BrS Eng-1

1.1.1 L.1 ✅ वेदान्त-मीमांसाशास्त्रस्य व्याचिख्यासितस्येदम् आदिमं सूत्रम् —

Vedānta-mīmāṃsā-śāstrasya vyācikhyāsitasyedam ādimaṃ sūtram—

This is the first Sūtra of the Śāstra of the consideration of Vedānta which is desired to be explained.

Next→
अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा॥१.१.१॥
Athāto brahma-jijñāsā.

Atha: now, then, afterwards; Ataḥ: therefore; Brahma-jijñāsā: a desire for the knowledge of Brahman (the enquiry into the real nature of Brahman).

🔗 Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman (should be taken up). — 1.1.1.

1.1.1 L.2 ✅ तत्र अथशब्दः आनन्तर्यार्थः परिगृह्यते; नाधिकारार्थः,
ब्रह्मजिज्ञासाया अनधिकार्यत्वात्;

Tatra atha-śabdaḥ ānantarya-arthaḥ parigṛhyate; na adhikāra-arthaḥ,
Brahma-jijñāsāyā anadhikāryatvāt—

The word ‘Now’ is to be understood as meaning something which follows (after the attainment of the requisite spiritual qualities) and not as something which introduces a subject,
Because the desire to know Brahman is not something which is possible to be introduced as a subject,

1.1.1 L.3 ✅ मङ्गलस्य च वाक्यार्थे समन्वयाभावात्;

Maṅgalasya ca vākya-arthe samanvaya-abhāvāt—

Nor can the word mean an auspicious recitation (Maṅgala), as it cannot be properly construed in the meaning of the sentence.

1.1.1 L.4 ✅ अर्थान्तरप्रयुक्त एव ह्यथशब्दः श्रुत्या मङ्गलप्रयोजनो भवति;

Artha-antara-prayukta eva hi atha-śabdaḥ śrutyā maṅgala-prayojano bhavati—

The word ‘Now’ which is used in a different meaning, has still the effect of an auspicious recitation by its being merely heard.

1.1.1 L.5 ✅ पूर्वप्रकृतापेक्षायाश्च फलत आनन्तर्याव्यतिरेकात्।

Pūrva-prakṛta-apekṣāyāś ca phalata ānantarya-avyatirekāt—

The expectation of its referring to something relevant to something else which has gone before is virtually not different from a thing’s following after:

1.1.1 L.6 ✅ सति च आनन्तर्यार्थत्वे, यथा धर्मजिज्ञासा पूर्ववृत्तं वेदाध्ययनं नियमेनापेक्षते, एवं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासापि यत्पूर्ववृत्तं नियमेनापेक्षते तद्वक्तव्यम्।

Sati ca ānantarya-arthatve, yathā dharma-jijñāsā pūrva-vṛttaṃ veda-adhyayanaṃ niyamena apekṣate, evaṃ brahma-jijñāsā api yat pūrva-vṛttaṃ niyamena apekṣate, tad vaktavyam—

The word being understood then, as indicating something which comes after something else, that something else which is expected to have been accomplished, before the desire for the knowledge of Brahman (can be entertained) needs to be mentioned, just as in the case of a desire for the knowledge of duty (Dharma) the study of the Veda is expected to have been accomplished already, before such desire for the knowledge of duty (is entertained).

1.1.1 L.7 ✅ स्वाध्यायानन्तर्यं तु समानम्।

Svādhyāya-ānantaryaṃ tu samānam—

The coming after the study of the Veda, is common (to both).

1.1.1 L.8 ✅ नन्विह कर्मावबोधानन्तर्यं विशेषः;

Nanu iha karma-avabodha-ānantaryaṃ viśeṣaḥ—

But, (says the opponent) the peculiar difference Here (i.e. in the case of the desire for the knowledge of Brahman) is its coming after the (previous) knowledge of the acts of duty:

1.1.1 L.9 ✅ न; धर्मजिज्ञासायाः प्रागपि अधीतवेदान्तस्य ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपपत्तेः।

Na, dharma-jijñāsāyāḥ prāg api adhīta-vedāntasya brahma-jijñāsopapatteḥ—

No (we reply). In the case of a person who has studied the Vedānta, it is reasonably sustainable, that the desire for the knowledge of Brahman may arise (in him) even before the arising of the desire for the knowledge of duty.

1.1.1 L.10 ✅ यथा च हृदयाद्यवदानानाम् आनन्तर्यनियमः, क्रमस्य विवक्षितत्वात्, न तथेह क्रमो विवक्षितः;

Yathā ca hṛdaya-ādi-avadānānām ānantarya-niyamaḥ, kramasya vivakṣitatvāt, na tatheha kramo vivakṣitaḥ—

Here (i.e. in the case of the desire to know Brahman) no particular serial order is intended to be prescribed (by the Scriptures), just as in the case of the desire for the knowledge of duty, a serial order is intended to be prescribed, in as much as there is a rule about (a particular thing) coming after (another particular thing) such as in the cutting off of the heart (of the animal sacrificed) etc.,

1.1.1 L.11 ✅ शेषशेषित्वे अधिकृताधिकारे वा प्रमाणाभावात्।
धर्मब्रह्म-जिज्ञासयोः फलजिज्ञास्य-भेदाच्च।

Śeṣa-śeṣitve adhikṛta-adhikāre vā pramāṇa-abhāvāt. dharma-brahma-jijñāsayoḥ phala-jijñāsya-bhedāc ca—

Or as there is no proof to hold, that as between the desire for the knowledge of duty and the desire for the knowledge of Brahman, there is a relation of one thing being the principal thing and another a subsidiary thing, or as there is no proof of any similar relation as between competency (Adhikāra) and a person who has such competency (Adhikṛta),
And, as there is a difference between the desire to know ‘duty’ and the desire to know ‘Brahman’, and also a difference in their results and the things to be known.

1.1.1 L.12 ✅ अभ्युदयफलं धर्मज्ञानम्, तच्चानुष्ठानापेक्षम्;
निःश्रेयसफलं तु ब्रह्मज्ञानम्, न चानुष्ठानान्तरापेक्षम्;

Abhyudaya-phalaṃ dharma-jñānaṃ, tac ca anuṣṭhāna-apekṣam;
Niḥśreyasa-phalaṃ tu brahma-vijñānam, na ca anuṣṭhāna-antara-apekṣam—

Knowledge of duty has for its result secular prosperity (Abhyudaya) and it expects the performance of certain actions (such as sacrifices etc.).
The knowledge of Brahman, on the other hand, has for its result eternal bliss (Niḥśreyasa) and it does not expect the performance of any act.

1.1.1 L.13 ✅ भव्यश्च धर्मो जिज्ञास्यो न ज्ञानकालेऽस्ति, पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रत्वात्;

Bhavyaś ca dharmo jijñāsyo na jñāna-kāle'sti, puruṣa-vyāpāra-tantratvāt—

Religious duty is something which is to be done at some future time and it does not exist at the time of the acquirement of its knowledge and it depends upon the activity of a man.

1.1.1 L.14 ✅ इह तु भूतं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यं नित्यत्वान्न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रम्।

Iha tu bhūtaṃ brahma jijñāsyaṃ nityatvān na puruṣa-vyāpāra-tantram—

Here on the other hand it is Brahman which is actually eternally in existence, that is desired to be known, and being thus eternal does not depend upon any action on the part of a man.

1.1.1 L.15 ✅ चोदनाप्रवृत्तिभेदाच्च।

Codanā-pravṛtti-bhedāc ca—

Also as between the two there is a difference in the operation of the scriptural injunction.

1.1.1 L.16 ✅ या हि चोदना धर्मस्य लक्षणम्, सा स्वविषये नियुञ्जानैव पुरुषमवबोधयति।

Yā hi codanā dharmasya lakṣaṇam, sā sva-viṣaye niyuñjānaiva puruṣam avabodhayati—

Injunction which is a characteristic of religious duty instructs a person and at the same time enjoins him to the performance of the same.

1.1.1 L.17 ✅ ब्रह्मचोदना तु पुरुषमवबोधयत्येव केवलम्, अवबोधस्य चोदनाजन्यत्वात्, न पुरुषोऽवबोधे नियुज्यते —

Brahma-codanā tu puruṣam avabodhayati eva kevalam, avabodhasya codanā-janyatvāt, na puruṣo'vabodhe niyujyate—

The science of Brahman however merely instructs a person about Brahman, but it does not enjoin a man to any act of acquiring knowledge.

1.1.1 L.18 ✅ यथा अक्षार्थसन्निकर्षेणार्थावबोधे, तद्वत्।

Yathā akṣa-artha-saṃnikarṣeṇa artha-avabodhe, tadvat—

The case is similar to the perception of a sense-object merely by the connection of a sense-organ with its object.

1.1.1 L.19 ✅ तस्मात्किमपि वक्तव्यम्, यदनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपदिश्यत इति।

Tasmāt kim api vaktavyaṃ, yad anantaraṃ brahma-jijñāsopadiśyata iti—

Therefore it is necessary to mention something, after (the accomplishment of) which the inquiry into Brahman is advised.

1.1.1 L.20 ✅ उच्यते — नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकः, इहामुत्रार्थभोगविरागः, शमदमादिसाधनसम्पत्, मुमुक्षुत्वं च।

Ucyate — nitya-anitya-vastu-vivekaḥ, iha-amutra-artha-bhoga-virāgaḥ, śama-dama-ādi-sādhana-saṃpat, mumukṣutvaṃ ca—

We reply — Discrimination between the eternal thing and a transitory thing, distaste for the enjoyment of things here in this world as well as in the world beyond, equipment of oneself with tranquillity, self-restraint, and such other similar means, and the desire for Final Release.

1.1.1 L.21 ✅ तेषु हि सत्सु, प्रागपि धर्मजिज्ञासाया ऊर्ध्वं च, शक्यते ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितुं ज्ञातुं च; न विपर्यये।

Teṣu hi satsu, prāg api dharma-jijñāsāyā ūrdhvaṃ ca, śakyate brahma jijñāsituṃ jñātuṃ ca; na viparyaye—

When these are present, it is possible to desire the knowledge of Brahman and to realize it actually, even before the desire for the knowledge of duty or after it, just as you please.

1.1.1 L.22 ✅ तस्मात् अथशब्देन यथोक्तसाधन-सम्पत्त्यानन्तर्यमुपदिश्यते॥

Tasmāt atha-śabdena yathokta-sādhana-saṃpatti-ānantaryam upadiśyate—

The word ‘Now’ indicates — following after the acquisition of the means as mentioned (above).

1.1.1 L.23 ✅ अतःशब्दो हेत्वर्थः। यस्माद् वेद एव अग्निहोत्रादीनां श्रेयःसाधनानाम् अनित्यफलतां दर्शयति —

Ataḥ-śabdo hetu-arthaḥ. yasmād veda eva agnihotra-ādīnāṃ śreyaḥ-sādhanānām anitya-phalatāṃ darśayati—

The word ‘Therefore’ (Ataḥ, in the Sūtra) is indicative of the reason, in as much as the Scriptures themselves disclose the transitory nature of the fruit of such means of acquiring secular prosperity as the Agni-hotra etc., thus —

1.1.1 L.24 ✅ ‘तद्यथेह कर्मचितो लोकः क्षीयत एवमेवामुत्र पुण्यचितो लोकः क्षीयते’ (ChanU.8.1.6) इत्यादिः;

‘Tad yatheha karma-cito lokaḥ kṣīyate, evam eva amutra puṇya-cito lokaḥ kṣīyate’ ityādiḥ—

“As here on earth whatever has been acquired by religious actions perishes, even so, in the next world also whatever is acquired by merit, perishes” (ChanU.8.1.6) etc.

1.1.1 L.25 ✅ तथा ब्रह्मज्ञानादपि परं पुरुषार्थं दर्शयति — ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1)

Tathā brahma-vijñānād api paraṃ puruṣa-arthaṃ darśayati — ‘brahma-vid āpnoti param’—

Similarly the Scriptures also show that by realizing Brahman the highest aim of man is attained, thus — “One who realizes Brahman attains Final Release.” (TaitUEng.2.1).

1.1.1 L.26 ✅ तस्मात् यथोक्तसाधन-सम्पत्त्यनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा कर्तव्या॥

Tasmāt yathokta-sādhana-saṃpatti-anantaraṃ brahma-jijñāsā kartavyā—

Therefore the desire for the knowledge of Brahman should be entertained after the acquisition of the four means referred to above.

1.1.1 L.27 ✅ ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासा ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा।

Brahmaṇo jijñāsā brahma-jijñāsā—

‘Brahma-jijñāsā’ is the desire to know Brahman.

1.1.1 L.28 ✅ ब्रह्म च वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणम् ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ इति।

Brahma ca vakṣyamāṇa-lakṣaṇam ‘janma-ādi asya yataḥ’ iti—

Brahman is that whose definition will be stated presently in the subsequent Sūtra, viz., “From which the origination of creation etc., (comes about).”

1.1.1 L.29 ✅ अत एव न ब्रह्मशब्दस्य जात्याद्यर्थान्तरम् आशङ्कितव्यम्।

Ata eva na brahma-śabdasya jāti-ādi-artha-antaram āśaṅkitavyam—

One should not therefore think that the word ‘Brahman’ may mean the Brāhmaṇa caste.

1.1.1 L.30 ✅ ब्रह्मण इति कर्मणि षष्ठी, न शेषे;
जिज्ञास्यापेक्षत्वाज्जिज्ञासायाः, जिज्ञास्यान्तरानिर्देशाच्च।

Brahmaṇa iti karmaṇi ṣaṣṭhī, na śeṣe;
Jijñāsya-apekṣatvāj jijñāsāyāḥ, jijñāsya-antara-anirdeśāc ca—

The form ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ is in grammar the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive of Brahman and not the ‘Śeṣe’ genitive,
Because the desire for the knowledge of Brahman presupposes an object such as Brahman, of which knowledge is to be desired, and because no other such object is here indicated.

1.1.1 L.31 ✅ ननु शेषषष्ठीपरिग्रहेऽपि ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासाकर्मत्वं न विरुध्यते, सम्बन्धसामान्यस्य विशेषनिष्ठत्वात्;

Nanu śeṣa-ṣaṣṭhī-parigrahe'pi brahmaṇo jijñāsā-karmatvaṃ na virudhyate, saṃbandha-sāmānyasya viśeṣa-niṣṭhatvāt—

But (says the opponent) even if we understand ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ as a ‘Śeṣe’ genitive, the fact that Brahman is the object of the desire to know is not contradicted, for the general relation (indicated by the genitive case) may base itself on the particular relation (indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive).

1.1.1 L.32 ✅ एवमपि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मणः कर्मत्वमुत्सृज्य, सामान्यद्वारेण परोक्षं कर्मत्वं कल्पयतो, व्यर्थः प्रयासः स्यात्।

Evam api pratyakṣaṃ brahmaṇaḥ karmatvam utsṛjya, sāmānya-dvāreṇa parokṣaṃ karmatvaṃ kalpayato, vyarthaḥ prayāsaḥ syāt—

We reply — In giving up Brahman as the object directly indicated (by understanding ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ as the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive) and then by accepting it as the object indicated, in an indirect way (as indicated by the ‘Śeṣe’ genitive) you will be taking needless trouble.

1.1.1 L.33 ✅ न व्यर्थः, ब्रह्माश्रिताशेषविचार-प्रतिज्ञानार्थत्वादिति चेत्,

Na vyarthaḥ, brahma-āśrita-aśeṣa-vicāra-pratijñāna-arthatvād iti cet—

If the opponent were to say that it would not be undertaking needless trouble (in understanding ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ as the ‘Śeṣe’ genitive) as it would mean the desire to know all that which is dependent on the word Brahman,

1.1.1 L.34 ✅ न; प्रधानपरिग्रहे तदपेक्षितानाम् अर्थाक्षिप्तत्वात्।

Na, pradhāna-parigrahe tad-apekṣitānām artha-ākṣiptatvāt—

We reply — no, because when we accept the principal thing (as indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive) it also necessarily implies that all those secondary things meant by the word Brahman, are included in the principal thing.

1.1.1 L.35 ✅ ब्रह्म हि ज्ञानेनाप्तुम् इष्टतमत्वात् प्रधानम्।

Brahma hi jñānena āptum iṣṭatamatvāt pradhānam—

Brahman being the most desirable thing to be realized by knowledge, is of course the principal thing.

1.1.1 L.36 ✅ तस्मिन्प्रधाने जिज्ञासाकर्मणि परिगृहीते, यैर्जिज्ञासितैर्विना ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितं न भवति, तान्यर्थाक्षिप्तान्येवेति न पृथक्सूत्रयितव्यानि।

Tasmin pradhāne jijñāsā-karmaṇi parigṛhīte, yaiḥ jijñāsitaiḥ vinā brahma jijñāsitaṃ na bhavati, tāni artha-ākṣiptāni eveti na pṛthak-sūtrayitavyāni—

When that principal thing is once accepted as the object of the desire to know, all those other (secondary) things, without desiring to know which Brahman cannot be properly desired to be known, are necessarily implied, and need not be separately mentioned in the Sūtra.

1.1.1 L.37 ✅ यथा ‘राजासौ गच्छति’ इत्युक्ते सपरिवारस्य राज्ञो गमनमुक्तं भवति, तद्वत्।

Yathā ‘rājā asau gacchati’ iti ukte sa-parivārasya rājño gamanam uktaṃ bhavati, tadvat—

For when we say ‘The king is passing by’, it implies that the passing by of the king along with his retinue is meant.

1.1.1 L.38 ✅ श्रुत्यनुगमाच्च।

Śruti-anugamāc ca—

It (i.e. that Brahman is the object as indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive) is in consonance with the Scriptures.

1.1.1 L.39 ✅ ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते’ (TaitU.3.1) इत्याद्याः श्रुतयः
‘तद्विजिज्ञासस्व तद्ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.3.1) इति
प्रत्यक्षमेव ब्रह्मणो जिज्ञासाकर्मत्वं दर्शयन्ति। तच्च कर्मणिषष्ठीपरिग्रहे सूत्रेणानुगतं भवति।

‘Yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante’ ityādyāḥ śrutayaḥ
‘Tad vijijñāsasva tad brahma’ iti
Pratyakṣam eva brahmaṇo jijñāsā-karmatvaṃ darśayanti. tac ca karmaṇi ṣaṣṭhī-parigrahe sūtreṇa anugataṃ bhavati—

The Scriptural passages “That from which all these things are born” (TaitUEng.3.1) etc.
And “Desire to know that, that is Brahman” (TaitUEng.3.1)
Actually indicate that Brahman is the object indicated by the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive and that alone will be in consonance with the Sūtra.

1.1.1 L.40 ✅ तस्माद्ब्रह्मण इति कर्मणि षष्ठी॥

Tasmād brahmaṇa iti karmaṇi ṣaṣṭhī—

Therefore the form ‘Brahmaṇaḥ’ is the ‘Karmaṇi’ genitive.

1.1.1 L.41 ✅ ज्ञातुम् इच्छा जिज्ञासा।

Jñātum icchā jijñāsā—

‘Jijñāsā’ means the desire to know.

1.1.1 L.42 ✅ अवगतिपर्यन्तं ज्ञानं सन्वाच्याया इच्छायाः कर्म, फलविषयत्वादिच्छायाः।

Avagati-paryantaṃ jñānaṃ san-vācyāyā icchāyāḥ karma, phala-viṣayatvād icchāyāḥ—

Complete comprehension is the object of the suffix ‘San’ which means desire, because desire has for its object the result of action.

1.1.1 L.43 ✅ ज्ञानेन हि प्रमाणेनावगन्तुमिष्टं ब्रह्म।

Jñānena hi pramāṇena avagantum iṣṭaṃ brahma—

Knowledge is the only means of comprehending Brahman,

1.1.1 L.44 ✅ ब्रह्मावगतिर्हि पुरुषार्थः, निःशेषसंसार-बीजाविद्याद्यनर्थनिबर्हणात्।

Brahma-avagatiḥ hi puruṣa-arthaḥ, niḥ-śeṣa-saṃsāra-bīja-avidyā-ādi-anartha-nibarhaṇāt—

And the complete knowledge of Brahman is the highest aim (of man) through the destruction of the evil of Nescience which is the root-cause (lit., the seed) of all transmigratory existence.

1.1.1 L.45 ✅ तस्माद्ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यम्॥

Tasmād brahma jijñāsitavyam—

Therefore the knowledge of Brahman should be desired.

1.1.1 L.46 ✅ तत्पुनर्ब्रह्म प्रसिद्धमप्रसिद्धं वा स्यात्;

Tat punaḥ brahma prasiddham aprasiddhaṃ vā syāt—

But again (says the opponent), that Brahman must either be well-known or not known at all.

1.1.1 L.47 ✅ यदि प्रसिद्धं न जिज्ञासितव्यम्।

Yadi prasiddhaṃ na jijñāsitavyam—

If it is well-known, it need not be desired to be known.

1.1.1 L.48 ✅ अथाप्रसिद्धं नैव शक्यं जिज्ञासितुमिति।

Atha aprasiddhaṃ naiva śakyaṃ jijñāsitum iti—

If it is not known at all, it would not be possible to desire to know it.

1.1.1 L.49 ✅ उच्यते — अस्ति तावद्ब्रह्म नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्वभावं सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्तिसमन्वितम्।

Ucyate — asti tāvad brahma nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta-sva-bhāvaṃ sarvajñaṃ sarva-śakti-samanvitam—

We reply — Brahman which is omniscient, all-powerful, and of the nature of eternal purity, intelligence and freedom, exists of course.

1.1.1 L.50 ✅ ब्रह्मशब्दस्य हि व्युत्पाद्यमानस्य नित्य-शुद्धत्वादयोऽर्थाः प्रतीयन्ते, बृंहतेर्धातोरर्थानुगमात्।

Brahma-śabdasya hi vyutpādyamānasya nitya-śuddhatva-ādayo'rthāḥ pratīyante, bṛhateḥ dhātoḥ artha-anugamāt—

Etymologically, from the root ‘Bṛha’ we understand such things as eternal purity, etc.

1.1.1 L.51 ✅ सर्वस्यात्मत्वाच्च ब्रह्मास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिः।

Sarvasya ātmatvāc ca brahma-astitva-prasiddhiḥ—

The existence of Brahman is moreover well-known, because of its being the Self of every one.

1.1.1 L.52 ✅ सर्वो ह्यात्मास्तित्वं प्रत्येति, न ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति।

Sarvo hi ātma-astitvaṃ pratyeti, na ‘na aham asmi’ iti—

Every one experiences the existence of the Self, and does not experience that he is not.

1.1.1 L.53 ✅ यदि हि नात्मास्तित्वप्रसिद्धिः स्यात्, सर्वो लोकः ‘नाहमस्मि’ इति प्रतीयात्।

Yadi hi na ātma-astitva-prasiddhiḥ syāt, sarvo lokaḥ ‘na aham asmi’ iti pratīyāt—

If the well-known existence of the Self were not to be so in fact, every one would experience that he does not exist.

1.1.1 L.54 ✅ आत्मा च ब्रह्म।

Ātmā ca brahma—

The Self of course is Brahman.

1.1.1 L.55 ✅ यदि तर्हि लोके ब्रह्म आत्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धमस्ति, ततो ज्ञातमेवेत्यजिज्ञास्यत्वं पुनरापन्नम्;

Yadi tarhi loke brahma ātmatvena prasiddham asti, tato jñātam eveti ajijñāsyatvaṃ punaḥ āpannam—

But (says the opponent), if Brahman is known to everybody as the Self, then being already so known, it comes to this, that in that case there could not be any desire to know it.

1.1.1 L.56 ✅ न; तद्विशेषं प्रति विप्रतिपत्तेः।

Na, tad-viśeṣaṃ prati vipratipatteḥ—

No (we reply), because there is a conflict of opinion as to its special nature.

1.1.1 L.57 ✅ देहमात्रं चैतन्यविशिष्टमात्मेति प्राकृता जना लोकायतिकाश्च प्रतिपन्नाः।

Deha-mātraṃ caitanya-viśiṣṭam ātmeti prākṛtā janā laukāyatikāś ca pratipannāḥ—

Unsophisticated persons and the Lokāyatikas understand that the mere body as such endowed with intelligence is the Self.

1.1.1 L.58 ✅ इन्द्रियाण्येव चेतनान्यात्मेत्यपरे।

Indriyāṇi eva cetanāni ātmeti apare—

Others that the sense-organs which are intelligent are the Self.

1.1.1 L.59 ✅ मन इत्यन्ये।

Mana iti anye—

Some say that the mind is Ātmā,

1.1.1 L.60 ✅ विज्ञानमात्रं क्षणिकमित्येके।

Vijñāna-mātraṃ kṣaṇikam iti eke—

Some say that it is merely momentary knowledge.

1.1.1 L.61 ✅ शून्यमित्यपरे।

Śūnyam iti apare—

Some others say that the Self is merely a vacuum (Śūnya).

1.1.1 L.62 ✅ अस्ति देहादिव्यतिरिक्तः संसारी कर्ता भोक्तेत्यपरे।

Asti deha-ādi-vyatiriktaḥ saṃsārī kartā bhokteti apare—

Others again say that an entity different from the body which is an agent, an experiencer, and a transmigratory being is in fact in existence.

1.1.1 L.63 ✅ भोक्तैव केवलं न कर्तेत्येके।

Bhoktaiva kevalaṃ na karteti eke—

Some others say that the Self is an experiencer only but not an agent.

1.1.1 L.64 ✅ अस्ति तद्व्यतिरिक्त ईश्वरः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरिति केचित्।

Asti tad-vyatirikta īśvaraḥ sarvajñaḥ sarva-śaktiḥ iti kecit—

Some others think that there is a Lord who is omniscient and all-powerful, and is different from the Self.

1.1.1 L.65 ✅ आत्मा स भोक्तुरित्यपरे।

Ātmā sa bhoktuḥ iti apare—

Others that the Ātmā is the Self of the experiencing Jīva.

1.1.1 L.66 ✅ एवं बहवो विप्रतिपन्ना युक्तिवाक्यतदाभास-समाश्रयाः सन्तः।

Evaṃ bahavo vipratipannā yukti-vākya-tad-ābhāsa-samāśrayāḥ santaḥ—

In this manner there are many who have resorted to fallacious reasoning or the Scriptures as an authority and have differed amongst themselves in their view (as to what the Self i.e. Brahman is).

1.1.1 L.67 ✅ तत्राविचार्य यत्किञ्चित्प्रतिपद्यमानो निःश्रेयसात् प्रतिहन्येत, अनर्थं चेयात्।

Tatra avicārya yat kiñcit pratipadyamāno niḥśreyasāt pratihanyeta, anarthaṃ ca iyāt—

Under these circumstances if one were to conclude recklessly and to understand something else (as the Self), one may miss Final Beatitude and may be ruined.

1.1.1 L.68 ✅ तस्माद् ब्रह्मजिज्ञासोपन्यासमुखेन वेदान्तवाक्यमीमांसा तदविरोधितर्कोपकरणा निःश्रेयसप्रयोजना प्रस्तूयते॥१॥

Tasmād brahma-jijñāsopanyāsa-mukhena vedānta-vākya-mīmāṃsā tad-avirodhi-tarkopakaraṇā niḥśreyasa-prayojanā prastūyate—

Hence now begins, under the designation of ‘an inquiry into Brahman’, an analysis of the Vedānta texts with the help of Logic (Tarka) conformable to the Scriptures, having the highest Beatitude as its reward. — 1.

– 1. Jijñāsā-Adhikaraṇam.

1.1.2 L.1 ✅ ब्रह्म जिज्ञासितव्यमित्युक्तम्।

Brahma jijñāsitavyam iti uktam—

We have said so far that one should desire to know Brahman.

1.1.2 L.2 ✅ किंलक्षणं पुनस्तद्ब्रह्मेत्यत आह भगवान्सूत्रकारः —

Kiṃ lakṣaṇaṃ punaḥ tad brahma iti ata āha bhagavān sūtrakāraḥ—

The question arises — What are the characteristics of that Brahman? Therefore Bhagavān Sūtra-kāra has said:

←Prev Next→
जन्माद्यस्य यतः॥१.१.२॥
Janmādy asya yahaḥ.

Janma-ādi: origin etc.; Asya: of this (world); Yataḥ: from which.

🔗 (Brahman is that) from which the origin etc. of this (world, proceed). — 1.1.2.

1.1.2 L.3 ✅ जन्म उत्पत्तिः आदिः अस्य — इति तद्गुणसंविज्ञानो बहुव्रीहिः।

Janma utpattiḥ ādiḥ asya — iti tad-guṇa-saṃvijñāno bahu-vrīhiḥ—

The compound word ‘Janmādi’ is a Bahu-vrīhi compound of the ‘Tat-guṇa-saṃvijñāna’ type, and it is dissolved as follows: — ‘That of which origin is the first’.

1.1.2 L.4 ✅ जन्मस्थितिभङ्गं समासार्थः।

Janma-sthiti-bhaṅgaṃ samāsa-arthaḥ—

The meaning of the compound word is — origin, preservation and dissolution.

1.1.2 L.5 ✅ जन्मनश्चादित्वं श्रुतिनिर्देशापेक्षं वस्तुवृत्तापेक्षं च।

Janmanaś ca āditvaṃ śruti-nirdeśa-apekṣaṃ vastu-vṛtta-apekṣaṃ ca—

Origin comes first in order, because it is so indicated in the Scriptures and also because it is so in fact.

1.1.2 L.6 ✅ श्रुतिनिर्देशस्तावत् — ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते’ (TaitU.3.1) इति,

Śruti-nirdeśaḥ tāvat, ‘yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante’ iti—

The indication of the Scriptures is “From whence these beings are born” etc. (TaitUEng.3.1) in which origin, preservation and dissolution are mentioned in their order.

1.1.2 L.7 ✅ अस्मिन्वाक्ये जन्मस्थितिप्रलयानां क्रमदर्शनात्। वस्तुवृत्तमपि — जन्मना लब्धसत्ताकस्य धर्मिणः स्थितिप्रलयसम्भवात्।

Asmin vākye janma-sthiti-pralayānāṃ krama-darśanāt. vastu-vṛttam api — janmanā labdha-sattākasya dharmiṇaḥ sthiti-pralaya-saṃbhavāt—

The fact as it is, is that it is only when a thing possessing attributes has attained the condition of existence, that preservation and dissolution of the same are possible.

1.1.2 L.8 ✅ अस्येति प्रत्यक्षादिसन्निधापितस्य धर्मिण इदमा निर्देशः।

Asyeti pratyakṣa-ādi-saṃnidhāpitasya dharmiṇa idam ā nirdeśaḥ—

The word ‘Asya’ (in the Sūtra) indicates the thing possessing attributes, which is established by direct means of knowledge etc. as — this is it.

1.1.2 L.9 ✅ षष्ठी जन्मादिधर्मसम्बन्धार्था।

Ṣaṣṭī janma-ādi-dharma-saṃbandha-arthā—

The genitive case (of Asya) is for showing the relation with the origin etc.

1.1.2 L.10 ✅ यत इति कारणनिर्देशः।

Yata iti kāraṇa-nirdeśaḥ—

The word ‘Yataḥ’ indicates by the ablative case the cause (of the origin).

1.1.2 L.11 ✅ अस्य जगतो नामरूपाभ्यां व्याकृतस्य अनेककर्तृभोक्तृ-संयुक्तस्य प्रतिनियतदेशकालनिमित्त-क्रियाफलाश्रयस्य मनसाप्यचिन्त्यरचनारूपस्य
जन्मस्थितिभङ्गं यतः सर्वज्ञात्सर्वशक्तेः कारणाद्भवति,

Asya jagato nāma-rūpābhyāṃ vyākṛtasya aneka-kartṛ-bhoktṛ-saṃyuktasya pratiniyata-deśa-kāla-nimitta-kriyā-phala-āśrayasya manasā api acintya-racanā-rūpasya
Janma-sthiti-bhaṅgaṃ yataḥ sarvajñāt sarva-śakteḥ kāraṇād bhavati—

The omniscient and all-powerful cause from which (Yataḥ), the origin, preservation and dissolution
Of this transient world, which is distinguished by names and forms, and which is connected with diverse agents and enjoyers, springs, and which is the basis of the fruit of actions depending upon a particular environment, time, and cause, and in even the mere thinking about which, imagination boggles and is unable to comprehend the arrangement,

1.1.2 L.12 ✅ तद्ब्रह्मेति वाक्यशेषः।

‘Tad brahma’ iti vākya-śeṣaḥ—

‘That is Brahman’ which is to be understood as the complementary portion of the Sūtra.

1.1.2 L.13 ✅ अन्येषामपि भावविकाराणां त्रिष्वेवान्तर्भाव इति जन्मस्थितिनाशानामिह ग्रहणम्।

Anyeṣām api bhāva-vikārāṇāṃ triṣu eva antar-bhāva iti janma-sthiti-nāśānām iha grahaṇam—

These three only viz. the origin, preservation and dissolution, are to be understood here, as the other modifications of existence are covered by these three.

1.1.2 L.14 ✅ यास्कपरिपठितानां तु ‘जायतेऽस्ति’ इत्यादीनां ग्रहणे तेषां जगतः स्थितिकाले सम्भाव्यमानत्वान्मूलकारणाद् उत्पत्तिस्थितिनाशा जगतो न गृहीताः स्युरित्याशङ्क्येत;

Yāska-paripaṭhitānāṃ tu ‘jāyate'sti’ ityādīnāṃ grahaṇe teṣāṃ jagataḥ sthiti-kāle saṃbhāvyamānatvān mūla-kāraṇād utpatti-sthiti-nāśā jagato na gṛhītāḥ syuḥ iti āśaṅkyeta—

If we include the other modifications of existence enumerated by Yāska, we may be tempted to doubt the origin, preservation and dissolution as originating from the root-cause, as they (i.e. other modifications) are possible only when the transient world is in existence.

1.1.2 L.15 ✅ तन्मा शङ्कि; इति या उत्पत्तिर्ब्रह्मणः, तत्रैव स्थितिः प्रलयश्च, त एव गृह्यन्ते।

Tan mā śaṅki; iti yā utpattiḥ brahmaṇaḥ, tatraiva sthitiḥ pralayaś ca, ta eva gṛhyante—

In order that we should not doubt that the preservation and dissolution is of that only which is created, we should understand only these three (by the word Janmādi).

1.1.2 L.16 ✅ न च यथोक्तविशेषणस्य जगतो यथोक्तविशेषणमीश्वरं मुक्त्वा, अन्यतः प्रधानादचेतनात् अणुभ्यः अभावात् संसारिणो वा उत्पत्त्यादि सम्भावयितुं शक्यम्।

Na yathokta-viśeṣaṇasya jagato yathokta-viśeṣaṇam īśvaraṃ muktvā, anyataḥ pradhānād acetanāt aṇubhyo abhāvāt saṃsāriṇo vā utpatti-ādi saṃbhāvayituṃ śakyam—

It is not possible to conceive the origin etc. of this transient world of the type described (above) to be from any cause other than the Lord described as above, viz. from the non-sentient Pradhāna (of the Sāṅkhyas) or from the atoms (of the Vaiśeṣikas), or from mere non-existence (as held by the followers of Buddha), or from a transmigratory being (such as Hiraṇya-garbha).

1.1.2 L.17 ✅ न च स्वभावतः, विशिष्टदेशकाल-निमित्तानाम् इहोपादानात्।

Na ca sva-bhāvataḥ, viśiṣṭa-deśa-kāla-nimittānām ihopādānāt—

Nor can it ever evolve from its own nature (without any cause), for in such a matter, particular environment, time and cause have to be considered to be necessary.

1.1.2 L.18 ✅ एतदेवानुमानं संसारिव्यतिरिक्तेश्वरास्तित्वादि-साधनं मन्यन्ते ईश्वरकारणवादिनः॥

Etad eva anumānaṃ saṃsāri-vyatirikteśvara-astitva-ādi-sādhanaṃ manyante īśvara-kāraṇa-vādinaḥ—

Those who maintain the Lord as the cause of this transient world (such as the Logicians) think that the same inference (as is stated just above) also supplies the means for holding the existence of the Lord as distinguished from the transmigratory Self etc., as being the cause (of this transmigratory world).

1.1.2 L.19 ✅ नन्विहापि तदेवोपन्यस्तं जन्मादिसूत्रे;

Nanu iha api tad evopanyastaṃ janma-ādi-sūtre—

But (says the opponent) the same argument (by inference) is also adopted in this ‘Janmādi’ Sūtra.

1.1.2 L.20 ✅ न; वेदान्तवाक्यकुसुम-ग्रथनार्थत्वात् सूत्राणाम्।

Na; vedānta-vākya-kusuma-grathana-arthatvāt sūtrāṇām—

No (we reply), for the Sūtras are meant only for the purpose of stringing together the flower-like Vedānta passages.

1.1.2 L.21 ✅ वेदान्तवाक्यानि हि सूत्रैरुदाहृत्य विचार्यन्ते।

Vedānta-vākyāni hi sūtraiḥ udāhṛtya vicāryante—

The Sūtras refer to the Vedānta passages which are considered therein.

1.1.2 L.22 ✅ वाक्यार्थविचारणाध्यवसाननिर्वृत्ता हि ब्रह्मावगतिः, नानुमानादिप्रमाणान्तरनिर्वृत्ता।

Vākya-artha-vicāraṇa-adhyavasāna-nirvṛttā hi brahma-avagatiḥ, na anumāna-ādi-pramāṇa-antara-nirvṛttā—

For the knowledge of Brahman is effected by the determination (brought about) by the consideration of the meaning of the Vedānta passages, and not by the other means of right knowledge such as inference etc.

1.1.2 L.23 ✅ सत्सु तु वेदान्तवाक्येषु जगतो जन्मादिकारणवादिषु,
तदर्थग्रहणदार्ढ्याय अनुमानमपि वेदान्तवाक्याविरोधि प्रमाणं भवत्, न निवार्यते,
श्रुत्यैव च सहायत्वेन तर्कस्याभ्युपेतत्वात्।

Satsu tu vedānta-vākyeṣu jagato janma-ādi-kāraṇa-vādiṣu,
Tad-artha-grahaṇa-dārḍhyāya anumānam api vedānta-vākya-avirodhi pramāṇaṃ bhavat, na nivāryate,
Śrutyaiva ca sahāyatvena tarkasya abhyupetatvāt—

Such Vedānta passages dealing with the cause of the creation etc. of the transitory world being there (for that purpose),
Inference also, which is not antagonistic (to such passages) and furnishes a means of right knowledge, for the strengthening of the understanding of the meaning of these passages, is not rejected,
Because the Scriptures themselves accept the aid of Logic as an auxiliary.

1.1.2 L.24 ✅ तथा हि — ‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5) इति श्रुतिः

Tathā hi — ‘śrotavyo mantavyaḥ’ iti śrutiḥ—

For Scriptural passages such as “The Self is to be heard and cogitated upon” (BrhUEng.2.4.5),

1.1.2 L.25 ✅ ‘पण्डितो मेधावी गन्धारानेवोपसम्पद्येतैवम् एवेहाचार्यवान् पुरुषो वेद’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति च पुरुषबुद्धिसाहाय्यम् आत्मनो दर्शयति।

‘Paṇḍito medhāvī gandhārān evopasaṃpadyetaivam eveha ācāryavān puruṣo veda’ iti ca puruṣa-buddhi-sāhāyyam ātmano darśayati—

And “A learned and intelligent person does of course reach Gāndhāra, and similarly, a man who has a teacher acquires knowledge (of Brahman)” (ChanU.6.14.2), show that a man’s intelligence is helpful to the Scriptures.

1.1.2 L.26 ✅ न धर्मजिज्ञासायामिव श्रुत्यादय एव प्रमाणं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासायाम्।

Na dharma-jijñāsāyām iva śruti-ādaya eva pramāṇaṃ brahma-jijñāsāyām—

It is not that the Scriptures alone are the means of the right knowledge of Brahman, as is the case about the right knowledge of religious duty,

1.1.2 L.27 ✅ किन्तु श्रुत्यादयोऽनुभवादयश्च यथासम्भवमिह प्रमाणम्,
अनुभवावसानत्वाद् भूतवस्तुविषयत्वाच्च ब्रह्मज्ञानस्य।

Kin tu śruti-ādayo'nubhāva-ādayaś ca yathā-saṃbhavam iha pramāṇam,
Anubhava-avasānatvād bhūta-vastu-viṣayatvāc ca brahma-jñānasya—

But the Scriptures, as also intuitional experience, so far as is possible, constitute the authoritative or valid means of right knowledge,
Because the knowledge of Brahman culminates in the realization (Anubhava) of Brahman, and has an already existing entity as its object.

1.1.2 L.28 ✅ कर्तव्ये हि विषये नानुभवापेक्षास्तीति श्रुत्यादीनामेव प्रामाण्यं स्यात्, पुरुषाधीनात्म-लाभत्वाच्च कर्तव्यस्य।

Kartavye hi viṣaye na anubhava-apekṣā asti iti śruti-ādīnām eva prāmāṇyaṃ syāt, puruṣa-adhīna-ātma-lābhatvāc ca kartavyasya—

In the case of religious action there is no expectation of intuitional experience (Anubhava, i.e. direct experience) and the Scriptures alone are the authoritative means of its right knowledge, and action is dependent upon man for its origination.

1.1.2 L.29 ✅ कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यं लौकिकं वैदिकं च कर्म;

Kartum akartum anyathā vā kartuṃ śakyaṃ laukikaṃ vaidikaṃ ca karma—

In the case of action in ordinary life, or action according to the Vedas, it is possible that it may either be done or not done or done in a different way.

1.1.2 L.30 ✅ यथा अश्वेन गच्छति, पद्भ्याम्, अन्यथा वा, न वा गच्छतीति।

Yathā ‘aśvena gacchati, padbhyām, anyathā vā, na vā gacchati’ iti—

For instance a man may use a horse for going (from one place to another) or he may go on foot or in some other way or he may not go at all.

1.1.2 L.31 ✅ तथा ‘अतिरात्रे षोडशिनं गृह्णाति, नातिरात्रे षोडशिनं गृह्णाति’ ‘उदिते जुहोति, अनुदिते जुहोति’ इति।

Tathā ‘ati-rātre ṣoḍaśinaṃ gṛhṇāti, na ati-rātre ṣoḍaśinaṃ gṛhṇāti’ ‘udite juhoti, anudite juhoti’ iti—

Similarly, in an Atirātra sacrifice he may optionally use (take up) or may not use (take up) the ‘Ṣo-ḍaśi’ (a particular sacrificial cup) or he may sacrifice either before or after sun-rise,

1.1.2 L.32 ✅ विधिप्रतिषेधाश्च अत्र अर्थवन्तः स्युः, विकल्पोत्सर्गापवादाश्च।

Vidhi-pratiṣedhāś ca atra arthavantaḥ syuḥ, vikalpotsarga-apavādāś ca—

And in this manner injunctions and prohibitions, options, and rules and their exceptions, have a proper raison d’etre.

1.1.2 L.33 ✅ न तु वस्तु ‘एवम्, नैवम्’ ‘अस्ति, नास्ति’ इति वा विकल्प्यते।

Na tu vastu ‘evam, naivam’ ‘asti, na asti’ iti vā vikalpyate—

But there is no such scope for exercising an option in the case of an existing entity, such as that it is like this or not like this or that it does not exist.

1.1.2 L.34 ✅ विकल्पनास्तु पुरुषबुद्ध्यपेक्षाः।

Vikalpanāḥ tu puruṣa-buddhi-apekṣāḥ—

Options again depend upon the notions of a person,

1.1.2 L.35 ✅ न वस्तुयाथात्म्यज्ञानं पुरुषबुद्ध्यपेक्षम्। किं तर्हि? वस्तुतन्त्रमेव तत्।

Na vastu-yāthā-ātmya-jñānaṃ puruṣa-buddhi-apekṣam. kiṃ tarhi? vastu-tantram eva tat—

While the knowledge of an entity as it actually is, depends upon the thing itself, and not upon the notions of a man.

1.1.2 L.36 ✅ न हि स्थाणावेकस्मिन् ‘स्थाणुर्वा, पुरुषोऽन्यो वा’ इति तत्त्वज्ञानं भवति।

Na hi sthāṇau ekasmin ‘sthāṇuḥ vā, puruṣo'nyo vā’ iti tattva-jñānaṃ bhavati—

In the case of a pillar, for instance, that it is either a pillar or a man or something else cannot (each) be correct knowledge,

1.1.2 L.37 ✅ तत्र ‘पुरुषोऽन्यो वा’ इति मिथ्याज्ञानम्। ‘स्थाणुरेव’ इति तत्त्वज्ञानम्,
वस्तुतन्त्रत्वात्।

Tatra ‘puruṣo'nyo vā’ iti mithyā-jñānam. ‘sthāṇuḥ eva’ iti tattva-jñānam,
Vastu-tantratvāt—

Because the knowledge that it is a pillar depends upon the entity (the pillar) itself,
[In which case, this is a person or something else is false-knowledge, whereas, this is in fact a pillar is true-knowledge.]

1.1.2 L.38 ✅ एवं भूतवस्तुविषयाणां प्रामाण्यं वस्तुतन्त्रम्।

Evaṃ bhūta-vastu-viṣayāṇāṃ prāmāṇyaṃ vastu-tantram—

In this manner, the authoritativeness or validity of the knowledge of an entity actually in existence depends upon the entity itself.

1.1.2 L.39 ✅ तत्रैवं सति ब्रह्मज्ञानमपि वस्तुतन्त्रमेव, भूतवस्तुविषयत्वात्।

Tatraivaṃ sati brahma-jñānam api vastu-tantram eva, bhūta-vastu-viṣayatvāt—

That being so, the knowledge of Brahman also, is knowledge depending upon the entity itself, in as much as it concerns the actually existing entity itself.

1.1.2 L.40 ✅ ननु भूतवस्तुविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः प्रमाणान्तरविषयत्वमेवेति वेदान्तवाक्यविचारणा अनर्थिकैव प्राप्ता;

Nanu bhūta-vastu-viṣayatve brahmaṇaḥ pramāṇa-antara-viṣayatvam eveti vedānta-vākya-vicāraṇā anarthikaiva prāptā—

But (says the opponent) Brahman being an existing entity, it is the province of other means of right knowledge also, and thus it comes to this that the consideration of the Scriptural passages is therefore purposeless.

1.1.2 L.41 ✅ न; इन्द्रियाविषयत्वेन सम्बन्धाग्रहणात्।

Na; indriya-aviṣayatvena saṃbandha-agrahaṇāt—

No (we say), Brahman not being an object of sense, it has no relation with the sense-organs.

1.1.2 L.42 ✅ स्वभावतो विषयविषयाणीन्द्रियाणि, न ब्रह्मविषयाणि।

Sva-bhāvato viṣaya-viṣayāṇi indriyāṇi, na brahma-viṣayāṇi—

Sense-organs by their very nature have sense-objects for their province while Brahman is not their province.

1.1.2 L.43 ✅ सति हीन्द्रियविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः, इदं ब्रह्मणा सम्बद्धं कार्यमिति गृह्येत।

Sati hi indriya-viṣayatve brahmaṇaḥ, idaṃ brahmaṇā saṃbaddhaṃ kāryam iti gṛhyeta—

Were Brahman to be an object of sense-organs, we would be able to know that this world (the effect of Brahman) is connected with Brahman.

1.1.2 L.44 ✅ कार्यमात्रमेव तु गृह्यमाणम् — किं ब्रह्मणा सम्बद्धम्? किमन्येन केनचिद्वा सम्बद्धम्? — इति न शक्यं निश्चेतुम्।

Kāryamātram eva tu gṛhyamāṇaṃ — kiṃ brahmaṇā saṃbaddham? — kim anyena kenacid vā saṃbaddham? — iti na śakyaṃ niścetum—

But we are unable to determine whether the world, which alone we are able to perceive, is connected with Brahman or something else.

1.1.2 L.45 ✅ तस्माज्जन्मादिसूत्रं नानुमानोपन्यासार्थम्।

Tasmāj janma-ādi-sūtraṃ na anumāṇopanyāsa-artham—

Therefore, the Sūtra ‘Janmādi etc.’ is not meant for the statement of an inference.

1.1.2 L.46 ✅ किं तर्हि? वेदान्तवाक्यप्रदर्शनार्थम्।

Kiṃ tarhi? vedāna-vākya-pradarśana-artham—

What is it for, then? It is for commending the Vedānta passage to the notice (of the student).

1.1.2 L.47 ✅ किं पुनस्तद्वेदान्तवाक्यं यत् सूत्रेणेह लिलक्षयिषितम्?

Kiṃ punaḥ tad vedānta-vākyaṃ yat sūtreṇeha lilakṣayiṣitam?—

Now what precisely is the Vedānta passage to which the Sūtra is meant to draw attention?

1.1.2 L.48 ✅ ‘भृगुर्वै वारुणिः। वरुणं पितरमुपससार। अधीहि भगवो ब्रह्मेति’ इत्युपक्रम्य
आह — ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते। येन जातानि जीवन्ति। यत्प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति। तद्विजिज्ञासस्व। तद्ब्रह्मेति। ’ (TaitU.3.1)

‘Bhṛguḥ vai vāruṇiḥ. varuṇaṃ pitaram upasasāra. adhīhi bhagavo brahmeti’ iti upakramya
Āha — ‘yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante. yena jātāni jīvanti. yat prayanti abhisaṃviśanti. tad vijijñāsasva. tad brahmeti’—

The scriptures beginning thus — “Bhṛgu the son of Varuṇa approached his father Varuṇa (and said) — ‘Oh Bhagavān, teach me what Brahman is’”,
Go on further and say — “That from which all these beings are born, that by which, after being born, they live, and that to which they go and in which they are absorbed, that (you should) try to know, that is Brahman” (TaitUEng.3.1).

1.1.2 L.49 ✅ तस्य च निर्णयवाक्यम् — ‘आनन्दाद्ध्येव खल्विमानि भूतानि जायन्ते। आनन्देन जातानि जीवन्ति। आनन्दं प्रयन्त्यभिसंविशन्ति’ (TaitU.3.6) इति।

Tasya ca nirṇaya-vākyam — ‘ānandād hi eva khalu imāni bhūtāni jāyante. ānandena jātāni jīvanti. ānandaṃ prayanti abhisaṃviśanti’ iti—

And of that the conclusive passage is — “From Bliss (Ānanda) these things are born, by Bliss, after they are born they live, and into Bliss, at death they enter” (TaitUEng.3.6).

1.1.2 L.50 ✅ अन्यान्यप्येवंजातीयकानि वाक्यानि नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्वभाव-सर्वज्ञ-स्वरूप-कारण-विषयाणि उदाहर्तव्यानि॥२॥

Anyāni api evaṃ jātīyakāni vākyāni nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhāva-sarvajña-svarūpa-kāraṇa-viṣayāṇi udāhartavyāni—

Other similar passages also, having reference to the cause (Brahman) which has eternal purity, intelligence, freedom and omniscience as its nature, should be adduced in illustration. — 2.

– 2. Janma-ādy-Adhikaraṇam.

1.1.3 L.1 ✅ जगत्कारणत्वप्रदर्शनेन सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मेत्युपक्षिप्तम्, तदेव द्रढयन्नाह —

jagat-kāraṇatva-pradarśanena sarva-jñaṃ brahmeti upakṣiptam, tad eva draḍhayann āha—

We have stated, by indicating that Brahman is the cause of the transitory world, that it is omniscient. Now wishing to make that statement firmer (the Sūtra-kāra) says: —

←Prev Next→
शास्त्रयोनित्वात्॥१.१.३॥
Śāstra-yonitvāt.

Śāstra: the scripture; Yonitvāt: being the source of or the means of the right knowledge.

🔗 (The omniscience of Brahman) follows from its being the source of the Śāstra i.e. the Scriptures. — 1.1.3.

1.1.3 L.2 ✅ महत ऋग्वेदादेः शास्त्रस्य अनेकविद्या-स्थानोपबृंहितस्य प्रदीपवत् सर्वार्थावद्योतिनः सर्वज्ञकल्पस्य योनिः कारणं ब्रह्म।

Mahata ṛg-veda-ādeḥ śāstrasya aneka-vidyā-sthānopabṛṃhitasya pradīpavat sarva-artha-avadyotinaḥ sarvajña-kalpasya yoniḥ kāraṇaṃ brahma—

Brahman is the source of i.e. the cause of the Śāstra comprising of the great Ṛg and other Vedas, the Śāstra which is supplemented by many Vidyās and which like a flambeau illuminates all objects and which is almost all-knowing.

1.1.3 L.3 ✅ न हीदृशस्य शास्त्रस्य ऋग्वेदादिलक्षणस्य सर्वज्ञगुणान्वितस्य सर्वज्ञादन्यतः सम्भवोऽस्ति।

Na hi īdṛśasya śāstrasya ṛg-veda-ādi-lakṣaṇasya sarvajña-guṇa-anvitasya sarvajñād anyataḥ saṃbhavo'sti—

It is not possible, that such Śāstra of the nature of the Ṛg and the other Vedas, which is endowed with the quality of omniscience can have its origination from any thing other than what is omniscient.

1.1.3 L.4 ✅ यद्यद् विस्तरार्थं शास्त्रं यस्मात् पुरुषविशेषात् सम्भवति, यथा व्याकरणादि पाणिन्यादेः ज्ञेयैकदेशार्थमपि, स ततोऽप्यधिकतरविज्ञान इति प्रसिद्धं लोके।

Yadyad vistara-arthaṃ śāstraṃ yasmāt puruṣa-viśeṣāt saṃbhavati, yathā vyākaraṇa-ādi pāṇini-ādeḥ jñeyaika-deśa-artham api, sa tato'pi adhikatara-vijñāna iti prasiddhaṃ loke—

It is well-known in the world that any author from whom any special body of Śāstra emanates — as, for instance, Grammar from Pāṇini — , and refers to only a branch of knowledge, possesses more knowledge than that Śāstra.

1.1.3 L.5 ✅ किमु वक्तव्यम् —
अनेकशाखा-भेदभिन्नस्य देवतिर्यङ्मनुष्य-वर्णाश्रमादि-प्रविभागहेतोः ऋग्वेदाद्याख्यस्य सर्वज्ञानाकरस्य
अप्रयत्नेनैव लीलान्यायेन पुरुषनिःश्वासवत् यस्मान् महतो भूतात् योनेः सम्भवः —

Kim u vaktavyam —
Aneka-śākhā-bheda-bhinnasya deva-tiryaṅ-manuṣya-varṇa-āśrama-ādi-pravibhāga-hetoḥ ṛg-veda-ādi-ākhyasya sarvajñāna-ākarasya
Aprayatnenaiva līlā-nyāyena puruṣa-niḥśvāsavat yasmān mahato bhūtāt yoneḥ saṃbhavaḥ—

How can anything (more) be said about
That great Being who is the source (Yoni), i.e. from whom, as if without any special effort and as if in sport and as naturally as its own breathings, is born
The Ṛg-Veda, which is the ocean of all knowledge, the cause of the distinction as between all the different classes and conditions of the Devas, animals and men, and which is divided into many different branches,

1.1.3 L.6 ✅ ‘अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतत् यदृग्वेदः’ (BrhU.2.4.10) इत्यादिश्रुतेः — तस्य महतो भूतस्य निरतिशयं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तिमत्त्वं चेति॥

‘Asya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitam etad yad ṛg-vedaḥ’ ityādi-śruteḥ — tasya mahato bhūtasya nir-atiśayaṃ sarvajñatvaṃ sarva-śaktimattvaṃ ceti—

According to the Scriptural passage — “That which is the Ṛg-Veda is but merely the breathing (the Divine Afflatus) of that great divine Being” (BrhUEng.2.4.10), and also that the great Being possesses unsurpassed omniscience and is all-powerful?

1.1.3 L.7 ✅ अथवा यथोक्तम् ऋग्वेदादिशास्त्रं योनिः कारणं प्रमाणमस्य ब्रह्मणो यथावत्स्वरूपाधिगमे।

Athavā yathoktam ṛg-veda-ādi-śāstraṃ yoniḥ kāraṇaṃ pramāṇam asya brahmaṇo yathāvat-svarūpa-adhigame—

Or (we may construe the Sūtra in this way) — the Śāstra, Ṛg-Veda etc. described above, is the source, the cause, and the authoritative means of the understanding of the right knowledge of Brahman as it is.

1.1.3 L.8 ✅ शास्त्रादेव प्रमाणात् जगतो जन्मादिकारणं ब्रह्माधिगम्यत इत्यभिप्रायः।

Śāstrād eva pramāṇāt jagato janma-ādi-kāraṇaṃ brahma adhigamyata iti abhiprāyaḥ—

What is meant to be conveyed is that Brahman which is the cause and origin etc. of this transitory world, is understood from the Śāstra (such as the Scriptures) which is the only means of right knowledge.

1.1.3 L.9 ✅ शास्त्रमुदाहृतं पूर्वसूत्रे — ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते’ (TaitU.3.1) इत्यादि।

Śāstram udāhṛtaṃ pūrva-sūtre — ‘yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante’ ityādi—

The Scriptural passage in point is quoted in the former Sūtra — “From which all beings are born” (TaitUEng.3.1 Eng.) etc.

1.1.3 L.10 ✅ किमर्थं तर्हीदं सूत्रम्, यावता पूर्वसूत्रेणैव एवंजातीयकं शास्त्रमुदाहरता शास्त्रयोनित्वं ब्रह्मणो दर्शितम्।

Kim arthaṃ tarhi idaṃ sūtram, yāvatā pūrva-sūtreṇaiva evaṃ-jātīyakaṃ śāstram udāharatā śāstra-yonitvaṃ brahmaṇo darśitam—

(The opponent asks) — in that case what is the occasion for this Sūtra, when by quoting the Scriptures you have indicated that Brahman has this Śāstra as its source?

1.1.3 L.11 ✅ उच्यते — तत्र सूत्राक्षरेण स्पष्टं शास्त्रस्यानुपादानाज् जन्मादिसूत्रेण केवलम् अनुमानम् उपन्यस्तम् इत्याशङ्क्येत;

Ucyate — tatra (pūrva-)sūtra-akṣareṇa spaṣṭaṃ śāstrasya anupādānāj janma-ādi-sūtreṇa kevalam anumānam upanyastam iti āśaṅkayeta—

We reply — The words of the previous Sūtra did not clearly indicate the Śāstra, and hence one may feel a doubt that by the word ‘Janmādi’ only an inference is stated.

1.1.3 L.12 ✅ तामाशङ्कां निवर्तयितुमिदं सूत्रं प्रववृते — ‘शास्त्रयोनित्वात्’ इति॥३॥

Tām āśaṅkāṃ nivartayitum idaṃ sūtraṃ pravavṛte — ‘śāstra-yonitvāt’ iti—

And now, this Sūtra endeavours to remove this doubt, (by stating) ‘From its being the source” etc. — 3.

– 3. Śāstra-yonitva-Adhikaraṇam.

1.1.4 L.1 ✅ कथं पुनर्ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वमुच्यते, यावता ‘आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वादानर्थक्यम् अतदर्थानाम्’ (जै. सू. १.२.१) इति क्रियापरत्वं शास्त्रस्य प्रदर्शितम्।

Kathaṃ punaḥ brahmaṇaḥ śāstra-pramāṇakatvam ucyate, yāvatā ‘āmnāyasya kriyā-arthatvād ānarthakyam atad-arthānām’ iti kriyā-paratvaṃ śāstrasya pradarśitam—

But (it is again objected) how can it be said that Brahman has the Śāstra (the Scriptures) as its authority, since it has been shown (by me) on the authority — “The Vedas having action (Kriyā) as their purpose, those portions of it which do not indicate any action, are purposeless” (Jai. Sū. 1.2.1), that the Scriptures indicate action.

1.1.4 L.2 ✅ अतो वेदान्तानामानर्थक्यम्, अक्रियार्थत्वात्;

Ato vedāntānām ānarthakyam, akriyā-arthatvāt—

Those portions of the Scriptures which are known by the name of Vedānta, are therefore purposeless, because they do not indicate that any action is meant (by them).

1.1.4 L.3 ✅ कर्तृदेवतादि-प्रकाशनार्थत्वेन वा क्रियाविधिशेषत्वम्, उपासनादि-क्रियान्तरविधानार्थत्वं वा।

Kartṛ-devatā-ādi-prakāśana-arthatvena vā kriyā-vidhi-śeṣatvam, upāsanā-ādi-kriyā-antara-vidhāna-arthatvaṃ vā—

Or else (it may be said) that by way of indicating an agent or a deity etc., or by way of indicating an injunction to action such as devout meditation, they are but supplementary to an injunction to action.

1.1.4 L.4 ✅ न हि परिनिष्ठितवस्तु-प्रतिपादनं सम्भवति; प्रत्यक्षादिविषयत्वात् परिनिष्ठितवस्तुनः,

Na hi pariniṣṭhita-vastu-pratipādanaṃ saṃbhavati; pratyakṣa-ādi-viṣayatvāt pariniṣṭhita-vastunaḥ—

But it is not at all possible that they are for the purpose of propounding an entity firmly established as an entity, because an established entity is an object of direct perception etc.,

1.1.4 L.5 ✅ तत्प्रतिपादने च हेयोपादेयरहिते पुरुषार्थाभावात्।

Tat-pratipādane ca heyopādeya-rahite puruṣa-artha-abhāvāt—

And also because there is absence of any aim of man being served by propounding anything which is not connected with something which has to be given up (Heya) or accepted (Upadeya).

1.1.4 L.6 ✅ अत एव ‘सोऽरोदीत्’ इत्येवमादीनाम् आनर्थक्यं मा भूदिति

Ata eva ‘so'rodīt’ iti evam-ādīnām ānarthakyaṃ mā bhūd iti—

It is precisely because of this, viz. that sentences like “He wept” should not be rendered purposeless,

1.1.4 L.7 ✅ ‘विधिना त्वेकवाक्यत्वात् स्तुत्यर्थेन विधीनां स्युः’ (जै. सू. १.२.७) इति स्तावकत्वेनार्थवत्त्वमुक्तम्।

‘Vidhinā tu eka-vākyatvāt stuti-arthena vidhīnāṃ syuḥ’ iti stāvakatvena arthavattvam uktam—

That they are said to be useful by way of glorification (of the passage with which they are connected) on the authority of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā (Jai. Sū. 1.2.7), thus — “These sentences being in syntactical relation with an injunctional passage, they are for the glorification of that injunction.”

1.1.4 L.8 ✅ मन्त्राणां च ‘इषे त्वा’ (यज्. सं. १.१.१) इत्यादीनां क्रिया-तत्साधनाभिधायित्वेन कर्म-समवायित्वमुक्तम्।

Mantrāṇāṃ ca ‘iṣe tvā’ ityādīnāṃ kriyā-tat-sādhana-abhidhāyitvena karma-samavāyitvam uktam—

In the same way Mantras like “For strength I cut thee (Oh blade of grass)” (recited when Darbhas are being cut for the Darśa-pūrṇa-māsa sacrifice) are said to be in a relation of invariable concomittance to action, by indicating action and the means to accomplish the same.

1.1.4 L.9 ✅ अतो न क्वचिदपि वेदवाक्यानां विधिसंस्पर्शम् अन्तरेणार्थवत्ता दृष्टा उपपन्ना वा।

Ato na kvacid api veda-vākyānāṃ vidhi-saṃsparśam antareṇa arthavattā dṛṣṭā upapannā vā—

It is nowhere observed nor is it reasonably understandable from the Scriptural passages, that they are purposeful as apart from their being connected with an injunction in some way.

1.1.4 L.10 ✅ न च परिनिष्ठिते वस्तुस्वरूपे विधिः सम्भवति, क्रियाविषयत्वाद्विधेः।

Na ca pariniṣṭhite vastu-svarūpe vidhiḥ saṃbhavati, kriyā-viṣayatvād vidheḥ—

In the case of an entity established as such, an injunction is not possible, because an injunction has action for its province.

1.1.4 L.11 ✅ तस्मात् कर्मापेक्षितकर्तृदेवतादि-स्वरूपप्रकाशनेन क्रियाविधि-शेषत्वं वेदान्तानाम्।

Tasmāt karma-apekṣita-kartṛ-devatā-ādi-svarūpa-prakāśanena kriyā-vidhi-śeṣatvaṃ vedāntānām—

Therefore (the opponent concludes) the Vedāntas are merely supplementary to injunctions for action, by way of making the nature of the agent and the deities necessary for such action, manifest.

1.1.4 L.12 ✅ अथ प्रकरणान्तरभयान् नैतदभ्युपगम्यते, तथापि स्ववाक्यगतोपासनादि-कर्मपरत्वम्।

Atha prakaraṇa-antara-bhayān na etad abhyupagamyate, tathā api sva-vākya-gatopāsanā-ādi-karma-paratvam—

If it be said that they cannot be so understood because it is feared that that would necessarily imply a different chapter (Prakaraṇa), then they may be understood as indicating actions such as devout meditation etc. referred to in their passages.

1.1.4 L.13 ✅ तस्मान्न ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रयोनित्वमिति प्राप्ते, उच्यते —

Tasmān na brahmaṇaḥ śāstra-yonitvam iti prāpte, ucyate—

The conclusion of the opponent, then, being that Brahman has not the Scriptures as its origin, the reply given is: —

←Prev Next→
तत्तु समन्वयात्॥१.१.४॥
Tat tu samanvayāt.

Tat: that; Tu: but; Samanvayāt: on account of agreement or harmony, because it is the main purpose.

🔗 But it is so (i.e. Brahman is so known from the Scriptures), because they (i.e. all Vedānta texts) have that connected sequence. — 1.1.4.

1.1.4 L.14 ✅ तुशब्दः पूर्वपक्षव्यावृत्त्यर्थः।

Tu-śabdaḥ pūrva-pakṣa-vyāvṛtti-arthaḥ—

The word ‘Tu’ (but) in the Sūtra means the rebuttal of the objections (of the opponent).

1.1.4 L.15 ✅ तद्ब्रह्म सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्ति जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिलयकारणं वेदान्तशास्त्राद् एवावगम्यते।

Tad brahma sarvajñaṃ sarva-śakti jagad-utpatti-sthiti-laya-kāraṇaṃ vedānta-śāstrād eva avagamyate—

That the all-powerful cause of the origin, preservation and dissolution of the transient world is the omniscient Brahman, is understood from the Vedānta Śāstra itself.

1.1.4 L.16 ✅ कथम्? समन्वयात्।

Katham? samanvayāt—

How so? Because that is the connected sequence (Samanvaya).

1.1.4 L.17 ✅ सर्वेषु हि वेदान्तेषु वाक्यानि तात्पर्येणैतस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपादकत्वेन समनुगतानि।

Sarveṣu hi vedānteṣu vākyāni tātparyeṇaitasya arthasya pratipādakatvena samanugatāni—

In all the Vedānta texts the sentences construe properly by intimating that to be the meaning.

1.1.4 L.18 ✅ ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत् एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1)

‘Sad eva somyedam agra āsīt ekam eva advitīyam’—

For instance (the following texts) — “In the beginning, Oh Saumya, this world was just Being (Sat), the one only without a second” (ChanU.6.2.1),

1.1.4 L.19 ✅ ‘आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्’ (AitU.1.1.1)

‘Ātmā vā idam eka eva agra āsīt’—

And “This Self alone was in existence in the beginning” (AitU.1.1.1),

1.1.4 L.20 ✅ ‘तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वम् अनपरम् अनन्तरम् अबाह्यम्’
‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः’ (BrhU.2.5.19)

‘Tad etad brahma apūrvam an-aparam an-antaram abāhyam
Ayam ātmā brahma sarva-anubhūḥ’—

And “That precisely is this Brahman, without itself being the cause, without itself being an effect, having nothing inside or outside of it.
This is the Self, the Brahman which perceives everything” (BrhUEng.2.5.19),

1.1.4 L.21 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्तात्’ (MunU.2.2.11) इत्यादीनि।

‘Brahmaivedam amṛtaṃ purastāt’ ityādīni—

And “It is that immortal Brahman right in front” (MunU.2.2.11) etc.

1.1.4 L.22 ✅ न च तद्गतानां पदानां ब्रह्मस्वरूपविषये निश्चिते समन्वयेऽवगम्यमाने अर्थान्तरकल्पना युक्ता,

Na ca tad-gatānāṃ padānāṃ brahma-svarūpa-viṣaye niścite samanvaye'vagamyamāne artha-antara-kalpanā yuktā—

It is not proper to attribute any other meaning to these passages when their connected sequence is determined to be with regard to the nature of Brahman,

1.1.4 L.23 ✅ श्रुतहान्यश्रुतकल्पनाप्रसङ्गात्।

Śruta-hāni-aśruta-kalpanā-prasaṅgāt—

Because, otherwise there would be the predicament of the abandonment of what is stated in the Scriptures and the acceptance of something which is not so stated.

1.1.4 L.24 ✅ न च तेषां कर्तृदेवतादि-स्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरता अवसीयते, ‘तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14) इत्यादिक्रियाकारकफल-निराकरणश्रुतेः।

Na ca teṣāṃ kartṛ-devatā-ādi-svarūpa-pratipādana-paratā avasīyate, ‘tat kena kaṃ paśyet’ ityādi-kriyā-kāraka-phala-nirākaraṇa-śruteḥ—

It cannot be understood that they propound the nature of the agent, because of the Scriptural statement “Then by what should one see and whom?” (BrhUEng.2.4.14) which in effect rejects all actions, agents and fruits.

1.1.4 L.25 ✅ न च परिनिष्ठित-वस्तुस्वरूपत्वेऽपि प्रत्यक्षादिविषयत्वं ब्रह्मणः,

Na ca pariniṣṭhita-vastu-svarūpatve'pi pratyakṣa-ādi-viṣayatvaṃ brahmaṇaḥ—

Nor can Brahman, though it is determined to be of the nature of an already established entity, be an object of direct perception,

1.1.4 L.26 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7…) इति ब्रह्मात्मभावस्य शास्त्रम् अन्तरेणानवगम्यमानत्वात्।

‘Tat tvam asi’ iti brahma-ātma-bhāvasya śāstram antareṇa anavagamyamānatvāt—

Because it is not possible to comprehend, except by means of the Śāstra, that the Self is Brahman, as conveyed by the Scriptural passage — “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7).

1.1.4 L.27 ✅ यत्तु हेयोपादेय-रहितत्वाद् उपदेशानर्थक्यमिति,

Yat tu heyopādeya-rahitatvād upadeśa-ānarthakyam iti—

As regards the objection (of the opponent) that any instruction which does not require the giving up or the accepting of anything, is purposeless,

1.1.4 L.28 ✅ नैष दोषः; हेयोपादेयशून्य-ब्रह्मात्मतावगमादेव सर्वक्लेश-प्रहाणात् पुरुषार्थसिद्धेः।

Naiṣa doṣaḥ; heyopādeya-śūnya-brahma-ātmatā-avagamād eva sarva-kleśa-prahāṇāt puruṣa-artha-siddheḥ—

(We say) this is no fault, because the highest aim of man is accomplished by knowing, that Brahman, from which nothing can be discarded and to which nothing can be added, is the Self, and that it destroys all misery.

1.1.4 L.29 ✅ देवतादिप्रतिपादनस्य तु स्ववाक्यगतोपासनार्थत्वेऽपि न कश्चिद्विरोधः।

Devatā-ādi-pratipādanasya tu sva-vākya-gatopāsanā-arthatve'pi na kaścid virodhaḥ—

There is no contradiction even if it be understood that it has the purpose of propounding the deities etc. connected with the devout meditation referred to in its own passages (in Vedānta).

1.1.4 L.30 ✅ न तु तथा ब्रह्मण उपासनाविधिशेषत्वं सम्भवति,

Na tu tathā brahmaṇa upāsanā-vidhi-śeṣatvaṃ saṃbhavati—

Understanding it even in that manner would not render Brahman as being supplementary to an injunction for devout meditation,

1.1.4 L.31 ✅ एकत्वे हेयोपादेयशून्यतया क्रियाकारकादि-द्वैतविज्ञानोपमर्दोपपत्तेः।

Ekatve heyopādeya-śūnyatayā kriyā-kāraka-ādi-dvaita-vijñānopamardopapatteḥ—

For it can be reasonably sustainable that when the unity of Brahman and the Self is understood, there is destruction of all notions of duality, of actions, agents etc., there being then nothing to give up or to accept.

1.1.4 L.32 ✅ न हि एकत्वविज्ञानेनोन्मथितस्य द्वैतविज्ञानस्य पुनः सम्भवोऽस्ति,
येनोपासनाविधिशेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्येत।

Na hi ekatva-vijñānenonmathitasya dvaita-vijñānasya punaḥ saṃbhavo'sti,
Yenopāsanā-vidhi-śeṣatvaṃ brahmaṇaḥ pratipādyeta—

There is no possibility of the revival of the notion of duality which has once been uprooted by the knowledge of absolute unity,
Because of which we would again arrive at the conclusion about Brahman being supplementary to an injunction for devout meditation.

1.1.4 L.33 ✅ यद्यप्यन्यत्र वेदवाक्यानां विधिसंस्पर्शमन्तरेण प्रमाणत्वं न दृष्टम्,

Yadi api anyatra veda-vākyānāṃ vidhi-saṃsparśam antareṇa pramāṇatvaṃ na dṛṣṭam—

Though elsewhere (i.e. in the Karma-kāṇḍa) we do not accept the validity or authoritativeness of Vedic passages except when they are connected with injunctions,

1.1.4 L.34 ✅ तथाप्यात्मविज्ञानस्य फलपर्यन्तत्वान्न तद्विषयस्य शास्त्रस्य प्रामाण्यं शक्यं प्रत्याख्यातुम्।

Tathā api ātma-vijñānasya phala-paryantatvān na tad-viṣayasya śāstrasya prāmāṇyaṃ śakyaṃ pratyākhyātum—

Still as the knowledge of the Self results in its own fruit, it would not be possible to impugn the validity or authoritativeness of the Śāstra dealing with the subject of the Self.

1.1.4 L.35 ✅ न चानुमानगम्यं शास्त्रप्रामाण्यम्, येनान्यत्र दृष्टं निदर्शनमपेक्ष्येत।

Na ca anumāna-gamyaṃ śāstra-prāmāṇyam, yena anyatra dṛṣṭaṃ nidarśanam apekṣeta—

It is not that the validity or authoritativeness of this Śāstra is inferable, so that it may expect instances observed elsewhere (to be cited).

1.1.4 L.36 ✅ तस्मात्सिद्धं ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वम्॥

Tasmāt siddhaṃ brahmaṇaḥ śāstra-pramāṇakatvam—

Therefore it is proved that Brahman has the Scriptures as its valid authority.

1.1.4 L.37 ✅ अत्रापरे प्रत्यवतिष्ठन्ते — यद्यपि शास्त्रप्रमाणकं ब्रह्म,
तथापि प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतयैव शास्त्रेण ब्रह्म समर्प्यते;

Atra apare pratyavatiṣṭhante, yadi api śāstra-pramāṇakaṃ brahma,
Tathā api pratipatti-vidhi-viṣayatayaiva śāstreṇa brahma samarpyate—

Here some others come forward with the objection thus — Even though Brahman has the Śāstra as the only means to its right knowledge,
Still the Śāstra culminates in making Brahman an object of an injunction for Upāsanā i.e. meditation (Pratipatti),

1.1.4 L.38 ✅ यथा यूपाहवनीयादीन्यलौकिकान्यपि विधिशेषतया शास्त्रेण समर्प्यन्ते, तद्वत्।

Yathā yūpa-āhavanīya-ādīni alaukikāni api vidhi-śeṣatayā śāstreṇa samarpyante, tadvat—

Just as the Śāstra culminates in making the sacrificial post (Yūpa) and the Āhavanīya Agni etc., though they are not familiar in ordinary life, as being supplementary to an injunction.

1.1.4 L.39 ✅ कुत एतत्? प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्ति-प्रयोजनपरत्वाच्छास्त्रस्य।

Kuta etat? pravṛtti-nivṛtti-prayojana-paratvāc chāstrasya—

Whence do you get that? Because the Śāstra has the purport of either promoting or discouraging (action).

1.1.4 L.40 ✅ तथा हि शास्त्र-तात्पर्य-विदाम् अनुक्रमणम् (विद आहुः) — ‘दृष्टो हि तस्यार्थः कर्मावबोधनम्’ (शा. भा. १.१.१) इति,
‘चोदनेति क्रियायाः प्रवर्तकं वचनम्’ (शा. भा. १.१.२);

Tathā hi śāstra-tātparya-vidām anukramaṇam (vida āhuḥ) — ‘dṛṣṭo hi tasya arthaḥ karma-avabodhanam’ iti,
‘Codaneti kriyāyāḥ pravartakaṃ vacanam’—

For, those who know the Śāstra have said so, thus — “The obvious meaning of it (i.e. the Veda) is seen to be an instruction to do something” (Śābara Bhā. 1.1.1),
“Injunction is a statement which stimulates action” (Śābara Bhā. 1.1.2),

1.1.4 L.41 ✅ ‘तस्य ज्ञानमुपदेशः’ (जै. सू. १.१.५),

‘Tasya jñānam upadeśaḥ’—

“Instruction is the knowledge of that” (Jai. Sū. 1.1.5),

1.1.4 L.42 ✅ ‘तद्भूतानां क्रियार्थेन समाम्नायः’ (जै. सू. १.१.२५),

‘Tad-bhūtānāṃ kriyā-arthena samāmnāyaḥ’—

“Words in a sentence should be construed as having relation to a word signifying action” (Jai. Sū. 1.1.25),

1.1.4 L.43 ✅ ‘आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वादानर्थक्यम् अतदर्थानाम्’ (जै. सू. १.२.१) इति च।

‘Āmnāyasya kriyā-arthatvād ānarthakyam atad-arthānām’ iti ca—

“As action is the purport of the Veda, whatever does not refer to action is without a purpose” (Jai. Sū. 1.2.1).

1.1.4 L.44 ✅ अतः पुरुषं क्वचिद्विषयविशेषे प्रवर्तयत् कुतश्चिद् विषयविशेषान् निवर्तयच्चार्थवच्छास्त्रम्।

Ataḥ puruṣaṃ kvacid viṣaya-viśeṣe pravartayat kutaścid viṣaya-viśeṣān nivartayac ca arthavac chāstram—

Hence it is in stimulating a person to activity with regard to some particular object, or by making him averse to act with regard to some other object, that the Scriptures have a purpose,

1.1.4 L.45 ✅ तच्छेषतया चान्यदुपयुक्तम्।

Tac-cheṣatayā ca anyad upayuktam—

And that (part of it) which does not do so is utilized as being supplementary to action.

1.1.4 L.46 ✅ तत्सामान्याद् वेदान्तानामपि तथैवार्थवत्त्वं स्यात्।

Tad-sāmānyād vedāntānām api tathaiva arthavattvaṃ syāt—

In common with it, Vedānta passages likewise, will have a purpose only in the same way.

1.1.4 L.47 ✅ सति च विधिपरत्वे, यथा स्वर्गादि-कामस्याग्निहोत्रादि-साधनं विधीयते,

Sati ca vidhi-paratve, yathā svarga-ādi-kāmasya agni-hotra-ādi-sādhanaṃ vidhīyate—

The Scriptures being of the nature of injunctions, it stands to reason that just as Agni-hotra and other means are enjoined on one who is desirous of heaven etc.,

1.1.4 L.48 ✅ एवममृतत्वकामस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानं विधीयत इति युक्तम्।

Evam amṛtatva-kāmasya brahma-jñānaṃ vidhīyata iti yuktam—

Similarly acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman is enjoined on one who is desirous of immortality.

1.1.4 L.49 ✅ नन्विह जिज्ञास्यवैलक्षण्यमुक्तम् —

Nanu iha jijñāsya-vailakṣaṇyam uktam—

But (says the Bhāṣya-kāra) a difference in the nature of what is desired to be known is mentioned here.

1.1.4 L.50 ✅ कर्मकाण्डे भव्यो धर्मो जिज्ञास्यः,
इह तु भूतं नित्यनिर्वृत्तं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यमिति;

Karma-kāṇḍe bhavyo dharmo jijñāsyaḥ,
Iha tu bhūtaṃ nitya-nirvṛttaṃ brahma jijñāsyam iti—

In the Karma-kāṇḍa what is indicated as desired to be known is Duty (Dharma), which is performed some time in the future,
But here on the contrary the already existing and eternally established Brahman is indicated as that which is desired to be known.

1.1.4 L.51 ✅ तत्र धर्मज्ञानफलाद् अनुष्ठानापेक्षाद् विलक्षणं ब्रह्मज्ञानफलं भवितुमर्हति।

Tatra dharma-jñāna-phalād anuṣṭhāna-apekṣād vi-lakṣaṇaṃ brahma-jñāna-phalaṃ bhavitum arhati—

Therefore the fruit in the form of the knowledge of Brahman is different from the fruit in the form of the knowledge of Duty which expects the doing of some particular act.

1.1.4 L.52 ✅ नार्हत्येवं भवितुम्, कार्यविधिप्रयुक्तस्यैव ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात्।

Na arhati evaṃ bhavitum, kārya-vidhi-prayuktasyaiva brahmaṇaḥ pratipādyamānatvāt—

(The Vṛtti-kāra says — ) It does not deserve to be so, because what is intended to be propounded is Brahman, which is connected with an injunction for something to be done,

1.1.4 L.53 ✅ ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5–6)

‘Ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ’—

As for instance — “Verily the Self is to be seen (BrhUEng.2.4.5).

1.1.4 L.54 ✅ ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा … सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स विजिज्ञासितव्यः’ (ChanU.8.7.1),

‘Ya ātmā apahata-pāpmā … so'nveṣṭhavyaḥ sa vijijñāsitavyaḥ’—

When the following injunctional statements are there, viz. “That Ātmā (Self), which is sinless — he is to be looked for, he is to be understood” (ChanU.8.7.1),

1.1.4 L.55 ✅ ‘आत्मेत्येवोपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.7)
‘आत्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत’ (BrhU.1.4.15)

‘Ātmeti evopāsīta’,
‘Ātmānam eva lokam upāsīta’—

“Let (a man) meditate devoutly on the Self only, as his true state” (BrhUEng.1.4.15),

1.1.4 L.56 ✅ ‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) इत्यादिषु विधानेषु सत्सु,

‘Brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati’ ityādiṣu vidhāneṣu satsu—

“He who knows Brahman, himself becomes Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9), etc.,

1.1.4 L.57 ✅ ‘कोऽसावात्मा?’ ‘किं तद्ब्रह्म?’ इत्याकाङ्क्षायां तत्स्वरूपसमर्पणेन सर्वे वेदान्ता उपयुक्ताः —

‘Ko'sau ātmā?’ ‘kiṃ tad brahma?’ iti ākāṅkṣāyāṃ tat-svarūpa-samarpaṇena sarve vedāntā upayuktāḥ—

And when there is a desire to know what that Brahman is and what that Self is, all the Vedānta passages are employed in intimating the nature of Brahman, thus: —

1.1.4 L.58 ✅ नित्यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वगतो नित्यतृप्तो नित्य-शुद्ध-बुद्ध-मुक्त-स्वभावो विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म इत्येवमादयः।

Nityaḥ sarvajñaḥ sarva-gato nitya-tṛpto nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhāvo vijñānam ānandaṃ brahma iti evam-ādayaḥ—

(Brahman) is eternal, omniscient, all-pervading, absolutely eternally satisfied, and is of the nature of being eternally pure, intelligent, and free, and is knowledge and Bliss etc.

1.1.4 L.59 ✅ तदुपासनाच्च शास्त्रदृष्टोऽदृष्टो मोक्षः फलं भविष्यति।

Tad-upāsanāc ca śāstra-dṛṣṭo'dṛṣṭo mokṣaḥ phalaṃ bhaviṣyati iti—

It is through devout meditation that the fruit viz. Final Release which is not capable of being seen, but is envisaged by the Śāstra, will accrue.

1.1.4 L.60 ✅ कर्तव्यविध्यननुप्रवेशे तु वस्तुमात्रकथने हानोपादानासम्भवात्

Kartavya-vidhi-ananupraveśe vastumātra-kathane hānopādāna-asaṃbhavāt—

If the Vedānta passages were not to lead towards an injunction to some action, and were to be statements of mere things only, then by reason of the impossibility (in such a case) of knowing what is to be given up or what is to be accepted,

1.1.4 L.61 ✅ ‘सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती’ ‘राजासौ गच्छति’ इत्यादिवाक्यवद् वेदान्तवाक्यानाम् आनर्थक्यमेव स्यात्।

‘Sapta-dvīpā vasumatī’, ‘rājā asau gacchati’ ityādi-vākyavad vedānta-vākyānām ānarthakyam eva syāt—

The Vedānta passages would be as purposeless as the sentences ‘The Earth consists of seven islands’, ‘Here goes the king’ etc.

1.1.4 L.62 ✅ ननु वस्तुमात्रकथनेऽपि ‘रज्जुरियम्, नायं सर्पः’ इत्यादौ भ्रान्तिजनितभीति-निवर्तनेनार्थवत्त्वं दृष्टम्;

Nanu vastumātra-kathane'pi ‘rajjuḥ iyaṃ, na ayaṃ sarpaḥ’ ityādau bhrānti-janita-bhīti-nivartanena arthavattvaṃ dṛṣṭam—

But (says the Bhāṣya-kāra) just as even the mere mention of a fact viz. that this is a rope and not a snake, has meaning by way of removing the fear caused by the erroneous opinion (that it is a snake),

1.1.4 L.63 ✅ तथेहाप्यसंसार्यात्मवस्तु-कथनेन संसारित्वभ्रान्ति-निवर्तनेनार्थवत्त्वं स्यात्।

Tatheha api asaṃsāri-ātma-vastu-kathanena saṃsāritva-bhrānti-nivartanena arthavattvaṃ syāt—

So also here, the mere mention of the entity i.e. the Self which is not of a transmigratory nature, would have a meaning by way of removing the erroneous opinion about its being of a transmigratory nature.

1.1.4 L.64 ✅ स्यादेतदेवम्, यदि रज्जुस्वरूप-श्रवणमात्रेणेव सर्पभ्रान्तिः, संसारित्वभ्रान्तिर्ब्रह्मस्वरूप-श्रवणमात्रेण निवर्तेत;

Syād etad evam, yadi rajju-svarūpa-śravaṇa iva sarpa-bhrāntiḥ, saṃsāritva-bhrāntiḥ brahma-svarūpa-śravaṇamātreṇa nivarteta—

(The Vṛtti-kāra replies —) This would be so, provided the erroneous opinion about the Self being of a transmigratory nature were to be removed by merely hearing about the nature of Brahman, even as the erroneous opinion about a rope being a snake is removed by hearing about the nature of the rope as being a rope only.

1.1.4 L.65 ✅ न तु निवर्तते; श्रुतब्रह्मणोऽपि यथापूर्वं सुखदुःखादि-संसारिधर्मदर्शनात्,

Na tu nivartate, śruta-brahmaṇo'pi yathā pūrvaṃ sukha-duḥkha-ādi-saṃsāri-dharma-darśanāt—

But it is not so removed, because even in the case of a person who has heard what Brahman is, he is still seen to be affected by pleasure, pain and such other attributes of a transmigratory being,

1.1.4 L.66 ✅ ‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5) इति च
श्रवणोत्तरकालयोर्मनन-निदिध्यासनयोर्विधिदर्शनात्।

‘Śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyaḥ’ iti ca
Śravaṇottara-kālayoḥ manana-nididhyāsanayoḥ vidhi-darśanāt—

And because we see that there are such injunctions (in the Scriptures) about hearing and cogitating upon the Self, thus —
“The Self should be heard and cogitated upon and constantly meditated upon” (BrhUEng.2.4.5).

1.1.4 L.67 ✅ तस्मात् प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतयैव शास्त्रप्रमाणकं ब्रह्माभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति॥

Tasmāt pratipatti-vidhi-viṣayatayaiva śāstra-pramāṇakaṃ brahma abhyupagantavyam iti—

Therefore Brahman should be understood as having the Śāstra as the right means of its knowledge, by way of its being an object of an injunction for meditation (i.e. Upāsanā).

1.1.4 L.68 ✅ अत्राभिधीयते — न; कर्मब्रह्मविद्याफलयोर्वैलक्षण्यात्।

Atra abhidhīyate — na, karma-brahma-vidyā-phalayoḥ vailakṣaṇyāt—

To all this (The Bhāṣya-kāra replies) — No, because of the dissimilarity between the fruits of actions and the fruits of the knowledge of Brahman.

1.1.4 L.69 ✅ शारीरं वाचिकं मानसं च कर्म श्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धं धर्माख्यम्,
यद्विषया जिज्ञासा ‘अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा’ (जै. सू. १। १। १) इति सूत्रिता।

Śārīraṃ vācikaṃ mānasaṃ ca karma śruti-smṛti-siddhaṃ dharma-ākhyam,
Yad-viṣayā jijñāsā ‘atha ato dharma-jijñāsā’ iti sūtritā—

Action, known by the name of ‘duty’ from the Scriptures and Smṛtis, is the activity of the body, speech and the mind,
The desire to know which is expressed in the Sūtra — “Now therefore the inquiry into Duty”,

1.1.4 L.70 ✅ अधर्मोऽपि हिंसादिः प्रतिषेधचोदनालक्षणत्वाज् जिज्ञास्यः परिहाराय।

Adharmo'pi hiṃsā-ādiḥ pratiṣedha-codanā-lakṣaṇatvāj jijñāsyaḥ parihārāya—

And that which is non-Duty, such as killing etc., which is of the nature of a prohibition has to be inquired into with a view to avoid the doing of it.

1.1.4 L.71 ✅ तयोश्चोदना-लक्षणयोरर्थानर्थयोर्धर्माधर्मयोः फले प्रत्यक्षे सुखदुःखे शरीर-वाङ्-मनोभिरेवोपभुज्यमाने विषयेन्द्रियसंयोगजन्ये ब्रह्मादिषु (देहवत्सु) स्थावरान्तेषु प्रसिद्धे।

Tayoś codanā-lakṣaṇayoḥ artha-anarthayoḥ dharma-adharmayoḥ phale pratyakṣe sukha-duḥkhe śarīra-vāṅ-manobhiḥ evopabhujyamāne viṣayendriya-saṃyoga-janye brahma-ādiṣu (dehavatsu) sthāvara-anteṣu prasiddhe—

The fruits of these good and evil things such as duties and non-duties which are of the nature of an injunction, which actually are pleasure and pain respectively and which arise out of the union of the sense-organs and sense-objects and are experienced only by the body, speech and the mind, are generally known by all, right from the Brahman (Hiraṇya-garbha) down to the inanimate things.

1.1.4 L.72 ✅ मनुष्यत्वादारभ्य ब्रह्मान्तेषु देहवत्सु सुखतारतम्यम् अनुश्रूयते।

Manuṣyatvād ārabhya brahma-anteṣu dehavatsu sukha-tāratamyam anuśrūyate—

The Scriptures declare that there are different degrees of pleasure as experienced by all embodied beings, from men right up to the Brahman (Hiraṇya-garbha).

1.1.4 L.73 ✅ ततश्च तद्धेतोर्धर्मस्यापि तारतम्यं गम्यते। धर्म-तारतम्याद् अधिकारि-तारतम्यम्।

Tataś ca tad-dhetoḥ dharmasya tāratamyaṃ gamyate. dharma-tāratamyād adhikāri-tāratamyam—

Hence from them we understand that there are comparative degrees of Duty which is their cause and from these comparative degrees of Duty, the comparative degrees of the competency of persons who perform such Duties (is understood).

1.1.4 L.74 ✅ प्रसिद्धं चार्थित्वसामर्थ्यादिकृतम् अधिकारितारतम्यम्।

Prasiddhaṃ ca arthitva-sāmarthya-ādi-kṛtam adhikāri-tāratamyam—

The comparative degrees of the competency of persons performing such Duties is well-known as being caused by their ability for actions and their desire for certain results.

1.1.4 L.75 ✅ तथा च यागाद्यनुष्ठायिनामेव विद्यासमाधि-विशेषादुत्तरेण पथा गमनम्,

Tathā ca yāga-ādi-anuṣṭhāyinām eva vidyā-samādhi-viśeṣād uttareṇa pathā gamanam—

Thus we learn that only those who perform Sacrifices and have special ability for meditation (Upāsanā) and concentration on Deities etc., proceed by the Northern Path (Devāyana)

1.1.4 L.76 ✅ केवलैरिष्टापूर्तदत्त-साधनैर्धूमादिक्रमेण दक्षिणेन पथा गमनम्,

Kevalaiḥ iṣṭā-pūrta-datta-sādhanaiḥ dhūma-ādi-krameṇa dakṣiṇena pathā gamanam—

And those who perform only minor Sacrifices and works of charity and public utility, proceed by the Southern Path (Pitṛ-yāṇa),

1.1.4 L.77 ✅ तत्रापि सुख-तारतम्यम्, तत्साधन-तारतम्यं च शास्त्रात् ‘यावत्सम्पातमुषित्वा’ (ChanU.5.10.5) इत्यस्माद्गम्यते।

Tatra api sukha-tāratamyam, tat-sādhana-tāratamyaṃ ca śāstrāt ‘yāvat saṃpātam uṣitvā’ iti asmād gamyate—

And we also know from the Śāstra, such as the Scriptural passage “Having dwelt there till their action is worked out or consumed” (ChanU.5.10.5), that even there such comparative degrees of pleasure and the means of pleasure are understood (as existing).

1.1.4 L.78 ✅ तथा मनुष्यादिषु (नारक-)स्थावरान्तेषु सुखलवश्चोदनालक्षण-धर्मसाध्य एवेति गम्यते तारतम्येन वर्तमानः।

Tathā manuṣya-ādiṣu (nāraka-)sthāvara-anteṣu sukha-lavaś codanā-lakṣaṇa-dharma-sādhya eveti gamyate tāratamyena vartamānaḥ—

We also know that beginning from man down to those who reside in hell, and all the inanimate things, there exists a comparative modicum of pleasure attainable by ‘Duty’ (Dharma) which is of the nature of an injunction.

1.1.4 L.79 ✅ तथोर्ध्वगतेष्वधोगतेषु च देहवत्सु दुःखतारतम्य-दर्शनात् तद्धेतोरधर्मस्य प्रतिषेधचोदना-लक्षणस्य तदनुष्ठायिनां च तारतम्यं गम्यते।

Tathordhva-gateṣu adho-gateṣu ca dehavatsu duḥkha-tāratamya-darśanāt tad-dhetoḥ adharmasya pratiṣedha-codanā-lakṣaṇasya tad-anuṣṭhāyināṃ ca tāratamyaṃ gamyate—

So also in the case of those who possess a body and who have either gone down (the abyss) or gone up (to heaven), in as much as comparative degrees of pain are to be seen, it is understood, that its cause viz. religious demerit (Adharma), which is known from prohibitory injunctions, as well as those who perpetrate such non-meritorious actions, also have such comparative degrees.

1.1.4 L.80 ✅ एवमविद्यादिदोषवतां धर्माधर्मतारतम्य-निमित्तं शरीरोपादानपूर्वकं सुखदुःखतारतम्यम् अनित्यं संसाररूपं श्रुतिस्मृतिन्याय-प्रसिद्धम्।

Evam avidyā-ādi-doṣavatāṃ dharma-adharma-tāratamya-nimittaṃ śarīropādāna-pūrvakaṃ sukha-duḥkha-tāratamyam anityaṃ saṃsāra-rūpaṃ śruti-smṛti-nyāya-prasiddham—

In this manner, in the case of those who are affected by the fault of the nature of Nescience etc., that there are differences in the comparative degrees of pleasure and pain which are of the transitory nature of a transmigratory existence and which are caused by their merit or demerit and which are preceded by a prior assumption of a body, is well-known from the Scriptures, Smṛtis and Nyāya (Logic).

1.1.4 L.81 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः ‘न ह वै सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रिययोरपहतिरस्ति’ इति यथावर्णितं संसाररूपम् अनुवदति।

Tathā ca śrutiḥ ‘na ha vai sa-śarīrasya sataḥ priya-apriyayoḥ apahatiḥ asti’ iti yathā-varṇitaṃ saṃsāra-rūpam anuvadati—

The Scriptural passage “As long as he continues to possess a body, there is no freedom for him from pleasure and pain” refers to the transmigratory nature as described above.

1.1.4 L.82 ✅ ‘अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः’ (ChanU.8.12.1) इति प्रियाप्रियस्पर्शन-प्रतिषेधाच् चोदनालक्षण-धर्मकार्यत्वं मोक्षाख्यस्याशरीरत्वस्य प्रतिषिध्यत इति गम्यते

‘Aśarīraṃ vāva santaṃ na priya-apriye spṛśataḥ’ iti priya-apriya-sparśana-pratiṣedhāc codanā-lakṣaṇa-dharma-kāryatvaṃ mokṣa-ākhyasya aśarīratvasya pratiṣidhyata iti gamyate—

So also we learn from the Scriptural passage “When he is once rid of this body neither pleasure nor pain affect him” (ChanU.8.12.1), which denies any touch of either pleasure or pain, that the disembodied condition called Final Release is not the result of religious Duty (Dharma) which is of the nature of an injunction.

1.1.4 L.83 ✅ धर्मकार्यत्वे हि प्रियाप्रियस्पर्शन-प्रतिषेधो नोपपद्येत।

Dharma-kāryatve hi priya-apriya-sparśana-pratiṣedho nopapadyeta—

Were it to be the result of religious duty, such denial of being touched either by pleasure or pain would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.1.4 L.84 ✅ अशरीरत्वमेव धर्मकार्यमिति चेत्,

Aśarīratvam eva dharma-kāryam iti cet—

If it be said (by the opponent) that the disembodied condition is itself the result of Duty,

1.1.4 L.85 ✅ न; तस्य स्वाभाविकत्वात् —

Na; tasya svā-bhāvikatvāt—

(We reply that) it is not so, because the condition of being unembodied is natural to the Ātmā

1.1.4 L.86 ✅ ‘अशरीरꣳ शरीरेष्वनवस्थेष्ववस्थितम्। महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति’ (KathU.1.2.22)

‘Aśarīraṃ śarīreṣu anavastheṣu avasthitam. mahāntaṃ vibhum ātmānaṃ matvā dhīro na śocati’—

As illustrated by the following Scriptural passages — “The wise one, knowing the Self to be bodiless amongst the embodied, unchanging amongst the changeable, great and omni-present, does not grieve” (KathU.1.2.22),

1.1.4 L.87 ✅ ‘अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ (MunU.2.1.2)

‘Aprāṇo hi amanāḥ śubhraḥ’—

“He is without vital breath (Prāṇa), without mind and is pure” (MunU.2.1.2),

1.1.4 L.88 ✅ ‘असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः’ (BrhU.4.3.15) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।

‘Asaṅgo hi ayaṃ puruṣaḥ’ ityādi-śrutibhyaḥ—

“That Puruṣa is without any attachment” (BrhUEng.4.3.15).

1.1.4 L.89 ✅ अत एवानुष्ठेयकर्मफल-विलक्षणं मोक्षाख्यमशरीरत्वं नित्यमिति सिद्धम्।

Ata eva anuṣṭheya-karma-phala-vilakṣaṇaṃ mokṣa-ākhyam aśariratvaṃ nityam iti siddham—

It is proved therefore that the eternal unembodied condition called ‘Final Release’ is dissimilar to the fruit of action which has to be performed.

1.1.4 L.90 ✅ तत्र किञ्चित्परिणामि-नित्यं यस्मिन्विक्रियमाणेऽपि तदेवेदमिति बुद्धिर्न विहन्यते;

Tatra kiṃcit pariṇāmi-nityaṃ yasmin vikriyamāṇe'pi ‘tad evedam’ iti buddhiḥ na vihanyate—

Amongst these eternal things there are some which are eternal but subject to modification, and though they undergo such modification, the notion of their being the same eternal things is not destroyed,

1.1.4 L.91 ✅ यथा पृथिव्यादि जगन्नित्यत्ववादिनाम्, यथा वा सांख्यानां गुणाः।

Yathā pṛthivī-ādi jagan-nityatva-vādinām, yathā ca sāṃkhyānāṃ guṇāḥ—

As for instance, the Earth, as understood by those who hold the view that this transitory world is eternal, or the Attributes (Guṇas) according to the Sāṅkhyas.

1.1.4 L.92 ✅ इदं तु पारमार्थिकं कूटस्थ-नित्यं व्योमवत् सर्वव्यापि सर्वविक्रियारहितं नित्यतृप्तं निरवयवं स्वयंज्योतिःस्वभावम्,

Idaṃ tu pārama-arthikaṃ kūṭastha-nityaṃ vyomavat sarva-vyāpi sarva-vikriyā-rahitaṃ nitya-tṛptaṃ niravayavaṃ svayaṃ-jyotiḥ-svabhāvam—

This (Self or Brahman) however is eternal in the highest sense, eternally unchanging, all-pervading like the sky (Ākāśa), free from all modifications, eternally contented, without any parts, and is of the nature of a self-luminant entity,

1.1.4 L.93 ✅ यत्र धर्माधर्मौ सह कार्येण कालत्रयं च नोपावर्तेते;

Yatra dharma-adharmau saha kāryeṇa kāla-trayaṃ ca nopāvartete—

In whose case meritorious or unmeritorious religious duty or actions along with their effects, in the past, present or future, do not apply.

1.1.4 L.94 ✅ तदेतदशरीरत्वं मोक्षाख्यम् — ‘अन्यत्र धर्माद् अन्यत्राधर्माद् अन्यत्रास्मात् कृताकृतात्।
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च’ (KathU.1.2.24) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।

Tad etad aśarīratvaṃ mokṣa-ākhyam — ‘anyatra dharmād, anyatra adharmād, anyatra asmāt kṛta-akṛtāt.
Anyatra bhūtāc ca bhavyāc ca’ ityādi-śrutibhyaḥ—

And this precisely is that unembodied condition called Final Release, according to such Scriptural passages as “Different from duty (Dharma) and non-duty (Adharma), different from every effect and cause,
And different from past and the future also” (KathU.1.2.24) etc.

1.1.4 L.95 ✅ अतस्तद्ब्रह्म, यस्येयं जिज्ञासा प्रस्तुता। तद्यदि कर्तव्यशेषत्वेनोपदिश्येत,

Ataḥ tad brahma, yasyeyaṃ jijñāsā prastutā. tad yadi kartavya-śeṣatvenopadiśyeta—

Hence if this Brahman, an inquiry about which is proposed here, were to be propounded (by the Scriptures) as being supplementary to action (Karma)

1.1.4 L.96 ✅ तेन च कर्तव्येन साध्यश्चेन्मोक्षोऽभ्युपगम्येत,
अनित्य एव स्यात्।

Tena ca kartavyena sādhyaś cen mokṣo'bhyupagamyeta,
Anitya eva syāt—

And were Final Release (Mokṣa) to be understood as obtainable through action,
It would necessarily be of a transitory nature,

1.1.4 L.97 ✅ तत्रैवं सति यथोक्तकर्मफलेष्वेव तारतम्यावस्थितेष्वनित्येषु कश्चिदतिशयो मोक्ष इति प्रसज्येत।

Tatraivaṃ sati yathokta-karma-phaleṣu eva tāratamya-avasthiteṣu anityeṣu kaścid atiśayo mokṣa iti prasajyeta—

And it would then come to this, that Final Release is but only a superior type of a transitory fruit of actions as amongst those described above, and which stand to each other in the comparative degrees (of greatness or smallness).

1.1.4 L.98 ✅ नित्यश्च मोक्षः सर्वैर्मोक्षवादिभिरभ्युपगम्यते।

Nityaś ca mokṣaḥ sarvaiḥ mokṣa-vādibhiḥ abhyupagamyate—

All those who regard Final Release as a creed, understand it as being eternal,

1.1.4 L.99 ✅ अतो न कर्तव्यशेषत्वेन ब्रह्मोपदेशो युक्तः।

Ato na kartavya-śeṣatvena brahmopadeśo yuktaḥ—

And therefore it would not be proper to propound Brahman as being supplementary to action.

1.1.4 L.100 ✅ अपि च ‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9)

Api ca ‘brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati’—

Besides the following passages from the Scriptures “He who knows Brahman, becomes Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9),

1.1.4 L.101 ✅ ‘क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे’ (MunU.2.2.8)

‘Kṣīyante ca asya karmāṇi tasmin dṛṣṭe para-avare’—

“All the sum total of his actions perishes when he who is both the higher and the lower is beheld” (MunU.2.2.8),

1.1.4 L.102 ✅ ‘आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9)

‘Ānandaṃ brahmaṇo vidvān na bibheti kutaścana’—

“He who knows the joy of Brahman is never afraid” (TaitUEng.2.9).

1.1.4 L.103 ✅ ‘अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसि’ (BrhU.4.2.4)

‘Abhayaṃ vai janaka prāpto'si’—

“O Janaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness” (BrhUEng.4.2.4),

1.1.4 L.104 ✅ ‘तदात्मानम् एवावेद् अहं ब्रह्मास्मीति,
तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10)

‘Tad ātmānam eva aved ahaṃ brahma asmi iti,
Tasmāt tat sarvam abhavat’—

“That Brahman knew itself, only as itself being Brahman,
Therefore it became all that” (BrhUEng.1.4.10),

1.1.4 L.105 ✅ ‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (IsU.7) इत्येवमाद्याः श्रुतयो
ब्रह्मविद्यानन्तरमेव मोक्षं दर्शयन्त्यो मध्ये कार्यान्तरं वारयन्ति।

‘Tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka ekatvam anupaśyataḥ’ ityevam-ādyāḥ śrutayo
Brahma-vidyā-anantaram eva mokṣaṃ darśayantyo madhye kārya-antaraṃ vārayanti—

“To him who realizes the unity of all, whence can there be any infatuation or bewailing” (IsU.7) etc., —
Which show that Final Release comes about simultaneously with the knowledge of Brahman, preclude the possibility of any action in between the two.

1.1.4 L.106 ✅ तथा ‘तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्च’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति
ब्रह्मदर्शन-सर्वात्मभावयोर्मध्ये कर्तव्यान्तर-वारणायोदाहार्यम् —

Tathā ‘taddhaitat paśyann ṛṣiḥ vāmadevaḥ pratipede'haṃ manuḥ abhavaṃ sūryaś ca’ iti
Brahma-darśana-sarva-ātma-bhāvayoḥ madhye kartavya-antara-vāraṇāyodāhāryam—

We can similarly quote as an illustration the Scriptural passage “Seeing this the sage Vāma-deva understood, I was Manu, I am the sun” (BrhUEng.1.4.10),
To show, that in between the realization of Brahman and becoming one with the Universal Self there is no other action in between,

1.1.4 L.107 ✅ यथा ‘तिष्ठन्गायति’ इति तिष्ठतिगायत्योर्मध्ये तत्कर्तृकं कार्यान्तरं नास्तीति गम्यते।

Yathā ‘tiṣṭhan gāyati’ iti tiṣṭhati-gāyatyoḥ madhye tat-kartṛkaṃ kārya-antaraṃ na asti iti gamyate—

Just as in the sentence “He sings standing” we understand that there is no other action intervening between his singing and standing.

1.1.4 L.108 ✅ ‘त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसि’ (PrasU.6.8)

‘Tvaṃ hi naḥ pitā yo'smākam avidyāyāḥ paraṃ pāraṃ tārayasi’—

Passages from the Scriptures such as “You indeed are our father, you who carry us from ignorance to the other shore beyond” (PrasU.6.8),

1.1.4 L.109 ✅ ‘श्रुतं ह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्यस्तरति शोकमात्मविदिति;
सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि, तं मा भगवाञ्छोकस्य पारं तारयतु’ (ChanU.7.1.3)

‘Śrutaṃ hi eva me bhagavad-dṛśebhyaḥ tarati śokam ātmavid iti;
So'haṃ bhagavaḥ śocāmi, taṃ mā bhagavāñ chokasya pāraṃ tārayatu’—

“I have heard from men like you, that one who knows the Self overcomes grief,
I myself am in similar grief, the Bhagavān should help me to tide over the grief” (ChanU.7.1.3),

1.1.4 L.110 ✅ ‘तस्मै मृदितकषायाय तमसः पारं दर्शयति भगवान्सनत्कुमारः’ (ChanU.7.26.2) इति चैवमाद्याः श्रुतयो
मोक्षप्रतिबन्ध-निवृत्तिमात्रमेवात्मज्ञानस्य फलं दर्शयन्ति।

‘Tasmai mṛdita-kaṣāyāya tamasaḥ pāraṃ darśayati bhagavān sanatkumāraḥ’ iti caivam-ādyāḥ śrutayo
Mokṣa-pratibandha-nivṛttimātram eva ātma-jñānasya phalaṃ darśayanti—

“To him whose faults had been washed off, Bhagavān Sanat-kumāra showed the other side beyond the darkness” (ChanU.7.26.2),
Show that the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman consists in merely the removal of the obstacle to Final Release.

1.1.4 L.111 ✅ तथा च आचार्यप्रणीतं न्यायोपबृंहितं सूत्रम् –
‘दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्तिदोष-मिथ्याज्ञानानाम् उत्तरोत्तरापाये तदनन्तरापायाद् अपवर्गः’ (न्या. सू. १.१.२) इति।

Tathā ca ācārya-praṇītaṃ nyāyopabṛṃhitaṃ sūtram –
‘Duḥkha-janma-pravṛtti-doṣa-mithyā-jñānānām uttarottara-apāye tad-anantara-apāyād apavargaḥ’ iti—

Similar is the Sūtra of the great teacher (Gautama) supplemented by reasoning, thus —
Final Release (results) from the successive removal of erroneous ignorance, faults, activity, birth and pain, the removal of each succeeding member of the series serving to cause the removal of the one coming earlier (Nyāya Sū. 1.1.2).

1.1.4 L.112 ✅ मिथ्याज्ञानापायश्च ब्रह्मात्मैकत्व-विज्ञानाद्भवति।

Mithyā-jñāna-apāyaś ca brahma-ātmaikatva-vijñānād bhavati—

This removal of the erroneous ignorance moreover results from the knowledge of the unity of one’s own Self with Brahman.

1.1.4 L.113 ✅ न चेदं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानं सम्पद्रूपम् —

Na cedaṃ brahma-ātmaikatva-vijñānaṃ saṃpad-rūpam—

This knowledge of the unity of the Self with Brahman is not of the nature of attributing greatness to a comparatively small thing (Sampad-rūpa),

1.1.4 L.114 ✅ यथा ‘अनन्तं वै मनोऽनन्ता विश्वेदेवा अनन्तमेव स तेन लोकं जयति’ (BrhU.3.1.9) इति।

Yathā ‘anantaṃ vai mano'nantā viśve devā anantam eva sa tena lokaṃ jayati’ iti—

As for instance in the passage “The mind is infinite, the Viśve-devas are infinite: he thereby conquers the infinite world” (BrhUEng.3.1.9).

1.1.4 L.115 ✅ न चाध्यासरूपम् —

Na ca adhyāsa-rūpam—

Nor is it of the nature of a superimposition,

1.1.4 L.116 ✅ यथा ‘मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत’ (ChanU.3.18.1)

Yathā ‘mano brahmeti upāsīta’—

As for instance in the passages “Contemplate devoutly on the mind as Brahman” (ChanU.3.18.1),

1.1.4 L.117 ✅ ‘आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः’ (ChanU.3.19.1) इति च
मनआदित्यादिषु ब्रह्मदृष्ट्यध्यासः।

‘Ādityo brahmeti ādeśaḥ’ iti ca
Mana-āditya-ādiṣu brahma-dṛṣṭi-adhyāsaḥ—

“The advice is that the sun is Brahman” (ChanU.3.19.1) etc.,
Where there is a superimposition by way of looking upon the mind and the sun respectively as Brahman.

1.1.4 L.118 ✅ नापि विशिष्टक्रियायोग-निमित्तम्
‘वायुर्वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.1)
‘प्राणो वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.3) इतिवत्।

Na api viśiṣṭa-kriyā-yoga-nimittam
‘Vāyuḥ vāva saṃvargaḥ’
‘Prāṇo vāva saṃvargaḥ’ itivat—

Nor is it something caused by any special action,
As for instance “Vāyu indeed is the absorber” (ChanU.4.3.1),
“The Vital Breath (Prāṇa) indeed is the absorber” (ChanU.4.3.3).

1.1.4 L.119 ✅ नाप्याज्यावेक्षणादिकर्मवत् कर्माङ्गसंस्काररूपम्।

Na api ājya-avekṣaṇa-ādi-karmavat karma-aṅga-saṃskāra-rūpam—

Nor is it of the nature of any special process of the refinement (Saṃskāra) of any thing supplementary to action, such as the act of looking upon the sacrificial ghee etc. (Ājyāvekṣaṇa).

1.1.4 L.120 ✅ सम्पदादिरूपे हि ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने,

Saṃpad-ādi-rūpe hi brahma-ātmaikatva-vijñāne'bhyupagamyamāne—

If we were to understand the knowledge of the unity of the Self with Brahman, to be of the nature of attributing greatness to a comparatively small thing,

1.1.4 L.121 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7)
‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ (BrhU.1.4.10)
‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्येवमादीनां
वाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मैकत्ववस्तु-प्रतिपादनपरः पदसमन्वयः पीड्येत।

‘Tat tvam asi’,
‘Ahaṃ brahma asmi’,
‘Ayam ātmā brahma’ iti evam-ādīnāṃ
Vākyānāṃ brahma-ātmaikatva-vastu-pratipādana-paraḥ pada-samanvayaḥ pīḍyeta—

Then the co-ordinated meaning of the sentences such as “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7)
And “I am Brahman” (BrhUEng.1.4.10)
And “This Self is Brahman” (BrhUEng.2.5.19)
Which have the purport of propounding the unity of the Self and Brahman, would be done violence to,

1.1.4 L.122 ✅ ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः’ (MunU.2.2.8) इति चैवमादीनि
अविद्यानिवृत्ति-फलश्रवणान्युपरुध्येरन्।

‘Bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś chidyante sarva-saṃśayāḥ’ iti caivam-ādīni
Avidyā-nivṛtti-phala-śravaṇāni uparudhyeran—

And would contradict Scriptural passages about the fruit in the form of the removal of Nescience
Such as “The knots of the Hṛdaya are cut asunder and all doubts are resolved” (MunU.2.2.8),

1.1.4 L.123 ✅ ‘ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) इति चैवमादीनि तद्भावापत्तिवचनानि सम्पदादिरूपत्वे न सामञ्जस्येनोपपद्येरन्।

‘Brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati’ iti caivam-ādīni tad-bhāva-āpatti-vacanāni saṃpad-ādi-rūpatve na sāmañjasyenopapadyeran—

And passages like “knowing Brahman, he became Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9) which speak about the Self attaining the condition of Brahman, cannot be properly understood.

1.1.4 L.124 ✅ तस्मान्न सम्पदादिरूपं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानम्।

Tasmān na saṃpad-ādi-rūpaṃ brahma-ātmaikatva-vijñānam—

Therefore the knowledge of the unity of the Self and Brahman is not of the nature of attributing greatness to a small thing etc.;

1.1.4 L.125 ✅ अतो न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रा ब्रह्मविद्या।

Ato na puruṣa-vyāpāra-tantrā brahma-vidyā—

Hence also, the science of the knowledge of Brahman does not depend upon some sort of operation by man.

1.1.4 L.126 ✅ किं तर्हि? प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविषय-वस्तुज्ञानवद् वस्तुतन्त्रैव।

Kiṃ tarhi? pratyakṣa-ādi-pramāṇa-viṣaya-vastu-jñānavad vastu-tantraiva—

What is it then? It is that it depends upon the thing itself, even as is the knowledge of a thing which is the object of the right means of knowledge such as direct perception.

1.1.4 L.127 ✅ एवंभूतस्य ब्रह्मणस्तज्ज्ञानस्य च न कयाचिद्युक्त्या शक्यः कार्यानुप्रवेशः कल्पयितुम्।

Evaṃ-bhūtasya brahmaṇaḥ taj-jñānasya ca na kayācid yuktyā śakyaḥ kārya-anupraveśaḥ kalpayitum—

It is not possible to imagine by any method of reasoning, that Brahman or the knowledge of Brahman which happens to be of such a nature, is supplementary to action.

1.1.4 L.128 ✅ न च विदिक्रियाकर्मत्वेन कार्यानुप्रवेशो ब्रह्मणः —
‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (KenU.1.3) इति
विदिक्रियाकर्मत्व-प्रतिषेधात्,

Na ca vidi-kriyā-karmatvena kārya-anupraveśo brahmaṇaḥ —
‘Anyad eva tad viditād atho aviditād adhi’ iti
Vidi-kriyā-karmatva-pratiṣedhāt—

Nor can Brahman be said to be supplementary to action, as being an object of the act of knowing,
Because, the Scriptural passage — “It is different from the known as well as the unknown” (KenU.1.3) —
Denies that it is the object of the act of knowing,

1.1.4 L.129 ✅ ‘येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्’ (BrhU.2.4.13) इति च।

‘Yenedaṃ sarvaṃ vijānāti taṃ kena vijānīyāt?’ iti ca—

As also the Scriptural passage — “How should one know him, by whose help one knows all this?” (BrhUEng.2.4.13).

1.1.4 L.130 ✅ तथोपास्तिक्रियाकर्मत्व-प्रतिषेधोऽपि भवति —
‘यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते’ (KenU.1.4) इत्यविषयत्वं ब्रह्मण उपन्यस्य,

Tathopāsti-kriyā-karmatva-pratiṣedho'pi bhavati,
‘Yad vācā anabhyuditaṃ yena vāg abhyudyate’ iti aviṣayatvaṃ brahmaṇa upanyasya—

Similarly there is a denial of Brahman being the object of the act of devout meditation,
Because, after having declared Brahman as not being an object (of sense), by the Scriptural passage — “That which is not proclaimed by speech, but by which speech is made manifest” (KenU.1.4) —

1.1.4 L.131 ✅ ‘तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि, नेदं यदिदमुपासते’ (KenU.1.8) इति।

‘Tad eva brahma tvaṃ viddhi, nedaṃ yad idam upāsate’ iti—

It is said — “you should know that alone as Brahman, and not this on which you are devoutly meditating” (KenU.1.8).

1.1.4 L.132 ✅ अविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रयोनित्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्,

Aviṣayatve brahmaṇaḥ śāstra-yonitva-anupapattiḥ iti cet—

If there is an objection (by the opponent) that in case Brahman is not an object (of sense), the Śāstra could not possibly be its source (as is said in Sūtra 2),

1.1.4 L.133 ✅ न; अविद्याकल्पितभेद-निवृत्तिपरत्वाच्छास्त्रस्य।

Na; avidyā-kalpita-bheda-nivṛtti-paratvāc chāstrasya—

We reply — No, because the Śāstra has concern merely for the removal of difference imagined through Nescience

1.1.4 L.134 ✅ न हि शास्त्रमिदंतया विषयभूतं ब्रह्म प्रतिपिपादयिषति।

Na hi śāstram idaṃtayā viṣaya-bhūtaṃ brahma pratipipādayiṣati—

And it does not purport to propound Brahman as being an object objectively, thus — This is Brahman.

1.1.4 L.135 ✅ किं तर्हि? प्रत्यगात्मत्वेनाविषयतया प्रतिपादयत्
अविद्याकल्पितं वेद्यवेदितृवेदनादिभेदम् अपनयति।

Kiṃ tarhi? pratyag-ātmatvena aviṣayatayā pratipādayat
Avidyā-kalpitaṃ vedya-veditṛ-vedana-ādi-bhedam apanayati—

What then does it propound? It propounds Brahman as not being an object (of sense), but as being the Universal Self
And thereby removes the distinction between objects to be known, the knower, and the act of knowing etc., as imagined through Nescience.

1.1.4 L.136 ✅ तथा च शास्त्रम् — ‘यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः।
अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम्’ (KenU.2.3)

Tathā ca śāstram — ‘yasya amataṃ tasya mataṃ, mataṃ yasya na veda saḥ.
Avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātam avijānatām’—

Similarly the Scriptures say — “It is conceived by him by whom it is not conceived. He by whom it is conceived, knows it not,
It is not understood by those who say they understand it, and it is understood by those who say that they understand it not” (KenU.2.3),

1.1.4 L.137 ✅ ‘न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः … न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इति चैवमादि।

‘Na dṛṣṭeḥ draṣṭāraṃ paśyeḥ … na vijñāteḥ vijñātāraṃ vijānīyāḥ’ iti caivam-ādi—

“You cannot see the seer of sight, you cannot hear the hearer of hearing, you cannot perceive the perceiver of perception, you cannot know the knower of knowledge” (BrhUEng.3.4.2) etc.

1.1.4 L.138 ✅ अतोऽविद्याकल्पितसंसारित्व-निवर्तनेन नित्य-मुक्तात्मस्वरूप-समर्पणान्
न मोक्षस्यानित्यत्वदोषः।

Ato'vidyā-kalpita-saṃsāritva-nivartanena nitya-mukta-ātma-svarūpa-samarpaṇān na mokṣasya anityatva-doṣaḥ—

Hence, Final Release is not open to the fault of being transitory,br> Because the removal of the notion of the transitory condition, imagined through Nescience, culminates in indicating Final Release to be of the nature of the eternally free Self.

1.1.4 L.139 ✅ यस्य तूत्पाद्यो मोक्षः, तस्य
मानसं वाचिकं कायिकं वा कार्यमपेक्षत इति युक्तम्।

Yasya tu utpādyo mokṣaḥ, tasya
Mānasaṃ vācikaṃ kāyikaṃ vā kāryam apekṣata iti yuktam—

For him however, who holds Final Release as something to be effected (by action),
It would be logical to say that it depends upon the mental, vocal or bodily action.

1.1.4 L.140 ✅ तथा विकार्यत्वे च। तयोः पक्षयोर्मोक्षस्य ध्रुवमनित्यत्वम्।

Tathā vikāryatve ca. tayoḥ pakṣayoḥ mokṣasya dhruvam anityatvam—

Final Release would certainly be transitory also in the case of those who consider it as being something which undergoes modification.

1.1.4 L.141 ✅ न हि दध्यादि विकार्यम् उत्पाद्यं वा घटादि नित्यं दृष्टं लोके।

Na hi dadhi-ādi vikāryam utpādyaṃ vā ghaṭa-ādi nityaṃ dṛṣṭaṃ loke—

In the ordinary worldly life, things like curds which result by modification (of milk) and things like an earthen pot which are the result of manufacture (from earth), are not observed to be everlasting.

1.1.4 L.142 ✅ न च आप्यत्वेनापि कार्यापेक्षा, स्वात्मस्वरूपत्वे सत्यनाप्यत्वात्;

Na ca āpyatvena api kārya-apekṣā, sva-ātma-rūpatve sati anāpyatvāt—

Nor can there be any expectation of some sort of action, by considering Final Release as something to be obtained, for, as Brahman is of the nature of one’s own Self, it is not capable of being obtained (from outside).

1.1.4 L.143 ✅ स्वरूपव्यतिरिक्तत्वेऽपि ब्रह्मणो नाप्यत्वम्,
सर्वगतत्वेन नित्याप्तस्वरूपत्वात् सर्वेण ब्रह्मण आकाशस्येव।

Sva-rūpa-vyatiriktatve'pi brahmaṇo na āpyatvam,
Sarva-gatatvena nitya-āpta-svarūpatvāt sarveṇa brahmaṇa ākāśasyeva—

Even if Brahman is considered to be something different from one’s own self, it is not capable of being obtained,
Because of its being all-pervading like the Ākāśa, and as all persons always happen to possess it in themselves as their own nature.

1.1.4 L.144 ✅ नापि संस्कार्यो मोक्षः, येन व्यापारमपेक्षेत।

Na api saṃskāryo mokṣaḥ, yena vyāpāram apekṣeta—

Nor is Final Release something which admits of being subjected to a process of refinement, so that it should expect some sort of operation.

1.1.4 L.145 ✅ संस्कारो हि नाम संस्कार्यस्य गुणाधानेन वा स्यात्, दोषापनयनेन वा।

Saṃskāro hi nāma saṃskāryasya guṇa-ādhānena vā syāt, doṣa-apanayanena vā—

Refinement can be effected either by the addition of some attribute (to a thing), or by the removal of some blemish (in it).

1.1.4 L.146 ✅ न तावद्गुणाधानेन सम्भवति,
अनाधेयातिशय-ब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य।

Na tāvad guṇa-ādhānena saṃbhavati,
Anādheya-atiśaya-brahma-svarūpatvān mokṣasya—

It is not possible to refine Final Release by the addition to it of some attribute,
Because Final Release is of the nature of Brahman to which nothing can possibly be added.

1.1.4 L.147 ✅ नापि दोषापनयनेन, नित्यशुद्ध-ब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य।

Na api doṣa-apanayanena, nitya-śuddha-brahma-svarūpatvān mokṣasya—

Nor is it possible to refine it by the removal of some blemish, because Final Release is of the nature of Brahman which is eternally pure.

1.1.4 L.148 ✅ स्वात्मधर्म एव सन् तिरोभूतो मोक्षः क्रिययात्मनि संस्क्रियमाणेऽभिव्यज्यते —
यथा आदर्शे निघर्षणक्रियया संस्क्रियमाणे भास्वरत्वं धर्म इति चेत्,

Sva-ātma-dharma eva san tirobhūto mokṣaḥ kriyayā ātmani saṃskriyamāṇe'bhivyajyate —
Yathā ādarśe nigharṣaṇa-kriyayā saṃskriyamāṇe bhāsvaratvaṃ dharma iti cet—

If it be argued by the opponent, that just as a mirror which is subjected to a process of polishing becomes bright and shining,
Similarly Final Release being an attribute of the Self which for the time being happens to be obscured, becomes manifest when it is subjected to a process of refinement by some sort of action,

1.1.4 L.149 ✅ न; क्रियाश्रयत्वानुपपत्तेरात्मनः।

Na; kriyā-āśrayatva-anupapatteḥ ātmanaḥ—

We reply — No, because it cannot be reasonably understood that the Self can ever be an object of any sort of action on it,

1.1.4 L.150 ✅ यदाश्रया हि क्रिया, तमविकुर्वती नैवात्मानं लभते।

Yad-āśrayā hi kriyā, tam avikurvatī naiva ātmānaṃ labhate—

Because action can never come into being without causing any modification into that in which it abides.

1.1.4 L.151 ✅ यद्यात्मा क्रियया विक्रियेत, अनित्यत्वमात्मनः प्रसज्येत।

Yady ātmā kriyayā vikriyeta, anityatvam ātmanaḥ prasajyeta—

If the Self were to be liable to modification by action on itself, it would mean that it is not eternal,

1.1.4 L.152 ✅ ‘अविकार्योऽयमुच्यते’ इति चैवमादीनि वाक्यानि बाध्येरन्। तच्चानिष्टम्।

‘Avikāryo'yam ucyate’ iti caivam-ādīni vākyāni bādhyeran. tac ca aniṣṭam—

And in that case Scriptural passages such as “It is said to be unmodifiable” would be contradicted, which is not desirable.

1.1.4 L.153 ✅ तस्मान्न स्वाश्रया क्रिया आत्मनः सम्भवति।

Tasmān na sva-āśrayā kriyā ātmanaḥ saṃbhavati—

Therefore there is no possibility of the Self ever acting on itself,

1.1.4 L.154 ✅ अन्याश्रयायास्तु क्रियाया अविषयत्वान्न तयात्मा संस्क्रियते।

Anya-āśrayāyās tu kriyāyā aviṣayatvān na tayā ātmā saṃskriyate—

And as the Self is not the object of any action which has another object as the sphere of its activity, the Self is in no way modified by any such action.

1.1.4 L.155 ✅ ननु देहाश्रयया स्नानाचमन-यज्ञोपवीतधारणादिकया क्रियया देही संस्क्रियमाणो दृष्टः,

Nanu deha-āśrayayā snāna-ācamana-yajñopavītadhāraṇa-ādikayā kriyayā dehī saṃskriyamāṇo dṛṣṭaḥ—

But says the opponent, the Jīva-self (i.e. the individual embodied Self) is observed to acquire refinement by such actions as bathing, performing Ācamana (sipping water) and wearing the sacred thread, which depend upon there being a body.

1.1.4 L.156 ✅ न; देहादि-संहतस्यैवाविद्या-गृहीतस्यात्मनः संस्क्रियमाणत्वात्।

Na; deha-ādi-saṃhatasyaiva avidyā-gṛhītasya ātmanaḥ saṃskriyamāṇatvāt—

No, we reply, the one that acquires this refinement is the Jīva-Self, which under the influence of Nescience, has for the time being connection with a body.

1.1.4 L.157 ✅ प्रत्यक्षं हि स्नानाचमनादेर्देहसमवायित्वम्।

Pratyakṣaṃ hi snāna-ācamana-ādeḥ deha-samavāyitvam—

For it is a matter of direct perception that such bathing and Ācamana is in direct relation with the body,

1.1.4 L.158 ✅ तया देहाश्रयया तत्संहत एव कश्चिदविद्ययात्मत्वेन परिगृहीतः संस्क्रियत इति युक्तम्।

Tayā deha-āśrayayā tat-saṃhata eva kaścid avidyayā ātmatvena parigṛhītaḥ saṃskriyata iti yuktam—

And therefore it is proper to hold, that by that action of which the body is the sphere, it is only that particular Jīva-Self which under the influence of Nescience, is (for the time being) the Self of that body, that acquires the refinement.

1.1.4 L.159 ✅ यथा देहाश्रयचिकित्सा-निमित्तेन धातुसाम्येन तत्संहतस्य तदभिमानिन आरोग्यफलम्,

Yathā deha-āśraya-cikitsā-nimittena dhānu-sāmyena tat-saṃhatasya tad-abhimānina ārogya-phalam—

Just as by the re-establishment of the humoral balance (of a body) by means of medical treatment, it is that embodied Jīva-Self which is in connection with such a body which it considers to be its, that gets the fruit in the form of perfect health,

1.1.4 L.160 ✅ ‘अहमरोगः’ इति यत्र बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते —

‘Aham arogaḥ’ iti yatra buddhiḥ utpadyate—

And it is that embodied Jīva-Self in which this consciousness of the absence of any such malaise arises.

1.1.4 L.161 ✅ एवं स्नानाचमन-यज्ञोपवीतधारणादिकया ‘अहं शुद्धः संस्कृतः’ इति यत्र बुद्धिरुपद्यते, स संस्क्रियते।

Evaṃ snāna-ācamana-yajñopavīta-dhāraṇa-ādikayā ‘ahaṃ śuddhaḥ saṃskṛtaḥ’ iti yatra buddhiḥ utpadyate, sa saṃskriyate—

In a similar way it is that embodied Jīva-Self in which there arises the consciousness of such refinement by such bathing and Ācamana and the wearing of the sacred thread thus — I have been purified and refined — that happens to acquire such refinement.

1.1.4 L.162 ✅ स च देहेन संहत एव।

Sa ca dehena saṃhata eva—

He is of course in contact with that body,

1.1.4 L.163 ✅ तेनैव ह्यहंकर्त्रा अहंप्रत्ययविषयेण प्रत्ययिना सर्वाः क्रिया निर्वर्त्यन्ते।

Tenaiva hi ahaṃ-kartrā ahaṃ-pratyaya-viṣayena pratyayinā sarvāḥ kriyā nirvartyante—

And all actions performed by him, who — as being the object of the terms ‘I’ and ‘agent’ — is the experiencer,

1.1.4 L.164 ✅ तत्फलं च स एवाश्नाति, ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ (MunU.3.1.1) इति मन्त्रवर्णात् —

Tat-phalaṃ ca sa eva aśnāti, ‘tayoḥ anyaḥ pippalaṃ svādu atti anaśnann anyo'bhicākaśīti’ iti mantra-varṇāt—

And it is he alone that enjoys the fruit, according to the following Scriptural Mantras viz. “One of the two enjoys the delectable Pippala (fruit), and the other one (the Universal Self) refrains from enjoying and merely keeps looking on” (MunU.3.1.1),

1.1.4 L.165 ✅ ‘आत्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं भोक्तेत्याहुर्मनीषिणः’ (KathU.1.3.4) इति च।

‘Ātmendriya-mano-yuktaṃ bhokteti āhuḥ manīṣiṇaḥ’ iti ca—

“When he is in union with the body, the senses and the mind, the wise people say that he is the experiencer” (KathU.1.3.4).

1.1.4 L.166 ✅ तथा ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा।
कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च’ (SvetU.6.11) इति,

Tathā ‘eko devaḥ sarva-bhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ sarva-vyāpī sarva-bhūta-antar-ātmā.
Karma-adhyakṣaḥ sarva-bhūta-adhivāsaḥ sākṣī cetā kevalo nir-guṇaś ca’ iti—

Also “He is the one God hidden in all beings, who is all-pervading, the Universal Self of all beings,
The director of all actions, dwelling in all beings, the witness, the vitalizer, the one and the only one, and the one free from all attributes” (SvetU.6.11).

1.1.4 L.167 ✅ ‘स पर्यगाच्छुक्रम् अकायम् अव्रणम अस्नाविरं शुद्धम् अपापविद्धम्’ (IsU.8) इति, च —

‘Sa paryagāc chukram akāyam avraṇam asnāviraṃ śuddham apāpa-viddham’ iti ca—

And “He pervades all and is bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, (and is) pure and untouched by sin” (IsU.8).

1.1.4 L.168 ✅ एतौ मन्त्रावनाधेयातिशयतां नित्यशुद्धतां च ब्रह्मणो दर्शयतः।

Etau mantrau anādheya-atiśayatāṃ nitya-śuddhatāṃ ca brahmaṇo darśayataḥ—

These two Mantras show the eternal purity of Brahman, and that it is not possible to improve upon it in any way.

1.1.4 L.169 ✅ ब्रह्मभावश्च मोक्षः।

Brahma-bhāvaś ca mokṣaḥ—

Final Release is nothing but becoming Brahman,

1.1.4 L.170 ✅ तस्मान्न संस्कार्योऽपि मोक्षः।

Tasmān na saṃskāryo'pi mokṣaḥ—

Therefore Final Release is also not something which admits of any refinement.

1.1.4 L.171 ✅ अतोऽन्यन्मोक्षं प्रति क्रियानुप्रवेशद्वारं न शक्यं केनचिद्दर्शयितुम्।

Ato'nyan mokṣaṃ prati kriyā-anupraveśa-dvāraṃ na śakyaṃ kenacid darśayitum—

Therefore, it is not possible for anybody to show any other way by which Final Release could be connected with action.

1.1.4 L.172 ✅ तस्माज्ज्ञानमेकं मुक्त्वा क्रियाया गन्धमात्रस्याप्यनुप्रवेश इह नोपपद्यते।

Tasmāj jñānam ekaṃ muktvā kriyāyā gandhamātrasya api anupraveśa iha nopapadyate—

Therefore barring knowledge and knowledge alone, action cannot have any the slightest relation to it.

1.1.4 L.173 ✅ ननु ज्ञानं नाम मानसी क्रिया,

Nanu jñānaṃ nāma mānasī kriyā—

But (says the opponent) knowledge of course is a mental act.

1.1.4 L.174 ✅ न; वैलक्षण्यात्।

Na; vailakṣaṇyāt—

No (we reply), because there is dissimilarity (between the two).

1.1.4 L.175 ✅ क्रिया हि नाम सा, यत्र वस्तुस्वरूपनिरपेक्षैव चोद्यते, पुरुषचित्त-व्यापाराधीना च,

Kriyā hi nāma sā yatra vastu-svarūpa-nirapekṣaiva codyate, puruṣa-citta-vyāpāra-adhīnā ca—

Action is of course that which is enjoined, independently of the nature of anything, and is dependent on the operation of the mind of a man,

1.1.4 L.176 ✅ यथा — ‘यस्यै देवतायै हविर्गृहीतं स्यात्तां मनसा ध्यायेद् वषट्करिष्यन्’ इति, ‘… संध्यां मनसा ध्यायेत्’ (ऐ. ब्रा. ३.८.१) इति चैवमादिषु।

Yathā — ‘yasyai devatāyai haviḥ gṛhītaṃ syāt tāṃ manasā dhyāyed vaṣaṭ-kariṣyan’ iti ‘… saṃdhyāṃ manasā dhyāyet’ iti caivam-ādiṣu—

For instance as in the following passages viz., “For whatever Divinity an oblation is taken up (by the Adhvaryu priest) one (the Hotṛ) should meditate on that Divinity while. reciting ‘Vaṣaṭ’. “Let him meditate on Sandhyā” (Ait. Brā. 3.8.1) etc.

1.1.4 L.177 ✅ ध्यानं चिन्तनं यद्यपि मानसम्,
तथापि पुरुषेण कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यम्, पुरुषतन्त्रत्वात्।

Dhyānaṃ cintanaṃ yadi api mānasam,
Tathā api puruṣeṇa kartum akartum anyathā vā kartuṃ śakyam, puruṣa-tantratvāt—

Though meditation or reflection is mental,
It is yet possible for a man to do it or not to do it or to do it in some other way, because it solely depends upon a man.

1.1.4 L.178 ✅ ज्ञानं तु प्रमाणजन्यम्।

Jñānaṃ tu pramāṇa-janyam—

Knowledge however is generated by the right means of knowledge.

1.1.4 L.179 ✅ प्रमाणं च यथाभूतवस्तुविषयम्।

Pramāṇaṃ ca yathā-bhūta-vastu-viṣayam—

The right means of knowledge has concern with things as they actually exist,

1.1.4 L.180 ✅ अतो ज्ञानं कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुमशक्यम्।

Ato jñānaṃ kartum akartum anyathā vā kartuṃ aśakyam—

And it is impossible to generate knowledge or not to generate it or to generate it in some other way (optionally),

1.1.4 L.181 ✅ केवलं वस्तुतन्त्रमेव तत्; न चोदनातन्त्रम्, नापि पुरुषतन्त्रम्;

Kevalaṃ vastu-tantram eva tat; na codanā-tantram, na api puruṣa-tantram—

Because knowledge depends upon the existing thing itself, and not upon any injunction or upon a man.

1.1.4 L.182 ✅ तस्मान्मानसत्वेऽपि ज्ञानस्य महद्वैलक्षण्यम्।

Tasmān mānasatve'pi jñānasya mahad vailakṣaṇyam—

Therefore, knowledge though mental is greatly dissimilar (to meditation).

1.1.4 L.183 ✅ यथा च ‘पुरुषो वाव गौतमाग्निः’ (ChanU.5.7.1)
‘योषा वाव गौतमाग्निः’ (5.8.1) इत्यत्र
योषित्पुरुषयोरग्निबुद्धिर्मानसी भवति;

Yathā ca ‘puruṣo vāva gautama agniḥ’
‘Yoṣā vāva gautama agniḥ’ iti atra
Yoṣit-puruṣayoḥ agni-buddhiḥ mānasī bhavati—

Just as in the Scriptural passage “A man, verily Oh Gautama, is Agni” (ChanU.5.7.1),
“The woman, verily O Gautama, is Agni” (ChanU.5.8.1)
The conception that a man or a woman is Agni is mental,

1.1.4 L.184 ✅ केवलचोदनाजन्यत्वात् क्रियैव सा पुरुषतन्त्रा च।

Kevala-codanā-janyatvāt kriyaiva sā puruṣa-tantrā ca—

And as resulting from an injunction, is action pure and simple and it depends on a man.

1.1.4 L.185 ✅ या तु प्रसिद्धेऽग्नावग्निबुद्धिः, न सा चोदनातन्त्रा; नापि पुरुषतन्त्रा।

Yā tu prasiddhe'gnau agni-buddhiḥ, na sā codanā-tantrā; na api puruṣa-tantrā—

But the conception of the ordinary fire as Agni is neither any thing which depends upon an injunction or on a man,

1.1.4 L.186 ✅ किं तर्हि? प्रत्यक्षविषयवस्तु-तन्त्रैवेति ज्ञानमेवैतत्; न क्रिया —

Kiṃ tarhi? pratyakṣa-viṣaya-vastu-tantraiveti jñānam evaitat; na kriyā—

But something which depends on the thing (the fire) itself, and it is knowledge pure and simple and not action.

1.1.4 L.187 ✅ एवं सर्वप्रमाणविषय-वस्तुषु वेदितव्यम्।

Evaṃ sarva-pramāṇa-viṣaya-vastuṣu veditavyam—

In the case of all things which are objects of the right means of knowledge, one should understand similarly.

1.1.4 L.188 ✅ तत्रैवं सति यथाभूत-ब्रह्मात्मविषयमपि ज्ञानं न चोदनातन्त्रम्।

Tatraivaṃ sati yathā-bhūta-brahma-ātma-viṣayam api jñānaṃ na codanā-tantram—

This being so, the knowledge that the eternally existing Brahman is the Self, is not something which depends upon an injunction.

1.1.4 L.189 ✅ तद्विषये लिङादयः श्रूयमाणा अपि अनियोज्यविषयत्वात् कुण्ठीभवन्ति उपलादिषु प्रयुक्तक्षुर-तैक्ष्ण्यादिवत्, अहेयानुपादेय-वस्तुविषयत्वात्।

Tad-viṣaye liṅ-ādayaḥ śrūyamāṇā api aniyojya-viṣayatvāt kuṇṭhī-bhavanti upala-ādiṣu prayukta-kṣura-taikṣṇya-ādivat, aheya-anupādeya-vastu-viṣayatvāt—

So Brahman not being the object of an injunction, or not being an entity from which any thing can be discarded or to which any thing can be added, any imperative forms (of verbs) we see used in the Scriptures, become as ineffective as when the sharp edge of a razor is employed on a stone.

1.1.4 L.190 ✅ किमर्थानि तर्हि ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः’ (BrhU.2.4.5) इत्यादीनि विधिच्छायानि वचनानि?

Kim arthāni tarhi ‘ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyaḥ’ ityādīni vidhi-cchāyāni vacanāni—

What then is the purport (the opponent asks) of passages like “The Self (Oh Maitreyī) is to be seen, heard etc.” (BrhUEng.2.4.5) which have an appearance of an injunction?

1.1.4 L.191 ✅ स्वाभाविकप्रवृत्तिविषय-विमुखीकरणार्थानीति ब्रूमः।

Svā-bhāvika-pravṛtti-viṣaya-vimukhī-karaṇa-arthāni iti brūmaḥ—

We reply — They are for the purpose of making (a man) averse to the objects of his natural tendency.

1.1.4 L.192 ✅ यो हि बहिर्मुखः प्रवर्तते पुरुषः ‘इष्टं मे भूयादनिष्टं मा भूत्’ इति,

Yo hi bahir-mukhaḥ pravartate puruṣaḥ ‘iṣṭaṃ me bhūyāt, anṣṭiṃ mā bhūt’ iti—

In the case of a man who is an extrovert and acts with a view to attain the objects of his desire and to avoid things distasteful to him,

1.1.4 L.193 ✅ न च तत्रात्यन्तिकं पुरुषार्थं लभते, तम् आत्यन्तिकपुरुषार्थ-वाञ्छिनं
स्वाभाविकात् कार्यकरणसङ्घात-प्रवृत्तिगोचराद् विमुखीकृत्य प्रत्यगात्मस्रोतस्तया प्रवर्तयन्ति ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः’ इत्यादीनि;

Na ca tatra ātyantikaṃ puruṣa-arthaṃ labhate, tam ātyantika-puruṣa-artha-vāñchinaṃ
Svā-bhāvikāt kārya-karaṇa-saṃghāta-pravṛtti-gocarād vi-mukhī-kṛtya pratyag-ātma-srotastayā pravartayanti ‘ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ’ ityādīni—

He, having failed to attain the highest aim of man, is yet desirous of attaining such aim,
Passages like “The Self, Oh Maitreyī, should be seen” etc. help him to set his face against the aggregate of the objects of the natural tendency of his body and sense-organs, and to direct the stream of his mind towards the Universal Self.

1.1.4 L.194 ✅ तस्यात्मान्वेषणाय प्रवृत्तस्याहेयम् अनुपादेयं चात्मतत्त्वमुपदिश्यते —

Tasya ātma-anveṣaṇāya pravṛttasya aheyam anupādeyaṃ ca ātma-tattvam upadiśyate—

To him who has started on the quest of the Self, the Scriptures propound the true nature of the Self from which nothing can be discarded and to which nothing can be added, by means of the following passages,

1.1.4 L.195 ✅ ‘इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा’ (BrhU.2.4.6)

‘Idaṃ sarvaṃ yad ayam ātmā’—

Viz. “All this is that which is the Self” (BrhUEng.2.4.6),

1.1.4 L.196 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत् तत्केन कं पश्येत् ...
केन कं विजानीयात् ... विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्’ (BrhU.4.5.15)

‘Yatra tu asya sarvam ātmaiva abhūt tat kena kaṃ paśyet …
Kena kaṃ vijānīyāt … vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāt’—

“When the Self only is all this, how should he see another,
How should he know another, how should he know the Knower?” (BrhUEng.4.5.15),

1.1.4 L.197 ✅ ‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इत्यादिभिः।

‘Ayam ātmā brahma’ ityādibhiḥ—

“This Self is Brahman” (BrhUEng.2.5.19) etc.

1.1.4 L.198 ✅ यदप्यकर्तव्यप्रधानम् आत्मज्ञानं हानायोपादानाय वा न भवतीति, तत् तथैवेत्यभ्युपगम्यते।

Yad api akartavya-pradhānam ātma-jñānaṃ hānāyopādānāya vā na bhavati iti, tat tathaiveti abhyupagamyate—

Now we understand, that the knowledge of the Self with respect to which contra-indication of any action as such is the principal thing, and, that it does not admit of the giving up or the taking up of anything, is but too true.

1.1.4 L.199 ✅ अलङ्कारो ह्ययमस्माकम् — यद् ब्रह्मात्मावगतौ सत्यां सर्वकर्तव्यताहानिः कृतकृत्यता चेति।

Alaṃkāro hi ayam asmākam — yad brahma-ātma-avagatau satyāṃ sarva-kartavyatā-hāniḥ kṛta-kṛtyatā ceti—

The fact that when there is the realization of Brahman, all duties come to an end and there is satisfaction that the aim is achieved, is something which indeed is a feather in our cap (lit., it is our Alaṅ-kāra i.e. an ornament).

1.1.4 L.200 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः — ‘आत्मानं चेद् विजानीयादयमस्मीति पूरुषः।
किमिच्छन्कस्य कामाय शरीरमनुसंज्वरेत्’ (BrhU.4.4.12) इति,

Tathā ca śrutiḥ — ‘ātmānaṃ ced vijānīyād ayam asmi iti pūruṣaḥ.
Kim icchan kasya kāmāya śarīram anusaṃjvaret’ iti—

The Scriptures also say similarly thus — “If a man understands the Self as his own Self,
Then wishing for what should he suffer along with his suffering body?” (BrhUEng.4.4.12),

1.1.4 L.201 ✅ ‘एतद्बुद्ध्वा बुद्धिमान्स्यात् कृतकृत्यश्च भारत’ (BhG.15.20) इति च स्मृतिः।

‘Etad buddhvā buddhimān syāt kṛta-kṛtyaś ca bhārata’ iti ca smṛtiḥ—

And the Smṛti also says thus — “Having understood this, O Bhārata, a man becomes enlightened and one who has achieved his aim.” (BhG.15.20).

1.1.4 L.202 ✅ तस्मान्न प्रतिपत्तिविधि-विषयतया ब्रह्मणः समर्पणम्॥

Tasmān na pratipatti-vidhi-viṣayatayā brahmaṇaḥ samarpaṇam—

Therefore the Vedānta Śāstra does not culminate in propounding Brahman as being something which could be an object of an injunction to realize it.

1.1.4 L.203 ✅ यदपि केचिदाहुः — प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिविधि-तच्छेषव्यतिरेकेण केवलवस्तुवादी वेदभागो नास्तीति, तन्न;

Yad api kecid āhuḥ — pravṛtti-nivṛtti-vidhi-tac-cheṣa-vyatirekeṇa kevala-vastu-vādī veda-bhāgo na asti iti, tan na—

The objection which some raise, that there is no such portion of the Scriptures which has the purport of merely making a statement about an existing entity (Vastu), as distinguished from an injunction for the doing or for abstaining from doing something, or being supplementary to any such injunction for doing or abstaining from doing something, is not a felicitous statement,

1.1.4 L.204 ✅ औपनिषदस्य पुरुषस्यानन्यशेषत्वात्।

Aupaniṣadasya puruṣasya ananya-śeṣatvāt—

Because the Puruṣa of the Upaniṣads is not subsidiary to anything else.

1.1.4 L.205 ✅ योऽसावुपनिषत्स्वेवाधिगतः पुरुषोऽसंसारी ब्रह्मस्वरूपः उत्पाद्यादि-चतुर्विधद्रव्यविलक्षणः स्वप्रकरणस्थोऽनन्यशेषः, नासौ नास्ति नाधिगम्यत इति वा शक्यं वदितुम्;

Yo'sau upaniṣatsu eva adhigataḥ puruṣo'saṃsārī brahma-svarūpaḥ utpādya-ādi-catur-vidha-dravya-vilakṣaṇaḥ sva-prakaraṇastho'nanya-śeṣaḥ, na ‘asau na asti na adhigamyate’ iti vā śakyaṃ vaditum—

It cannot be said about that Puruṣa which can be comprehended only from the Upaniṣads, and which is not of a transmigratory nature, and which in fact is Brahman, and is different from the fourfold materials of things which are liable to be created etc., and which is a topic in itself, and is not subsidiary to any thing else, that it is not, or that it cannot be comprehended,

1.1.4 L.206 ✅ ‘स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इत्यात्मशब्दात्

‘Sa eṣa neti neti ātmā’ iti ātma-śabdāt—

Because, in the following Scriptural passage it is described as the Ātmā (the Self) thus — (The Self can only be described negatively as) “Ātmā is, not that, not that” (BrhUEng.3.9.26)

1.1.4 L.207 ✅ आत्मनश्च प्रत्याख्यातुमशक्यत्वात्, य एव निराकर्ता तस्यैवात्मत्वात्।

Ātmanaś ca pratyākhyātum aśakyatvāt, ya eva nirākartā tasyaiva ātmatvāt—

And it is not possible to deny the Self, because whosoever endeavours to deny it, is himself the Self (Ātmā).

1.1.4 L.208 ✅ नन्वात्मा अहंप्रत्ययविषयत्वाद् उपनिषत्स्वेव विज्ञायत इत्यनुपपन्नम्;

Nanu ātmā ahaṃ-pratyaya-viṣayatvād ‘upaniṣatsu eva vijñāyate’ iti anupapannam—

To the objection that it is not reasonably sustainable that the Self is to be understood from the Upaniṣads only, because it is the object of the notion of ‘I’ or ‘Ego’,

1.1.4 L.209 ✅ न, तत्साक्षित्वेन प्रत्युक्तत्वात्।

Na, tat-sākṣitvena pratyuktatvāt—

(We reply) — No, it is not so, because the Self is the immediate consciousness (Sākṣī) of that Jīva-Self which is the object of the notion of ‘I’ or ‘Ego’.

1.1.4 L.210 ✅ न ह्यहंप्रत्ययविषय-कर्तृव्यतिरेकेण तत्साक्षी सर्वभूतस्थः सम एकः कूटस्थनित्यः पुरुषो विधिकाण्डे तर्कसमये वा केनचिदधिगतः सर्वस्यात्मा।

Na hi ahaṃ-pratyaya-viṣaya-kartṛ-vyatirekeṇa tat-sākṣī sarva-bhūtasthaḥ sama ekaḥ kūṭastha-nityaḥ puruṣo vidhi-kāṇḍe tarka-samaye vā kenacad adhigataḥ sarvasya ātmā—

Now, because this Puruṣa who is the mere immediate consciousness, as distinguished from the agent who is the object of the notion of ‘I’ or ‘Ego’, which resides in all beings, is uniform, the only one (without a second), is eternally unchanging, is the Self of all, and is not understood by anybody either from the Vedic chapter on injunctions or from the science of reasoning (Nyāya),

1.1.4 L.211 ✅ अतः स न केनचित्प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्यः, विधिशेषत्वं वा नेतुम् —

Ataḥ sa na kenacit pratyākhyātuṃ śakyaḥ, vidhi-śeṣatvaṃ vā netum—

And it is not therefore possible for anybody to deny it, or reduce it to the status of being supplementary to an injunction.

1.1.4 L.212 ✅ आत्मत्वादेव च सर्वेषाम् — न हेयो नाप्युपादेयः।

Ātmatvād eva ca sarveṣām — na heyo na api upādeyaḥ—

It is precisely because of its being the Self of all that it cannot either be discarded or taken up.

1.1.4 L.213 ✅ सर्वं हि विनश्यद्विकारजातं पुरुषान्तं विनश्यति;

Sarvaṃ hi vinaśyad-vikāra-jātaṃ puruṣa-antaṃ vinaśyati—

All things which are the modifications of the root-cause and are perishable, perish only upto the Puruṣa.

1.1.4 L.214 ✅ पुरुषो हि विनाशहेत्वभावादविनाशी;

Puruṣo hi vināśa-hetu-abhāvād avināśī—

The Puruṣa is imperishable because of the absence of any cause for such destruction,

1.1.4 L.215 ✅ विक्रियाहेत्वभावाच्च कूटस्थनित्यः;

Vikriyā-hetu-abhāvāc ca kūṭastha-nityaḥ—

Is eternally unchanging because of the absence of any cause for its modification,

1.1.4 L.216 ✅ अत एव नित्य-शुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः;

Ata eva nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta-sva-bhāvaḥ—

And is (therefore) of the nature of being eternally pure, enlightened, and free.

1.1.4 L.217 ✅ तस्मात् ‘पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः’ (KathU.1.3.11)
‘तं त्वौपनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि’ (BrhU.3.9.26) इति चौपनिषदत्वविशेषणं
पुरुषस्योपनिषत्सु प्राधान्येन प्रकाश्यमानत्वे उपपद्यते।

Tasmāt ‘puruṣān na paraṃ kiñcit sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ’
‘Taṃ tu aupaniṣadaṃ puruṣaṃ pṛcchāmi’ iti caupaniṣadatva-viśeṣaṇaṃ
Puruṣasyopaniṣatsu prādhānyena prakāśyamānatve upapadyate—

Therefore the particularization of the Puruṣa as the one belonging to the Upaniṣads, in the passages “There is nothing beyond the Puruṣa, he is the final goal and the transcendental condition” (KathU.1.3.11),
And “I ask you about the Puruṣa mentioned in the Upaniṣads” (BrhUEng.3.9.26)
Can be proper, only if the Puruṣa is principally the subject illustrated in the Upaniṣads.

1.1.4 L.218 ✅ अतो भूतवस्तुपरो वेदभागो नास्तीति वचनं साहसमात्रम्॥

Ato bhūta-vastu-paro veda-bhāgo na asti iti vacanaṃ sāhasamātram—

Therefore it is but a bold and reckless statement that no portion of the Scriptural texts treats of an existing entity.

1.1.4 L.219 ✅ यदपि शास्त्रतात्पर्यविदाम् अनुक्रमणम् — ‘दृष्टो हि तस्यार्थः कर्मावबोधनम्’ इत्येवमादि,
तत् धर्मजिज्ञासाविषयत्वाद् विधिप्रतिषेध-शास्त्राभिप्रायं द्रष्टव्यम्।

Yad api śāstra-tāt-paryavidām anukramaṇam — ‘dṛṣṭo hi tasya arthaḥ karma-avabodhanam’ ityevam-ādi,
Tat dharma-jijñāsā-viṣayatvād vidhi-pratiṣedha-śāstra-abhiprāyaṃ draṣṭavyam—

The statement of those who know the purport of the Śāstras, viz. “We have seen that the meaning of that is the knowledge of action” etc.,
Being with regard to the subject relating to the desire to know ‘Duty’ (Dharma), should be understood as purporting to relate to the Śāstra of injunctions and prohibitions (i.e. the Karma-kāṇḍa of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā).

1.1.4 L.220 ✅ अपि च ‘आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वाद् आनर्थक्यमतदर्थानाम्’ (शा. भा. १.१.२) इत्येतदेकान्तेनाभ्युपगच्छतां
भूतोपदेशानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः।

Api ca ‘āmnāyasya kriyā-arthatvād ānarthakyam atad-arthānām’ iti etad eka-antena abhyupagacchatāṃ
Bhūtopadeśānām ānarthakya-prasaṅgaḥ—

Besides if we were to understand that “action is the purport of the Scriptures, and whatever does not refer to it is purposeless” in the extreme sense,
There would occur the predicament of the mention of existing entities (in the Śāstra) being rendered purposeless.

1.1.4 L.221 ✅ प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिविधि-तच्छेषव्यतिरेकेण भूतं चेद्वस्तूपदिशति भव्यार्थत्वेन,
कूटस्थनित्यं भूतं नोपदिशतीति को हेतुः?

Pravṛtti-nivṛtti-vidhi-tac-cheṣa-vyatirekeṇa bhūtaṃ ced vastu upadiśati bhavya-arthatvena,
Kūṭastha-nityaṃ bhūtaṃ nopadiśati iti ko hetuḥ?—

If the Śāstra does in fact propound an existing entity, as apart from an injunction about an action or aversion to it or something supplementary to these, with regard to something (occurring) in the future,
Then where is the reason for maintaining that it does not propound the eternally existing and unchanging entity (such as Brahman)?

1.1.4 L.222 ✅ न हि भूतमुपदिश्यमानं क्रिया भवति।

Na hi bhūtam upadiśyamānaṃ kriyā bhavati—

Merely because an existing entity is propounded (in the Scriptures) it does not thereby become ‘action’.

1.1.4 L.223 ✅ अक्रियात्वेऽपि भूतस्य क्रियासाधनत्वात् क्रियार्थ एव भूतोपदेश इति चेत्,

Akriyātve'pi bhūtasya kriyā-sādhanatvāt kriyā-artha eva bhūtopadeśa iti cet—

If it were to be objected that although an existing entity may not be ‘action’ as such, still the propounding of an existing entity (by the Śāstra) is for the purpose of ‘action’, because of its being the means of ‘action’,

1.1.4 L.224 ✅ नैष दोषः; क्रियार्थत्वेऽपि क्रियानिर्वर्तन-शक्तिमद्-वस्तूपदिष्टमेव;

Naiṣa doṣaḥ; kriyā-arthatve'pi kriyā-nirvartana-śaktimad-vastu upadiṣṭam eva—

We reply — this is no fault, because even if we understand the mention of an existing entity for the purpose of ‘action’, the existing entity possessing such potentiality for bringing about such ‘action’, would thus happen to have been propounded all the same.

1.1.4 L.225 ✅ क्रियार्थत्वं तु प्रयोजनं तस्य; न चैतावता वस्त्वनुपदिष्टं भवति।

Kriyā-arthatvaṃ tu prayojanaṃ tasya; na caitāvatā vastu anupadiṣṭaṃ bhavati—

Their aim may very well be to subserve ‘action’, but even if it were to be so, it would not mean that an existing entity is not propounded at all. That it is meant to subserve ‘action’ is its fruit.

1.1.4 L.226 ✅ यदि नामोपदिष्टं किं तव तेन स्यादिति,

Yadi nāmopadiṣṭaṃ kiṃ tava tena syād iti—

But (says the opponent) supposing it is so propounded, how does it help you?

1.1.4 L.227 ✅ उच्यते — अनवगतात्म-वस्तूपदेशश्च तथैव भवितुमर्हति; तदवगत्या मिथ्याज्ञानस्य संसारहेतोर्निवृत्तिः प्रयोजनं क्रियत इत्यविशिष्टमर्थवत्त्वं क्रियासाधनवस्तूपदेशेन।

Ucyate — anavagata-ātma-vastu-upadeśaś ca tathaiva bhavitum arhati; tad-avagatyā mithyā-jñānasya saṃsāra-hetoḥ nivṛttiḥ prayojanaṃ kriyata iti aviśiṣṭam arthavattvaṃ kriyā-sādhana-vastu-upadeśena—

We reply — The propounding of an existing entity such as the Self is also of such a nature, and by understanding such existing entity (as the Self or Brahman) which has the result of removing erroneous ignorance, the cause of transmigratory existence, the purpose that an entity has such a meaning, is common between it and the propounding of an entity which is a means for ‘action’.

1.1.4 L.228 ✅ अपि च ‘ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः’ इति चैवमाद्या निवृत्तिरुपदिश्यते।
न च सा क्रिया। नापि क्रियासाधनम्।

Api ca ‘brāhmaṇo na hantavyaḥ’ iti ca evam-ādyā nivṛttiḥ upadiśyate.
Na ca sā kriyā. na api kriyā-sādhanam—

Moreover the Śāstra is seen to teach ‘abstention’ such as — “A Brāhmaṇa should not be killed”,
Which is neither ‘action’ nor a means for ‘action’.

1.1.4 L.229 ✅ अक्रियार्थानाम् उपदेशोऽनर्थकश्चेत्,
‘ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः’ इत्यादिनिवृत्त्युपदेशानाम् आनर्थक्यं प्राप्तम्। तच्चानिष्टम्।

Akriyā-arthānām upadeśo'narthakaś cet,
‘Brāhmaṇo na hantavyaḥ’ ityādi-nivṛtti-upadeśānām ānarthakyaṃ prāptam. tac ca aniṣṭam—

Now if instruction about entities not meant for the purpose of ‘action’ were to be purposeless,
Then the inevitable conclusion is, that instruction about such ‘abstention’ as that ‘a Brāhmaṇa should not be killed’ would be without a purpose, which would not be desirable.

1.1.4 L.230 ✅ न च स्वभावप्राप्त-हन्त्यर्थानुरागेण नञः शक्यम् अप्राप्तक्रियार्थत्वं कल्पयितुं हननक्रियानिवृत्त्यौदासीन्य-व्यतिरेकेण।

Na ca sva-bhāva-prāpta-hanti-artha-anurāgeṇa nañaḥ śakyam aprāpta-kriyā-arthatvaṃ kalpayituṃ hanana-kriyā-nivṛtti-audāsīnya-vyatirekeṇa—

From the mere connection of the suffix Nañ (नञ्) with the verb ‘to kill’ (Han) — which means the act of killing which follows naturally from the verb ‘to kill’ — it is not possible to imagine that it expresses some new meaning, and that too ‘an action’ which is different from mere passivity or indifference as to the act of killing.

1.1.4 L.231 ✅ नञश्चैष स्वभावः, यत्स्वसम्बन्धिनोऽभावं बोधयतीति।

Nañaś caiṣa sva-bhāvaḥ, yat sva-saṃbandhino'bhāvaṃ bodhayati iti—

The nature of Nañ is such that it makes known the non-existence of that in connection with which it is used,

1.1.4 L.232 ✅ अभावबुद्धिश्चौदासीन्यकारणम्।

Abhāva-buddhiś caudāsīnya-kāraṇam—

And the consciousness of such non-existence is the cause of the (resulting) passive indifference.

1.1.4 L.233 ✅ सा च दग्धेन्धनाग्निवत् स्वयमेवोपशाम्यति।

Sā ca dagdhendhana-agnivat svayam evopaśāmyati—

That consciousness wears off of itself, like fire after the complete combustion of fuel.

1.1.4 L.234 ✅ तस्मात् प्रसक्तक्रियानिवृत्त्यौदासीन्यमेव ‘ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः’ इत्यादिषु प्रतिषेधार्थं मन्यामहे, अन्यत्र प्रजापतिव्रतादिभ्यः।

Tasmāt prasakta-kriyā-nivṛtti-audāsīnyam eva ‘brāhmaṇo na hantavyaḥ’ ityādiṣu pratiṣedha-arthaṃ manyāmahe, anyatra prajā-pati-vrata-ādibhyaḥ—

Therefore, we consider that everywhere — except in the case of the Prajā-pati-vrata — in the case of passages like “A Brāhmaṇa should not be killed” the passive indifference resulting from the aversion to the suggested act, is itself to be understood in the sense of a prohibition (of an act).

1.1.4 L.235 ✅ तस्मात् पुरुषार्थानुपयोग्युपाख्यानादि-भूतार्थवादविषयम् आनर्थक्याभिधानं द्रष्टव्यम्॥

Tasmāt puruṣa-artha-anupayogi-upākhyāna-ādi-bhūta-arthavāda-viṣayam ānarthakya-abhidhānaṃ draṣṭavyam—

Therefore the reference to the purposelessness of passages (which do not imply action according to Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā) should be understood to have reference to Artha-vāda passages, like legends, which are useless so far as the highest aim of man is concerned.

1.1.4 L.236 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् — कर्तव्यविध्यनुप्रवेशम् अन्तरेण वस्तुमात्रम् उच्यमानम् अनर्थकं स्यात् ‘सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती’ इत्यादिवदिति, तत्परिहृतम्;

Yad api uktam — kartavya-vidhi-anupraveśam antareṇa vastumātram ucyamānam anarthakaṃ stāt ‘sapta-dvīpā vasumatī’ ityādivad iti, tat parihṛtam—

Then with regard also to what has been said, viz. that the mention of actually existing entities which do not lead up to some sort of injunction to action, is purposeless like such sentences as ‘the world is comprised of seven islands’, it has been refuted,

1.1.4 L.237 ✅ ‘रज्जुरियम्, नायं सर्पः’ इति वस्तुमात्रकथनेऽपि प्रयोजनस्य दृष्टत्वात्।

‘Rajjuḥ iyam, na ayaṃ sarpaḥ’ iti vastumātra-kathane'pi prayojanasya dṛṣṭatvāt—

Because it has been seen that a fruit does accrue by the mere mention of such an entity, thus — ‘This is a rope and not a snake’.

1.1.4 L.238 ✅ ननु श्रुतब्रह्मणोऽपि यथापूर्वं संसारित्वदर्शनान्न रज्जुस्वरूप-कथनवद् अर्थवत्त्वम् इत्युक्तम्।

Nanu śruta-brahmaṇo'pi yathā-pūrvaṃ saṃsāritva-darśanān na rajju-svarūpa-kathanavad arthavattvam iti uktam—

But (retorts the opponent) I have said already that as it is seen that even in the case of a person who has received instruction about Brahman, he is still seen to continue to be in the same transmigratory condition, the Scriptural passages have no such meaning as there is in mentioning that this is a rope and not a snake.

1.1.4 L.239 ✅ अत्रोच्यते — नावगतब्रह्मात्मभावस्य यथापूर्वं संसारित्वं शक्यं दर्शयितुम्,

Atrocyate, na avagata-brahma-ātma-bhāvasya yathā-pūrvaṃ saṃsāritvaṃ śakyaṃ darśayitum—

To this, we reply — it is not possible to show that he who has once understood the condition of the Self’s unity with Brahman, still continues to be affected by the transmigratory condition,

1.1.4 L.240 ✅ वेदप्रमाणजनित-ब्रह्मात्मभावविरोधात्।

Veda-pramāṇa-janita-brahma-ātma-bhāva-virodhāt—

Because it is contradictory to the condition of the unity of the Self with Brahman achieved on Scriptural authority.

1.1.4 L.241 ✅ न हि शरीराद्यात्माभिमानिनो दुःखभयादिमत्त्वं दृष्टमिति, तस्यैव वेदप्रमाणजनित-ब्रह्मात्मावगमे तदभिमाननिवृत्तौ तदेव मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तं दुःखभयादिमत्त्वं भवतीति शक्यं कल्पयितुम्।

Na hi śarīra-ādi-ātma-abhimānino ‘duḥkha-bhaya-ādimattvaṃ dṛṣṭam’ iti, tasyaiva veda-pramāṇa-janita-brahma-ātma-avagame tad-abhimāna-nivṛttau tad eva mithyā-jñāna-nimittaṃ duḥkha-bhaya-ādimattvaṃ bhavati iti śakyaṃ kalpayitum—

It is not possible to maintain, that because we see that a man who vainly supposes the Self to be the body is affected by pain or fear, he would continue to be affected by the same condition of pain or fear, which in fact is caused by erroneous-ignorance, when his vanity in supposing the Self to be the body is removed by the knowledge of the unity of the Self with Brahman, generated by such right means of knowledge as the Scriptures.

1.1.4 L.242 ✅ न हि धनिनो गृहस्थस्य धनाभिमानिनो धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं दृष्टमिति, तस्यैव प्रव्रजितस्य धनाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं भवति।

Na hi dhanino gṛhasthasya dhana-abhimānino dhana-apahāra-nimittaṃ ‘duḥkhaṃ dṛṣṭam’ iti, tasyaiva pravrajitasya dhana-abhimāna-rahitasya tad eva dhana-apahāra-nimittaṃ duḥkhaṃ bhavati—

It cannot be, that because we see that a rich man who is vain about his wealth, is affected by pain caused by his wealth being taken away from him, is subject to similar pain by his wealth being taken away from him, when he has renounced the world and has become a Sanyāsin and when thereby his vanity about his wealth is removed.

1.1.4 L.243 ✅ न च कुण्डलिनः कुण्डलित्वाभिमान-निमित्तं सुखं दृष्टमिति तस्यैव कुण्डलवियुक्तस्य कुण्डलित्वाभिमान-रहितस्य तदेव कुण्डलित्वाभिमान-निमित्तं सुखं भवति।

Na ca kuṇḍalinaḥ kuṇḍalitva-abhimāna-nimittaṃ ‘sukhaṃ dṛṣṭam’ iti, tasyaiva kuṇḍala-viyuktasya kuṇḍalitva-abhimāna-rahitasya tad eva kuṇḍalitva-abhimāna-nimittaṃ sukhaṃ bhavati—

Nor can it be, that because it is seen that a man who wears a Kuṇḍala (an ear ornament) feels pleasure caused by his vanity about the Kuṇḍala, continues to have similar pleasure caused by the vanity of being adorned with a Kuṇḍala, when he has divested himself of the Kuṇḍala and is free from the vanity of the adornment by it.

1.1.4 L.244 ✅ तदुक्तं श्रुत्या — ‘अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः’ (ChanU.8.12.1) इति।

Tad uktaṃ śrutyā — ‘aśarīraṃ vāva santaṃ na priya-apriye spṛśataḥ’ iti—

This has been expressed by the Scriptures as follows — “Neither pain nor pleasure affect one who is in a disembodied condition” (ChanU.8.12.1).

1.1.4 L.245 ✅ शरीरे पतितेऽशरीरत्वं स्यात्, न जीवत इति चेत्,

Śarīre patite'śarīratvaṃ syāt, na jīvata iti cet—

If it be objected, that disembodiedness supervenes after the body falls (i.e. when a person dies), and not while a person continues to live,

1.1.4 L.246 ✅ न; सशरीरत्वस्य मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तत्वात्।

Na; sa-śarīratvasya mithyā-jñāna-nimittatvāt—

We reply — no, because the embodied condition itself is caused by erroneous-ignorance.

1.1.4 L.247 ✅ न ह्यात्मनः शरीरात्माभिमानलक्षणं मिथ्याज्ञानं मुक्त्वा अन्यतः सशरीरत्वं शक्यं कल्पयितुम्।

Na hi ātmanaḥ śarīra-ātma-abhimāna-lakṣaṇaṃ mithyā-jñānaṃ muktvā anyataḥ sa-śarīratvaṃ śakyaṃ kalpayitum—

In the case of the Self it is not possible to conceive of any corporeality for the Self, otherwise than by the erroneous-ignorance of the nature of the vanity of the Self being possessed of a body.

1.1.4 L.248 ✅ नित्यम् अशरीरत्वम् अकर्मनिमित्तत्वाद् इत्यवोचाम।

Nityam aśarīratvam, akarma-nimittatvād iti avocāma—

We have already said that the Self is eternally sans-body, because of its not having action as its cause.

1.1.4 L.249 ✅ तत्कृतधर्माधर्म-निमित्तं सशरीरत्वमिति चेत्,

Tat-kṛta-dharma-adharma-nimittaṃ sa-śarīratvam iti cet—

If it is urged that corporeality is caused by meritorious and unmeritorious actions,

1.1.4 L.250 ✅ न; शरीरसम्बन्धस्यासिद्धत्वात्

Na; śarīra-saṃbandhasya asiddhatvāt—

We reply — no, because in as much as the relation of the Self with a body is not yet properly established,

1.1.4 L.251 ✅ धर्माधर्मयोरात्मकृतत्वासिद्धेः,

Dharma-adharmayoḥ ātma-kṛtatva-asiddheḥ—

Any assumption about the Self having performed meritorious or unmeritorious actions is even still less established.

1.1.4 L.252 ✅ शरीरसम्बन्धस्य धर्माधर्मयोस्तत्कृतत्वस्य चेतरेतराश्रयत्व-प्रसङ्गात्;

Śarīra-saṃbandhasya dharma-adharmayoḥ tat-kṛtatvasya cetaretara-āśrayatva-prasaṅgāt—

And also because the assumption of corporeality to the Self as depending upon meritorious and unmeritorious actions and of meritorious and unmeritorious actions as depending upon the corporeality of the Self, would, lead (us) towards (the fallacy of) mutual interdependence as cause and effect.

1.1.4 L.253 ✅ अन्धपरम्परैषा अनादित्वकल्पना।

Andha-param-paraiṣā anāditva-kalpanā—

And this notion about the beginninglessness (of these two) would be like a series of the blind leading the blind (Andha-paramparā).

1.1.4 L.254 ✅ क्रिया-समवायाभावाच् चात्मनः कर्तृत्वानुपपत्तेः।

Kriyā-samavāya-abhāvāc ca ātmanaḥ kartṛtva-anupapatteḥ—

And it is not reasonably sustainable to predicate activity as referring to the Self in as much as it has no relation to action.

1.1.4 L.255 ✅ सन्निधानमात्रेण राजप्रभृतीनां दृष्टं कर्तृत्वमिति चेत्,

Saṃnidhānamātreṇa rāja-prabhṛtīnāṃ dṛṣṭaṃ kartṛtvam iti cet—

If it be said that we observe activity on the part of kings etc. (without their being actually physically active) merely by their immediate presence,

1.1.4 L.256 ✅ न; धनदानाद्युपार्जित-भृत्यसम्बन्धित्वात् तेषां कर्तृत्वोपपत्तेः;

Na; dhana-dāna-ādi-upārjita-bhṛtya-saṃbandhitvāt teṣāṃ kartṛtvopapatteḥ—

We reply — no, their apparent activity is understood to be reasonably sustainable because of their relation (as masters) with their servants obtained on wages etc.

1.1.4 L.257 ✅ न त्वात्मनो धनदानादिवच्छरीरादिभिः स्वस्वामिभावसम्बन्ध-निमित्तं किञ्चिच्छक्यं कल्पयितुम्।

Na tu ātmano dhana-dāna-ādivac charīra-ādibhiḥ sva-svāmi-bhāva-saṃbandha-nimittaṃ kiṃcic chakyaṃ kalpayitum—

It is not possible to imagine in the case of the Self, any cause such as wages etc. effecting a relation between it and the body, like the relation between a master and a servant,

1.1.4 L.258 ✅ मिथ्याभिमानस्तु प्रत्यक्षः सम्बन्धहेतुः।

Mithyā-abhimānaḥ tu pratyakṣaḥ saṃbandha-hetuḥ—

When erroneous-ignorance is there as a direct cause of its relation to a body.

1.1.4 L.259 ✅ एतेन यजमानत्वमात्मनो व्याख्यातम्।

Etena yajamānatvam ātmano vyākhyātam—

In this way the host-ship (Yajamānatva) of the Self is explained.

1.1.4 L.260 ✅ अत्राहुः — देहादिव्यतिरिक्तस्यात्मनः आत्मीये देहादावहमभिमानो गौणः, न मिथ्येति चेत्,

Atra āhuḥ — deha-ādi-vyatiriktasya ātmanaḥ ātmīye deha-ādau aham-abhimāno gauṇaḥ, na mithyeti cet—

If one were to object here (as does, for instance a follower of Prabhākara’s view) that the identification by the Self with the body, when in fact it is different from the body, is not erroneous, but is in a secondary sense,

1.1.4 L.261 ✅ न; प्रसिद्धवस्तुभेदस्य गौणत्व-मुख्यत्वप्रसिद्धेः।

Na; prasiddha-vastu-bhedasya gauṇatva-mukhyatva-prasiddheḥ—

We reply — no, it is well-known that it is only when there is an evident difference between two entities, that the use of a term in a primary and secondary sense is reasonably sustainable.

1.1.4 L.262 ✅ यस्य हि प्रसिद्धो वस्तुभेदः — यथा केसरादिमान् आकृतिविशेषोऽन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां सिंहशब्दप्रत्ययभाङ् मुख्योऽन्यः प्रसिद्धः,

Yasya hi prasiddho vastu-bhedaḥ — yathā kesara-ādimān ākṛti-viśeṣo'nvaya-vyatirekābhyāṃ siṃha-śabda-pratyaya-bhāṅ mukhyo'nyaḥ prasiddhaḥ—

Just when the difference between two entities is patent to a man, as for instance when it is well-known to him that an animal with a mane etc. and a peculiar proud form, which by the method of positive and negative instances, deserves to have a designation, viz., a lion, applied to it, is a distinct and separate entity,

1.1.4 L.263 ✅ ततश्चान्यः पुरुषः प्रायिकैः क्रौर्यशौर्यादिभिः सिंहगुणैः सम्पन्नः सिद्धः,
तस्य तस्मिन्पुरुषे सिंहशब्दप्रत्ययौ गौणौ भवतः; नाप्रसिद्धवस्तुभेदस्य।

Tataś ca anyaḥ puruṣaḥ prāyikaiḥ kraurya-śaurya-ādibhiḥ siṃha-guṇaiḥ saṃpannaḥ siddhaḥ,
Tasya tasmin puruṣe siṃha-śabda-pratyayau gauṇau bhavataḥ; na aprasiddha-vastu-bhedasya—

And when there also is another person who is endowed with the usual qualities of a lion such as fierceness and boldness, and who is a different entity altogether and is quite distinct from the former (i.e. the lion),
Then the consciousness (Pratyaya, ‘notion’) in such a man, of the other man’s lioninity, and the use by such a man of the term ‘lion’ for that other man, is in a secondary or figurative sense, and not when the difference between the two is not known to him.

1.1.4 L.264 ✅ तस्य त्वन्यत्रान्यशब्दप्रत्ययौ भ्रान्तिनिमित्तावेव भवतः, न गौणौ;

Tasya tu anyatra-anya-śabda-pratyayau bhrānti-nimittau eva bhavataḥ, na gauṇau—

Hence a man’s consciousness and the use by him of one term for another (when he is not conscious of the difference between two entities) are caused by his confusion alone and are not in a secondary or figurative sense.

1.1.4 L.265 ✅ यथा मन्दान्धकारे स्थाणुरयम् इत्यगृह्यमाणविशेषे पुरुषशब्दप्रत्ययौ स्थाणुविषयौ,
यथा वा शुक्तिकायाम् अकस्माद् रजतमिदम् इति निश्चितौ शब्दप्रत्ययौ

Yathā manda-andhakāre sthāṇuḥ ayam iti agṛhyamāṇa-viśeṣe puruṣa-śabda-pratyayau sthāṇu-viṣayau,
Yathā vā śuktikāyām akasmād rajatam idam iti niścitau śabda-pratyayau—

Just as in the twilight, when a pillar is not cognized as such, a man’s consciousness of it and his use of the term ‘man’ for it,
Or when in the case of a mother-of-pearl his consciousness of it and his use of the term ‘silver’ for it, is prima facie not in a secondary or figurative sense.

1.1.4 L.266 ✅ तद्वद्देहादिसङ्घाते अहम् इति निरुपचारेण शब्दप्रत्ययौ आत्मानात्माविवेकेनोत्पद्यमानौ कथं गौणौ शक्यौ वदितुम्।

Tadvad deha-ādi-saṃghāte ahaṃ iti nirupacāreṇa śabda-pratyayau ātma-anātma-avivekenotpadyamānau kathaṃ gauṇau śakyau vaditum—

Similarly, how can the consciousness of and the use by a man of the term ‘I’ with respect to the aggregate of body etc., be said to be in a secondary or figurative sense, when his consciousness and his use of the term ‘I’ for the body are caused by his not being able to discriminate between the Self and that which is not the Self?

1.1.4 L.267 ✅ आत्मानात्मविवेकिनामपि पण्डितानाम् अजाविपालानाम् इवाविविक्तौ शब्दप्रत्ययौ भवतः।

Ātma-anātma-vivekinām api paṇḍitānām aja-avi-pālānām iva aviviktau śabda-pratyayau bhavataḥ—

Even in the case of those learned people who are able to discriminate between the Self and the non-Self, their consciousness and use of the term ‘I’ for the body, is, like that of the shepherd’s (Ajāvi-pāla), due to their inability to discriminate between the Self and the non-Self.

1.1.4 L.268 ✅ तस्माद् देहादिव्यतिरिक्तात्मास्तित्व-वादिनां देहादावहंप्रत्ययो मिथ्यैव, न गौणः।

Tasmād deha-ādi-vyatirikta-ātma-astitva-vādināṃ deha-ādau ahaṃ-pratyayo mithyaiva, na gauṇaḥ—

Therefore to those who hold that there is a self distinct from the body, the notion of ‘I’ in the body etc. is simply false, not secondary [Trans. from Panoli].

1.1.4 L.269 ✅ तस्मान्मिथ्याप्रत्ययनिमित्तत्वात् सशरीरत्वस्य, सिद्धं जीवतोऽपि विदुषोऽशरीरत्वम्।

Tasmān mithyā-pratyaya-nimittatvāt sa-śarīratvasya, siddhaṃ jīvato'pi viduṣo'śarīratvam—

Hence since the conception that the self is embodied is false, it has been proved that even while living the enlightened one can be bodiless [Trans. from Panoli].

1.1.4 L.270 ✅ तथा च ब्रह्मविद्विषया श्रुतिः — ‘तद्यथाहिनिर्ल्वयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतैवमेवेदं शरीरं शेते
अथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव’ (BrhU.4.4.7) इति;

Tathā ca brahmavid-viṣayā śrutiḥ — ‘tad yathā ahi-nirlvayanī valmīke mṛtā pratyastā śayītaivam evedaṃ śarīraṃ śete
Atha ayam aśarīro'mṛtaḥ prāṇo brahmaiva teja eva’ iti—

The same is illustrated by the Scriptural passages relating to a person who has realized Brahman, thus — “Just as the slough of a snake lies inert and spread out at length on an ant-hill, even so does this body also.
And this disembodied and immortal vital breath (Prāṇa) is in reality the Brahman, the Tejas” (BrhUEng.4.4.7).

1.1.4 L.271 ✅ ‘सचक्षुरचक्षुरिव सकर्णोऽकर्ण इव सवागवागिव समना अमना इव सप्राणोऽप्राण इव’ इति च।

‘Sa-cakṣuḥ acakṣuḥ iva sa-karṇo'karṇa iva sa-vāg avāg iva sa-manā amanā iva sa-prāṇo'prāṇa iva’ iti ca—

Similarly — “While endowed with eyes he is sans-eyes, while endowed with the organ of hearing he is without the organ of hearing, and so on in the case of speech, the mind and the vital breath (Prāṇa)”,

1.1.4 L.272 ✅ स्मृतिरपि — ‘स्थितप्रज्ञस्य का भाषा’ (BhG.2.54) इत्याद्या
स्थितप्रज्ञस्य लक्षणान्याचक्षाणा विदुषः सर्वप्रवृत्त्यसम्बन्धं दर्शयति।

Mṛtiḥ api ca — ‘sthita-prajñasya kā bhāṣā’ ityādyā
Sthita-prajñasya lakṣaṇāni ācakṣāṇā viduṣaḥ sarva-pravṛtti-asaṃbandhaṃ darśayati—

Smṛti also, in the passage beginning thus — “What is the nature of the language used by one whose intellect is well-poised” (BhG.2.54)? —
And enumerating the characteristics of a man whose intellect is well-poised, describes the total absence of any the least relation with activity.

1.1.4 L.273 ✅ तस्मान् नावगतब्रह्मात्मभावस्य यथापूर्वं संसारित्वम्।

Tasmān na avagata-brahma-ātma-bhāvasya yathā-pūrvaṃ saṃsāritvam—

Therefore, a man who has realized the unity of the Self and Brahman has no further transmigratory life as before.

1.1.4 L.274 ✅ यस्य तु यथापूर्वं संसारित्वं नासौ अवगतब्रह्मात्मभाव इत्यनवद्यम्॥

Yasya tu yathā-pūrvaṃ saṃsāritvaṃ na asau avagata-brahma-ātma-bhāva iti anavadyam—

Ergo, it is clear that he who continues to have such transmigratory existence has not realized the unity of the Self and Brahman and the Śāstra therefore is absolutely flawless.

1.1.4 L.275 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तं श्रवणात् पराचीनयोर्मनननिदिध्यासनयोर्दर्शनाद् विधिशेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः, न स्वरूप-पर्यवसायित्वमिति,

Yat punar-uktaṃ śravaṇāt parācīnayoḥ manana-nididhyāsanayoḥ darśanād vidhi-śeṣatvaṃ brahmaṇaḥ, na svarūpa-paryavasāyitvam iti—

Again with regard to what was said, viz., that because it is observed that further cogitation and meditation should follow the hearing of Brahman, Brahman is merely complementary to an injunction and its knowledge does not culminate in the realization of its own nature,

1.1.4 L.276 ✅ तन्न; श्रवणवद् (न,) अवगत्यर्थत्वान् मनननिदिध्यासनयोः।
यदि ह्यवगतं ब्रह्मान्यत्र विनियुज्येत, भवेत्तदा विधिशेषत्वम्;

Tan na; śravaṇavad (Na,) avagati-arthatvān manana-nididhyāsanayoḥ.
Yadi hi avagataṃ brahma anyatra viniyujyeta, bhavet tadā vidhi-śeṣatvam—

If Brahman after being fully realized were to be employed elsewhere (for some other purpose) then it would very well happen to be complementary to an injunction,
But it is not so, because (as said above) cogitation and meditation also, like hearing, are meant ultimately to culminate in the complete realization (of Brahman).

1.1.4 L.277 ✅ न तु तदस्ति, मनननिदिध्यासनयोरपि श्रवणवद् अवगत्यर्थत्वात्।

Na tu tad asti, manana-nididhyāsanayoḥ api śravaṇavad avagati-arthatvāt—

We reply — no, because cogitation and meditation are [like hearing] for the purpose of their ultimate culmination in the realization (of Brahman).

1.1.4 L.278 ✅ तस्मान्न प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतया शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वं ब्रह्मणः सम्भवतीति

Tasmān na pratipatti-vidhi-viṣayatayā śāstra-pramāṇakatvaṃ brahmaṇaḥ saṃbhavati iti—

Therefore it is not possible (to say) that Brahman is something, to know which the Śāstra is the right means of knowledge, only in so far as it is the object of an injunction to meditate upon,

1.1.4 L.279 ✅ अतः स्वतन्त्रमेव ब्रह्म शास्त्रप्रमाणकं
वेदान्तवाक्यसमन्वयादिति सिद्धम्।

Ataḥ sva-tantram eva brahma śātra-pramāṇakaṃ
Vedānta-vākya-samanvayād iti siddham—

And it is conclusively established by the proper co-ordination of the Scriptural passages
That Brahman is independent in itself, having the Śāstra as the right means of its knowledge.

1.1.4 L.280 ✅ एवं च सति ‘अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ इति तद्विषयः पृथक्शास्त्रारम्भ उपपद्यते।

Evaṃ ca sati ‘atha ato brahma-jijñāsā’ iti tad-viṣayaḥ pṛthak-śāstra-ārambha upapadyate—

This being so, an altogether separate beginning of the Śāstra, thus — “Now, therefore, the inquiry into Brahman” — is perfectly justified.

1.1.4 L.281 ✅ प्रतिपत्तिविधिपरत्वे हि ‘अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा’ इत्येवारब्धत्वान्न पृथक्शास्त्रमारभ्येत;

Pratipatti-vidhi-paratve hi ‘atha ato dharma-jijñāsā’ iti eva ārabdhatvān na pṛthak-śāstram ārabhyeta—

Were it to be of the nature of an injunction to realize, the Śāstra-kāra would begin it thus — “Now, therefore, the inquiry into Dharma” — and he would not begin a new Śāstra at all.

1.1.4 L.282 ✅ आरभ्यमाणं चैवमारभ्येत — अथातः परिशिष्टधर्मजिज्ञासेति,

Ārabhyamāṇaṃ caivam ārabhyeta — ‘atha ataḥ pariśiṣṭa-dharma-jijñāsā’ iti—

And even if he were to follow the former course, he would begin it like this — “Now, therefore, the inquiry into the supplementary part of Dharma”,

1.1.4 L.283 ✅ ‘अथातः क्रत्वर्थपुरुषार्थयोर्जिज्ञासा’ (जै. सू. ४.१.१) इतिवत्।

‘Atha ataḥ kratu-artha-puruṣa-arthayoḥ jijñāsā’ itivat—

Similar to “Now therefore an inquiry into the aim of a sacrifice (Kratu) or the highest aim of a man” (as in the Jai. Sū. 4.1.1).

1.1.4 L.284 ✅ ब्रह्मात्मैक्यावगतिस्त्वप्रतिज्ञातेति
तदर्थो युक्तः शास्त्रारम्भः — ‘अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा’ इति।

Brahma-ātmaikya-avagatiḥ tu apratijñāteti
Tad-artho yuktaḥ śāstra-ārambhaḥ — ‘atha ato brahma-jijñāsā’ iti—

And as the knowledge of the unity of the Self and Brahman is not described to be the scope of the Śāstra of Dharma (i.e. Pūrva Mīmāṃsā),
It is quite logical that the beginning in the present case is thus — “Now therefore an inquiry into Brahman”.

1.1.4 L.285 ✅ तस्मात् अहं ब्रह्मास्मीत्येतदवसाना एव सर्वे विधयः सर्वाणि चेतराणि प्रमाणानि।

Tasmāt ‘ahaṃ brahma asmi’ iti etad-avasānā eva sarve vidhayaḥ, sarvāṇi cetarāṇi pramāṇāni—

Therefore all injunctions and all other means of knowledge are valid only upto the realization thus — “I am Brahman”.

1.1.4 L.286 ✅ न ह्यहेयानुपादेयाद्वैतात्मावगतौ सत्याम्, निर्विषयाण्यप्रमातृकाणि च प्रमाणानि भवितुमर्हन्तीति।

Na hi aheya-anupādeya-advaita-ātma-avagatau satyām, nir-viṣayāṇi apramātṛkāṇi ca pramāṇāni bhavitum arhanti iti—

For when the knowledge of the Self from which nothing can be discarded and to which nothing can be added has supervened, the right means of knowledge no longer continue to be the right means of knowledge.

1.1.4 L.287 ✅ अपि चाहुः —

Api ca āhuḥ—

Besides it is said —

1.1.4 L.288 ✅
‘गौणमिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्त्वे पुत्रदेहादिबाधनात्।
सद्ब्रह्मात्माहमित्येवं बोधे कार्यं कथं भवेत्॥

Gauṇa-mithyātmano'sattve putra-dehādi-bādhanāt.
Sad-brahmātmāham ityevaṃ bodhe kāryaṃ kathaṃ bhavet—

When there has arisen (in a man’s mind) the knowledge viz. “I am the Sat, the Brahman is but myself”,
And when owing to the ablation of the conceptions of the son, the body etc. as being one’s own Self, the figurative and false-ignorance about the Self has come to an end,
How should then any Kārya i.e. effect (originating in wrong conceptions) exist any longer?

1.1.4 L.289 ✅
अन्वेष्टव्यात्मविज्ञानात् प्राक्प्रमातृत्वमात्मनः।
अन्विष्टः स्यात्प्रमातैव पाप्मदोषादिवर्जितः॥

Anveṣṭavyātma-vijñānāt prāk pramātṛtvam ātmanaḥ.
Anviṣṭaḥ syāt pramātaiva pāpma-doṣādi-varjitaḥ—

As long as the knowledge of the Self, which the Scriptures want us to endeavour after, has not arisen, so long, the Self is a knowing agent,
But the same knowing agent becomes that which is searched after, viz. the Highest Self, which is free from all evil and blemish, when the real nature of the Self is realized.

1.1.4 L.290 ✅
देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत् प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः।
लौकिकं तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणं त्वाऽऽत्मनिश्चयात्॥’

Dehātma-pratyayo yadvat pramāṇatvena kalpitaḥ.
Laukikaṃ tadvad evedaṃ pramāṇaṃ tu ā ātma-niścayāt—

Just as the idea of the Self being the body is assumed as valid (in ordinary life),
So also all the Pramāṇas (i.e. the means of right knowledge such as perception etc.) are valid only until the one and the only one Self is properly realized.

1.1.4 L.291 ✅ इति॥४॥

Iti—

– Thus. — 4.

इति श्री-शङ्कर-भगवत्-पाद-कृतौ शारीरक-मीमांसा-भाष्ये चतुर्थं समन्वय-अधिकरणं संपूर्णम्॥

Su.1.1.05 Su..06 Su..07 Su..08 Su..09 Su..10 Su..11

1.1.5 L.1 ✅ एवं तावद्वेदान्तवाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मावगतिप्रयोजनानां ब्रह्मात्मनि तात्पर्येण समन्वितानामन्तरेणापि कार्यानुप्रवेशं ब्रह्मणि पर्यवसानमुक्तम्।
So far we have said, how the passages of Vedānta which have the knowledge of Brahman as their fruit or result, and which have been shown to have a regular sequence indicating the Self as Brahman, without their having any relation to action, ultimately culminate in (the understanding of) Brahman.

1.1.5 L.2 ✅ ब्रह्म च सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्ति जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिलयकारणमित्युक्तम्।
We have also said how Brahman is omniscient and all-powerful and is the cause of the origin, preservation and destruction of the transient world.

1.1.5 L.3 ✅ सांख्यादयस्तु परिनिष्ठितं वस्तु प्रमाणान्तरगम्यमेवेति मन्यमानाः प्रधानादीनि कारणान्तराण्यनुमिमानास्तत्परतयैव वेदान्तवाक्यानि योजयन्ति।
The Sāṅkhyas and others however, who consider an ascertained entity to be capable of being understood only by other means of right knowledge and who infer the Pradhāna etc. as the cause, construe the Vedānta passages as indicating those to be the causes (i.e. Pradhāna etc.).

1.1.5 L.4 ✅ सर्वेष्वेव वेदान्तवाक्येषु सृष्टिविषयेष्वनुमानेनैव कार्येण कारणं लिलक्षयिषितम्।
They think that from all the Vedānta passages which have the origin (of the world) as their province, the cause is to be deduced from the effect by inference.

1.1.5 L.5 ✅ प्रधानपुरुषसंयोगा नित्यानुमेया इति सांख्या मन्यन्ते।
The Sāṅkhyas hold that the contacts of the Puruṣa are inferable and constant.

1.1.5 L.6 ✅ काणादास्त्वेतेभ्य एव वाक्येभ्य ईश्वरं निमित्तकारणमनुमिमते, अणूंश्च समवायिकारणम्।
The followers of Kaṇāda infer from these very passages the Lord (Īśvara) to be the accidental or efficient cause and the Atoms as the cause which is in constant concomitant relation with the effect, (i.e. that they are the material cause of the world).

1.1.5 L.7 ✅ एवमन्येऽपि तार्किका वाक्याभासयुक्त्याभासावष्टम्भाः पूर्वपक्षवादिन इहोत्तिष्ठन्ते।
Other Logicians who depend upon fallacious passages and logic, stand forth as opponents, in this connection.

1.1.5 L.8 ✅ तत्र पदवाक्यप्रमाणज्ञेनाचार्येण वेदान्तवाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मावगतिपरत्वप्रदर्शनाय
वाक्याभासयुक्त्याभासप्रतिपत्तयः पूर्वपक्षीकृत्य निराक्रियन्ते॥
Therefore the Ācārya (Bādarāyaṇa), an authority on words, sentences and the right means of knowledge (i.e. Vyākaraṇa, Mīmāṃsā, and Nyāya), in order to demonstrate that the Vedānta passages aim at the comprehension of Brahman,
First states the wrong views derived from the fallacious passages and logic as the objections, and then refutes them.

1.1.5 L.9 ✅ तत्र सांख्याः प्रधानं त्रिगुणमचेतनं स्वतन्त्रं जगतः कारणमिति मन्यमाना आहुः –
In this connection the Sāṅkhyas who hold the inert Pradhāna which is made up of three qualities to be the cause of the transient world, say —

1.1.5 L.10 ✅ यानि वेदान्तवाक्यानि सर्वज्ञस्य सर्वशक्तेर्ब्रह्मणो जगत्कारणत्वं प्रदर्शयन्तीत्यवोचः,
तानि प्रधानकारणपक्षेऽपि योजयितुं शक्यन्ते।
Those Vedānta passages which you have mentioned as indicating the omniscient and all-powerful Brahman to be the cause of the transient world,
Can even be shown to be equally applicable in the case of the view which holds the Pradhāna to be the cause.

1.1.5 L.11 ✅ सर्वशक्तित्वं तावत्प्रधानस्यापि स्वविकारविषयमुपपद्यते।
एवं सर्वज्ञत्वमप्युपपद्यते; कथम्?
The all-powerfulness of the Pradhāna with regard to its own modifications is reasonably sustainable
And even so is its omniscience. How is it so?

1.1.5 L.12 ✅ यत्त्वं ज्ञानं मन्यसे, स सत्त्वधर्मः, ‘सत्त्वात्संजायते ज्ञानम्’ (BhG.14.17) इति स्मृतेः।
What you consider as knowledge is the Sattva quality according to the Smṛti passage — “Knowledge is generated from Sattva” (BhG.14.17).

1.1.5 L.13 ✅ तेन च सत्त्वधर्मेण ज्ञानेन कार्यकरणवन्तः पुरुषाः सर्वज्ञा योगिनः प्रसिद्धाः।
It is well-known that some men equipped with bodies and sense-organs are omniscient and Yogins, because of knowledge which is the quality of Sattva.

1.1.5 L.14 ✅ सत्त्वस्य हि निरतिशयोत्कर्षे सर्वज्ञत्वं प्रसिद्धम्।
As is well-known it is when this quality ‘Sattva’ attains the highest unsurpassable perfection that omniscience results.

1.1.5 L.15 ✅ न केवलस्य अकार्यकरणस्य पुरुषस्योपलब्धिमात्रस्य सर्वज्ञत्वं किञ्चिज्ज्ञत्वं वा कल्पयितुं शक्यम्।
It is not possible to imagine omniscience or the possession of even a modicum of knowledge in the case of the Puruṣa who is unequipped with a body and sense-organs but is possessed of mere intelligence alone.

1.1.5 L.16 ✅ त्रिगुणत्वात्तु प्रधानस्य सर्वज्ञानकारणभूतं सत्त्वं प्रधानावस्थायामपि विद्यत इति प्रधानस्याचेतनस्यैव सतः सर्वज्ञत्वमुपचर्यते, वेदान्तवाक्येषु।
And because of the triple qualities of the Pradhāna — inert though it is in its Pradhāna state — omniscience is figuratively spoken of about it, because the Sattva quality which is the cause of all knowledge is inherent in the Pradhāna.

1.1.5 L.17 ✅ अवश्यं च त्वयापि सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मेत्यभ्युपगच्छता सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेनैव सर्वज्ञत्वमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्।
You (Vedāntins) also, who understand Brahman as omniscient, must necessarily understand by omniscience referred to in the Vedānta passages, something which is equipped with the latent power for all knowledge.

1.1.5 L.18 ✅ न हि सर्वदा सर्वविषयं ज्ञानं कुर्वदेव ब्रह्म वर्तते। तथाहि –
ज्ञानस्य नित्यत्वे ज्ञानक्रियां प्रति स्वातन्त्र्यं ब्रह्मणो हीयेत;
It cannot be that Brahman keeps on cognizing all the time (without interruption), because were Brahman to keep on cognizing eternally,
Its freedom (to do so only if and when it chooses to do so) would be lost.

1.1.5 L.19 ✅ अथानित्यं तदिति ज्ञानक्रियाया उपरमे उपरमेतापि ब्रह्म, तदा सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेनैव सर्वज्ञत्वमापतति।
Again if we were to understand it as not cognizing eternally (but only intermittently) it may even refrain from cognizing (when it so chooses). Hence omniscience would be tantamount to mean that it is only equipped with the potentiality for cognizing everything.

1.1.5 L.20 ✅ अपि च प्रागुत्पत्तेः सर्वकारकशून्यं ब्रह्मेष्यते त्वया।
Besides you desire to understand Brahman as not being equipped with the instruments for action, prior to the creation of the world.

1.1.5 L.21 ✅ न च ज्ञानसाधनानां शरीरेन्द्रियादीनामभावे ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः कस्यचिदुपपन्ना।
It is not reasonable that knowledge can possibly arise in any one in the absence of a body and sense-organs etc. which are the means of acquiring knowledge.

1.1.5 L.22 ✅ अपि च प्रधानस्यानेकात्मकस्य परिणामसम्भवात्कारणत्वोपपत्तिर्मृदादिवत्,
नासंहतस्यैकात्मकस्य ब्रह्मणः;
Besides, Pradhāna being of a multiple composition, modification of it is possible, and it may — like clay etc. — be reasonably supposed to be the cause of the world,
But not so Brahman which is unmixed (i.e. unconnected with anything else), and which is only a mere single unit in itself.

1.1.5 L.23 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, इदं सूत्रमारभ्यते –
The conclusion arrived at (by the Sāṅkhyas) being this, the following Sūtra is begun: —

←Prev Next→
ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम्॥१.१.५॥
Īkṣater nāśadam.

Īkṣateḥ: on account of seeing (thinking); Na: is not; A-śabdam: not based on the scriptures.

🔗 On account of thinking — (Pradhāna) is not (the cause) — (it is) not based on the Scriptures. — 1.1.5.

1.1.5 L.24 ✅ न सांख्यपरिकल्पितमचेतनं प्रधानं जगतः कारणं शक्यं वेदान्तेष्वाश्रयितुम्।
अशब्दं हि तत्।
In Vedānta, it is not possible to accept the non-intelligent Pradhāna as contemplated by the Sāṅkhyas, to be the cause of the transient world.
It is not mentioned in the Scriptures.

1.1.5 L.25 ✅ कथमशब्दत्वम्? ईक्षतेः ईक्षितृत्वश्रवणात्कारणस्य।
How is it not mentioned in the Scriptures? Because of the word ‘thinking’. Because the Scriptures refer to ‘thinking’ on the part of the cause (of the transient world).

1.1.5 L.26 ✅ कथम्? एवं हि श्रूयते – ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्युपक्रम्य
‘तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्राजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इति।
How so? Because the Scriptures, beginning with — “O Saumya, in the beginning ‘Sat’ alone without a second, was all this (i.e. the transient world)” (ChanU.6.2.1) —
Say further — “that Sat thought, I shall make myself many and create, and it created Tejas (the element of heat and light)” (ChanU.6.2.3).

1.1.5 L.27 ✅ तत्र इदंशब्दवाच्यं नामरूपव्याकृतं जगत् प्रागुत्पत्तेः सदात्मनावधार्य,
तस्यैव प्रकृतस्य सच्छब्दवाच्यस्येक्षणपूर्वकं तेजःप्रभृतेः स्रष्टृत्वं दर्शयति।
There, having determined the transient world as evolved by names and forms, to be indicated by the word ‘This’, as being merely the Sat-Self in the beginning,
The same Sat relevant to the passage, and denoted by the word Sat, is indicated to be the creator of Tejas etc., after having previously thought about them.

1.1.5 L.28 ✅ तथान्यत्र – ‘आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्। नान्यत्किञ्चन मिषत्।
स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति। स इमाँल्लोकानसृजत’ (AitU.1.1.1) (AitU.1.1.2) इतीक्षापूर्विकामेव सृष्टिमाचष्टे।
Similarly elsewhere it mentions ‘thinking’ as having been antecedent to creation, thus — “This world in the beginning was only the Self, nothing else was then actually active.
He thought, ‘I will create all the worlds’, and then created He all these worlds” (AitU.1.1.1,2).

1.1.5 L.29 ✅ क्वचिच्च षोडशकलं पुरुषं प्रस्तुत्याह –
‘स ईक्षाञ्चक्रे, स प्राणमसृजत’ (PrasU.6.3) (PrasU.6.4) इति।
Somewhere else it alludes to the Puruṣa of sixteen parts and says —
“He thought. He created the Prāṇa” (PrasU.6.3).

1.1.5 L.30 ✅ ईक्षतेरिति च धात्वर्थनिर्देशोऽभिप्रेतः, यजतेरितिवत्, न धातुनिर्देशः।
By the verb ‘to think’ the meaning of the verb is intended to be conveyed, like the verb ‘to sacrifice, and not merely the root verb.

1.1.5 L.31 ✅ तेन ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद्यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः।
तस्मादेतद्ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नं च जायते’ (MunU.1.1.9) इत्येवमादीन्यपि
सर्वज्ञेश्वरकारणपराणि वाक्यान्युदाहर्तव्यानि।
Similarly, Scriptural passages such as — “He who is omniscient in the comprehensive sense and who perceives everything in detail and whose penance is knowledge
And from whom the lower Brahman, names and forms and food were created” (MunU.1.1.9) —
Which have the purport of conveying that the omniscient Lord is the cause (of the transient world), should be adduced as instances.

1.1.5 L.32 ✅ यत्तूक्तं सत्त्वधर्मेण ज्ञानेन सर्वज्ञं प्रधानं भविष्यतीति, तन्नोपपद्यते।
What you (the opponent) have stated, viz. that the Pradhāna can be omniscient merely by means of ‘knowledge’ which is the quality of Sattva, is not reasonably sustainable.

1.1.5 L.33 ✅ न हि प्रधानावस्थायां गुणसाम्यात्सत्त्वधर्मो ज्ञानं सम्भवति।
In the Pradhāna state when the qualities are in equipoise i.e. are evenly balanced, knowledge as the quality of ‘Sattva’ is not possible. (Because, according to the Sāṅkhya tenet, creation by Pradhāna starts, when the equipoise of the three qualities i.e. Guṇas — viz. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas — is disturbed and one quality predominates over the other two.)

1.1.5 L.34 ✅ ननूक्तं सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेन सर्वज्ञं भविष्यतीति;
Oh, but have I not said (retorts the opponent), that it would be omniscient because of its potentiality for all knowledge?

1.1.5 L.35 ✅ तदपि नोपपद्यते।
That also is not reasonably sustainable.

1.1.5 L.36 ✅ यदि गुणसाम्ये सति सत्त्वव्यपाश्रयां ज्ञानशक्तिमाश्रित्य सर्वज्ञं प्रधानमुच्येत,
For if you were to maintain, that even when there is a perfect equipoise Pradhāna can be omniscient by relying upon its potentiality for knowledge abiding in ‘Sattva’,

1.1.5 L.37 ✅ कामं रजस्तमोव्यपाश्रयामपि ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकशक्तिमाश्रित्य किञ्चिज्ज्ञमुच्येत।
Sure enough, because of its potentiality for obstructing knowledge abiding in its Rajas (passion) and Tamas (darkness) qualities, you will have to say that the Pradhāna hardly has any knowledge at all.

1.1.5 L.38 ✅ अपि च नासाक्षिका सत्त्ववृत्तिर्जानातिना अभिधीयते।
Moreover, a mere Sattva function as apart from a witnessing agent (immediate consciousness), is not capable of being expressed by the verb ‘to know’.

1.1.5 L.39 ✅ न चाचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य साक्षित्वमस्ति।
Nor is non-sentient Pradhāna such a witnessing agent.

1.1.5 L.40 ✅ तस्मादनुपपन्नं प्रधानस्य सर्वज्ञत्वम्।
Therefore the omniscience of Pradhāna is not reasonably inferable,

1.1.5 L.41 ✅ योगिनां तु चेतनत्वात्सत्त्वोत्कर्षनिमित्तं सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपन्नमित्यनुदाहरणम्।
While the omniscience of Yogins brought about by the excellence of the ‘Sattva’ quality and because of their being animate beings is reasonably sustainable and so it cannot be an illustration in point.

1.1.5 L.42 ✅ अथ पुनः साक्षिनिमित्तमीक्षितृत्वं प्रधानस्यापि कल्प्येत,
यथाग्निनिमित्तमयःपिण्डादेर्दग्धृत्वम्;
If however you imagine Pradhāna to be endowed with the capacity to ‘think’ as caused by its having such a witnessing agent,
Just as in the case of an iron ball its capacity to burn is caused by Agni,

1.1.5 L.43 ✅ तथा सति यन्निमित्तमीक्षितृत्वं प्रधानस्य, तदेव सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म मुख्यं जगतः कारणमिति युक्तम्।
Then, it being so, it would be reasonable to hold that that which you conceive to be the cause which brings about ‘thinking’, is itself the chief omniscient Brahman, which (according to us) is the cause of the transient world.

1.1.5 L.44 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तं ब्रह्मणोऽपि न मुख्यं सर्वज्ञत्वमुपपद्यते, नित्यज्ञानक्रियत्वे ज्ञानक्रियां प्रति स्वातन्त्र्यासम्भवादिति;
To the objection raised by you, viz. that constant cognizing by Brahman in the primary sense is not reasonably sustainable, as it would not then be possible for it to have freedom to do so (i.e. to cognize if and when it so pleases),

1.1.5 L.45 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – इदं तावद्भवान्प्रष्टव्यः – कथं नित्यज्ञानक्रियत्वे सर्वज्ञत्वहानिरिति।
We say — You (who raise this objection) ought to be asked — how can there ever be a loss of the omniscience (of Brahman) because of its constant cognizing activity?

1.1.5 L.46 ✅ यस्य हि सर्वविषयावभासनक्षमं ज्ञानं नित्यमस्ति, सोऽसर्वज्ञ इति विप्रतिषिद्धम्।
To say of one — whose knowledge is capable of making all objects manifest and who is eternal — that he is not omniscient, is contradictory.

1.1.5 L.47 ✅ अनित्यत्वे हि ज्ञानस्य, कदाचिज्जानाति कदाचिन्न जानातीत्यसर्वज्ञत्वमपि स्यात्।
If knowledge were not to be eternal then Brahman would sometimes know and at other times would not, and then it may be that there may perhaps be no omniscience.

1.1.5 L.48 ✅ नासौ ज्ञाननित्यत्वे दोषोऽस्ति।
No such fault is there, in the case of eternal cognizing.

1.1.5 L.49 ✅ ज्ञाननित्यत्वे ज्ञानविषयः स्वातन्त्र्यव्यपदेशो नोपपद्यते इति चेत्,
(If you were to object) that in the case of constant cognizing, the mention of freedom with regard to knowledge would not be reasonably sustainable,

1.1.5 L.50 ✅ न; प्रततौष्ण्यप्रकाशेऽपि सवितरि ‘दहति’ ‘प्रकाशयति’ इति स्वातन्त्र्यव्यपदेशदर्शनात्।
(We say) — No. Though the Sun with its constant heat and light is there, we find a reference to its freedom, such as (when we say) that the Sun scorches or it shines.

1.1.5 L.51 ✅ ननु सवितुर्दाह्यप्रकाश्यसंयोगे सति ‘दहति’ ‘प्रकाशयति’ इति व्यपदेशः स्यात्;
But (says the opponent), it is only when the Sun is in contact with something which can be scorched or made manifest, that there is a reference to its scorching or shining,

1.1.5 L.52 ✅ न तु ब्रह्मणः प्रागुत्पत्तेर्ज्ञानकर्मसंयोगोऽस्तीति विषमो दृष्टान्तः।
But as there is no connection between Brahman and the object of knowledge before the creation of the world, the illustration is not apt.

1.1.5 L.53 ✅ न; असत्यपि कर्मणि ‘सविता प्रकाशते’ इति कर्तृत्वव्यपदेशदर्शनात्,
No (we reply), even in the absence of any object (of knowledge), we see a reference to the activity (of the Sun) as that the Sun shines.

1.1.5 L.54 ✅ एवमसत्यपि ज्ञानकर्मणि ब्रह्मणः ‘तदैक्षत’ इति कर्तृत्वव्यपदेशोपपत्तेर्न वैषम्यम्।
Similarly even in the absence of any object of knowledge, a reference to Brahman’s activity as that ‘it thought’ is reasonably sustainable (in a secondary sense), and so there is no difficulty.

1.1.5 L.55 ✅ कर्मापेक्षायां तु ब्रह्मणि ईक्षितृत्वश्रुतयः सुतरामुपपन्नाः।
If an object (of knowledge) is necessary (according to the opponent) Scriptural passages referring to ‘thinking’ by Brahman are all the more reasonably sustainable.

1.1.5 L.56 ✅ किं पुनस्तत्कर्म, यत्प्रागुत्पत्तेरीश्वरज्ञानस्य विषयो भवतीति –
What then (asks the opponent) is that object (of knowledge), which before the creation can be the province of the Lord’s knowledge?

1.1.5 L.57 ✅ तत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये नामरूपे अव्याकृते व्याचिकीर्षिते इति ब्रूमः।
Those names and forms — we reply — which are yet unevolved (Avyākṛta), but which are intended to be evolved, and with regard to whom it is not possible to say whether they are the same or different from Īśvara — are such objects.

1.1.5 L.58 ✅ यत्प्रसादाद्धि योगिनामप्यतीतानागतविषयं प्रत्यक्षं ज्ञानमिच्छन्ति योगशास्त्रविदः,
किमु वक्तव्यं तस्य नित्यसिद्धस्येश्वरस्य सृष्टिस्थितिसंहृतिविषयं नित्यज्ञानं भवतीति।
Need it be said, that the knowledge of the eternally existing (Nitya-siddha) Lord, with regard to the creation, subsistence, and reabsorption of the world, is eternal,
When those who are experts in the science of Yoga say that they have actual knowledge with regard to the past and future things through the favour of the Lord?

1.1.5 L.59 ✅ यदप्युक्तं प्रागुत्पत्तेर्ब्रह्मणः शरीरादिसम्बन्धमन्तरेणेक्षितृत्वमनुपपन्नमिति,
The objection that before the creation (of the world) Brahman which has no contact with a body etc. cannot be reasonably understood to be able to think,

1.1.5 L.60 ✅ न तच्चोद्यमवतरति; सवितृप्रकाशवद्ब्रह्मणो ज्ञानस्वरूपनित्यत्वेन ज्ञानसाधनापेक्षानुपपत्तेः।
Cannot be advanced (against us), as the eternal nature of the knowledge of Brahman like the constant refulgence of the Sun cannot be reasonably understood to have any necessity for the means of knowledge.

1.1.5 L.61 ✅ अपि चाविद्यादिमतः संसारिणः शरीराद्यपेक्षा ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः स्यात्;
न ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकारणरहितस्येश्वरस्य।
Moreover, it may be that in the case of a transmigratory being affected by Nescience etc. the generation of knowledge may depend upon a body etc.,
But it cannot be so in the case of the Lord who is free from any obstruction to knowledge.

1.1.5 L.62 ✅ मन्त्रौ चेमावीश्वरस्य शरीराद्यनपेक्षतामनावरणज्ञानतां च दर्शयतः –
The following Mantras illustrate how the Lord has no need for a body and his knowledge is unhampered.

1.1.5 L.63 ✅ ‘न तस्य कार्यं करणं च विद्यते न तत्समश्चाभ्यधिकश्च दृश्यते।
परास्य शक्तिर्विविधैव श्रूयते स्वाभाविकी ज्ञानबलक्रिया च’ (SvetU.6.8) इति।
“He is without a body and organs, nor is there any thing like unto Him or above Him,
His power is pre-eminent and comprehensive, His cognizing and possessing strength is natural to His nature” (SvetU.6.8).

1.1.5 L.64 ✅ ‘अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्यचक्षुः स शृणोत्यकर्णः।
स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता तमाहुरग्र्यं पुरुषं महान्तम्’ (SvetU.3.9) इति च।
“Without hands and feet He grasps and speeds, sans-eyes He sees, sans-ears He hears,
He knows all that is knowable, but there is no one who knows Him, and He is the primeval and the greatest Puruṣa” (SvetU.3.19).

1.1.5 L.65 ✅ ननु नास्ति तव ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकारणवानीश्वरादन्यः संसारी –
But (says the opponent), is it not it, that as different from the Lord, there is no other transmigratory Self affected with the cause of obstruction to knowledge?

1.1.5 L.66 ✅ ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा ... नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्यादिश्रुतेः;
Because the Scriptures say — “There is no other seer than Him, there is no other knower than Him” (BrhU.3.7.23).

1.1.5 L.67 ✅ तत्र किमिदमुच्यते – संसारिणः शरीराद्यपेक्षा ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः, नेश्वरस्येति?
And if so, how is it said, that in the case of a transmigratory Self the generation of knowledge is dependent on a body etc., but not so in the case of the Lord?

1.1.5 L.68 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – सत्यं नेश्वरादन्यः संसारी;
To that we reply — Indeed, it is true that there is no other such transmigratory Self, as apart from the Lord.

1.1.5 L.69 ✅ तथापि देहादिसङ्घातोपाधिसम्बन्ध इष्यत एव,
घटकरकगिरिगुहाद्युपाधिसम्बन्ध इव व्योम्नः;
Still we do accept (as necessary) a connection with a body etc.,
Just as we accept in the case of the Ākāśa, connection with adjuncts such as a jar, a pot, a hill or a cave etc.

1.1.5 L.70 ✅ तत्कृतश्च शब्दप्रत्ययव्यवहारो लोकस्य दृष्टः – ‘घटच्छिद्रम्’ ‘करकच्छिद्रम्’ इत्यादिः, आकाशाव्यतिरेकेऽपि;
तत्कृता चाकाशे घटाकाशादिभेदमिथ्याबुद्धिर्दृष्टा;
In ordinary life we do see the use of such words as the cavity of a jar or a pot, because of such connection, even though the cavity is not different from the Ākāśa,
And we do also see the erroneous conception of differences in the Ākāśa, such as the Ākāśa of the jar etc., caused by it (viz. the same connection).

1.1.5 L.71 ✅ तथेहापि देहादिसङ्घातोपाधिसम्बन्धाविवेककृतेश्वरसंसारिभेदमिथ्याबुद्धिः।
Similarly here also, there is the erroneous conception of difference between the Lord and the transmigratory Self, caused by the absence of discrimination of the contact with the adjuncts, such as the union with a body etc.

1.1.5 L.72 ✅ दृश्यते चात्मन एव सतो देहादिसङ्घातेऽनात्मन्यात्मत्वाभिनिवेशो मिथ्याबुद्धिमात्रेण पूर्वपूर्वेण।
We do see that the Self even though it is but the Self only has an attachment for union with a body etc. (which is not the Self), as if it were the Self, the attachment being caused by an antecedent erroneous conception.

1.1.5 L.73 ✅ सति चैवं संसारित्वे देहाद्यपेक्षमीक्षितृत्वमुपपन्नं संसारिणः।
This being so, the ability of the transmigratory Self to ‘think’, depending upon the body etc., is reasonably sustainable, during such transmigratory condition.

1.1.5 L.74 ✅ यदप्युक्तं प्रधानस्यानेकात्मकत्वान्मृदादिवत्कारणत्वोपपत्तिर्नासंहतस्य ब्रह्मण इति,
तत्प्रधानस्याशब्दत्वेनैव प्रत्युक्तम्।
What has been said before (by the opponent) that the Pradhāna consisting as it does of many elements can be properly understood to be the cause (of the world), like clay etc., which is the cause of a jar, but not Brahman which is not connected with anything,
Is refuted by saying that Pradhāna has no valid Scriptural authority.

1.1.5 L.75 ✅ यथा तु तर्केणापि ब्रह्मण एव कारणत्वं निर्वोढुं शक्यते, न प्रधानादीनाम्, तथा प्रपञ्चयिष्यति ‘न विलक्षणत्वादस्य ...’ (BrS.2.1.4) इत्येवमादिना॥५॥
How, even by Logic and argument, it is possible to maintain that it is Brahman only which is the cause (of the world) and not Pradhāna etc. will be discussed hereafter by Sūtra (BrS.2.1.4). — 5.

[Go top]

1.1.6 L.1 ✅ अत्राह – यदुक्तं नाचेतनं प्रधानं जगत्कारणमीक्षितृत्वश्रवणादिति,
(The Sāṅkhya opponent says here) — What you have said, viz., that the non-sentient Pradhāna cannot be the cause of the transient world, because the Scriptures refer to ‘thinking’,

1.1.6 L.2 ✅ तदन्यथाप्युपपद्यते; अचेतनेऽपि चेतनवदुपचारदर्शनात्।
(We do not admit) as what we say is reasonably sustainable in another way, because it is seen that nonsentient things are figuratively referred to as if they are sentient.

1.1.6 L.3 ✅ यथा प्रत्यासन्नपतनतां नद्याः कूलस्यालक्ष्य ‘कूलं पिपतिषति’ इत्यचेतनेऽपि कूले चेतनवदुपचारो दृष्टः,
Just as, when the erosion of a (river) bank is seen to be imminent, even in the case of a non-sentient entity such as a bank, figurative use (of words) such as ‘the bank is desirous of falling’ (the desiderative form showing desire) as if it is a sentient entity is seen,

1.1.6 L.4 ✅ तद्वदचेतनेऽपि प्रधाने प्रत्यासन्नसर्गे चेतनवदुपचारो भविष्यति ‘तदैक्षत’ इति।
Similarly, in the case of a non-sentient entity like Pradhāna when creation by it is imminent, it would be possible to say about it figuratively, that “it (i.e. the Pradhāna) thought”.

1.1.6 L.5 ✅ यथा लोके कश्चिच्चेतनः ‘स्नात्वा भुक्त्वा चापराह्णे ग्रामं रथेन गमिष्यामि’ इतीक्षित्वा अनन्तरं तथैव नियमेन प्रवर्तते,
Just as in ordinary life a person thinks that after having had a bath and dinner, he will, in the afternoon, proceed to the town by a chariot and then as a rule behaves accordingly,

1.1.6 L.6 ✅ तथा प्रधानमपि महदाद्याकारेण नियमेन प्रवर्तते; तस्माच्चेतनवदुपचर्यते।
Similarly the Pradhāna also when it proceeds to transform itself into the form of ‘the great principle’ (Mahat) is spoken of figuratively as if it is sentient.

1.1.6 L.7 ✅ कस्मात्पुनः कारणात् विहाय मुख्यमीक्षितृत्वम् औपचारिकं तत्कल्प्यते?
But why (say we) do you imagine this ‘thinking’ in its primary sense, to have been used in a figurative sense?

1.1.6 L.8 ✅ ‘तत्तेज ऐक्षत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) ‘ता आप ऐक्षन्त’ (ChanU.6.2.4) इति चाचेतनयोरप्यप्तेजसोश्चेतनवदुपचारदर्शनात्;
(The Sāṅkhya refutes this by saying) — Because it is seen that even non-sentient ‘water’ and ‘Tejas’ are spoken of figuratively as if they are sentient, thus — “That Tejas thought, the Āpas thought” (ChanU.6.2.3,4).

1.1.6 L.9 ✅ तस्मात्सत्कर्तृकमपीक्षणमौपचारिकमिति गम्यते, उपचारप्राये वचनात्; –
Therefore, it is understood that the act of ‘thinking’ by the Sat must be in the figurative sense, because it is mentioned in a context where figurative use is to be seen. (The Sāṅkhya opponent wants to establish that as ‘thinking’ by Sat is mentioned in the Scriptures along with such non-sentient entities like the Tejas and the Āpas as ‘thinking’, figuratively, it (i.e. Sat) must mean the Pradhāna and not Brahman, as the Vedāntin would have it.)

1.1.6 L.10 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, इदं सूत्रमारभ्यते –
The contention of the Sāṅkhya being this, the following Sūtra is stated: —

←Prev Next→
गौणश्चेन्नात्मशब्दात्॥१.१.६॥
Gauṇaś cen nātma-śabdāt.

Gauṇaḥ: indirect, secondary, figurative; Cet: if; Na: not; Ātma-śabdāt: because of the word Ātman, i.e., soul.

🔗 If it be said (that the word ‘thinking’) is used figuratively — (we say) no, because of the word ‘Self’. — 1.1.6.

1.1.6 L.11 ✅ यदुक्तं प्रधानमचेतनं सच्छब्दवाच्यं तस्मिन्नौपचारिकमीक्षितृत्वम् अप्तेजसोरिवेति, तदसत्।
What is said (before), viz. that the word ‘to think’ is used in the figurative sense in connection with the nonintelligent Pradhāna which is indicated by the word ‘Sat’, just as it is used with regard to Āpaḥ and Tejas, is not so.

1.1.6 L.12 ✅ कस्मात्? आत्मशब्दात्; ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्’ इत्युपक्रम्य, ‘तदैक्षत’ (ChanU.6.2.1) ‘तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इति च तेजोबन्नानां सृष्टिमुक्त्वा,
Why? Because of the word ‘Self’. The Scriptures, beginning with — “Oh Saumya, this Sat alone was in the beginning” — and after having mentioned the creation of ‘Tejas’, ‘Āpaḥ’ and ‘Anna’ thus — “It thought, it created the ‘Tejas’ (ChanU.6.2.1,3),

1.1.6 L.13 ✅ तदेव प्रकृतं सदीक्षितृ तानि च तेजोबन्नानि देवताशब्देन परामृश्याह –
‘सेयं देवतैक्षत’ ‘हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति।
And after referring to the same ‘Sat’ which is relevant to the context as the one that ‘thinks’, and the same ‘Tejas’, ‘Āpaḥ’ and ‘Anna’, by the word Deities, say further —
“This Deity here thought, Oh well, I myself, after having entered into these three Deities as the Jīva-Self, will make names and forms manifest” (ChanU.6.3.2) etc.

1.1.6 L.14 ✅ तत्र यदि प्रधानमचेतनं गुणवृत्त्येक्षितृ कल्प्येत,
तदेव प्रकृतत्वात् ‘सेयं देवता’ इति परामृश्येत;
There, if the non-sentient Pradhāna is imagined figuratively as the one that thinks,
Then the same Pradhāna being relevant (to the context) would be referred to as “This here Deity”.

1.1.6 L.15 ✅ न तदा देवता जीवमात्मशब्देनाभिदध्यात्।
In that case the Deity would not designate the ‘Jīva’ by the word ‘Self’.

1.1.6 L.16 ✅ जीवो हि नाम चेतनः शरीराध्यक्षः प्राणानां धारयिता, तत्प्रसिद्धेर्निर्वचनाच्च।
That the ‘Jīva’ of course is the sentient ruler of the body and the sustainer of the ‘Prāṇas’, is so because it is well-known, and is so etymologically also.

1.1.6 L.17 ✅ स कथमचेतनस्य प्रधानस्यात्मा भवेत्।
How then can the ‘Jīva’ be the Self of the non-sentient Pradhāna?

1.1.6 L.18 ✅ आत्मा हि नाम स्वरूपम्।
The Self verily is one’s own form (Sva-rūpa).

1.1.6 L.19 ✅ नाचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य चेतनो जीवः स्वरूपं भवितुमर्हति।
The sentient Jīva does not deserve to be the own form of non-sentient Pradhāna.

1.1.6 L.20 ✅ अथ तु चेतनं ब्रह्म मुख्यमीक्षितृ परिगृह्येत,
तस्य जीवविषय आत्मशब्दप्रयोग उपपद्यते।
If however the sentient Brahman is accepted to be the one that ‘thinks’ in the primary sense,
Then in that case, the use of the word ‘Self’ with reference to ‘Jīva’ is reasonably sustainable.

1.1.6 L.21 ✅ तथा ‘स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ (ChanU.6.14.3) इत्यत्र ‘स आत्मा’ इति प्रकृतं
Similarly, (in the Scriptures) in the passage — “That which is this subtle essence, is the Self of all this, that is the Truth, that is the Self, that thou art, Oh Śveta-ketu” (ChanU.6.14.3), the same ‘Sat’ relevant to the context,

1.1.6 L.22 ✅ सदणिमानमात्मानमात्मशब्देनोपदिश्य,
‘तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ इति चेतनस्य श्वेतकेतोरात्मत्वेनोपदिशति।
the subtle essence, the Self, is indicated as ‘the Self’,
And the sentient Śveta-ketu is told about that as being the Self of himself, thus — “Oh Śveta-ketu, that thou art”.

1.1.6 L.23 ✅ अप्तेजसोऽस्तु विषयत्वादचेतनत्वम्,
Āpaḥ and Tejas on the other hand being sense-objects are non-sentient

1.1.6 L.24 ✅ नामरूपव्याकरणादौ च प्रयोज्यत्वेनैव निर्देशात्,
And because of their being referred to as sense-objects, with respect to whom evolution by names and forms etc. is to be made,

1.1.6 L.25 ✅ न चात्मशब्दवत्किञ्चिन्मुख्यत्वे कारणमस्तीति युक्तं कूलवद्गौणत्वमीक्षितृत्वस्य।
तयोरपि सदधिष्ठितत्वापेक्षमेवेक्षितृत्वम्।
And as there is no reason why it (i.e. thinking) should — as in the case of the word ‘Self’ — be taken in its primary sense, it stands to reason to hold, that the act of ‘thinking’, so far as ‘Āpaḥ’ and ‘Tejas’ are concerned, should, as in the case of the bank (of a river) be taken as being used in a figurative sense.
Or rather, even the act of ‘thinking’ on the part of Tejas and Āpaḥ also should be understood, to be used in its primary sense, because of their being presided over by the ‘Sat’.

1.1.6 L.26 ✅ सतस्त्वात्मशब्दान्न गौणमीक्षितृत्वमित्युक्तम्॥६॥
We have already said that in the case of ‘Sat’, because the word ‘Self’ is used with reference to it, the act of thinking is not used in a figurative sense. — 6.

[Go top]

1.1.7 L.1 ✅ अथोच्येत – अचेतनेऽपि प्रधाने भवत्यात्मशब्दः,
आत्मनः सर्वार्थकारित्वात्;
If you (the opponent) were to say — It would be possible to use the word ‘Self’ (figuratively) in the case of the nonsentient Pradhāna
Because it accomplishes all things desired by the Puruṣa,

1.1.7 L.2 ✅ यथा राज्ञः सर्वार्थकारिणि भृत्ये भवत्यात्मशब्दः ‘ममात्मा भद्रसेनः’ इति।
Just as in the case of a king, as all things desired by him are accomplished for him by his servant, it is possible for him to use the word ‘Self’ figuratively for the servant, as for instance thus — Bhadra-sena is my alter ego (Mamātmā).

1.1.7 L.3 ✅ प्रधानं हि पुरुषस्यात्मनो भोगापवर्गौ कुर्वदुपकरोति,
राज्ञ इव भृत्यः सन्धिविग्रहादिषु वर्तमानः।
Pradhāna obliges a person’s Self by accomplishing for the Self its enjoyments and Final Release,
Just as a servant of a king obliges him by acting in the matter of a treaty and war.

1.1.7 L.4 ✅ अथवैक एवात्मशब्दश्चेतनाचेतनविषयो भविष्यति,
‘भूतात्मा’ ‘इन्द्रियात्मा’ इति च प्रयोगदर्शनात्;
Or, the same word ‘Self’ may be used in the case of both sentient and non-sentient entities,
Because we see a similar use in such words as “the Self of the elements, the Self of the senses” etc.

1.1.7 L.5 ✅ यथैक एव ज्योतिःशब्दः क्रतुज्वलनविषयः।
Or, just as the same word Jyotis (light of Brahman, Light as Supreme Spirit) is used both for ‘Jyoti-ṣṭoma’ (a type of Soma Sacrifice) and fire.

1.1.7 L.6 ✅ तत्र कुत एतदात्मशब्दादीक्षतेरगौणत्वमित्यत उत्तरं पठति –
Hence, how do you (the Vedāntin) say that the word ‘thinking’ is used in its non-figurative sense? To that the reply is given: —

←Prev Next→
तन्निष्ठस्य मोक्षोपदेशात्॥१.१.७॥
Tan-niṣṭhasya mokṣopadeśāt.

Tat: to that; Niṣṭhasya: of the devoted; Mokṣa-uopadeśāt: from the statement of salvation.

🔗 Because there is instruction about Final Release for a man who is devoted to that (i.e. Sat), (the word self is not applicable to Pradhāna). — 1.1.7.

1.1.7 L.7 ✅ न प्रधानमचेतनमात्मशब्दालम्बनं भवितुमर्हति; ‘स आत्मा’ इति प्रकृतं सदणिमानमादाय,
‘तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ इति चेतनस्य श्वेतकेतोर्मोक्षयितव्यस्य तन्निष्ठामुपदिश्य,
आचार्यवान्पुरुषो वेद तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति मोक्षोपदेशात्।
The non-sentient Pradhāna does not deserve to be the support i.e. the meaning of the word ‘Self’, because having recognized the ‘Sat’ the subtle essence relevant to the context to be the Self,
And having instructed sentient Śveta-ketu, who is to be helped in attaining Final Release, to have that (Self) as his support, (i.e. to know that he and the Sat are not different entities),
Further instruction about Final Release is given as follows: — “The man who has secured a preceptor, attains knowledge. He has to tarry only upto the time of his death to attain Final Release and become one with the Self” (ChanU.6.14.2).

1.1.7 L.8 ✅ यदि ह्यचेतनं प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम् ‘तत् असि’ इति ग्राहयेत्, मुमुक्षुं चेतनं सन्तमचेतनोऽसीति,
If the sentient Śveta-ketu who is desirous of attaining Final Release, is instructed to the effect, that he is the non-sentient Pradhāna indicated by,the word Sat, then in effect the Śāstra would be instructing the sentient Śveta-ketu, that he is the non-sentient Pradhāna,

1.1.7 L.9 ✅ तदा विपरीतवादि शास्त्रं पुरुषस्यानर्थायेत्यप्रमाणं स्यात्।
And then in that case the Śāstra which is flawless, would be instructing perversely and would lead a man to ruin and would be unauthoritative i.e. invalid.

1.1.7 L.10 ✅ न तु निर्दोषं शास्त्रमप्रमाणं कल्पयितुं युक्तम्।
But it is not reasonable or logical to imagine the Śāstra which is flawless to be unauthoritative or invalid.

1.1.7 L.11 ✅ यदि चाज्ञस्य सतो मुमुक्षोरचेतनमनात्मानमात्मेत्युपदिशेत्प्रमाणभूतं शास्त्रम्,
If the Śāstra which is authoritative were to instruct a person, who though ignorant is desirous of attaining Final Release, that the non-sentient Pradhāna, which in fact is not the Self, is the Self in fact,

1.1.7 L.12 ✅ स श्रद्दधानतया अन्धगोलाङ्गूलन्यायेन तदात्मदृष्टिं न परित्यजेत्,
And if such a person trusting (in such instruction) does not rid himself of the notion that the Pradhāna is the Self, in accordance with the maxim of the blind man holding the bull’s tail,

1.1.7 L.13 ✅ तद्व्यतिरिक्तं चात्मानं न प्रतिपद्येत;
And does not succeed in understanding the proper Self which is different from the Pradhāna,

1.1.7 L.14 ✅ तथा सति पुरुषार्थाद्विहन्येत, अनर्थं च ऋच्छेत्।
Then, he, under such circumstances would be foiled in (his pursuit of) the highest aim of man and would lead himself to ruin.

1.1.7 L.15 ✅ तस्माद्यथा स्वर्गाद्यर्थिनोऽग्निहोत्रादिसाधनं यथाभूतमुपदिशति,
तथा मुमुक्षोरपि ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ इति यथाभूतमेवात्मानमुपदिशतीति युक्तम्।
Therefore it is logical and reasonable to hold that just as the Śāstra instructs a person who is desirous of attaining heaven, about such means of attaining it, as Agni-hotra etc., which are the proper means,
Similarly, the Śāstra instructs a person who is desirous of attaining Final Release, about the Self as it really is, viz. by a passage like — “He (is) the Self, that thou art, Oh Śveta-ketu.”

1.1.7 L.16 ✅ एवं च सति तप्तपरशुग्रहणमोक्षदृष्टान्तेन सत्याभिसन्धस्य मोक्षोपदेश उपपद्यते।
It is only if it is so, that instruction about Final Release would be proper and reasonable, on the analogy of the illustration of “the ordeal of the acquittal of a truthful man by (his) taking the hot hatchet in hand”.

1.1.7 L.17 ✅ अन्यथा ह्यमुख्ये सदात्मतत्त्वोपदेशे,
‘अहमुक्थमस्मीति विद्यात्’ (ऐ. आ. २-१-२-६) इतिवत्सम्पन्मात्रमिदमनित्यफलं स्यात्;
Otherwise, if the instruction about the Sat-principle is in a figurative sense,
As for instance in the passage — “Know me to be the Uktha (i.e. Prāṇa or hymn)” (Ait. Ār. 2. 1.2.6), it would be an instruction having a noneternal fruit and would be of the nature of a fanciful combination i.e. imagining a small thing as great (Sampad-rūpam).

1.1.7 L.18 ✅ तत्र मोक्षोपदेशो नोपपद्येत।
In that case it would not properly and reasonably be instruction in Final Release.

1.1.7 L.19 ✅ तस्मान्न सदणिमन्यात्मशब्दस्य गौणत्वम्।
Therefore the use of the word ‘Self’ with reference to the subtle essence ‘Sat’ is not to be understood in a figurative sense.

1.1.7 L.20 ✅ भृत्ये तु स्वामिभृत्यभेदस्य प्रत्यक्षत्वादुपपन्नो गौण आत्मशब्दः ‘ममात्मा भद्रसेनः’ इति।
In the case of the servant, of course, the difference between the master and servant being patent, the use of the word Self in the figurative sense, as — “Bhadra-sena, (is) my alter ego” — is reasonably sustainable.

1.1.7 L.21 ✅ अपि च क्वचिद्गौणः शब्दो दृष्ट इति नैतावता शब्दप्रमाणकेऽर्थे गौणीकल्पना न्याय्या,
सर्वत्रानाश्वासप्रसङ्गात्।
Besides, it is not justifiable to imagine a figurative use (of words) in the case of things for which Scriptures are the only valid means of right knowledge, only because there is such figurative use in some stray instance,
Because it would then lead to doubt in all cases.

1.1.7 L.22 ✅ यत्तूक्तं चेतनाचेतनयोः साधारण आत्मशब्दः,
क्रतुज्वलनयोरिव ज्योतिःशब्द इति,
As regards the argument which is advanced (by the opponent) — viz., that the word ‘Self’ could have a common application both in the case of sentient and non-sentient entities,
As in the case of the word ‘Jyotis’ used commonly both for the Sacrifice of that name and fire —

1.1.7 L.23 ✅ तन्न; अनेकार्थत्वस्यान्याय्यत्वात्।
It is not so, because it is not logical to ascribe more than one meaning to a word.

1.1.7 L.24 ✅ तस्माच्चेतनविषय एव मुख्य आत्मशब्दश्चेतनत्वोपचाराद्भूतादिषु प्रयुज्यते – ‘भूतात्मा’ ‘इन्द्रियात्मा’ इति च।
Therefore the word Self used in the primary sense only with respect to sentient entities, is used in the case of elements etc., as — the Self of the elements and the Self of the sense-organs — only with a view to speak about their sentiency figuratively.

1.1.7 L.25 ✅ साधारणत्वेऽप्यात्मशब्दस्य न प्रकरणमुपपदं वा किञ्चिन्निश्चायकमन्तरेणान्यतरवृत्तिता निर्धारयितुं शक्यते।
Even assuming the word Self to have a common application, it is not possible in the absence of any particular chapter (Prakaraṇa) or an Upapada to determine that a word is used in one of the two senses (i.e. principal and figurative).

1.1.7 L.26 ✅ न चात्राचेतनस्य निश्चायकं किञ्चित्कारणमस्ति।
There is no means, in this case, by which one could determine that the non-sentient (Pradhāna) is meant.

1.1.7 L.27 ✅ प्रकृतं तु सदीक्षितृ सन्निहितश्च चेतनः श्वेतकेतुः।
The ‘Sat’, the one that thinks, is here relevant to the context, the sentient Śveta-ketu is just near at hand,

1.1.7 L.28 ✅ न हि चेतनस्य श्वेतकेतोरचेतन आत्मा सम्भवतीत्यवोचाम।
And we have already discussed how the sentient Śveta-ketu could not have a nonsentient Pradhāna as his ‘Self’.

1.1.7 L.29 ✅ तस्माच्चेतनविषय इहात्मशब्द इति निश्चीयते।
Therefore we conclude that the word ‘Self’ is here used with respect to a sentient object.

1.1.7 L.30 ✅ ज्योतिःशब्दोऽपि लौकिकेन प्रयोगेण ज्वलन एव रूढः,
अर्थवादकल्पितेन तु ज्वलनसादृश्येन क्रतौ प्रवृत्त इत्यदृष्टान्तः।
The word ‘Jyotis’ also, which by custom is used for fire only in ordinary life,
Is used to indicate a sacrifice, only on account of a similarity with fire, imagined by Artha-vāda, and is not therefore an apt illustration.

1.1.7 L.31 ✅ अथवा पूर्वसूत्र एवात्मशब्दं निरस्तसमस्तगौणत्वसाधारणत्वाशङ्कतया व्याख्याय,
ततः स्वतन्त्र एव प्रधानकारणनिराकरणहेतुर्व्याख्येयः – ‘तन्निष्ठस्य मोक्षोपदेशात्’ इति।
Or it should be understood, that having discussed the word ‘Self’ in the previous Sūtra by dispelling all doubts about its being used in the figurative sense or about its being common (to more than one thing),
The present Sūtra — “Because there is instruction of Final Release for a man who is devoted to that (i.e. Sat)” is for furnishing a separate reason for getting rid of the idea that' the Pradhāna is the cause (of the world).

1.1.7 L.32 ✅ तस्मान्नाचेतनं प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्॥७॥
Therefore the word Sat does not indicate the non-sentient Pradhāna. — 7.

[Go top]

1.1.8 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च न प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्? –
Then for stating another reason why Pradhāna is not indicated by the word Sat, (the Sūtra-kāra) says further: —

←Prev Next→
हेयत्वावचनाच्च॥१.१.८॥
Heyatvāvacanāc ca.

Heyatva: fitness to be discarded; Avacanāt: not being stated (by the scriptures); Ca: and.

🔗 And also because there is no mention of its having to be discarded. — 1.1.8.

1.1.8 L.2 ✅ यद्यनात्मैव प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्,
‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ इतीहोपदिष्टं स्यात्;
If (we were to hold) that the Pradhāna which is not the Self, is indicated by the word Sat,
And if it is supposed, that the preceptor has here instructed Śveta-ketu about that Pradhāna, in the passage — “He is the Self, that thou art”,

1.1.8 L.3 ✅ स तदुपदेशश्रवणादनात्मज्ञतया तन्निष्ठो मा भूदिति,
मुख्यमात्मानमुपदिदिक्षु शास्त्रं तस्य हेयत्वं ब्रूयात्।
Then the preceptor, in order that by hearing such instruction, Śveta-ketu, because of his ignorance of the Self, may not put his trust in that (i.e. Pradhāna),
And also with a desire to instruct him about the real Self, would naturally instruct him about discarding that Pradhāna.

1.1.8 L.4 ✅ यथारुन्धतीं दिदर्शयिषुस्तत्समीपस्थां स्थूलां ताराममुख्यां प्रथममरुन्धतीति ग्राहयित्वा, तां प्रत्याख्याय, पश्चादरुन्धतीमेव ग्राहयति;
Just as a person desiring to point out the star Arundhatī (to some other person) first makes him accept a big star near about Arundhatī, which in fact is not Arundhatī, as being Arundhatī, and afterwards asks him to reject that big star, and instructs him to accept that which is the proper Arundhatī,

1.1.8 L.5 ✅ तद्वन्नायमात्मेति ब्रूयात्।
Similarly the preceptor (who desires to instruct Śveta-ketu about the real Self) would tell him that this (i.e. the Pradhāna indicated by him first as the Self) is not the real Self.

1.1.8 L.6 ✅ न चैवमवोचत्।
But the preceptor has not said so.

1.1.8 L.7 ✅ सन्मात्रात्मावगतिनिष्ठैव हि षष्ठप्रपाठकपरिसमाप्तिर्दृश्यते।
(We see that) right up to the end of the sixth chapter full reliance on understanding this Sat alone as the real Self is to be seen.

1.1.8 L.8 ✅ चशब्दः प्रतिज्ञाविरोधाभ्युच्चयप्रदर्शनार्थः।
The word ‘also’ in the Sūtra, is intended to demonstrate the augmentation of the non-contradiction of the original declaration.

1.1.8 L.9 ✅ सत्यपि हेयत्ववचने प्रतिज्ञाविरोधः प्रसज्येत।
Besides, a contradiction of the original declaration would result, even if there were to be a statement about the discarding of the Pradhāna as the real Self.

1.1.8 L.10 ✅ कारणविज्ञानाद्धि सर्वं विज्ञातमिति प्रतिज्ञातम् –
The declaration is that by the knowledge of the cause, every thing (which is its effect) is known.

1.1.8 L.11 ✅ ‘उत तमादेशमप्राक्ष्यः येनाश्रुतꣳ श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातमिति; कथं नु भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति’ (ChanU.6.1.3);
It is stated in the beginning — “But, Oh Śveta-ketu, have you at all asked for that instruction, by which, what is not heard becomes heard, what is not perceived becomes perceived, and what is not known becomes known? What can that instruction be? (asks Śveta-ketu of the preceptor, his father)” (ChanU.6.1.3).

1.1.8 L.12 ✅ ‘यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्याद्
वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (ChanU.6.1.4)
(The preceptor says) — “Just as, Oh Saumya, by one ball of clay, every thing that in essence is earth, becomes known,
Modification is merely another name (for the cause) and is only an expression in speech (i.e. the modification is merely the cause in another form) and that it is merely clay only, is the truth” (ChanU.6.1.4).

1.1.8 L.13 ✅ ‘एवं सोम्य स आदेशो भवति’ (ChanU.6.1.6) इति वाक्योपक्रमे श्रवणात्।
Oh Saumya, this is the instruction.” (ChanU.6.1.6).

1.1.8 L.14 ✅ न च सच्छब्दवाच्ये प्रधाने भोग्यवर्गकारणे हेयत्वेनाहेयत्वेन वा विज्ञाते
भोक्तृवर्गो विज्ञातो भवति,
Even if it is understood that the Pradhāna indicated by the word Sat, is the cause of the whole class of the objects of enjoyment, and even when it is known as being something which is either to be discarded or not to be discarded,
Even then, the class of experiencing Selfs as a whole (i.e. the Jīva-Selfs) is not known thereby,

1.1.8 L.15 ✅ अप्रधानविकारत्वाद्भोक्तृवर्गस्य।
Because the class of experiencing Selfs is not a modification or an effect of Pradhāna.

1.1.8 L.16 ✅ तस्मान्न प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्॥८॥
Therefore, the Pradhāna is not indicated by the word Sat. — 8.

[Go top]

1.1.9 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च न प्रधानं सच्छब्दवाच्यम्? –
(Then for stating another reason) why the Pradhāna is not indicated by the word Sat (the Sūtra-kāra) says further: —

←Prev Next→
स्वाप्ययात्॥१.१.९॥
Svāpyayāt.

Sva-apyayāt: on account of merging in one’s own self.

🔗 Because of the absorption into the Self. — 1.1.9.

1.1.9 L.2 ✅ तदेव सच्छब्दवाच्यं कारणं प्रकृत्य श्रूयते –
With reference to that same cause, indicated by the word Sat, it is declared in the Scriptures —

1.1.9 L.3 ✅ ‘यत्रैतत्पुरुषः स्वपिति नाम, सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति; स्वमपीतो भवति;
तस्मादेनं स्वपितीत्याचक्षते; स्वं ह्यपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इति।
“When the Self (Puruṣa) sleeps, O Saumya, he verily becomes one with his own Self, becomes absorbed into his own Self.
Therefore he is said to be sleeping. He merges into the Self.” (ChanU.6.8.1).

1.1.9 L.4 ✅ एषा श्रुतिः स्वपितीत्येतत्पुरुषस्य लोकप्रसिद्धं नाम निर्वक्ति।
The Scriptural statement etymologically explains the verb ‘Sleeps’ which refers to the well-known name of the Puruṣa.

1.1.9 L.5 ✅ स्वशब्देनेहात्मोच्यते।
By the word ‘Sva’ (one’s own) is meant the Self or Ātmā.

1.1.9 L.6 ✅ यः प्रकृतः सच्छब्दवाच्यस्तमपीतो भवत्यपिगतो भवतीत्यर्थः।
The meaning is that he becomes absorbed i.e. merged in the Self (Ātmā) which is relevant to the (present) context, and which is indicated by the word Sat.

1.1.9 L.7 ✅ अपिपूर्वस्यैतेर्लयार्थत्वं प्रसिद्धम्, प्रभवाप्ययावित्युत्पत्तिप्रलययोः प्रयोगदर्शनात्।
It is well-known that when the root ‘ई Ī’ has ‘अपि Api’ as its suffix, it means ‘to be absorbed in’, and we find that the words ‘Birth’ and ‘Absorption’ are used synonymously with the words ‘Creation’ and ‘Dissolution’ respectively.

1.1.9 L.8 ✅ मनःप्रचारोपाधिविशेषसम्बन्धादिन्द्रियार्थान्गृह्णंस्तद्विशेषापन्नो जीवो जागर्ति;
When the Jīva-Self, on account of contact with the peculiar adjuncts of the nature of the operation of the mind or intelligence, perceives sense-objects, as one who has (for the time being) attained that particular condition (of the Self being in contact with a body, and of seemingly being under the influence of Nescience), he is said to be awake.

1.1.9 L.9 ✅ तद्वासनाविशिष्टः स्वप्नान्पश्यन्मनःशब्दवाच्यो भवति;
When he (the Self) coloured with the impression (gathered in the waking state) sees dreams, he is then indicated by the word mind or intelligence.

1.1.9 L.10 ✅ स उपाधिद्वयोपरमे सुषुप्तावस्थायामुपाधिकृतविशेषाभावात्
स्वात्मनि प्रलीन इवेति ‘स्वं ह्यपीतो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इत्युच्यते।
And when limiting adjuncts of both these sorts have ceased to operate, then in the condition of deep sleep, because of the absence of any special condition caused by the limiting adjuncts,
He is as it were absorbed into himself, and it is then said of him — “He is absorbed in his own self” (ChanU.6.8.1).

1.1.9 L.11 ✅ यथा हृदयशब्दनिर्वचनं श्रुत्या दर्शितम् –
‘स वा एष आत्मा हृदि, तस्यैतदेव निरुक्तम् – हृद्ययमिति; तस्माद्धृदयमिति’ (ChanU.8.3.3);
Just as the Scriptures have described the etymological derivation of the word ‘Hṛdaya’ thus —
“He the Self abides in the ‘Hṛd’ and therefore it is ‘Hṛdayam’” (ChanU.8.3.3),

1.1.9 L.12 ✅ यथा वाशनायोदन्याशब्दप्रवृत्तिमूलं दर्शयति श्रुतिः –
‘आप एव तदशितं नयन्ते’ (ChanU.6.8.3) ‘तेज एव तत्पीतं नयते’ (ChanU.6.8.5) इति च;
Or just as the Scriptures describe the root cause of the words ‘Aśanāyā’ and ‘Udanyā’ (Hunger and Thirst, Āpaḥ and Tejas) thus —
“It is water that carries (and digests) the food eaten, it is Tejas which absorbs the Water that is drunk” (ChanU.6.8.3–5),

1.1.9 L.13 ✅ एवं स्वमात्मानं सच्छब्दवाच्यमपीतो भवति इतीममर्थं स्वपितिनामनिर्वचनेन दर्शयति।
Similarly the Scriptures show by the etymological derivation of the word ‘he sleeps’, that the meaning is that he becomes absorbed in his own self which is indicated by the word Sat.

1.1.9 L.14 ✅ न च चेतन आत्मा अचेतनं प्रधानं स्वरूपत्वेन प्रतिपद्येत।
It cannot be, that the sentient Self attains the non-sentient Pradhāna as being its own self.

1.1.9 L.15 ✅ यदि पुनः प्रधानमेवात्मीयत्वात्स्वशब्देनैवोच्येत,
एवमपि चेतनोऽचेतनमप्येतीति विरुद्धमापद्येत।
Again even if the word ‘Sva’ is understood to mean ‘as pertaining to itself’ and is construed to be the Pradhāna,
Still (to say) that a sentient thing is absorbed into a nonsentient thing would be contradictory and irreconcilable.

1.1.9 L.16 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरं च – ‘प्राज्ञेनात्मना सम्परिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किञ्चन वेद नान्तरम्’ (BrhU.4.3.21) इति
सुषुप्तावस्थायां चेतने अप्ययं दर्शयति।
Another Scriptural passage also, viz. “Embraced by the enlightened Self, he was conscious of nothing, either external or internal” (BrhUEng.4.3.21) —
Shows that there is a merger into a sentient entity in the condition of deep sleep.

1.1.9 L.17 ✅ अतो यस्मिन्नप्ययः सर्वेषां चेतनानां तच्चेतनं सच्छब्दवाच्यं जगतः कारणं, न प्रधानम्॥९॥
Therefore (the conclusion is) — That, into which all sentient things are absorbed, is the sentient one indicated by the word Sat, which is the cause of the world, and not the Pradhāna. — 9.

[Go top]

1.1.10 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च न प्रधानं जगतः कारणम्? –
Then for stating another reason why the Pradhāna is not the cause of the transitory world, (the Sūtra-kāra says:)

←Prev Next→
गतिसामान्यात्॥१.१.१०॥
Gati-sāmānyāt.

Gati: view; Sāmānyāt: on account of the uniformity.

🔗 Because the trend (of all Vedānta passages) is uniformly the same. — 1.1.10.

1.1.10 L.2 ✅ यदि तार्किकसमय इव वेदान्तेष्वपि भिन्ना कारणावगतिरभविष्यत्,
If, as in the Śāstra of the Naiyyāyikas (Logicians), in the Vedānta also we had come across a trend showing different causes (of the transient world),

1.1.10 L.3 ✅ क्वचिच्चेतनं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणम्, क्वचिदचेतनं प्रधानम्, क्वचिदन्यदेवेति;
As for instance the sentient Brahman, or the non-sentient Pradhāna, or perhaps a third one quite different from the first two,

1.1.10 L.4 ✅ ततः कदाचित्प्रधानकारणवादानुरोधेनापीक्षत्यादिश्रवणमकल्पयिष्यत्।
Then perhaps, following the trend of opinion of those who claim Pradhāna to be the cause, we would have construed ‘the thinking etc.’ mentioned in the Scriptural texts in a like manner.

1.1.10 L.5 ✅ न त्वेतदस्ति।
But it is not (found to be) so.

1.1.10 L.6 ✅ समानैव हि सर्वेषु वेदान्तेषु चेतनकारणावगतिः।
That the cause is the sentient being (Brahman) is the uniform common knowledge gathered from all Vedānta passages.

1.1.10 L.7 ✅ ‘यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्न्
एवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति,
The following Scriptural passages, viz. “Just as from burning fire scintillse fly off in all directions,
even so all vital airs (Prāṇas) fly off from this ‘Self’ to their respective destinations, and from the vital airs to the Gods, and from the Gods to the worlds (and reach their respective destinations).” (KausU.3.3),

1.1.10 L.8 ✅ ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति,
“From this Self the Ākāśa came into being” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.),

1.1.10 L.9 ✅ ‘आत्मत एवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.7.26.1) इति,
“All this (has come into being) from the Self” (ChanU.7.26.1),

1.1.10 L.10 ✅ ‘आत्मन एष प्राणो जायते’ (PrasU.3.3) इति च आत्मनः कारणत्वं दर्शयन्ति सर्वे वेदान्ताः।
“This vital air has come into being from the Self” (PrasU.3.3) etc., show, that the Self is the cause.

1.1.10 L.11 ✅ आत्मशब्दश्च चेतनवचन इत्यवोचाम।
We have already said that the word Self is indicative of a sentient entity.

1.1.10 L.12 ✅ महच्च प्रामाण्यकारणमेतत्, यद्वेदान्तवाक्यानां चेतनकारणत्वे समानगतित्वम्, चक्षुरादीनामिव रूपादिषु।
That all the Vedānta passages uniformly indicate a sentient cause, just as eyes etc. have a uniform function as regards Rūpa (form) etc., is a great reason for their being authoritative.

1.1.10 L.13 ✅ अतो गतिसामान्यात्सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणम्॥१०॥
Therefore, because knowledge derived from all Vedānta passages has a uniform trend, the Omniscient Brahman is the cause of the transitory world. — 10.

[Go top]

1.1.11 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणम्? –
Whence again, is the omniscient Brahman the cause of the transitory world?

←Prev Next→
श्रुतत्वाच्च॥१.१.११॥
Śrutatvāc ca.

Śrutatvāt: being declared by the Śruti; Ca: also, and.

🔗 Also because it is directly so stated in the Scriptures. — 1.1.11.

1.1.11 L.2 ✅ स्वशब्देनैव च सर्वज्ञ ईश्वरो जगतः कारणमिति श्रूयते, श्वेताश्वतराणां मन्त्रोपनिषदि
In the Mantropaniṣad of the Śvetāśvataras, that the omniscient Lord is the cause of the transient world is directly so stated.

1.1.11 L.3 ✅ सर्वज्ञमीश्वरं प्रकृत्य – ‘स कारणं करणाधिपाधिपो न चास्य कश्चिज्जनिता न चाधिपः’ (SvetU.6.9) इति।
With reference to the omniscient Lord, it says thus: — “He is the cause, the Lord of the Lords of the sense-organs (Karaṇas). No body has been his creator or Lord.” (SvetU.6.9).

1.1.11 L.4 ✅ तस्मात्सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणम्, नाचेतनं प्रधानमन्यद्वेति सिद्धम्॥११॥
It is therefore established, that the omniscient Brahman, and neither the non-sentient Pradhāna nor any other thing, is the cause of the transitory world. — 11.

– 5. Īkṣaty-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.1.12 Su..13 Su..14 Su..15 Su..16 Su..17 Su..18 Su..19

1.1.12 L.1 ✅ ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ इत्यारभ्य ‘श्रुतत्वाच्च’ इत्येतदन्तैः सूत्रैर्यान्युदाहृतानि वेदान्तवाक्यानि, तेषां सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरीश्वरो जगतो जन्मस्थितिलयकारणमित्येतस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपादकत्वं न्यायपूर्वकं प्रतिपादितम्।
We have so far propounded with the help of Nyāya (Logic), that the passages from Vedānta quoted by us in the Sūtras, beginning with BrS.1.1.2 and ending with BrS.1.1.11, propound that the omniscient and all-powerful Lord is the cause of the creation, preservation, and dissolution of the transitory world.

1.1.12 L.2 ✅ गतिसामान्योपन्यासेन च सर्वे वेदान्ताश्चेतनकारणवादिन इति व्याख्यातम्।
We have also described by observing, that the knowledge derived from all the Vedānta passages has a uniform trend, and that all the Vedānta passages maintain that an intelligent entity is the cause (of the world).

1.1.12 L.3 ✅ अतः परस्य ग्रन्थस्य किमुत्थानमिति,
Hence, (it may be objected) how does (any necessity of) a further treatise then arise?

1.1.12 L.4 ✅ उच्यते – द्विरूपं हि ब्रह्मावगम्यते –
We reply: — Brahman is understood to be of two sorts,

1.1.12 L.5 ✅ नामरूपविकारभेदोपाधिविशिष्टम्,
One, characterized by the limiting adjuncts of the differences in modifications by name and form,

1.1.12 L.6 ✅ तद्विपरीतं च सर्वोपाधिविवर्जितम्।
And the other, different from it, viz. one, in which all limiting adjuncts are absent.

1.1.12 L.7 ✅ ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ (BrhU.2.4.14)
The following sentences (from the Scriptures) in a thousand ways, indicate the two-fold nature of Brahman by distinguishing it with reference to the differences due to knowledge and Nescience (See 1.1.12 L.14 ✅ below), viz. “For where there is duality as it were, then one sees another” (BrhUEng.2.4.14),

1.1.12 L.8 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.5.15)
“Where however the Self only is all this, whom can (he) see, and with what?” (BrhUEng.4.5.15),

1.1.12 L.9 ✅ ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ
यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पम्;
यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्यम्’ (ChanU.7.24.1)
“Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is Bhūmā (The Great One)”,
“Where one sees something else, hears something else, knows something else, that is ‘the little’”,
“That which is the Bhūmā is immortal, that which is ‘the little’ is mortal” (ChanU.7.24.1),

1.1.12 L.10 ✅ ‘सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरो नामानि कृत्वाभिवदन्यदास्ते’ (तै. आ. ३-१२-७)
“The Self-possessed one, who having created all forms and named them, sits (quietly in repose) calling them by their names” (Tait. Ār. 3.12.7),

1.1.12 L.11 ✅ ‘निष्कलं निष्क्रियं शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनम्।
अमृतस्य परं सेतुं दग्धेन्धनमिवानलम्’ (SvetU.6.19)
“Who is without parts, without action, tranquil, without faults, and without taint,
And who is the transcendent bund of immortality, and is like fire which has consumed the fuel” (SvetU.6.19),

1.1.12 L.12 ✅ ‘नेति नेति’ (BrhU.2.3.6)
(Whatever is predicated to be Brahman) is “Not that, not that” (BrhUEng.2.3.6),

1.1.12 L.13 ✅ ‘अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घम्’ (BrhU.3.8.8)
“Neither gross nor atomic” (BrhUEng.3.8.8),

1.1.12 L.14 ✅ ‘न्यूनमन्यत्स्थानं सम्पूर्णमन्यत्’ इति चैवं
सहस्रशो विद्याविद्याविषयभेदेन ब्रह्मणो द्विरूपतां दर्शयन्ति वेदान्तवाक्यानि।
“The one resort (i.e. qualified Brahman) is jejune (Nyūna), and the other (i.e. unqualified Brahman) is full and satisfying to the mind.”
Hundreds of passages such as these reveal the dual nature of Brahman, according as it is the object of knowledge or ignorance [trans. from Panoli].

1.1.12 L.15 ✅ तत्राविद्यावस्थायां ब्रह्मण उपास्योपासकादिलक्षणः सर्वो व्यवहारः।
In its Nescient condition, Brahman can play the dual role of the devotee (the Jīva-Self), as well as the object of devotion (the Highest Self i.e. Brahman).

1.1.12 L.16 ✅ तत्र कानिचिद्ब्रह्मण उपासनान्यभ्युदयार्थानि,
कानिचित्क्रममुक्त्यर्थानि,
कानिचित्कर्मसमृद्ध्यर्थानि।
There, some meditations on Brahman, have secular prosperity as their aim,
While some have Final Release by progressive stages as their aim,
While some others have the richer augmentation i.e. maximization of religious actions, as their aim.

1.1.12 L.17 ✅ तेषां गुणविशेषोपाधिभेदेन भेदः।
These meditations are distinct from each other because of the distinction as between the different adjuncts viz. special qualities of each.

1.1.12 L.18 ✅ एक एव तु परमात्मेश्वरस्तैस्तैर्गुणविशेषैर्विशिष्ट उपास्यो यद्यपि भवति,
तथापि यथागुणोपासनमेव फलानि भिद्यन्ते;
Though it is but the only one, the Highest Self and the Lord, that is the object of devotion, as characterized by several distinct qualities,
Yet, the fruits of such meditations vary according to the particular aspect (of the Lord) with reference to which such meditations themselves vary.

1.1.12 L.19 ✅ ‘तं यथा यथोपासते तदेव भवति’ इति श्रुतेः,
Because, the Scriptural text says: — “The way in which he (the devotee — the Jīva-Self) offers his devotion, so he becomes”

1.1.12 L.20 ✅ ‘यथाक्रतुरस्मिँल्लोके पुरुषो भवति, तथेतः प्रेत्य भवति’ (ChanU.3.14.1) इति च।
And “Just how in his world a person wishes, so he, after death here, becomes” (ChanU.3.14.1).

1.1.12 L.21 ✅ स्मृतेश्च – ‘यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं त्यजत्यन्ते कलेबरम्।
तं तमेवैति कौन्तेय सदा तद्भावभावितः’ (BhG.8.6) इति।
Smṛti also says similarly: — “Remembering whatever particular deity, he shuffles off this mortal coil,
That deity he reaches, always bearing that deity in his mind.” (BhG.8.6)

1.1.12 L.22 ✅ यद्यप्येक आत्मा सर्वभूतेषु स्थावरजङ्गमेषु गूढः,
Though the same Self is immanent but hidden in all beings moveable and immoveable,

1.1.12 L.23 ✅ तथापि चित्तोपाधिविशेषतारतम्यादात्मनः कूटस्थनित्यस्यैकरूपस्याप्युत्तरोत्तरमाविष्कृतस्य तारतम्यमैश्वर्यशक्तिविशेषैः श्रूयते –
Still, because of the comparative and superlative degrees of the different limiting adjuncts of the intelligence of the Self, the Scriptures say that though the Self is unchanging, eternal, and of a uniform nature, it becomes manifest as possessing comparatively more or less degrees of the different qualities of lordliness and power,

1.1.12 L.24 ✅ ‘तस्य य आत्मानमाविस्तरां वेद’ (ऐ. आ. २-३-२-१) इत्यत्र।
As for instance in: — “He who knows the highest and the widest manifestation of the Self” (Ait. Ār. 2.3.2.1).

1.1.12 L.25 ✅ स्मृतावपि – ‘यद्यद्विभूतिमत्सत्त्वं श्रीमदूर्जितमेव वा।
तत्तदेवावगच्छ त्वं मम तेजोंऽशसम्भवम्’ (BhG.10.41) इति
So also in Smṛti — “Whatever being, possessed of power, splendour, or might, be there,
Know it to have been created from portions of my own Tejas” (BhG.10.41).

1.1.12 L.26 ✅ यत्र यत्र विभूत्याद्यतिशयः, स स ईश्वर इत्युपास्यतया चोद्यते।
In whomsoever, this transcendent power is in evidence, he is the Lord, and so devotion to him is inculcated.

1.1.12 L.27 ✅ एवमिहाप्यादित्यमण्डले हिरण्मयः पुरुषः सर्वपाप्मोदयलिङ्गात्पर एवेति वक्ष्यति।
Even so, here also, the Sūtra-kāra will hereafter tell you, that, by reason of the indicatory mark of his rising superior to every kind of evil, the person in the disc of the Sun possessing the structure of gold is the Highest Self.

1.1.12 L.28 ✅ एवम् ‘आकाशस्तल्लिङ्गात्’ (BrS.1.1.22) इत्यादिषु द्रष्टव्यम्।
The same should be seen as applying to the Sūtra “The Ākāśa (is Brahman) because there is (here) a characteristic mark (of Brahman)” (BrS.1.1.22) etc.

1.1.12 L.29 ✅ एवं सद्योमुक्तिकारणमप्यात्मज्ञानम्
उपाधिविशेषद्वारेणोपदिश्यमानम्
अप्यविवक्षितोपाधिसम्बन्धविशेषं परापरविषयत्वेन सन्दिह्यमानं
वाक्यगतिपर्यालोचनया निर्णेतव्यं भवति – यथेहैव तावत् ‘आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात्’ इति।
Similarly though the knowledge of the Self is the means of immediate Final Release,
Yet, in as much as instruction about it is given by way of special distinctive adjuncts,
And thus there is a doubt as to whether such knowledge relates to the Apara i.e. Sa-guṇa Brahman (qualified Brahman) or whether, even though such instruction is given by way of special and distinctive limiting adjuncts, they are not in fact intended to be spoken of, and such knowledge relates to the Para i.e. Nir-guṇa Brahman (unqualified Brahman),
It is necessary to come to a determination of it, by considering the general trend of the Scriptural passages, as for instance, in the Sūtra “Ānandamaya (is Brahman) because of repetition.” (BrS.1.1.12).

1.1.12 L.30 ✅ एवमेकमपि ब्रह्मापेक्षितोपाधिसम्बन्धं निरस्तोपाधिसम्बन्धं चोपास्यत्वेन ज्ञेयत्वेन च वेदान्तेषूपदिश्यत इति प्रदर्शयितुं परो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते।
It is with a desire to illustrate, that, even though Brahman is but one only, the Vedāntas are intended for instructing (a person) about it, either as being the object of devotion or as being the object of knowledge, according as it is desired to speak about its having a relation with limiting adjuncts, or as being absolutely divested of any such relation with limiting adjuncts, that the further portion of this treatise is begun.

1.1.12 L.31 ✅ यच्च ‘गतिसामान्यात्’ इत्यचेतनकारणनिराकरणमुक्तम्,
तदपि वाक्यान्तराणि ब्रह्मविषयाणि व्याचक्षाणेन ब्रह्मविपरीतकारणनिषेधेन प्रपञ्च्यते –
What has already been said before (by the Sūtra-kāra) with a view to refute the idea about the non-intelligent Pradhāna being the cause of the transient world, by the foregoing Sūtra — “Because of the trend being uniform” (BrS.1.1.10) —
Is being amplified by him further by considering other Scriptural passages which deny that something other than Brahman (viz. the Pradhāna) is the cause (of the transitory world): —

←Prev Next→
आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात्॥१.१.१२॥
Ānandamayo'bhyāsāt.

Ānandamayaḥ: full of bliss; Abhyāsāt: because of repetition.

🔗 Ānandamaya (i.e. one which structurally is bliss, and is the Highest Brahman) because of the constant repetition of it (as the Highest Self). — 1.1.12.

1.1.12 L.32 ✅ तैत्तिरीयके अन्नमयं प्राणमयं मनोमयं विज्ञानमयं चानुक्रम्याम्नायते –
‘तस्माद्वा एतस्माद्विज्ञानमयादन्योऽन्तर आत्मानन्दमयः’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इति।
In the Taittirīya Upaniṣad (TaitU.2.5.1) after having enumerated the Self as one having the structure of food, vital air, mind, and understanding respectively, it is said —
“The Self which structurally is bliss and is the Ātmā (Self), and is different from and is still inner than the Self which has the structure of understanding.”

1.1.12 L.33 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमिहानन्दमयशब्देन परमेव ब्रह्मोच्यते, यत्प्रकृतम्
सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति,
किं वान्नमयादिवद्ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरमिति।
In this connection there is a doubt, whether, here, by the word ‘Ānandamaya’, the transcendent Brahman which is relevant to the context here, thus —
“Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Infinite” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.) —
Is meant here, or whether like Annamaya etc., something other than Brahman is meant?

1.1.12 L.34 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion you have arrived at?

1.1.12 L.35 ✅ ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरममुख्य आत्मानन्दमयः स्यात्।
(The opponent answers) — Ānandamaya is the Self (Ātmā) in a secondary sense, and is something different than Brahman.

1.1.12 L.36 ✅ कस्मात्? अन्नमयाद्यमुख्यात्मप्रवाहपतितत्वात्।
Why so? — Because it occurs in a series (lit., it has fallen in the stream) of non-principal Selfs such as Annamaya, etc.,

1.1.12 L.37 ✅ अथापि स्यात्सर्वान्तरत्वादानन्दमयो मुख्य एवात्मेति;
(If the Vṛtti-kāra says) — It may well be, that Ānandamaya being the innermost of all the Selfs (mentioned in order as stated above) is of course the principal Self,

1.1.12 L.38 ✅ न स्यात्प्रियाद्यवयवयोगाच्छारीरत्वश्रवणाच्च।
He says, No, it cannot be so, because the Scriptures mention the limbs of the body, such as Joy (Priya) etc., and also its embodied condition.

1.1.12 L.39 ✅ मुख्यश्चेदात्मा स्यान्न प्रियादिसंस्पर्शः स्यात्।
Were this Ānandamaya Self to be the Highest Self i.e. the principal Self, we would not expect tc hear of any connection between it and “Joy etc.”.

1.1.12 L.40 ✅ इह तु ‘तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इत्यादि श्रूयते।
But here we do find it mentioned that “Joy is its caput (Latin for ‘Head’ or ‘Top’)”.

1.1.12 L.41 ✅ शारीरत्वं च श्रूयते – ‘तस्यैष एव शारीर आत्मा यः पूर्वस्य’ इति।
We also find that the Scriptures mention its being embodied, as follows: — “Of that former one, this one is the embodied Self” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).

1.1.12 L.42 ✅ तस्य पूर्वस्य विज्ञानमयस्यैष एव शारीर आत्मा य एष आनन्दमय इत्यर्थः।
The meaning is — That which is this Ānandamaya Self is the embodied Self of the former i.e. of the Self which has the structure of understanding.

1.1.12 L.43 ✅ न च सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रियसंस्पर्शो वारयितुं शक्यः।
It is not possible to avoid contact with joy or evil in the case of a Self which is embodied.

1.1.12 L.44 ✅ तस्मात्संसार्येवानन्दमय आत्मेत्येवं प्राप्ते, इदमुच्यते –
Therefore the Ānandamaya Self is but only the transmigratory Self.

1.1.12 L.45 ✅ ‘आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात्’। पर एवात्मानन्दमयो भवितुमर्हति।
With respect to the conclusion thus arrived at (by the opponent) the Vṛtti-kāra replies — “The Self which has the structure of bliss is the Highest Self because of the constant repetition (about its being the Highest Self).” The Ānandamaya Self deserves to be Para i.e. (the Highest Self) only.

1.1.12 L.46 ✅ कुतः? अभ्यासात्।
How so? Because of the repetition.

1.1.12 L.47 ✅ परस्मिन्नेव ह्यात्मन्यानन्दशब्दो बहुकृत्वोऽभ्यस्यते।
(In this chapter) the word Ānanda (bliss) is very frequently mentioned as being synonymous with the Highest Self.

1.1.12 L.48 ✅ आनन्दमयं प्रस्तुत्य ‘रसो वै सः’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति तस्यैव रसत्वमुक्त्वा,
With reference to the Ānandamaya, after glorifying it, by mentioning it to have the quality of being the Rasa (quintessence i.e. the cause of satisfaction) by the words “He verily is the quintessence”,

1.1.12 L.49 ✅ उच्यते – ‘रसꣳ ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दीभवति।
को ह्येवान्यात्कः प्राण्यात्। यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्।
एष ह्येवानन्दयाति’ (TaitU.2.7.1)
It is mentioned — “After having obtained this quintessence, he becomes one possessed of joy etc.”
“If this Ākāśa (i.e. the Ātmā abiding in the Hṛdaya in the form of the Ākāśa) were not to be ‘the joy’, who else would breathe and who else would live?
For he alone causes joy.” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.).

1.1.12 L.50 ✅ ‘सैषानन्दस्य मीमाꣳसा भवति’ (TaitU.2.8.2)
“This is an interpretative analysis of Bliss.”

1.1.12 L.51 ✅ ‘एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति’ (TaitU.2.8.5)
“(The man who has acquired knowledge) reaches this Ānandamaya Self.”

1.1.12 L.52 ✅ ‘आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इति;
“He who knows the bliss of Brahman, does not have fear of anything (i.e. he becomes unafraid).” (TaitU.2.8–9 Eng.).

1.1.12 L.53 ✅ आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति च।
“He understood that Ānanda i.e. Joy or Bliss is Brahman.” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.).

1.1.12 L.54 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरे च ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.9.28) इति ब्रह्मण्येवानन्दशब्दो दृष्टः।
In another scriptural passage — as for instance in “Knowledge and bliss is Brahman” (BrhUEng.3.9.28) — we find bliss used as a synonym of Brahman.

1.1.12 L.55 ✅ एवमानन्दशब्दस्य बहुकृत्वो ब्रह्मण्यभ्यासादानन्दमय आत्मा ब्रह्मेति गम्यते।
In this manner, because the word Ānanda (bliss) is repeatedly used for Brahman, it is understood (by us) that the Ānandamaya Self is Brahman.

1.1.12 L.56 ✅ यत्तूक्तमन्नमयाद्यमुख्यात्मप्रवाहपतितत्वादानन्दमयस्याप्यमुख्यत्वमिति,
नासौ दोषः, आनन्दमयस्य सर्वान्तरत्वात्।
The objection raised (above), that ‘Ānandamaya’ thus occurring in the series (i.e. literally having fallen in the stream of the non-principal Selfs such as Annamaya etc.), it also is a non-principal Self,
Is not a fault (in our view), because Ānandamaya Self is the innermost of all.

1.1.12 L.57 ✅ मुख्यमेव ह्यात्मानमुपदिदिक्षु शास्त्रं लोकबुद्धिमनुसरत्,
अन्नमयं शरीरमनात्मानमत्यन्तमूढानामात्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धमनूद्य मूषानिषिक्तद्रुतताम्रादिप्रतिमावत् ततोऽन्तरं ततोऽन्तरमित्येवं पूर्वेण पूर्वेण समानम्
उत्तरमुत्तरमनात्मानमात्मेति ग्राहयत्, प्रतिपत्तिसौकर्यापेक्षया सर्वान्तरं मुख्यमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपदिदेशेति श्लिष्टतरम्।
It is better to understand, that the Śāstra with a view to instruct (a person) in the principal Highest Self, but acting in conformity with the popular notion,
And referring to the body which is a modification of earth etc. and which is not the Self, but which however is known by the extremely ignorant as being the Self, makes him understand, every successively inner non-Self, which — like icons of molten copper poured into a mould — are all alike,
And where each successive non-Self (in the series) is similar to the one that has come before — as the Highest Self, and expecting that it may thus be comprehended the more easily, gives instruction about the innermost principal Ānandamaya Self (as being the Highest Self).

1.1.12 L.58 ✅ यथारुन्धतीदर्शने बह्वीष्वपि तारास्वमुख्यास्वरुन्धतीषु दर्शितासु,
या अन्त्या प्रदर्श्यते सा मुख्यैवारुन्धती भवति;
Just as in the illustration about Arundhatī (the star of that name), when, after having shown many stars which are not Arundhatī as being Arundhatī,
The one that is shown last, is really the principal and proper Arundhatī,

1.1.12 L.59 ✅ एवमिहाप्यानन्दमयस्य सर्वान्तरत्वान्मुख्यमात्मत्वम्।
Similarly, here also the Ānandamaya Self, because it is the innermost of all, is properly the Highest Self.

1.1.12 L.60 ✅ यत्तु ब्रूषे, प्रियादीनां शिरस्त्वादिकल्पनानुपपन्ना मुख्यस्यात्मन इति –
With regard to what you (the opponent) have stated (as an objection), that in the case of the principal Self, the notion of joy being the caput etc. cannot be reasonably sustainable,

1.1.12 L.61 ✅ अतीतानन्तरोपाधिजनिता सा; न स्वाभाविकीत्यदोषः।
We reply, that the notion is caused by the immediately penultimate adjunct (in the form of a sheath having the structure of knowledge) and is not natural to the Highest Self, and so really there is no fault.

1.1.12 L.62 ✅ शारीरत्वमप्यानन्दमयस्यान्नमयादिशरीरपरम्परया प्रदर्श्यमानत्वात्;
न पुनः साक्षादेव शारीरत्वं संसारिवत्।
The embodiedness of the Ānandamaya Self in a secondary sense can be demonstrated to be so by reason of its being in the series of embodied Selfs such as the Annamaya Self etc.,
And not because like the transmigratory Self it actually is embodied,

1.1.12 L.63 ✅ तस्मादानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा॥१२॥
And therefore the Ānandamaya Self alone, of course, is the highest Self i.e. Brahman. — 12.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विकारशब्दान्नेति चेन्न प्राचुर्यात्॥१.१.१३॥
Vikāra-śabdān neti cen na prācuryāt.

Vikāra-śabdāt: from the word ‘Ānandamaya’ with the suffix ‘mayat’ denoting modification; Na: is not; Iti: this; thus; Cet: if; Na: not so; Prācuryāt: because of abundance.

🔗 (If it be said that the word ‘Ānandamaya’ does not mean the highest Self) because the word ‘Maya’ which means having the structure of, or being a modification (Vikāra) of, we reply — no, because (the word ‘Maya’) indicates plenitude (of that to which it is affixed). — 1.1.13.

1.1.13 L.1 ✅ अत्राह – नानन्दमयः पर आत्मा भवितुमर्हति;
Here the opponent raises the objection — Ānandamaya does not deserve to mean the Highest Self.

1.1.13 L.2 ✅ कस्मात्? विकारशब्दात्;
Why? Because of the word ‘Maya’ which means, having the structure of or being a modification of (something to which it is affixed).

1.1.13 L.3 ✅ प्रकृतिवचनादयमन्यः शब्दो विकारवचनः समधिगतः ‘आनन्दमयः’ इति, मयटो विकारार्थत्वात्;
In as much as the derivative affix ‘Maya’ in Ānandamaya has that meaning, the word Ānandamaya is different from the word ‘Ānanda’ which is meant to indicate a cause (Prakṛti).

1.1.13 L.4 ✅ तस्मादन्नमयादिशब्दवद्विकारविषय एवायमानन्दमयशब्द इति चेत्,
Therefore, like the word Annamaya etc., the word Ānandamaya also denotes something which has the structure of bliss or is a modification of bliss.

1.1.13 L.5 ✅ न; प्राचुर्यार्थेऽपि मयटः स्मरणात्।
To this argument of the opponent, we reply — No, because it is said in the Smṛti of (Paṇini) that the word ‘Maya’ also means ‘plenitude’.

1.1.13 L.6 ✅ ‘तत्प्रकृतवचने मयट्’ (पा. सू. ५-४-२) इति हि प्रचुरतायामपि मयट् स्मर्यते;
The Sūtra of Pāṇini (5.4.21) says that ‘Maya’ also means plenitude (of that to which it is affixed).

1.1.13 L.7 ✅ यथा ‘अन्नमयो यज्ञः’ इत्यन्नप्रचुर उच्यते, एवमानन्दप्रचुरं ब्रह्मानन्दमयमुच्यते।
For instance, just as “Annamayaḥ Yajnaḥ” (TaitU.2.8 Eng.) means a sacrifice wherein there is a plenitude of food, similarly Brahman which has such plenitude of bliss is termed Ānandamaya.

1.1.13 L.8 ✅ आनन्दप्रचुरत्वं च ब्रह्मणो मनुष्यत्वादारभ्योत्तरस्मिन्नुत्तरस्मिन्स्थाने शतगुण आनन्द इत्युक्त्वा
ब्रह्मानन्दस्य निरतिशयत्वावधारणात्।
That Brahman has plenitude of bliss, follows, because after first declaring, that beginning with man, right through the ascending series, in every succeeding class bliss is a hundredfold greater,
And because it has been finally determined that the bliss of Brahman is understood to be unexcelled (by any other bliss).

1.1.13 L.9 ✅ तस्मात्प्राचुर्यार्थे मयट्॥१३॥
Therefore, the derivative affix ‘Maya’ is indicative of plenitude. — 13.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तद्धेतुव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.१.१४॥
Tad-dhetu-vyapadeśāc ca.

Tad + Hetu: the cause of that, namely the cause of Ānanda; Vyapadeśāt: because of the statement of declaration; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because (Brahman) is mentioned to be the cause of that (bliss). — 1.1.14.

1.1.14 L.1 ✅ इतश्च प्राचुर्यार्थे मयट्; यस्मादानन्दहेतुत्वं ब्रह्मणो व्यपदिशति श्रुतिः –
‘एष ह्येवानन्दयाति’ इति – आनन्दयतीत्यर्थः।
Because of this also, the affix ‘Maya’ indicates plenitude (of that to which it is affixed), as the Scriptures declare that Brahman is the cause of bliss, thus —
“For he alone causes bliss” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.).

1.1.14 L.2 ✅ यो ह्यन्यानानन्दयति स प्रचुरानन्द इति प्रसिद्धं भवति;
For it is well-known that he who confers bliss, has himself a plenitude of it.

1.1.14 L.3 ✅ यथा लोके योऽन्येषां धनिकत्वमापादयति स प्रचुरधन इति गम्यते, तद्वत्।
For just as in ordinary life, we understand that he who brings about ‘richness’ in others, must himself have such plenitude of wealth, similarly, it is like that.

1.1.14 L.4 ✅ तस्मात्प्राचुर्यार्थेऽपि मयटः सम्भवादानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा॥१४॥
Therefore as the word ‘Maya’ may also mean plenitude (of that to which it is affixed), ‘Ānandamaya’ is the Highest Self. — 14.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
मान्त्रवर्णिकमेव च गीयते॥१.१.१५॥
Māntra-varṇikam eva ca gīyate.

Māntra-varṇikam: He who is described in the Mantra portion; Eva: the very same; Ca: and also, moreover; Gīyate: is sung.

🔗 That same Brahman which has been expounded (in the previous Mantra) is (here) sung. — 1.1.15.

1.1.15 L.1 ✅ इतश्चानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा;
This is how again, ‘Ānandamaya’ is, of course, the Highest Self,

1.1.15 L.2 ✅ यस्मात् ‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्युपक्रम्य,
‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्यस्मिन्मन्त्रे यत् ब्रह्म प्रकृतं
Wherefore, having begun thus — “One who knows Brahman, attains Brahman,” —
The same Brahman, which is relevant to the context, in the Mantra — “Brahman is Truth, Knowledge and Infinite” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.) —

1.1.15 L.3 ✅ सत्यज्ञानानन्तविशेषणैर्निर्धारितम्,
And which has been determined to be characterized by the qualities of Truth, Knowledge and Infinitude,

1.1.15 L.4 ✅ यस्मादाकाशादिक्रमेण स्थावरजङ्गमानि भूतान्यजायन्त,
And from which all inanimate things and animate beings beginning with the Ākāśa were originated,

1.1.15 L.5 ✅ यच्च भूतानि सृष्ट्वा तान्यनुप्रविश्य गुहायामवस्थितं सर्वान्तरम्,
And which (Brahman) having created these beings has itself entered into them, and which remains confined in a cave and is inside all and everything,

1.1.15 L.6 ✅ यस्य विज्ञानाय ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा’ ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा’ इति प्रक्रान्तम्,
And for making which comprehensible, “another Self inside this Self, another Self inside this Self” is stated,

1.1.15 L.7 ✅ तन्मान्त्रवर्णिकमेव ब्रह्मेह गीयते –
‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मानन्दमयः’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इति।
The same Brahman which has been referred to in the Mantra “One who knows Brahman, attains the highest” is here sung thus —
“Still another Self inside this Self, is the Ānandamaya (Self)” (TaitU.2.5 Eng.).

1.1.15 L.8 ✅ मन्त्रब्राह्मणयोश्चैकार्थत्वं युक्तम्, अविरोधात्।
That, Mantra and Brāhmaṇa must agree in the same sense, is proper, because there is (supposed to be) no conflict between them.

1.1.15 L.9 ✅ अन्यथा हि प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रिये स्याताम्।
Otherwise it would be tantamount to giving up what is relevant and accepting what is not so relevant.

1.1.15 L.10 ✅ न चान्नमयादिभ्य इवानन्दमयादन्योऽन्तर आत्माभिधीयते।
Just as the ‘Ānandamaya’ Self is indicated to be inside the ‘Annamaya’ Self etc. similarly no other Self still inner than the ‘Ānandamaya’ is mentioned.

1.1.15 L.11 ✅ एतन्निष्ठैव च ‘सैषा भार्गवी वारुणी विद्या’ (TaitU.3.6.1) – ‘आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति।
The Lore (Vidyā) referred to in the Scriptural passage “This same is the Lore (Vidyā) which Bhṛgu derived from Varuṇa” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.) also is founded precisely on that i.e. Brahman.

1.1.15 L.12 ✅ तस्मादानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा॥१५॥
Therefore ‘Ānandamaya’ is the Highest Self. — 15.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
नेतरोऽनुपपत्तेः॥१.१.१६॥
Netaro'nupapatteḥ.

Na: not; Itaraḥ: the other, i.e., the Jīva; Anupapatteḥ: because of the impossibility, non-reasonableness.

🔗 The Ānandamaya-Self is not the other (i.e. the Jīva-Self), because it is not reasonably sustainable. — 1.1.16.

1.1.16 L.1 ✅ इतश्चानन्दमयः पर एवात्मा, नेतरः;
This again is how ‘Ānandamaya’-Self is the Highest Self and not the other one.

1.1.16 L.2 ✅ इतर ईश्वरादन्यः संसारी जीव इत्यर्थः।
The other one, other than the Lord, is the transmigratory Jīva-Self, is the meaning.

1.1.16 L.3 ✅ न जीव आनन्दमयशब्देनाभिधीयते। कस्मात्? अनुपपत्तेः।
The Jīva-Self is not expressed by the word ‘Ānandamaya’. Why? Because it is not reasonably sustainable.

1.1.16 L.4 ✅ आनन्दमयं हि प्रकृत्य श्रूयते – ‘सोऽकामयत। बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति।
स तपोऽतप्यत। स तपस्तप्त्वा। इदꣳ सर्वमसृजत। यदिदं किञ्च’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति।
It is with reference to the Ānandamaya Self that the Scriptures say thus: — “He desired, may I be many and may I create etc.,
He went into penance. Having performed penance, created He all this i.e. whatever that there is etc.” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).

1.1.16 L.5 ✅ तत्र प्राक्शरीराद्युत्पत्तेरभिध्यानम्,
Here, contemplation by him before the creation of a body,

1.1.16 L.6 ✅ सृज्यमानानां च विकाराणां स्रष्टुरव्यतिरेकः,
The absence of any difference between the modifications created, and their creator,

1.1.16 L.7 ✅ सर्वविकारसृष्टिश्च न परस्मादात्मनोऽन्यत्रोपपद्यते॥१६॥
And the creation of all the modifications about to be created, is not reasonably possible in the case of any entity other than the Highest Self. — 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
भेदव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.१.१७॥
Bheda-vyapadeśāc ca.

Bheda: difference; Vyapadeśāt: because of the declaration; Ca: and.

🔗 On account of the mention of distinction (Bheda) (the Ānandamaya is not the transmigratory Self). — 1.1.17.

1.1.17 L.1 ✅ इतश्च नानन्दमयः संसारी;
This is why, again, the ‘Ānandamaya Self’ is not the transmigratory Self.

1.1.17 L.2 ✅ यस्मादानन्दमयाधिकारे ‘रसो वै सः। रसꣳ ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति
जीवानन्दमयौ भेदेन व्यपदिशति।
In the ‘Ānandamaya’ chapter, the Scriptural passage “He verily is the quintessence (that satisfies); having obtained the quintessence he becomes full of bliss” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.)
Mentions the Jīva-Self, and the ‘Ānandamaya-Self’ as being distinct (from each other).

1.1.17 L.3 ✅ न हि लब्धैव लब्धव्यो भवति।
For, the one who is the recipient cannot at the same time be that which is received.

1.1.17 L.4 ✅ कथं तर्हि ‘आत्मान्वेष्टव्यः’ ‘आत्मलाभान्न परं विद्यते’ इति श्रुतिस्मृती,
यावता न लब्धैव लब्धव्यो भवतीत्युक्तम्?
If then it is said (says the opponent) that the recipient cannot at the same time be that which is received,
How then (would you reconcile) the Scriptural and Smṛti sentences — “The Self is to be sought for”, “There is nothing higher than the attainment of the Self”?

1.1.17 L.5 ✅ बाढम् – तथाप्यात्मनोऽप्रच्युतात्मभावस्यैव
सतस्तत्त्वानवबोधनिमित्तो मिथ्यैव देहादिष्वनात्मसु आत्मत्वनिश्चयो लौकिको दृष्टः।
Oh, alright (we say). But the Self, even though it is something which never deviates from its own selfhood,
Yet, in ordinary life, we see (the phenomenon), that because of not having properly understood the truth, there is a conviction that the body etc. which really are not the Selfs, are the Selfs.

1.1.17 L.6 ✅ तेन देहादिभूतस्यात्मनोऽपि आत्मा –
अनन्विष्टः ‘अन्वेष्टव्यः’, अलब्धः ‘लब्धव्यः’, अश्रुतः ‘श्रोतव्यः’, अमतः ‘मन्तव्यः’, अविज्ञातः ‘विज्ञातव्यः’ – इत्यादिभेदव्यपदेश उपपद्यते।
And therefore in the case of the Jīva-Self which has (through Nescience) egoistically identified itself with a body,
Scriptural instruction which makes a difference (between the highest Self and the Jīva-Self), thus — “The Self, which is not yet searched for, deserves to be searched, which is not yet heard, deserves to be heard, which is not yet cogitated upon, deserves to be cogitated upon, and which is not yet understood, deserves to be understood”, becomes reasonably sustainable.

1.1.17 L.7 ✅ प्रतिषिध्यत एव तु परमार्थतः
सर्वज्ञात्परमेश्वरादन्यो द्रष्टा श्रोता वा ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्यादिना।
But the Scriptures in the ultimate real sense do deny,
Of course, any seer or hearer, other than the omniscient supreme Lord, thus — “Than this, there is no other seer etc.” (BrhUEng.3.7.23).

1.1.17 L.8 ✅ परमेश्वरस्तु अविद्याकल्पिताच्छारीरात्कर्तुर्भोक्तुः विज्ञानात्माख्यात् अन्यः;
As for the supreme Lord, he is different from the one, who through Nescience is wrongly conceived to be the cognitional Self (Vijñānātmā) and the agent or doer and the experiencer.

1.1.17 L.9 ✅ यथा मायाविनश्चर्मखड्गधरात्सूत्रेणाकाशमधिरोहतः स एव मायावी परमार्थरूपो भूमिष्ठोऽन्यः;
Just as the real illusionist par excellence who stands on the ground, is different from the other illusory person, who appears to ascend into the sky by a rope with a sword and a leather shield in his hand,

1.1.17 L.10 ✅ यथा वा घटाकाशादुपाधिपरिच्छिन्नादनुपाधिपरिच्छिन्न आकाशोऽन्यः।
Or just as the real Ākāśa uncircumscribed by any limiting adjunct, is different from the Ākāśa in a jar, which is circumscribed with such a limiting adjunct (viz. the jar).

1.1.17 L.11 ✅ ईदृशं च विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मभेदमाश्रित्य ‘नेतरोऽनुपपत्तेः’ ‘भेदव्यपदेशाच्च’ इत्युक्तम्॥१७॥
It is on the basis of the assumption of a distinction of this nature between the Highest Self and the cognitional Self, that the two Sūtras (BrS.1.1.16 & 17) are propounded. — 17.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
कामाच्च नानुमानापेक्षा॥१.१.१८॥
Kāmāc ca nānumānāpekṣā.

Kāmāt: because of desire or willing; Ca: and; Na: not; Anumāna: the inferred one, i. e., the Pradhāna; Apekṣā: necessity.

🔗 On account of (the mention of) a desire (on the part of the ‘Ānandamaya’) there is no necessity of accepting that which is inferred (by the Sāṅkhyas) viz. the Pradhāna (as the cause). — 1.1.18.

1.1.18 L.1 ✅ आनन्दमयाधिकारे च ‘सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति कामयितृत्वनिर्देशात्
नानुमानिकमपि सांख्यपरिकल्पितमचेतनं प्रधानमानन्दमयत्वेन कारणत्वेन वा अपेक्षितव्यम्।
Because of the mention in the Ānandamaya Chapter of one who is desirous, thus — “He desired, may I be many, may I create” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.) —
We should not expect, the inferred non-sentient Pradhāna, imagined by the Sāṅkhyas, to be' either the Ānandamaya Self or the cause (of the world).

1.1.18 L.2 ✅ ‘ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम्’ (BrS.1.1.5) इति निराकृतमपि प्रधानं
Though the Pradhāna (claimed by the Sāṅkhyas as being the cause) has already been refuted by the Sūtra — “On account of thinking — is not — (it is) not based on Scriptures” — (BrS.1.1.5),

1.1.18 L.3 ✅ पूर्वसूत्रोदाहृतां कामयितृत्वश्रुतिमाश्रित्य प्रसङ्गात्पुनर्निराक्रियते गतिसामान्यप्रपञ्चनाय॥१८॥
It is again refuted here, casually, as occasion has offered, with reference to the Scriptural mention in the earlier Sūtra, of desire (on the part of the cause of the world), for the purpose of a further elaboration of the uniform trend (of the Scriptural passages). — 18.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अस्मिन्नस्य च तद्योगं शास्ति॥१.१.१९॥
Asminn asya ca tad-yogaṃ śāsti.

Asmin: in him; in the person called Ānandamaya; Asya: his, of the Jīva; Ca: and, also; Tat: that; Yogam: union; Śāsti: (Śruti) teaches.

🔗 (The Scriptures) teach the merging (Yoga) of this (i.e. the Jīva-Self) into this (i.e. in the Ānandamaya). — 1.1.19.

1.1.19 L.1 ✅ इतश्च न प्रधाने जीवे वानन्दमयशब्दः;
This is again why the word Ānandamaya is not applicable to the Pradhāna or the Jīva-Self.

1.1.19 L.2 ✅ यस्मादस्मिन्नानन्दमये प्रकृत आत्मनि, प्रतिबुद्धस्यास्य जीवस्य, तद्योगं शास्ति –
Because the Scriptures teach that the enlightened Jīva-Self becomes one with the Ānandamaya-Self which is the Self relevant to the context here.

1.1.19 L.3 ✅ तदात्मना योगस्तद्योगः, तद्भावापत्तिः, मुक्तिरित्यर्थः –
Becoming one with that Self means attaining its condition, i.e. attaining Final Release.

1.1.19 L.4 ✅ तद्योगं शास्ति शास्त्रम् –
The Śāstra teaches this becoming one with, thus —

1.1.19 L.5 ✅ ‘यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नदृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयनेऽभयं प्रतिष्ठां विन्दते। अथ सोऽभयं गतो भवति।
यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नुदरमन्तरं कुरुते। अथ तस्य भयं भवति’ (TaitU.2.7.1) (TaitU.2.7.1) इति।
“When he (i.e. the Jīva-Self) finds freedom from fear and a firm support in this Invisible, Incorporeal, Undefined and Unsuported one, then he attains fearlessness,
But when he is conscious of any the least little difference, then he must needs be assailed by fear.” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.) etc.

1.1.19 L.6 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति –
It has been said —

1.1.19 L.7 ✅ यदैतस्मिन्नानन्दमयेऽल्पमप्यन्तरमतादात्म्यरूपं पश्यति, तदा संसारभयान्न निवर्तते;
यदा त्वेतस्मिन्नानन्दमये निरन्तरं तादात्म्येन प्रतितिष्ठति, तदा संसारभयान्निवर्तत इति।
As long as he is conscious of the least little difference of the nature of nonidentity between himself and the Ānandamaya Self, he does not get a relief from the fear of transmigratory existence (Saṃsāra)
And as soon as he becomes firmly based, and becomes completely one with the Ānandamaya Self and completely coincides with the Ānandamaya Self, he finds a relief from the fear of transmigratory existence etc.

1.1.19 L.8 ✅ तच्च परमात्मपरिग्रहे घटते, न प्रधानपरिग्रहे जीवपरिग्रहे वा।
That is possible only when by Ānandamaya Self we understand the Highest Self, and not when we take it to mean either the Pradhāna or the Jīva-Self.

1.1.19 L.9 ✅ तस्मादानन्दमयः परमात्मेति स्थितम्॥१९॥
Therefore if stands established (says the Vṛtti-kāra) that Ānandamaya is the Highest Self.

1.1.19 L.10 ✅ इदं त्विह वक्तव्यम् –
It has to be said here however (says the Bhāṣya-kāra)

1.1.19 L.11 ✅ ‘स वा एष पुरुषोऽन्नरसमयः’ (TaitU.2.1.1)
‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादन्नरसमयादन्योऽन्तर आत्मा प्राणमयः’ (TaitU.2.2.1)
तस्मात् ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा मनोमयः’ (TaitU.2.3.1)
तस्मात् ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा विज्ञानमयः’ (TaitU.2.4.1) इति च विकारार्थे मयट्‍प्रवाहे सति,
That when there is this stream of ‘Maya’ affixes which indicate the structure of or the modification of (that to which it is affixed), thus —
“This Puruṣa here has the structure of the quintessence of food,
And inside this ‘Anna-rasamaya’ there is the inner Self which has the structure of vital air (Prāṇamaya)
And inside this Prāṇamaya there is the still inner Self which has the structure of the mind (Manomaya)
And inside the Manomaya there is a still further inner Self which has the structure of cognition (Vijñānamaya)” (TaitU.2.1,2,3,4 Eng.),

1.1.19 L.12 ✅ आनन्दमय एवाकस्मादर्धजरतीयन्यायेन कथमिव मयटः प्राचुर्यार्थत्वं ब्रह्मविषयत्वं चाश्रीयत इति।
— How can we capriciously on the analogy of the maxim of ‘a half of the old hag’ (Ardha-jaratīya Nyāya) accept ‘plenitude’ as the meaning of this ‘Maya’ affix in Ānandamaya, or that because of the ‘Maya’ affix, Ānandamaya means Brahman?

1.1.19 L.13 ✅ मान्त्रवर्णिकब्रह्माधिकारादिति चेत्,
If you were to say, that it should be so understood because the chapter is about Brahman as referred to in the Mantra,

1.1.19 L.14 ✅ न; अन्नमयादीनामपि तर्हि ब्रह्मत्वप्रसङ्गः।
We reply — No, because in that case there is the predicament of Annamaya etc. also meaning Brahman.

1.1.19 L.15 ✅ अत्राह – युक्तमन्नमयादीनामब्रह्मत्वम्,
Here (the Vṛtti-kāra) says — That the Annamaya etc. are not Brahman is only proper,

1.1.19 L.16 ✅ तस्मात्तस्मादान्तरस्यान्तरस्यान्यस्यान्यस्यात्मन उच्यमानत्वात्;
Because successively another inner Self and still another inner Self is mentioned in the case of each of these (first four),

1.1.19 L.17 ✅ आनन्दमयात्तु न कश्चिदन्य आन्तर आत्मोच्यते;
But no such other Self, inner than the Ānandamaya is mentioned,

1.1.19 L.18 ✅ तेनानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वम्,
And therefore the Ānandamaya Self is Brahman,

1.1.19 L.19 ✅ अन्यथा प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रियाप्रसङ्गादिति।
Otherwise, there will be the predicament of discarding what is relevant to the context, and accepting that which is not so relevant.

1.1.19 L.20 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – यद्यप्यन्नमयादिभ्य इवानन्दमयात् ‘अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा’ इति न श्रूयते,
With regard to this it is said — even though the Scriptures do not speak of any Self still inner than the Ānandamaya, as they do after Annamaya etc.,

1.1.19 L.21 ✅ तथापि नानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वम्;
Still Ānandamaya could not be Brahman,

1.1.19 L.22 ✅ यत आनन्दमयं प्रकृत्य श्रूयते –
‘तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः, मोदो दक्षिणः पक्षः, प्रमोद उत्तरः पक्षः,
आनन्द आत्मा, ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ (TaitU.2.5.1) इति।
In as much as, with reference to Ānandamaya the Scriptures declare thus —
“Joy is its caput, delight the right side, greater delight the left side,
Bliss (Ānanda) the Self, and Brahman the tail, the pedestal” (TaitU.2.5 Eng.).

1.1.19 L.23 ✅ तत्र यद्ब्रह्मेह मन्त्रवर्णे प्रकृतम् ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति, तदिह ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्युच्यते।
And the same Brahman which is relevant to the Mantra passage — “Truth, Knowledge, and Infinite is Brahman” — is precisely stated here as being “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”,

1.1.19 L.24 ✅ तद्विजिज्ञापयिषयैवान्नमयादय आनन्दमयपर्यन्ताः पञ्च कोशाः कल्प्यन्ते।
And it is with a desire to impart the knowledge of that, that beginning with Annamaya and ending with Ānandamaya these five sheaths are imagined.

1.1.19 L.25 ✅ तत्र कुतः प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रियाप्रसङ्गः।
So whence can there be any discarding of what is revelant and accepting of what is not?

1.1.19 L.26 ✅ नन्वानन्दमयस्यावयवत्वेन ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्युच्यते, अन्नमयादीनामिव ‘इदं पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यादि;
But (says the Vṛtti-kāra) just as in the case of Annamaya etc., this “the tail, the pedestal” is mentioned as the limb of Annamaya, even so “Brahman the tail, the pedestal” is mentioned here as the limb of Ānandamaya.

1.1.19 L.27 ✅ तत्र कथं ब्रह्मणः स्वप्रधानत्वं शक्यं विज्ञातुम्?
How can we then understand that here, Brahman is mentioned as the principal Brahman?

1.1.19 L.28 ✅ प्रकृतत्वादिति ब्रूमः।
To that we reply — Because it is the relevant thing.

1.1.19 L.29 ✅ नन्वानन्दमयावयवत्वेनापि ब्रह्मणि विज्ञायमाने न प्रकृतत्वं हीयते,
But (says the Vṛtti-kāra) — even if we understand Brahman (mentioned) as a limb of Ānandamaya it won’t detract in any way from Brahman being the relevant thing here,

1.1.19 L.30 ✅ आनन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वादिति;
Because (as we suggest) Ānandamaya itself is Brahman.

1.1.19 L.31 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – तथा सति तदेव ब्रह्म आनन्दमय आत्मा अवयवी,
To this we reply — In that case, to understand once, that the Ānandamaya Self, the whole entity possessed of limbs (Avayavin) as Brahman,

1.1.19 L.32 ✅ तदेव च ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा अवयव इत्यसामञ्जस्यं स्यात्।
And then again, to understand Ānandamaya’s causal appendage i.e. “the tail, the pedestal” which is a part (Avayava), as Brahman, would be incongruous.

1.1.19 L.33 ✅ अन्यतरपरिग्रहे तु युक्तम् ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यत्रैव ब्रह्मनिर्देश आश्रयितुम्,
When making a choice as between the two is inevitable, it is proper to accept an indication of Brahman in “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”

1.1.19 L.34 ✅ ब्रह्मशब्दसंयोगात्; नानन्दमयवाक्ये, ब्रह्मशब्दसंयोगाभावादिति।
As the word Brahman is actually mentioned in connection with that, and not in the sentence containing (the word) Ānandamaya, because of the absence of the word Brahman, in connection with that.

1.1.19 L.35 ✅ अपि च ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठेत्युक्त्वेदमुच्यते – ‘तदप्येष श्लोको भवति। असन्नेव स भवति। असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्। अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद। सन्तमेनं ततो विदुः’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति।
Moreover in continuation of the mention of “Brahman the tail, the pedestal” it is said — “The verse is sung. The verse is that — He who understands that Brahman is not, himself does not exist, but if he knows that Brahman is, then he is known as existing” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).

1.1.19 L.36 ✅ अस्मिंश्च श्लोकेऽननुकृष्यानन्दमयं ब्रह्मण एव भावाभाववेदनयोर्गुणदोषाभिधानाद्गम्यते –
‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यत्र ब्रह्मण एव स्वप्रधानत्वमिति।
As without bringing up Ānandamaya any further, merit and demerit are mentioned as being the result of knowing Brahman as existing or not existing respectively, we understand that
The principal Brahman by itself is mentioned in the sentence — “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”.

1.1.19 L.37 ✅ न चानन्दमयस्यात्मनो भावाभावाशङ्का युक्ता,
It would not be reasonable to doubt whether the Ānandamaya Self exists or does not exist,

1.1.19 L.38 ✅ प्रियमोदादिविशिष्टस्यानन्दमयस्य सर्वलोकप्रसिद्धत्वात्।
Because the Ānandamaya Self as specially characterised by joy and bliss etc. is well-known to all.

1.1.19 L.39 ✅ कथं पुनः स्वप्रधानं सद्ब्रह्म आनन्दमयस्य पुच्छत्वेन निर्दिश्यते – ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इति?
But (says the Vṛtti-kāra) how can Brahman which is the principal thing by itself, be mentioned as being the tail of Ānandamaya?

1.1.19 L.40 ✅ नैष दोषः।
To this objection we reply — This is no fault,

1.1.19 L.41 ✅ पुच्छवत्पुच्छम्, प्रतिष्ठा परायणमेकनीडं लौकिकस्यानन्दजातस्य ब्रह्मानन्दः इत्येतदनेन विवक्ष्यते,
Because, the bliss of Brahman is the tail, like a tail, i.e. it is the support or pedestal, the last resort, the one and only one nest (abode) of all worldly pleasures, is intended to be mentioned by this (i.e. Brahman the tail, the pedestal)

1.1.19 L.42 ✅ नावयवत्वम्; ‘एतस्यैवानन्दस्यान्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्ति’ (BrhU.4.3.32) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
And there is no intention of mentioning a limb (as such), because another Scriptural passage says — “All beings sustain themselves on portions of this bliss only” (BrhUEng.4.3.32).

1.1.19 L.43 ✅ अपि चानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वे प्रियाद्यवयवत्वेन सविशेषं ब्रह्माभ्युपगन्तव्यम्;
Moreover if by Ānandamaya we understand Brahman, we should understand it as Sa-guṇa (qualified by attributes) Brahman, because it is said to have limbs such as bliss etc.

1.1.19 L.44 ✅ निर्विशेषं तु ब्रह्म वाक्यशेषे श्रूयते, वाङ्मनसयोरगोचरत्वाभिधानात् –
‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते। अप्राप्य मनसा सह। आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्। न बिभेति कुतश्चन’ (TaitU.2.9.1) इति।
Brahman uncharacterized by any attributes i.e. Nir-guṇa Brahman is mentioned in the residuary passage as being unperceivable by speech or the mind in the Scriptural passage —
“Unable to attain it (i.e. Brahman), speech along with the mind is turned back. One who has knowledge of the bliss of Brahman, has no fear from any quarter” (TaitU.2.9 Eng.).

1.1.19 L.45 ✅ अपि चानन्दप्रचुर इत्युक्ते दुःखास्तित्वमपि गम्यते;
Besides if we speak about a ‘Plenitude’ of bliss (about a thing) it necessarily is understood to imply the existence of at least some pain,

1.1.19 L.46 ✅ प्राचुर्यस्य लोके प्रतियोग्यल्पत्वापेक्षत्वात्।
Because in the ordinary world ‘Plenitude’ (of any thing) does imply at least a small measure of its antonym also.

1.1.19 L.47 ✅ तथा च सति ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति, नान्यच्छृणोति, नान्यद्विजानाति, स भूमा’ (ChanU.7.24.1) इति भूम्नि ब्रह्मणि तद्व्यतिरिक्ताभावश्रुतिरुपरुध्येत।
In that case the Scriptural passage — “Where he sees nothing else, understands nothing else, he is the Bhūmā” (ChanU.7.24.1) — where, the statement that in Bhūmā which is Brahman, everything else except that is absent, would be contradicted.

1.1.19 L.48 ✅ प्रतिशरीरं च प्रियादिभेदादानन्दमयस्य भिन्नत्वम्;
‘Joy etc.’ being different, in different bodies, the Ānandamaya Self also would be different in every body,

1.1.19 L.49 ✅ ब्रह्म तु न प्रतिशरीरं भिद्यते,
While Brahman on the other hand does not so differ in different bodies,

1.1.19 L.50 ✅ ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्यानन्त्यश्रुतेः
Because the Scriptural passage — “Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, and Infinity” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.) indicates its infinitude,

1.1.19 L.51 ✅ ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (SvetU.6.11) इति च श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
And also because of another Scriptural passage — “He is the one and only one God hidden in all beings, he is all-pervading and the inner-Self of all beings” (SvetU.6.11).

1.1.19 L.52 ✅ न चानन्दमयस्याभ्यासः श्रूयते। प्रातिपदिकार्थमात्रमेव हि सर्वत्राभ्यस्यते –
Moreover the Scriptures do not show any repetition of the word Ānandamaya, but of only the radical part of the compound word, viz., Ānanda, thus —

1.1.19 L.53 ✅ ‘रसो वै सः। रसꣳ ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति। को ह्येवान्यात्कः प्राण्यात्। यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्’ (TaitU.2.7.1)
‘सैषानन्दस्य मीमाꣳसा भवति’ (TaitU.2.8.2)
‘आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति’ (TaitU.2.9.1)
“He verily is the quintessence, he having attained that quintessence, becomes happy. By what else could any one sustain oneself if this Ākāśa (i.e. the Ātmā abiding in the Hṛdaya in the form of the Ākāśa) were not to be bliss?
This here is the analytical interpretation of bliss.
A man who knows the bliss of Brahman, is not afraid of anything.” (TaitU.2.7–9 Eng.).

1.1.19 L.54 ✅ ‘आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति च।
“He knew that Ānanda is Brahman.” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.).

1.1.19 L.55 ✅ यदि चानन्दमयशब्दस्य ब्रह्मविषयत्वं निश्चितं भवेत्,
If it could be definitely concluded that the word Ānandamaya means Brahman,

1.1.19 L.56 ✅ तत उत्तरेष्वानन्दमात्रप्रयोगेष्वप्यानन्दमयाभ्यासः कल्प्येत;
Then we may imagine that in the subsequent use of the mere word Ānanda, there is a repetition of the word Ānandamaya,

1.1.19 L.57 ✅ न त्वानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मत्वमस्ति, प्रियशिरस्त्वादिभिर्हेतुभिरित्यवोचाम;
But we have already stated, how by reason of (the mention of) “Joy is the caput” etc., Ānandamaya could not be Brahman.

1.1.19 L.58 ✅ तस्माच्छ्रुत्यन्तरे ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.9.28)
इत्यानन्दप्रातिपदिकस्य ब्रह्मणि प्रयोगदर्शनात्,
Therefore, as in another Scriptural passage — “Knowledge and bliss is Brahman” (BrhUEng.3.9.28)
We find that only the radical part (of the compound word Ānandamaya) viz. the word Ānanda, is used in the sense of Brahman,

1.1.19 L.59 ✅ ‘यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति ब्रह्मविषयः प्रयोगो न त्वानन्दमयाभ्यास इत्यवगन्तव्यम्।
It should be understood that in the Scriptural passage — “If Ākāśa were not to be Ānanda” — the word Ānanda is used in the sense of Brahman, and is by no means a repetition of the word Ānandamaya.

1.1.19 L.60 ✅ यस्त्वयं मयडन्तस्यैवानन्दमयशब्दस्याभ्यासः ‘एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति’ (TaitU.2.8.5) इति, न तस्य ब्रह्मविषयत्वमस्ति;
The repetition of Ānandamaya, i.e. Ānanda with the ‘Maya’ affix, that is seen in — “He reaches beyond (i.e. gives up) the Ānandamaya Self” (TaitU.2.8 Eng.) — does not refer to Brahman,

1.1.19 L.61 ✅ विकारात्मनामेवान्नमयादीनामनात्मनामुपसङ्क्रमितव्यानां प्रवाहे पठितत्वात्।
As it is mentioned along with the stream of those other non-Selfs, such as the Annamaya etc., which are of the nature of modifications and which have to be abandoned by proper discrimination.

1.1.19 L.62 ✅ नन्वानन्दमयस्योपसङ्क्रमितव्यस्यान्नमयादिवदब्रह्मत्वे सति नैव विदुषो ब्रह्मप्राप्तिः फलं निर्दिष्टं भवेत्।
But then (says the Vṛtti-kāra), if the Ānandamaya Self which has to be thus abandoned after proper discrimination, were, like the Annamaya etc., not to be Brahman, the Scriptures would not mention, that a person who knows thus, attains the fruit viz. the attainment of Brahman.

1.1.19 L.63 ✅ नैष दोषः,
To this objection we reply — This is no fault,

1.1.19 L.64 ✅ आनन्दमयोपसङ्क्रमणनिर्देशेनैव विदुषः पुच्छप्रतिष्ठाभूतब्रह्मप्राप्तेः फलस्य निर्दिष्टत्वात्,
Because precisely by that very indication about the giving up of Ānandamaya by proper discrimination, the attainment of the fruit viz. Brahman, which is “the tail, the pedestal”, also happens to be indicated,

1.1.19 L.65 ✅ ‘तदप्येष श्लोको भवति’ ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते’ इत्यादिना च प्रपञ्च्यमानत्वात्।
And also because of the further elaboration of the same made by the Scriptural passages — “That the verse is sung”, and “from which the speech (Vāk) is thrown back” etc.

1.1.19 L.66 ✅ या त्वानन्दमयसन्निधाने ‘सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इतीयं श्रुतिरुदाहृता,
The Scriptural passage “He desired, may I be many” which is mentioned (by the Vṛtti-kāra) as being recited near the word Ānandamaya (in the sentence),

1.1.19 L.67 ✅ सा ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यनेन सन्निहिततरेण ब्रह्मणा सम्बध्यमाना नानन्दमयस्य ब्रह्मतां प्रतिबोधयति।
Being however connected with Brahman, as mentioned in “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”, which is even still nearer to it, does not indicate that Ānandamaya is Brahman,

1.1.19 L.68 ✅ तदपेक्षत्वाच्चोत्तरस्य ग्रन्थस्य ‘रसो वै सः’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इत्यादेर्नानन्दमयविषयता।
And in as much as, the subsequent passage, viz. “He verily is the quintessence”, is with reference to that, it has no concern with Ānandamaya.

1.1.19 L.69 ✅ ननु ‘सोऽकामयत’ इति ब्रह्मणि पुंलिङ्गनिर्देशो नोपपद्यते।
But (objects the Vṛtti-kāra) in the case of Brahman (which is the word of the neuter gender), the mention of the masculine gender as in “He desired” would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.1.19 L.70 ✅ नायं दोषः, ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ इत्यत्र पुंलिङ्गेनाप्यात्मशब्देन ब्रह्मणः प्रकृतत्वात्।
To this we reply — This is no fault, because in the Scriptural passage “From that very Ātmā (Self) the Ākāśa was born”, Brahman has been referred to by the word Ātmā (Self) which is of the masculine gender.

1.1.19 L.71 ✅ यत्तु भार्गवी वारुणी विद्या – ‘आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात्’ (TaitU.3.6.1) इति,
तस्यां मयडश्रवणात्प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यश्रवणाच्च युक्तमानन्दस्य ब्रह्मत्वम्।
As regards the Lore (Vidyā) of Bhṛgu, derived from Varuṇa viz. “He understood Ānanda to be Brahman” —
In which there is no mention of the ‘Maya’ affix, or of “Joy is the caput” etc., that Ānanda means Brahman, is proper.

1.1.19 L.72 ✅ तस्मादणुमात्रमपि विशेषमनाश्रित्य न स्वत एव प्रियशिरस्त्वादि ब्रह्मण उपपद्यते।
Therefore, without having recourse to even an iota of qualifying distinction, it is not reasonably sustainable to ascribe to Brahman in itself any such (qualifying distinction) as “Joy is the caput” etc.

1.1.19 L.73 ✅ न चेह सविशेषं ब्रह्म प्रतिपिपादयिषितम्, वाङ्मनसगोचरातिक्रमश्रुतेः।
Because the Scriptures mention that Brahman transcends speech and the mind, it (obviously) is not intended to expound qualified Brahman here.

1.1.19 L.74 ✅ तस्मादन्नमयादिष्विवानन्दमयेऽपि विकारार्थ एव मयट् विज्ञेयः, न प्राचुर्यार्थः॥
Therefore, as in the case of ‘Annamaya’ etc. so in the case of Ānandamaya also, the Maya-affix should be understood as signifying ‘having the structure of’, or, ‘being the modification of’ and not plenitude.

1.1.19 L.75 ✅ सूत्राणि त्वेवं व्याख्येयानि –
So, the Sūtras should be explained as follows: —

1.1.19 L.76 ✅ ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्यत्र
In “Brahman the tail, the pedestal” (TaitU.2.5 Eng.) a doubt arises, thus —

1.1.19 L.77 ✅ किमानन्दमयावयवत्वेन ब्रह्म विवक्ष्यते,
Is it intended to mention Brahman as being a limb of Ānandamaya,

1.1.19 L.78 ✅ उत स्वप्रधानत्वेनेति।
or is Brahman itself as such, intended to be mentioned?

1.1.19 L.79 ✅ पुच्छशब्दादवयवत्वेनेति प्राप्ते,
(If the conclusion of the Vṛtti-kāra is) — Because of the word ‘tail’ it (i.e. Brahman) is intended to be mentioned as a limb —

1.1.19 L.80 ✅ उच्यते – आनन्दमयोऽभ्यासात् – आनन्दमय आत्मा इत्यत्र ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इति स्वप्रधानमेव ब्रह्मोपदिश्यते; अभ्यासात्
We reply, that in the Sūtra — “Ānandamaya (is Brahman), Because of the repetition” (BrS.1.1.12) — in the sentence, the Self is Ānandamaya, Brahman as such, is taught by the words “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”, because there is repetition (of Brahman).

1.1.19 L.81 ✅ ‘असन्नेव स भवति’ इत्यस्मिन्निगमनश्लोके ब्रह्मण एव केवलस्याभ्यस्यमानत्वात्।
Because in the illustrative verse — “He is as if he is non-existent” — it is Brahman that is repeatedly spoken of.

1.1.19 L.82 ✅ विकारशब्दान्नेति चेत्
If it be said, it is not so, because of a word meaning ‘modification’ (Vikāra) (BrS.1.1.13),

1.1.19 L.83 ✅ न प्राचुर्यात् – विकारशब्देनावयवशब्दोऽभिप्रेतः;
(We say) — no, because of plenitude. By the word modification here, a limb is meant.

1.1.19 L.84 ✅ पुच्छमित्यवयवशब्दान्न स्वप्रधानत्वं ब्रह्मण इति यदुक्तम्, तस्य परिहारो वक्तव्यः;
It is necessary to refute the doubt expressed — that as by the word ‘the tail’ a limb is indicated, Brahman as such is not its meaning.

1.1.19 L.85 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – नायं दोषः,
With regard to this (doubt) we say — This is no fault,

1.1.19 L.86 ✅ प्राचुर्यादप्यवयवशब्दोपपत्तेः; प्राचुर्यं प्रायापत्तिः, अवयवप्राये वचनमित्यर्थः;
Because the word Bhūmā (Plenitude) also, may indicate a ‘limb’ which comes about to mean that in the passage many words meaning limbs are referred to.

1.1.19 L.87 ✅ अन्नमयादीनां हि शिरआदिषु पुच्छान्तेष्ववयवेषूक्तेष्वानन्दमयस्यापि शिरआदीन्यवयवान्तराण्युक्त्वा अवयवप्रायापत्त्या ‘ब्रह्म पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा’ इत्याह,
Limbs from head to tail having been mentioned in the case of ‘Annamaya’ etc., similar limbs are mentioned in the case of Ānandamaya also, such as ‘Caput’ etc. and as in this way limbs are often mentioned (in the passages about Annamaya up to Vijñānamaya) it is also similarly mentioned in the case of Ānandamaya, thus viz. — “Brahman the tail, the pedestal”.

1.1.19 L.88 ✅ नावयवविवक्षया; यत्कारणम् ‘अभ्यासात्’ इति स्वप्रधानत्वं ब्रह्मणः समर्थितम्।
But there is no intention here, of mentioning limbs, because earlier it has been established that Brahman is not mentioned as a limb, but Brahman as such is mentioned. It is because of this reason that we have explained that “by repetition” Brahman as such is indicated (in “Brahman, the tail, pedestal”).

1.1.19 L.89 ✅ तद्धेतुव्यपदेशाच्च –
In the Sūtra — “Because it is propounded that it is the cause” —

1.1.19 L.90 ✅ सर्वस्य हि विकारजातस्य सानन्दमयस्य कारणत्वेन ब्रह्म व्यपदिश्यते – ‘इदꣳ सर्वमसृजत, यदिदं किञ्च’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति।
As Brahman is indicated as being the cause of the aggregate of modifications including Ānandamaya, thus — “(He) created all this, whatever there is” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.).

1.1.19 L.91 ✅ न च कारणं सद्ब्रह्म स्वविकारस्यानन्दमयस्य मुख्यया वृत्त्यावयव उपपद्यते।
Brahman thus being the cause (of its modifications), it is not reasonably sustainable to say, that it is the limb of its own modification viz. Ānandamaya, by understanding the word ‘limb’ in its primary sense.

1.1.19 L.92 ✅ अपराण्यपि सूत्राणि यथासम्भवं पुच्छवाक्यनिर्दिष्टस्यैव ब्रह्मण उपपादकानि द्रष्टव्यानि॥१२–१९॥
The other Sūtras also may, so far as possible, be understood to expound ‘Brahman’ as indicated by the sentence referring to the tail. — 11–19.

– 6. Ānandamaya-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.1.20 Su..21

←Prev Next→
अन्तस्तद्धर्मोपदेशात्॥१.१.२०॥
Antas tad-dharmopadeśāt.

Antaḥ: (Antar-ātmā, the being within the sun and the eye); Tat-Dharma: His essential attribute; Upadeśāt: because of the teaching, as Śruti teaches.

🔗 The one inside (the sun and the eyes is the Highest Self) because (here) its attributes are propounded. — 1.1.20.

1.1.20 L.1 ✅ इदमाम्नायते –
The Scriptures mention as follows: —

1.1.20 L.2 ✅ ‘अथ य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये हिरण्मयः पुरुषो दृश्यते हिरण्यश्मश्रुर्हिरण्यकेश आ प्रणखात्सर्व एव सुवर्णः’ (ChanU.1.6.6)
“This aureate-complexioned Puruṣa that is seen in the Sun, having an aureate beard and hair, and who is aureate all over down to his nails”;

1.1.20 L.3 ✅ ‘तस्य यथा कप्यासं पुण्डरीकमेवमक्षिणी तस्योदिति नाम स एष सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्य उदित उदेति ह वै सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्यो य एवं वेद ... इत्यधिदैवतम्’ (ChanU.1.6.7-8)
“His eyes are (pink) like a lotus which is (pink) like the seat of a monkey; his name is ‘Ut’, he has come out clear of all sin; he who knows it to be like this, also comes out clear of all sin”; “This is with reference to the deities (Devas)” (ChanU.1.6.7–8).

1.1.20 L.4 ✅ ‘अथाध्यात्मम् ... अथ य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ (ChanU.1.7.1) (ChanU.1.7.5) इत्यादि।
Further on also, with reference to the body “This Puruṣa that is seen in the eyes” etc. (ChanU.1.7.1–5).

1.1.20 L.5 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
Now (in this case) the doubt arises,

1.1.20 L.6 ✅ किं विद्याकर्मातिशयवशात्प्राप्तोत्कर्षः कश्चित्संसारी सूर्यमण्डले चक्षुषि चोपास्यत्वेन श्रूयते,
Whether here the Scriptures mention some one who belongs to the transmigratory condition (Saṃsārin), who, because of the profundity of his knowledge (Vidyā) and action (Karma) has acquired great eminence (Utkarṣa) and who as the one in the Sun and the eyes, is mentioned as an object of devotion,

1.1.20 L.7 ✅ किं वा नित्यसिद्धः परमेश्वर इति।
Or whether, the eternally perfect, Supreme Lord, is mentioned.

1.1.20 L.8 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? संसारीति।
What then is (the conclusion) arrived at (by the opponent)? That a Puruṣa in a transmigratory condition is meant.

1.1.20 L.9 ✅ कुतः? रूपवत्त्वश्रवणात्।
How so? Because the Scriptures mention the Puruṣa as one having a form.

1.1.20 L.10 ✅ आदित्यपुरुषे तावत् ‘हिरण्यश्मश्रुः’ इत्यादि रूपमुदाहृतम्;
As regards the Puruṣa in the Sun, its form viz. his having an aureate beard, is mentioned,

1.1.20 L.11 ✅ अक्षिपुरुषेऽपि तदेवातिदेशेन प्राप्यते ‘तस्यैतस्य तदेव रूपं यदमुष्य रूपम्’ इति।
And by an extended application (Atideśa), the same is made applicable to the Puruṣa in the eyes, thus — “The form of this one is the same as that of the other”,

1.1.20 L.12 ✅ न च परमेश्वरस्य रूपवत्त्वं युक्तम्, ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (KathU.1.3.15) इति श्रुतेः;
While it is impossible to ascribe ‘form’ to the Supreme Lord, because the Scriptures mention that “he is sans-Sound, sans-Touch, sans-Form and sans-Decay” (KathU.1.3.15).

1.1.20 L.13 ✅ आधारश्रवणाच्च – ‘य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि’ इति।
Also, because of the mention by the Scriptures of an abode, thus — “He who is in the Sun, he who is in the eyes”.

1.1.20 L.14 ✅ न ह्यनाधारस्य स्वमहिमप्रतिष्ठस्य सर्वव्यापिनः परमेश्वरस्याधार उपदिश्येत।
There cannot possibly be any mention of an abode in the case of the Supreme Lord, who (according to Scriptures) is without any special abode, who is all-pervading and well-ensconced in his own glory,

1.1.20 L.15 ✅ ‘स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि’ (ChanU.7.24.1) इति
As is seen in the Scriptural passage — “Where, Oh revered one, has He his abode? (The reply is) In His own glory” (ChanU.7.24.1).

1.1.20 L.16 ✅ ‘आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः’ (शत. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) इति च श्रुती भवतः।
“Like the Ākāśa he is all-pervading and eternal” etc.

1.1.20 L.17 ✅ ऐश्वर्यमर्यादाश्रुतेश्च –
Also because the Scriptures speak of their limited power, thus: —

1.1.20 L.18 ✅ ‘स एष ये चामुष्मात्पराञ्चो लोकास्तेषां चेष्टे देवकामानां च’ (ChanU.1.6.8) इत्यादित्यपुरुषस्य ऐश्वर्यमर्यादा;
“He who is the Lord of the worlds beyond (the Sun) and of the desires of the deities (Devas)” — in the case of the Puruṣa in the Sun (ChanU.1.6.8),

1.1.20 L.19 ✅ ‘स एष ये चैतस्मादर्वाञ्चो लोकास्तेषां चेष्टे मनुष्यकामानां च’ (ChanU.1.7.6) इत्यक्षिपुरुषस्य।
And “Who is Lord of the worlds below and of the desires of men” (ChanU.1.7.6) — in the case of the Puruṣa in the eyes.

1.1.20 L.20 ✅ न च परमेश्वरस्य मर्यादावदैश्वर्यं युक्तम्;
It is not possible to conceive of any limit in the case of the Supreme Lord

1.1.20 L.21 ✅ ‘एष सर्वेश्वर एष भूताधिपतिरेष भूतपाल एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां लोकानामसंभेदाय’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यविशेषश्रुतेः।
As would be seen from the Scriptural passage — “He is the Lord of all, the head of all beings, the protector of all beings, and the bund that supports i.e. upholds the worlds, so that they may not be confounded (by promiscuity)” (BrhUEng.4.4.22) — which does not mention any limiting adjuncts.

1.1.20 L.22 ✅ तस्मान्नाक्ष्यादित्ययोरन्तः परमेश्वर इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Therefore the Puruṣa in the Sun and in the eyes is not the Supreme Lord.

1.1.20 L.23 ✅ अन्तस्तद्धर्मोपदेशात् इति। ‘य एषोऽन्तरादित्ये’ ‘य एषोऽन्तरक्षिणि’ इति च श्रूयमाणः पुरुषः परमेश्वर एव, न संसारी।
To this conclusion, we reply — “The one inside (the Sun and the eyes, is the Highest Self), because here His i.e. the Lord’s attributes are propounded”. The Puruṣa that is mentioned in “this Puruṣa in the Sun” and “this Puruṣa in the eyes” — is the Highest Lord, and not a person in a transmigratory condition.

1.1.20 L.24 ✅ कुतः? तद्धर्मोपदेशात्।
How so? Because, its (i.e. the Lord’s) attributes are propounded.

1.1.20 L.25 ✅ तस्य हि परमेश्वरस्य धर्मा इहोपदिष्टाः।
The attributes of the Highest Lord are here propounded thus —

1.1.20 L.26 ✅ तद्यथा – ‘तस्योदिति नाम’ इति श्रावयित्वा तस्यादित्यपुरुषस्य नाम ‘स एष सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्य उदितः’ इति सर्वपाप्मापगमेन निर्वक्ति।
Having mentioned that “His name is Ut”, the Scriptures etymologically derive the name of this Puruṣa in the Sun by mentioning his being free from all sin, thus — “He rises clear out of all sin”,

1.1.20 L.27 ✅ तदेव च कृतनिर्वचनं नामाक्षिपुरुषस्याप्यतिदिशति – ‘यन्नाम तन्नाम’ इति।
And then, the same name, which is etymologically so derived, is, by an extended application, mentioned as being the name of the Puruṣa in the eyes also, thus — “The name (of the one) is the name (of the other).”

1.1.20 L.28 ✅ सर्वपाप्मापगमश्च परमात्मन एव श्रूयते – ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इत्यादौ।
Separation from (i.e. having no contact with) all sin, is possible only in the case of the Highest Lord, as mentioned in the following Scriptural passages — “The Self (Ātmā) which is free from all sin” (ChanU.8.7.1) etc.

1.1.20 L.29 ✅ तथा चाक्षुषे पुरुषे ‘सैव ऋक् तत्साम तदुक्थं तद्यजुस्तद्ब्रह्म’ इति ऋक्सामाद्यात्मकतां निर्धारयति।
Similarly, in the case of the Puruṣa in the eyes, he is definitely ascertained to be the self of the Ṛk and the Sāman etc., thus — “She is the Ṛk, that is the Sāman, and the Uktha (a special collection of hymns recited in a sacrifice), the Yajus, the Brahman”.

1.1.20 L.30 ✅ सा च परमेश्वरस्योपपद्यते, सर्वकारणत्वात्सर्वात्मकत्वोपपत्तेः।
This, being the Self (of the Ṛk and the Sāman etc.), is reasonably sustainable only in the case of the Highest Lord, because, being the cause of all, and the Self of all, it is reasonably sustainable in his case.

1.1.20 L.31 ✅ पृथिव्यग्न्याद्यात्मके चाधिदैवतमृक्सामे,वाक्प्राणाद्यात्मके चाध्यात्ममनुक्रम्याह – ‘तस्यर्क्च साम च गेष्णौ’ इत्यधिदैवतम्।
Then, having commenced by mentioning, that the Ṛk and the Sāman have the earth and the Agni respectively as their Selfs, with reference to the Devas (Adhidaivatā), and that the same Ṛk and Sāman have the Vāk (speech) and the Prāṇa as their Selfs respectively,

1.1.20 L.32 ✅ तथाध्यात्ममपि – ‘यावमुष्य गेष्णौ तौ गेष्णौ’ इति।
With reference to the body (Adhyātma), the Scriptures proceed to mention, thus — “With reference to the Devas (in the case of the Puruṣa in the Sun) the Ṛk and the Sāman) are the joints (of the foot), and with reference to the body, joints in the former case, are the joints in the latter” etc.

1.1.20 L.33 ✅ तच्च सर्वात्मकत्वे सत्येवोपपद्यते।
Now that is possible only in the case of one who is the Self of all.

1.1.20 L.34 ✅ ‘तद्य इमे वीणायां गायन्त्येतं ते गायन्ति तस्मात्ते धनसनयः’ (ChanU.1.7.6) इति च लौकिकेष्वपि गानेष्वस्यैव गीयमानत्वं दर्शयति।
And the Scriptures show, that even in the case of singing, in the ordinary world, the same self of all is sung about, by mentioning thus — “And those who sing to the accompaniment of a Vīṇa (lute), sing about Him (i.e. the Self of all) only, and therefore they become possessed of wealth” (ChanU.1.7.6).

1.1.20 L.35 ✅ तच्च परमेश्वरपरिग्रह एव घटते –
This fits in properly in the case of the Highest Lord only.

1.1.20 L.36 ✅ ‘यद्यद्विभूतिमत्सत्त्वं श्रीमदूर्जितमेव वा। तत्तदेवावगच्छ त्वं मम तेजोंशसम्भवम्’ (BhG.10.41) इति भगवद्गीतादर्शनात्।
For the Smṛti says — “Whatever being, possessed of power, glory, or strength, is there, know it to have been generated from my Tejas (energy)” (BhG.10.41).

1.1.20 L.37 ✅ लोककामेशितृत्वमपि निरङ्कुशं श्रूयमाणं परमेश्वरं गमयति।
Besides, the being possessed of the power to rule the worlds and desires without let or hindrance, that we hear mentioned, also indicates the Highest Lord.

1.1.20 L.38 ✅ यत्तूक्तं हिरण्यश्मश्रुत्वादिरूपवत्त्वश्रवणं परमेश्वरे नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the objection (raised by the opponent), that the mention in the Scriptures, of form such as having an aureate beard etc., is not reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Lord,

1.1.20 L.39 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापीच्छावशान्मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम्,
‘माया ह्येषा मया सृष्टा यन्मां पश्यसि नारद। सर्वभूतगुणैर्युक्तं मैवं मां ज्ञातुमर्हसि’ इति स्मरणात्।
We reply — It may well be the illusory form assumed by the Lord, at will, with a desire to extend his grace to the devout worshipper,
Because the Smṛti says, “What you see before you, Oh Nārada, is the Māyā generated by me. It is not correct to understand me as one endowed with all the attributes of beings.”

1.1.20 L.40 ✅ अपि च, यत्र तु निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपमुपदिश्यते, भवति तत्र शास्त्रम्
‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (KathU.1.3.15) इत्यादि।
However, where the form (Rūpa) of the highest Lord, divested of all kinds of adjuncts, is propounded, there the Śāstra is —
“(The Brahman) is, sans-Sound, sans-Touch, sans-Form and sans-Decay” (KathU.1.3.15), etc.

1.1.20 L.41 ✅ सर्वकारणत्वात्तु विकारधर्मैरपि कैश्चिद्विशिष्टः परमेश्वर उपास्यत्वेन निर्दिश्यते –
‘सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादिना।
Because the Highest Lord is the cause of all, the Highest Lord as endowed with the qualities of its modifications is also indicated as an object of devotion, thus —
“The repository of all actions, desires, fragrances and tastes etc.” (ChanU.3.14.2).

1.1.20 L.42 ✅ तथा हिरण्यश्मश्रुत्वादिनिर्देशोऽपि भविष्यति।
In the same way, it may well be that the Lord may also be referred to as one having an aureate beard.

1.1.20 L.43 ✅ यदप्याधारश्रवणान्न परमेश्वर इति,
To the objection (of the opponent Vṛtti-kāra), that because of the mention of an abode, it cannot be the Highest Lord,

1.1.20 L.44 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – स्वमहिमप्रतिष्ठस्याप्याधारविशेषोपदेश उपासनार्थो भविष्यति;
सर्वगतत्वाद्ब्रह्मणो व्योमवत्सर्वान्तरत्वोपपत्तेः।
We reply — The propounding of Him who is perfectly ensconced in his own glory, as one having an abode, may also be for the purpose of devotion,
Because Brahman being all-pervading, it can be reasonably sustainable, that like Ākāśa, it is inside anything and everything.

1.1.20 L.45 ✅ ऐश्वर्यमर्यादाश्रवणमप्यध्यात्माधिदैवतविभागापेक्षमुपासनार्थमेव।
The Scriptural mention of a limit to his Lordly might, with reference to its division into its Adhidaivatā and Adhyātma aspects, is also for the purpose of devotion.

1.1.20 L.46 ✅ तस्मात्परमेश्वर एवाक्ष्यादित्ययोरन्तरुपदिश्यते॥२०॥
Therefore it is the Highest Lord that is propounded as being the Puruṣa in the sun and the eyes. — 20.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
भेदव्यपदेशाच्चान्यः॥१.१.२१॥
Bheda-vyapadeśāc cānyaḥ.

Bheda: difference; Vyapadeśāt: because of declaration; Ca: and, also; Anyaḥ: is different, another, other than the Jīva or the individual soul.

🔗 Besides, (the Puruṣa in the orb of the sun) is different (from the Jīva-Self), because there is a reference (in the Scriptures) to a distinction (between the two). — 1.1.21.

1.1.21 L.1 ✅ अस्ति चादित्यादिशरीराभिमानिभ्यो जीवेभ्योऽन्य ईश्वरोऽन्तर्यामी –
The Lord, the internal ruler is of course different from the Jīva-Self that identifies itself with the body of the Sun (Āditya) etc., because such a statement of difference (between the two) is mentioned in another Scriptural passage thus —

1.1.21 L.2 ✅ ‘य आदित्ये तिष्ठन्नादित्यादन्तरो यमादित्यो न वेद यस्यादित्यः शरीरं य आदित्यमन्तरो
यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ (BrhU.3.7.9) इति श्रुत्यन्तरे भेदव्यपदेशात्।
“He who abides in the sun but is distinct from him, and whom the sun knows not, and whose body is the sun, and who rules or regulates the sun from within,
That same is your Self (Ātmā), the ruler or regulator from within, and the immortal one.” (BrhUEng.3.7.9).

1.1.21 L.3 ✅ तत्र हि ‘आदित्यादन्तरो यमादित्यो न वेद’ इति वेदितुरादित्याद्विज्ञानात्मनोऽन्योऽन्तर्यामी स्पष्टं निर्दिश्यते।
There, (by the expression — who abides in the sun but is distinct from him, and whom the sun knows not), the internal ruler or regulator is clearly indicated to be different from the one who is meant to be the knower, viz. the sun, i.e. the cognitional Self.

1.1.21 L.4 ✅ स एवेहाप्यन्तरादित्ये पुरुषो भवितुमर्हति, श्रुतिसामान्यात्।
Therefore by reason of the parallel Scriptural passage, the very same (internal ruler or regulator) deserves to be the Puruṣa in the sun, here.

1.1.21 L.5 ✅ तस्मात्परमेश्वर एवेहोपदिश्यत इति सिद्धम्॥२१॥
Therefore it is clearly proved that in the passage (mentioned in the beginning of the Sūtra 20) instruction about the Highest Lord is given. — 21.

– 7. Antar-Adhikaraṇam.

←Prev Next→
आकाशस्तल्लिङ्गात्॥१.१.२२॥
Ākāśas tal-liṅgāt.

Ākāśaḥ: the word Ākāśa as used here; Tad: His, of Brahman; Liṅgāt: because of characteristic mark.

🔗 The Ākāśa is (Brahman) because there is (here) a characteristic mark of it (i.e. Brahman). — 1.1.22.

1.1.22 L.1 ✅ इदमामनन्ति ‘अस्य लोकस्य का गतिरित्याकाश इति होवाच
सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्त आकाशं प्रत्यस्तं यन्त्याकाशो ह्येवैभ्यो ज्यायानाकाशः परायणम्’ (ChanU.1.9.1) इति।
(Śālāvatya a Brāhmaṇa asks Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, the Kṣatriya King) “To what does this world go back (ultimately)? He replied — The Ākāśa,
All these beings are born only out of the Ākāśa and are also absorbed into the Ākāśa, the Ākāśa verily is greater than these, and the Ākāśa is the ultimate resort” (ChanU.1.9.1).

1.1.22 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमाकाशशब्देन परं ब्रह्माभिधीयते,
A doubt here arises — Whether the Highest Brahman is mentioned by the word Ākāśa

1.1.22 L.3 ✅ उत भूताकाशमिति।
Or the material Sky i.e. the atmosphere?

1.1.22 L.4 ✅ कुतः संशयः? उभयत्र प्रयोगदर्शनात्।
Whence is the doubt? Because (the same word Ākāśa is observed to be used) in the case of both.

1.1.22 L.5 ✅ भूतविशेषे तावत्सुप्रसिद्धो लोकवेदयोराकाशशब्दः।
The word Ākāśa which is well-known in the ordinary world and in the Scriptures,

1.1.22 L.6 ✅ ब्रह्मण्यपि क्वचित्प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते,
As being used in the sense of the material sky or atmosphere is also occasionally seen to be used for Brahman,

1.1.22 L.7 ✅ यत्र वाक्यशेषवशादसाधारणगुणश्रवणाद्वा निर्धारितं ब्रह्म भवति – यथा
Where, for instance, — because of the complementary sentence, or because of the mention of an uncommon quality — it becomes established that Brahman is meant, thus —

1.1.22 L.8 ✅ ‘यदेष आकाश आनन्दो न स्यात्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति
“If this Ākāśa were not to be bliss (i.e. Brahman)” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.),

1.1.22 L.9 ✅ ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इति चैवमादौ।
Or “It is the Ākāśa, that verily is the revealer of all names and forms, that, within which (these names and forms) are, that is Brahman” (ChanU.8.14.1) etc.

1.1.22 L.10 ✅ अतः संशयः।
Therefore it is, that there is this doubt.

1.1.22 L.11 ✅ किं पुनरत्र युक्तम्? भूताकाशमिति।
What then is reasonably possible here? That it is the sky i.e. the atmosphere.

1.1.22 L.12 ✅ कुतः? तद्धि प्रसिद्धतरेण प्रयोगेण शीघ्रं बुद्धिमारोहति।
Why so? because it is that, that quickly comes up to the mind i.e. intelligence (Buddhi) because of its more well-known use (in that sense).

1.1.22 L.13 ✅ न चायमाकाशशब्द उभयोः साधारणः शक्यो विज्ञातुम्, अनेकार्थत्वप्रसङ्गात्।
It is not possible to understand, that the word Ākāśa can be used commonly for both, because it would, in that case, lead to the fault of one word having more than one (primary) meaning.

1.1.22 L.14 ✅ तस्माद्ब्रह्मणि गौण एव आकाशशब्दो भवितुमर्हति।
Therefore when the word Ākāśa is used in the sense of Brahman, it deserves to have been used in its secondary or metaphorical sense,

1.1.22 L.15 ✅ विभुत्वादिभिर्हि बहुभिर्धर्मैः सदृशमाकाशेन ब्रह्म भवति।
Because, Brahman, having many attributes such as being all-pervading etc., is similar to Ākāśa.

1.1.22 L.16 ✅ न च मुख्यसम्भवे गौणोऽर्थो ग्रहणमर्हति।
When the primary sense is possible, it does not deserve to be understood as being used in the secondary or metaphorical sense,

1.1.22 L.17 ✅ सम्भवति चेह मुख्यस्यैवाकाशस्य ग्रहणम्।
And it is possible, here, to understand Ākāśa in its primary sense of the material sky or atmosphere.

1.1.22 L.18 ✅ ननु भूताकाशपरिग्रहे वाक्यशेषो नोपपद्यते –
‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्ते’ इत्यादिः;
(But says the Vedāntin), if we understand it to mean the material sky or atmosphere, then the complementary passage —
“All these beings are borm out of this Ākāśa only” — would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.1.22 L.19 ✅ नैष दोषः, भूताकाशस्यापि वाय्वादिक्रमेण कारणत्वोपपत्तेः।
(To this) the opponent says — This is no fault, because it is reasonably sustainable, that the material sky or the atmosphere also, can, by way of the serial order of air (Vāyu) etc. be understood to be the cause (of air etc.).

1.1.22 L.20 ✅ विज्ञायते हि – ‘तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः सम्भूत आकाशाद्वायुर्वायोरग्निः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्यादि।
Because it is known from the Scriptures thus — “From this self, verily, the Ākāśa was born, from the Ākāśa the air, and from the air the fire (Agni) etc.” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.).

1.1.22 L.21 ✅ ज्यायस्त्वपरायणत्वे अपि भूतान्तरापेक्षयोपपद्येते भूताकाशस्यापि।
The qualities of “being greater and being the ultimate resort” are reasonably sustainable also in the case of the material Sky i.e. atmosphere, with reference to those other beings (born out of the material sky i.e. the atmosphere).

1.1.22 L.22 ✅ तस्मादाकाशशब्देन भूताकाशस्य ग्रहणम्
Thus, therefore, it is proper to understand “the material Sky” i.e. the atmosphere by the word Ākāśa.

1.1.22 L.23 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – आकाशस्तल्लिङ्गात्।
This being the conclusion (arrived at by the opponent), to that, We reply — “The Ākāśa (is Brahman) because of the indicatory mark about it”.

1.1.22 L.24 ✅ आकाशशब्देनेह ब्रह्मणो ग्रहणं युक्तम्।
It is but proper to take Ākāśa to mean Brahman.

1.1.22 L.25 ✅ कुतः? तल्लिङ्गात्।
Why? Because there is an indicatory mark about it.

1.1.22 L.26 ✅ परस्य हि ब्रह्मण इदं लिङ्गम् – ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्ते’ इति।
That “All these beings are born out of this Ākāśa only” is the indicatory mark of the Highest Brahman,

1.1.22 L.27 ✅ परस्माद्धि ब्रह्मणो भूतानामुत्पत्तिरिति वेदान्तेषु मर्यादा।
And that all beings are born out of the Highest Brahman is the terminus ad quem of Vedānta.

1.1.22 L.28 ✅ ननु भूताकाशस्यापि वाय्वादिक्रमेण कारणत्वं दर्शितम्।
But (says the opponent) we have already demonstrated how the sky i.e. the atmosphere is the cause, by way of the serial order of air (Vāyu) etc.

1.1.22 L.29 ✅ सत्यं दर्शितम्।
(We reply) of course it is true you have demonstrated that.

1.1.22 L.30 ✅ तथापि मूलकारणस्य ब्रह्मणोऽपरिग्रहात्, आकाशादेवेत्यवधारणं सर्वाणीति च भूतविशेषणं नानुकूलं स्यात्।
But if Brahman is not accepted as being the root-cause, the final determination — ‘From the Ākāśa (ether or space) only’, and the adjective ‘all’ (Sarvāṇi) governing the beings, would not be favourable (to such a construction, as you, the opponent, suggest).

1.1.22 L.31 ✅ तथा ‘आकाशं प्रत्यस्तं यन्ति’ इति ब्रह्मलिङ्गम्, ‘आकाशो ह्येवैभ्यो ज्यायानाकाशः परायणम्’ इति च ज्यायस्त्वपरायणत्वे।
Similarly, the indicatory mark “that (all beings) become absorbed in the Ākāśa”, and “Ākāśa verily is the greater and ultimate resort”, which indicate the attribute of ‘being greater and being the ultimate resort’ also, (would not be favourable),

1.1.22 L.32 ✅ ज्यायस्त्वं ह्यनापेक्षिकं परमात्मन्येवैकस्मिन्नाम्नातम् – ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्या ज्यायानन्तरिक्षाज्ज्यायान्दिवो ज्यायानेभ्यो लोकेभ्यः’ (ChanU.3.14.3) इति।
Because, this ‘being greater’ without reference to any other thing is mentioned by Scriptures, only in the case of the Highest Self, thus — “Greater than the earth, the sky, the heaven and all these worlds” (ChanU.3.14.3),

1.1.22 L.33 ✅ तथा परायणत्वमपि परमकारणत्वात्परमात्मन्येव उपपन्नतरं भवति।
And this ‘being the ultimate resort’ is more reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Self only, as being the transcendent cause.

1.1.22 L.34 ✅ श्रुतिश्च – ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म रातिर्दातुः परायणम्’ (BrhU.3.9.28) इति।
The Scriptural passage is — “Knowledge and Bliss is Brahman the ultimate resort of the sacrificing host (from whom, the priests presiding at the sacrifice get money-gifts i.e. Dakṣiṇā)” (BrhUEng.3.9.28).

1.1.22 L.35 ✅ अपि चान्तवत्त्वदोषेण शालावत्यस्य पक्षं निन्दित्वा, अनन्तं किञ्चिद्वक्तुकामेन जैवलिनाकाशः परिगृहीतः;
Besides, (Jaivali) after animadverting the case made out by Śālāvatya (that the Sāman is eternal), and with a desire to mention something which is ‘eternal’, accepts the Ākāśa as the eternal (one),

1.1.22 L.36 ✅ तं चाकाशमुद्गीथे सम्पाद्योपसंहरति –
‘स एष परोवरीयानुद्गीथः स एषोऽनन्तः’ (ChanU.1.9.2) इति।
And by treating the ‘Udgītha’ as the Ākāśa by imaginative contemplation, concludes thus —
“He is the ‘Udgītha’ who is greater than the great’ and he also is the eternal (one)” (ChanU.1.9.2).

1.1.22 L.37 ✅ तच्चानन्त्यं ब्रह्मलिङ्गम्।
That eternity (mentioned therein) is an indicatory mark of Brahman.

1.1.22 L.38 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तं भूताकाशं प्रसिद्धिबलेन प्रथमतरं प्रतीयत इति,
To the objection, that, on the strength of its being well-known, the sky or the atmosphere comes up to the mind first, before any thing else,

1.1.22 L.39 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – प्रथमतरं प्रतीतमपि सद्वाक्यशेषगतान्ब्रह्मगुणान्दृष्ट्वा न परिगृह्यते।
We reply — Because, after observing the attributes of Brahman as they are mentioned in the complementary passage, the sky i.e. the atmosphere, though it comes up to the mind or intelligence first, before anything else, has to be rejected.

1.1.22 L.40 ✅ दर्शितश्च ब्रह्मण्यप्याकाशशब्दः ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इत्यादौ।
We have already demonstrated how the word Ākāśa is used for Brahman, thus — “Ākāśa verily is the revealer of names and forms” (ChanU.8.14.1) etc.

1.1.22 L.41 ✅ तथाकाशपर्यायवाचिनामपि ब्रह्मणि प्रयोगो दृश्यते –
Similarly we observe the use of the synonyms of Ākāśa for Brahman, thus —

1.1.22 L.42 ✅ ‘ऋचो अक्षरे परमे व्योमन् यस्मिन्देवा अधि विश्वे निषेदुः’ (ऋ. सं. १-१६४-३९)
“The Vedas (Ṛcs) are (based) in the imperishable (Akṣara) and the highest Ākāśa, and all Gods have their base in it” (Ṛg. Sam. 1.164.39);

1.1.22 L.43 ✅ ‘सैषा भार्गवी वारुणी विद्या परमे व्योमन्प्रतिष्ठिता’ (TaitU.3.6.1)
“This is the Lore (Vidyā) of Bhṛgu as derived from Varuṇa, which is based in the Akṣara.” (TaitU.3.6 Eng.);

1.1.22 L.44 ✅ ‘ॐ कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.10.5)
“Om, Ka (pleasure) is Brahman, Kha (Akṣara) is Brahman” (ChanU.4.10.5)

1.1.22 L.45 ✅ ‘खं पुराणम्’ (BrhU.5.1.1) इति चैवमादौ।
And “Kha is the ancient one” (BrhUEng.5.1) etc.

1.1.22 L.46 ✅ वाक्योपक्रमेऽपि वर्तमानस्याकाशशब्दस्य वाक्यशेषवशाद्युक्ता ब्रह्मविषयत्वावधारणा।
The word Ākāśa, which occurs in the introductory passage also, is to be understood as referring to ‘Brahman’ on the strength of the complementary passage.

1.1.22 L.47 ✅ ‘अग्निरधीतेऽनुवाकम्’ इति हि वाक्योपक्रमगतोऽप्यग्निशब्दो माणवकविषयो दृश्यते।
We observe that even the word Agni (fire) which, though it occurs in the introductory passage — “Agni is studying the Anuvāka (a collection of Ṛk- and Yajur-Veda hymns)” — is understood to mean a scholar (Māṇavaka).

1.1.22 L.48 ✅ तस्मादाकाशशब्दं ब्रह्मेति सिद्धम्॥२२॥
Therefore, it is established that by the word Ākāśa, Brahman is indicated. — 22.

– 8. Ākāśa-Adhikaraṇam.

←Prev Next→
अत एव प्राणः॥१.१.२३॥
Ata eva prāṇaḥ.

Ataḥ eva: for the same reason; Prāṇaḥ: the breath (also refers to Brahman).

🔗 For the same reason, Prāṇa i.e. the Vital Air (is Brahman). — 1.1.23.

1.1.23 L.1 ✅ उद्गीथे – ‘प्रस्तोतर्या देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता’ इत्युपक्रम्य श्रूयते –
In the Udgīṭha chapter, after mentioning the introductory sentence “O Prastotṛ, that deity connected with the Prastāva (Prelude or introductory words of Sāman)”, it is mentioned —

1.1.23 L.2 ✅ ‘कतमा सा देवतेति, प्राण इति होवाच,
सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतानि प्राणमेवाभिसंविशन्ति, प्राणमभ्युज्जिहते, सैषा देवता प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता’ (ChanU.1.11.4) (ChanU.1.11.5) इति।
“What then is the deity; He replied — The Vital Air.
All these beings merge in the Vital air only and spring from it, and this is the deity which is connected with the Prastāva etc.” (ChanU.1.11.4–5).

1.1.23 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयनिर्णयौ पूर्ववदेव द्रष्टव्यौ।
With regard to this, the doubt and the decision (on that doubt) should be understood to be similar to those stated herein-before (in the previous Sūtra).

1.1.23 L.4 ✅ ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (ChanU.6.8.2)
In the Scriptural passages — “O mild one, the mind is dependent on the Vital Air” (ChanU.6.8.2),

1.1.23 L.5 ✅ ‘प्राणस्य प्राणम्’ (BrhU.4.4.18) इति चैवमादौ ब्रह्मविषयः प्राणशब्दो दृश्यते;
“The Vital Air of the Vital Airs” (BrhUEng.4.4.18) — the word ‘Prāṇa’ appears to have been used to denote Brahman,

1.1.23 L.6 ✅ वायुविकारे तु प्रसिद्धतरो लोकवेदयोः;
While its use as a word indicating the modification of Vāyu (air) is more well-known in the ordinary world and the Scriptures,

1.1.23 L.7 ✅ अत इह प्राणशब्देन कतरस्योपादानं युक्तमिति भवति संशयः।
And a doubt arises as to what should properly be understood by the word ‘Prāṇa’.

1.1.23 L.8 ✅ किं पुनरत्र युक्तम्? वायुविकारस्य पञ्चवृत्तेः प्राणस्योपादानं युक्तम्।
What then is proper here? It is proper to understand by Prāṇa, that which is a modification of Vāyu and has a five-fold function,

1.1.23 L.9 ✅ तत्र हि प्रसिद्धतरः प्राणशब्द इत्यवोचाम।
Because we have already mentioned that Prāṇa is better known as that (i.e. as a modification of Vāyu).

1.1.23 L.10 ✅ ननु पूर्ववदिहापि तल्लिङ्गाद्ब्रह्मण एव ग्रहणं युक्तम्।
But (says the Vedāntin) because of the indicatory mark of that (i.e. Brahman) we should, as (we did) earlier, understand Prāṇa to indicate Brahman,

1.1.23 L.11 ✅ इहापि हि वाक्यशेषे भूतानां संवेशनोद्गमनं पारमेश्वरं कर्म प्रतीयते।
Because here also, the absorption into and rising from, of beings, is seen to be the work of the Highest Lord.

1.1.23 L.12 ✅ न, मुख्येऽपि प्राणे भूतसंवेशनोद्गमनस्य दर्शनात्।
No, (says the opponent), because the absorption into and rising from of beings is seen to be from the principal Vital Air also,

1.1.23 L.13 ✅ एवं ह्याम्नायते – ‘यदा वै पुरुषः स्वपिति प्राणं तर्हि वागप्येति प्राणं चक्षुः प्राणं श्रोत्रं प्राणं मनः,
स यदा प्रबुध्यते प्राणादेवाधि पुनर्जायन्ते’ (श. ब्रा. १०-३-३-६) इति।
Because even so says the Scriptural passage — “When a Puruṣa sleeps, then in that condition, speech merges into the Vital Air, and similarly, the eye, the ear and the mind also, merge into the Vital Air,
And when he wakes up, these again arise from the same Vital Air”(Śat. Brā. 10.3.3.6).

1.1.23 L.14 ✅ प्रत्यक्षं चैतत् – स्वापकाले प्राणवृत्तावपरिलुप्यमानायामिन्द्रियवृत्तयः परिलुप्यन्ते, प्रबोधकाले च पुनः प्रादुर्भवन्तीति।
It also is actually evident that during the period of sleep, while the function of the Vital Air still continues, the functions of the sense-organs get absorbed, and they are revived at waking time.

1.1.23 L.15 ✅ इन्द्रियसारत्वाच्च भूतानामविरुद्धो मुख्ये प्राणेऽपि भूतसंवेशनोद्गमनवादी वाक्यशेषः।
Beings having the sense-organs as their essence, the complementary passage which speaks of absorption into and rising from of the beings, is not contradictory, even in the case of the principal Vital Air.

1.1.23 L.16 ✅ अपि चादित्योऽन्नं चोद्गीथप्रतिहारयोर्देवते प्रस्तावदेवतायाः प्राणस्यानन्तरं निर्दिश्येते;
Besides, the sun and food which are the deities of the Udgīṭha and Pratihāra respectively, are indicated after Prāṇa, which is the deity of the Prastāva.

1.1.23 L.17 ✅ न च तयोर्ब्रह्मत्वमस्ति; तत्सामान्याच्च प्राणस्यापि न ब्रह्मत्वमित्येवं प्राप्ते सूत्रकार आह –
They (i.e. the Sun and food) certainly are not Brahman, and therefore in common with them, the Vital Air also could not be Brahman. This being the conclusion (of the opponent) the Sūtra-kāra replies —

1.1.23 L.18 ✅ अत एव प्राणः इति। तल्लिङ्गादिति पूर्वसूत्रे निर्दिष्टम्।
“For the same reason, the Vital Airs (are Brahman)”. “Because of the indicatory mark of that” has been explained in the previous Sūtra.

1.1.23 L.19 ✅ अत एव तल्लिङ्गात्प्राणशब्दमपि परं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति।
Therefore, because of the indicatory mark of that (i.e. Brahman) that which is expressed by the word Prāṇa also deserves to be understood to be Brahman.

1.1.23 L.20 ✅ प्राणस्यापि हि ब्रह्मलिङ्गसम्बन्धः श्रूयते –
‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतानि प्राणमेवाभिसंविशन्ति प्राणमभ्युज्जिहते’ (ChanU.1.11.5) इति।
The Scriptures mention, that even ‘Vital air’ has a connection with the indicatory mark of Brahman, as follows: —
“All these beings, verily, are absorbed into the ‘Vital air’ and also rise from the ‘Vital air’.” (ChanU.1.11.5).

1.1.23 L.21 ✅ प्राणनिमित्तौ सर्वेषां भूतानामुत्पत्तिप्रलयावुच्यमानौ प्राणस्य ब्रह्मतां गमयतः।
The mention of the absorption and rise of all beings from Prāṇa (Vital air) goes to indicate that Prāṇa (Vital air) is Brahman.

1.1.23 L.22 ✅ ननूक्तं मुख्यप्राणपरिग्रहेऽपि संवेशनोद्गमनदर्शनमविरुद्धम्, स्वापप्रबोधयोर्दर्शनादिति।
But (says the opponent) we have said that, even if by the word ‘Prāṇa’ we understand the principal Vital air, the absorption into and rising (of sense-organs) from the principal Vital air is not contradictory, because we observe it to be so during sleep and on awakening.

1.1.23 L.23 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – स्वापप्रबोधयोरिन्द्रियाणामेव केवलानां प्राणाश्रयं संवेशनोद्गमनं दृश्यते, न सर्वेषां भूतानाम्;
To this we reply — During sleep and on awakening, the absorption into and rising up (from Prāṇa) of only the sense-organs is seen, and not of all beings,

1.1.23 L.24 ✅ इह तु सेन्द्रियाणां सशरीराणां च जीवाविष्टानां भूतानाम्, ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतानि’ इति श्रुतेः।
While here (it is seen) to be generally of all beings endowed with the Jīva-Self and sense-organs and bodies also, because of the Scriptural passage — “All these beings”.

1.1.23 L.25 ✅ यदापि भूतश्रुतिर्महाभूतविषया परिगृह्यते, तदापि ब्रह्मलिङ्गत्वमविरुद्धम्।
Even if we understand the Scriptural mention of beings, as referring to the (five) great elements, even then it would not be contradictory to understand that, as an indictatory mark of Brahman.

1.1.23 L.26 ✅ ननु सहापि विषयैरिन्द्रियाणां स्वापप्रबोधयोः प्राणेऽप्ययं प्राणाच्च प्रभवं शृणुमः –
But (says the opponent) we find it mentioned in the Scriptures that during sleep and on awakening, there is absorption into and rising up from the ‘Vital air’, of sense-organs along with the sense-objects, as follows: —

1.1.23 L.27 ✅ ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्सर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति।
“When a man is asleep, he does not experience any dream, but becomes one with the ‘Vital air’ and at that time, speech along with all names is absorbed into it” (KausU.3.3).

1.1.23 L.28 ✅ तत्रापि तल्लिङ्गात्प्राणशब्दं ब्रह्मैव।
There also (we say) because of the indicatory mark of that (i.e. Brahman), by the word Prāṇa, Brahman alone is indicated.

1.1.23 L.29 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तमन्नादित्यसन्निधानात्प्राणस्याब्रह्मत्वमिति, तदयुक्तम्;
Then again, (the objection) that because of proximity with the sun and food (which certainly are not Brahman) the word ‘Prāṇa’ also is not indicative of Brahman, is not reasonable,

1.1.23 L.30 ✅ वाक्यशेषबलेन प्राणशब्दस्य ब्रह्मविषयतायां प्रतीयमानायां सन्निधानस्याकिञ्चित्करत्वात्।
Because when on the strength of the complementary passage, the word ‘Prāṇa’ is properly understood to mean Brahman, mere proximity is helpless (lit., unable to do anything).

1.1.23 L.31 ✅ यत्पुनः प्राणशब्दस्य पञ्चवृत्तौ प्रसिद्धतरत्वम्, तदाकाशशब्दस्येव प्रतिविधेयम्।
Again, the objection, that the word ‘Prāṇa’ is better known as meaning the Vital air with its five-fold function, should be refuted in the same way, as the objection with regard to the word Ākāśa is refuted.

1.1.23 L.32 ✅ तस्मात्सिद्धं प्रस्तावदेवतायाः प्राणस्य ब्रह्मत्वम्॥
Therefore it is thus established that ‘Prāṇa’ which is the deity connected with Prastāva, is Brahman.

1.1.23 L.33 ✅ अत्र केचिदुदाहरन्ति – ‘प्राणस्य प्राणम्’ ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ इति च।
In this connection, some others (commentators) quote the following passages — “The Prāṇa of Prāṇa”, “Oh mild one, mind depends upon Prāṇa” (as ambiguous passages),

1.1.23 L.34 ✅ तदयुक्तम्; शब्दभेदात्प्रकरणाच्च संशयानुपपत्तेः।
But it is not reasonable, because on account of the difference in the Scriptural words and the subject matter of the chapter (Prakaraṇa), no doubt is reasonably sustainable.

1.1.23 L.35 ✅ यथा पितुः पितेति प्रयोगे, अन्यः पिता षष्ठीनिर्दिष्टात् प्रथमानिर्दिष्टः, पितुः पिता इति गम्यते;
For instance, when we use the expression ‘father’s father’, the father indicated by the genitive case of the first word ‘father’ is different from the person indicated by the word ‘father’ used in the nominative case, and means the father’s father i.e. the grand-father.

1.1.23 L.36 ✅ तद्वत् ‘प्राणस्य प्राणम्’ इति शब्दभेदात्प्रसिद्धात्प्राणात् अन्यः प्राणस्य प्राण इति निश्चीयते।
Similarly in the expression “the Prāṇa of Prāṇa” as there the two ‘Prāṇa’ words are separate and distinct, we can determine that the Prāṇa of Prāṇa is different from the well-known Prāṇa (the Vital air).

1.1.23 L.37 ✅ न हि स एव तस्येति भेदनिर्देशार्हो भवति।
The same thing ‘He’, does not deserve to be distinguished from itself as ‘His’, (only by using the genitive case) and designating ‘He’ as ‘His’.

1.1.23 L.38 ✅ यस्य च प्रकरणे यो निर्दिश्यते नामान्तरेणापि स एव तत्र प्रकरणी निर्दिष्ट इति गम्यते;
(And with regard to the second passage), if a thing is indicated in one chapter (as the topic of that chapter), then we conclude, that the same thing is indicated in the same chapter as that chapter’s topic, even if it is referred to in it by some other name.

1.1.23 L.39 ✅ यथा ज्योतिष्टोमाधिकारे ‘वसन्ते वसन्ते ज्योतिषा यजेत’ इत्यत्र ज्योतिःशब्दो ज्योतिष्टोमविषयो भवति,
As for instance, in the chapter dealing with Jyoti-ṣṭoma sacrifice, in the passage “In every spring a person should perform the Jyotis”, the word ‘Jyotis’ refers to the Jyoti-ṣṭoma sacrifice,

1.1.23 L.40 ✅ तथा परस्य ब्रह्मणः प्रकरणे ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ इति श्रुतः प्राणशब्दो वायुविकारमात्रं कथमवगमयेत्।
Similarly in the chapter dealing with the ‘Highest Brahman’, when the Scriptural passage says, “O mild one, the mind is dependent on Prāṇa” — how could we understand the word ‘Prāṇa’ to mean only a modification of Vāyu?

1.1.23 L.41 ✅ अतः संशयाविषयत्वान्नैतदुदाहरणं युक्तम्।
Therefore, there being nothing here to suggest a doubt, this cannot be an illustration in point.

1.1.23 L.42 ✅ प्रस्तावदेवतायां तु प्राणे संशयपूर्वपक्षनिर्णया उपपादिताः॥२३॥
With respect to the deity connected with Prastāva, we have already discussed the doubt (arising from the use of the word) ‘Prāṇa’, the objection raised (with regard to it), and the final conclusion. — 23.

– 9. Prāṇa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.1.24 Su..25 Su..26 Su..27

←Prev Next→
ज्योतिश्चरणाभिधानात्॥१.१.२४॥
Vyotiś caraṇābhidhānāt.

Jyotiḥ: the light; Carana: feet; Abhidhānāt: because of the mention.

🔗 (The word) Jyotis (is Brahman) on account of the mention of feet. — 1.1.24.

1.1.24 L.1 ✅ इदमामनन्ति – ‘अथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्योतिर्दीप्यते विश्वतः पृष्ठेषु सर्वतः पृष्ठेष्वनुत्तमेषूत्तमेषु लोकेष्विदं वाव तद्यदिदमस्मिन्नन्तः पुरुषे ज्योतिः’ (ChanU.3.13.7) इति।
The Scriptures mention: — “Now, after what has gone before (viz., the devout meditation on Gāyatrī as Brahman), the lustre (Jyotis) that continues to shine above this heaven, on the top of this world, on the top of everything in the best of all worlds than which no other world (Loka) is better (viz., the Satya-Loka), is the same as the lustre that is within this Puruṣa” (ChanU.3.13.7).

1.1.24 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमिह ज्योतिःशब्देनादित्यादिकं ज्योतिरभिधीयते,
With regard to that, a doubt arises — Whether by the word lustre, a light such as the Sun is meant

1.1.24 L.3 ✅ किं वा पर आत्मा इति।
Or the Highest Brahman.

1.1.24 L.4 ✅ अर्थान्तरविषयस्यापि प्राणशब्दस्य तल्लिङ्गाद्ब्रह्मविषयत्वमुक्तम्।
It is said (by us before) that a word which ordinarily denotes another object, is, because of there being an indicatory mark of that (Brahman), supposed to denote Brahman,

1.1.24 L.5 ✅ इह तु तल्लिङ्गमेवास्ति नास्तीति विचार्यते।
But here (in the above Scriptural passage) as even such indicatory mark is not present, the matter deserves consideration.

1.1.24 L.6 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What, then, is your suggestion?

1.1.24 L.7 ✅ आदित्यादिकमेव ज्योतिःशब्देन परिगृह्यत इति।
(The opponent says) — By the word Lustre, the Sun etc. is understood.

1.1.24 L.8 ✅ कुतः? प्रसिद्धेः। तमो ज्योतिरिति हीमौ शब्दौ परस्परप्रतिद्वन्द्विविषयौ प्रसिद्धौ।
Why so? Because it is well-known. Darkness and Light are terms which are antonyms of each other.

1.1.24 L.9 ✅ चक्षुर्वृत्तेर्निरोधकं शार्वरादिकं तम उच्यते।
Noctural darkness etc. is the obstructor of the function of the eye.

1.1.24 L.10 ✅ तस्या एवानुग्राहकमादित्यादिकं ज्योतिः। तथा ‘दीप्यते’ इतीयमपि श्रुतिरादित्यादिविषया प्रसिद्धा।
The verb ‘Shines’ occurring in the Scriptures is well-known to be in connection with the Sun etc.

1.1.24 L.11 ✅ न हि रूपादिहीनं ब्रह्म दीप्यत इति मुख्यां श्रुतिमर्हति।
The Scriptures cannot predicate of the formless Brahman, that it ‘shines’ in the principal sense of the verb ‘to shine’,

1.1.24 L.12 ✅ द्युमर्यादत्वश्रुतेश्च।
And the Scriptures also mention the heaven as the boundary, beyond which that (Lustre) is said to shine.

1.1.24 L.13 ✅ न हि चराचरबीजस्य ब्रह्मणः सर्वात्मकस्य द्यौर्मर्यादा युक्ता;
Brahman which is the Self of all, and the source of all moveable and immoveable things cannot be said to have a boundary such as the heaven.

1.1.24 L.14 ✅ कार्यस्य तु ज्योतिषः परिच्छिन्नस्य द्यौर्मर्यादा स्यात्।
But lustre which is a modification (as from a cause, and is circumscribed by a limit), can quite properly be said to have a boundary viz. the heaven.

1.1.24 L.15 ✅ ‘परो दिवो ज्योतिः’ इति च ब्राह्मणम्।
“Lustre beyond the heaven” is the Scriptural Brāhmaṇa passage.

1.1.24 L.16 ✅ ननु कार्यस्यापि ज्योतिषः सर्वत्र गम्यमानत्वाद्द्युमर्यादावत्त्वमसमञ्जसम्।
But (says the Vedāntin) even when lustre is such a modification (Kārya), it would be wrong to say about it also, that it has a boundary such as the heaven, because it is experienced everywhere.

1.1.24 L.17 ✅ अस्तु तर्ह्यत्रिवृत्कृतं तेजः प्रथमजम्।
Then (says the opponent) let it be the untriformed (Atri-vṛtkṛta) lustre, which is born first (from Vāyu).

1.1.24 L.18 ✅ न, अत्रिवृत्कृतस्य तेजसः प्रयोजनाभावादिति।
No (retorts the Vedāntin), the untriformed lustre has no useful purpose (Prayojana).

1.1.24 L.19 ✅ इदमेव प्रयोजनं यदुपास्यत्वमिति चेत्, –
(To this the opponent retorts) — If it be said, that it is a thing which is the object of devout meditation is itself such a purpose,

1.1.24 L.20 ✅ न; प्रयोजनान्तरप्रयुक्तस्यैवादित्यादेरुपास्यत्वदर्शनात्,
No (replies the Vedāntin), because it is only things like the sun etc. which are employed for a different purpose, that are objects of devout meditation,

1.1.24 L.21 ✅ ‘तासां त्रिवृतं त्रिवृतमेकैकां करवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.3) इति चाविशेषश्रुतेः।
Because, there is the Scriptural passage: — “I will make each of these three, triform” (ChanU.6.3.3) which does not make any distinction (between any of these three).

1.1.24 L.22 ✅ न चात्रिवृत्कृतस्यापि तेजसो द्युमर्यादत्वं प्रसिद्धम्।
Besides it is not so well-known that the untriformed lustre also has the heaven as its boundary.

1.1.24 L.23 ✅ अस्तु तर्हि त्रिवृत्कृतमेव तत्तेजो ज्योतिःशब्दम्।
Oh well (says the opponent), then, let that triformed lustre itself be understood to be the lustre (referred to here).

1.1.24 L.24 ✅ ननूक्तमर्वागपि दिवोऽवगम्यतेऽग्न्यादिकं ज्योतिरिति;
But (says the Vedāntin) we have said that lustre in the form of fire etc. is observed to be below the heaven also.

1.1.24 L.25 ✅ नैष दोषः; सर्वत्रापि गम्यमानस्य ज्योतिषः ‘परो दिवः’ इत्युपासनार्थः प्रदेशविशेषपरिग्रहो न विरुध्यते।
(To which the opponent replies) No, this is no fault, because it is not contradictory to speak of lustre which is known to be everywhere, as being understood to have a particular locus such as ‘beyond the heaven’, for the purpose of devout meditation,

1.1.24 L.26 ✅ न तु निष्प्रदेशस्यापि ब्रह्मणः प्रदेशविशेषकल्पना भागिनी।
But it is not logical to think of Brahman which is uncircumscribed by any particular limit, as having any such special locus.

1.1.24 L.27 ✅ ‘सर्वतः पृष्ठेष्वनुत्तमेषूत्तमेषु लोकेषु’ इति चाधारबहुत्वश्रुतिः कार्ये ज्योतिष्युपपद्यतेतराम्।
The Scriptural passages about the plurality of abodes (Ādhāra-bahutva-śruti) viz. “On the top of every thing in the best of all worlds than whom there is no better (i.e. in the Satya-Loka)” are more appropriate in the case of lustre which is a modification.

1.1.24 L.28 ✅ ‘इदं वाव तद्यदिदमस्मिन्नन्तः पुरुषे ज्योतिः’ (ChanU.3.13.7) इति च कौक्षेये ज्योतिषि परं ज्योतिरध्यस्यमानं दृश्यते।
In the Scriptural passage “This verily is that (lustre) which is inside a Puruṣa” (ChanU.3.13.7), it is the supreme lustre (i.e. Brahman) that is seen to be superimposed on the gastric fire.

1.1.24 L.29 ✅ सारूप्यनिमित्ताश्चाध्यासा भवन्ति – यथा ‘तस्य भूरिति शिर एकं हि शिर एकमेतदक्षरम्’ (BrhU.5.5.3) इति।
Superimpositions are caused by similarity in form, as for instance: — “Of him, ‘Bhū’ is the caput, the head (in a body) is one, and this letter is also one”. (BrhUEng.5.5.3).

1.1.24 L.30 ✅ कौक्षेयस्य तु ज्योतिषः प्रसिद्धमब्रह्मत्वम्।
And it is patent, that gastric fire is not Brahman.

1.1.24 L.31 ✅ ‘तस्यैषा दृष्टिः’ (ChanU.3.13.7) ‘तस्यैषा श्रुतिः’ इति चौष्ण्यघोषविशिष्टत्वस्य श्रवणात्।
And also in the Scriptural passages, “This is the means of seeing it actually”, “This is the means of hearing it” (ChanU.3.13.7), it is mentioned that it has the special attributes of heat and sound,

1.1.24 L.32 ✅ ‘तदेतद्दृष्टं च श्रुतं चेत्युपासीत’ इति च श्रुतेः।
And one should meditate on this as that which is seen or heard.

1.1.24 L.33 ✅ ‘चक्षुष्यः श्रुतो भवति य एवं वेद’ (ChanU.3.13.8) इति चाल्पफलश्रवणादब्रह्मत्वम्।
Also (the Scriptural passage) — “He who knows this in this manner, becomes handsome and well-known.” (ChanU.3.13.8) could not indicate Brahman, because of a minor fruit.

1.1.24 L.34 ✅ महते हि फलाय ब्रह्मोपासनमिष्यते।
Devout meditation on Brahman is intended for a great fruit only.

1.1.24 L.35 ✅ न चान्यदपि किञ्चित्स्ववाक्ये प्राणाकाशवज्ज्योतिषोऽस्ति ब्रह्मलिङ्गम्।
Besides in the sentence under consideration there is no other indicatory mark of Brahman, here, in the case of ‘Lustre’, as in the case of Prāṇa and Ākāśa.

1.1.24 L.36 ✅ न च पूर्वस्मिन्नपि वाक्ये ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टमस्ति, ‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वं भूतम्’ इति च्छन्दोनिर्देशात्।
Nor is Brahman indicated in the preceding sentence, because in that sentence, viz. “Gāyatrī is all this creation”, there is only a statement about the Gāyatrī metre,

1.1.24 L.37 ✅ अथापि कथञ्चित्पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टं स्यात्, एवमपि न तस्येह प्रत्यभिज्ञानमस्ति।
And even if we suppose that Brahman is anyhow indicated in the preceding sentence, even then, there is nothing to make us aware that the same Brahman is indicated here.

1.1.24 L.38 ✅ तत्र हि ‘त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ (ChanU.3.12.1) (ChanU.3.12.6) इति द्यौरधिकरणत्वेन श्रूयते;
There, by the passage “Its three parts which are immortal are in heaven” (ChanU.3.12.1,6), the heaven is mentioned as the abode.

1.1.24 L.39 ✅ अत्र पुनः ‘परो दिवो ज्योतिः’ इति द्यौर्मर्यादात्वेन।
But here (in the present sentence) — “Lustre above the heaven” — heaven is mentioned as the boundary.

1.1.24 L.40 ✅ तस्मात्प्राकृतं ज्योतिरिह ग्राह्यमित्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Therefore, it is only the Lustre which is an effect from a cause that should be understood to be referred to here.

1.1.24 L.41 ✅ ज्योतिरिह ब्रह्म ग्राह्यम्।
As regards this conclusion of the opponent, we reply — By the word ‘Lustre’ we should understand Brahman.

1.1.24 L.42 ✅ कुतः? चरणाभिधानात्, पादाभिधानादित्यर्थः।
How so? Because of the mention of the feet. The meaning is that the foot (of a metre) is mentioned.

1.1.24 L.43 ✅ पूर्वस्मिन्हि वाक्ये चतुष्पाद्ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम् – ‘तावानस्य महिमा ततो ज्यायाꣳश्च पूरुषः। पादोऽस्य सर्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ (ChanU.3.12.6) इत्यनेन मन्त्रेण।
Just in the previous sentence quadrupedal Brahman is indicated by the following Mantra: — “Only that much is the greatness of this (i.e. the Gāyatrī metre of four parts), greater than it is the Puruṣa, one foot of his represents all these beings, and the remaining three immortal feet are in heaven” (ChanU.3.12.6).

1.1.24 L.44 ✅ तत्र यच्चतुष्पदो ब्रह्मणस्त्रिपादमृतं द्युसम्बन्धिरूपं निर्दिष्टम्, तदेवेह द्युसम्बन्धान्निर्दिष्टमिति प्रत्यभिज्ञायते।
We know that the same three immortal feet of the quadrupedal Brahman which are mentioned in connection with the heaven there, are here indicated, because of the connection with heaven.

1.1.24 L.45 ✅ तत्परित्यज्य प्राकृतं ज्योतिः कल्पयतः प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रिये प्रसज्येयाताम्।
If one were to reject that and accept the ordinary light, (the fault of) giving up that which is relevant and accepting that which is irrelevant, would occur.

1.1.24 L.46 ✅ न केवलं ज्योतिर्वाक्य एव ब्रह्मानुवृत्तिः; परस्यामपि शाण्डिल्यविद्यायामनुवर्तिष्यते ब्रह्म।
It is not that Brahman has again been repeated from the previous sentence only, in the passage referring to ‘Lustre’, but (it will be seen) that in the subsequent ‘Śāṇḍilya Vidyā’ also, the same Brahman will again be repeated.

1.1.24 L.47 ✅ तस्मादिह ज्येतिरिति ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यम्।
Therefore here, by ‘Lustre’ (Jyotis) we should understand Brahman.

1.1.24 L.48 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – ‘ज्योतिर्दीप्यते’ इति चैतौ शब्दौ कार्ये ज्योतिषि प्रसिद्धाविति,
The objection, that the words ‘The Lustre shines’ are well-known to be used in the case of ‘Lustre’ the effect (from a cause),

1.1.24 L.49 ✅ नायं दोषः; प्रकरणाद्ब्रह्मावगमे सत्यनयोः शब्दयोरविशेषकत्वात्,
(We reply) — it is no fault, because, when from the chapter, Brahman is understood (to be indicated), the words ‘the Lustre shines’ have not the effect of indicating an ordinary light (an effect from a cause) to the exclusion of Brahman,

1.1.24 L.50 ✅ दीप्यमानकार्यज्योतिरुपलक्षिते ब्रह्मण्यपि प्रयोगसम्भवात्;
And it is possible to use the expression for Brahman, which is suggested by an effect (of Brahman, such as the Sun) having a shining Lustre.

1.1.24 L.51 ✅ ‘येन सूर्यस्तपति तेजसेद्धः’ (तै. ब्रा. ३-१२-९-७) इति च मन्त्रवर्णात्।
And also because of the words of the Mantra — “That (Brahman), kindled by whose Tejas, the' Sun shines” (Tait. Brā. 3.12.9.7).

1.1.24 L.52 ✅ यद्वा, नायं ज्योतिःशब्दश्चक्षुर्वृत्तेरेवानुग्राहके तेजसि वर्तते, अन्यत्रापि प्रयोगदर्शनात् –
Or else it may also be, that the word ‘Lustre’ does not refer only to Lustre which helps the function of the eye, because, we find it used elsewhere also as follows: —

1.1.24 L.53 ✅ ‘वाचैवायं ज्योतिषास्ते’ (BrhU.4.3.5)
“When the sun has set (i.e. in darkness), sound (Vāk) serves as light (for the Puruṣa)” (BrhUEng.4.3.5),

1.1.24 L.54 ✅ ‘मनो ज्योतिर्जुषताम्’ (तै. ब्रा. १-६-३-३) इति च।
“The mind of the partaker of ghee is lustre (i.e. Jyotis).” (Tait. Brā. 1. 6.3.3).

1.1.24 L.55 ✅ तस्माद्यद्यत्कस्यचिदवभासकं तत्तज्ज्योतिःशब्देनाभिधीयते।
Therefore, whatever is the cause which makes different things manifest (and not only the sense-organ ‘eye’) is said to be the ‘Lustre’.

1.1.24 L.56 ✅ तथा सति ब्रह्मणोऽपि चैतन्यरूपस्य समस्तजगदवभासहेतुत्वादुपपन्नो ज्योतिःशब्दः।
That being so, the word ‘Lustre’ is appropriate in the case of Brahman, which is of the nature of intelligence, because of its being the cause which makes the whole world manifest.

1.1.24 L.57 ✅ ‘तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति’ (KathU.2.2.15) (MunU.2.2.11)
And also because of the following Scriptural passages: — “After Him who continues to shine, all things shine, and it is by His effulgence that all this is illuminated” (KausU.2.5.15),

1.1.24 L.58 ✅ ‘तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्’ (BrhU.4.4.16) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च।
And “Him, the Gods meditate upon devoutly, as the lustre of all lustres, as life itself (Āyus), as the immortal” (BrhUEng.4.4.16).

1.1.24 L.59 ✅ यदप्युक्तं द्युमर्यादत्वं सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणो नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the objection, that it is not reasonably sustainable in the case of Brahman which is all-pervading, that it has a boundary such as the heaven,

1.1.24 L.60 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – सर्वगतस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपासनार्थः प्रदेशविशेषपरिग्रहो न विरुध्यते।
We reply — Even in the case of the all-pervading Brahman, it is not contradictory to speak about its having a particular ‘locus’ for the purpose of devout meditation.

1.1.24 L.61 ✅ ननूक्तं निष्प्रदेशस्य ब्रह्मणः प्रदेशविशेषकल्पना नोपपद्यत इति; नायं दोषः,
निष्प्रदेशस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपाधिविशेषसम्बन्धात्प्रदेशविशेषकल्पनोपपत्तेः।
But (says the opponent) we have already said that it is not reasonably sustainable to imagine Brahman to be circumscribed when it is undelimited (i.e. is all-pervading),
Because even though it is so undelimited, it is reasonably sustainable to say about it, so long as it continues to be affected by any particular adjunct, that it is circumscribed or limited.

1.1.24 L.62 ✅ तथा हि – आदित्ये, चक्षुषि, हृदये इति प्रदेशविशेषसम्बन्धीनि ब्रह्मणः उपासनानि श्रूयन्ते।
In this manner it is, that Scriptures mention devout meditations on Brahman in connection with such definite objects such as the Sun, the eyes, and the Hṛdaya.

1.1.24 L.63 ✅ एतेन ‘विश्वतः पृष्ठेषु’ इत्याधारबहुत्वमुपपादितम्।
On the strength of the above, the plurality of abodes, as in “On the top of everything”, has been explained.

1.1.24 L.64 ✅ यदप्येतदुक्तम् औष्ण्यघोषानुमिते कौक्षेये कार्ये ज्योतिष्यध्यस्यमानत्वात्परमपि दिवः कार्यज्योतिरेवेति, तदप्ययुक्तम्;
The further objection, that inasmuch as the notion of the highest lustre is superimposed (during devout meditation) on the gastric fire inferred from its warmth and sound, and which is an effect (Kārya), the lustre ‘beyond the heaven’ should also be understood to be an effect (Kārya) only, is not proper and reasonable.

1.1.24 L.65 ✅ परस्यापि ब्रह्मणो नामादिप्रतीकत्ववत्कौक्षेयज्योतिष्प्रतीकत्वोपपत्तेः।
Because, as in the case of the Nāman etc. (either names such as Viṣṇu, Hari etc. or some Tāntrika device) which are used as a symbol, that the gastric fire also can be a symbol of Brahman is reasonably sustainable.

1.1.24 L.66 ✅ ‘दृष्टं च श्रुतं चेत्युपासीत’ इति तु प्रतीकद्वारकं दृष्टत्वं श्रुतत्वं च भविष्यति।
The seeing or hearing as mentioned in the Scriptural passage “It should be meditated upon as that which is the means of seeing it or hearing it” can well be so by way of being a symbol (of Brahman).

1.1.24 L.67 ✅ यदप्युक्तमल्पफलश्रवणात् न ब्रह्मेति, तदप्यनुपपन्नम्;
The objection, that because a minor fruit is mentioned by the Scriptures, the word ‘Lustre’ should not be understood to be Brahman, is similarly not reasonably sustainable,

1.1.24 L.68 ✅ न हि इयते फलाय ब्रह्माश्रयणीयम्, इयते न इति नियमे हेतुरस्ति।
As there is no raison d’etre for a rule that one should have recourse to Brahman for obtaining that much fruit only, and not for obtaining this much.

1.1.24 L.69 ✅ यत्र हि निरस्तसर्वविशेषसम्बन्धं परं ब्रह्मात्मत्वेनोपदिश्यते, तत्रैकरूपमेव फलं मोक्ष इत्यवगम्यते।
Where the Highest Brahman devoid of all connection with any particular attributes is taught to be the Self of all, we understand (in that case) that there is a uniform fruit only, viz. Final Release,

1.1.24 L.70 ✅ यत्र तु गुणविशेषसम्बन्धं प्रतीकविशेषसम्बन्धं वा ब्रह्मोपदिश्यते,
तत्र संसारगोचराण्येवोच्चावचानि फलानि दृश्यन्ते –
But where Brahman, as connected with distinguishing attributes, or as connected with outward symbols, is taught,
(In that case) higher or lower fruits as they are known in this transmigratory existence, are found to be mentioned,

1.1.24 L.71 ✅ ‘अन्नादो वसुदानो विन्दते वसु य एवं वेद’ (BrhU.4.4.24) इत्याद्यासु श्रुतिषु।
As for instance in the following Scriptural passage — “He is the eater of all food’s and the giver of wealth; he who knows it to be so, obtains wealth” (BrhUEng.4.4.24).

1.1.24 L.72 ✅ यद्यपि न स्ववाक्ये किञ्चिज्ज्योतिषो ब्रह्मलिङ्गमस्ति, तथापि पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये दृश्यमानं ग्रहीतव्यं भवति।
Though in the present passage, there is no indicatory mark of Brahman in the case of the word ‘Lustre’, still, the indicatory mark which appears in the preceding sentence, should be accepted (for this Sūtra also).

1.1.24 L.73 ✅ तदुक्तं सूत्रकारेण – ज्योतिश्चरणाभिधानादिति।
The same is stated by the Sūtra-kāra in the present Sūtra “Jyotis (is Brahman) on account of the mention of the feet”.

1.1.24 L.74 ✅ कथं पुनर्वाक्यान्तरगतेन ब्रह्मसन्निधानेन ज्योतिःश्रुतिः स्वविषयात् शक्या प्रच्यावयितुम्?
As to the objection, as to how the fact of the proximity of Brahman in the former Scriptural sentence about Jyotis can cause the word ‘Jyotis’ mentioned in the Scriptural passage here to be diverted from its own proper subject,

1.1.24 L.75 ✅ नैष दोषः, ‘अथ यदतः परो दिवो ज्योतिः’ इति प्रथमतरपठितेन यच्छब्देन सर्वनाम्ना द्युसम्बन्धात्प्रत्यभिज्ञायमाने पूर्ववाक्यनिर्दिष्टे ब्रह्मणि स्वसामर्थ्येन परामृष्टे सत्यर्थाज्ज्योतिःशब्दस्यापि ब्रह्मविषयत्वोपपत्तेः।
We reply — It is no fault, because when once the pronoun ‘Yat’ which is mentioned earlier in the Scriptural passage “Yat ataḥ paro divo Jyotiḥ” has by its own power (of indicating what is near it) intimated Brahman which is known from its relation with heaven, and is indicated in the preceding Sūtra, then it is of course reasonably sustainable that the word ‘Lustre’ also indicates Brahman.

1.1.24 L.76 ✅ तस्मादिह ज्योतिरिति ब्रह्म प्रतिपत्तव्यम्॥२४॥
Therefore, by the word ‘Lustre’ here, we should understand Brahman. — 24.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
छन्दोभिधानान्नेति चेन्न तथा चेतोर्पणनिगदात्तथाहि दर्शनम्॥१.१.२५॥
Chando'bhidhānān neti cen na tathā ceto'rpaṇa-nigadāt tathāhi darśanam.

Chandas: the metre known as Gāyatrī; Abhidhānāt: because of the description; Na: not; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Tathā: thus, like that; Cetas-arpaṇa: application of the mind; Nigadāt: because of the teaching; Tathā hi: like that; Darśanam: it is seen (in other texts).

🔗 If it is said that (Brahman) is not indicated, because only the Gāyatrī metre is mentioned, (we reply) — no, because resigning of the mind is mentioned, and it is so seen from the Scriptures also. — 1.1.25.

1.1.25 L.1 ✅ अथ यदुक्तं पूर्वस्मिन्नपि वाक्ये न ब्रह्माभिहितमस्ति, ‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वं भूतं यदिदं किञ्च’ (ChanU.3.12.1) इति गायत्र्याख्यस्य च्छन्दसोऽभिहितत्वादिति; तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
Now what has been said, viz. that, as only the metre called Gāyatrī is mentioned (and not Brahman) in even the preceding Sūtra, in the Scriptural passage “Gāyatrī is all this creation, whatsoever all this is” (ChanU.3.12.1) has to be refuted.

1.1.25 L.2 ✅ कथं पुनश्छन्दोभिधानान्न ब्रह्माभिहितमिति शक्यते वक्तुम्?
यावता ‘तावानस्य महिमा’ इत्येतस्यामृचि चतुष्पाद्ब्रह्म दर्शितम्।
(The Vedāntin says) — How can it be said, that because of the mention of only a metre, Brahman is not indicated,
When, in that Scriptural Ṛk — “That much is its greatness etc.” — the quadrupedal Brahman is indicated?

1.1.25 L.3 ✅ नैतदस्ति।
It is not so (says the opponent).

1.1.25 L.4 ✅ ‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वम्’ इति गायत्रीमुपक्रम्य,
When, having introduced Gāyatrī by the Scriptural passage — “Gāyatrī is all this” —

1.1.25 L.5 ✅ तामेव भूतपृथिवीशरीरहृदयवाक्प्राणप्रभेदैर्व्याख्याय,
And having described the same Gāyatrī in its different distinctive features such as, the elements, the earth, the body, the heart, speech, and vital air,

1.1.25 L.6 ✅ ‘सैषा चतुष्पदा षड्विधा गायत्री तदेतदृचाभ्यनूक्तं तावानस्य महिमा’ (ChanU.3.12.5) (ChanU.3.12.6) इति तस्यामेव व्याख्यातरूपायां गायत्र्यामुदाहृतो मन्त्रः
And having also quoted the Mantra — “This Gāyatrī is quadrupedal and six-formed (‘four-quartered six-fold Gāyatrī’ — Hume) and when, the Mantra that all this is, is made manifest by this Ṛk; that much is its greatness” (ChanU.3.12.5,6) — in connection with the same Gāyatrī which is explained in this form, is cited in illustration of it,

1.1.25 L.7 ✅ कथमकस्माद्ब्रह्म चतुष्पादभिदध्यात्।
How can the same Mantra suddenly indicate the quadrupedal Brahman?

1.1.25 L.8 ✅ योऽपि तत्र ‘यद्वै तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.12.7) इति ब्रह्मशब्दः, सोऽपि च्छन्दसः प्रकृतत्वाच्छन्दोविषय एव।
And again, when the word Brahman which in “Which verily is that Brahman” (ChanU.3.12.7) is also used in connection with the same ‘metre’, inasmuch as it is the same metre which is relevant (to this context),

1.1.25 L.9 ✅ ‘य एतामेवं ब्रह्मोपनिषदं वेद’ (ChanU.3.11.3) इत्यत्र हि वेदोपनिषदमिति व्याचक्षते।
And when in the Scriptural passage “Who knows this (Gāyatrī) as ‘Brahma-Upaniṣad’ in this manner” (ChanU.3.11.3) also, it is construed as ‘Veda-Upaniṣad’, how can it indicate the quadrupedal Brahman?

1.1.25 L.10 ✅ तस्माच्छन्दोभिधानान्न ब्रह्मणः प्रकृतत्वमिति चेत्,
Therefore, if it be said (by the opponent), that as only a ‘metre’ is mentioned, Brahman is not relevant (i.e. is not the subject dealt with) here,

1.1.25 L.11 ✅ नैष दोषः। तथा चेतोर्पणनिगदात् – तथा गायत्र्याख्यच्छन्दोद्वारेण, तदनुगते ब्रह्मणि चेतसोऽर्पणं चित्तसमाधानम् अनेन ब्राह्मणवाक्येन निगद्यते – ‘गायत्री वा इदꣳ सर्वम्’ इति।
We reply — This is no fault, because it is in that manner that by the Scriptural Brāhmaṇa passage “Gāyatrī verily is all this” the resigning of the mind (in Brahman) is mentioned, by means of the fixing of the mind in abstract contemplation i.e. by resigning of the mind in Brahman, which is connected with this metre known as the Gāyatrī.

1.1.25 L.12 ✅ न ह्यक्षरसन्निवेशमात्राया गायत्र्याः सर्वात्मकत्वं सम्भवति।
It is not possible, that Gāyatrī which is merely a particular metrical arrangement of letters can be the Self of all.

1.1.25 L.13 ✅ तस्माद्यद्गायत्र्याख्यविकारेऽनुगतं जगत्कारणं ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम्, तदिह सर्वमित्युच्यते, यथा ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.14.1) इति।
Therefore (we say) that Brahman, the cause of this transitory world, which is inherent in its effect known as Gāyatrī, is what is here described as ‘all’, as for instance in the Scriptural passage — “All this, verily, is Brahman” (ChanU.3.14.1).

1.1.25 L.14 ✅ कार्यं च कारणादव्यतिरिक्तमिति वक्ष्यामः – ‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (BrS.2.1.14) इत्यत्र।
We shall speak hereafter by the Sūtra “Tad ananyatvam ārambhana-śabdādibhyaḥ” (BrS.2.1.14), that an effect is not different from the cause.

1.1.25 L.15 ✅ तथान्यत्रापि विकारद्वारेण ब्रह्मण उपासनं दृश्यते –
In other places too we observe devout meditation on Brahman, in an indirect way through an effect or modification, thus —

1.1.25 L.16 ✅ ‘एतं ह्येव बह्वृचा महत्युक्थे मीमांसन्त एतमग्नावध्वर्यव एवं महाव्रते च्छन्दोगाः’ (ऐ. आ. ३-२-३-१२) इति।
“The followers of Ṛg-Veda interpret it (Brahman) in the great Uktha, the followers of Yajur-Veda, in the sacrificial fire, and the followers of Sāman-Veda, in ‘Mahā-vrata’” (Ait. Brā. 3.2.3.12).

1.1.25 L.17 ✅ तस्मादस्ति च्छन्दोभिधानेऽपि पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये चतुष्पाद्ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम्।
Therefore also, even though in the preceding sentence, a metre is mentioned, it is the quadrupedal Brahman that is indicated,

1.1.25 L.18 ✅ तदेव ज्योतिर्वाक्येऽपि परामृश्यत उपासनान्तरविधानाय।
And the same is again referred to in the sentence containing the word ‘Jyotis’, with a view to enjoin another (sort of) devout meditation.

1.1.25 L.19 ✅ अपर आह – साक्षादेव गायत्रीशब्देन ब्रह्म प्रतिपाद्यते, संख्यासामान्यात्।
Others (the Vṛtti-kāras etc.) maintain that by the word Gāyatrī, Brahman itself is directly indicated (and not indirectly) because of numerical equality.

1.1.25 L.20 ✅ यथा गायत्री चतुष्पदा षडक्षरैः पादैः, तथा ब्रह्म चतुष्पात्।
Just as Gāyatrī (the metre), has four feet (Caraṇas) consisting of six words in every foot, so Brahman also is quadrupedal.

1.1.25 L.21 ✅ तथान्यत्रापि च्छन्दोभिधायी शब्दोऽर्थान्तरे संख्यासामान्यात्प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते।
Similarly elsewhere also, a word signifying a metre is used to indicate another meaning, because of numerical equality.

1.1.25 L.22 ✅ तद्यथा – ‘ते वा एते पञ्चान्ये पञ्चान्ये दश सन्तस्तत्कृतम्’ इत्युपक्रम्याह ‘सैषा विराडन्नादी’ इति।
As for instance, beginning with “These five of one sort (viz. Vāyu, fire, sun, moon and water, in the Ādhidaivika sense) and those other five of the other sort (viz. Vital air, speech, eyes, ear and mind in the Ādhyātmika sense), being ten in all, make the ‘Kṛta’”, it is further mentioned thus: — “So is this Virāṭ which is the eater of all things” (ChanU.4.3.8).

1.1.25 L.23 ✅ अस्मिन्पक्षे ब्रह्मैवाभिहितमिति न च्छन्दोभिधानम्।
According to the adherents of this view (Pakṣa), by the word Gāyatrī, Brahman is directly indicated and not only a metre.

1.1.25 L.24 ✅ सर्वथाप्यस्ति पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये प्रकृतं ब्रह्म इति॥२५॥
Be that as it may, we consider that in every way in the preceding sentence Brahman is the relevant thing. — 25.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
भूतादिपादव्यपदेशोपपत्तेश्चैवम्॥१.१.२६॥
Bhūtādi-pāda-vyapadeśopapatteś caivam.

Bhūta-ādi: the elements etc. i.e. the elements, the earth, the body and the heart; Pāda: (of) foot, part; Vyapadeśa: (of) mention (of) declaration or expression; Upapatteḥ: because of the possibility or proof, reasonableness, as it is rightly deduced from the above reasons; Ca: also; Evam: thus, so.

🔗 (We must understand it) like this, as only in that way, the mention of the beings etc. as constituting the foot (of Brahman), can be reasonably sustainable. — 1.1.26.

1.1.26 L.1 ✅ इतश्चैवमभ्युपगन्तव्यमस्ति पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये प्रकृतं ब्रह्मेति;
Hence it is, that it has to be understood in this manner, viz. that in the previous sentence Brahman is the relevant thing,

1.1.26 L.2 ✅ यतो भूतादीन्पादान्व्यपदिशति श्रुतिः।
As the Scriptures mention beings etc. as constituting the foot (of Brahman).

1.1.26 L.3 ✅ भूतपृथिवीशरीरहृदयानि हि निर्दिश्याह – ‘सैषा चतुष्पदा षड्विधा गायत्री’ (ChanU.4.3.8) इति।
Having indicated the beings, the Earth, the body and the Hṛdaya, the Scriptures say — “This Gāyatrī is quadrupedal and six-form” (ChanU.4.3.8).

1.1.26 L.4 ✅ न हि ब्रह्मानाश्रयणे केवलस्य च्छन्दसो भूतादयः पादा उपपद्यन्ते।
If it (i.e. the Gāyatrī metre) is not accepted to be Brahman, (the mention) that a mere metre has beings etc. as constituting its foot, would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.1.26 L.5 ✅ अपि च ब्रह्मानाश्रयणे नेयमृक् सम्बध्येत – ‘तावानस्य महिमा’ इति।
Besides, again, if we do not accept it (i.e. the metre) to be Brahman, the Ṛk “That much is its greatness” cannot be properly connected (with the preceding Ṛk).

1.1.26 L.6 ✅ अनया हि ऋचा स्वरसेन ब्रह्मैवाभिधीयते, ‘पादोऽस्य सर्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ (ChanU.3.12.5) इति सर्वात्मत्वोपपत्तेः।
It is by this very Ṛk that Brahman alone is indicated, and it is by the Scriptural passage “All beings are its foot and its three immortal feet are in heaven” that “That Brahman is the Self of all” (ChanU.3.12.5) becomes reasonably sustainable.

1.1.26 L.7 ✅ पुरुषसूक्तेऽपीयमृक् ब्रह्मपरतयैव समाम्नायते।
Even in the ‘Puruṣa-Sūkta’, this Ṛk is mentioned as meaning Brahman.

1.1.26 L.8 ✅ स्मृतिश्च ब्रह्मण एवंरूपतां दर्शयति – ‘विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत्’ (BhG.10.42) इति।
Smṛti also similarly indicates Brahman to be of such nature, thus — “I stand supporting all this world by one portion of myself” (BhG.10.42).

1.1.26 L.9 ✅ ‘यद्वै तद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.12.7) इति च निर्देश एवं सति मुख्यार्थ उपपद्यते।
The indication (by the Scriptural passage) “That which verily is Brahman” (ChanU.3.12.7) can be said to be reasonably sustainable in its principal meaning, only if it is so.

1.1.26 L.10 ✅ ‘ते वा एते पञ्च ब्रह्मपुरुषाः’ (ChanU.3.13.6) इति च हृदयसुषिषु ब्रह्मपुरुषश्रुतिर्ब्रह्मसम्बन्धितायां विवक्षितायां सम्भवति।
The Scriptural passage — “The five Brahma-Puruṣas (the door-keepers of the Brahma-Loka)” (ChanU.3.13.6) — which speaks of Brahma-Puruṣas in connection with the five vents of the Hṛdaya (i.e. doors through which to attain Brahman) can only be possible, provided what is intended to be said, has a connection with Brahman.

1.1.26 L.11 ✅ तस्मादस्ति पूर्वस्मिन्वाक्ये ब्रह्म प्रकृतम्।
Therefore, it is Brahman that is relevant in the preceding sentence.

1.1.26 L.12 ✅ तदेव ब्रह्म ज्योतिर्वाक्ये द्युसम्बन्धात्प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानं परामृश्यत इति स्थितम्॥२६॥
The conclusion, that the same Brahman is recognizable in, and is referred to, in the sentence containing the word ‘Jyotis’, by reason of a connection with the heavenly world, thus stands (established). – 26.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उपदेशभेदान्नेति चेन्नोभयस्मिन्नप्यविरोधात्॥१.१.२७॥
Upadeśa-bhedān neti cen nobhayasminn apy avirodhāt.

Upadeśa: of teaching of grammatical construction or cases; Bhedāt: because of the difference; Na: not; Iti cet: if it be said; Na: no; Ubhayasmin: in both, (whether in the ablative case or in the locative case); Api: even; A-virodhāt: because there is no contradiction.

🔗 If it be objected that (Brahman of the preceding sentence) cannot be understood (as Brahman, in the following sentence) because of the difference in the instruction, (we say) No, because as between them both there is no contradiction. — 1.1.27.

1.1.27 L.1 ✅ यदप्येतदुक्तम् – पूर्वत्र ‘त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि’ इति सप्तम्या द्यौः आधारत्वेनोपदिष्टा;
What also has been said — viz. that as, in the Scriptural passage “Its three immortal feet are in heaven” the locative case (Divi) is used to indicate that heaven is referred to as the support,

1.1.27 L.2 ✅ इह पुनः ‘अथ यदतः परो दिवः’ इति पञ्चम्या मर्यादात्वेन;
And again (in the subsequent passage) “That which is beyond the heaven” the ablative case (Divaḥ) is used to indicate heaven as a boundary,

1.1.27 L.3 ✅ तस्मादुपदेशभेदान्न तस्येह प्रत्यभिज्ञानमस्तीति – तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
Therefore, inasmuch as there is difference in the instruction, there is no recognition of that Brahman here (i.e. in the present sentence) — has to be refuted.

1.1.27 L.4 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – नायं दोषः, उभयस्मिन्नप्यविरोधात्।
With regard to this we say — This is no fault, because as between them both there is no contradiction (in using the locative and the ablative case for indicating Brahman).

1.1.27 L.5 ✅ उभयस्मिन्नपि सप्तम्यन्ते पञ्चम्यन्ते चोपदेशे न प्रत्यभिज्ञानं विरुध्यते।
In both the instructions in which the locative and the ablative case is used, there is no contradiction as to what is understood by both the sentences.

1.1.27 L.6 ✅ यथा लोके वृक्षाग्रेण सम्बद्धोऽपि श्येन उभयथोपदिश्यमानो दृश्यते –
Just as in ordinary life, a falcon which has a connection with the top of a tree, is seen to be described either way,

1.1.27 L.7 ✅ वृक्षाग्रे श्येनो वृक्षाग्रात्परतः श्येन इति च,
As for instance thus — in the top of a tree or beyond the top of a tree, —

1.1.27 L.8 ✅ एवं दिव्येव सद्ब्रह्म दिवः परमित्युपदिश्यते।
Similarly, Brahman, even though it is in heaven, is described as being beyond the heaven.

1.1.27 L.9 ✅ अपर आह – यथा लोके वृक्षाग्रेणासम्बद्धोऽपि श्येन उभयथोपदिश्यमानो दृश्यते – वृक्षाग्रे श्येनो वृक्षाग्रात्परतः श्येन इति च,
Another commentator says — Just as in ordinary life a falcon which really has no connection with the top of a tree, is seen to be described either way, as for instance, a falcon on the top of a tree or beyond the top of a tree,

1.1.27 L.10 ✅ एवं दिवः परमपि सद्ब्रह्म दिवीत्युपदिश्यते।
Similarly even Brahman which is beyond the heaven, is referred to as being in the heaven.

1.1.27 L.11 ✅ तस्मादस्ति पूर्वनिर्दिष्टस्य ब्रह्मण इह प्रत्यभिज्ञानम्।
Therefore there is recognition of Brahman, as indicated in the former sentence, in the latter sentence also.

1.1.27 L.12 ✅ अतः परमेव ब्रह्म ज्योतिःशब्दमिति सिद्धम्॥२७॥
Therefore it is established, that the transcendent Brahman alone is to be understood by the word ‘Jyotis’. — 27.

– 10. Jypotiś-caraṇa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.1.28 Su..29 Su..30 Su..31

←Prev Next→
प्राणस्तथानुगमात्॥१.१.२८॥
Prāṇas tathānugamāt.

Prāṇaḥ: the breath or life-energy; Tathā: thus, so, likewise like that stated before; like that stated in the Śruti quoted before in connection therewith; Anugamāt: because of being understood (from the texts).

🔗 Prāṇa (the chief vital air) is Brahman, because it is so comprehended. — 1.1.28.

1.1.28 L.1 ✅ अस्ति कौषीतकिब्राह्मणोपनिषदीन्द्रप्रतर्दनाख्यायिका – ‘प्रतर्दनो ह वै दैवोदासिरिन्द्रस्य प्रियं धामोपजगाम युद्धेन च पौरुषेण च’ (कौ. उ. ३-१) इत्यारभ्याम्नाता।
In the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa Upaniṣad there is mention of the following Indra-Pratardana legend, which begins thus — “Pratardana the grandson of Divo-dāsa, once upon a time reached the abode of Indra by means of battle and his prowess or manliness”.

1.1.28 L.2 ✅ तस्यां श्रूयते – ‘स होवाच प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा तं मामायुरमृतमित्युपास्स्व’ (कौ. उ. ३-२) इति।
In that legend, it is mentioned thus — (Indra said) “I am the Prāṇa, the Intelligential Self, and you should meditate on me, who am such, as life and immortality”.

1.1.28 L.3 ✅ तथोत्तरत्रापि – ‘अथ खलु प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति।
And later on — “It is the Prāṇa, which verily is the Intelligential Self, which seizes hold of this body and animates it”. (KausU.3.3).

1.1.28 L.4 ✅ तथा ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इति।
Similarly also (it mentions) — “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but try to know the speaker etc.”.

1.1.28 L.5 ✅ अन्ते च ‘स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ (कौ. उ. ३-९) इत्यादि।
And in the end — “This Prāṇa itself indeed is the Intelligential Self, bliss, and (is) ageless (i.e. unaging) and immortal etc.” (KausU.3.8).

1.1.28 L.6 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमिह प्राणशब्देन वायुमात्रमभिधीयते, उत देवतात्मा, उत जीवः, अथवा परं ब्रह्मेति।
In this connection a doubt arises as follows — Whether here, the word Prāṇa merely denotes Vāyu (air) or the ‘Self’ of a deity, or the Jīva-Self, or the Highest Brahman.

1.1.28 L.7 ✅ ननु ‘अत एव प्राणः’ इत्यत्र वर्णितं प्राणशब्दस्य ब्रह्मपरत्वम्;
(Here the opponent says) — that the word Prāṇa indicates Brahman, is described already in the Sūtra “For the same reason Prāṇa is Brahman” (BrS.1.1.23).

1.1.28 L.8 ✅ इहापि च ब्रह्मलिङ्गमस्ति – ‘आनन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इत्यादि;
Here also there is an indicatory mark of Brahman viz. “Bliss, ageless (i.e. unaging) and immortal etc.”.

1.1.28 L.9 ✅ कथमिह पुनः संशयः सम्भवति?
Whence then, could any doubt be possible? –

1.1.28 L.10 ✅ अनेकलिङ्गदर्शनादिति ब्रूमः।
(To this) we reply — (a doubt arises) because there are more than one indicatory marks.

1.1.28 L.11 ✅ न केवलमिह ब्रह्मलिङ्गमेवोपलभ्यते।
Not only is there an indicatory mark of Brahman, but there are other indicatory marks also.

1.1.28 L.12 ✅ सन्ति हीतरलिङ्गान्यपि – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ (कौ. उ. ३-१) इतीन्द्रस्य वचनं देवतात्मलिङ्गम्।
‘इदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति प्राणलिङ्गम्।
‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादि जीवलिङ्गम्। अत उपपन्नः संशयः।
(For instance,) Indra’s words — “You should know me only” (KausU.3.1), are the indicatory mark of the Self of a deity;
“Which seizes hold of this body and animates it i.e. rouses it to action” is an indicatory mark of the Chief Vital Air;
“Do not care to know speech, but try to know the speaker” is the indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self, and so, a doubt validly arises.

1.1.28 L.13 ✅ तत्र प्रसिद्धेर्वायुः प्राण इति प्राप्ते इदमुच्यते –
(With regard to this, the conclusion of the opponent being) because it is so well-known, (only) Vāyu (air) is the Prāṇa,

1.1.28 L.14 ✅ प्राणशब्दं ब्रह्म विज्ञेयम्।
(We reply) — By the word Prāṇa, we should know, that Brahman is meant.

1.1.28 L.15 ✅ कुतः? तथानुगमात्। तथाहि पौर्वापर्येण पर्यालोच्यमाने वाक्ये पदानां समन्वयो ब्रह्मप्रतिपादनपर उपलभ्यते।
How so? Because that is how we have to understand it, because, if we consider the sentence (i.e. as a whole from the beginning to the end), and the natural construction of the words and their meaning, it appears that it is intended to propound Brahman.

1.1.28 L.16 ✅ उपक्रमे तावत् ‘वरं वृणीष्व’ इतीन्द्रेणोक्तः प्रतर्दनः परमं पुरुषार्थं वरमुपचिक्षेप –
So far as the beginning is concerned, when Pratardana is spoken to, by Indra, thus — “Choose a boon” — Pratardana chooses as the boon the highest aim of man, thus —

1.1.28 L.17 ✅ ‘त्वमेव मे वृणीष्व यं त्वं मनुष्याय हिततमं मन्यसे’ इति।
“(Oh Indra,) do please choose for me that boon which you consider as most beneficial to man.”

1.1.28 L.18 ✅ तस्मै हिततमत्वेनोपदिश्यमानः प्राणः कथं परमात्मा न स्यात्।
Then, how can Prāṇa, about which instruction is here given to Pratardana as being the most beneficial, not be the Highest Brahman?

1.1.28 L.19 ✅ न ह्यन्यत्र परमात्मविज्ञानाद्धिततमप्राप्तिरस्ति,
There is nothing, except the knowledge of the Highest Brahman, whose acquisition is the most beneficial,

1.1.28 L.20 ✅ ‘तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ (SvetU.3.8) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Because the Scriptural passage says — “It is by knowing Brahman that a man conquers Death, there is no other path for going (out of the transmigratory existence)” (SvetU.3.8).

1.1.28 L.21 ✅ तथा ‘स यो मां वेद न ह वै तस्य केनचन कर्मणा लोको मीयते न स्तेयेन न भ्रूणहत्यया’ (कौ. उ. ३.१) इत्यादि च ब्रह्मपरिग्रहे घटते।
Similarly the Scriptural passage — “The person who knows me is not by any act of his deprived of his fruit (Loka i.e. Mokṣa), even though he commits a theft or causes the death of a man learned in Vedas” (KausU.3.1) — fits in, only if we understand Prāṇa to be Brahman.

1.1.28 L.22 ✅ ब्रह्मविज्ञानेन हि सर्वकर्मक्षयः प्रसिद्धः –
It is well-known that through the knowledge of Brahman, all ‘Karma’ is worked out or exhausted,

1.1.28 L.23 ✅ ‘क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे’ इत्याद्यासु श्रुतिषु।
For the Scriptural passage says — “When that Parāvara (one that is both the higher and the lower) is realized, all the Karma of a man is exhausted”. (MunU.2.2.8).

1.1.28 L.24 ✅ प्रज्ञात्मत्वं च ब्रह्मपक्ष एवोपपद्यते।
That Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self would be reasonably possible, only if it is accepted that Prāṇa indicates Brahman.

1.1.28 L.25 ✅ न ह्यचेतनस्य वायोः प्रज्ञात्मत्वं सम्भवति।
It is not possible that the non-sentient ‘Vāyu’ could be the sentient Self.

1.1.28 L.26 ✅ तथोपसंहारेऽपि ‘आनन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इत्यानन्दत्वादीनि न ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्र सम्यक् सम्भवन्ति।
Similarly in the peroration also, blissfulness etc. referred to in “Bliss, ageless (unaging) and immortal” could not be reasonably sustainable, unless by these words we understand Brahman.

1.1.28 L.27 ✅ ‘स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्भवति नो एवासाधुना कर्मणा कनीयानेष ह्येव साधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्य उन्निनीषते।
एष उ एवासाधु कर्म कारयति तं यमेभ्यो लोकेभ्योऽधो निनीषते’ इति,
‘एष लोकाधिपतिरेष लोकपाल एष लोकेशः’ (कौ. उ. ३-९) इति च।
(Also the Scriptural passage) — “He does not add to his stature by good deeds, nor does he become any the less in stature by bad action; for he makes those, whom he desires to uplift from these regions, do good deeds,
And makes those, whom he desires to lead towards the abyss, do bad deeds” etc.
And “He is the head of this world, and the ruler of it” (KausU.3.8).

1.1.28 L.28 ✅ सर्वमेतत्परस्मिन्ब्रह्मण्याश्रीयमाणेऽनुगन्तुं शक्यते, न मुख्ये प्राणे।
It is possible to understand all this in this manner, only if we understand that by Prāṇa, the Highest Brahman is meant, and not the ‘Chief Vital Air’.

1.1.28 L.29 ✅ तस्मात्प्राणो ब्रह्म॥२८॥
Therefore Prāṇa means Brahman. — 28.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न वक्तुरात्मोपदेशादिति चेदध्यात्मसम्बन्धभूमा ह्यस्मिन्॥१.१.२९॥
Na vaktur ātmopadeśād iti ced adhyātma-sambandha-bhūmā hy asmin.

Na: not; Vaktuḥ: of the speaker (Indra); Ātmā: of the Self; Upadeśāt: on account of instruction; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Adhyātma-sambandha-bhūmā: abundance of reference to the Inner Self; Hi: because; Asmin: in this (chapter or Upaniṣad).

🔗 If it be said that (Brahman) is not (indicated), because the speaker instructs about his own-self, (we reply) — no, because there is here (in this Adhyāya) a profusion of Adhyātma relation (i.e. the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest Self). — 1.1.29.

1.1.29 L.1 ✅ यदुक्तं प्राणो ब्रह्मेति, तदाक्षिप्यते –
Objection is here raised to the statement (of the Vedāntin) that Prāṇa is Brahman, thus —

1.1.29 L.2 ✅ न परं ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दम्;
Highest Brahman is not expressed by the word Prāṇa.

1.1.29 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? वक्तुरात्मोपदेशात्।
Why? Because the speaker gives instruction about his own-self.

1.1.29 L.4 ✅ वक्ता हीन्द्रो नाम कश्चिद्विग्रहवान्देवताविशेषः
स्वमात्मानं प्रतर्दनायाचचक्षे – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा’ इत्यहंकारवादेन।
The speaker, by name Indra, who is a particular deity endowed with a body,
Speaks about his own-self to Pratardana, thus — He (Indra) begins by saying “Know me only” and then says in an egotistic manner (Ahaṅ-kāra-vādena), “I am Prāṇa the Intelligential Self”.

1.1.29 L.5 ✅ स एष वक्तुरात्मत्वेनोपदिश्यमानः प्राणः कथं ब्रह्म स्यात्?
How then, can this Prāṇa, about which instruction is given (by Indra) about its being the self of the speaker, be Brahman?

1.1.29 L.6 ✅ न हि ब्रह्मणो वक्तृत्वं सम्भवति, ‘अवागमनाः’ (BrhU.3.8.8) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
It is not possible that Brahman can express itself in speech, because the Scriptures mention that Brahman is “Sans-speech, sans-mind” (BrhUEng.3.8.8).

1.1.29 L.7 ✅ तथा विग्रहसम्बन्धिभिरेव ब्रह्मण्यसम्भवद्भिर्धर्मैरिन्द्र आत्मानं तुष्टाव –
Similarly Indra praises himself as possessing attributes associated only with a body, which could not be possible in the case of Brahman, thus —

1.1.29 L.8 ✅ ‘त्रिशीर्षाणं त्वाष्ट्रमहनमरुन्मुखान्यतीञ्शालावृकेभ्यः प्रायच्छम्’ इत्येवमादिभिः।
“I killed the three-headed Tvāṣṭrā, threw the Yatis who could not recite the Vedas properly (Arunmukhān), to the wolves” etc.

1.1.29 L.9 ✅ प्राणत्वं चेन्द्रस्य बलवत्त्वादुपपद्यते;
That Indra can be Prāṇa, is reasonably possible, because of his might,

1.1.29 L.10 ✅ ‘प्राणो वै बलम्’ इति हि विज्ञायते।
Because it is known that “Prāṇa verily is might”.

1.1.29 L.11 ✅ बलस्य चेन्द्रो देवता प्रसिद्धा। ‘या च काचिद्बलकृतिः, इन्द्रकर्मैव तत्’ इति हि वदन्ति।
It is a well-known that Indra is the deity possessing might, and any deed requiring might is known as the work of Indra.

1.1.29 L.12 ✅ प्रज्ञात्मत्वमप्यप्रतिहतज्ञानत्वाद्देवतात्मनः सम्भवति।
And because the self of a deity possesses unobstructed knowledge, it can be described as being the Intelligential Self.

1.1.29 L.13 ✅ अप्रतिहतज्ञाना देवता इति हि वदन्ति।
It is said that deities possess unobstructed knowledge.

1.1.29 L.14 ✅ निश्चिते चैवं देवतात्मोपदेशे हिततमत्वादिवचनानि यथासम्भवं तद्विषयाण्येव योजयितव्यानि।
When, therefore, it is determined that the instruction is about the self of a deity, words referring to ‘being most beneficial’ (Hitātmatva) should so far as possible be construed as referring to that deity.

1.1.29 L.15 ✅ तस्माद्वक्तुरिन्द्रस्यात्मोपदेशात् न प्राणो ब्रह्मेत्याक्षिप्य प्रतिसमाधीयते –
Having in this manner raised the objection that, as the instruction is, that as the speaker Indra is referring to his own-self as Prāṇa, it cannot be Brahman, it is refuted as follows —

1.1.29 L.16 ✅ ‘अध्यात्मसम्बन्धभूमा ह्यस्मिन्’ इति। अध्यात्मसम्बन्धः प्रत्यगात्मसम्बन्धः, तस्य भूमा बाहुल्यम्, अस्मिन्नध्याये उपलभ्यते।
That there is a profusion of ‘Adhyātma’ relation (i.e. the relation between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self), i.e. a profusion of a relation to the Universal Self, in this.

1.1.29 L.17 ✅ ‘यावद्ध्यस्मिञ्शरीरे प्राणो वसति तावदायुः’ इति प्राणस्यैव प्रज्ञात्मनः प्रत्यग्भूतस्यायुष्प्रदानोपसंहारयोः स्वातन्त्र्यं दर्शयति,
The Scriptural passage — “As long as Prāṇa resides in the body, so long there is life” — shows that only Prāṇa which is the Intelligential and the Universal Self, has the freedom (Svātantrya) of conferring and taking away life,

1.1.29 L.18 ✅ न देवताविशेषस्य पराचीनस्य।
And not any particular Deity which has come into existence later on.

1.1.29 L.19 ✅ तथास्तित्वे च प्राणानां निःश्रेयसमित्यध्यात्ममेवेन्द्रियाश्रयं प्राणं दर्शयति।
Similarly the Scriptural passage “There is however a superior excellence among the vital breaths” (KausU.3.2) indicates the Prāṇa (i.e. the Chief Prāṇa) as the highest good of the sense-organs which abide in it.

1.1.29 L.20 ✅ तथा ‘प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ (कौ. उ. ३.३) इति।
‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इति चोपक्रम्य
Similarly beginning with the Scriptural passages — “Prāṇa alone, which is the Intelligential Self, seizes hold of the body and animates it i.e. rouses it to action” (KausU.3.3),
And “Do not care to know speech, but desire to know the speaker” —,

1.1.29 L.21 ✅ ‘तद्यथा रथस्यारेषु नेमिरर्पिता नाभावरा अर्पिता एवमेवैता भूतमात्राः प्रज्ञामात्रास्वर्पिताः प्रज्ञामात्राः प्राणेऽर्पिताः
स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इति
The Scriptural passage — “Just as the tyre of a chariot is set on the spokes and the spokes are set in the nave, even so, entities like Earth, water etc. and their attributes viz. smell etc. (i.e. Bhūta-mātras) are set in sense-organs like the ear etc. and their sensations (i.e. Prajñā-mātrās) are set in the Prāṇa
And this Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self, bliss, ageless and immortal” — in the end,

1.1.29 L.22 ✅ विषयेन्द्रियव्यवहारारनाभिभूतं प्रत्यगात्मानमेवोपसंहरति।
Concludes, that “the Prāṇa is the Universal Self which is unconquered by the interaction of the sense-organs,”

1.1.29 L.23 ✅ ‘स म आत्मेति विद्यात्’ इति चोपसंहारः प्रत्यगात्मपरिग्रहे साधुः, न पराचीनपरिग्रहे।
And the final conclusion — “Know him to be my-self” — would be sound, only if (by Prāṇa) the Universal Self is accepted, and not any other entity which has come into existence later on.

1.1.29 L.24 ✅ ‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः’ (BrhU.2.5.19) इति च श्रुत्यन्तरम्।
Another Scriptural passage is — “This Self is Brahman, the all-perceiving” (BrhUEng.2.5.19).

1.1.29 L.25 ✅ तस्मादध्यात्मसम्बन्धबाहुल्याद्ब्रह्मोपदेश एवायम्, न देवतात्मोपदेशः॥२९॥
Therefore it is because there is this profusion of Adhyātma relation (i.e. the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest Self), that the instruction is only about Brahman and not about the Self of a deity. — 29.

[Go top]

1.1.30 L.1 ✅ कथं तर्हि वक्तुरात्मोपदेशः? –
How then is it that, here, the speaker is seen to give instruction about his own self?

←Prev Next→
शास्त्रदृष्ट्या तूपदेशो वामदेववत्॥१.१.३०॥
Śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāma-devavat.

Śāstra-dṛṣṭyā: through insight based on scripture or as attested by Śruti; Tu: but; Upadeśaḥ: instruction; Vāma-devavat: like that of Vāma-deva.

🔗 The Instruction (by Indra to Pratardana) is in conformity with the realization of the truth of the Śāstra (by Indra), as was in the case of Vāma-deva. — 1.1.30.

1.1.30 L.2 ✅ इन्द्रो नाम देवतात्मा स्वमात्मानं परमात्मत्वेन ‘अहमेव परं ब्रह्म’ इत्यार्षेण दर्शनेन यथाशास्त्रं पश्यन् उपदिशति स्म – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इति;
The deity Indra, realizing with the intuition of a Sage, that according to the Śāstra his own self was the Highest Self i.e. that he himself was the Highest Brahman, gave instruction (to Pratardana) thus — “Know me only”,

1.1.30 L.3 ✅ यथा ‘तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवꣳ सूर्यश्च’ इति, तद्वत्;
‘तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति श्रुतेः।
Just as the Sage Vāma-deva, realizing this Brahman, understood (i.e. arrived at the knowledge), “I was Manu and the Sun”
And “Whosoever amongst the Gods became enlightened, he indeed became that” (BrhUEng.1.4.10).

1.1.30 L.4 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् – ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इत्युक्त्वा, विग्रहधर्मैरिन्द्रः आत्मानं तुष्टाव त्वाष्ट्रवधादिभिरिति, तत्परिहर्तव्यम्;
The objection (of the opponent), that Indra has praised his own self, by mentioning his killing of Tvāṣṭrā with the help of the attributes of his body, and in saying “Know me only” — has now to be refuted.

1.1.30 L.5 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – न तावत् त्वाष्ट्रवधादीनां विज्ञेयेन्द्रस्तुत्यर्थत्वेनोपन्यासः – ‘यस्मादेवंकर्माहम्, तस्मान्मां विजानीहि’ इति;
To that we say — The killing of Tvāṣṭrā etc. is not mentioned by Indra, with a view to praise himself as his being the one to be known, by saying “Because this is my handiwork, therefore you should know me.”

1.1.30 L.6 ✅ कथं तर्हि?
How then (are the killing of Tvāṣṭrā etc. mentioned)?

1.1.30 L.7 ✅ विज्ञानस्तुत्यर्थत्वेन;
We reply — Indra has said so, with a view to praise knowledge,

1.1.30 L.8 ✅ यत्कारणं त्वाष्ट्रवधादीनि साहसान्युपन्यस्य परेण विज्ञानस्तुतिमनुसन्दधाति –
‘तस्य मे तत्र लोम च न मीयते स यो मां वेद न ह वै तस्य केन च कर्मणा लोको मीयते’ इत्यादिना।
And it is because of this reason, that having mentioned such heroic deeds as the killing of Tvāṣṭrā etc., he subsequently continues the praise of the knowledge (of the Highest Self),
In this manner — “Who knows me thus, also would not lose the fruit of Final Release.”

1.1.30 L.9 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति –
What this (sentence) means is this —

1.1.30 L.10 ✅ यस्मादीदृशान्यपि क्रूराणि कर्माणि कृतवतो मम ब्रह्मभूतस्य लोमापि न हिंस्यते,
स योऽन्योऽपि मां वेद, न तस्य केनचिदपि कर्मणा लोको हिंस्यत इति।
Not a hair of mine, who am one with Brahman, is injured, even though I have perpetrated cruel deeds like these,
Nor will any other person who knows me (as Brahman), will by any action of his, be deprived of the fruit of Final Release.

1.1.30 L.11 ✅ विज्ञेयं तु ब्रह्मैव ‘प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा’ इति वक्ष्यमाणम्।
That which is to be known, is, of course, Brahman, which is described subsequently (by the next sentence) thus — “I am Prāṇa, the Intelligential Self”.

1.1.30 L.12 ✅ तस्माद्ब्रह्मवाक्यमेतत्॥३०॥
Therefore, this sentence refers to Brahman. — 30.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गान्नेति चेन्नोपासात्रैविध्यादाश्रितत्वादिह तद्योगात्॥१.१.३१॥
Jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cen nopāsā-trai-vidhād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt.

Jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgāt: on account of the characteristic marks of the individual soul and the chief vital air; Na: not; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Upāsā: worship, meditation; Trai-vidhyāt: because of the three ways; Āśritatvāt: on account of Prāṇa being accepted (elsewhere in Śruti in the sense of Brahman); Iha: in the Kauṣītaki passage; Tad-yogāt: because of its appropriateness; as they have been applied; because words denoting Brahman are mentioned with reference to Prāṇa.

🔗 If it be said (that Prāṇa does not indicate Brahman) because of there being indicatory marks of the Jīva-Self and the principal Vital Air, (we say) — No, because there would thus be three-foldness’s of devout meditation, and because also of acceptance (of this meaning, Brahman, elsewhere), and also because of the mention here of being connected (with the indicatory marks of Brahman). — 1.1.31.

1.1.31 L.1 ✅ यद्यप्यध्यात्मसम्बन्धभूमदर्शनान्न पराचीनस्य देवतात्मन उपदेशः,
(The opponent says — ) Even though the instruction is not (according to you, the Vedāntin) with regard to the Self of a deity which has come into existence later on, because there is, as is seen, a profusion of many things, (with respect to) the Adhyātma relation (i.e. the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest Self),

1.1.31 L.2 ✅ तथापि न ब्रह्मवाक्यं भवितुमर्हति।
Still the sentence does not deserve to be a sentence indicative of Brahman.

1.1.31 L.3 ✅ कुतः? जीवलिङ्गात् मुख्यप्राणलिङ्गाच्च।
How so? Because of the indicatory marks of the Jīva-Self and the Chief Vital Air.

1.1.31 L.4 ✅ जीवस्य तावदस्मिन्वाक्ये विस्पष्टं लिङ्गमुपलभ्यते – ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादि।
As far as the Jīva-Self is concerned, we find that there is a clear indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self in this sentence, thus — “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but desire to know the ‘speaker’” etc. —

1.1.31 L.5 ✅ अत्र हि वागादिभिः करणैर्व्यापृतस्य कार्यकरणाध्यक्षस्य जीवस्य विज्ञेयत्वमभिधीयते।
Because here, the Jīva-Self, which is the ruler or controller of the body and sense-organs, and which is engrossed in the sense-organs such as speech etc., is mentioned as the one that should be known.

1.1.31 L.6 ✅ तथा मुख्यप्राणलिङ्गमपि – ‘अथ खलु प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मेदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति।
Similarly there is the indicatory mark of the Chief Vital Air also, thus — “It is verily Prāṇa the Intelligential Self that supports this (Idam) body and rouses it to action.”

1.1.31 L.7 ✅ शरीरधारणं च मुख्यप्राणस्य धर्मः;
To support the body is the function of the Chief Vital Air,

1.1.31 L.8 ✅ प्राणसंवादे वागादीन्प्राणान्प्रकृत्य –
‘तान्वरिष्ठः प्राण उवाच मा मोहमापद्यथाहमेवैतत्पञ्चधात्मानं प्रविभज्यैतद्बाणमवष्टभ्य विधारयामि’ (PrasU.2.3) इति श्रवणात्।
Because in the Prāṇa-dialogue, with reference to speech and other sense-organs (the Scriptures mention as follows) —
“The highest Prāṇa said to them, do not be deluded, it is I only that divide myself five-fold and support this body and rouse it to action.” (PrasU.2.3).

1.1.31 L.9 ✅ ये तु ‘इमं शरीरं परिगृह्य’ इति पठन्ति,
तेषाम् इमं जीवमिन्द्रियग्रामं वा परिगृह्य शरीरमुत्थापयतीति व्याख्येयम्।
In the case of those who recite thus — “Giving support to this (Imam) body” —
It should be explained as follows — (I) support this Jīva-Self or the collection of sense-organs and rouse the body to action.

1.1.31 L.10 ✅ प्रज्ञात्मत्वमपि जीवे तावच्चेतनत्वादुपपन्नम्।
It is reasonably sustainable to say of the Jīva-Self, that it is the Intelligential Self, because of its sentiency.

1.1.31 L.11 ✅ मुख्येऽपि प्राणे प्रज्ञासाधनप्राणान्तराश्रयत्वादुपपन्नमेव।
It is reasonably possible to say even in the case of the Chief Vital Air, that it is the Intelligential Self, because of its being the support of the other sense-organs which are the instruments of perception.

1.1.31 L.12 ✅ एवं जीवमुख्यप्राणपरिग्रहे च,
प्राणप्रज्ञात्मनोः सहवृत्तित्वेनाभेदनिर्देशः, स्वरूपेण च भेदनिर्देशः, इत्युभयथापि निर्देश उपपद्यते –
If it is understood that both the Jīva-Self and the Chief Vital Air are meant by the word Prāṇa
It is reasonably possible to understand the indication to be both ways (Ubhayathā Nirdeśa), viz., the indication of identity between them (Abheda-nirdeśa), because of the co-ordinated parallel function (Saha-vṛttitvena) of the Prāṇa and the Intelligential Self, and the indication of distinction between them (Bheda-nirdeśa), because of their having their own separate form (Sva-rūpeṇa), as follows —

1.1.31 L.13 ✅ ‘यो वै प्राणः स प्रज्ञा या वै प्रज्ञा स प्राणः’ ‘सह ह्येतावस्मिञ्शरीरे वसतः सहोत्क्रामतः’ इति।
“Verily what is Prāṇa is intelligence, and what is intelligence is Prāṇa (which shows their non-difference) and they reside together in this body, and move out together (which shows the difference between them).”

1.1.31 L.14 ✅ ब्रह्मपरिग्रहे तु किं कस्माद्भिद्येत?
If however Prāṇa were to be accepted as Brahman, then what ever can be so distinguished from each other?

1.1.31 L.15 ✅ तस्मादिह जीवमुख्यप्राणयोरन्यतर उभौ वा प्रतीयेयातां न ब्रह्मेति चेत्,
Therefore, here, by Prāṇa, we should understand the Jīva-Self or the Chief Vital Air or both, but (certainly) not Brahman.

1.1.31 L.16 ✅ नैतदेवम्; उपासात्रैविध्यात्।
(To this, we reply) — It is not so, because of the threefoldness of devout meditation.

1.1.31 L.17 ✅ एवं सति त्रिविधमुपासनं प्रसज्येत – जीवोपासनं मुख्यप्राणोपासनं ब्रह्मोपासनं चेति।
Because if we were to understand it like that, it would mean threefold devout meditation — devout meditation on the Jīva-Self, on the Chief Vital Air, and on Brahman,

1.1.31 L.18 ✅ न चैतदेकस्मिन्वाक्येऽभ्युपगन्तुं युक्तम्।
And it is not proper to understand all this (as meant) in one sentence.

1.1.31 L.19 ✅ उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां हि वाक्यैकवाक्यत्वमवगम्यते।
From the introductory and the concluding sentence also, it is understood that there is but one sentence only,

1.1.31 L.20 ✅ ‘मामेव विजानीहि’ इत्युपक्रम्य, ‘प्राणोऽस्मि प्रज्ञात्मा तं मामायुरमृतमित्युपास्स्व’ इत्युक्त्वा, अन्ते ‘स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मानन्दोऽजरोऽमृतः’ इत्येकरूपावुपक्रमोपसंहारौ दृश्येते।
Because beginning with “Know me only” and having then said “I am Prāṇa, the Intelligential Self, you should contemplate devoutly on me, as life and as immortality” in the end, (the Scriptures say) “This very Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self, Bliss, the ageless and immortal” and thus the introductory and the concluding portions appear to be of the same nature.

1.1.31 L.21 ✅ तत्रार्थैकत्वं युक्तमाश्रयितुम्।
That being so, it is logical to understand that there is but one meaning only.

1.1.31 L.22 ✅ न च ब्रह्मलिङ्गमन्यपरत्वेन परिणेतुं शक्यम्;
It is not possible to construe the indicatory mark of Brahman, as being an indicatory mark of something else,

1.1.31 L.23 ✅ दशानां भूतमात्राणां प्रज्ञामात्राणां च ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्र अर्पणानुपपत्तेः।
For the ten existential elements (Bhūta-mātras) and the ten intelligential elements (Prajñā-mātrās) cannot be reasonably understood to have been tenoned and mortised into anything other than Brahman.

1.1.31 L.24 ✅ आश्रितत्वाच्च अन्यत्रापि ब्रह्मलिङ्गवशात्प्राणशब्दस्य ब्रह्मणि वृत्तेः,
Besides, it has been accepted in another place also (in BrS.1.1.23) that because of the indicatory mark of Brahman, the word Prāṇa serves to indicate Brahman.

1.1.31 L.25 ✅ इहापि च हिततमोपन्यासादिब्रह्मलिङ्गयोगात्, ब्रह्मोपदेश एवायमिति गम्यते।
Here also because of the relation (of the word Prāṇa) to the indicatory mark of Brahman, by way of a reference to “being most beneficial”, it is understood that this also is instruction about Brahman only.

1.1.31 L.26 ✅ यत्तु मुख्यप्राणलिङ्गं दर्शितम् – ‘इदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति, तदसत्;
What has been indicated as the indicatory mark of the Chief Vital Air by the sentence “Supports this body and rouses it to action”, is really not so,

1.1.31 L.27 ✅ प्राणव्यापारस्यापि परमात्मायत्तत्वात्परमात्मन्युपचरितुं शक्यत्वात् –
Because, as the function of the Chief Vital Air also, depends on the Highest Self, it is possible figuratively to construe that function as appertaining to the Highest Self,

1.1.31 L.28 ✅ ‘न प्राणेन नापानेन मर्त्यो जीवति कश्चन। इतरेण तु जीवन्ति यस्मिन्नेतावुपाश्रितौ’ (KathU.2.2.5) इति श्रुतेः।
For the Scriptural passage says — “It is not because of the Prāṇa (which has an upward tendency) and the Apāna (which has a downward tendency), that any mortal lives. They live because of another, in whom the Prāṇa and the Apāna rest” (KathU.2.5.5).

1.1.31 L.29 ✅ यदपि ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादि जीवलिङ्गं दर्शितम्, तदपि न ब्रह्मपक्षं निवारयति।
That, which has been known as the indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self, by the passage — “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but desire to know the speaker” — also, is unable to preclude the view that it refers to Brahman,

1.1.31 L.30 ✅ न हि जीवो नामात्यन्तभिन्नो ब्रह्मणः, ‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Because, the Jīva-Self in fact is not something absolutely different from Brahman, because of the Scriptural passages — “That thou art”, “I am Brahman” etc.

1.1.31 L.31 ✅ बुद्ध्याद्युपाधिकृतं तु विशेषमाश्रित्य ब्रह्मैव सन् जीवः कर्ता भोक्ता चेत्युच्यते।
It is by resorting to a special aspect (of Brahman), as a result of adjuncts such as intelligence etc., that the Jīva-Self, even though in fact it is Brahman, is described as the agent and the experiencer.

1.1.31 L.32 ✅ तस्योपाधिकृतविशेषपरित्यागेन स्वरूपं ब्रह्म दर्शयितुम् ‘न वाचं विजिज्ञासीत वक्तारं विद्यात्’ इत्यादिना प्रत्यगात्माभिमुखीकरणार्थ उपदेशो न विरुध्यते।
It is therefore not contradictory to give instruction to a person in order to direct his mind towards the Universal Self, and in order to make him realize his own nature (Brahman) by getting him to shed his peculiar adventitious aspect as caused by adjuncts, by such a passage as “Do not care to know ‘speech’ (Vāk) but desire to know the speaker” etc.

1.1.31 L.33 ✅ ‘यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते। तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते’ (KenU.1.4) इत्यादि च श्रुत्यन्तरं वचनादिक्रियाव्यापृतस्यैवात्मनो ब्रह्मत्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural passage — “That which is not made manifest by speech, but which makes speech manifest, that you should know to be Brahman and not this, on which you are meditating devoutly” (KenU.1.4) etc. — shows, that the Jīva-Self itself, which is engrossed in actions such as speech etc., is Brahman.

1.1.31 L.34 ✅ यत्पुनरेतदुक्तम् – ‘सह ह्येतावस्मिञ्शरीरे वसतः सहोत्क्रामतः’ इति प्राणप्रज्ञात्मनोर्भेददर्शनं ब्रह्मवादे नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the other objection (of the opponent), viz., that the fact, that Prāṇa and the Intelligential Self are seen to be two different entities, as evidenced by the Scriptural passage “They reside in the body together and also move out from it together”, is not reasonably sustainable, in the Brahma-Vāda (i.e. the doctrine that Prāṇa means Brahman),

1.1.31 L.35 ✅ नैष दोषः; ज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिद्वयाश्रययोर्बुद्धिप्राणयोः प्रत्यगात्मोपाधिभूतयोर्भेदनिर्देशोपपत्तेः।
We say — It is no fault, because, as it is reasonably sustainable to conceive of an indication of difference between intelligence and Prāṇa, which constitute the support of knowledge and of the power to act, and which have become the adjuncts of the Universal Self,

1.1.31 L.36 ✅ उपाधिद्वयोपहितस्य तु प्रत्यगात्मनः स्वरूपेणाभेद इत्यतः ‘प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मा’ इत्येकीकरणमविरुद्धम्॥
There really is no difference in the nature of the Universal Self as such which has been affected by these two adjuncts, and hence there is no contradiction in equating the Prāṇa with the Intelligential Self.

1.1.31 L.37 ✅ अथवा ‘नोपासात्रैविध्यादाश्रितत्वादिह तद्योगात्’ इत्यस्यायमन्योऽर्थः –
Or the following part of the Sūtra, viz. “Na upāsātraividhyāt, āśritatvāt, iha tat yogāt” can have the following other meaning (according to the Vṛtti-kāra).

1.1.31 L.38 ✅ न ब्रह्मवाक्येऽपि जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गं विरुध्यते।
Supposing the indicatory marks here to be of the Jīva-Self or of the Chief Vital Air, it would not be contradictory, even if this sentence were to be a sentence referring to Brahman.

1.1.31 L.39 ✅ कथम्? उपासात्रैविध्यात्। त्रिविधमिह ब्रह्मण उपासनं विवक्षितम् – प्राणधर्मेण, प्रज्ञाधर्मेण, स्वधर्मेण च।
How so? Because of the threefold devout meditation on Brahman, viz., in its character of being the Prāṇa, or of being the intelligence, or in its capacity as being itself (i.e. Brahman).

1.1.31 L.40 ✅ तत्र ‘आयुरमृतमित्युपास्स्वायुः प्राणः’ इति ‘इदं शरीरं परिगृह्योत्थापयति’ इति ‘तस्मादेतदेवोक्थमुपासीत’ इति च प्राणधर्मः।
There the passages “Meditate devoutly (on me) as life (Āyus) and immortality, life is Prāṇa”, “Supports this body and rouses it into action”, “Therefore meditate devoutly on this only as Uktha” indicate its character as Prāṇa.

1.1.31 L.41 ✅ ‘अथ यथास्यै प्रज्ञायै सर्वाणि भूतान्येकीभवन्ति तद्व्याख्यास्यामः’ इत्युपक्रम्य
‘वागेवास्या एकमङ्गमदूदुहत्तस्यै नाम परस्तात्प्रतिविहिता भूतमात्रा प्रज्ञया वाचं समारुह्य वाचा सर्वाणि नामान्याप्नोति’ इत्यादिः प्रज्ञाधर्मः।
Thereafter beginning with — “Now we shall describe how all beings become one in that intelligence”,
The further passage — “Speech gave one portion of itself to intelligence; name is its externally correlated existential element; with intelligence (Prājña) having mounted on speech; with speech one obtains all names”, etc. — indicates its character as Intelligence.

1.1.31 L.42 ✅ ‘ता वा एता दशैव भूतमात्रा अधिप्रज्ञं दश प्रज्ञामात्रा अधिभूतम्।
यदि भूतमात्रा न स्युर्न प्रज्ञामात्राः स्युः।
यदि प्रज्ञामात्रा न स्युर्न भूतमात्राः स्युः।
न ह्यन्यतरतो रूपं किञ्चन सिध्येत्। नो एतन्नाना।’
Then the following passages —
“These ten existential elements (Bhūta-mātras) verily are with reference to intelligence (Adhiprajña), the ten intelligential elements (Prajñā-mātrās) are with reference to elements.
For truly if there were no elements of being, there would be no elements of existence;
Verily, if there were no elements of intelligence there would be no elements of being.
For truly from either of them alone no appearance (Rūpa) whatsoever would be effected. They are not different (from each other)”,

1.1.31 L.43 ✅ ‘तद्यथा रथस्यारेषु नेमिरर्पिता नाभावरा अर्पिता एवमेवैता भूतमात्राः प्रज्ञामात्रास्वर्पिताः प्रज्ञामात्राः प्राणेऽर्पिताः स एष प्राण एव प्रज्ञात्मा’
“That just as the tyre of a chariot is set on the spokes and the spokes are tenoned and mortised in the nave, similarly, the existential elements are set in intelligence and the intelligential elements are tenoned and mortised in the Prāṇa. This Prāṇa is the Intelligential Self”

1.1.31 L.44 ✅ इत्यादिर्ब्रह्मधर्मः।
— Indicate its character as itself i.e. Brahman.

1.1.31 L.45 ✅ तस्माद्ब्रह्मण एवैतदुपाधिद्वयधर्मेण
Therefore, it is but one devout meditation on Brahman in its character as affected by these two sorts of adjuncts

1.1.31 L.46 ✅ स्वधर्मेण चैकमुपासनं त्रिविधं विवक्षितम्।
And in its own character as itself, which is mentioned here in a threefold way.

1.1.31 L.47 ✅ अन्यत्रापि ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादावुपाधिधर्मेण ब्रह्मण उपासनमाश्रितम्;
Elsewhere also, it is seen that devout meditation on Brahman is resorted to in its character as affected by adjuncts, as for instance in — “He whose structure is the mind and whose body is the Prāṇa” (ChanU.3.14.2).

1.1.31 L.48 ✅ इहापि तद्युज्यते वाक्यस्योपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यामेकार्थत्वावगमात्
Here also, the same is fit and proper, by reason of the introductory and the concluding passages, because, we have understood it to have the same one meaning,

1.1.31 L.49 ✅ प्राणप्रज्ञाब्रह्मलिङ्गावगमाच्च।
And because we find here the indicatory marks of Prāṇa, Intelligence and Brahman.

1.1.31 L.50 ✅ तस्माद्ब्रह्मवाक्यमेवैतदिति सिद्धम्॥३१॥
Therefore it is established that this is a sentence which propounds Brahman. — 31.

– 11. Pratardana-Adhikaraṇam.
End of Pāda 1.1

1.2 L.1 ✅ प्रथमे पादे ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ इत्याकाशादेः समस्तस्य जगतो जन्मादिकारणं ब्रह्मेत्युक्तम्।
In the first Pāda, it has been said that according to the Sūtra “Janmādyasya yataḥ” (BrS.1.1.2), Brahman is the cause of all this transitory world such as the Ākāśa etc.,

1.2 L.2 ✅ तस्य समस्तजगत्कारणस्य ब्रह्मणो व्यापित्वं नित्यत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं सर्वात्मत्वमित्येवंजातीयका धर्मा उक्ता एव भवन्ति।
And by that, impliedly it is as good as said, how Brahman, the cause of all this world, has the attributes of being all-pervading, eternal, omniscient, all-powerful and the Self of all.

1.2 L.3 ✅ अर्थान्तरप्रसिद्धानां च केषाञ्चिच्छब्दानां ब्रह्मविषयत्वहेतुप्रतिपादनेन
After stating that certain words well-known to have another meaning, are in fact indicative of Brahman,

1.2 L.4 ✅ कानिचिद्वाक्यानि स्पष्टब्रह्मलिङ्गानि सन्दिह्यमानानि ब्रह्मपरतया निर्णीतानि।
And that certain sentences, though they are clearly the indicatory marks of Brahman, are doubted as being so, it has also been determined that they refer to Brahman.

1.2 L.5 ✅ पुनरप्यन्यानि वाक्यान्यस्पष्टब्रह्मलिङ्गानि सन्दिह्यन्ते –
Again there are certain other sentences which do not clearly seem to be the indicatory marks of Brahman, and are doubted

1.2 L.6 ✅ किं परं ब्रह्म प्रतिपादयन्ति, आहोस्विदर्थान्तरं किञ्चिदिति।
As to their significance, i.e. it is doubted whether they propound Brahman or something else.

1.2 L.7 ✅ तन्निर्णयाय द्वितीयतृतीयौ पादावारभ्येते –
The second and the third Pādas are begun with a view to determine that.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात्॥१.२.१॥
Sarvatra prasiddhopadeśāt.

Sarvatra: everywhere, in every Vedantic passage i.e., in all Upaniṣads; Prasiddha: the well-known; Upadeśāt: because of the teaching.

🔗 (Because) throughout instruction about that which is well-known (i.e. Brahman) is given. — 1.2.1.

1.2.1 L.1 ✅ इदमाम्नायते – ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत। अथ खलु क्रतुमयः पुरुषो यथाक्रतुरस्मिँल्लोके पुरुषो भवति तथेतः प्रेत्य भवति स क्रतुं कुर्वीत’ (ChanU.3.14.1)
The Scriptures say — “All this, verily, is Brahman, (and that it is) ‘Tajjalān’ (Tad-brahma-jāta-līyate-aniti-iti’). Let a man meditate devoutly on it with a calm and collected mind. Man verily is an embodiment of desire; just how a man desires during this life, so he becomes after his exit from here. He should therefore have a firm determination.” (ChanU.3.14.1)

1.2.1 L.2 ✅ ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादि।
“(The Self) has mind as its structure, Prāṇa as its body, (and is possessed of the nature of lustre).” (ChanU.3.14.2) etc.

1.2.1 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमिह मनोमयत्वादिभिर्धर्मैः शारीर आत्मोपास्यत्वेनोपदिश्यते,
In this connection a doubt arises, whether by the attributes such as “having the mind as its structure” etc., instruction is given about the Jīva-Self as the one to be devoutly meditated upon,

1.2.1 L.4 ✅ आहोस्वित्परं ब्रह्मेति।
Or about the Highest Brahman.

1.2.1 L.5 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your conclusion?

1.2.1 L.6 ✅ शारीर इति।
It is that the embodied Jīva-Self is meant.

1.2.1 L.7 ✅ कुतः? तस्य हि कार्यकरणाधिपतेः प्रसिद्धो मनआदिभिः सम्बन्धः,
How so? Because it is the embodied Jīva-Self which is the master of the body and the sense-organs, it is he that is well-known to be so connected with the mind etc.,

1.2.1 L.8 ✅ न परस्य ब्रह्मणः;
And not the Highest Brahman,

1.2.1 L.9 ✅ ‘अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ (MunU.2.1.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Which in view of the Scriptural passage — “He is sans-vital air, sans-mind, and is pure” (MunU.2.1.2) etc. — is not so connected.

1.2.1 L.10 ✅ ननु ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म’ इति स्वशब्देनैव ब्रह्मोपात्तम्;
But (says the Vedāntin) here, by the Scriptural sentence — “All this verily is Brahman” — it is Brahman as indicated by its own word that is accepted.

1.2.1 L.11 ✅ कथमिह शारीर आत्मोपास्यत्वेनाशङ्क्यते?
How can then there be any doubt that the embodied Jīva-Self is here meant to be devoutly meditated upon?

1.2.1 L.12 ✅ नैष दोषः; नेदं वाक्यं ब्रह्मोपासनाविधिपरम्।
(To this the opponent replies) — This is no fault. This sentence is not meant for giving an injunction for devout meditation on Brahman.

1.2.1 L.13 ✅ किं तर्हि? शमविधिपरम्; यत्कारणम् ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म तज्जलानिति शान्त उपासीत’ इत्याह।
What then (is it for)? It has the purport of giving an injunction to be calm and collected, because it is said, “All this verily is Brahman, and therefore being calm and collected one should meditate devoutly on Tajjalān as that.”

1.2.1 L.14 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – यस्मात्सर्वमिदं विकारजातं ब्रह्मैव, तज्जत्वात् तल्लत्वात् तदनत्वाच्च –
It means to say — because all this, which is a modification (as from a cause), is in substance Brahman only, and because it is Tajjalān (Taj-ja-la-an, i.e. from which all things spring up, in which all things end, and in which all things live),

1.2.1 L.15 ✅ न च सर्वस्यैकात्मत्वे रागादयः सम्भवन्ति –
and because all this is but one i.e. the Self only, there is no possibility of passions etc. arising,

1.2.1 L.16 ✅ तस्मात् शान्त उपासीतेति।
therefore, being calm and collected, one should meditate devoutly.

1.2.1 L.17 ✅ न च शमविधिपरत्वे सत्यनेन वाक्येन ब्रह्मोपासनं नियन्तुं शक्यते।
Therefore the sentence being meant for giving an injunction to meditate devoutly by being calm and collected, it cannot also indicate devout meditation on Brahman.

1.2.1 L.18 ✅ उपासनं तु ‘स क्रतुं कुर्वीत’ इत्यनेन विधीयते। क्रतुः सङ्कल्पो ध्यानमित्यर्थः।
Devout meditation however is prescribed by the injunction — “He should have a firm determination (Kratu)”, and it means Saṅkalpa or meditation,

1.2.1 L.19 ✅ तस्य च विषयत्वेन श्रूयते – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति जीवलिङ्गम्।
And with a view to indicate the object of that meditation, the Scriptures say — “Having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body” — (which is) the indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self.

1.2.1 L.20 ✅ अतो ब्रूमः – जीवविषयमेतदुपासनमिति। ‘सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः’ इत्याद्यपि श्रूयमाणं पर्यायेण जीवविषयमुपपद्यते।
Again, the Scriptural mention about its being “that to whom all works and all desires belong”, also, in this manner, becomes reasonably sustainable in the case of the Jīva-Self.

1.2.1 L.21 ✅ ‘एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदयेऽणीयान्व्रीहेर्वा यवाद्वा’ इति च हृदयायतनत्वमणीयस्त्वं चाराग्रमात्रस्य जीवस्यावकल्पते,
नापरिच्छिन्नस्य ब्रह्मणः।
The reference to the Hṛdaya, as being the abode, and as to its' extreme minuteness, in the Scriptural passage — “This my Self, which is in the ‘Hṛdaya’ and is smaller than a grain of rice or barley” — is possible to be conceived of only in the case of the Jīva-Self which is as small as the point of a prod,
And not in the case of Brahman, which has no finite determinations.

1.2.1 L.22 ✅ ननु ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्याः’ इत्याद्यपि न परिच्छिन्नेऽवकल्पत इति।
But, (retorts the Vedāntin), the passage — “Greater than the Earth (Pṛthivī)” — is not possible to be conceived of in the case of that which has a finite determination (i.e. the Jīva-Self).

1.2.1 L.23 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – न तावदणीयस्त्वं ज्यायस्त्वं चोभयमेकस्मिन्समाश्रयितुं शक्यम्, विरोधात्;
(To this the opponent replies) — This, being very minute and also being great, cannot be accepted in the case of one and the same thing at once, because of their being contradictory to each other.

1.2.1 L.24 ✅ अन्यतराश्रयणे च, प्रथमश्रुतत्वादणीयस्त्वं युक्तमाश्रयितुम्;
Therefore, when we have to accept only one of the two alternatives, it is proper to accept ‘being minute’ which is mentioned first.

1.2.1 L.25 ✅ ज्यायस्त्वं तु ब्रह्मभावापेक्षया भविष्यतीति।
As to its being greater, it may also be possible (in the case of the Jīva-Self), because in the ultimate sense the Jīva-Self is after all, Brahman.

1.2.1 L.26 ✅ निश्चिते च जीवविषयत्वे यदन्ते ब्रह्मसङ्कीर्तनम् – ‘एतद्ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.14.4) इति,
When it is finally determined that the passage refers to the Jīva-Self, the mention, in the end, of its being Brahman, by the words “This is Brahman” (ChanU.3.14.4),

1.2.1 L.27 ✅ तदपि प्रकृतपरामर्शार्थत्वाज्जीवविषयमेव।
Should also be understood to have reference to the Jīva-Self, because it is meant for the purpose of a reference to what is relevant.

1.2.1 L.28 ✅ तस्मान्मनोमयत्वादिभिर्धर्मैर्जीव उपास्य इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Therefore, because of the attributes of “having mind as its structure” etc., it is the Jīva-Self on which devout meditation is to be made.

1.2.1 L.29 ✅ परमेव ब्रह्मेह मनोमयत्वादिभिर्धर्मैरुपास्यम्।
(To this conclusion of the opponent) we reply — Because of the attributes, as having mind as its structure etc., it is the Highest Brahman alone that is to be devoutly meditated upon.

1.2.1 L.30 ✅ कुतः? सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात्।
How so? Because, as the instruction everywhere is about what is well-known to be so,

1.2.1 L.31 ✅ यत्सर्वेषु वेदान्तेषु प्रसिद्धं ब्रह्मशब्दस्यालम्बनं जगत्कारणम्, इह च ‘सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म’ इति वाक्योपक्रमे श्रुतम्, तदेव मनोमयत्वादिधर्मैर्विशिष्टमुपदिश्यत इति युक्तम्।
It is proper and reasonable to think that the cause of the world, which depends upon the word ‘Brahman’ (for its meaning), which is here mentioned by the Scriptures in the beginning as “All this verily is Brahman”, is the same about which instruction is given, as being characterized by attributes such as having mind as its structure,

1.2.1 L.32 ✅ एवं च सति प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रिये न भविष्यतः।
And it is only in this way that the fault of rejection of that which is relevant and the acceptance of that which is not so relevant, would not occur.

1.2.1 L.33 ✅ ननु वाक्योपक्रमे शमविधिविवक्षया ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टं न स्वविवक्षयेत्युक्तम्।
But (says the opponent) we have said that in the beginning Brahman is indicated for the purpose of mentioning the injunction to be calm and collected and not with the purpose of mentioning Brahman itself.

1.2.1 L.34 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – यद्यपि शमविधिविवक्षया ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम्,
To this, we reply — (even though you say) that it is with a view to be calm and collected that Brahman is mentioned,

1.2.1 L.35 ✅ तथापि मनोमयत्वादिषूपदिश्यमानेषु तदेव ब्रह्म सन्निहितं भवति,
Yet when instruction is given about attributes such as having mind as its structure etc., the same Brahman is in close proximity.

1.2.1 L.36 ✅ जीवस्तु न सन्निहितः, न च स्वशब्देनोपात्त इति वैषम्यम्॥१॥
That the Jīva-Self however is neither anywhere proximate, nor is it mentioned in so many words, is the difference between the two views. — 1.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विवक्षितगुणोपपत्तेश्च॥१.२.२॥
Vivakṣita-guṇopapatteś ca.

Vivakṣita: desired to be expressed; Guṇa: qualities; Upapatteḥ: because of the reasonableness, for the justification; Ca: and, moreover.

🔗 Because attributes intended to be expressed (by the Scriptures) are, moreover, reasonably sustainable (only in the case of Brahman). — 1.2.2.

1.2.2 L.1 ✅ वक्तुमिष्टा विवक्षिताः।
Those attributes intended to be spoken of, are attributes meant to be expressed.

1.2.2 L.2 ✅ यद्यप्यपौरुषेये वेदे वक्तुरभावात् नेच्छार्थः सम्भवति,
Even though a desiderative form (Icchārtha) is not possible in the case of the Scriptures which have no author as such who can speak (of what is intended to be expressed), inasmuch as they are neither created by man nor by God (Apauruṣeya)

1.2.2 L.3 ✅ तथाप्युपादानेन फलेनोपचर्यते।
Yet it can be taken to be so used in a figurative sense on account of the fruit or result (which follows after what is said in the Scriptures) and which is accepted (for consideration).

1.2.2 L.4 ✅ लोकेऽपि यच्छब्दाभिहितमुपादेयं भवति तद्विवक्षितमित्युच्यते, यदनुपादेयं तदविवक्षितमिति।
In ordinary life also, that which is expressed in words and is intended to be accepted, is said to be so meant to be expressed, and that which is not so meant to be accepted, is not so meant to be expressed.

1.2.2 L.5 ✅ तद्वद्वेदेऽप्युपादेयत्वेनाभिहितं विवक्षितं भवति, इतरदविवक्षितम्।
Similarly in the Scriptures also, that which is spoken of as fit to be accepted, is said to be intended to be expressed, and all else as not intended to be expressed.

1.2.2 L.6 ✅ उपादानानुपादाने तु वेदवाक्यतात्पर्यातात्पर्याभ्यामवगम्येते।
As to what is intended to be accepted or not intended to be accepted, is understood from whether the Vedic text means that to be the gist or not.

1.2.2 L.7 ✅ तदिह ये विवक्षिता गुणा उपासनायामुपादेयत्वेनोपदिष्टाः सत्यसङ्कल्पप्रभृतयः, ते परस्मिन्ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यन्ते।
Similarly here, those attributes such as the attribute of having true purposes etc., which are intended to be expressed as being fit to be accepted for devout meditation, are reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Brahman,

1.2.2 L.8 ✅ सत्यसङ्कल्पत्वं हि सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारेष्वप्रतिबद्धशक्तित्वात्परमात्मन एवावकल्पते।
Because that attribute of ‘having a true purpose’ is possible to be conceived of as belonging to the Highest Self only, because of its possessing unobstructed power in the matter of creation, preservation and destruction.

1.2.2 L.9 ✅ परमात्मगुणत्वेन च ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इत्यत्र ‘सत्यकामः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ इति श्रुतम्,
It is also in the passage beginning with “That Self which is free from sin” (ChanU.8.7.1) that the attributes of “having true desires and purposes” are mentioned as attributes belonging to the Highest Self.

1.2.2 L.10 ✅ ‘आकाशात्मा’ इति च। आकाशवदात्मा अस्येत्यर्थः। सर्वगतत्वादिभिर्धर्मैः सम्भवत्याकाशेन साम्यं ब्रह्मणः।
The words “whose Self is the Ākāśa” mean, whose Self is like the Ākāśa, because Brahman’s similarity to the Ākāśa, is on account of its attribute of being all-pervading etc.

1.2.2 L.11 ✅ ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्याः’ इत्यादिना चैतदेव दर्शयति।
By the words “Greater than the Earth” also, a similar thing is indicated.

1.2.2 L.12 ✅ यदापि आकाश आत्मा अस्येति व्याख्यायते, तदापि सम्भवति सर्वजगत्कारणस्य सर्वात्मनो ब्रह्मण आकाशात्मत्वम्।
Even if it were to be construed as ‘one whose Self is the Ākāśa’, even then it would be possible to say of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the cause of all the transitory world, as having the Ākāśa as its Self.

1.2.2 L.13 ✅ अत एव ‘सर्वकर्मा’ इत्यादि।
Hence also (Brahman is described as) — “He to to whom all works belong” etc.

1.2.2 L.14 ✅ एवमिहोपास्यतया विवक्षिता गुणा ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यन्ते।
In this way the attributes intended to be expressed as being fit for devout meditation, are reasonably sustainable in the case of Brahman.

1.2.2 L.15 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति जीवलिङ्गम्, न तद्ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यत इति;
As regards what is said (by the opponent) — viz. “Having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body” is an indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self, and therefore, it is not reasonably sustainable in the case of Brahman, —

1.2.2 L.16 ✅ तदपि ब्रह्मण्युपपद्यत इति ब्रूमः।
We say that that also is reasonably sustainable

1.2.2 L.17 ✅ सर्वात्मत्वाद्धि ब्रह्मणो जीवसम्बन्धीनि मनोमयत्वादीनि ब्रह्मसम्बन्धीनि भवन्ति।
Because Brahman is all-pervading, and the terms ‘having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body’, which have a relation to the Jīva-Self, are applicable also in the case of Brahman.

1.2.2 L.18 ✅ तथा च ब्रह्मविषये श्रुतिस्मृती भवतः –
‘त्वं स्त्री त्वं पुमानसि त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी।
त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि त्वं जातो भवसि विश्वतोमुखः’ (SvetU.4.3) इति;
The Scriptures and the Smṛtis also are to the same effect —
“Thou art woman as well as man, youth as well as maiden,
Thou art the aged one going about with (the help of) a staff and thou art born (i.e. thou manifestest thyself) in all directions” (SvetU.4.3).

1.2.2 L.19 ✅ ‘सर्वतःपाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुखम्।
सर्वतःश्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति’ (BhG.3.13) इति च।
Also, “Having hands and feet in all directions, having eyes, heads, and faces in all directions,
Having ears in all directions and encompassing everything” (BhG.13.13).

1.2.2 L.20 ✅ ‘अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ इति श्रुतिः शुद्धब्रह्मविषया,
That the Scriptural words ‘sans-Prāṇa, sans-mind, and pure’ are with reference to the unqualified Brahman

1.2.2 L.21 ✅ इयं तु श्रुतिः ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः’ इति सगुणब्रह्मविषयेति विशेषः।
And “having mind as its structure and Prāṇa as its body’ are with reference to qualified Brahman, is the distinguishing feature in this.

1.2.2 L.22 ✅ अतो विवक्षितगुणोपपत्तेः परमेव ब्रह्म इहोपास्यत्वेनोपदिष्टमिति गम्यते॥२॥
Hence, as the attributes which are intended to be expressed, are reasonably sustainable (in the case of Brahman), it is understood that it is the Highest Brahman about which instruction is given here, as being that which is fit for devout meditation upon. — 2.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनुपपत्तेस्तु न शारीरः॥१.२.३॥
Anupapattes tu na śārīraḥ.

An-upapatteḥ: not being justifiable, because of the impossibility, because of the unreasonableness, because they are not appropriate; Tu: but on the other hand; Na: not; Śārīraḥ: the embodied, the Jīva or the individual soul.

🔗 But the embodied Jīva-Self is not (indicated by these attributes), because it is not reasonably sustainable. — 1.2.3.

1.2.3 L.1 ✅ पूर्वेण सूत्रेण ब्रह्मणि विवक्षितानां गुणानामुपपत्तिरुक्ता।
It has been said in the former Sūtra, how the attributes intended to be expressed as being applicable to Brahman, are reasonably sustainable.

1.2.3 L.2 ✅ अनेन शरीरे तेषामनुपपत्तिरुच्यते।
By this Sūtra it is proposed to say how they are not reasonably sustainable, in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self.

1.2.3 L.3 ✅ तुशब्दोऽवधारणार्थः।
The word ‘but’ is meant to indicate final determination.

1.2.3 L.4 ✅ ब्रह्मैवोक्तेन न्यायेन मनोमयत्वादिगुणम्;
According to the reasoning given (above) Brahman alone is endowed with attributes such as “having mind as its structure”

1.2.3 L.5 ✅ न तु शारीरो जीवो मनोमयत्वादिगुणः; यत्कारणम् –
And not the embodied Jīva-Self,

1.2.3 L.6 ✅ ‘सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ ‘आकाशात्मा’ ‘अवाकी’ ‘अनादरः’ ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्याः’ इति चैवंजातीयका गुणा न शारीरे आञ्जस्येनोपपद्यन्ते।
Because, such attributes as “His desires are true; Ākāśa is its self”, “(It is) sans-speech, sans-desire, greater than the Earth” are not correctly or reasonably sustainable in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self.

1.2.3 L.7 ✅ शारीर इति शरीरे भव इत्यर्थः।
Śārīra is one that exists in a body.

1.2.3 L.8 ✅ नन्वीश्वरोऽपि शरीरे भवति।
But (says the opponent) the Lord also exists in a body.

1.2.3 L.9 ✅ सत्यम्, शरीरे भवति; न तु शरीर एव भवति;
(We reply) — Of course, he does so exist in the body, but not only in the body,

1.2.3 L.10 ✅ ‘ज्यायान्पृथिव्या ज्यायानन्तरिक्षात्’ ‘आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः’ (शत. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) इति च व्यापित्वश्रवणात्।
Because the Scriptures mention that he pervades everything, by the passage — “Greater than the Earth, greater than the space between heaven and the Earth (Antar-ikṣa), (he) pervades everything like the Ākāśa, and is eternal”.

1.2.3 L.11 ✅ जीवस्तु शरीर एव भवति, तस्य भोगाधिष्ठानाच्छरीरादन्यत्र वृत्त्यभावात्॥३॥
The Jīva-Self exists in the body, which is his seat of enjoyment or pain, because it has no function outside the body. — 3.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
कर्मकर्तृव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.२.४॥
Karma-kartṛ-vyapadeśāc ca.

Karma: object; Kartṛ: agent; Vyapadeśāt: because of the declaration or mention; Ca: and.

🔗 (It is not the Jīva-Self), also because, there is a mention of an object (of action) and of one who acts i.e. an agent (Karma-kartṛ). — 1.2.4.

1.2.4 L.1 ✅ इतश्च न शारीरो मनोमयत्वादिगुणः; यस्मात्कर्मकर्तृव्यपदेशो भवति –
Thus again is how the embodied Jīva-Self is not the one who possesses the attribute of ‘having mind as its structure’, because there is a mention in the Scriptures, of an object and an agent, thus —

1.2.4 L.2 ✅ ‘एतमितः प्रेत्याभिसम्भवितास्मि’ (ChanU.3.14.4) इति।
“Departing from here (from the body i.e. dying) I shall be one that has obtained this (i.e. Brahman)” (ChanU.3.14.4).

1.2.4 L.3 ✅ एतमिति प्रकृतं मनोमयत्वादिगुणमुपास्यमात्मानं कर्मत्वेन प्राप्यत्वेन व्यपदिशति;
By this (Etam) here, the relevant Ātmā (Brahman) possessed of the qualities of ‘having mind as its structure’, which is the object of devout meditation, is indicated as the object which is to be attained (by the meditator),

1.2.4 L.4 ✅ अभिसम्भवितास्मीति शारीरमुपासकं कर्तृत्वेन प्रापकत्वेन।
And by ‘I shall have obtained’ the one who attains and the one who meditates devoutly, i.e. the embodied Jīva-Self, is indicated.

1.2.4 L.5 ✅ अभिसम्भवितास्मीति प्राप्तास्मीत्यर्थः।
‘Shall have obtained’ means ‘shall have reached’.

1.2.4 L.6 ✅ न च सत्यां गतावेकस्य कर्मकर्तृव्यपदेशो युक्तः।
As far as possible it is not logical to indicate the same entity, as being at once both the object and the agent.

1.2.4 L.7 ✅ तथोपास्योपासकभावोऽपि भेदाधिष्ठान एव।
Similarly, the possibility of one being the devout meditator and the other being that which is to be meditated upon, also depends upon their being different (entities).

1.2.4 L.8 ✅ तस्मादपि न शारीरो मनोमयत्वादिविशिष्टः॥४॥
For this reason also the embodied Jīva-Self is not the one that has the attribute of ‘having mind as its structure’. — 4.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
शब्दविशेषात्॥१.२.५॥
Śabda-viśeṣāt.

Śabda: word; Viśeṣāt: because of difference.

🔗 Because (the Scriptures) mention different words. — 1.2.5.

1.2.5 L.1 ✅ इतश्च शारीरादन्यो मनोमयत्वादिगुणः; यस्माच्छब्दविशेषो भवति समानप्रकरणे श्रुत्यन्तरे –
It is because there are different words in a chapter on a similar subject in another Scriptural passage, that again it is, that the one endowed with the attribute of ‘having mind as its structure’ is different from the embodied Jīva-Self, thus —

1.2.5 L.2 ✅ ‘यथा व्रीहिर्वा यवो वा श्यामाको वा श्यामाकतण्डुलो वैवमयमन्तरात्मन्पुरुषो हिरण्मयः’ (श. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) इति।
“Like a grain of rice or barley or canary or kernel of a canary seed, is the aureate-complexioned Puruṣa which is within the inner-Self” (Śat. Brā. 10.6.3.2).

1.2.5 L.3 ✅ शारीरस्यात्मनो यः शब्दोऽभिधायकः सप्तम्यन्तः – अन्तरात्मन्निति; तस्माद्विशिष्टोऽन्यः प्रथमान्तः पुरुषशब्दो मनोमयत्वादिविशिष्टस्यात्मनोऽभिधायकः।
The word which expresses the Self endowed with the special quality of having ‘mind as its structure’, viz. the word ‘Puruṣa’ in the nominative case, is different from the other word inner-Self which is in the locative case, viz. the inner-Self (Antar-ātman), and means the embodied Jīva-Self.

1.2.5 L.4 ✅ तस्मात्तयोर्भेदोऽधिगम्यते॥५॥
That is how difference between the two (i.e. the Puruṣa and the Śārīra) becomes clear to us. — 5.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्मृतेश्च॥१.२.६॥
Smṛteś ca.

Smṛteḥ: from the Smṛti; Ca: and, also.

🔗 Because of the Smṛti also. — 1.2.6.

1.2.6 L.1 ✅ स्मृतिश्च शारीरपरमात्मनोर्भेदं दर्शयति –
Smṛti also indicates the difference between the embodied Jīva-Self and the Highest Self, thus —

1.2.6 L.2 ✅ ‘ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति। भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया’ (BhG.18.61) इत्याद्या।
“Oh Arjuna, the Lord is immanent in the region of the Hṛdaya of all beings, making them go round and round by his power of illusion (Māyā) as if they are riding on a machine”. (BhG.18.61).

1.2.6 L.3 ✅ अत्राह – कः पुनरयं शारीरो नाम परमात्मनोऽन्यः, यः प्रतिषिध्यते – ‘अनुपपत्तेस्तु न शारीरः’ इत्यादिना?
Here a doubt is raised by one, as follows: Who again is this embodied Jīva-Self (Śārīra) as distinguished from the Highest Self, who is rejected by the third Sūtra of this Pāda?

1.2.6 L.4 ✅ श्रुतिस्तु ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्येवंजातीयका परमात्मनोऽन्यमात्मानं वारयति।
The Scriptural passage — such as “There is no other seer but this, no other hearer but this etc.” (BrhUEng.3.7.23) — , in effect, denies any Self other than the Highest Self.

1.2.6 L.5 ✅ तथा स्मृतिरपि ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत’ (BhG.13.2) इत्येवंजातीयकेति।
Similarly Smṛti also — such as “Oh Bhārata, know me to be the knower of the body in all the bodies” (BhG.13.2).

1.2.6 L.6 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – सत्यमेवैतत् –
To this we reply — It (i.e. what you say) is of course true.

1.2.6 L.7 ✅ पर एवात्मा देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्ध्युपाधिभिः परिच्छिद्यमानो बालैः शारीर इत्युपचर्यते;
It is but only the Highest Self which comes to have finite determination (as it were), by reason of limiting adjuncts such as body, sense-organs, the mind and intelligence, and which is mistakenly and in a figurative sense accepted by the ignorant as the embodied Jīva-Self,

1.2.6 L.8 ✅ यथा घटकरकाद्युपाधिवशादपरिच्छिन्नमपि नभः परिच्छिन्नवदवभासते, तद्वत्।
Just as the Ākāśa (Nabhas) which in fact is unlimited, appears as if it is limited, on account of limiting adjuncts such as a jar or a pot etc.

1.2.6 L.9 ✅ तदपेक्षया च कर्मकर्तृत्वादिभेदव्यवहारो न विरुध्यते
And taking into consideration this difference with reference to it (i.e. the limiting adjuncts), the treating of the one as the object (i.e. the Highest Self) and the other as the agent (i.e. the Jīva-Self), is not contradictory,

1.2.6 L.10 ✅ प्राक् ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यात्मैकत्वोपदेशग्रहणात्।
As long as a person has not received instruction about the Self (Ātmā) being the only one, by such Scriptural passage as “That thou art” etc.

1.2.6 L.11 ✅ गृहीते त्वात्मैकत्वे बन्धमोक्षादिसर्वव्यवहारपरिसमाप्तिरेव स्यात्॥६॥
When once the fact that the Self (Ātmā) is but one only is grasped, then there is an end to all the notions about the conditions of bondage and Final Release. — 6.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अर्भकौकस्त्वात्तद्व्यपदेशाच्च नेति चेन्न निचाय्यत्वादेवं व्योमवच्च॥१.२.७॥
Arbhakaukastvāt tad-vyapadeśāc ca neti cen na nicāyyatvād evaṃ vyomavac ca.

Arbhaka-okastvāt: because of the smallness of the abode; Tad-vyapadeśāt: because of the description or denotation as such i.e. minuteness; Ca: and also; Na: not; Iti: not so; Cet: if; Na: not; Nicāyyatvāt: because of meditation (in the heart); Evam: thus, so; Vyomavat: like space; Ca: and.

🔗 (If it be objected, that Brahman is not indicated) because of the tiny-ness of the nest (i.e. abode), and because it is so mentioned, (we say) — No, because that is how (it is instructed) the Highest Brahman should be contemplated. (The case is) similar to that of the Ākāśa. — 1.2.7.

1.2.7 L.1 ✅ अर्भकमल्पम् ओको नीडम्, ‘एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदये’ इति परिच्छिन्नायतनत्वात्,
The word ‘Arbhaka’ means tiny and the word ‘Okas’ means a nest. The objection raised, that because the Scriptural passage “This Self (Ātmā) of mine within the Hṛdaya” shows a limited abode,

1.2.7 L.2 ✅ स्वशब्देन च ‘अणीयान्व्रीहेर्वा यवाद्वा’ इत्यणीयस्त्वव्यपदेशात्, शारीर एवाराग्रमात्रो जीव इहोपदिश्यते,
And also because another Scriptural passage “Minuter than the grain of rice or barley” makes a reference to the minuteness (of the Self) in so many specific words, instruction about the Jīva-Self which is only as small as the point of a prod, is here given,

1.2.7 L.3 ✅ न सर्वगतः परमात्मा – इति यदुक्तं तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
And not about the all-pervading Highest Self — has now to be refuted.

1.2.7 L.4 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – नायं दोषः। न तावत्परिच्छिन्नदेशस्य सर्वगतत्वव्यपदेशः कथमप्युपपद्यते।
We reply — This is no fault. It is not reasonably sustainable in any way to say of an entity which has a finite determination, that it is all-pervading,

1.2.7 L.5 ✅ सर्वगतस्य तु सर्वदेशेषु विद्यमानत्वात्परिच्छिन्नदेशव्यपदेशोऽपि कयाचिदपेक्षया सम्भवति।
But because an all-pervading entity is necessarily present everywhere, it is possible to say about such an entity with reference to some particular connection, that it is circumscribed in a limited space,

1.2.7 L.6 ✅ यथा समस्तवसुधाधिपतिरपि हि सन् अयोध्याधिपतिरिति व्यपदिश्यते।
Just as, the King of the whole world can also be described as the King of Ayodhyā.

1.2.7 L.7 ✅ कया पुनरपेक्षया सर्वगतः सन्नीश्वरोऽर्भकौका अणीयांश्च व्यपदिश्यत इति।
In what connection, however, can the Lord, all-pervading though he is, be described as having a tiny nest (i.e. abode) and as being as minute as an atom?

1.2.7 L.8 ✅ निचाय्यत्वादेवमिति ब्रूमः।
Because, we reply, he is to be contemplated in this way.

1.2.7 L.9 ✅ एवम् अणीयस्त्वादिगुणगणोपेत ईश्वरः, तत्र हृदयपुण्डरीके निचाय्यो द्रष्टव्य उपदिश्यते; यथा सालग्रामे हरिः।
The instruction given is, that the Lord endowed with a set of attributes such as being as minute as an atom, is to be contemplated as being in the lotus of the Hṛdaya, just as Hari (is contemplated) in the Śāla-grāma (a stone symbol of Hari) because it is there (in the lotus of the Hṛdaya) that intelligence can grasp it.

1.2.7 L.10 ✅ तत्रास्य बुद्धिविज्ञानं ग्राहकम्; सर्वगतोऽपीश्वरस्तत्रोपास्यमानः प्रसीदति।
All-pervading though the Lord is, He vouchsafes His grace to one who meditates devoutly on Him as being there.

1.2.7 L.11 ✅ व्योमवच्चैतद्द्रष्टव्यम्।
It should be seen that the case is similar to that of the Ākāśa.

1.2.7 L.12 ✅ यथा सर्वगतमपि सद्व्योम सूचीपाशाद्यपेक्षयार्भकौकोऽणीयश्चेति व्यपदिश्यते, एवं ब्रह्मापि।
Just as the Ākāśa, all-pervading though it is, spoken of as having a tiny nest or as being minute, when considered in relation with a needle or a net, even so, is Brahman.

1.2.7 L.13 ✅ तदेवं निचाय्यत्वापेक्षं ब्रह्मणोऽर्भकौकस्त्वमणीयस्त्वं च, न पारमार्थिकम्।
Therefore, it is, when considered in its relation to contemplation, that this view of Brahman as having a tiny nest or as being minute, is there, and not in its ultimate real sense.

1.2.7 L.14 ✅ तत्र यदाशङ्क्यते – हृदयायतनत्वाद्ब्रह्मणो हृदयानां च प्रतिशरीरं भिन्नत्वाद्भिन्नायतनानां च
शुकादीनामनेकत्वसावयवत्वानित्यत्वादिदोषदर्शनाद्ब्रह्मणोऽपि तत्प्रसङ्ग इति, तदपि परिहृतं भवति॥७॥
This also refutes the objection of some to the opinion of the Vedāntins, that because Brahman has the Hṛdaya as its abode, and as each different body has a different Hṛdaya as an abode,
Therefore, just as parrots etc., who have their separate individual abodes, are seen to be subject to faults, such as being more than one, having limbs, and being non-permanent etc., even so, is Brahman subject to a similar predicament. — 7.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सम्भोगप्राप्तिरिति चेन्न वैशेष्यात्॥१.२.८॥
Sambhoga-prāptir iti cen na vaiśeṣyāt.

Sambhoga-prāpti: that it has experience of pleasure and pain; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Vaiśeṣyāt: because of the difference in nature.

🔗 If it be objected (that being connected with the Hṛdaya of every person) Brahman also will be subject to the experience of pleasure and pain, (we say) no, because there is a distinction (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self). — 1.2.8.

1.2.8 L.1 ✅ व्योमवत्सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणः सर्वप्राणिहृदयसम्बन्धात्,
(If it is argued by the opponent) that Brahman being all-pervading like the Ākāśa and being connected with the Hṛdayas of all beings,

1.2.8 L.2 ✅ चिद्रूपतया च शारीरादविशिष्टत्वात्, सुखदुःखादिसम्भोगोऽप्यविशिष्टः प्रसज्येत;
And being undistinguishable from the embodied Jīva-Self because of the nature of intelligence (in the case of both), it will, in common with the embodied Jīva-Self, necessarily have experience of pleasure and pain,

1.2.8 L.3 ✅ एकत्वाच्च – न हि परस्मादात्मनोऽन्यः कश्चिदात्मा संसारी विद्यते, ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
And also because of their being one and the same entity, because the Scriptural passage mentions — “Than this there is no other cognizer” (BrhUEng.3.7.23), there is nothing like a transmigratory Self as such, as apart from the Highest Self,

1.2.8 L.4 ✅ तस्मात्परस्यैव ब्रह्मणः सम्भोगप्राप्तिरिति चेत्,
And therefore it is precisely only the Highest Self which experiences pleasure and pain inherent in the transmigratory existence.

1.2.8 L.5 ✅ न; वैशेष्यात्।
(To this objection we say) — No, because there is a difference or speciality here,

1.2.8 L.6 ✅ न तावत्सर्वप्राणिहृदयसम्बन्धात् चिद्रूपतया च शारीरवद्ब्रह्मणः सम्भोगप्रसङ्गः, वैशेष्यात्।
And because of that, Brahman is not involved in any such predicament of having to experience pleasure and pain, like the embodied Jīva-Self, by reason of its being related with the Hṛdayas of all beings.

1.2.8 L.7 ✅ विशेषो हि भवति शारीरपरमेश्वरयोः।
There necessarily is a distinction between the embodied Jīva-Self and the Highest Lord.

1.2.8 L.8 ✅ एकः कर्ता भोक्ता धर्माधर्मादिसाधनः सुखदुःखादिमांश्च।
One (the embodied Jīva-Self) is an agent, an experiencer, the instrument of meritorious and unmeritorious actions, and is liable to pleasure and pain,

1.2.8 L.9 ✅ एकस्तद्विपरीतोऽपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणः।
While the other one (the Highest Lord) is quite the opposite of that, and is one who is endowed with the attribute of being free from sin etc.

1.2.8 L.10 ✅ एतस्मादनयोर्विशेषादेकस्य भोगः, नेतरस्य।
Hence because of this distinction between these two, one is Subject to the experience of pleasure and pain, and not the other.

1.2.8 L.11 ✅ यदि च सन्निधानमात्रेण वस्तुशक्तिमनाश्रित्य कार्यसम्बन्धोऽभ्युपगम्येत,
If by ignoring the powers of entities, we were to understand them to be connected through their effects, merely by reason of their proximity,

1.2.8 L.12 ✅ आकाशादीनामपि दाहादिप्रसङ्गः।
Then the Ākāśa etc., also may suffer the predicament of being scorched (when Anything burns).

1.2.8 L.13 ✅ सर्वगतानेकात्मवादिनामपि समावेतौ चोद्यपरिहारौ।
A similar doubt and a similar refutation of it, would apply in the case of those who hold that there are many Selfs and they all are all-pervading.

1.2.8 L.14 ✅ यदप्येकत्वाद्ब्रह्मण आत्मान्तराभावाच्छारीरस्य भोगेन ब्रह्मणो भोगप्रसङ्ग इति,
With regard to the objection that as Brahman is the only one Highest Self and that as there is no other Self, therefore, when the embodied Jīva-Self experiences pleasure or pain, Brahman also is in the predicament experiencing pleasure or pain,

1.2.8 L.15 ✅ अत्र वदामः – इदं तावद्देवानांप्रियः प्रष्टव्यः – कथमयं त्वयात्मान्तराभावोऽध्यवसित इति।
We say — Oh thou, the favourite of the Gods (which means, a fool), thou deservest to be asked this — Whence hast thou determined that there is no Self other than Brahman?

1.2.8 L.16 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ इत्यादिशास्त्रेभ्य इति चेत्,
And if thou sayest, that thou hast determined it to be so, because of such Scriptural passages as “That thou art”, “I am Brahman”, “There is no other knower than this”,

1.2.8 L.17 ✅ यथाशास्त्रं तर्हि शास्त्रीयोऽर्थः प्रतिपत्तव्यः,
Then we reply that the purport of a Śāstra ought to be understood, according to the Śāstra itself (and in no other way),

1.2.8 L.18 ✅ न तत्रार्धजरतीयं लभ्यम्।
And thou canst not, in the case of one and the Same thing, accept only a part of it, and reject the rest (i.e. one cannot accept only a part of a thing, but one must accept the thing as a whole).

1.2.8 L.19 ✅ शास्त्रं च ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यपहतपाप्मत्वादिविशेषणं ब्रह्म शारीरस्यात्मत्वेनोपदिशच्छारीरस्यैव तावदुपभोक्तृत्वं वारयति।
The Śāstra “That thou art”, which gives instruction, that Brahman, which is free from all sin, is the Self of the embodied Jīva-Self, rather obviates any experience of pleasure and pain even by the embodied Jīva-Self itself,

1.2.8 L.20 ✅ कुतस्तदुपभोगेन ब्रह्मण उपभोगप्रसङ्गः।
and so, how can such (fancied) experience of pleasure or pain by the Jīva-Self ever involve Brahman in the predicament of having to experience similar pleasure or pain?

1.2.8 L.21 ✅ अथागृहीतं शारीरस्य ब्रह्मणैकत्वम्, तदा मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः शारीरस्योपभोगः;
If, however, the unity of the embodied Jīva-Self and Brahman, is not Realized, then the experience of pleasure and pain by the embodied Jīva-Self is caused by false-knowledge only,

1.2.8 L.22 ✅ न तेन परमार्थरूपस्य ब्रह्मणः संस्पर्शः।
And it cannot contaminate Brahman in the ultimate sense.

1.2.8 L.23 ✅ न हि बालैस्तलमलिनतादिभिर्व्योम्नि विकल्प्यमाने तलमलिनतादिविशिष्टमेव परमार्थतो व्योम भवति।
It is riot, that because ignorant people imagine that the sky has concavity and that it is dusty, that the sky really is so (i.e. that it, in fact, has concavity and that it is dusty).

1.2.8 L.24 ✅ तदाह – न, वैशेष्यादिति नैकत्वेऽपि शारीरस्योपभोगेन ब्रह्मण उपभोगप्रसङ्गः, वैशेष्यात्।
The Sūtra-kāra says the same thing by the expression — “No, because there is a distinction”, — and even, though the embodied Jīva-Self and Brahman are in fact one, Brahman is not in the predicament of having to experience pleasure and pain, by reason of the experience of pleasure and pain by the embodied Jīva-Self,

1.2.8 L.25 ✅ विशेषो हि भवति मिथ्याज्ञानसम्यग्ज्ञानयोः।
As there is a distinction between false-knowledge, and true knowledge.

1.2.8 L.26 ✅ मिथ्याज्ञानकल्पित उपभोगः, सम्यग्ज्ञानदृष्टमेकत्वम्।
Experience of pleasure and pain is due to false-knowledge, and the fact of the unity (between the Śārīra and Brahman) is realized through true knowledge.

1.2.8 L.27 ✅ न च मिथ्याज्ञानकल्पितेनोपभोगेन सम्यग्ज्ञानदृष्टं वस्तु संस्पृश्यते।
A thing experienced through true knowledge is not affected by the experience of pleasure and pain imagined through false-knowledge.

1.2.8 L.28 ✅ तस्मान्नोपभोगगन्धोऽपि शक्य ईश्वरस्य कल्पयितुम्॥८॥
Therefore one cannot imagine, that the Lord can ever have even the least little whiff of any experience of pleasure and pain. — 8.

– 12. Sarvatra-prasiddhy-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.2.09 Su..10

←Prev Next→
अत्ता चराचरग्रहणात्॥१.२.९॥
Attā carācara-grahaṇāt.

Attā: the Eater; Cara-acara-grahaṇāt: because the movable and immovable (i.e. the whole universe) is taken (as His food).

🔗 (The Highest-Self is) the devourer because all movable and immovable entities are devoured (by it). — 1.2.9.

1.2.9 L.1 ✅ कठवल्लीषु पठ्यते ‘यस्य ब्रह्म च क्षत्रं चोभे भवत ओदनः।
मृत्युर्यस्योपसेचनं क इत्था वेद यत्र सः’ (KathU.1.2.24) इति।
We read in the Kaṭha-vallī as follows: “He, to whom Brāhmaṇas and Kṣatriyas serve as but rice,
And Death as but the pouring (over the rice, of either ghee or buttermilk), who is there who knows, where He, who is like that, is?” (KathU.1.2.24)

1.2.9 L.2 ✅ अत्र कश्चिदोदनोपसेचनसूचितोऽत्ता प्रतीयते।
Here we find, that as suggested by rice and its pouring, a devourer is indicated.

1.2.9 L.3 ✅ तत्र किमग्निरत्ता स्यात्, उत जीवः, अथवा परमात्मा, इति संशयः;
In this connection, a doubt arises, whether ‘fire’ is meant to be the devourer, or the Jīva-Self, or the Highest-Self,

1.2.9 L.4 ✅ विशेषानवधारणात्,
As no particular distinguishing criterion (which would determine, which of these three is meant) is known.

1.2.9 L.5 ✅ त्रयाणां चाग्निजीवपरमात्मनामस्मिन्ग्रन्थे प्रश्नोपन्यासोपलब्धेः।
Because it is understood that questions with respect to all these three are propounded here (in Kaṭha-vallī).

1.2.9 L.6 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
Then, what, do you suggest, is meant?

1.2.9 L.7 ✅ अग्निरत्तेति।
(The opponent says) — Fire is the devourer meant here.

1.2.9 L.8 ✅ कुतः? ‘अग्निरन्नादः’ (BrhU.1.4.6) इति श्रुतिप्रसिद्धिभ्याम्।
Why so? Because of the mention in the Scriptures — “Fire the devourer of food” (BrhUEng.1.4.6),

1.2.9 L.9 ✅ जीवो वा अत्ता स्यात् ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति’ (MunU.3.1.1) इति दर्शनात्;
And also because fire is well-known (to be the devourer), or, may be, the Jīva-Self is the devourer meant, because it is seen (from the Scriptures) that “One of these two partakes of the delectable Pippala (a fruit)” (MunU.3.1.1).

1.2.9 L.10 ✅ न परमात्मा, ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ (MunU.3.1.1) इति दर्शनादिति
But (certainly) not the Highest-Self, because it is seen (from the Scriptures) that “The other one does not partake of it, but only keeps looking on” (MunU.3.1.1).

1.2.9 L.11 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – अत्तात्र परमात्मा भवितुमर्हति।
Our reply to this conclusion (of the opponent), is thus: It is the Highest-Self that deserves to be the devourer meant here.

1.2.9 L.12 ✅ कुतः? चराचरग्रहणात्।
Why so? Because (whoever is meant to be the devourer) is mentioned as devouring all that is movable and the immovable.

1.2.9 L.13 ✅ चराचरं हि स्थावरजङ्गमं मृत्यूपसेचनमिहाद्यत्वेन प्रतीयते;
The whole movable and immovable (world) for which death serves as the pouring, is here seen to be the material fit to be devoured,

1.2.9 L.14 ✅ तादृशस्य चाद्यस्य न परमात्मनोऽन्यः कार्त्स्न्येनात्ता सम्भवति।
And no one else other than the Highest-Self could possibly be the devourer of all this, comprehensively.

1.2.9 L.15 ✅ परमात्मा तु विकारजातमुपसंहरन्सर्वमत्तीत्युपपद्यते।
That the Highest-Self which destroys the whole aggregate of creation, is the devourer of everything, is only what is reasonably sustainable.

1.2.9 L.16 ✅ नन्विह चराचरग्रहणं नोपलभ्यते, कथं सिद्धवच्चराचरग्रहणं हेतुत्वेनोपादीयते?
But (says the opponent) the devouring of all the movable and immovable world, is not found (mentioned) here, so how can you adopt the devouring of the whole movable and immovable world to be so readily available as a reason for determining (that the Highest-Self is meant)?

1.2.9 L.17 ✅ नैष दोषः,
To this objection we reply — This is no fault.

1.2.9 L.18 ✅ मृत्यूपसेचनत्वेनेहाद्यत्वेन सर्वस्य प्राणिनिकायस्य प्रतीयमानत्वात्,
From the mention of Death serving as but a ‘pouring’ we do properly understand, that the entire world of beings is indicated

1.2.9 L.19 ✅ ब्रह्मक्षत्रयोश्च प्राधान्यात्प्रदर्शनार्थत्वोपपत्तेः।
And that the Brāhmaṇas and the Kṣatriyas as being chiefly important, are mentioned only illustratively to be the kind of food devoured by the Highest-Self.

1.2.9 L.20 ✅ यत्तु परमात्मनोऽपि नात्तृत्वं सम्भवति ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ इति दर्शनादिति,
To the objection raised — viz. that it is not possible that the Highest-Self can be the devourer, as the Scriptures mention that “The other one does not partake (of the Pippala) but merely keeps looking on” — ,

1.2.9 L.21 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – कर्मफलभोगस्य प्रतिषेधकमेतद्दर्शनम्, तस्य सन्निहितत्वात्।
We reply, that this mention is for the purpose of denying the experience of the fruit of action (on the part of the Highest-Self), as that is proximate, in the context.

1.2.9 L.22 ✅ न विकारसंहारस्य प्रतिषेधकम्,
Such mention is not for the purpose of denying the destruction of the whole creation,

1.2.9 L.23 ✅ सर्ववेदान्तेषु सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारकारणत्वेन ब्रह्मणः प्रसिद्धत्वात्।
Because, in all the Vedāntas, Brahman is well-known as the cause of the creation, preservation and destruction (of the transitory world).

1.2.9 L.24 ✅ तस्मात्परमात्मैवेहात्ता भवितुमर्हति॥९॥
Therefore it is the Highest-Self alone, that deserves to be the devourer referred to here. — 9.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्रकरणाच्च॥१.२.१०॥
Prakaraṇāc ca.

Prakaraṇāt: from the context; Ca: also, and.

🔗 And because of the chapter (being about the Highest-Self). — 1.2.10.

1.2.10 L.1 ✅ इतश्च परमात्मैवेहात्ता भवितुमर्हति; यत्कारणं प्रकरणमिदं परमात्मनः –
This again is why the Highest-Self alone deserves to be the devourer (meant here), as this chapter deals with the Highest-Self.

1.2.10 L.2 ✅ ‘न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चित्’ (KathU.1.2.18) इत्यादि। प्रकृतग्रहणं च न्याय्यम्।
The Scriptural passage — “The Knowing-Self is neither born nor does it die” (KathU.1.2.18) — shows, that it stands to reason to accept what is relevant here (viz. the Highest-Self).

1.2.10 L.3 ✅ ‘क इत्था वेद यत्र सः’ इति च दुर्विज्ञानत्वं परमात्मलिङ्गम्॥१०॥
Again the passage “Who indeed knows, where such a one as He, is”, which shows that the Highest-Self is difficult to comprehend, is an indicatory mark of the Highest-Self. — 10.

– 13. Āttr-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.2.11 Su..12

←Prev Next→
गुहां प्रविष्टावात्मानौ हि तद्दर्शनात्॥१.२.११॥
Gṛhāṃ praviṣṭāv ātmānau hi tad-darśanāt.

Guhām: in the cavity (of the heart) Praviṣṭau: the two who have entered; Ātmanau: are the two selfs (individual soul and the Supreme Soul); Hi: indeed, because; Tad-darśanāt: because it is so seen.

🔗 The two who have entered the cave (of Hṛdaya), are the two-selfs (the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self), because it is so seen. — 1.2.11.

1.2.11 L.1 ✅ कठवल्लीष्वेव पठ्यते –
In the Kaṭha-vallī itself, it is said —

1.2.11 L.2 ✅ ‘ऋतं पिबन्तौ सुकृतस्य लोके गुहां प्रविष्टौ परमे परार्धे।
छायातपौ ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति पञ्चाग्नयो ये च त्रिणाचिकेताः’ (KathU.1.3.1) इति।
“Those two (Selfs) who imbibe the fruits of actions in the ‘world acquired by good deeds’ (i.e. in the body), and have entered the exalted Ākāśa-like cave of the Hṛdaya which deserves to be half the location of the Highest-Self (Parārdha),
And with regard to whom, those who have realized Brahman and those who have maintained the five fires (viz. the house-holder’s fires) and have kept the three Nāciketa fires, say, that they are (as different as) the light and shade.” (KathU.1.3.1).

1.2.11 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमिह बुद्धिजीवौ निर्दिष्टौ,
A doubt here arises, whether intelligence (Buddhi) and the Jīva-Self are here indicated,

1.2.11 L.4 ✅ उत जीवपरमात्मानाविति।
Or, the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self are indicated.

1.2.11 L.5 ✅ यदि बुद्धिजीवौ,
If it is understood that intelligence and the Jīva-Self are here indicated,

1.2.11 L.6 ✅ ततो बुद्धिप्रधानात्कार्यकरणसङ्घाताद्विलक्षणो जीवः प्रतिपादितो भवति।
Then that would mean — that the Jīva-Self is different from the aggregate of body and the sense-organs which have intelligence as their chief factor, is what is here propounded.

1.2.11 L.7 ✅ तदपीह प्रतिपादयितव्यम्,
It is expected that it would deserve to be so propounded here,

1.2.11 L.8 ✅ ‘येयं प्रेते विचिकित्सा मनुष्येऽस्तीत्येके नायमस्तीति चैके।
एतद्विद्यामनुशिष्टस्त्वयाहं वराणामेष वरस्तृतीयः’ (KathU.1.1.2) इति पृष्टत्वात्।
Because in the following Scriptural passage, the question (which Naciketā asks) is, as follows: —
“When a man dies, the doubt that men have, some saying that he (continues) to exist, and others that he does not exist,
That, instructed by you (i.e. by Death) I would like to know. That is the third amongst the boons.” (KathU.1.1.2).

1.2.11 L.9 ✅ अथ जीवपरमात्मानौ, ततो जीवाद्विलक्षणः परमात्मा प्रतिपादितो भवति।
If (on the other hand), it is understood that the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self are here indicated, then it would appear, that the Highest-Self which is different from the Jīva-Self is what is propounded here.

1.2.11 L.10 ✅ तदपीह प्रतिपादयितव्यम् –
In that case also, it is expected that it would be so expounded,

1.2.11 L.11 ✅ ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात्।
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद’ (KathU.1.2.14) इति पृष्टत्वात्।
Because in the Scriptural passage the question also asked (by Naciketā) is as follows: — “That something other than duty properly performed (Anyatra Dharmāt), and other than undutiful conduct (Anyatra Adharmāt), other than this effect (i.e. the created thing) and the cause,
Other than the past and the future, that you know, and that you should impart to me.” (KathU.1.2.14).

1.2.11 L.12 ✅ अत्राहाक्षेप्ता – उभावप्येतौ पक्षौ न सम्भवतः।
Here, some other opponent intervenes and says: — Neither of these two views is possible.

1.2.11 L.13 ✅ कस्मात्? ऋतपानं हि कर्मफलोपभोगः, ‘सुकृतस्य लोके’ इति लिङ्गात्।
Why so? Because, drinking of the fruit of actions means experiencing the fruit of actions, because of the indicatory mark, “The world of good actions i.e. the body”.

1.2.11 L.14 ✅ तच्च चेतनस्य क्षेत्रज्ञस्य सम्भवति, नाचेतनाया बुद्धेः।
To have a body is possible only for a sentient Knower of the body (Cetanasya Kṣetra-jñasya) and not for the non-sentient intelligence or mind.

1.2.11 L.15 ✅ ‘पिबन्तौ’ इति द्विवचनेन द्वयोः पानं दर्शयति श्रुतिः।
By the dual form ‘Pibantau’, the Scriptures indicate drinking by two,

1.2.11 L.16 ✅ अत एव क्षेत्रज्ञपरमात्मपक्षोऽपि न सम्भवति;
And hence, the view that the two may be intelligence (Buddhi) and the Jīva-Self, is not possible,

1.2.11 L.17 ✅ अतो बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञपक्षस्तावन्न सम्भवति।
And for a similar reason (Ata eva) the view that the two may be the Jīva-Self, and the Highest-Self, is also not possible,

1.2.11 L.18 ✅ चेतनेऽपि परमात्मनि ऋतपानासम्भवात्,
Because in the case of the Highest-Self though it is sentient, drinking is not possible,

1.2.11 L.19 ✅ अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ इति मन्त्रवर्णादिति।
Because of the Mantra words “The other does not partake of the Pippala, but only keeps looking on.”

1.2.11 L.20 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – नैष दोषः; छत्रिणो गच्छन्तीत्येकेनापि च्छत्रिणा बहूनामच्छत्रिणां छत्रित्वोपचारदर्शनात्।
With regard to this objection, it is said: This is no fault, because, if amongst many men going along, even if only one man amongst them may have an umbrella, it is said figuratively about all of them, that persons carrying umbrellas are going.

1.2.11 L.21 ✅ एवमेकेनापि पिबता द्वौ पिबन्तावुच्येयाताम्।
Similarly, even when only one of these two drinks, it is figuratively said that both drink.

1.2.11 L.22 ✅ यद्वा जीवस्तावत्पिबति; ईश्वरस्तु पाययति;
Or it may also be said, that the Jīva-Self is the one who drinks, and the Lord causes the Jīva-Self to drink,

1.2.11 L.23 ✅ पाययन्नपि पिबतीत्युच्यते, पाचयितर्यपि पक्तृत्वप्रसिद्धिदर्शनात्।
And even though the Lord only causes the Jīva-Self to drink, he himself is said to drink, just as, one who causes others to cook, is said to be the one who cooks.

1.2.11 L.24 ✅ बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञपरिग्रहोऽपि सम्भवति;
It is even possible to say, that the two may be Intelligence (Buddhi) and the Knower of the body,

1.2.11 L.25 ✅ करणे कर्तृत्वोपचारात्, ‘एधांसि पचन्ति’ इति प्रयोगदर्शनात्।
Because, we see, that (figuratively) action is predicated of an instrument of action, as for instance, we find it said like this: “The fuel is cooking.”

1.2.11 L.26 ✅ न चाध्यात्माधिकारेऽन्यौ कौचिद्द्वावृतं पिबन्तौ सम्भवतः।
In a chapter dealing with the Adhyātma (the relation of the Jīva-Self with the Highest-Self) any other pair of drinkers (other than the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self), is not possible.

1.2.11 L.27 ✅ तस्माद्बुद्धिजीवौ स्यातां जीवपरमात्मानौ वेति संशयः॥
Therefore, it is, that a doubt arises (as said by the opponent, above) whether the pair of Intelligence and the Jīva-Self is meant here, or the pair of the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self.

1.2.11 L.28 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your view?

1.2.11 L.29 ✅ बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञाविति।
(The opponent says) that Intelligence and the Knower of the body are meant here.

1.2.11 L.30 ✅ कुतः? ‘गुहां प्रविष्टौ’ इति विशेषणात्।
Why so? Because it has been so particularized in the words — “(The two) have entered the cave.”

1.2.11 L.31 ✅ यदि शरीरं गुहा, यदि वा हृदयम्,
Whether, by the word cave, we understand the body or the Hṛdaya,

1.2.11 L.32 ✅ उभयथापि बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञौ गुहां प्रविष्टावुपपद्येते।
In either case it is reasonably sustainable that those who are supposed to have entered the cave are, Intelligence (Buddhi) and the Knower of the body,

1.2.11 L.33 ✅ न च सति सम्भवे सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणो विशिष्टदेशत्वं युक्तं कल्पयितुम्।
And so far as it is possible, it is not proper to imagine that the all-pervading Brahman is circumscribed i.e. confined to a particular region.

1.2.11 L.34 ✅ ‘सुकृतस्य लोके’ इति च कर्मगोचरानतिक्रमं दर्शयति।
The words “the world of good actions” (which mean a body) show that there is no escaping the influence of action (on the part of these two).

1.2.11 L.35 ✅ परमात्मा तु न सुकृतस्य वा दुष्कृतस्य वा गोचरे वर्तते, ‘न कर्मणा वर्धते नो कनीयान्’ इति श्रुतेः।
The Highest-Self is on the other hand beyond the sphere of good or bad actions, because of the Scriptural passage — “He does not either increase or decrease (in his status) by action.”

1.2.11 L.36 ✅ ‘छायातपौ’ इति च चेतनाचेतनयोर्निर्देश उपपद्यते, छायातपवत्परस्परविलक्षणत्वात्।
The words “light and shade” indicate, that it is reasonably sustainable, that there is an indication of sentient and non-sentient entities being as different from each other, as light and shade.

1.2.11 L.37 ✅ तस्माद्बुद्धिक्षेत्रज्ञाविहोच्येयातामित्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः
Therefore it is the Intelligence (Buddhi) and the Jīva-Self that are spoken of here.

1.2.11 L.38 ✅ विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मानाविहोच्येयाताम्।
As to this conclusion ' (of the opponent) we reply: — It is the Cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self that are here spoken of.

1.2.11 L.39 ✅ कस्मात्? आत्मानौ हि तावुभावपि चेतनौ समानस्वभावौ।
Whence is it so? Because, both of them are selfs and sentient, and have a common nature.

1.2.11 L.40 ✅ संख्याश्रवणे च समानस्वभावेष्वेव लोके प्रतीतिर्दृश्यते।
For we find that in the ordinary world, when we hear of any reference by way of enumeration by number (Saṅkhyā-śravaṇe), we experience that it is so said, about things which have a common nature.

1.2.11 L.41 ✅ ‘अस्य गोर्द्वितीयोऽन्वेष्टव्यः’ इत्युक्ते, गौरेव द्वितीयोऽन्विष्यते, नाश्वः पुरुषो वा।
When it is said (by somebody) that ‘a fellow for this bull should be looked for’ it is a bull that is searched for and not a horse or a man.

1.2.11 L.42 ✅ तदिह ऋतपानेन लिङ्गेन निश्चिते विज्ञानात्मनि
So here, when one (of the two) is ascertained to be the Cognitional Jīva-Self, on the strength of the indicatory mark “Drinking the fruit of action”,

1.2.11 L.43 ✅ द्वितीयान्वेषणायां समानस्वभावश्चेतनः परमात्मैव प्रतीयते।
And another like it is to be searched for, the Intelligent Highest-Self, which has a nature common with it (i.e. the Jīva-Self) is to be understood.

1.2.11 L.44 ✅ ननूक्तं गुहाहितत्वदर्शनान्न परमात्मा प्रत्येतव्य इति;
But (says the opponent) we have said, that because being in a cave is to be seen here, the Highest-Self ought not to be understood.

1.2.11 L.45 ✅ गुहाहितत्वदर्शनादेव परमात्मा प्रत्येतव्य इति वदामः।
As to this we reply — It is precisely because of that (i.e. that “being in a cave” is to be seen here) that the Highest-Self should be understood here.

1.2.11 L.46 ✅ गुहाहितत्वं तु श्रुतिस्मृतिष्वसकृत्परमात्मन एव दृश्यते –
Because we see more than once,' in the Scriptures and the Smṛtis, that “being in the cave” is mentioned in connection with the Highest-Self,

1.2.11 L.47 ✅ ‘गुहाहितं गह्वरेष्ठं पुराणम्’ (KathU.1.2.12)
As for instance — “The ancient one who is hidden in the cave and is in an un-get-at-able region” (KathU.1.2.12);

1.2.11 L.48 ✅ ‘यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन्’ (TaitU.2.1.1)
“One who knows the Puruṣa hidden in the cave of the great Ākāśa” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.);

1.2.11 L.49 ✅ ‘आत्मानमन्विच्छ गुहां प्रविष्टम्’ इत्याद्यासु।
“Look for the self which is hidden in the cave” etc.

1.2.11 L.50 ✅ सर्वगतस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपलब्ध्यर्थो देशविशेषोपदेशो न विरुध्यत इत्येतदप्युक्तमेव।
Besides we have already said, that all-pervading though Brahman is, it is not contradictory to give instruction about it, as having a finite determination in a particular limited region for the purpose of its realization.

1.2.11 L.51 ✅ सुकृतलोकवर्तित्वं तु च्छत्रित्ववदेकस्मिन्नपि वर्तमानमुभयोरविरुद्धम्।
Though, being present in body, is applicable to one only (i.e. the Jīva-Self), it would not be contradictory if it is so said about both, on the analogy of many persons being described as persons equipped with umbrellas, even when only one amongst them happens to be equipped with an umbrella,

1.2.11 L.52 ✅ ‘छायातपौ’ इत्यप्यविरुद्धम्;
Nor is the expression “light and shade” also contradictory,

1.2.11 L.53 ✅ छायातपवत्परस्परविलक्षणत्वात्संसारित्वासंसारित्वयोः,
Because being in a transmigratory condition (i.e. being yet unenlightened) and not being in a transmigratory condition (i.e. being enlightened or liberated) is being as different from each other as darkness and light.

1.2.11 L.54 ✅ अविद्याकृतत्वात्संसारित्वस्य
Transmigratory condition is the result of Nescience,

1.2.11 L.55 ✅ पारमार्थिकत्वाच्चासंसारित्वस्य।
And ‘not being in the transmigratory condition’ is the real transcendental condition.

1.2.11 L.56 ✅ तस्माद्विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मानौ गुहां प्रविष्टौ गृह्येते॥११॥
Therefore, the Cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self should be understood to be mentioned here. — 11.

[Go top]

1.2.12 L.1 ✅ विशेषणं च विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मनोरेव भवति।
Whence is it again that the Cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self are to be understood?

←Prev Next→
विशेषणाच्च॥१.२.१२॥
Viśeṣaṇāc ca.

Viśeṣanāt: on account of distinctive qualities; Ca: and.

🔗 Because of the particularization. — 1.2.12.

1.2.12 L.2 ✅ ‘आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु’ (KathU.1.3.3) इत्यादिना
परेण ग्रन्थेन रथिरथादिरूपककल्पनया विज्ञानात्मानं रथिनं संसारमोक्षयोर्गन्तारं कल्पयति।
Because, here, a distinction is (seen to be) made, which is possible, only as between the Cognitional Self and the Highest-Self.
Because, in the passage “Know the Self to be the charioteer and the body to be the chariot” (KathU.1.3.3),
By the allegorical conception of the charioteer and the chariot, the Cognitional Self, the charioteer, is imagined (by the Scriptures) to be the traveller passing through transmigratory existence towards Final Release,

1.2.12 L.3 ✅ ‘सोऽध्वनः पारमाप्नोति तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम्’ (KathU.1.3.9) इति
परमात्मानं गन्तव्यं कल्पयति।
And by the passage “He reaches beyond the end of the way and attains the seat of Viṣṇu” (KathU.1.3.9)
Is indicated the Highest-Self, which is to be ultimately reached (by the traveller i.e. the Cognitional-Self).

1.2.12 L.4 ✅ तथा ‘तं दुर्दर्शं गूढमनुप्रविष्टं गुहाहितं गह्वरेष्ठं पुराणम्। अध्यात्मयोगाधिगमेन देवं मत्वा धीरो हर्षशोकौ जहाति’ (KathU.1.2.12) इति पूर्वस्मिन्नपि ग्रन्थे मन्तृमन्तव्यत्वेनैतावेव विशेषितौ।
Similarly by the preceding passage — viz. “The wise one, by contemplative study of Adhyātma (the relation between the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self), knows the ancient One, who is difficult to discern, who has been a mystery, and who has, as it were, entered into a cave, and who rules from an inaccessible place, and ultimately renounces pleasure or pain” (KathU.1.2.12) — also, the same two are differentiated from each other, one of the two (i.e. the Jīva-Self, as being the one that contemplates, and the other, i.e. the Highest-Self, as being the object of such contemplation).

1.2.12 L.5 ✅ प्रकरणं चेदं परमात्मनः।
Besides, this chapter also deals with the Highest-Self.

1.2.12 L.6 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति’ इति च वक्तृविशेषोपादानं परमात्मपरिग्रहे घटते।
And the passage “Those who have realized Brahman, speak” by which a special category of speakers is understood, fits in properly, only if we understand the Highest-Self (to be meant as being one of the two).

1.2.12 L.7 ✅ तस्मादिह जीवपरमात्मानावुच्येयाताम्।
Therefore, here, the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self are referred to.

1.2.12 L.8 ✅ एष एव न्यायः ‘द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया’ (MunU.3.1.1) इत्येवमादिष्वपि।
The same reasoning (Nyāya) applies in the case of the passages such as — “Two birds, inseparable friends” (MunU.3.1.1) etc.

1.2.12 L.9 ✅ तत्रापि ह्याध्यात्माधिकारान्न प्राकृतौ सुपर्णावुच्येते।
There also, the chapter being one dealing with Adhyātma, it could not be said to refer to ordinary birds.

1.2.12 L.10 ✅ ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति’ इत्यदनलिङ्गाद्विज्ञानात्मा भवति।
One may well be the Cognitional-Self, because of the indicatory mark of eating, viz. “One of them partakes of the sweet Pippala fruit”, —

1.2.12 L.11 ✅ ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ इत्यनशनचेतनत्वाभ्यां परमात्मा। अनन्तरे च मन्त्रे तावेव द्रष्टृद्रष्टव्यभावेन विशिनष्टि –
And the other may well be the Highest-Self because of his abstention from the partaking of it, and because of its being sentient, (as indicated) by the passage “The other one does not partake (of the fruit) but keeps looking on”.

1.2.12 L.12 ✅ ‘समाने वृक्षे पुरुषो निमग्नोऽनीशया शोचति मुह्यमानः।
जुष्टं यदा पश्यत्यन्यमीशमस्य महिमानमिति वीतशोकः’ (MunU.3.1.2) इति॥
Again in the following Mantra — “The Puruṣa engulfed in the same tree (i.e. the body), grieves bewildered, because of the absence of the realization of any ruling power in him (Anīśayā),
But when he sees the other as the one who is the Lord, and who is worshipped by those who endeavour to realize Him, and beholds His glory (Mahimānam), then he goes beyond grief” (MunU.3.1.2) (— The same two are indicated as being different from each other, one of them being the seer (i.e. the Jīva-Self) and the other, as the one that is seen (the Highest-Self).)

1.2.12 L.13 ✅ अपर आह – ‘द्वा सुपर्णा’ इति नेयमृगस्याधिकरणस्य सिद्धान्तं भजते, पैङ्गिरहस्यब्राह्मणेनान्यथा व्याख्यातत्वात् –
Some other opponent maintains that this Ṛk — viz. “Two birds” etc. — has not the conclusion arrived at (by the Sūtra-kāra) in this Adhikaraṇa, because (according to him) the Paiṅgi-Rahasya-Brāhmaṇa, has interpreted it in another way, viz.,

1.2.12 L.14 ✅ ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्तीति सत्त्वमनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीतीत्यनश्नन्नन्योऽभिपश्यति ज्ञस्तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ’ इति।
That by “One of these two partakes of the sweet fruit” intelligence (i.e. Sattva) is indicated, and by “The other one does not partake (of the fruit) but keeps only looking on” the ‘Jña’ (ज्ञ), the Knower, is indicated, and it is this pair of ‘intelligence’ and ‘the Knower in the body’ that should be understood.

1.2.12 L.15 ✅ सत्त्वशब्दो जीवः क्षेत्रज्ञशब्दः परमात्मेति यदुच्यते, तन्न;
सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञशब्दयोरन्तःकरणशारीरपरतया प्रसिद्धत्वात्।
The suggestion that the word ‘Sattva’ indicates the Jīva-Self and the word ‘Kṣetra-jña’ indicates the Highest-Self, is not correct,
Because the two words (Sattva and Kṣetra-jña) are well-known as being used for the internal organ (Antaḥ-karaṇa) and the embodied Jīva-Self (respectively).

1.2.12 L.16 ✅ तत्रैव च व्याख्यातत्वात् – ‘तदेतत्सत्त्वं येन स्वप्नं पश्यति, अथ योऽयं शारीर उपद्रष्टा स क्षेत्रज्ञस्तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ’ इति।
Besides they are so explained even there thus: — “That which is intelligence, by means of which he sees dreams, and the one who, constructively, is the Seer i.e. the embodied one, the cognizer in the body, are the two who form this pair of ‘Sattva’ and ‘Kṣetra-jña’.”

1.2.12 L.17 ✅ नाप्यस्याधिकरणस्य पूर्वपक्षं भजते।
Nor does this Ṛk support the conclusion of the opponent’s view (Pūrva-pakṣa).

1.2.12 L.18 ✅ न ह्यत्र शारीरः क्षेत्रज्ञः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिना संसारधर्मेणोपेतो विवक्ष्यते।
This Ṛk does not intend to speak of the embodied Jīva-Self, the knower in the body, the one affected by the attributes of transmigratory existence such as the attributes of being an agent or an experiencer,

1.2.12 L.19 ✅ कथं तर्हि? सर्वसंसारधर्मातीतो ब्रह्मस्वभावश्चैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपः;
‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीतीत्यनश्नन्नन्योऽभिपश्यति ज्ञः’ इति वचनात्,
But on the other hand it is intended to speak, as shown by the Scriptural passage “The other one does not partake (of the fruit) but merely keeps looking on, and is the Knower (Jña)”,
About the one who is beyond the attribute of transmigratory existence and has the inherent nature of Brahman i.e. pure sentiency,

1.2.12 L.20 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि’ (BhG.13.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यश्च।
And that is so, also because of the Scriptural and Smṛti passages such as “That thou art” and “Also know me as the cognizer in the body” (BhG.13.2).

1.2.12 L.21 ✅ तावता च विद्योपसंहारदर्शनमेवमेवावकल्पते,
‘तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ न ह वा एवंविदि किञ्चन रज आध्वंसते’ इत्यादि।
It is only if we understand it in this manner, that the conclusion arrived at in this instruction (Vidyā) is justified, viz. —
“Those two are the ‘Sattva’ and the ‘Kṣetra-jña’ and no ignorance (Rajas) clings to him who knows it to be like this.”

1.2.12 L.22 ✅ कथं पुनरस्मिन्पक्षे ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्तीति सत्त्वम्’ इत्यचेतने सत्त्वे भोक्तृत्ववचनमिति,
But (says the opponent) if we accept this interpretation or this view, how is it possible to understand the reference to eating in the case of ‘Sattva’ which is non-sentient, as is to be seen in the passage “One of the two partakes of the sweet Pippala fruit”, as meaning the Sattva?

1.2.12 L.23 ✅ उच्यते – नेयं श्रुतिरचेतनस्य सत्त्वस्य भोक्तृत्वं वक्ष्यामीति प्रवृत्ता –
To this we reply — This Scriptural passage does not start with a desire to speak of the non-sentient ‘Sattva’ as an experiencer,

1.2.12 L.24 ✅ किं तर्हि? – चेतनस्य क्षेत्रज्ञस्याभोक्तृत्वं ब्रह्मस्वभावतां च वक्ष्यामीति।
But with a desire to say, that the sentient cognizer in the body is not the experiencer, but that it has the nature of Brahman.

1.2.12 L.25 ✅ तदर्थं सुखदुःखादिविक्रियावति सत्त्वे भोक्तृत्वमध्यारोपयति।
And it is with that purpose that the attribute of being an experiencer is superimposed on ‘Sattva’ which is affected with such notions, as that of pleasure etc.

1.2.12 L.26 ✅ इदं हि कर्तृत्वं भोक्तृत्वं च सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञयोरितरेतरस्वभावाविवेककृतं कल्प्यते।
It is thought that the attributes of being an experiencer and an agent, are the result of the failure to discriminate properly between the respective natures of ‘Sattva’ and ‘Kṣetra-jña’,

1.2.12 L.27 ✅ परमार्थतस्तु नान्यतरस्यापि सम्भवति, अचेतनत्वात्सत्त्वस्य, अविक्रियत्वाच्च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य।
While in the ultimate true sense, it is not at all possible in the case of either, inasmuch as the ‘Sattva’ is non-sentient and the ‘Kṣetra-jña’ (cognizer in the body) is not liable to modifications.

1.2.12 L.28 ✅ अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितस्वभावत्वाच्च सत्त्वस्य सुतरां न सम्भवति।
It is even less possible in the case of ‘Sattva’ whose nature is brought about by Nescience.

1.2.12 L.29 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ इत्यादिना
स्वप्नदृष्टहस्त्यादिव्यवहारवदविद्याविषय एव कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं दर्शयति।
Even so, says the Scriptural passage — “Where things, as it were, appear to be different, there, it is possible for one to see another” —
Which shows that all this behaviour as an agent etc., is quite as much the result of Nescience as is the behaviour of an elephant as seen in a dream.

1.2.12 L.30 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यादिना च
विवेकिनः कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं निवारयति॥१२॥
The Scriptural passage — “Where he sees all this as but only his own Self, what can he see and by what”? (BrhUEng.4.5.15) —
shows that in the case of one who is able to discriminate properly, there is absence of any such behaviour as that of an agent. — 12.

– 14. Guhā-praviṣṭa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.2.13 Su..14 Su..15 Su..16 Su..17

←Prev Next→
अन्तर उपपत्तेः॥१.२.१३॥
Antara upapatteḥ.

Antaraḥ: inside (the eye), the being within the eye; Upapatteḥ: on account of the appropriateness of (attributes).

🔗 The Puruṣa that is inside (the eye, is Brahman), because that is reasonably sustainable. — 1.2.13.

1.2.13 L.1 ✅ ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यत एष आत्मेति होवाचैतदमृतमभयमेतद्ब्रह्मेति।
तद्यद्यप्यस्मिन्सर्पिर्वोदकं वा सिञ्चति वर्त्मनी एव गच्छति’ (ChanU.4.15.1) इत्यादि श्रूयते।
A Scriptural passage is as follows: — “He (the Ācārya) said that the Puruṣa that is seen inside the eye is the Self, it is the immortal one, the fearless, it is Brahman.
It is seen that if one were to drop either ghee or water in the eye, (it does not cling to the eye, but) it promptly runs out towards the eye-lashes.” (ChanU.4.15.1).

1.2.13 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशयः –
With regard to that the doubt arises,

1.2.13 L.3 ✅ किमयं प्रतिबिम्बात्माक्ष्यधिकरणो निर्दिश्यते,
Whether the Self as the reflection in the eye is meant here,

1.2.13 L.4 ✅ अथ विज्ञानात्मा,
Or the Cognitional Self,

1.2.13 L.5 ✅ उत देवतात्मेन्द्रियस्याधिष्ठाता,
Or the Self of a deity which presides in the sense-organ called the eye,

1.2.13 L.6 ✅ अथवेश्वर इति।
Or the Lord.

1.2.13 L.7 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion you arrive at?

1.2.13 L.8 ✅ छायात्मा पुरुषप्रतिरूप इति।
It is, that it is the reflection of the Self, the exact image of the Puruṣa.

1.2.13 L.9 ✅ कुतः? तस्य दृश्यमानत्वप्रसिद्धेः, ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ इति च प्रसिद्धवदुपदेशात्।
How so? Because, that it is so seen is well-known, and instruction about it is given in the Scriptures as being so well-known, as follows: “The Puruṣa that is seen inside the eye”.

1.2.13 L.10 ✅ विज्ञानात्मनो वायं निर्देश इति युक्तम्। स हि चक्षुषा रूपं पश्यंश्चक्षुषि सन्निहितो भवति।
Or it would be logical to say that there is a reference to the Cognitional-Self here, because it is he, that is in close proximity in the eye, seeing form or colour (Rūpa) with it (i.e. the eye).

1.2.13 L.11 ✅ आत्मशब्दश्चास्मिन्पक्षेऽनुकूलो भवति।
The word ‘Self’ (used here), is favourable to the view which is interpreted here

1.2.13 L.12 ✅ आदित्यपुरुषो वा चक्षुषोऽनुग्राहकः प्रतीयते – ‘रश्मिभिरेषोऽस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठितः’ (BrhU.5.5.2) इति श्रुतेः,
Or may be, it means that it refers to the Puruṣa in the Sun, which helps the eyes, because a Scriptural passage says as follows: — “He dwells in the eye by way of the rays” (BrhUEng.5.5.2).

1.2.13 L.13 ✅ अमृतत्वादीनां च देवतात्मन्यपि कथञ्चित्सम्भवात्।
The attributes of immortality etc., can somehow be understood to be possible in the case of the Self of the deity.

1.2.13 L.14 ✅ नेश्वरः, स्थानविशेषनिर्देशात् –
But in no way can it ever mean the Lord, because a particular circumscribed abode is here indicated.

1.2.13 L.15 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – परमेश्वर एवाक्षिण्यभ्यन्तरः पुरुष इहोपदिष्ट इति।
To this conclusion (of the opponent) we reply — It is the Lord alone about whom instruction is here given as the Puruṣa that is in the eye.

1.2.13 L.16 ✅ कस्मात्? उपपत्तेः।
How so? Because that is what is reasonably sustainable.

1.2.13 L.17 ✅ उपपद्यते हि परमेश्वरे गुणजातमिहोपदिश्यमानम्।
The aggregate of attributes about which instruction is here given appears to be reasonably sustainable only in the case of the Lord,

1.2.13 L.18 ✅ आत्मत्वं तावन्मुख्यया वृत्त्या परमेश्वरे उपपद्यते, ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ इति श्रुतेः।
For selfhood (Ātmatva) in its chief primary sense is reasonably sustainable in the case of the Lord, because of the Scriptural passage — “That is the Self, that thou art.”

1.2.13 L.19 ✅ अमृतत्वाभयत्वे च तस्मिन्नसकृच्छ्रूयेते।
We have seen that Scriptures more than once have mentioned immortality and fearlessness in connection with it (i.e. the Lord).

1.2.13 L.20 ✅ तथा परमेश्वरानुरूपमेतदक्षिस्थानम्।
Similarly, the eye as an abode, is proper in the case of the Highest Lord.

1.2.13 L.21 ✅ यथा हि परमेश्वरः सर्वदोषैरलिप्तः, अपहतपाप्मत्वादिश्रवणात्;
Just as the Highest Lord is free from all faults, as being free from all sins,

1.2.13 L.22 ✅ तथाक्षिस्थानं सर्वलेपरहितमुपदिष्टम्
‘तद्यद्यप्यस्मिन्सर्पिर्वोदकं वा सिञ्चति, वर्त्मनी एव गच्छति’ इति श्रुतेः।
Similarly instruction about the eye as an abode is given, as being free from all contamination,
Because the Scriptural passage says as follows: “That if one were to drop either ghee or water in the eye it promptly runs out towards the eyelashes”.

1.2.13 L.23 ✅ संयद्वामत्वादिगुणोपदेशश्च तस्मिन्नवकल्पते।
Besides the instruction, that he is the one to whom all blessings go etc., is reasonably possible to be imagined only in his case.

1.2.13 L.24 ✅ ‘एतं संयद्वाम इत्याचक्षते। एतं हि सर्वाणि वामान्यभिसंयन्ति’, (ChanU.4.15.2)
The Scriptural passage says — “It is called ‘Samyad-vāma’ because all blessings go to him.” (ChanU.4.15.2)

1.2.13 L.25 ✅ ‘एष उ एव वामनीरेष हि सर्वाणि वामानि नयति।
एष उ एव भामनीरेष हि सर्वेषु लोकेषु भाति’ (ChanU.4.15.3) (ChanU.4.15.4) इति च।
“It is called ‘Vāmanī’ because it is that which conveys all the fruits of good actions (to beings, who perform such good actions).
It is called ‘Bhāmanī’ because it is that which shines in all the worlds” (ChanU.4.15.2–4).

1.2.13 L.26 ✅ अत उपपत्तेरन्तरः परमेश्वरः॥१३॥
Therefore, inasmuch as it is reasonably sustainable in this way, the Highest Lord is the one that is within (the eye). — 13.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्थानादिव्यपदेशाच्च॥१.२.१४॥
Sthānādi-vyapadeśāc ca.

Sthāna-ādi: the place and the rest; Vyapadeśāt: on account of the statement; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because an abode etc. is mentioned. — 1.2.14.

1.2.14 L.1 ✅ कथं पुनराकाशवत्सर्वगतस्य ब्रह्मणोऽक्ष्यल्पं स्थानमुपपद्यत इति,
How, again, can a small abode like an eye, be reasonably sustainable in the case of the Ākāśa-like all-pervading, Brahman?

1.2.14 L.2 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – भवेदेषानवकॢप्तिः, यद्येतदेवैकं स्थानमस्य निर्दिष्टं भवेत्।
To this we reply — Such inappropriateness may well occur, if that abode only (i.e. only the eye) were to have been indicated as the abode of Brahman,

1.2.14 L.3 ✅ सन्ति ह्यन्यान्यपि पृथिव्यादीनि स्थानान्यस्य निर्दिष्टानि –
‘यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्’ (BrhU.3.7.3) इत्यादिना।
But other abodes as well such as the Earth etc. are indicated (as the abodes of Brahman),
By the Scriptural passage “He who dwells in the Earth etc.” (BrhUEng.3.7.3), and inter alia,

1.2.14 L.4 ✅ तेषु हि चक्षुरपि निर्दिष्टम् ‘यश्चक्षुषि तिष्ठन्’ इति।
The eye also is therein mentioned, thus — “He who dwells in the eye etc.”.

1.2.14 L.5 ✅ स्थानादिव्यपदेशादित्यादिग्रहणेनैतद्दर्शयति –
This is indicated by using the word Ādi (etc.) in the word “Sthānādi” in the Sūtra.

1.2.14 L.6 ✅ न केवलं स्थानमेवैकमनुचितं ब्रह्मणो निर्दिश्यते।
Here, not only an abode (as for instance, the eye) which is really inappropriate (as an abode of Brahman) is seen to be indicated,

1.2.14 L.7 ✅ किं तर्हि? नाम रूपमित्येवंजातीयकमप्यनामरूपस्य ब्रह्मणोऽनुचितं निर्दिश्यमानं दृश्यते –
‘तस्योदिति नाम’ (ChanU.1.6.7) ‘हिरण्यश्मश्रुः’ इत्यादि।
But even such other things as name and form which also have no appropriate use in the case of the nameless and formless Brahman, are also seen to be indicated,
As for instance in the Scriptural passage — “His name is ‘Ut’, he has an aureate beard” (ChanU.1.6.7) etc.

1.2.14 L.8 ✅ निर्गुणमपि सद्ब्रह्म नामरूपगतैर्गुणैः सगुणमुपासनार्थं तत्र तत्रोपदिश्यत इत्येतदप्युक्तमेव।
And it has also been stated that, Brahman, being as it is without any attribute, is, in various places, taught as being endowed with attributes for the purpose of devout meditation.

1.2.14 L.9 ✅ सर्वगतस्यापि ब्रह्मण उपलब्ध्यर्थं स्थानविशेषो न विरुध्यते, सालग्राम इव विष्णोरित्येतदप्युक्तमेव॥१४॥
Just as (for the purpose of devout contemplation) a special abode of Viṣṇu viz. Śāla-grāma (is mentioned), even so, it is not contradictory, that Brahman, all-pervading though it is, has, for the purpose of its realization (Upalabdhyārtham), a circumscribed abode. — 14.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सुखविशिष्टाभिधानादेव च॥१.२.१५॥
Sukha-viśiṣṭābhidhānād eva ca.

Sukha: bliss; Viśiṣṭa: qualified by; Abhidhānāt: because of the description; Eva: alone; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because of the mention (of Brahman) as possessing (the characteristic of) pleasure. — 1.2.15.

1.2.15 L.1 ✅ अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् – किं ब्रह्मास्मिन्वाक्येऽभिधीयते, न वेति।
Besides, in this connection, indeed, no discussion, as to whether Brahman is spoken of in this sentence or not, need be made, because it is established that the passage refers to Brahman,

1.2.15 L.2 ✅ सुखविशिष्टाभिधानादेव ब्रह्मत्वं सिद्धम्।
Precisely because it is mentioned as possessing (the characteristic of) pleasure.

1.2.15 L.3 ✅ सुखविशिष्टं हि ब्रह्म यद्वाक्योपक्रमे प्रक्रान्तम्
‘प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.14.1) इति,
तदेवेहाभिहितम्;
In the beginning of the sentence, that very Brahman which is distinguished by (the characteristic of) pleasure and which is mentioned thus —
“Prāṇa is Brahman, ‘Ka’ is Brahman, ‘Kha’ is Brahman” (ChanU.4.14.1) —
Is the same that is spoken of here,

1.2.15 L.4 ✅ प्रकृतपरिग्रहस्य न्याय्यत्वात्,
‘आचार्यस्तु ते गतिं वक्ता’ (ChanU.4.14.1) इति च
गतिमात्राभिधानप्रतिज्ञानात्।
Because it stands to reason that what is accepted as relevant to the subject in the beginning should be accepted as having been meant here.
By a Scriptural passage — “The Ācārya, however, will speak to you about the way” (ChanU.4.14.1) —
(the sacred fires have said) that only the way will be told you (by the Ācārya, and not that he will introduce a new subject).

1.2.15 L.5 ✅ कथं पुनर्वाक्योपक्रमे सुखविशिष्टं ब्रह्म विज्ञायत इति, उच्यते –
Again, how do we understand that in the beginning of the sentence Brahman as possessed of (the characteristic of) pleasure, is spoken of?

1.2.15 L.6 ✅ ‘प्राणो ब्रह्म कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.4.10.5) इत्येतदग्नीनां वचनं श्रुत्वोपकोसल उवाच –
We reply: — Upakosala, on hearing the words “Prāṇa is Brahman, ‘Ka’ is Brahman, ‘Kha’ is Brahman” (ChanU.4.10.5), mentioned by the sacred fires, said,

1.2.15 L.7 ✅ ‘विजानाम्यहं यत्प्राणो ब्रह्म, कं च तु खं च न विजानामि’ इति।
“I can understand that Prāṇa is Brahman, but I do not understand what ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ mean.”

1.2.15 L.8 ✅ तत्रेदं प्रतिवचनम् – ‘यद्वाव कं तदेव खं यदेव खं तदेव कम्’ इति।
And there the reply is — “That which is ‘Ka’ is verily ‘Kha’, and that which is ‘Kha’ is verily ‘Ka’” (ChanU.4.10.5).

1.2.15 L.9 ✅ तत्र खंशब्दो भूताकाशे निरूढो लोके।
Now, there the word ‘Kha’ is known by people to be a word used for the element Ākāśa.

1.2.15 L.10 ✅ यदि तस्य विशेषणत्वेन कंशब्दः सुखवाची नोपादीयेत,
Now, if we don’t take the word ‘Ka’ which means pleasure as an adjective of ‘Kha’,

1.2.15 L.11 ✅ तथा सति केवले भूताकाशे ब्रह्मशब्दो नामादिष्विव प्रतीकाभिप्रायेण प्रयुक्त इति प्रतीतिः स्यात्।
Then, in that case, it would be understood that the word ‘Brahman’ is used in connection with the mere element Ākāśa, in the sense of a symbol, just as a Nāman is understood as a symbol (of Brahman).

1.2.15 L.12 ✅ तथा कंशब्दस्य विषयेन्द्रियसम्पर्कजनिते सामये सुखे प्रसिद्धत्वात्,
Similarly the word ‘Ka’, being a word which is well-known as being used for pleasure not unmixed with pain resulting from the contact of the sense-organs with their objects,

1.2.15 L.13 ✅ यदि तस्य खंशब्दो विशेषणत्वेन नोपादीयेत;
If we do not take the word ‘Kha’ to be an adjective of the word ‘Ka’,

1.2.15 L.14 ✅ लौकिकं सुखं ब्रह्मेति प्रतीतिः स्यात्।
Then the realization would be that mere worldly pleasure is Brahman.

1.2.15 L.15 ✅ इतरेतरविशेषितौ तु कंखंशब्दौ सुखात्मकं ब्रह्म गमयतः।
When, however, the words ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ are used (as here) as qualifying each other, then the two together, would indicate Brahman having the nature of pleasure.

1.2.15 L.16 ✅ तत्र द्वितीये ब्रह्मशब्देऽनुपादीयमाने ‘कं खं ब्रह्म’ इत्येवोच्यमाने
कंशब्दस्य विशेषणत्वेनैवोपयुक्तत्वात्सुखस्य गुणस्याध्येयत्वं स्यात्;
Now, if the word (Brahman) is not supposed to be used twice in the sentence and the sentence were to read thus — ‘Kam-Kham Brahman’ —
Then the word Ka having been appropriated as an adjective of Kha, the attribute ‘pleasure’ would not be understood to be one which should be contemplated upon,

1.2.15 L.17 ✅ तन्मा भूत् – इत्युभयोः कंखंशब्दयोर्ब्रह्मशब्दशिरस्त्वम् – ‘कं ब्रह्म खं ब्रह्म’ इति।
And it is with a view to avoid this that both the words Ka and Kha are headed by Brahman (Brahma-śirastvam) i.e. the word Brahman is placed after them thus — “Ka is Brahman, Kha is Brahman”.

1.2.15 L.18 ✅ इष्टं हि सुखस्यापि गुणस्य गुणिवद्ध्येयत्वम्।
It is necessary that the attribute ‘pleasure’, also along with the object which is endowed with that attribute (i.e. the qualified Brahman) should be meditated upon.

1.2.15 L.19 ✅ तदेवं वाक्योपक्रमे सुखविशिष्टं ब्रह्मोपदिष्टम्।
Hence in this manner, in the beginning of the sentence, instruction about Brahman as possessed of the attribute of pleasure is given.

1.2.15 L.20 ✅ प्रत्येकं च गार्हपत्यादयोऽग्नयः स्वं स्वं महिमानमुपदिश्य
‘एषा सोम्य तेऽस्मद्विद्यात्मविद्या च’ इत्युपसंहरन्तः पूर्वत्र ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टमिति ज्ञापयन्ति।
Each one of the sacred fires, viz. the Gārha-patya (the householder’s Agni) and others, having given instruction (to Upakosala) about their own greatness or glory, Indicate,
As they conclude the subject by mentioning, by the passage “Oh mild one (we have told you) this is our knowledge pertaining to ourselves and our knowledge about Brahman”, that it is Brahman that is indicated earlier.

1.2.15 L.21 ✅ ‘आचार्यस्तु ते गतिं वक्ता’ इति च गतिमात्राभिधानप्रतिज्ञानमर्थान्तरविवक्षां वारयति।
The sentence “The Ācārya will speak to you about the way”, which promises the mention (by the Ācārya) of the way only, precludes the possibility of any desire to speak about anything else.

1.2.15 L.22 ✅ ‘यथा पुष्करपलाश आपो न श्लिष्यन्त एवमेवंविदि पापं कर्म न श्लिष्यते’ (ChanU.4.14.3)
इति चाक्षिस्थानं पुरुषं विजानतः पाप्मनानुपघातं ब्रुवन्नक्षिस्थानस्य पुरुषस्य ब्रह्मत्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural passage — “Just as water does not adhere to the leaf of a lotus, even so, sin does not contaminate one who knows this in this way” (ChanU.4.14.3) — ,
Which speaks of one who knows the Puruṣa in the eye as the one who is not assailed or overwhelmed with sin, also indicates the Puruṣa in the eye as being Brahman.

1.2.15 L.23 ✅ तस्मात्प्रकृतस्यैव ब्रह्मणोऽक्षिस्थानतां संयद्वामत्वादिगुणतां चोक्त्वा
अर्चिरादिकां तद्विदो गतिं वक्ष्यामीत्युपक्रमते –
It is because of this, that having spoken of Brahman, which is relevant here, as having its abode in the eye, and as being endowed with the attribute of ‘Samyad-vāma’,
The Scriptures, purporting to mention the ‘Path of the Arci etc.’ as being the path of those who know it to be so, begin by mentioning —

1.2.15 L.24 ✅ ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यत एष आत्मेति होवाच’ (ChanU.4.15.1) इति॥१५॥
“He said: This, the Puruṣa that is seen in the eye, is the Self etc.” (ChanU.4.15.1). — 15.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
श्रुतोपनिषत्कगत्यभिधानाच्च॥१.२.१६॥
Śrutopaniṣatka-gaty-abhidhānāc ca.

Śruta: heard; Upaniṣatka: the Upaniṣads; Gati: way; Abhidhānāt: because of the statement; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because of the declaration of the path of one who has heard (i.e. realized the esoteric significance of) the Upaniṣads. — 1.2.16.

1.2.16 L.1 ✅ इतश्चाक्षिस्थानः पुरुषः परमेश्वरः,
This again is why the Puruṣa whose abode is in the eye is the Highest Lord,

1.2.16 L.2 ✅ यस्माच्छ्रुतोपनिषत्कस्य श्रुतरहस्यविज्ञानस्य ब्रह्मविदो या गतिर्देवयानाख्या प्रसिद्धा श्रुतौ –
Because the ‘Deva-yāna Path’ of those, who have understood the inward or esoteric significance of the Upaniṣads and have realized Brahman, is well-known from the Scriptures, thus —

1.2.16 L.3 ✅ ‘अथोत्तरेण तपसा ब्रह्मचर्येण श्रद्धया विद्ययात्मानमन्विष्यादित्यमभिजयन्ते।
एतद्वै प्राणानामायतनमेतदमृतमभयमेतत्परायणमेतस्मान्न पुनरावर्तन्ते’ (PrasU.1.10) इति,
“Those who have sought out the Self by penance, celibate life, faith and knowledge, reach the Āditya (after death) by the northern path.
This verily is the abode of the Prāṇas (the abode of Hiraṇya-garbha considered singly and cosmically), this the immortal one, free from fear, and the sheet anchor from where (having once reached) they do not (have to) return.” (PrasU.1.10).

1.2.16 L.4 ✅ स्मृतावपि – ‘अग्निर्ज्योतिरहः शुक्लः षण्मासा उत्तरायणम्।
तत्र प्रयाता गच्छन्ति ब्रह्म ब्रह्मविदो जनाः’ (BhG.8.24) इति,
In Smṛti also, thus — “Agni, Jyotis, the day, the bright fortnight, the six months of Uttarāyaṇa (six months during which the Sun appears to change its position gradually from South to North).
By this path, after death those who know Brahman reach Brahman.” (BhG.8.24).

1.2.16 L.5 ✅ सैवेहाक्षिपुरुषविदोऽभिधीयमाना दृश्यते।
The same Path is seen to be mentioned by the Scriptures for those who know the Puruṣa in the eye,

1.2.16 L.6 ✅ ‘अथ यदु चैवास्मिञ्छव्यं कुर्वन्ति यदि च नार्चिषमेवाभिसम्भवन्ति’ इत्युपक्रम्य
Beginning as follows — “With regard to a person who had died, whether his funeral and obsequies are performed or not (by his sons etc.), such person reaches the Arci i.e. light of the sun”,

1.2.16 L.7 ✅ ‘आदित्याच्चन्द्रमसं चन्द्रमसो विद्युतं,
तत्पुरुषोऽमानवः स एनान्ब्रह्म गमयत्येष देवपथो ब्रह्मपथ,
एतेन प्रतिपद्यमाना इमं मानवमावर्तं नावर्तन्ते’ (ChanU.4.15.5) इति।
And thereafter (the path is indicated thus) — “From the Sun he reaches the moon, from the moon to the lightning.
There a being that is non-human (i.e. who is a super-man) leads them on to Brahman. This is the path of the Gods, the path of Brahman.
Those who reach (Brahman) by this path do not revert to the condition of recurring birth and death.” (ChanU.4.15.5).

1.2.16 L.8 ✅ तदिह ब्रह्मविद्विषयया प्रसिद्धया गत्या अक्षिस्थानस्य ब्रह्मत्वं निश्चीयते॥१६॥
In this way, here, it is determined that the one whose abode is in the eye, is Brahman, because of the mention of the path of those who know Brahman. — 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनवस्थितेरसम्भवाच्च नेतरः॥१.२.१७॥
Anavasthiter asambhavāc ca netaraḥ.

Anavasthiteḥ: not existing always; Asambhavāt: on account of the impossibility; Ca: and; Na: not; Itaraḥ: any other.

🔗 None other but Brahman (can be the person in the eye) on account of the reflected Selfs either not always existing or because of the impossibility (of its having the attributes mentioned). — 1.2.17.

1.2.17 L.1 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तं छायात्मा, विज्ञानात्मा, देवतात्मा वा स्यादक्षिस्थान इति,
With regard to what is said, viz. that the Puruṣa in the eye may be the reflected Self, or the cognitional Self, or the Self of a deity,

1.2.17 L.2 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – न च्छायात्मादिरितर इह ग्रहणमर्हति।
We reply — No, the reflected Self etc. or any such other entity does not deserve to be accepted (as the Puruṣa in the eye).

1.2.17 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? अनवस्थितेः।
Why so? Because of (its) not being an always existing entity.

1.2.17 L.4 ✅ न तावच्छायात्मनश्चक्षुषि नित्यमवस्थानं सम्भवति।
As for the reflected Self, it is not possible that it can always be present in the eye.

1.2.17 L.5 ✅ यदैव हि कश्चित्पुरुषश्चक्षुरासीदति, तदा चक्षुषि पुरुषच्छाया दृश्यते;
Whenever some person is right in front of one’s eye, his reflection is to be seen in the eye,

1.2.17 L.6 ✅ अपगते तस्मिन्न दृश्यते।
And it is not so seen, when such person has gone away.

1.2.17 L.7 ✅ ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषः’ इति च श्रुतिः सन्निधानात्स्वचक्षुषि दृश्यमानं पुरुषमुपास्यत्वेनोपदिशति।
The Scriptural passage, which says, “The Puruṣa that is seen in the eye”, gives instruction that the Puruṣa that is seen in the eye, being in close proximity, should be devoutly meditated upon.

1.2.17 L.8 ✅ न चोपासनाकाले च्छायाकरं कञ्चित्पुरुषं चक्षुःसमीपे सन्निधाप्योपास्त इति युक्तं कल्पयितुम्।
It is not possible to imagine, that at the time of devout meditation, one places a person near the eye for affording a reflection, and then meditates devoutly.

1.2.17 L.9 ✅ ‘अस्यैव शरीरस्य नाशमन्वेष नश्यति’ (ChanU.8.9.1) इति श्रुतिश्
छायात्मनोऽप्यनवस्थितत्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural passage — “It (the reflected self) is also destroyed along with the destruction of the body” (ChanU.8.9.1) —
Shows how the reflected Self also, is not an always existing entity.

1.2.17 L.10 ✅ असम्भवाच्च तस्मिन्नमृतत्वादीनां गुणानां न च्छायात्मनि प्रतीतिः।
Besides it cannot be that the person in the eye could be the reflected Self, because it is not possible, and the attributes of being immortal etc. (which have been predicated of the Puruṣa in the eye, in this passage) are not seen to be present in the reflected Self.

1.2.17 L.11 ✅ तथा विज्ञानात्मनोऽपि साधारणे कृत्स्नशरीरेन्द्रियसम्बन्धे सति
न चक्षुष्येवावस्थितत्वं शक्यं वक्तुम्।
Similarly, the cognitional Self’s connection with the whole body and the sense-organs being everywhere in general,
It is not possible to say that it is present in the eye only.

1.2.17 L.12 ✅ ब्रह्मणस्तु सर्वव्यापिनोऽपि दृष्ट उपलब्ध्यर्थो हृदयादिदेशविशेषसम्बन्धः।
With regard to Brahman, even though it is all-pervading, it is seen that Brahman is associated with a particular region, such as the Hṛdaya etc., for the purpose of its realization there.

1.2.17 L.13 ✅ समानश्च विज्ञानात्मन्यप्यमृतत्वादीनां गुणानामसम्भवः।
The absence of the association of attributes, such as immortality etc., also in the cognitional Self, is seen to be common (with the reflected Self).

1.2.17 L.14 ✅ यद्यपि विज्ञानात्मा परमात्मनोऽनन्य एव, तथाप्यविद्याकामकर्मकृतं तस्मिन्मर्त्यत्वमध्यारोपितं भयं च
इत्यमृतत्वाभयत्वे नोपपद्येते।
It cannot be said to be reasonably sustainable, that immortality and freedom from fear
Can belong to the cognitional Self, even though it really is not different from the Highest Self, because of mortality and fear being superimposed on the cognitional Self as a result of Nescience, desire, and the performance of duties (Karma).

1.2.17 L.15 ✅ संयद्वामत्वादयश्चैतस्मिन्ननैश्वर्यादनुपपन्ना एव।
Nor is it reasonably sustainable to suppose the attributes of Samyad-vāmatva etc., to be inherent in the cognitional Self, because of its not possessing Lordly power.

1.2.17 L.16 ✅ देवतात्मनस्तु ‘रश्मिभिरेषोऽस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठितः’ इति श्रुतेः यद्यपि चक्षुष्यवस्थानं स्यात्,
As for the Self of a deity (like the Sun), though it could be said to be present in the eye, because of the Scriptural passage — “It is present in the eye through the rays” — ,

1.2.17 L.17 ✅ तथाप्यात्मत्वं तावन्न सम्भवति, पराग्रूपत्वात्।
Still the nature of being ‘the Self’ is not possible in its case, as it has a visible external form.

1.2.17 L.18 ✅ अमृतत्वादयोऽपि न सम्भवन्ति, उत्पत्तिप्रलयश्रवणात्।
Nor are immortality etc. possible, because the Scriptures mention creation and dissolution (about it).

1.2.17 L.19 ✅ अमरत्वमपि देवानां चिरकालावस्थानापेक्षम्।
Besides the supposed immortality of the deities is also relative because of the deities having a comparatively longer span of life (than men).

1.2.17 L.20 ✅ ऐश्वर्यमपि परमेश्वरायत्तम्, न स्वाभाविकम्;
Whatever Lordly power they possess is also not natural, but is dependent on the Highest Lord,

1.2.17 L.21 ✅ ‘भीषास्माद्वातः पवते। भीषोदेति सूर्यः। भीषास्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च। मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चमः’ (TaitU.2.8.1) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्।
Because of the Mantra words which are as follows: — “It is through the fear of the Highest Self, that the wind blows, the Sun rises and Agni and Indra also (behave as they do), and Death, the fifth (in the mentioned list), stalks about” (TaitU.2.8 Eng.).

1.2.17 L.22 ✅ तस्मात्परमेश्वर एवायमक्षिस्थानः प्रत्येतव्यः।
Therefore, it should be realized, that the person in the eye is the Highest Lord only.

1.2.17 L.23 ✅ अस्मिंश्च पक्षे ‘दृश्यते’ इति प्रसिद्धवदुपादानं
शास्त्राद्यपेक्षं विद्वद्विषयं प्ररोचनार्थमिति व्याख्येयम्॥१७॥
So, in this view of the matter the mention (of the person in the eye) as “is seen” as if it is well-known,
Should be explained as being only with reference to the Śāstra and is in reference to learned people (who realize the Highest Self in this way) and is also for the purpose of creating a liking (for devout meditation etc.). — 17.

– 15. Guhā-praviṣṭa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.2.18 Su..19 Su..20

←Prev Next→
अन्तर्याम्यधिदैवादिषु तद्धर्मव्यपदेशात्॥१.२.१८॥
Antar-yāmy adhidaivādiṣu tad-dharma-vyapadeśāt.

Antar-yāmi: the ruler within; Adhidaiva-ādiṣu: in the gods, etc.; Tat: His; Dharma: attributes; Vyapadeśāt: because of the statement.

🔗 The internal Controller dwelling in deities etc. (is the Highest Self) because of the mention of its attributes. — 1.2.18.

1.2.18 L.1 ✅ ‘य इमं च लोकं परं च लोकं सर्वाणि च भूतानि योऽन्तरो यमयति’ (BrhU.3.7.1) इत्युपक्रम्य श्रूयते –
A Scriptural passage, beginning with “He who controls this world, the world beyond, and all the beings, internally” (BrhUEng.3.7.1),

1.2.18 L.2 ✅ ‘यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरो यं पृथिवी न वेद यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयति
एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ (BrhU.3.7.3) इत्यादि।
Goes further on to say — “One who dwells in the Earth and one whom the Earth does not realize, whose body is the Earth, who controls the Earth from within,
He is the one who is your Self, the internal Controller (Antar-yāmi) and the immortal one” (BrhUEng.3.7.1–2) etc.

1.2.18 L.3 ✅ अत्राधिदैवतमधिलोकमधिवेदमधियज्ञमधिभूतमध्यात्मं च कश्चिदन्तरवस्थितो यमयिता अन्तर्यामीति श्रूयते।
Here in this passage the Scriptures mention some internal Controller who controls from within, as the one dwelling within the Gods, the world, the Veda, the Sacrifice, the beings, and the Self of the body.

1.2.18 L.4 ✅ स किमधिदैवाद्यभिमानी देवतात्मा कश्चित्, किं वा प्राप्ताणिमाद्यैश्वर्यः कश्चिद्योगी, किं वा परमात्मा, किं वार्थान्तरं किञ्चित्, इत्यपूर्वसंज्ञादर्शनात्संशयः।
Here, as a strange name is seen (to be mentioned by the Scriptures) a doubt arises as to whether the Scriptures refer to some Self of a deity which attaches itself to it, or to some Yogi who has acquired Lordly powers such as ‘Aṇimā’ (i.e. the power to make oneself as minute as an atom i.e. Aṇu) etc., or whether it means something else altogether.

1.2.18 L.5 ✅ किं तावन्नः प्रतिभाति?
How does it then strike you?

1.2.18 L.6 ✅ संज्ञाया अप्रसिद्धत्वात्संज्ञिनाप्यप्रसिद्धेनार्थान्तरेण केनचिद्भवितव्यमिति।
It seems to me (says the opponent) that the name (as mentioned here) being unfamiliar, the object to which such name is applied, must (like the unfamiliar name) mean something which is similarly unfamiliar.

1.2.18 L.7 ✅ अथवा नानिरूपितरूपमर्थान्तरं शक्यमस्त्यभ्युपगन्तुम्।
Or perhaps it may be that it is not possible to understand it to mean some other entity (such as Brahman) which has no definitely described form as such.

1.2.18 L.8 ✅ अन्तर्यामिशब्दश्चान्तर्यमनयोगेन प्रवृत्तो नात्यन्तमप्रसिद्धः।
As the word ‘Antar-yāmi’ is etymologically derived from (a root) which means ‘controlling from within’, it is after all not so very unfamiliar.

1.2.18 L.9 ✅ तस्मात्पृथिव्याद्यभिमानी कश्चिद्देवोऽन्तर्यामी स्यात्।
Therefore, it may well be that the ‘Antar-yāmi’ is some deity which presides over the Earth etc.,

1.2.18 L.10 ✅ तथा च श्रूयते – ‘पृथिव्येव यस्यायतनमग्निर्लोको मनो ज्योतिः’ (BrhU.3.9.10) इत्यादि।
Because, we find it so mentioned in the following Scriptural passage — “He whose body is the Earth, fire is the sight (Loka) and mind is the light” (BrhUEng.3.9.10) etc.

1.2.18 L.11 ✅ स च कार्यकरणवत्त्वात्पृथिव्यादीनन्तस्तिष्ठन्यमयतीति युक्तं देवतात्मनो यमयितृत्वम्।
It would be proper to conclude that the Self of a deity which being endowed with a body and sense-organs dwells in the body and controls it from within, is the Controller.

1.2.18 L.12 ✅ योगिनो वा कस्यचित्सिद्धस्य सर्वानुप्रवेशेन यमयितृत्वं स्यात्।
Or, it may be that the controlling power may be of some Yogi who has acquired superhuman powers and has thereby access into everything,

1.2.18 L.13 ✅ न तु परमात्मा प्रतीयेत, अकार्यकरणत्वात्; इत्येवं प्राप्ते इदमुच्यते –
But in no case can it be understood to be the Highest-Self, as it has not (the advantage of) a body and the sense-organs.

1.2.18 L.14 ✅ योऽन्तर्याम्यधिदैवादिषु श्रूयते, स परमात्मैव स्यात्, नान्य इति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent), we reply — The internal controller mentioned in the Scriptures as being the deity dwelling in the Deities etc., can only be the Highest-Self and none else.

1.2.18 L.15 ✅ कुतः? तद्धर्मव्यपदेशात्।
How so? Because there is mention of its attributes.

1.2.18 L.16 ✅ तस्य हि परमात्मनो धर्मा इह निर्दिश्यमाना दृश्यन्ते।
It is to be seen that the attributes of that Highest-Self are indicated here.

1.2.18 L.17 ✅ पृथिव्यादि तावदधिदैवादिभेदभिन्नं समस्तं विकारजातमन्तस्तिष्ठन्यमयतीति परमात्मनो यमयितृत्वं धर्म उपपद्यते;
That the ability to control is the attribute only of the Highest-Self, who, dwelling in the aggregate of all this varied creation, such as the Earth etc. and in the deity etc., controls all from within, is alone reasonably sustainable.

1.2.18 L.18 ✅ सर्वविकारकारणत्वे सति सर्वशक्त्युपपत्तेः।
Omnipotence is reasonably sustainable in the Highest-Self alone, as being the cause of all creation.

1.2.18 L.19 ✅ ‘एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ इति चात्मत्वामृतत्वे मुख्ये परमात्मन उपपद्येते।
The attributes of being the Self and possessing immortality, as referred to in the Scriptural passage “This is your Self, the controller from within, and the immortal one”, are reasonably sustainable only in the case of the principal Highest-Self.

1.2.18 L.20 ✅ ‘यं पृथिवी न वेद’ इति च पृथिवीदेवताया अविज्ञेयमन्तर्यामिणं ब्रुवन्देवतात्मनोऽन्यमन्तर्यामिणं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural words — “Whom the Earth does not realize” — which purport to say that the deity viz. the Earth does not realize the Antar-yāmi, show that the Antar-yāmi is something different from the deity viz. the Earth,

1.2.18 L.21 ✅ पृथिवी देवता ह्यहमस्मि पृथिवीत्यात्मानं विजानीयात्।
Because the deity, Earth, would of course know that it is the Earth.

1.2.18 L.22 ✅ तथा ‘अदृष्टोऽश्रुतः’ इत्यादिव्यपदेशो रूपादिविहीनत्वात्परमात्मन उपपद्यत इति।
Similarly the references to “the unseen”, “the unheard of” in the Scriptures are reasonably sustainable only in the case of the Highest Self who is devoid of any form (Rūpa).

1.2.18 L.23 ✅ यत्त्वकार्यकरणस्य परमात्मनो यमयितृत्वं नोपपद्यत इति,
With regard to the objection, that as the Highest Self is without any body or sense-organs of its own, it could not be properly understood to be the internal Controller,

1.2.18 L.24 ✅ नैष दोषः; यान्नियच्छति तत्कार्यकरणैरेव तस्य कार्यकरणवत्त्वोपपत्तेः।
We reply — That is no fault, as it can reasonably be said to be possessed of a body and the sense-organs vicariously through the body and the sense-organs of that which it controls viz. the Jīva-Self.

1.2.18 L.25 ✅ तस्याप्यन्यो नियन्तेत्यनवस्थादोषश्च न सम्भवति, भेदाभावात्।
It is not possible, that our view would be open to the fault of regressus ad infinitum or the vicious infinite (by arguing that the Controller would presuppose another Controller and so on ad infinitum), because of the absence of any difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest-Self).

1.2.18 L.26 ✅ भेदे हि सत्यनवस्थादोषोपपत्तिः।
If there were to be any such difference, then of course our view would be open to the fault of regressus ad infinitum.

1.2.18 L.27 ✅ तस्मात्परमात्मैवान्तर्यामी॥१८॥
Therefore, the Highest Self alone is the Antar-yāmi. — 18.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
न च स्मार्तमतद्धर्माभिलापात्॥१.२.१९॥
Na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt.

Na: neither; Ca: also, and; Smārtam: that which is taught in (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti; A-tad-dharma-abhilāpāt: because qualities contrary to its nature are mentioned.

🔗 (The Pradhāna) of the Smṛtis, is not ‘the Antar-yāmi’, because, (here) its attributes are not stated. — 1.2.19.

1.2.19 L.1 ✅ स्यादेतत् – अदृष्टत्वादयो धर्माः सांख्यस्मृतिकल्पितस्य प्रधानस्याप्युपपद्यन्ते,
रूपादिहीनतया तस्य तैरभ्युपगमात्।
It may well be (says the opponent), that the attributes such as being the “Unseen” etc. are reasonably sustainable also in the case of the Pradhāna as contemplated by the Smṛti of the Sāṅkhyas,
Because they understand the Pradhāna as formless etc.

1.2.19 L.2 ✅ ‘अप्रतर्क्यमविज्ञेयं प्रसुप्तमिव सर्वतः’ (मनु. १-५) इति हि स्मरन्ति।
Because the Smṛti says, “(It is) incomprehensible by reason, is unknowable, and is as it were dormant on all sides” (Manu. 1.5),

1.2.19 L.3 ✅ तस्यापि नियन्तृत्वं सर्वविकारकारणत्वादुपपद्यते।
And being the cause of all creation, it can reasonably be sustainable to understand it as having the power to control.

1.2.19 L.4 ✅ तस्मात्प्रधानमन्तर्यामिशब्दं स्यात्।
Therefore, the Pradhāna can be synonymous with the Antar-yāmi.

1.2.19 L.5 ✅ ‘ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम्’ (BrS.1.1.5) इत्यत्र निराकृतमपि सत्
प्रधानमिहादृष्टत्वादिव्यपदेशसम्भवेन पुनराशङ्क्यते।
Though the Pradhāna (claimed as being the cause of all creation) has already been rejected in the Sūtra “Īkṣaternāśabdam” (BrS.1.1.5),
Still, a doubt is here again raised (as to whether it cannot be the cause), because of the possibility of its being referred to as “the Unseen” etc.

1.2.19 L.6 ✅ अत उत्तरमुच्यते – न च स्मार्तं प्रधानमन्तर्यामिशब्दं भवितुमर्हति।
To this we give reply — The Pradhāna of the Smṛti does not deserve to be synonymous with the word Antar-yāmi.

1.2.19 L.7 ✅ कस्मात्? अतद्धर्माभिलापात्।
Why so? Because its attributes are not mentioned here.

1.2.19 L.8 ✅ यद्यप्यदृष्टत्वादिव्यपदेशः प्रधानस्य सम्भवति,
For though it may be possible to speak of it as the ‘Unseen’,

1.2.19 L.9 ✅ तथापि न द्रष्टृत्वादिव्यपदेशः सम्भवति, प्रधानस्याचेतनत्वेन तैरभ्युपगमात्।
Still it could never be described as being the ‘Seer’, because they (i.e. the Sāṅkhyas) understand it to be non-sentient.

1.2.19 L.10 ✅ ‘अदृष्टो द्रष्टाश्रुतः श्रोतामतो मन्ताविज्ञातो विज्ञाता’ (BrhU.3.7.23) इति हि वाक्यशेष इह भवति।
The complementary passage here is — “Unseen yet seeing, unheard of yet able to hear, unperceivable yet one able to perceive, unknowable yet one able to know” (BrhUEng.3.7.23).

1.2.19 L.11 ✅ आत्मत्वमपि न प्रधानस्योपपद्यते॥१९॥
Again it is not reasonably possible for the Pradhāna to be the Self. — 19.

[Go top]

1.2.20 L.1 ✅ यदि प्रधानमात्मत्वद्रष्टृत्वाद्यसम्भवान्नान्तर्याम्यभ्युपगम्यते,
शारीरस्तर्ह्यन्तर्यामी भवतु।
(The opponent here retorts) — Well, if the Pradhāna cannot be understood to be the Antar-yāmi, because of the impossibility of its being the Self or the Seer,
Then let the embodied Jīva-Self be the Antar-yāmi

1.2.20 L.2 ✅ शारीरो हि चेतनत्वाद्द्रष्टा श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता च भवति, आत्मा च प्रत्यक्त्वात्।
Because it at least is sentient and can be the ‘seer’, ‘hearer’, ‘contemplator’ and the ‘knower’, and can also be the ‘Self’ because of its being the innermost.

1.2.20 L.3 ✅ अमृतश्च, धर्माधर्मफलोपभोगोपपत्तेः।
Similarly he is immortal also, because experience by him of the fruits of meritorious and unmeritorious actions (in another body), is reasonably sustainable (in his case).

1.2.20 L.4 ✅ अदृष्टत्वादयश्च धर्माः शारीरे सुप्रसिद्धाः;
The attributes of being ‘unseen’ etc. are well-known in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self,

1.2.20 L.5 ✅ दर्शनादिक्रियायाः कर्तरि प्रवृत्तिविरोधात्,
Because it is contradictory that action (Kriyā) like seeing etc. can ever have a tendency to operate on the agent of such action (i.e. one who is the subject (Kartā) cannot himself be the object (Karma) of an action (Kriyā),

1.2.20 L.6 ✅ ‘न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च।
And also because of the Scriptural passages such as “Thou canst not see the Seer of sight” (BrhUEng.1.1.1).

1.2.20 L.7 ✅ तस्य च कार्यकरणसङ्घातमन्तर्यमयितुं शीलम्, भोक्तृत्वात्।
Besides it (i.e. the embodied Jīva-Self) being an experiencer, it is his natural tendency to control the complex (Saṅghāta) of the body and the sense-organs from within.

1.2.20 L.8 ✅ तस्माच्छारीरोऽन्तर्यामीत्यत उत्तरं पठति –
Therefore it is the embodied Jīva-Self that is the Antar-yāmi. To this conclusion (of the opponent) the reply is —

←Prev Next→
शारीरश्चोभयेऽपि हि भेदेनैनमधीयते॥१.२.२०॥
Śārīraś cobhayo'pi hi bhedenainam adhīyate.

Śārīraḥ: the embodied, the individual soul; Ca: also, and; (Na: not); Ubhaye: the both namely the recensions Kāṇva and Mādhyaṃ-dinas; Api: even, also; Hi: because; Bhedena: by way of difference; Enam: this, the Jīva; Adhīyate: read, speak of, indicate.

🔗 The embodied Jīva-Self also could not be (the Antar-yāmi) because, both (the recensions of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka i.e. of the Kāṇva and of the Mādhyaṃ-dina) recite it as being different (from the Antar-yāmi). — 1.2.20.

1.2.20 L.9 ✅ नेति पूर्वसूत्रादनुवर्तते।
The word ‘not’ is to be understood as following from the previous Sūtra.

1.2.20 L.10 ✅ शारीरश्च नान्तर्यामी स्यात्।
The embodied Jīva-Self is not to be accepted as the Antar-yāmi.

1.2.20 L.11 ✅ कस्मात्? यद्यपि द्रष्टृत्वादयो धर्मास्तस्य सम्भवन्ति,
तथापि घटाकाशवदुपाधिपरिच्छिन्नत्वान्न कार्त्स्न्येन पृथिव्यादिष्वन्तरवस्थातुं नियन्तुं च शक्नोति।
Why so? Because though attributes such as the ‘Seer’ etc. are possible in its case,
Still, having a finite determination like the Ākāśa in the jar as a result of limiting adjuncts, it cannot dwell in the Earth etc. or control them fully and comprehensively.

1.2.20 L.12 ✅ अपि चोभयेऽपि हि शाखिनः काण्वा माध्यन्दिनाश्चान्तर्यामिणो भेदेनैनं शारीरं पृथिव्यादिवदधिष्ठानत्वेन नियम्यत्वेन चाधीयते –
Besides the followers of both the branches (Śākhās), viz. the Kāṇvas and the Mādhyaṃ-dinas, recite this Antar-yāmi as being different from the embodied Jīva-Self, which like the Earth etc. is fit for being the basis of and being controlled by (the Antar-yāmi).

1.2.20 L.13 ✅ ‘यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्’ (BrhU.3.7.22) इति काण्वाः।
The Kāṇvas recite thus — “That (Paramātmā) which dwells in knowledge” (BrhUEng.3.7.22),

1.2.20 L.14 ✅ ‘य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्’ इति माध्यन्दिनाः।
And the Mādhyaṃ-dinas thus — “He (the Paramātmā) that: dwells in the Self (Ātmā).”

1.2.20 L.15 ✅ ‘य आत्मनि तिष्ठन्’ इत्यस्मिंस्तावत् पाठे भवत्यात्मशब्दः शारीरस्य वाचकः।
In the recension (of the Mādhyaṃ-dinas) — viz. “He (the Paramātmā) that dwells in the Self (Ātmā)” — the word Self is indicative of the embodied Jīva-Self.

1.2.20 L.16 ✅ ‘यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्’ इत्यस्मिन्नपि पाठे विज्ञानशब्देन शारीर उच्यते, विज्ञानमयो हि शारीर इति।
And in the recension (of the Kāṇvas) — viz. “That (Paramātmā) which dwells in knowledge (Vijñāna)” — also, the embodied Jīva-Self is spoken of by the word ‘Knowledge’, as of course the embodied Jīva-Self is one whose structure is Knowledge.

1.2.20 L.17 ✅ तस्माच्छारीरादन्य ईश्वरोऽन्तर्यामीति सिद्धम्।
Therefore, it is proved that some one other than the embodied Jīva-Self, is the Lord and the Antar-yāmi.

1.2.20 L.18 ✅ कथं पुनरेकस्मिन्देहे द्वौ द्रष्टारावुपपद्येते – यश्चायमीश्वरोऽन्तर्यामी, यश्चायमितरः शारीरः?
How again, (says the opponent) can two ‘Seers’ — of which one is the Lord and the Antar-yāmi, and another the embodied Jīva-Self — , being in one and the same body, be reasonably sustainable?

1.2.20 L.19 ✅ का पुनरिहानुपपत्तिः?
(To this the reply is) — Why should it not be reasonably sustainable?

1.2.20 L.20 ✅ ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ इत्यादिश्रुतिवचनं विरुध्येत।
Because (says the opponent) in that case the Scriptural passage “There is no other Seer than this” will be contradicted,

1.2.20 L.21 ✅ अत्र हि प्रकृतादन्तर्यामिणोऽन्यं द्रष्टारं श्रोतारं मन्तारं विज्ञातारं चात्मानं प्रतिषेधति।
Because any ‘seeing’, ‘hearing’, ‘contemplating’ and ‘knowing’ Self other than the Antar-yāmi which is relevant here, is denied by it.

1.2.20 L.22 ✅ नियन्त्रन्तरप्रतिषेधार्थमेतद्वचनमिति चेत्,
If it be said (by the Vedāntin) that the passage is meant to deny any other controller,

1.2.20 L.23 ✅ न; नियन्त्रन्तराप्रसङ्गादविशेषश्रवणाच्च।
(We the opponents say) — No, because here there is no predicament of the possibility of any other controller, nor is there any specific Scriptural mention of the absence of any other controller.

1.2.20 L.24 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितकार्यकरणोपाधिनिमित्तोऽयं शारीरान्तर्यामिणोर्भेदव्यपदेशः,
(To this argument of the opponent) we reply — This difference between the embodied Jīva-Self and the Antar-yāmi mentioned here, is occasioned by limiting adjuncts in the form of a body and sense-organs, which are the result of Nescience,

1.2.20 L.25 ✅ न पारमार्थिकः।
And not in the ultimate real sense.

1.2.20 L.26 ✅ एको हि प्रत्यगात्मा भवति, न द्वौ प्रत्यगात्मानौ सम्भवतः।
There could be only one universal Self (Pratyag-ātmā) and there could never be two of that kind,

1.2.20 L.27 ✅ एकस्यैव तु भेदव्यवहार उपाधिकृतः,
And it is as the result of adjuncts only that the same one universal Self is spoken of as two different selfs,

1.2.20 L.28 ✅ यथा घटाकाशो महाकाश इति।
Just as, the Ākāśa in the jar is spoken of as being different from the great Ākāśa.

1.2.20 L.29 ✅ ततश्च ज्ञातृज्ञेयादिभेदश्रुतयः प्रत्यक्षादीनि च प्रमाणानि संसारानुभवो विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रं चेति सर्वमेतदुपपद्यते।
It is only if we understand it to be so, that the Scriptural passages which speak of the difference between the ‘Knower’ and ‘the object to be known’, the means of proof such as direct perception etc., the experience of the transmigratory condition, and the Śāstra which lays down injunctions and prohibitions, become reasonably sustainable.

1.2.20 L.30 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः –
The Scriptural passage also is similar.

1.2.20 L.31 ✅ ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ इत्यविद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं दर्शयति।
Thus the passage “It is only when there is a consciousness of duality as it were, that one sees another” indicates, that it is only in the realm of Nescience that all worldly conduct is to be seen,

1.2.20 L.32 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ इति विद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं वारयति॥२०॥
And the Scriptural passage “When all else becomes but the Self to him, how can he see, and, with what?” precludes the possibility of any worldly conduct in the realm of knowledge. — 20.

– 16. Antar-yāmy-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.2.21 Su..22 Su..23

←Prev Next→
अदृश्यत्वादिगुणको धर्मोक्तेः॥१.२.२१॥
Adṛśyatvādi-guṇako dharmokteḥ.

A-dṛśyatva: invisibility; Ādi: and the rest, beginning with; Guṇakaḥ: one who possesses the quality (Adriśyatva-ādi-guṇakaḥ: possessor of qualities like invisibility); Dharma-ukteḥ: because of the mention of qualities.

🔗 That which has the attributes of being invisible etc. (is Brahman), because there is a mention of its attributes. — 1.2.21.

1.2.21 L.1 ✅ ‘अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते’ (MunU.1.1.5)
‘यत्तदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमवर्णमचक्षुःश्रोत्रं तदपाणिपादम्,
नित्यं विभुं सर्वगतं सुसूक्ष्मं तदव्ययं यद्भूतयोनिं परिपश्यन्ति धीराः’ (MunU.1.1.6) इति श्रूयते।
There are Scriptural passages as follows: “Now (i.e. after what has gone before) the Higher Knowledge, by means of which the Imperishable is known,”
“That which is invisible and incomprehensible, nameless and colourless, and that which is sans-eyes, sans-ears, sans-hands and sans-feet,
And is eternal and all-pervading, and which reaches everywhere, which is super-subtle and imperishable and which is regarded by the wise as the source of all beings” (MunU.1.1.5–6).

1.2.21 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमयमदृश्यत्वादिगुणको भूतयोनिः प्रधानं स्यात्,
With regard to this, there is a doubt. Can this Bhūta-Yoni (source of all beings) having attributes such as being invisible etc., be the Pradhāna,

1.2.21 L.3 ✅ उत शारीरः,
Or the embodied Jīva-Self,

1.2.21 L.4 ✅ आहोस्वित्परमेश्वर इति।
Or the Highest Lord?

1.2.21 L.5 ✅ तत्र प्रधानमचेतनं भूतयोनिरिति युक्तम्,
Here (the opponent) says, that it is the Pradhāna that can properly be the Bhūta-Yoni

1.2.21 L.6 ✅ अचेतनानामेव तत्र दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपादानात्।
Because only non-sentient things are referred to here by way of an illustration of it, thus —

1.2.21 L.7 ✅ ‘यथोर्णनाभिः सृजते गृह्णते च यथा पृथिव्यामोषधयः सम्भवन्ति।
यथा सतः पुरुषात्केशलोमानि तथाक्षरात्सम्भवतीह विश्वम्’ (MunU.1.1.7) इति।
“Just as a spider throws out and withdraws its thread, or just as trees grow out of the Earth,
Or just as hair etc. grow out of a living person, similarly this universe is born out of this — the Imperishable.” (MunU.1.1.7).

1.2.21 L.8 ✅ ननूर्णनाभिः पुरुषश्च चेतनाविह दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपात्तौ;
But (if the Vedāntin says) — It is the sentient spider and person that are here taken as illustrations,

1.2.21 L.9 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः। न हि केवलस्य चेतनस्य तत्र सूत्रयोनित्वं केशलोमयोनित्वं वास्ति।
No (replies the opponent), because it is not the purely sentient one that is here seen to be the source of the thread or the hair.

1.2.21 L.10 ✅ चेतनाधिष्ठितं ह्यचेतनमूर्णनाभिशरीरं सूत्रस्य योनिः, पुरुषशरीरं च केशलोम्नामिति प्रसिद्धम्।
It is well-known that it is the non-sentient body of the spider, presided over by a sentient being, that is really the source of the thread, and it is the body of a person, that is the source of hair etc.

1.2.21 L.11 ✅ अपि च पूर्वत्रादृष्टत्वाद्यभिलापसम्भवेऽपि द्रष्टृत्वाद्यभिलापासम्भवान्न प्रधानमभ्युपगतम्।
Besides in the earlier Sūtra, the Pradhāna could not be accepted (as the cause of the universe) because, though it could be understood to be the ‘unseen’, it was not possible to understand it as being the ‘Seer’.

1.2.21 L.12 ✅ इह त्वदृश्यत्वादयो धर्माः प्रधाने सम्भवन्ति।
Here, however, the attributes of being ‘invisible’ etc. are possible in the case of the Pradhāna,

1.2.21 L.13 ✅ न चात्र विरुध्यमानो धर्मः कश्चिदभिलप्यते।
And there is no mention here of any attribute incompatible with the Pradhāna.

1.2.21 L.14 ✅ ननु ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ (MunU.1.1.9) इत्ययं वाक्यशेषोऽचेतने प्रधाने न सम्भवति,
(The Vedāntin retorts), Oh, but the complementary sentence — “He who is omniscient and who perceives i.e. knows everything” (MunU.1.1.9) — could not be possible in the case of the non-sentient Pradhāna.

1.2.21 L.15 ✅ कथं प्रधानं भूतयोनिः प्रतिज्ञायत इति;
How then can you recognize the Pradhāna as the Bhūta-Yoni?

1.2.21 L.16 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – ‘यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते’ ‘यत्तदद्रेश्यम्’ इत्यक्षरशब्देनादृश्यत्वादिगुणकं भूतयोनिं श्रावयित्वा,
To this (the opponent replies) — After mentioning the Bhūta-Yoni by the word ‘Imperishable’ as having attributes such as being the invisible etc., by the Scriptural passages “By which this Imperishable is attained”, and “That which is invisible”,

1.2.21 L.17 ✅ पुनरन्ते श्रावयिष्यति – ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ (MunU.2.1.2) इति।
The Scriptures will here-after further proceed to mention towards the end, thus — “(It is) further beyond the ‘Imperishable’, which itself is beyond” (MunU.2.1.2).

1.2.21 L.18 ✅ तत्र यः परोऽक्षराच्छ्रुतः, स सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्सम्भविष्यति।
Here that which is mentioned as being beyond the Imperishable may well be the Omniscient and all-perceiving.

1.2.21 L.19 ✅ प्रधानमेव त्वक्षरशब्दनिर्दिष्टं भूतयोनिः।
The Pradhāna however which is indicated by the word ‘Imperishable’, may well be the Bhūta-Yoni.

1.2.21 L.20 ✅ यदा तु योनिशब्दो निमित्तवाची,
Even if, however, the word ‘source’ Yoni) is taken to be indicative of a cause,

1.2.21 L.21 ✅ तदा शारीरोऽपि भूतयोनिः स्यात्,
The embodied Jīva-Self also may very well be the Bhūta-Yoni,

1.2.21 L.22 ✅ धर्माधर्माभ्यां भूतजातस्योपार्जनादिति।
Because it is by way of the meritorious and unmeritorious actions of the Jīva-Self that it is the cause of all this aggregate of beings coming into being.

1.2.21 L.23 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते अभिधीयते – योऽयमदृश्यत्वादिगुणको भूतयोनिः, स परमेश्वर एव स्यात्, नान्य इति।
(To this conclusion of the opponent), we reply — It is the Highest Lord alone which can be the Bhūta-Yoni possessing attributes such as being the ‘invisible’ etc., and none else.

1.2.21 L.24 ✅ कथमेतदवगम्यते? धर्मोक्तेः।
How do you (we) understand it like that? Because of the mention of its attributes.

1.2.21 L.25 ✅ परमेश्वरस्य हि धर्म इहोच्यमानो दृश्यते – ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ इति।
It is seen that the attributes of the Highest Lord are here mentioned, thus — “He who is omniscient and perceives everything”.

1.2.21 L.26 ✅ न हि प्रधानस्याचेतनस्य शारीरस्य वोपाधिपरिच्छिन्नदृष्टेः सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्ववित्त्वं वा सम्भवति।
It is not possible that either the non-sentient Pradhāna, or the embodied Jīva-Self whose vision is circumscribed by limiting adjuncts, can possess the attributes of omniscience or the perceiving of everything.

1.2.21 L.27 ✅ नन्वक्षरशब्दनिर्दिष्टाद्भूतयोनेः परस्यैव एतत्सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्ववित्त्वं च,
But (says the opponent), we have already stated that the attributes of omniscience or the perceiving of everything, may be of that which is beyond the Bhūta-Yoni which is indicated by the word Imperishable,

1.2.21 L.28 ✅ न भूतयोनिविषयमित्युक्तम्;
And that they do not appertain to Bhūta-Yoni.

1.2.21 L.29 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – नैवं सम्भवति;
To this we (the Vedāntins) reply — It is not possible that it could be so.

1.2.21 L.30 ✅ यत्कारणम् ‘अक्षरात्सम्भवतीह विश्वम्’ इति प्रकृतं भूतयोनिमिह जायमानप्रकृतित्वेन निर्दिश्य,
Having indicated Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant here as the cause of everything that is about to be created by the Scriptural passage “This Universe is born of this Imperishable” — ,

1.2.21 L.31 ✅ अनन्तरमपि जायमानप्रकृतित्वेनैव सर्वज्ञं निर्दिशति –
The Scriptures, also, later on, indicate the same omniscient entity as the cause of all things about to be created, by the Scriptural passage —

1.2.21 L.32 ✅ ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद्यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः। तस्मादेतद्ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नं च जायते’ इति।
“He who is omniscient and he who perceives all, whose penance has pure knowledge as its content, from Him is born this Brahman (supersensible effects), names and forms, and food (or Earth)”.

1.2.21 L.33 ✅ तस्मान्निर्देशसाम्येन प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वात्प्रकृतस्यैवाक्षरस्य भूतयोनेः सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्ववित्त्वं च धर्म उच्यत इति गम्यते।
We understand, therefore, that both (i.e. Akṣara and Bhūta-Yoni) having been indicated to be the same by a similarity of indication, the attributes of omniscience and of being the perceiver of all, are spoken of of the same Imperishable Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant here.

1.2.21 L.34 ✅ ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इत्यत्रापि न प्रकृताद्भूतयोनेरक्षरात्परः कश्चिदभिधीयते।
In the case of the Scriptural passage — “The one that is beyond the Imperishable, which itself is beyond” — also, none other is mentioned as being beyond the Imperishable but the Akṣara Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant here.

1.2.21 L.35 ✅ कथमेतदवगम्यते?
How is it known like that?

1.2.21 L.36 ✅ ‘येनाक्षरं पुरुषं वेद सत्यं प्रोवाच तां तत्त्वतो ब्रह्मविद्याम्’ (MunU.1.2.13) इति
Because by the Scriptural passage — “The teacher should truthfully teach the pupil the knowledge of Brahman (Brahma-Vidyā) as it is, in such a way that it will make the pupil understand correctly the Puruṣa, the Imperishable.” (MunU.1.2.13) —

1.2.21 L.37 ✅ प्रकृतस्यैवाक्षरस्य भूतयोनेरदृश्यत्वादिगुणकस्य वक्तव्यत्वेन प्रतिज्ञातत्वात्।
We are able to know that it is intended to speak of the Imperishable Bhūta-Yoni which has the attribute of being ‘invisible’.

1.2.21 L.38 ✅ कथं तर्हि ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इति व्यपदिश्यत इति, उत्तरसूत्रे तद्वक्ष्यामः।
How is it then (says the opponent) that it is indicated as being “Beyond the Imperishable, which itself is beyond”?

1.2.21 L.39 ✅ अपि चात्र द्वे विद्ये वेदितव्ये उक्ते –
(The Vedāntin says), we will answer that in the next Sūtra. Besides, here it is mentioned, that there are two kinds of ‘Knowledge’ (Vidyās) which should be known.

1.2.21 L.40 ✅ ‘परा चैवापरा च’ इति।
One is Para-Vidyā and the other the Apara-Vidyā.

1.2.21 L.41 ✅ तत्रापरामृग्वेदादिलक्षणां विद्यामुक्त्वा ब्रवीति
In that connection, having spoken of the Apara-Vidyā which is of the nature of the Ṛg-Veda etc., the Scriptures proceed to say —

1.2.21 L.42 ✅ ‘अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते’ इत्यादि।
“Now about the Para-Vidyā by means of which the Imperishable is known.”

1.2.21 L.43 ✅ तत्र परस्या विद्याया विषयत्वेनाक्षरं श्रुतम्।
Here the Imperishable is mentioned as being the subject of the Para-Vidyā.

1.2.21 L.44 ✅ यदि पुनः परमेश्वरादन्यददृश्यत्वादिगुणकमक्षरं परिकल्प्येत,
If, therefore, we imagine that the Imperishable which possesses the attribute of being invisible, is something different from the Highest Lord,

1.2.21 L.45 ✅ नेयं परा विद्या स्यात्।
Then it would not be the Para-Vidyā.

1.2.21 L.46 ✅ परापरविभागो ह्ययं विद्ययोः अभ्युदयनिःश्रेयसफलतया परिकल्प्यते।
This distinction between Vidyās (knowledges) into the Para and the Apara is with reference to the fruit of such Knowledges, viz. secular prosperity (as that of the Apara) and absolute bliss (as that of the Para).

1.2.21 L.47 ✅ न च प्रधानविद्या निःश्रेयसफला केनचिदभ्युपगम्यते।
Nobody understands the Knowledge of Pradhāna as having absolute bliss as its fruit.

1.2.21 L.48 ✅ तिस्रश्च विद्याः प्रतिज्ञायेरन्, त्वत्पक्षेऽक्षराद्भूतयोनेः परस्य परमात्मनः प्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात्।
According to your view, by which, the Highest Lord supposed to be beyond the Imperishable Bhūta-Yoni, is intended to be propounded, there would have to be a declaration about three kinds of Vidyās,

1.2.21 L.49 ✅ द्वे एव तु विद्ये वेदितव्ये इह निर्दिष्टे।
But here only two kinds of Vidyās are indicated as fit to be known.

1.2.21 L.50 ✅ ‘कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति’ (MunU.1.1.3) इति चैकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानापेक्षणं सर्वात्मके ब्रह्मणि विवक्ष्यमाणेऽवकल्पते,
The expectation of being able to know everything by knowing only one thing, referred to in the Scriptural passage, thus — “Oh Bhagvān, what is that, by knowing which, everything else becomes known automatically” (MunU.1.1.3) — , can only be possible, if it is intended to speak of Brahman only as being the Self of all,

1.2.21 L.51 ✅ नाचेतनमात्रैकायतने प्रधाने, भोग्यव्यतिरिक्ते वा भोक्तरि।
And not (if it is intended to speak) of Pradhāna, the cause of the non-sentient things only, or of the experiencer (Jīva), as distinguished from the objects of experience.

1.2.21 L.52 ✅ अपि च ‘स ब्रह्मविद्यां सर्वविद्याप्रतिष्ठामथर्वाय ज्येष्ठपुत्राय प्राह’ (MunU.1.1.1) इति ब्रह्मविद्यां प्राधान्येनोपक्रम्य
Moreover, having in the beginning introduced Brahma-Vidyā as the chief topic by the Scriptural passage — “He (Brahma-deva) spoke about the knowledge of Brahman (Brahma-Vidyā) as the basis of all other knowledges, to his eldest son Atharva (MunU.1.1.1)” — ,

1.2.21 L.53 ✅ परापरविभागेन परां विद्यामक्षराधिगमनीं दर्शयन् तस्या ब्रह्मविद्यात्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptures, after demonstrating the distinction between the Para and the Apara Vidyā, further demonstrate the Para Vidyā as the one which leads to the knowledge of the Imperishable, and ultimately indicates it as the Brahma-Vidyā.

1.2.21 L.54 ✅ सा च ब्रह्मविद्यासमाख्या तदधिगम्यस्य अक्षरस्याब्रह्मत्वे बाधिता स्यात्।
This knowledge referred to as the Brahma-Vidyā would be wrongly so called, if the Imperishable, which is understood by means of that knowledge, were not to be Brahman.

1.2.21 L.55 ✅ अपरा ऋग्वेदादिलक्षणा कर्मविद्या ब्रह्मविद्योपक्रमे उपन्यस्यते ब्रह्मविद्याप्रशंसायै –
The lesser knowledge of religious duties (Karma-Vidyā), which is of the nature of the Ṛg-Veda etc. and is referred to in the introduction to Brahma-Vidyā, is for the glorification of the latter i.e. Brahma-Vidyā,

1.2.21 L.56 ✅ ‘प्लवा ह्येते अदृढा यज्ञरूपा अष्टादशोक्तमवरं येषु कर्म।
एतच्छ्रेयो येऽभिनन्दन्ति मूढा जरामृत्युं ते पुनरेवापि यन्ति’ (MunU.1.2.7) इत्येवमादिनिन्दावचनात्।
As illustrated by the censure clause thus —
“These barques of the nature of a sacrifice in which religious duties of less importance are performed by the team of eighteen (i.e. 16 Sacrificial priests viz. ‘Ṛtvijaḥ’ and the sacrificer (Yajamāna) and the sacrificer’s wife) are frail and unsafe.
These ignorant people who consider this as the ultimate bliss, become subject to old age and death over and over again” (MunU.1.2.7).

1.2.21 L.57 ✅ निन्दित्वा चापरां विद्यां ततो विरक्तस्य परविद्याधिकारं दर्शयति –
‘परीक्ष्य लोकान्कर्मचितान्ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायान्नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन।
तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत्समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम्’ (MunU.1.2.12) इति।
Having thus censured the Apara Vidyā, the Scriptures indicate the eligibility of those who have turned away in disgust from Apara Vidyā to Brahma-Vidyā, thus: —
“A Brāhmaṇa, having examined (the value of) all these worlds (such as the heaven) which are gained by the performance of religious duties, and after experiencing a feeling of revulsion from them, and realizing that, that which is without a cause, viz. Brahman, can never be obtained by that which is only an effect from that cause,
Should, with a desire to know Brahma-Vidyā, approach a teacher, who is well versed in the Vedas and who has put his faith in Brahman, with sacrificial sticks in his hand” (MunU.1.2.12).

1.2.21 L.58 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – अचेतनानां पृथिव्यादीनां दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपादानाद्दार्ष्टान्तिकेनाप्यचेतनेनैव भूतयोनिना भवितव्यमिति, तदयुक्तम्;
As regards the objection taken, viz. that as non-sentient things such as the Earth are here referred to as illustrations, the thing to which such illustration refers (viz. Bhūta-Yoni) also must necessarily be nonsentient,

1.2.21 L.59 ✅ न हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोरत्यन्तसाम्येन भवितव्यमिति नियमोऽस्ति;
We reply — There is no such invariable rule that an illustration and that which is illustrated by it, should be exactly similar.

1.2.21 L.60 ✅ अपि च स्थूलाः पृथिव्यादयो दृष्टान्तत्वेनोपात्ता इति न स्थूल एव दार्ष्टान्तिको भूतयोनिरभ्युपगम्यते।
Besides, it is not understood by you also that because gross and material things such as the Earth are taken as illustration, the Bhūta-Yoni, which these illustrations illustrate, should also be understood as gross and material.

1.2.21 L.61 ✅ तस्माददृश्यत्वादिगुणको भूतयोनिः परमेश्वर एव॥२१॥
Therefore, the Bhūta-Yoni which possesses the attribute of being invisible, is none else but the Highest Lord. — 21.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विशेषणभेदव्यपदेशाभ्यां च नेतरौ॥१.२.२२॥
Viśeṣaṇa-bheda-vyapadeśābhyāṃ ca netarau.

Viśeṣaṇa-bheda-vyapadeśābhyām: on account of the mention of distinctive attributes and differences; Ca: and; Na: not; Itarau: the other two.

🔗 The other two (i.e. the Pradhāna and the embodied Jīva-Self) are not (the Bhūta-Yoni) because of the statement of distinctive attributes and of difference. — 1.2.22.

1.2.22 L.1 ✅ इतश्च परमेश्वर एव भूतयोनिः, नेतरौ – शारीरः प्रधानं वा।
This is again why the Highest Lord only is the Bhūta-Yoni and not the other two, viz. the Pradhāna and the embodied Jīva-Self.

1.2.22 L.2 ✅ कस्मात्? विशेषणभेदव्यपदेशाभ्याम्।
How so? Because of the reference to distinctive attributes and differences.

1.2.22 L.3 ✅ विशिनष्टि हि प्रकृतं भूतयोनिं शारीराद्विलक्षणत्वेन –
The Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant to the context here, is distinguished from the embodied Jīva-Self as being entirely dissimilar, thus —

1.2.22 L.4 ✅ ‘दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः। अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः’ (MunU.2.1.2) इति।
“The Puruṣa is celestial, incorporeal, and one that is both outside and inside and is unborn. He is without the Vital Air and is mindless and pure etc.” (MunU.2.1.2).

1.2.22 L.5 ✅ न ह्येतद्दिव्यत्वादिविशेषणम् अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपपरिच्छेदाभिमानिनः तद्धर्मान्स्वात्मनि कल्पयतः शारीरस्योपपद्यते।
These distinguishing attributes such as being celestial etc. would not be reasonably sustainable, in the case of the embodied Jīva-Self, which fondly considers itself as having finite determination by names and forms brought about by Nescience, and which imagines such attributes as appertaining to its own Self.

1.2.22 L.6 ✅ तस्मात्साक्षादौपनिषदः पुरुष इहोच्यते।
Therefore, it is the Puruṣa of the Upaniṣads that is directly spoken of here.

1.2.22 L.7 ✅ तथा प्रधानादपि प्रकृतं भूतयोनिं भेदेन व्यपदिशति – ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इति।
Similarly, the Scriptures also refer to the Bhūta-Yoni which is relevant to the context here, as distinguished from the Pradhāna, thus — “Which is beyond the Imperishable, which itself is beyond.”

1.2.22 L.8 ✅ अक्षरमव्याकृतं नामरूपबीजशक्तिरूपं भूतसूक्ष्ममीश्वराश्रयं तस्यैवोपाधिभूतम्, सर्वस्माद्विकारात्परो योऽविकारः, तस्मात्परतः परः इति भेदेन व्यपदिशन् परमात्मानमिह विवक्षितं दर्शयति।
The Scriptures indicate that it is intended to speak of the Highest Self, as being different (from the Pradhāna) by stating that it is beyond the Imperishable, which is a subtle element, and which has the nature i.e. form of being the seed (i.e. origin) of names and forms, which is yet unmanifested, and which itself depends upon the Lord, and constitutes the limiting adjuncts of the Lord Himself, and which, without being an effect as such, is beyond all other effects.

1.2.22 L.9 ✅ नात्र प्रधानं नाम किञ्चित्स्वतन्त्रं तत्त्वमभ्युपगम्य,
It is not as if (in this Sūtra) having understood the Pradhāna to be some independent element,

1.2.22 L.10 ✅ तस्माद्भेदव्यपदेश उच्यते।
It then is distinguished from something else.

1.2.22 L.11 ✅ किं तर्हि? यदि प्रधानमपि कल्प्यमानं श्रुत्यविरोधेनाव्याकृतादिशब्दवाच्यं भूतसूक्ष्मं परिकल्प्येत,
Now even if you insist upon understanding the Pradhāna to be that subtle element as expressed by the word ‘Unmanifested’, by avoiding any conflict with the Scriptures,

1.2.22 L.12 ✅ परिकल्प्यताम्।
You are welcome to do so.

1.2.22 L.13 ✅ तस्माद्भेदव्यपदेशात् परमेश्वरो भूतयोनिरित्येतदिह प्रतिपाद्यते॥२२॥
All that we wish to expound is, that as distinguished from it, the Bhūta-Yoni here, is the Highest Lord. — 22.

[Go top]

1.2.23 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च परमेश्वरो भूतयोनिः? –
Whence again (is it) that Bhūta-Yoni means the Highest Lord?

←Prev Next→
रूपोपन्यासाच्च॥१.२.२३॥
Rūpopanyāsāc ca.

Rūpa: form; Upanyāsāt: because of the mention; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because of the statement of the form (of that). — 1.2.23.

1.2.23 L.2 ✅ अपि च ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ इत्यस्यानन्तरम् ‘एतस्माज्जायते प्राणः’ इति प्राणप्रभृतीनां पृथिवीपर्यन्तानां तत्त्वानां सर्गमुक्त्वा, तस्यैव भूतयोनेः सर्वविकारात्मकं रूपमुपन्यस्यमानं पश्यामः –
Because we see, moreover, that after having spoken about the creation of all the elements beginning with the Vital Air etc. and ending with, the Earth etc. by the passage “From it the Vital Airs are created” which comes after the passage “Beyond the Imperishable which itself is beyond”, the form of the Bhūta-Yoni as being the Self of all modifications is stated thus —

1.2.23 L.3 ✅ ‘अग्निर्मूर्धा चक्षुषी चन्द्रसूर्यौ दिशः श्रोत्रे वाग्विवृताश्च वेदाः। वायुः प्राणो हृदयं विश्वमस्य पद्भ्यां पृथिवी ह्येष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (MunU.2.1.4) इति।
“Fire is the caput, the moon and the sun are the eyes, the directions or quarters are the ears, the revealed Vedas are the speech, the air is the Prāṇa, the Universe is the Hṛdaya, from his feet the Earth (is created), and he is the internal Self of all beings” (MunU.2.1.4) — ,

1.2.23 L.4 ✅ तच्च परमेश्वरस्यैवोचितम्, सर्वविकारकारणत्वात्;
Which is fit or proper, only in the case of the Highest Lord as being the cause of all creation,

1.2.23 L.5 ✅ न शारीरस्य तनुमहिम्नः;
And not of the embodied Jīva-Self whose greatness is comparatively small,

1.2.23 L.6 ✅ नापि प्रधानस्य अयं रूपोपन्यासः सम्भवति,
Nor can it be possible that it is the mention of the form (Rūpa) of the Pradhāna,

1.2.23 L.7 ✅ सर्वभूतान्तरात्मत्वासम्भवात्।
Because it is not possible that it could be the inner-Self of all beings.

1.2.23 L.8 ✅ तस्मात्परमेश्वर एव भूतयोनिः, नेतराविति गम्यते।
Therefore we consider that by Bhūta-Yoni, the Highest Lord (is indicated) and not the other two (viz. the Pradhāna and the embodied Jīva-Self).

1.2.23 L.9 ✅ कथं पुनर्भूतयोनेरयं रूपोपन्यास इति गम्यते?
How do we know that the statement about the form, is with regard to the form of the Bhūta-Yoni?

1.2.23 L.10 ✅ प्रकरणात्, ‘एषः’ इति च प्रकृतानुकर्षणात्।
(To that, we reply) — Because of the chapter, and also because of the bringing forward of the pronoun ‘this one’ (Eṣaḥ) which refers to that which is relevant to the context.

1.2.23 L.11 ✅ भूतयोनिं हि प्रकृत्य ‘एतस्माज्जायते प्राणः’ ‘एष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ इति वचनं भूतयोनिविषयमेव भवति;
The statements — “From him the Prāṇa is born” (MunU.2.1.3) and “He is the inner-Self of all beings” (MunU.2.1.4) — used with reference to the Bhūta-Yoni, can only be with reference to the Bhūta-Yoni.

1.2.23 L.12 ✅ यथा उपाध्यायं प्रकृत्य ‘एतस्मादधीष्व, एष वेदवेदाङ्गपारगः’ इति वचनमुपाध्यायविषयं भवति, तद्वत्।
Just as, for instance, when with reference to a religious preceptor it is said ‘You should learn from him, he is an expert in the Vedas and Vedāṅgas (subjects subsidiary to the Vedas)’, the statement is one with regard to that religious preceptor.

1.2.23 L.13 ✅ कथं पुनरदृश्यत्वादिगुणकस्य भूतयोनेर्विग्रहवद्रूपं सम्भवति?
How again (says the opponent), is it possible that the Bhūta-Yoni which has the attribute of being ‘invisible’, can be said to have a corporeal form?

1.2.23 L.14 ✅ सर्वात्मत्वविवक्षयेदमुच्यते, न तु विग्रहवत्त्वविवक्षया इत्यदोषः, ‘अहमन्नम्’ ‘अहमन्नादः’ (TaitU.3.10.6) इत्यादिवत्॥
(To this, we reply) — There is no fault, because this has been said with the intention of conveying that it is the Self of all, and not with the intention to convey that it has a corporeal form, just as, for instance, a person who has realized Brahman, with a view to convey that he is the Self of all, says (as in the Scriptural passage) — “I am the food, I am the consumer of the food etc.” (TaitUEng.3.10.6).

1.2.23 L.15 ✅ अन्ये पुनर्मन्यन्ते – नायं भूतयोनेः रूपोपन्यासः, जायमानत्वेनोपन्यासात्।
Some others here take the view, that there is no statement here, of the form (Rūpa) of the Bhūta-Yoni, but of the things which are about to be originated from the Bhūta-Yoni.

1.2.23 L.16 ✅ ‘एतस्माज्जायते प्राणो मनः सर्वेन्द्रियाणि च। खं वायुर्ज्योतिरापः पृथिवी विश्वस्य धारिणी’ इति हि पूर्वत्र
The Scriptural passage, before the present one, viz. “From him is born the Prāṇa, mind, and all the sense-organs, Ākāśa, air (Vāyu), light, water and the Earth which supports the world”,

1.2.23 L.17 ✅ प्राणादि पृथिव्यन्तं तत्त्वजातं जायमानत्वेन निरदिक्षत्।
Mentions the aggregate of beings, beginning with the Prāṇa and ending with the Earth, as being born,

1.2.23 L.18 ✅ उत्तरत्रापि च ‘तस्मादग्निः समिधो यस्य सूर्यः’ इत्येवमादि
And another passage which comes after, beginning with “From him is born the Agni, of which the Sun is the fuel”

1.2.23 L.19 ✅ ‘अतश्च सर्वा ओषधयो रसश्च’ इत्येवमन्तं जायमानत्वेनैव निर्देक्ष्यति।
And ending with “And from him also are born the herbs and Rasas”, also shows similarly that it all is born out of it.

1.2.23 L.20 ✅ इहैव कथमकस्मादन्तराले भूतयोनेः रूपमुपन्यसेत्?
How, then, all at once can the Scriptures be understood to mention (between these two passages) the form (Rūpa) of the Bhūta-Yoni?

1.2.23 L.21 ✅ सर्वात्मत्वमपि सृष्टिं परिसमाप्योपदेक्ष्यति –
That the Bhūta-Yoni is the Self of all, will also be mentioned subsequently, after finishing the mention of the creation,

1.2.23 L.22 ✅ ‘पुरुष एवेदं विश्वं कर्म’ (MunU.2.1.10) इत्यादिना।
By the passage — “All this, the work of the Universe, is this Puruṣa” etc. (MunU.2.1.10).

1.2.23 L.23 ✅ श्रुतिस्मृत्योश्च त्रैलोक्यशरीरस्य प्रजापतेर्जन्मादि निर्दिश्यमानमुपलभामहे –
From the Scriptures and the Smṛtis, we find mention of the birth etc. of Prajā-pati (i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha) who has the threefold world as his body, thus —

1.2.23 L.24 ✅ ‘हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेक आसीत्।
स दाधार पृथिवीं द्यामुतेमां कस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम’ (ऋ. सं. १०-१२१-१) इति –
“Hiraṇya-garbha came into being first, and having come into being, became the Lord of all beings which were created.
He established the Earth and the Heaven. We should propitiate him by oblations etc.” (Ṛg-Veda-Sam. 10.121.1).

1.2.23 L.25 ✅ समवर्ततेति अजायतेत्यर्थः –
The word ‘Samavartata’ means ‘came into being’.

1.2.23 L.26 ✅ तथा, ‘स वै शरीरी प्रथमः स वै पुरुष उच्यते। आदिकर्ता स भूतानां ब्रह्माग्रे समवर्तत’ इति च।
(And the Smṛti says) similarly — “He is the first embodied one, and is called the Puruṣa. He, Brahman, i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha, was the creator of all beings and was himself the first to be born”.

1.2.23 L.27 ✅ विकारपुरुषस्यापि सर्वभूतान्तरात्मत्वं सम्भवति,
This Hiraṇya-garbha, who, of course, is himself a modification, can very well be the inner self of all beings,

1.2.23 L.28 ✅ प्राणात्मना सर्वभूतानामध्यात्ममवस्थानात्।
Because, he dwells in all beings in the Adhyātma relation, by being himself of the nature of Prāṇa.

1.2.23 L.29 ✅ अस्मिन्पक्षे ‘पुरुष एवेदं विश्वं कर्म’ इत्यादिसर्वरूपोपन्यासः परमेश्वरप्रतिपत्तिहेतुरिति व्याख्येयम्॥२३॥
In the case of this view it should be explained, that the mention of the form of all, by the passage “All this work of the universe, is this Puruṣa” etc., is the means of understanding the Highest Lord (as meant by the word Bhūta-Yoni). — 23.

– 17. Adṛśyatva-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.2.24 Su..25 Su..26 Su..27 Su..28 Su..29 Su..30 Su..31 Su..32

←Prev Next→
वैश्वानरः साधारणशब्दविशेषात्॥१.२.२४॥
Vaiśvā-naraḥ sādhāraṇa-śabda-viśeṣāt.

Vaiśvā-naraḥ: Vaiśvā-nara; Sa-ādhāraṇa-śabda: common word; Viśeṣāt: because of the distinction.

🔗 Vaiśvā-nara (is the Highest Self), because though the two Scriptural words are common, (for one and the same entity), a distinction between them has been mentioned. — 1.2.24.

1.2.24 L.1 ✅ ‘को न आत्मा किं ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.5.11.1) इति ‘आत्मानमेवेमं वैश्वानरं सम्प्रत्यध्येषि तमेव नो ब्रूहि’ (ChanU.5.11.6) इति चोपक्रम्य
The Scriptures begin thus — “What is our Ātmā, what is Brahman?” and “You know the Vaiśvā-nara Ātmā, please tell us about it” (ChanU.5.11.1,6) — ,

1.2.24 L.2 ✅ द्युसूर्यवाय्वाकाशवारिपृथिवीनां सुतेजस्त्वादिगुणयोगमेकैकोपासननिन्दया च
And then, by censuring each separate meditation, on the Heaven, the Sun, the Vāyu, the Ākāśa, the Water, and the Earth, which have the attributes of Sutejā (having good light) etc., respectively,

1.2.24 L.3 ✅ वैश्वानरं प्रत्येषां मूर्धादिभावमुपदिश्याम्नायते –
And after mentioning that each of these, i.e. the Heaven, the Sun, etc., were but only the head, the eyes, etc. respectively of the Vaiśvā-nara, say thus —

1.2.24 L.4 ✅ ‘यस्त्वेतमेवं प्रादेशमात्रमभिविमानमात्मानं वैश्वानरमुपास्ते,
स सर्वेषु लोकेषु सर्वेषु भूतेषु सर्वेष्वात्मस्वन्नमत्ति;
तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाश्चक्षुर्विश्वरूपः प्राणः पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा सन्देहो बहुलो वस्तिरेव रयिः पृथिव्येव पादावुर एव वेदिर्लोमानि बर्हिर्हृदयं गार्हपत्यो मनोऽन्वाहार्यपचन आस्यमाहवनीयः’ (ChanU.5.18.2) इत्यादि।
“He who meditates on the Vaiśvā-nara-ātmā which has the dimensions of only a span and which is Abhivimāna (i.e. one, as being the universal Self, is understood to be the ego),
Eats food in all the worlds, in all beings and in all selfs,
And of this Vaiśvā-nara-ātmā, the head is the brightly shining Heaven (Sutejā), the eye is the Sun (the multi-form), Prāṇa is the Vāyu which moves in diverse ways, the torso is the Ākāśa (Bahula), the bladder is wealth, the feet are the Earth, the chest is the altar, the hair is the sacrificial grass, the Hṛdaya is the Gārha-patya fire, the mind is the Anvāhārya-pacana fire, and the mouth (Āsya) is the Āhavanīya fire” (ChanU.5.18.2).

1.2.24 L.5 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किं वैश्वानरशब्देन जाठरोऽग्निरुपदिश्यते,
With respect to this there is a doubt as follows: Is the word Vaiśvā-nara, about which instruction is here given (by the Scriptures), the gastric fire,

1.2.24 L.6 ✅ उत भूताग्निः,
Or ‘Agni’ the created element,

1.2.24 L.7 ✅ अथ तदभिमानिनी देवता,
Or a deity presiding over such Agni,

1.2.24 L.8 ✅ अथवा शारीरः,
Or the embodied Jīva-Self

1.2.24 L.9 ✅ आहोस्वित्परमेश्वरः इति।
Or the Highest-Self?

1.2.24 L.10 ✅ किं पुनरत्र संशयकारणम्?
What again is the raison d’etre of this doubt?

1.2.24 L.11 ✅ वैश्वानर इति जाठरभूताग्निदेवतानां साधारणशब्दप्रयोगात्, आत्मेति च शारीरपरमेश्वरयोः।
Because the use of the word ‘Vaiśvā-nara’ is common to all these three, viz. the gastric fire, the elemental fire, and a deity presiding over the elemental fire, and the word ‘Ātmā’ is common to the embodied Jīva-Self, and the Highest-Self.

1.2.24 L.12 ✅ तत्र कस्योपादानं न्याय्यं कस्य वा हानमिति भवति संशयः।
Under these circumstances the doubt is, as to what would be proper to accept and to reject.

1.2.24 L.13 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your (i.e. the opponent’s) conclusion?

1.2.24 L.14 ✅ जाठरोऽग्निरिति;
(The opponent says) that (by Vaiśvā-nara) the gastric fire is meant.

1.2.24 L.15 ✅ कुतः? तत्र हि विशेषेण क्वचित्प्रयोगो दृश्यते –
Whence is it so? Because we see that it is used particularly in that sense sometimes, thus: —

1.2.24 L.16 ✅ ‘अयमग्निर्वैश्वानरो योऽयमन्तः पुरुषे येनेदमन्नं पच्यते यदिदमद्यते’ (BrhU.5.9.1) इत्यादौ।
“This is the fire Vaiśvā-nara that is inside a man, and by means of which what is eaten is digested.” (BrhUEng.5.9).

1.2.24 L.17 ✅ अग्निमात्रं वा स्यात्, सामान्येनापि प्रयोगदर्शनात् –
Or it may mean the ordinary fire (Agni) because the use of the term is common (to both the fire and the Sun), thus: —

1.2.24 L.18 ✅ ‘विश्वस्मा अग्निं भुवनाय देवा वैश्वानरं केतुमह्नामकृण्वन्’ (ऋ. सं. १०-८८-१२) इत्यादौ।
“The Vaiśvā-nara fire (i.e. the Sun) the sign of the day, was created by the Gods for the whole world”. (Ṛg. Sam. 10.88.12).

1.2.24 L.19 ✅ अग्निशरीरा वा देवता स्यात्, तस्यामपि प्रयोगदर्शनात् –
Or may be, it may mean the deity having fire as its body, because we find the use of the word Vaiśvā-nara possible in its case,

1.2.24 L.20 ✅ ‘वैश्वानरस्य सुमतौ स्याम राजा हि कं भुवनानामभिश्रीः’ (ऋ. सं. १-९८-१) इत्येवमाद्यायाः श्रुतेर्देवतायामैश्वर्याद्युपेतायां सम्भवात्।
As the Scriptural passage “May we be in the good graces of Vaiśvā-nara, he is the King of the worlds and is the cause of pleasure, and is powerful or shining”, and some other passages, show that it is so possible in the case of deities equipped with power etc.

1.2.24 L.21 ✅ अथात्मशब्दसामानाधिकरण्यादुपक्रमे च ‘को न आत्मा किं ब्रह्म’ इति केवलात्मशब्दप्रयोगादात्मशब्दवशेन वैश्वानरशब्दः परिणेय इत्युच्यते,
(If you the Vedāntin were to object and say) that because of the fact that the word Vaiśvā-nara is used with the same case-ending (Nom. sing.) as the word Ātmā, and because the mere word Ātmā is used in the introductory sentence “What is our Ātmā and what is Brahman?”, the word Vaiśvā-nara should be so interpreted as to be in agreement with the word Ātmā —

1.2.24 L.22 ✅ तथापि शारीर आत्मा स्यात्;
(We the opponents say) that it may mean the embodied Jīva-Self,

1.2.24 L.23 ✅ तस्य भोक्तृत्वेन वैश्वानरसन्निकर्षात्,
Because in its role of an experiencer, he is close to the Vaiśvā-nara (the gastric fire),

1.2.24 L.24 ✅ प्रादेशमात्रमिति च विशेषणस्य तस्मिन्नुपाधिपरिच्छिन्ने सम्भवात्।
And also because the distinctive feature of ‘having the dimensions of a span’ is possible in its case, because of its being circumscribed by the limiting adjuncts.

1.2.24 L.25 ✅ तस्मान्नेश्वरो वैश्वानर इत्येवं प्राप्तम्॥
Therefore, it cannot be that Vaiśvā-nara could mean the Lord.

1.2.24 L.26 ✅ तत्रेदमुच्यते – वैश्वानरः परमात्मा भवितुमर्हति।
(To this conclusion of the opponent) we give reply: — The Vaiśvā-nara deserves to be the Highest-Self.

1.2.24 L.27 ✅ कुतः? साधारणशब्दविशेषात्;
How so? Because, a distinguishing feature is mentioned in connection with the words which are common to both.

1.2.24 L.28 ✅ साधारणशब्दयोर्विशेषः साधारणशब्दविशेषः;
‘Sādhāraṇa-śabda-viśeṣaḥ’ means the distinguishing feature of the words which however are common (one word ‘Vaiśvā-nara’ is common to three things and the other word ‘Ātmā’ to two things).

1.2.24 L.29 ✅ यद्यप्येतावुभावप्यात्मवैश्वानरशब्दौ साधारणशब्दौ – वैश्वानरशब्दस्तु त्रयाणां साधारणः, आत्मशब्दश्च द्वयोः –
Though these two words Ātmā and Vaiśvā-nara are common (to the two and three things respectively) i.e. the word ‘Vaiśvā-nara’ is common to three things and the word ‘Ātmā’ is common to two things,

1.2.24 L.30 ✅ तथापि विशेषो दृश्यते, – येन परमेश्वरपरत्वं तयोरभ्युपगम्यते –
Still we are able to discern a distinguishing feature, by means of which we are able to understand both these words to mean the Highest Lord, the distinguishing feature being, as in the sentence —

1.2.24 L.31 ✅ ‘तस्य ह वा एतस्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्य मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्यादिः।
“Of this Vaiśvā-nara-ātmā, the head is the bright Heavenly light (Sutejā)” (ChanU.5.18.2).

1.2.24 L.32 ✅ अत्र हि परमेश्वर एव द्युमूर्धत्वादिविशिष्टोऽवस्थान्तरगतः प्रत्यगात्मत्वेनोपन्यस्त आध्यानायेति गम्यते, कारणत्वात्।
We are able to understand here that the Highest-Lord as being the cause of all, and as being characterized as one having the Heaven as his caput etc., and also as having attained another condition (of the nature of Adhyātma and Adhidaiva), is here hinted at, as being the Universal-Self, for the purpose of meditation.

1.2.24 L.33 ✅ कारणस्य हि सर्वाभिः कार्यगताभिरवस्थाभिरवस्थावत्त्वात् द्युलोकाद्यवयवत्वमुपपद्यते।
A cause being always present in all the conditions of every effect (of which it is the cause), it is reasonably sustainable to say of this cause (i.e. the Highest-Lord), that it has the heaven etc. as a part of it.

1.2.24 L.34 ✅ ‘स सर्वेषु लोकेषु सर्वेषु भूतेषु सर्वेष्वात्मस्वन्नमत्ति’ इति च सर्वलोकाद्याश्रयं फलं श्रूयमाणं परमकारणपरिग्रहे सम्भवति,
Besides, the fruit that is mentioned by the Scriptures here, viz. “He eats food in all the worlds, in all the beings, and in all the Selfs”, which is comprised of all the worlds etc., is reasonably sustainable, only if (by Vaiśvā-nara) we understand the Highest-Cause (i.e. the Parameśvara),

1.2.24 L.35 ✅ ‘एवं हास्य सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते’ (ChanU.5.24.3) इति च तद्विदः सर्वपाप्मप्रदाहश्रवणम्,
And also, the mention by the Scriptures, of the incineration of all sins of him who knows this as being so (i.e. who knows that Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest-Lord) thus: — “(Just as cotton on the tip of an arrow is consumed in fire), even so are his sins incinerated.” (ChanU.5.24.3).

1.2.24 L.36 ✅ ‘को न आत्मा किं ब्रह्म’ इति चात्मब्रह्मशब्दाभ्यामुपक्रमः; – इत्येवमेतानि लिङ्गानि परमेश्वरमेव गमयन्ति।
Such indicatory marks, as the use in the introductory portion of the words Ātmā and Brahman, in the passage “What is our Ātmā, what is Brahman?”, also inform us that Vaiśvā-nara is the Highest-Lord.

1.2.24 L.37 ✅ तस्मात्परमेश्वर एव वैश्वानरः॥२४॥
Therefore, Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest-Lord. — 24.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
स्मर्यमाणमनुमानं स्यादिति॥१.२.२५॥
Smaryamāṇam anumānaṃ syād iti.

Smaryamānam: mentioned in the Smṛti; Anumānam: indicatory mark, inference; Syāt: may be; Iti: because thus.

🔗 Also because what is stated in the Smṛti justifies an inference (of its having a Scriptural text as its source). — 1.2.25.

1.2.25 L.1 ✅ इतश्च परमेश्वर एव वैश्वानरः;
This is also why the Vaiśvā-nara is the Highest-Lord only;

1.2.25 L.2 ✅ यस्मात्परमेश्वरस्यैव ‘अग्निरास्यं द्यौर्मूर्धा’ इतीदृशं त्रैलोक्यात्मकं रूपं स्मर्यते –
Because the Smṛti mentions the form of the Highest-Lord only as being the self of the threefold world, as, that Agni is his mouth, and heaven the caput, thus: —

1.2.25 L.3 ✅ ‘यस्याग्निरास्यं द्यौर्मूर्धा खं नाभिश्चरणौ क्षितिः। सूर्यश्चक्षुर्दिशः श्रोत्रं तस्मै लोकात्मने नमः’ इति।
“Let salutation be to him who is the Self of the world and who has Agni as his mouth, heaven as the caput, Ākāśa as the navel, Earth as the feet, the Sun as the eye, and the Directions as the ears etc.”

1.2.25 L.4 ✅ तत्स्मर्यमाणं रूपं मूलभूतां श्रुतिमनुमापयदस्य वैश्वानरशब्दस्य परमेश्वरपरत्वे अनुमानं लिङ्गं गमकं स्यादित्यर्थः।
This means, that the form which is mentioned in the Smṛti and which leads us to an inference of the original Scriptural text as its source, furnishes the indicatory mark, which informs us that the word Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest Lord (because all Smṛtis are supposed to be based on some Scriptural text).

1.2.25 L.5 ✅ इतिशब्दो हेत्वर्थे –
The word ‘Iti’ in the Sūtra means ‘a reason’.

1.2.25 L.6 ✅ यस्मादिदं गमकम्, तस्मादपि वैश्वानरः परमात्मैवेत्यर्थः।
Because there is this indicatory mark, therefore also Vaiśvā-nara means the Highest-Self only.

1.2.25 L.7 ✅ यद्यपि स्तुतिरियम् – ‘तस्मै लोकात्मने नमः’ इति, तथापि स्तुतित्वमपि नासति मूलभूते वेदवाक्ये सम्यक् ईदृशेन रूपेण सम्भवति।
Even though the passage “Let Salutation be to the Self of the world” constitutes a glorification, such significance of glorification in this way would not be possible, in the absence of a sentence in the Scriptures which serves as a source (for the Smṛti).

1.2.25 L.8 ✅ ‘द्यां मूर्धानं यस्य विप्रा वदन्ति खं वै नाभिं चन्द्रसूर्यौ च नेत्रे।
दिशः श्रोत्रे विद्धि पादौ क्षितिं च सोऽचिन्त्यात्मा सर्वभूतप्रणेता’
इत्येवंजातीयका च स्मृतिरिहोदाहर्तव्या॥२५॥
A similar Smṛti passage —
“He whose head, the learned say, is the Heaven, the Ākāśa is the navel, the Sun and the Moon the eyes,
Directions the ears, Earth the feet, know him to be the incomprehensible Self and the creator of all beings”
— Should also be quoted here as an illustration. — 25.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
शब्दादिभ्योऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठानाच्च नेति चेन्न तथादृष्ट्युपदेशादसम्भवात्पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते॥१.२.२६॥
Sabdādibhyo'ntaḥpratiṣṭhānāc ca neti cen na tathā-dṛṣṭy-upadeśād asambhavāt puruṣam api cainam adhīyate.

Śabda-ādibhyaḥ: on account of the word; Antaḥ: within; Pratiṣṭhānāt: because of abiding; Ca: and; Na: not; Iti cet: if it be said; Na: not so; Tathā: thus, as such; Dṛṣṭi-upadeśāt: on account of the instructions to conceive it; Asambhavāt: because of impossibility; Puruṣam: as person; Api: also; Ca: and; Evam: him; Adhīyate: (they) describe.

🔗 If it be said (that Vaiśvā-nara is not the Highest Self or Lord), because of the Scriptural words etc. (having different meanings) and also because it has its locus inside (the body), (we say) no, because the instruction is, to look upon it that way, and also because some (Vāja-saneyins) recite (the Vaiśvā-nara) as a Puruṣa. — 1.2.26.

1.2.26 L.1 ✅ अत्राह – न परमेश्वरो वैश्वानरो भवितुमर्हति।
Here it is said (by the opponent) — The Vaiśvā-nara does not deserve to be the Highest Lord.

1.2.26 L.2 ✅ कुतः? शब्दादिभ्योऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठानाच्च।
How so? Because of the words etc. (having different meanings) and also because the locus (of the Vaiśvā-nara) is inside (the body).

1.2.26 L.3 ✅ शब्दस्तावत् – वैश्वानरशब्दो न परमेश्वरे सम्भवति, अर्थान्तरे रूढत्वात्;
As regards the argument about the Scriptural word — the word Vaiśvā-nara cannot possibly be understood to mean the Highest Lord, because according to firmly established usage, it has another meaning.

1.2.26 L.4 ✅ तथाग्निशब्दः ‘स एषोऽग्निर्वैश्वानरः’ इति।
Similarly also, because of the word ‘Agni’ in “This Agni is Vaiśvā-nara” (Śat. Brā. 10.6.1.11).

1.2.26 L.5 ✅ आदिशब्दात् ‘हृदयं गार्हपत्यः’ (ChanU.5.18.2) इत्याद्यग्नित्रेताप्रकल्पनम्;
By the word ‘etc.’ in the Sūtra, is meant the imagining of the triad of sacrificial fires referred to in “The Hṛdaya is the Gārha-patya fire” etc. (ChanU.5.18.2).

1.2.26 L.6 ✅ ‘तद्यद्भक्तं प्रथममागच्छेत्तद्धोमीयम्’ (ChanU.5.10.1) इत्यादिना च प्राणाहुत्यधिकरणतासङ्कीर्तनम्।
By the Scriptural passage — “The food (Bhakta) that comes in first is meant for the purpose of a sacrifice” (ChanU.5.10.1) etc. — praise is offered (to Vaiśvā-nara) as its being the repository of the oblation to the Prāṇa.

1.2.26 L.7 ✅ एतेभ्यो हेतुभ्यो जाठरो वैश्वानरः प्रत्येतव्यः।
Because of these reasons, by Vaiśvā-nara one should understand the gastric fire.

1.2.26 L.8 ✅ तथान्तःप्रतिष्ठानमपि श्रूयते – ‘पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति। तच्च जाठरे सम्भवति।
Similarly, Scriptures mention about its having a locus internally (in the body) thus: “He knows him as being inside the Puruṣa”, which is possible only in the case of the gastric fire.

1.2.26 L.9 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् ‘मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्यादेर्विशेषात्कारणात्परमात्मा वैश्वानर इति,
To the suggestion made, that because of the mention of the special feature — viz. that the ‘Sutejā’ is its head etc. — the Vaiśvā-nara should be understood to be the Highest Lord,

1.2.26 L.10 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – कुतो ह्येष निर्णयः, यदुभयथापि विशेषप्रतिभाने सति परमेश्वरविषय एव विशेष आश्रयणीयो न जाठरविषय इति।
We (i.e. the opponent) say — The Special feature is seen to be possible equally in both cases (i.e. in the case of both the Highest Lord and the gastric fire), so how do you then arrive at a determination that the special feature should be accepted as applying to the Highest Lord only, and not to the gastric fire?

1.2.26 L.11 ✅ अथवा भूताग्नेरन्तर्बहिश्चावतिष्ठमानस्यैष निर्देशो भविष्यति।
Or it may be, that what the Scriptures indicate is the element ‘fire’, which can have a locus both in the body and outside it.

1.2.26 L.12 ✅ तस्यापि हि द्युलोकादिसम्बन्धो मन्त्रवर्णे अवगम्यते –
We understand from the Mantra-words that the ordinary fire is associated with the Heaven etc., thus —

1.2.26 L.13 ✅ ‘यो भानुना पृथिवीं द्यामुतेमामाततान रोदसी अन्तरिक्षम्’ (ऋ. सं. १०-८८-३) इत्यादौ।
“He who with his lustre has pervaded the Heaven, the Earth, the Ākāśa (space) and Antar-ikṣa” (Ṛg-Veda-Sam. 10.88.3) etc.

1.2.26 L.14 ✅ अथवा तच्छरीराया देवताया ऐश्वर्ययोगात् द्युलोकाद्यवयवत्वं भविष्यति।
Or else it may be that the being inside and outside may refer to the deity which has fire as its body, and which, because of the power which it has, can be said to have the heavenly world etc. as a limb.

1.2.26 L.15 ✅ तस्मान्न परमेश्वरो वैश्वानर इति॥
Therefore, Vaiśvā-nara cannot be the Highest-Lord.

1.2.26 L.16 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – न तथादृष्ट्युपदेशादिति।
To this conclusion of the opponent we reply — It could not be so, because the instruction is that one should look upon it as the Highest Lord.

1.2.26 L.17 ✅ न शब्दादिभ्यः कारणेभ्यः परमेश्वरस्य प्रत्याख्यानं युक्तम्।
It is not proper, that because of reasons such as Scriptural words etc., the Highest Lord should not be understood as being indicated by the word Vaiśvā-nara.

1.2.26 L.18 ✅ कुतः? तथा जाठरापरित्यागेन, दृष्ट्युपदेशात्।
How so? Because the instruction is about looking upon Vaiśvā-nara as the Highest Lord, without giving up the looking upon Vaiśvā-nara as the gastric fire.

1.2.26 L.19 ✅ परमेश्वरदृष्टिर्हि जाठरे वैश्वानरे इहोपदिश्यते – ‘मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत’ (ChanU.3.18.1) इत्यादिवत्।
The instruction here is, to look upon the gastric fire as the Highest-Lord, just as in the passage “Meditate devoutly on the mind as Brahman” (ChanU.3.18.1) (the instruction is that mind should be looked upon as Brahman),

1.2.26 L.20 ✅ अथवा जाठरवैश्वानरोपाधिः परमेश्वर इह द्रष्टव्यत्वेनोपदिश्यते – ‘मनोमयः प्राणशरीरो भारूपः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इत्यादिवत्।
Or that the Highest Lord, as affected by the limiting adjunct of the gastric-Vaiśvā-nara, should be looked upon as the one to be seen, as for instance in the passage “(He) having mind as his structure, breath as his body, and lustre as his form” (ChanU.3.14.2) (the instruction is that the Highest Lord having mind etc. as his adjuncts should be meditated upon).

1.2.26 L.21 ✅ यदि चेह परमेश्वरो न विवक्ष्येत, केवल एव जाठरोऽग्निर्विवक्ष्येत,
Were the Scriptures desirous of referring to the gastric fire only and not desirous of referring to the Highest Lord,

1.2.26 L.22 ✅ ततः ‘मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्यादेर्विशेषस्यासम्भव एव स्यात्।
The distinctive feature, such as ‘Sutejā is the head”, would be impossible.

1.2.26 L.23 ✅ यथा तु देवताभूताग्निव्यपाश्रयेणाप्ययं विशेष उपपादयितुं न शक्यते, तथोत्तरसूत्रे वक्ष्यामः।
How, even by resorting to the deity or the element ‘fire’ (as being the Vaiśvā-nara), it would not be possible to propound the distinctive feature (viz. that the head is the Sutejā) fittingly, we shall say in the Sūtra which follows.

1.2.26 L.24 ✅ यदि च केवल एव जाठरो विवक्ष्येत, पुरुषेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्वं केवलं तस्य स्यात्; न तु पुरुषत्वम्;
If it was intended to speak of the gastric fire only, then, merely that it is inside the man, would alone be possible, but not that it was the Puruṣa also.

1.2.26 L.25 ✅ पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते वाजसनेयिनः –
But the Vāja-saneyins recite, that he is the Puruṣa also, thus: —

1.2.26 L.26 ✅ ‘स एषोऽग्निर्वैश्वानरो यत्पुरुषः स यो हैतमेवमग्निं वैश्वानरं पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ (श. ब्रा. १०-६-१-११) इति।
“This Agni Vaiśvā-nara which is a Puruṣa. He who knows this Agni Vaiśvā-nara as being like the Puruṣa and as having a locus inside a man” (Śat. Brā. 10.6.1.11).

1.2.26 L.27 ✅ परमेश्वरस्य तु सर्वात्मत्वात्पुरुषत्वं पुरुषेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्वं चोभयमुपपद्यते।
The Highest Lord being the self of all, that it can at once be both the Puruṣa and be also inside a Puruṣa, is reasonably sustainable.

1.2.26 L.28 ✅ ये तु ‘पुरुषविधमपि चैनमधीयते’ इति सूत्रावयवं पठन्ति, तेषामेषोऽर्थः –
In the case of those who recite “Puruṣavidham api ca enam adhīyate” as a part of the Sūtra, the meaning is —

1.2.26 L.29 ✅ केवलजाठरपरिग्रहे पुरुषेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्वं केवलं स्यात्; न तु पुरुषविधत्वम्;
If by Vaiśvā-nara we were to understand merely the gastric fire, it would be only possible that it has a locus inside a Puruṣa, and not that it is the Puruṣa also.

1.2.26 L.30 ✅ पुरुषविधमपि चैनमधीयते वाजसनेयिनः –
But the Vāja-saneyins recite (the Vaiśvā-nara) as being like a Puruṣa also, thus —

1.2.26 L.31 ✅ ‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति।
“(He who) knows him as being like a Puruṣa, and also as having a locus inside a Puruṣa.”

1.2.26 L.32 ✅ पुरुषविधत्वं च प्रकरणात् यदधिदैवतं द्युमूर्धत्वादि पृथिवीप्रतिष्ठितत्वान्तम्,
From the chapter, “(Vaiśvā-nara) being like a Puruṣa” is understood, in both the ways, viz., in its cosmic aspect in relation to Gods, beginning with “the heaven being its head” and ending with “being firmly set in the Earth”,

1.2.26 L.33 ✅ यच्चाध्यात्मं प्रसिद्धं मूर्धत्वादि चुबुकप्रतिष्ठितत्वान्तम्, तत्परिगृह्यते॥२६॥
And in its aspect in relation to Adhyātma, as its “being the head” (of the meditator) in its ordinary physical sense, in the beginning, and ending with “being firmly set in the chin”. — 26.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अत एव न देवता भूतं च॥१.२.२७॥
Ata eva na devatā bhūtaṃ ca.

Ataḥ eva: for the same reasons; Na: (is) not; Devatā: the presiding deity of fire; Bhūtam: the element of fire; Ca: and.

🔗 And for the same reason therefore (Vaiśvā-nara) cannot either he the deity (of, Fire) or the element (Fire). — 1.2.27.

1.2.27 L.1 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् –
Again the statement which has been made before, viz.,

1.2.27 L.2 ✅ भूताग्नेरपि मन्त्रवर्णे द्युलोकादिसम्बन्धदर्शनात् ‘मूर्धैव सुतेजाः’ इत्याद्यवयवकल्पनं तस्यैव भविष्यतीति, तच्छरीराया देवताया वा ऐश्वर्ययोगादिति; तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
That, as in the words of the Mantras we are able to observe a connection between the element Agni and the heavenly world etc., the imagining of the parts of a body, thus — Sutejā is the head (of the Vaiśvā-nara) — , may be with reference to the element ‘fire’ or that it may be with reference to the deity (fire) on account of its powerfulness, has to be refuted.

1.2.27 L.3 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – अत एवोक्तेभ्यो हेतुभ्यो न देवता वैश्वानरः। तथा भूताग्निरपि न वैश्वानरः;
With regard to that, we say — for the same reasons, Vaiśvā-nara can neither be a deity nor the fire.

1.2.27 L.4 ✅ न हि भूताग्नेरौष्ण्यप्रकाशमात्रात्मकस्य द्युमूर्धत्वादिकल्पनोपपद्यते,
As regards the element ‘fire’ which has the qualities of heat and light only, imagining it as having the heaven as the head etc. is not reasonably sustainable,

1.2.27 L.5 ✅ विकारस्य विकारान्तरात्मत्वासम्भवात्।
Because an effect or modification cannot ever be the Self of another effect or modification.

1.2.27 L.6 ✅ तथा देवतायाः सत्यप्यैश्वर्ययोगे न द्युमूर्धत्वादिकल्पना सम्भवति,
Nor can it be possible, in the case of a deity possessing power, to imagine, that it has ‘Heaven as its head’,

1.2.27 L.7 ✅ अकारणत्वात् परमेश्वराधीनैश्वर्यत्वाच्च।
Because it (the deity) is not the cause of anything (being itself an effect only) and because its power is dependent upon the Lord.

1.2.27 L.8 ✅ आत्मशब्दासम्भवश्च सर्वेष्वेषु पक्षेषु स्थित एव॥२७॥
In all these views, moreover, the objection about the impossibility of Vaiśvā-nara being the Self, is also common of course. — 27.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
साक्षादप्यविरोधं जैमिनिः॥१.२.२८॥
Sākṣād apy avirodhaṃ jaiminiḥ.

Sa-akṣāt: directly; Api: also, even; A-virodham: no objection, no contradiction; Jaiminiḥ: (so says) Jaimini.

🔗 Jaimini is of opinion that there is no contradiction in holding, that here, direct meditation on the Highest Lord is intended. — 1.2.28.

1.2.28 L.1 ✅ पूर्वं जाठराग्निप्रतीको जाठराग्न्युपाधिको वा परमेश्वर उपास्य इत्युक्तम्
It has been said in the preceding Sūtras, that the Highest Lord having the gastric fire as its symbol or its limiting adjunct, he is indicated to be the one to be devoutly meditated upon,

1.2.28 L.2 ✅ अन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्वाद्यनुरोधेन।
In accordance with the reason that the Vaiśvā-nara has a locus inside a person.

1.2.28 L.3 ✅ इदानीं तु विनैव प्रतीकोपाधिकल्पनाभ्यां साक्षादपि परमेश्वरोपासनपरिग्रहे न कश्चिद्विरोध इति जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते।
Here in this Sūtra Ācārya Jaimini considers, with regard to the passage about Vaiśvā-nara in this Sūtra, that no contradiction is involved even if we accept that a direct devout meditation on the Highest Lord is indicated, without imagining his being affected by any adjunct or his being a symbol.

1.2.28 L.4 ✅ ननु जाठराग्न्यपरिग्रहेऽन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्ववचनं शब्दादीनि च कारणानि विरुध्येरन्निति।
But (says the opponent) — If we do not understand that by Vaiśvā-nara the gastric fire is meant, then the statement that it has a locus inside, as also the reasons based on Scriptural words etc., would be contradicted.

1.2.28 L.5 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – अन्तःप्रतिष्ठितत्ववचनं तावन्न विरुध्यते।
To this the reply given is — So far as the statement “having a locus inside” is concerned, it is not contradicted.

1.2.28 L.6 ✅ न हीह ‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति जाठराग्न्यभिप्रायेणेदमुच्यते,
The statement made here, viz. “Knows him to be like a Puruṣa and that he has a locus inside”, is not made with a desire to convey that the gastric fire is meant,

1.2.28 L.7 ✅ तस्याप्रकृतत्वादसंशब्दितत्वाच्च।
Because that is not relevant to the context here, nor is it so mentioned by the Scriptures in so many words.

1.2.28 L.8 ✅ कथं तर्हि? यत्प्रकृतं मूर्धादिचुबुकान्तेषु पुरुषावयवेषु पुरुषविधत्वं कल्पितम्, तदभिप्रायेणेदमुच्यते – ‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति;
How then is it? The statement “being like a Puruṣa and having a locus inside” is made, so as to indicate that the ‘being like a Puruṣa’ which is relevant here and which is imagined in the bodily parts of a Puruṣa, beginning with ‘the caput’ and ending with ‘the chin’ (Cibuka),

1.2.28 L.9 ✅ यथा वृक्षे शाखां प्रतिष्ठितां पश्यतीति, तद्वत्।
Is just like seeing the branches of a tree as having a firm base in the tree.

1.2.28 L.10 ✅ अथवा यः प्रकृतः परमात्माध्यात्ममधिदैवतं च पुरुषविधत्वोपाधिः, तस्य यत्केवलं साक्षिरूपम्, तदभिप्रायेणेदमुच्यते – ‘पुरुषविधं पुरुषेऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठितं वेद’ इति।
Or it may be that the words ‘Knows it to have a locus inside a Puruṣa’ are mentioned with the intention of conveying the pure and the merely witness-like nature of the Highest Self, which is relevant to the context here and which in its Adhyātma and Adhidaivatā aspects is referred to as being affected by such limiting adjuncts as “being like a Puruṣa”.

1.2.28 L.11 ✅ निश्चिते च पूर्वापरालोचनवशेन परमात्मपरिग्रहे, तद्विषय एव वैश्वानरशब्दः केनचिद्योगेन वर्तिष्यते –
When once it is finally determined, by means of the consideration of what has gone before and which follows after (the passage considered in the Sūtra), that the Highest Self should be understood to be indicated by the word Vaiśvā-nara, then that word (Vaiśvā-nara) used in this sense, could anyhow be shown to be properly so used, by some sort of etymological derivation as follows: —

1.2.28 L.12 ✅ विश्वश्चायं नरश्चेति, विश्वेषां वायं नरः, विश्वे वा नरा अस्येति विश्वानरः परमात्मा, सर्वात्मत्वात्, विश्वानर एव वैश्वानरः;
He who, as being universal, is the man (Nara) i.e. Jīva, or he who is the maker of all modifications, or he of whom all men are the creation, is the Vaiśvā-nara and the Highest Self, as he is the Self of all.

1.2.28 L.13 ✅ तद्धितोऽनन्यार्थः, राक्षसवायसादिवत्।
(It is a rule in grammar) that the Taddhita suffix (अ A) when it is applied to a word does not change the original meaning of the word. Just like the words Rākṣasa and Vāyasa (which are the Taddhita suffix forms of Rakṣas and Vayas).

1.2.28 L.14 ✅ अग्निशब्दोऽप्यग्रणीत्वादियोगाश्रयणेन परमात्मविषय एव भविष्यति।
The word ‘Agni’ also, by having recourse to a similar etymological derivation, such as ‘one who leads to the fruits of action’, may well indicate the Highest Self.

1.2.28 L.15 ✅ गार्हपत्यादिकल्पनं प्राणाहुत्यधिकरणत्वं च परमात्मनोऽपि सर्वात्मत्वादुपपद्यते॥२८॥
Imagining of the Vaiśvā-nara as the gastric fire or the repository of oblations, is reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Self also, as being the Self of all. — 28.

[Go top]

1.2.29 L.1 ✅ कथं पुनः परमेश्वरपरिग्रहे प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिरुपपद्यत इति,
If by Vaiśvā-nara we understand the Highest Lord, how again can the Scriptural statement about his being of the size of a span, be reasonably sustainable?

1.2.29 L.2 ✅ तां व्याख्यातुमारभते –
To explain this, it is said: —

←Prev Next→
अभिव्यक्तेरित्याश्मरथ्यः॥१.२.२९॥
Abhivyakter ity āśma-rathyaḥ.

Abhivyakteḥ: because of manifestation; Iti: thus, so; Āśma-rathyaḥ: (says) Āśma-rathya.

🔗 Because of the manifestation (Vyakti), says Āśma-rathya. — 1.2.29.

1.2.29 L.3 ✅ अतिमात्रस्यापि परमेश्वरस्य प्रादेशमात्रत्वमभिव्यक्तिनिमित्तं स्यात्।
It is possible for the Highest Lord, who transcends any notion of measurement, to manifest himself, as one having the measurement of a span, with a view to discover himself (to the devout meditator).

1.2.29 L.4 ✅ अभिव्यज्यते किल प्रादेशमात्रपरिमाणः परमेश्वर उपासकानां कृते।
(It may be understood) that the Highest Lord manifests himself as being of the measurement of a span, for the sake of those who devoutly meditate on him,

1.2.29 L.5 ✅ प्रदेशविशेषेषु वा हृदयादिषूपलब्धिस्थानेषु विशेषेणाभिव्यज्यते।
And he manifests himself particularly in places suited for such mainfestation, such as the Hṛdaya etc.

1.2.29 L.6 ✅ अतः परमेश्वरेऽपि प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिरभिव्यक्तेरुपपद्यत इत्याश्मरथ्य आचार्यो मन्यते॥२९॥
Therefore Ācārya Āśma-rathya thinks that the Scriptural passage about ‘being of the measurement of a span’ is reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Lord, whenever he wishes to manifest himself. — 29.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अनुस्मृतेर्बादरिः॥१.२.३०॥
Anusmṛter bādariḥ.

Anusmṛteḥ: for the sake of meditation or constant remembrance; Bādariḥ: (so says) the sage Bādari.

🔗 Because of the thinking (of one thing to the exclusion of all others), says Bādari. — 1.2.30.

1.2.30 L.1 ✅ प्रादेशमात्रहृदयप्रतिष्ठेन वायं मनसानुस्मर्यते; तेन ‘प्रादेशमात्रः’ इत्युच्यते;
He is described as having the measure of a span, because he who has his location in the Hṛdaya which is of the measurement of a span, is thought of by the mind,

1.2.30 L.2 ✅ यथा प्रस्थमिता यवाः प्रस्था इत्युच्यन्ते, तद्वत्।
Just as barley which is measured by a unit of measurement called (Prastha), is called a Prastha (of barley).

1.2.30 L.3 ✅ यद्यपि च यवेषु स्वगतमेव परिमाणं प्रस्थसम्बन्धाद्व्यज्यते,
Or rather, it may be that barley which has a dimension of its own, inherent in itself, is revealed by being associated with the Prastha.

1.2.30 L.4 ✅ न चेह परमेश्वरगतं किञ्चित्परिमाणमस्ति – यद्धृदयसम्बन्धाद्व्यज्येत;
Here, however, it is not, as if the Highest Lord has any dimensions, which could be said to be revealed by his association with the Hṛdaya,

1.2.30 L.5 ✅ तथापि प्रयुक्तायाः प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतेः सम्भवति यथाकथञ्चिदनुस्मरणमालम्बनमित्युच्यते।
But as he is described in the Scriptures as having ‘the measurement of a span’, so, anyhow, meditation on him is a sort of a ground to enable one to say so.

1.2.30 L.6 ✅ प्रादेशमात्रत्वेन वायमप्रादेशमात्रोऽप्यनुस्मरणीयः प्रादेशमात्रश्रुत्यर्थवत्तायै।
Or else it might be said, that in order to justify the Scriptural passage as having a proper sense, he who is by no means measurable by a span, should be thought of as having this measurement of a span.

1.2.30 L.7 ✅ एवमनुस्मृतिनिमित्ता परमेश्वरे प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिरिति बादरिराचार्यो मन्यते॥३०॥
In this way, the Ācārya Bādari thinks, the Scriptural passage about ‘being of the measurement of a span’ may be understood to mean the Highest Lord, as thought of or remembered (by his devout worshippers). — 30.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सम्पत्तेरिति जैमिनिस्तथा हि दर्शयति॥१.२.३१॥
Sampatter iti jaiminis tathā hi darśayati.

Sampatteḥ: because of imaginary identity; Iti: thus, so; Jaimini: (says) Jaimini; Tathā: in this way; Hi: because; Darśayati: (the Śruti) declares.

🔗 Jaimini thinks that (the Highest Lord may he described as having the measurement of a span) because of Sampatti (i.e. imagining a small thing to be a great thing). The Scriptures also indicate similarly. — 1.2.31.

1.2.31 L.1 ✅ सम्पत्तिनिमित्ता वा स्यात्प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिः।
The Scriptural passage about (the Highest Lord being of the measurement of a span) may be due to Sampatti, (thinks Ācārya Jaimini).

1.2.31 L.2 ✅ कुतः? तथाहि समानप्रकरणं वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणं द्युप्रभृतीन्पृथिवीपर्यन्तांस्त्रैलोक्यात्मनो वैश्वानरस्यावयवानध्यात्ममूर्धप्रभृतिषु चुबुकपर्यन्तेषु देहावयवेषु सम्पादयत्प्रादेशमात्रसम्पत्तिं परमेश्वरस्य दर्शयति –
How is it so? Because so does a similar chapter in the Vāja-saneyi Brāhmaṇa (describe it) by imaginatively identifying the several parts of Vaiśvā-nara, which has the nature of the three worlds such as the Heaven etc., upto the Earth, in their Adhyātma aspect, in terms of the parts of a body (of the devout worshipper), such as the head etc., upto the chin, and thus shows the Highest Lord to be of the measurement of a span, thus: —

1.2.31 L.3 ✅ ‘प्रादेशमात्रमिव ह वै देवाः सुविदिता अभिसम्पन्नास्तथा तु व एतान्वक्ष्यामि यथा प्रादेशमात्रमेवाभिसम्पादयिष्यामीति।
“So indeed did the Gods realize him, as being of the measurement of a span. I will now demonstrate to you the several parts of him, by which I will have shown you, how (the Highest Lord) has the measure of a span.

1.2.31 L.4 ✅ स होवाच मूर्धानमुपदिशन्नुवाचैष वा अतिष्ठा वैश्वानर इति।
So instructing them about the head he said, ‘This is the Atiṣṭhā i.e. the topmost part i.e. the head of the Vaiśvā-nara.’

1.2.31 L.5 ✅ चक्षुषी उपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै सुतेजा वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing them about the eyes, he said, ‘This is the Sutejā (i.e. one having great splendour)’ i.e. the Sun-like Vaiśvā-nara.

1.2.31 L.6 ✅ नासिके उपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै पृथग्वर्त्मात्मा वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing them about the nostrils he said, ‘This that moves in all ways is the Ātmā or Prāṇa of Vaiśvā-nara’.

1.2.31 L.7 ✅ मुख्यमाकाशमुपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै बहुलो वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing about the Ākāśa in the mouth, he said, ‘This is Bahula (Profusion) of Vaiśvā-nara.’

1.2.31 L.8 ✅ मुख्या अप उपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै रयिर्वैश्वानर इति।
Instructing them about the saliva in the mouth, he said, ‘This is the wealth (Rayi) of Vaiśvā-nara’ [Trans. per Panoli].

1.2.31 L.9 ✅ चुबुकमुपदिशन्नुवाचैष वै प्रतिष्ठा वैश्वानरः’ इति।
Instructing them about the Chin he said, ‘This is the pedestal (Pratiṣṭhā) of Vaiśvā-nara’.”

1.2.31 L.10 ✅ चुबुकमित्यधरं मुखफलकमुच्यते।
By ‘Cubuka’ is meant the lower jaw.

1.2.31 L.11 ✅ यद्यपि वाजसनेयके द्यौरतिष्ठात्वगुणा समाम्नायते, आदित्यश्च सुतेजस्त्वगुणः,
Now, though in the Vāja-saneyi Brāhmaṇa, heaven is mentioned as having the quality of being the head and the Sun as the Sutejā,

1.2.31 L.12 ✅ छान्दोग्ये पुनः द्यौः सुतेजस्त्वगुणा समाम्नायते, आदित्यश्च विश्वरूपत्वगुणः;
And in the Chāndogya, the heaven is indicated as the Sutejā, and the Sun is mentioned as being multiform,

1.2.31 L.13 ✅ तथापि नैतावता विशेषेण किञ्चिद्धीयते,
Still this sort of little difference between these two statements, does not do any harm,

1.2.31 L.14 ✅ प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतेरविशेषात्,
Because the statement about him who is described as having the measurement of a span, in the Vaiśvā-nara-Vidyā is common to both,

1.2.31 L.15 ✅ सर्वशाखाप्रत्ययत्वाच्च।
And all the different branches intimate that very same thing.

1.2.31 L.16 ✅ सम्पत्तिनिमित्तां प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिं युक्ततरां जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते॥३१॥
Ācārya Jaimini considers this Scriptural passage about being of the measurement of a span, due to ‘Sampatti’, as having a fitter application. — 31.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आमनन्ति चैनमस्मिन्॥१.२.३२॥
Āmananti cainam asmin.

Āmananti: (they) speak, teach, recite, declare; Ca: moreover, also, and; Enam: this; Asmin: in this.

🔗 Also (The Jābālas) mentioned (the Highest Lord as one that resides) in this i.e. between the head and the chin. — 1.2.32.

1.2.32 L.1 ✅ आमनन्ति चैनं परमेश्वरमस्मिन्मूर्धचुबुकान्तराले जाबालाः –
The Jābālas also mention the Highest Lord as located in the space between the head and chin, thus: —

1.2.32 L.2 ✅ ‘य एषोऽनन्तोऽव्यक्त आत्मा सोऽविमुक्ते प्रतिष्ठित इति।
सोऽविमुक्तः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति।
वरणायां नास्यां च मध्ये प्रतिष्ठित इति।
का वै वरणा का च नासीति’।
“This eternal and unmanifest Self (Ātmā) is located in the Avimukta i.e. the Jīva-Self (i.e. one who is considered as a finite entity because of the limiting adjuncts, for the purpose of devout meditation).
Where is this Avimukta located?
In between the Varaṇā and the Nāsī is it located.
And what is Varaṇā and what is Nāsī?”

1.2.32 L.3 ✅ तत्र चेमामेव नासिकाम् ‘सर्वाणीन्द्रियकृतानि पापानि वारयतीति सा वरणा, सर्वाणीन्द्रियकृतानि पापानि नाशयतीति सा नासी’ इति वरणानासीति निरुच्य,
Here the Scriptural text having etymologically derived the word Nāsikā (nose) as Varaṇā and Nāsī, thus — that which prevents sins of the sense-organs from occurring is the Varaṇā, and that which destroys the sin committed by the sense-organs is the Nāsī,

1.2.32 L.4 ✅ पुनरप्यामनन्ति – ‘कतमच्चास्य स्थानं भवतीति। भ्रुवोर्घ्राणस्य च यः सन्धिः स एष द्युलोकस्य परस्य च सन्धिर्भवति’ (जा. उ. १) इति।
The Scriptures say again: — “Where is its location? It is in that place where the eyebrows and the nose meet and the place where the heavenly world (the Dyuloka) and the Para (Brahma-Loka) meet.” (Jāb. Up. 1).

1.2.32 L.5 ✅ तस्मादुपपन्ना परमेश्वरे प्रादेशमात्रश्रुतिः।
Therefore, that the Scriptural passage about ‘being of the measurement of a span’ indicates the Highest Lord, is reasonably sustainable.

1.2.32 L.6 ✅ अभिविमानश्रुतिः प्रत्यगात्मत्वाभिप्राया।
The term Abhivimāna mentioned in the Scriptures indicates the Universal Self.

1.2.32 L.7 ✅ प्रत्यगात्मतया सर्वैः प्राणिभिरभिविमीयत इत्यभिविमानः;
It is Abhivimāna because it is known by all beings as ‘being the Universal Self’,

1.2.32 L.8 ✅ अभिगतो वायं प्रत्यगात्मत्वात्, विमानश्च मानवियोगात् इत्यभिविमानः।
Or because it is realized by all as the Universal-Self, and as also one who is beyond any notion of measurement, as being the Universal-Self, and as being measureless.

1.2.32 L.9 ✅ अभिविमिमीते वा सर्वं जगत्, कारणत्वादित्यभिविमानः।
Or, that, it is the one that as being the cause of this transitory world, creates it and therefore is Abhivimāna.

1.2.32 L.10 ✅ तस्मात्परमेश्वरो वैश्वानर इति सिद्धम्॥३२॥
Therefore, it is proved that by Vaiśvā-nara, the Highest Lord is meant. — 32.

– 18. Vaiśvā-nara-Adhikaraṇam. End of Pāda 1.2

Su.1.3.01 Su..02 Su..03 Su..04 Su..05 Su..06 Su..07

←Prev Next→
द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं स्वशब्दात्॥१.३.१॥
Dyu-bhv-ādy-āyatanaṃ sva-śabdāt.

Dyu: heaven; Bhū: earth; Ādi: and the rest; Āyatanam: abode; Sva: own; Śabdāt: from the word (Sva-śabdāt: on account of the word ‘Self’).

🔗 The abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc. (is Brahman) because it is so expressed by the word ‘Sva’ (the Self) meaning one’s own. — 1.3.1.

1.3.1 L.1 ✅ इदं श्रूयते – ‘यस्मिन्द्यौः पृथिवी चान्तरिक्षमोतं मनः सह प्राणैश्च सर्वैः। तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानमन्या वाचो विमुञ्चथामृतस्यैष सेतुः’ (MunU.2.2.5) इति।
A Scriptural passage mentions as follows: — “Know that one only — the Self — wherein the Heaven and Earth and the Antar-ikṣa (the space between the Earth and the Heaven) are woven (as weft) and also the mind along with all the Prāṇas (sense-organs). Give up all other talk. He is the bund i.e. causeway leading up to immortality” (MunU.2.2.5).

1.3.1 L.2 ✅ अत्र यदेतद्द्युप्रभृतीनामोतत्ववचनादायतनं किञ्चिदवगम्यते, तत्किं परं ब्रह्म स्यात्, आहोस्विदर्थान्तरमिति सन्दिह्यते।
Here, it is doubted whether that something which is understood as some sort of an abode or sanctuary (Āyatana), by reason of the words “in which the Heaven etc. are woven”, means the Highest Brahman or something else.

1.3.1 L.3 ✅ तत्रार्थान्तरं किमप्यायतनं स्यादिति प्राप्तम्।
The conclusion (of the opponent) is that the word ‘Abode’ may mean something else (than Brahman).

1.3.1 L.4 ✅ कस्मात्? ‘अमृतस्यैष सेतुः’ इति श्रवणात्।
How is it so? Because the Scriptures mention: “He is the bund i.e. causeway leading up to immortality”.

1.3.1 L.5 ✅ पारवान्हि लोके सेतुः प्रख्यातः।
In ordinary life it is well-known that a bund or causeway has something beyond it (which is reached after crossing it).

1.3.1 L.6 ✅ न च परस्य ब्रह्मणः पारवत्त्वं शक्यमभ्युपगन्तुम् –
Now, it cannot be understood that the Highest Brahman has anything beyond itself (to which Brahman as the bund or causeway leads up),

1.3.1 L.7 ✅ ‘अनन्तमपारम्’ (BrhU.2.4.12) इति श्रवणात्।
Because the Scriptures mention it as being “eternal and as having nothing beyond it” (BrhUEng.2.4.12).

1.3.1 L.8 ✅ अर्थान्तरे चायतने परिगृह्यमाणे स्मृतिप्रसिद्धं प्रधानं परिग्रहीतव्यम्,
Now, if something else (than Brahman) is understood to be the meaning of the word ‘Abode’, it may be understood to mean the Pradhāna well-known in the Sāṅkhya Smṛti,

1.3.1 L.9 ✅ तस्य कारणत्वादायतनत्वोपपत्तेः।
Because it is reasonably sustainable, that the Pradhāna as being the cause (of the world, according to the Sāṅkhyas) can be said to be the Abode (of that of which it is the cause).

1.3.1 L.10 ✅ श्रुतिप्रसिद्धो वा वायुः स्यात् – ‘वायुर्वाव गौतम तत्सूत्रं वायुना वै गौतम सूत्रेणायं च लोकः परश्च लोकः सर्वाणि च भूतानि सन्दृब्धानि भवन्ति’ (BrhU.3.7.2) इति वायोरपि विधारणत्वश्रवणात्।
Or else, it may also be understood to mean the Vāyu (air) well-known in the Scriptures, as being the upholder, thus: — “Oh Gautama, Vāyu is the thread, because it is by Vāyu, the thread, that this world, the world beyond, and all the beings are held together (as flowers in a garland)” (BrhUEng.3.7.2).

1.3.1 L.11 ✅ शारीरो वा स्यात्; – तस्यापि भोक्तृत्वात्, भोग्यं प्रपञ्चं प्रत्यायतनत्वोपपत्तेः
Or may be, it may mean the embodied Jīva-Self, because it is reasonably sustainable that being an experiencer it can be said to be the ‘Abode’ of all these manifold things which are the objects of its enjoyment.

1.3.1 L.12 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते इदमाह – द्युभ्वाद्यायतनमिति।
To this conclusion (of the opponent), we reply thus: — “The Abode of the Heaven and the Earth” etc.

1.3.1 L.13 ✅ द्यौश्च भूश्च द्युभुवौ, द्युभुवौ आदी यस्य तदिदं द्युभ्वादि।
The compound word ‘Dyubhvādi’ is dissolved as follows: — The Heaven and the Earth is ‘Dyubhuvau’ and that of which ‘Dyubhuvau’ is the first, is the ‘Dyubhvādi’.

1.3.1 L.14 ✅ यदेतदस्मिन्वाक्ये द्यौः पृथिव्यन्तरिक्षं मनः प्राणा इत्येवमात्मकं जगत् ओतत्वेन निर्दिष्टम्, तस्यायतनं परं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति।
The Highest Brahman deserves to be the abode of the transitory world comprising of the Heaven, the Earth, the Antar-ikṣa, and the mind with all the Prāṇas i.e. the sense-organs, which have been indicated as being woven in it.

1.3.1 L.15 ✅ कुतः? स्वशब्दात् आत्मशब्दादित्यर्थः।
How is it so? Because it is so expressed in its own term (Sva), i.e. the ‘Ātmā’.

1.3.1 L.16 ✅ आत्मशब्दो हीह भवति – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति।
Here we find the word Ātmā mentioned thus: — “Know that one only — the Ātmā”.

1.3.1 L.17 ✅ आत्मशब्दश्च परमात्मपरिग्रहे सम्यगवकल्पते, नार्थान्तरपरिग्रहे।
The word Ātmā can be properly understood, only if by it we understand the Highest Self, and no other thing.

1.3.1 L.18 ✅ क्वचिच्च स्वशब्देनैव ब्रह्मण आयतनत्वं श्रूयते –
Occasionally Brahman’s being the Abode is expressed by the word (Sva) expressive of itself thus: —

1.3.1 L.19 ✅ ‘सन्मूलाः सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सदायतनाः सत्प्रतिष्ठाः’ (ChanU.6.8.4) इति।
“O Saumya, all these created things have their root in the Being (the Sat), have their Abode in the ‘Being’, and have the ‘Being’ as their pedestal” (ChanU.6.8.4).

1.3.1 L.20 ✅ स्वशब्देनैव चेह पुरस्तादुपरिष्टाच्च ब्रह्म सङ्कीर्त्यते –
Here, also, preceding and following the passage' (discussed in this Sūtra) Brahman is mentioned in its own terms, thus: —

1.3.1 L.21 ✅ ‘पुरुष एवेदं विश्वं कर्म तपो ब्रह्म परामृतम्’ इति, ‘ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्ताद्ब्रह्म पश्चाद्ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण’ (MunU.2.2.11) इति च।
“The Puruṣa precisely is all this Karma (such as Agni-hotra etc.), penance, Brahman and the super-immortal” (MunU.2.1.10). “What here is in front (in the East) and behind (in the West) and in the South and in the North, is only this Brahman, the immortal.” (MunU.2.2.11).

1.3.1 L.22 ✅ तत्र त्वायतनायतनवद्भावश्रवणात्।
There, however, because the Scriptures mention the relationship (between Brahman and the creation) as that of the abode, and that of which it is the abode,

1.3.1 L.23 ✅ सर्वं ब्रह्मेति च सामानाधिकरण्यात्, यथानेकात्मको वृक्षः शाखा स्कन्धो मूलं चेति, एवं नानारसो विचित्र आत्मेत्याशङ्का सम्भवति;
And by the common case-endings of the words ‘Sarvam’ and ‘Brahman’, a doubt may be possible, that, just as a tree is made up of such different parts as branches, the stump and the roots, and is therefore of a manifold nature, similarly Brahman also may be of a manifold and variegated nature consisting of different Rasas,

1.3.1 L.24 ✅ तां निवर्तयितुं सावधारणमाह – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति।
And to remove that doubt, it is declared with a confident determination, thus: — “Know, that one and one only — the Ātmā”.

1.3.1 L.25 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – न कार्यप्रपञ्चविशिष्टो विचित्र आत्मा विज्ञेयः।
By that is meant — the Ātmā should not be understood as having manifold forms as characterized by the heterogeneous creation.

1.3.1 L.26 ✅ किं तर्हि? अविद्याकृतं कार्यप्रपञ्चं विद्यया प्रविलापयन्तः तमेवैकमायतनभूतमात्मानं जानथ एकरसमिति।
How then (should it be known)? Rather, that by effacing the idea of this manifoldness of creation brought about by Nescience by means of true knowledge, one should realize the one and the only Self, which is of a homogeneous structure, as being the only one abode.

1.3.1 L.27 ✅ यथा ‘यस्मिन्नास्ते देवदत्तस्तदानय’ इत्युक्ते आसनमेवानयति, न देवदत्तम्;
Just as when it is said, that, that on which Deva-datta sits should be brought, the prayer-carpet is brought, and not Deva-datta,

1.3.1 L.28 ✅ तद्वदायतनभूतस्यैवैकरसस्यात्मनो विज्ञेयत्वमुपदिश्यते।
Similarly instruction is here given that the Self which is of a homogeneous structure and which is the abode (of everything that is created), is that which has to be realized.

1.3.1 L.29 ✅ विकारानृताभिसन्धस्य चापरवादः श्रूयते –
Similarly the Scriptures censure one who puts his faith in the unreal creation (as being the reality) thus: —

1.3.1 L.30 ✅ ‘मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (KathU.2.1.10) इति।
“One who sees things as different from each other (i.e. fails to realize the unity of things) goes from death to death” (KathU.2.1.10).

1.3.1 L.31 ✅ सर्वं ब्रह्म’ इति तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम्,
The common case-ending of ‘Sarvam’ and ‘Brahman’ is for the purpose of removing the idea of the heterogeneity of creation,

1.3.1 L.32 ✅ न अनेकरसताप्रतिपादनार्थम्,
And not for the purpose of emphasizing that Brahman has a diversity of essential structure,

1.3.1 L.33 ✅ ‘स यथा सैन्धवघनोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नो रसघन एवैवं वा अरेऽयमात्मानन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एव’ (BrhU.4.5.13) इत्येकरसताश्रवणात्।
Because we find that the Scriptures mention the homogeneous structure of Brahman, thus: — “Just as a lump of salt has nothing inside it which is different from the outside, but has an entirely homogeneous structure of salinity, even so (Oh Maitreyī) is the Self without any inside and outside (as different from each other) but has a total uniformity of structure of pure knowledge”. (BrhUEng.4.5.13).

1.3.1 L.34 ✅ तस्माद्द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं परं ब्रह्म।
Therefore, it is the Highest Brahman that is meant by ‘the abode of the Heaven and the Earth’.

1.3.1 L.35 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – सेतुश्रुतेः, सेतोश्च पारवत्त्वोपपत्तेः,
With regard to the objection mentioned, viz. that as the Scriptures mention a bund or causeway, and as it stands to reason, that a bund or causeway has something beyond it,

1.3.1 L.36 ✅ ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरेण द्युभ्वाद्यायतनेन भवितव्यमिति,
Something other than Brahman should be understood by the words “Abode of the Heaven and the Earth”,

1.3.1 L.37 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – विधारणत्वमात्रमत्र सेतुश्रुत्या विवक्ष्यते, न पारवत्त्वादि।
We reply — The Scriptures mention the bund or causeway, only with a view to signify its attribute of being a support, and not with a view to convey that it has anything beyond it (to be reached, after crossing it).

1.3.1 L.38 ✅ न हि मृद्दारुमयो लोके सेतुर्दृष्ट इत्यत्रापि मृद्दारुमय एव सेतुरभ्युपगम्यते।
And even though in ordinary life we find that a bund or causeway is built of earth and timber, still, we do not understand that the bund or causeway referred to here is also similarly built of earth and timber.

1.3.1 L.39 ✅ सेतुशब्दार्थोऽपि विधारणत्वमात्रमेव, न पारवत्त्वादि,
The meaning of the word bund or causeway also, is that it upholds or supports something and not that there is anything beyond it,

1.3.1 L.40 ✅ षिञो बन्धनकर्मणः सेतुशब्दव्युत्पत्तेः।
Because it is derived from the root ‘Si’ which means the action of upholding or supporting.

1.3.1 L.41 ✅ अपर आह – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति यदेतत्सङ्कीर्तितमात्मज्ञानम्,
Another (opponent) says, the knowledge of the Self which is mentioned here by the words “Know that and that one only, the Ātmā”,

1.3.1 L.42 ✅ यच्चैतत् ‘अन्या वाचो विमुञ्चथ’ इति वाग्विमोचनम्,
And the instruction to give up all other talk, by the words “Leave off all other talk” —

1.3.1 L.43 ✅ तत् अत्र अमृतत्वसाधनत्वात्, ‘अमृतस्यैष सेतुः’ इति सेतुश्रुत्या सङ्कीर्त्यते;
The Self is here mentioned by the Scriptures by the word “bund or causeway” as being the means of attaining immortality, by the words “It is the bund or causeway leading up to immortality”,

1.3.1 L.44 ✅ न तु द्युभ्वाद्यायतनम्।
And not with the intention of emphasizing that it is the abode of the Heaven and the Earth.

1.3.1 L.45 ✅ तत्र यदुक्तम् – सेतुश्रुतेर्ब्रह्मणोऽर्थान्तरेण द्युभ्वाद्यायतनेन भवितव्यमिति, एतदयुक्तम्॥१॥
Therefore, the objection taken, viz. that because the Scriptures mention a bund or causeway, “the abode of the Heaven and the Earth” means something other than Brahman, is not proper. — 1.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
मुक्तोपसृप्यव्यपदेशात्॥१.३.२॥
Muktopasṛpya-vyapadeśāt.

Mukta-upasṛpya: to be attained by the liberated; Vyapadeśāt: because of declaration.

🔗 Because of the statement about the attainment (of Brahman), by those who have attained Final Release. — 1.3.2.

1.3.2 L.1 ✅ इतश्च परमेव ब्रह्म द्युभ्वाद्यायतनम्;
This is again how the abode of the Heaven and the Earth, is the Highest Brahman,

1.3.2 L.2 ✅ यस्मान्मुक्तोपसृप्यतास्य व्यपदिश्यमाना दृश्यते।
Because we find that it is indicated as the object of attainment by those who have attained Final Release.

1.3.2 L.3 ✅ मुक्तैरुपसृप्यं मुक्तोपसृप्यम्।
That, which is attained by those who have attained Final Release, is what it attained by the liberated.

1.3.2 L.4 ✅ देहादिष्वनात्मसु अहमस्मीत्यात्मबुद्धिरविद्या,
When a person entertains a notion that his body etc. — which are not the Self — are the Self, it is Nescience (Avidyā).

1.3.2 L.5 ✅ ततस्तत्पूजनादौ रागः, तत्परिभवादौ च द्वेषः, तदुच्छेददर्शनाद्भयं मोहश्च –
This leads to attachment (Rāga) for the worship etc. of the body, and to hatred towards things which cause injury etc., to fear and delusion of mind at the prospect of its destruction,

1.3.2 L.6 ✅ इत्येवमयमनन्तभेदोऽनर्थव्रातः सन्ततः सर्वेषां नः प्रत्यक्षः।
And this continuous stream of manifold evils of countless different sorts, is directly known to us all.

1.3.2 L.7 ✅ तद्विपर्ययेणाविद्यारागद्वेषादिदोषमुक्तैरुपसृप्यमुपगम्यमेतदिति द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं प्रकृत्य व्यपदेशो भवति।
Conversely, this abode of the Heaven and the Earth, which is referred to as relevant to the present context, is indicated as that which is to be attained by those who have attained Final Release from such faults as Nescience, attachment and hatred etc.

1.3.2 L.8 ✅ कथम्? ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः। क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे’ (MunU.2.2.8) इत्युक्त्वा,
How (is it so indicated)? Because, after mentioning, “The knots of the Hṛdaya are cut asunder and all doubts are resolved, and the Karma (aggregate of actions) of a person is exhausted when this (Brahman) which itself is both the cause (Para) and the effect (Avara) is realized (by a person)” (MunU.2.2.8),

1.3.2 L.9 ✅ ब्रवीति – ‘तथा विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम्’ (MunU.3.2.8) इति।
The Scriptures say — “So the person who has realized (Brahman) and who is released from (the bondage of) names and forms, reaches the celestial Puruṣa (i.e. the Highest Self) which is greater than the great unmanifested (Avyakta i.e. Māyā)” (MunU.3.2.8).

1.3.2 L.10 ✅ ब्रह्मणश्च मुक्तोपसृप्यत्वं प्रसिद्धं शास्त्रे –
That, Brahman is that which is to be attained, is well-known from the Śāstra, thus: —

1.3.2 L.11 ✅ ‘यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः। अथ मर्त्योऽमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुते’ (BrhU.4.4.7) इत्येवमादौ।
“When all the desires which are in the heart of a mortal are given up, then he becomes immortal and attains Brahman here and now” (BrhUEng.4.4.7).

1.3.2 L.12 ✅ प्रधानादीनां तु न क्वचिन्मुक्तोपसृप्यत्वमस्ति प्रसिद्धम्।
The Pradhāna etc. are not any where known to be fit to be attained by a person who has attained Final Release.

1.3.2 L.13 ✅ अपि च ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानमन्या वाचो विमुञ्चथामृतस्यैष सेतुः’ इति वाग्विमोकपूर्वकं विज्ञेयत्वमिह द्युभ्वाद्यायतनस्योच्यते।
Because what has been referred to here, as the abode of the Heaven and the Earth and the one that should be known, after having given up all talk, by the Scriptural passage “Know that one Ātmā only, leave off all other talk. He is the bund or causeway leading up to immortality”,

1.3.2 L.14 ✅ तच्च श्रुत्यन्तरे ब्रह्मणो दृष्टम् – ‘तमेव धीरो विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत ब्राह्मणः। नानुध्यायाद्बहूञ्शब्दान्वाचो विग्लापनं हि तत्’ (BrhU.4.4.2) इति।
Is in another passage seen to have reference to Brahman, thus: — “Let a wise Brāhmaṇa, after realizing Him, concentrate his attention on Him. He should not waste his words, because that is only a weariness of speech” (BrhUEng.4.4.21).

1.3.2 L.15 ✅ तस्मादपि द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं परं ब्रह्म॥२॥
It is because of this also, that the abode of the Heaven and the Earth is the Highest Brahman. — 2.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
नानुमानमतच्छब्दात्॥१.३.३॥
Nānumānam atac-chabdāt.

Na: not; Anumānam: that which is inferred i.e. Pradhāna; A-tad-śabdāt: because there is no word denoting it.

🔗 (The abode of the Heaven and the Earth) is not the inferred one (i.e. the Pradhāna) because there is no word indicating it. — 1.3.3.

1.3.3 L.1 ✅ यथा ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपादको वैशेषिको हेतुरुक्तः, नैवमर्थान्तरस्य वैशेषिको हेतुः प्रतिपादकोऽस्तीत्याह।
There is no special particular reason present i.e. available here which will be able to propound, why “the abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc.” means some other thing (i.e. the Pradhāna), just as the Scriptures mention a particular special reason why “the abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc.” means Brahman.

1.3.3 L.2 ✅ नानुमानं सांख्यस्मृतिपरिकल्पितं प्रधानम् इह द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेन प्रतिपत्तव्यम्।
‘The abode of the Heaven and the Earth’ should not therefore be understood to mean the Pradhāna inferred by the Sāṅkhya Smṛti.

1.3.3 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? अतच्छब्दात्।
Why? Because there is no word (in the Scriptures) indicating that.

1.3.3 L.4 ✅ तस्याचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य प्रतिपादकः शब्दः तच्छब्दः, न तच्छब्दः अतच्छब्दः।
A word indicating the non-sentient Pradhāna is ‘tat-śabdaḥ’ and a word that does not indicate that, is ‘Atat-śabdaḥ’.

1.3.3 L.5 ✅ न ह्यत्राचेतनस्य प्रधानस्य प्रतिपादकः कश्चिच्छब्दोऽस्ति, येनाचेतनं प्रधानं कारणत्वेनायतनत्वेन वावगम्येत।
Here there is no word which would indicate the non-sentient Pradhāna, by which we may understand the Pradhāna as the cause (of the world etc.) or the abode (of the heaven and Earth etc.),

1.3.3 L.6 ✅ तद्विपरीतस्य चेतनस्य प्रतिपादकशब्दोऽत्रास्ति – ‘यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित्’ (MunU.1.1.9) इत्यादिः।
But there is a word which is indicative of a sentient entity dissimilar to it, viz. — “One who is omniscient, and all-knowing” (MunU.1.1.9).

1.3.3 L.7 ✅ अत एव न वायुरपीह द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेनाश्रीयते॥३॥
We cannot therefore, for the same reason, accept the Vāyu also as being the ‘abode of the Heaven and the Earth’ — 3.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्राणभृच्च॥१.३.४॥
Prāṇa-bhṛc ca.

Prāṇa-bhṛt: the living or individual soul, supporter of Prāṇa, i.e., Jīva; Ca: also; (Na: not).

🔗 (Nor) the one that supports the Prāṇa (i.e. the Jīva-Self) also. — 1.3.4.

1.3.4 L.1 ✅ यद्यपि प्राणभृतो विज्ञानात्मन आत्मत्वं चेतनत्वं च सम्भवति, तथाप्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नज्ञानस्य सर्वज्ञत्वाद्यसम्भवे सति अस्मादेवातच्छब्दात् प्राणभृदपि न द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेनाश्रयितव्यः।
Nor should the cognitional Jīva-Self, even though ‘being the Self and ‘being sentient’ is possible in its case, be accepted to be the abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc., for the same reason, viz. that there is no word indicative of that (i.e. the Jīva-Self) and, in as much as its knowledge is circumscribed by limiting adjuncts (such as a body etc.) and, as omniscience is not possible in its case.

1.3.4 L.2 ✅ न चोपाधिपरिच्छिन्नस्याविभोः प्राणभृतो द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वमपि सम्यक्संभवति।
Nor can ‘being the abode of the Heaven and the Earth’ be appropriate in the case of the Prāṇa-bhṛt i.e. the Jīva-Self, which has a definite determination as a result of limiting adjuncts and which is not all-pervading.

1.3.4 L.3 ✅ पृथग्योगकरणमुत्तरार्थम्॥४॥
This stating of a separate Sūtra (Pṛthag-yoga-karaṇam) is in view of the next Sūtra (i.e. Uttarārtham). — 4.

[Go top]

1.3.5 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च न प्राणभृत् द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेनाश्रयितव्यः? –
This is again why the Jīva-Self should not be accepted to be the abode of the Heaven and the Earth etc.: —

←Prev Next→
भेदव्यपदेशात्॥१.३.५॥
Bheda-vyapadeśāt.

Bheda-vyapadeśāt: on account of difference being mentioned.

🔗 Because a difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) is mentioned. — 1.3.5.

1.3.5 L.2 ✅ भेदव्यपदेशश्चेह भवति – ‘तमेवैकं जानथ आत्मानम्’ इति ज्ञेयज्ञातृभावेन।
In the Scriptural passage “Know that and that one only, the Ātmā”, distinction is made between that which is to be known (i.e. the Highest Self) and the knower (i.e. the Jīva-Self).

1.3.5 L.3 ✅ तत्र प्राणभृत् तावन्मुमुक्षुत्वाज्ज्ञाता;
Therein, we understand that the Jīva-Self which is desirous of attaining Final Release is the knower,

1.3.5 L.4 ✅ परिशेषादात्मशब्दवाच्यं ब्रह्म ज्ञेयं द्युभ्वाद्यायतनमिति गम्यते, न प्राणभृत्॥५॥
Therefore the other remaining entity which is the one to be known, viz. Brahman indicated by the word Ātmā, is the abode of the Heaven and the Earth, and not the one that supports the Prāṇa (Prāṇa-bhṛt) i.e. the Jīva-Self. — 5.

[Go top]

1.3.6 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च न प्राणभृत् द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेनाश्रयितव्यः? –
Whence again is it that the Jīva-Self should not be accepted as the abode of the Heaven and the Earth?

←Prev Next→
प्रकरणात्॥१.३.६॥
Prakaraṇāt.

Prakaraṇāt: On account of the subject matter, from the context.

🔗 Because of the chapter (which deals with Brahman). — 1.3.6.

1.3.6 L.2 ✅ प्रकरणं चेदं परमात्मनः –
This chapter also, besides, is with regard to the Highest Self.

1.3.6 L.3 ✅ ‘कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति’ (MunU.1.1.3) इत्येकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानापेक्षणात्।
Because the expectation is, that by knowing that one (i.e. Brahman) all else would be known, as for instance in the Scriptural passage — “By knowing what, Oh Bhagavān, all this becomes known?” (MunU.1.1.3).

1.3.6 L.4 ✅ परमात्मनि हि सर्वात्मके विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं स्यात्, न केवले प्राणभृति॥६॥
It is only when the Highest Self which is the Self of all is known, that all this (i.e. the world etc.) will be known, and not when merely the Prāṇa-bhṛt (i.e. the Jīva-Self) is known. — 6.

[Go top]

1.3.7 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च न प्राणभृत् द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेनाश्रयितव्यः? –
Whence again is it that the Jīva-Self should not be accepted to be the abode of the Heaven and the Earth?

←Prev Next→
स्थित्यदनाभ्यां च॥१.३.७॥
Sthity-adanābhyāṃ ca.

Sthiti: abiding, existence; Adanābhyām: because of eating; Ca: and.

🔗 Because of the mere standing by (on the part of the Highest Self) and the partaking (of the fruit, by the Jīva-Self). — 1.3.7.

1.3.7 L.2 ✅ द्युभ्याद्यायतनं च प्रकृत्य,
With reference to the ‘abode of the Heaven and the Earth’ the Scriptural passage —

1.3.7 L.3 ✅ द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया’ (MunU.3.1.1) इत्यत्र स्थित्यदने निर्दिश्येते;
“Two birds, inseparable friends etc:” (MunU.3.1.1) indicates the mere standing by and the partaking, thus: —

1.3.7 L.4 ✅ ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति’ इति कर्मफलाशनम्;
“One of the two partakes of the sweet Pippala” indicates the partaking of the fruits of action,

1.3.7 L.5 ✅ ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ इत्यौदासीन्येनावस्थानम्।
And “The other one refrains from partaking and merely keeps looking on” indicates mere passive standing by (i.e. indifference).

1.3.7 L.6 ✅ ताभ्यां च स्थित्यदनाभ्यामीश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञौ तत्र गृह्येते।
By these mere standing by and partaking, the: Highest Lord and the Jīva-Self (i.e. the Kṣetra-jña) respectively are understood to be spoken of there.

1.3.7 L.7 ✅ यदि च ईश्वरो द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वेन विवक्षितः,
Provided the Scriptures desire to speak of the Lord only as the abode of the Heaven and the Earth,

1.3.7 L.8 ✅ ततस्तस्य प्रकृतस्येश्वरस्य क्षेत्रज्ञात्पृथग्वचनमवकल्पते।
The mention thus of the Lord who is relevant to the context, separately and as distinguished from the Jīva-Self (i.e. the Kṣetra-jña) is properly understandable,

1.3.7 L.9 ✅ अन्यथा ह्यप्रकृतवचनमाकस्मिकमसम्बद्धं स्यात्।
Otherwise, it would be only an irrelevant and also an unexpected and groundless statement.

1.3.7 L.10 ✅ ननु तवापि क्षेत्रज्ञस्येश्वरात्पृथग्वचनमाकस्मिकमेव प्रसज्येत।
But (says the opponent) as regards your point of view also the mention of the Jīva-Self as distinguished from the Lord, would be equally unexpected and groundless.

1.3.7 L.11 ✅ न, तस्याविवक्षितत्वात्।
To that we reply — No; because, the Jīva-Self as such is not desired to be spoken of here.

1.3.7 L.12 ✅ क्षेत्रज्ञो हि कर्तृत्वेन भोक्तृत्वेन च प्रतिशरीरं बुद्ध्याद्युपाधिसम्बद्धः,
The Jīva-Self as an agent and an experiencer, and as connected with individual bodies by limiting adjuncts such as intelligence etc.,

1.3.7 L.13 ✅ लोकत एव प्रसिद्धः, नासौ श्रुत्या तात्पर्येण विवक्ष्यते;
Is well-known in ordinary life, and is not desired to be spoken of as such by the Scriptures.

1.3.7 L.14 ✅ ईश्वरस्तु लोकतोऽप्रसिद्धत्वाच्छ्रुत्या तात्पर्येण विवक्ष्यत इति
The Lord as such, however, not being so known in ordinary life, is intended to be spoken of by the Scriptures,

1.3.7 L.15 ✅ न तस्याकस्मिकं वचनं युक्तम्।
And it would not be proper or logical to say that its mention is unexpected or groundless.

1.3.7 L.16 ✅ ‘गुहां प्रविष्टावात्मानौ हि’ इत्यत्राप्येतद्दर्शितम् –
In the previous Sūtra, viz. “The Ātmās that have entered the cave” (BrS.1.2.11) also, this is indicated,

1.3.7 L.17 ✅ ‘द्वा सुपर्णा’ इत्यस्यामृचि ईश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञावुच्येते इति।
Viz. that in the Ṛk “Two birds etc.” the Lord and the Jīva-Self (Kṣetra-jña) are spoken of.

1.3.7 L.18 ✅ यदापि पैङ्ग्युपनिषत्कृतेन व्याख्यानेनास्यामृचि सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञावुच्येते,
Even though the interpretation in Paiṅgi Upaniṣad is that in this Ṛk, intelligence (Sattva) and the Jīva-Self are spoken of,

1.3.7 L.19 ✅ तदापि न विरोधः कश्चित्।
Still there is no contradiction whatsoever.

1.3.7 L.20 ✅ कथम्? प्राणभृद्धीह घटादिच्छिद्रवत् सत्त्वाद्युपाध्यभिमानित्वेन प्रतिशरीरं गृह्यमाणो
How so? Because, here the Jīva-Self (Prāṇa-bhṛt), which is experienced in every individual body as being affected by such limiting adjuncts as intelligence etc., like the Ākāśa in the cavity of the jar,

1.3.7 L.21 ✅ द्युभ्वाद्यायतनं न भवतीति प्रतिषिध्यते।
Is rejected by saying that it cannot be the abode of the Heaven and the Earth,

1.3.7 L.22 ✅ यस्तु सर्वशरीरेषूपाधिभिर्विनोपलक्ष्यते, परएव स भवति;
While the one which is discerned to be unaffected by limiting adjuncts in all bodies, can alone be the Highest Self.

1.3.7 L.23 ✅ यथा घटादिच्छिद्राणि घटादिभिरुपाधिभिर्विनोपलक्ष्यमाणानि महाकाश एव भवन्ति,
Just as the Ākāśa in the cavities of the jars, when it is unaffected by the limiting adjuncts, viz. the jars, is but the great Ākāśa only,

1.3.7 L.24 ✅ तद्वत् प्राणभृतः परस्मादन्यत्वानुपपत्तेः प्रतिषेधो नोपपद्यते।
Similarly, as the Jīva-Self’s (i.e. the Prāṇa-bhṛt’s) being different from the Highest Self is not reasonably sustainable, any denial (of its being the abode of the Heaven and the Earth) is also not reasonably sustainable.

1.3.7 L.25 ✅ तस्मात्सत्त्वाद्युपाध्यभिमानिन एव द्युभ्वाद्यायतनत्वप्रतिषेधः।
So, what therefore is rejected as being the abode of the Heaven and the Earth is the Jīva-Self affected by such limiting adjuncts as intelligence (Sattva) etc.

1.3.7 L.26 ✅ तस्मात्परमेव ब्रह्म द्युभ्वाद्यायतनम्।
Therefore, it is the Highest Self (Brahman) that is the abode of the Heaven and the Earth.

1.3.7 L.27 ✅ तदेतत् ‘अदृश्यत्वादिगुणको धर्मोक्तेः’ इत्यनेनैव सिद्धम्।
That however has already been established by the Sūtra — “Adṛśyatvādiguṇako Dharmokteḥ” (BrS.1.2.21).

1.3.7 L.28 ✅ तस्यैव हि भूतयोनिवाक्यस्य मध्ये इदं पठितम् – ‘यस्मिन्द्यौः पृथिवी चान्तरिक्षम्’ इति।
In that passage referring to “the source of all beings” it is said as follows — “In which the Heaven, the Earth and the Antar-ikṣa (are woven).”

1.3.7 L.29 ✅ प्रपञ्चार्थं तु पुनरुपन्यस्तम्॥७॥
The same is here mentioned for the purpose of further elaboration. — 7.

– 19. Dyu-bhv-ādy-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.08 Su..09

←Prev Next→
भूमा सम्प्रसादादध्युपदेशात्॥१.३.८॥
Bhūmā samprasādād adhy upadeśāt.

Bhūmā: the vast, the Infinite, the full; Samprasādāt adhi: beyond the state of deep sleep (here the vital principle or Prāṇa); Upadeśāt: because of the teaching.

🔗 ‘Plenitude’ (Bhūmā, is Brahman) because instruction about it comes after instruction about the condition of deep sleep (Samprasāda). — 1.3.8.

1.3.8 L.1 ✅ इदं समामनन्ति –
The Scriptures mention thus —

1.3.8 L.2 ✅ ‘भूमा त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्य इति भूमानं भगवो विजिज्ञास इति।
यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन् यद्विजानाति तदल्पम्’ (ChanU.7.23.1) (ChanU.7.24.1) इत्यादि।
“It is precisely Bhūmā, i.e. Plenitude, which should be desired to be understood, therefore, Oh Bhagavān, I desire to understand Bhūmā.”
“Where one does not see anything else, hear anything else, or understand anything else, that is Bhūmā, wherein one sees something else, or hears something else, or understands something else (i.e. where one sees differences in things), that is mortal (Alpa)” (ChanU.7.23.1, .24.1).

1.3.8 L.3 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किं प्राणो भूमा स्यात्, आहोस्वित्परमात्मेति।
In this connection a doubt arises, viz. which of the two, i.e. the Vital Air (Prāṇa) or the Highest Self, is Brahman?

1.3.8 L.4 ✅ कुतः संशयः? भूमेति तावद्बहुत्वमभिधीयते;
Whence is the doubt? Because by Bhūmā, Plenitude is expressed,

1.3.8 L.5 ✅ ‘बहोर्लोपो भू च बहोः’ (पा. सू. ६-४-१५८) इति भूमशब्दस्य भावप्रत्ययान्ततास्मरणात्।
As according to the Smṛti (of Pāṇini) it is a word which ends in a ‘Bhāva-Pratyaya’ and as a result of that the word ‘Bahu’ is dropped and is substituted by the word ‘Bhū’.

1.3.8 L.6 ✅ किमात्मकं पुनस्तद्बहुत्वमिति विशेषाकाङ्क्षायाम् ‘प्राणो वा आशाया भूयान्’ (ChanU.7.15.1) इति सन्निधानात् प्राणो भूमेति प्रतिभाति।
Then when there is a desire to know particularly as to what the nature of ‘Plenitude’ is, we understand from the Scriptural passage “Prāṇa is greater than hope” (ChanU.7.15.1) that because of proximity, Prāṇa is Bhūmā.

1.3.8 L.7 ✅ तथा ‘श्रुतं ह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्यस्तरति शोकमात्मविदिति।
सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि तं मा भगवाञ्शोकस्य पारं तारयतु’ (ChanU.7.1.3) इति प्रकरणोत्थानात्परमात्मा भूमेत्यपि प्रतिभाति।
On the other hand, from the topic in the beginning of the chapter, viz. “I have heard from persons like you, that one who realizes the Self, transcends grief.
Oh Bhagavān, I am in such a grief. May you please lead me beyond grief” (ChanU.7.1.3), it also appears that by Bhūmā, the Highest Self is meant.

1.3.8 L.8 ✅ तत्र कस्योपादानं न्याय्यम्, कस्य वा हानमिति भवति संशयः।
That being so, a doubt crops up, as to what should be accepted and what should be rejected.

1.3.8 L.9 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your conclusion?

1.3.8 L.10 ✅ प्राणो भूमेति।
It is that Prāṇa is Bhūmā.

1.3.8 L.11 ✅ कस्मात्? भूयःप्रश्नप्रतिवचनपरम्पराऽदर्शनात्।
How is it so? Because it is observed that there is a series of good many questions and replies.

1.3.8 L.12 ✅ यथा हि ‘अस्ति भगवो नाम्नो भूयः’ इति, ‘वाग्वाव नाम्नो भूयसी’ इति;
For instance, (to the question) “Is there anything greater than Name (Nāman)?” (the reply is) “Speech (Vāk) indeed is greater than Name (Nāman)”,

1.3.8 L.13 ✅ तथा ‘अस्ति भगवो वाचो भूयः’ इति, ‘मनो वाव वाचो भूयः’ इति च –
And (to the question) “Oh Bhagavān, is there anything greater than Speech?” (the reply is) “Mind verily is greater than Speech";

1.3.8 L.14 ✅ नामादिभ्यो हि आ प्राणात् भूयःप्रश्नप्रतिवचनप्रवाहः प्रवृत्तः
And in this manner, beginning with Name (Nāman) and upto Prāṇa, it is seen that a stream or chain of many questions and replies is set up.

1.3.8 L.15 ✅ नैवं प्राणात्परं भूयःप्रश्नप्रतिवचनं दृश्यते –
It is not observed however that there is any more such question or reply after Prāṇa,

1.3.8 L.16 ✅ ‘अस्ति भगवः प्राणाद्भूयः’ इति, ‘अदो वाव प्राणाद्भूयः’ इति।
A question for instance like this — Oh Bhagavān, is there anything greater than Prāṇa? Or any reply like this — This (something) verily is greater than Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.17 ✅ प्राणमेव तु नामादिभ्य आशान्तेभ्यो भूयांसम् – ‘प्राणो वा आशाया भूयान्’ इत्यादिना सप्रपञ्चमुक्त्वा,
Having spoken elaborately — beginning with Name (Nāman) and ending with Hope — as to how Prāṇa is greater than all, by the passage “Prāṇa verily is greater than hope, etc.”,

1.3.8 L.18 ✅ प्राणदर्शिनश्चातिवादित्वम् ‘अतिवाद्यसीत्यतिवाद्यस्मीति ब्रूयान्नापह्नुवीत’ इत्यभ्यनुज्ञाय,
And also having spoken about the Ativāditva of one who understands Prāṇa (as being greater than all), and by acknowledging his Ativāditva, by the passage “(on being questioned) Are you an Ativādi?, he should reply that he is an Ativādi, he should not deny it”,

1.3.8 L.19 ✅ ‘एष तु वा अतिवदति यः सत्येनातिवदति’ इति प्राणव्रतमतिवादित्वमनुकृष्य,
And by bringing up the same Ativāditva about Prāṇa being greater than all, by the passage “He alone is an Ativādi who is an Ativādi by (basing his claim on) Truth”

1.3.8 L.20 ✅ अपरित्यज्यैव प्राणं सत्यादिपरम्परया भूमानमवतारयन्,
And without discarding Prāṇa, and establishing Prāṇa as the Bhūmā by way of the series of Truth, etc.,

1.3.8 L.21 ✅ प्राणमेव भूमानं मन्यत इति गम्यते।
It is understood that Prāṇa alone is considered to be Bhūmā.

1.3.8 L.22 ✅ कथं पुनः प्राणे भूमनि व्याख्यायमाने ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति’ इत्येतद्भूम्नो लक्षणपरं वचनं व्याख्यायेतेति,
(The Vedāntin says) — If you thus explain that Prāṇa is Bhūmā, how can you explain the Scriptural passage “Where he does not see any thing else” (i.e. when he sees the unity of all) which purports to give the characteristics of Bhūmā?

1.3.8 L.23 ✅ उच्यते – सुषुप्त्यवस्थायां प्राणग्रस्तेषु करणेषु दर्शनादिव्यवहारनिवृत्तिदर्शनात्
(The opponent replies) — Because we observe that when during the condition of sleep the sense-organs having all been absorbed into Prāṇa, and the functions of all sense-organs such as ‘seeing’ etc. having ceased altogether,

1.3.8 L.24 ✅ सम्भवति प्राणस्यापि ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यतीति’ एतल्लक्षणम्।
It is possible that the characteristics of ‘not seeing anything else’ etc., can properly be applicable to Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.25 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘न शृणोति न पश्यति’ इत्यादिना सर्वकरणव्यापारप्रत्यस्तमयरूपां सुषुप्त्यवस्थामुक्त्वा, ‘प्राणाग्नय एवैतस्मिन्पुरे जाग्रति’ (PrasU.4.3) इति तस्यामेवावस्थायां पञ्चवृत्तेः प्राणस्य जागरणं ब्रुवती,
The Scriptures, having spoken of the condition of deep sleep as being one in which the functions of all sense-organs cease, by the passage “He does not hear, he does not see” and also speaking of the wakefulness of Prāṇa with its fivefold functions, by the passage “The fires of Prāṇa alone are wakeful in this body (during deep sleep)” (PrasU.4.3),

1.3.8 L.26 ✅ प्राणप्रधानां सुषुप्त्यवस्थां दर्शयति।
Show that, during the condition of deep sleep, it is Prāṇa that is chiefly in evidence.

1.3.8 L.27 ✅ यच्चैतद्भूम्नः सुखत्वं श्रुतम् – ‘यो वै भूमा तत्सुखम्’ (ChanU.7.23.1) इति, तदप्यविरुद्धम्;
The bliss of Bhūmā about which the Scriptures speak in “That which is Bhūmā is bliss” (ChanU.7.23.1) is also not contradictory (to what the opponent says),

1.3.8 L.28 ✅ ‘अत्रैष देवः स्वप्नान्न पश्यत्यथ यदेतस्मिञ्शरीरे सुखं भवति’ (PrasU.4.6) इति सुषुप्त्यवस्थायामेव सुखश्रवणात्।
Because the Scriptural passage “Here the Deva (i.e. the sentient Jīva-Self), does not dream dreams and thus when there is bliss in the body” (PrasU.4.6) says that there is bliss only in the condition of sleep.

1.3.8 L.29 ✅ यच्च ‘यो वै भूमा तदमृतम्’ (ChanU.7.24.1) इति, तदपि प्राणस्याविरुद्धम्;
The Scriptural passage “That which is Bhūmā, is immortality” (ChanU.7.24.1) is also not contradictory as applied to Prāṇa,

1.3.8 L.30 ✅ ‘प्राणो वा अमृतम्’ (कौ. उ. ३-२) इति श्रुतेः।
Because the Scriptures say — “Prāṇa is immortality” (KausU.3.2).

1.3.8 L.31 ✅ कथं पुनः प्राणं भूमानं मन्यमानस्य ‘तरति शोकमात्मवित्’ इत्यात्मविविदिषया प्रकरणस्योत्थानमुपपद्यते?
How (objects the Vedāntin) in your case, in which you consider Prāṇa to be the Bhūmā, can the Scriptural passage “One who knows the Self, goes beyond, i.e. transcends grief” which starts the chapter with a desire to know the Self (Ātmā), be reasonably sustainable?

1.3.8 L.32 ✅ प्राण एवेहात्मा विवक्षित इति ब्रूमः।
We (the opponents) reply that here the desire to say is, that Prāṇa alone is the Self,

1.3.8 L.33 ✅ तथाहि – ‘प्राणो ह पिता प्राणो माता प्राणो भ्राता प्राणः स्वसा प्राण आचार्यः प्राणो ब्राह्मणः’ (ChanU.7.15.1) इति प्राणमेव सर्वात्मानं करोति,
Because that is how the following Scriptural passage makes Prāṇa to be the Self of all, thus — “Prāṇa is verily the father, mother, brother, sister, teacher, and Brāhmaṇa” (ChanU.7.15.1).

1.3.8 L.34 ✅ ‘यथा वा अरा नाभौ समर्पिता एवमस्मिन्प्राणे सर्वं समर्पितम्’ इति च;
And also the passage — “Just as spokes are tenoned and mortised in the nave, so everything is centred in the Prāṇa.”

1.3.8 L.35 ✅ सर्वात्मत्वारनाभिनिदर्शनाभ्यां च सम्भवति वैपुल्यात्मिका भूमरूपता प्राणस्य।
Prāṇa can well have the nature of ‘Plenitude’, i.e. the nature of Bhūmā, because of its being the Self of all, and also because of the illustration of the spokes and the nave.

1.3.8 L.36 ✅ तस्मात्प्राणो भूमेत्येवं प्राप्तम्॥
Therefore the conclusion is, that Prāṇa is Bhūmā.

1.3.8 L.37 ✅ तत इदमुच्यते – परमात्मैवेह भूमा भवितुमर्हति, न प्राणः।
To this (we reply) — It is only the Highest Self that deserves to be the Bhūmā and not Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.38 ✅ कस्मात्? सम्प्रसादादध्युपदेशात्।
Why so? Because, the instruction (about Bhūmā) comes after the instruction about the condition of deep sleep (Samprasāda).

1.3.8 L.39 ✅ सम्प्रसाद इति सुषुप्तं स्थानमुच्यते;
Samprasāda is said to be the condition of deep sleep

1.3.8 L.40 ✅ सम्यक्प्रसीदत्यस्मिन्निति निर्वचनात्,
Because of the etymological derivation — the condition in which (a man) is well pleased.

1.3.8 L.41 ✅ बृहदारण्यके च स्वप्नजागरितस्थानाभ्यां सह पाठात्।
Also because, in the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka it is mentioned along with the conditions of dreams and wakefulness,

1.3.8 L.42 ✅ तस्यां च सम्प्रसादावस्थायां प्राणो जागर्तीति प्राणोऽत्र सम्प्रसादोऽभिप्रेयते।
And in as much as the Prāṇa remains wakeful in the Samprasāda condition, it is implied that Prāṇa indicates the condition of deep sleep, i.e. Samprasāda,

1.3.8 L.43 ✅ प्राणादूर्ध्वं भूम्न उपदिश्यमानत्वादित्यर्थः।
And because instruction about Bhūmā comes after (the instruction about) Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.44 ✅ प्राण एव चेद्भूमा स्यात्,
Were Prāṇa to be Bhūmā,

1.3.8 L.45 ✅ स एव तस्मादूर्ध्वमुपदिश्येतेत्यश्लिष्टमेतत्स्यात्।
That would mean that instruction about Prāṇa (as Bhūmā) is again given, after instruction about Prāṇa has already been given once before, which (of course) would be un-understandable.

1.3.8 L.46 ✅ न हि नामैव ‘नाम्नो भूयः’ इति नाम्न ऊर्ध्वमुपदिष्टम्।
We do not observe, that after instruction about Name (Nāman) is given,

1.3.8 L.47 ✅ किं तर्हि? नाम्नोऽन्यदर्थान्तरमुपदिष्टं वागाख्यम् ‘वाग्वाव नाम्नो भूयसी’ इति।
Instruction is again given that Name (Nāman) is greater than itself (in the foregoing portion), but we find that (after Name) instruction is given about ‘Speech’ which is something other than ‘Nāman’ thus — “Speech verily is greater than Name”.

1.3.8 L.48 ✅ तथा वागादिभ्योऽपि आ प्राणादर्थान्तरमेव तत्र तत्रोर्ध्वमुपदिष्टम्।
Similarly (it is observed that), beginning with ‘Speech’ and upto ‘Prāṇa’, instruction about some different thing is given, as coming after that which has already gone before, in every case.

1.3.8 L.49 ✅ तद्वत्प्राणादूर्ध्वमुपदिश्यमानो भूमा प्राणादर्थान्तरभूतो भवितुमर्हति।
Therefore Bhūmā, about which instruction is given after the instruction about Prāṇa, deserves to be something different from Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.50 ✅ नन्विह नास्ति प्रश्नः – ‘अस्ति भगवः प्राणाद्भूयः’ इति;
(The opponent here intervenes) — There is no question here, such as ‘Oh Bhagavān, is there anything greater than Prāṇa?’

1.3.8 L.51 ✅ नापि प्रतिवचनमस्ति ‘प्राणाद्वाव भूयोऽस्ति’ इति;
Nor is there any reply here, such as ‘There is this (something) greater than Prāṇa.’

1.3.8 L.52 ✅ कथं प्राणादधि भूमोपदिश्यत इत्युच्यते?
How do you say then, that after Prāṇa instruction about Bhūmā is given?

1.3.8 L.53 ✅ प्राणविषयमेव चातिवादित्वमुत्तरत्रानुकृष्यमाणं पश्यामः –
We observe that the same Ativāditva with reference to Prāṇa, is brought forward later on thus —

1.3.8 L.54 ✅ ‘एष तु वा अतिवदति यः सत्येनातिवदति’ इति;
“He alone states something exclusively establishing his own assertion, who asserts something as exclusively established on the strength of Truth.”

1.3.8 L.55 ✅ तस्मान्नास्ति प्राणादध्युपदेश इति।
Therefore, there is no instruction about anything after the instruction about Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.56 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – न तावत्प्राणविषयस्यैवातिवादित्वस्यैतदनुकर्षणमिति शक्यं वक्तुम्,
To this our reply is — It is not possible to be able to say, that the ‘Ativāditva’ which has been brought forward, is the same as that with reference to Prāṇa,

1.3.8 L.57 ✅ विशेषवादात् – ‘यः सत्येनातिवदति’ इति।
Because there is a special feature here, viz. “He who states something exclusively establishing his own assertion, on the strength of Truth”.

1.3.8 L.58 ✅ ननु विशेषवादोऽप्ययं प्राणविषय एव भविष्यति।
But (says the opponent) this special feature even, may well be with reference to Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.59 ✅ कथम्? यथा ‘एषोऽग्निहोत्री, यः सत्यं वदति’ इत्युक्ते, न सत्यवदनेनाग्निहोत्रित्वम्;
How can it be so? Because, for instance, if one were to say “This Agni-hotṛ, who speaks the truth”, the condition of his being an Agni-hotṛ, is not the result of his speaking the truth,

1.3.8 L.60 ✅ केन तर्हि? अग्निहोत्रेणैव;
But it is the result of the Agni-hotra itself.

1.3.8 L.61 ✅ सत्यवदनं त्वग्निहोत्रिणो विशेष उच्यते;
Speaking the truth is only the mention of a special feature of the Agni-hotṛ.

1.3.8 L.62 ✅ तथा ‘एष तु वा अतिवदति, यः सत्येनातिवदति’ इत्युक्ते, न सत्यवदनेनातिवादित्वम्।
Similarly when it is said “He states something exclusively establishing his own assertion, on the strength of Truth” the Ativāditva is not because of his speaking the truth,

1.3.8 L.63 ✅ केन तर्हि? प्रकृतेन प्राणविज्ञानेनैव।
But because of his correct understanding of Prāṇa (as being Bhūmā i.e. the Highest Self), which is relevant here.

1.3.8 L.64 ✅ सत्यवदनं तु प्राणविदो विशेषो विवक्ष्यत इति।
Speaking the truth, is only intended to be spoken of, as a special feature of one who has correctly understood Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.65 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः; श्रुत्यर्थपरित्यागप्रसङ्गात्।
To this, we reply — No, because that would involve the predicament of the rejection of the meaning of the Scriptures.

1.3.8 L.66 ✅ श्रुत्या ह्यत्र सत्यवदनेनातिवादित्वं प्रतीयते – ‘यः सत्येनातिवदति सोऽतिवदति’ इति;
The Scriptures here mean to indicate Ativāditva, on the strength of truth, thus “He alone states something exclusively establishing his assertion, who does so, on the strength of Truth”.

1.3.8 L.67 ✅ नात्र प्राणविज्ञानस्य सङ्कीर्तनमस्ति;
Here there is no mention of the correct understanding of Prāṇa.

1.3.8 L.68 ✅ प्रकरणात्तु प्राणविज्ञानं सम्बध्येत;
May be, the correct understanding of Prāṇa, may have such a relation, with the general topic of the chapter,

1.3.8 L.69 ✅ तत्र प्रकरणानुरोधेन श्रुतिः परित्यक्ता स्यात्;
But in that case it would mean, that the Scriptures are rejected, by reason of conforming with the general topic of the chapter.

1.3.8 L.70 ✅ प्रकृतव्यावृत्त्यर्थश्च तुशब्दो न सङ्गच्छेत – ‘एष तु वा अतिवदति’ इति।
And the word ‘But’ (Tu), which has the force of showing, that the subject of the sentence which follows, is different from the subject of the sentence which has gone before, as in the Scriptural passage ‘Esha tu vā ativadati’, would not (in your view) construe properly with the sentence.

1.3.8 L.71 ✅ ‘सत्यं त्वेव विजिज्ञासितव्यम्’ (ChanU.7.16.1) इति च प्रयत्नान्तरकरणमर्थान्तरविवक्षां सूचयति।
The Scriptural passage “Truth alone should be desired to be known” (ChanU.7.16.1) which involves the making of another effort (of the nature of desire), suggests that it is desired to speak of something else (than Prāṇa).

1.3.8 L.72 ✅ तस्माद्यथैकवेदप्रशंसायां प्रकृतायाम्, ‘एष तु महाब्राह्मणः, यश्चतुरो वेदानधीते’ इत्येकवेदेभ्योऽर्थान्तरभूतश्चतुर्वेदः प्रशस्यते, तादृगेतद्द्रष्टव्यम्।
Therefore it should be looked upon like this — When praise of one who has studied one Veda is the relevant topic, to say, that this (another) is a great Brāhmaṇa who has studied the four Vedas, means that the one who has studied the four Vedas, and who is different from one who has studied one Veda, is praised.

1.3.8 L.73 ✅ न च प्रश्नप्रतिवचनरूपयैवार्थान्तरविवक्षया भवितव्यमिति नियमोऽस्ति;
There is no such rule that the desire to speak of some other thing should only be in a question and answer form,

1.3.8 L.74 ✅ प्रकृतसम्बन्धासम्भवकारितत्वादर्थान्तरविवक्षायाः।
Because, the desire to speak of a different thing is evidenced by the rendering of the connection of such a thing, with that which is relevant to the context, impossible.

1.3.8 L.75 ✅ तत्र प्राणान्तमनुशासनं श्रुत्वा तूष्णींभूतं नारदं स्वयमेव सनत्कुमारो व्युत्पादयति –
Here, Sanat-kumāra voluntarily elucidates a further thing to Nārada, who has remained silent after listening to the instruction upto Prāṇa, as follows: —

1.3.8 L.76 ✅ यत्प्राणविज्ञानेन विकारानृतविषयेणातिवादित्वमनतिवादित्वमेव तत् –
‘एष तु वा अतिवदति, यः सत्येनातिवदति’ इति।
“Ativāditva, resulting from the correct understanding of Prāṇa which has reference only to a modification (i.e. Vikāra) which is unreal, is really not Ativāditva at all,
Because it is only he, who states something exclusively establishing his own assertion on the strength of Truth alone, that is an Ativādi”.

1.3.8 L.77 ✅ तत्र सत्यमिति परं ब्रह्मोच्यते, परमार्थरूपत्वात्;
In this connection, the word ‘Truth’ means the Highest Brahman, because of its nature (Rūpa) of being the transcendent entity also,

1.3.8 L.78 ✅ ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति च श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
Because of another Scriptural passage — “Brahman is Truth, knowledge, and infinite” (TaitU.2.1.1).

1.3.8 L.79 ✅ तथा व्युत्पादिताय नारदाय ‘सोऽहं भगवः सत्येनातिवदानि’ इत्येवं प्रवृत्ताय विज्ञानादिसाधनपरम्परया भूमानमुपदिशति।
It is then, that Sanat-kumāra gives instruction about ‘Brahman’ to Nārada, to whom all this is explained and who asks, ‘Oh Bhagavān, can I be such Ativādi’ on the strength of Truth? — by means of a series of devices such as contemplation (Vijñāna) etc.

1.3.8 L.80 ✅ तत्र यत्प्राणादधि सत्यं वक्तव्यं प्रतिज्ञातम्, तदेवेह भूमेत्युच्यत इति गम्यते।
So we think that, that Truth which has been promised to be spoken of after Prāṇa is here referred to as ‘Bhūmā’.

1.3.8 L.81 ✅ तस्मादस्ति प्राणादधि भूम्न उपदेश इति –
Therefore, as instruction about Bhūmā comes after the instruction about Prāṇa,

1.3.8 L.82 ✅ अतः प्राणादन्यः परमात्मा भूमा भवितुमर्हतीति।
It is the Highest Self, which is different from Prāṇa, that deserves to be Bhūmā.

1.3.8 L.83 ✅ एवं चेहात्मविविदिषया प्रकरणस्योत्थानमुपपन्नं भविष्यति।
It is only in this way that the beginning of the chapter which expresses a desire to understand the Self, becomes reasonably sustainable.

1.3.8 L.84 ✅ प्राण एवेहात्मा विवक्षित इत्येतदपि नोपपद्यते।
It is not reasonably sustainable, that there is a desire to speak of Prāṇa as the Self,

1.3.8 L.85 ✅ न हि प्राणस्य मुख्यया वृत्त्यात्मत्वमस्ति।
Because the word Prāṇa in its primary sense can never be the Self,

1.3.8 L.86 ✅ न चान्यत्र परमात्मज्ञानाच्छोकविनिवृत्तिरस्ति,
Nor can there be cessation of grief in any way other than the knowledge of the Self,

1.3.8 L.87 ✅ ‘नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ (SvetU.6.15) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
Because another Scriptural passage says — “There is no other way to go” (SvetU.6.15).

1.3.8 L.88 ✅ ‘तं मा भगवाञ्शोकस्य पारं तारयतु’ (ChanU.7.1.3) इति चोपक्रम्योपसंहरति –
Beginning with “May Bhagavān take me beyond grief” (ChanU.7.1.3), the Scriptures conclude thus —

1.3.8 L.89 ✅ ‘तस्मै मृदितकषायाय तमसः पारं दर्शयति भगवान्सनत्कुमारः’ (ChanU.7.26.2) इति।
“Bhagavān Sanat-kumāra leads him, whose attachment to worldly objects has been removed, beyond the darkness” (ChanU.7.26.2).

1.3.8 L.90 ✅ तम इति शोकादिकारणमविद्योच्यते।
By darkness is meant Nescience, the cause of all grief etc.

1.3.8 L.91 ✅ प्राणान्ते चानुशासने न प्राणस्यान्यायत्ततोच्येत।
Were the instruction to be about Prāṇa, the Scriptures would not mention Prāṇa as depending on some other thing,

1.3.8 L.92 ✅ ‘आत्मतः प्राणः’ (ChanU.7.26.1) इति च ब्राह्मणम्।
As for instance in the Brāhmaṇa passage — “Prāṇa is created from the Self” (ChanU.7.26.1).

1.3.8 L.93 ✅ प्रकरणान्ते परमात्मविवक्षा भविष्यति; भूमात्र प्राण एवेति चेत्,
(The opponent says) — The Scriptures may well desire to speak of the Self towards the end of the chapter, but Bhūmā of course is just the Prāṇa only.

1.3.8 L.94 ✅ न; ‘स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि’ (ChanU.7.24.1) इत्यादिना भूम्न एव आ प्रकरणसमाप्तेरनुकर्षणात्।
To this we reply — No, because, the Scriptural passage “Oh Bhagavān, wherein is he (the Bhūmā) firmly ensconced? In its own great glory” (ChanU.7.24.1) shows, that the same Bhūmā is brought forward right up to the end of the chapter.

1.3.8 L.95 ✅ वैपुल्यात्मिका च भूमरूपता सर्वकारणत्वात्परमात्मनः सुतरामुपपद्यते॥८॥
The nature of Bhūmā which has' the nature of ‘Plenitude’ as its Self, is more reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Self, because of its being the cause of everything. — 8.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
धर्मोपपत्तेश्च॥१.३.९॥
Dharmopapatteś ca.

Dharma: qualities, attributes; Upapatteḥ: because of the suitability; Ca: and.

🔗 Because the attributes (ascribed to Bhūmā) are reasonably sustainable (only in the case of Brahman). — 1.3.9.

1.3.9 L.1 ✅ अपि च ये भूम्नि श्रूयन्ते धर्माः, ते परमात्मन्युपपद्यन्ते।
Besides, the attributes mentioned in the Scriptures as pertaining to Bhūmā, are seen to be reasonably sustainable only in the Highest Self.

1.3.9 L.2 ✅ ‘यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा’ इति दर्शनादिव्यवहाराभावं भूमनि अवगमयति।
The Scriptures inform us of the absence of such activities as ‘seeing’ etc. in Bhūmā, in the passage — “Where one does not see anything else, or hear anything else, or understand anything else, that is Bhūmā”.

1.3.9 L.3 ✅ परमात्मनि चायं दर्शनादिव्यवहाराभावोऽवगतः –
Such absence of activities of seeing etc. are known to be precisely in the Highest Self,

1.3.9 L.4 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.4.5.15) इत्यादिश्रुत्यन्तरात्।
For another Scriptural passage mentions — “Where however to him everything has but become the Self only, by what then will he see, and what?” (BrhUEng.4.5.15).

1.3.9 L.5 ✅ योऽप्यसौ सुषुप्त्यवस्थायां दर्शनादिव्यवहाराभाव उक्तः,
Even this absence of the activities of seeing etc. during the condition of sleep spoken of by the Scriptures, is mentioned

1.3.9 L.6 ✅ सोऽप्यात्मन एवासङ्गत्वविवक्षयोक्तः,
With a view to convey the absence of any attachment in the Self,

1.3.9 L.7 ✅ न प्राणस्वभावविवक्षया, परमात्मप्रकरणात्।
And not with a desire to speak of the nature of Prāṇa, because the chapter relates to the Highest Self.

1.3.9 L.8 ✅ यदपि तस्यामवस्थायां सुखमुक्तम्,
Again this supreme bliss which is spoken of as existing in that condition,

1.3.9 L.9 ✅ तदप्यात्मन एव सुखरूपत्वविवक्षयोक्तम्; यत आह –
Is also similarly mentioned with a desire to intimate the blissful nature of the Highest Self alone, for the Scriptures say —

1.3.9 L.10 ✅ ‘एषोऽस्य परम आनन्द एतस्यैवानन्दस्यान्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्ति’ (BrhU.4.3.32) इति।
“This is his highest bliss, all other beings subsist only on a small portion of this bliss” (BrhUEng.4.3.32).

1.3.9 L.11 ✅ इहापि ‘यो वै भूमा तत्सुखं नाल्पे सुखमस्ति भूमैव सुखम्’ इति
Here in the present passage also, viz, “That which is Bhūmā, verily is bliss. There is no bliss in perishable things (Alpa), Bhūmā is bliss”,

1.3.9 L.12 ✅ सामयसुखनिराकरणेन ब्रह्मैव सुखं भूमानं दर्शयति।
Which negatives the existence of bliss mixed with sorrow in Bhūmā, shows that Bhūmā alone which has a blissful nature, is Brahman.

1.3.9 L.13 ✅ ‘यो वै भूमा तदमृतम्’ इत्यमृतत्वमपीह श्रूयमाणं परमकारणं गमयति;
The immortality referred to by Scriptures, in the passage “That which is Bhūmā is immortality”, also makes us understand that it is the Highest cause uncaused (i.e. Brahman),

1.3.9 L.14 ✅ विकाराणाममृतत्वस्यापेक्षिकत्वात्,
Because the immortality of modifications (viz. Vikāras i.e. effects), is merely relative,

1.3.9 L.15 ✅ ‘अतोऽन्यदार्तम्’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इति च श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
As another Scriptural passage lays down that “Everything other than this is perishable” (BrhUEng.1.1.1).

1.3.9 L.16 ✅ तथा च सत्यत्वं स्वमहिमप्रतिष्ठितत्वं सर्वगतत्वं सर्वात्मत्वमिति चैते धर्माः श्रूयमाणाः परमात्मन्येवोपपद्यन्ते,
Similarly the attributes of being true, being ensconced in its own great glory, being all-pervading and being the Self of all, mentioned by the Scriptures, are reasonably sustainable, only in the Highest Self

1.3.9 L.17 ✅ नान्यत्र।
And nowhere else.

1.3.9 L.18 ✅ तस्माद्भूमा परमात्मेति सिद्धम्॥९॥
Ergo, it is established that Bhūmā is the Highest Self. — 9.

– 20. Bhūma-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.10 Su..11 Su..12

←Prev Next→
अक्षरमम्बरान्तधृतेः॥१.३.१०॥
Akṣaram ambarānta-dhṛteḥ.

Akṣaram: the Imperishable; Ambara-anta-dhṛteḥ: because it supports all up to Ākāśa.

🔗 The imperishable (Akṣara) is Brahman, because it supports (all created things) ending with (and including) the Ākāśa. — 1.3.10.

1.3.10 L.1 ✅ ‘कस्मिन्नु खल्वाकाश ओतश्च प्रोतश्चेति।
स होवाचैतद्वै तदक्षरं गार्गि ब्राह्मणा अभिवदन्त्यस्थूलमनणु’ (BrhU.3.8.7) (BrhU.3.8.8) इत्यादि श्रूयते।
The Scriptures mention — “Into what indeed is the Ākāśa woven warp-and-woof-wise?
He said, Oh Gārgi, it verily is this, which, those who have understood Brahman (Brāhmaṇas), call the ‘imperishable’, and which is neither gross nor atomic” (BrhUEng.3.8.7–8) etc.

1.3.10 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशयः – किमक्षरशब्देन वर्ण उच्यते, किं वा परमेश्वर इति।
With regard to this the doubt (arises) — Whether by ‘Akṣara’, only a letter or a sound (Varṇa) is meant, or the Highest Lord.

1.3.10 L.3 ✅ तत्राक्षरसमाम्नाय इत्यादावक्षरशब्दस्य वर्णे प्रसिद्धत्वात्, प्रसिद्ध्यतिक्रमस्य चायुक्तत्वात्,
With regard to this (the opponent says), in the Akṣara-Samāmnāya etc., the term ‘Akṣara’ means only a letter or a syllable, as it is not proper to disregard what is so well-known,

1.3.10 L.4 ✅ ‘ओंकार एवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.2.23.3) इत्यादौ च श्रुत्यन्तरे वर्णस्याप्युपास्यत्वेन सर्वात्मकत्वावधारणात्,
And as a letter or a syllable has been understood to be Brahman, the Self of all, for the purpose of devout meditation in another Scriptural passage thus — “The letter ‘Om’ (Oṅ-kāra) is all this” (ChanU.2.23.3) — .

1.3.10 L.5 ✅ वर्ण एवाक्षरशब्द इत्येवं प्राप्ते,
the term ‘Akṣara’ means a letter or syllable only.

1.3.10 L.6 ✅ उच्यते – पर एवात्माक्षरशब्दवाच्यः।
(To this conclusion of the opponent, the Vedāntin replies) — The term ‘Akṣara’ indicates the Highest Self only.

1.3.10 L.7 ✅ कस्मात्? अम्बरान्तधृतेः;
Why so? “Because it supports all created things ending with and including the Ākāśa”.

1.3.10 L.8 ✅ पृथिव्यादेराकाशान्तस्य विकारजातस्य धारणात्।
Beginning with the Earth and ending with and including the Ākāśa all created things are supported by it.

1.3.10 L.9 ✅ तत्र हि पृथिव्यादेः समस्तविकारजातस्य कालत्रयविभक्तस्य ‘आकाश एव तदोतं च प्रोतं च’ इत्याकाशे प्रतिष्ठितत्वमुक्त्वा,
There, the Scriptures, having mentioned that all created things which are separated from each other by the past, present and future, and are firmly based in the Ākāśa, in the passage “That is woven in the Ākāśa warp-and-woof-wise”,

1.3.10 L.10 ✅ ‘कस्मिन्नु खल्वाकाश ओतश्च प्रोतश्च’ (BrhU.3.8.7) इत्यनेन प्रश्नेनेदमक्षरमवतारितम्;
Pose the question — “And wherein is this Ākāśa woven warp-and-woof-wise?” (BrhUEng.3.8.7) — and by way of the reply, introduce the ‘Akṣara’.

1.3.10 L.11 ✅ तथा चोपसंहृतम् – ‘एतस्मिन्नु खल्वक्षरे गार्ग्याकाश ओतश्च प्रोतश्च’ इति।
It also concludes thus — “It is even in this ‘Akṣara’, Oh Gārgi, the Ākāśa is woven warp-and-woof-wise”.

1.3.10 L.12 ✅ न चेयमम्बरान्तधृतिर्ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्र सम्भवति।
This, i.e. being the support of everything upto and including the Ākāśa, is not possible for anything, other than Brahman.

1.3.10 L.13 ✅ यदपि ‘ओंकार एवेदं सर्वम्’ इति, तदपि ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तिसाधनत्वात्स्तुत्यर्थं द्रष्टव्यम्।
The passage “Oṅ-kāra is all this” should be looked upon as being only in glorification, because of its being a device (Sādhana) for the meditation on Brahman.

1.3.10 L.14 ✅ तस्मान्न क्षरति अश्नुते चेति नित्यत्वव्यापित्वाभ्यामक्षरं परमेव ब्रह्म॥१०॥
Therefore, the ‘Akṣara’, which does not perish and pervades everything, and is therefore eternal and all-pervading, is but the Highest Brahman only. — 10.

[Go top]

1.3.11 L.1 ✅ स्यादेतत् – कार्यस्य चेत्कारणाधीनत्वमम्बरान्तधृतिरभ्युपगम्यते,
If it is understood (says the opponent) that this supporting of all things upto and including Ākāśa, is because of the fact, that all effects depend upon their cause,

1.3.11 L.2 ✅ प्रधानकारणवादिनोऽपीयमुपपद्यते;
Then it may be, that it may be reasonably sustainable in the case of those who hold the Pradhāna as the cause.

1.3.11 L.3 ✅ कथमम्बरान्तधृतेर्ब्रह्मत्वप्रतिपत्तिरिति? अत उत्तरं पठति –
How can you then understand that the Akṣara, because of its being the support of all things upto and including the Ākāśa, means Brahman?

←Prev Next→
सा च प्रशासनात्॥१.३.११॥
Sā ca praśāsanāt.

Sā: this (the quality of supporting everything up to space); Ca: and, also; Praśāsanāt: because of the command.

🔗 Because this (supporting of all things including Ākāśa) is on account of the command. — 1.3.11.

1.3.11 L.4 ✅ सा च अम्बरान्तधृतिः परमेश्वरस्यैव कर्म।
This supporting of all things including Ākāśa, is the work of the Highest Lord.

1.3.11 L.5 ✅ कस्मात्? प्रशासनात्।
How is it so? Because of the command.

1.3.11 L.6 ✅ प्रशासनं हीह श्रूयते – ‘एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ विधृतौ तिष्ठतः’ (BrhU.3.8.9) इत्यादि।
We find the Scriptures mentioning such a command, thus — “Oh Gārgi, it is at the behest of this Akṣara that the Sun and the Moon stand thus regulated” (BrhUEng.3.8.9) etc.

1.3.11 L.7 ✅ प्रशासनं च पारमेश्वरं कर्म;
This command of course is the work of the Highest Lord.

1.3.11 L.8 ✅ न अचेतनस्य प्रशासनं भवति।
It cannot be possible in the case of the non-sentient Pradhāna.

1.3.11 L.9 ✅ न ह्यचेतनानां घटादिकारणानां मृदादीनां घटादिविषयं प्रशासनमस्ति॥११॥
We do not find any such capacity in the Earth etc., for instance, to issue a command to the Jars etc. of which the Earth is the cause. — 11.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्यभावव्यावृत्तेश्च॥१.३.१२॥
Anya-bhāva-vyāvṛtteś ca.

Anya: another; Bhāva: nature; Vyāvritteḥ: on account of the exclusion; Ca: and.

🔗 Because of the exclusion (by the Scriptures), of the possibility of Akṣara being something different from Brahman. — 1.3.12.

1.3.12 L.1 ✅ अन्यभावव्यावृत्तेश्च कारणाद्ब्रह्मैवाक्षरशब्दवाच्यम्,
Brahman is necessarily indicated by the word Akṣara, by reason of the exclusion of the possibility of its being anything else.

1.3.12 L.2 ✅ तस्यैवाम्बरान्तधृतिः कर्म, नान्यस्य कस्यचित्।
Because this work of supporting all things including the Ākāśa is of that (Brahman) alone, and of none else.

1.3.12 L.3 ✅ किमिदम् अन्यभावव्यावृत्तेरिति?
What is this exclusion from being anything else?

1.3.12 L.4 ✅ अन्यस्य भावोऽन्यभावः तस्माद्व्यावृत्तिः अन्यभावव्यावृत्तिरिति।
‘Anyabhāva’ means being something else, and exclusion of a thing from being such something else, is the exclusion of that thing from being something else.

1.3.12 L.5 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – यदन्यद्ब्रह्मणोऽक्षरशब्दवाच्यमिहाशङ्क्यते तद्भावात् इदमम्बरान्तविधारणमक्षरं व्यावर्तयति श्रुतिः –
It is said — The Scriptures exclude the Akṣara, which supports all things including the Ākāśa, from being that something else (i.e. something other than Brahman), which, it is doubted, the word Akṣara indicates, thus —

1.3.12 L.6 ✅ ‘तद्वा एतदक्षरं गार्गि अदृष्टं द्रष्टृ अश्रुतं श्रोतृ अमतं मन्तृ अविज्ञातं विज्ञातृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इति।
“Oh Gārgi, that verily is this Akṣara, which, while being the seer, is itself not seen, being the hearer, is itself not heard, being the perceiver, is itself not perceived, being the knower, is itself not known” etc. (BrhUEng.3.8.11).

1.3.12 L.7 ✅ तत्रादृष्टत्वादिव्यपदेशः प्रधानस्यापि सम्भवति; द्रष्टृत्वादिव्यपदेशस्तु न सम्भवति, अचेतनत्वात्।
This mention about being itself not seen etc., is possible in the case of Pradhāna, but it being non-sentient, mention about its being the seer etc. is of course not possible.

1.3.12 L.8 ✅ तथा ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ, नान्यदतोऽस्ति श्रोतृ, नान्यदतोऽस्ति मन्तृ, नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञातृ’ इत्यात्मभेदप्रतिषेधात्, न शारीरस्याप्युपाधिमतोऽक्षरशब्दवाच्यत्वम्;
Nor can ‘Akṣara’ be supposed to indicate the embodied Jīva-Self which is affected by limiting adjuncts, because of the denial by the Scriptures of its being different from the Akṣara i.e. the Highest Self, thus — “There is no other seer than this, no other hearer than this, no other perceiver than this, and no other knower than this”,

1.3.12 L.9 ✅ ‘अचक्षुष्कमश्रोत्रमवागमनः’ (BrhU.3.8.8) इति चोपाधिमत्ताप्रतिषेधात्।
And also because, its (i.e. Akṣara’s) being affected by limiting adjuncts is denied by the passage — “(It is) sans-eyes, sans-ears, sans-speech, and sans-mind” (BrhUEng.3.8.8).

1.3.12 L.10 ✅ न हि निरुपाधिकः शारीरो नाम भवति।
There indeed cannot ever be any such thing as an embodied Jīva-Self unaffected by limiting adjuncts.

1.3.12 L.11 ✅ तस्मात्परमेव ब्रह्माक्षरमिति निश्चयः॥१२॥

Therefore, that the ‘Akṣara’ is the Highest Brahman, is the definite conclusion. — 12.

– 21. Akṣara-Adhikaraṇam.

←Prev Next→
ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशात्सः॥१.३.१३॥
Īkṣati-karma-vyapadeśāt saḥ.

Īkṣati: seeing, realising; Karma: object; Vyapadeśāt: because of his being mentioned; Saḥ: he.

🔗 On account of his being spoken of as the object of the act of seeing, it is He (i.e. the Highest Self). — 1.3.13.

1.3.13 L.1 ✅ ‘एतद्वै सत्यकाम परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोंकारस्तस्माद्विद्वानेतेनैवायतनेनैकतरमन्वेति’ (PrasU.5.2) इति प्रकृत्य श्रूयते –
The Scriptures having mentioned thus — “Oh Satya-kāma, this Oṅ-kāra verily is the Para and Apara Brahman (the attributeless one i.e. Nir-guṇa and a modification i.e. Sa-guṇa respectively), therefore, the wise one, even by this (Oṅ-kāra) as the sanctuary (Āyatanena) attains either of these two” (PrasU.5.2),

1.3.13 L.2 ✅ ‘यः पुनरेतं त्रिमात्रेणोमित्येतेनैवाक्षरेण परं पुरुषमभिध्यायीत’ (PrasU.5.5) इति।
Go on further and mention — “And the one who again contemplates on the Highest Puruṣa by means of the letter ‘Om’ consisting of three Mātras” etc. (PrasU.5.5).

1.3.13 L.3 ✅ किमस्मिन्वाक्ये परं ब्रह्माभिध्यातव्यमुपदिश्यते, आहोस्विदपरमिति।
Here, (the doubt arises) whether in this sentence, the instruction is about the Highest Brahman (Para) as the object of contemplation, or about the Lower (i.e. Apara) Brahman,

1.3.13 L.4 ✅ एतेनैवायतनेन परमपरं वैकतरमन्वेतीति प्रकृतत्वात्संशयः।
Because it is mentioned in the beginning, that by this one sanctuary alone he seeks either of these two (i.e. the Highest and the Lower Brahman), because both are relevant here.

1.3.13 L.5 ✅ तत्रापरमिदं ब्रह्मेति प्राप्तम्।
In this connection (the conclusion of the opponent is) — It is the Lower Brahman that is here meant.

1.3.13 L.6 ✅ कस्मात्? ‘स तेजसि सूर्ये सम्पन्नः’ ‘स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकम्’ इति च तद्विदो देशपरिच्छिन्नस्य फलस्योच्यमानत्वात्।
Why so? Because it is mentioned that the person who realizes that, obtains a fruit which is delimited in space, viz. “He enters the Tejas in the form of the Sun”, “He is conveyed to the Brahma-Loka by the Sāman hymns”.

1.3.13 L.7 ✅ न हि परब्रह्मविद्देशपरिच्छिन्नं फलमश्नुवीतेति युक्तम्; सर्वगतत्वात्परस्य ब्रह्मणः।
As the Highest Brahman is all-pervading, it would not be proper to say, that a person who realizes the Highest Brahman, obtains as a fruit, a place which is delimited in space.

1.3.13 L.8 ✅ नन्वपरब्रह्मपरिग्रहे ‘परं पुरुषम्’ इति विशेषणं नोपपद्यते।
(Here the Vedāntin says) — But, if we understand that the Lower Brahman is meant, then the particularization as ‘The Highest Puruṣa i.e. Para’ would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.3.13 L.9 ✅ नैष दोषः – पिण्डापेक्षया प्राणस्य परत्वोपपत्तेः;
This (the opponent replies) is no fault, because it is reasonably sustainable that as compared with the gross body (Piṇḍa = Virāṭ) as such, Prāṇa (Sūtrātmā) is higher.

1.3.13 L.10 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, अभिधीयते – परमेव ब्रह्म इह अभिध्यातव्यमुपदिश्यते।
To this conclusion, we give reply — Here, the instruction is about the Highest Brahman which is to be devoutly meditated upon.

1.3.13 L.11 ✅ कस्मात्? ईक्षतिकर्मव्यपदेशात्;
Why so? Because, it is spoken of as the object of the act of seeing.

1.3.13 L.12 ✅ ईक्षतिर्दर्शनम्;
‘Īkṣa’ is to see.

1.3.13 L.13 ✅ दर्शनव्याप्यमीक्षतिकर्म;
That thing which is seen, is the object of the act of seeing.

1.3.13 L.14 ✅ ईक्षतिकर्मत्वेनास्याभिध्यातव्यस्य पुरुषस्य वाक्यशेषे व्यपदेशो भवति –
In the complementary passage, there is mention of the Puruṣa that is to be devoutly contemplated upon, as the object of the act of seeing, thus: —

1.3.13 L.15 ✅ ‘स एतस्माज्जीवघनात्परात्परं पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते’ इति।
“He sees the Puruṣa i.e. the one who occupies this tabernacle (Puri-śaya) who is even higher than this High Jīva-Ghana and which occupies this tabernacle viz. this body.”

1.3.13 L.16 ✅ तत्र अभिध्यायतेरतथाभूतमपि वस्तु कर्म भवति,
Now, a thing which does not even exist as such can be an object of devout contemplation,

1.3.13 L.17 ✅ मनोरथकल्पितस्याप्यभिध्यायतिकर्मत्वात्;
For instance, even that which is merely an imagined thing can be the object of the act of contemplation.

1.3.13 L.18 ✅ ईक्षतेस्तु तथाभूतमेव वस्तु लोके कर्म दृष्टम्,
In ordinary life, however, it is seen that it is only a thing actually existing as such that is the object of the act of seeing.

1.3.13 L.19 ✅ इत्यतः परमात्मैवायं सम्यग्दर्शनविषयभूत ईक्षतिकर्मत्वेन व्यपदिष्ट इति गम्यते।
Therefore, we understand that it is this Highest Self alone, which is the object of proper and correct intuitive understanding, that is here spoken of as the object of the act of seeing,

1.3.13 L.20 ✅ स एव चेह परपुरुषशब्दाभ्यामभिध्यातव्यः प्रत्यभिज्ञायते।
And we can recognize the same Highest Self (referred to in the first sentence), as the one to be devoutly contemplated upon, by the words Para and Puruṣa.

1.3.13 L.21 ✅ नन्वभिध्याने परः पुरुष उक्तः, ईक्षणे तु परात्परः;
(The opponent says) Oh, but it is the Para Puruṣa that is spoken of as the one to be devoutly meditated upon, and it is that Para that is even beyond the Para (transcendent), that is spoken of as the object of the act of seeing,

1.3.13 L.22 ✅ कथमितर इतरत्र प्रत्यभिज्ञायत इति।
How can we then recognize the one (indicated in one place) as the one indicated in the other place?

1.3.13 L.23 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – परपुरुषशब्दौ तावदुभयत्र साधारणौ।
To this we reply — The words Para and Puruṣa are common to both.

1.3.13 L.24 ✅ न चात्र जीवघनशब्देन प्रकृतोऽभिध्यातव्यः परः पुरुषः परामृश्यते;
It cannot be, that here, by the word Jīva-Ghana, the Para (transcendent) Puruṣa that is relevant to the context here as the one to be meditated upon, is referred to,

1.3.13 L.25 ✅ येन तस्मात् परात्परोऽयमीक्षितव्यः पुरुषोऽन्यः स्यात्।
Because of which, the other Puruṣa out-transcending the first transcendent Puruṣa (i.e. Parāt para) which is the one to be seen, can be some other Puruṣa different from the first transcendent Puruṣa.

1.3.13 L.26 ✅ कस्तर्हि जीवघन इति,
(Says the opponent) who then is this ‘Jīva-Ghana’?

1.3.13 L.27 ✅ उच्यते – घनो मूर्तिः,
We reply — ‘Ghana’ means an icon (Murti) (in which form a Jīva-Self inheres in it).

1.3.13 L.28 ✅ जीवलक्षणो घनः जीवघनः। सैन्धवखिल्यवत् यः परमात्मनो जीवरूपः खिल्यभाव उपाधिकृतः,
That particular portion of the Highest Self, which is like a small lump of salt, and which is of the form of an embodied Jīva-Self, and is brought about by limiting adjuncts,

1.3.13 L.29 ✅ परश्च विषयेन्द्रियेभ्यः, सोऽत्र जीवघन इति।
And which is higher than the sense-organs and their objects, is here referred to as the Jīva-Ghana.

1.3.13 L.30 ✅ अपर आह – ‘स सामभिरुन्नीयते ब्रह्मलोकम्’ इत्यतीतानन्तरवाक्यनिर्दिष्टो यो ब्रह्मलोकः परश्च लोकान्तरेभ्यः,
Some other commentator says — That Brahma-world which is indicated by the penultimate sentence “Who is transported to the Brahma-world by Sāman-hymns” and which is higher than the other worlds,

1.3.13 L.31 ✅ सोऽत्र जीवघन इत्युच्यते।
Is referred to here as the Jīva-Ghana.

1.3.13 L.32 ✅ जीवानां हि सर्वेषां करणपरिवृतानां सर्वकरणात्मनि हिरण्यगर्भे ब्रह्मलोकनिवासिनि सङ्घातोपपत्तेर्भवति ब्रह्मलोको जीवघनः।
The Brahma-world can also be the Jīva-Ghana, as it would be reasonably sustainable to say, that all the individual Selfs surrounded by their sense-organs cluster together in the Hiraṇya-garbha, who is the Self of all sense-organs and who abides in the Brahma-Loka.

1.3.13 L.33 ✅ तस्मात्परो यः पुरुषः परमात्मा ईक्षणकर्मभूतः, स एवाभिध्यानेऽपि कर्मभूत इति गम्यते।
Therefore, it is understood that the Highest Self, which is higher than that (Jīva-Ghana) and which is the object of the act of seeing, is also the object of the act of devout contemplation.

1.3.13 L.34 ✅ ‘परं पुरुषम्’ इति च विशेषणं परमात्मपरिग्रह एवावकल्पते।
The particularization viz. ‘Parama-Puruṣam’ is possible to be imagined, only if by it we understand the Highest Self.

1.3.13 L.35 ✅ परो हि पुरुषः परमात्मैव भवति यस्मात्परं किञ्चिदन्यन्नास्ति;
The Para Puruṣa can only be the Highest Self, because there is nothing that is Higher than that,

1.3.13 L.36 ✅ ‘पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः’ इति च श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
As is expressed in another Scriptural passage — “There is none higher than the Puruṣa, he is the last limit (the ultima Thule) and the highest refuge or asylum.”

1.3.13 L.37 ✅ ‘परं चापरं च ब्रह्म यदोंकारः’ इति च विभज्य,
Having made a distinction in Brahman in the sentence “The Oṅ-kāra is the Para and the Apara Brahman”,

1.3.13 L.38 ✅ अनन्तरमोंकारेण परं पुरुषमभिध्यातव्यं ब्रुवन्,
And having afterwards mentioned, that the Puruṣa that is Para (beyond) is to be contemplated upon by means of the Oṅ-kāra,

1.3.13 L.39 ✅ परमेव ब्रह्म परं पुरुषं गमयति।
The Scriptures make us understand, that the Para Puruṣa is but the highest Brahman only.

1.3.13 L.40 ✅ ‘यथा पादोदरस्त्वचा विनिर्मुच्यत एवं ह वै स पाप्मना विनिर्मुच्यते’ इति
The Scriptural sentence — “Just as a snake is relieved of his slough, even so, verily is he relieved of the sins” —

1.3.13 L.41 ✅ पाप्मविनिर्मोकफलवचनं परमात्मानमिहाभिध्यातव्यं सूचयति।
Which speaks of the fruit, viz. being rid of all sins, suggests than the Highest Self is the one to be contemplated upon.

1.3.13 L.42 ✅ अथ यदुक्तं परमात्माभिध्यायिनो न देशपरिच्छिन्नं फलं युज्यत इति,
As regards the objection taken, that it is not proper that a person who contemplates on the Highest Brahman should have a fruit limited by environment,

1.3.13 L.43 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – त्रिमात्रेणोंकारेणालम्बनेन परमात्मानमभिध्यायतः फलं ब्रह्मलोकप्राप्तिः, क्रमेण च सम्यग्दर्शनोत्पत्तिः, – इति क्रममुक्त्यभिप्रायमेतद्भविष्यतीत्यदोषः॥१३॥
We reply — This is quite faultless when it is explained that this may indicate Final Release by gradual stages, as follows: — Attainment of the Brahma-Loka is the fruit obtained by one who devoutly contemplates on the Highest Self by means of the Oṅ-kāra of three Mātras, and then gradually after that, complete intuitive knowledge of Brahman supervenes. — 13.

– 22. Īkṣati-karma-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.14 Su..15 Su..16 Su..17 Su..18 Su..19 Su..20 Su..21

←Prev Next→
दहर उत्तरेभ्यः॥१.३.१४॥
Dahara uttarebhyaḥ.

Daharaḥ: the small; Uttarebhyaḥ: from subsequent texts or expressions or arguments.

🔗 The Small i.e. subtle (ākāśa) (is Brahman) because of reasons which follow. — 1.3.14.

1.3.14 L.1 ✅ ‘अथ यदिदमस्मिन्ब्रह्मपुरे दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशस्तस्मिन्यदन्तस्तदन्वेष्टव्यं तद्वाव विजिज्ञासितव्यम्’ (ChanU.8.1.1) इत्यादि वाक्यं समाम्नायते।
The Scriptures mention: — “In this body (lit. City of Brahman) there is a small lotus-like palace. There is inside it a small i.e. subtle Ākāśa. That which is inside it should be searched for and desired to be known” (ChanU.8.1.1) etc.

1.3.14 L.2 ✅ तत्र योऽयं दहरे हृदयपुण्डरीके दहर आकाशः श्रुतः, स किं भूताकाशः,
अथ विज्ञानात्मा,
अथवा परमात्मेति संशय्यते।
Now, it is doubted, with regard to what the Scriptures mention as “This small i.e. subtle Ākāśa which is inside this small lotus of the Hṛdaya” viz., whether this small Ākāśa is the created element Ākāśa (Bhūtākāśa)
Or the Cognitional Jīva-Self
Or the Highest Self.

1.3.14 L.3 ✅ कुतः संशयः? आकाशब्रह्मपुरशब्दाभ्याम्।
Whence is this doubt? Because of the words, Ākāśa and Brahma-pura which occur here.

1.3.14 L.4 ✅ आकाशशब्दो ह्ययं भूताकाशे परस्मिंश्च ब्रह्मणि प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते।
It is seen, that this word Ākāśa is used, both in the sense of the element-Ākāśa and the Highest Self.

1.3.14 L.5 ✅ तत्र किं भूताकाश एव दहरः स्यात्, किं वा पर इति संशयः।
Therefore, in this connection, the doubt is, whether by small i.e. subtle (Dahara) Ākāśa, the element Ākāśa is meant, or the Highest Self.

1.3.14 L.6 ✅ तथा ब्रह्मपुरमिति – किं जीवोऽत्र ब्रह्मनामा, तस्येदं पुरं शरीरं ब्रह्मपुरम्, अथवा परस्यैव ब्रह्मणः पुरं ब्रह्मपुरमिति।
Similarly, whether ‘Brahma-pura’ means the body of the Jīva-Self that is here called Brahma-pura, or whether it means the city (i.e. the body) of the Highest Self.

1.3.14 L.7 ✅ तत्र जीवस्य परस्य वान्यतरस्य पुरस्वामिनो दहराकाशत्वे संशयः।
In this connection, the further doubt is, as to which of these two, viz. the Jīva-Self or the Highest Self, should be understood by the small Ākāśa, as the owner of the Pura (i.e. the body).

1.3.14 L.8 ✅ तत्राकाशशब्दस्य भूताकाशे रूढत्वाद्भूताकाश एव दहरशब्द इति प्राप्तम्;
(With regard to this the conclusion of the opponent is) that the use of the word Ākāśa as indicating the element Ākāśa being firmly established, the word ‘small’ (Dahara) should be understood to mean the element Ākāśa only.

1.3.14 L.9 ✅ तस्य च दहरायतनापेक्षया दहरत्वम्;
It is here designated as ‘small’ (Dahara) with reference to the small abode Hṛdaya) in which it happens to be.

1.3.14 L.10 ✅ ‘यावान्वा अयमाकाशस्तावानेषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशः’ इति च बाह्याभ्यन्तरभावकृतभेदस्योपमानोपमेयभावः;
Similarly, a comparison can be instituted between the Ākāśas (one being made the standard of comparison, and the other the subject of comparison), on account of the difference made between them, by reason of one being the outer and the other the inner Ākāśa, as in the Scriptural passage — “The Ākāśa as circumscribed by the Hṛdaya is of the same dimension as the dimension of this (outer) Ākāśa” (ChanU.8.1.3).

1.3.14 L.11 ✅ द्यावापृथिव्यादि च तस्मिन्नन्तःसमाहितम्, अवकाशात्मनाकाशस्यैकत्वात्।
Similarly, the Heaven and the Earth can be said to be contained inside it, because the Ākāśa and the small (Dahara) Ākāśa are identical, inasmuch as Space (Avakāśa) is the Self of both.

1.3.14 L.12 ✅ अथवा जीवो दहर इति प्राप्तम्, ब्रह्मपुरशब्दात्;
Or it should be understood that by the small (Dahara) Ākāśa, the Jīva-Self is meant, because of the word ‘Brahma-pura’,

1.3.14 L.13 ✅ जीवस्य हीदं पुरं सत् शरीरं ब्रह्मपुरमित्युच्यते, तस्य स्वकर्मणोपार्जितत्वात्;
Inasmuch as the body, being the Pura of the Jīva-Self, is called the Brahma-Pura, because it is acquired by the Jīva-Self by its own action (Karma),

1.3.14 L.14 ✅ भक्त्या च तस्य ब्रह्मशब्दवाच्यत्वम्;
And that the use of the word Brahman, to indicate the Jīva-Self, is in a secondary or metaphorical sense,

1.3.14 L.15 ✅ न हि परस्य ब्रह्मणः शरीरेण स्वस्वामिभावः सम्बन्धोऽस्ति;
Because there is no relationship between the body and the Highest Self, as there is between one’s own property and oneself as the owner of such property (Sva here means one’s own i.e. one’s property).

1.3.14 L.16 ✅ तत्र पुरस्वामिनः पुरैकदेशेऽवस्थानं दृष्टम्, यथा राज्ञः;
Again it is observed, that the owner of the Pura (i.e. a town) is seen to reside in a part of it, just as a king (stays in a part of his capital).

1.3.14 L.17 ✅ मनउपाधिकश्च जीवः;
Now the Jīva-Self has the mind as its limiting adjunct,

1.3.14 L.18 ✅ मनश्च प्रायेण हृदये प्रतिष्ठितम् – इत्यतो जीवस्यैवेदं हृदयान्तरवस्थानं स्यात्;
And mind generally is located in the Hṛdaya, therefore, it may well be, that the Jīva-Self may be understood to reside in the Hṛdaya.

1.3.14 L.19 ✅ दहरत्वमपि तस्यैव आराग्रोपमितत्वात् अवकल्पते;
Again it is possible to imagine the Jīva-Self to be ‘small’ as it is compared to a fine point of a goad (SvetU.5.8).

1.3.14 L.20 ✅ आकाशोपमितत्वादि च ब्रह्माभेदविवक्षया भविष्यति;
And it may well be, that it is compared with the Ākāśa, with a view to speak of its being non-different from i.e. identical with Brahman.

1.3.14 L.21 ✅ न चात्र दहरस्याकाशस्यान्वेष्टव्यत्वं विजिज्ञासितव्यत्वं च श्रूयते;
Besides, the Scriptures do not here mention that the small Ākāśa is to be sought for or desired to be known.

1.3.14 L.22 ✅ ‘तस्मिन्यदन्तः’ इति परविशेषणत्वेनोपादानादिति॥
Because, by the words “that which is inside it” a particularization of the Highest Brahman is to be accepted.

1.3.14 L.23 ✅ अत उत्तरं ब्रूमः – परमेश्वर एवात्र दहराकाशो भवितुमर्हति, न भूताकाशो जीवो वा।
(To this conclusion of the opponent) we reply — It is only the Highest Lord that here deserves to be the small Ākāśa. and neither the element Ākāśa nor the Jīva-Self.

1.3.14 L.24 ✅ कस्मात्? उत्तरेभ्यः वाक्यशेषगतेभ्यो हेतुभ्यः।
Whence is it so? Because of the reasons mentioned in the later complementary passage.

1.3.14 L.25 ✅ तथाहि – अन्वेष्टव्यतयाभिहितस्य दहराकाशस्य ‘तं चेद्ब्रूयुः’ इत्युपक्रम्य
For instance, with respect to the small Ākāśa which has been prescribed as the one to be sought for by the Scriptures beginning with “Were they to say”,

1.3.14 L.26 ✅ ‘किं तदत्र विद्यते यदन्वेष्टव्यं यद्वाव विजिज्ञासितव्यम्’ इत्येवमाक्षेपपूर्वकं प्रतिसमाधानवचनं भवति –
There is afterwards a sentence which resolves a doubt raised earlier by the question “What is it, that there is in it (i.e. the Hṛdaya) that should be sought for and desired to be known?” ‘(ChanU.8.1.2), thus —

1.3.14 L.27 ✅ ‘स ब्रूयाद्यावान्वा अयमाकाशस्तावानेषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाश उभे अस्मिन्द्यावापृथिवी अन्तरेव समाहिते’ (ChanU.8.1.3) इत्यादि।
“He (the teacher) should reply, that this Ākāśa within the Hṛdaya is of the same dimension as this Ākāśa (the element, the outside Ākāśa), and both the Heaven and the Earth are contained within it” (ChanU.8.1.3) etc.

1.3.14 L.28 ✅ तत्र पुण्डरीकदहरत्वेन प्राप्तदहरत्वस्याकाशस्य प्रसिद्धाकाशौपम्येन दहरत्वं निवर्तयन् भूताकाशत्वं दहरस्याकाशस्य निवर्तयतीति गम्यते।
There it is understood, that (the teacher) thus comparing the Ākāśa which has acquired its smallness because of the smallness of the lotus-like palace, with the well-known Ākāśa the element, disabuses (the pupil) of the smallness of the small Ākāśa, and also removes the idea, that the small Ākāśa may be the element Ākāśa.

1.3.14 L.29 ✅ यद्यप्याकाशशब्दो भूताकाशे रूढः,
Though the use of the word Ākāśa for the element Ākāśa is well established,

1.3.14 L.30 ✅ तथापि तेनैव तस्योपमा नोपपद्यत इति भूताकाशशङ्का निवर्तिता भवति।
Yet, as it would not be reasonably sustainable to compare a thing with itself, the doubt that the small Ākāśa may be the element Ākāśa, also thus happens to be removed.

1.3.14 L.31 ✅ नन्वेकस्याप्याकाशस्य बाह्याभ्यन्तरत्वकल्पितेन भेदेनोपमानोपमेयभावः सम्भवतीत्युक्तम्।
But (says the opponent) I have said, that, imagining one and the same Ākāśa to be different from itself by an imagined distinction (between them), such as the inside and outside Ākāśa, it is possible to say that one is the standard of comparison and the other is the subject of comparison.

1.3.14 L.32 ✅ नैवं सम्भवति;
To this we reply — This cannot possibly be so.

1.3.14 L.33 ✅ अगतिका हीयं गतिः, यत्काल्पनिकभेदाश्रयणम्।
To have resort to an imaginary distinction (with regard to one and the same thing), is the last resort (of a person) in a helpless condition.

1.3.14 L.34 ✅ अपि च कल्पयित्वापि भेदमुपमानोपमेयभावं वर्णयतः परिच्छिन्नत्वादभ्यन्तराकाशस्य न बाह्याकाशपरिमाणत्वमुपपद्येत।
And even if a comparison were to be instituted by assuming such difference, the internal Ākāśa being of a finite determination, it could never be reasonably sustainable to ascribe to it the dimensions of the external Ākāśa.

1.3.14 L.35 ✅ ननु परमेश्वरस्यापि ‘ज्यायानाकाशात्’ (श. ब्रा. १०-६-३-२) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात् नैवाकाशपरिमाणत्वमुपपद्यते।
But (says the opponent), because another Scriptural sentence describes the Highest Lord as “Greater than the Ākāśa” (Śat. Brā. 10.6.3.2), it would also not be reasonably sustainable to ascribe the dimensions of the external Ākāśa to the Highest Lord.

1.3.14 L.36 ✅ नैष दोषः; पुण्डरीकवेष्टनप्राप्तदहरत्वनिवृत्तिपरत्वाद्वाक्यस्य
(To this, we reply) This is no fault, because, the sentence purports to reject the ‘smallness’ (of the Daharākāśa) caused by its being enveloped in a lotus (of the Hṛdaya),

1.3.14 L.37 ✅ न तावत्त्वप्रतिपादनपरत्वम्;
And not to propound that it is like that (i.e. the well-known Ākāśa).

1.3.14 L.38 ✅ उभयप्रतिपादने हि वाक्यं भिद्येत।
Besides there would be a split of the sentence, if it were to propound both these meanings.

1.3.14 L.39 ✅ न च कल्पितभेदे पुण्डरीकवेष्टित आकाशैकदेशे द्यावापृथिव्यादीनामन्तः समाधानमुपपद्यते।
Besides, that the Heaven and the Earth are accommodated in only a part of the Ākāśa which is enveloped in a lotus and which is imagined to be different (from the external Ākāśa because of limiting adjuncts), would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.3.14 L.40 ✅ ‘एष आत्मापहतपाप्मा विजरो विमृत्युर्विशोको विजिघत्सोऽपिपासः सत्यकामः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ इति चात्मत्वापहतपाप्मत्वादयश्च गुणा न भूताकाशे सम्भवन्ति।
The attributes of ‘selfhood’ and ‘being free from sin etc.’, as mentioned in the Scriptural passage — “This Self is free from sin, not subject to old age or death, or grief or hunger, or thirst, and is one whose desires are true and whose purpose it true” (ChanU.8.1.5), are not possible, in the case of the element Ākāśa.

1.3.14 L.41 ✅ यद्यप्यात्मशब्दो जीवे सम्भवति,
Though the use of the word Self is possible in the case of the Jīva-Self,

1.3.14 L.42 ✅ तथापीतरेभ्यः कारणेभ्यो जीवाशङ्कापि निवर्तिता भवति।
Still, because of other reasons, the doubt, that the small-Ākāśa may mean the Jīva-Self, is negatived.

1.3.14 L.43 ✅ न ह्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नस्याराग्रोपमितस्य जीवस्य पुण्डरीकवेष्टनकृतं दहरत्वं शक्यं निवर्तयितुम्।
It is not possible to negative the ‘smallness’ (Daharatva) of the Jīva-Self, caused by the envelope of the lotus (of the Hṛdaya), as the Jīva-Self is delimited by limiting adjuncts and is compared to the fine point of a goad.

1.3.14 L.44 ✅ ब्रह्माभेदविवक्षया जीवस्य सर्वगतत्वादि विवक्ष्येतेति चेत्;
Were somebody to argue, that it may be understood, that it is desired (by the Scriptures) to say that the Jīva-Self is all-pervading etc., because of the desire (of the Scriptures) to speak about its being ultimately identical with Brahman,

1.3.14 L.45 ✅ यदात्मतया जीवस्य सर्वगतत्वादि विवक्ष्येत, तस्यैव ब्रह्मणः साक्षात्सर्वगतत्वादि विवक्ष्यतामिति युक्तम्।
Then it would be more logical to say that it is intended by the Scriptures to speak of that very Highest Brahman which constitutes the Jīva-Self’s Selfhood, and because of which the Jīva-Self may be considered to be all-pervading (as the opponent is supposed to say), as being all-pervading etc.

1.3.14 L.46 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – ‘ब्रह्मपुरम्’ इति जीवेन पुरस्योपलक्षितत्वाद्राज्ञ इव जीवस्यैवेदं पुरस्वामिनः पुरैकदेशवर्तित्वमस्त्विति;
With respect to what is said (by the opponent) about Brahma-Pura, (in which Pura is qualified by Jīva), viz. that the Jīva-Self may be the one that resides in a part of the Pura, being like a King the master of the Pura,

1.3.14 L.47 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – परस्यैवेदं ब्रह्मणः पुरं सत् शरीरं ब्रह्मपुरमित्युच्यते, ब्रह्मशब्दस्य तस्मिन्मुख्यत्वात्।
We say, — The body is said to be Brahma-Pura, as it is the Pura of the transcendent Highest Self, because the word Brahman is used, in its case, in the primary sense.

1.3.14 L.48 ✅ तस्याप्यस्ति पुरेणानेन सम्बन्धः, उपलब्ध्यधिष्ठानत्वात् –
It also has a relation with the Pura (i.e. body) as being the seat in which it becomes manifest (to a person contemplating on it),

1.3.14 L.49 ✅ ‘स एतस्माज्जीवघनात्परात्परं पुरिशयं पुरुषमीक्षते’ (PrasU.5.5) ‘स वा अयं पुरुषः सर्वासु पूर्षु पुरिशयः’ (BrhU.2.5.18) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
Because of the Scriptures which say — “He sees the Puruṣa, that out-transcends this transcendent Jīva-Ghana (i.e. Hiraṇya-garbha), and occupies this body” (Puri-śayam) (PrasU.5.5), and also — “This is the Puruṣa which occupies all these bodies” (BrhUEng.2.5.18), etc.

1.3.14 L.50 ✅ अथवा जीवपुर एवास्मिन् ब्रह्म सन्निहितमुपलक्ष्यते,
Or else (we may have it) that in this tabernacle of the Jīva-Self, Brahman itself is proximate and present,

1.3.14 L.51 ✅ यथा सालग्रामे विष्णुः सन्निहित इति, तद्वत्।
Just as Viṣṇu is proximate and present in the Śāla-grāma.

1.3.14 L.52 ✅ ‘तद्यथेह कर्मचितो लोकः क्षीयत एवमेवामुत्र पुण्यचितो लोकः क्षीयते’ (ChanU.8.1.6) इति च कर्मणामन्तवत्फलत्वमुक्त्वा,
The Scriptures, first speaking of the perishable nature of the fruits of actions, by the passage “As here the enjoyments of the world of actions perish, even so, in the world hereafter also, the enjoyments of the world of merits also perish” (ChanU.8.1.6),

1.3.14 L.53 ✅ ‘अथ य इहात्मानमनुविद्य व्रजन्त्येतांश्च सत्यान्कामांस्तेषां सर्वेषु लोकेषु कामचारो भवति’ इति प्रकृतदहराकाशविज्ञानस्यानन्तफलत्वं वदन्, परमात्मत्वमस्य सूचयति।
And afterwards, speaking of the imperishable nature of the fruit of the knowledge of the small Ākāśa, in the passage — “Those who depart from here after having understood the Self (by contemplation), and these true desires, have a complete freedom of movement at will, in all worlds”, suggest that it (i.e. the small Ākāśa) is the Highest Self.

1.3.14 L.54 ✅ यदप्येतदुक्तम् – न दहरस्याकाशस्यान्वेष्टव्यत्वं विजिज्ञासितव्यत्वं च श्रुतं
With regard to what is said (by the opponent), viz. that the Scriptures do not mention that the small Ākāśa is to be sought for or desired to be known,

1.3.14 L.55 ✅ परविशेषणत्वेनोपादानादिति;
Because of its being appropriated as a particularization of the transcendent (Brahman) (Para-viśeṣaṇatvena),

1.3.14 L.56 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – यद्याकाशो नान्वेष्टव्यत्वेनोक्तः स्यात्
We reply — If, as you say) the Ākāśa (i.e. small Ākāśa) is not mentioned by the Scriptures as the one to be sought for,

1.3.14 L.57 ✅ ‘यावान्वा अयमाकाशस्तावानेषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशः’ इत्याद्याकाशस्वरूपप्रदर्शनं नोपपद्येत।
Then the description of the nature of that Ākāśa, in the passage “The Ākāśa in the Hṛdaya has the same dimensions as the dimensions of this Ākāśa (i.e. the element Ākāśa)”, would not have any purpose.

1.3.14 L.58 ✅ नन्वेतदप्यन्तर्वर्तिवस्तुसद्भावप्रदर्शनायैव प्रदर्श्यते,
But (says the opponent), that may be said to have been so stated to show the existence of the entity within (i.e. the small Ākāśa),

1.3.14 L.59 ✅ ‘तं चेद्ब्रूयुर्यदिदमस्मिन्ब्रह्मपुरे दहरं पुण्डरीकं वेश्म दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः किं तदत्र विद्यते यदन्वेष्टव्यं यद्वाव विजिज्ञासितव्यम्’ इत्याक्षिप्य परिहारावसरे आकाशौपम्योपक्रमेण द्यावापृथिव्यादीनामन्तःसमाहितत्वप्रदर्शनात
्। Because, having first enquired by the passage “Were they to ask, as to what is there that has to be searched for and to be known in that small (Dahara) Ākāśa which is in the Lotus-like palace in the Brahma-pura (i.e. the body)” etc., we observe that, in the reply, the Scriptures, after beginning by instituting a comparison between the Ākāśas speak of the Heaven and the Earth etc. as being contained in it.

1.3.14 L.60 ✅ नैतदेवम्;
To this, we (the Vedāntins) reply — It is not like this.

1.3.14 L.61 ✅ एवं हि सति यदन्तःसमाहितं द्यावापृथिव्यादि, तदन्वेष्टव्यं विजिज्ञासितव्यं चोक्तं स्यात्;
Because, if it were to be so, then, it, in effect, will have been said, that the Heaven and the Earth etc. which are contained in it (i.e. the small Ākāśa) are the things to be sought for and desired to be known,

1.3.14 L.62 ✅ तत्र वाक्यशेषो नोपपद्येत;
In which case the complementary passage would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.3.14 L.63 ✅ ‘अस्मिन्कामाः समाहिताः’ ‘एष आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ इति हि प्रकृतं द्यावापृथिव्यादिसमाधानाधारमाकाशमाकृष्य
Because the Scriptures, having brought forward the Ākāśa, which is relevant, and which is the receptacle for holding the Heaven and the Earth within it, by the sentences “In which all desires are contained” and “This is the Self which is free from sin”,

1.3.14 L.64 ✅ ‘अथ य इहात्मानमनुविद्य व्रजन्त्येतांश्च सत्यान्कामान्’ इति समुच्चयार्थेन चशब्देनात्मानं कामाधारम् आश्रितांश्च कामान् विज्ञेयान् वाक्यशेषो दर्शयति।
Indicate by the complementary sentence, that the Self, which is the receptacle of desires, as well as the desires also, by the use of the word ‘also’ (Ca) which has a cumulative meaning, and which occurs in the Scriptural passage — “Those who depart from here after understanding the Self and these true desires are the things to be known”.

1.3.14 L.65 ✅ तस्माद्वाक्योपक्रमेऽपि दहर एवाकाशो हृदयपुण्डरीकाधिष्ठानः
Therefore, in the sentence in the beginning also, it is only the small Ākāśa which has its seat in the lotus of the Hṛdaya,

1.3.14 L.66 ✅ सहान्तःस्थैः समाहितैः पृथिव्यादिभिः सत्यैश्च कामैर्विज्ञेय उक्त इति गम्यते।
That is to be understood, along with the Heaven and the Earth and the true desires that are contained in it.

1.3.14 L.67 ✅ स चोक्तेभ्यो हेतुभ्यः परमेश्वर इति स्थितम्॥१४॥
And that Dahara-Ākāśa, of course, because of the reasons mentioned, is the Highest Lord. — 14.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
गतिशब्दाभ्यां तथा हि दृष्टं लिङ्गं च॥१.३.१५॥
Gati-śabdābhyāṃ tathā hi dṛṣṭaṃ liṅgaṃ ca.

Gati-śabdābhyām: on account of the going and of the word; Tathā hi: thus, like; Dṛṣṭam: it is seen; Liṅgam: mark, sign from which something may be inferred; Ca: and.

🔗 (The small Ākāśa is Brahman) because of (the mention of) progress (towards Brahman), and because of the Scriptural word. So, it is seen. (There is) an indicatory mark also. — 1.3.15.

1.3.15 L.1 ✅ दहरः परमेश्वर उत्तरेभ्यो हेतुभ्य इत्युक्तम्;
It has been mentioned (in Sūtra 14) that the small Ākāśa is the Highest Lord, because of the reasons which follow.

1.3.15 L.2 ✅ त एवोत्तरे हेतव इदानीं प्रपञ्च्यन्ते।
Those very reasons will now be elaborated in detail.

1.3.15 L.3 ✅ इतश्च परमेश्वर एव दहरः; यस्माद्दहरवाक्यशेषे परमेश्वरस्यैव प्रतिपादकौ गतिशब्दौ भवतः –
It is because there is mention of progress (Gati) (towards Brahman), and a mention of a Scriptural word, in the passage complementary to the passage about the small Ākāśa, which propounds that the small Ākāśa is but the Highest Lord only, thus: —

1.3.15 L.4 ✅ ‘इमाः सर्वाः प्रजा अहरहर्गच्छन्त्य एतं ब्रह्मलोकं न विन्दन्ति’ (ChanU.8.3.2) इति।
“All these creatures who every day keep going on to this Brahma-Loka, fail to obtain it” (ChanU.8.3.2).

1.3.15 L.5 ✅ तत्र प्रकृतं दहरं ब्रह्मलोकशब्देनाभिधाय
Here having spoken of the small Ākāśa by the word ‘Brahma-Loka’,

1.3.15 L.6 ✅ तद्विषया गतिः प्रजाशब्दवाच्यानां जीवानामभिधीयमाना दहरस्य ब्रह्मतां गमयति।
The progress of the Jīva-Selfs, which are expressed by the word ‘Prajāḥ’, towards it, spoken of (by the Scriptures), makes us comprehend that the small Ākāśa is Brahman.

1.3.15 L.7 ✅ तथा ह्यहरहर्जीवानां सुषुप्तावस्थायां ब्रह्मविषयं गमनं दृष्टं श्रुत्यन्तरे –
Similarly, in another Scriptural passage, the going of the creatures every day during the condition of sleep to Brahman, is seen, thus: —

1.3.15 L.8 ✅ ‘सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति’ (ChanU.6.8.1) इत्येवमादौ।
“Oh Saumya, (he) then becomes united with the Sat” (ChanU.6.8.1), etc.

1.3.15 L.9 ✅ लोकेऽपि किल गाढं सुषुप्तमाचक्षते ‘ब्रह्मीभूतो ब्रह्मतां गतः’ इति।
In ordinary life also, we find, that a person in deep sleep is spoken of as having become Brahman or reached Brahma-hood (or as having become ‘in tune with the infinite’).

1.3.15 L.10 ✅ तथा ब्रह्मलोकशब्दोऽपि प्रकृते दहरे प्रयुज्यमानो जीवभूताकाशाशङ्कां निवर्तयन्ब्रह्मतामस्य गमयति।
Similarly, the word ‘Brahma-Loka’ used for the small Ākāśa which is relevant here, dispels the doubt that (by the word ‘Small Ākāśa’) either the Jīva-Self or the element Ākāśa may be meant, and makes us understand that it means Brahman.

1.3.15 L.11 ✅ ननु कमलासनलोकमपि ब्रह्मलोकशब्दो गमयेत्।
But (says the opponent) the word Brahma-Loka may indicate the world of one who has a lotus as his seat, i.e., ‘Brahma-Deva’.

1.3.15 L.12 ✅ गमयेद्यदि ब्रह्मणो लोक इति षष्ठीसमासवृत्त्या व्युत्पाद्येत;
(To this we reply) — It would do so, if the compound word Brahma-Loka is explained by way of its being a genitive Tat-puruṣa compound thus: — the world, of Brahman.

1.3.15 L.13 ✅ सामानाधिकरण्यवृत्त्या तु व्युत्पाद्यमानो ब्रह्मैव लोको ब्रह्मलोक इति परमेव ब्रह्म गमयिष्यति।
But if we explain it (by saying that both the words Brahman and Loka have the same case-ending) as a Karma-dhāraya compound, and dissolve it as ‘Brahman which itself is the Loka, i.e., Brahma-Loka’, then it would indicate the Highest Brahman.

1.3.15 L.14 ✅ एतदेव चाहरहर्ब्रह्मलोकगमनं दृष्टं ब्रह्मलोकशब्दस्य सामानाधिकरण्यवृत्तिपरिग्रहे लिङ्गम्।
And this going to the Brahma-Loka that is seen day after day, is the indicatory mark for understanding Brahma-Loka as a Karma-dhāraya compound.

1.3.15 L.15 ✅ न ह्यहरहरिमाः प्रजाः कार्यब्रह्मलोकं सत्यलोकाख्यं गच्छन्तीति शक्यं कल्पयितुम्॥१५॥
It is not possible to imagine, that these creatures day after day go to the world of the effect, Brahman (Brahman, which is a creation of the Highest Brahman, i.e., Hiraṇya-garbha) which is called the Satya-Loka (the world of the true). — 15.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
धृतेश्च महिम्नोऽस्यास्मिन्नुपलब्धेः॥१.३.१६॥
Dhṛteś ca mahimno'syāsminn upalabdheḥ.

Dhṛteḥ: on account of supporting (of the world by the Ākāśa or space); Ca: and, moreover, also; Asya mahimnaḥ: this greatness; Asmin: in Brahman; Upalabdheḥ: on account of being observed or found.

🔗 Also because of the mention of ‘supporting’ (the small Ākāśa is Brahman), because this glory is seen to be His. — 1.3.16.

1.3.16 L.1 ✅ धृतेश्च हेतोः परमेश्वर एवायं दहरः।
By reason of the mention of this ‘supporting’ also, the small Ākāśa is the Highest Lord only.

1.3.16 L.2 ✅ कथम्? ‘दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ इति हि प्रकृत्य आकाशौपम्यपूर्वकं तस्मिन्सर्वसमाधानमुक्त्वा
How? Having mentioned it as the relevant thing by the passage “In it there is the small Ākāśa”, and having mentioned how everything is contained in it, by comparing it with the element Ākāśa,

1.3.16 L.3 ✅ तस्मिन्नेव चात्मशब्दं प्रयुज्यापहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणयोगं चोपदिश्य
And using the word ‘Self’ in connection with the very same (small Ākāśa), and having also given instruction that it (the small Ākāśa) possesses the quality of being free from sin,

1.3.16 L.4 ✅ तमेवानतिवृत्तप्रकरणं निर्दिशति – ‘अथ य आत्मा स सेतुर्विधृतिरेषां लोकानामसम्भेदाय’ (ChanU.8.4.1) इति।
The Scriptures indicate the self-same ‘small Ākāśa’ about which the topic of the chapter is still unfinished, (the Scriptures say), thus: — “This Self (so described before) is the bund or causeway, i.e., the support of the worlds, so that they may not be destroyed by promiscuity” (ChanU.8.4.1).

1.3.16 L.5 ✅ तत्र विधृतिरित्यात्मशब्दसामानाधिकरण्याद्विधारयितोच्यते;
Here, the word ‘support’ being used with the same case-ending as the word ‘Self’, means ‘the one who supports’,

1.3.16 L.6 ✅ क्तिचः कर्तरि स्मरणात्।
For as the Smṛti (of Pāṇini) shows, the suffix ‘Ktic’ indicates the agent or Kartā.

1.3.16 L.7 ✅ यथोदकसन्तानस्य विधारयिता लोके सेतुः क्षेत्रसम्पदामसम्भेदाय,
Just as in ordinary life, a contour bund, which stems the flow of water so that the wealth of a field may not be destroyed, is called a ‘Setu’,

1.3.16 L.8 ✅ एवमयमात्मा एषामध्यात्मादिभेदभिन्नानां लोकानां वर्णाश्रमादीनां च विधारयिता सेतुः,
Even so, is this ‘Self’ called the supporter of the worlds which are distinguished from each other by their Ādhyātmika and other differences of all the castes and Āśramas,

1.3.16 L.9 ✅ असम्भेदाय असङ्करायेति।
So that they may not be destroyed by promiscuity.

1.3.16 L.10 ✅ एवमिह प्रकृते दहरे विधारणलक्षणं महिमानं दर्शयति।
Similarly, here, the Scriptures have indicated this greatness which has the characteristic of being a support, as belonging to the small Ākāśa which is the present relevant topic.

1.3.16 L.11 ✅ अयं च महिमा परमेश्वर एव श्रुत्यन्तरादुपलभ्यते –
Now this greatness is of the Highest Lord only, as understood from another Scriptural passage,

1.3.16 L.12 ✅ ‘एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ विधृतौ तिष्ठतः’ इत्यादेः।
Thus “It is at the behest of this ‘Imperishable’, Oh Gārgi, that the Sun and the Moon stand regulated”, etc.

1.3.16 L.13 ✅ तथान्यत्रापि निश्चिते परमेश्वरवाक्ये श्रूयते –
Similarly, in another passage which indisputably refers to the Highest Lord, the Scriptures mention, thus: —

1.3.16 L.14 ✅ ‘एष सर्वेश्वर एष भूताधिपतिरेष भूतपाल एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां लोकानामसम्भेदाय’ इति।
“He is the Lord of all, the King of all created beings, their protector, and (he is) the bund or support of the worlds so that they may not be destroyed by promiscuity.”

1.3.16 L.15 ✅ एवं धृतेश्च हेतोः परमेश्वर एवायं दहरः॥१६॥
Therefore, by reason of this ‘supporting’, this small Ākāśa is the Highest Lord only. – 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
प्रसिद्धेश्च॥१.३.१७॥
Pratisiddheś ca.

Prasiddheḥ: of the well-known (meaning); Ca: also.

🔗 And also because (the meaning) is well-known. — 1.3.17.

1.3.17 L.1 ✅ इतश्च परमेश्वर एव ‘दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ इत्युच्यते;
That “In it there is the small Ākāśa” means the Highest Lord only,

1.3.17 L.2 ✅ यत्कारणमाकाशशब्दः परमेश्वरे प्रसिद्धः – ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता’ (ChanU.8.14.1) ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्ते’ (ChanU.1.9.1) इत्यादिप्रयोगदर्शनात्।
Is because of this also, viz., that the use of the word Ākāśa to indicate the Highest Lord, is well-known. We see such use of the word in — “Verily it is the Ākāśa that makes names and forms manifest” (ChanU.8.1.4) and “All these beings come into being, only out of the Ākāśa” (ChanU.1.9.1).

1.3.17 L.3 ✅ जीवे तु न क्वचिदाकाशशब्दः प्रयुज्यमानो दृश्यते।
On the other hand, we never see the word Ākāśa used to indicate the Jīva-Self.

1.3.17 L.4 ✅ भूताकाशस्तु सत्यामप्याकाशशब्दप्रसिद्धौ
As regards the element Ākāśa — even though the word Ākāśa is well-known as being used for it —

1.3.17 L.5 ✅ उपमानोपमेयभावाद्यसम्भवान्न ग्रहीतव्य इत्युक्तम्॥१७॥
That it (i.e., the element Ākāśa) should not be understood to be indicated (by the small Ākāśa) by reason of the impossibility of making out one and the same thing to be both the standard of comparison (Upamāna) as well as the subject compared (Upameya), has already been mentioned. — 17.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
इतरपरामर्शात्स इति चेन्नासम्भवात्॥१.३.१८॥
Itara-parāmarśāt sa iti cen nāsambhavāt.

Itara: the other one, that is the Jīva; Parāmarśāt: on account of reference; Saḥ: he (the individual soul); Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; A-sambhavāt: on account of impossibility.

🔗 If it be said that because there is a reference to the other (i.e., the Jīva-Self), he is meant (by small Ākāśa) (we reply) — no, because of the impossibility. — 1.3.18.

1.3.18 L.1 ✅ यदि वाक्यशेषबलेन दहर इति परमेश्वरः परिगृह्येत, अस्ति हीतरस्यापि जीवस्य वाक्यशेषे परामर्शः –
(Says the opponent — ) Even if on the strength of the complementary passage we understand that (by small Ākāśa) the Highest Lord is meant, still there is also a reference to the other, i.e., the Jīva-Self, in the complementary passage, thus —

1.3.18 L.2 ✅ ‘अथ य एष सम्प्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसम्पद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यत एष आत्मेति होवाच’ (ChanU.8.3.4) इति;
“This Jīva-Self in the serene condition of deep sleep, after having arisen out of this body and attained the condition of the Highest Light, becomes manifest in its own form, this is the Self. Thus spake He.” (ChanU.8.3.4).

1.3.18 L.3 ✅ अत्र हि सम्प्रसादशब्दः श्रुत्यन्तरे सुषुप्तावस्थायां दृष्टत्वात्तदवस्थावन्तं जीवं शक्नोत्युपस्थापयितुम्, नार्थान्तरम्;
With regard to this, the word ‘Samprasāda’, which in another Scriptural passage is seen to be used as meaning the condition of deep sleep, can only establish that it means such Jīva-Self in that condition and none else.

1.3.18 L.4 ✅ तथा शरीरव्यपाश्रयस्यैव जीवस्य शरीरात्समुत्थानं सम्भवति,
Again this arising out of the body can be possible in the case of only that Jīva-Self which has taken its resort in a body,

1.3.18 L.5 ✅ यथाकाशव्यपाश्रयाणां वाय्वादीनामाकाशात्समुत्थानम्, तद्वत्;
Just as the arising out of the Ākāśa can only be of the Vāyu, etc., which have their resort in the Ākāśa.

1.3.18 L.6 ✅ यथा चादृष्टोऽपि लोके परमेश्वरविषय आकाशशब्दः
Just as the word Ākāśa, which, in ordinary life, is not seen to refer to the Highest Lord,

1.3.18 L.7 ✅ परमेश्वरधर्मसमभिव्याहारात् ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इत्येवमादौ परमेश्वरविषयोऽभ्युपगतः,
Is still understood to refer to the Highest Lord (in the Scriptural passage) “The Ākāśa verily makes the names and forms manifest” because the attributes of the Highest Lord are mentioned together (with the attributes of the Ākāśa),

1.3.18 L.8 ✅ एवं जीवविषयोऽपि भविष्यति;
Even so can it be understood to refer to the Jīva-Self also.

1.3.18 L.9 ✅ तस्मादितरपरामर्शात् ‘दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ इत्यत्र स एव जीव उच्यत इति चेत् –
Therefore, if it be said (by the opponent) that because there is a reference to another (i.e., the Jīva-Self), it is the Jīva-Self that is spoken of in the passage “In it there is a small Ākāśa”,

1.3.18 L.10 ✅ नैतदेवं स्यात्। कस्मात्? असम्भवात्।
We reply — This could not be so. How? Because of the impossibility.

1.3.18 L.11 ✅ न हि जीवो बुद्ध्याद्युपाधिपरिच्छेदाभिमानी सन् आकाशेनोपमीयेत।
The Jīva-Self, while it fondly imagines itself to have a finite determination by reason of the adjuncts such as intelligence, etc., cannot be compared with the Ākāśa.

1.3.18 L.12 ✅ न चोपाधिधर्मानभिमन्यमानस्यापहतपाप्मत्वादयो धर्माः सम्भवन्ति।
Nor can the attributes of being free from sin, etc., be possible in the case of one who fondly identifies himself with the attributes of his limiting adjuncts.

1.3.18 L.13 ✅ प्रपञ्चितं चैतत्प्रथमसूत्रे।
This has already been discussed in detail in the first Sūtra (of the Adhikaraṇa, i.e., BrS.1.3.14),

1.3.18 L.14 ✅ अतिरेकाशङ्कापरिहाराय अत्र तु पुनरुपन्यस्तम्।
But has been mentioned here again, to remove a further doubt (which is referred to in the next Sūtra).

1.3.18 L.15 ✅ पठिष्यति चोपरिष्टात् – ‘अन्यार्थश्च परामर्शः’ (BrS.1.3.20) इति॥१‍८॥
The Sūtra-kāra will lay down hereafter the Sūtra — “The reference (to the Jīva-Self) is for another purpose (BrS.1.3.20). — 18.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उत्तराच्चेदाविर्भूतस्वरूपस्तु॥१.३.१९॥
Uttarāc ced āvir-bhūta-sva-rūpas tu.

Uttarāt: from the subsequent texts of the Śruti; Cet: if; Āvir-bhūta-sva-rūpaḥ: with its true nature made manifest; Tu: but.

🔗 If it be said that the Jīva-Self is meant because of the subsequent sentence (we reply) but it is of course so, in as much as it (the Jīva-Self) has become manifest in its own nature. — 1.3.19.

1.3.19 L.1 ✅ इतरपरामर्शाद्या जीवाशङ्का जाता, सा असम्भवान्निराकृता।
The doubt that arose because of the reference to the other (i.e., the Jīva-Self) was cleared on the ground of impossibility.

1.3.19 L.2 ✅ अथेदानीं मृतस्येवामृतसेकात् पुनः समुत्थानं जीवाशङ्कायाः क्रियते – उत्तरस्मात्प्राजापत्याद्वाक्यात्।
Now, like the resuscitation of the dead by the sprinkling of an elixir, the same doubt, about the Jīva-Self being meant here, is again revived, because of the following sentence of Prajā-pati,

1.3.19 L.3 ✅ तत्र हि ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ इत्यपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणकमात्मानमन्वेष्टव्यं विजिज्ञासितव्यं च प्रतिज्ञाय,
Wherein, after declaring that it is the Highest Self whose attribute is to be free from sin that should be sought for and desired to be known,

1.3.19 L.4 ✅ ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यत एष आत्मा’ (ChanU.8.7.4) इति ब्रुवन् अक्षिस्थं द्रष्टारं जीवमात्मानं निर्दिशति।
Prajā-pati, by saying “This person that is seen in the eye, is the Self” (ChanU.8.7.4), indicates that the Jīva-Self which is the seer in the eye, is the Self.

1.3.19 L.5 ✅ ‘एतं त्वेव ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामि’ (ChanU.8.9.3) इति च तमेव पुनः पुनः परामृश्य,
Then by referring to the same again and again, by the sentence “I shall further explain the very same one to you again”,

1.3.19 L.6 ✅ ‘य एष स्वप्ने महीयमानश्चरत्येष आत्मा’ (ChanU.8.10.1) इति
‘तद्यत्रैतत्सुप्तः समस्तः सम्प्रसन्नः स्वप्नं न विजानात्येष आत्मा’ (ChanU.8.11.1) इति च
जीवमेवावस्थान्तरगतं व्याचष्टे।
He speaks about the very same Jīva-Self as the one who has acquired another condition (i.e., of the Highest Self) by the passages —
“He who while in a dream moves about prosperous and happy, is the Self” (ChanU.8.10.1)
And “There, where this one who is asleep and is completely serene and does not experience any dream, is the Self”.

1.3.19 L.7 ✅ तस्यैव चापहतपाप्मत्वादि दर्शयति – ‘एतदमृतमभयमेतद्ब्रह्म’ इति।
He (Prajā-pati) also indicates how he (the Jīva-Self) is free from all sin by the passage — “This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman”.

1.3.19 L.8 ✅ ‘नाह खल्वयमेवं सम्प्रत्यात्मानं जानात्ययमहमस्मीति नो एवेमानि भूतानि’ (ChanU.8.11.2) इति च सुषुप्तावस्थायां दोषमुपलभ्य,
Again, Prajā-pati, after having discovered a defect in this condition of sleep, by the passage “Alas, now in this condition he verily does not himself know, that he is himself, nor does he know these beings” (ChanU.8.11.1–2),

1.3.19 L.9 ✅ ‘एतं त्वेव ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामि नो एवान्यत्रैतस्मात्’ इति चोपक्रम्य,
And by again saying “I shall again explain to you the very same one and none other”,

1.3.19 L.10 ✅ शरीरसम्बन्धनिन्दापूर्वकम् ‘एष सम्प्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसम्पद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते स उत्तमः पुरुषः’ इति जीवमेव शरीरात्समुत्थितमुत्तमं पुरुषं दर्शयति।
And thereafter, by first animadverting its connection with a body, demonstrates the same Jīva-Self as the Highest Puruṣa that has risen from a body, by the passage “This serene Puruṣa who having risen from the body, and having attained the condition of the ‘Highest Light’, becomes manifest in his own real nature, this is the Highest Puruṣa”.

1.3.19 L.11 ✅ तस्मादस्ति सम्भवो जीवे पारमेश्वराणां धर्माणाम्।
Therefore there is a possibility of the Jīva-Self possessing the attributes of the Highest Lord.

1.3.19 L.12 ✅ अतः ‘दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ इति जीव एवोक्त इति चेत्कश्चिद्ब्रूयात्;
Hence, if one were to say, that by ‘In it there is a small Ākāśa’ the Scriptures speak of the Jīva-Self only,

1.3.19 L.13 ✅ तं प्रति ब्रूयात् – ‘आविर्भूतस्वरूपस्तु’ इति।
You should reply, thus: — (The Jīva-Self is so), however, when it has become manifest in its own nature.

1.3.19 L.14 ✅ तुशब्दः पूर्वपक्षव्यावृत्त्यर्थः;
The word ‘But’ (in the Sūtra) has the sense of refuting the view of the opponent.

1.3.19 L.15 ✅ नोत्तरस्मादपि वाक्यादिह जीवस्याशङ्का सम्भवतीत्यर्थः।
The meaning is, that a doubt about the Jīva-Self being meant is not possible, even because of the sentence which follows.

1.3.19 L.16 ✅ कस्मात्? यतस्तत्राप्याविर्भूतस्वरूपो जीवो विवक्ष्यते।
Whence is it so? Because there also, it is desired to speak about that Jīva-Self which has become manifest in its own true nature.

1.3.19 L.17 ✅ आविर्भूतं स्वरूपमस्येत्याविर्भूतस्वरूपः;
(Āvir-bhūta-svarūpaḥ is one whose nature has become manifest — a Bahu-vrīhi compound.)

1.3.19 L.18 ✅ भूतपूर्वगत्या जीववचनम्।
That the word Jīva-Self is used for it (even when it has become manifest in its own true nature) is in view of the conventional use of that term (for it), as it was there (before it became so manifest).

1.3.19 L.19 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि’ इत्यक्षिलक्षितं द्रष्टारं निर्दिश्य,
That amounts to saying “Having indicated the ‘Seer’ that is seen in the eye”, by the sentence “This, that (is seen) in the eye”,

1.3.19 L.20 ✅ उदशरावब्राह्मणेन एनं शरीरात्मताया व्युत्थाप्य,
And having refuted the view of its possessing corporeality, by the ‘Brāhmaṇa (passage) about the water trough’ (Uda-śarāva-Brāhmaṇa),

1.3.19 L.21 ✅ ‘एतं त्वेव ते’ इति पुनः पुनस्तमेव व्याख्येयत्वेनाकृष्य,
And having again and again brought him forward, as being the subject for explanation by the words “This very same (I shall explain in detail to you)”,

1.3.19 L.22 ✅ स्वप्नसुषुप्तोपन्यासक्रमेण ‘परं ज्योतिरुपसम्पद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते’ इति
And by way of making allusion to the conditions of dreams and sleep, (Prajā-pati), by the sentence “having attained the highest light, becomes manifest in its own true nature”,

1.3.19 L.23 ✅ यदस्य पारमार्थिकं स्वरूपं परं ब्रह्म,
Speaks of that very same Jīva-Self as the Highest Brahman,

1.3.19 L.24 ✅ तद्रूपतयैनं जीवं व्याचष्टे; न जैवेन रूपेण।
Which is the Jīva-Self’s true nature, and not with a view to speak of the Jīva-Self as in fact having the nature (Sva-rūpa) of the Jīva-Self.

1.3.19 L.25 ✅ यत्तत् परं ज्योतिरुपसम्पत्तव्यं श्रुतम्, तत्परं ब्रह्म;
What the Scriptures say about the Highest Light that is to be attained, is only the Highest Brahman.

1.3.19 L.26 ✅ तच्चापहतपाप्मत्वादिधर्मकम्;
That (as we know) has the attribute of being free from sin,

1.3.19 L.27 ✅ तदेव च जीवस्य पारमार्थिकं स्वरूपम् – ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यादिशास्त्रेभ्यः,
And that in reality is the true nature of the Jīva-Self, according to the Śāstra “That thou art”, etc.,

1.3.19 L.28 ✅ नेतरदुपाधिकल्पितम्।
And not that other nature, which is imagined through limiting adjuncts (Nescience).

1.3.19 L.29 ✅ यावदेव हि स्थाणाविव पुरुषबुद्धिं द्वैतलक्षणामविद्यां निवर्तयन्कूटस्थनित्यदृक्स्वरूपमात्मानम् ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इति न प्रतिपद्यते, तावज्जीवस्य जीवत्वम्।
The Jīva-Self’s Jīva-selfhood lasts, only as long as it does not get rid of its ignorance, i.e., Nescience which has the characteristic of duality, similar to a man’s mistaken belief that a post is a man, and as long as it does not realize its own self as Brahman, which has the nature of being eternally immoveable and ever-seeing (Dṛk-svarūpa’).

1.3.19 L.30 ✅ यदा तु देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिसङ्घाताद्व्युत्थाप्य श्रुत्या प्रतिबोध्यते
When however, the Scriptures, by rousing him (i.e. Jīva-Self) from (his wrong notion of) being an aggregate of body, sense-organs, mind, and intelligence, makes him realize thus: —

1.3.19 L.31 ✅ नासि त्वं देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिसङ्घातः,
You are not an aggregate of body, sense-organs, mind and intelligence,

1.3.19 L.32 ✅ नासि संसारी –
You are not the one that is really subject to transmigratory existence,

1.3.19 L.33 ✅ किं तर्हि? – तद्यत्सत्यं स आत्मा चैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपस्तत्त्वमसीति;
But that you are that, which is the Truth, that ‘Self’ which has the nature of pure intelligence only, —

1.3.19 L.34 ✅ तदा कूटस्थनित्यदृक्स्वरूपमात्मानं प्रतिबुध्य अस्माच्छरीराद्यभिमानात्समुत्तिष्ठन्
Then, the Jīva-Self, having realized himself to be of the nature of being eternally immoveable and everseeing, and having risen above identifying himself with the body etc.,

1.3.19 L.35 ✅ स एव कूटस्थनित्यदृक्स्वरूप आत्मा भवति –
Himself becomes the Self which is eternally immoveable and everseeing,

1.3.19 L.36 ✅ ‘स यो ह वै तत्परमं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति’ (MunU.3.2.9) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
As expressed by the Scriptural passage — “He who knows this Highest Brahman, himself becomes Brahman” (MunU.3.2.9).

1.3.19 L.37 ✅ तदेव चास्य पारमार्थिकं स्वरूपम्, येन शरीरात्समुत्थाय स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते।
That alone is his nature in the truest sense, wherein he manifests himself in his own nature, after rousing himself from the body.

1.3.19 L.38 ✅ कथं पुनः स्वं च रूपं स्वेनैव च निष्पद्यत इति सम्भवति कूटस्थनित्यस्य?
But here, the opponent intervenes. How ever can it be possible in the case of that entity which is eternally immoveable, that very entity manifests itself in its own true nature?

1.3.19 L.39 ✅ सुवर्णादीनां तु द्रव्यान्तरसम्पर्कादभिभूतस्वरूपाणामनभिव्यक्तासाधारणविशेषाणां क्षारप्रक्षेपादिभिः शोध्यमानानां स्वरूपेणाभिनिष्पत्तिः स्यात्;
May be, that in the case of such things as gold etc., whose nature has become obliterated by their contact with other things, and whose peculiar speciality has thus become unobservable, and who are being purified by means of salts, acids etc., it is possible, that such things may thus manifest themselves in their own nature.

1.3.19 L.40 ✅ तथा नक्षत्रादीनामहन्यभिभूतप्रकाशानामभिभावकवियोगे रात्रौ स्वरूपेणाभिनिष्पत्तिः स्यात्;
Similarly, it may be that the stars etc. whose light is obscured during the day, do reappear in their proper form, when during the night, they are separated from the daylight which obscures them.

1.3.19 L.41 ✅ न तु तथात्मचैतन्यज्योतिषो नित्यस्य केनचिदभिभवः सम्भवति
But a similar obliteration of that, which is eternal and whose light of intelligence is inherent in itself, by anything, is not possible,

1.3.19 L.42 ✅ असंसर्गित्वात् व्योम्न इव, दृष्टविरोधाच्च;
Because like the Ākāśa (Vyoma) it is never in real contact with anything, and also because it is contrary to (our) experience.

1.3.19 L.43 ✅ दृष्टिश्रुतिमतिविज्ञातयो हि जीवस्य स्वरूपम्;
This seeing, hearing, understanding and cognizing constitute the nature (Rūpa) of the Jīva-Self.

1.3.19 L.44 ✅ तच्च शरीरादसमुत्थितस्यापि जीवस्य सदा निष्पन्नमेव दृश्यते;
This (nature) is seen to be always manifest even when the Jīva-Self has not arisen from the body.

1.3.19 L.45 ✅ सर्वो हि जीवः पश्यन् शृण्वन् मन्वानो विजानन्व्यवहरति, अन्यथा व्यवहारानुपपत्तेः;
It is by seeing, hearing, understanding and cognizing that all Jīva-Selfs carry on worldly transactions, for otherwise, worldly transactions would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.3.19 L.46 ✅ तच्चेत् शरीरात्समुत्थितस्य निष्पद्येत,
If that were to be possible in its case only after it has roused itself from the body,

1.3.19 L.47 ✅ प्राक्समुत्थानाद्दृष्टो व्यवहारो विरुध्येत।
Then worldly transactions which are observable before its rousing itself from the body would be contradicted.

1.3.19 L.48 ✅ अतः किमात्मकमिदं शरीरात्समुत्थानम्,
Hence, of what nature is this rousing itself from the body,

1.3.19 L.49 ✅ किमात्मिका वा स्वरूपेणाभिनिष्पत्तिरिति।
And of what nature is this becoming manifest in its own true nature?

1.3.19 L.50 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – प्राग्विवेकविज्ञानोत्पत्तेः
To this we reply — Prior to the generation of understanding by means of proper discrimination,

1.3.19 L.51 ✅ शरीरेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिविषयवेदनोपाधिभिरविविक्तमिव जीवस्य दृष्ट्यादिज्योतिःस्वरूपं भवति;
The Jīva-Self’s cognitional faculty of the nature of light (Jyotis-svarūpa) by way of seeing etc. (Dṛṣṭyādi), is, as it were, undistinguishable from such limiting adjuncts as the body, sense-organs, mind, intelligence, objects of sense-organs and feelings.

1.3.19 L.52 ✅ यथा शुद्धस्य स्फटिकस्य स्वाच्छ्यं शौक्ल्यं च स्वरूपं प्राग्विवेकग्रहणाद्रक्तनीलाद्युपाधिभिरविविक्तमिव भवति;
Just as the nature of a pure crystal, viz. its purity and whiteness, is undistinguishable as it were, on account of such limiting adjuncts as redness and blueness, prior to its being understood with proper discrimination,

1.3.19 L.53 ✅ प्रमाणजनितविवेकग्रहणात्तु पराचीनः स्फटिकः स्वाच्छ्येन शौक्ल्येन च स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यत इत्युच्यते प्रागपि तथैव सन्;
But after it is so understood with proper discrimination resulting from Pramāṇa i.e. means-of-proof, the crystal, so understood afterwards, is said to appear in its own nature of purity and whiteness, even though it was the same crystal even before,

1.3.19 L.54 ✅ तथा देहाद्युपाध्यविविक्तस्यैव सतो जीवस्य श्रुतिकृतं विवेकविज्ञानं शरीरात्समुत्थानम्,
Similarly, the discriminating cognition by the Jīva-Self produced in it by the Scriptures, undiscriminated as it is on account of the limiting adjuncts of the body etc., is just ‘this rising from the body’,

1.3.19 L.55 ✅ विवेकविज्ञानफलं स्वरूपेणाभिनिष्पत्तिः केवलात्मस्वरूपावगतिः।
And the fruit of such proper discrimination is in its becoming manifest in its own nature, and in its realization of its nature as the pure (Kevala) Self.

1.3.19 L.56 ✅ तथा विवेकाविवेकमात्रेणैवात्मनोऽशरीरत्वं सशरीरत्वं च
Moreover, it is as a result of this want of discrimination or proper discrimination respectively that the Self (Ātmā) is considered to be either embodied or unembodied,

1.3.19 L.57 ✅ मन्त्रवर्णात् ‘अशरीरं शरीरेषु’ (KathU.1.2.22) इति,
As described by the Mantra words — “Unembodied amongst the bodies” (KathU.1.2.22),

1.3.19 L.58 ✅ ‘शरीरस्थोऽपि कौन्तेय न करोति न लिप्यते’ (BhG.13.31) इति च सशरीरत्वाशरीरत्वविशेषाभावस्मरणात्।
And also by the Smṛti thus — “Though dwelling in the body, Oh Kaunteya, it neither acts nor is it contaminated” (BhG.13.31), which speak about the absence of any special distinction between the embodied and unembodied conditions.

1.3.19 L.59 ✅ तस्माद्विवेकविज्ञानाभावादनाविर्भूतस्वरूपः सन् विवेकविज्ञानादाविर्भूतस्वरूप इत्युच्यते।
It is because of this, therefore, that it is said, that the Self, which is not manifest by reason of the want of discrimination, becomes manifest in its own nature as a result of understanding by proper discrimination.

1.3.19 L.60 ✅ न त्वन्यादृशौ आविर्भावानाविर्भावौ स्वरूपस्य सम्भवतः, स्वरूपत्वादेव।
There could not in fact possibly be any such, both equally true, manifest and unmanifest conditions, of the real nature of a thing, as it has its own real nature (right enough all along).

1.3.19 L.61 ✅ एवं मिथ्याज्ञानकृत एव जीवपरमेश्वरयोर्भेदः, न वस्तुकृतः;
It is only in this manner, therefore, that the so-called distinction between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Lord is caused by false-knowledge or Nescience, and it is never inherent in the thing itself,

1.3.19 L.62 ✅ व्योमवदसङ्गत्वाविशेषात्।
Because, this absence of any real contact with anything, is common between it (the Self) and the Ākāśa.

1.3.19 L.63 ✅ कुतश्चैतदेवं प्रतिपत्तव्यम्?
Oh, but how is one to understand it to be like this?

1.3.19 L.64 ✅ यतः ‘य एषोऽक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते’ इत्युपदिश्य ‘एतदमृतमभयमेतद्ब्रह्म’ इत्युपदिशति।
(You ought to understand it to be so) because after first giving instruction about “This Puruṣa that is in the eye”, Prajā-pati proceeds to impart the further instruction — “This is the immortal, and the fearless, it is Brahman”.

1.3.19 L.65 ✅ योऽक्षिणि प्रसिद्धो द्रष्टा द्रष्टृत्वेन विभाव्यते,
Were the well-known seer in the eye, who is understood by way of his attribute of being the seer,

1.3.19 L.66 ✅ सोऽमृताभयलक्षणाद्ब्रह्मणोऽन्यश्चेत्स्यात्,
To be different from Brahman which has the attribute of being the immortal and fearless,

1.3.19 L.67 ✅ ततोऽमृताभयब्रह्मसामानाधिकरण्यं न स्यात्।
Then there could not be the same case-ending for both the seer and the immortal and fearless Brahman.

1.3.19 L.68 ✅ नापि प्रतिच्छायात्मायमक्षिलक्षितो निर्दिश्यते, प्रजापतेर्मृषावादित्वप्रसङ्गात्।
Nor can Prajā-pati be understood to indicate this reflected Self in the eye (as the indicatory mark of Brahman), because that would expose him to the predicament of being one who speaks to a falsehood.

1.3.19 L.69 ✅ तथा द्वितीयेऽपि पर्याये ‘य एष स्वप्ने महीयमानश्चरति’ इति
Similarly in the second chapter also, in the passage “This one who moves about with great glory during dreams” (ChanU.8.10.1),

1.3.19 L.70 ✅ न प्रथमपर्यायनिर्दिष्टादक्षिपुरुषाद्द्रष्टुरन्यो निर्दिष्टः,
No one, other than the one that is indicated in the first chapter as the Puruṣa in the eye and the seer, is indicated,

1.3.19 L.71 ✅ ‘एतं त्वेव ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामि’ इत्युपक्रमात्।
Because the introductory part says, “I shall explain the very same in greater detail, to you again” (ChanU.8.9.3).

1.3.19 L.72 ✅ किञ्च ‘अहमद्य स्वप्ने हस्तिनमद्राक्षम्, नेदानीं तं पश्यामि’ इति दृष्टमेव प्रतिबुद्धः प्रत्याचष्टे।
Besides a person who has waked up (from a dream) says — Today I saw an elephant in a dream, but I do not see any elephant now (when I am awake), and thus rejects what he has seen (in the dream),

1.3.19 L.73 ✅ द्रष्टारं तु तमेव प्रत्यभिजानाति – ‘य एवाहं स्वप्नमद्राक्षम्, स एवाहं जागरितं पश्यामि’ इति।
But he knows that the seer during both these conditions is the same, viz., I who saw a dream am the same that am now seeing (in this wakeful condition).

1.3.19 L.74 ✅ तथा तृतीयेऽपि पर्याये – ‘नाह खल्वयमेवं सम्प्रत्यात्मानं जानात्ययमहमस्मीति नो एवेमानि भूतानि’ इति सुषुप्तावस्थायां विशेषविज्ञानाभावमेव दर्शयति,
So also in the third chapter, Prajā-pati merely indicates that there is absence of any special cognition during sleep, by the passage “He verily does not know himself as himself, nor these beings” (ChanU.8.12.1),

1.3.19 L.75 ✅ न विज्ञातारं प्रतिषेधति।
But he does not deny the existence of (himself) as the cognizer.

1.3.19 L.76 ✅ यत्तु तत्र ‘विनाशमेवापीतो भवति’ इति, तदपि विशेषविज्ञानविनाशाभिप्रायमेव,
Now what is said there, viz., “He has gone into utter annihilation” (ChanU.8.12.2) is also meant to convey the annihilation of the special cognition only,

1.3.19 L.77 ✅ न विज्ञातृविनाशाभिप्रायम्;
And not meant to convey the utter annihilation of the cognizer,

1.3.19 L.78 ✅ ‘न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वात्’ (BrhU.4.3.30) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्।
Because of another Scriptural passage as follows: — “There is no annihilation of the cognition of the cognizer, precisely because of the indestructibility (of cognition)” (BrhUEng.4.3.30).

1.3.19 L.79 ✅ तथा चतुर्थेऽपि पर्याये ‘एतं त्वेव ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामि नो एवान्यत्रैतस्मात्’ इत्युपक्रम्य
Similarly in the fourth chapter, starting with “I shall explain the same to you again in detail and none other” (ChanU.8.12.3),

1.3.19 L.80 ✅ ‘मघवन् मर्त्यं वा इदं शरीरम्’ इत्यादिना प्रपञ्चेन
And then by explaining further in detail by the passage “Oh Maghavan, verily this body is mortal” (ChanU.8.12.1)

1.3.19 L.81 ✅ शरीराद्युपाधिसम्बन्धप्रत्याख्यानेन
And by rejecting the possibility of any relation (of the Highest Self) with such limiting adjuncts as the body etc.,

1.3.19 L.82 ✅ सम्प्रसादशब्दोदितं जीवम् ‘स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते’ इति ब्रह्मस्वरूपापन्नं दर्शयन्,
And showing the Jīva-Self, indicated by the words ‘the serene one’, as having attained the nature of Brahman by the words, “Becomes manifest in his own true nature” (ChanU.8.12.3),

1.3.19 L.83 ✅ न परस्माद्ब्रह्मणोऽमृताभयस्वरूपादन्यं जीवं दर्शयति।
Prajā-pati shows how the Jīva-Self is not different from the Highest Brahman which has the nature of being immortal and fearless.

1.3.19 L.84 ✅ केचित्तु परमात्मविवक्षायाम् ‘एतं त्वेव ते’ इति जीवाकर्षणमन्याय्यं मन्यमाना एतमेव वाक्योपक्रमसूचितमपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणकमात्मानं ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामीति कल्पयन्ति।
Some others, who consider the bringing forward of the Jīva-Self by the words “This same (I will explain in detail) to you” as not logical, when the intention is to speak of the Highest Self, consider, that the same (Highest) Self, which has been suggested in the opening sentence and which has the attributes of being free from sin etc., is the one that is sought to be further explained in detail.

1.3.19 L.85 ✅ तेषाम् ‘एतम्’ इति सन्निहितावलम्बिनी सर्वनामश्रुतिर्विप्रकृष्येत;
In their view of the case, the mention by the Scriptures of the pronoun ‘this’ (Etam) which governs what is proximate to it, would be contradictory (i.e. it would govern something which is not proximate)

1.3.19 L.86 ✅ भूयःश्रुतिश्चोपरुध्येत;
And would also go against the mention of the word ‘again’,

1.3.19 L.87 ✅ पर्यायान्तराभिहितस्य पर्यायान्तरेऽनभिधीयमानत्वात्।
Because in that case that which is spoken of in the previous chapter, will not have been spoken of in the next chapter.

1.3.19 L.88 ✅ ‘एतं त्वेव ते’ इति च प्रतिज्ञाय प्राक्चतुर्थात्पर्यायादन्यमन्यं व्याचक्षाणस्य प्रजापतेः
It would also mean that Prajā-pati after promising “The very same (I would explain to you again)”, would be, in effect, speaking of a different thing in all the chapters before the fourth chapter,

1.3.19 L.89 ✅ प्रतारकत्वं प्रसज्येत।
And would thus bring upon himself the charge of being a prevericator.

1.3.19 L.90 ✅ तस्मात् यदविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितमपारमार्थिकं जैवं रूपं कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वरागद्वेषादिदोषकलुषितमनेकानर्थयोगि,
Therefore, (it must be understood) that the unreal nature of the Jīva-Self brought about by Nescience, which is rendered impure by the faults of desires and aversions of the Agent and experiencer, and which is connected with many evils, is thus dissolved by true knowledge,

1.3.19 L.91 ✅ तद्विलयनेन तद्विपरीतमपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणकं पारमेश्वरं स्वरूपं विद्यया प्रतिपद्यते,
And shown to be of the opposite nature i.e. of the nature of the Highest Lord, which has the attribute of being free from sin etc.,

1.3.19 L.92 ✅ सर्पादिविलयनेनेव रज्ज्वादीन्।
Just as a rope etc. is understood to be really a rope, after the false notion of its being a snake etc. is dissolved.

1.3.19 L.93 ✅ अपरे तु वादिनः पारमार्थिकमेव जैवं रूपमिति मन्यन्तेऽस्मदीयाश्च केचित्।
Some others again, including some from amongst us, consider that the nature of the Jīva-Self is in fact real.

1.3.19 L.94 ✅ तेषां सर्वेषामात्मैकत्वसम्यग्दर्शनप्रतिपक्षभूतानां प्रतिषेधायेदं शारीरकमारब्धम् –
It is with the intention of making these people, who have ranged themselves as the opponents of the view of the unity of the Self and correct knowledge, that this Śārīraka is begun (by the Ācārya),

1.3.19 L.95 ✅ एक एव परमेश्वरः कूटस्थनित्यो विज्ञानधातुरविद्यया, मायया मायाविवत्, अनेकधा विभाव्यते,
(The correct view being) that there is but one and only one, the Highest Lord, who is eternally immoveable and has the essence of knowledge as his structure, who under the influence of ignorance i.e. illusion (Māyā) is, as by an illusionist, made to appear in different ways,

1.3.19 L.96 ✅ नान्यो विज्ञानधातुरस्तीति।
And that there is nothing else which has this essence of knowledge as its structure.

1.3.19 L.97 ✅ यत्त्विदं परमेश्वरवाक्ये जीवमाशङ्क्य प्रतिषेधति सूत्रकारः – ‘नासम्भवात्’ (BrS.1.3.18) इत्यादिना, तत्रायमभिप्रायः –
Now, the fact, that the Sūtra-kāra, in the passage dealing with the Highest Lord, first raises the doubt, that it indicates the Jīva-Self, and then rejects it by the Sūtra, “No, because of the impossibility” (BrS.1.3.18), can be said to purport to mean as follows: —

1.3.19 L.98 ✅ नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावे कूटस्थनित्ये एकस्मिन्नसङ्गे परमात्मनि तद्विपरीतं जैवं रूपं व्योम्नीव तलमलादि परिकल्पितम्;
Just as it is imagined, that the Ākāśa has concavity and that it is dusty, similarly it is imagined, that the Highest Self, which has as its nature, eternal purity, knowledge, and freedom (from worldly existence) and which is eternally immoveable and uncontaminated, is of the opposite nature, viz. that of the Jīva-Self.

1.3.19 L.99 ✅ तत् आत्मैकत्वप्रतिपादनपरैर्वाक्यैर्न्यायोपेतैर्द्वैतवादप्रतिषेधैश्चापनेष्यामीति –
And it is with a view to remove that misconception, by passages which establish the unity of Self, and which conform to reasoning and which reject the opinion of duality,

1.3.19 L.100 ✅ परमात्मनो जीवादन्यत्वं द्रढयति;
That the Sūtra-kāra emphasizes the distinction as between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Lord.

1.3.19 L.101 ✅ जीवस्य तु न परस्मादन्यत्वं प्रतिपिपादयिषति;
The Sūtra-kāra does not desire to assert that the Jīva-Self is different from the Highest Lord,

1.3.19 L.102 ✅ किं त्वनुवदत्येवाविद्याकल्पितं लोकप्रसिद्धं जीवभेदम्;
But only refers to the popular notion about the Jīva-Self as imagined through Nescience.

1.3.19 L.103 ✅ एवं हि स्वाभाविककर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वानुवादेन प्रवृत्ताः कर्मविधयो न विरुध्यन्त इति मन्यते।
It is understood (by us), that it is only in this way, that any opposition to the injunctions to action which proceed with reference to the natural Kartṛtva and Bhoktṛtva of the Jīva-Self, is avoided.

1.3.19 L.104 ✅ प्रतिपाद्यं तु शास्त्रार्थमात्मैकत्वमेव दर्शयति –
That the unity of the Self is the meaning of the Śāstra, and is what is to be expounded,

1.3.19 L.105 ✅ ‘शास्त्रदृष्ट्या तूपदेशो वामदेववत्’ (BrS.1.1.30) इत्यादिना।
Is indicated (by the Sūtra-kāra) by the Sūtra “The instruction (by Indra to Pratardana) is in conformity with the view of the Śāstra, as was in the case of Vāma-deva” (BrS.1.1.30) etc.

1.3.19 L.106 ✅ वर्णितश्चास्माभिः विद्वदविद्वद्भेदेन कर्मविधिविरोधपरिहारः॥१९॥
We have already refuted the objection, that our view goes against (the Śāstra of the) injunctions to actions, by means of the distinction between those who have knowledge (of Brahman) and those who have not. — 19.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्यार्थश्च परामर्शः॥१.३.२०॥
Anyārthaś ca parāmarśaḥ.

Anya-arthaḥ: for a different purpose; Ca: and; Parāmarśaḥ: reference.

🔗 The reference (to the Jīva-Self) is for the sake of the other (i.e. the Highest Self). — 1.3.20.

1.3.20 L.1 ✅ अथ योऽयं दहरवाक्यशेषे जीवपरामर्शो दर्शितः – ‘अथ य एष सम्प्रसादः’ (ChanU.8.3.4) इत्यादिः,
(With regard to the opponent’s objection) that the reference to the Jīva-Self indicated in the passage complementary to the sentence about the small (Ākāśa), thus — “This serene being” (ChanU.8.3.4) etc. —

1.3.20 L.2 ✅ स दहरे परमेश्वरे व्याख्यायमाने, न जीवोपासनोपदेशः, नापि प्रकृतविशेषोपदेशः – इत्यनर्थकत्वं प्राप्नोतीत्यत
Would be rendered useless if the instruction were to be neither about devout meditation on the Jīva-Self, nor about the particular special thing relevant here (viz. the small Ākāśa), and if we were to explain the small (Ākāśa) to mean the Highest Lord,

1.3.20 L.3 ✅ आह – अन्यार्थोऽयं जीवपरामर्शो न जीवस्वरूपपर्यवसायी –
We reply — This reference is for the sake of the other (viz. the Highest Self) i.e. it is not meant to culminate in showing that the Jīva-Self is meant.

1.3.20 L.4 ✅ किं तर्हि? – परमेश्वरस्वरूपपर्यवसायी।
To what does it then refer? It is meant to culminate in showing that the Highest Lord is meant.

1.3.20 L.5 ✅ कथम्? सम्प्रसादशब्दोदितो जीवो जागरितव्यवहारे देहेन्द्रियपञ्जराध्यक्षो भूत्वा,
How so? (It is to show that) the Jīva-Self indicated by the word ‘the serene being’, becoming first, the presiding authority over the cage of the body and sense-organs during the wakeful condition,

1.3.20 L.6 ✅ तद्वासनानिर्मितांश्च स्वप्नान्नाडीचरोऽनुभूय,
And next, becoming one as moving in the Nāḍīs and experiencing dreams caused by the desires (of the wakeful condition),

1.3.20 L.7 ✅ श्रान्तः शरणं प्रेप्सुरुभयरूपादपि शरीराभिमानात्समुत्थाय,
And (then) being exhausted and desirous of obtaining some sanctuary, and rising above the false pride i.e. vanity of identifying itself with both the kinds of (the gross and subtle) bodies,

1.3.20 L.8 ✅ सुषुप्तावस्थायां परं ज्योतिराकाशशब्दितं परं ब्रह्मोपसम्पद्य,
And attaining, during deep sleep, the Highest Light i.e. the Highest Brahman which here is expressed by the word Ākāśa,

1.3.20 L.9 ✅ विशेषविज्ञानवत्त्वं च परित्यज्य, स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते;
And also in that condition giving up its ability for special cognition (in its capacity as the Jīva-Self as affected by limiting adjuncts), becomes manifest in its own true nature.

1.3.20 L.10 ✅ यदस्योपसम्पत्तव्यं परं ज्योतिः, येन स्वेन रूपेणायमभिनिष्पद्यते,
This Highest Light which it attains, and its own nature in which it so manifests itself,

1.3.20 L.11 ✅ स एष आत्मापहतपाप्मत्वादिगुण उपास्यः –
Means this ‘Self’ which has the attribute of being free from sin, and which is the object of devout meditation.

1.3.20 L.12 ✅ इत्येवमर्थोऽयं जीवपरामर्शः परमेश्वरवादिनोऽप्युपपद्यते॥२०॥
And it is for this purpose, that this reference to the Jīva-Self can be reasonably sustainable in the case of those who hold that by the ‘small’ (Ākāśa) the Highest Lord is meant. — 20.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अल्पश्रुतेरिति चेत्तदुक्तम्॥१.३.२१॥
Alpa-śruter iti cet tad uktam.

Alpa-śruteḥ: because of the Śruti declaring its smallness; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Tat: that; Uktam: has already been explained.

🔗 If it be objected that the Scriptures mention (the smallness of the Ākāśa), it has already been answered. — 1.3.21.

1.3.21 L.1 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – ‘दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ इत्याकाशस्याल्पत्वं श्रूयमाणं परमेश्वरे नोपपद्यते,
(Now, what the opponents have said) — viz. that the smallness of the Ākāśa, about which the Scriptures speak in the passage “In it there is the small Ākāśa”, is not reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Lord,

1.3.21 L.2 ✅ जीवस्य तु आराग्रोपमितस्याल्पत्वमवकल्पत इति; तस्य परिहारो वक्तव्यः।
But such smallness is possible in the case of the Jīva-Self which is compared with the point of a goad — has to be refuted.

1.3.21 L.3 ✅ उक्तो ह्यस्य परिहारः – परमेश्वरेऽप्यापेक्षिकमल्पत्वमवकल्पत इति, ‘अर्भकौकस्त्वात्तद्व्यपदेशाच्च नेति चेन्न निचाय्यत्वादेवं व्योमवच्च’ (BrS.1.2.7) इत्यत्र;
In the Sūtra (BrS.1.2.7), it has already been refuted by saying that the smallness of the Highest Self is reasonably sustainable in relation to the contemplation of Brahman, as having a tiny nest.

1.3.21 L.4 ✅ स एवेह परिहारोऽनुसन्धातव्य इति सूचयति।
This Sūtra suggests, that the same refutation should be followed here.

1.3.21 L.5 ✅ श्रुत्यैव च इदमल्पत्वं प्रत्युक्तं प्रसिद्धेनाकाशेनोपमिमानया
The Scriptures themselves have refuted this relative smallness, by comparing it with the well-known element, Ākāśa, thus —

1.3.21 L.6 ✅ ‘यावान्वा अयमाकाशस्तावानेषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशः’ इति॥२१॥
“The measure of the Ākāśa in the ‘Hṛdaya’ is the same as the measure of the element, Ākāśa.” — 21.

– 23. Dahara-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.22 Su..23

←Prev Next→
अनुकृतेस्तस्य च॥१.३.२२॥
Anukṛtes tasya ca.

Anukṛteḥ: because of the acting after, from imitation, from the following; Tasya: its; Ca: and.

🔗 It is because of the shining in the wake of, and also because of, the word ‘His’ (meaning the Highest Self, that everything is made manifest). — 1.3.22.

1.3.22 L.1 ✅ ‘न तत्र सूर्यो भाति न चन्द्रतारकं नेमा विद्युतो भान्ति कुतोऽयमग्निः।
तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति’ (MunU.2.2.11) इति समामनन्ति।
The Scriptures mention — “In its presence (Tatra = Tasmin Svātmabhūte Brahmaṇi) the Sun does not shine, nor the moon and the stars, nor lightning, and much less, fire.
All this shines in the wake of its shining. By its (borrowed) lustre all this shines” (MunU.2.2.11).

1.3.22 L.2 ✅ तत्र यं भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं यस्य च भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति,
Now, the doubt is as to whether, that, in whose wake all this shines, and by whose lustre all this becomes manifest,

1.3.22 L.3 ✅ स किं तेजोधातुः कश्चित्,
Is some lustrous matter (Tejo-dhātuḥ),

1.3.22 L.4 ✅ उत प्राज्ञ आत्मेति विचिकित्सायां तेजोधातुरिति तावत्प्राप्तम्।
or it is the Highest Self.

1.3.22 L.5 ✅ कुतः? तेजोधातूनामेव सूर्यादिनां भानप्रतिषेधात्।
The conclusion (of the opponent) is, that it is some lustrous matter such as the Sun etc.

1.3.22 L.6 ✅ तेजःस्वभावकं हि चन्द्रतारकादि तेजःस्वभावक एव सूर्ये भासमाने अहनि न भासत इति प्रसिद्धम्।
That the moon and the stars who have the nature of lustre, do not manifest themselves, when the Sun, whose nature also is lustre, shines during the day-time, is well-known.

1.3.22 L.7 ✅ तथा सह सूर्येण सर्वमिदं चन्द्रतारकादि यस्मिन्न भासते, सोऽपि तेजःस्वभाव एव कश्चिदित्यवगम्यते।
So, we think that, that something in whose presence (i.e. when it is shining) the moon and the stars along with the Sun do not shine, must also be something having the nature of lustre.

1.3.22 L.8 ✅ अनुभानमपि तेजःस्वभावक एवोपपद्यते,
This shining in the wake (of something) is reasonably sustainable in the case of things which have lustre as their nature,

1.3.22 L.9 ✅ समानस्वभावकेष्वनुकारदर्शनात्;
Because we see that things which have similar nature imitate each other.

1.3.22 L.10 ✅ ‘गच्छन्तमनुगच्छति’ इतिवत्।
For instance, it is only when there is already a man that is walking, that another is said to follow him.

1.3.22 L.11 ✅ तस्मात्तेजोधातुः कश्चिदित्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
Therefore (what is meant in the above passage) must be something which possesses lustre.

1.3.22 L.12 ✅ प्राज्ञ एवायमात्मा भवितुमर्हति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent), we reply — It is only the Highest Self that deserves to be what is meant.

1.3.22 L.13 ✅ कस्मात्? अनुकृतेः;
Why so? Because of the imitation (i.e. shining in the wake of).

1.3.22 L.14 ✅ अनुकरणमनुकृतिः;
The word ‘Anukṛti’ means doing likewise.

1.3.22 L.15 ✅ यदेतत् ‘तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वम्’ इत्यनुभानम्, तत्प्राज्ञपरिग्रहेऽवकल्पते; ‘भारूपः सत्यसङ्कल्पः’ (ChanU.3.14.2) इति हि प्राज्ञमात्मानमामनन्ति;
It is only if we understand the Highest Self as meant by “All this shines in the wake of that which shines” that it becomes reasonably sustainable, because the Highest Self is mentioned as being “one whose nature is lustre”, and as “one whose desires are true” (ChanU.3.14.2).

1.3.22 L.16 ✅ न तु तेजोधातुं कञ्चित्सूर्यादयोऽनुभान्तीति प्रसिद्धम्; समत्वाच्च तेजोधातूनां सूर्यादीनां न तेजोधातुमन्यं प्रत्यपेक्षास्ति, यं भान्तमनुभायुः;
To be lustrous is common to such things as the Sun etc., and they do not require anything of a similar nature, in whose wake they must needs shine.

1.3.22 L.17 ✅ न हि प्रदीपः प्रदीपान्तरमनुभाति।
One lamp does not shine in the wake of another (i.e. one lamp does not help the other to shine).

1.3.22 L.18 ✅ यदप्युक्तं समानस्वभावकेष्वनुकारो दृश्यत इति –
The objection stated — viz. that we see imitation (such as shining in the wake of) in things which have a similar nature —

1.3.22 L.19 ✅ नायमेकान्तो नियमः; भिन्नस्वभावकेष्वपि ह्यनुकारो दृश्यते;
(Can be answered by saying) that there is no such invariable rule, because, we find that there is such imitation even when the two things are dissimilar.

1.3.22 L.20 ✅ यथा सुतप्तोऽयःपिण्डोऽग्न्यनुकृतिरग्निं दहन्तमनुदहति, भौमं वा रजो वायुं वहन्तमनुवहतीति।
For instance, a red-hot iron ball, imitating fire, burns like fire, or a blowing wind sucks dust in its wake.

1.3.22 L.21 ✅ ‘अनुकृतेः’ इत्यनुभानमसुसूचत्।
This imitation is meant to suggest ‘becoming manifest after’.

1.3.22 L.22 ✅ ‘तस्य च’ इति चतुर्थं पादमस्य श्लोकस्य सूचयति।
The words ‘Tasya ca’ (in the Sūtra) suggest the fourth quarter of the Śloka.

1.3.22 L.23 ✅ ‘तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति’ इति च तद्धेतुकं भानं सूर्यादेरुच्यमानं प्राज्ञमात्मानं गमयति।
The shining of the Sun etc. which the Scriptures mention as caused by it (in the fourth quarter of the Śloka) makes us understand that the Highest Self is meant.

1.3.22 L.24 ✅ ‘तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्’ (BrhU.4.4.16) इति हि प्राज्ञमात्मानमामनन्ति।
The Scriptures speak of the Highest Self as follows: — “The Gods meditate devoutly on it as the Light of Lights, as immortal life” (BrhUEng.4.4.16).

1.3.22 L.25 ✅ तेजोन्तरेण तु सूर्यादितेजो विभातीत्यप्रसिद्धम्, विरुद्धं च;
It is not known and it is contrary (to experience) to say that the Sun etc. shine by the help of any other body of light,

1.3.22 L.26 ✅ तेजोन्तरेण तेजोन्तरस्य प्रतिघातात्।
Because one light neutralizes another.

1.3.22 L.27 ✅ अथवा न सूर्यादीनामेव श्लोकपरिपठितानामिदं तद्धेतुकं विभानमुच्यते।
Besides, the shining in the wake of that as its cause mentioned in the Śloka is not of the Sun etc. only,

1.3.22 L.28 ✅ किं तर्हि? ‘सर्वमिदम्’ इत्यविशेषश्रुतेः सर्वस्यैवास्य नामरूपक्रियाकारकफलजातस्य या अभिव्यक्तिः,
Because the Scriptures which mention ‘All this’ without any exception, show, that the manifestation of names and forms and actions, agents and fruits

1.3.22 L.29 ✅ सा ब्रह्मज्योतिःसत्तानिमित्ता;
Is due to the existence of the light of Brahman,

1.3.22 L.30 ✅ यथा सूर्यज्योतिःसत्तानिमित्ता सर्वस्य रूपजातस्याभिव्यक्तिः, तद्वत्।
Just as the manifestation of all forms etc. is due to the existence of the light of the Sun.

1.3.22 L.31 ✅ ‘न तत्र सूर्यो भाति’ इति च तत्रशब्दमाहरन्प्रकृतग्रहणं दर्शयति;
The word ‘Tatra’ used in the passage “In its presence (Tatra) the Sun does not shine” shows that we should understand it to mean

1.3.22 L.32 ✅ प्रकृतं च ब्रह्म ‘यस्मिन्द्यौः पृथिवी चान्तरिक्षमोतम्’ (MunU.2.2.5) इत्यादिना;
That which is relevant here, and that of course is Brahman, as mentioned by the Scriptures in “In which the Heaven and the Earth and the sky are woven as warp” (MunU.2.2.5).

1.3.22 L.33 ✅ अनन्तरं च ‘हिरण्मये परे कोशे विरजं ब्रह्म निष्कलम्। तच्छुभ्रं ज्योतिषां ज्योतिस्तद्यदात्मविदो विदुः’ इति;
Subsequently also it is said — “It is known by those who have realized it (i.e. Brahman), that in the transcendent aureate chrysalis (Kośa), there is Brahman which is free from external contamination and which is without parts (Niṣkala), which is intrinsically pure and which is the Light of Lights”.

1.3.22 L.34 ✅ कथं तज्ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरित्यत इदमुत्थितम् – ‘न तत्र सूर्यो भाति’ इति।
The objection as to how it becomes the Light of Lights is answered by — “In its presence the Sun does not shine”.

1.3.22 L.35 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् सूर्यादीनां तेजसां भानप्रतिषेधस्तेजोधातावेवान्यस्मिन्नवकल्पते, सूर्य इवेतरेषामिति; तत्र तु स एव तेजोधातुरन्यो न सम्भवतीत्युपपादितम्। ब्रह्मण्यपि चैषां भानप्रतिषेधोऽवकल्पते;
With regard to the objection, that just as other things (such as the moon and the stars) do not shine when the Sun is shining, the Sun also would not shine when there is another such light shining, it has been explained that such light can be nothing else than Brahman, in whose presence alone it is possible that it cannot shine.

1.3.22 L.36 ✅ यतः – यदुपलभ्यते तत्सर्वं ब्रह्मणैव ज्योतिषोपलभ्यते;
Whatever becomes manifest becomes so manifest because of the lustre called Brahman,

1.3.22 L.37 ✅ ब्रह्म तु नान्येन ज्योतिषोपलभ्यते, स्वयंज्योतिःस्वरूपत्वात्, येन सूर्यादयस्तस्मिन्भायुः; ब्रह्म हि अन्यद्व्यनक्ति, न तु ब्रह्मान्येन व्यज्यते,
And Brahman is not made manifest by any other light, because it has the nature of being self-luminant, and the Sun etc. cannot make Brahman manifest.

1.3.22 L.38 ✅ ‘आत्मनैवायं ज्योतिषास्ते’ (BrhU.4.3.6)
So say the Scriptural passages — “Brahman alone makes other things manifest. He sits in the light of his own Highest Self” (BrhUEng.4.3.6),

1.3.22 L.39 ✅ ‘अगृह्यो न हि गृह्यते’ (BrhU.4.2.4) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः॥२२॥
And “It is unperceivable and is not perceived” (BrhUEng.4.2.4). — 22.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अपि च स्मर्यते॥१.३.२३॥
Api ca smaryate.

Api ca: moreover, also; Smaryate: the Smṛti states.

🔗 Besides, the Smṛtis also say so. — 1.3.23.

1.3.23 L.1 ✅ अपि चेदृग्रूपत्वं प्राज्ञस्यैवात्मनः स्मर्यते भगवद्गीतासु –
Moreover, that it is the Highest Self only that is of this form, is spoken of in the Smṛtis as follows: —

1.3.23 L.2 ✅ ‘न तद्भासयते सूर्यो न शशाङ्को न पावकः।
यद्गत्वा न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम’ (BhG.15.6) इति।
“The Sun cannot make it manifest, nor the Moon, nor Fire.
My highest abode is there from where a man does not return to this transmigratory existence” (BhG.15.6);

1.3.23 L.3 ✅ ‘यदादित्यगतं तेजो जगद्भासयतेऽखिलम्।
यच्चन्द्रमसि यच्चाग्नौ तत्तेजो विद्धि मामकम्’ (BhG.15.12) इति च॥२३॥
“You should know that the light in the Sun, which makes the whole world manifest
And which also is in the Moon and the Fire, is the Tejas inherent in me” (BhG.15.12). — 23.

– 24. Anukṛty-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.24 Su..25

←Prev Next→
शब्दादेव प्रमितः॥१.३.२४॥
Śabdād eva pramitaḥ.

Śabdāt: from the very word; Eva: even, only, itself; Pramitaḥ: measured, i.e., described as having the size of the thumb.

🔗 It is precisely because of the Scriptural word (that the Puruṣa that is said to be of the dimension of a thumb) is understood (to be the Highest Self). — 1.3.24.

1.3.24 L.1 ✅ ‘अङ्गुष्ठमात्रः पुरुषो मध्य आत्मनि तिष्ठति’ इति श्रूयते;
The Scriptures mention — “A Puruṣa having the dimension of a thumb is standing inside the body (Ātmani)” (KathU.2.1.12);

1.3.24 L.2 ✅ तथा ‘अङ्गुष्ठमात्रः पुरुषो ज्योतिरिवाधूमकः।
ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य स एवाद्य स उ श्वः। एतद्वै तत्’ (KathU.2.1.13) इति च।
Also — “A Puruṣa having the dimension of a thumb only, who is a smokeless Light as it were,
And a ruler of the past and the future, He that is today and will be tomorrow (i.e. who is eternal), this is that (Brahman)” (KathU.2.1.13).

1.3.24 L.3 ✅ तत्र योऽयमङ्गुष्ठमात्रः पुरुषः श्रूयते, स किं विज्ञानात्मा, किं वा परमात्मेति संशयः।
Now with regard to this the doubt is — Is the Puruṣa of the dimension of a thumb, spoken of by the Scriptures, the cognitional Jīva-Self or the Highest Self?

1.3.24 L.4 ✅ तत्र परिमाणोपदेशाद्विज्ञानात्मेति तावत्प्राप्तम्।
(The opponent says) in so far as there is instruction about a dimension, the conclusion is that it is the cognitional Jīva-Self.

1.3.24 L.5 ✅ न ह्यनन्तायामविस्तारस्य परमात्मनोऽङ्गुष्ठपरिमाणत्वमुपपद्यते;
That the dimension of a thumb can ever be the dimension of the Highest Self which is limitless in extent, is not reasonably possible,

1.3.24 L.6 ✅ विज्ञानात्मनस्तूपाधिमत्त्वात्सम्भवति कयाचित्कल्पनयाङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वम्।
While it is possible by some stretch of imagination to conceive of the dimension of a thumb in the case of the cognitional Jīva-Self, by reason of its being affected by limiting adjuncts.

1.3.24 L.7 ✅ स्मृतेश्च – ‘अथ सत्यवतः कायात्पाशबद्धं वशं गतम्। अङ्गुष्ठमात्रं पुरुषं निश्चकर्ष यमो बलात्’ (म. भा. ३-२९७-१७) इति;
Smṛti also says — “Yama extracted by force from the body of Satyavān, the Puruṣa of the dimension of a thumb, which was caught in his net and which was completely at his mercy” (Mahā-Bhā. 3.297.17).

1.3.24 L.8 ✅ न हि परमेश्वरो बलात् यमेन निष्क्रष्टुं शक्यः;
It is not possible that Yama could extract the Highest Lord by force,

1.3.24 L.9 ✅ तेन तत्र संसारी अङ्गुष्ठमात्रो निश्चितः; स एवेहापीत्येवं प्राप्ते
Therefore, it was there concluded that it was the transmigratory Jīva-Self of the dimension of a thumb (that was extracted by Yama), and the same is meant here also. This conclusion (of the opponent),

1.3.24 L.10 ✅ ब्रूमः – परमात्मैवायमङ्गुष्ठमात्रपरिमितः पुरुषो भवितुमर्हति।
We answer thus — It is only the Highest Lord that deserves to be the Puruṣa having the dimension of a thumb.

1.3.24 L.11 ✅ कस्मात्? शब्दात् – ‘ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य’ इति।
How so? Because of the Scriptural words — “The Ruler of the past and the future”.

1.3.24 L.12 ✅ न ह्यन्यः परमेश्वराद्भूतभव्यस्य निरङ्कुशमीशिता।
No one other than the Highest Lord can be the absolutely autocratic ruler.

1.3.24 L.13 ✅ ‘एतद्वै तत्’ इति च प्रकृतं पृष्टमिहानुसन्दधाति;
That relevant thing (Brahman), about which a question has been asked (in the foregoing portion), is here referred to by the expression ‘This is That’.

1.3.24 L.14 ✅ एतद्वै तत्, यत्पृष्टं ब्रह्मेत्यर्थः;
The sense is, that what is questioned about (in the foregoing portion), viz. Brahman, ‘That verily is this’.

1.3.24 L.15 ✅ पृष्टं चेह ब्रह्म – ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात्।
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद’ (KathU.1.2.14) इति।
Here the question is about Brahman, thus — “That which is different (Anyatra) from the mere following of the Śāstra (i.e. Dharma) and from the effect and the cause, and is also different (Anyatra) from the following of that which is against the Śāstra (i.e. Adharma),
And is also different (Anyatra) from the past and the future (including the present)”, “Tell me about that, which you know” (KathU.1.2.14).

1.3.24 L.16 ✅ शब्दादेवेति – अभिधानश्रुतेरेव – ईशान इति परमेश्वरोऽवगम्यत इत्यर्थः॥२४॥
It is understood, that because of the Scriptures and because of the Scriptural mention of the name, viz. the ‘ruler’ (Īśānaḥ), that the Highest Lord is meant. — 24.

[Go top]

1.3.25 L.1 ✅ कथं पुनः सर्वगतस्य परमात्मनः परिमाणोपदेश इत्यत्र ब्रूमः –
But (says the opponent) how, in the case of the all-pervading Highest Self, is this instruction about its having a measurement, (possible)? To this we reply —

←Prev Next→
हृद्यपेक्षया तु मनुष्याधिकारत्वात्॥१.३.२५॥
Hṛdy apekṣayā tu manuṣyādhikāratvāt.

Hṛdi: in the heart, with reference to the heart; Apekṣayā: by reference to, in consideration of; Tu: but; Manuṣya-adhikāratvāt: because of the privilege of men.

🔗 Because a man alone is competent (to engage) in the pursuit of the realization of Brahman) and by reason of the expectation of (Brahman’s being realized) in (a man’s) Hṛdaya (that it is said to have the dimension of a thumb). — 1.3.25.

1.3.25 L.2 ✅ सर्वगतस्यापि परमात्मनो हृदयेऽवस्थानमपेक्ष्याङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वमिदमुच्यते;
This mention of the dimension of a thumb is, by reason of the expectation of the Highest Self abiding in the Hṛdaya (of a man), even though it is all-pervading,

1.3.25 L.3 ✅ आकाशस्येव वंशपर्वापेक्षमरत्निमात्रत्वम्।
Even as the Ākāśa is said to be of the dimension of a cubit (‘Aratni’ — a measure of length from elbow to end of middle finger), with reference to the segment of a bamboo,

1.3.25 L.4 ✅ न ह्यञ्जसा अतिमात्रस्य परमात्मनोऽङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वमुपपद्यते।
Because, that the Highest Self which is beyond any measure can be of the dimension of a thumb, cannot be otherwise reasonably sustainable.

1.3.25 L.5 ✅ न चान्यः परमात्मन इह ग्रहणमर्हति ईशानशब्दादिभ्य इत्युक्तम्।
Besides it has already been said, that no one other than the Highest Self deserves to be understood here, because of the word ‘ruler’ (Īśānaḥ) etc.

1.3.25 L.6 ✅ ननु प्रतिप्राणिभेदं हृदयानामनवस्थितत्वात्तदपेक्षमप्यङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वं नोपपद्यते
But (says the opponent), as the dimension of a Hṛdaya varies with the dimension of every person, it would not be reasonably sustainable to say that the Highest Self has the dimension of a thumb, even though its dimension of a thumb is with reference to its having its abode in the Hṛdaya.

1.3.25 L.7 ✅ इत्यत उत्तरमुच्यते – मनुष्याधिकारत्वादिति;
To this we reply — “Because of the competency of a man alone” (for engaging himself in the pursuit of Brahman).

1.3.25 L.8 ✅ ‘शास्त्रं ह्यविशेषप्रवृत्तमपि मनुष्यानेवाधिकरोति;
Though the Śāstra has emanated in a general way (for all beings), it considers man alone as competent (to act, according to the Śāstra)

1.3.25 L.9 ✅ शक्तत्वात्, अर्थित्वात्, अपर्युदस्तत्वात् उपनयनादिशास्त्राच्च – इति वर्णितमेतदधिकारलक्षणे’ (जै. सू. ६-१)।
Because of his presentability, his desire, his not being forbidden, and the fact of his being initiated by the ceremony of a sacred thread etc., as described in the Adhikāra-Lakṣaṇa (the chapter on competency in Jaimini Pū. Mī. 6.1).

1.3.25 L.10 ✅ मनुष्याणां च नियतपरिमाणः कायः;
The body of a man has a definite proportion,

1.3.25 L.11 ✅ औचित्येन नियतपरिमाणमेव चैषामङ्गुष्ठमात्रं हृदयम्;
And his Hṛdaya also is, in proportion to it, of the dimension of his thumb.

1.3.25 L.12 ✅ अतो मनुष्याधिकारत्वाच्छास्त्रस्य मनुष्यहृदयावस्थानापेक्षमङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वमुपपन्नं परमात्मनः।
Therefore it is reasonably sustainable, that as the Śāstra holds a man alone as competent (to follow it), and that the dimension of a thumb, as ascribed to the Highest Self, is with reference to his abiding in the Hṛdaya of a man.

1.3.25 L.13 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – परिमाणोपदेशात् स्मृतेश्च संसार्येवायमङ्गुष्ठमात्रः प्रत्येतव्य इति;
Again, with regard to what is said — viz. that because the instruction (of the Śāstra) is about a particular dimension, and because of the Smṛti also, it is the transmigratory Self only that should be understood by “One having the dimension of a thumb” — ,

1.3.25 L.14 ✅ तत्प्रत्युच्यते – ‘स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यादिवत् संसारिण एव सतोऽङ्गुष्ठमात्रस्य ब्रह्मत्वमिदमुपदिश्यत इति।
It is said, in refutation of it, that like the statements “This is the Self”, “That thou art”, this instruction given here, about the one that is of the measurement of a thumb — despite its being a transmigratory Jīva-Self — , is, because the Jīva-Self itself is Brahman.

1.3.25 L.15 ✅ द्विरूपा हि वेदान्तवाक्यानां प्रवृत्तिः – क्वचित्परमात्मस्वरूपनिरूपणपरा;
Vedānta passages have a two-fold significance or trend, viz., some are in the nature of an exposition of the form (Rūpa) of the Highest Self,

1.3.25 L.16 ✅ क्वचिद्विज्ञानात्मनः परमात्मैकत्वोपदेशपरा।
And some are in the nature of an instruction, emphasizing the unity of the cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest Self.

1.3.25 L.17 ✅ तदत्र विज्ञानात्मनः परमात्मनैकत्वमुपदिश्यते;
Thus here, instruction about the unity of the cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest Self is given,

1.3.25 L.18 ✅ नाङ्गुष्ठमात्रत्वं कस्यचित्।
And not that any particular entity has the dimension of a thumb.

1.3.25 L.19 ✅ एतमेवार्थं परेण स्फुटीकरिष्यति –
This same thing will be further made clearer by the Sūtra-kāra by the passage

1.3.25 L.20 ✅ ‘अङ्गुष्ठमात्रः पुरुषोऽन्तरात्मा सदा जनानां हृदये सन्निविष्टः।
तं स्वाच्छरीरात्प्रवृहेन्मुञ्जादिवेषीकां धैर्येण।
तं विद्याच्छुक्रममृतम्’ (KathU.2.3.17) इति॥२५॥
“This Puruṣa of the dimension of a thumb, the inner self, is always firmly settled in the Hṛdaya of men.
A man should pick him out with determination, from his own body, just as one draws out the inner tube from the outer tube of the Muñja grass, etc.
Know that, to be the purely bright one and the immortal.” (KathU.2.3.17). — 25.

– 25. Pramita-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.26 Su..27 Su..28 Su..29 Su..30 Su..31 Su..32 Su..33

←Prev Next→
तदुपर्यपि बादरायणः सम्भवात्॥१.३.२६॥
Tad-upary api bādarāyaṇaḥ sambhavāt.

Tad upari: above them i.e. higher than men namely Devas; Api: also, even; Bādara-āyanaḥ: the sage Bādara-āyana is of opinion; Sambhavāt: because (it is) possible.

🔗 Bādarāyaṇa is of opinion that Gods (that is those who are above a man) also, are competent, because of possibility. — 1.3.26.

1.3.26 L.1 ✅ अङ्गुष्ठमात्रश्रुतिर्मनुष्यहृदयापेक्षा मनुष्याधिकारत्वाच्छास्त्रस्येत्युक्तम्;
It has been said, that as, according to the Śāstra, man is competent (to pursue the quest of Brahman), the Scriptural statement about the ‘dimension of a thumb’ is with reference to the Hṛdaya of a man.

1.3.26 L.2 ✅ तत्प्रसङ्गेनेदमुच्यते।
In connection with that it is said —

1.3.26 L.3 ✅ बाढम्, मनुष्यानधिकरोति शास्त्रम्;
Oh well, the Śāstra does consider man as competent,

1.3.26 L.4 ✅ न तु मनुष्यानेवेति इह ब्रह्मज्ञाने नियमोऽस्ति।
But there is no rule, in the matter of this knowledge of Brahman, that it considers man only as competent.

1.3.26 L.5 ✅ तेषां मनुष्याणाम् उपरिष्टाद्ये देवादयः, तानप्यधिकरोति शास्त्रमिति बादरायण आचार्यो मन्यते।
The Ācārya Bādarāyaṇa is of opinion, that the Śāstra also confers competency on Gods etc. who are above men.

1.3.26 L.6 ✅ कस्मात्? सम्भवात्।
How so? Because of the possibility.

1.3.26 L.7 ✅ सम्भवति हि तेषामप्यर्थित्वाद्यधिकारकारणम्;
In their case also, the reasons which confer competency such as ‘desire’ etc., are possible.

1.3.26 L.8 ✅ तत्रार्थित्वं तावन्मोक्षविषयं देवादीनामपि सम्भवति विकारविषयविभूत्यनित्यत्वालोचनादिनिमित्तम्;
The desire for ‘Final Release’ is possible in the case of God etc., because of such desire being the result of reflection on the transitoriness of the exalted rank of Gods etc., who are but modifications (Vikāras) only.

1.3.26 L.9 ✅ तथा सामर्थ्यमपि तेषां सम्भवति, मन्त्रार्थवादेतिहासपुराणलोकेभ्यो विग्रहवत्त्वाद्यवगमात्;
Similarly, ‘ability’ also is possible in their case, because, as according to Mantras, Artha-Vādas, History, Mythology and the ways of the world i.e. general custom, the Gods are understood to possess corporeality,

1.3.26 L.10 ✅ न च तेषां कश्चित्प्रतिषेधोऽस्ति;
There is no bar of any sort operating against them.

1.3.26 L.11 ✅ न चोपनयनशास्त्रेणैषामधिकारो निवर्त्येत,
Nor can the Śāstra about Upanayana (investiture with a sacred thread) defeat their competency,

1.3.26 L.12 ✅ उपनयनस्य वेदाध्ययनार्थत्वात्, तेषां च स्वयंप्रतिभातवेदत्वात्;
Because Upanayana is necessary for the purpose of the study of the Vedas, while the Vedas manifest themselves to them, i.e., flash in their minds, spontaneously.

1.3.26 L.13 ✅ अपि चैषां विद्याग्रहणार्थं ब्रह्मचर्यादि दर्शयति –
Besides, in their case the Scriptures indicate that the Gods observe the vow of celibacy (Brahma-carya) for the attainment of ‘knowledge’, thus: —

1.3.26 L.14 ✅ ‘एकशतं ह वै वर्षाणि मघवान्प्रजापतौ ब्रह्मचर्यमुवास’ (ChanU.8.11.3)
“Indra stayed with Prajā-pati for a hundred years observing the vow of celibacy” (ChanU.8.11.3)

1.3.26 L.15 ✅ ‘भृगुर्वै वारुणिः। वरुणं पितरमुपससार। अधीहि भगवो ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.3.1.1) इत्यादि।
And “Bhṛgu the son of Varuṇa approached his father, (and said) Oh Bhagavān, teach me what Brahman is” (TaitU.3.1 Eng.) etc.

1.3.26 L.16 ✅ यदपि कर्मस्वनधिकारकारणमुक्तम् –
With regard to what is stated as a reason for the absence of such competency in them for Karma —

1.3.26 L.17 ✅ ‘न देवानां देवतान्तराभावात्’ इति, ‘न ऋषीणाम्, आर्षेयान्तराभावात्’ (जै. सू. ६-१-६,७) इति;
Viz. “That Gods cannot perform Karma (such as a sacrifice etc.) because of the absence of any other deity (similar to themselves)” and “that Ṛṣis also, cannot perform Karma, because of the absence of other Ṛṣis” (Jaimini Pū. Mī. 6.1.6,7) —

1.3.26 L.18 ✅ न तद्विद्यासु अस्ति।
(We say) that it i.e. such reason is not applicable in the case of the knowledge of Brahman.

1.3.26 L.19 ✅ न हीन्द्रादीनां विद्यास्वधिक्रियमाणानामिन्द्राद्युद्देशेन किञ्चित्कृत्यमस्ति;
Indra and others when they are vouchsafed competency (for obtaining instruction) for knowledge, do not have to do any act having reference to their own selves (as is necessary in Karma),

1.3.26 L.20 ✅ न च भृग्वादीनां भृग्वादिसगोत्रतया।
Nor have (the Ṛṣis) Bhṛgu and others anything to do, in their capacity of belonging to the same Bhṛgu Gotra (Clan).

1.3.26 L.21 ✅ तस्माद्देवादीनामपि विद्यास्वधिकारः केन वार्यते?
Therefore who can deny competency for the knowledge of Brahman in the case of Gods and others?

1.3.26 L.22 ✅ देवाद्यधिकारेऽप्यङ्गुष्ठमात्रश्रुतिः स्वाङ्गुष्ठापेक्षया न विरुध्यते॥२६॥
In the case of Gods etc., who have such competency the Scriptural statement about the ‘dimension of a thumb’ being in this case with reference to their own particular thumb, is not contradicted. — 26.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
विरोधः कर्मणीति चेन्नानेकप्रतिपत्तेर्दर्शनात्॥१.३.२७॥
Virodhaḥ karmaṇīti cen nāneka-pratipatter darśanāt.

Virodhaḥ: contradiction; Karmaṇi: In the sacrifices; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: not; Aneka: many (bodies); Pratipatteḥ: because of the assumption; Darśanāt: because it is found (in the scriptures).

🔗 If it be said that (corporeality in Gods) would be incompatible with Karma, (we say) no, because according to the Scriptures (the Gods) can assume more than one form (Rūpa). — 1.3.27.

1.3.27 L.1 ✅ स्यादेतत् – यदि विग्रहवत्त्वाद्यभ्युपगमेन देवादीनां विद्यास्वधिकारो वर्ण्येत,
If it be said, supposing it is understood that Gods are competent to acquire knowledge of Vidyās, because they have corporeality,

1.3.27 L.2 ✅ विग्रहवत्त्वात् ऋत्विगादिवदिन्द्रादीनामपि स्वरूपसन्निधानेन कर्माङ्गभावोऽभ्युपगम्येत;
Then it may be like this, i.e., Indra and others having such corporeality, they may — like the Ṛtvij priests at a sacrifice — form a subsidiary part of Karma, by their actual presence in their own physical form (at a sacrifice),

1.3.27 L.3 ✅ तदा च विरोधः कर्मणि स्यात्;
But in that case it would be incompatible with Karma (religious duties such as a sacrifice).

1.3.27 L.4 ✅ न हीन्द्रादीनां स्वरूपसन्निधानेन यागाङ्गभावो दृश्यते;
It is neither seen that Indra and others constitute a subsidiary part of a sacrifice by their actual presence in their own physical form,

1.3.27 L.5 ✅ न च सम्भवति, बहुषु यागेषु युगपदेकस्येन्द्रस्य स्वरूपसन्निधानानुपपत्तेरिति चेत्,
Nor is it so possible, because it is not reasonably sustainable, that Indra could be actually present in his own physical form at more than one sacrifice at one and the same time.

1.3.27 L.6 ✅ नायमस्ति विरोधः।
If that is the conclusion (of the opponent) we reply — There is not this incompatability.

1.3.27 L.7 ✅ कस्मात्? अनेकप्रतिपत्तेः।
Whence is it so? Because of the reasonable sustainability of the assumption of more than one body (on the part of the Gods),

1.3.27 L.8 ✅ एकस्यापि देवतात्मनो युगपदनेकस्वरूपप्रतिपत्तिः सम्भवति।
For it is possible that a deity by itself can assume more than one body simultaneously.

1.3.27 L.9 ✅ कथमेतदवगम्यते? दर्शनात्।
How do we know it to be so? Because of the authority (Prāmāṇya) of the Scriptures.

1.3.27 L.10 ✅ तथाहि – ‘कति देवाः’ (BrhU.3.9.1) इत्युपक्रम्य
For the Scriptures, by starting with the posing of a question (by Vidagdha-śakalya to Yājña-valkya) — viz. How many Gods are there? (BrhUEng.3.9.1) —

1.3.27 L.11 ✅ ‘त्रयश्च त्री च शता त्रयश्च त्री च सहस्रा’ (BrhU.3.9.1) इति निरुच्य ‘कतमे ते’ (BrhU.3.9.1) इत्यस्यां पृच्छायाम् ‘महिमान एवैषामेते त्रयस्त्रिंशत्त्वेव देवाः’ (BrhU.3.9.2) इति ब्रुवती श्रुतिः
Declare that they are three and three hundred, and, three and three thousand, and when a further question is asked as to who they are, again declare, that, it is only their glory, i.e., they are only the exalted prototypes (Vibhūtis), but that they are in fact only thirty-three,

1.3.27 L.12 ✅ एकैकस्य देवतात्मनो युगपदनेकरूपतां दर्शयति।
And thus show, how the single Self of a deity can simultaneously assume more than one form.

1.3.27 L.13 ✅ तथा त्रयस्त्रिंशतोऽपि षडाद्यन्तर्भावक्रमेण ‘कतम एको देव इति प्राणः’ इति प्राणैकरूपतां देवानां दर्शयन्ती
Similarly, the Scriptures, by saying that the thirty-three are really contained in six (and then successively in five, four, three, two and one), and again on being asked as to who the only one (God) is, by replying, “Prāṇa, and that the Prāṇa is the only one form (Rūpa) of all the deities”,

1.3.27 L.14 ✅ तस्यैव एकस्य प्राणस्य युगपदनेकरूपतां दर्शयति।
Show that one Prāṇa can assume more than one form simultaneously.

1.3.27 L.15 ✅ तथा स्मृतिरपि –
So is there a similar Smṛti thus —

1.3.27 L.16 ✅ ‘आत्मनो वै शरीराणि बहूनि भरतर्षभ। योगी कुर्याद्बलं प्राप्य तैश्च सर्वैर्महीं चरेत्॥
प्राप्नुयाद्विषयान्कैश्चित्कैश्चिदुग्रं तपश्चरेत्। संक्षिपेच्च पुनस्तानि सूर्यो रश्मिगणानिव’
“O Bharata-rṣabha (the bull, i.e. the best, amongst the Bhāratas), a Yogi can provide himself with many bodies by acquiring powers (Bāla) and move in them all over the Earth.
By means of some bodies he can obtain all sense-objects (i.e. worldly pleasures) and by means of some others he may do penance, and can again withdraw them all, just as the Sun withdraws its set of rays” —

1.3.27 L.17 ✅ इत्येवंजातीयका प्राप्ताणिमाद्यैश्वर्याणां योगिनामपि युगपदनेकशरीरयोगं दर्शयति;
Which shows that Yogins who have acquired great powers such as that of ‘assuming a subtle body’ (Aṇimā) etc. can have more than one body simultaneously.

1.3.27 L.18 ✅ किमु वक्तव्यमाजानसिद्धानां देवानाम्?
That being so (you being one who accepts the veracity of these Smṛtis), how much more possible, then, must it be in the case of the Gods who are born with such great powers?

1.3.27 L.19 ✅ अनेकरूपप्रतिपत्तिसम्भवाच्च एकैका देवता बहुभी रूपैरात्मानं प्रविभज्य बहुषु यागेषु युगपदङ्गभावं गच्छति
And it may be, that because of the possibility of the assumption of more than one form, a Deity might well divide itself into many forms and may be present at many sacrifices simultaneously, and thus can constitute itself into a subsidiary part of each.

1.3.27 L.20 ✅ परैश्च न दृश्यते, अन्तर्धानादिशक्तियोगात् – इत्युपपद्यते।
It is reasonably sustainable that by reason of having the power of rendering themselves invisible, others are not able to see them.

1.3.27 L.21 ✅ ‘अनेकप्रतिपत्तेर्दर्शनात्’ इत्यस्यापरा व्याख्या –
The following is another way of explaining this (observation about the) assumption of more than one form (Rūpa).

1.3.27 L.22 ✅ विग्रहवतामपि कर्माङ्गभावचोदनासु अनेका प्रतिपत्तिर्दृश्यते;
Even in the case of those who possess bodies, it is seen that there are more ways than one, by which such persons can become a subsidiary part of action (Karmāṅga).

1.3.27 L.23 ✅ क्वचिदेकोऽपि विग्रहवाननेकत्र युगपदङ्गभावं न गच्छति,
In some cases one individual is not able to form a subsidiary part in more than one place simultaneously,

1.3.27 L.24 ✅ यथा बहुभिर्भोजयद्भिर्नैको ब्राह्मणो युगपद्भोज्यते;
As for instance, one man cannot be simultaneously entertained to dinner by many persons wishing to do so.

1.3.27 L.25 ✅ क्वचिच्चैकोऽपि विग्रहवाननेकत्र युगपदङ्गभावं गच्छति,
In some cases it is seen that even one person can play a subsidiary part in more than one function simultaneously,

1.3.27 L.26 ✅ यथा बहुभिर्नमस्कुर्वाणैरेको ब्राह्मणो युगपन्नमस्क्रियते;
As for instance when one person is saluted by many at one and the same time' he can return the salute of all simultaneously.

1.3.27 L.27 ✅ तद्वदिहोद्देशपरित्यागात्मकत्वात् यागस्य विग्रहवतीमप्येकां देवतामुद्दिश्य बहवः स्वं स्वं द्रव्यं युगपत्परित्यक्ष्यन्तीति
Similarly here also, a sacrifice being of the nature of having an aim of sacrificing to some deity and of offering of an oblation (in fire), many persons may simultaneously offer their own individual offering to one and the same Deity possessing a body.

1.3.27 L.28 ✅ विग्रहवत्त्वेऽपि देवानां न किञ्चित्कर्मणि विरुध्यते॥२७॥
Hence corporeality of Deities would not be incompatible in religious action (Karma). — 27.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
शब्द इति चेन्नातः प्रभवात्प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्॥१.३.२८॥
Śabda iti cen nātaḥ prabhavāt pratyakṣānumānābhyām.

Śabdaḥ: regarding Vedic words; Śabda: thus; Cet: if; Na: no; Ataḥ: from this, from these words; Prabhavāt: because of the creation; Pratyakṣa-anumānābhyām: from direct perception (Śruti) and inference (Smṛti).

🔗 If it be said that there would be contradiction in the case of the Scriptural word, (we reply) — No, because (the world) is born of the Scriptural word, on the authority of the Scriptures (Śabda) and the Smṛtis (Anumāna). — 1.3.28.

1.3.28 L.1 ✅ मा नाम विग्रहवत्त्वे देवादीनामभ्युपगम्यमाने कर्मणि कश्चिद्विरोधः प्रसञ्जि;
May be, that there may not be any contradiction in the case of religious action (Karma) even if it is understood that Gods etc. have corporeality,

1.3.28 L.2 ✅ शब्दे तु विरोधः प्रसज्येत।
But such contradiction would certainly result in the case of the Scriptural word.

1.3.28 L.3 ✅ कथम्? औत्पत्तिकं हि शब्दस्यार्थेन सम्बन्धमाश्रित्य ‘अनपेक्षत्वात्’ इति वेदस्य प्रामाण्यं स्थापितम्।
How so? Because by holding that there is a natural i.e. inborn eternal relation between the Scriptural word and its meaning, the authoritativeness of the Vedas has already been established by the Sūtra “Because of its independence (Anapekṣatvāt) of other means of proof” etc. (Pū. Mī. 1.1.5).

1.3.28 L.4 ✅ इदानीं तु विग्रहवती देवताभ्युपगम्यमाना यद्यप्यैश्वर्ययोगाद्युगपदनेककर्मसम्बन्धीनि हवींषि भुञ्जीत,
Now, however, even if it is argued here, that a deity understood to possess corporeality, may, because of its possessing great powers, be able simultaneously to enjoy oblations in connection with different religious acts such as Sacrifices (Karmas),

1.3.28 L.5 ✅ तथापि विग्रहयोगादस्मदादिवज्जननमरणवती सेति,
Still, by reason of its very corporeality itself, it would (like us) be subject to birth and death,

1.3.28 L.6 ✅ नित्यस्य शब्दस्य नित्येनार्थेन नित्ये सम्बन्धे प्रतीयमाने यद्वैदिके शब्दे प्रामाण्यं स्थितम्, तस्य विरोधः स्यादिति चेत्,
And there would thus be a contradiction of the authoritativeness of the Vedic words, which stands established by the realization that the eternal word has an eternal connection with its eternal meaning,

1.3.28 L.7 ✅ नायमप्यस्ति विरोधः।
We reply, that no such contradiction would result.

1.3.28 L.8 ✅ कस्मात्? अतः प्रभवात्।
Whence is it so? Because (the world i.e. everything) is created out of this (i.e. the word).

1.3.28 L.9 ✅ अत एव हि वैदिकाच्छब्दाद्देवादिकं जगत्प्रभवति॥
It is out of this Scriptural word, indeed, that this world i.e. everything including the Gods etc. is created.

1.3.28 L.10 ✅ ननु ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ (BrS.1.1.2) इत्यत्र ब्रह्मप्रभवत्वं जगतोऽवधारितम्,
(To this, if the opponent says) — Oh, but in Janmādyasya Yataḥ (BrS.1.1.2) creation of this transitory world (Ja-gat) from Brahman has already been established.

1.3.28 L.11 ✅ कथमिह शब्दप्रभवत्वमुच्यते?
How can you then speak here, about its creation from the ‘word’ (Śabda)?

1.3.28 L.12 ✅ अपि च यदि नाम वैदिकाच्छब्दादस्य प्रभवोऽभ्युपगतः,
Besides, even if it is understood that this (transitory world) is created from the ‘Vedic word’,

1.3.28 L.13 ✅ कथमेतावता विरोधः शब्दे परिहृतः?
How can that, by itself, be able to overcome the objection about contradiction in the case of the Scriptural words,

1.3.28 L.14 ✅ यावता वसवो रुद्रा आदित्या विश्वेदेवा मरुत इत्येतेऽर्था अनित्या एव, उत्पत्तिमत्त्वात्;
When, entities such as the ‘Vasus’, the ‘Rudras’, the ‘Ādityas’, the ‘Viśve-devas’, and the ‘Maruts’, must necessarily be noneternal, because of the fact of their being created (from the Scriptural words)?

1.3.28 L.15 ✅ तदनित्यत्वे च तद्वाचिनां वैदिकानां वस्वादिशब्दानामनित्यत्वं केन निवार्यते?
And if these entities are non-eternal (because of the fact of their being created), how can the non-eternality of Scriptural words such as ‘Vasus’ etc. which denote these entities, be possible to be overcome i.e. refuted? (Because the generic Scriptural word ‘Vasu’ must have come into existence, after the individual Vasus came into existence.)

1.3.28 L.16 ✅ प्रसिद्धं हि लोके देवदत्तस्य पुत्र उत्पन्ने यज्ञदत्त इति तस्य नाम क्रियत इति;
It is well-known in ordinary life, that it is when Deva-datta has actually a son born to him, that a name, say Yajña-datta, is given to him (the son).

1.3.28 L.17 ✅ तस्माद्विरोध एव शब्दः
Therefore there would necessarily be a contradiction in the case of the Scriptural word.

1.3.28 L.18 ✅ इति चेत्, न; गवादिशब्दार्थसम्बन्धनित्यत्वदर्शनात्।
Now, to this conclusion (of the opponent) we reply — No, because it is observed that there is an eternal relation between generic words such as ‘Cow’ and the object denoted by it viz. an actual individual cow.

1.3.28 L.19 ✅ न हि गवादिव्यक्तीनामुत्पत्तिमत्त्वे तदाकृतीनामप्युत्पत्तिमत्त्वं स्यात्।
It cannot necessarily be, that because individual cows are subject to birth, their ‘Ākṛtis’ i.e. their forms (Gk. Eidos, similar to Plato’s Archetypal Ideas or Species) also must necessarily be subject to birth.

1.3.28 L.20 ✅ द्रव्यगुणकर्मणां हि व्यक्तय एवोत्पद्यन्ते, नाकृतयः।
It is only individuals (of Ākṛtis i.e. forms) that are born out of materials, attributes and actions (Dravya-Guṇa-Karmaṇām) and not their Ākṛtis or forms,

1.3.28 L.21 ✅ आकृतिभिश्च शब्दानां सम्बन्धः, न व्यक्तिभिः,
And the relation of words is with the Ākṛtis and not with their individual entities,

1.3.28 L.22 ✅ व्यक्तीनामानन्त्यात्सम्बन्धग्रहणानुपपत्तेः।
Because such individual entities being infinite, to conceive of a relation between words and them would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.3.28 L.23 ✅ व्यक्तिषूत्पद्यमानास्वप्याकृतीनां नित्यत्वात् न गवादिशब्देषु कश्चिद्विरोधो दृश्यते।
Therefore even if individual entities may be subject to birth, the Ākṛtis i.e. forms being eternal, there is no contradiction in the case of words such as ‘Cow’ etc.

1.3.28 L.24 ✅ तथा देवादिव्यक्तिप्रभवाभ्युपगमेऽप्याकृतिनित्यत्वात् न कश्चिद्वस्वादिशब्देषु विरोध इति द्रष्टव्यम्।
Similarly, it would be seen, that even if it be understood that individual Gods etc. are subject to birth, there is no contradiction so far as the words ‘Vasu’ etc. are concerned, as their Ākṛtis or forms are eternal.

1.3.28 L.25 ✅ आकृतिविशेषस्तु देवादीनां मन्त्रार्थवादादिभ्यो विग्रहवत्त्वाद्यवगमादवगन्तव्यः।
That Gods etc. have a particular Ākṛti or form should be understood, because according to Mantra, Artha-vāda etc. they do possess corporeality.

1.3.28 L.26 ✅ स्थानविशेषसम्बन्धनिमित्ताश्च इन्द्रादिशब्दाः सेनापत्यादिशब्दवत्।
Words such as ‘Indra’ etc. — like the word ‘Commander-in-chief’ (Senā-pati) — owe their origin to a special relation to a special position,

1.3.28 L.27 ✅ ततश्च यो यस्तत्तत्स्थानमधितिष्ठति, स स इन्द्रादिशब्दैरभिधीयत इति न दोषो भवति।
And therefore whosoever ascends to that position is referred to by the word Indra etc., and hence there is no fault.

1.3.28 L.28 ✅ न चेदं शब्दप्रभवत्वं ब्रह्मप्रभवत्ववदुपादानकारणत्वाभिप्रायेणोच्यते।
This ‘being born of a word’ is not meant to be spoken of as meaning, that like Brahman the ‘Word’ is the material cause (Upādāna Kāraṇa) of the world.

1.3.28 L.29 ✅ कथं तर्हि? स्थिते वाचकात्मना नित्ये शब्दे नित्यार्थसम्बन्धिनि
How is it then? The word being eternal by reason of its having a denotative power in itself, and by reason of its having an eternal relation to the object (so denoted by it),

1.3.28 L.30 ✅ शब्दव्यवहारयोग्यार्थव्यक्तिनिष्पत्तिः ‘अतः प्रभवः’ इत्युच्यते।
Generation i.e. Prabhava (from such word) of an individual entity fit to be expressed by such word, in ordinary parlance or practice, is ‘Ataḥ prabhavaḥ’.

1.3.28 L.31 ✅ कथं पुनरवगम्यते शब्दात्प्रभवति जगदिति?
But (says the opponent) how is it understood, that the transitory world is created out of a word?

1.3.28 L.32 ✅ प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्;
We reply: — “Because of the Scriptures (Pratyakṣa) and the Smṛtis (Anumāna).”

1.3.28 L.33 ✅ प्रत्यक्षं श्रुतिः, प्रामाण्यं प्रत्यनपेक्षत्वात्;
Pratyakṣa means the Scriptures, which are independent of means of proof,

1.3.28 L.34 ✅ अनुमानं स्मृतिः, प्रामाण्यं प्रति सापेक्षत्वात्।
And Anumāna means the Smṛti which is dependent (on some Scriptural origin of it) for its own authoritativeness.

1.3.28 L.35 ✅ ते हि शब्दपूर्वां सृष्टिं दर्शयतः;
They show that words precede creation.

1.3.28 L.36 ✅ ‘एत इति वै प्रजापतिर्देवानसृजतासृग्रमिति मनुष्यानिन्दव इति पितॄंस्तिरःपवित्रमिति ग्रहानाशव इति स्तोत्रं विश्वानीति शस्त्रमभिसौभगेत्यन्याः प्रजाः’ इति श्रुतिः;
A Scriptural passage says: — “Thinking of ‘these’ (Ete) Prajā-pati verily created the Gods (Devas), thinking of ‘Blood’ (Asṛṅgra) he created men, thinking of ‘Moons’ (Indavaḥ) he created the manes (Pitṝn), thinking of ‘the concealment of Soma’ (Tiraḥ-pavitra) he created the Sacrificial cups (Grahān), thinking of ‘Some thing which contains’ (Āśavah) he created ‘a collection of Ṛks’ (Stotram), thinking of ‘those who enter’ (Viśvān) he created ‘the collection of Mantras’ (Śāstra), thinking of ‘the greatest good’ (Abhisaubhaga) he created all other beings (Anyāḥ Prajāḥ)”. (Ṛg-Veda, Maṇḍala 9, Sūkta 62).

1.3.28 L.37 ✅ तथान्यत्रापि ‘स मनसा वाचं मिथुनं समभवत्’ (BrhU.1.2.4) इत्यादिना तत्र तत्र शब्दपूर्विका सृष्टिः श्राव्यते;
Similarly in another place also, thus — “By the mind, he joined himself with speech (Vāk)” (BrhUEng.1.2.4), — the Scriptures mention that words have preceded creation.

1.3.28 L.38 ✅ स्मृतिरपि – ‘अनादिनिधना नित्या वागुत्सृष्टा स्वयंभुवा। आदौ वेदमयी दिव्या यतः सर्वाः प्रवृत्तयः’ इति;
The Smṛti also says thus — “In the beginning Svayam-bhū (the Self-born) uttered ‘Speech’ which was without a beginning and without an end, eternal, containing the Vedas, and heavenly, and all other activities proceed from it” etc.

1.3.28 L.39 ✅ उत्सर्गोऽप्ययं वाचः सम्प्रदायप्रवर्तनात्मको द्रष्टव्यः, अनादिनिधनाया अन्यादृशस्योत्सर्गस्यासम्भवात्;
This origination of Speech also should be looked upon only as being of the nature of promoting an oral tradition, because, there could be no other manner of origination in the case of this (Speech) which is without any beginning or end.

1.3.28 L.40 ✅ तथा ‘नाम रूपं च भूतानां कर्मणां च प्रवर्तनम्। वेदशब्देभ्य एवादौ निर्ममे स महेश्वरः’ (मनु. स्मृ. १-२१) इति;
Similarly also — “The Great Lord in the beginning created the names and forms of things and promoted religious observances (Karma) from the Vedic words” (Manu. Smṛ. 1.21)

1.3.28 L.41 ✅ ‘सर्वेषां तु स नामानि कर्माणि च पृथक् पृथक्। वेदशब्देभ्य एवादौ पृथक् संस्थाश्च निर्ममे’ इति च।
And “He created in the beginning all the different names and forms of things and Karmas from the Vedic words and all the different proper modes of life”.

1.3.28 L.42 ✅ अपि च चिकीर्षितमर्थमनुतिष्ठन् तस्य वाचकं शब्दं पूर्वं स्मृत्वा पश्चात्तमर्थमनुतिष्ठतीति सर्वेषां नः प्रत्यक्षमेतत्।
Besides, that everybody that sets out to do any desired thing, first brings to his mind the words which are indicative of those things and afterwards does the things themselves, is evident to us all.

1.3.28 L.43 ✅ तथा प्रजापतेरपि स्रष्टुः सृष्टेः पूर्वं वैदिकाः शब्दा मनसि प्रादुर्बभूवुः, पश्चात्तदनुगतानर्थान्ससर्जेति गम्यते।
Similarly we understand that before creation, Vedic words occurred to Prajā-pati the creator and thereafter he created the objects according to those words.

1.3.28 L.44 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः ‘स भूरिति व्याहरत् स भूमिमसृजत’ (तै. ब्रा. २-२-४-२)
That the Scriptures also say similarly viz. that he uttered the word ‘Bhūḥ’ and created the Earth —

1.3.28 L.45 ✅ इत्येवमादिका भूरादिशब्देभ्य एव मनसि प्रादुर्भूतेभ्यो भूरादिलोकान्सृष्टान्दर्शयति॥
Which shows that words such as ‘Bhūḥ’ etc. first occurred to the mind as words, and from them the worlds ‘Bhūḥ’ etc. were afterwards created.

1.3.28 L.46 ✅ किमात्मकं पुनः शब्दमभिप्रेत्येदं शब्दप्रभवत्वमुच्यते?
But then what is the nature of this ‘Word’ (Śabda)with reference to which this ‘being born from the world’ is mentioned?

1.3.28 L.47 ✅ स्फोटम् इत्याह।
It is said that it is of the nature of a ‘Sphoṭa’ (‘flash’ of being distinctly intelligible).

1.3.28 L.48 ✅ वर्णपक्षे हि तेषामुत्पन्नप्रध्वंसित्वान्नित्येभ्यः शब्देभ्यो देवादिव्यक्तीनां प्रभव इत्यनुपपन्नं स्यात्;
In the case of the view, which considers them i.e. words as letters (Varṇas), as letters vanish as soon as they are pronounced, it would not be reasonably sustainable to say that individual entities such as Gods etc. are born out of them,

1.3.28 L.49 ✅ उत्पन्नध्वंसिनश्च वर्णाः, प्रत्युच्चारणमन्यथा चान्यथा च प्रतीयमानत्वात्;
Because letters, which vanish as soon as they are produced, are experienced to be distinct and separate, every time they are pronounced.

1.3.28 L.50 ✅ तथा ह्यदृश्यमानोऽपि पुरुषविशेषोऽध्ययनध्वनिश्रवणादेव विशेषतो निर्धार्यते –
Similarly, a person who is not actually visible (to us) is recognized as being a particular person, merely on hearing the sound of his recitation, as for instance (when we say) —

1.3.28 L.51 ✅ ‘देवदत्तोऽयमधीते, यज्ञदत्तोऽयमधीते’ इति;
This is Deva-datta who is reciting, this is Yajña-datta who is reciting etc.

1.3.28 L.52 ✅ न चायं वर्णविषयोऽन्यथात्वप्रत्ययो मिथ्याज्ञानम्,
Now, this experience of the letters being distinct and separate, cannot be considered to be false-knowledge,

1.3.28 L.53 ✅ बाधकप्रत्ययाभावात्।
In the absence of any other actual experience, which invalidates this experience.

1.3.28 L.54 ✅ न च वर्णेभ्योऽर्थावगतिर्युक्ता;
Nor is it reasonable to say that the knowledge of the meaning (of a word) arises from letters.

1.3.28 L.55 ✅ न ह्येकैको वर्णोऽर्थं प्रत्याययेत्, व्यभिचारात्;
It cannot be, that each letter (of the word) by itself causes one to understand the meaning (of a word) because that would involve the fault called ‘Vyabhicāra’.

1.3.28 L.56 ✅ न च वर्णसमुदायप्रत्ययोऽस्ति, क्रमवर्तित्वाद्वर्णानाम्;
Nor is there an experience of a collection of letters as a whole altogether simultaneously because the letters follow in a particular order.

1.3.28 L.57 ✅ पूर्वपूर्ववर्णानुभवजनितसंस्कारसहितोऽन्त्यो वर्णोऽर्थं प्रत्याययिष्यतीति यद्युच्येत,
If it be said, that the final letter of a word, along with the collective impressions of the letters which have preceded it, would enable one to comprehend the meaning (of a word),

1.3.28 L.58 ✅ तन्न; सम्बन्धग्रहणापेक्षो हि शब्दः स्वयं प्रतीयमानोऽर्थं प्रत्याययेत्, धूमादिवत्;
We reply — it is not so, because it is absolutely necessary (for a person) to comprehend the relation existing between a word and its meaning, before a word can intimate its meaning, as, for instance, smoke etc. (which enables us to infer the existence of fire, only when smoke itself is apprehended).

1.3.28 L.59 ✅ न च पूर्वपूर्ववर्णानुभवजनितसंस्कारसहितस्यान्त्यवर्णस्य प्रतीतिरस्ति, अप्रत्यक्षत्वात्संस्काराणाम्;
There is no experience here of the last letter (of a word) along with the impressions produced from the experience of letters which precede it, because impressions (Saṃskāras) are not perceptible by sense-organs.

1.3.28 L.60 ✅ कार्यप्रत्यायितैः संस्कारैः सहितोऽन्त्यो वर्णोऽर्थं प्रत्याययिष्यतीति चेत्,
If it be argued, that the experience of the last letter along with the impressions of the preceding letters, caused to be experienced by their effects (Kārya), would enable one to comprehend the meaning (of a word),

1.3.28 L.61 ✅ न; संस्कारकार्यस्यापि स्मरणस्य क्रमवर्तित्वात्;
We reply — no, because the remembrance of the whole word which is the effect of the impressions, also takes place in a particular order.

1.3.28 L.62 ✅ तस्मात्स्फोट एव शब्दः।
Therefore a word (not a letter) is of the nature of a ‘Sphoṭa’.

1.3.28 L.63 ✅ स चैकैकवर्णप्रत्ययाहितसंस्कारबीजेऽन्त्यवर्णप्रत्ययजनितपरिपाके प्रत्ययिन्येकप्रत्ययविषयतया झटिति प्रत्यवभासते;
This Sphoṭa suddenly flashes on the intelligence which is the sense-organ which apprehends an object, as the object of only one single apprehension, when the seed in the form of impressions created by the apprehension of each letter singly, is ripened by the apprehension of the last letter (of a word).

1.3.28 L.64 ✅ न चायमेकप्रत्ययो वर्णविषया स्मृतिः, वर्णानामनेकत्वादेकप्रत्ययविषयत्वानुपपत्तेः;
This one single apprehension is not the remembrance of all the letters as a whole, because letters being many, it would not be reasonably sustainable to understand them as the object of one apprehension.

1.3.28 L.65 ✅ तस्य च प्रत्युच्चारणं प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वान्नित्यत्वम्,
The eternality of the Sphoṭa is due to its apprehension (by us) at every utterance,

1.3.28 L.66 ✅ भेदप्रत्ययस्य वर्णविषयत्वात्।
While the apprehension of separateness or distinctness, is with respect to the letters.

1.3.28 L.67 ✅ तस्मान्नित्याच्छब्दात्स्फोटरूपादभिधायकात्क्रियाकारकफललक्षणं जगदभिधेयभूतं प्रभवतीति॥
It is from this eternal word, which is of the nature of a Sphoṭa, and which is the denoter, that the thing denoted viz. the transitory world, as characterized by actions, agents and fruits of actions, is born. (N. B. — This theory of ‘Sphoṭa’ is of the Vaiyākaraṇis i.e. Grammarians).

1.3.28 L.68 ✅ ‘वर्णा एव तु शब्दः’ इति भगवानुपवर्षः।
Bhagavān Upavarṣa however says — These letters themselves, exactly, are our word.

1.3.28 L.69 ✅ ननूत्पन्नप्रध्वंसित्वं वर्णानामुक्तम्;
But (says the Grammarian) we have spoken about the vanishing of the letters as soon as they are produced.

1.3.28 L.70 ✅ तन्न, त एवेति प्रत्यभिज्ञानात्;
(We reply) — that is not so, because they are recognized as the self-same letters.

1.3.28 L.71 ✅ सादृश्यात्प्रत्यभिज्ञानं केशादिष्विवेति चेत्,
But if it be urged (by the Grammarian) that the recognition is caused by similarity, as in the case of the hair,

1.3.28 L.72 ✅ न; प्रत्यभिज्ञानस्य प्रमाणान्तरेण बाधानुपपत्तेः;
We reply — No, because it is not reasonably sustainable that such recognition is ever invalidated by other means of proof.

1.3.28 L.73 ✅ प्रत्यभिज्ञानमाकृतिनिमित्तमिति चेत्,
If it be said (by the Grammarian) that the recognition is caused by the Ākṛti (form),

1.3.28 L.74 ✅ न; व्यक्तिप्रत्यभिज्ञानात्;
We reply — no, because the individual entity is recognized as such.

1.3.28 L.75 ✅ यदि हि प्रत्युच्चारणं गवादिव्यक्तिवदन्या अन्या वर्णव्यक्तयः प्रतीयेरन्, तत आकृतिनिमित्तं प्रत्यभिज्ञानं स्यात्;
If, at every utterance, individual letters could be recognized as different letters — like individual cows for instance — then it would be that the recognition is caused by the Ākṛti (form).

1.3.28 L.76 ✅ न त्वेतदस्ति; वर्णव्यक्तय एव हि प्रत्युच्चारणं प्रत्यभिज्ञायन्ते;
But it never is so, for the individual letters are recognized to be the same at every utterance,

1.3.28 L.77 ✅ द्विर्गोशब्द उच्चारितः – इति हि प्रतिपत्तिः;
And we do understand that the same word (cow) is uttered twice,

1.3.28 L.78 ✅ न तु द्वौ गोशब्दाविति।
And not that two distinct and separate words ‘cow’ are uttered.

1.3.28 L.79 ✅ ननु वर्णा अप्युच्चारणभेदेन भिन्नाः प्रतीयन्ते,
But (says the Grammarian) we have already said above, that we are able to recognize even the words as distinct and separate,

1.3.28 L.80 ✅ देवदत्तयज्ञदत्तयोरध्ययनध्वनिश्रवणादेव भेदप्रतीतेरित्युक्तम्;
Because we are able to experience the difference (between them), merely by our hearing the sound of the recitation by Deva-datta and by Yajña-datta.

1.3.28 L.81 ✅ अत्राभिधीयते – सति वर्णविषये निश्चिते प्रत्यभिज्ञाने, संयोगविभागाभिव्यङ्ग्यत्वाद्वर्णानाम्, अभिव्यञ्जकवैचित्र्यनिमित्तोऽयं वर्णविषयो विचित्रः प्रत्ययः,
To this objection, we reply — The definite recognition of the same letters being there, this peculiar experience about the letters (as being distinct and separate) is caused by the special glosso-epiglottic idiosyncrasy of the person uttering (the letters) as the letters are made manifest by the conjunction and disjunction (of the air on the one hand, and the palate, lips, teeth, etc., on the other),

1.3.28 L.82 ✅ न स्वरूपनिमित्तः;
And is not due to any distinctive separateness in the nature (of the letters themselves).

1.3.28 L.83 ✅ अपि च वर्णव्यक्तिभेदवादिनापि प्रत्यभिज्ञानसिद्धये वर्णाकृतयः कल्पयितव्याः;
Besides in the case of those who hold the view that there is distinctness and separateness in the same individual letters, they also have to imagine Ākṛtis (forms) for establishing the fact of such recognition,

1.3.28 L.84 ✅ तासु च परोपाधिको भेदप्रत्यय इत्यभ्युपगन्तव्यम्;
And they have also further to imagine, that this experience of distinctness and separateness is caused by extraneous limiting adjuncts.

1.3.28 L.85 ✅ तद्वरं वर्णव्यक्तिष्वेव परोपाधिको भेदप्रत्ययः, स्वरूपनिमित्तं च प्रत्यभिज्ञानम् – इति कल्पनालाघवम्।
So, there would certainly be brevity of imagination, to assume that the recognition of distinctness and separateness in individual letters is the result of extraneous adjuncts (such as conjunction and disjunction), and that the recognition of the letters (as being the same) is caused by their intrinsic nature.

1.3.28 L.86 ✅ एष एव च वर्णविषयस्य भेदप्रत्ययस्य बाधकः प्रत्ययः, यत्प्रत्यभिज्ञानम्।
This recognition, properly so called, is nothing else but this apprehension, which invalidates the apprehension of distinctness and separateness in the letters themselves.

1.3.28 L.87 ✅ कथं ह्येकस्मिन्काले बहूनामुच्चारयतामेक एव सन् गकारो युगपदनेकरूपः स्यात् –
Otherwise, how else can the same syllable ‘Ga’ (ग) when uttered by many at one and the same time, appear to have such different aspects

1.3.28 L.88 ✅ उदात्तश्चानुदात्तश्च स्वरितश्च सानुनासिकश्च निरनुनासिकश्चेति।
As Udātta, Anudātta, Svarita, Anunāsika and Niranunāsika?

1.3.28 L.89 ✅ अथवा ध्वनिकृतोऽयं भेदप्रत्ययो न वर्णकृत इत्यदोषः।
On the other hand, no such fault would be there, if (we understand) that this distinctness in the apprehension (of the same letter as Udātta etc.) is not caused by the letters themselves, but by tone (Dhvani).

1.3.28 L.90 ✅ कः पुनरयं ध्वनिर्नाम?
But (asks the Grammarian) what is this tone, any way?

1.3.28 L.91 ✅ यो दूरादाकर्णयतो वर्णविवेकमप्रतिपद्यमानस्य कर्णपथमवतरति;
It is (we reply) that which reaches the ear (lit., descends on the path of the ear) of a man listening from a distance, who then is unable to distinguish the letters each from the other,

1.3.28 L.92 ✅ प्रत्यासीदतश्च पटुमृदुत्वादिभेदं वर्णेष्वासञ्जयति;
And which, when the man is very near it, invests letters with the distinctness in the qualities of high and low pitch.

1.3.28 L.93 ✅ तन्निबन्धनाश्चोदात्तादयो विशेषाः,
It is on this ‘Dhvani’ that such special features as the Udātta accent etc. depend,

1.3.28 L.94 ✅ न वर्णस्वरूपनिबन्धनाः,
And not on the intrinsic nature of the letters,

1.3.28 L.95 ✅ वर्णानां प्रत्युच्चारणं प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानत्वात्;
Because the letters every time they are uttered are recognised as being the same.

1.3.28 L.96 ✅ एवं च सति सालम्बना एवैते उदात्तादिप्रत्यया भविष्यन्ति;
It is only in this way that accents such as Udātta etc. could have a basis,

1.3.28 L.97 ✅ इतरथा हि वर्णानां प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानानां निर्भेदत्वात्संयोगविभागकृता उदात्तादिविशेषाः कल्प्येरन्;
Otherwise we will have to understand, that the letters as they are, have no distinction, and such special features as the Udātta accent etc. are caused by the conjunction and disjunction (of the air on the one hand, and the palate or lips or teeth on the other hand).

1.3.28 L.98 ✅ संयोगविभागानां चाप्रत्यक्षत्वान्न तदाश्रया विशेषाः वर्णेष्वध्यवसातुं शक्यन्त इत्यतो निरालम्बना एव एते उदात्तादिप्रत्ययाः स्युः।
Now, these conjunctions and disjunctions being unperceivable by sense-organs, it would not be possible to attribute these special features depending on them, to the letters themselves, and as a consequence, the apprehension of such special features would be without any basis.

1.3.28 L.99 ✅ अपि च नैवैतदभिनिवेष्टव्यम् –
Besides it should not be urged or advanced as an argument,

1.3.28 L.100 ✅ उदात्तादिभेदेन वर्णानां प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानानां भेदो भवेदिति;
That a distinctness in the letters apprehended, may be due to the distinctness of the accents such as Udātta etc.,

1.3.28 L.101 ✅ न ह्यन्यस्य भेदेनान्यस्याभिद्यमानस्य भेदो भवितुमर्हति;
Because a distinctness in one thing does not deserve to cause a distinctness in another thing which does not admit of any distinctness.

1.3.28 L.102 ✅ न हि व्यक्तिभेदेन जातिं भिन्नां मन्यन्ते।
No one would consider, that there are distinctions in the same species, because individuals of that species are distinct and separate from each other.

1.3.28 L.103 ✅ वर्णेभ्यश्चार्थप्रतीतेः सम्भवात् स्फोटकल्पनानर्थिका।
Besides as it is possible to apprehend the meaning directly from the letters themselves, the conception of a Sphoṭa is futile.

1.3.28 L.104 ✅ न कल्पयाम्यहं स्फोटम्, प्रत्यक्षमेव त्वेनमवगच्छामि,
But (says the Grammarian) I am not merely imagining a Sphoṭa, but I have a direct perception of it,

1.3.28 L.105 ✅ एकैकवर्णग्रहणाहितसंस्कारायां बुद्धौ झटिति प्रत्यवभासनादिति चेत्,
And in as much as it, i.e. the Sphoṭa, suddenly flashes on the intelligence which has received impressions from the recognition of the successive letters (of a word), I am actually conscious of it.

1.3.28 L.106 ✅ न; अस्या अपि बुद्धेर्वर्णविषयत्वात्;
To this we reply — No, because even such intelligence (i.e. intelligence which has received such impressions) is with regard to the letters only.

1.3.28 L.107 ✅ एकैकवर्णग्रहणोत्तरकाला हीयमेका बुद्धिर्गौरिति समस्तवर्णविषया, नार्थान्तरविषया।
This comprehensive recognition (Ekā Buddhiḥ) which comes after apprehending the letters singly one after another, as for instance ‘this is a cow’, is with respect to the aggregate of letters only and nothing else.

1.3.28 L.108 ✅ कथमेतदवगम्यते?
How is that understood?

1.3.28 L.109 ✅ यतोऽस्यामपि बुद्धौ गकारादयो वर्णा अनुवर्तन्ते, न तु दकारादयः;
Because in such comprehensive recognition even, the syllables ‘Ga’ (ग) etc. alone are apprehended, and not the syllables ‘Da’ (द) etc.,

1.3.28 L.110 ✅ यदि ह्यस्या बुद्धेर्गकारादिभ्योऽर्थान्तरं स्फोटो विषयः स्यात्,
And if this Sphoṭa were to be different from the comprehensive recognition of the syllable ‘Ga’ (ग) etc.,

1.3.28 L.111 ✅ ततो दकारादय इव गकारादयोऽप्यस्या बुद्धेर्व्यावर्तेरन्;
Then like the syllable ‘Da’ (द) the syllable ‘Ga’ (ग) also would be excluded from such comprehensive recognition.

1.3.28 L.112 ✅ न तु तथास्ति;
But it does not so happen.

1.3.28 L.113 ✅ तस्मादियमेकबुद्धिर्वर्णविषयैव स्मृतिः।
Therefore the comprehensive recognition is but the act of the remembrance of the letters only.

1.3.28 L.114 ✅ नन्वनेकत्वाद्वर्णानां नैकबुद्धिविषयतोपपद्यत इत्युक्तम्,
But (says the Grammarian) we have already said that the letters being more than one, it would not be reasonably sustainable to conceive of a comprehensive recognition of them all.

1.3.28 L.115 ✅ तत्प्रति ब्रूमः – सम्भवत्यनेकस्याप्येकबुद्धिविषयत्वम्, पङ्क्तिः वनं सेना दश शतं सहस्रमित्यादिदर्शनात्;
To this we reply — It is possible that several letters also can be the object of a comprehensive recognition, as for instance in the case of (words such as) ‘row’, ‘wood’, ‘army’, ‘ten’, ‘hundred’ or ‘thousand’.

1.3.28 L.116 ✅ या तु गौरित्येकोऽयं शब्द इति बुद्धिः,
Now the recognition that there is only this one word ‘cow’,

1.3.28 L.117 ✅ सा बहुष्वेव वर्णेष्वेकार्थावच्छेदनिबन्धना औपचारिकी वनसेनादिबुद्धिवदेव।
Is, like the recognition of such words as ‘wood’ or ‘army’, only in a metaphorical or a secondary derived sense, as it depends on the fact that many letters together form one word signifying a definite meaning.

1.3.28 L.118 ✅ अत्राह – यदि वर्णा एव सामस्त्येन एकबुद्धिविषयतामापद्यमानाः पदं स्युः,
It is here objected (by the Grammarian) that if several letters together can be the object of one comprehensive recognition, so as to form a word (Pada),

1.3.28 L.119 ✅ ततो जारा राजा कपिः पिक इत्यादिषु पदविशेषप्रतिपत्तिर्न स्यात्;
Then there would be no specific different recognition of the words ‘Jārāḥ’ and ‘Rājāḥ’ or ‘Kapi’ and ‘Pika’, as being different from each other,

1.3.28 L.120 ✅ त एव हि वर्णा इतरत्रेतरत्र च प्रत्यवभासन्त इति।
In as much as the same identical letters appear in both such pairs of words.

1.3.28 L.121 ✅ अत्र वदामः – सत्यपि समस्तवर्णप्रत्यवमर्शे यथा क्रमानुरोधिन्य एव पिपीलिकाः पङ्क्तिबुद्धिमारोहन्ति,
This objection we refute thus — Even though there is a comprehension of the same aggregate of letters, yet, just as ants going one after another in the order of a particular single file only, can be said to constitute the comprehensive recognition of a ‘row’,

1.3.28 L.122 ✅ एवं क्रमानुरोधिन एव हि वर्णाः पदबुद्धिमारोक्ष्यन्ति;
Similarly, letters following each other in a particular order only, give rise to a comprehensive recognition of a word

1.3.28 L.123 ✅ तत्र वर्णानामविशेषेऽपि क्रमविशेषकृता पदविशेषप्रतिपत्तिर्न विरुध्यते;
In such a case, the comprehension of a particular word as resulting from a particular order (of letters) is not contradicted, even though the letters may be the same (in such pairs of words as Jārāḥ and Rājāḥ etc.).

1.3.28 L.124 ✅ वृद्धव्यवहारे चेमे वर्णाः क्रमाद्यनुगृहीता गृहीतार्थविशेषसम्बन्धाः सन्तः
Considering the usage of old people, where these letters happen to be in a particular order, and are such that their relationship to a particular meaning is duly comprehended,

1.3.28 L.125 ✅ स्वव्यवहारेऽप्येकैकवर्णग्रहणानन्तरं समस्तप्रत्यवमर्शिन्यां बुद्धौ तादृशा एव प्रत्यवभासमानास्तं तमर्थमव्यभिचारेण प्रत्याययिष्यन्तीति वर्णवादिनो लघीयसी कल्पना।
It would be an easier thing to suppose (according to the Varṇa proponents), that in the case of any other individual person also, after each single word is apprehended, they appear to such individual to be similar, in the comprehensive recognition of all of them together, and unerringly convey the same meaning to him.

1.3.28 L.126 ✅ स्फोटवादिनस्तु दृष्टहानिः, अदृष्टकल्पना च;
In the case of those who hold the theory of ‘Sphoṭa’, however, there occurs the fault of the abandonment of what actually is seen, and the wrong assumption of what is not seen.

1.3.28 L.127 ✅ वर्णाश्चेमे क्रमेण गृह्यमाणाः स्फोटं व्यञ्जयन्ति स स्फोटोऽर्थं व्यनक्तीति गरीयसी कल्पना स्यात्॥
It would be a laborious or roundabout procedure to suppose, that letters which are comprehended in a particular order, first suggest a Sphoṭa, and that Sphoṭa thereafter suggests the meaning.

1.3.28 L.128 ✅ अथापि नाम प्रत्युच्चारणमन्येऽन्ये वर्णाः स्युः,
Besides, even if it is supposed, that the same letters as they are uttered again and again, are distinct and separate from each other,

1.3.28 L.129 ✅ तथापि प्रत्यभिज्ञालम्बनभावेन वर्णसामान्यानामवश्याभ्युपगन्तव्यत्वात्,
Even then, it would be necessary to assume a ‘species’ as the basis of a comprehensive recognition,

1.3.28 L.130 ✅ या वर्णेष्वर्थप्रतिपादनप्रक्रिया रचिता सा सामान्येषु सञ्चारयितव्या।
And the theory about the way in which letters are comprehended, would have to be extended to the ‘species’ as well.

1.3.28 L.131 ✅ ततश्च नित्येभ्यः शब्देभ्यो देवादिव्यक्तीनां प्रभव इत्यविरुद्धम्॥२८॥
Hence, it would not be contradictory to say that Gods etc. are born of eternal words. — 28.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अत एव च नित्यत्वम्॥१.३.२९॥
Ata eva ca nityatvam.

Ataḥ eva: therefore, from this very reason; Ca: also; Nityatvam: The eternity of the Vedas.

🔗 Hence (i.e. because the world is born from words) it is, that (the Vedas) are eternal. — 1.3.29.

1.3.29 L.1 ✅ स्वतन्त्रस्य कर्तुरस्मरणादिति स्थिते वेदस्य नित्यत्वे
The eternity of the Vedas having been determined (in Pū. Mī.) on the ground of the absence of any remembrance of any definite author etc.,

1.3.29 L.2 ✅ देवादिव्यक्तिप्रभवाभ्युपगमेन तस्य विरोधमाशङ्क्य
And there-after, raising a doubt that there would be a contradiction in holding that individual Gods etc. were liable to be born and therefore non-eternal,

1.3.29 L.3 ✅ ‘अतः प्रभवात्’ इति परिहृत्य
And after refuting the same by the previous Sūtra “Ataḥ Prabhavāt” (BrS.1.3.26),

1.3.29 L.4 ✅ इदानीं तदेव वेदनित्यत्वं स्थितं द्रढयति –
The Sūtra-kāra now in this Sūtra strengthens the same already established eternity of the Vedas,

1.3.29 L.5 ✅ अत एव च नित्यत्वमिति।
By the Sūtra “Hence it is that (the Vedas) are eternal”.

1.3.29 L.6 ✅
अत एव नियताकृतेर्देवादेर्जगतो वेदशब्दप्रभवत्वात् वेदशब्दनित्यत्वमपि प्रत्येतव्यम्। Thus — it is also because this transitory world which consists of definite forms such as the Gods etc. is born from the Vedic words, that the eternity of the Vedic word should be understood.

1.3.29 L.7 ✅ तथा च मन्त्रवर्णः –
A Vedic Mantra also is of similar import —

1.3.29 L.8 ✅ ‘यज्ञेन वाचः पदवीयमायन् तामन्वविन्दन्नृषिषु प्रविष्टाम्’ (ऋ. सं. १०-७-३) इति स्थितामेव वाचमनुविन्नां दर्शयति।
“(The sacrificers — Yajñikas) attained the path of Vedic words by sacrifices (i.e. meritorious actions performed in the previous life) and then obtained the Vedic words which were in the custody of the Ṛṣis” (Ṛg. Sam. 10.71.3), and it shows that the sacrificers obtained the Vedic words which were already existing and which became manifest to them (Ṛg. Sam. 10.71.3).

1.3.29 L.9 ✅ वेदव्यासश्चैवमेव स्मरति –
Veda-Vyāsa also in the Smṛti says similarly —

1.3.29 L.10 ✅ ‘युगान्तेऽन्तर्हितान्वेदान्सेतिहासान्महर्षयः। लेभिरे तपसा पूर्वमनुज्ञाताः स्वयंभुवा’ इति॥२९॥
“The Ṛṣis, with the previous permission of the self-born (Brahman — Hiraṇya-garbha) obtained by austerities performed (in the previous Kalpa), acquired the Vedas along with History, which at the end of the previous millennium (Yuga) had vanished out of sight.” — 29.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
समाननामरूपत्वाच्चावृत्तावप्यविरोधो दर्शनात्स्मृतेश्च॥१.३.३०॥
Samāna-nāma-rūpatvāc cāvṛttāv apy avirodho darśanāt smṛteś ca.

Samāna-nāma-rūpatvāt: on account of similar names and forms; Ca: and; Āvrittau: in the cycles of creation; Api: even, also; A-virodhaḥ: no inconsistency or contradiction; Darśanāt: from the Śruti; Smṛteḥ: from the Smṛti, Ca: and.

🔗 Because of the same names and forms (recurring) when there is a regeneration (of the world), no contradiction arises (about the eternality of the Vedic words) as is to be seen from the Scriptures and Smṛtis. — 1.3.30.

1.3.30 L.1 ✅ अथापि स्यात् – यदि पश्वादिव्यक्तिवद्देवादिव्यक्तयोऽपि सन्तत्यैवोत्पद्येरन् निरुध्येरंश्च,
It may be (says the opponent), that were individuals such as Gods etc. understood to be recurringly created and destroyed like individual animals etc.,

1.3.30 L.2 ✅ ततोऽभिधानाभिधेयाभिधातृव्यवहाराविच्छेदात्सम्बन्धनित्यत्वेन विरोधः शब्दे परिह्रियेत।
Then perhaps, as a result of the non-interruption of the relation between the names, the things named, and the giver of these names (or as between the teachers and the taught) and by reason of such relation being thus eternal, any such contradiction as regards the Scriptural word would be removed.

1.3.30 L.3 ✅ यदा तु खलु सकलं त्रैलोक्यं परित्यक्तनामरूपं निर्लेपं प्रलीयते, प्रभवति चाभिनवमिति श्रुतिस्मृतिवादा वदन्ति,
But when tenets of the Scriptures and Smṛtis mention, that this entire three-fold world, after divesting itself of such names and forms, gets completely reabsorbed without leaving any trace, and is then born afresh,

1.3.30 L.4 ✅ तदा कथमविरोध इति।
How could there be no contradiction?

1.3.30 L.5 ✅ तत्रेदमभिधीयते समाननामरूपत्वादिति।
With regard to this it is said — “Because of the same names and forms (recurring)” —

1.3.30 L.6 ✅ तदापि संसारस्यानादित्वं तावदभ्युपगन्तव्यम्।
And even if such absorption and regeneration is accepted, we do have to accept the transmigratory existence as having no beginning.

1.3.30 L.7 ✅ प्रतिपादयिष्यति चाचार्यः संसारस्यानादित्वम् – ‘उपपद्यते चाप्युपलभ्यते च’ (BrS.2.1.36) इति।
The Ācārya will hereafter expound, as to how transmigratory existence is without beginning, in the Sūtra ‘It is reasonably sustainable and is also perceived to be so’ (BrS.2.1.36).

1.3.30 L.8 ✅ अनादौ च संसारे यथा स्वापप्रबोधयोः प्रलयप्रभवश्रवणेऽपि पूर्वप्रबोधवदुत्तरप्रबोधेऽपि व्यवहारान्न कश्चिद्विरोधः, एवं कल्पान्तरप्रभवप्रलययोरपीति द्रष्टव्यम्।
It should be understood that in the beginningless transmigratory existence, even though there is complete reabsorption and regeneration respectively at the end of the Kalpa and the beginning of another, there is no contradiction, even as there is no contradiction in the case of sleep and awakening (where there is complete cessation of consciousness during sleep and there is a reappearance of consciousness on awakening), and the practical worldly transactions (of a man) are the same after the reappearance of consciousness, as they were before the cessation of consciousness.

1.3.30 L.9 ✅ स्वापप्रबोधयोश्च प्रलयप्रभवौ श्रूयेते –
The Scriptures speak of the absence of consciousness and its reappearance, in the conditions of sleep and awakening respectively, thus: —

1.3.30 L.10 ✅ ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति तदैनं वाक्यसर्वैर्नामभिः सहाप्येति चक्षुः सर्वै रूपैः सहाप्येति श्रोत्रं सर्वैः शब्दैः सहाप्येति मनः सर्वैर्ध्यानैः सहाप्येति
स यदा प्रतिबुध्यते यथाग्नेर्ज्वलतः सर्वा दिशो विस्फुलिङ्गा विप्रतिष्ठेरन्नेवमेवैतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ (कौ. उ. ३-३) इति।
“When (a man) is asleep and does not experience any dreams, but becomes as it were, one with the Prāṇa, then speech (Vāk) along with all names merges in it, the eye along with all forms merges into it, the ear along with all words merges into it, the mind along with all meditations merges into it,
And when he wakes up, just as in the case of burning fire, scintillae are thrown out in all directions, even so, from this Self, all sense-organs proceed towards their respective places, and from the sense-organs the deities (presiding at these sense-organs), and from the deities the sense-objects” (KausU.3.3).

1.3.30 L.11 ✅ स्यादेतत् – स्वापे पुरुषान्तरव्यवहाराविच्छेदात्स्वयं च सुप्तप्रबुद्धस्य
(The opponent here says) — It may be, that during sleep, as the practical worldly transactions of a man other than the one who is asleep are not interrupted, even so, in the case of a man who has awakened after being asleep,

1.3.30 L.12 ✅ पूर्वप्रबोधव्यवहारानुसन्धानसम्भवादविरुद्धम्;
There is a possibility of his still retaining (after awakening) the memory of transactions performed by him in the previous condition of wakefulness, and, there may not thus be any contradiction.

1.3.30 L.13 ✅ महाप्रलये तु सर्वव्यवहारोच्छेदाज्जन्मान्तरव्यवहारवच्च कल्पान्तरव्यवहारस्यानुसन्धातुमशक्यत्वाद्वैषम्यमिति।
But there is difference in the case of the great general deluge i.e. re-absorption (Pralaya), because there is complete cessation of all practical transactions, and as it is impossible to remember the transaction of the previous Kalpa, it is impossible to have any remembrance of the transactions of the previous birth.

1.3.30 L.14 ✅ नैष दोषः, सत्यपि सर्वव्यवहारोच्छेदिनि महाप्रलये
परमेश्वरानुग्रहादीश्वराणां हिरण्यगर्भादीनां कल्पान्तरव्यवहारानुसन्धानोपपत्तेः।
To this, we say — This is no fault. It is reasonably sustainable, that even though there is this great general deluge which causes the destruction of all practical transactions,
Still as a result of the grace of the Highest Lord, such mighty personalities (supermen) as Hiraṇya-garbha and others are able to retain the memory of the transactions of the previous Kalpa.

1.3.30 L.15 ✅ यद्यपि प्राकृताः प्राणिनो न जन्मान्तरव्यवहारमनुसन्दधाना दृश्यन्त इति,
Because it is seen that ordinary beings do not retain any memory of the transactions of the previous birth,

1.3.30 L.16 ✅ तथापि न प्राकृतवदीश्वराणां भवितव्यम्।
It cannot be maintained that the case of such mighty personalities (supermen) ought also to be similar to the case of ordinary beings.

1.3.30 L.17 ✅ यथा हि प्राणित्वाविशेषेऽपि मनुष्यादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेषु ज्ञानैश्वर्यादिप्रतिबन्धः परेण परेण भूयान् भवन् दृश्यते;
Though the attribute of being a living being (Prāṇitva) is common to all beings, it is seen, that beginning with man down to a blade of grass, there is a progressively greater and greater obstruction to knowledge and power, all along the series downwards,

1.3.30 L.18 ✅ तथा मनुष्यादिष्वेव हिरण्यगर्भपर्यन्तेषु ज्ञानैश्वर्याद्यभिव्यक्तिरपि परेण परेण भूयसी भवति
And similarly from man upto Hiraṇya-garbha there is a progressively greater and greater manifestation of knowledge and power, all along the series upwards,

1.3.30 L.19 ✅ इत्येतच्छ्रुतिस्मृतिवादेष्वसकृदनुश्रूयमाणं न शक्यं नास्तीति वदितुम्।
And it cannot be said about all this which we understand from the Scriptural and Smṛti discussions, that it is not so.

1.3.30 L.20 ✅ ततश्चातीतकल्पानुष्ठितप्रकृष्टज्ञानकर्मणामीश्वराणां हिरण्यगर्भादीनां वर्तमानकल्पादौ प्रादुर्भवतां परमेश्वरानुगृहीतानां सुप्तप्रतिबुद्धवत्कल्पान्तरव्यवहारानुसन्धानोपपत्तिः।
Hence it is reasonably sustainable that such mighty personalities (supermen) as Hiraṇya-garbha etc. who have practised religious actions (Karma) along with superior knowledge in the previous Kalpa, and who have been born again in the present Kalpa, and to whom the Grace of the Highest Lord has been vouchsafed, do possess — like one who has awakened from sleep — the memory of the transactions of the previous Kalpa.

1.3.30 L.21 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः –
The following Scriptural passage also similarly says —

1.3.30 L.22 ✅ ‘यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै।
तꣳ ह देवमात्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं मुमुक्षुर्वै शरणमहं प्रपद्ये’ (SvetU.6.18) इति।
“He who first creates the Brahman (Hiraṇya-garbha) and then inspires his intelligence with the knowledge of the Vedas, in Him,
The Deva who shines with the Intelligence of his own Self, I, who aspire for Final Release, do seek refuge” (SvetU.6.18).

1.3.30 L.23 ✅ स्मरन्ति च शौनकादयः – ‘मधुच्छन्दःप्रभृतिभिऋषिभिर्दाशतय्यो दृष्टाः’ इति।
Śaunaka and others also have mentioned in the Smṛtis, how Madhu-cchanda and other Ṛṣis saw (i.e. had intuitive or inspired knowledge of) the Dāśatayas (a set of hymns in the tenth Maṇḍala of the Ṛg-Veda).

1.3.30 L.24 ✅ प्रतिवेदं चैवमेव काण्डर्ष्यादयः स्मर्यन्ते।
Similarly in every Veda there is a mention of the Ṛṣis of all the Kāṇḍas (i.e. Chapters).

1.3.30 L.25 ✅ श्रुतिरपि ऋषिज्ञानपूर्वकमेव मन्त्रेणानुष्ठानं दर्शयति –
The Scriptures also show, how every Mantra is pronounced after first recalling the Ṛṣi (connected with the Mantra) thus —

1.3.30 L.26 ✅ ‘यो ह वा अविदितार्षेयच्छन्दोदैवतब्राह्मणेन मन्त्रेण याजयति वाध्यापयति वा स्थाणुं वर्च्छति गर्तं वा प्रतिपद्यते’
“One who causes a sacrifice to be performed or teaches without recalling the name of the Ṛṣi, the metre, the Deity and the Brāhmaṇa, is reduced to the condition of an immoveable thing (such as a tree etc.) or gets consigned to the pit (i.e. Hell)” (Sarvānu.),

1.3.30 L.27 ✅ इत्युपक्रम्य ‘तस्मादेतानि मन्त्रे मन्त्रे विद्यात्’ इति।
And they further mention, that every one must know all these details about every Mantra.

1.3.30 L.28 ✅ प्राणिनां च सुखप्राप्तये धर्मो विधीयते;
Meritorious action is enjoined on a man so that he may thereby obtain happiness,

1.3.30 L.29 ✅ दुःखपरिहाराय चाधर्मः प्रतिषिध्यते;
And unmeritorious actions are prohibited so that he may not suffer pain.

1.3.30 L.30 ✅ दृष्टानुश्रविकसुखदुःखविषयौ च रागद्वेषौ भवतः, न विलक्षणविषयौ –
A man’s predilection for and hatred of (a thing) is caused as a result of pleasure and pain actually experienced or as known from the Scriptures, and not for other pleasures and of other pains (not so experienced)

1.3.30 L.31 ✅ इत्यतो धर्माधर्मफलभूतोत्तरा सृष्टिर्निष्पद्यमाना पूर्वसृष्टिसदृश्येव निष्पद्यते।
And hence (it ought to be understood that) the world which comes into existence as a result of the fruits of merits or demerits, is exactly like the previous world.

1.3.30 L.32 ✅ स्मृतिश्च भवति – ‘तेषां ये यानि कर्माणि प्राक्सृष्ट्यां प्रतिपेदिरे।
तान्येव ते प्रपद्यन्ते सृज्यमानाः पुनः पुनः॥
हिंस्राहिंस्रे मृदुक्रूरे धर्माधर्मावृतानृते।
तद्भाविताः प्रपद्यन्ते तस्मात्तत्तस्य रोचते’ इति।
A Smṛti says — “In the case of beings, whatever actions they did in the former world,
To the same sort of action they are again born:
Be his actions ferocious or harmless, gentle or cruel, meritorious or sinful, or true or false.”
Having been impressed with these sentiments (in the former world) they are born with the same sentiments again, and so they prefer to do the same things.

1.3.30 L.33 ✅ प्रलीयमानमपि चेदं जगच्छक्त्यवशेषमेव प्रलीयते;
The creation, when it comes to be annihilated or dissolved still retains that residuary potentiality

1.3.30 L.34 ✅ शक्तिमूलमेव च प्रभवति;
And this same potentiality is the root-cause of its regeneration,

1.3.30 L.35 ✅ इतरथा आकस्मिकत्वप्रसङ्गात्।
Otherwise there would result the predicament of a result occurring without a cause.

1.3.30 L.36 ✅ न चानेकाकाराः शक्तयः शक्याः कल्पयितुम्।
Now, it is not possible to imagine these potentialities to be of many varieties or forms.

1.3.30 L.37 ✅ ततश्च विच्छिद्य विच्छिद्याप्युद्भवतां भूरादिलोकप्रवाहाणाम्, देवतिर्यङ्मनुष्यलक्षणानां च प्राणिनिकायप्रवाहाणाम्, वर्णाश्रमधर्मफलव्यवस्थानां चानादौ संसारे
Hence we have to understand that these flowing streams of the worlds such as earth etc. which again and again get destroyed and are reborn, and the flowing streams of the aggregate of beings such as the Gods, the beasts and men, and all the definite settled arrangements of race, Āśramas and fruits of actions, have a definite arrangement in this beginningless transmigratory existence,

1.3.30 L.38 ✅ नियतत्वमिन्द्रियविषयसम्बन्धनियतत्ववत्प्रत्येतव्यम्;
Similar to the definite constant arrangement of the relation between the sense-organs and the sense-objects.

1.3.30 L.39 ✅ न हीन्द्रियविषयसम्बन्धादेर्व्यवहारस्य प्रतिसर्गमन्यथात्वं
We cannot imagine that the transaction as seen in the relationship existing between the sense-organs and the sense-objects, is different in each new creation,

1.3.30 L.40 ✅ षष्ठेन्द्रियविषयकल्पं शक्यमुत्प्रेक्षितुम्।
For instance we cannot imagine a sixth sense and a sixth object of such sixth sense.

1.3.30 L.41 ✅ अतश्च सर्वकल्पानां तुल्यव्यवहारत्वात्
Hence, because of the practical transactions appertaining to all Kalpas being similar,

1.3.30 L.42 ✅ कल्पान्तरव्यवहारानुसन्धानक्षमत्वाच्चेश्वराणां समाननामरूपा एव प्रतिसर्गं विशेषाः प्रादुर्भवन्ति।
And because mighty personalities (supermen) possess the power of remembering their transactions in the previous Kalpa, in every fresh creation, the same peculiarities of names and forms recur again and again.

1.3.30 L.43 ✅ समाननामरूपत्वाच्चावृत्तावपि महासर्गमहाप्रलयलक्षणायां जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यमानायां न कश्चिच्छब्दप्रामाण्यादिविरोधः।
There is no contradiction of the authoritativeness of the Scriptural word, because the same names and forms repeat themselves, even if the transitory world is understood to be subject to a recurring great creation and great deluge alternately.

1.3.30 L.44 ✅ समाननामरूपतां च श्रुतिस्मृती दर्शयतः –
That there is an identity of names and forms, is mentioned in the Scriptures and Smṛtis, thus: —

1.3.30 L.45 ✅ ‘सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ धाता यथापूर्वमकल्पयत्। दिवं च पृथिवीं चान्तरिक्षमथो सुवः’ (ऋ. सं. १०-१९०-३) इति;
“The creator (Dhātṛ), even as before, modelled the Sun and the Moon, the Heaven and the Earth, and the Sky.” (Ṛg-Veda Sam. 10.190.3).

1.3.30 L.46 ✅ यथा पूर्वस्मिन्कल्पे सूर्याचन्द्रमःप्रभृति जगत् कॢप्तम्, तथास्मिन्नपि कल्पे परमेश्वरोऽकल्पयदित्यर्थः;
The meaning is, that just as in the previous Kalpa, this transitory world consisting of the Sun and the Moon was created, so was it created by the Highest Lord, in this Kalpa also.

1.3.30 L.47 ✅ तथा – ‘अग्निर्वा अकामयत। अन्नादो देवानाꣳ स्यामिति।
स एतमग्नये कृत्तिकाभ्यः पुरोडाशमष्टाकपालं निरवपत्’ (तै. ब्रा. ३-१-४-१) इति
नक्षत्रेष्टिविधौ योऽग्निर्निरवपत् यस्मै वाग्नये निरवपत्, तयोः समाननामरूपतां दर्शयति –
इत्येवंजातीयका श्रुतिरिहोदाहर्तव्या;
Similarly, the following Scriptural passage should be cited in illustration —
“Fire desired that it should be the consumer of the food offered to Gods,
So it offered the Puro-ḍāśa (rice oblations) on eight potsherds, to the deities residing in the Pleiades (i.e. the Kṛttikās, the 3rd of the 27 constellations)” (Tait. Brā. 3.1.4.1) —
Which shows that the fire that offered the oblations in the ritual ‘Nakṣatreṣṭi’, and the fire in which it offered them, have similar names and forms.

1.3.30 L.48 ✅ स्मृतिरपि ‘ऋषीणां नामधेयानि याश्च वेदेषु दृष्टयः। शर्वर्यन्ते प्रसूतानां तान्येवैभ्यो ददात्यजः॥ यथर्तुष्वृतुलिङ्गानि नानारूपाणि पर्यये। दृश्यन्ते तानि तान्येव तथा भावा युगादिषु॥
यथाभिमानिनोऽतीतास्तुल्यास्ते साम्प्रतैरिह। देवा देवैरतीतैर्हि रूपैर्नामभिरेव च’
इत्येवंजातीयका द्रष्टव्या॥३०॥
Similarly the Smṛti says — “The unborn (i.e. Brahman) gives the same names etc. and the same intuitive insight into the Vedas, to the Ṛṣis born after the night of deluge, as they possessed before, just as the several signs of the spring reappear again and again. So in different Yugas (millennium) the same beings are born.”
That — “The Gods which are in existence at present are similar to the Gods which existed before, and have the same predilections for things as the former Gods had” —
Should also be quoted in illustration. — 30.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
मध्वादिष्वसम्भवादनधिकारं जैमिनिः॥१.३.३१॥
Madhv-ādiṣv asambhavād anadhikāraṃ jaiminiḥ.

Madhu-ādiṣu: in Madhu Vidyā etc.; A-sambhavāt: on account of the impossibility; An-adhikāram: disqualification; Jaiminiḥ: Jaimini is of opinion.

🔗 Jaimini is of opinion that (Gods etc.) have no competency (for Brahma-Vidyā) as such competency (in them) in the case of Madhu-Vidyā is not possible. — 1.3.31.

1.3.31 L.1 ✅ इह देवादीनामपि ब्रह्मविद्यायामस्त्यधिकार इति यत्प्रतिज्ञातं तत्पर्यावर्त्यते –
What has been declared (in the foregoing Sūtras) viz. that even Gods etc. have competency (for Brahma-Vidyā) is here referred to again (by the Sūtra-kāra).

1.3.31 L.2 ✅ देवादीनामनधिकारं जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते।
Jaimini is of opinion that Gods etc. have no competency (for Brahma-Vidyā).

1.3.31 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? मध्वादिष्वसम्भवात्।
How so? Because such competency is not possible in Madhu-Vidyā.

1.3.31 L.4 ✅ ब्रह्मविद्यायामधिकाराभ्युपगमे हि
If once it is understood that Gods etc. have such competency, the nature of a Vidyā

1.3.31 L.5 ✅ विद्यात्वाविशेषात् मध्वादिविद्यास्वप्यधिकारोऽभ्युपगम्येत;
As a Vidyā, being common both to Madhu-Vidyā and other Vidyās, it has necessarily to be understood that they (i.e. the Gods etc.) must possess competency for Madhu-Vidyā also, but this is not possible.

1.3.31 L.6 ✅ न चैवं सम्भवति। कथम्? ‘असौ वा आदित्यो देवमधु’ (ChanU.3.1.1) इत्यत्र
How so? Because in the Scriptural passage “This Āditya (Sun) verily is the Madhu of the Gods” (ChanU.3.1.1),

1.3.31 L.7 ✅ मनुष्या आदित्यं मध्वध्यासेनोपासीरन्;
Men are enjoined to meditate devoutly on the Āditya by superimposing the notion of Madhu on the Āditya.

1.3.31 L.8 ✅ देवादिषु ह्युपासकेष्वभ्युपगम्यमानेष्वादित्यः कमन्यमादित्यमुपासीत?
Now if it is understood that Gods etc. are such devout meditators, what other Āditya (as Madhu) would the Āditya meditate on (if Āditya were to meditate devoutly)?

1.3.31 L.9 ✅ पुनश्चादित्यव्यपाश्रयाणि पञ्च रोहितादीन्यमृतान्यनुक्रम्य,
Again the Scriptures after making reference in the beginning to the five kinds of ambrosia or nectar such as Rohita etc. (Lohita — red?), and further giving instruction that the five categories of Gods,

1.3.31 L.10 ✅ वसवो रुद्रा आदित्या मरुतः साध्याश्च पञ्च देवगणाः क्रमेण तत्तदमृतमुपजीवन्तीत्युपदिश्य,
Viz. the Vasus, Rudras, Ādityas, Maruts, and Sādhyas, subsist on these five kinds of ambrosia or nectar respectively,

1.3.31 L.11 ✅ ‘स य एतदेवममृतं वेद वसूनामेवैको भूत्वाग्निनैव मुखेनैतदेवामृतं दृष्ट्वा तृप्यति’ (ChanU.3.8.2) इत्यादिना
And after stating “He that knows this ambrosia or nectar in this manner, becomes one of the Vasus, and under the leadership of Agni (Agninā mukhena) looks upon the ambrosia or nectar and is satisfied”,

1.3.31 L.12 ✅ वस्वाद्युपजीव्यान्यमृतानि विजानतां वस्वादिमहिमप्राप्तिं दर्शयति।
Show that those who know that the Vasus etc. subsist on these five kinds of ambrosia or nectar, themselves attain the greatness of Vasu and others.

1.3.31 L.13 ✅ वस्वादयस्तु कान् अन्यान् वस्वादीनमृतोपजीविनो विजानीयुः?
Now, what other Vasus etc. subsisting on such ambrosia or nectar, can the Vasu know of?

1.3.31 L.14 ✅ कं वान्यं वस्वादिमहिमानं प्रेप्सेयुः?
What other sort of greatness of Vasus (as apart from their own greatness) can such Vasus possibly attain?

1.3.31 L.15 ✅ तथा – ‘अग्निः पादो वायुः पाद आदित्यः पादो दिशः पादः’ (ChanU.3.18.2)
‘वायुर्वाव संवर्गः’ (ChanU.4.3.1)
‘आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः’ (ChanU.3.11.1) इत्यादिषु देवतात्मोपासनेषु
न तेषामेव देवतात्मनामधिकारः सम्भवति।
Similarly, in such devout meditations on the selfs of deities as are mentioned in the Scriptures, thus —
“(After stating that the Ākāśa is Brahman) Agni is the foot (Pāda), Vāyu is the foot, Āditya is the foot, the directions are the foot” (ChanU.3.18.2),
“Vāyu is the absorber” (ChanU.4.3.1),
“The instruction is that Āditya is Brahman” (ChanU.3.11.1),
It is not possible that these self-same Selfs of these deities can possess competency (for Brahma-Vidyā).

1.3.31 L.16 ✅ तथा ‘इमावेव गोतमभरद्वाजावयं वै गोतमोऽयं भरद्वाजः’ (BrhU.2.2.4) इत्यादिष्वपि ऋषिसम्बन्धेषूपासनेषु
न तेषामेव ऋषीणामधिकारः सम्भवति॥३१॥
Similarly in the case of devout meditations connected with Ṛṣis, such as “These are Gautama and Bhārad-vāja, this (right ear) is Gautama and this (left ear) is Bhārad-vāja” (BrhUEng.2.2.4),
It is not possible, that these self-same Ṛṣis (viz. Gautama and Bhārad-vāja) can possess competency (for Brahma-Vidyā). — 31.

[Go top]

1.3.32 L.1 ✅ कुतश्च देवादीनामनधिकारः –
Whence again is it, that Gods etc. have no competency?

←Prev Next→
ज्योतिषि भावाच्च॥१.३.३२॥
Jyotiṣi bhāvāc ca.

Jyotiṣi: as mere spheres of light; Bhāvāt: because used in the sense; Ca: and.

🔗 This is again, why Gods etc. have no competency (for Brahma-Vidyā) because (words such as ‘Sun’ and ‘Moon’) are used to indicate mere spheres of light. — 1.3.32.

1.3.32 L.2 ✅ यदिदं ज्योतिर्मण्डलं द्युस्थानमहोरात्राभ्यां बम्भ्रमज्जगदवभासयति,
To this orb of light, which is located in heaven, and which, revolving day and night, illumines the transitory world,

1.3.32 L.3 ✅ तस्मिन्नादित्यादयो देवतावचनाः शब्दाः प्रयुज्यन्ते;
Terms such as ‘Āditya’ etc., which indicate deities, are applied.

1.3.32 L.4 ✅ लोकप्रसिद्धेर्वाक्यशेषप्रसिद्धेश्च।
This we know because it is well-known in ordinary life, and from the complementary passages (in Scriptures, such as that the Āditya rises in the East).

1.3.32 L.5 ✅ न च ज्योतिर्मण्डलस्य हृदयादिना विग्रहेण चेतनतया अर्थित्वादिना वा योगोऽवगन्तुं शक्यते, मृदादिवदचेतनत्वावगमात्।
It is not possible to understand, that this orb of light, which, because it, like the earth, is understood to be non-intelligent, can have any relation (Yoga) either with a physical body i.e. with a Hṛdaya etc., or intelligence or a desire (for Final Release).

1.3.32 L.6 ✅ एतेनाग्न्यादयो व्याख्याताः॥
By what we have said so far about this orb of light, (the question about) Agni also will be as good as explained.

1.3.32 L.7 ✅ स्यादेतत् – मन्त्रार्थवादेतिहासपुराणलोकेभ्यो देवादीनां विग्रहवत्त्वाद्यवगमादयमदोष इति चेत्,
(The Vedāntin may say) — It may be, that there is no fault because we know from Mantras, Artha-Vādas, Iti-hāsa and Purāṇa and transactions in ordinary life (Loka), that Gods possess corporeality.

1.3.32 L.8 ✅ नेत्युच्यते; न तावल्लोको नाम किञ्चित्स्वतन्त्रं प्रमाणमस्ति;
To this we (i.e. the opponents) reply — No, because what indeed is known as ordinary worldly experience is in no way any independent means-of-proof.

1.3.32 L.9 ✅ प्रत्यक्षादिभ्य एव ह्यविचारितविशेषेभ्यः प्रमाणेभ्यः प्रसिद्ध्यन्नर्थो लोकात्प्रसिद्ध इत्युच्यते;
It is when anything is proved by such means-of-proof as direct perception etc. (i.e. Pratyakṣādi), in an ordinary way, without giving consideration to any peculiarity (Avicārita-viśeṣebhyaḥ), that a thing is said to be proved by transactions in ordinary life.

1.3.32 L.10 ✅ न चात्र प्रत्यक्षादीनामन्यतमं प्रमाणमस्ति;
Now here, there is none of such means-of-proof as direct perception etc., present in this case.

1.3.32 L.11 ✅ इतिहासपुराणमपि पौरुषेयत्वात्प्रमाणान्तरमूलमाकाङ्क्षति;
Iti-hāsa and Purāṇas also as being the work of mere mortals presuppose the existence of some means-of-proof (Pramāṇa) as an original source, on which to base themselves.

1.3.32 L.12 ✅ अर्थवादा अपि विधिनैकवाक्यत्वात् स्तुत्यर्थाः सन्तो
Artha-Vādas also, which form a syntactical whole with an injunction, and are construed as meant for glorification (of the injunction),

1.3.32 L.13 ✅ न पार्थगर्थ्येन देवादीनां विग्रहादिसद्भावे कारणभावं प्रतिपद्यन्ते;
Cannot, by way of having any separate meaning of their own, constitute themselves as a reason for concluding that Gods etc. possess corporeality.

1.3.32 L.14 ✅ मन्त्रा अपि श्रुत्यादिविनियुक्ताः प्रयोगसमवायिनोऽभिधानार्था न कस्यचिदर्थस्य प्रमाणमित्याचक्षते;
(Mīmāṃsakas also maintain) that even Mantras, which are recited at the time of some Scriptural ritual as being enjoined by the Scriptures, are useful for giving information about the things which are requisite for such ritual, and are not by themselves a means-of-proof of anything.

1.3.32 L.15 ✅ तस्मादभावो देवादीनामधिकारस्य॥३२॥
Therefore, there is absence of any competency in Gods etc. (for Brahma-Vidyā). — 32.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
भावं तु बादरायणोऽस्ति हि॥१.३.३३॥
Bhāvaṃ tu bādarāyaṇo'sti hi.

Bhāvam: the existence (of the qualification to practise the meditation like Madhu Vidyā etc.); Tu: but; Bādara-āyanaḥ: the sage Bādara-āyana (maintains); Asti: does exist; Hi: because.

🔗 But Bādarāyaṇa (is of opinion), that (Gods) have competency. Besides, there are (passages indicating possibility of such competency). — 1.3.33.

1.3.33 L.1 ✅ तुशब्दः पूर्वपक्षं व्यावर्तयति।
The word ‘Tu’ (But) in the Sūtra has the effect of overruling the above.

1.3.33 L.2 ✅ बादरायणस्त्वाचार्यो भावमधिकारस्य देवादीनामपि मन्यते।
Ācārya Bādarāyaṇa on the other hand considers that even Gods etc. have such competency (for Brahma-Vidyā).

1.3.33 L.3 ✅ यद्यपि मध्वादिविद्यासु देवतादिव्यामिश्रास्वसम्भवोऽधिकारस्य, तथाप्यस्ति हि शुद्धायां ब्रह्मविद्यायां सम्भवः;
Even though there may not be competency for Madhu-Vidyā etc., which are mixed up with deities, still there is possibility of (Gods etc.) having competency for pure Brahma-Vidyā,

1.3.33 L.4 ✅ अर्थित्वसामर्थ्याप्रतिषेधाद्यपेक्षत्वादधिकारस्य।
As competency (for Brahma-Vidyā) depends upon the ability for having a desire for it (i.e. Brahma-Vidyā) and its not having been ruled out.

1.3.33 L.5 ✅ न च क्वचिदसम्भव इत्येतावता यत्र सम्भवस्तत्राप्यधिकारोऽपोद्येत।
It would not be proper to take away competency wherever it is possible, merely because, it is not possible in any other particular case.

1.3.33 L.6 ✅ मनुष्याणामपि न सर्वेषां ब्राह्मणादीनां सर्वेषु राजसूयादिष्वधिकारः सम्भवति।
Even in the case of men, not all men, viz. Brāhmaṇas and others, have competency for all kinds of sacrifices, viz. Rāja-sūya and others. (For instance, in the Rāja-sūya Sacrifice, only the Kṣatriyas have such competency.)

1.3.33 L.7 ✅ तत्र यो न्यायः सोऽत्रापि भविष्यति।
The reasoning which is aplicable in that case is applicable here also.

1.3.33 L.8 ✅ ब्रह्मविद्यां च प्रकृत्य भवति लिङ्गदर्शनं श्रौतं देवाद्यधिकारस्य सूचकम् –
With reference to Brahma-Vidyā there is a Scriptural mention suggesting that Gods etc. have such competency, thus —

1.3.33 L.9 ✅ ‘तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणाम्’ (BrhU.1.4.10) इति,
“Whosoever amongst the Gods realized (Brahman), himself became that (i.e. Brahman), the same is (the case) with regard to Ṛṣis, and men,” (BrhUEng.1.4.10).

1.3.33 L.10 ✅ ‘ते होचुर्हन्त तमात्मानमन्विच्छामो यमात्मानमन्विष्य सर्वाꣳश्च लोकानाप्नोति सर्वाꣳश्च कामानिति इन्द्रो ह वै देवानामभिप्रवव्राज विरोचनोऽसुराणाम्’ (ChanU.8.7.2) इत्यादि च।
Also, “(They conferred amongst themselves) well, let us search for that Self, by successfuly searching for which, a person attains all the worlds and fulfils all desires. So, Indra from amongst the Gods and Virocana from amongst the Asuras approached (Prajā-pati)” (ChanU.8.7.2) etc.

1.3.33 L.11 ✅ स्मार्तमपि च गन्धर्वयाज्ञवल्क्यसंवादादि॥
The Smṛtis also mention similarly about the discussion between the Gandharva and Yājña-valkya etc.

1.3.33 L.12 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् ‘ज्योतिषि भावाच्च’ इति, अत्र
With regard to the objection (raised in the previous Sūtra) that, as the terms (such as Āditya etc.) are used to indicate (non-sentient) Jyotis etc., (Gods etc. have no competency),

1.3.33 L.13 ✅ ब्रूमः – ज्योतिरादिविषया अपि आदित्यादयो देवतावचनाः शब्दाश्चेतनावन्तमैश्वर्याद्युपेतं तं तं देवतात्मानं समर्पयन्ति,
We reply — the terms Āditya etc. indicating deities, used though they are in connection with mere spheres of light etc., culminate in indicating the various intelligent selfs of deities endowed with lordly power,

1.3.33 L.14 ✅ मन्त्रार्थवादादिषु तथा व्यवहारात्।
Because they are used in that sense in the Mantras, Artha-Vādas etc.

1.3.33 L.15 ✅ अस्ति ह्यैश्वर्ययोगाद्देवतानां ज्योतिराद्यात्मभिश्चावस्थातुं यथेष्टं च तं तं विग्रहं ग्रहीतुं सामर्थ्यम्।
The deities being endowed with great powers, have the power to be the Selfs of the Jyotis etc., and to assume, as they please, various different bodies.

1.3.33 L.16 ✅ तथा हि श्रूयते सुब्रह्मण्यार्थवादे – ‘मेधातिथेर्मेषेति – मेधातिथिं ह काण्वायनमिन्द्रो मेषो भूत्वा जहार’ (षड्विंश. ब्रा. १-१) इति।
Even so it is mentioned in Subrahmaṇya Artha-vāda, thus — “Oh ram of Medhātithi”. “Indra by assuming the form of a ram kidnapped Medhātithi the descendant of Kāṇva” (Ṣaḍ-viṃśa Brā. 1.1).

1.3.33 L.17 ✅ स्मर्यते च – ‘आदित्यः पुरुषो भूत्वा कुन्तीमुपजगाम ह’ इति।
The Smṛti also says thus — “Āditya assuming the form of a man had intercourse with Kuntī”. (The ‘Ha’ in the sentence means to show that it is a fact based on history.)

1.3.33 L.18 ✅ मृदादिष्वपि चेतना अधिष्ठातारोऽभ्युपगम्यन्ते; ‘मृदब्रवीत्’ ‘आपोऽब्रुवन्’ इत्यादिदर्शनात्।
We also understand how intelligent deities have their abode in the earth etc., thus — “The Earth spake, the waters spake” etc.

1.3.33 L.19 ✅ ज्योतिरादेस्तु भूतधातोरादित्यादिष्वचेतनत्वमभ्युपगम्यते।
It is also known that material things such as light etc. which abide in the Sun etc., are non-intelligent,

1.3.33 L.20 ✅ चेतनास्त्वधिष्ठातारो देवतात्मानो मन्त्रार्थवादादिषु व्यवहारादित्युक्तम्॥
But we have already said, that the Selfs of Deities which abide in them are intelligent, as seen from the Scriptural Mantras and Artha-vāda transactions.

1.3.33 L.21 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – मन्त्रार्थवादयोरन्यार्थत्वान्न देवताविग्रहादिप्रकाशनसामर्थ्यमिति, अत्र
With respect to the objection taken — viz. that because Mantras and Artha-Vādas have a different purpose, they have no power to indicate that Deities have corporeality etc. —

1.3.33 L.22 ✅ ब्रूमः – प्रत्ययाप्रत्ययौ हि सद्भावासद्भावयोः कारणम्;
We say that the fact that one is able to experience or is not able to experience a thing is the reason (for determining) the existence or non-existence of that thing,

1.3.33 L.23 ✅ नान्यार्थत्वमनन्यार्थत्वं वा;
And not the circumstance as to whether it is meant for that purpose or not meant for that purpose.

1.3.33 L.24 ✅ तथा ह्यन्यार्थमपि प्रस्थितः पथि पतितं तृणपर्णाद्यस्तीत्येव प्रतिपद्यते।
Similarly, one who sets out with a particular object in mind, is still able to understand that the grass or leaves etc. which may be lying on the way, do actually exist.

1.3.33 L.25 ✅ अत्राह – विषम उपन्यासः;
(To this the opponent says) — This illustration is not in point.

1.3.33 L.26 ✅ तत्र हि तृणपर्णादिविषयं प्रत्यक्षं प्रवृत्तमस्ति, येन तदस्तित्वं प्रतिपद्यते;
In this case there is positive direct perception of the grass and leaves by which their existence is understood.

1.3.33 L.27 ✅ अत्र पुनर्विध्युद्देशैकवाक्यभावेन स्तुत्यर्थेऽर्थवादे
But here (in the point under discussion), on the other hand, the Artha-vāda being understood as being in syntactical harmony with what is indicated by an injunction, with a view to the glorification (of the injunction),

1.3.33 L.28 ✅ न पार्थगर्थ्येन वृत्तान्तविषया प्रवृत्तिः शक्याध्यवसातुम्;
it would not be possible to understand it (i.e. the Artha-vāda) in an entirely different sense, viz. as having a tendency to to establish the existence of a thing.

1.3.33 L.29 ✅ न हि महावाक्येऽर्थप्रत्यायकेऽवान्तरवाक्यस्य पृथक्प्रत्यायकत्वमस्ति;
When the principal sentence as a whole conveys a particular sense, a subsidiary portion of that sentence could not convey a different sense.

1.3.33 L.30 ✅ यथा ‘न सुरां पिबेत्’ इति नञ्वति वाक्ये पदत्रयसम्बन्धात्सुरापानप्रतिषेध एवैकोऽर्थोऽवगम्यते;
For instance in the sentence “(One) may not drink wine” — a sentence implying a negative, the three words being related to each other — the only sense to be understood from it, is a prohibition of the drinking of wine,

1.3.33 L.31 ✅ न पुनः सुरां पिबेदिति पदद्वयसम्बन्धात्सुरापानविधिरपीति।
And not, that there is also an injunction to drink wine, by taking only the two words ‘drink’ and ‘wine’ together.

1.3.33 L.32 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – विषम उपन्यासः;
To this we reply — This (your) illustration is not in point.

1.3.33 L.33 ✅ युक्तं यत्सुरापानप्रतिषेधे
It is proper in the case of a prohibition to drink wine —

1.3.33 L.34 ✅ पदान्वयस्यैकत्वादवान्तरवाक्यार्थस्याग्रहणम्;
The construction of the sequence of the words being one only — to reject the meaning of a subsidiary part.

1.3.33 L.35 ✅ विध्युद्देशार्थवादयोस्त्वर्थवादस्थानि पदानि पृथगन्वयं वृत्तान्तविषयं प्रतिपद्य,
In the case of an Artha-vāda and an injunction, however, the words of the Artha-vāda sentence first attain a different construction of the sequence establishing the existence of another thing,

1.3.33 L.36 ✅ अनन्तरं कैमर्थ्यवशेन कामं विधेः स्तावकत्वं प्रतिपद्यन्ते;
And subsequently, it is only when it has to be considered as to what the significance of the Artha-vāda sentence is, that (we understand) that the Artha-vāda sentence may well (Kāmam) attain the power to express itself as a glorification of the injunction.

1.3.33 L.37 ✅ यथा हि ‘वायव्यं श्वेतमालभेत भूतिकामः’ इत्यत्र
For instance, in the sentence “One desirous of attaining prosperity should sacrifice a white (animal) to the Deity Vāyu” (Tait. Sam. 2.1),

1.3.33 L.38 ✅ विध्युद्देशवर्तिनां वायव्यादिपदानां विधिना सम्बन्धः,
All the words such as ‘Vāyavya’ etc. which occur in connection with the aim of an injunction, have a relation to the injunction,

1.3.33 L.39 ✅ नैवम् ‘वायुर्वै क्षेपिष्ठा देवता वायुमेव स्वेन भागधेयेनोपधावति स एवैनं भूतिं गमयति’ इत्येषामर्थवादगतानां पदानाम्;
While it is not so in the case of the words of the Artha-vāda sentence “Vāyu verily is a fleet-footed Deity. He (the sacrificer) runs up quickly towards Vāyu with his own quantum of happiness (Bhāga-dheyena) and it is the Deity (Vāyu) that confers prosperity on him (i.e. the sacrificer)”,

1.3.33 L.40 ✅ न हि भवति, ‘वायुर्वा आलभेत’ इति ‘क्षेपिष्ठा देवता वा आलभेत’ इत्यादि।
Because the sentences do not construe to mean either that Vāyu should sacrifice or that the fleet-footed Deity should sacrifice.

1.3.33 L.41 ✅ वायुस्वभावसङ्कीर्तनेन तु अवान्तरमन्वयं प्रतिपद्य,
The words of an Artha-vāda sentence (which is a subsidiary i.e. an Avāntara sentence) first have their own independent construction and they describe the nature of Vāyu,

1.3.33 L.42 ✅ एवं विशिष्टदैवत्यमिदं कर्मेति विधिं स्तुवन्ति।
And then they have the effect of glorifying the injunction by conveying, that this sacrificial action is meant for a deity which has such and such special attributes.

1.3.33 L.43 ✅ तद्यत्र सोऽवान्तरवाक्यार्थः प्रमाणान्तरगोचरो भवति,
Now, where the meaning of the subsidiary (i.e. Artha-vāda) sentence, is perceivable by another means-of-proof,

1.3.33 L.44 ✅ तत्र तदनुवादेनार्थवादः प्रवर्तते;
There the Artha-vāda acts as an Anuvāda (i.e. it only recalls a fact),

1.3.33 L.45 ✅ यत्र प्रमाणान्तरविरुद्धः, तत्र गुणवादेन;
And where it is not so perceivable by another means-of-proof, it acts as a Guṇa-vāda (i.e. it refers only to a quality suggested by the Artha-vāda sentence).

1.3.33 L.46 ✅ यत्र तु तदुभयं नास्ति,
When neither of these alternatives is available,

1.3.33 L.47 ✅ तत्र किं प्रमाणान्तराभावाद्गुणवादः स्यात्,
And when there is a doubt as to whether, in the absence of any other means-of-proof, a Guṇa-vāda should be understood to be present,

1.3.33 L.48 ✅ आहोस्त्वित्प्रमाणान्तराविरोधाद्विद्यमानार्थवाद इति –
Or, whether in the absence of any conflict with any other means-of-proof, an Anuvāda should be understood to be present, —

1.3.33 L.49 ✅ प्रतीतिशरणैर्विद्यमानार्थवाद आश्रयणीयः, न गुणवादः।
Then, in such a predicament, those who wholly depend upon actual perception or apprehension and consider it to be the Vartamāna vāda i.e. Anuvāda, should construe it to be a Vartamāna vāda and not a Guṇa-vāda.

1.3.33 L.50 ✅ एतेन मन्त्रो व्याख्यातः।
By this reasoning the Mantra also is duly explained.

1.3.33 L.51 ✅ अपि च विधिभिरेवेन्द्रादिदैवत्यानि हवींषि चोदयद्भिरपेक्षितमिन्द्रादीनां स्वरूपम्;
Besides those injunctions, which direct oblations connected with Indra etc. to be offered to Indra etc., necessarily imply the form (Sva-rūpa) of Indra etc.

1.3.33 L.52 ✅ न हि स्वरूपरहिता इन्द्रादयश्चेतस्यारोपयितुं शक्यन्ते;
It is not possible (for a sacrificer) to implant on his mind i.e. to conceive of deities such as Indra etc. as having no form (Sva-rūpa) of their own,

1.3.33 L.53 ✅ न च चेतस्यनारूढायै तस्यै तस्यै देवतायै हविः प्रदातुं शक्यते;
Nor can oblations be offered to particular individual deities if they are not already firmly established on the mind.

1.3.33 L.54 ✅ श्रावयति च – ‘यस्यै देवतायै हविर्गृहीतं स्यात्तां ध्यायेद्वषट्करिष्यन्’ (ऐ. ब्रा. ३-८-१) इति;
The Scriptures mention thus — “When an oblation is taken up in hand for being offered to a particular deity, (the sacrificer) should meditate on that deity while pronouncing ‘Vaṣaṭ’” (Aitareya Brā. 3.1.1).

1.3.33 L.55 ✅ न च शब्दमात्रमर्थस्वरूपं सम्भवति,
It is not possible that a word by itself could be the form (Sva-rūpa) of a thing (indicated by the word),

1.3.33 L.56 ✅ शब्दार्थयोर्भेदात्;
Because, a word and the thing which it denotes, are distinct or separate.

1.3.33 L.57 ✅ तत्र यादृशं मन्त्रार्थवादयोरिन्द्रादीनां स्वरूपमवगतं न तत्तादृशं शब्दप्रमाणकेन प्रत्याख्यातुं युक्तम्।
Therefore, it would not be reasonable for a man who believes in the authoritativeness of Scriptural words to deny that the particular form that is attributed to Indra and others by the Mantra and the Artha-vāda is not so.

1.3.33 L.58 ✅ इतिहासपुराणमपि व्याख्यातेन मार्गेण सम्भवन्मन्त्रार्थवादमूलकत्वात् प्रभवति देवताविग्रहादि साधयितुम्।
Similarly Iti-hāsa and Purāṇa also, in as much as they have Mantras and Artha-Vādas as their source, are able to establish the corporeality of deities etc. in the way explained (above).

1.3.33 L.59 ✅ प्रत्यक्षादिमूलमपि सम्भवति;
Iti-hāsa and Purāṇas may possibly have a source such as direct perception etc. also.

1.3.33 L.60 ✅ भवति ह्यस्माकमप्रत्यक्षमपि चिरंतनानां प्रत्यक्षम्;
It is quite possible, that what is not directly perceivable by us may well have been directly perceivable by the ancients.

1.3.33 L.61 ✅ तथा च व्यासादयो देवादिभिः प्रत्यक्षं व्यवहरन्तीति स्मर्यते;
Similarly, Smṛtis mention how Vyāsa and others held direct converse with Gods etc.

1.3.33 L.62 ✅ यस्तु ब्रूयात् – इदानींतनानामिव पूर्वेषामपि नास्ति देवादिभिर्व्यवहर्तुं सामर्थ्यमिति, स जगद्वैचित्र्यं प्रतिषेधेत्;
But (a person) who would say that even the ancients, like the moderns, did not possess the power to hold converse with God etc. may just as well also deny the variety of this transitory world.

1.3.33 L.63 ✅ इदानीमिव च नान्यदापि सार्वभौमः क्षत्रियोऽस्तीति ब्रूयात्,
He would also similarly say, that just as in modern times there is no Kṣatriya ruling the entire world, even so, there was no Kṣatriya ruling the entire world at other times also,

1.3.33 L.64 ✅ ततश्च राजसूयादिचोदना उपरुन्ध्यात्;
And would thereby even deny the injunction to perform the Rāja-sūya sacrifice.

1.3.33 L.65 ✅ इदानीमिव च कालान्तरेऽप्यव्यवस्थितप्रायान्वर्णाश्रमधर्मान्प्रतिजानीत,
He would also think that even as in modern times, in the past also, the duties of castes, Āśramas and religion were in the same almost disordered condition (as they happen to be now),

1.3.33 L.66 ✅ ततश्च व्यवस्थाविधायि शास्त्रमनर्थकं कुर्यात्;
Which would render the Scriptures, which prescribe such arrangements, unmeaning.

1.3.33 L.67 ✅ तस्माद्धर्मोत्कर्षवशाच्चिरंतना देवादिभिः प्रत्यक्षं व्यवजह्रुरिति श्लिष्यते।
Therefore it would be but proper to understand, that because of their eminent religiosity, the ancients could have direct converse with Gods etc.

1.3.33 L.68 ✅ अपि च स्मरन्ति – ‘स्वाध्यायादिष्टदेवतासम्प्रयोगः’ (YS.2.44) इत्यादि;
Similarly the Smṛti says — “As a result of the study of Scriptures there is union (Saṃprayoga) with the desired deities” (Yoga Sū. 2.44),

1.3.33 L.69 ✅ योगोऽप्यणिमाद्यैश्वर्यप्राप्तिफलकः स्मर्यमाणो न शक्यते साहसमात्रेण प्रत्याख्यातुम्;
It would not be possible recklessly to deny that what is stated in the Smṛti, viz. that Yoga has the acquisition of divine powers such as ‘Aṇimā’ etc. (the power to assume a subtle body at will etc.) as its fruit, is not so.

1.3.33 L.70 ✅ श्रुतिश्च योगमाहात्म्यं प्रख्यापयति –
Scriptures themselves proclaim the greatness of Yoga, thus —

1.3.33 L.71 ✅ ‘पृथिव्यप्तेजोऽनिलखे समुत्थिते पञ्चात्मके योगगुणे प्रवृत्ते।
न तस्य रोगो न जरा न मृत्युः प्राप्तस्य योगाग्निमयं शरीरम्’ (SvetU.2.12) इति।
“When all the five subtle elements viz. the Earth, Water, Tejas, Vāyu and Ākāśa have come up i.e. become manifest, and when all the essential qualities of these five subtle elements are experienced by a man who is practising Yoga,
Such a man — i.e. one who has, as a result of that, acquired a body whose structure is the fire of Yoga — is free from disease, old age and death etc.” (SvetU.2.12).

1.3.33 L.72 ✅ ऋषीणामपि मन्त्रब्राह्मणदर्शिनां सामर्थ्यं नास्मदीयेन सामर्थ्येनोपमातुं युक्तम्।
It would not be proper to compare the power of persons like us, with the power of these Ṛṣis who have had Mantras and Brāhmaṇas revealed to them.

1.3.33 L.73 ✅ तस्मात्समूलमितिहासपुराणम्।
Therefore, Iti-hāsa and Purāṇas necessarily have a Scriptural source on which they are based.

1.3.33 L.74 ✅ लोकप्रसिद्धिरपि न सति सम्भवे निरालम्बनाध्यवसातुं युक्ता।
And so far as is possible, it would also not be proper to consider ordinary worldly experience also as being without any support.

1.3.33 L.75 ✅ तस्मादुपपन्नो मन्त्रादिभ्यो देवादीनां विग्रहवत्त्वाद्यवगमः।
Therefore, it is reasonably possible to consider, on the evidence of Mantras etc., that Gods etc. have corporeality.

1.3.33 L.76 ✅ ततश्चार्थित्वादिसम्भवादुपपन्नो देवादीनामपि ब्रह्मविद्यायामधिकारः।
Hence, from that, it is also reasonably possible to understand, that Gods etc. have competency for Brahma-Vidyā.

1.3.33 L.77 ✅ क्रममुक्तिदर्शनान्यप्येवमेवोपपद्यन्ते॥३३॥
Scriptural declarations, about Final Release by stages (Krama-Mukti), would be reasonably sustainable only on such a supposition. — 33.

– 26. Devatā-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.34 Su..35 Su..36 Su..37 Su..38

←Prev Next→
शुगस्य तदनादरश्रवणात्तदाद्रवणात्सूच्यते हि॥१.३.३४॥
Śug asya tad-anādara-śravaṇāt tadādravaṇāt sūcyate hi.

Śuk: grief; Asya: his; Tat: that, namely that grief; An-ādara-śravaṇāt: from hearing his (the Ṛṣi’s) disrespectful speech; Tadā: then; Ādravanāt: because of going to him i.e. to Raikva; Sūcyate: is referred to; Hi: because.

🔗 (Jāna-śruti) felt grief (at hearing) disparaging remarks, and (his) rushing to (Raikva) through grief, is also suggested. — 1.3.34.

1.3.34 L.1 ✅ यथा मनुष्याधिकारनियममपोद्य देवादीनामपि विद्यास्वधिकार उक्तः,
Just as it has been said (above) — by denying the rule about a man (alone) being competent (for Brahma-Vidyā) — that Gods etc. also have competency for Brahma-Vidyā,

1.3.34 L.2 ✅ तथैव द्विजात्यधिकारनियमापवादेन शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादित्येतामाशङ्कां निवर्तयितुमिदमधिकरणमारभ्यते।
Similarly, this subject has been started for the purpose of expelling the doubt, that it may be that, as an exception to the rule viz. a twice-born alone has competency (for Brahma-Vidyā), the Śūdra also (who is not a twice-born) has such competency.

1.3.34 L.3 ✅ तत्र शूद्रस्याप्यधिकारः स्यादिति तावत्प्राप्तम्; अर्थित्वसामर्थ्ययोः सम्भवात्,
On this point the conclusion (of the opponent) is that even the Śūdra can have such competency, because in his case, such desire and ability (for Brahma-Vidyā) is possible,

1.3.34 L.4 ✅ ‘तस्माच्छूद्रो यज्ञेऽनवकॢप्तः’ (तै. सं. ७-१-१-६) इतिवत् ‘शूद्रो विद्यायामनवकॢप्त’ इति निषेधाश्रवणात्।
And like (the prohibition) “Therefore, a Śūdra is not competent for a sacrifice” (Tait. Sam. 7.1.1.16), the Scriptures do not mention that a Śūdra is not competent for Brahma-Vidyā.

1.3.34 L.5 ✅ यच्च कर्मस्वनधिकारकारणं शूद्रस्यानग्नित्वम्,
That reason for such want of competency for a Śūdra for religious action, viz. that he does not perform Agni-hotra (lit., he who does not keep a fire), which you consider as an indicatory mark furnishing a cause against a Śūdra having competency for Vidyās,

1.3.34 L.6 ✅ न तद्विद्यास्वधिकारस्यापवादकम्;
Is not an indicatory mark at all, for furnishing a cause against (a Śūdra’s) incompetency for Vidyās.

1.3.34 L.7 ✅ न ह्याहवनीयादिरहितेन विद्या वेदितुं न शक्यते।
It is not as if one who does not keep the Āhavanīya fire, etc., is not able to know Vidyā,

1.3.34 L.8 ✅ भवति च श्रौतं लिङ्गं शूद्राधिकारस्योपोद्बलकम्;
And besides, there is an indicatory mark which supports the competency of a Śūdra (for Vidyā), thus —

1.3.34 L.9 ✅ संवर्गविद्यायां हि जानश्रुतिं पौत्रायणं शुश्रूषुं शूद्रशब्देन परामृशति – ‘अह हारे त्वा शूद्र तवैव सह गोभिरस्तु’ (ChanU.4.2.3) इति।
“O Śūdra, may you retain for yourself, the neckless, and the cart, along with the cows” (ChanU.4.2.3), wherein, in Saṃvarga Vidyā, (Raikva) addresses Jāna-śruti, the great-grandson of Janaśruti who wants to know the Vidyā (from Raikva), as a Śūdra.

1.3.34 L.10 ✅ विदुरप्रभृतयश्च शूद्रयोनिप्रभवा अपि विशिष्टविज्ञानसम्पन्नाः स्मर्यन्ते।
Smṛti also refers to Vidura and others, even though born of a Śūdra woman, as possessing superior special knowledge.

1.3.34 L.11 ✅ तस्मादधिक्रियते शूद्रो विद्यास्वित्येवं
Therefore, a Śūdra does possess competency for Brahma-Vidyā.

1.3.34 L.12 ✅ प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – न शूद्रस्याधिकारः, वेदाध्ययनाभावात्।
To this conclusion (of the opponent), we reply — The Śūdra has no such competency, as the study of Vedas is absent (in his case).

1.3.34 L.13 ✅ अधीतवेदो हि विदितवेदार्थो वेदार्थेष्वधिक्रियते।
It is only one who has studied the Vedas and understood their meaning that has competency in Vedic matters.

1.3.34 L.14 ✅ न च शूद्रस्य वेदाध्ययनमस्ति;
A Śūdra is precluded from the study of the Vedas,

1.3.34 L.15 ✅ उपनयनपूर्वकत्वाद्वेदाध्ययनस्य, उपनयनस्य च वर्णत्रयविषयत्वात्।
As Upanayana (investiture with the sacred thread) is a sine-qua-non for the study of Vedas, and as it is prescribed for the three Varṇas only (i.e. for Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaiśya).

1.3.34 L.16 ✅ यत्तु अर्थित्वम्, न तदसति सामर्थ्येऽधिकारकारणं भवति।
The argument about (a Śūdra) having desire (Arthitva), does not constitute a reason conferring competency, in the absence of ability.

1.3.34 L.17 ✅ सामर्थ्यमपि न लौकिकं केवलमधिकारकारणं भवति;
Nor can mere worldly ability be a reason for conferring competency,

1.3.34 L.18 ✅ शास्त्रीयेऽर्थे शास्त्रीयस्य सामर्थ्यस्यापेक्षितत्वात्,
Because in matters relating to Śāstras, ability in conformity with Śāstras is necessary,

1.3.34 L.19 ✅ शास्त्रीयस्य च सामर्थ्यस्याध्ययननिराकरणेन निराकृतत्वात्।
And because (in the case of a Śūdra) ability in conformity with Śāstras has been ruled out, by the ruling out of the study of Vedas (in his case).

1.3.34 L.20 ✅ यच्चेदम् ‘शूद्रो यज्ञेऽनवकॢप्तः’ इति, तत् न्यायपूर्वकत्वाद्विद्यायामप्यनवकॢप्तत्वं द्योतयति;
That, which has been referred to above, viz. that a Śūdra is not competent for a sacrifice, also shows his want of competency for Brahma-Vidyā,

1.3.34 L.21 ✅ न्यायस्य साधारणत्वात्।
Because, the reasoning is commonly applicable to both.

1.3.34 L.22 ✅ यत्पुनः संवर्गविद्यायां शूद्रशब्दश्रवणं लिङ्गं मन्यसे, न तल्लिङ्गम्;
Again, the reference to the word ‘Śūdra’ in Saṃvarga-Vidyā in the Scriptures — which you consider to be an indicatory mark — is not such an indicatory mark,

1.3.34 L.23 ✅ न्यायाभावात्।
Because there is absence of logical reason in it.

1.3.34 L.24 ✅ न्यायोक्ते हि लिङ्गदर्शनं द्योतकं भवति।
An indicatory mark can indicate, only if there is a logical reason.

1.3.34 L.25 ✅ न चात्र न्यायोऽस्ति।
There is no such reason here.

1.3.34 L.26 ✅ कामं चायं शूद्रशब्दः संवर्गविद्यायामेवैकस्यां शूद्रमधिकुर्यात्, तद्विषयत्वात्; न सर्वासु विद्यासु।
Besides, here this word ‘Śūdra’ may at the most mean that a Śūdra possesses competency in Saṃvarga-Vidyā only, as it occurs in connection with that (Vidyā) but not in all Vidyās.

1.3.34 L.27 ✅ अर्थवादस्थत्वात्तु न क्वचिदप्ययं शूद्रमधिकर्तुमुत्सहते।
Occurring as it does in an Artha-vāda passage it does not even have power to confer competency on a Śūdra in any matter.

1.3.34 L.28 ✅ शक्यते चायं शूद्रशब्दोऽधिकृतविषये योजयितुम्;
It is possible to use the word ‘Śūdra’ even in the case of those who have such competency (i.e. the Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas).

1.3.34 L.29 ✅ कथमित्युच्यते – ‘कम्वर एनमेतत्सन्तं सयुग्वानमिव रैक्वमात्थ’ (ChanU.4.1.3) इत्यस्माद्धंसवाक्यादात्मनोऽनादरं श्रुतवतो जानश्रुतेः पौत्रायणस्य शुक् उत्पेदे;
If you ask how, we reply — We understand that Jāna-śruti the great-grandson of Jāna-śruti on hearing the sentence of the Haṃsa (Bhallākṣa, the myopic) — “With what greatness do you consider Jāna-śruti to be endowed, that you are talking about him, as if he is the very Raikva who has (i.e. goes about in) a cart?” — experienced grief at this disparaging remark about himself,

1.3.34 L.30 ✅ तामृषी रैक्वः शूद्रशब्देनानेन सूचयांबभूव आत्मनः परोक्षज्ञताख्यापनायेति गम्यते,
And the Ṛṣi Raikva, with a view to show his knowledge of things beyond ordinary ken, suggested it by using the word ‘Śūdra’, (and it is not that he considered that Jāna-śruti was really a Śūdra by caste),

1.3.34 L.31 ✅ जातिशूद्रस्यानधिकारात्।
Because a person who by birth is a Śūdra (i.e. who is not a twice-born) has no competency (for Vidyā).

1.3.34 L.32 ✅ कथं पुनः शूद्रशब्देन शुगुत्पन्ना सूच्यत इति,
(The opponent) asks, how again does the word ‘Śūdra’ indicate the grief produced?

1.3.34 L.33 ✅ उच्यते – तदाद्रवणात्;
We reply — Because grief overwhelmed (him).

1.3.34 L.34 ✅ शुचमभिदुद्राव, शुचा वा अभिदुद्रुवे, शुचा वा रैक्वमभिदुद्राव – इति शूद्रः;
Etymologically, it can be derived as either — ‘one who through grief’, or ‘one to whom grief arrives’, or ‘one who through grief approaches in haste (to meet Raikva)’ is a Śūdra,

1.3.34 L.35 ✅ अवयवार्थसम्भवात्,
Because the combined meaning of the two members of the word Śūdra is possible,

1.3.34 L.36 ✅ रूढ्यर्थस्य चासम्भवात्।
And the meaning of Śūdra established by custom (i.e. a born Śūdra) is not possible (here).

1.3.34 L.37 ✅ दृश्यते चायमर्थोऽस्यामाख्यायिकायाम्॥३४॥
That this (etymological meaning) is possible in the legend here, is clearly seen. — 34.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
क्षत्रियत्वगतेश्चोत्तरत्र चैत्ररथेन लिङ्गात्॥१.३.३५॥
Kṣatriyatva-gateś cottaratra caitra-rathena liṅgāt.

Kṣatriyatva: the state of his being a Kṣatriya; (Ava)gateḥ: on account of being known or understood; Ca: and; Uttaratra: latter on in a subsequent part of the text; Caitra-rathena: with Caitra-ratha; Liṅgāt: because of the indicatory sign or the inferential mark.

🔗 Because of the indicatory mark, viz. a subsequent mention along with Caitra-rathin, (Jāna-śruti’s) being a Kṣatriya should be understood. — 1.3.35.

1.3.35 L.1 ✅ इतश्च न जातिशूद्रो जानश्रुतिः;
This is, again, why Jāna-śruti is not a Śūdra by birth.

1.3.35 L.2 ✅ यत्कारणं प्रकरणनिरूपणेन क्षत्रियत्वमस्योत्तरत्र
Because, it is understood, by a proper consideration of the chapter, that he (i.e. Jāna-śruti) was a Kṣatriya.

1.3.35 L.3 ✅ चैत्ररथेनाभिप्रतारिणा क्षत्रियेण समभिव्याहाराल्लिङ्गाद्गम्यते।
It can be known from the indicatory mark, viz. the mention of him (i.e. Jāna-śruti) along with Caitra-rathi Abhipratārin, who himself was a Kṣatriya.

1.3.35 L.4 ✅ उत्तरत्र हि संवर्गविद्यावाक्यशेषे चैत्ररथिरभिप्रतारी क्षत्रियः सङ्कीर्त्यते –
For later on, in the sentence complementary to Saṃvarga-Vidyā, Caitra-rathi Abhipratārin is mentioned thus —

1.3.35 L.5 ✅ ‘अथ ह शौनकं च कापेयमभिप्रतारिणं च काक्षसेनिं सूदेन परिविष्यमाणौ ब्रह्मचारी बिभिक्षे’ (ChanU.4.3.5) इति।
“Now (which shows the beginning of the Artha-vāda sentence), while Śaunaka the descendant of Kapi (Kāpeya) and Abhipratārin the descendant of Kakṣa-sena were being waited on by attendants at dinner, a Brahma-cārin begged them for alms” (ChanU.4.3.5).

1.3.35 L.6 ✅ चैत्ररथित्वं चाभिप्रतारिणः कापेययोगादवगन्तव्यम्।
We have to understand Abhipratārin as Caitra-rathin from his being mentioned in conjunction with Śaunaka (Kāpeya),

1.3.35 L.7 ✅ कापेययोगो हि चित्ररथस्यावगतः ‘एतेन वै चित्ररथं कापेया अयाजयन्’ (ता. ब्रा. २०-१२-५) इति।
Because the connection of Caitra-ratha with Śaunaka (Kāpeya) is understood from the Scriptural passage — “Kāpeya caused a ‘Two Night’ (Dvi-rātra) sacrifice to be performed at the hands of Caitra-ratha” (Tāṇ. Brā. 20.12.5).

1.3.35 L.8 ✅ समानान्वयानां च प्रायेण समानान्वया याजका भवन्ति।
Usually, the descendants of the same particular family (of officiating priests), are the officiating priests at a sacrifice performed by descendants of the same (another) particular family,

1.3.35 L.9 ✅ ‘तस्माच्चैत्ररथिर्नामैकः क्षत्रपतिरजायत’ इति च क्षत्रपतित्वावगमात्क्षत्रियत्वमस्यावगन्तव्यम्।
And from the passage “From him i.e. Caitra-ratha, the Kṣatriya king Caitra-rathi was born”, it should be understood that he was a Kṣatriya.

1.3.35 L.10 ✅ तेन क्षत्रियेणाभिप्रतारिणा सह समानायां संवर्गविद्यायां सङ्कीर्तनं जानश्रुतेरपि क्षत्रियत्वं सूचयति।
And as Jāna-śruti is mentioned along with the Kṣatriya Abhipratārin in connection with the same Vidyā, the Kṣatriya-hood of Jāna-śruti is thus indicated.

1.3.35 L.11 ✅ समानानामेव हि प्रायेण समभिव्याहारा भवन्ति।
For usually persons of similar status are mentioned together.

1.3.35 L.12 ✅ क्षत्तृप्रेषणाद्यैश्वर्ययोगाच्च जानश्रुतेः क्षत्रियत्वावगतिः।
Jāna-śruti’s Kṣatriya-hood is also known, as inferred from his lordly power of despatching a charioteer etc. in search of Raikva).

1.3.35 L.13 ✅ अतो न शूद्रस्याधिकारः॥३५॥
Therefore a Śūdra by birth has no competency (for Brahma-Vidyā). — 35.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
संस्कारपरामर्शात्तदभावाभिलापाच्च॥१.३.३६॥
Saṃskāra-parāmarśāt tad-abhāvābhilāpāc ca.

Saṃskāra: the purificatory ceremonies, the investiture with sacred thread; Parāmarśāt: because of the reference; Tat: that ceremony; A-bhāva: absence; Abhilāpāt: because of the declaration; Ca: and.

🔗 Because there is reference to Sacrament (Saṃskāra) (in the case of the twice-born) and the mention of the absence of the same (in the case of those who are only born once). — 1.3.36.

1.3.36 L.1 ✅ इतश्च न शूद्रस्याधिकारः,
This is again why a Śūdra has no competency,

1.3.36 L.2 ✅ यद्विद्याप्रदेशेषूपनयनादयः संस्काराः परामृश्यन्ते –
As in the province of Vidyā, sacraments (Saṃskāras) such as Upanayana etc. are mentioned, thus —

1.3.36 L.3 ✅ ‘तं होपनिन्ये’ (श. ब्रा. ११-५-३-१३)
“He performed his Upanayana” (Upanayana is a rite which confers ceremonial competency to the three upper classes) (Śata-patha Brā. 11.5.3.1);

1.3.36 L.4 ✅ ‘अधीहि भगव इति होपससाद’ (ChanU.7.1.1)
“He approached him saying, Oh Bhagavān, please teach me” (ChanU.7.1.1);

1.3.36 L.5 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मपरा ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः परं ब्रह्मान्वेषमाणा एष ह वै तत्सर्वं वक्ष्यतीति ते ह
समित्पाणयो भगवन्तं पिप्पलादमुपसन्नाः’ (PrasU.1.1) इति च।
“They, i.e. those who had studied the Vedas completely and had fixed their faith in Sa-guṇa (i.e. qualified) Brahman (Brahma-paraḥ Veda-pāragāḥ) and were engaged in the quest of Nir-guṇa (the Highest unqualified) Brahman, expecting that Bhagavān Pippalāda would instruct them fully,
Approached him with Samidhs (sacrificial fuel sticks) in their hands” (PrasU.1.1).

1.3.36 L.6 ✅ ‘तान्हानुपनीयैव’ (ChanU.5.11.7)
The Scriptural passage — “He (Aśva-pati) without performing their Upanayana said” (because, one of a lower caste, should teach another of a higher caste, without performing Upanayana) (ChanU.5.11.7) —

1.3.36 L.7 ✅ इत्यपि प्रदर्शितैवोपनयनप्राप्तिर्भवति।
Also shows, that it is necessary to have Upanayana performed (in the case of the twice-born).

1.3.36 L.8 ✅ शूद्रस्य च संस्काराभावोऽभिलप्यते ‘शूद्रश्चतुर्थो वर्ण एकजातिः’ (मनु. स्मृ. १०-४) इत्येकजातित्वस्मरणात्।
So far as Śūdras are concerned, the absence of any sacrament (Saṃskāra) in their case is often mentioned, thus — “Śūdra is only born once and is of the fourth caste” (Manu. Smṛ. 10.4),

1.3.36 L.9 ✅ ‘न शूद्रे पातकं किञ्चिन्न च संस्कारमर्हति’ (मनु. स्मृ. १०-१२-६) इत्यादिभिश्च॥३६॥
Also, “No sin attaches to a Śūdra, nor does he deserve to have any sacrament (Saṃskāra)” etc. (Manu. Smṛ. 10.12.6). — 36.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तदभावनिर्धारणे च प्रवृत्तेः॥१.३.३७॥
Tad-abhāva-nirdhāraṇe ca pravṛtteḥ.

Tad: that, namely the Śūdra-hood; A-bhāva: absence; Nirdhāraṇe: in ascertainment; Ca: and; Pravṛtteḥ: from inclination.

🔗 Because (Gautama-Hāridramata) proceeded (to perform the Upanayana of Satya-kāma-Jābāla) after ascertaining (that Satya-kāma-Jābāla was a Brāhmaṇa and not a Śūdra). — 1.3.37.

1.3.37 L.1 ✅ इतश्च न शूद्रस्याधिकारः;
This is again why a Śūdra has no competency (for Brahma-Vidyā)

1.3.37 L.2 ✅ यत्सत्यवचनेन शूद्रत्वाभावे निर्धारिते जाबालं गौतम उपनेतुमनुशासितुं च प्रववृते –
Because, it is understood that Gautama, after ascertaining that Jābāla was not a Śūdra — because of his truthful speech — , proceeded to perform his Upanayana and to teach him, by the indicatory mark stated in the Scriptures thus —

1.3.37 L.3 ✅ ‘नैतदब्राह्मणो विवक्तुमर्हति समिधं सोम्याहरोप त्वा नेष्ये न सत्यादगाः’ (ChanU.4.4.5) इति श्रुतिलिङ्गात्॥३७॥
“No one who is not a Brāhmaṇa would talk like that (i.e. truthfully). Oh mild one, bring Samidhs, I shall perform your Upanayana, you have not swerved from the Truth” (ChanU.4.4.5). — 37.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात्स्मृतेश्च॥१.३.३८॥
Śravaṇādhyayanārtha-pratiṣedhāt smṛteś ca.

Śravaṇa: hearing; Adhyayana: studying; Artha: understanding; Pratiṣedhāt: on account of the prohibition; Smṛteḥ: in the Smṛti; Ca: and.

🔗 Because of Smṛti there is prohibition (for a Śūdra) to hear and learn the Vedas and do Vedic Karma. — 1.3.38.

1.3.38 L.1 ✅ इतश्च न शूद्रस्याधिकारः;
This is again why a Śūdra has no competency (for Brahma-Vidyā),

1.3.38 L.2 ✅ यदस्य स्मृतेः श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधो भवति। वेदश्रवणप्रतिषेधः, वेदाध्ययनप्रतिषेधः, तदर्थज्ञानानुष्ठानयोश्च प्रतिषेधः शूद्रस्य स्मर्यते।
Because in the Smṛti there is prohibition against a Śūdra hearing, learning, knowing (the Vedas) and performing Vedic Karma.

1.3.38 L.3 ✅ श्रवणप्रतिषेधस्तावत् – ‘अथ हास्य वेदमुपशृण्वतस्त्रपुजतुभ्यां श्रोत्रप्रतिपूरणम्’ इति;
The prohibition against hearing Vedas is as follows: — “He who listens to the Vedas should have his ears filled with lead or tin and lac”;

1.3.38 L.4 ✅ ‘पद्यु ह वा एतच्छ्मशानं यच्छूद्रस्तस्माच्छूद्रसमीपे नाध्येतव्यम्’ इति च।
“A Śūdra is nothing but a walking cemetery, therefore, one should not learn (the Scriptures) in his presence.”

1.3.38 L.5 ✅ अत एवाध्ययनप्रतिषेधः; यस्य हि समीपेऽपि नाध्येतव्यं भवति, स कथमश्रुतमधीयीत।
From this of course follows the prohibition against (a Śūdra) learning the Vedas, because when in his presence Vedas are not even recited, how ever can he learn them?

1.3.38 L.6 ✅ भवति च वेदोच्चारणे जिह्वाच्छेदः, धारणे शरीरभेद इति।
Again a sentence of cutting off of the tongue is prescribed for a Śūdra guilty of uttering Veda word and his body is to be cut off if a Śūdra memorizes the Vedas.

1.3.38 L.7 ✅ अत एव चार्थादर्थज्ञानानुष्ठानयोः प्रतिषेधो भवति – ‘न शूद्राय मतिं दद्यात्’ इति, ‘द्विजातीनामध्ययनमिज्या दानम्’ इति च।
Hence of course a prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic Karma follows thus — “One may not explain (the meaning of Vedas) to a Śūdra”, “For Learning, sacrificing, and making a gift, only a twice-born is competent.”

1.3.38 L.8 ✅ येषां पुनः पूर्वकृतसंस्कारवशाद्विदुरधर्मव्याधप्रभृतीनां ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः,
In the case of those such as Vidura, Dharma-Vyādha, etc., who happen to have acquired knowledge as a result of the Saṃskāras of the actions done in the previous births,

1.3.38 L.9 ✅ तेषां न शक्यते फलप्राप्तिः प्रतिषेद्धुम्, ज्ञानस्यैकान्तिकफलत्वात्।
It is not possible to prohibit them from acquiring the fruit of (their knowledge), because knowledge surely must have its fruit.

1.3.38 L.10 ✅ ‘श्रावयेच्चतुरो वर्णान्’ इति चेतिहासपुराणाधिगमे चातुर्वर्ण्यस्याधिकारस्मरणात्।
Smṛti, however, by the passage “He should let all the four castes hear” allows all the four castes to acquire the knowledge of Iti-hāsa and Purāṇa.

1.3.38 L.11 ✅ वेदपूर्वकस्तु नास्त्यधिकारः शूद्राणामिति स्थितम्॥३८॥
So the conclusion is, that the Śūdras have no competency for the Vedas (and therefore for Brahma-Vidyā). — 38.

– 27. Apaśūdra-Adhikaraṇam.

←Prev Next→
कम्पनात्॥१.३.३९॥
Kampanāt.

Kampanāt: on account of shaking or vibration.

🔗 Because of the vibrating (of the world in it) (Prāṇa is Brahman). — 1.3.39.

1.3.39 L.1 ✅ अवसितः प्रासङ्गिकोऽधिकारविचारः;
The adventitious discussion about competency is now finished,

1.3.39 L.2 ✅ प्रकृतामेवेदानीं वाक्यार्थविचारणां प्रवर्तयिष्यामः।
And we will now revert to the consideration of the meaning of Scriptural texts, which is our present purpose.

1.3.39 L.3 ✅ ‘यदिदं किञ्च जगत्सर्वं प्राण एजति निःसृतम्।
महद्भयं वज्रमुद्यतं य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति’ (KathU.2.3.2) इति
(The Scriptures mention — “All this transitory world which is thus created, vibrates in Prāṇa.
It (Prāṇa) is a great terror, a bolt raised aloft. Those who have comprehended this, become immortal” (KathU.2.3.2).

1.3.39 L.4 ✅ एतद्वाक्यम् ‘एजृ कम्पने’ इति धात्वर्थानुगमाल्लक्षितम्।
This sentence is particularly noticed (by the Sūtra-kāra) with reference to the fact that here the root ‘Ej’ (एज्) is in the sense of ‘to vibrate’.

1.3.39 L.5 ✅ अस्मिन्वाक्ये सर्वमिदं जगत् प्राणाश्रयं स्पन्दते,
In this sentence the Scriptures tell us that all this transitory world vibrates, as supported by Prāṇa.

1.3.39 L.6 ✅ महच्च किञ्चिद्भयकारणं वज्रशब्दितमुद्यतम्, तद्विज्ञानाच्चामृतत्वप्राप्तिरिति श्रूयते।
Scriptures declare that something, which is the cause of a great terror and which is expressed by the word ‘bolt’, has been ‘raised aloft’, by knowing which, immortality results.

1.3.39 L.7 ✅ तत्र, कोऽसौ प्राणः, किं तद्भयानकं वज्रम्, इत्यप्रतिपत्तेर्विचारे क्रियमाणे, प्राप्तं तावत् –
In this connection, when what that is, is not understood, and it is considered as to what this Prāṇa is, and as to what this terror-inspiring bolt is, the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent) is that,

1.3.39 L.8 ✅ प्रसिद्धेः पञ्चवृत्तिर्वायुः प्राण इति।
As is well-known, Vāyu with its five-fold functions (such as Prāṇa, Apāna etc.) is what is meant by Prāṇa.

1.3.39 L.9 ✅ प्रसिद्धेरेव चाशनिर्वज्रं स्यात्।
Also because it is well-known, that thunderbolt (Aśani) may be that bolt.

1.3.39 L.10 ✅ वायोश्चेदं माहात्म्यं सङ्कीर्त्यते।
This is a description of the greatness of Vāyu.

1.3.39 L.11 ✅ कथम्? सर्वमिदं जगत् पञ्चवृत्तौ वायौ प्राणशब्दिते प्रतिष्ठाय एजति;
All this transitory world, depending upon this Vāyu of five-fold functions, which is expressed by the word Prāṇa, vibrates because of that.

1.3.39 L.12 ✅ वायुनिमित्तमेव च महद्भयानकं वज्रमुद्यम्यते;
This terror-inspiring bolt which is raised aloft is caused by Vāyu.

1.3.39 L.13 ✅ वायौ हि पर्जन्यभावेन विवर्तमाने विद्युत्स्तनयित्नुवृष्ट्यशनयो विवर्तन्त इत्याचक्षते;
It is said that, it is when Vāyu manifests itself as rain, that lightning, thunder, pouring rain and thunderbolt are produced.

1.3.39 L.14 ✅ वायुविज्ञानादेव चेदममृतत्वम्;
And it is only from the knowledge of Vāyu that this immortality results.

1.3.39 L.15 ✅ तथा हि श्रुत्यन्तरम् – ‘वायुरेव व्यष्टिर्वायुः समष्टिरप पुनर्मृत्युं जयति य एवं वेद’ इति।
Similarly another Scriptural passage says — “Vāyu is both the distributive pervasion (‘Vyaṣṭi’ — aggregate or whole viewed as made up of many separate parts) and the collective pervasion (Samaṣṭi — an aggregate which is considered as made up of parts, each of which is substantially the same as the whole) and one who knows that conquers death.”

1.3.39 L.16 ✅ तस्माद्वायुरयमिह प्रतिपत्तव्यः
Therefore, it should be understood, that by Prāṇa, Vāyu is meant.

1.3.39 L.17 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
To this conclusion (of the opponent) we reply —

1.3.39 L.18 ✅ ब्रह्मैवेदमिह प्रतिपत्तव्यम्।
Here, it is this Brahman, which should be understood.

1.3.39 L.19 ✅ कुतः? पूर्वोत्तरालोचनात्;
How so? Because of taking stock of what has preceded and what has followed.

1.3.39 L.20 ✅ पूर्वोत्तरयोर्हि ग्रन्थभागयोर्ब्रह्मैव निर्दिश्यमानमुपलभामहे;
We find, that in the preceding portion of the chapter, and in the portion which comes after, it is Brahman alone that is indicated,

1.3.39 L.21 ✅ इहैव कथमकस्मादन्तराले वायुं निर्दिश्यमानं प्रतिपद्येमहि?
So, here, in between the two, how ever can it be understood capriciously, that Vāyu is indicated?

1.3.39 L.22 ✅ पूर्वत्र तावत् ‘तदेव शुक्रं तद्ब्रह्म तदेवामृतमुच्यते। तस्मिँल्लोकाः श्रिताः सर्वे तदु नात्येति कश्चन’ (KathU.2.3.1) इति ब्रह्म निर्दिष्टम्;
So far as the preceding portion is concerned, it is Brahman that is indicated, thus — “That precisely is the Bright one, that is Brahman, that is what is spoken of as the immortal. All the worlds have supported themselves on it, and no body can transgress it” (KathU.2.3.1) — ,

1.3.39 L.23 ✅ तदेव इहापि, सन्निधानात्, ‘जगत्सर्वं प्राण एजति’ इति च लोकाश्रयत्वप्रत्यभिज्ञानात् निर्दिष्टमिति गम्यते।
And we understand that the same is here indicated, because of its being in proximity, and also because we realize that it has the quality of being the support of the world from the Scriptural passage — “All this transitory world vibrates because of it”.

1.3.39 L.24 ✅ प्राणशब्दोऽप्ययं परमात्मन्येव प्रयुक्तः – ‘प्राणस्य प्राणम्’ (BrhU.4.4.18) इति दर्शनात्।
It is seen, that in the sentence “The Prāṇa of Prāṇa” (BrhUEng.4.4.18) this word Prāṇa also is used in the case of the Highest Self only.

1.3.39 L.25 ✅ एजयितृत्वमपीदं परमात्मन एवोपपद्यते, न वायुमात्रस्य;
Besides, the quality of enabling the world to vibrate, can be reasonably sustainable in the case of the Highest Self only, and not in the case of mere Vāyu.

1.3.39 L.26 ✅ तथा चोक्तम् – ‘न प्राणेन नापानेन मर्त्यो जीवति कश्चन।
इतरेण तु जीवन्ति यस्मिन्नेतावुपाश्रितौ’ (KathU.2.2.5) इति।
A similar view is expresed in the Scriptures, thus — “Man the mortal does not live because of Prāṇa (one of the 5 functional aspects of Vāyu) or Apāna.
They live only because of that (Prāṇa which is Brahman) in which these two (i.e. Prāṇa and Apāna, along with Vyāna, Udāna, and Samāna) rest.” (KathU.2.2.5).

1.3.39 L.27 ✅ उत्तरत्रापि ‘भयादस्याग्निस्तपति भयात्तपति सूर्यः।
भयादिन्द्रश्च वायुश्च मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चमः’ (KathU.2.3.3) इति
In the subsequent passage also — viz. “Through fear of it (i.e. Brahman), the fire and the Sun, respectively, burn and shine,
And Indra and Vāyu and Death, the fifth (in this series), hasten (to do their duty).” (KathU.2.3.3) —

1.3.39 L.28 ✅ ब्रह्मैव निर्देक्ष्यते, न वायुः, सवायुकस्य जगतो भयहेतुत्वाभिधानात्।
It is Brahman alone that is indicated and not Vāyu, because it is mentioned that it is the cause of terror to the transitory world along with (i.e. including) Vāyu.

1.3.39 L.29 ✅ तदेव इहापि सन्निधानात् ‘महद्भयं वज्रमुद्यतम्’ इति च भयहेतुत्वप्रत्यभिज्ञानान्निर्दिष्टमिति गम्यते;
We are, therefore, able to understand, that here also, because of the proximity, and its recognition as the cause of terror, by the word ‘great terror’ and a ‘bolt raised aloft’, it i.e. the same (Brahman) is indicated.

1.3.39 L.30 ✅ वज्रशब्दोऽप्ययं भयहेतुत्वसामान्यात्प्रयुक्तः;
The word ‘bolt’ (Vajra) is also used in the common meaning of being the cause of terror.

1.3.39 L.31 ✅ यथा हि ‘वज्रमुद्यतं ममैव शिरसि निपतेत्, यद्यहमस्य शासनं न कुर्याम्’ इत्यनेन भयेन जनो नियमेन राजादिशासने प्रवर्तते,
Just as people as a rule obey the commands of a King etc. through fear that, if they do not obey his order, a bolt raised aloft would fall on their heads (like the sword of Democles),

1.3.39 L.32 ✅ एवमिदमग्निवायुसूर्यादिकं जगत् अस्मादेव ब्रह्मणो बिभ्यत् नियमेन स्वव्यापारे प्रवर्तत इति –
Similarly this transitory world consisting of fire, Vāyu and the Sun etc. also, behaves regularly through the fear of Brahman,

1.3.39 L.33 ✅ भयानकं वज्रोपमितं ब्रह्म।
And so Brahman is comparable to the terror-striking bolt.

1.3.39 L.34 ✅ तथा च ब्रह्मविषयं श्रुत्यन्तरम् –
There is a similar Scriptural passage relating to Brahman, as follows —

1.3.39 L.35 ✅ ‘भीषास्माद्वातः पवते। भीषोदेति सूर्यः। भीषास्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च। मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चमः’ (TaitU.2.8.1) इति।
“Through fear of it the wind blows, the Sun rises, the fire burns, and Indra, and Death as the fifth, hasten (to do their duty).” (TaitUEng.2.8.1).

1.3.39 L.36 ✅ अमृतत्वफलश्रवणादपि ब्रह्मैवेदमिति गम्यते;
We also understand that it is no other than Brahman, because immortality is mentioned by the Scriptures as the fruit (as a result of knowing it).

1.3.39 L.37 ✅ ब्रह्मज्ञानाद्ध्यमृतत्वप्राप्तिः,
It is only through the knowledge of Brahman that immortality can be gained,

1.3.39 L.38 ✅ ‘तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति
नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ (SvetU.6.15) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्।
Because the Mantra-words say — “It is by knowing it (i.e. Brahman) only that (a person) transcends Death, and by nothing else.
There is no other way to go by” (SvetU.6.15).

1.3.39 L.39 ✅ यत्तु वायुविज्ञानात्क्वचिदमृतत्वमभिहितम्,
The statement (of the opponent) about the acquisition of immortality through the knowledge of Vāyu is only relative,

1.3.39 L.40 ✅ तदापेक्षिकम्; तत्रैव प्रकरणान्तरकरणेन परमात्मानमभिधाय
Because in connection with that (very statement), by starting a separate chapter, the Scriptures speak of the Highest Self,

1.3.39 L.41 ✅ ‘अतोऽन्यदार्तम्’ (BrhU.3.4.2) इति वाय्वादेरार्तत्वाभिधानात्।
And describe the perishability of Vāyu and others by the sentence — “Everything else than this is perishable” (BrhUEng.3.4.2).

1.3.39 L.42 ✅ प्रकरणादप्यत्र परमात्मनिश्चयः;
From the chapter itself results the definite ascertainment of the Highest Self,

1.3.39 L.43 ✅ ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात्। अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद’ (KathU.1.2.14) इति परमात्मनः पृष्टत्वात्॥३९॥
Because the question ‘Anyatra Dharmāt etc.’ (asked by Naciketas to Death, in the Kaṭhopaniṣad) shows that the Highest Self was inquired into (see end of BrS.1.2.24). — 39

– 28. Kampana-Adhikaraṇam.

←Prev Next→
ज्योतिर्दर्शनात्॥१.३.४०॥
Jyotir darśanāt.

Jyotiḥ: light; Darśanāt: on account of (Brahman) being seen.

🔗 Jyotis (is Brahman) because it is so seen. — 1.3.40.

1.3.40 L.1 ✅ ‘एष सम्प्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय
परं ज्योतिरुपसम्पद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते’ (ChanU.8.12.3) इति श्रूयते।
The Scriptures mention — “This serene being (Samprasāda) i.e. the Jīva-Self, after arising from this tabernacle (i.e. getting rid of the wrong notion that it is his body),
And having attained this highest Jyotis, becomes manifest in its own nature (as the Sat-Self).” (ChanU.8.12.3).

1.3.40 L.2 ✅ तत्र संशय्यते – किं ज्योतिःशब्दं चक्षुर्विषयतमोपहं तेजः,
Here, it is doubted whether that which is termed Jyotis is Light (Tejas) which, as being an object of the sense-organ the eye, destroys darkness,

1.3.40 L.3 ✅ किं वा परं ब्रह्मेति।
Or whether it is the Highest Brahman.

1.3.40 L.4 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your conclusion?

1.3.40 L.5 ✅ प्रसिद्धमेव तेजो ज्योतिःशब्दमिति।
The term Jyotis means the well-known Tejas.

1.3.40 L.6 ✅ कुतः? तत्र ज्योतिःशब्दस्य रूढत्वात्।
How so? Because the use of the term Jyotis in that connection is well established.

1.3.40 L.7 ✅ ‘ज्योतिश्चरणाभिधानात्’ (BrS.1.1.24) इत्यत्र हि प्रकरणाज्ज्योतिःशब्दः स्वार्थं परित्यज्य ब्रह्मणि वर्तते;
In BrS.1.1.24, of course, because of the chapter, the word Jyotis discards its own proper meaning and assumes the sense of Brahman.

1.3.40 L.8 ✅ न चेह तद्वत्किञ्चित्स्वार्थपरित्यागे कारणं दृश्यते।
By no reason is seen cited here for discarding the common meaning [Trans. per Panoli].

1.3.40 L.9 ✅ तथा च नाडीखण्डे – ‘अथ यत्रैतदस्माच्छरीरादुत्क्रामत्यथैतैरेव रश्मिभिरूर्ध्वमाक्रमते’ (ChanU.8.6.5) इति मुमुक्षोरादित्यप्राप्तिरभिहिता।
Again in the chapter dealing with Nāḍīs, the person desirous of attaining Final Release is said to reach Āditya (the Sun), thus — “Afterwards, when he goes out of this body, he ascends by the very rays (of Light)” (ChanU.8.6.5).

1.3.40 L.10 ✅ तस्मात्प्रसिद्धमेव तेजो ज्योतिःशब्दमिति,
Therefore, the well-known Tejas is indicated by the term ‘Jyotis’.

1.3.40 L.11 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – परमेव ब्रह्म ज्योतिःशब्दम्।
This being the conclusion of the opponent), we reply — The term Jyotis means the Highest Brahman only.

1.3.40 L.12 ✅ कस्मात्? दर्शनात्।
How so? Because it is so seen.

1.3.40 L.13 ✅ तस्य हीह प्रकरणे वक्तव्यत्वेनानुवृत्तिर्दृश्यते;
Because it is seen that the same (Brahman) is referred to in this chapter as the thing to be spoken about.

1.3.40 L.14 ✅ ‘य आत्मापहतपाप्मा’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इत्यपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणकस्यात्मनः प्रकरणादावन्वेष्टव्यत्वेन विजिज्ञासितव्यत्वेन च प्रतिज्ञानात्;
Because, that Self which has the nature of being free from sin etc., as referred to in the Scriptural passage “This Self which is free from sin” (ChanU.8.7.1), is the same as is understood to be that which should be searched for and known.

1.3.40 L.15 ✅ ‘एतं त्वेव ते भूयोऽनुव्याख्यास्यामि’ (ChanU.8.9.3) इति चानुसन्धानात्;
The Scriptural passage “I shall further explain the same (Self) to you in detail” (ChanU.8.9.3) also, is a continuation of the same topic.

1.3.40 L.16 ✅ ‘अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः’ (ChanU.8.12.1) इति चाशरीरतायै ज्योतिःसम्पत्तेरस्याभिधानात्;
Then again, by the Scriptural passage “On him, who has become disembodied, neither pleasure nor pain make any impression” (ChanU.8.12.1), the attainment by him of this Jyotis, is for the purpose of the attainment (by him) of disembodiedness,

1.3.40 L.17 ✅ ब्रह्मभावाच्चान्यत्राशरीरतानुपपत्तेः;
Because, that otherwise than by attaining Brahman, disembodiedness can be attained, is not reasonably sustainable,

1.3.40 L.18 ✅ ‘परं ज्योतिः’ ‘स उत्तमः पुरुषः’ (ChanU.8.12.3) इति च विशेषणात्।
And also because, it is particularized as “The Highest Light, the best Puruṣa” (ChanU.8.12.3).

1.3.40 L.19 ✅ यत्तूक्तं मुमुक्षोरादित्यप्राप्तिरभिहितेति,
With regard to what is said (by the opponent) about a person desirous of Final Release reaching the Sun,

1.3.40 L.20 ✅ नासावात्यन्तिको मोक्षः,
We reply This is not the absolute Final Release,

1.3.40 L.21 ✅ गत्युत्क्रान्तिसम्बन्धात्।
Because it involves movement of progress (from one stage to another) and evolution towards it.

1.3.40 L.22 ✅ न ह्यात्यन्तिके मोक्षे गत्युत्क्रान्ती स्त इति वक्ष्यामः॥४०॥
We will explain hereafter, how, in the case of absolute Final Release there is neither movement and progress nor evolution. — 40.

– 29. Jyotir-Adhikaraṇam.

←Prev Next→
आकाशोऽर्थान्तरत्वादिव्यपदेशात्॥१.३.४१॥
Ākāśo'rthāntatvādi-vyapadeśāt.

Ākāśaḥ: space; Artha-antaratva-ādi-vyapadeśāt: because it is declared to be something different; (Artha: with a meaning; Antaratva: differentness; Ādi: etc.; Vyapadeśāt: from statement on account of designation).

🔗 The Ākāśa (is Brahman) because of the mention of its being different (from names and forms). — 1.3.41.

1.3.41 L.1 ✅ ‘आकाशो वै नाम नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतं स आत्मा’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इति श्रूयते।
A Scriptural passage mentions — “Ākāśa, verily, is the revealer of That within which these (names and forms) are (contained) is Brahman, that is immortal, that is the Self” (ChanU.8.14.1).

1.3.41 L.2 ✅ तत्किमाकाशशब्दं परं ब्रह्म, किं वा प्रसिद्धमेव भूताकाशमिति विचारे – भूतपरिग्रहो युक्तः;
(The opponent says) — when it is considered as to whether by the word Ākāśa the Highest Brahman is meant or the well-known created element (which also is called the Ākāśa), it is reasonable (to conclude) that it means the created element,

1.3.41 L.3 ✅ आकाशशब्दस्य तस्मिन् रूढत्वात्;
Because the use of the word Ākāśa in that sense is well established,

1.3.41 L.4 ✅ नामरूपनिर्वहणस्य चावकाशदानद्वारेण तस्मिन्योजयितुं शक्यत्वात्;
And also because, due to the revelation of names and forms by way of affording space (Avakāśa), it is possible to use that term for it (i.e. the created element),

1.3.41 L.5 ✅ स्रष्टृत्वादेश्च स्पष्टस्य ब्रह्मलिङ्गस्याश्रवणादित्येवं प्राप्ते
And also because of the absence of any mention in the Scriptures here, of any clear indicatory mark of Brahman, such as its creativity etc.

1.3.41 L.6 ✅ इदमुच्यते – परमेव ब्रह्म इहाकाशशब्दं भवितुमर्हति।
(To this conclusion of the opponent), our reply is — It is the Highest Brahman alone that deserves to be expressed by the term Ākāśa.

1.3.41 L.7 ✅ कस्मात्? अर्थान्तरत्वादि व्यपदेशात्।
Why so? Because of the mention of its being a different entity (from names and forms) etc.

1.3.41 L.8 ✅ ‘ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म’ इति हि नामरूपाभ्यामर्थान्तरभूतमाकाशं व्यपदिशति;
The passage “That within which these (names and forms) are contained” indicates the Ākāśa as being something different from names and forms.

1.3.41 L.9 ✅ न च ब्रह्मणोऽन्यन्नामरूपाभ्यामर्थान्तरं सम्भवति,
Now, it is not possible that anything else except Brahman can be different from names and forms,

1.3.41 L.10 ✅ सर्वस्य विकारजातस्य नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याकृतत्वात्;
Because the creation as such is precisely evolved by names and forms.

1.3.41 L.11 ✅ नामरूपयोरपि निर्वहणं निरङ्कुशं न ब्रह्मणोऽन्यत्र सम्भवति,
Besides, the unfettered and free revelation of names and forms is not possible in the case of anything other than Brahman,

1.3.41 L.12 ✅ ‘अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति ब्रह्मकर्तृकत्वश्रवणात्।
Because the Scriptures have mentioned the creative agency (Kartṛtva) of Brahman thus — “I will now enter (the creations) by the Jīva-Self and evolve names and forms” (ChanU.6.3.2).

1.3.41 L.13 ✅ ननु जीवस्यापि प्रत्यक्षं नामरूपविषयं निर्वोढृत्वमस्ति;
But (says the opponent) it is actually seen that the Jīva-Self also has the power to reveal names and forms.

1.3.41 L.14 ✅ बाढमस्ति;
We reply — all right, it has,

1.3.41 L.15 ✅ अभेदस्त्विह विवक्षितः।
But the passage here precisely purports to emphasize the non-difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self).

1.3.41 L.16 ✅ नामरूपनिर्वहणाभिधानादेव च स्रष्टृत्वादि ब्रह्मलिङ्गमभिहितं भवति।
The very fact of the revelation of names and forms is tantamount to a mention of an indicatory mark of the creativity (Kartṛtva) of Brahman.

1.3.41 L.17 ✅ ‘तद्ब्रह्म तदमृतं स आत्मा’ (ChanU.8.14.1) इति च ब्रह्मवादस्य लिङ्गानि।
“That is Brahman, that is the immortal, that is the Self” are the indicatory marks of the view about Brahman (being the immortal Self).

1.3.41 L.18 ✅ ‘आकाशस्तल्लिङ्गात्’ (BrS.1.1.22) इत्यस्यैवायं प्रपञ्चः॥४१॥
This is merely an amplification of the Sūtra “Ākāśa is Brahman (because it is the indicatory mark of Brahman)” — (BrS.1.1.22). — 41.

– 30. Artha-antaratva-ādi-vyapadeśa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.3.42 Su..43

←Prev Next→
सुषुप्त्युत्क्रान्त्योर्भेदेन॥१.३.४२॥
Suṣupty-utkrāntyor bhedena.

Suṣupti-utkrāntyoḥ: In deep sleep and death; Bhedena: by the difference, as different; (Suṣupti: deep sleep; Utkrānti: departing at the time of death).

🔗 During the conditions of deep sleep and going away (from the body) there is designation of difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self). — 1.3.42.

1.3.42 L.1 ✅ व्यपदेशादित्यनुवर्तते।
The word designation follows up here also.

1.3.42 L.2 ✅ बृहदारण्यके षष्ठे प्रपाठके ‘कतम आत्मेति योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषः’ (BrhU.4.3.7) इत्युपक्रम्य
In the sixth chapter (Prapāṭhaka) of Bṛhad-āraṇyaka, beginning with the sentence — “What is this Self? It is that, which is of the structure of cognition amongst the Prāṇas (sense-organs), the Puruṣa, the Self-effulgent Light in the Hṛdaya” (BrhUEng.4.3.7),

1.3.42 L.3 ✅ भूयानात्मविषयः प्रपञ्चः कृतः।
There is an exhaustive discussion about or elaboration of the Self.

1.3.42 L.4 ✅ तत्किं संसारिस्वरूपमात्रान्वाख्यानपरं वाक्यम्,
Now, the doubt is whether this sentence is intended to make a further statement about the transmigratory nature (of the Jīva-Self)

1.3.42 L.5 ✅ उतासंसारिस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरमिति विशयः।
Or to propound and establish the non-transmigratory nature (of Brahman).

1.3.42 L.6 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion?

1.3.42 L.7 ✅ संसारिस्वरूपमात्रविषयमेवेति।
It is, that it is with respect to the Jīva-Self’s transmigratory nature.

1.3.42 L.8 ✅ कुतः? उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्याम्।
How so? Because of the introductory and the concluding portions.

1.3.42 L.9 ✅ उपक्रमे ‘योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु’ इति शारीरलिङ्गात्;
In the introductory portion, the passage “This, which is of the structure of cognition amongst the Prāṇas (sense-organs)” is an indicatory mark of the embodied Jīva-Self.

1.3.42 L.10 ✅ उपसंहारे च ‘स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इति तदपरित्यागात्;
Also in the concluding portion — “This is the great, the unborn Self which is of the structure of cognition amongst the Prāṇas” (BrhUEng.4.4.22), the same is not abandoned,

1.3.42 L.11 ✅ मध्येऽपि बुद्धान्ताद्यवस्थोपन्यासेन तस्यैव प्रपञ्चनाद्
And in between the two, by way of mentioning the condition of wakefulness, the same (Jīva-Self) has been further discussed.

1.3.42 L.12 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent), we reply —

1.3.42 L.13 ✅ परमेश्वरोपदेशपरमेवेदं वाक्यम्,
This sentence has the purport of giving instruction about the Highest Lord only,

1.3.42 L.14 ✅ न शारीरमात्रान्वाख्यानपरम्।
And not that of making a further statement about the embodied Jīva-Self.

1.3.42 L.15 ✅ कस्मात्? सुषुप्तावुत्क्रान्तौ च शारीराद्भेदेन परमेश्वरस्य व्यपदेशात्।
How so? Because of the mention of the Highest Lord as distinguished from the embodied Jīva-Self, during the conditions of deep sleep and that of the going out (of the body).

1.3.42 L.16 ✅ सुषुप्तौ तावत् ‘अयं पुरुषः प्राज्ञेनात्मना सम्परिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किञ्चन वेद नान्तरम्’ (BrhU.4.3.2) इति शारीराद्भेदेन परमेश्वरं व्यपदिशति;
So far as the condition of deep sleep is concerned, it mentions the Highest Lord as being different from the embodied Jīva-Self, by the sentence — “This Puruṣa embraced as he is by the intelligent Self (Prājña), is not conscious of anything without or within” (BrhUEng.4.3.21).

1.3.42 L.17 ✅ तत्र पुरुषः शारीरः स्यात्, तस्य वेदितृत्वात्;
Now, here the Puruṣa can only be the embodied Jīva-Self, because it is he who is the knower.

1.3.42 L.18 ✅ बाह्याभ्यन्तरवेदनप्रसङ्गे सति तत्प्रतिषेधसम्भवात्;
When the question is about the consciousness of anything without or within, it is possible to be denied only in his case,

1.3.42 L.19 ✅ प्राज्ञः परमेश्वरः, सर्वज्ञत्वलक्षणया प्रज्ञया नित्यमवियोगात्।
While the Highest Self, i.e. the intelligent Self, is never dissociated with intelligence, as being of the nature of Omniscience.

1.3.42 L.20 ✅ तथोत्क्रान्तावपि ‘अयं शारीर आत्मा प्राज्ञेनात्मनान्वारूढ उत्सर्जन्याति’ (BrhU.4.3.35) इति जीवाद्भेदेन परमेश्वरं व्यपदिशति;
Similarly during the conditions of going out (of the body) also, the Highest Lord is distinguished from the embodied Jīva-Self (by the Scriptures) in the sentence — “This embodied Jīva-Self mounted on by the intelligent Self, goes out groaning” (BrhUEng.4.3.35).

1.3.42 L.21 ✅ तत्रापि शारीरो जीवः स्यात्, शरीरस्वामित्वात्;
There also the embodied Jīva-Self is distinguished from the Highest Lord, as the one having control or dominion over the body,

1.3.42 L.22 ✅ प्राज्ञस्तु स एव परमेश्वरः।
And the intelligential Self (Prājña) is the same Highest Lord.

1.3.42 L.23 ✅ तस्मात्सुषुप्त्युत्क्रान्त्योर्भेदेन व्यपदेशात्परमेश्वर एवात्र विवक्षित इति गम्यते।
Therefore we understand that here it being mentioned as being different from (the embodied Jīva-Self) during the conditions of deep sleep and going out of the body, it is the Highest Lord that is desired to be spoken of.

1.3.42 L.24 ✅ यदुक्तमाद्यन्तमध्येषु शारीरलिङ्गात् तत्परत्वमस्य वाक्यस्येति, अत्र
With regard to the statement, that as both in the beginning and the end and in between, because of that indicatory mark being of the embodied Jīva-Self, it is the embodied Jīva-Self that the sentence in between the two sentences purports to speak about,

1.3.42 L.25 ✅ ब्रूमः – उपक्रमे तावत् ‘योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु’ इति न संसारिस्वरूपं विवक्षितम् –
We reply — So far as the introductory portion is concerned, by the sentence “This one who has the structure of cognition amongst the Prāṇas” it is not intended to speak of the nature of the transmigratory Self,

1.3.42 L.26 ✅ किं तर्हि? – अनूद्य संसारिस्वरूपं परेण ब्रह्मणास्यैकतां विवक्षति;
But rather to emphasize its oneness with the Highest Brahman, by dispelling the notion of its being of a transmigratory nature,

1.3.42 L.27 ✅ यतः ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव’ इत्येवमाद्युत्तरग्रन्थप्रवृत्तिः
Because, the trend of the Scriptural passages which follow — viz. “He contemplates as it were, sports as it were” —

1.3.42 L.28 ✅ संसारिधर्मनिराकरणपरा लक्ष्यते;
Appears to be to dispel the notion of the Jīva-Self itself having a transmigratory nature.

1.3.42 L.29 ✅ तथोपसंहारेऽपि यथोपक्रममेवोपसंहरति –
Similarly, in the end also, the passage concludes as it begins —

1.3.42 L.30 ✅ ‘स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु’ इति;
“This, verily, is the great unborn Self, which has the structure of cognition amongst the Prāṇas”.

1.3.42 L.31 ✅ योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु संसारी लक्ष्यते,
The meaning is that this (supposedly) transmigratory being having the structure of cognition,

1.3.42 L.32 ✅ स वा एष महानज आत्मा परमेश्वर एवास्माभिः प्रतिपादित इत्यर्थः;
Verily, is the great unborn Self, the Highest Lord, is exactly what has been propounded by us.

1.3.42 L.33 ✅ यस्तु मध्ये बुद्धान्ताद्यवस्थोपन्यासात्संसारिस्वरूपविवक्षां मन्यते,
Anybody, however, who considers that because of the reference to the conditions of wakefulness etc., the nature of the transmigratory Self is meant to be spoken of,

1.3.42 L.34 ✅ स प्राचीमपि देशं प्रस्थापितः प्रतीचीमपि दिशं प्रतिष्ठेत;
Would, even if he be deliberately sought to be set out towards the East, persist in going towards the West,

1.3.42 L.35 ✅ यतो न बुद्धान्ताद्यवस्थोपन्यासेनावस्थावत्त्वं संसारित्वं वा विवक्षितं –
Because, the passage does not purport to say anything about the Self being affected by conditions or having a transmigratory nature, by mentioning the conditions of wakefulness etc.,

1.3.42 L.36 ✅ किं तर्हि? – अवस्थारहितत्वमसंसारित्वं च।
But, that it is not affected by any condition, and that it has no transmigratory nature.

1.3.42 L.37 ✅ कथमेतदवगम्यते?
How (says the opponent) is it understood to be so?

1.3.42 L.38 ✅ यत् ‘अत ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्षायैव ब्रूहि’ (BrhU.4.3.14) इति पदे पदे पृच्छति;
Because, at every step Janaka says — “Do now say something about the way of attaining Final Release” (BrhUEng.4.3.14).

1.3.42 L.39 ✅ यच्च ‘अनन्वागतस्तेन भवत्यसङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः’ (BrhU.4.3.15) इति पदे पदे प्रतिवक्ति;
And Yājña-valkya at every step replies — “He is untouched by whatever he enjoys or suffers (i.e. by Bhoga) in that state, for this Puruṣa is unattached” (is the full sentence) (BrhUEng.4.3.14–15),

1.3.42 L.40 ✅ ‘अनन्वागतं पुण्येनानन्वागतं पापेन तीर्णो हि तदा सर्वाञ्शोकान्हृदयस्य भवति’ (BrhU.4.3.22) इति च।
And also, “He (in this form) is untouched by merit, untouched by demerit, for he then happens to be beyond all the woes of the Hṛdaya (i.e. intellect)” (BrhUEng.4.3.22).

1.3.42 L.41 ✅ तस्मादसंसारिस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरमेवैतद्वाक्यमित्यवगन्तव्यम्॥४२॥
Therefore, it should be understood that this sentence has the purport of propounding the non-transmigratory nature (of the Highest Self). — 42.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
पत्यादिशब्देभ्यः॥१.३.४३॥
Paty-ādi-śabdebhyaḥ.

Pati-ādi-śabdebhyaḥ: On account of words like ‘Lord’ etc., (the self in the text under discussion is the Supreme Self).

🔗 Also because of (the use of) the words ‘Lord’ etc. — 1.3.43.

1.3.43 L.1 ✅ इतश्चासंसारिस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरमेवैतद्वाक्यमित्यवगन्तव्यम्;
This is again why this sentence should be understood to have the purport of propounding the non-transmigratory nature (of the Highest Self) only,

1.3.43 L.2 ✅ यदस्मिन्वाक्ये पत्यादयः शब्दा असंसारिस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपराः
Because in this sentence words such as ‘Lord’ etc. have the purport of propounding the non-transmigratory nature (of the Highest Self),

1.3.43 L.3 ✅ संसारिस्वभावप्रतिषेधनाश्च भवन्ति –
And to refute the nature of the transmigrating self [Trans. per Panoli].

1.3.43 L.4 ✅ ‘सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः’ इत्येवंजातीयका असंसारिस्वभावप्रतिपादनपराः;
Words of the type of ‘Lord of all, Ruler of all, Protector of all’ have the purpose of propounding the Highest Self’s non-transmigratory nature.

1.3.43 L.5 ✅ ‘स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्नो एवासाधुना कनीयान्’ इत्येवंजातीयकाः संसारिस्वभावप्रतिषेधनाः।
“He does not become any the higher in status by good actions, nor does he become one of a lower status by evil actions” are the type of words which deny the transmigratory nature (of the Highest Self).

1.3.43 L.6 ✅ तस्मादसंसारी परमेश्वर इहोक्त इत्यवगम्यते॥४३॥
Therefore, we understand that it is the non-transmigratory Highest Lord that is spoken of here. — 43.

– 31. Suṣupty-utkrānty-Adhikaraṇam. End of Pāda 1.3

Su.1.4.01 Su..02 Su..03 Su..04 Su..05 Su..06 Su..07

1.4.1 L.1 ✅ ब्रह्मजिज्ञासां प्रतिज्ञाय
Having declared that there would be an inquiry into the desire to know Brahman,

1.4.1 L.2 ✅ ब्रह्मणो लक्षणमुक्तम् – ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ (BrS.1.1.2) इति।
The characteristic of Brahman has been stated in BrS.1.1.2.

1.4.1 L.3 ✅ तल्लक्षणं प्रधानस्यापि समानमित्याशङ्क्य
Having raised a doubt, that the characteristic is common i.e. equally applicable to the Pradhāna also,

1.4.1 L.4 ✅ तदशब्दत्वेन निराकृतम् – ‘ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम्’ (BrS.1.1.5) इति।
The same is resolved by mentioning that it (the Pradhāna) has no Scriptural authority, by the Sūtra — “Īkṣaternāśabdam” (BrS.1.1.5).

1.4.1 L.5 ✅ गतिसामान्यं च वेदान्तवाक्यानां ब्रह्मकारणवादं प्रति विद्यते, न प्रधानकारणवादं प्रतीति प्रपञ्चितं गतेन ग्रन्थेन।
Then it has been discussed in the preceding portion, as to how all the Scriptural passages have a uniform trend or sequence, culminating in showing that Brahman — and not the Pradhāna — is the cause (of the transitory world).

1.4.1 L.6 ✅ इदं त्विदानीमवशिष्टमाशङ्क्यते –
Now, it is further doubted by the Sāṅkhyas, as not having been referred to nor refuted before, as follows: —

1.4.1 L.7 ✅ यदुक्तं प्रधानस्याशब्दत्वम्, तदसिद्धम्,
What you have said before, viz. that the Pradhāna has no Scriptural authority, is not yet conclusively established,

1.4.1 L.8 ✅ कासुचिच्छाखासु प्रधानसमर्पणाभासानां शब्दानां श्रूयमाणत्वात्;
Because, in some branches (Śākhās), the Scriptures have referred to certain words which seem to create an impression, that they culminate in indicating the Pradhāna.

1.4.1 L.9 ✅ अतः प्रधानस्य कारणत्वं वेदसिद्धमेव महद्भिः परमर्षिभिः कपिलप्रभृतिभिः परिगृहीतमिति प्रसज्यते;
Therefore, it comes to this, viz. that the Pradhāna is the cause (of the world) is proved by the Vedas, and that it has been accepted as such by great and venerable sages such as Kapila and others.

1.4.1 L.10 ✅ तद्यावत्तेषां शब्दानामन्यपरत्वं न प्रतिपाद्यते, तावत्सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्म जगतः कारणमिति प्रतिपादितमप्याकुलीभवेत्;
Therefore, as long as it is not properly explained that these words indicate an entity other than the Pradhāna (viz. Brahman), even if it is propounded that the Omniscient Brahman is the cause (of the transitory world) it would still remain shaky i.e. vitiated.

1.4.1 L.11 ✅ अतस्तेषामन्यपरत्वं दर्शयितुं परः सन्दर्भः प्रवर्तते॥
Therefore, the portion (of the treatise, Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya) which follows is intended for explaining how these words indicate an entity other than the Pradhāna (i.e. Brahman).

←Prev Next→
आनुमानिकमप्येकेषामिति चेन्न शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेर्दर्शयति च॥१.४.१॥
Ānumānikam apy ekeṣām iti cen na śarīra-rūpaka-vinyasta-gṛhīter darśayati ca.

Anumānikam: that which is inferred (i.e., the Pradhāna); Api: also; Ekeṣām: of some branches or school of Śrutis or recensions of the text; Iti: thus; Cet: if; Na: No; Śarīra-rūpaka-vinyasta-gṛhīteḥ: because it is mentioned in a simile referring to the body (Śarīra: body, Rūpaka: simile, Vinyasta: contained, Gṛhīteḥ: because of the reference); Darśayati: (the Śrutis) explain; Ca: also, too, and.

🔗 If it be said that the inferred one (i.e. the Pradhāna of the Sāṅkhyas) is spoken of in some branches (Śākhās) of the Scriptures, by a word (meaning the Pradhāna), we say — No, because (the word ‘Avyakta’) in the metaphor (Rūpaka) of the body, is understood to mean the body. Besides, the Scriptures also say so. — 1.4.1.

1.4.1 L.12 ✅ आनुमानिकमपि अनुमाननिरूपितमपि प्रधानम्, एकेषां शाखिनां शब्दवदुपलभ्यते;
According to the Sāṅkhya opponent, in the case of the followers of some Śākhās (branches of the Vedas) this inferred one (i.e. one deduced as an inference), viz. the Pradhāna, appears to have been indicated by the Scriptural word.

1.4.1 L.13 ✅ काठके हि पठ्यते – ‘महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः’ (KathU.1.3.11) इति;
The Kaṭhopaniṣad says — “The undeveloped i.e. unmanifest (Avyakta) is higher than ‘the great one’ (Mahat i.e. intelligence — a technical term of the Sāṅkhyas), and the Puruṣa is higher than the undeveloped or unmanifest ‘Avyakta’” (KathU.1.3.11).

1.4.1 L.14 ✅ तत्र य एव यन्नामानो यत्क्रमाश्च महदव्यक्तपुरुषाः स्मृतिप्रसिद्धाः, त एवेह प्रत्यभिज्ञायन्ते;
The words ‘Mahat’, ‘Avyakta’ and ‘Puruṣa’ which are well-known in (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti, are here recognized as having been used precisely in the same order and by the same terms,

1.4.1 L.15 ✅ तत्राव्यक्तमिति स्मृतिप्रसिद्धेः,
Therefore, we say that by the word ‘Avyakta’, because it is well-known in (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti,

1.4.1 L.16 ✅ शब्दादिहीनत्वाच्च
And because it is devoid of sound (Śabda) etc.,

1.4.1 L.17 ✅ न व्यक्तमव्यक्तमिति व्युत्पत्तिसम्भवात्,
And because it is etymologically derived thus — ‘that which is not developed is undeveloped’,

1.4.1 L.18 ✅ स्मृतिप्रसिद्धं प्रधानमभिधीयते;
The Pradhāna well-known in (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti is spoken of here, and as it is mentioned in the Scriptures,

1.4.1 L.19 ✅ अतस्तस्य शब्दवत्त्वादशब्दत्वमनुपपन्नम्; तदेव च जगतः कारणं श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायप्रसिद्धिभ्य इति चेत्,
It is not reasonably sustainable to say that it has no Scriptural authority, and therefore, that very same Pradhāna is the cause of the transitory world, by reason of its being well-known in the Scriptures and the Smṛtis, and also because it stands to reason. Because, it is (thus) mentioned in the Scriptures, it is not reasonably sustainable to say that it has no Scriptural authority.

1.4.1 L.20 ✅ नैतदेवम् – न ह्येतत्काठकवाक्यं स्मृतिप्रसिद्धयोर्महदव्यक्तयोरस्तित्वपरम्।
If it is urged therefore (by the Sāṅkhyas) that, that (Pradhāna) precisely is the cause of the transitory world (Jagat), we reply — It is not so. This sentence in the Kaṭhopaniṣad has not the purpose of intimating the existence of ‘the Great One’ (Mahat) and the ‘Undeveloped’ (Avyakta) as known in the (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti.

1.4.1 L.21 ✅ न ह्यत्र यादृशं स्मृतिप्रसिद्धं स्वतन्त्रं कारणं त्रिगुणं प्रधानम्, तादृशं प्रत्यभिज्ञायते;
Nothing like the Pradhāna, which in the (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti is recognized as the independent cause, and which possesses the triple constitutive qualities (of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas) is to be seen here (in the Kāṭhaka passage).

1.4.1 L.22 ✅ शब्दमात्रं ह्यत्राव्यक्तमिति प्रत्यभिज्ञायते;
We know only this much, viz. that here, only the mere word ‘Avyakta’ is used.

1.4.1 L.23 ✅ स च शब्दः – न व्यक्तमव्यक्तमिति – यौगिकत्वात् अन्यस्मिन्नपि सूक्ष्मे सुदुर्लक्ष्ये च प्रयुज्यते;
This word etymologically derived as ‘that which is not developed, is undeveloped’ could be used for anything which is subtle and supersensible (i.e. not perceivable).

1.4.1 L.24 ✅ न चायं कस्मिंश्चिद्रूढः;
Nor is it, that by any settled usage the word is used for any particular thing.

1.4.1 L.25 ✅ या तु प्रधानवादिनां रूढिः, सा तेषामेव पारिभाषिकी सती न वेदार्थनिरूपणे कारणभावं प्रतिपद्यते;
Such a settled usage (of that word) by those who hold the Pradhāna to be the cause (of the transitory world) being confined to the technical terminology (of their own system) would not serve as a means of determining the meaning of the Vedas.

1.4.1 L.26 ✅ न च क्रममात्रसामान्यात्समानार्थप्रतिपत्तिर्भवति, असति तद्रूपप्रत्यभिज्ञाने;
In the absence of a recognition of the nature (Rūpa) of a thing, it is not reasonably sustainable to understand a similar meaning here, simply because an identical order (of words) is present here.

1.4.1 L.27 ✅ न ह्यश्वस्थाने गां पश्यन्नश्वोऽयमित्यमूढोऽध्यवस्यति।
No one who is not a fool, seeing a cow in the very same place where once there was a horse, would conclude that it is a horse (and not a cow).

1.4.1 L.28 ✅ प्रकरणनिरूपणायां चात्र न परपरिकल्पितं प्रधानं प्रतीयते, शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेः;
And when the chapter is scrutinized, it is not understood that the Pradhāna imagined by the Sāṅkhyas is indicated here, because, here in the metaphor (Rūpaka) about the body the word ‘Avyakta’ is understood to mean the body. (In a Rūpaka, the Upameya is identical with the Upamāna.)

1.4.1 L.29 ✅ शरीरं ह्यत्र रथरूपकविन्यस्तमव्यक्तशब्देन परिगृह्यते।
The body which is referred to in the metaphor of the chariot, is here understood by the word ‘Avyakta’.

1.4.1 L.30 ✅ कुतः? प्रकरणात् परिशेषाच्च।
How so? Because of the chapter, and also because of the inference (Pariśeṣa) in as much as it is the only thing remaining (to be identified) which completes the metaphor.

1.4.1 L.31 ✅ तथा ह्यनन्तरातीतो ग्रन्थ आत्मशरीरादीनां रथिरथादिरूपककॢप्तिं दर्शयति –
Even so does the earlier portion of the passage show the idea of the Self and the body being referred to in the metaphor, as the Lord of the chariot and the chariot respectively, thus: —

1.4.1 L.32 ✅ ‘आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु। बुद्धिं तु सारथिं विद्धि मनः प्रग्रहमेव च॥’ (KathU.1.3.3)
‘इन्द्रियाणि हयानाहुर्विषयांस्तेषु गोचरान्। आत्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं भोक्तेत्याहुर्मनीषिणः’ (KathU.1.3.4) इति;
“Know the Self as the Lord of the chariot, the body as the chariot, Intelligence as the charioteer, the mind as the reins,
The sense-organs (are spoken of) as the steeds, and the objects of senses as the course, and he who is so equipped with the body, the sense-organs, and the mind, is called the experiencer, by the wise” (KathU.1.3.3–4).

1.4.1 L.33 ✅ तैश्चेन्द्रियादिभिरसंयतैः संसारमधिगच्छति,
(Then the text shows) that when the sense-organs are not under control, a man attains transmigratory existence,

1.4.1 L.34 ✅ संयतैस्त्वध्वनः पारं तद्विष्णोः परमं पदमाप्नोति इति दर्शयित्वा,
And when the sense-organs are well under control (a man) reaches the end of the road, which is the Highest seat of Viṣṇu,

1.4.1 L.35 ✅ किं तदध्वनः पारं विष्णोः परमं पदमित्यस्यामाकाङ्क्षायाम्,
and thereafter when there is the desire to know as to what that Highest seat of Viṣṇu at the end of the road is,

1.4.1 L.36 ✅ तेभ्य एव प्रकृतेभ्यः इन्द्रियादिभ्यः परत्वेन परमात्मानमध्वनः पारं विष्णोः परमं पदं दर्शयति –
The passage shows, that the Highest seat of Viṣṇu at the end of the road, which is higher than the sense-organs etc. relevant to the passage, is the Highest Self, i.e. the Highest seat of Viṣṇu, thus: —

1.4.1 L.37 ✅ ‘इन्द्रियेभ्यः परा ह्यर्था अर्थेभ्यश्च परं मनः।
मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिर्बुद्धेरात्मा महान्परः॥’ (KathU.1.3.10)
“The sense-objects are higher than the sense-organs, the mind is higher than the sense-objects,
Intelligence is higher than the mind, and the great Self i.e. the Mahān Ātmā (which here means the body) is higher than Intelligence,” (KathU.1.3.10)

1.4.1 L.38 ✅ ‘महतः परमव्यक्तमव्यक्तात्पुरुषः परः।
पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः’ (KathU.1.3.11) इति;
“The undeveloped (Avyakta) is higher than the ‘great’ (Mahat), the Puruṣa is higher than the ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta),
And there is nothing higher than the Puruṣa which is the Terminus ad Quem and the highest evolution (Gatiḥ).” (KathU.1.3.11)

1.4.1 L.39 ✅ तत्र य एवेन्द्रियादयः पूर्वस्यां रथरूपककल्पनायामश्वादिभावेन प्रकृताः, त एवेह परिगृह्यन्ते,
The same sense-organs etc. which in the earlier idea of the metaphor of the chariot, are described as being the steeds etc., have to be understood here also as such,

1.4.1 L.40 ✅ प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रियापरिहाराय।
So as to avoid the fault of giving up what is relevant and of accepting what is not so relevant.

1.4.1 L.41 ✅ तत्र इन्द्रियमनोबुद्धयस्तावत्पूर्वत्र इह च समानशब्दा एव;
As far as the sense-organs, mind, and Intelligence are concerned, they are the same both here and in the metaphor.

1.4.1 L.42 ✅ अर्थास्तु ये शब्दादयो विषया इन्द्रियहयगोचरत्वेन निर्दिष्टाः, तेषां चेन्द्रियेभ्यः परत्वम्,
Sense-objects such as Sound etc. which are referred to in the metaphor as the course or the road for the sense-organs as the steeds are higher than the sense-organs,

1.4.1 L.43 ✅ इन्द्रियाणां ग्रहत्वं विषयाणामतिग्रहत्वम् इति श्रुतिप्रसिद्धेः;
As referred to in the Scriptural passage — “Sense-organs are the tethering ropes i.e. Grahāḥ and sense-objects are higher than them i.e. they are Atigrahāḥ” (BrhUEng.3.2).

1.4.1 L.44 ✅ विषयेभ्यश्च मनसः परत्वम्, मनोमूलत्वाद्विषयेन्द्रियव्यवहारस्य;
The mind is higher than the sense-objects, because the interaction of the sense-organs and sense-objects, has its origin in the mind.

1.4.1 L.45 ✅ मनसस्तु परा बुद्धिः – बुद्धिं ह्यारुह्य भोग्यजातं भोक्तारमुपसर्पति;
Intellect is higher than the mind, because the aggregate of the objects of experience, uses the Intellect as the steed or mount and approaches the experiencer (Bhoktṛ).

1.4.1 L.46 ✅ बुद्धेरात्मा महान्परः – यः, सः ‘आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि’ इति रथित्वेनोपक्षिप्तः।
The great Mahat Ātmā, in the passage “Know the Self (Ātmā) as the Lord of the chariot” referred to as the Lord of the chariot, is higher than the Intellect.

1.4.1 L.47 ✅ कुतः? आत्मशब्दात्, भोक्तुश्च भोगोपकरणात्परत्वोपपत्तेः;
How so? Because the word Self (Ātmā) is used, and as it would be reasonably sustainable to say, that the experiencer is higher than the object of experience.

1.4.1 L.48 ✅ महत्त्वं चास्य स्वामित्वादुपपन्नम्;
It is reasonably sustainable to predicate its greatness, because of its proprietorship (of the body).

1.4.1 L.49 ✅ अथवा – ‘मनो महान्मतिर्ब्रह्मा पूर्बुद्धिः ख्यातिरीश्वरः। प्रज्ञा संविच्चितिश्चैव स्मृतिश्च परिपठ्यते’ इति स्मृतेः,
‘यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै’ (SvetU.6.18)
इति च श्रुतेः, या प्रथमजस्य हिरण्यगर्भस्य बुद्धिः, सा सर्वासां बुद्धीनां परमा प्रतिष्ठा;
Or else, the Intellect of the first-born ‘Hiraṇya-garbha’, as referred to in the Smṛti and the Scriptural passage
“The Intellect of Brahman is variously called as the Mahat (the great one), reflection (Mati), Brahman, the reservoir of all the objects of enjoyment, Intellection, enunciation (Khyāti), the Lord, the highest knowledge, consciousness, thought, remembrance”
And “He who first creates the Brahman and then projects the Vedas to him” (SvetU.6.18),

1.4.1 L.50 ✅ सेह महानात्मेत्युच्यते;
May be understood to be referred to here as the great Self (Mahat).

1.4.1 L.51 ✅ सा च पूर्वत्र बुद्धिग्रहणेनैव गृहीता सती हिरुगिहोपदिश्यते,
This (Intellect of Hiraṇya-garbha) which is already understood by the word ‘Intellect’, is however separately referred to,

1.4.1 L.52 ✅ तस्या अप्यस्मदीयाभ्यो बुद्धिभ्यः परत्वोपपत्तेः;
Because it is reasonably sustainable that it necessarily is higher than the intellect of persons like us.

1.4.1 L.53 ✅ एतस्मिंस्तु पक्षे परमात्मविषयेणैव परेण पुरुषग्रहणेन रथिन आत्मनो ग्रहणं द्रष्टव्यम्,
According to this view, the Self referred to here as the Lord of the chariot, should be understood to be the highest Puruṣa, higher (than the Avyakta) as stated in the later sentence,

1.4.1 L.54 ✅ परमार्थतस्तु परमात्मविज्ञानात्मनोर्भेदाभावात्।
Because in the truest sense there is no distinction between the Highest Self and the cognitional Jīva-Self.

1.4.1 L.55 ✅ तदेवं शरीरमेवैकं परिशिष्यते तेषु।
In this manner (i.e. after having paired off all other words but one in the metaphor and the passage from the Kaṭhopaniṣad) the word ‘Body’ alone remains (to be paired off),

1.4.1 L.56 ✅ इतराणीन्द्रियादीनि प्रकृतान्येव परमपददिदर्शयिषया समनुक्रामन्परिशिष्यमाणेनेहान्त्येनाव्यक्तशब्देन परिशिष्यमाणं प्रकृतं शरीरं दर्शयतीति गम्यते।
And we understand that, the Scriptures having enumerated the sense-organs etc. which are relevant here, with a view to indicate the Highest seat of Viṣṇu, by the last remaining word ‘Avyakta’, the only other remaining word viz. ‘Body’ is indicated.

1.4.1 L.57 ✅ शरीरेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिविषयवेदनासंयुक्तस्य ह्यविद्यावतो भोक्तुः शरीरादीनां रथादिरूपककल्पनया संसारमोक्षगतिनिरूपणेन प्रत्यगात्मब्रह्मावगतिरिह विवक्षिता;
What the Scriptures are desirous of mentioning here, is the realization of the Universal Self i.e. Brahman, by describing the evolution of the experiencer — who is under the influence of Nescience and is attached to a body, sense-organs, mind, intellect, objects of sense-organs, sensations, during the transmigratory existence — towards Final Release.

1.4.1 L.58 ✅ तथा च ‘एष सर्वेषु भूतेषु गूढोऽत्मा न प्रकाशते। दृश्यते त्वग्र्यया बुद्ध्या सूक्ष्मया सूक्ष्मदर्शिभिः’ (KathU.1.3.12)
इति वैष्णवस्य परमपदस्य दुरवगमत्वमुक्त्वा
Similarly, after mentioning the abstruse nature of the Highest seat of Viṣṇu (i.e. Brahman) by the Scriptural passage
“This Self is hidden in all beings and does not manifest itself, but is realized (lit., ‘seen’) by observers possessing acute discernment, by means of their keen and subtle intellect” (KathU.1.3.12),

1.4.1 L.59 ✅ तदवगमार्थं योगं दर्शयति – ‘यच्छेद्वाङ्मनसी प्राज्ञस्तद्यच्छेज्ज्ञान आत्मनि।
ज्ञानमात्मनि महति नियच्छेत्तद्यच्छेच्छान्त आत्मनि’ (KathU.1.3.13) इति।
The Scriptures further show, how ‘Yoga’ is the way to the knowing of it, thus: — “The wise one should withdraw speech into the mind, the mind into the knowing Self,
The knowing Self into the Great Self, and the Great Self into the calm and serene Self” (KathU.1.3.13).

1.4.1 L.60 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – वाचं मनसि संयच्छेत् वागादिबाह्येन्द्रियव्यापारमुत्सृज्य
This means that the wise man should give up the activity of the outward sense-organs,

1.4.1 L.61 ✅ मनोमात्रेणावतिष्ठेत;
And should function only as the mind.

1.4.1 L.62 ✅ मनोऽपि विषयविकल्पाभिमुखं विकल्पदोषदर्शनेन ज्ञानशब्दोदितायां बुद्धावध्यवसायस्वभावायां धारयेत्;
Then he should withdraw the mind intent upon various objects of sense, and should rest it on the Intellect, which is capable of discriminating and deciding properly, and which is understood by the word ‘Knowledge’.

1.4.1 L.63 ✅ तामपि बुद्धिं महत्यात्मनि भोक्तरि अग्र्यायां वा बुद्धौ सूक्ष्मतापादनेन नियच्छेत्;
Then he should withdraw this Intellect into the real Self, the experiencer, and should sublimate it into acute intelligence.

1.4.1 L.64 ✅ महान्तं त्वात्मानं शान्त आत्मनि प्रकरणवति परस्मिन्पुरुषे परस्यां काष्ठायां प्रतिष्ठापयेदिति।
He should then base the ‘Great Self’ on the calm and serene Self which is the relevant subject of this chapter, and is the Highest Puruṣa, and the Terminus ad quem (of all Vedāntas).

1.4.1 L.65 ✅ तदेवं पूर्वापरालोचनायां नास्त्यत्र परपरिकल्पितस्य प्रधानस्यावकाशः॥१॥
Therefore, considered in all the ways, there is no scope for the inferred Pradhāna here. — 1.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
सूक्ष्मं तु तदर्हत्वात्॥१.४.२॥
Sūkṣmaṃ tu tad-arhatvāt.

Sūkṣmam: the subtle, the permanent atoms, the causal body; Tu: but; Tad-arhatvāt: because it can be properly so termed.

🔗 (The word ‘Avyakta’ means) the subtle body, because the word deserves to be used for that. — 1.4.2.

1.4.2 L.1 ✅ उक्तमेतत् – प्रकरणपरिशेषाभ्यां शरीरमव्यक्तशब्दम्, न प्रधानमिति।
It has been said that both by reason of the chapter, and because the words ‘Avyakta’ and ‘body’ are the only two words remaining to be paired off, Avyakta means the body. Not the Pradhāna.

1.4.2 L.2 ✅ इदमिदानीमाशङ्क्यते –
Now, it is further doubted, thus —

1.4.2 L.3 ✅ कथमव्यक्तशब्दार्हत्वं शरीरस्य,
How can the word ‘body’ deserve to have the word ‘Avyakta’ used for indicating itself,

1.4.2 L.4 ✅ यावता स्थूलत्वात्स्पष्टतरमिदं शरीरं व्यक्तशब्दार्हम्,
When a body, because of its being a gross entity (too clearly perceivable by the sense-organs), deserves to have the word ‘developed’ (Vyakta) used for it,

1.4.2 L.5 ✅ अस्पष्टवचनस्त्वव्यक्तशब्द इति;
And when the word ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta) indicates that which is not clearly perceivable?

1.4.2 L.6 ✅ अत उत्तरमुच्यते –
Hence, the answer is thus stated —

1.4.2 L.7 ✅ सूक्ष्मं तु इह कारणात्मना शरीरं विवक्ष्यते,
It is the subtle body, which, as being the cause of the gross body, is here intended to be spoken of,

1.4.2 L.8 ✅ सूक्ष्मस्याव्यक्तशब्दार्हत्वात्;
Because a subtle body deserves to be referred to by the word ‘Avyakta’.

1.4.2 L.9 ✅ यद्यपि स्थूलमिदं शरीरं न स्वयमव्यक्तशब्दमर्हति,
Even though this gross body by itself, does not deserve to be referred to by the word ‘Avyakta’,

1.4.2 L.10 ✅ तथापि तस्य त्वारम्भकं भूतसूक्ष्ममव्यक्तशब्दमर्हति;
Still, the subtle element which is the originator of the gross body, deserves to have the word ‘Avyakta’ used for indicating it.

1.4.2 L.11 ✅ प्रकृतिशब्दश्च विकारे दृष्टः –
It is seen that the word originator or cause (Prakṛti) is used to indicate its own modification (Vikāra),

1.4.2 L.12 ✅ यथा ‘गोभिः श्रीणीत मत्सरम्’ (ऋ. सं. ९-४६-४) इति।
As for instance in the Scriptural passage “Mix the Soma with the cow” (the word ‘cow’ the cause of milk is here used to indicate the effect viz. ‘milk’) (Ṛg-Veda. 9.46.4).

1.4.2 L.13 ✅ श्रुतिश्च – ‘तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत्’ (BrhU.1.4.7)
Similarly, another Scriptural passage — “Verily, all this (world) was then (in its original antecedent condition) unmanifest (i.e. not manifestly distinguished by names and forms)” ((BrhUEng.1.4.7)) —

1.4.2 L.14 ✅ इतीदमेव व्याकृतनामरूपविभिन्नं जगत्प्रागवस्थायां परित्यक्तव्याकृतनामरूपं बीजशक्त्यवस्थमव्यक्तशब्दयोग्यं दर्शयति॥२॥
Shows, that this very transitory world divided into various entities by names and forms, was fit to be indicated by the word ‘Avyakta’, when after having given up all its names and forms (which made it manifest) it relapses into its antecedent condition of a potential seed. — 2.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
तदधीनत्वादर्थवत्॥१.४.३॥
Tad-adhīnatvād arthavat.

Tad: its; Adhīnatvāt: on account of dependence; Arthavat: having a sense or a meaning subserving an end or purpose; is fitting.

🔗 (The antecedent condition of the world) being dependent on that (i.e. the Highest Lord and not the Pradhāna) it makes sense. — 1.4.3.

1.4.3 L.1 ✅ अत्राह – यदि जगदिदमनभिव्यक्तनामरूपं बीजात्मकं प्रागवस्थमव्यक्तशब्दार्हमभ्युपगम्येत,
(Here the Sāṅkhya opponent says) — If it were to be understood, that the transitory world, while it is in its antecedent seed stage in which it is not revealed by names and forms, deserves to have the word ‘undeveloped’ applied to it,

1.4.3 L.2 ✅ तदात्मना च शरीरस्याप्यव्यक्तशब्दार्हत्वं प्रतिज्ञायेत,
And if it were to be similarly declared that the body also as being in itself similar, deserves to have the word ‘undeveloped’ applied to it,

1.4.3 L.3 ✅ स एव तर्हि प्रधानकारणवाद एवं सत्यापद्येत;
Then it would precisely come to this, viz. that it being so, the same Sāṅkhya doctrine that the Pradhāna is the cause (of the transitory world) is arrived at,

1.4.3 L.4 ✅ अस्यैव जगतः प्रागवस्थायाः प्रधानत्वेनाभ्युपगमादिति।
Because it is understood (by us) that this antecedent condition of the transitory world is the Pradhāna.

1.4.3 L.5 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम,
As regards this (argument), we reply — If we were to understand any absolutely independent antecedent condition as such to be the cause of this transitory world,

1.4.3 L.6 ✅ प्रसञ्जयेम तदा प्रधानकारणवादम्;
Then perhaps it would mean, that the doctrine of the Pradhāna being the cause (of the transitory world) is thus arrived at (by us).

1.4.3 L.7 ✅ परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा।
But we understand this antecedent condition of the transitory world to be dependent on the Highest Lord, and not independent in any way.

1.4.3 L.8 ✅ सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या;
It must necessarily be so understood,

1.4.3 L.9 ✅ अर्थवती हि सा;
Because it is only in this way that it can have any meaning,

1.4.3 L.10 ✅ न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति,
As without such supposition (of creationism), the creative activity of the Highest Lord is not established.

1.4.3 L.11 ✅ शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः। मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः।
And in the absence of any such power inherent in the Highest Lord, neither his proceeding to create, nor the non-liability of those who have already attained Final Release to be born again, would be reasonably sustainable.

1.4.3 L.12 ✅ कुतः? विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात्।
How so? Because the potential power of the seed (to sprout up into a new life) is destroyed by the true knowledge.

1.4.3 L.13 ✅ अविद्यात्मिका हि सा बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या
This potential power of the seed is of the nature of Nescience, and it is indicated by the word ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta),

1.4.3 L.14 ✅ परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी महासुषुप्तिः,
And has the Highest Lord as its basis, and is of the nature of an illusion (Māyā), and is the great sleep

1.4.3 L.15 ✅ यस्यां स्वरूपप्रतिबोधरहिताः शेरते संसारिणो जीवाः।
In which the transmigratory Jīva-Selfs unaware of their own true nature (Rūpa) continue to slumber on.

1.4.3 L.16 ✅ तदेतदव्यक्तं क्वचिदाकाशशब्दनिर्दिष्टम् –
This same ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta) is occasionally indicated by the word Ākāśa, as in the Scriptural passage —

1.4.3 L.17 ✅ ‘एतस्मिन्नु खल्वक्षरे गार्ग्याकाश ओतश्च प्रोतश्च’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इति श्रुतेः;
“Verily, Oh Gārgi, in this, the imperishable one, is the Ākāśa woven weft-and-warp-wise” (BrhUEng.3.8.11).

1.4.3 L.18 ✅ क्वचिदक्षरशब्दोदितम् –
Occasionally it is expressed by the word ‘Akṣara’

1.4.3 L.19 ✅ ‘अक्षरात्परतः परः’ (MunU.2.1.2) इति श्रुतेः;
As in the Scriptural passage “Higher than the high Imperishable” (MunU.2.1.2),

1.4.3 L.20 ✅ क्वचिन्मायेति सूचितम् –
And occasionally it is suggested to be the illusory power (Māyā) thus —

1.4.3 L.21 ✅ ‘मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्’ (SvetU.4.10) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्;
“You should know the Prakṛti (the cause) to be but the illusory power — Māyā (and not the Pradhāna of the Sāṅkhyas), and the Highest Lord as the master-illusionist” (SvetU.4.10).

1.4.3 L.22 ✅ अव्यक्ता हि सा माया,
It is this Māyā that is this ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta),

1.4.3 L.23 ✅ तत्त्वान्यत्वनिरूपणस्याशक्यत्वात्।
Because, it is not possible to predicate about it, that it either is different from it (i.e. Brahman) or not different from it.

1.4.3 L.24 ✅ तदिदं ‘महतः परमव्यक्तम्’ इत्युक्तम् –
That is why it is said “The undeveloped is higher than the Mahat” —

1.4.3 L.25 ✅ अव्यक्तप्रभवत्वान्महतः, यदा हैरण्यगर्भी बुद्धिर्महान्।
Because Mahat has its origin in the ‘undeveloped’, when it is understood that the intelligence of Hiraṇya-garbha is Mahat,

1.4.3 L.26 ✅ यदा तु जीवो महान् तदाप्यव्यक्ताधीनत्वाज्जीवभावस्य
And on the other hand, when by Mahat we understand the Jīva-Self, in as much as the existence of the Jīva-Self is dependent upon the undeveloped (Avyakta),

1.4.3 L.27 ✅ महतः परमव्यक्तमित्युक्तम्।
It (i.e. Avyakta) is said to be higher than the Mahat (the great one).

1.4.3 L.28 ✅ अविद्या ह्यव्यक्तम्;
The undeveloped of course is Nescience.

1.4.3 L.29 ✅ अविद्यावत्त्वेनैव जीवस्य सर्वः संव्यवहारः सन्ततो वर्तते।
It is precisely because the Jīva-Self is affected by Nescience, that the constant activity of the Jīva-Self comes about.

1.4.3 L.30 ✅ तच्च अव्यक्तगतं महतः परत्वमभेदोपचारात्तद्विकारे शरीरे परिकल्प्यते;
This, being higher than the Mahat, which is properly applicable to the undeveloped, is figuratively applied to the ‘body’ which is a modification of the undeveloped, because, being cause and effect respectively, they are figuratively considered as not being different from each other.

1.4.3 L.31 ✅ सत्यपि शरीरवदिन्द्रियादीनां तद्विकारत्वाविशेषे शरीरस्यैवाभेदोपचारादव्यक्तशब्देन ग्रहणम्,
Though both the body and the sense-organs have the nature of being modifications, common as between themselves, we have to understand that by the word ‘undeveloped’, only the ‘body’ is meant, because, figuratively no distinction is made between them,

1.4.3 L.32 ✅ इन्द्रियादीनां स्वशब्दैरेव गृहीतत्वात्,
And the sense-organs having been already understood by their having been mentioned directly by their own names,

1.4.3 L.33 ✅ परिशिष्टत्वाच्च शरीरस्य॥
It is the ‘body’ alone that remains (to be paired off with the word ‘Avyakta’).

1.4.3 L.34 ✅ अन्ये तु वर्णयन्ति – द्विविधं हि शरीरं स्थूलं सूक्ष्मं च;
Some others say here — The ‘body’ is of two kinds, the gross and the subtle.

1.4.3 L.35 ✅ स्थूलम्, यदिदमुपलभ्यते;
The gross is the one that is actually perceived (by the sense-organs).

1.4.3 L.36 ✅ सूक्ष्मम्, यदुत्तरत्र वक्ष्यते – ‘तदन्तरप्रतिपत्तौ रंहति सम्परिष्वक्तः प्रश्ननिरूपणाभ्याम्’ (BrS.3.1.1) goes (out of the body) enveloped (with the subtle parts of elements), with a view to obtain a fresh body: even so it is known from the question and answer (in the Scriptures)” (BrS.3.1.1).

1.4.3 L.37 ✅ तच्चोभयमपि शरीरमविशेषात्पूर्वत्र रथत्वेन सङ्कीर्तितम्;
This body of both the kinds was mentioned without any distinction, in the metaphor, as the chariot.

1.4.3 L.38 ✅ इह तु सूक्ष्ममव्यक्तशब्देन परिगृह्यते, सूक्ष्मस्याव्यक्तशब्दार्हत्वात्;
Here we have to understand only the subtle body to be meant by the word ‘undeveloped’, because it deserves to have that word applied to it.

1.4.3 L.39 ✅ तदधीनत्वाच्च बन्धमोक्षव्यवहारस्य जीवात्तस्य परत्वम्;
And because the conditions of bondage and the Final Release of the Jīva-Self depend on it (i.e. on the undeveloped) it is higher than the Jīva-Self,

1.4.3 L.40 ✅ यथार्थाधीनत्वादिन्द्रियव्यापारस्येन्द्रियेभ्यः परत्वमर्थानामिति।
Just as it is said that the sense-objects are higher than the sense-organs, because all the functions of the sense-organs depend upon the sense-objects.

1.4.3 L.41 ✅ तैस्त्वेतद्वक्तव्यम् – अविशेषेण शरीरद्वयस्य पूर्वत्र रथत्वेन सङ्कीर्तितत्वात्,
(With regard to this, we say) It is for them (i.e. those who have just said so above), to explain — when in the foregoing metaphor both these kinds of body are meant to be spoken of as the chariot,

1.4.3 L.42 ✅ समानयोः प्रकृतत्वपरिशिष्टत्वयोः,
And both are relevant, and both together remain to be paired off —

1.4.3 L.43 ✅ कथं सूक्ष्ममेव शरीरमिह गृह्यते, न पुनः स्थूलमपीति।
As to how they can say that the subtle body alone is to be understood here and not the gross body also.

1.4.3 L.44 ✅ आम्नातस्यार्थं प्रतिपत्तुं प्रभवामः, नाम्नातं पर्यनुयोक्तुम्,
If you (our opponents) were to say that you are competent only to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures and not to question them (as to why they have or have not stated any particular thing),

1.4.3 L.45 ✅ आम्नातं चाव्यक्तपदं सूक्ष्ममेव प्रतिपादयितुं शक्नोति, नेतरत्, व्यक्तत्वात्तस्येति चेत्,
And the word ‘undeveloped’ mentioned by the Scriptures means the subtle body and not the other one (i.e. the gross one), because of its being developed,

1.4.3 L.46 ✅ न; एकवाक्यताधीनत्वादर्थप्रतिपत्तेः;
We reply — No, the determination of the meaning (of a word etc.) is dependent upon syntactical harmony.

1.4.3 L.47 ✅ न हीमे पूर्वोत्तरे आम्नाते एकवाक्यतामनापद्य कञ्चिदर्थं प्रतिपादयतः;
These earlier and later Scriptural statements, would be unable to intimate their proper meaning, unless their syntactical harmony is secured,

1.4.3 L.48 ✅ प्रकृतहानाप्रकृतप्रक्रियाप्रसङ्गात्;
As otherwise there would result the predicament of the fault of giving up what is relevant and the acceptance of some new thing which is not so relevant.

1.4.3 L.49 ✅ न चाकाङ्क्षामन्तरेणैकवाक्यताप्रतिपत्तिरस्ति;
There could not be any syntactical harmony (between two sentences) in the absence of an expectancy (of what is stated in one sentence being necessary in the other sentence),

1.4.3 L.50 ✅ तत्राविशिष्टायां शरीरद्वयस्य ग्राह्यत्वाकाङ्क्षायां यथाकाङ्क्षं सम्बन्धेऽनभ्युपगम्यमाने एकवाक्यतैव बाधिता भवति,
And when the expectancy is that both kinds of bodies are necessary to be understood to complete the sense, if one were not to understand the relation to be according to such expectancy, syntactical harmony itself would be vitiated,

1.4.3 L.51 ✅ कुत आम्नातस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपत्तिः?
And in that case, how ever can the meaning of the Scriptures be understood?

1.4.3 L.52 ✅ न चैवं मन्तव्यम् – दुःशोधत्वात्सूक्ष्मस्यैव शरीरस्येह ग्रहणम्,
It should not be thought, that as it is difficult to determine the nature of the subtle body by reason of its abstruseness, that alone should be meant to be understood here,

1.4.3 L.53 ✅ स्थूलस्य तु दृष्टबीभत्सतया सुशोधत्वादग्रहणमिति;
And not the gross one, in as much as its nature is easy to determine, because, its disgustingly loathsome nature is patent —

1.4.3 L.54 ✅ यतो नैवेह शोधनं कस्यचिद्विवक्ष्यते; न ह्यत्र शोधनविधायि किञ्चिदाख्यातमस्ति;
Because it is not intended here to speak about the nature of anything, nor is there a mention of anything which prescribes that,

1.4.3 L.55 ✅ अनन्तरनिर्दिष्टत्वात्तु किं तद्विष्णोः परमं पदमितीदमिह विवक्ष्यते;
While as indicated in the preceding sentence, it is here desired to speak about the highest seat of Viṣṇu,

1.4.3 L.56 ✅ तथाहीदमस्मात्परमिदमस्मात्परमित्युक्त्वा, ‘पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्’ इत्याह;
And surely that is why, that after having said “this is higher than that, and this is higher than that” it is further said that there is nothing higher than the Puruṣa (the Highest Self).

1.4.3 L.57 ✅ सर्वथापि त्वानुमानिकनिराकरणोपपत्तेः, तथा नामास्तु;
Besides, however you take it to be, it does not harm us (i.e. our withers are unwrung), as long as it is reasonably possible to refute the possibility of the Pradhāna ever being meant.

1.4.3 L.58 ✅ न नः किञ्चिच्छिद्यते॥३॥
So, well may it be, as you put it. — 3.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
ज्ञेयत्वावचनाच्च॥१.४.४॥
Jñeyatvāvacanāc ca.

Jñeyatva: that is the object to be known; A-vacanāt: because of non-mention; Ca: and.

🔗 (The undeveloped (Avyakta) is not the Pradhāna), because it is not mentioned (here) as one which should be known. — 1.4.4.

1.4.4 L.1 ✅ ज्ञेयत्वेन च सांख्यैः प्रधानं स्मर्यते, गुणपुरुषान्तरज्ञानात्कैवल्यमिति वदद्भिः –
The Sāṅkhyas, who maintain that perfect isolation (Kaivalya i.e. detachment of the Soul from matter and its identification with the Supreme Spirit) is attained through realizing the difference between the constitutive qualities (Guṇas of the Pradhāna) and the Puruṣa (the Highest Self), also mention in their Smṛti that the Pradhāna is something which should be known.

1.4.4 L.2 ✅ न हि गुणस्वरूपमज्ञात्वा गुणेभ्यः पुरुषस्यान्तरं शक्यं ज्ञातुमिति;
They also maintain, that it is not possible to know the difference between the constitutive qualities (Guṇas) and the Puruṣa, without knowing the nature of the constitutive qualities.

1.4.4 L.3 ✅ क्वचिच्च विभूतिविशेषप्राप्तये प्रधानं ज्ञेयमिति स्मरन्ति।
Occasionally their Smṛti also says, that in order to be an exalted prototype (Vibūti) and to acquire special superhuman powers, the Pradhāna should be known.

1.4.4 L.4 ✅ न चेदमिहाव्यक्तं ज्ञेयत्वेनोच्यते;
Now the undeveloped (Avyakta) is not however mentioned here as something which should be known.

1.4.4 L.5 ✅ पदमात्रं ह्यव्यक्तशब्दः,
Only the mere word ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta) occurs here.

1.4.4 L.6 ✅ नेहाव्यक्तं ज्ञातव्यमुपासितव्यं चेति वाक्यमस्ति;
There is no sentence here to the effect that the undeveloped (Avyakta) should be known or devoutly meditated upon.

1.4.4 L.7 ✅ न चानुपदिष्टं पदार्थज्ञानं पुरुषार्थमिति शक्यं प्रतिपत्तुम्;
Nor would it be reasonably sustainable to say that the knowledge of anything about which there is no instruction (in the Scriptures), could be for the attainment of the chief object of man (i.e. Puruṣārtha).

1.4.4 L.8 ✅ तस्मादपि नाव्यक्तशब्देन प्रधानमभिधीयते;
Because of this also, by the word undeveloped (Avyakta), Pradhāna is not spoken of.

1.4.4 L.9 ✅ अस्माकं तु रथरूपककॢप्तशरीराद्यनुसरणेन विष्णोरेव परमं पदं दर्शयितुमयमुपन्यास इत्यनवद्यम्॥४॥
On the other hand, so far as our view is concerned, this statement being intended for indicating the Highest seat of Viṣṇu, by following up the idea of the metaphor of the chariot, our view is flawless. — 4.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
वदतीति चेन्न प्राज्ञो हि प्रकरणात्॥१.४.५॥
Vadatīti cen na prājño hi prakaraṇāt.

Vadati: the verse or the text states; Iti: thus; Cet: if. Na: no; Prājñaḥ: the intellect supreme; Hi: because; Prakaraṇāt: from the context, because of the general subject-matter of the Chapter.

🔗 (If the Sāṅkhyas were to say) that the Scriptures mention (that the undeveloped i.e. Pradhāna should be known), we reply — No, because of the chapter (which indicates) The Intelligential Self (i.e. Prājña). — 1.4.5.

1.4.5 L.1 ✅ अत्राह सांख्यः – ज्ञेयत्वावचनात्, इत्यसिद्धम्।
Here the Sāṅkhya says — (the allegation of the Vedāntins) that the Scriptures do not mention the 'undeveloped’ (Pradhāna of the Sāṅkhyas) as a thing to be known, is not proved.

1.4.5 L.2 ✅ कथम्? श्रूयते ह्युत्तरत्राव्यक्तशब्दोदितस्य प्रधानस्य ज्ञेयत्ववचनम् –
How so? Because, further on in the Scriptures, there is a passage which says that the Pradhāna which is understood by the word ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta), should be known thus —

1.4.5 L.3 ✅ ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथारसं नित्यमगन्धवच्च यत्। अनाद्यनन्तं महतः परं ध्रुवं निचाय्य तं मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते’ (KathU.2.3.15) इति;
“One who has perceived, that the undeveloped (Avyakta) which is sans-sound, sans-touch, sans-form, sans-decay and also sans-taste, and which is eternal and sans-smell, sans-beginning and sans-end, and which is higher than the Great (Mahat), and is constant, is released from the jaws of Death” (KathU.2.3.15).

1.4.5 L.4 ✅ अत्र हि यादृशं शब्दादिहीनं प्रधानं महतः परं स्मृतौ निरूपितम्,
The same Pradhāna, which in the (Sāṅkhya) Smṛti is said to be sans-sound etc., and to be higher than the Great (Mahat),

1.4.5 L.5 ✅ तादृशमेव निचाय्यत्वेन निर्दिष्टम्; तस्मात्प्रधानमेवेदम्;
Is here indicated as the one that should be perceived, and therefore, this (i.e. the undeveloped ‘Avyakta’) is nothing else but Pradhāna,

1.4.5 L.6 ✅ तदेव चाव्यक्तशब्दनिर्दिष्टमिति।
And the same is here indicated by the word ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta).

1.4.5 L.7 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – नेह प्रधानं निचाय्यत्वेन निर्दिष्टम्;
To this objection of the Sāṅkhyas), we reply — It is not the Pradhāna that is indicated here as the one to be perceived.

1.4.5 L.8 ✅ प्राज्ञो हीह परमात्मा निचाय्यत्वेन निर्दिष्ट इति गम्यते।
It is understood, that it is the intelligential Highest Self that is here indicated as the one to be perceived.

1.4.5 L.9 ✅ कुतः? प्रकरणात्;
How is it so? Because of the chapter.

1.4.5 L.10 ✅ प्राज्ञस्य हि प्रकरणं विततं वर्तते –
Here, it is a chapter about the intelligential Highest Self in extenso.

1.4.5 L.11 ✅ ‘पुरुषान्न परं किञ्चित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः’ इत्यादिनिर्देशात्,
Because it is indicated by the Scriptures, thus — “Nothing is higher than the Puruṣa (the Highest Self), that is the Terminus ad quem and the Highest goal” etc.,

1.4.5 L.12 ✅ ‘एष सर्वेषु भूतेषु गूढोऽऽत्मा न प्रकाशते’ इति च दुर्ज्ञानत्ववचनेन तस्यैव ज्ञेयत्वाकाङ्क्षणात्,
And the passage “This Self is hidden in all beings and does not make itself manifest”, which speaks of abstruseness, shows that there precisely is a desire to know that (Highest Self) only.

1.4.5 L.13 ✅ ‘यच्छोद्वाङ्मनसी प्राज्ञः’ इति च तज्ज्ञानायैव वागादिसंयमस्य विहितत्वात्,
Besides the passage “One should draw the Speech into the mind” enjoins, that Speech etc., should be controlled for the purpose of understanding that (Highest Self) only,

1.4.5 L.14 ✅ मृत्युमुखप्रमोक्षणफलत्वाच्च;
Because it is said to have the fruit in the form of release from the jaws of Death.

1.4.5 L.15 ✅ न हि प्रधानमात्रं निचाय्य मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यत इति सांख्यैरिष्यते;
It is not maintained by the Sāṅkhyas, that it is by knowing the Pradhāna only that one is released from the jaws of Death.

1.4.5 L.16 ✅ चेतनात्मविज्ञानाद्धि मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यत इति तेषामभ्युपगमः;
[The promise of those (passages) is that by intimate knowledge of the conscious-self indeed one is released from the jaws of (continual) death. (Untranslated by both Apte and Panoli)]

1.4.5 L.17 ✅ सर्वेषु वेदान्तेषु प्राज्ञस्यैवात्मनोऽशब्दादिधर्मत्वमभिलप्यते;
In all Vedānta passages, the quality of being sans-sound etc., is mentioned as belonging to the intelligential Highest Self alone.

1.4.5 L.18 ✅ तस्मान्न प्रधानस्यात्र ज्ञेयत्वमव्यक्तशब्दनिर्दिष्टत्वं वा॥५॥
Therefore, it is not the Pradhāna that is either spoken of as a thing to be known, or indicated by the word ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta). — 5.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
त्रयाणामेव चैवमुपन्यासः प्रश्नश्च॥१.४.६॥
Trayāṇām eva caivam upanyāsaḥ praśnaś ca.

Trayāṇām: of the three, namely three boons asked by Naciketas; Eva: only; Ca: and; Evam: thus; Upanyāsaḥ: mentioned, (presentation by way of answer); Praśnaḥ: question; Ca: and.

🔗 Besides (in the Scriptures) there is mention only of three things in this way and the questions also are three only, (and none about the Pradhāna). — 1.4.6.

1.4.6 L.1 ✅ इतश्च न प्रधानस्याव्यक्तशब्दवाच्यत्वं ज्ञेयत्वं वा;
This is again why neither the Pradhāna is indicated by the word ‘undeveloped’ (Avyakta), nor is it (mentioned as) the thing to be known.

1.4.6 L.2 ✅ यस्मात्त्रयाणामेव पदार्थानामग्निजीवपरमात्मनामस्मिन्ग्रन्थे कठवल्लीषु वरप्रदानसामर्थ्याद्वक्तव्यतयोपन्यासो दृश्यते;
Because we see that in the Kaṭha-valli there is mention about three things, viz. the (sacrificial) Fire, the embodied Jīva-Self, and the Highest Self only, as the things to be spoken of on the strength of the conferment of the boons (by Yama to Naciketas).

1.4.6 L.3 ✅ तद्विषय एव च प्रश्नः;
The question also refers to these things only,

1.4.6 L.4 ✅ नातोऽन्यस्य प्रश्न उपन्यासो वास्ति;
And there is neither a statement nor a question about any other thing.

1.4.6 L.5 ✅ तत्र तावत् ‘स त्वमग्निं स्वर्ग्यमध्येषि मृत्यो प्रब्रूहि तं श्रद्दधानाय मह्यम्’ (KathU.1.1.13) इत्यग्निविषयः प्रश्नः;
With respect to this, the question relating to Agni is as follows: — “Oh Death, thou knowest the (sacrificial) Fire which leads to heaven. Do please tell me who have faith, about it” (KathU.1.1.13).

1.4.6 L.6 ✅ ‘येयं प्रेते विचिकित्सा मनुष्येऽस्तीत्येके नायमस्तीति चैके।
एतद्विद्यामनुशिष्टस्त्वयाहं वराणामेष वरस्तृतीयः’ (KathU.1.1.20) इति जीवविषयः प्रश्नः;
The question relating to the Jīva-Self is as follows: — “The doubt that men have when a person has departed (i.e. has died) — viz. some say he exists and others that he does not exist — ,
That is what, taught by you, I desire to know, and this would be the third of the three boons (granted by you)” (KathU.1.1.20).

1.4.6 L.7 ✅ ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात्।
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद’ (KathU.1.2.14) इति परमात्मविषयः;
The question relating to the Highest Self is as follows: — “That which is different (Anyatra) from the mere following of the Śāstras (i.e. Dharma), its fruit and the agent etc., and that which is different (Anyatra) from the following of that which is against the Śāstra (i.e. Adharma) and that which is different from both the effect (Kṛta) and the cause (Akṛta),
And is also different from the past and the future (including the present), tell me about that which you know” (KathU.1.2.14).

1.4.6 L.8 ✅ प्रतिवचनमपि – ‘लोकादिमग्निं तमुवाच तस्मै या इष्टका यावतीर्वा यथा वा’ (KathU.1.1.15) इत्यग्निविषयम्;
The reply to the question about the (Sacrificial) Fire, is as follows: — “(Death then told Naciketas) about the Fire, which was the first amongst the worlds, and also about the sort of, and the requisite number of, bricks (for building the Vedi (altar) on which fire is lighted)”. (KathU.1.1.15).

1.4.6 L.9 ✅ ‘हन्त त इदं प्रवक्ष्यामि गुह्यं ब्रह्म सनातनम्।
यथा च मरणं प्राप्य आत्मा भवति गौतम।’ (KathU.2.2.6)
‘योनिमन्ये प्रपद्यन्ते शरीरत्वाय देहिनः।
स्थाणुमन्येऽनुसंयन्ति यथाकर्म यथाश्रुतम्’ (KathU.2.2.7) इति व्यवहितं जीवविषयम्;
Then further on at some distance (from the information about the Fire, Death spoke to Naciketas) at some length about the Jīva-Self, thus: — “Very well, Oh Gautama, I will tell you about that mysterious and ancient Brahman,
And what the Jīva-Self becomes, after a person has met his death.” (KathU.2.2.6)
“Some enter a womb to be born as the (mobile) embodied Jīva-Selfs,
While some others become inanimate matter (i.e. stationary living beings), according to their Karma (i.e. their meritorious and unmeritorious actions) and according to the extent of their attainment of knowledge”. (KathU.2.2.7).

1.4.6 L.10 ✅ ‘न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चित्’ (KathU.1.2.18) इत्यादिबहुप्रपञ्चं परमात्मविषयम्।
And then (Death tells Naciketas) at great length about the Highest Self, thus: — “The knowing-Self is neither born nor does it die” (KathU.1.2.18).

1.4.6 L.11 ✅ नैवं प्रधानविषयः प्रश्नोऽस्ति।
There is no such similar question about Pradhāna

1.4.6 L.12 ✅ अपृष्टत्वाच्चानुपन्यसनीयत्वं तस्येति॥
And therefore there is thus no necessity to refer to it.

1.4.6 L.13 ✅ अत्राह – योऽयमात्मविषयः प्रश्नः – ‘येयं प्रेते विचिकित्सा मनुष्येऽस्ति’ इति, किं स एवायम् ‘अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मात्’ इति पुनरनुकृष्यते,
(Here the opponent says) — How is it that the question (asked by Naciketas) about the Self thus — “The doubt that men have when a person dies etc.”, is again brought forward in the passage — “That which is different Anyatra) from the mere following of the Śāstras etc.”?

1.4.6 L.14 ✅ किं वा ततोऽन्योऽयमपूर्वः प्रश्न उत्थाप्यत इति।
Or, is it [regarding this ‘different’], that there is an entirely new question?

1.4.6 L.15 ✅ किं चातः?
(The Vedāntin retorts) — Assuming it is an entirely new question, so what?

1.4.6 L.16 ✅ स एवायं प्रश्नः पुनरनुकृष्यत इति यद्युच्येत,
(The opponent Sāṅkhya says) — If you (the Vedāntin) were to say that the same question is again brought forward,

1.4.6 L.17 ✅ तदा द्वयोरात्मविषययोः प्रश्नयोरेकतापत्तेरग्निविषय आत्मविषयश्च द्वावेव प्रश्नावित्यतो न वक्तव्यं त्रयाणां प्रश्नोपन्यासाविति;
Then both these questions about the Self, being virtually one and the same in substance, it would come to this, that there are only two questions, one about the (Sacrificial) Fire, and the other about the Self, and you should not therefore say that there is a statement about three questions and answers.

1.4.6 L.18 ✅ अथान्योऽयमपूर्वः प्रश्न उत्थाप्यत इत्युच्येत,
And on the other hand, if you were to suggest that it is a distinctly new question,

1.4.6 L.19 ✅ ततो यथैव वरप्रदानव्यतिरेकेण प्रश्नकल्पनायामदोषः;
Then, if in imagining a question thus beyond the scope of the boon you do not notice any fault,

1.4.6 L.20 ✅ एवं प्रश्नव्यतिरेकेणापि प्रधानोपन्यासकल्पनायामदोषः स्यादिति॥
Then you have to admit, that there would not be any fault either, in holding, that there is here a statement about Pradhāna, even though it would be beyond the scope of the boon.

1.4.6 L.21 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – नैव वयमिह वरप्रदानव्यतिरेकेण प्रश्नं कञ्चित्कल्पयामः, वाक्योपक्रमसामर्थ्यात्;
(To this objection of the Sāṅkhya) we reply — We say on the strength of the introductory passage, that we are not here imagining any question different from those involved in connection with the granting of the boon,

1.4.6 L.22 ✅ वरप्रदानोपक्रमा हि मृत्युनचिकेतःसंवादरूपा वाक्यप्रवृत्तिः आ समाप्तेः कठवल्लीनां लक्ष्यते;
And beginning with the conferment of the boons, it is observed that there is the same one tendency running through the dialogue between Death and Naciketas, right till the end of the Kaṭha-vallī.

1.4.6 L.23 ✅ मृत्युः किल नचिकेतसे पित्रा प्रहिताय त्रीन्वरान्प्रददौ;
Death has conferred three boons on Naciketas who was sent to Death by his father.

1.4.6 L.24 ✅ नचिकेताः किल तेषां प्रथमेन वरेण पितुः सौमनस्यं वव्रे,
By the first boon Naciketas desired the re-establishment of his father’s benignity (towards himself).

1.4.6 L.25 ✅ द्वितीयेनाग्निविद्याम्,
By the second boon he asked for instruction about the (sacrificial) Fire,

1.4.6 L.26 ✅ तृतीयेनात्मविद्याम् – ‘येयं प्रेते’ इति ‘वराणामेष वरस्तृतीयः’ (KathU.1.1.20) इति लिङ्गात्।
And by the third he has asked for the knowledge of the Self which is understood from the indicatory mark “This is the third of the boons”, in the passage beginning with “The doubt that men have when a person has departed i.e. he has died” (KathU.1.1.20).

1.4.6 L.27 ✅ तत्र यदि ‘अन्यत्र धर्मात्’ इत्यन्योऽयमपूर्वः प्रश्न उत्थाप्येत,
So, if it were to be said that the passage “That which is different (Anyatra) from the mere following of the Śāstras” suggests an entirely new and an extraordinary question,

1.4.6 L.28 ✅ ततो वरप्रदानव्यतिरेकेणापि प्रश्नकल्पनाद्वाक्यं बाध्येत।
Then by imagining that there is a question beyond the scope of the boons conferred, the sentence would be vitiated.

1.4.6 L.29 ✅ ननु प्रष्टव्यभेदादपूर्वोऽयं प्रश्नो भवितुमर्हति;
But (says the Sāṅkhya opponent), this question deserves to be a distinctly new one, because the subject matter about which the question is asked is different.

1.4.6 L.30 ✅ पूर्वो हि प्रश्नो जीवविषयः, येयं प्रेते विचिकित्सा मनुष्येऽस्ति नास्तीति विचिकित्साभिधानात्;
The former question is about the Jīva-Self, because a doubt is expressed in the passage — “The doubt that men have when a man dies, whether he exists (after death) or does not so exist”.

1.4.6 L.31 ✅ जीवश्च धर्मादिगोचरत्वात् न ‘अन्यत्र धर्मात्’ इति प्रश्नमर्हति;
Now the Jīva-Self, being connected with Dharma, does not deserve to be the subject of a question such as “being beyond Dharma”,

1.4.6 L.32 ✅ प्राज्ञस्तु धर्माद्यतीतत्वात् ‘अन्यत्र धर्मात्’ इति प्रश्नमर्हति;
While the intelligential Self which is beyond Dharma etc. could very properly be the subject of such a question as “being beyond the Dharma” etc.

1.4.6 L.33 ✅ प्रश्नच्छाया च न समाना लक्ष्यते,
Nor is the nature (lit., complexion) of the questions similar.

1.4.6 L.34 ✅ पूर्वस्यास्तित्वनास्तित्वविषयत्वात्, उत्तरस्य धर्माद्यतीतवस्तुविषयत्वाच्च;
The former question is concerned with the existence or nonexistence (of the Jīva-Self after death), and the latter question is concerned with something which is beyond Dharma.

1.4.6 L.35 ✅ तस्मात्प्रत्यभिज्ञानाभावात्प्रश्नभेदः;
Therefore, because of the want of identity (between the two questions) the questions are different

1.4.6 L.36 ✅ न पूर्वस्यैवोत्तरत्रानुकर्षणमिति चेत्,
And it cannot be said that the former question is brought forward.

1.4.6 L.37 ✅ न; जीवप्राज्ञयोरेकत्वाभ्युपगमात्;
(To this objection of the Sāṅkhya), we reply — No, because it is understood that the Jīva-Self and the Intelligential Self are but one and the same.

1.4.6 L.38 ✅ भवेत्प्रष्टव्यभेदात्प्रश्नभेदो यद्यन्यो जीवः प्राज्ञात्स्यात्;
Were the Jīva-Self however to be different from the Intelligential Self, then it may well be that because of the difference in the subjects about which the questions are asked, the questions also would be different.

1.4.6 L.39 ✅ न त्वन्यत्वमस्ति, ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यादिश्रुत्यन्तरेभ्यः;
But they are not so different (from each other), because of the other Scriptural passages such as — “That thou art” etc.

1.4.6 L.40 ✅ इह च ‘अन्यत्र धर्मात्’ इत्यस्य प्रश्नस्य प्रतिवचनम्
Here the reply to the question, “That which is different (Anyatra) from the mere following of the Śāstras”,

1.4.6 L.41 ✅ ‘न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चित्’ (KathU.1.2.18) इति
Viz. that “The intelligential Self is neither born nor does it die”,

1.4.6 L.42 ✅ जन्ममरणप्रतिषेधेन प्रतिपाद्यमानं शारीरपरमेश्वरयोरभेदं दर्शयति;
Which is propounded by the denial of the birth or death (of the Jīva-Self), shows that the Jīva-Self and the Highest Lord are not different from each other.

1.4.6 L.43 ✅ सति हि प्रसङ्गे प्रतिषेधो भागी भवति;
Denial becomes logically necessary, only when (in the absence of such a denial) a predicament arises.

1.4.6 L.44 ✅ प्रसङ्गश्च जन्ममरणयोः शरीरसंस्पर्शाच्छारीरस्य भवति, न परमेश्वरस्य;
The predicament of birth and death becomes possible in the case of the Jīva-Self owing to its contact with a body, but not in the case of the Highest Self i.e. the Parameśvara.

1.4.6 L.45 ✅ तथा – ‘स्वप्नान्तं जागरितान्तं चोभौ येनानुपश्यति। महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति’ (KathU.2.1.4) इति
स्वप्नजागरितदृशो जीवस्यैव महत्त्वविभुत्वविशेषणस्य मननेन शोकविच्छेदं दर्शयन्न प्राज्ञादन्यो जीव इति दर्शयति;
Similarly the Scriptures show, how the Jīva-Self is not different from the Intelligential Self, by showing that there is complete elimination of sorrow or grief as a result of devout contemplation of the Intelligential Self which is characterized by the attributes of greatness and Omnipresence, by the Jīva-Self which experiences the conditions of dreams and wakefulness, by the passage —
“The wise one, by realizing that (the Intelligential Highest Self) by the help of which the Jīva-Self perceives the conditions both of dreams and wakefulness, is the one which is great and omnipresent, does not grieve” (KathU.2.1.4).

1.4.6 L.46 ✅ प्राज्ञविज्ञानाद्धि शोकविच्छेद इति वेदान्तसिद्धान्तः;
And the conclusion of all Vedānta passages is that grief is eliminated by the realization of the Intelligential Highest Self.

1.4.6 L.47 ✅ तथाग्रे – ‘यदेवेह तदमुत्र यदमुत्र तदन्विह। मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (KathU.2.1.10) इति
जीवप्राज्ञभेददृष्टिमपवदति;
Similarly, in the foregoing portion, the Scriptures censure the looking upon the Jīva-Self and the Intelligential Highest Self as different, thus: —
“Whatever is here is there and vice versa, and any one who sees these as different from each other, goes from death to death” (KathU.2.1.10).

1.4.6 L.48 ✅ तथा जीवविषयस्यास्तित्वनास्तित्वप्रश्नस्यानन्तरम्
Similarly, after the question on the subject of the existence or non-existence of the Jīva-Self after death,

1.4.6 L.49 ✅ ‘अन्यं वरं नचिकेतो वृणीष्व’
इत्यारभ्य मृत्युना तैस्तैः कामैः प्रलोभ्यमानोऽपि नचिकेता यदा न चचाल,
When Death saw that Naciketas could not be made to swerve (from his inquiry) by the various temptations in the form of the objects of desire (such as women etc.), then, by saying to Naciketas (who was desirous of acquiring knowledge), “Oh Naciketas, you may ask for another boon from me” etc.,

1.4.6 L.50 ✅ तदैनं मृत्युरभ्युदयनिःश्रेयसविभागप्रदर्शनेन
Death, after explaining to Naciketas the difference between secular prosperity and Final Beatitude, and the difference between Nescience and Knowledge,

1.4.6 L.51 ✅ विद्याविद्याविभागप्रदर्शनेन च ‘विद्याभीप्सिनं नचिकेतसं मन्ये न त्वा कामा बहवोऽलोलुपन्त’ (KathU.1.2.4) इतिप्रशस्य
And having praised Naciketas who was desirous of acquiring Knowledge, thus — “These various objects of desire failed to tempt you” (KathU.1.2.4),

1.4.6 L.52 ✅ प्रश्नमपि तदीयं प्रशंसन्यदुवाच – ‘तं दुर्दर्शं गूढमनुप्रविष्टं गुहाहितं गह्वरेष्ठं पुराणम्। अध्यात्मयोगाधिगमेन देवं मत्वा धीरो हर्षशोकौ जहाति’ (KathU.1.2.12) इति,
And also having praised his question, says thus — “The wise man realizing the Deva (i.e. the Ātmā, the Self), which is difficult to understand, and which has entered into a deep forest, and is hidden in a cave, and dwells in an abyss, and is ancient, by means of Adhyātma Yoga (which consists in withdrawing the mind from the sense-organs and fixing it on the Ātmā) gets rid of pleasure and sorrow” (KathU.1.2.12).

1.4.6 L.53 ✅ तेनापि जीवप्राज्ञयोरभेद एवेह विवक्षित इति गम्यते;
From this also we understand that it is here desired to speak about the non-difference between the Jīva-Self and the Intelligential Highest Self.

1.4.6 L.54 ✅ यत्प्रश्ननिमित्तां च प्रशंसां महतीं मृत्योः प्रत्यपद्यत नचिकेताः,
Now if Naciketas after receiving praise from Death in connection with his particular question,

1.4.6 L.55 ✅ यदि तं विहाय प्रशंसानन्तरमन्यमेव प्रश्नमुपक्षिपेत्,
Were afterwards to give up that question and were to be supposed to raise an entirely new question,

1.4.6 L.56 ✅ अस्थान एव सा सर्वा प्रशंसा प्रसारिता स्यात्;
Then all this praise will have been showered (by Death) in the wrong place.

1.4.6 L.57 ✅ तस्मात् ‘येयं प्रेते’ इत्यस्यैव प्रश्नस्यैतदनुकर्षणम् ‘अन्यत्र धर्मात्’ इति।
Therefore (it must be understood) that the same question (that has been asked by Naehiketa) in the passage “The doubt that men have etc.” is carried forward in the passage “That which is different (Anyatra) from the mere following of the Śāstras”.

1.4.6 L.58 ✅ यत्तु प्रश्नच्छायावैलक्षण्यमुक्तम्, तददूषणम्,
The objection that the nature (i.e. complexion) of the questions appears to be dissimilar, is no fault,

1.4.6 L.59 ✅ तदीयस्यैव विशेषस्य पुनः पृच्छ्यमानत्वात्;
Because (in the second question) a special feature of that about which the first question is asked, is asked for by the second question,

1.4.6 L.60 ✅ पूर्वत्र हि देहादिव्यतिरिक्तस्यात्मनोऽस्तित्वं पृष्टम्, उत्तरत्र तु तस्यैवासंसारित्वं पृच्छ्यत इति;
Viz. that the former question refers to the existence or otherwise of the Jīva-Self as a separate entity from the body, and the latter question refers to the non-transmigratory condition or otherwise of the same Self.

1.4.6 L.61 ✅ यावद्ध्यविद्या न निवर्तते,
As long as Nescience is not removed,

1.4.6 L.62 ✅ तावद्धर्मादिगोचरत्वं जीवस्य जीवत्वं च न निवर्तते,
The Jīva-Self is possessed of all the attributes, and the condition of its being the Jīva-Self is not removed,

1.4.6 L.63 ✅ तन्निवृत्तौ तु प्राज्ञ एव ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इति श्रुत्या प्रत्याय्यते;
But when once Nescience is removed, the Jīva-Self is caused to be understood as the Intelligential Highest Self, by the Scriptural passage — “That thou art” etc.

1.4.6 L.64 ✅ न चाविद्यावत्त्वे तदपगमे च वस्तुनः कश्चिद्विशेषोऽस्ति;
Both during such influence and after it is removed, the entity (i.e. the Self) is the same all through and not different.

1.4.6 L.65 ✅ यथा कश्चित्संतमसे पतितां काञ्चिद्रज्जुमहिं मन्यमानो भीतो वेपमानः पलायते,
Just as a man mistaking a rope lying about in semi-darkness to be a snake, is frightened and tremblingly runs away,

1.4.6 L.66 ✅ तं चापरो ब्रूयात् ‘मा भैषीः नायमहिः रज्जुरेव’ इति,
But when another person assures him that it is merely a rope and not a snake,

1.4.6 L.67 ✅ स च तदुपश्रुत्याहिकृतं भयमुत्सृजेद्वेपथुं पलायनं च,
And that he should not be frightened, overcomes his own fear on hearing so and ceases to tremble and to run away,

1.4.6 L.68 ✅ न त्वहिबुद्धिकाले तदपगमकाले च
While both during the time he wrongly fancied the rope to be a snake, and after his mistaken notion about it is removed,

1.4.6 L.69 ✅ वस्तुनः कश्चिद्विशेषः स्यात् –
The thing (the rope) was the same all through and without any difference,

1.4.6 L.70 ✅ तथैवैतदपि द्रष्टव्यम्;
So should this be understood.

1.4.6 L.71 ✅ ततश्च ‘न जायते म्रियते वा’ इत्येवमाद्यपि भवत्यस्तित्वनास्तित्वप्रश्नस्य प्रतिवचनम्।
Hence the passage — “It is neither born nor does it die” is the reply to the question about the existence of the Self (after death).

1.4.6 L.72 ✅ सूत्रं त्वविद्याकल्पितजीवप्राज्ञभेदापेक्षया योजयितव्यम् –
The Sūtra should be utilized on the assumption of the difference between the Jīva-Self and the Intelligential Highest Self as imagined through Nescience.

1.4.6 L.73 ✅ एकत्वेऽपि ह्यात्मविषयस्य प्रश्नस्य
Even though the question is the same i.e. about the Self,

1.4.6 L.74 ✅ प्रायणावस्थायां देहव्यतिरिक्तास्तित्वमात्रविचिकित्सनात्कर्तृत्वादिसंसारस्वभावानपोहनाच्च पूर्वस्य पर्यायस्य जीवविषयत्वमुत्प्रेक्ष्यते,
Still in the earlier part, the question refers to the Jīva-Self, because of the discussion therein about the existence of the Self as separated from the body during the condition of death and also because the notion about its being an agent etc. during the condition of transmigratory existence is not then removed.

1.4.6 L.75 ✅ उत्तरस्य तु धर्माद्यत्ययसङ्कीर्तनात्प्राज्ञविषयत्वमिति।
The later passage should be understood to be with regard to its condition of being the Intelligential Highest Self, as it is described to be beyond all attributes etc.

1.4.6 L.76 ✅ ततश्च युक्ता अग्निजीवपरमात्मकल्पना;
Hence it is proper to understand that the Scriptures here make a statement about the (sacrificial) Fire, the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self.

1.4.6 L.77 ✅ प्रधानकल्पनायां तु न वरप्रदानं न प्रश्नो न प्रतिवचनमिति वैषम्यम्॥६॥
With regard to the supposition (of the Sāṅkhyas) that the Pradhāna is meant here, it should be seen that there is no boon concerning the Pradhāna, nor is there a question or a reply (about it) and this exactly is the disparity. — 6.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
महद्वच्च॥१.४.७॥
Mahadvac ca.

Mahadvat: like the Mahat; Ca: and.

🔗 Also, like the word Mahat (the great one), (the word Avyakta is not used here in the sense of the Sāṅkhya terminology). — 1.4.7.

1.4.7 L.1 ✅ यथा महच्छब्दः सांख्यैः सत्तामात्रेऽपि प्रथमजे प्रयुक्तः, न तमेव वैदिकेऽपि प्रयोगेऽभिधत्ते,
‘बुद्धेरात्मा महान्परः’ (KathU.1.3.10)
‘महान्तं विभुमात्मानम्’ (KathU.1.2.22)
‘वेदाहमेतं पुरुषं महान्तम्’ (SvetU.3.8)
इत्येवमादावात्मशब्दप्रयोगादिभ्यो हेतुभ्यः;
The word Mahat is not used in the Vedic literature in the same sense in which it is used by the Sāṅkhyas, viz. intelligence (Buddhi), the first created entity (Sattā) which is (of the nature of) mere existence, (and by means of which a person obtains experience (Bhoga) and heaven (Apavarga),
The reason being that in the following passages the word Ātmā is used (along with the word Mahat) thus: —
“The great Self (Ātmā) is higher than intelligence” (KathU.1.3.10),
“The great omnipresent Self (Ātmā)” (KathU.1.2.22),
“I know this great Puruṣa” (SvetU.3.8).

1.4.7 L.2 ✅ तथाव्यक्तशब्दोऽपि न वैदिके प्रयोगे प्रधानमभिधातुमर्हति।
Similarly the word ‘Avyakta’ also, as used in the Vedic literature does not deserve to indicate the Pradhāna.

1.4.7 L.3 ✅ अतश्च नास्त्यानुमानिकस्य शब्दवत्त्वम्॥७॥
Hence also the inferred Pradhāna has no Scriptural authority. — 7.

– 32. Ānumānika-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.4.08 Su..09 Su..10

←Prev Next→
चमसवदविशेषात्॥१.४.८॥
Camasavad aviśeṣāt.

Camasavat: like a cup; A-viśeṣāt: because there is no special characteristic.

🔗 (The word Ajā is used in the Scriptural passage) without its having any special significance (as Pradhāna). The case is similar to the case of the sacrificial ladle (Camasa). — 1.4.8.

1.4.8 L.1 ✅ पुनरपि प्रधानवादी अशब्दत्वं प्रधानस्यासिद्धमित्याह।
The Sāṅkhya again says, that the proposition that Pradhāna has no Scriptural authority, is not established,

1.4.8 L.2 ✅ कस्मात्? मन्त्रवर्णात् –
And (if asked) ‘Why so?’ says — Because the words of the Mantra, thus —

1.4.8 L.3 ✅ ‘अजामेकां लोहितशुक्लकृष्णां बह्वीः प्रजाः सृजमानां सरूपाः। अजो ह्येको जुषमाणोऽनुशेते जहात्येनां भुक्तभोगामजोऽन्यः’ (SvetU.4.5) इति;
“One ram (Aja, explained by the Sāṅkhyas, as being the Puruṣa) consorts with and lies by the side of a ewe (Ajā, explained by the Sāṅkhyas as Prakṛti) which has variegated colour markings such as red, white and black, and which brings forth numerous progeny of a similar form, and another ram deserts that ewe which has already been enjoyed by it” (SvetU.4.5).

1.4.8 L.4 ✅ अत्र हि मन्त्रे लोहितशुक्लकृष्णशब्दैः रजःसत्त्वतमांस्यभिधीयन्ते;
In this Mantra (the Sāṅkhya maintains that) the terms red, white and black indicate Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.

1.4.8 L.5 ✅ लोहितं रजः, रञ्जनात्मकत्वात्,
The red is Rajas because it excites passions.

1.4.8 L.6 ✅ शुक्लं सत्त्वम्, प्रकाशात्मकत्वात्;
The white is Sattva because it shines,

1.4.8 L.7 ✅ कृष्णं तमः, आवरणात्मकत्वात्;
And the black is Tamas because it has the nature of veiling the real nature of things (i.e. material mental ignorance).

1.4.8 L.8 ✅ तेषां साम्यावस्था अवयवधर्मैर्व्यपदिश्यते – लोहितशुक्लकृष्णेति;
The perfectly balanced and equipoised condition of these three qualities (which mean the Pradhāna) is here indicated by qualities of its component parts, by the words red, white and black.

1.4.8 L.9 ✅ न जायत इति च अजा स्यात्, ‘मूलप्रकृतिरविकृतिः’ इत्यभ्युपगमात्।
(The Sāṅkhya says) — the word Ajā, which can be explained as ‘that which is not born is A-ja i.e. unborn’, is understood in (Sāṅkhya terminology) as the fundamental matter out of which everything is born and which itself is not an effect of any other cause.

1.4.8 L.10 ✅ नन्वजाशब्दश्छाग्यां रूढः;
But (interposes the Vedāntin) by custom the word Ajā is used to indicate a sheep.

1.4.8 L.11 ✅ बाढम्; सा तु रूढिरिह नाश्रयितुं शक्या, विद्याप्रकरणात्।
Well, even if it be so (retorts the Sāṅkhya) in as much as this chapter deals with the subject of knowledge, such custom, if any, cannot be accepted here.

1.4.8 L.12 ✅ सा च बह्वीः प्रजास्त्रैगुण्यान्विता जनयति;
That Ajā (i.e. Prakṛti) brings forth numerous progeny possessing the three qualities (Trai-guṇya).

1.4.8 L.13 ✅ तां प्रकृतिमज एकः पुरुषो जुषमाणः प्रीयमाणः सेवमानो वा अनुशेते –
One Puruṣa (i.e. Self) has consorted with her, and is attended upon by that Ajā i.e. Prakṛti, and lies by her side.

1.4.8 L.14 ✅ तामेवाविद्यया आत्मत्वेनोपगम्य
That Self, through Nescience (i.e. being affected by limiting adjuncts) considers it (the Ajā) as its own Self,

1.4.8 L.15 ✅ सुखी दुःखी मूढोऽहमित्यविवेकितया संसरति;
by not being able to discriminate properly, and fancies itself as being either happy, unhappy or ignorant, and carries on a transmigratory existence.

1.4.8 L.16 ✅ अन्यः पुनरजः पुरुष उत्पन्नविवेकज्ञानो विरक्तो जहात्येनं प्रकृतिं भुक्तभोगां कृतभोगापवर्गां परित्यजति – मुच्यत इत्यर्थः।
Another Puruṣa (i.e. another Self i.e. Ajā i.e. ram) in whom discriminating knowledge has arisen and who has turned away from passions with aversion, deserts the Ajā (i.e. Prakṛti) after having consorted with the Ajā (i.e. Prakṛti) which has afforded it experience and Final Release.

1.4.8 L.17 ✅ तस्माच्छ्रुतिमूलैव प्रधानादिकल्पना कापिलानामित्येवं प्राप्ते
Therefore we (the Sāṅkhyas) say, that the tenet of the followers of Kapila, viz. Pradhāna, has its root in the Scriptures i.e. it has Scriptural authority after all.

1.4.8 L.18 ✅ ब्रूमः – नानेन मन्त्रेण श्रुतिमत्त्वं सांख्यवादस्य शक्यमाश्रयितुम्;
(To this conclusion of the Sāṅkhya opponent), we reply — It is not possible to accept on the authority of this Mantra alone, that the tenet of the Sāṅkhyas has Scriptural authority.

1.4.8 L.19 ✅ न ह्ययं मन्त्रः स्वातन्त्र्येण कञ्चिदपि वादं समर्थयितुमुत्सहते,
This Mantra by itself is not able to support any such Sāṅkhya tenet independently.

1.4.8 L.20 ✅ सर्वत्रापि यया कयाचित्कल्पनया अजात्वादिसम्पादनोपपत्तेः,
Because it would be reasonably possible to imagine such qualities of an Ajā (Prakṛti) in anything, as one pleases,

1.4.8 L.21 ✅ सांख्यवाद एवेहाभिप्रेत इति विशेषावधारणकारणाभावात्।
And also because there is no special reason available here to determine that it is the tenet of the Sāṅkhyas that is meant to be referred to here.

1.4.8 L.22 ✅ चमसवत् –
The case is analogous to the ladle (Juhū, used in a sacrifice).

1.4.8 L.23 ✅ यथा हि ‘अर्वाग्बिलश्चमस ऊर्ध्वबुध्नः’ (BrhU.2.2.3) इत्यस्मिन्मन्त्रे स्वातन्त्र्येणायं नामासौ चमसोऽभिप्रेत इति न शक्यते नियन्तुम्,
Just as it is not possible to say, that, this is the particular ladle meant, independently, in the Mantra “The Juhū which has its bottom facing upwards and its hollow part facing downwards” (BrhUEng.2.2.3),

1.4.8 L.24 ✅ सर्वत्रापि यथाकथञ्चिदर्वाग्बिलत्वादिकल्पनोपपत्तेः,
Because it is reasonably sustainable to say wheresoever one pleases, that this something, which has its hollow part facing downwards, is meant.

1.4.8 L.25 ✅ एवमिहाप्यविशेषः ‘अजामेकाम्’ इत्यस्य मन्त्रस्य;
Similarly, in this particular Mantra about “the Ajā” there is no special significance (viz. that it indicates Prakṛti).

1.4.8 L.26 ✅ नास्मिन्मन्त्रे प्रधानमेवाजाभिप्रेतेति शक्यते नियन्तुम्॥८॥
Therefore it is not possible to say, that in this Mantra, by the word Ajā, the Pradhāna is meant. — 8.

[Go top]

1.4.9 L.1 ✅ तत्र तु ‘इदं तच्छिर एष ह्यर्वाग्बिलश्चमस ऊर्ध्वबुध्नः’ इति वाक्यशेषाच्चमसविशेषप्रतिपत्तिर्भवति;
Assuming the Sāṅkhya opponent says — In the ladle (Camasa) passage from where this quotation about the ladle is taken, by means of the complementary sentence “This ladle with its bottom upwards and hollow downwards, is that caput”, what particular ladle is meant is understood,

1.4.9 L.2 ✅ इह पुनः केयमजा प्रतिपत्तव्येति
But, what may we understand by the word ‘Ajā’ here?

1.4.9 L.3 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः –
With regard to this, we say: —

←Prev Next→
ज्योतिरुपक्रमा तु तथा ह्यधीयत एके॥१.४.९॥
Jyotir-upakramā tu tathā hy adhīyata eke.

Jyoti-rūpa-kramā: elements beginning with light; Tu: but; Tathā: thus; Hi: because; Adhīyate: some read, some recensions have a reading; Eke: some.

🔗 But (by the word Ajā) the three elements beginning with Tejas (i.e. Tejas, Āpaḥ, and the Earth should necessarily be understood), for the followers of one branch (the Chando-gas) recite that way (in their recension). — 1.4.9.

1.4.9 L.4 ✅ परमेश्वरादुत्पन्ना ज्योतिःप्रमुखा तेजोबन्नलक्षणा चतुर्विधस्य भूतग्रामस्य प्रकृतिभूतेयमजा प्रतिपत्तव्या।
By the word Ajā, that which constitutes the primal cause (Prakṛti-bhūta) of all the fourfold created things, and which itself is born of the Highest Lord, and which is characterized by the three elements viz. the ‘Tejob-anna’ (Tejas, Āp and Anna), should be understood.

1.4.9 L.5 ✅ तुशब्दोऽवधारणार्थः –
The word ‘but’ (in the Sūtra) is for emphasizing that it should be so understood.

1.4.9 L.6 ✅ भूतत्रयलक्षणैवेयमजा विज्ञेया, न गुणत्रयलक्षणा।
This word Ajā should be understood to mean the three elements (Tejas, Āp and Anna) and not the one that is characterized by the three qualities (Guṇas), viz. the Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, of the Sāṅkhyas.

1.4.9 L.7 ✅ कस्मात्? तथा ह्येके शाखिनस्तेजोबन्नानां परमेश्वरादुत्पत्तिमाम्नाय तेषामेव रोहितादिरूपतामामनन्ति –
Why is it so? Because, so do the followers of one branch (the Chando-gas) recite (in their particular recension), viz. that the three elements are born of the Highest Lord, and also mention them as having the red, white and black form (Rūpa) thus —

1.4.9 L.8 ✅ ‘यदग्ने रोहितं रूपं तेजसस्तद्रूपं यच्छुक्लं तदपां यत्कृष्णं तदन्नस्य’ इति।
“The red form of Fire is but the red colour of Tejas, the white form is but the white colour of water, and the dark form is but the dark colour of the earth”.

1.4.9 L.9 ✅ तान्येवेह तेजोबन्नानि प्रत्यभिज्ञायन्ते, रोहितादिशब्दसामान्यात्,
The same three elements, viz. the Tejas, water and the earth, are here recognized, because the words red etc. are common (in both the passages),

1.4.9 L.10 ✅ रोहितादीनां च शब्दानां रूपविशेषेषु मुख्यत्वाद्भाक्तत्वाच्च गुणविषयत्वस्य;
And the words red etc. are used in their primary sense in the case of forms i.e. colours etc., and they are used in the secondary sense only to express the Guṇas (qualities such as Sattva etc.).

1.4.9 L.11 ✅ असन्दिग्धेन च सन्दिग्धस्य निगमनं न्याय्यं मन्यन्ते।
It is considered to be just and proper, that ambiguous passages should be interpreted on the strength of passages which are not so ambiguous (but have a definite meaning).

1.4.9 L.12 ✅ तथेहापि ‘ब्रह्मवादिनो वदन्ति। किङ्कारणं ब्रह्म’ (SvetU.1.1) इत्युपक्रम्य
So here also, beginning with the passage “What sort of a thing is this Brahman, the primal cause, ask the sages who are discussing Brahman” (SvetU.1.1),

1.4.9 L.13 ✅ ‘ते ध्यानयोगानुगता अपश्यन्देवात्मशक्तिं स्वगुणैर्निगूढाम्’ (SvetU.1.3) इति
पारमेश्वर्याः शक्तेः समस्तजगद्विधायिन्या वाक्योपक्रमेऽवगमात्, वाक्यशेषेऽपि
We understand from the passage coming earlier than the passages referred to in the present Sūtra, that the same power of the Highest Lord which creates all this world etc. is referred to thus —
“They who follow the path of meditation (as a means of understanding that which is meditated upon), see the power of the Self of the Deva enveloped in its own qualities” (SvetU.1.3).

1.4.9 L.14 ✅ ‘मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्’ इति ‘यो योनिं योनिमधितिष्ठत्येकः’ (SvetU.4.10–11) इति च
तस्या एवावगमान्न स्वतन्त्रा काचित्प्रकृतिः प्रधानं नामाजामन्त्रेणाम्नायत इति शक्यते वक्तुम्।
And it would not be possible to maintain that some other primal cause such as the Pradhāna (of the Sāṅkhyas) is indicated by this Mantra about the Ajā, because, from the complementary passages, viz.
“Know the Māyā (illusive power) as the primal cause and the Highest Lord as the Māyin (the master illusionist)” and “That one (the Highest Lord) who is the controller of every root-cause (such as Māyā)” (SvetU.4.10–11), we understand the same power of the Highest Lord (to be referred to in the Sūtra passage).

1.4.9 L.15 ✅ प्रकरणात्तु सैव दैवी शक्तिरव्याकृतनामरूपा नामरूपयोः प्रागवस्था अनेनापि मन्त्रेणाम्नायत इत्युच्यते;
Besides we say on the strength of the subject matter of the chapter, that this Mantra rather speaks of the same divine power which is the antecedent condition of names and forms, i.e. the nature of undeveloped names and forms,

1.4.9 L.16 ✅ तस्याश्च स्वविकारविषयेण त्रैरूप्येण त्रैरूप्यमुक्तम्॥९॥
And the same is here spoken of as having a triple form, with respect to the triple form of its effects or modifications. — 9.

[Go top]

1.4.10 L.1 ✅ कथं पुनस्तेजोबन्नात्मना त्रैरूप्येण त्रिरूपा अजा प्रतिपत्तुं शक्यते,
But (says the Sāṅkhya opponent) how ever can you understand that the word Ajā here, is to be understood as something having a triple form of Tejas, water and the earth

1.4.10 L.2 ✅ यावता न तावत्तेजोबन्नेष्वजाकृतिरस्ति,
In as much as ‘Tejob-anna’ (Tejas, water and earth) has not the form of a sheep,

1.4.10 L.3 ✅ न च तेजोबन्नानां जातिश्रवणादजातिनिमित्तोऽप्यजाशब्दः सम्भवतीति;
And, when the word Aja, which indicates something which is not subject to birth, could not possibly be used for Tejas, water and earth, when from the Scriptures they are known to be created things?

1.4.10 L.4 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
In reply to this objection, we say: —

←Prev Next→
कल्पनोपदेशाच्च मध्वादिवदविरोधः॥१.४.१०॥
Kalpanopadeśāc ca madhv-ādivad avirodhaḥ.

Kalpana: the creative power of thought; Upadeśāt: from teaching; Ca: and; Madhu-ādivat: as in the case of honey etc.; A-virodhaḥ: no incongruity.

🔗 There is no contradiction (in the use of the word Ajā to denote the three elements, Tejas, water and earth) because the instruction is in the form of a metaphor or Trope, just as in the case of Madhu-Vidyā (a metaphor in which Madhu i.e. honey is to be looked upon as the Sun). — 1.4.10.

1.4.10 L.5 ✅ नायमजाकृतिनिमित्तोऽजाशब्दः;
The word Ajā used here is not meant to indicate creatures having the form of a sheep,

1.4.10 L.6 ✅ नापि यौगिकः।
Nor is it used in its etymological sense (meaning something which is not born).

1.4.10 L.7 ✅ किं तर्हि? कल्पनोपदेशोऽयम् –
How then is it (used)? It is a kind of instruction given by way of a metaphor.

1.4.10 L.8 ✅ अजारूपककॢप्तिस्तेजोबन्नलक्षणायाश्चराचरयोनेरुपदिश्यते;
Instruction is here given about the root-cause or source from which ail sentient and insentient things are born, and which is characterized by Tejob-anna, by the use of the metaphor of an Ajā (ewe).

1.4.10 L.9 ✅ यथा हि लोके यदृच्छया काचिदजा रोहितशुक्लकृष्णवर्णा स्याद्बहुबर्करा सरूपबर्करा च,
Just as in the ordinary world, by a mere adventitious circumstance, there happens to be a ewe of variegated colours, such as red, white and black, which has a prolific progeny having similar colours,

1.4.10 L.10 ✅ तां च कश्चिदजो जुषमाणोऽनुशयीत,
And, just as equally casually, a ram consorts with that ewe and lies by her side,

1.4.10 L.11 ✅ कश्चिच्चैनां भुक्तभोगां जह्यात् –
And another (ram) deserts her as one who has already been consorted with,

1.4.10 L.12 ✅ एवमियमपि तेजोबन्नलक्षणा भूतप्रकृतिस्त्रिवर्णा बहु सरूपं चराचरलक्षणं विकारजातं जनयति,
Similarly, this primal cause of all beings which has three colours, and is characterized by Tejas, water and earth, creates this aggregate of modifications having similar forms, such as the sentient and insentient beings,

1.4.10 L.13 ✅ अविदुषा च क्षेत्रज्ञेनोपभुज्यते,
Which is enjoyed by one Jīva-Self that is ignorant of its own nature because of Nescience,

1.4.10 L.14 ✅ विदुषा च परित्यज्यत इति।
While another Jīva-Self, which, after having had his pleasure with it, has attained knowledge, gives it up.

1.4.10 L.15 ✅ न चेदमाशङ्कितव्यम् – एकः क्षेत्रज्ञोऽनुशेते अन्यो जहातीत्यतः क्षेत्रज्ञभेदः पारमार्थिकः परेषामिष्टः प्राप्नोतीति;
One should not here entertain a doubt, that because one Jīva-Self consorts with it (i.e. the Ajā, the primal cause) while another deserts it, therefore the distinctions between the Jīva-Selfs, entertained by certain others, is real (i.e. Pāramārthika),

1.4.10 L.16 ✅ न हीयं क्षेत्रज्ञभेदप्रतिपिपादयिषा;
As it is not the intention here to propound that there is a real difference between the embodied Jīva-Selfs,

1.4.10 L.17 ✅ किन्तु बन्धमोक्षव्यवस्थाप्रतिपिपादयिषैवैषा;
But the intention is to propound the arrangement of the conditions of bondage and Final Release (of the Jīva-Selfs),

1.4.10 L.18 ✅ प्रसिद्धं तु भेदमनूद्य बन्धमोक्षव्यवस्था प्रतिपाद्यते;
And it is by referring to this well-known difference that the conditions of bondage and Final Release are here propounded.

1.4.10 L.19 ✅ भेदस्तूपाधिनिमित्तो मिथ्याज्ञानकल्पितः;
The difference (as it is understood) is caused by limiting adjuncts and is merely imagined through false-knowledge,

1.4.10 L.20 ✅ न पारमार्थिकः, ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (SvetU.6.11) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
And is of course false (Mithyā-jñāna-kalpita) and not real, as is shown by the Scriptures, thus: — “He is the one and only one Deva immanent in all beings, pervades all beings and is the Self of all beings.”

1.4.10 L.21 ✅ मध्वादिवत् –
Now about the metaphor of the Madhu (in the Sūtra),

1.4.10 L.22 ✅ यथा आदित्यस्यामधुनो मधुत्वम्,
Just as the Sun which really is no honey at all, is merely imagined to be honey (ChanU.3.1),

1.4.10 L.23 ✅ वाचश्चाधेनोर्धेनुत्वम्,
Just as ‘Speech’ which really is no cow by any means, is merely imagined to be a cow (BrhUEng.5.8),

1.4.10 L.24 ✅ ‘द्युलोकादीनां चानग्नीनामग्नित्वम्’ –
Or, just as the heavenly worlds etc. which really are no Fire at all, are merely imagined to be Fire,

1.4.10 L.25 ✅ इत्येवंजातीयकं कल्प्यते, एवमिदमनजाया अजात्वं कल्प्यत इत्यर्थः।
Similarly, Tejob-anna, which really is not an Ajā, is merely imagined to be an Ajā.

1.4.10 L.26 ✅ तस्मादविरोधस्तेजोबन्नेष्वजाशब्दप्रयोगस्य॥१०॥
Therefore there is no contradiction in the use of the word Ajā to indicate the root-cause Tejob-anna (Tejas, water and earth). — 10.

– 33. Camasa-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.4.11 Su..12 Su..13

←Prev Next→
न संख्योपसङ्ग्रहादपि नानाभावादतिरेकाच्च॥१.४.११॥
Na saṃkhyopasaṅgrahād api nānā-bhāvād atirekāc ca.

Na: not; Saṅkhyā: number; Upasaṅgrahāt: from statement; Api: even; Nānā-bhāvāt: on account of the differences; Atirekāt: on account of excess; Ca: and.

🔗 Even if (the Tattvas i.e. categories of the Sāṅkhyas are understood to he stated) by the aggregate number (in the Scriptures), (the Pradhāna cannot claim Scriptural authority), because of the difference, and also because there is excess (over twenty-five). — 1.4.11.

1.4.11 L.1 ✅ एवं परिहृतेऽप्यजामन्त्रे पुनरन्यस्मान्मन्त्रात्सांख्यः प्रत्यवतिष्ठते –
Even though the claim (of the Sāṅkhyas) based on the Ajā-Mantra is refuted, the Sāṅkhya opponent again comes forward with another Mantra (in support of his claim, viz. that Pradhāna has Scriptural authority) which is as follows: —

1.4.11 L.2 ✅ ‘यस्मिन्पञ्च पञ्चजना आकाशश्च प्रतिष्ठितः। तमेव मन्य आत्मानं विद्वान्ब्रह्मामृतोऽमृतम्’ (BrhU.4.4.17) इति।
“I believe that, in which the five five-classes (Pañca Pañca-janāḥ) and the Ākāśa are well ensconced, to be the Self, which is the immortal Brahman, and knowing that, I consider myself to be immortal i.e. Brahman” (BrhUEng.4.4.17).

1.4.11 L.3 ✅ अस्मिन्मन्त्रे पञ्च पञ्चजना इति पञ्चसंख्याविषया अपरा पञ्चसंख्या श्रूयते, पञ्चशब्दद्वयदर्शनात्;
In this Mantra, by Pañca Pañca-janāḥ, one number five is mentioned in connection with another number five, because it is seen that the word ‘five’ is used twice.

1.4.11 L.4 ✅ अस्मिन्मन्त्रे पञ्च पञ्चजना इति पञ्चसंख्याविषया अपरा पञ्चसंख्या श्रूयते, पञ्चशब्दद्वयदर्शनात्;
That means that these five quintettes together amount to twenty-five.

1.4.11 L.5 ✅ तया च पञ्चविंशतिसंख्यया यावन्तः संख्येया आकाङ्क्ष्यन्ते तावन्त्येव च तत्त्वानि सांख्यैः संख्यायन्ते –
So, those things that are sought to be enumerated by this number twenty-five, are just those Tattvas i.e. categories enumerated by the Sāṅkhyas, viz.

1.4.11 L.6 ✅ ‘मूलप्रकृतिरविकृतिर्महदाद्याः प्रकृतिविकृतयः सप्त।
षोडशकश्च विकारो न प्रकृतिर्न विकृतिः पुरुषः’ इति;
“One Primal cause, which is not a modification; seven, which are at once both causes and modifications, such as the Great (Mahat) etc.;
And sixteen kinds of modifications; and the Puruṣa, which is neither a cause nor a modification” (Sāṅkhya Kārikā 3).

1.4.11 L.7 ✅ तया श्रुतिप्रसिद्धया पञ्चविंशतिसंख्यया तेषां स्मृतिप्रसिद्धानां पञ्चविंशतेस्तत्त्वानामुपसङ्ग्रहात्
So, as (according to the Sāṅkhyas) by the number twenty-five mentioned in the Scriptures, the twenty-five Tattvas i.e. categories of their Smṛti are seen to be enumerated,

1.4.11 L.8 ✅ प्राप्तं पुनः श्रुतिमत्त्वमेव प्रधानादीनाम्॥ It again comes to this,
that Pradhāna etc. do have Scriptural authority after all.

1.4.11 L.9 ✅ ततो ब्रूमः – न संख्योपसङ्ग्रहादपि प्रधानादीनां श्रुतिमत्त्वं प्रत्याशा कर्तव्या।
As regards this, we say — No such hope should be entertained (by the Sāṅkhyas) of establishing Scriptural authority for the Pradhāna etc., on the ground that the Tattvas are collectively stated by the number twenty-five (in the Scriptures).

1.4.11 L.10 ✅ कस्मात्? नानाभावात्;
Why so? Because there is dissimilarity (between each of the categories).

1.4.11 L.11 ✅ नाना ह्येतानि पञ्चविंशतिस्तत्त्वानि;
These twenty-five categories (of the Sāṅkhyas) are all different from each other.

1.4.11 L.12 ✅ नैषां पञ्चशः पञ्चशः साधारणो धर्मोऽस्ति, येन पञ्चविंशतेरन्तराले पराः पञ्च पञ्च संख्या निविशेरन्;
There is no common attribute as such observable amongst any of these sets of five, making in all such twenty-five.

1.4.11 L.13 ✅ न ह्येकनिबन्धनमन्तरेण नानाभूतेषु द्वित्वादिकाः संख्या निविशन्ते।
It is not possible to say of things which are all dissimilar, that there are, say, sets of twos etc. amongst them, unless such sets of twos have some common attribute amongst them.

1.4.11 L.14 ✅ अथोच्येत – पञ्चविंशतिसंख्यैवेयमवयवद्वारेण लक्ष्यते,
If you (the Sāṅkhya) were to say, that the aggregate sum twenty-five is itself here expressed by means of its five component sets of five each,

1.4.11 L.15 ✅ यथा ‘पञ्च सप्त च वर्षाणि न ववर्ष शतक्रतुः’ इति द्वादशवार्षिकीमनावृष्टिं कथयन्ति, तद्वदिति;
Just as the Scriptures mention the twelve years draught (period without rain) thus — “Indra (i.e. Śata-kratu i.e. one who has performed a hundred sacrifices) did not cause rain for five and seven years (i.e. twelve years)”

1.4.11 L.16 ✅ तदपि नोपपद्यते;
Even that would not be reasonably possible,

1.4.11 L.17 ✅ अयमेवास्मिन्पक्षे दोषः, यल्लक्षणाश्रयणीया स्यात्।
As the fault in such a case would be, that a resort will have to be had to indirect indication (Lakṣaṇā).

1.4.11 L.18 ✅ परश्चात्र पञ्चशब्दो जनशब्देन समस्तः पञ्चजनाः इति,
Besides, here the word ‘Pañca’ along with another word ‘Janāḥ’ has formed the compound word ‘Pañca-janāḥ’,

1.4.11 L.19 ✅ भाषिकस्वरेणैकपदत्वनिश्चयात्;
And because of the Pāribhāṣika accent, we are able to determine that ‘Pañca-janāḥ, is one word,

1.4.11 L.20 ✅ प्रयोगान्तरे च ‘पञ्चानां त्वा पञ्चजनानाम्’ (तै. सं. १-६-२-२) इत्यैकपद्यैकस्वर्यैकविभक्तिकत्वावगमात्;
And also because in another place where the same word is used, as for instance in “Pañcānām tvā Pañca-jananam” (Tait. Sam. 1.6.2.2), we are able to understand that there is one word only, and that it has only one accent and only one case-ending.

1.4.11 L.21 ✅ समस्तत्वाच्च न वीप्सा ‘पञ्च पञ्च’ इति।
Inasmuch as one word ‘Pañca’ has been compounded with another word ‘Jana’, it cannot be said that there is repetition of the word ‘Pañca’ — as Pañca Pañca —

1.4.11 L.22 ✅ तेन न पञ्चकद्वयग्रहणं पञ्च पञ्चेति।
Nor can we understand that there is a pair of quintettes (Pañcaka-dvaya).

1.4.11 L.23 ✅ न च पञ्चसंख्याया एकस्याः पञ्चसंख्यया परया विशेषणम् ‘पञ्च पञ्चकाः’ इति,
Nor can the first word ‘Pañca’ be a qualification of the other word ‘Pañca’ (which is compounded with Jana) so as to express five quintettes,

1.4.11 L.24 ✅ उपसर्जनस्य विशेषणेनासंयोगात्।
Because the secondary member of a compound i.e. Upasarjana (here the word ‘Pañca’ in Pañca-janāḥ) cannot have any relation with a qualifying word.

1.4.11 L.25 ✅ नन्वापन्नपञ्चसंख्याका जना एव पुनः पञ्चसंख्यया विशेष्यमाणाः पञ्चविंशतिः प्रत्येष्यन्ते, यथा पञ्च पञ्चपूल्य इति पञ्चविंशतिः पूलाः प्रतीयन्ते, तद्वत्;
But (argues the Sāṅkhya opponent) the classes (Janāḥ) which have been enumerated once by the number five being again qualified by the qualifying word ‘Pañca’ can be understood to be in all twenty-five just as five pools of five would mean twenty-five pools.

1.4.11 L.26 ✅ नेति ब्रूमः; युक्तं यत्पञ्चपूलीशब्दस्य समाहाराभिप्रायत्वात् कतीति सत्यां भेदाकाङ्क्षायां पञ्च पञ्चपूल्य इति विशेषणम्;
To this, we say — No. It is but proper that the word ‘Pañca-pūlyaḥ’ being a Samāhāra-Dvigu compound, when it is desired to know as to how many different pools are there, it is possible to understand that the first Pañca word is a qualification of the other word,

1.4.11 L.27 ✅ इह तु पञ्च जना इत्यादित एव भेदोपादानात्कतीत्यसत्यां भेदाकाङ्क्षायां न पञ्च पञ्चजना इति विशेषणं भवेत्;
But here, on the other hand, (because ‘Pañca-janāḥ’ is not a Samāhāra-Dvigu compound) in as much as the consciousness of the five different classes is present already, therefore, as there could be no further desire to know as to how many different ones they are, the first word ‘Pañca’ cannot be a qualification of the word ‘Pañca-janāḥ’.

1.4.11 L.28 ✅ भवदपीदं विशेषणं पञ्चसंख्याया एव भवेत्;
And even if it be conceded that it acts as a qualifying word, it would govern the number five only

1.4.11 L.29 ✅ तत्र चोक्तो दोषः;
And we have said already how that would be a fault.

1.4.11 L.30 ✅ तस्मात्पञ्च पञ्चजना इति न पञ्चविंशतितत्त्वाभिप्रायम्।
Therefore ‘Pañca Pañca-janāḥ’ cannot mean the twenty-five categories (of the Sāṅkhyas).

1.4.11 L.31 ✅ अतिरेकाच्च न पञ्चविंशतितत्त्वाभिप्रायम्;
Besides, because of the excess also, it cannot mean the twenty-five categories (of the Sāṅkhyas).

1.4.11 L.32 ✅ अतिरेको हि भवत्यात्माकाशाभ्यां पञ्चविंशतिसंख्यायाः;
The categories, the Self and the Ākāśa, constitute the excess over the number twenty-five.

1.4.11 L.33 ✅ आत्मा तावदिह प्रतिष्ठां प्रत्याधारत्वेन निर्दिष्टः, ‘यस्मिन्’ इति सप्तमीसूचितस्य ‘तमेव मन्य आत्मानम्’ इत्यात्मत्वेनानुकर्षणात्;
The Self has been mentioned as the pedestal or support of the five Janas, because the Scriptural passage “I consider that alone to be the Self”, which brings forward the Self, shows that what is meant by the word ‘in which’ (Yasmin) — which has a locative case-ending — is the Self.

1.4.11 L.34 ✅ आत्मा च चेतनः पुरुषः;
(According to the Sāṅkhyas), the Self is the sentient Puruṣa,

1.4.11 L.35 ✅ स च पञ्चविंशतावन्तर्गत एवेति न तस्यैवाधारत्वमाधेयत्वं च युज्येत;
And that having been already included in the twenty-five (categories) cannot properly be both the pedestal (Ādhāra), and the thing that rests on such pedestal (Ādheya) at one and the same time.

1.4.11 L.36 ✅ अर्थान्तरपरिग्रहे वा तत्त्वसंख्यातिरेकः सिद्धान्तविरुद्धः प्रसज्येत;
If by ‘the Self’ we understand some other thing, there would again be an excess over the number twenty-five, which would be contrary to the Sāṅkhya’s own doctrine.

1.4.11 L.37 ✅ तथा ‘आकाशश्च प्रतिष्ठितः’ इत्याकाशस्यापि पञ्चविंशतावन्तर्गतस्य न पृथगुपादानं न्याय्यम्;
Again the separate mention of the Ākāśa which is already included in the twenty-five (categories) in the passage “In which the Ākāśa rests” would not be logically understandable,

1.4.11 L.38 ✅ अर्थान्तरपरिग्रहे चोक्तं दूषणम्।
And we have already said, how, understanding it in any other sense would be open to a fault.

1.4.11 L.39 ✅ कथं च संख्यामात्रश्रवणे सत्यश्रुतानां पञ्चविंशतितत्त्वानामुपसङ्ग्रहः प्रतीयेत?
Besides, by the mere mention of the number twenty-five, how can the twenty-five categories (of the Sāṅkhyas) not mentioned by the Scriptures as such, be ever understood to be so meant,

1.4.11 L.40 ✅ जनशब्दस्य तत्त्वेष्वरूढत्वात्,
When the word Jana is not by constant usage understood to mean the categories?

1.4.11 L.41 ✅ अर्थान्तरोपसङ्ग्रहेऽपि संख्योपपत्तेः।
Besides, even if we were to understand something other than the Sāṅkhya categories by the word Jana, even then the number twenty-five can be properly explained.

1.4.11 L.42 ✅ कथं तर्हि पञ्च पञ्चजना इति?
How do you then interpret the words “Five five-classes”? (asks the Sāṅkhya).

1.4.11 L.43 ✅ उच्यते – ‘दिक्संख्ये संज्ञायाम्’ (पा. सू. २-१-५०) इति विशेषस्मरणात्संज्ञायामेव पञ्चशब्दस्य जनशब्देन समासः;
We reply — On the authority of Pāṇini’s Smṛti Sūtra “Words indicative of quarters and number, by forming a compound with the word which follows, merely mean names (Dik-Saṅkhye Sañjñāyām)” (Pāṇini-Su. 2.1.50), the word Pañca combines with the word Jana in a compound and merely means a name.

1.4.11 L.44 ✅ ततश्च रूढत्वाभिप्रायेणैव केचित्पञ्चजना नाम विवक्ष्यन्ते,
So, the word ‘Pañca-Janāḥ’ indicates something which is known as ‘Pañca-janāḥ’ (like for instance Gandharva or Brāhmaṇa etc.)

1.4.11 L.45 ✅ न सांख्यतत्त्वाभिप्रायेण;
And not the Sāṅkhya categories.

1.4.11 L.46 ✅ ते कतीत्यस्यामाकाङ्क्षायां पुनः पञ्चेति प्रयुज्यते;
And when the desire is to know as to how many they are, the word Pañca is used again.

1.4.11 L.47 ✅ पञ्चजना नाम ये केचित्, ते च पञ्चैवेत्यर्थः, सप्तर्षयः सप्तेति यथा॥११॥
Those that are Pañca-Janāḥ are only five, just as the Sapta-rṣis (the constellation of seven stars called ‘the Great Bear’) are seven. — 11.

[Go top]

1.4.12 L.1 ✅ के पुनस्ते पञ्चजना नामेति,
But then (asks the Sāṅkhya opponent) who are the ‘Pañca-Janāḥ’ any way?

1.4.12 L.2 ✅ तदुच्यते –
We reply: —

←Prev Next→
प्राणादयो वाक्यशेषात्॥१.४.१२॥
Prāṇādayo vākya-śeṣāt.

Prāṇa-ādayaḥ: the Prāṇa and the rest; Vākya-śeṣāt: because of the complementary passage.

🔗 On the strength of the complementary passage, the word ‘Pañca-Janāḥ’ means the Vital Air etc. — 1.4.12.

1.4.12 L.3 ✅ ‘यस्मिन्पञ्च पञ्चजनाः’ इत्यत उत्तरस्मिन्मन्त्रे
In the passage which comes after (the passage) “In which the five classes”,

1.4.12 L.4 ✅ ब्रह्मस्वरूपनिरूपणाय प्राणादयः पञ्च निर्दिष्टाः –
Five things viz. the Vital Airs etc. are indicated for the purpose of expounding the nature of Brahman, thus —

1.4.12 L.5 ✅ ‘प्राणस्य प्राणमुत चक्षुषश्चक्षुरुत श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रमन्नस्यान्नं मनसो ये मनो विदुः’ इति;
“Those who understand the Prāṇa of Prāṇas, the eye of eyes, the ear of ears, the food of foods, the mind of minds (can definitely understand the nature of Brahman)” (BrhUEng.4.4.18).

1.4.12 L.6 ✅ तेऽत्र वाक्यशेषगताः सन्निधानात्पञ्चजना विवक्ष्यन्ते।
These five things which occur in the complementary passage and are in proximity (to the present passage about Pañca-Janāḥ, are meant to be spoken of by the word ‘Pañca-Janāḥ)’.

1.4.12 L.7 ✅ कथं पुनः प्राणादिषु जनशब्दप्रयोगः?
But (says the Sāṅkhya opponent) how again can you say that this word ‘Jana’ is used in the sense of Prāṇas etc.?

1.4.12 L.8 ✅ तत्त्वेषु वा कथं जनशब्दप्रयोगः?
(To this the Vedāntin retorts) well, for the matter of that, how can you (the Sāṅkhya) also say, that the word ‘Janāḥ’ is used in the sense of your categories?

1.4.12 L.9 ✅ समाने तु प्रसिद्ध्यतिक्रमे वाक्यशेषवशात्प्राणादय एव ग्रहीतव्या भवन्ति;
When the transgression of the well-known meaning of a word (Jana) is common (to both of us), one has necessarily to understand on the strength of the complementary passage, that the Vital Airs are meant (by the word Pañca-Janāḥ).

1.4.12 L.10 ✅ जनसम्बन्धाच्च प्राणादयो जनशब्दभाजो भवन्ति;
Because of the connection of the Vital Airs etc. with men, the Vital Airs etc. themselves have the word ‘Jana’ used to indicate them.

1.4.12 L.11 ✅ जनवचनश्च पुरुषशब्दः प्राणेषु प्रयुक्तः – ‘ते वा एते पञ्च ब्रह्मपुरुषाः’ (ChanU.3.3.6) इत्यत्र;
The word Puruṣa which is a synonym for the word ‘Jana’, is used for the Prāṇas in “These present five Brahma-Puruṣas” (ChanU.3.13.6).

1.4.12 L.12 ✅ ‘प्राणो ह पिता प्राणो ह माता’ (ChanU.7.15.1) इत्यादि च ब्राह्मणम्।
A Brāhmaṇa passage also says — “The Vital Air verily is the father, the Vital Air verily is the mother etc.” (ChanU.7.15.1).

1.4.12 L.13 ✅ समासबलाच्च समुदायस्य रूढत्वमविरुद्धम्।
It is not contradictory to understand on the strength of the compound word ‘Pañca-Janāḥ’ that the use of the group of words ‘Pañca-Janāḥ’ is based on custom (Rūḍhi) (i.e. it is not improper to understand that the word ‘Pañca-Janāḥ’ means the Prāṇas etc., instead of its having only its etymological meaning, ‘Five people’, just as in the case of the compound word ‘Aśva-karṇa’ we accept the customary meaning — the herb ‘Aśva-karṇa’ (and not the mere literal meaning — viz. ‘a horse’s ear’).

1.4.12 L.14 ✅ कथं पुनरसति प्रथमप्रयोगे रूढिः शक्याश्रयितुम्?
But (says the Sāṅkhya opponent) how is is it possible to accept any such custom when its initial use is absent?

1.4.12 L.15 ✅ शक्या उद्भिदादिवदित्याह –
(We reply) It is possible, just as, for instance, it is possible in the case of (the word) ‘Udbhida’ etc.

1.4.12 L.16 ✅ प्रसिद्धार्थसन्निधाने ह्यप्रसिद्धार्थः शब्दः प्रयुज्यमानः समभिव्याहारात्तद्विषयो नियम्यते;
When a word whose meaning is not well-known, is used in proximity to a word that is well-known, we can from its association with the well-known word, understand it with reference to the well-known word,

1.4.12 L.17 ✅ यथा ‘उद्भिदा यजेत’ ‘यूपं छिनत्ति’ ‘वेदिं करोति’ इति,
As for instance in the passages — “He should perform the Udbhida Sacrifice”, “He fashions a sacrificial post (Yūpa)”, “He constructs a Vedi”.

1.4.12 L.18 ✅ तथा अयमपि पञ्चजनशब्दः समासान्वाख्यानादवगतसंज्ञाभावः संज्ञ्याकाङ्क्षी वाक्यशेषसमभिव्याहृतेषु प्राणादिषु वर्तिष्यते।
Similarly, this word ‘Pañca-Jana’ which has been ascertained to mean a name or appellation (Sañjñā), because of the fact that it is a compound word, as is seen from the chapter in grammar, and which, therefore, expects something to which such name or appellation can be applied, is by reason of its association with the complementary passage, made to refer to the Vital Airs.

1.4.12 L.19 ✅ कैश्चित्तु देवाः पितरो गन्धर्वा असुरा रक्षांसि च पञ्च पञ्चजना व्याख्याताः;
Some (are of opinion) that ‘Pañca-Janāḥ’ are the five classes (viz. the Gods, the manes, the Gandharvas, the Asuras, and the Rakṣasas).

1.4.12 L.20 ✅ अन्यैश्च चत्वारो वर्णा निषादपञ्चमाः परिगृहीताः;
Some others think that it means the four Varṇas (Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra) with the Niṣādas as the fifth.

1.4.12 L.21 ✅ क्वचिच्च ‘यत्पाञ्चजन्यया विशा’ (ऋ. सं. ८-५३-९) इति प्रजापरः प्रयोगः पञ्चजनशब्दस्य दृश्यते;
Though rarely, it is seen also to be used to indicate the people, as in “By the Pañca-Janya subjects” (Ṛg-Veda Sam. 8.53.7).

1.4.12 L.22 ✅ तत्परिग्रहेऽपीह न कश्चिद्विरोधः;
There is no objection (on our part) to understand the word in these senses.

1.4.12 L.23 ✅ आचार्यस्तु न पञ्चविंशतेस्तत्त्वानामिह प्रतीतिरस्तीत्येवंपरतया ‘प्राणादयो वाक्यशेषात्’ इति जगाद॥१२॥
The Ācārya (Sūtra-kāra) however has stated this Sūtra, merely for showing that it is not understood here (i.e. in the case of the Pañca-Jana passage), that the twenty-five categories (of the Sāṅkhyas) are meant by the word (Pañca-Janāḥ). — 12.

[Go top]

1.4.13 L.1 ✅ भवेयुस्तावत्प्राणादयः पञ्चजना माध्यन्दिनानाम्, येऽन्नं प्राणादिष्वामनन्ति;
May be (says the Sāṅkhya opponent) that in the case of the followers of the branch of the Mādhyaṃ-dinas, Prāṇa and others may well be the Pañca-janas, as they recite ‘food’ (Anna) as one of the five things along with Prāṇa etc.,

1.4.13 L.2 ✅ काण्वानां तु कथं प्राणादयः पञ्चजना भवेयुः, येऽन्नं प्राणादिषु नामनन्तीति –
But how could the Prāṇas be the Pañca-janāḥ in the case of the followers of the Kāṇvas who do not so recite ‘food’ (Anna) as one of the five things along with Prāṇa?

1.4.13 L.3 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
To that (the Vedāntin) replies: —

←Prev Next→
ज्योतिषैकेषामसत्यन्ने॥१.४.१३॥
Jyotiṣaikeṣām asaty anne.

Jyotiṣā: by light; Ekeṣām: of some texts or recensions, i.e., of the Kāṇvas; A-sati: in the absence of; Anne: food.

🔗 In their case (i.e. of the Kāṇvas) (the five are made up) by the inclusion of Jyotis, though they do not recite ‘food’ (Anna) (as being one of the five Prāṇas). — 1.4.13.

1.4.13 L.4 ✅ असत्यपि काण्वानामन्ने ज्योतिषा तेषां पञ्चसंख्या पूर्येत;
Though the Kāṇvas do not include ‘food’ in the number five, the inclusion of Jyotis completes their number of five.

1.4.13 L.5 ✅ तेऽपि हि ‘यस्मिन्पञ्च पञ्चजनाः’ इत्यतः पूर्वस्मिन्मन्त्रे ब्रह्मस्वरूपनिरूपणायैव ज्योतिरधीयते ‘तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिः’ इति।
They also, in the Mantra which precedes the Mantra “In which the five five-classes”, do mention the Jyotis precisely for the purpose of expounding the nature of Brahman, thus — “The deities praise the Jyotis of Jyotis.”

1.4.13 L.6 ✅ कथं पुनरुभयेषामपि तुल्यवदिदं ज्योतिः पठ्यमानं समानमन्त्रगतया पञ्चसंख्यया केषाञ्चिद्गृह्यते केषाञ्चिन्नेति –
But (says the Sāṅkhya) how is it that though the followers of both (the Branches) equally recite Jyotis, in the case of one, it is included in the number five in the Mantra common to both, and in the case of the other, it is not so (included)?

1.4.13 L.7 ✅ अपेक्षाभेदादित्याह –
We reply — Because in the case of these two (Branches) the expectation is different.

1.4.13 L.8 ✅ माध्यन्दिनानां हि समानमन्त्रपठितप्राणादिपञ्चजनलाभान्नास्मिन्मन्त्रान्तरपठिते ज्योतिष्यपेक्षा भवति;
The Mādhyaṃ-dinas have no necessary expectation of Jyotis, as they have the five Prāṇas in the common Mantra available to them to complete the Pañca-Janāḥ, but the Kāṇvas to whom they are not so available, do require the Jyotis (to make up the number five).

1.4.13 L.9 ✅ तदलाभात्तु काण्वानां भवत्यपेक्षा; अपेक्षाभेदाच्च समानेऽपि मन्त्रे ज्योतिषो ग्रहणाग्रहणे;
It is precisely because of this difference in expectation, that in one and the same Mantra the Jyotis is included or excluded (in making up the number five),

1.4.13 L.10 ✅ यथा समानेऽप्यतिरात्रे वचनभेदात्षोडशिनो ग्रहणाग्रहणे, तद्वत्।
Just as, even though the Atirātra Sacrifice is common, still because of the difference in the Scriptural word, the Ṣo-ḍaśi cup (used for drinking Soma) is optionally used or not used.

1.4.13 L.11 ✅ तदेवं न तावच्छ्रुतिप्रसिद्धिः काचित्प्रधानविषयास्ति;
All the same, however, the Scriptures do not furnish any authority for the Pradhāna.

1.4.13 L.12 ✅ स्मृतिन्यायप्रसिद्धी तु परिहरिष्येते॥१३॥
We will hereafter refute the (so-called) authority of the Smṛtis and logic (Nyāya) (in support of the Sāṅkhya doctrine). — 13.

– 34. Sāṅkhyā-upasaṅgraha-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.4.14 Su..15

←Prev Next→
कारणत्वेन चाकाशादिषु यथाव्यपदिष्टोक्तेः॥१.४.१४॥
Kāraṇatvena cākāśādiṣu yathā-vyapadiṣṭokteḥ.

Kāraṇatvena: as the (First) cause; Ca: and; Ākāśa-ādiṣu: with reference to Ākāśa and the rest; Yathā: as; Vyapadiṣṭa: taught in different Śrutis; Ukteḥ: because of the statement.

🔗 (Brahman) is mentioned as the cause, in the case of the Ākāśa etc., because it is spoken of (in other branches of the Scriptures), even as it is indicated (in one text). — 1.4.14.

1.4.14 L.1 ✅ प्रतिपादितं ब्रह्मणो लक्षणम्;
The characteristics of Brahman have been expounded (in what has preceded)

1.4.14 L.2 ✅ प्रतिपादितं ब्रह्मविषयं गतिसामान्यं वेदान्तवाक्यानाम्;
And it has also been expounded, as to how the common trend of the Scriptural passages leads towards Brahman (as being the cause of all).

1.4.14 L.3 ✅ प्रतिपादितं च प्रधानस्याशब्दत्वम्।
Similarly it has also been expounded, as to how the Pradhāna has no Scriptural authority.

1.4.14 L.4 ✅ तत्रेदमपरमाशङ्क्यते –
Now, again with respect to this, another doubt is raised thus —

1.4.14 L.5 ✅ न जन्मादिकारणत्वं ब्रह्मणो ब्रह्मविषयं वा गतिसामान्यं वेदान्तवाक्यानां प्रतिपादयितुं शक्यम्।
It is not reasonably sustainable to understand Brahman as the cause (of all), or that the common trend of Scriptural passages generally leads towards Brahman.

1.4.14 L.6 ✅ कस्मात्? विगानदर्शनात्;
Why so? Because we see that there is discrepancy (Vigāna).

1.4.14 L.7 ✅ प्रतिवेदान्तं ह्यन्यान्या सृष्टिरुपलभ्यते, क्रमादिवैचित्र्यात्।
In the various different Vedānta passages, we find that different orders of creation are met with.

1.4.14 L.8 ✅ तथा हि – क्वचित् ‘आत्मन आकाशः सम्भूतः’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इत्याकाशादिका सृष्टिराम्नायते;
For instance, one passage, viz. “From the Self the Ākāśa was created” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.), shows creation in which Ākāśa was the first thing created.

1.4.14 L.9 ✅ क्वचित्तेजआदिका ‘तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इति
In another passage, viz. “It created the Tejas” (ChanU.6.2.3), Tejas is said to be the first (in the order of creation).

1.4.14 L.10 ✅ क्वचित्प्राणादिका ‘स प्राणमसृजत प्राणाच्छ्रद्धाम्’ (PrasU.6.4) इति;
Elsewhere, in one passage, viz. “He created the Prāṇa and from Prāṇa, Faith (was created)” (PrasU.6.4), Prāṇa is the first in the order (of creation).

1.4.14 L.11 ✅ क्वचिदक्रमेणैव लोकानामुत्पत्तिराम्नायते – ‘स इमाँल्लोकानसृजत। अम्भो मरीचिर्मरमापः’ (AitU.1.1.2) इति;
In another passage creation without any specific order (of creation) is mentioned, as for instance in — “He created these worlds. The watery world i.e. the Heaven, the Antar-ikṣa world, the mortal world, and the Pātāla.” (AitU.1.1.2).

1.4.14 L.12 ✅ तथा क्वचिदसत्पूर्विका सृष्टिः पठ्यते – ‘असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत्। ततो वै सदजायत’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति,
In one place it is mentioned, that creation had the non-existent i.e. void (Asat) as the pre-existing entity, thus — “This in the beginning was merely the non-existent and verily ‘Sat’ (the existent) was born out of it” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.),

1.4.14 L.13 ✅ ‘असदेवेदमग्र आसीत्तत्सदासीत्तत्समभवत्’ (ChanU.3.19.1) इति च;
And also, “This in the beginning was merely the nonexistent (Asat), it then became existent, it became manifest” (ChanU.3.19.1),

1.4.14 L.14 ✅ क्वचिदसद्वादनिराकरणेन सत्पूर्विका प्रक्रिया प्रतिज्ञायते – ‘तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीत्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्युपक्रम्य,
While in another place, the ‘doctrine of the non-existent’ i.e. void (Asat) is first refuted, and it is asserted that creation had ‘the existent’ (Sat) as the preexisting entity, as for instance, beginning with “With respect to that (i.e. the cause) some say, that only the ‘nonexistent’ void (Asat), was, in the beginning”

1.4.14 L.15 ✅ ‘कुतस्तु खलु सोम्यैवꣳ स्यादिति होवाच कथमसतः सज्जायेतेति। सत्त्वेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्’ (ChanU.6.2.2) इति;
(It further goes on to say) — “O mild one, how ever can it be so? How can the existent (Sat) be born from the non-existent i.e. the void (Asat)? The existent (Sat) alone, of course, was, in the beginning” (ChanU.6.2.1–2).

1.4.14 L.16 ✅ क्वचित्स्वयंकर्तृकैव व्याक्रिया जगतो निगद्यते – ‘तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत्तन्नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियत’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इति।
In one place creation of the world is said to be spontaneous, thus — “This, then, was unmanifest, it then became manifest by name and form”. (BrhUEng.1.4.7).

1.4.14 L.17 ✅ एवमनेकधा विप्रतिपत्तेर्वस्तुनि च विकल्पस्यानुपपत्तेः
So, there being such confusion in these various ways, and as no option of any kind is even reasonably sustainable in the case of a thing (whose existence is evident),

1.4.14 L.18 ✅ न वेदान्तवाक्यानां जगत्कारणावधारणपरता न्याय्या;
It would not be reasonably logical to consider that the Scriptures are authoritative as to the cause of the world (being Brahman),

1.4.14 L.19 ✅ स्मृतिन्यायप्रसिद्धिभ्यां तु कारणान्तरपरिग्रहो न्याय्य इत्येवं प्राप्ते
While it would be proper to understand something else (say, the Pradhāna) as the cause of the world, on the authority of Smṛtis and reasoning.

1.4.14 L.20 ✅ ब्रूमः – सत्यपि प्रतिवेदान्तं सृज्यमानेष्वाकाशादिषु क्रमादिद्वारके विगाने,
To this we reply — Even though in different Scriptural passages, discrepancies with regard to the order in which the Ākāśa etc. were created, occur,

1.4.14 L.21 ✅ न स्रष्टरि किञ्चिद्विगानमस्ति।
There is no such discrepancy with regard to the creator (i.e. the Self or Brahman).

1.4.14 L.22 ✅ कुतः? यथाव्यपदिष्टोक्तेः –
How so? Because, He is spoken of in the same way in the one as in the other.

1.4.14 L.23 ✅ यथाभूतो ह्येकस्मिन्वेदान्ते सर्वज्ञः सर्वेश्वरः सर्वात्मैकोऽद्वितीयः कारणत्वेन व्यपदिष्टः,
Just as, he is, in fact, said to be the cause, in one Scriptural passage, thus — “He is omniscient, the Lord of all, the Self of all without a second”,

1.4.14 L.24 ✅ तथाभूत एव वेदान्तान्तरेष्वपि व्यपदिश्यते;
Even so, is he indicated in other Scriptural passages,

1.4.14 L.25 ✅ तद्यथा – ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति;
As for instance — “Truth, Knowledge and Infinite is Brahman” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.).

1.4.14 L.26 ✅ अत्र तावज्ज्ञानशब्देन परेण च तद्विषयेण कामयितृत्ववचनेन चेतनं ब्रह्म न्यरूपयत्;
Here in the passage indicating (Brahman) by the word ‘Knowledge’, and further on, with reference to it, speaking about its ‘desiring’ and thereby indicating it to be intelligent, it (i.e. the Scriptural passage) speaks of Brahman as the cause,

1.4.14 L.27 ✅ अपरप्रयोज्यत्वेनेश्वरं कारणमब्रवीत्;
And as not being dependent on anybody else, and speaks of the Lord as the cause.

1.4.14 L.28 ✅ तद्विषयेणैव परेणात्मशब्देन शरीरादिकोशपरम्परया चान्तरनुप्रवेशनेन सर्वेषामन्तः प्रत्यगात्मानं निरधारयत्;
And further on elsewhere using the word Self (Ātmā) for it (i.e. Brahman), it has finally ascertained it, as being the innermost universal Self (Pratyag-ātmā), by reason of its having been said to be inside the body and the other sheaths.

1.4.14 L.29 ✅ ‘बहु स्यां प्रजायेय’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति चात्मविषयेण बहुभवनानुशंसनेन
The Scriptures again have spoken about the Ātmā as having become many by the Scriptural passage “May I be many and may I bring forth progeny” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.) —

1.4.14 L.30 ✅ सृज्यमानानां विकाराणां स्रष्टुरभेदमभाषत;
And have also spoken about the non-difference between the modifications which are being created and itself as their creator.

1.4.14 L.31 ✅ तथा ‘इदं सर्वमसृजत। यदिदं किं च’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति
Similarly, the Scriptures, having by the passage “(It) created all this, whatever all this is” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.)

1.4.14 L.32 ✅ समस्तजगत्सृष्टिनिर्देशेन
Indicated the creation of the whole transitory world,

1.4.14 L.33 ✅ प्राक्सृष्टेरद्वितीयं स्रष्टारमाचष्टे;
Further mention, as to how, before the creation, the creator alone was the one without a second.

1.4.14 L.34 ✅ तदत्र यल्लक्षणं ब्रह्म कारणत्वेन विज्ञातम्, तल्लक्षणमेवान्यत्रापि विज्ञायते – ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1)
‘तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत’ (ChanU.6.2.3) इति;
Now, this same identical Brahman, which has been said to be the cause, and which is said to have certain characteristics, is known from other Scriptural passages also, as for instance in the Scriptural passage “Oh mild one, ‘Sat’ alone was in the beginning, the only one without a second,
It thought that it might be many and that it might bring forth (progeny), it created the Tejas” (ChanU.6.2.1–3),

1.4.14 L.35 ✅ तथा ‘आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किञ्चन मिषत्। स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजै’ (AitU.1.1.1) इति च –
And also, “The Self alone was in the beginning and nothing else vibrated or pulsated”, “He thought that he would create the worlds” (AitU.1.1.1).

1.4.14 L.36 ✅ एवंजातीयकस्य कारणस्वरूपनिरूपणपरस्य वाक्यजातस्य प्रतिवेदान्तमविगीतार्थत्वात्।
That there is no discrepancy about the creator, is so, also because, all such sets of Scriptural passages which expound the nature of the cause, do not show (that they have) any discrepant significance.

1.4.14 L.37 ✅ कार्यविषयं तु विगानं दृश्यते –
Discrepancy with regard to the things created is no doubt observable,

1.4.14 L.38 ✅ क्वचिदाकाशादिका सृष्टिः क्वचित्तेजआदिकेत्येवंजातीयकम्।
Inasmuch as sometimes it speaks of creation, in which the Ākāśa is created first, and sometimes, it speaks of creation, in which Tejas is created first.

1.4.14 L.39 ✅ न च कार्यविषयेण विगानेन कारणमपि ब्रह्म सर्ववेदान्तेष्वविगीतमधिगम्यमानमविवक्षितं भवितुमर्हतीति शक्यते वक्तुम्,
It is not therefore possible to be able to say, on the ground of this discrepancy as regards the order of creation, that the cause i.e. Brahman also, which is understood from the Scriptural passages as not having any discrepancy, deserves to be something which is not intended to be spoken of,

1.4.14 L.40 ✅ अतिप्रसङ्गात्।
Because, it would be indiscrete or imprudent i.e. it will have the most extra-ordinary implications (Atiprasaṅgāt).

1.4.14 L.41 ✅ समाधास्यति चाचार्यः कार्यविषयमपि विगानम् ‘न वियदश्रुतेः’ (BrS.2.3.1) इत्यारभ्य।
The Ācārya will, later on, refute the alleged discrepancy about the order of creation also, beginning with the Sūtra — “Ākāśa is not created (because) it is not so stated by the Scriptures” (BrS.2.3.1).

1.4.14 L.42 ✅ भवेदपि कार्यस्य विगीतत्वमप्रतिपाद्यत्वात्।
Besides, discrepancy with regard to things created, may well be there because the Scriptures do not purport to expound that.

1.4.14 L.43 ✅ न ह्ययं सृष्ट्यादिप्रपञ्चः प्रतिपिपादयिषितः।
It is not here intended to speak at length about the creation.

1.4.14 L.44 ✅ न हि तत्प्रतिबद्धः कश्चित्पुरुषार्थो दृश्यते श्रूयते वा।
We neither see nor find it mentioned by the Scriptures that any particular consummation devoutly to be wished for by man (Puruṣārtha) is bound up with it,

1.4.14 L.45 ✅ न च कल्पयितुं शक्यते,
Nor is it possible to imagine so,

1.4.14 L.46 ✅ उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां तत्र तत्र ब्रह्मविषयैर्वाक्यैः साकमेकवाक्यताया गम्यमानत्वात्।
Because it is understood from the introductory and concluding portions, that the details about creation are in complete conformity with passages in various places dealing with Brahman.

1.4.14 L.47 ✅ दर्शयति च सृष्ट्यादिप्रपञ्चस्य ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्त्यर्थताम् –
The Scriptures further do indicate how the account of the creation in extenso has the purpose of making one understand Brahman from it, thus —

1.4.14 L.48 ✅ ‘अन्नेन सोम्य शुङ्गेनापो मूलमन्विच्छाद्भिः सोम्य शुङ्गेन तेजो मूलमन्विच्छ तेजसा सोम्य शुङ्गेन सन्मूलमन्विच्छ’ (ChanU.6.8.4) इति।
“Oh mild one, seek out from the sprout (i.e. root cause) in the form of the earth, the root-cause in the form of ‘water’, by the sprout (i.e. root-cause) in the form of water, seek out the root-cause in the form of Tejas, and by the sprout (i.e. root-cause) in the form of Tejas, seek out the root-cause in the form of Sat” (ChanU.6.8.4).

1.4.14 L.49 ✅ मृदादिदृष्टान्तैश्च कार्यस्य कारणेनाभेदं वदितुं सृष्ट्यादिप्रपञ्चः श्राव्यत इति गम्यते।
It is understood from the illustration about clay etc., that it is with a desire to speak as to how the effect is not different from the cause, that the Scriptures give an account of creation in extenso.

1.4.14 L.50 ✅ तथा च सम्प्रदायविदो वदन्ति –
Those who are conversant with the tradition of the Scriptures also say similarly —

1.4.14 L.51 ✅ ‘मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा। उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन’ (ManKa.3.15) इति।
“The different illustrations about clay, gold, and the sparks of fire, which make us understand the diversity of creation in different places, are only meant to serve as an expedient for making a person realize (Brahman), though Brahman as such, does not admit of any differences” (ManKa.3.15).

1.4.14 L.52 ✅ ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्तिप्रतिबद्धं तु फलं श्रूयते –
‘ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1)
Scriptures moreover mention a fruit as being connected with the realization of Brahman, thus —
“One who realizes Brahman reaches the farthest limit (the Ultima Thule)" (TaitU.2.1 Eng.),

1.4.14 L.53 ✅ ‘तरति शोकमात्मवित्’ (ChanU.7.1.3)
“One who knows Brahman transcends grief” (ChanU.7.1.3),

1.4.14 L.54 ✅ ‘तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति’ (SvetU.3.8) इति।
“It is by realizing that (i.e. Brahman), that a person transcends death” (SvetU.3.8).

1.4.14 L.55 ✅ प्रत्यक्षावगमं चेदं फलम्,
Besides, this fruit is directly realized as such (by man),

1.4.14 L.56 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यसंसार्यात्मत्वप्रतिपत्तौ सत्यां संसार्यात्मत्वव्यावृत्तेः॥१४॥
Because the realization that the Self is not of a transmigratory nature being there from the passage “That thou art” — (the fanciful notion) that the Self is of a transmigratory nature, immediately vanishes. — 14.

[Go top]

1.4.15 L.1 ✅ यत्पुनः कारणविषयं विगानं दर्शितम् ‘असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इत्यादि, तत्परिहर्तव्यम्;
Now, we have again to refute the alleged discrepancy in the Scriptures as regards the cause, as is said to be indicated by the passage — “In the beginning ‘Asat’ verily was there” etc.

1.4.15 L.2 ✅ अत्रोच्यते –
With regard to this we say: —

←Prev Next→
समाकर्षात्॥१.४.१५॥
Samākarṣāt.

Samākarṣāt: from its connection with a distant expression.

🔗 On account of (Brahman) having been brought forward (in the subsequent Sūtra, non-existence or ‘Asat’ does not mean absolute non-existence, but it means Brahman). — 1.4.15.

1.4.15 L.3 ✅ ‘असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति नात्रासन्निरात्मकं कारणत्वेन श्राव्यते;
The Scriptural passage “This in the beginning was ‘Asat’ i.e. merely a non-existent (a mere void)” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.) does not intend to mention the sans-Self absolute non-existence as the cause of the world,

1.4.15 L.4 ✅ यतः ‘असन्नेव स भवति। असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्। अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद। सन्तमेनं ततो विदुः’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इत्यसद्वादापवादेन
Because, after having denied the doctrine of the non-existent Asat by the passage “He who understands Brahman to be Asat (i.e. merely a non-existent, a mere void) himself becomes non-existent, but he who understands it as existent is known (by us) to be himself existent,”

1.4.15 L.5 ✅ अस्तित्वलक्षणं ब्रह्मान्नमयादिकोशपरम्परया प्रत्यगात्मानं निर्धार्य,
And definitely ascertained Brahman which has the characteristic of existence as the innermost Universal Self (Pratyag-ātmā) by means of the successive series of sheaths (such as ‘having the structure of food’ etc.),

1.4.15 L.6 ✅ ‘सोऽकामयत’ इति तमेव प्रकृतं समाकृष्य,
And after having brought up the same (Brahman) by the clause “He desired”,

1.4.15 L.7 ✅ सप्रपञ्चां सृष्टिं तस्माच्छ्रावयित्वा,
And having mentioned creation at detailed length as originating from it,

1.4.15 L.8 ✅ ‘तत्सत्यमित्याचक्षते’ इति चोपसंहृत्य,
And after having finally concluded with the clause “(the wise) call that as the “Truth”,

1.4.15 L.9 ✅ ‘तदप्येष श्लोको भवति’ इति तस्मिन्नेव प्रकृतेऽर्थे श्लोकमिममुदाहरति –
And saying “of this there is a Śloka”, quotes by way of illustration that same thing which is relevant to the context, thus —

1.4.15 L.10 ✅ ‘असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत्’ (TaitU.2.7.1) इति।
“This in the beginning was Asat i.e. merely non-existent.”

1.4.15 L.11 ✅ यदि त्वसन्निरात्मकमस्मिञ्श्लोकेऽभिप्रेयेत,
If therefore the ‘sans-Self absolutely non-existent’ were to be understood as intended to be referred to in this Śloka,

1.4.15 L.12 ✅ ततोऽन्यसमाकर्षणेऽन्यस्योदाहरणादसम्बद्धं वाक्यमापद्येत;
It would mean that when one thing (i.e. Sat i.e. Brahman) is brought up, an illustration of an entirely different thing (viz. Asat i.e. a mere non-existence, a void) is given afterwards, and in this way the sentence would be rendered incoherent.

1.4.15 L.13 ✅ तस्मान्नामरूपव्याकृतवस्तुविषयः प्रायेण सच्छब्दः प्रसिद्ध इति
Therefore, considering that the word Sat is generally known (to be used) in connection with a thing which has been evolved by name and form, (it should be understood)

1.4.15 L.14 ✅ तद्व्याकरणाभावापेक्षया प्रागुत्पत्तेः सदेव ब्रह्मासदिवासीदित्युपचर्यते।
That Brahman which before creation is of course Sat is here spoken of in a secondary sense, as if it is Asat, with reference to the fact, that before creation there was absence of any differentiation by way of names and forms (as is to be seen, now, in the created world).

1.4.15 L.15 ✅ एषैव ‘असदेवेदमग्र आसीत्’ (ChanU.3.19.1) इत्यत्रापि योजना,
The same construction should be put on the passage “In the beginning Asat alone was there” (ChanU.3.19.1),

1.4.15 L.16 ✅ ‘तत्सदासीत्’ इति समाकर्षणात्;
Because the same has further on been brought up as “It was Sat (i.e. existent).”

1.4.15 L.17 ✅ अत्यन्ताभावाभ्युपगमे हि ‘तत्सदासीत्’ इति किं समाकृष्येत?
Now, if by “it absolutely was Asat” absolute non-existence were to be understood, then what possibly could afterwards be brought up as “It was Sat” (the existent)?

1.4.15 L.18 ✅ ‘तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीत्’ (ChanU.6.2.1) इत्यत्रापि न श्रुत्यन्तराभिप्रायेणायमेकीयमतोपन्यासः,
The Scriptural passage “That some said that in the beginning it was Asat (non-existent)” (ChanU.6.2.1) does not mean that by this other Scriptural passage, an authority for the opinion held by some persons, is thus furnished,

1.4.15 L.19 ✅ क्रियायामिव वस्तुनि विकल्पस्यासम्भवात्;
Because, no scope for any option is possible in the case of an entity, as it is in the case of action (Kriyā).

1.4.15 L.20 ✅ तस्माच्छ्रुतिपरिगृहीतसत्पक्षदार्ढ्यायैवायं मन्दमतिपरिकल्पितस्यासत्पक्षस्योपन्यस्य निरास इति द्रष्टव्यम्।
Therefore, it should be seen i.e. understood in this way, viz., that it is only in order to strengthen the Scriptural view “that Sat (existent) alone was in the beginning”, that the view of some ignorant people, viz. that “in the beginning it was Asat (non-existent)”, is merely stated and refuted.

1.4.15 L.21 ✅ ‘तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत्’ (BrhU.1.4.7) इत्यत्रापि न निरध्यक्षस्य जगतो व्याकरणं कथ्यते,
By the Scriptural passage “That this (i.e. the world) therefore was then undifferentiated but it was afterwards made manifest by names and forms” (BrhUEng.1.4.7) also, it is not meant to convey the evolution of the transitory world without any creator (Niradhyakṣa),

1.4.15 L.22 ✅ ‘स एष इह प्रविष्ट आ नखाग्रेभ्यः’ इत्यध्यक्षस्य व्याकृतकार्यानुप्रवेशित्वेन समाकर्षात्;
Because in the passage “That ‘he’ then entered into the creation right down to the end of the nails (down to the finger tips) i.e. fully and completely” the same creator is brought up as the one who entered into his own creation,

1.4.15 L.23 ✅ निरध्यक्षे व्याकरणाभ्युपगमे हि
Because, if we understand all this differentiation or evolution to have come about without a creator,

1.4.15 L.24 ✅ अनन्तरेण प्रकृतावलम्बिना स इत्यनेन सर्वनाम्ना कः कार्यानुप्रवेशित्वेन समाकृष्येत?
Then who else could be supposed to be referred to later on, by the pronoun ‘He’, which (as a pronoun) governs the thing relevant to the context here, but the same one who entered the creation?

1.4.15 L.25 ✅ चेतनस्य चायमात्मनः शरीरेऽनुप्रवेशः श्रूयते,
The Scriptures say that it was the sentient Self that entered the body,

1.4.15 L.26 ✅ अनुप्रविष्टस्य चेतनत्वश्रवणात् –
Because they mention that the one that entered the creation was sentient, in the passage —

1.4.15 L.27 ✅
‘पश्यꣳश्चक्षुः शृण्वञ्श्रोत्रं मन्वानो मनः’ इति; “As he sees, he is called the eye, as he hears, the ear, and as he thinks, the mind” (BrhUEng.1.4.7).

1.4.15 L.28 ✅ अपि च यादृशमिदमद्यत्वे नामरूपाभ्यां व्याक्रियमाणं जगत्साध्यक्षं व्याक्रियते,
Besides, it is understood, that just as the present transitory world differentiated by names and forms, was evolved by a creator (i.e. it did not spring up from nothing),

1.4.15 L.29 ✅ एवमादिसर्गेऽपीति गम्यते,
So must it have been in the initial creation also,

1.4.15 L.30 ✅ दृष्टविपरीतकल्पनानुपपत्तेः;
Because, it would not be reasonably sustainable to imagine something, absolutely different from what is actually seen.

1.4.15 L.31 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरमपि ‘अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.2) इति
Moreover, another Scriptural passage also, viz. “(I) shall now myself enter (the creation) as the Jīva-Self and evolve names and forms” (ChanU.6.3.2),

1.4.15 L.32 ✅ साध्यक्षामेव जगतो व्याक्रियां दर्शयति;
Indicates the evolution of the world by a creator.

1.4.15 L.33 ✅ ‘व्याक्रियत’ इत्यपि कर्मकर्तरि लकारः सत्येव परमेश्वरे व्याकर्तरि सौकर्यमपेक्ष्य द्रष्टव्यः –
The intransitive form of the verb ‘Vyākriyate’ should be looked upon as indicating the ease and facility with which evolution was accomplished, when it is taken for granted that the Highest Lord was the one who caused the evolution,

1.4.15 L.34 ✅ यथा लूयते केदारः स्वयमेवेति सत्येव पूर्णके लवितरि;
Just as even when an able crop-cutter (i.e. harvester) is there, we say that the crop cuts itself (which shows the ease with which it is cut).

1.4.15 L.35 ✅ यद्वा कर्मण्येवैष लकारोऽर्थाक्षिप्तं कर्तारमपेक्ष्य द्रष्टव्यः –
Alternatively, we may understand it as the transitive form with reference to a creator whose necessity is implicit from the meaning.

1.4.15 L.36 ✅ यथा गम्यते ग्राम इति॥१५॥
For instance, (when we say) the village is being approached (we necessarily have to assume that it is so approached by somebody who actually is approaching it). — 15.

– 35. Kāraṇatva-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.4.16 Su..17 Su..18

←Prev Next→
जगद्वाचित्वात्॥१.४.१६॥
Jagad-vācitvāt.

Jagat: the world; Vācitvāt: because of the denotation.

🔗 (That the one whose Karma is this, transitory world, is Brahman), because the word (Karma) denotes this transitory world. — 1.4.16.

1.4.16 L.1 ✅ कौषीतकिब्राह्मणे बालाक्यजातशत्रुसंवादे श्रूयते –
In Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa, in the passage about the discussion between Bālāki and Ajāta-śatru, the Scriptures mention —

1.4.16 L.2 ✅ ‘यो वै बालाक एतेषां पुरुषाणां कर्ता यस्य वैतत्कर्म स वै वेदितव्यः’ (कौ. ब्रा. ४-१९) इति।
“Oh Bālāki, verily He who is the creator of these Puruṣas, or rather (Vā) the one whose Karma (i.e. handiwork) is this transitory world, he alone is the one who should be known” (Kauṣ. Brā. 4.19) etc.

1.4.16 L.3 ✅ तत्र किं जीवो वेदितव्यत्वेनोपदिश्यते, उत मुख्यः प्राणः, उत परमात्मेति विशयः।
Now, the doubt with regard to this is, as to whether instruction is here given about the Jīva-Self as the object of knowledge, or about the Chief Vital Air, or about the Highest Self.

1.4.16 L.4 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
So what is the conclusion (of the opponent)?

1.4.16 L.5 ✅ प्राण इति।
(It is) that, it is the Chief Vital Air (about which instruction is here given).

1.4.16 L.6 ✅ कुतः? ‘यस्य वैतत्कर्म’ इति श्रवणात्,
Why so? Because the Scriptures say — “Or rather, the one whose handiwork (Karma) is this.”

1.4.16 L.7 ✅ परिस्पन्दलक्षणस्य च कर्मणः प्राणाश्रयत्वात्;
The handiwork whose characteristic is movement depends upon the Vital Air.

1.4.16 L.8 ✅ वाक्यशेषे च ‘अथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति’ इति प्राणशब्दश्रवणात्,
Because in the complementary passage “(during sleep) it becomes one with the Vital Air” also, it is seen that the use of the word Prāṇa,

1.4.16 L.9 ✅ प्राणशब्दस्य च मुख्ये प्राणे प्रसिद्धत्वात्;
In the sense of the Chief Vital Air, is well-known.

1.4.16 L.10 ✅ ये चैते पुरस्ताद्बालाकिना ‘आदित्ये पुरुषश्चन्द्रमसि पुरुषः’ इत्येवमादयः पुरुषा निर्दिष्टाः, तेषामपि भवति प्राणः कर्ता,
So also in the preceding portion these same Puruṣas which have been indicated by Bālāki thus — “That the person who is in the sun, the person who is in the moon etc.” (KausU.4.3.4), have also the Prāṇa as their creator,

1.4.16 L.11 ✅ प्राणावस्थाविशेषत्वादादित्यादिदेवतात्मनाम् –
Because the Selfs of the deities such as the Sun etc., are but the special conditions of Prāṇa,

1.4.16 L.12 ✅ ‘कतम एको देव इति प्राण इति स ब्रह्म त्यदित्याचक्षते’ (BrhU.3.9.9) इति श्रुत्यन्तरप्रसिद्धेः।
As is well-known from another Scriptural passage — “Who is that one Deva (of whom all the other Devas are but special forms)? It is the Prāṇa, and this Prāṇa is Brahman, it is called ‘Tyat’” (BrhUEng.3.9.9).

1.4.16 L.13 ✅ जीवो वायमिह वेदितव्यतयोपदिश्यते;
Or, may be, it is the Jīva-Self about which instruction is here given as the one that should be known.

1.4.16 L.14 ✅ तस्यापि धर्माधर्मलक्षणं कर्म शक्यते श्रावयितुम् – ‘यस्य वैतत्कर्म’ इति;
It is possible, that the Scriptures may have mentioned this Jīva-Self, as the one whose action (Karma) is of meritorious or unmeritoricus nature, thus: — “Or rather whose Karma (handiwork) is this.”

1.4.16 L.15 ✅ सोऽपि भोक्तृत्वाद्भोगोपकरणभूतानामेतेषां पुरुषाणां कर्तोपपद्यते;
It is also reasonably sustainable to say of the Jīva-Self by reason of its being the experiencer, that it is the creator of the Puruṣas who serve as the implements of its experience.

1.4.16 L.16 ✅ वाक्यशेषे च जीवलिङ्गमवगम्यते –
In the complementary passage also, we find an indicatory mark of the Jīva-Self,

1.4.16 L.17 ✅ यत्कारणं वेदितव्यतयोपन्यस्तस्य पुरुषाणां कर्तुर्वेदनायोपेतं बालाकिं प्रति बुबोधयिषुरजातशत्रुः
Because, Ajāta-śatru, with a desire to impart to Bālāki — who has approached him in order to know the creator of these Puruṣas, which has been stated to be the one to be known — the knowledge of that creator,

1.4.16 L.18 ✅ सुप्तं पुरुषमामन्त्र्य आमन्त्रणशब्दाश्रवणात्प्राणादीनामभोक्तृत्वं प्रतिबोध्य
After calling the person in deep sleep by his name, and after having taught Bālāki as to how the Prāṇa etc. were not the experiencers as they could not hear (Ajāta-śatru calling the person sleeping, by his name),

1.4.16 L.19 ✅ यष्टिघातोत्थापनात्प्राणादिव्यतिरिक्तं जीवं भोक्तारं प्रतिबोधयति;
And thereafter by waking up of the person sleeping, by beating him with a stick, ultimately teaches Bālāki that the Jīva-Self which is different from the Prāṇas, is the experiencer.

1.4.16 L.20 ✅ तथा परस्तादपि जीवलिङ्गमवगम्यते –
Similarly also, in the portion that follows, an indicatory mark about the Jīva-Self is discernible, thus —

1.4.16 L.21 ✅ ‘तद्यथा श्रेष्ठी स्वैर्भुङ्क्ते यथा वा स्वाः श्रेष्ठिनं भुञ्जन्त्येवमेवैष प्रज्ञात्मैतैरात्मभिर्भुङ्क्ते
एवमेवैत आत्मान एतमात्मानं भुञ्जन्ति’ (कौ. ब्रा. ४-२०) इति;
“Just as a Śreṣṭhi (president of a merchant’s guild) experiences along with his own people or retinue, or his own people or retinue experience at the expense of the Śreṣṭhi,
Even so does the intelligential Universal Self experience along with these Jīva-Selfs, and even so, do these Jīva-Selfs experience (at the expense of) this Intelligential Universal “Self”. (Kauṣ. Brā. 4.20).

1.4.16 L.22 ✅ प्राणभृत्त्वाच्च जीवस्योपपन्नं प्राणशब्दत्वम्।
And because the Jīva-Self sustains the Prāṇas, it is reasonably sustainable to indicate it by the word Prāṇa.

1.4.16 L.23 ✅ तस्माज्जीवमुख्यप्राणयोरन्यतर इह ग्रहणीयः,
Therefore, here, either the Jīva-Self or the Prāṇa i.e. the Chief Vital Air should be understood,

1.4.16 L.24 ✅ न परमेश्वरः, तल्लिङ्गानवगमाद्
But not the Highest Lord, as no indicatory mark about him is noticeable.

1.4.16 L.25 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent) we reply: —

1.4.16 L.26 ✅ परमेश्वर एवायमेतेषां पुरुषाणां कर्ता स्यात्।
It is the Highest Lord alone, who could possibly be the creator of these Puruṣas.

1.4.16 L.27 ✅ कस्मात्? उपक्रमसामर्थ्यात्।
How so? On the strength of the introductory passage.

1.4.16 L.28 ✅ इह हि बालाकिरजातशत्रुणा सह ‘ब्रह्म ते ब्रवाणि’ इति संवदितुमुपचक्रमे;
Here Bālāki has started his conversation with Ajāta-śatru by saying — “I shall speak to you about Brahman” (KausU.4.1).

1.4.16 L.29 ✅ स च कतिचिदादित्याद्यधिकरणान्पुरुषानमुख्यब्रह्मदृष्टिभाज उक्त्वा तूष्णीं बभूव;
He, however, having talked to Ajāta-śatru about some Puruṣas, the presiding deities in the Sun etc., who are not the principal Brahma-as-such, held his peace.

1.4.16 L.30 ✅ तमजातशत्रुः ‘मृषा वै खलु मा संवदिष्ठा ब्रह्म ते ब्रवाणि’ इत्यमुख्यब्रह्मवादितयापोद्य,
On which, Ajāta-śatru having censured him for having talked only about the secondary or nonprincipal Brahman, thus — “Falsely have you professed that you would speak to me about Brahman”,

1.4.16 L.31 ✅ तत्कर्तारमन्यं वेदितव्यतयोपचिक्षेप;
Has then introduced another one as the creator of these Puruṣas and as the one that ought to be known.

1.4.16 L.32 ✅ यदि सोऽप्यमुख्यब्रह्मदृष्टिभाक्स्यात्, उपक्रमो बाध्येत;
Now, if even that about whom Ajāta-śatru spoke, were to be that which is not Brahma-as-such, then that would vitiate the introductory portion.

1.4.16 L.33 ✅ तस्मात्परमेश्वर एवायं भवितुमर्हति।
Therefore it is the Highest Lord alone who deserves to be this (i.e. Brahma-as-such).

1.4.16 L.34 ✅ कर्तृत्वं चैतेषां पुरुषाणां न परमेश्वरादन्यस्य स्वातन्त्र्येणावकल्पते।
Besides nobody but the Highest Lord can be imagined to be the independent creator of these Puruṣas.

1.4.16 L.35 ✅ ‘यस्य वैतत्कर्म’ इत्यपि नायं परिस्पन्दलक्षणस्य धर्माधर्मलक्षणस्य वा कर्मणो निर्देशः,
The words “Or rather the one whose Karma is this” also, are not an indication of Karma (function) of the nature of movement or of the nature of meritorious or unmeritorious action performed by the Jīva-Self,

1.4.16 L.36 ✅ तयोरन्यतरस्याप्यप्रकृतत्वात्,
Because neither of these (actions) are relevant here,

1.4.16 L.37 ✅ असंशब्दितत्वाच्च;
Nor are they specifically mentioned in so many words.

1.4.16 L.38 ✅ नापि पुरुषाणामयं निर्देशः,
Nor is this an indication of the Puruṣas

1.4.16 L.39 ✅ ‘एतेषां पुरुषाणां कर्ता’ इत्येव तेषां निर्दिष्टत्वात्,
As they have already been referred to in the clause “One who is the creator of these Puruṣas”,

1.4.16 L.40 ✅ लिङ्गवचनविगानाच्च;
And also because of the disparity between the gender and number (Puruṣas being of masculine gender and plural number, and Karma being of neuter gender and singular number).

1.4.16 L.41 ✅ नापि पुरुषविषयस्य करोत्यर्थस्य क्रियाफलस्य वायं निर्देशः,
Nor again is the word (Karma) an indication of the meaning of the verb ‘Karoti’ (creates), viz. the creative function of the creator, or of the fruit of such action, viz. the creation of these Puruṣas,

1.4.16 L.42 ✅ कर्तृशब्देनैव तयोरुपात्तत्वात्;
Because both these happen to be already apprehended by the word ‘creator’ (as it necessarily implies action and the result of such action).

1.4.16 L.43 ✅ पारिशेष्यात्प्रत्यक्षसन्निहितं जगत्सर्वनाम्नैतच्छब्देन निर्दिश्यते;
Therefore, the only thing remaining i.e. the transitory world which is proximate, is indicated by the pronoun ‘this’ and it is that same transitory world that is indicated by the verb ‘is created’.

1.4.16 L.44 ✅ क्रियत इति च तदेव जगत्कर्म।
But (says the opponent) the transitory world also is neither relevant nor is it stated in so many words.

1.4.16 L.45 ✅ ननु जगदप्यप्रकृतमसंशब्दितं च। सत्यमेतत्;
(We reply) that it is so, is no doubt true, but when no special mention of any particular thing is available here,

1.4.16 L.46 ✅ तथाप्यसति विशेषोपादाने साधारणेनार्थेन सन्निधानेन सन्निहितवस्तुमात्रस्यायं निर्देश इति गम्यते,
It is understood, that it is an indication of the thing which is proximate (viz. the transitory world) because ‘proximity’ is the ordinary significance of the pronoun ‘Etat’,

1.4.16 L.47 ✅ न विशिष्टस्य कस्यचित्, विशेषसन्निधानाभावात्;
And not an indication of any specific thing, because there is absence of the proximity of any such specific thing here.

1.4.16 L.48 ✅ पूर्वत्र च जगदेकदेशभूतानां पुरुषाणां विशेषोपादानादविशेषितं जगदेवेहोपादीयत इति गम्यते।
And as the Puruṣas (of the Āditya-Loka etc.) which are only a part of the world have been already referred to earlier, it is understood that it is only the transitory world in general that is to be accepted here.

1.4.16 L.49 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – य एतेषां पुरुषाणां जगदेकदेशभूतानां कर्ता – किमनेन विशेषेण? –
It is said — What then is the point or propriety in particularizing (the creator) as the creator of only a part of the whole world, viz. the Puruṣas, when the whole transitory world itself is his creation?

1.4.16 L.50 ✅ यस्य वा कृत्स्नमेव जगदविशेषितं कर्मेति वाशब्द एकदेशावच्छिन्नकर्तृत्वव्यावृत्त्यर्थः;
The word ‘or rather’ (the ‘Vā’ in ‘Yasya vā etat Karma’) is used here precisely for rejecting the notion of the creator’s creation of only a circumscribed portion (of the whole world).

1.4.16 L.51 ✅ ये बालाकिना ब्रह्मत्वाभिमताः पुरुषाः कीर्तिताः, तेषामब्रह्मत्वख्यापनाय विशेषोपादानम्।
The reason for this special mention is for the purpose of establishing the non-Brahmic nature of the Puruṣas that were spoken of by Bālāki, to be Brahman.

1.4.16 L.52 ✅ एवं ब्राह्मणपरिव्राजकन्यायेन सामान्यविशेषाभ्यां जगतः कर्ता वेदितव्यतयोपदिश्यते;
In this manner, on the authority of the maxim of the Brāhmaṇa and the peripatetic Sannyāsin (Parivrājaka), the instruction given here is about the creator of the transitory world by stating about his nature both generally and particularly.

1.4.16 L.53 ✅ परमेश्वरश्च सर्वजगतः कर्ता सर्ववेदान्तेष्ववधारितः॥१६॥
All Scriptural texts without exception, also speak of the Highest Lord as the creator of the whole transitory world. — 16.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गान्नेति चेत्तद्व्याख्यातम्॥१.४.१७॥
Jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cet tad-vyākhyātam.

Jīva: the individual soul; Mukhya-prāṇa: the chief vital air; Liṅgāt: because of the inferential marks; Na iti: not thus; Cet: if; Tat: that; Vyākhyātam: has already been explained.

🔗 If it be said that it is not so, (i.e. the Highest Lord is not meant) because of the indicatory marks about the Jīva-Self and the Chief Vital Air, (we reply) we have already refuted or expounded that. — 1.4.17.

1.4.17 L.1 ✅ अथ यदुक्तं वाक्यशेषगताज्जीवलिङ्गान्मुख्यप्राणलिङ्गाच्च
Now, what is said — viz. that because of the indicatory marks about the Jīva-Self and the Chief Vital Air which occur in the complementary passage,

1.4.17 L.2 ✅ तयोरेवान्यतरस्येह ग्रहणं न्याय्यं न परमेश्वरस्येति, तत्परिहर्तव्यम्।
It is reasonably sustainable to determine that it is either of these two only that is to be understood and not the Highest Lord — has to be refuted.

1.4.17 L.3 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – परिहृतं चैतत् ‘नोपासात्रैविध्यादाश्रितत्वादिह तद्योगात्’ (BrS.1.1.31) इत्यत्र;
With regard to this we say that (that view) has already been demolished in the foregoing Sūtra (BrS.1.1.31), wherein (we have pointed out, that if what the opponent says were to be accepted),

1.4.17 L.4 ✅ त्रिविधं ह्यत्रोपासनमेवं सति प्रसज्येत –
It would mean that threefold devout meditation is here indicated,

1.4.17 L.5 ✅ जीवोपासनं मुख्यप्राणोपासनं ब्रह्मोपासनं चेति; न चैतन्न्याय्यम्;
Viz. that of the Jīva-Self, the Chief Vital Air, and the Highest Lord, which is not reasonably justifiable,

1.4.17 L.6 ✅ उपक्रमोपसंहाराभ्यां हि ब्रह्मविषयत्वमस्य वाक्यस्यावगम्यते;
Because we understand from the introductory and the concluding portion of this sentence that it refers to Brahman,

1.4.17 L.7 ✅ तत्रोपक्रमस्य तावद्ब्रह्मविषयत्वं दर्शितम्; उपसंहारस्यापि
That Brahman is the subject of discussion at the commencement has already been shown [Trans. by Panoli]. And that the concluding portion also refers to Brahman.

1.4.17 L.8 ✅ निरतिशयफलश्रवणाद्ब्रह्मविषयत्वं दृश्यते –
‘सर्वान्पाप्मनोऽपहत्य सर्वेषां च भूतानां श्रैष्ठ्यं स्वाराज्यमाधिपत्यं पर्येति य एवं वेद’ इति।
And it is also seen, that, because the Scriptures mention a fruit than which no other fruit is higher, it refers to Brahman, thus —
“He who knows it to be like this, having all sins destroyed thereby, obtains greatness over all beings, sovereignty (Svā-rājya — above being regulated) and Supremacy or overlordship (Ādhipatya)”.

1.4.17 L.9 ✅ नन्वेवं सति प्रतर्दनवाक्यनिर्णयेनैवेदमपि वाक्यं निर्णीयेत।
But (says the opponent), in that case, the sense of this sentence will have been determined already, by the determination of the sense of the passage about the dialogue of Indra and Pratardana.

1.4.17 L.10 ✅ न निर्णीयते,
To this (we say) it would certainly not be so determined

1.4.17 L.11 ✅ ‘यस्य वैतत्कर्म’ इत्यस्य ब्रह्मविषयत्वेन तत्र अनिर्धारितत्वात्;
Because, there, the sense of the clause “Or rather, whose Karma is this” was not determined as referring to Brahman.

1.4.17 L.12 ✅ तस्मादत्र जीवमुख्यप्राणशङ्का पुनरुत्पद्यमाना निवर्त्यते।
Therefore, here, the doubt which arises again, viz. that it may mean the Jīva-Self or the Chief Vital Air, is refuted.

1.4.17 L.13 ✅ प्राणशब्दोऽपि ब्रह्मविषयो दृष्टः ‘प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः’ (ChanU.6.8.2) इत्यत्र।
The word Prāṇa also is seen to refer to Brahman, in the sentence — “O mild one, the mind has the Prāṇa as its support” (ChanU.6.8.2).

1.4.17 L.14 ✅ जीवलिङ्गमप्युपक्रमोपसंहारयोर्ब्रह्मविषयत्वादभेदाभिप्रायेण योजयितव्यम्॥१७॥
The indicatory mark about the Jīva-Self also should be construed as purporting to indicate the non-difference (between the Jīva-Self and Brahman) as both the introductory and the concluding portions are with reference to Brahman. — 17.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अन्यार्थं तु जैमिनिः प्रश्नव्याख्यानाभ्यामपि चैवमेके॥१.४.१८॥
Anyārthaṃ tu jaiminiḥ praśna-vyākhyānābhyām api caivam eke.

Anya-artham: for another purpose; Tu: but; Jaiminiḥ: Jaimini; Praśna-vyākhyānābhyām: from the question and the reply; Api: also; Ca: and; Evam: in this way; Eke: others, other Śrutis.

🔗 Jaimini (is of opinion) that the reference (to the Jīva-Self) is for another purpose, (as is seen) from the question and the exposition. Besides, even so do some others (recite). — 1.4.18.

1.4.18 L.1 ✅ अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् – जीवप्रधानं वेदं वाक्यं स्यात् ब्रह्मप्रधानं वेति;
Nor should it be argued here, as to whether the sentence has the Jīva-Self as its topic, or whether it is Brahman,

1.4.18 L.2 ✅ यतोऽन्यार्थं जीवपरामर्शं ब्रह्मप्रतिपत्त्यर्थमस्मिन्वाक्ये जैमिनिराचार्यो मन्यते।
Because, Ācārya Jaimini is of opinion, that the reference to the Jīva-Self in the sentence, is for the comprehension of Brahman.

1.4.18 L.3 ✅ कस्मात्? प्रश्नव्याख्यानाभ्याम्।
Why so? Because of the question and the exposition.

1.4.18 L.4 ✅ प्रश्नस्तावत्सुप्तपुरुषप्रतिबोधनेन प्राणादिव्यतिरिक्ते जीवे प्रतिबोधिते पुनर्जीवव्यतिरिक्तविषयो दृश्यते –
After having made Bālāki understand how the Jīva-Self was different from the Prāṇa etc., by waking up the person in sound sleep, it is seen, that the question again appears to be about something which is different from the Jīva-Self, thus —

1.4.18 L.5 ✅ ‘क्वैष एतद्बालाके पुरुषोऽशयिष्ट क्व वा एतदभूत्कुत एतदागात्’ (कौ. ब्रा. ४-१९) इति;
“O Bālāki, where was this person sleeping, and where (in fact) was he, and whence did he return?” (Kauṣ. Brā. 4.19),

1.4.18 L.6 ✅ प्रतिवचनमपि – ‘यदा सुप्तः स्वप्नं न कञ्चन पश्यत्यथास्मिन्प्राण एवैकधा भवति’ (कौ. ब्रा. ४-२०) इत्यादि,
‘एतस्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणा यथायतनं विप्रतिष्ठन्ते प्राणेभ्यो देवा देवेभ्यो लोकाः’ इति च।
And the reply (by Ajāta-śatru to the question so posed by himself) is likewise, thus — “When he is in deep sleep he sees no dreams, but becomes one with the Prāṇa itself”
And “from that Self the Prāṇas proceed to their respective places, from Prāṇas the Gods and from the Gods the Lokas (Worlds)” (Kauṣ. Brā. 4.20).

1.4.18 L.7 ✅ सुषुप्तिकाले च परेण ब्रह्मणा जीव एकतां गच्छति;
During the period of sleep, moreover, the Jīva-Self becomes one with the Highest Brahman.

1.4.18 L.8 ✅ परस्माच्च ब्रह्मणः प्राणादिकं जगज्जायत इति वेदान्तमर्यादा।
All Vedāntas culminate in inculcating that all this transitory world of Prāṇa etc. originates from the Highest Brahman.

1.4.18 L.9 ✅ तस्माद्यत्रास्य जीवस्य निःसम्बोधतास्वच्छतारूपः स्वापः –
So, it is understood that, that, wherein the Jīva-Self sleeps, oblivious of any specific consciousness, and in utter purity,

1.4.18 L.10 ✅ उपाधिजनितविशेषविज्ञानरहितं स्वरूपम्,
And wherein its nature (Rūpa) is devoid of any specific cognition as caused by limiting adjuncts,

1.4.18 L.11 ✅ यतस्तद्भ्रंशरूपमागमनम्,
And the Jīva-Self’s return from which, means the discontinuity of the condition of sleep,

1.4.18 L.12 ✅ सोऽत्र परमात्मा वेदितव्यतया श्रावित इति गम्यते।
Is the Highest Self, which the Scriptures have here mentioned as the one that should be known.

1.4.18 L.13 ✅ अपि चैवमेके शाखिनो वाजसनेयिनोऽस्मिन्नेव बालाक्यजातशत्रुसंवादे स्पष्टं विज्ञानमयशब्देन जीवमाम्नाय
Moreover, the followers of one branch, viz. the Vāja-saneyins, in this very passage about the discussion between Bālāki and Ajāta-śatru, clearly refer to the Jīva-Self as the one whose structure is cognition (Vijñānamaya)

1.4.18 L.14 ✅ तद्व्यतिरिक्तं परमात्मानमामनन्ति
And then mention the Highest Self as one distinct from the Jīva-Self,

1.4.18 L.15 ✅ ‘य एष विज्ञानमयः पुरुषः क्वैष तदाभूत्कुत एतदागात्’ (BrhU.2.1.16) इति प्रश्ने;
In a question, thus — “Where, then, was this person whose structure is cognition, and whence has he now returned (into this sleeping body)?” (BrhUEng.2.1.16).

1.4.18 L.16 ✅ प्रतिवचनेऽपि ‘य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्शेते’ इति;
And in the reply also suggest the same thus — “This one (the Vijñānamaya) who sleeps in the Ākāśa (i.e. Brahman) that is inside the Hṛdaya.”

1.4.18 L.17 ✅ आकाशशब्दश्च परमात्मनि प्रयुक्तः ‘दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तराकाशः’ (ChanU.8.1.1) इत्यत्र।
Besides, the word Ākāśa is used to indicate the Highest Self, in the passage — “Inside this is the small Ākāśa” (ChanU.8.1.1).

1.4.18 L.18 ✅ ‘सर्व एत आत्मानो व्युच्चरन्ति’ इति चोपाधिमतामात्मनामन्यतो व्युच्चरणमामनन्तः परमात्मानमेव कारणत्वेनामनन्तीति गम्यते।
And in this way, the Scriptures which speak about the Selfs affected by limiting adjuncts, as starting off from somewhere else (Highest Self i.e. Brahman) thus — “All these Selfs start off”, necessarily speak of the Highest Self alone as being the cause (of the world).

1.4.18 L.19 ✅ प्राणनिराकरणस्यापि सुषुप्तपुरुषोत्थापनेन प्राणादिव्यतिरिक्तोपदेशोऽभ्युच्चयः॥१८॥
The instruction which is given by waking up the persons in deep sleep, explains how the Prāṇa (Chief Vital Air) is not meant (by the passage) and furnishes an additional cumulative reason for determining that the instruction is about one which is different from the Prāṇa (i.e. the Chief Vital Air). — 18.

– 36. Bālāky-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.4.19 Su..20 Su..21 Su..22

←Prev Next→
वाक्यान्वयात्॥१.४.१९॥
Vākyānvayāt.

Vākya-anvayāt: On account of the connected meaning of the sentences.

🔗 Because the sentence happens to be properly construed (in this way i.e. by understanding, that the word ‘Self in ‘Ātmā vā are’ etc. means the Highest Self). — 1.4.19.

1.4.19 L.1 ✅ बृहदारण्यके मैत्रेयीब्राह्मणेऽधीयते – ‘न वा अरे पत्युः कामाय’ इत्युपक्रम्य
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka in the Maitreyī Brāhmaṇa (the famous dialogue between Yājña-valkya and his wife Maitreyī), after beginning with “It is not for the sake of the husband etc.”,

1.4.19 L.2 ✅ ‘न वा अरे सर्वस्य कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवति
आत्मनस्तु कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवति
आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो
मैत्रेय्यात्मनो वा अरे दर्शनेन श्रवणेन मत्या
विज्ञानेनेदꣳ सर्वं विदितम्’ (BrhU.4.5.6) इति;
It is recited, “Oh Maitreyī, verily it is not for the sake of all that all becomes dear,
But it is for the sake of the Self that everything becomes dear,
Verily the Self should be seen, heard, cogitated upon and constantly meditated upon.
Oh Maitreyī, it is by seeing, hearing, cogitating upon,
And by knowing the Self, that all this is known”. (BrhUEng.4.5.6) etc.

1.4.19 L.3 ✅ तत्रैतद्विचिकित्स्यते – किं विज्ञानात्मैवायं द्रष्टव्यश्रोतव्यत्वादिरूपेणोपदिश्यते, आहोस्वित्परमात्मेति।
Here the doubt arises as to whether instruction is here given, to see, hear etc. the cognitional Jīva-Self, or the Highest Self.

1.4.19 L.4 ✅ कुतः पुनरेषा विचिकित्सा?
Whence has this doubt arisen?

1.4.19 L.5 ✅ प्रियसंसूचितेनात्मना भोक्त्रोपक्रमाद् विज्ञानात्मोपदेश इति प्रतिभाति;
Because it appears (to us) that as the introductory passage refers to a Self, which is an experiencer — as suggested by a reference to dear things (such as wife, husband etc.) — , the instruction is about the cognitional Jīva-Self.

1.4.19 L.6 ✅ तथात्मविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानोपदेशात्परमात्मोपदेश इति।
Again, as the instruction is that by knowing the Self everything else is known, it appears (to us) that the Highest Self is meant.

1.4.19 L.7 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is your conclusion?

1.4.19 L.8 ✅ विज्ञानात्मोपदेश इति।
(My conclusion is that the instruction is about the cognitional Jīva-Self.)

1.4.19 L.9 ✅ कस्मात्? उपक्रमसामर्थ्यात्।
How so? On the strength of the introductory passage.

1.4.19 L.10 ✅ पतिजायापुत्रवित्तादिकं हि भोग्यभूतं सर्वं जगत् आत्मार्थतया प्रियं भवतीति प्रियसंसूचितं भोक्तारमात्मानमुपक्रम्य
Because, (the Scriptures) referring in the introductory passage to the Self, which is the experiencer and which is suggested by dear things (such as husband, wife, etc.), by mentioning that all this transitory world consisting of husband, wife, son and lucre etc., which is the object of experience, becomes dear for the sake of the Self,

1.4.19 L.11 ✅ अनन्तरमिदमात्मनो दर्शनाद्युपदिश्यमानं कस्यान्यस्यात्मनः स्यात्।
And when the Scriptures after that, give instruction about seeing that Self etc., to what other Self can they possibly refer?

1.4.19 L.12 ✅ मध्येऽपि ‘इदं महद्भूतमनन्तमपारं विज्ञानघन एवैतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुविनश्यति न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्ति’ इति
In the middle portion (of this Brāhmaṇa) also, the Scriptures, after mentioning “This great Being, which is eternal and limitless and is knowledge incarnate, after originating from these beings (i.e. Bhūtas), gets destroyed along with them, and that after death supervenes there is no special cognition’’ (BrhUEng.2.4.12),

1.4.19 L.13 ✅ प्रकृतस्यैव महतो भूतस्य द्रष्टव्यस्य भूतेभ्यः समुत्थानं विज्ञानात्मभावेन ब्रुवन्विज्ञानात्मन एवेदं द्रष्टव्यत्वं दर्शयति।
And thus referring to this great Being which is relevant to the topic and which is the one to be seen, and speaking of its originating from these beings (i.e. Bhūtas) in the condition of the cognitional Jīva-Self, show that this ‘seeing’ has reference to the cognitional Jīva-Self only.

1.4.19 L.14 ✅ तथा ‘विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्’ इति कर्तृवचनेन शब्देनोपसंहरन्
Similarly, in the concluding portion of the Brāhmaṇa, by a word indicating an “Agent” (i.e. doer) thus — “How, Oh Maitreyī, should one know the knower”?,

1.4.19 L.15 ✅ विज्ञानात्मानमेवेहोपदिष्टं दर्शयति।
The Brāhmaṇa shows that it is the cognitional Jīva-Self about whom instruction is here given.

1.4.19 L.16 ✅ तस्मादात्मविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानवचनं भोक्त्रर्थत्वाद्भोग्यजातस्यौपचारिकं द्रष्टव्यम्
Therefore, the passage speaking of the knowledge of everything by the knowledge of the Self, should be looked upon as being in the secondary sense, because all this aggregate of things meant for being experienced is meant for the experiencer.

1.4.19 L.17 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – परमात्मोपदेश एवायम्।
To this conclusion (of the opponent) we reply: — The instruction here is about the Highest Self only.

1.4.19 L.18 ✅ कस्मात्? वाक्यान्वयात्।
Why so? Because, it is only that way, that the sentence can have a connected sequence.

1.4.19 L.19 ✅ वाक्यं हीदं पौर्वापर्येणावेक्ष्यमाणं परमात्मानं प्रत्यन्वितावयवं लक्ष्यते;
The sentence looked upon as a whole (lit., in its earlier and later part) appears (from its different parts) to refer to the Highest Self, when construed in its proper sequence.

1.4.19 L.20 ✅ कथमिति तदुपपाद्यते –
If asked as to how it is so, we explain (as follows): —

1.4.19 L.21 ✅ ‘अमृतत्वस्य तु नाशास्ति वित्तेन’ इति याज्ञवल्क्यादुपश्रुत्य
When Maitreyī, after having heard from Yājña-valkya “There is no hope of immortality by lucre”,

1.4.19 L.22 ✅ ‘येनाहं नामृता स्यां किमहं तेन कुर्यां यदेव भगवान्वेद तदेव मे ब्रूहि’ इति
Says, “What use have I of that by which I cannot attain immortality? The Bhagavān should tell me about what he knows”,

1.4.19 L.23 ✅ अमृतत्वमाशासानायै मैत्रेय्यै याज्ञवल्क्य आत्मविज्ञानमिदमुपदिशति;
Yājña-valkya who is requested by Maitreyī to instruct her about immortality, gives her this instruction about the knowledge of the Self.

1.4.19 L.24 ✅ न चान्यत्र परमात्मविज्ञानादमृतत्वमस्तीति श्रुतिस्मृतिवादा वदन्ति;
Discussions in the Scriptures and Smṛtis say, that immortality cannot be attained by anything other than a knowledge of the Highest Self.

1.4.19 L.25 ✅ तथा चात्मविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानमुच्यमानं नान्यत्र परमकारणविज्ञानान्मुख्यमवकल्पते;
Similarly, the mention of the knowledge of everything by the knowledge of the Self, cannot be imagined to have been made in the principal sense, in the case of any thing other than the knowledge of the Highest cause (i.e. Brahman).

1.4.19 L.26 ✅ न चैतदौपचारिकमाश्रयितुं शक्यम्,
It is not possible to accept, that this is meant to be in the secondary sense,

1.4.19 L.27 ✅ यत्कारणमात्मविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं प्रतिज्ञायानन्तरेण ग्रन्थेन तदेवोपपादयति –
Because, having declared that by the knowledge of the Self the knowledge of everything else is attained, the Scriptures by the subsequent portion, explain the same, thus: —

1.4.19 L.28 ✅ ‘ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो ब्रह्म वेद’ इत्यादिना;
“Brahma-hood forsakes him who sees Brahma-hood as different from the Self” (BrhUEng.2.4.6).

1.4.19 L.29 ✅ यो हि ब्रह्मक्षत्रादिकं जगदात्मनोऽन्यत्र स्वातन्त्र्येण लब्धसद्भावं पश्यति, तं मिथ्यादर्शिनं तदेव मिथ्यादृष्टं ब्रह्मक्षत्रादिकं जगत्पराकरोतीति भेददृष्टिमपोद्य,
The Scriptures, after having refuted this view of difference, by telling the man, who erroneously thinks that the transitory world of Brāhmaṇa-hood and Kṣatriya-hood etc. has attained the condition of existence independently and otherwise than by the Self, that the same erroneously understood transitory world consisting of Brāhmaṇa-hood and Kṣatriya-hood etc. forsakes him (i.e. leads him away from the path of ‘Śreyas’),

1.4.19 L.30 ✅ ‘इदꣳ सर्वं यदयमात्मा’ इति सर्वस्य वस्तुजातस्यात्माव्यतिरेकमवतारयति;
Deduces the non-difference of all things from the Self, by the passage — “That which is this Self, is all this” (BrhUEng.2.4.6).

1.4.19 L.31 ✅ ‘दुन्दुभ्यादिदृष्टान्तैश्च’ (BrhU.4.5.8) तमेवाव्यतिरेकं द्रढयति;
This same non-difference is further strengthened by similies such as that of the drum.

1.4.19 L.32 ✅ ‘अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदः’ (BrhU.4.5.11) इत्यादिना च
Yājña-valkya, further on, by mentioning by the passage “That which is this Ṛg-Veda, is but merely the breath of this Great Being (Divine afflatus)”

1.4.19 L.33 ✅ प्रकृतस्यात्मनो नामरूपकर्मप्रपञ्चकारणतां व्याचक्षाणः परमात्मानमेवैनं गमयति;
That this Self, which is the relevant topic, is the cause of this detailed creation by names, forms and action, makes us understand that it is the Highest Self.

1.4.19 L.34 ✅ ‘तथैवैकायनप्रक्रियायामपि’ (BrhU.4.5.12)
Similarly, further, in the passage about the only one abode i.e. “Ekāyatana” (BrhUEng.4.5.12)

1.4.19 L.35 ✅ सविषयस्य सेन्द्रियस्य सान्तःकरणस्य प्रपञ्चस्यैकायनमनन्तरमबाह्यं कृत्स्नं प्रज्ञानघनं व्याचक्षाणः
Yājña-valkya speaks of the Highest Self, as being the one and the only one abode of the transitory world with its objects of senses and the organs-of-sense along with the mind (the internal organ), and as being neither inside nor outside, and as being, comprehensively, knowledge-incarnate,

1.4.19 L.36 ✅ परमात्मानमेवैनं गमयति।
And makes one understand the Self relevant here, to be the Highest Self.

1.4.19 L.37 ✅ तस्मात्परमात्मन एवायं दर्शनाद्युपदेश इति गम्यते॥१९॥
Therefore it is understood that this instruction to see etc. is about the Highest Self only. — 19.

[Go top]

1.4.20 L.1 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तं प्रियसंसूचितोपक्रमाद्विज्ञानात्मन एवायं दर्शनाद्युपदेश इति,
With respect to the remark, again, made (by the opponent) — that because in the introductory passage there is suggestion of that which is dear, therefore, the instruction ‘should be seen etc.’ is only with regard to the cognitional Jīva-Self” —

1.4.20 L.2 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः –
We say: —

←Prev Next→
प्रतिज्ञासिद्धेर्लिङ्गमाश्मरथ्यः॥१.४.२०॥
Pratijñā-siddher liṅgam āśma-rathyaḥ.

Pratijñā-siddheḥ: because of the proof of the proposition; Liṅgam: indicatory mark; Āśma-rathyaḥ: the sage Āśma-rathya.

🔗 Āśma-rathya (is of opinion) (that the reference to the Jīva-Self as that which is to he seen) is an indication of the fulfilment of the solemn declaration. — 1.4.20.

1.4.20 L.3 ✅ अस्त्यत्र प्रतिज्ञा – ‘आत्मनि विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति’ ‘इदꣳ सर्वं यदयमात्मा’ इति च।
There is a solemn declaration here — “Provided the Self is known, all this becomes known just as well”, and also — “All this is but this Self”.

1.4.20 L.4 ✅ तस्याः प्रतिज्ञायाः सिद्धिं सूचयत्येतल्लिङ्गम्, यत्प्रियसंसूचितस्यात्मनो द्रष्टव्यत्वादिसङ्कीर्तनम्।
And the statement about the Jīva-Self which is suggested to be something which is dear, as being that which should be seen, is an indication of the fulfilment of the solemn declaration.

1.4.20 L.5 ✅ यदि हि विज्ञानात्मा परमात्मनोऽन्यः स्यात्,
Were the cognitional Jīva-Self (in fact) different from the Highest Self,

1.4.20 L.6 ✅ ततः परमात्मविज्ञानेऽपि
Then, even if the Highest Self were known,

1.4.20 L.7 ✅ विज्ञानात्मा न विज्ञायत इत्येकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं यत्प्रतिज्ञातम्, तद्धीयेत।
As the cognitional Jīva-Self would not be known (thereby), the solemn declaration that by knowing the one (i.e. the Highest Self) everything else would be known just as well, would be vitiated.

1.4.20 L.8 ✅ तस्मात्प्रतिज्ञासिद्ध्यर्थं विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मनोरभेदांशेनोपक्रमणमित्याश्मरथ्य आचार्यो मन्यते॥२०॥
Therefore, Ācārya Āśma-rathya is of opinion that it is for the fulfilment of the solemn declaration, that the cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest Self are represented in the introductory statement as being non-different from each other. — 20.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
उत्क्रमिष्यत एवंभावादित्यौडुलोमिः॥१.४.२१॥
Utkramiṣyata evaṃ-bhāvād ity auḍulomiḥ.

Utkramiṣyataḥ: of him who would pass away from the body; Evam-bhāvāt: because of this condition; Iti: thus; Auḍulomiḥ: the sage Auḍulomi.

🔗 Auḍulomi (is of opinion that the cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest Self are thus represented to be non-different) because it (i.e. the cognitional Jīva-Self) becomes just so (i.e. it becomes the Highest Self) when it goes out (of the body). — 1.4.21.

1.4.21 L.1 ✅ विज्ञानात्मन एव देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिसङ्घातोपाधिसम्पर्कात्कलुषीभूतस्य ज्ञानध्यानादिसाधनानुष्ठानात्सम्प्रसन्नस्य देहादिसङ्घातादुत्क्रमिष्यतः
परमात्मनैक्योपपत्तेरिदमभेदेनोपक्रमणमित्यौडुलोमिराचार्यो मन्यते।
The Ācārya Auḍulomi is of opinion that the introductory statement about the non-difference of (the cognitional Jīva-Self and) the Highest Self is made,
Because it is reasonably sustainable that the Jīva-Self which happens to be inquinated by contact with the concourse of limiting adjuncts such as the body, the sense-organs, the mind and intelligence, and which is (afterwards) rendered serene through the application of such means as knowledge, meditation etc., attains unity with the Highest Self when it passes out of this concourse (of the limiting adjuncts) such as the body etc.

1.4.21 L.2 ✅ श्रुतिश्चैवं भवति – ‘एष सम्प्रसादोऽस्माच्छरीरात्समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसम्पद्य स्वेन रूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यते’ (ChanU.8.12.3) इति।
The Scriptural statement also is similar — “The serene one having risen from this body and having attained transcendent lustre manifests itself in its own form” (ChanU.8.12.3).

1.4.21 L.3 ✅ क्वचिच्च जीवाश्रयमपि नामरूपं नदीनिदर्शनेन ज्ञापयति –
The Scriptures in some other place inform us by way of an illustration of a river, that names and forms depend upon the body only (and not on the Self) thus: —

1.4.21 L.4 ✅ ‘यथा नद्यः स्यन्दमानाः समुद्रेऽस्तं गच्छन्ति नामरूपे विहाय।
तथा विद्वान्नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम्’ (MunU.3.2.8) इति;
“Just as, rivers as they flow discard their names and forms and become extinct in the sea,
So does a man who has attained knowledge and is relieved from name and form, reach the Highest Puruṣa (i.e. the Highest Self) of transcendental luster” (MunU.3.2.8).

1.4.21 L.5 ✅ यथा लोके नद्यः स्वाश्रयमेव नामरूपं विहाय समुद्रमुपयन्ति,
एवं जीवोऽपि स्वाश्रयमेव नामरूपं विहाय परं पुरुषमुपैति
इति हि तत्रार्थः प्रतीयते – दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोस्तुल्यतायै॥२१॥
In order, therefore, that the illustration and the things illustrated may be properly balanced, the sense to be understood here must be, that
Just as in ordinary life rivers discard the names and forms which depend on them and become extinct in the sea,
Similarly, the Jīva-Self also discards the name and form which depend on it, and merges into the Highest Puruṣa i.e. the Self. — 21.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
अवस्थितेरिति काशकृत्स्नः॥१.४.२२॥
Avasthiter iti kāśa-kṛtsnaḥ.

Avasthiteh: because of the existence; Iti: thus (holds); Kāśa-kṛtsnaḥ: the sage Kāśa-kṛtsna.

🔗 Because of the abiding in, it is so (said), (is the opinion of) Kāśa-kṛtsna. — 1.4.22.

1.4.22 L.1 ✅ अस्यैव परमात्मनोऽनेनापि विज्ञानात्मभावेनावस्थानादुपपन्नमिदमभेदेनोपक्रमणमिति काशकृत्स्न आचार्यो मन्यते।
Ācārya Kāśa-kṛtsna is of opinion that it is because of the abiding of the Highest Self itself in this condition of the cognitional Jīva-Self, that the statement in the introductory passage, of non-difference (between the two), is reasonably possible.

1.4.22 L.2 ✅ तथा च ब्राह्मणम् – ‘अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि’ (ChanU.6.3.2)
A Brāhmaṇa passage also says similarly, thus — “I shall enter into (the body) as the Jīva-Self and evolve names and forms” (ChanU.6.3.2),

1.4.22 L.3 ✅ इत्येवंजातीयकं परस्यैवात्मनो जीवभावेनावस्थानं दर्शयति;
Which shows that it is only the Highest Self that abides (in the body) in the condition of the Jīva-Self.

1.4.22 L.4 ✅ मन्त्रवर्णश्च – ‘सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरो नामानि कृत्वाभिवदन्यदास्ते’ (तै. आ. ३-१२-७) इत्येवंजातीयकः।
The words of a Mantra also are of a similar purport — “After having created all the bodies the Omniscient One gives them names and settles down calling them by their names.” (Tait. Ār. 3.12.7).

1.4.22 L.5 ✅ न च तेजःप्रभृतीनां सृष्टौ जीवस्य पृथक्सृष्टिः श्रुता,
येन परस्मादात्मनोऽन्यस्तद्विकारो जीवः स्यात्।
The Scriptures in their account of the creation of the elements such as Tejas etc., do not say about any special creation of the Jīva-Self,
(On the authority of which it can be said) that the Jīva-Self is a modification of the Highest Self and is different from it.

1.4.22 L.6 ✅ काशकृत्स्नस्याचार्यस्याविकृतः परमेश्वरो जीवः, नान्य इति मतम्;
The opinion of Ācārya Kāśa-kṛtsna is that the Highest Lord unmodified in any way is Himself the Jīva-Self.

1.4.22 L.7 ✅ आश्मरथ्यस्य तु यद्यपि जीवस्य परस्मादनन्यत्वमभिप्रेतम्,
Though the non-difference of the Jīva-Self from the Highest Self is acceptable and is desired by Āśma-rathya,

1.4.22 L.8 ✅ तथापि ‘प्रतिज्ञासिद्धेः’ इति सापेक्षत्वाभिधानात्कार्यकारणभावः कियानप्यभिप्रेत इति गम्यते;
It is thought (by us) that as he speaks of their being an effect and a cause respectively, by saying — for the purpose of the fulfilment of the original proposition — that he seems to accept, to a certain extent at any rate, the interdependence as an effect and the cause (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self).

1.4.22 L.9 ✅ औडुलोमिपक्षे पुनः स्पष्टमेवावस्थान्तरापेक्षौ भेदाभेदौ गम्येते।
In the case of Auḍulomi again, it is thought (by him) clearly that the difference and non-difference (between the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) is dependent on the particular different condition (in which the Highest Self is as a Jīva-Self).

1.4.22 L.10 ✅ तत्र काशकृत्स्नीयं मतं श्रुत्यनुसारीति गम्यते,
प्रतिपिपादयिषितार्थानुसारात् ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः;
Here it is thought (by us) that the opinion of Kāśa-kṛtsna accords with the Scriptures
Which mean to inculcate the same thing by such Scriptural passages as “That thou art” etc.

1.4.22 L.11 ✅ एवं च सति तज्ज्ञानादमृतत्वमवकल्पते; That being so, it is from the knowledge of that (i.e. the non-difference of the Jīva-Self and the Highest Self) that immortality can properly be said to be possible.

1.4.22 L.12 ✅ विकारात्मकत्वे हि जीवस्याभ्युपगम्यमाने
If the Jīva-Self were to be understood to be of the nature of a modification,

1.4.22 L.13 ✅ विकारस्य प्रकृतिसम्बन्धे प्रलयप्रसङ्गान्न तज्ज्ञानादमृतत्वमवकल्पेत।
There would be the predicament of a modification completely merging itself into its cause, were it to come into contact with its cause, and then in that case immortality resulting from the knowledge thereof would not be properly possible.

1.4.22 L.14 ✅ अतश्च स्वाश्रयस्य नामरूपस्यासम्भवादुपाध्याश्रयं नामरूपं जीवे उपचर्यते।
Hence the abiding of the name and form in the Jīva-Self not being possible (in the true sense), the name and form which abides in the limiting adjuncts is figuratively said to abide in the Jīva-Self.

1.4.22 L.15 ✅ अत एवोत्पत्तिरपि जीवस्य क्वचिदग्निविस्फुलिङ्गोदाहरणेन श्राव्यमाणा उपाध्याश्रयैव वेदितव्या॥
Hence when the Scriptures sometimes somewhere speak of the origination of the Jīva-Self, illustrating it by the instance of the fire and its scintillae, the origination should be understood to abide in the limiting adjuncts only.

1.4.22 L.16 ✅ यदप्युक्तं प्रकृतस्यैव महतो भूतस्य द्रष्टव्यस्य भूतेभ्यः समुत्थानं विज्ञानात्मभावेन दर्शयन्विज्ञानात्मन एवेदं द्रष्टव्यत्वं दर्शयतीति,
तत्रापीयमेव त्रिसूत्री योजयितव्या।
With regard again to the objection taken (by the opponent), that the Scriptures by showing how the Great Being, which is the relevant subject here, and which is the one that has to be seen, arises out of the elements as the cognitional Jīva-Self, indicate, that it is the cognitional Jīva-Self that is to be seen,
The same trio of Sūtras should be employed (for its refutation).

1.4.22 L.17 ✅ ‘प्रतिज्ञासिद्धेर्लिङ्गमाश्मरथ्यः’ – इदमत्र प्रतिज्ञातम् –
The first of this trio of Sūtras is — “Āśma-rathya is of opinion that there is an indicatory mark of the fulfilment of the solemn declaration”.

1.4.22 L.18 ✅ ‘आत्मनि विदिते सर्वमिदं विदितं भवति’ ‘इदꣳ सर्वं यदयमात्मा’ (BrhU.2.4.6) इति च;
The solemn declaration here is — “When the Self is known, all this becomes known automatically”, and, “All this is but the Self” (BrhUEng.2.4.6).

1.4.22 L.19 ✅ उपपादितं च सर्वस्य नामरूपकर्मप्रपञ्चस्यैकप्रसवत्वादेकप्रलयत्वाच्च दुन्दुभ्यादिदृष्टान्तैश्च कार्यकारणयोरव्यतिरेकप्रतिपादनात्;
This has been already established by expounding that the effect and cause are non-different, by means of the fact that all this diversity of names and forms and actions, arises out of and merges in one and the same thing, and by way of the illustration of the drum etc.

1.4.22 L.20 ✅ तस्या एव प्रतिज्ञायाः सिद्धिं सूचयत्येतल्लिङ्गम्, यन्महतो भूतस्य द्रष्टव्यस्य भूतेभ्यः समुत्थानं विज्ञानात्मभावेन कथितम् इत्याश्मरथ्य आचार्यो मन्यते –
And Ācārya Āśma-rathya is of opinion, that when the Scriptures speak about how the great being, which is the thing to be seen, rises out of the elements in the form of the cognitional Jīva-Self, it is an indicatory mark of the fulfilment of the solemn declaration.

1.4.22 L.21 ✅ अभेदे हि सत्येकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानं प्रतिज्ञातमवकल्पत इति।
It is only when there is non-difference, that the solemn declaration, that the knowledge of one (i.e. the Highest Self) results in the knowledge of everything, becomes possible.

1.4.22 L.22 ✅ ‘उत्क्रमिष्यत एवंभावादित्यौडुलोमिः’ –
(The second Sūtra is) — “As it (i.e. the Jīva-Self) goes out (of the body) it becomes like that (i.e. the Highest Self). That is the opinion of Auḍulomi.”

1.4.22 L.23 ✅ उत्क्रमिष्यतो विज्ञानात्मनो ज्ञानध्यानादिसामर्थ्यात्सम्प्रसन्नस्य परेणात्मनैक्यसम्भवादिदमभेदाभिधानमित्यौडुलोमिराचार्यो मन्यते।
The Ācārya Auḍulomi is of opinion, that this reference to non-difference is because of the possibility of the cognitional Jīva-Self, which is rendered serene through the strength of knowledge and meditation, becoming one with the Highest Self.

1.4.22 L.24 ✅ ‘अवस्थितेरिति काशकृत्स्नः’ –
The third Sūtra is — “Because of the abiding in, (it is so said) is the opinion of Kāśa-kṛtsna.”

1.4.22 L.25 ✅ अस्यैव परमात्मनोऽनेनापि विज्ञानात्मभावेनावस्थानादुपपन्नमिदमभेदाभिधानमिति काशकृत्स्न आचार्यो मन्यते।
Ācārya Kāśa-kṛtsna is of opinion that this statement about non-difference is because there is a reasonable possibility of the Highest Self thus abiding in the condition of the cognitional Jīva-Self.

1.4.22 L.26 ✅ ननूच्छेदाभिधानमेतत् – ‘एतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुविनश्यति न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्ति’ (BrhU.2.4.12) इति;
But (says the opponent) the Scriptural statement “Having risen out of the elements, it (i.e. the cognitional Jīva-Self) ceases to exist, immediately after the elements (cease to exist) and having died, there is no cognition” (BrhUEng.2.4.12) is virtually a statement of the total destruction (of the cognitional Jīva-Self).

1.4.22 L.27 ✅ कथमेतदभेदाभिधानम्?
How ever can it thus be a statement of non-difference?

1.4.22 L.28 ✅ नैष दोषः; विशेषविज्ञानविनाशाभिप्रायमेतद्विनाशाभिधानम्, नात्मोच्छेदाभिप्रायम्;
(To this we reply) — This is no fault. By this reference to total destruction, the destruction of only the specific cognition is meant, and not the destruction of the Self (Ātmā),

1.4.22 L.29 ✅ ‘अत्रैव मा भगवानमूमुहन्न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्ति’ इति पर्यनुयुज्य,
Because, after raising an objection (through the mouth of Maitreyī) thus — “By stating that there is no cognition after death has supervened, Oh Bhagavān, you have caused bewilderment in my mind”,

1.4.22 L.30 ✅ स्वयमेव श्रुत्या अर्थान्तरस्य दर्शितत्वात् –
The Scriptures have indicated their different meaning by another Scriptural passage, thus —

1.4.22 L.31 ✅ ‘न वा अरेऽहं मोहं ब्रवीम्यविनाशी वा अरेऽयमात्मानुच्छित्तिधर्मा मात्राऽसंसर्गस्त्वस्य भवति’ इति।
“Oh Maitreyī, I have not talked so as to bewilder you. The Self indeed is non-perishable and has the nature of indestructibility. (What really happens is) that there is but only a separation of it from the sense-organs”.

1.4.22 L.32 ✅ एतदुक्तं भवति – कूटस्थनित्य एवायं विज्ञानघन आत्मा;
What virtually is said by this is — That the Self is unchanging, eternal and is knowledge incarnate.

1.4.22 L.33 ✅ नास्योच्छेदप्रसङ्गोऽस्ति;
There never is any predicament of its total destruction.

1.4.22 L.34 ✅ मात्राभिस्त्वस्य भूतेन्द्रियलक्षणाभिरविद्याकृताभिरसंसर्गो विद्यया भवति;
It only becomes separated from the sense-organs which are of the characteristic of physical senses which originate from Nescience, as a result of knowledge.

1.4.22 L.35 ✅ संसर्गाभावे च तत्कृतस्य विशेषविज्ञानस्याभावात् ‘न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्ति’ इत्युक्तमिति।
It is on account of the absence of specific qualified cognition caused by the sense-organs, as a result of the absence of contact, that it is said, that after death there is no specific cognition.

1.4.22 L.36 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – ‘विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्’ इति कर्तृवचनेन शब्देनोपसंहाराद्
Again, the objection taken, viz., because of the conclusion by a word which signifies an agent, thus — “By what can the knower be known?”,

1.4.22 L.37 ✅ विज्ञानात्मन एवेदं द्रष्टव्यमिति, तदपि काशकृत्स्नीयेनैव दर्शनेन परिहरणीयम्।
It is the cognitional Jīva-Self that is meant to be the object of seeing, (the objection) should also be removed by the opinion of Kāśa-kṛtsna.

1.4.22 L.38 ✅ अपि च ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ (BrhU.2.4.13) इत्यारभ्य
Moreover, beginning with “Where there is duality as it were, one sees another” etc. (BrhUEng.2.4.13),

1.4.22 L.39 ✅ अविद्याविषये तस्यैव दर्शनादिलक्षणं विशेषविज्ञानं प्रपञ्च्य,
And having spoken at length about its (i.e. of the Highest Self in the condition of the Jīva-Self) specific cognition as characterized by seeing etc. as being under the influence of Nescience,

1.4.22 L.40 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’
इत्यादिना विद्याविषये तस्यैव दर्शनादिलक्षणस्य विशेषविज्ञानस्याभावमभिदधाति;
The Scriptures talk about the absence of such specific cognition as characterized by seeing etc. in the condition of knowledge, thus —
“Where, to it (i.e. the Self), all else is but the Self only, then, by what can one see, and whom?”.

1.4.22 L.41 ✅ पुनश्च विषयाभावेऽप्यात्मानं विजानीयादित्याशङ्क्य, ‘विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्’ इत्याह;
And also, again, by raising a doubt, the Scriptures say (through the mouth of Yājña-valkya) — “By what can one know the knower?”.

1.4.22 L.42 ✅ ततश्च विशेषविज्ञानाभावोपपादनपरत्वाद्वाक्यस्य विज्ञानधातुरेव केवलः
सन्भूतपूर्वगत्या कर्तृवचनेन तृचा निर्दिष्ट इति गम्यते।
Hence, it is thought (by us), that in as much as the sentence has the purport of expounding the absence of any specific cognition, knowledge-incarnate though the cognitional Self is,
It is referred to in accordance with its traditional condition, by the ‘Tṛ’ suffix which indicates an agent.

1.4.22 L.43 ✅ दर्शितं तु पुरस्तात्काशकृत्स्नीयस्य पक्षस्य श्रुतिमत्त्वम्।
That the opinion of Kāśa-kṛtsna is in accord with the Scriptures, has already been indicated (by us) above.

1.4.22 L.44 ✅ अतश्च विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मनोरविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपरचितदेहाद्युपाधिनिमित्तो भेदः,
Hence that (the conventional) distinction between the cognitional Jīva-Self and the Highest Self is due to the limiting adjuncts such as the body etc., which are produced by names and forms, which are projected by Nescience,

1.4.22 L.45 ✅ न पारमार्थिक इत्येषोऽर्थः सर्वैर्वेदान्तवादिभिरभ्युपगन्तव्यः –
And which do not exist in the absolutely real sense, is what should be understood by those who are the adherents of the Vedānta view, On the strength of the following Scriptural passages —

1.4.22 L.46 ✅ ‘सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (ChanU.6.2.1)
“‘Sat’ alone was in the beginning, the only one without a second” (ChanU.6.2.1),

1.4.22 L.47 ✅ ‘आत्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (ChanU.7.25.2)
“All this is the Ātmā (Self)” (ChanU.7.25.2),

1.4.22 L.48 ✅ ‘ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (MunU.2.2.11)
“All this is Brahman” (MunU.2.2.11),

1.4.22 L.49 ✅ ‘इदꣳ सर्वं यदयमात्मा’ (BrhU.2.4.6)
“All this is that which is the Self” (BrhUEng.2.4.6),

1.4.22 L.50 ✅ ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ (BrhU.3.7.23)
“There is no seer other than this” (BrhUEng.3.7.23),

1.4.22 L.51 ✅ ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11) इत्येवंरूपाभ्यः श्रुतिभ्यः;
“There is no other seer, but this (Self)” (BrhUEng.3.8.11).

1.4.22 L.52 ✅ स्मृतिभ्यश्च – ‘वासुदेवः सर्वमिति’ (BhG.7.19)
Also on the strength of the Smṛti passages such as: — “All this is but Vāsu-deva” (BhG.7.19),

1.4.22 L.53 ✅ ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत’ (BhG.13.2)
“Know me, Oh Bhārata, also to be the Self (Kṣetra-jña) in all bodies (Kṣetras)” (BhG.13.2),

1.4.22 L.54 ✅ ‘समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम्’ (BhG.13.27) इत्येवंरूपाभ्यः;
“(Know me) to be the Highest Lord abiding equally in all beings” (BhG.13.27).

1.4.22 L.55 ✅ भेददर्शनापवादाच्च – ‘अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुः’ (BrhU.1.4.10)
Also on the strength of the Censure (by the Scriptures) of the wrong conception of difference thus: — “(One who thinks) that He (i.e. the Deity) is one and he is another, does not know. He is like an animal to the Gods” ((BrhUEng.1.4.10),

1.4.22 L.56 ✅ ‘मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (BrhU.4.4.19) इत्येवंजातीयकात्;
“He goes from Death to Death, who sees difference, as it were, in it” (BrhUEng.4.4.19).

1.4.22 L.57 ✅ ‘स वा एष महानज आत्माजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयो ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.4.4.25)
इति च आत्मनि सर्वविक्रियाप्रतिषेधात्;
Also by the passage which denies any modifications of the Self thus —
“That great unborn (Self) which is undecaying, immortal, deathless, fearless, the Brahman” (BrhUEng.4.4.25).

1.4.22 L.58 ✅ अन्यथा च मुमुक्षूणां निरपवादविज्ञानानुपपत्तेः, सुनिश्चितार्थत्वानुपपत्तेश्च;
If it were not to be understood like that, any possibility of irrefutable knowledge dawning on those who desire Final Release, or of any definiteness of meaning would not be reasonably sustainable.

1.4.22 L.59 ✅ निरपवादं हि विज्ञानं सर्वाकाङ्क्षानिवर्तकमात्मविषयमिष्यते –
‘वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः’ (MunU.3.2.6) इति च श्रुतेः;
As the Scriptural passage “Those who have properly ascertained the meaning of Vedānta” (MunU.3.2.6)
Shows, irrefutable knowledge of the Self which satisfies all doubts, is desired (by aspirants).

1.4.22 L.60 ✅ ‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः’ (IsU.7) इति च;
Similarly also, there is another Scriptural passage — “What bewilderment, what sorrow could possibly affect one, who has realized the unity?” (IsU.7),

1.4.22 L.61 ✅ ‘स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणस्मृतेश्च’ (BhG.2.54)।
And also the Smṛti passage which explains the characteristic of a man whose intelligence is well-poised (BhG.2.54).

1.4.22 L.62 ✅ स्थिते च क्षेत्रज्ञपरमात्मैकत्वविषये सम्यग्दर्शने क्षेत्रज्ञः परमात्मेति नाममात्रभेदात्
क्षेत्रज्ञोऽयं परमात्मनो भिन्नः परमात्मायं क्षेत्रज्ञाद्भिन्न इत्येवंजातीयक आत्मभेदविषयो निर्बन्धो निरर्थकः –
Because, when the unity of the Jīva-Self (Kṣetra-jña) and the Highest Self is once established, the so-called difference between the terms ‘Kṣetra-jña’ and Paramātmā being but only nominal,
Any such distinction between the Selfs, viz. that the Kṣetra-jña Self is different from the Highest Self and vice versa, is absurd or meaningless,

1.4.22 L.63 ✅ एको ह्ययमात्मा नाममात्रभेदेन बहुधाभिधीयत इति।
And (it would be seen) that the Self being but one only, it is talked of as being of many kinds, by a mere difference in the nomenclature only (i.e. it is a distinction without difference).

1.4.22 L.64 ✅ न हि ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म। यो वेद निहितं गुहायाम्’ (TaitU.2.1.1) इति
काञ्चिदेवैकां गुहामधिकृत्यैतदुक्तम्;
When the Scriptures say “One who knows that Brahman is truth, knowledge, and that it is eternal, and that it abides in the cave” (TaitU.2.1 Eng.),
They do not mean that the reference is to some particular cave (other than the one where the Jīva-Self abides).

1.4.22 L.65 ✅ न च ब्रह्मणोऽन्यो गुहायां निहितोऽस्ति, ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति स्रष्टुरेव प्रवेशश्रवणात्।
The Scriptural passage “Having created that, it entered into it” (TaitU.2.6 Eng.) makes it clear, that no Self other than the Highest Self abides in the cave.

1.4.22 L.66 ✅ ये तु निर्बन्धं कुर्वन्ति, ते वेदान्तार्थं बाधमानाः श्रेयोद्वारं सम्यग्दर्शनमेव बाधन्ते;
Those who create any such dispute, as a matter of fact vitiate the meaning of Scriptures and obstruct perfect knowledge, which constitutes the way to perfect Beatitude (Śreyas).

1.4.22 L.67 ✅ कृतकमनित्यं च मोक्षं कल्पयन्ति;
They thereby imagine ‘Final Release’ as something which is artificial and non-eternal.

1.4.22 L.68 ✅ न्यायेन च न सङ्गच्छन्त इति॥२२॥
Nor would they thus be conforming with reason. — 22.

– 37. Vākya-anvaya-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.1.4.23 Su..24 Su..25 Su..26 Su..27

←Prev Next→
प्रकृतिश्च प्रतिज्ञादृष्टान्तानुपरोधात्॥१.४.२३॥
Prakṛtiś ca pratijñā-dṛṣṭāntānuparodhāt.

Prakṛtiḥ: the material cause; Ca: also; Pratijñā: the proposition; Dṛṣṭa-anta: illustrations; An-uparodhāt: on account of this not being in conflict.

🔗 (Brahman is) also the material cause, because it is only when it is considered that way, that there is no conflict between the solemn declaration and the illustration. — 1.4.23.

1.4.23 L.1 ✅ यथाभ्युदयहेतुत्वाद्धर्मो जिज्ञास्यः, एवं निःश्रेयसहेतुत्वाद्ब्रह्मापि जिज्ञास्यमित्युक्तम्;
It has already been stated, that, just as religious actions deserve an inquiry into them as they are the cause of secular prosperity, similarly, an inquiry into Brahman is necessary, as it is the cause of Final Beatitude.

1.4.23 L.2 ✅ ब्रह्म च ‘जन्माद्यस्य यतः’ (BrS.1.1.2) इति लक्षितम्;
Brahman has been defined before, as that from which the world has its origin etc.

1.4.23 L.3 ✅ तच्च लक्षणं घटरुचकादीनां मृत्सुवर्णादिवत्प्रकृतित्वे कुलालसुवर्णकारादिवन्निमित्तत्वे च समानमित्यतो भवति
That characteristic (of Brahman) of being the material cause is common as between it and clay and gold, which are the material cause of a jar and an ornament respectively, and also as between it and the potter and the goldsmith, considered as the accidental cause (i.e. intelligent cause) respectively,

1.4.23 L.4 ✅ विमर्शः – किमात्मकं पुनर्ब्रह्मणः कारणत्वं स्यादिति।
And so the doubt arises as to what sort of a cause Brahman is (i.e. whether it is the material cause or the accidental cause of the world).

1.4.23 L.5 ✅ तत्र निमित्तकारणमेव तावत्केवलं स्यादिति प्रतिभाति।
It appears to us (says the opponent) that it (i.e. Brahman) is merely the accidental cause.

1.4.23 L.6 ✅ कस्मात्? ईक्षापूर्वककर्तृत्वश्रवणात् – ईक्षापूर्वकं हि ब्रह्मणः कर्तृत्वमवगम्यते –
Why so? Because, the Scriptures mention the actual creative activity (of Brahman) as preceded by reflection.

1.4.23 L.7 ✅ ‘स ईक्षाञ्चक्रे’ (PrasU.6.3)‘स प्राणमसृजत’ (PrasU.6.4) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः;
The Scriptural passages “He thought” (PrasU.6.3) and “He created the Vital Air” (PrasU.6.4) show that Brahman’s creative activity was preceded by reflection.

1.4.23 L.8 ✅ ईक्षापूर्वकं च कर्तृत्वं निमित्तकारणेष्वेव कुलालादिषु दृष्टम्;
Now, we see such creative activity to be preceded by reflection, only in the case of accidental causes, as for instance a potter etc.

1.4.23 L.9 ✅ अनेककारकपूर्विका च क्रियाफलसिद्धिर्लोके दृष्टा;
Similarly, we see in ordinary life, that the attainment of the fruit of an action is preceded by many causes.

1.4.23 L.10 ✅ स च न्याय आदिकर्तर्यपि युक्तः सङ्क्रमयितुम्।
The same reasoning can logically be made applicable, mutatis mutandis, in the case of the original creator,

1.4.23 L.11 ✅ ईश्वरत्वप्रसिद्धेश्च –
And also because he is well-known as the Lord.

1.4.23 L.12 ✅ ईश्वराणां हि राजवैवस्वतादीनां निमित्तकारणत्वमेव केवलं प्रतीयते;
Supermen such as Kings and Vaivasvata etc. are understood to be an accidental cause only, of the world (Loka) of which they are the Lords,

1.4.23 L.13 ✅ तद्वत्परमेश्वरस्यापि निमित्तकारणत्वमेव युक्तं प्रतिपत्तुम्।
Similarly, it is but proper to understand the Highest Lord also to be only an accidental cause (of the world).

1.4.23 L.14 ✅ कार्यं चेदं जगत्सावयवमचेतनमशुद्धं च दृश्यते,
Now this creation, viz. the world, appears to consist of parts, and is non-intelligent and impure,

1.4.23 L.15 ✅ कारणेनापि तस्य तादृशेनैव भवितव्यम्, कार्यकारणयोः सारूप्यदर्शनात्;
And as causes and their modifications are seen to be similar, its cause also must be similar.

1.4.23 L.16 ✅ ब्रह्म चानेवंलक्षणमवगम्यते –
Brahman however is not understood to be of such a nature, because (the Scriptures say that)

1.4.23 L.17 ✅ ‘निष्कलं निष्क्रियं शान्तं निरवद्यं निरञ्जनम्’ (SvetU.6.19) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः;
It is without parts, inactive, not liable to modifications, flawless, and untainted (SvetU.6.19).

1.4.23 L.18 ✅ पारिशेष्याद्ब्रह्मणोऽन्यदुपादानकारणमशुद्ध्यादिगुणकं स्मृतिप्रसिद्धमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्,
Therefore, the only alternative that remains is that some such cause of an impure nature as is known from the Smṛti (Sāṅkhya Smṛti) and which is other than Brahman should be understood to be the material cause,

1.4.23 L.19 ✅ ब्रह्मकारणत्वश्रुतेर्निमित्तत्वमात्रे पर्यवसानात्
Because the Scriptural statement about Brahman being a cause (of the world) culminates in indicating it to be only an accidental cause.

1.4.23 L.20 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – प्रकृतिश्चोपादानकारणं च ब्रह्माभ्युपगन्तव्यम्, निमित्तकारणं च। न केवलं निमित्तकारणमेव।
To this conclusion (of the opponent) we reply: — Brahman should be understood to be both the material cause and the accidental cause, and not only an accidental cause,

1.4.23 L.21 ✅ कस्मात्? प्रतिज्ञादृष्टान्तानुपरोधात्।
Because (understood that way alone) there is no conflict between the Scriptural solemn statement (Pratijñā, ‘the proposition’) and the illustration (Dṛṣṭānta).

1.4.23 L.22 ✅ एवं हि प्रतिज्ञादृष्टान्तौ श्रौतौ नोपुरुध्येते।
It is in this way that a conflict between the Scriptural solemn statement and the illustration does not take place.

1.4.23 L.23 ✅ प्रतिज्ञा तावत् – ‘उत तमादेशमप्राक्ष्यः येनाश्रुतꣳ श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातम्’ (ChanU.6.1.2) इति;
The solemn statement for instance is: — “Have you by any chance asked (him) for the instruction of that, by means of which that which is not heard becomes heard, that which is not perceived becomes perceived, and that which is not known becomes known?” (ChanU.6.1.2),

1.4.23 L.24 ✅ तत्र चैकेन विज्ञातेन सर्वमन्यदविज्ञातमपि विज्ञातं भवतीति प्रतीयते;
And from that it is understood, that by the knowledge of one, all else which is not known, becomes known.

1.4.23 L.25 ✅ तच्चोपादानकारणविज्ञाने सर्वविज्ञानं सम्भवति,
That knowledge of every thing, is possible, only by knowing the material cause,

1.4.23 L.26 ✅ उपादानकारणाव्यतिरेकात्कार्यस्य;
Because a modification is non-different from its material cause,

1.4.23 L.27 ✅ निमित्तकारणाव्यतिरेकस्तु कार्यस्य नास्ति,
While no such non-difference of the modification from the cause is seen in the case of an accidental cause,

1.4.23 L.28 ✅ लोके तक्ष्णः प्रासादव्यतिरेकदर्शनात्।
Because in the ordinary world an architect (lit., a carpenter) is seen to be different from the palace (he builds).

1.4.23 L.29 ✅ दृष्टान्तोऽपि ‘यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञातꣳ स्याद्
वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (ChanU.6.1.4)
इत्युपादानकारणगोचर एवाम्नायते;
The illustration also on the other hand — “Just as, Oh mild one, by knowing a clod of earth, every other thing made of earth becomes known,
Modification is but only a name which is made current by speech, and the essential truth is that (the modification) is but merely the earth, in fact” —
As given by the Scriptures is indicative of the material cause.

1.4.23 L.30 ✅ तथा ‘एकेन लोहमणिना सर्वं लोहमयं विज्ञातꣳ स्यात्’ (ChanU.6.1.5)
‘एकेन नखनिकृन्तनेन सर्वं कार्ष्णायसं विज्ञातꣳ स्यात्’ (ChanU.6.1.6) इति च।
Similarly (the Scriptural statements) — “By (knowing) one hollow ball of gold (Loha-maṇi) every thing that is made of gold becomes known,
And by (knowing) one nail-cutter everything that is made of steel becomes known” (ChanU.6.1.5,6), — are the illustrations.

1.4.23 L.31 ✅ तथान्यत्रापि ‘कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति’ (MunU.1.1.3) इति प्रतिज्ञा;
And (the Pratijñā), “Oh Bhagavān, by knowing what, does all this become known automatically?”(MunU.1.1.3)

1.4.23 L.32 ✅ ‘यथा पृथिव्यामोषधयः सम्भवन्ति’ (MunU.1.1.7) इति दृष्टान्तः।
And the illustration follows: “As plants spring up on earth” (MunU.1.1.7) [Trans. by Panoli].

1.4.23 L.33 ✅ तथा ‘आत्मनि खल्वरे दृष्टे श्रुते मते विज्ञाते इदꣳ सर्वं विदितम्’ (BrhU.4.5.6) इति प्रतिज्ञा;
Also, “When the Self is seen, heard, perceived and known, all this becomes known automatically” (BrhUEng.4.5.6) is the solemn statement,

1.4.23 L.34 ✅ ‘स यथा दुन्दुभेर्हन्यमानस्य न बाह्याञ्शब्दाञ्शक्नुयाद्ग्रहणाय दुन्दुभेस्तु ग्रहणेन दुन्दुभ्याघातस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः’ (BrhU.4.5.8) इति दृष्टान्तः।
And the illustration is — “When a drum is being beaten, the external sounds are not perceived, but they become so perceived when the drum or the striking of the drum (which generates a sound) is perceived” (BrhUEng.4.5.8).

1.4.23 L.35 ✅ एवं यथासम्भवं प्रतिवेदान्तं प्रतिज्ञादृष्टान्तौ प्रकृतित्वसाधनौ प्रत्येतव्यौ।
In this way, in every Vedānta, the solemn statements and the illustrations prove in a way in which it becomes possible, that the material cause (is Brahman).

1.4.23 L.36 ✅ यत इतीयं पञ्चमी – ‘यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते’ (TaitU.3.1.1) इत्यत्र
‘जनिकर्तुः प्रकृतिः’ (पा. सू. १-४-३०) इति विशेषस्मरणात्प्रकृतिलक्षण एवापादाने द्रष्टव्या।
The ablative case used in the word ‘Yataḥ’ in the Scriptural passage “From whence these beings are born”
Should be understood as an ablation indicating the material cause, in accordance with the special Smṛti (of Pāṇini) as “the material cause which gives birth” (Pān. Sū. 1.4.30).

1.4.23 L.37 ✅ निमित्तत्वं त्वधिष्ठात्रन्तराभावादधिगन्तव्यम्;
Its (Brahman’s) being the accidental cause also should be understood on account of the absence of any other agent.

1.4.23 L.38 ✅ यथा हि लोके मृत्सुवर्णादिकमुपादानकारणं कुलालसुवर्णकारादीनधिष्ठातॄनपेक्ष्य प्रवर्तते,
Though, in the ordinary world, material causes as clay and gold expect an accidental cause such as a potter and a goldsmith to excite their activity (towards producing a pot and an ornament),

1.4.23 L.39 ✅ नैवं ब्रह्मण उपादानकारणस्य सतोऽन्योऽधिष्ठातापेक्ष्योऽस्ति,
There is no such expectation in the case of Brahman — material cause as it is (of the world) — of any other agent,

1.4.23 L.40 ✅ प्रागुत्पत्तेः ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ इत्यवधारणात्;
because it is understood (by us) that before creation, Brahman alone was, without a second.

1.4.23 L.41 ✅ अधिष्ठात्रन्तराभावोऽपि प्रतिज्ञादृष्टान्तानुपरोधादेवोदितो वेदितव्यः –
The absence of any other accidental cause or agent (other than Brahman) should be understood to be implied from the fact, that only in that way, no conflict between the solemn statement and the illustration arises,

1.4.23 L.42 ✅ अधिष्ठातरि ह्युपादानादन्यस्मिन्नभ्युपगम्यमाने
Because were we to understand the existence of an agent, apart from Brahman, which of course is the material cause,

1.4.23 L.43 ✅ पुनरप्येकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानस्यासम्भवात्प्रतिज्ञादृष्टान्तोपरोध एव स्यात्।
Then, inasmuch as in that case the knowledge of all by the knowledge of that one (Brahman) only, not being possible, a conflict between the solemn statement and the illustration would surely arise.

1.4.23 L.44 ✅ तस्मादधिष्ठात्रन्तराभावादात्मनः कर्तृत्वमुपादानान्तराभावाच्च
प्रकृतित्वम्॥२३॥
Therefore, as there is absence, of any other agent (i.e. an accidental cause), or of a material cause other than the Self,
It is both the material and the accidental cause (i.e. must indeed be the only Prakṛtitvam, material cause, even though also being the accidental cause). — 23.

[Go top]

1.4.24 L.1 ✅ कुतश्चात्मनः कर्तृत्वप्रकृतित्वे? –
How does the self become the agent as well as the material? [Trans. by Panoli]

←Prev Next→
अभिध्योपदेशाच्च॥१.४.२४॥
Abhidhyopadeśāc ca.

Abhidhyā: will, reflection; Upadeśāt: on account of instruction or teaching or statement; Ca: also, and.

🔗 (Brahman is both the material and accidental cause of the world) because of the instruction (in Scriptures) about its (i.e. Brahman’s) desire. — 1.4.24.

1.4.24 L.2 ✅ अभिध्योपदेशश्चात्मनः कर्तृत्वप्रकृतित्वे गमयति ‘सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेय’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति,
‘तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेय’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इति च।
The instruction about desire also, as for instance, the Scriptural passages such as “He desired, may I be many and may I give birth (to Prajās)”,
“He thought, may I be many and may I give birth (to Prajās)”, indicate its being the material and the accidental cause also.

1.4.24 L.3 ✅ तत्राभिध्यानपूर्विकायाः स्वातन्त्र्यप्रवृत्तेः कर्तेति गम्यते।
Here, it is understood that it is the accidental cause i.e. the agent, because of the independent activity preceded by desire.

1.4.24 L.4 ✅ बहु स्यामिति प्रत्यगात्मविषयत्वाद्बहुभवनाभिध्यानस्य प्रकृतिरित्यपि गम्यते॥२४॥
And it is the material cause because, desire to be many, as shown by the words “May I be many”, is the province of the Universal Self. — 24.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
साक्षाच्चोभयाम्नानात्॥१.४.२५॥
Sākṣāc cobhayāmnānāt.

Sākṣāt: direct; Ca: also; Ubhaya-āmnānāt: because the Śruti states both.

🔗 (Brahman is both the material as well as the accidental cause) because of the direct mention to that (effect) in the Scriptures. — 1.4.25.

1.4.25 L.1 ✅ प्रकृतित्वस्यायमभ्युच्चयः।
This is an additional cumulative reason as to how Brahman is the material cause.

1.4.25 L.2 ✅ इतश्च प्रकृतिर्ब्रह्म, यत्कारणं साक्षाद्ब्रह्मैव कारणमुपादाय उभौ प्रभवप्रलयावाम्नायेते –
Brahman is the material cause, because Brahman has been directly accepted as the cause of both the creation and its ultimate dissolution, by the Scriptures, thus —

1.4.25 L.3 ✅ ‘सर्वाणि ह वा इमानि भूतान्याकाशादेव समुत्पद्यन्त आकाशं प्रत्यस्तं यन्ति’ (ChanU.1.9.1) इति।
“Verily, all these things are born of the Ākāśa alone, and have their final dissolution in it” (ChanU.1.9.1).

1.4.25 L.4 ✅ यद्धि यस्मात्प्रभवति, यस्मिंश्च प्रलीयते तत्तस्योपादानं प्रसिद्धम्,
It is quite well-known, that that from which any thing is born and in which it ultimately is dissolved, is the material cause.

1.4.25 L.5 ✅ यथा व्रीहियवादीनां पृथिवी।
Just as, for instance, the Earth (is the material cause) of rice and barley.

1.4.25 L.6 ✅ ‘साक्षात्’ इति च – उपादानान्तरानुपादानं सूचयति ‘आकाशादेव’ इति।
The word ‘direct’ shows the rejection of any other material cause, as also the passage “From the Ākāśa alone”.

1.4.25 L.7 ✅ प्रत्यस्तमयश्च नोपादानादन्यत्र कार्यस्य दृष्टः॥२५॥
It has already been noticed that the dissolution of any modification (takes place) nowhere else than in the material cause. — 25.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
आत्मकृतेः परिणामात्॥१.४.२६॥
Ātma-kṛteḥ pariṇāmāt.

Ātma-kṛteḥ: created itself; Pariṇāmāt: by undergoing modification.

🔗 (Brahman is the material cause) because the Self creates itself by itself, (which is possible) by way of modification. — 1.4.26.

1.4.26 L.1 ✅ इतश्च प्रकृतिर्ब्रह्म,
This is how again Brahman is the material cause.

1.4.26 L.2 ✅ यत्कारणं ब्रह्मप्रक्रियायाम् ‘तदात्मानं स्वयमकुरुत’ (TaitU.2.7.1)
इत्यात्मनः कर्मत्वं कर्तृत्वं च दर्शयति –
The Scriptural passage in which creation by Brahman is mentioned thus — “It alone created itself” (TaitU.2.7 Eng.),
Shows the Self to be both the agent and the object,

1.4.26 L.3 ✅ आत्मानमिति कर्मत्वम्, स्वयमकुरुतेति कर्तृत्वम्।
‘Created itself’ shows its being the object (Karmatva) and ‘It alone’ shows its being the agent.

1.4.26 L.4 ✅ कथं पुनः पूर्वसिद्धस्य सतः कर्तृत्वेन व्यवस्थितस्य क्रियमाणत्वं शक्यं सम्पादयितुम्?
The opponent says — How ever can the ‘Self’, existing already and known to be the agent, be construed to be the object to be produced also?

1.4.26 L.5 ✅ परिणामादिति ब्रूमः –
To this we reply — Through modification (Pariṇāma).

1.4.26 L.6 ✅ पूर्वसिद्धोऽपि हि सन्नात्मा विशेषेण विकारात्मना परिणमयामासात्मानमिति।
Already in existence as the Self is before creation, it causes itself to undergo modification, as the Self of the modification.

1.4.26 L.7 ✅ विकारात्मना च परिणामो मृदाद्यासु प्रकृतिषूपलब्धः;
It is patent how there is modification of material causes such as clay etc.

1.4.26 L.8 ✅ स्वयमिति च विशेषणान्निमित्तान्तरानपेक्षत्वमपि प्रतीयते।
We understand from the word ‘itself’, how there is no expectation of any other accidental cause.

1.4.26 L.9 ✅ ‘परिणामात्’ इति वा पृथक्सूत्रम्।
Or else, we may construe ‘Through modification’ (in the Sūtra) to be a separate Sūtra.

1.4.26 L.10 ✅ तस्यैषोऽर्थः – इतश्च प्रकृतिर्ब्रह्म, यत्कारणं ब्रह्मण एव विकारात्मना परिणामः
सामानाधिकरण्येनाम्नायते ‘सच्च त्यच्चाभवत्। निरुक्तं चानिरुक्तं च’ (TaitU.2.6.1) इत्यादिनेति॥२६॥
It means — because Brahman’s modification by way of modified Selfs
Is indicated by the same case-ending, thus — “It became Sat (i.e. the three elements — Earth, water and Tejas), it became ‘Tyat’ (i.e. Vāyu and Ākāśa), the defined and undefined (i.e. something which can and cannot be demonstrated as such and such). — 26.

[Go top]

←Prev Next→
योनिश्च हि गीयते॥१.४.२७॥
Yoniś ca hi gīyate.

Yoni: the womb, the source, the origin; Ca: and; Hi: because; Gīyate: is called.

🔗 (Brahman is the material cause) because, the Scriptures mention it as the origin (Yoni). — 1.4.27.

1.4.27 L.1 ✅ इतश्च प्रकृतिर्ब्रह्म, यत्कारणं ब्रह्म योनिरित्यपि पठ्यते वेदान्तेषु –
Again, Brahman is the material cause because the Vedānta texts speak of it as the origin also, thus —

1.4.27 L.2 ✅ ‘कर्तारमीशं पुरुषं ब्रह्मयोनिम्’ (MunU.3.1.3) इति
“(When a person sees) the Maker, the Lord, the Puruṣa, whose origin is Brahman” (MunU.3.1.3)

1.4.27 L.3 ✅ ‘यद्भूतयोनिं परिपश्यन्ति धीराः’ (MunU.1.1.6) इति च।
And “When the wise ones perceive that as the origin of beings” (MunU.1.1.6).

1.4.27 L.4 ✅ योनिशब्दश्च प्रकृतिवचनःसमधिगतो लोके –
In ordinary life also, the word ‘origin’ is understood to mean the material cause, thus —

1.4.27 L.5 ✅ ‘पृथिवी योनिरोषधिवनस्पतीनाम्’ इति।
“The Earth is the origin of herbs and trees”.

1.4.27 L.6 ✅ स्त्रीयोनेरप्यस्त्येवावयवद्वारेण गर्भं प्रत्युपादानकारणत्वम्।
The uterus (Strī) also by way of its components (such as the ovum etc.) is the origin of the foetus (Garbha).

1.4.27 L.7 ✅ क्वचित्स्थानवचनोऽपि योनिशब्दो दृष्टः ‘योनिष्ट इन्द्र निषदे अकारि’ (ऋ. सं. १-१०४-१) इति।
Sometimes the word means a place also, thus — “Oh Indra, I have made a Yoni i.e. a place for you to sit upon” (Ṛg. Sam. I.104.1).

1.4.27 L.8 ✅ वाक्यशेषात्त्वत्र
प्रकृतिवचनता परिगृह्यते – ‘यथोर्णनाभिः सृजते गृह्णते च’ (MunU.1.1.7) इत्येवंजातीयकात्।
Here, however, because of the concluding portion —
“Just as a spider creates a thread and again absorbs it into itself” (MunU.1.1.7) — we understand the word to be indicative of the origin i.e. the material cause.

1.4.27 L.9 ✅ तदेवं प्रकृतित्वं ब्रह्मणः प्रसिद्धम्।
So, in this manner it is proved that Brahman is the material cause.

1.4.27 L.10 ✅ यत्पुनरिदमुक्तम्,
With regard to the objection raised,

1.4.27 L.11 ✅ ईक्षापूर्वकं कर्तृत्वं निमित्तकारणेष्वेव कुलालादिषु लोके दृष्टम्,
नोपादानेष्वित्यादि;
Viz. that it is only in the case of accidental causes such as the potter etc., that we do observe making, after first desiring,
And not in the case of the material cause,

1.4.27 L.12 ✅ तत्प्रत्युच्यते – न लोकवदिह भवितव्यम्;
We reply — In this case, it cannot be supposed to be as we ordinarily observe in the world,

1.4.27 L.13 ✅ न ह्ययमनुमानगम्योऽर्थः;
Because this matter is not subject to inferences of reasoning.

1.4.27 L.14 ✅ शब्दगम्यत्वात्त्वस्यार्थस्य यथाशब्दमिह भवितव्यम्;
As it can only be known from the Scriptures, we must accept it as being so.

1.4.27 L.15 ✅ शब्दश्चेक्षितुरीश्वरस्य प्रकृतित्वं प्रतिपादयतीत्यवोचाम।
We have already said as to how the Scriptures propound that the Highest Lord who is the one who desires, is the material cause (of the world).

1.4.27 L.16 ✅ पुनश्चैतत्सर्वं विस्तरेण प्रतिवक्ष्यामः॥२७॥
We shall hereafter deal with the topic again, comprehensively. — 27.

– 38. Prakṛty-Adhikaraṇam.

Abbreviation References
AitU.	Aitareya Upaniṣad
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-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad
ChanU.	Chandogya Upaniṣad
Dhar. Sū.	Dharma-Sūtra	ध. सू.
IsU.	Īṣavāsya Upaniṣad
Jāb. Up.	Jābāla Upaniṣad	जा. उ.
Jai. Sū. or Pū. Mī.	Jaimani Sūtra or Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā	जै. सू.
KathU.	Kaṭha Upaniṣad
KenU.	Kena Upanishad
KaivU.	Kaivalya Upaniṣad
KausU.	Kauṣītakya Upanishad	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.	Muktika Upaniṣad
MunU.	Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad
Nār. Up.	Nārāyaniya Upaniṣad	ना. उ.
Nyāya Sū.	Nyāya-Sūtra	न्या. सू.
PrasU.	Praṣna Upaniṣad
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.	Taittirīya Upaniṣad
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