly visible fruit

3.4.38 L.12 ✅ प्रतिषेधाभावमात्रेणापि
And by the mere absence of any obstruction,

3.4.38 L.13 ✅ अर्थिनमधिकरोति श्रवणादिषु।
It confers competency on an aspirant, for listening etc. (to a discourse on the Self etc.).

3.4.38 L.14 ✅ तस्मात् विधुरादीनाम् अप्यधिकारो न विरुध्यते॥३८॥
Therefore such competency even in a widower etc. is not contradictory. — 38.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अतस्त्वितरज्ज्यायो लिङ्गाच्च॥३.४.४३९॥
Atas tv-itaraj jyāyo liṅgāc ca.

Ataḥ: from this, than this, than the intermediate state mentioned above; Tu: but; Itarat: the other, the state belonging to a prescribed order of life; Jyāyaḥ: better, superior; Liṅgāt: because of the indicatory marks, from such indications in the scripture, from indication, signs, inferences; Ca: and.

🔗 But the other (means, of the knowledge of the Self) is better, because of the indicatory marks. — 3.4.39.

3.4.39 L.1 ✅ अतस्तु अन्तराल-वर्तित्वात् इतरत्
आश्रम-वर्तित्वं ज्यायो विद्या-साधनम्,
To belong to some one or other order of life is a better means of the knowledge of the Self,
Than the condition of being neither here nor there (i.e. lit., being suspended in mid-air),

3.4.39 L.2 ✅ श्रुतिस्मृतिसन्दृब्धत्वात्;
Because it is seen to be so from the Scriptures and Smṛtis.

3.4.39 L.3 ✅ श्रुतिलिङ्गाच्च –
The Scriptural indicatory mark is —

3.4.39 L.4 ✅ ‘तेनैति ब्रह्मवित्पुण्यकृत्तैजसश्च’ (BrhU.4.4.9) इति;
“By it (i.e. by the Deva-yāna Path) goes the bright one the knower of Brahman, and the doer of meritorious acts” (BrhUEng.4.4.9).

3.4.39 L.5 ✅ ‘अनाश्रमी न तिष्ठेत दिनमेकमपि द्विजः।
संवत्सरम् अनाश्रमी स्थित्वा कृच्छ्रमेकं चरेत्’ इति च
A twice-born should not remain unattached to some one or other, order of life, even for a day.
If he does so remain for a year, he should perform the ‘Kṛcchra’ purificatory rite,

3.4.39 L.6 ✅ स्मृतिलिङ्गात्॥३९॥
Is another indicatory mark. — 39.

– 145. Vidhura-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तद्भूतस्य तु नातद्भावो जैमिनेरपि नियमातद्रूपाभावेभ्यः॥३.४.४०॥
Tad-bhūtasya tu nātadbhāvo jaiminer api niyamātad-rūpābhāvebhyaḥ.

Tad-bhūtasya: of one who has become that, for one who has attained that (highest Āśrama); Tu: but; Na: no; A-tad-bhāvaḥ: lapse from that stage, falling away from that; Jaimineḥ: according to Jaimini, of Jaimini (is this opinion); Api: also, even; Niyama-atad-rūpa-abhāvebhyaḥ: on account of the restrictions prohibiting such reversion. (Niyamāt: because of the strict rule; A-tad-rūpa-abhāvebhyaḥ: because there is no statement permitting it, and because it is against custom; A-bhāvebhyaḥ: because of the absence of that.)

🔗 For one who has become that (i.e. become a Sannyāsin) there is no becoming-not-that (Atad-bhāva), because of the rule (against becoming-not-that) and the absence (of statements) about that. Even Jaimini (is of the same opinion). — 3.4.40.

3.4.40 L.1 ✅ सन्ति ऊर्ध्व-रेतस आश्रमा इति स्थापितम्;
It has been established that there is an order of life of Sannyāsins.

3.4.40 L.2 ✅ तांस्तु प्राप्तस्य कथञ्चित् ततः प्रच्युतिरस्ति, नास्ति वेति संशयः।
There is a doubt as to whether, having once entered that order of life, there can be defection from it or not.

3.4.40 L.3 ✅ पूर्वधर्मस्वनुष्ठान-चिकीर्षया वा रागादिवशेन वा प्रच्युतोऽपि स्यात्
(The conclusion of the opponent of Vedānta) is that there may be such defection, either by reason of a desire to perform the duties of a former order of life properly, or through passion etc.,

3.4.40 L.4 ✅ विशेषाभावादिति
Because of the absence of any special reason against, such defection.

3.4.40 L.5 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, उच्यते –
To this conclusion the reply is: —

3.4.40 L.6 ✅ तद्भूतस्य तु प्रतिपन्नोर्ध्वरेतो-भावस्य
For one who has become so, i.e. for one who has become a Sannyāsin and a celibate,

3.4.40 L.7 ✅ न कथञ्चिदपि अतद्भावः, न ततः प्रच्युतिः स्यात्।
There never is any becoming-not-that i.e. there can be no defection from that.

3.4.40 L.8 ✅ कुतः? नियमातद्रूपाभावेभ्यः।
Whence is it so? Because of a rule, and the absence of any such defection.

3.4.40 L.9 ✅ तथा हि – ‘अत्यन्तमात्मानमाचार्यकुलेऽवसादयन्’ (ChanU.2.23.1) इति,
‘अरण्यमियादिति पदं ततो न पुनरेयादित्युपनिषत्’ इति,
‘आचार्येणाभ्यनुज्ञातश्चतुर्णामेकमाश्रमम्। आ विमोक्षाच्छरीरस्य सोऽनुतिष्ठेद्यथाविधि’ इति च
एवंजातीयको नियमः प्रच्युत्यभावं दर्शयति।
For instance, a rule in Scriptural passages
Such as “One who continues to wear himself out at the house of his preceptor”,
“The dictum of the Śāstra (Padam) is that he should go to a forest, and the esoteric meaning (Upaniṣad) of it is that he should never turn back”,
“After being permitted by the Ācārya, he should, as enjoined (by the Scriptures), live in one of the four orders of life, until he is relieved of his body (i.e. till he dies)”,
Indicates, that there can be no such defection.

3.4.40 L.10 ✅ यथा च ‘ब्रह्मचर्यं समाप्य गृही भवेत्’ (जा. उ. ४)
‘ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेत्’ (जा. उ. ४) इति च
एवमादीनि आरोह-रूपाणि वचांस्युपलभ्यन्ते,
While there are Scriptural statements of the nature of an ascending order,
Such as “Having finished his Brahma-carya-ship, he should become a householder” (Jābāla. 4),
“He may become a Sannyāsin straight away from Brahma-carya-ship”,

3.4.40 L.11 ✅ नैवं प्रत्यवरोह-रूपाणि।
There are no statements of the nature of any such descending order,

3.4.40 L.12 ✅ न चैवमाचाराः शिष्टा विद्यन्ते।
Nor are there any instances of respectable people ever having behaved in such manner.

3.4.40 L.13 ✅ यत्तु पूर्वधर्मस्वनुष्ठान-चिकीर्षया प्रत्यवरोहणमिति, तदसत् –
That, there may well be such a descent (from a higher order of life) with a view to perform the duties of a former order of life properly, is not so,

3.4.40 L.14 ✅ ‘श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात्’ (BhG.3.35) इति स्मरणात्,
Because the Smṛti says — “The performance of the duties of one’s own order of life, be they ever so badly performed, is preferable to the better performance of the duties of any other order of life” (BhG.3.35),

3.4.40 L.15 ✅ न्यायाच्च –
And also because it is conformable to logic.

3.4.40 L.16 ✅ यो हि यं प्रति विधीयते स तस्य धर्मः,
The duty to which one is enjoined, is alone one’s duty

3.4.40 L.17 ✅ न तु यो येन स्वनुष्ठातुं शक्यते
And not any other which one is able to discharge better,

3.4.40 L.18 ✅ चोदनालक्षणत्वाद् धर्मस्य।
Because the nature of duty has a Scriptural injunction as its characteristic.

3.4.40 L.19 ✅ न च रागादिवशात् प्रच्युतिः,
There could be no defection through passion etc.,

3.4.40 L.20 ✅ नियमशास्त्रस्य बलीयस्त्वात्।
For a Śāstra which lays down rules, is mightier than that.

3.4.40 L.21 ✅ जैमिनेरपीति अपि-शब्देन
By the word ‘even’ in “even Jaimini”,

3.4.40 L.22 ✅ जैमिनिबादरायणयोः अत्र सम्प्रतिपत्तिं शास्ति प्रतिपत्ति-दार्ढ्याय॥४०॥
It is meant to be taught (by the Sūtra-kāra), with a view to strengthen his own opinion, viz. that there is a concensus of opinion between Jaimini (a Mīmāṃsaka) and Bādarāyaṇa (an Advaitin) in that matter. — 40.

– 146. Tad-bhūta-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.41 Su..42

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न चाधिकारिकमपि पतनानुमानात्तदयोगात्॥३.४.४१॥
Na cādhikārikam api patanānumānāt tad-ayogāt.

Na: not; Ca: and; Adhikārikam: (expiation) mentioned in the chapter that deals with the qualification; Api: also, even; Patana-anumānāt: because of a fall (in his case) is inferred from the Smṛti; Tad-a-yogāt: because of its (of the expiatory ceremony) inefficiency in his case.

🔗 Also expiatory rite referred to in Adhikāra-Lakṣaṇa (Pu.-Mi. VI) is not available (to a Brahma-cāri of the Naiṣṭhika order) because of the inference that his fall from such order of life, is irrevocable and because such Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri has no connection with that expiatory rite. — 3.4.41.

3.4.41 L.1 ✅ यदि नैष्ठिको ब्रह्मचारी प्रमादाद् अवकीर्येत,
किं तस्य ‘ब्रह्मचार्यवकीर्णी नैर्ऋतं गर्दभम् आलभेत’इत्येतत् प्रायश्चित्तं स्यात्, उत नेति।
(The question crops up) whether, if a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri (i.e. one who holds bachelorhood for life, as the steadfast ideal) has committed an act of incontinence i.e. unchastity through mistake,
The expiatory rite “A Brahma-cāri who has committed an act of incontinence should sacrifice a donkey to the deity Nirṛti” is available to him, or whether it is not.

3.4.41 L.2 ✅ नेत्युच्यते;
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that it is not available to him.

3.4.41 L.3 ✅ यदपि अधिकारलक्षणे निर्णीतं प्रायश्चित्तम्
Even though in the Adhikāra-Lakṣaṇa an expiatory rite has been mentioned (in Jai. Sū. 6.8.21),

3.4.41 L.4 ✅ ‘अवकीर्णिपशुश्च तद्वदाधानस्याप्राप्तकालत्वात्’ (जै. सू. ६-८-२१) इति,
“The sacrifice of the animal in the case of a Brahma-cāri who breaks the vow (of chastity) shall be made in the same way as the Upanāyana ceremony, in the ordinary fire, for the time for kindling the Āhavaniya fire is not fit.” [Trans. from Panoli]

3.4.41 L.5 ✅ तदपि न नैष्ठिकस्य भवितुमर्हति;
Still a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri does not deserve to avail himself of it.

3.4.41 L.6 ✅ किं कारणम्?
What is the reason?

3.4.41 L.7 ✅ ‘आरूढो नैष्ठिकं धर्मं यस्तु प्रच्यवते पुनः। प्रायश्चित्तं न पश्यामि येन शुध्येत्स आत्महा’ इति
अप्रतिसमाधेयपतन-स्मरणात्
Because, the Smṛti says, that his fall, once he falls, is irrevocable, thus —
“For one who having once for all accepted Naiṣṭhika Brahma-carya, falls from it, I see no expiatory rite by which such moral-suicide (the slayer of his own Ātmā) can purify himself”,

3.4.41 L.8 ✅ छिन्नशिरस इव प्रतिक्रियानुपपत्तेः;
Because it is not reasonably sustainable, that a person who is once decapitated can even again become whole and entire”.

3.4.41 L.9 ✅ उपकुर्वाणस्य तु तादृक्पतनस्मरणाभावाद्
उपपद्यते तत्प्रायश्चित्तम्॥४१॥
In the case of an Upakurvāṇa Brahma-cāri (i.e. a student Brahma-cāri who later intends to be a householder), such expiatory rite is available
Because the Smṛti does not refer to a similar irrevocability from a fall of such Upakurvāṇa Brahma-cāri. — 41.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उपपूर्वमपि त्वेके भावमशनवत्तदुक्तम्॥३.४.४२॥
Upapūrvam api tv-eke bhāvam aśanavat tad uktam.

Upapūrvam: (Upapūrvaka-pātakam, Upapātakam) a minor sin; Api tu: but, however; Eke: some (say); Bhāvam: possibility of expiation; Aśanavat: as in the eating (prohibited food); Tat: this; Uktam: is explained (in Pūrva-mīmāṃsā).

🔗 Some, however, consider (the lapse of even a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri also) as a minor sin, (and consider that an expiatory rite) is available to him. This is similar to the eating (of forbidden food). The same has been mentioned (by Jaimini). — 3.4.42.

3.4.42 L.1 ✅ अपि तु एके आचार्या उपपातकमेवैतदिति मन्यन्ते;
But some Ācāryas consider it (i.e. such a lapse) to be but a minor sin (Upapātaka).

3.4.42 L.2 ✅ यत् नैष्ठिकस्य गुरुदारादिभ्योऽन्यत्र ब्रह्मचर्यं विशीर्येत,
The lapse of a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri, elsewhere than with the wife of a teacher,

3.4.42 L.3 ✅ न तत् महापातकं भवति,
Does not amount to a grave sin,

3.4.42 L.4 ✅ गुरुतल्पादिषु महापातकेष्वपरिगणनात्;
Because it is not mentioned amongst the grave sins, such as that (of spoiling) the bed of a teacher,

3.4.42 L.5 ✅ तस्मात् उपकुर्वाणवत् नैष्ठिकस्यापि प्रायश्चित्तस्य भावमिच्छन्ति,
And therefore they consider an expiatory rite as much available to a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri as to an Upakurvāṇa,

3.4.42 L.6 ✅ ब्रह्मचारित्वाविशेषात् अवकीर्णित्वाविशेषाच्च;
Because celibacy is common both to the Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri and the Upakurvāṇa and the lapse of both is also similar.

3.4.42 L.7 ✅ अशनवत् –
This is like the eating (of food that is taboo).

3.4.42 L.8 ✅ यथा ब्रह्मचारिणो मधुमांसाशने व्रत-लोपः पुनः संस्कारश्च, एवमिति।
It is similar to a breach of the observance by a Brahma-cāri by his drinking liquor and eating meat,

3.4.42 L.9 ✅ ये हि प्रायश्चित्तस्याभावमिच्छन्ति, तेषां न मूलमुपलभ्यते;
And his purifying himself by (the performance of) an expiatory rite. In the case of those who hold that no expiatory rite is available (to a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri), there is no original Scriptural authority (in favour of their view),

3.4.42 L.10 ✅ ये तु भावमिच्छन्ति,
While those who hold that such expiatory rite is available to them,

3.4.42 L.11 ✅ तेषां ‘ब्रह्मचार्यवकीर्णी’ इत्येतदविशेष-श्रवणं मूलम्;
तस्मात् भावो युक्ततरः।
Have the general authority, viz. “a Brahma-cāri who commits the sin of incontinence etc.”, (in their favour).
Therefore, it is sounder logic to hold that such an expiatory rite is available to them.

3.4.42 L.12 ✅ तदुक्तं प्रमाणलक्षणे –
The same has been stated in the Pramāṇa Lakṣaṇa,

3.4.42 L.13 ✅ ‘समा विप्रतिपत्तिः स्यात्’ (जै. सू. १-३-८) ‘शास्त्रस्था वा तन्निमित्तत्वात्’ (जै. सू. १-३-९) इति।
“If it be maintained that both can be comprehended as applicable alike”, (the reply to which is that) “The comprehension should be in conformity with what is laid down in the scripture, because righteous acts are well defined by them” (in Jai. Sū. I. 3. 8 & 9) [Trans. from Panoli]
(Which means that when an option between two contradictory things is observed, that which has Scriptural authority should be accepted.)

3.4.42 L.14 ✅ प्रायश्चित्ताभाव-स्मरणं तु एवं सति यत्नगौरवोत्पादनार्थमिति व्याख्यातव्यम्।
Therefore, the Smṛti passage which denies such expiatory rite (to a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri) should be explained as being conducive to the stimulation of the greatest effort by a Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri in keeping his vow (of celibacy).

3.4.42 L.15 ✅ एवं भिक्षु-वैखानसयोरपि –
Similarly, in the case of mendicants and Vaikhānasas also,

3.4.42 L.16 ✅ ‘वानप्रस्थो दीक्षाभेदे कृच्छ्रं द्वादशरात्रं चरित्वा महाकक्षं वर्धयेत्’
‘भिक्षुर्वानप्रस्थवत्सोमवल्लि-वर्जं स्वशास्त्र-संस्कारश्च’ इत्येवमादि
प्रायश्चित्त-स्मरणम् अनुसर्तव्यम्॥४२॥
The same expiatory rites should be held available, such as — “A Vāna-prastha committing a breach of the observance of his order, should perform a ‘Kṛcchra’ for twelve days, and help grow a coupe of grass.”
A mendicant (Bhikṣu) also should do the same as a Vāna-prastha, barring the cultivating of Soma, in addition to the duties of his own Śāstras. — 42.

– 147. Ādhikārika-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
बहिस्तूभयथापि स्मृतेराचाराच्च॥३.४.४३॥
Bahis tūbhayathāpi smṛter ācārācca.

Bahiḥ: outside; Tu: but; Ubhayathā: in either case, whether it be a grave sin or a minor sin; Api: also, even; Smṛteḥ: on account of the statement of the Smṛti, from the Smṛti; Ācārāt: from custom; Ca: and.

🔗 But, all the same (those Sannyāsins and celibates who have broken the vow) are to be kept out (i.e. excommunicated) both because of the Scriptures and the accepted rules of conduct. — 3.4.43.

3.4.43 L.1 ✅ यदि ऊर्ध्व-रेतसां स्वाश्रमेभ्यः प्रच्यवनं
Whatever the nature of the lapse of the Sannyāsins from their order of life may be,

3.4.43 L.2 ✅ महापातकम्, यदि वा उपपातकम्, उभयथापि शिष्टैस्ते बहिष्कर्तव्याः –
Viz. whether it be a minor or a grave sin, in both cases they ought to be excommunicated by respectable persons,

3.4.43 L.3 ✅ ‘आरूढो नैष्ठिकं धर्मं यस्तु प्रच्यवते पुनः। प्रायश्चित्तं न पश्यामि येन शुध्येत्स आत्महा’ इति,
‘आरूढपतितं विप्रं मण्डलाच्च विनिःसृतम्। उद्बद्धं कृमिदष्टं च स्पृष्ट्वा चान्द्रायणं चरेत्’ इति च
एवमादिनिन्दातिशय-स्मृतिभ्यः।
Because of the Smṛti passages involving great censure (of such lapse), such as: — “For him, who after entering the order of Naiṣṭhika Brahma-cāri, lapses from it, I do not know of any expiatory rite, which could purify this moral-suicide”, And “Whoever touches a Brāhmaṇa who, having entered on an order of life, has lapsed from it, or who has been excommunicated, or one who is hanged, or bitten by worms, should perform the Cāndrāyaṇa expiatory rite”.

3.4.43 L.4 ✅ शिष्टाचाराच्च –
Also because that is the recognized etiquette of a respectable person.

3.4.43 L.5 ✅ न हि यज्ञाध्ययनविवाहादीनि तैः सह आचरन्ति शिष्टाः॥४३॥
Respectable persons do not perform a sacrifice with, or study with, or enter into matrimonial relations etc. with, them. — 43.

– 148. Bahir-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.44 Su..45 Su..46

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्वामिनः फलश्रुतेरित्यात्रेयः॥३.४.४४॥
Svāminaḥ phala-śruter ity ātreyaḥ.

Svāminah: of the master, of the sacrificer or Yajamāna; Phala-śruteḥ: from the declaration in Śruti of the results; Iti: so, thus; Ātreyaḥ: the sage Ātreya (holds).

🔗 That the performer (of meditations, which form subsidiary parts of religious actions such as Sacrifices) is the Yajamāna (the sacrificing host) only, because the Scriptures speak of a fruit, (is the opinion) of Ātreya. — 3.4.44.

3.4.44 L.1 ✅ अङ्गेषूपासनेषु संशयः –
With regard to meditations which form subsidiary parts (of sacrifices etc.), a doubt crops up,

3.4.44 L.2 ✅ किं तानि यजमानकर्माणि
As to whether they are acts to be performed by the Yajamāna

3.4.44 L.3 ✅ आहोस्वित् ऋत्विक्कर्माणीति।
Or the Ṛtvij (sacrificial priest).

3.4.44 L.4 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? यजमान-कर्माणीति।
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)? It is that they are the job of the Yajamāna.

3.4.44 L.5 ✅ कुतः? फलश्रुतेः;
Whence is it so? By reason of the fruit, as mentioned by the Scriptures.

3.4.44 L.6 ✅ फलं हि श्रूयते –
The fruit as mentioned by the Scriptures is —

3.4.44 L.7 ✅ ‘वर्षति हास्मै वर्षयति ह य एतदेवं विद्वान्वृष्टौ पञ्चविधꣳ सामोपास्ते’ (ChanU.2.3.2) इत्यादि;
“There is rain for him, and he causes rain (for others) who mediates on rain as the five-fold Sāman” (ChanU.2.3.2).

3.4.44 L.8 ✅ तच्च स्वामिगामि न्याय्यम्,
And it is logical to understand that this fruit goes to the Yajamāna,

3.4.44 L.9 ✅ तस्य साङ्गे प्रयोगेऽधिकृतत्वात्,
Because, competency to perform the whole sacrifice including the subordinate parts (of it) is conferred on him,

3.4.44 L.10 ✅ अधिकृताधिकारत्वाच्च एवंजातीयकस्य;
And it is he alone, on whom such competency is conferred, that is entitled to it (i.e. the fruit).

3.4.44 L.11 ✅ फलं च कर्तरि उपासनानां श्रूयते –
That this fruit (of the meditation) is obtained by the Yajamāna is known from such Scriptural statements, as —

3.4.44 L.12 ✅ ‘वर्षत्यस्मै य उपास्ते’ इत्यादि।
“It rains for him who meditates etc.”.

3.4.44 L.13 ✅ ननु ऋत्विजोऽपि फलं दृष्टम्
But (says the Vedāntin) it is seen (from the Scriptures) that the Ṛtvij also obtains the fruit, thus —

3.4.44 L.14 ✅ ‘आत्मने वा यजमानाय वा यं कामं कामयते तमागायति’ (BrhU.1.3.28) इति –
“Whatever he (the Ṛtvij) desires for himself or for the Yajamāna, he obtains, by singing (Sāman) for it” (BrhUEng.1.3.28).

3.4.44 L.15 ✅ न, तस्य वाचनिकत्वात्।
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — No, because the present Scriptural statement is by way of an exception.

3.4.44 L.16 ✅ तस्मात् स्वामिन एव फलवत्सु उपासनेषु कर्तृत्वम् – इत्यात्रेय आचार्यो मन्यते॥४४॥
Therefore Ācārya Ātreya considers, that it is on the Yajamāna, that the performance of these meditations from which fruit results, rests. — 44.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आर्त्विज्यमित्यौडुलोमिस्तस्मै हि परिक्रीयते॥३.४.४५॥
Ārtvijyam ity auḍulomis tasmai hi parikrīyate.

Ārtvijyam: the duty of the Ṛtvik (priest); Iti: thus; Auḍulomiḥ: the sage Auḍulomi (thinks); Tasmai: for that; Hi: because; Parikrīyate: he is paid.

🔗 Auḍulomi (is of opinion) that it is the Ṛtvij’s job, because he is retained for it (for special fee). — 3.4.45.

3.4.45 L.1 ✅ नैतदस्ति – स्वामि-कर्माण्युपासनानीति;
It is not, that these meditations are acts to be performed by the Yajamāna.

3.4.45 L.2 ✅ ऋत्विक्कर्माण्येतानि स्युः – इत्यौडुलोमिराचार्यो मन्यते।
Ācārya Auḍulomi considers that they are the Ṛtvij’s job.

3.4.45 L.3 ✅ किं कारणम्?
What is the reason (for such a view)?

3.4.45 L.4 ✅ तस्मै हि साङ्गाय कर्मणे यजमानेन ऋत्विक् परिक्रीयते;
Because the Yajamāna specially retains the Ṛtvij for the whole religious performance including the subsidiary parts and meditations such as the Udgīṭha,

3.4.45 L.5 ✅ तत्प्रयोगान्तःपातीनि च उद्गीथाद्युपासनानि अधिकृताधिकारत्वात्;
Because it is the duty of him on whom competency is conferred.

3.4.45 L.6 ✅ तस्मात् गोदोहनादि-नियमवदेव ऋत्विग्भिः निर्वर्त्येरन्;
Therefore, on the analogy of the rule with respect to the Go-dohana (milk-pail), they are to be performed by the Ṛtvij.

3.4.45 L.7 ✅ तथा च ‘तꣳ ह बको दाल्भ्यो विदाञ्चकार। स ह नैमिशीयानामुद्गाता बभूव’ (ChanU.1.2.13) इति
उद्गातृकर्तृकतां विज्ञानस्य दर्शयति।
For even so do the Scriptures indicate, viz. that it is the Ṛtvij who is the performer of the Vidyā, thus: —
“Baka Dālbhya knew it (i.e. the Udgīṭha). He became the singer for the Naimiṣeyas, (the Yajamānas of the sacrifice)” (ChanU.1.2.13).

3.4.45 L.8 ✅ यत्तूक्तं कर्त्राश्रयं फलं श्रूयत इति –
As regards the argument, that the Scriptures declare that the fruit goes to the agent, i.e. the Ṛtvij,

3.4.45 L.9 ✅ नैष दोषः,
The reply is — This is no fault.

3.4.45 L.10 ✅ परार्थत्वादृत्विजः अन्यत्र वचनात् फलसम्बन्धानुपपत्तेः॥४५॥
Because, barring an exceptional statement, the connection of the Ṛtvijaḥ with the fruit cannot be reasonably sustainable, because whatsoever he does is for another (i.e. the Yajamāna). — 45.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
श्रुतेश्च॥३.४.४६॥
Śruteś ca.

Śruteḥ: from the Śruti; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because of the Scriptural statement. — 3.4.46.

3.4.46 L.1 ✅ ‘यां वै काञ्चन यज्ञ ऋत्विज आशिषमाशासत इति यजमानायैव तामाशासत इति होवाच’ इति,
There are the following Scriptural statements — ‘He said, whatever blessings the Ṛtvij invokes in a sacrifice, he invokes for the Yajamāna’,

3.4.46 L.2 ✅ ‘तस्मादु हैवंविदुद्गाता ब्रूयात् … कं ते काममागायानि’ (ChanU.1.7.8 & 9) इति च
“Therefore the Udgātṛ who knows it to be so, should ask — For what object of your desire shall I sing?” (ChanU.1.7.8–9).

3.4.46 L.3 ✅ ऋत्विक्कर्तृकस्य विज्ञानस्य यजमानगामि फलं दर्शयति।
These passages indicate, that the fruit of the Vidyā (Vijñāna) of which the Ṛtvij is the agent, goes to the Yajamāna.

3.4.46 L.4 ✅ तस्मात् अङ्गोपासनानाम् ऋत्विक्कर्मत्वसिद्धिः॥४६॥
Therefore, it is thus established that the performance of the meditations which form the subordinate parts (of a sacrifice) is the Ṛtvij’s job. — 46.

– 149. Svāmy-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.3.4.47 Su..48 Su..49

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सहकार्यन्तरविधिः पक्षेण तृतीयं तद्वतो विध्यादिवत्॥३.४.४७॥
Saha-kāry-antara-vidhiḥ pakṣeṇa tṛtīyaṃ tadvato vidhy-ādivat.

Saha-kāri-antara-vidhiḥ: a separate auxiliary injunction; Pakṣeṇa: as an alternative; Tṛtīyam: the third; Tadvataḥ: for one who possesses it, (i.e., knowledge); Vidhi-ādivat: just as in the case of injunctions and the like.

🔗 In the alternative, there is an injunction about a third co-operating item (over and above Bālya and Pāṇḍitya), for one who is like that (i.e. one who possesses ordinary knowledge, and in whom the notion of duality still persists). This is like injunctions etc. — 3.4.47.

3.4.47 L.1 ✅ ‘तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य बाल्येन तिष्ठासेद्
बाल्यं च पाण्डित्यं च निर्विद्याथ मुनिः
अमौनं च मौनं च निर्विद्याथ ब्राह्मणः’ (BrhU.3.5.1) इति बृहदारण्यके श्रूयते।
The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka passage says as follows — “Therefore a Brāhmaṇa (a knower of Brahman) after having acquired scholarship, should try to live by means of (that strength which comes from) knowledge,
And after having known all about this strength and scholarship (such a one) then (becomes) a Muni (ascetic),
And after having known all about non-ascetic and ascetic condition (Amauna and Mauna), he becomes a Brāhmaṇa (knower of Brahman)” (BrhUEng.3.5.1).

3.4.47 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशयः – मौनं विधीयते, न वेति।
A doubt which arises here is whether there is or there is not an injunction given here, about the state of Muni-hood.

3.4.47 L.3 ✅ न विधीयत इति तावत्प्राप्तम्,
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that there is no such injunction.

3.4.47 L.4 ✅ ‘बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत्’ इत्यत्रैव विधेरवसितत्वात्;
The injunction (in the passage) comes to an end with the words — “He should live by means of strength”.

3.4.47 L.5 ✅ न हि ‘अथ मुनिः’ इत्यत्र विधायिका विभक्तिरुपलभ्यते;
In the passage “Now after that a Muni”, no verb in an imperative sense indicating any such injunction, is to be seen.

3.4.47 L.6 ✅ तस्मादयमनुवादो युक्तः।
Therefore, it is logical to understand the passage as an Anuvāda (a mere reference to something already established before).

3.4.47 L.7 ✅ कुतः प्राप्तिरिति चेत् –
(If it be asked), whence is such a conclusion arrived at,

3.4.47 L.8 ✅ मुनिपण्डित-शब्दयोः ज्ञानार्थत्वात्
(The reply is) the word ‘ascetic’ and ‘scholar’ signify knowledge,

3.4.47 L.9 ✅ ‘पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य’ इत्येव प्राप्तं मौनम्।
And the sentence “having attained scholarship” necessarily leads to the condition of an ascetic.

3.4.47 L.10 ✅ अपि च ‘अमौनं च मौनं च निर्विद्याथ ब्राह्मणः’ इत्यत्र तावत्
Besides, the sentence “Having acquired knowledge of non-asceticism and asceticism, he becomes a Brāhmaṇa”

3.4.47 L.11 ✅ न ब्राह्मणत्वं विधीयते,
Does not purport to give any injunction to attain knowledge of Brahman,

3.4.47 L.12 ✅ प्रागेव प्राप्तत्वात्;
Because that is already implied (by the term Brāhmaṇa).

3.4.47 L.13 ✅ तस्मात् ‘अथ ब्राह्मणः’ इति प्रशंसावादः,
Therefore, just as “Then (he becomes) a knower of Brahman” is merely by way of eulogy,

3.4.47 L.14 ✅ तथैव ‘अथ मुनिः’ इत्यपि भवितुमर्हति,
Even so the passage “Then (he becomes) an ascetic” also deserves to be similar (in nature),

3.4.47 L.15 ✅ समाननिर्देशत्वाद्
Because the reference in both the cases is similar.

3.4.47 L.16 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) we reply: —

3.4.47 L.17 ✅ सहकार्यन्तर-विधिरिति।
There is an injunction with regard to some other thing which is an auxiliary (in the acquisition of knowledge).

3.4.47 L.18 ✅ विद्या-सहकारिणो मौनस्य बाल्यपाण्डित्यवद् विधिरेव आश्रयितव्यः,
We should consider it as an injunction about the ascetic condition, which is an auxiliary to knowledge, in the same way in which ‘strength (which comes) from knowledge’ and ‘scholarship’ are understood to be injunctions,

3.4.47 L.19 ✅ अपूर्वत्वात्।
Because of their being Apūrva i.e. an extraordinary thing unheard of before.

3.4.47 L.20 ✅ ननु पाण्डित्यशब्देनैव मौनस्यावगतत्वमुक्तम् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) it has been mentioned (by us) that the condition of an ascetic is already understood from the condition of scholarship.

3.4.47 L.21 ✅ नैष दोषः, मुनि-शब्दस्य ज्ञानातिशयार्थत्वात्,
(We reply) — This is no fault because the word ‘ascetic’ (Muni) implies a preponderance of knowledge,

3.4.47 L.22 ✅ मननान्मुनिरिति च व्युत्पत्ति-सम्भवात्,
And it is etymologically derivable from ‘Manana’ (Cogitation) as “A Muni through Manana (Cogitation)”,

3.4.47 L.23 ✅ ‘मुनीनामप्यहं व्यासः’ (BhG.10.37) इति च
प्रायोगदर्शनात्।
And also because it is seen to have been used in
“I am the Vyāsa amongst the Munis” (BhG.10.37).

3.4.47 L.24 ✅ ननु मुनिशब्द उत्तमाश्रमवचनोऽपि
श्रूयते ‘गार्हस्थ्यमाचार्यकुलं मौनं वानप्रस्थम्’
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), in the Scriptural passage “Householdership, studentship at a teacher’s place, Muni-ship and Vāna-prastha-ship”,
The word ‘Muni’ is used as a synonym for the highest order of life (i.e. of a Sannyāsin).

3.4.47 L.25 ✅ इत्यत्र – न,
We reply) — No,

3.4.47 L.26 ✅ ‘वाल्मीकिर्मुनिपुङ्गवः’ इत्यादिषु व्यभिचार-दर्शनात्;
Because it is seen to have a different meaning also, as in the passage “Vālmīki the best amongst Munis” (even though Vālmīki was not a Sannyāsin).

3.4.47 L.27 ✅ इतराश्रम-सन्निधानात्तु
Because there, the state of a Muni is mentioned in proximity to the other orders of life,

3.4.47 L.28 ✅ पारिशेष्यात् तत्र उत्तमाश्रमोपादानम्,
The highest order of life is to be understood by the word ‘Muni’ as being the only thing which has remained to be mentioned,

3.4.47 L.29 ✅ ज्ञानप्रधानत्वादुत्तमाश्रमस्य।
And because the highest order of life (i.e. that of a Sannyāsin) is mainly distinguished by pre-eminence of knowledge as the principal feature there.

3.4.47 L.30 ✅ तस्मात् बाल्यपाण्डित्यापेक्षया तृतीयमिदं
मौनं ज्ञानातिशय-रूपं विधीयते।
Therefore, the state of a Muni as characterized by a preponderance of knowledge is enjoined here,
As the third thing, with reference to (the other two states of) ‘strength (which comes from) knowledge’ and ‘scholarship’.

3.4.47 L.31 ✅ यत्तु बाल्य एव विधि-पर्यवसानमिति,
With regard to the objection that the injunctional part (of the sentence) ends with the condition of strength (which comes from knowledge),

3.4.47 L.32 ✅ तथापि अपूर्वत्वान्मुनित्वस्य विधेयत्वमाश्रीयते – मुनिः स्यादिति;
It has to be understood, from the fact that the state of a Muni is an extraordinary thing (unheard of before), that an injunction is meant, viz. that he should be a Muni.

3.4.47 L.33 ✅ निर्वेदनीयत्व-निर्देशादपि मौनस्य बाल्यपाण्डित्यवद् विधेयत्वाश्रयणम्।
Besides as the condition of a Muni is indicated to be something that has to be acquired (by a man), it has to be understood that like ‘strength (which comes) from knowledge’ and ‘scholarship’, it is something which is fit to be enjoined.

3.4.47 L.34 ✅ तद्वतः विद्यावतः संन्यासिनः।
By the words “for one who is like that”, one who has knowledge and is therefore a Sannyāsin, is to be understood.

3.4.47 L.35 ✅ कथं च विद्यावतः संन्यासिन इत्यवगम्यते?
How is it known that it is an indication of one who has knowledge or of one who is a Sannyāsin?

3.4.47 L.36 ✅ तदधिकारात् –
आत्मानं विदित्वा पुत्राद्येषणाभ्यो व्युत्थाय ‘अथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति’ इति।
Because, from the sentence “Having thus known the Self, and having given up all desire about sons etc. they adopt a mendicant’s career”,
It is understood that the subject of the chapter relates to that.

3.4.47 L.37 ✅ ननु सति विद्यावत्त्वे प्राप्नोत्येव तत्रातिशयः,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) if a person is possessed of knowledge, its preponderance (in him) necessarily follows,

3.4.47 L.38 ✅ किं मौनविधिना – इत्यत आह –
And if so, of what use then is any such injunction?

3.4.47 L.39 ✅ पक्षेणेति।
The Sūtra says — “In the alternative”,

3.4.47 L.40 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – यस्मिन्पक्षे भेददर्शन-प्राबल्यात् न प्राप्नोति,
And that means, that when, because of the predominance of seeing things as different (through Nescience), knowledge is not fully acquired,

3.4.47 L.41 ✅ तस्मिन् एष विधिरिति।
Then in that case an injunction to this effect is to be understood — “In the case of an injunction etc.”.

3.4.47 L.42 ✅ विध्यादिवत् –
Just as in the case of an injunction

3.4.47 L.43 ✅ यथा ‘दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां स्वर्गकामो यजेत’
Such as “One who desires for the heavenly worlds should perform Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa”

3.4.47 L.44 ✅ इत्येवंजातीयके विध्यादौ सहकारित्वेन अग्न्यन्वाधानादिकम् अङ्ग-जातं विधीयते,
Injunction is also impliedly given with regard to such subsidiary parts as the lighting up of a sacrificial fire etc. as an auxiliary,

3.4.47 L.45 ✅ एवम् अविधि-प्रधानेऽपि अस्मिन्विद्यावाक्ये
Even so, what is meant is that though the sentence about Vidyā (knowledge) is not mainly of an injunctional nature,

3.4.47 L.46 ✅ मौन-विधिरित्यर्थः॥४७॥
An injunction is enjoined (there). — 47.

[Go top]

3.4.48 L.1 ✅ एवं बाल्यादि-विशिष्टे कैवल्याश्रमे श्रुतिमति विद्यमाने,
When the order of life of the Sannyāsin, characterized by ‘strength (which comes) from knowledge’, and as having the authority of the Scriptures, is there,

3.4.48 L.2 ✅ कस्मात् छान्दोग्ये गृहिणा उपसंहारः
Why do the Scriptures then in the Chāndogya conclude by mentioning the order of the life of a householder, thus —

3.4.48 L.3 ✅ ‘अभिसमावृत्य कुटुम्बे’ (ChanU.8.15.1) इत्यत्र?
“After having finished his studies (at the house of the preceptor) and then by becoming a householder” (ChanU.8.15.1)?

3.4.48 L.4 ✅ तेन हि उपसंहरन् तद्विषयमादरं दर्शयति –
(The opponent of Vedānta thinks) — By concluding that way, the Scriptures thus show respect to that order of life (and show indirectly that the order of life of the Sannyāsin is not of much importance).

3.4.48 L.5 ✅ इत्यत उत्तरं पठति –
The Sūtra-kāra replies —

←Prev Next→
कृत्स्नभावात्तु गृहिणोपसंहारः॥३.४.४८॥
Kṛtsna-bhāvāt tu gṛhiṇopasaṃhāraḥ.

Kṛtsna-bhāvāt: on account of the householder’s life including all; Tu: verily; Gṛhiṇā: by a householder, with the householder; Upasaṃhāraḥ: the conclusion, the goal, salvation, (the Chapter) ends. (Kṛtsna: of all (duties); Bhāvāt: owing to the existence; Gṛhiṇā upasaṃhāraḥ: conclusion with the case of the householder.)

🔗 But it is because (a householder) has to perform religious duties fully i.e. comprehensively, that the Scriptures conclude with the order of life of a householder. — 3.4.48.

3.4.48 L.6 ✅ तु-शब्दो विशेषणार्थः;
The word ‘but’ in the Sūtra indicates that there is something which is special (about the order of life of a householder),

3.4.48 L.7 ✅ कृत्स्नभावोऽस्य विशेष्यते;
Viz., that the householder has to perform all religious duties fully i.e. comprehensively, is particularized here.

3.4.48 L.8 ✅ बहुलायासानि हि बहून्याश्रमकर्माणि यज्ञादीनि तं प्रति कर्तव्यतयोपदिष्टानि,
Because the Scriptures have enjoined on him many religious duties of a very exacting nature as pertaining to his order of life, such as sacrifices etc.,

3.4.48 L.9 ✅ आश्रमान्तरकर्माणि च यथासम्भवम् अहिंसेन्द्रियसंयमादीनि तस्य विद्यन्ते।
As also, as far as possible, religious duties of other orders of life also, such as Ahiṃsā (abstention from killing or giving pain in thought, deed and action) and control (over the sense-organs),

3.4.48 L.10 ✅ तस्मात् गृहमेधिना उपसंहारो न विरुध्यते॥४८॥
Therefore, there is nothing contradictory in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad concluding with the householder’s order of life. — 48.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
मौनवदितरेषामप्युपदेशात्॥३.४.४९॥
Maunavad itareṣām apy upadeśāt.

Maunavat: just as silence, like constant meditation, like the state of a Muni (Sannyāsī); Itareṣām: of the others, of the other orders of life; Api: even, also; Upadeśāt: because of scriptural injunction.

🔗 Also, because, like the Muni’s (i.e. ascetic’s) order of life, the Scriptures also give instructions about others (i.e. other orders of life) also. — 3.4.49.

3.4.49 L.1 ✅ यथा मौनं गार्हस्थ्यं च एतावाश्रमौ श्रुतिमन्तौ,
Just as the order of life of an ascetic, and that of the householder, have the authority of the Scriptures,

3.4.49 L.2 ✅ एवमितरावपि वानप्रस्थगुरुकुल-वासौ;
Even so, residence at the house of a preceptor (i.e. the order of Brahma-carya), and the order of a Vāna-prastha also (have similar Scriptural authority).

3.4.49 L.3 ✅ दर्शिता हि पुरस्ताच्छ्रुतिः – ‘तप एव द्वितीयो ब्रह्मचार्याचार्यकुलवासी तृतीयः’ (ChanU.2.23.1) इत्याद्या।
For a Scriptural statement (to that effect) has already been cited before, thus — “Penance with austerity is the second, and a Brahma-cāri residing at the house of a preceptor is the third” (ChanU.2.23.1).

3.4.49 L.4 ✅ तस्मात् चतुर्णामप्याश्रमाणाम् उपदेशाविशेषात्
Therefore, inasmuch as all the four orders of life have been mentioned (by the Scriptures),

3.4.49 L.5 ✅ तुल्यवत् विकल्पसमुच्चयाभ्यां प्रतिपत्तिः।
There is an option either of belonging to any of them singly or to all of them successively (as one pleases).

3.4.49 L.6 ✅ बहु-वचनं वृत्तिभेदापेक्षया अनुष्ठातृभेदापेक्षया वा – इति द्रष्टव्यम्॥४९॥
The word “others (i.e. other orders of life)” (used in the Sūtra, even though only two orders of life are mentioned there),

3.4.49 L.7 ✅ बहु-वचनं वृत्ति-भेदापेक्षया अनुष्ठातृ-भेदापेक्षया वा – इति द्रष्टव्यम्॥४९॥
Should be understood to have been so used with reference to the various minor sub-divisions of the same two orders of life, or with reference to the mutual distinction as between the many who practise (these orders of life). — 49.

– 150. Saha-kāry-antara-vidhy-Adhikaraṇam.

Abbreviation References
AitU.	Aitareyopaniṣad
Ait. Ār.	Aitareya Āraṇyaka	ऐ. आ.
Ait. Brā.	Aitareya Brāhmaṇa	ऐ. ब्रा.
BhG.	Bhagavadgītā
BrS.	Brahma-Sūtras
Bra. Sū. Bhā.	Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya
BrhU.	Brihad-āraṇyakopaniṣad
ChanU.	Chandogyopaniṣad
Dhar. Sū.	Dharma-Sūtra	ध. सू.
IsU.	Īṣavāsyopaniṣad
Jāb. Up.	Jābālopaniṣad	जा. उ.
Jai. Sū. or Pū. Mī.	Jaimani Sūtra or Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā	जै. सू.
KathU.	Kaṭhopaniṣad
KenU.	Kenopanishad
KaivU.	Kaivalyopaniṣad
KausU.	Kauṣītakyopanishad	कौ. उ.
Kauṣ. Brā.	Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa	कौ. ब्रा.
Mahā-Bhā.	Mahā-bhārata	म. भा.
ManKa.	Māndukya-Kārikā or Gaudapāda-Kārikā
Manu. or Manu. Smṛ.	Manu-Smṛti or -Saṃhitā	मनु. स्मृ.
Mukti. Up.	Muktikopaniṣad
MunU.	Muṇḍakopaniṣad
Nār. Up.	Nārāyaniyopaniṣad	ना. उ.
Nyāya Sū.	Nyāya-Sūtra	न्या. सू.
PrasU.	Praṣnopaniṣad
Ṛg. Sam.	Ṛg-Veda Saṃhitā	ऋ. सं.
Śābara Bhā.	Śābara Bhāṣya of Jaimani Sūtras	शा. भा.
Śat. Brā.	Śata-patha-Brāhmaṇa	श. ब्रा.
SvetU.	Śvetāśvatāropaniṣad
Ṣaḍ-viṃśa Brā.	Ṣaḍviṃśa Brāhmaṇa	षड्विंश. ब्रा.
Sarvānu.	Sarvānukramaṇī
TaitU.	Taittirīyopaniṣad
Tait. Ār.	Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka	तै. आ.
Tait. Brā.	Taittirīya-Brāhmaṇa	तै. ब्रा.
Tait. Sam.	Taittirīya-Saṃhitā	तै. सं.
Tāṇ. Brā.	Tāṇḍya-Brāhmaṇa	ताण्ड्य. ब्रा.
Vaiś. Sū.	Vaiśeṣika-Sūtra	वै. सू.
Yaj. Sam.	Yajur-Veda Saṃhitā	यज्. सं.
YS.	Yoga-Sūtra