Format by A.K. Aruna, 2021 ver.2.0: UpasanaYoga. If downloaded, requires installed Devanāgarī Siddhanta1.ttf font, downloadable from UpasanaYoga. If run from UpasanaYoga website, it alternatively can use online Web Font. Top button "Collapse all panels" contracts the view in which individual items can be re-expanded, or again the top button "Restore all panels" reloads page to original view.
This is V. M. Apte’s 1960 English translation of Ādi-Śaṅkara's Bhāṣyam (commentary) comprising for the students of Vedānta an excellent introduction and summary of the main topics concerning the proper textual understanding of the Upaniṣads.

by A.K. Aruna
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, or click the following logo:

4. L.1 ✅ तृतीयेऽध्याये परापरासु विद्यासु साधनाश्रयो विचारः प्रायेण अत्यगात्;
In the third Adhyāya consideration was mostly given to the higher (Para) and lower (Apara) Vidyās, with reference to the means (of acquiring them).

4. L.2 ✅ अथेह चतुर्थे फलाश्रय आगमिष्यति;
Now, here in the fourth (Adhyāya) consideration will be given to the fruit (Phala, of the Vidyās).

4. L.3 ✅ प्रसङ्गागतं च अन्यदपि किञ्चिच् चिन्तयिष्यते;
May be, as occasion may arise, some other things also will be considered.

4. L.4 ✅ प्रथमं तावत् कतिभिश्चिदधिकरणैः साधनाश्रय-विचार-शेषम् एवानुसरामः –
To begin with, however, in (i.e. by means of) the next few Adhikaraṇas we would continue the consideration of those means (of acquiring knowledge) which still have remained (to be fully considered).

154. Āvṛti (4.1.1–2) 155. Ātmatvopāsanā (4.1.3) 156. Pratīka (4.1.4) 157. Brahma-dṛṭṣi (4.1.5) 158. Āditya-ādi (4.1.6) 159. Āsīna (4.1.7–10) 160. Eka-agratā (4.1.11) 161. Ā-prāyaṇa (4.1.12) 162. Tad-adhigama (4.1.13) 163. Itara-asaṃśleṣa (4.1.14) 164. Anārabdha (4.1.15) 165. Agni-hotra-ādi (4.1.16–17) 166. Vidyā-jñāna-sādhanatva-ādi (4.1.18) 167. Itara-kṣapaṇa (4.1.19)

---

Su.4.1.1 Su..2

[Go top]

---

Āvṛttiḥ: repetition, practice of meditation on Brahman (is necessary); A-sakṛt: not only once, many times, repeatedly; Upadeśāt: because of instruction by the scriptures.

🔗 Repetition (of the mental act of acquiring knowledge i.e. Jñāna-kriyā is necessary), because, (the Scriptures have) more than once given such instruction. — 4.1.1.

4.1.1 L.1 ✅ ‘आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (BrhU.4.5.6)
‘तमेव धीरो विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत’ (BrhU.4.4.21)
‘सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स विजिज्ञासितव्यः’ (ChanU.8.7.1) इति च
एवमादिश्रवणेषु संशयः –
A doubt arises with regard to the following Scriptural statements —
“Oh Maitreyī, verily the Self should be seen, heard, cogitated upon and constantly meditated upon” (BrhU.4.5.6),
“Let the mentally well-poised intelligent man (Dhīra) attain knowledge by knowing Him (the Ātmā)” (BrhU.4.4.21),
“That is to be sought for, that is to be desired to be understood” (ChanU.8.7.1) —

4.1.1 L.2 ✅ किं सकृत्प्रत्ययः कर्तव्यः, आहोस्वित् आवृत्त्येति।
Viz., as to whether there should be only a single mental act or whether there should be a repetition (of such a mental act).

4.1.1 L.3 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion arrived at (by the opponent of Vedānta)?

4.1.1 L.4 ✅ सकृत्प्रत्ययः स्यात्, प्रयाजादिवत्,
It is, that, like ‘Prayāja’ (some particular act performed only once during the sacrifice) there should be only one such mental act,

4.1.1 L.5 ✅ तावता शास्त्रस्य कृतार्थत्वात्;
Because in that way the purpose of the Śāstra will have been adequately served,

4.1.1 L.6 ✅ अश्रूयमाणायां हि आवृत्तौ क्रियमाणायाम् अशास्त्रार्थः कृतो भवेत्।
And any such repetition (of it) which is not enjoined by the Scriptures, would be tantamount to going counter to the Śāstra.

4.1.1 L.7 ✅ ननु असकृदुपदेशा उदाहृताः –
But (says the Vedāntin) several instructions of the Scriptures have been mentioned in illustrations such as —

4.1.1 L.8 ✅ ‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ इत्येवमादयः –
“(That the Self) should be seen, heard, cogitated upon and meditated upon”.

4.1.1 L.9 ✅ एवमपि यावच्छब्दमावर्तयेत् – सकृच्छ्रवणं सकृन्मननं सकृन्निदिध्यासनं चेति,
(The opponent of Vedānta says’) — Even so, such repetition may be made as instructed by the Scriptures, by hearing once, thinking once, cogitating upon once, and meditating upon once,

4.1.1 L.10 ✅ नातिरिक्तम्।
But not more than that,

4.1.1 L.11 ✅ सकृदुपदेशेषु तु ‘वेद’ ‘उपासीत’ इत्येवमादिषु अनावृत्तिरिति
And of course, where instruction (to do a thing) is given by the Scriptures only once, as in “Let him understand or let him meditate upon”, there should be no such repetition.

4.1.1 L.12 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः – प्रत्ययावृत्तिः कर्तव्या।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply: — This act (of acquiring knowledge) ought to be repeated.

4.1.1 L.13 ✅ कुतः? असकृदुपदेशात् –
Whence is it so? Because of several instructions.

4.1.1 L.14 ✅ ‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ इत्येवंजातीयको हि असकृदुपदेशः प्रत्ययावृत्तिं सूचयति।
Such instruction (about repetition) more than once as “(That the Self) should be seen, heard, cogitated upon and meditated upon”, suggests the repetition of the act of acquiring knowledge.

4.1.1 L.15 ✅ ननु उक्तम् – यावच्छब्दमेव आवर्तयेत्, नाधिकमिति –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) we have explained that as instructed by the Scriptures, we should repeat the mental act once, but never more than that.

4.1.1 L.16 ✅ न, दर्शन-पर्यवसानत्वाद् एषाम्;
(We reply) — No, because they (i.e. such mental acts) are meant ultimately to culminate in the intuitive realization (of Brahman).

4.1.1 L.17 ✅ दर्शन-पर्यवसानानि हि श्रवणादीन् यावर्त्यमानानि दृष्टार्थानि भवन्ति –
It is only when they so culminate in such intuitive realization (of Brahman) by such repeated hearing etc. that they have their tangible fruit,

4.1.1 L.18 ✅ यथा अवघातादीनि तण्डुलादि-निष्पत्तिपर्यवसानानि, तद्वत्।
Just as the threshing of rice (which has its husk on it) has its culmination in the dehusking of such rice grains.

4.1.1 L.19 ✅ अपि च उपासनं निदिध्यासनं च इत्यन्तर्णीतावृत्ति-गुणैव क्रिया अभिधीयते;
Besides ‘cogitation and meditation’ are said to imply action in which this aspect of repetition (Āvṛtti-guṇa) is implicit.

4.1.1 L.20 ✅ तथा हि लोके ‘गुरुमुपास्ते’ ‘राजानमुपास्ते’ इति च यस्तात्पर्येण गुर्वादीननुवर्तते, स एवमुच्यते;
For instance in ordinary life when we say that a man worships his preceptor or his king, we understand that it means that he serves his preceptor or his king with continued unswerving loyalty (Tāt-paryeṇa).

4.1.1 L.21 ✅ तथा ‘ध्यायति प्रोषितनाथा पतिम्’ इति – या निरन्तर-स्मरणा पतिं प्रति सोत्कण्ठा, सा एवमभिधीयते।
Similarly it is only when a Proṣita-nāthā wife (a grass widow i.e. a wife whose husband has gone away on business) constantly remembers her absent husband and is eager to meet him, that we speak of her (i.e. such traveller’s wife) that she has no other thought but that of thinking constantly and wistfully remembering her absent husband.

4.1.1 L.22 ✅ विद्युपास्त्योश्च वेदान्तेषु अव्यतिरेकेण प्रयोगो दृश्यते;
It is seen that the terms ‘he should know’, ‘he should meditate’ are used in Vedānta texts without any distinction i.e. as synonymous.

4.1.1 L.23 ✅ क्वचित् विदिनोपक्रम्य उपासिनोपसंहरति,
In some places a Scriptural statement begins with the term ‘let him know’, and concludes with ‘let him meditate upon’,

4.1.1 L.24 ✅ यथा – ‘यस्तद्वेद यत्स वेद स मयैतदुक्तः’ (ChanU.4.1.4) इत्यत्र
As for instance in — “He who knows in the same manner in which he (Raikva) knows it (earns the same fruit which Raikva earned). It is of him that I have spoken (to you)” (ChanU.4.1.4)

4.1.1 L.25 ✅ ‘अनु म एतां भगवो देवतां शाधि यां देवताम् उपास्से’ (ChanU.5.2.2) इति;
And “Oh Bhagavān, teach me about the deity on which you meditate” (ChanU.5.2.2).

4.1.1 L.26 ✅ क्वचिच्च उपासिनोपक्रम्य विदिनोपसंहरति, यथा – ‘मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत’ (ChanU.3.18.1) इत्यत्र
Elsewhere, the Scriptures begin with ‘meditating’ and conclude with ‘knowing’ as for instance in — “Meditate on the mind as Brahman” (ChanU.3.18.1)

4.1.1 L.27 ✅ ‘भाति च तपति च कीर्त्या यशसा ब्रह्मवर्चसेन य एवं वेद’ (ChanU.3.18.3) इति।
And “He who knows it to be so, shines and radiates with the heat of his fame, success, and strength, obtained through the knowledge of Brahman” (ChanU.3.18.3).

4.1.1 L.28 ✅ तस्मात् सकृदुपदेशेष्वपि आवृत्ति-सिद्धिः। असकृदुपदेशस्तु आवृत्तेः सूचकः॥१॥
Thus, it is established, that repetition is necessary even when instruction is given only once, while several instructions of course suggest repetition (of such mental acts). — 1.

[Go top]

←PrevNext→
लिङ्गाच्च॥४.१.२॥
Liṅgāc ca.

---

Liṅgāt: because of the indicatory mark or sign; Ca: and.

🔗 Also, because of the indicatory mark (the necessity of repetition is understood). — 4.1.2.

4.1.2 L.1 ✅ लिङ्गमपि प्रत्ययावृत्तिं प्रत्याययति।
A Scriptural indicatory mark also, makes the repetition of the mental act of acquiring knowledge, understood.

4.1.1 L.2 ✅ तथा हि – उद्गीथविज्ञानं प्रस्तुत्य, ‘आदित्य उद्गीथः’ (ChanU.1.5.1)
Thus, with reference to the Udgīṭha Vidyā, after having censured meditation on “Āditya as the Udgīṭha” (ChanU.1.5.1),

4.1.1 L.3 ✅ इत्येतत् एकपुत्रतादोषेणापोद्य,
As involving the fault of having the fruit of being blessed with a single son only,

4.1.1 L.4 ✅ ‘रश्मींस्त्वं पर्यावर्तयात्’ (ChanU.1.5.2) इति रश्मिबहुत्वविज्ञानं बहुपुत्रतायै विदधत्
And enjoining the Vidyā of of the rays, thus — “Do thou meditate on the rays” (ChanU.1.5.2), for the sake of obtaining many sons,

4.1.1 L.5 ✅ सिद्धवत्प्रत्ययावृत्तिं दर्शयति;
The Scriptures indicate the enjoining of the repetition of the mental act of meditation as something already well established.

4.1.1 L.6 ✅ तत्सामान्यात् सर्वप्रत्ययेष्वावृत्ति-सिद्धिः॥
Therefore in common with it, such repetition of the mental acts of acquiring knowledge is established in the case of all mental acts.

4.1.1 L.7 ✅ अत्राह – भवतु नाम साध्यफलेषु प्रत्ययेष्वावृत्तिः,
The opponent of Vedānta here says — May, such repetition of the mental act, well be, in the case of those mental acts of meditation whose fruit is capable of being achieved,

4.1.1 L.8 ✅ तेष्वावृत्तिसाध्यस्यातिशयस्य सम्भवात्;
Because of the possibility of a superiority of fruit being achieved thereby,

4.1.1 L.9 ✅ यस्तु परब्रह्मविषयः प्रत्ययो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्त-स्वभावमेव आत्मभूतं परं ब्रह्म समर्पयति, तत्र किमर्था आवृत्तिरिति।
But what good can there be of such repetition of a mental act with respect to the Highest Brahman, which culminates in (the realization of) the transcendent Brahman, which has the nature of being eternally pure, enlightened and free, and which is the Self of all?

4.1.1 L.10 ✅ सकृच्छ्रुतौ च ब्रह्मात्मवत्प्रतीत्यनुपपत्तेरावृत्त्यभ्युपगम इति चेत्,
If it be said (by the Vedāntin), that the realization of Brahman as the Self of all can take place by only one such act of hearing, is not reasonably sustainable, and hence I hold that repetition of it is understandable,

4.1.1 L.11 ✅ न, आवृत्तावपि तदनुपपत्तेः;
(We, the opponents of Vedānta, reply) — No, because it is not reasonably sustainable (that such realization would necessarily take place) even by such repetition.

4.1.1 L.12 ✅ यदि हि ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्येवंजातीयकं वाक्यं सकृच्छ्रूयमाणं ब्रह्मात्मत्वप्रतीतिं नोत्पादयेत् ततस्तदेव आवर्त्यमानमुत्पादयिष्यतीति का प्रत्याशा स्यात्।
If the passage “That thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7) heard only once does not create such realization, what hope is there that even a repetition of such a passage would create such realization?

4.1.1 L.13 ✅ अथोच्येत – न केवलं वाक्यं कञ्चिदर्थं साक्षात्कर्तुं शक्नोति;
If it be said (by the Vedāntin) that a passage merely by itself may not be able to cause this entity to be realized

4.1.1 L.14 ✅ अतो युक्त्यपेक्षं वाक्यमनुभावयिष्यति ब्रह्मात्मत्वमिति –
And hence a passage which depends on reasoning to help it, may cause the realization of Brahman as the Self (of all),

4.1.1 L.15 ✅ तथाप्यावृत्त्यानर्थक्यमेव;
We, (the opponents of Vedānta) reply, even then such repetition is purposeless,

4.1.1 L.16 ✅ सापि हि युक्तिः सकृत्प्रवृत्तैव स्वमर्थमनुभावयिष्यति।
Because even mere reasoning, operating but once only, may cause its own object to be realized.

4.1.1 L.17 ✅ अथापि स्यात् – युक्त्या वाक्येन च सामान्यविषयमेव विज्ञानं क्रियते, न विशेषविषयम्;
It may even be like this (says the Vedāntin), viz. that reason and the (Scriptural) passage, together, may effect only a general, and not a special, kind of knowledge (of an entity).

4.1.1 L.18 ✅ यथा ‘अस्ति मे हृदये शूलम्’ इत्यतो वाक्यात् गात्रकम्पादिलिङ्गाच्च
For instance, from a sentence such as ‘I have pain in my chest’, and the symptom of the tremor of limbs,

4.1.1 L.19 ✅ शूलसद्भावसामान्यमेव परः प्रतिपद्यते, न विशेषमनुभवति –
A man may merely understand the existence of such pain (in the man who says so, only in a general way) but he cannot experience such pain,

4.1.1 L.20 ✅ यथा स एव शूली;
In that special manner in which the sufferer of such pain himself actually experiences it.

4.1.1 L.21 ✅ विशेषानुभवश्च अविद्याया निवर्तकः; तदर्था आवृत्तिरिति चेत् –
If it be said (by the Vedāntin) that it is such special realization which removes ignorance (i.e. Nescience), and hence it is, that repetition is necessary for that purpose,

4.1.1 L.22 ✅ न, असकृदपि तावन्मात्रे क्रियमाणे विशेषविज्ञानोत्पत्त्यसम्भवात्;
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — No. Even if such repetition is made more than once, there is no possibility of such special realization.

4.1.1 L.23 ✅ न हि सकृत्प्रयुक्ताभ्यां शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्याम् अनवगतो विशेषः
If such special realization does not result by the application of the Śāstra and reasoning, once,

4.1.1 L.24 ✅ शतकृत्वोऽपि प्रयुज्यमानाभ्याम् अवगन्तुं शक्यते;
It cannot be so realized, even if they are employed even a hundred times.

4.1.1 L.25 ✅ तस्मात् यदि शास्त्रयुक्तिभ्यां विशेषः प्रतिपाद्येत, यदि वा सामान्यमेव
Therefore, whether a special or a general realization is sought to be propounded by means of the Śāstra and by reasoning,

4.1.1 L.26 ✅ उभयथापि सकृत्प्रवृत्ते एव ते स्वकार्यं कुरुत इति आवृत्त्यनुपयोगः;
In either case, inasmuch as they would accomplish their work by one such operation of themselves (i.e. of the Śāstra and reasoning) repetition would have no use.

4.1.1 L.27 ✅ न च सकृत्प्रयुक्ते शास्त्रयुक्ती कस्यचिदप्यनुभवं नोत्पादयत इति शक्यते नियन्तुम्,
Besides it is not possible to determine that the Śāstra and reasoning employed but once only, can never as a rule produce such experience,

4.1.1 L.28 ✅ विचित्रप्रज्ञत्वात् प्रतिपत्तॄणाम्।
Because of the varying intelligences of those who have to experience such a realization.

4.1.1 L.29 ✅ अपि च अनेकांशोपेते लौकिके पदार्थे सामान्यविशेषवति एकेनावधानेन एकमंशमवधारयति, अपरेण अपरम् – इति स्यादप्यभ्यासोपयोगः,
There may well be such use for repetition, where, in the ordinary world, in the case of a thing consisting of many parts, and possessing general and special characteristics, one part of such a thing may be understood by one such act of careful intentness of attention, and another part by another such act of careful intentness of attention,

4.1.1 L.30 ✅ यथा दीर्घप्रपाठकग्रहणादिषु;
As for instance, in the case of the understanding of a lengthy chapter of the same lesson,

4.1.1 L.31 ✅ न तु निर्विशेषे ब्रह्मणि सामान्यविशेष-रहिते चैतन्यमात्रात्मके प्रमोत्पत्तावभ्यासापेक्षा युक्तेति॥
But no such repetition is needed for the generation of the right knowledge of Brahman, which is devoid of any such ordinary or special characteristics of any kind, and which has sentiency alone as its Self.

4.1.1 L.32 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – भवेदावृत्त्यानर्थक्यं तं प्रति, यः ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति सकृदुक्तमेव ब्रह्मात्मत्वमनुभवितुं शक्नुयात्;
To this conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), it is said, that repetition may well be purposeless in the case of one, who, when the passage “That thou art” is addressed to him only once, is able to realize that Brahman is the Self (of all),

4.1.1 L.33 ✅ यस्तु न शक्नोति, तं प्रति उपयुज्यत एव आवृत्तिः।
But to one who is not so able to realize, repetition is useful.

4.1.1 L.34 ✅ तथा हि च्छान्दोग्ये – ‘तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इत्युपदिश्य,
For instance, in the Chāndogya, when instructed (by the preceptor), thus — “Oh Śveta-ketu, that thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7),

4.1.1 L.35 ✅ ‘भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयतु’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इति पुनः पुनः परिचोद्यमानः तत्तदाशङ्काकारणं निराकृत्य,
And on his being asked again and again thus — “The Bhagavān should again explain it to me” (ChanU.6.8.7), the preceptor after having removed every such cause of doubt one by one,

4.1.1 L.36 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्येवासकृदुपदिशति;
Again and again instructs Śveta-ketu thus — ‘Oh Śveta-ketu, that thou art’.

4.1.1 L.37 ✅ तथा च ‘श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः’ (BrhU.4.5.6) इत्यादि दर्शितम्।
That is why we have given this Scriptural illustration, thus — “Ātmā verily should be heard, cogitated upon, and meditated upon” (BrhU.4.5.6).

4.1.1 L.38 ✅ ननु उक्तम् – सकृच्छ्रुतं चेत् तत्त्वमसिवाक्यं स्वमर्थमनुभावयितुं न शक्नोति,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), if the passage “That thou art”, heard but once only, is unable to make one realize that which it means,

4.1.1 L.39 ✅ तत आवर्त्यमानमपि नैव शक्ष्यतीति –
Then it certainly would not be able to do so even when it is repeated.

4.1.1 L.40 ✅ नैष दोषः; न हि दृष्टेऽनुपपन्नं नाम;
(We reply) — This is no fault, for, indeed, when a thing (such as repetition) is seen to be useful how can it be said that it is not reasonably sustainable?

4.1.1 L.41 ✅ दृश्यन्ते हि सकृच्छ्रुताद्वाक्यात् मन्दप्रतीतं वाक्यार्थं आवर्तयन्तः तत्तदाभासव्युदासेन सम्यक्प्रतिपद्यमानाः।
It is indeed seen, that those who are able to understand the meaning of a sentence but vaguely by hearing it once only, are able to understand its meaning correctly, by a progressive removal of misconceptions (as to its meaning), by repetition.

4.1.1 L.42 ✅ अपि च ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्येतद्वाक्यं त्वंपदार्थस्य तत्पदार्थभावमाचष्टे;
Besides, the sentence “That thou art” speaks of the entity denoted by the word ‘thou’ as being identical with the entity denoted by the word ‘That’.

4.1.1 L.43 ✅ तत्पदेन च प्रकृतं सत् ब्रह्म ईक्षितृ जगतो जन्मादिकारणम् अभिधीयते –
And it is by the word ‘That’ (Tat), that Brahman, the ‘Sat’, and the seer, is said to be the cause of the origin of this world,

4.1.1 L.44 ✅ ‘सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ (TaitU.2.1.1)
‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ (BrhU.3.9.28)
‘अदृष्टं द्रष्टृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11)
‘अविज्ञातं विज्ञातृ’ (BrhU.3.8.11)
अजमजरममरम् (BrhU.4.4.25)
‘अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घम्’ (BrhU.3.8.8)
इत्यादिशास्त्रसिद्धम्;
As is well-known from the Scriptural passages such as —
“Brahman is truth and knowledge, and is eternal” (TaitU.2.1.1),
“Brahman which is knowledge and bliss” (BrhU.3.9.28),
“Unseen but seeing, unknown but knowing etc.” (BrhU.3.8.11),
Not subject to birth, not subject to old age, not subject to death (BrhU.4.4.25),
“Neither gross nor subtle, nor short nor long” (BrhU.3.8.8) etc.

4.1.1 L.45 ✅ तत्र अजादिशब्दैर्जन्मादयो भावविकारा निवर्तिताः;
There, by the words ‘not subject to birth etc.’, birth and such other phases of existence are denied,

4.1.1 L.46 ✅ अस्थूलादिशब्दैश्च स्थौल्यादयो द्रव्यधर्माः;
By the words ‘neither gross etc.’, such properties of matter as grossness etc. are denied,

4.1.1 L.47 ✅ विज्ञानादिशब्दैश्च चैतन्य-प्रकाशात्मकत्वमुक्तम्;
And by the words ‘knowledge etc.’ Brahman’s being the light of sentiency is spoken of.

4.1.1 L.48 ✅ एष व्यावृत्त-सर्वसंसार-धर्मकोऽनुभवात्मको ब्रह्मसंज्ञकस्तत्पदार्थो वेदान्ताभियुक्तानां प्रसिद्धः;
The entity ‘That’ (Tat) called Brahman, which is devoid of all the attributes of a transitory mundane existence, and which is capable of being realized, is well-known to those who are well-versed in Vedānta.

4.1.1 L.49 ✅ तथा त्वंपदार्थोऽपि प्रत्यगात्मा श्रोता देहादारभ्य प्रत्यगात्मतया सम्भाव्यमानः चैतन्यपर्यन्तत्वेनावधारितः;
Similarly, they also know that the entity indicated by the word ‘Thou’ (Tvam) is the Universal Highest Self (Pratyag-ātmā), the hearer, and the one which beginning with the body is understood to be the innermost Self of all and is ultimately determined to be of the nature of sentiency (Caitanya-Sva-rūpa).

4.1.1 L.50 ✅ तत्र येषाम् एतौ पदार्थौ अज्ञानसंशयविपर्यय-प्रतिबद्धौ, तेषां
Now, in the case of those whose comprehension of the meaning of these two terms is obstructed, i.e. coloured by ignorance, doubt, and confusion,

4.1.1 L.51 ✅ ‘तत्त्वमसि’ इत्येतद्वाक्यं स्वार्थे प्रमां नोत्पादयितुं शक्नोति, पदार्थज्ञान-पूर्वकत्वाद् वाक्यार्थज्ञानस्य –
The sentence “That thou art” is unable to generate appropriate knowledge of what these words mean, because, the knowledge of the meaning of all the words (of a sentence), is a pre-requisite for the knowledge of the meaning of such a sentence,

4.1.1 L.52 ✅ इत्यतः, तान्प्रति एष्टव्यः पदार्थविवेक-प्रयोजनः शास्त्रयुक्त्यभ्यासः।
And hence in their case, the repetition of the study of Scriptural passages and reasoning, which results in the proper discrimination of the words, is necessary.

4.1.1 L.53 ✅ यद्यपि च प्रतिपत्तव्य आत्मा निरंशः,
Even though, the Self which is to be realized, does not consist of any parts as such,

4.1.1 L.54 ✅ तथापि अध्यारोपितं तस्मिन् बह्वंशत्वं देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्धिविषय-वेदनादि-लक्षणम्;
Still the nature of consisting of such parts as are characterized by a body, the sense-organs, mind, intelligence, objects of sense, and the property of reacting to pleasure and pain, is superimposed on it,

4.1.1 L.55 ✅ तत्र एकेन अवधानेन एकमंशमपोहति,
And in such a case, inasmuch as one mental act of intentness of attention removes the misconception about one such part,

4.1.1 L.56 ✅ अपरेण अपरम् –
And another such mental act of intentness of attention removes the misconception about another such part, and so on,

4.1.1 L.57 ✅ इति युज्यते तत्र क्रमवती प्रतिपत्तिः;
It is but proper that in such a case, realization comes about by progressive stages,

4.1.1 L.58 ✅ तत्तु पूर्वरूपमेव आत्मप्रतिपत्तेः।
But even that is but only a penultimate condition of the actual realization of the Self.

4.1.1 L.59 ✅ येषां पुनः निपुणमतीनां न अज्ञानसंशय-विपर्ययलक्षणः पदार्थविषयः प्रतिबन्धोऽस्ति,
But such clever minds, as are not subject to any such impediments of the nature of ignorance, doubt, and confusion, as to the meaning of words,

4.1.1 L.60 ✅ ते शक्नुवन्ति सकृदुक्तमेव तत्त्वमसिवाक्यार्थम् अनुभवितुमिति, तान्प्रति आवृत्त्यानर्थक्यमिष्टमेव;
Are able to understand the meaning of the passage “That thou art” even though it is mentioned but once only,

4.1.1 L.61 ✅ सकृदुत्पन्नैव हि आत्मप्रतिपत्तिः अविद्यां निवर्तयतीति, नात्र कश्चिदपि क्रमोऽभ्युपगम्यते। सत्यमेवं युज्येत,
And hence in their case it is but proper, that repetition has no purpose, and the realization of the Self, effected once for all, removes all ignorance, and no such order of progressive realization need be understood (to be necessary).

4.1.1 L.62 ✅ यदि कस्यचित् एवं प्रतिपत्तिर्भवेत्;
बलवती हि आत्मनो दुःखित्वादिप्रतिपत्तिः;
अतो न दुःखित्वाद्यभावं कश्चित्प्रतिपद्यत इति चेत् –
But if it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) — Forsooth, it would be proper if anybody were to realize the Self in this way,
But (on the other hand) that the Self is subject to pain, is very forcibly experienced (by men),
And no one ever experiences the complete absence of pain etc.,

4.1.1 L.63 ✅ न, देहाद्यभिमानवत् दुःखित्वाद्यभिमानस्य मिथ्याभिमानत्वोपपत्तेः;
(We reply) — No, because it is reasonably sustainable, that just as the conception by the Self, that it possesses a body of its own, is false, even so the conception of it being subject to pain etc. also, is due to a similar false conception,

4.1.1 L.64 ✅ प्रत्यक्षं हि देहे छिद्यमाने दह्यमाने वा ‘अहं छिद्ये दह्ये’ इति च मिथ्याभिमानो दृष्टः;
For it is seen that when a body is actually cut or burnt, an erroneous conception such as ‘I am being cut and I am being burnt’ does in fact take place.

4.1.1 L.65 ✅ तथा बाह्यतरेष्वपि पुत्रमित्रादिषु सन्तप्यमानेषु ‘अहमेव सन्तप्ये’ इत्यध्यारोपो दृष्टः;
Similarly when entities, more external to the Self (than the body), such as a son or a friend, are being afflicted with pain, a similar false superimposition, viz. that it is ‘I’, i.e., the Self, that is being afflicted with pain, is to be seen.

4.1.1 L.66 ✅ तथा दुःखित्वाद्यभिमानोऽपि स्यात्, देहादिवदेव
Even so there may be an erroneous misconception of pain etc., similar to the misconception of possessing a body.

4.1.1 L.67 ✅ चैतन्याद् बहिरुपलभ्यमानत्वाद् दुःखित्वादीनाम्,
Because pain etc., like the body etc., are experienced as being distinctly separate from sentiency,

4.1.1 L.68 ✅ सुषुप्तादिषु च अननुवृत्तेः;
As they are not experienced during deep sleep.

4.1.1 L.69 ✅ चैतन्यस्य तु सुषुप्तेऽपि अनुवृत्तिमामनन्ति –
The Scriptures on the other hand declare that sentiency is experienced even during deep sleep,

4.1.1 L.70 ✅ ‘यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तन्न पश्यति’ (BrhU.4.3.23) इत्यादिना;
Thus — “Verily while that which he does not see (with his eyes) he verily does see, though he does not see” (BrhU.4.3.23).

4.1.1 L.71 ✅ तस्मात् सर्वदुःख-विनिर्मुक्तैकचैतन्यात्मकोऽहमित्येष आत्मानुभवः।
Therefore, the realization of the Self, is the realization that ‘I am the Self’, characterized only by sentiency and freedom from all pain as such.

4.1.1 L.72 ✅ न च एवम् आत्मानमनुभवतः किञ्चिदन्यत्कृत्यम् अवशिष्यते;
For him, who actually experiences the Self in this manner, there is nothing left to be done.

4.1.1 L.73 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘किं प्रजया करिष्यामो येषां नोऽयमात्मायं लोकः’ (BrhU.4.4.22)
The same is expressed in the Scriptural passage “What use is progeny to us, to whom the Self only is but the (heavenly) world?” (BrhU.4.4.22),

4.1.1 L.74 ✅ इत्यात्मविदः कर्तव्याभावं दर्शयति;
Which indicates that for a man who knows the Self, nothing is left to be done.

4.1.1 L.75 ✅ स्मृतिरपि – ‘यस्त्वात्मरतिरेव स्यादात्मतृप्तश्च मानवः।
आत्मन्येव च सन्तुष्टस्तस्य कार्यं न विद्यते’ (BhG.3.17) इति।
So says the Smṛti also, thus — “One who is delighted in the Self, is satiated with the Self
And is content in the same, has nothing left for him to do” (BhG.3.17).

4.1.1 L.76 ✅ यस्य तु न एषोऽनुभवो द्रागिव जायते, तं प्रति अनुभवार्थ एव आवृत्त्यभ्युपगमः।
In the case of those to whom such realization does not come readily, repetition is understood to be necessary for such realization.

4.1.1 L.77 ✅ तत्रापि न तत्त्वमसि-वाक्यार्थात् प्रच्याव्य
Even in the case of a man who has understood the meaning of the passage ‘That thou art’, the Scriptures do not seek to distract such a person away from the meaning of the passage,

4.1.1 L.78 ✅ आवृत्तौ प्रवर्तयेत्;
And induce him towards practising repetition.

4.1.1 L.79 ✅ न हि वरघाताय कन्यामुद्वाहयन्ति;
No one gets one’s daughter married (with a mental reservation) for the purpose of doing violence to the bridegroom (at some future time).

4.1.1 L.80 ✅ नियुक्तस्य च ‘अस्मिन्नधिकृतोऽहं कर्ता मयेदं कर्तव्यम्’ इत्यवश्यं ब्रह्मप्रत्ययाद् विपरीतप्रत्यय उत्पद्यते;
Even in the case of a man who considers himself to be enjoined by the Scriptures to such repetition, a conception contrary to that of the conception of Brahman, such as that ‘I am the doer, I have got to do this’, is invariably generated.

4.1.1 L.81 ✅ यस्तु स्वयमेव मन्दमतिः अप्रतिभानात् तं वाक्यार्थं जिहासेत्,
He who is intellectually dull and, therefore, misses the meaning of the sentence because its meaning does not flash on him,

4.1.1 L.82 ✅ तस्य एतस्मिन्नेव वाक्यार्थे स्थिरीकार आवृत्त्यादिवाचोयुक्त्या अभ्युपेयते।
Deserves to be firmly grounded into the meaning of the sentence, by such means as repetition etc.

4.1.1 L.83 ✅ तस्मात् परब्रह्मविषयेऽपि प्रत्यये तदुपायोपदेशेष्वावृत्ति-सिद्धिः॥२॥
Therefore, it is thus established that even in matters relating to the realization of Brahman, repetition of the instruction which is the means to such realization of knowledge, is necessary. — 2.

– 154. Āvṛty-Adhikaraṇam.

[Go top]

---

Ātmā iti: as the Self; Tu: but; Upagacchanti: acknowledge, approach, realise; Grāhayanti: teach, make others comprehend, instruct; Ca: also.

🔗 (The Scriptures understand) that Īśvara i.e. Brahman is the Jīva-Self (Ātmā) and they (i.e. Scriptures) also cause it to be so understood. — 4.1.3.

4.1.1 L.1 ✅ यः शास्त्रोक्तविशेषणः परमात्मा,
स किम् अहमिति ग्रहीतव्यः, किं वा मदन्य इति – एतद्विचारयति।
The Sūtra-kāra is now considering whether the Highest Self whose special attributes are described by the Śāstra,
Should be understood to be the ‘I’ or it should be understood as being some thing other than ‘I’.

4.1.1 L.2 ✅ कथं पुनरात्मशब्दे प्रत्यगात्मविषये श्रूयमाणे संशय इति,
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — When the Scriptures mention the word ‘Self’ in connection with the innermost Universal Self, whence can such a doubt arise?

4.1.1 L.3 ✅ उच्यते – अयमात्मशब्दो मुख्यः शक्यतेऽभ्युपगन्तुम्, सति जीवेश्वरयोरभेदसम्भवे;
इतरथा तु गौणोऽयमभ्युपगन्तव्यः – इति मन्यते।
It is said (by the Sūtra-kāra) — Were there to be a possibility of non-difference between the Jīva-Self and the Lord, then alone, it is thought, that the word ‘Jīva-Self’ could be understood in its principal sense,
Otherwise it will have to be understood in its secondary sense.

4.1.1 L.4 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)?

4.1.1 L.5 ✅ न अहमिति ग्राह्यः;
It is that it can’t be understood to be the ‘I’.

4.1.1 L.6 ✅ न हि अपहतपाप्मत्वादि-गुणो विपरीत-गुणत्वेन शक्यते ग्रहीतुम्,
It is not possible to understood Him, who possesses the nature of being free from sinfulness i.e. the Highest Lord, as one having a contrary nature (i.e. that of the embodied Jīva-Self),

4.1.1 L.7 ✅ विपरीत-गुणो वा अपहतपाप्मत्वादि-गुणत्वेन;
Nor can he, that has such contrary nature, be considered to be one who possesses the nature of being free from sinfulness (i.e. that of the Highest Lord).

4.1.1 L.8 ✅ अपहतपाप्मत्वादि-गुणश्च परमेश्वरः, तद्विपरीत-गुणस्तु शारीरः;
The Highest Lord has the nature of being free from sinfulness and the embodied Jīva-Self has a nature contrary to that.

4.1.1 L.9 ✅ ईश्वरस्य च संसार्यात्मत्वे ईश्वराभाव-प्रसङ्गः;
Now, if the Highest Lord were to be considered to be a transmigratory Jīva-Self, there would be the predicament of the non-existence of the Highest Lord himself thus resulting,

4.1.1 L.10 ✅ ततः शास्त्रानर्थक्यम्;
And thereby the Śāstra would become meaningless.

4.1.1 L.11 ✅ संसारिणोऽपि ईश्वरात्मत्वे अधिकार्यभावाच्छास्त्रानर्थक्यमेव,
Again, if the transmigratory Jīva-Self were to be the Lord (i.e. Īśvara) there would be the absence of a person competent (to study the Vedānta Śāstra) and thus the Śāstra would equally again be rendered meaningless,

4.1.1 L.12 ✅ प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधश्च।
And besides there would be a contradiction of such means-of-proof as direct perception etc. (as it is known by everybody that the Jīva-Self is not the Lord).

4.1.1 L.13 ✅ अन्यत्वेऽपि तादात्म्य-दर्शनं शास्त्रात् कर्तव्यम् –
प्रतिमादिष्विव विष्ण्वादि-दर्शनम् इति चेत् –
If it be said (by the Vedāntin), that different as they are, complete identity between them ought to be understood on the authority of the Śāstra,
In the same way in which a symbol and Viṣṇu etc. are looked upon as being identical,

4.1.1 L.14 ✅ काममेवं भवतु;
(We the opponents of Vedānta say), well may it be so if you so prefer it,

4.1.1 L.15 ✅ न तु संसारिणो मुख्य आत्मा ईश्वर इत्येतत् नः प्रापयितव्यम्॥
But do not seek to land us into an admission, that the Lord is the Self of the transmigratory being i.e. the Jīva-Self in the principal sense of the term.

4.1.1 L.16 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः – आत्मेत्येव परमेश्वरः प्रतिपत्तव्यः।
To this, we reply — The Highest Lord should of course be understood to be the Ātmā (Jīva-Self),

4.1.1 L.17 ✅ तथा हि परमेश्वरप्रक्रियायां जाबाला आत्मत्वेनैव एतमुपगच्छन्ति –
For even so do the Jābālas, in the chapter dealing with the Highest Lord, understood the Lord to be the Ātmā (Jīva-Self) thus —

4.1.1 L.18 ✅ ‘त्वं वा अहमस्मि भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि भगवो देवते’ इति;
“Thou art indeed I, Oh blessed deity, and I indeed, am Thou”.

4.1.1 L.19 ✅ तथा अन्येऽपि ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इत्येवमादय आत्मत्वोपगमा द्रष्टव्याः।
Similarly Scriptural passages such as “I am Brahman” also should be looked upon as considering (the Highest Lord) as the Self.

4.1.1 L.20 ✅ ग्राहयन्ति च आत्मत्वेनैव ईश्वरं वेदान्तवाक्यानि –
‘एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः’ (BrhU.3.4.1)
‘एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः’ (BrhU.3.7.3)
‘तत्सत्यꣳ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि’ (ChanU.6.8.7) इत्येवमादीनि।
Vedānta texts such as “This your Self which is inside all” (BrhU.3.4.1),
“This your Self which is the ruler within and is immortal” (BrhU.3.7.3),
“That is the truth, that is the Self, that thou art” (ChanU.6.8.7),
Make us understand the Lord to be the Ātmā (i.e. the Jīva-Self).

4.1.1 L.21 ✅ यदुक्तम् – प्रतीक-दर्शनमिदं विष्णुप्रतिमान्यायेन भविष्यतीति, तदयुक्तम्,
What is mentioned (by the opponent of Vedānta), viz., that it can be understood by these sentences, on the strength of a similar reasoning about a symbol being Viṣṇu, that the symbol (Pratīka) should be understood to be Brahman, is not logical,

4.1.1 L.22 ✅ गौणत्वप्रसङ्गात्,
Because there would thus be the predicament of these passages having to be understood in a secondary sense.

4.1.1 L.23 ✅ वाक्य-वैरूप्याच्च –
Besides (it would not be proper), because here the syntactical form of the sentences of the Scriptures is dissimilar.

4.1.1 L.24 ✅ यत्र हि प्रतीकदृष्टिरभिप्रेयते, सकृदेव तत्र वचनं भवति –
Where, the Scriptures mean, that a symbol should be superimposed with the notion of a particular thing, there is only a unilateral statement,

4.1.1 L.25 ✅ यथा ‘मनो ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.18.1) ‘आदित्यो ब्रह्म’ (ChanU.3.19.1) इत्यादि;
As for instance in the passages — “The mind is Brahman” (ChanU.3.18.1), “The Āditya is Brahman” (ChanU.3.19.1).

4.1.1 L.26 ✅ इह पुनः – त्वम् अहमस्मि, अहं च त्वमसीत्याह –
Here however the Scriptures declare thus — “Thou art I, and I am Thou”,

4.1.1 L.27 ✅ अतः प्रतीकश्रुति-वैरूप्यात् अभेदप्रतिपत्तिः;
And hence, as here, the form of the Scriptural statement is different from the Scriptural statement about the symbol, it is understood that there is non-difference (between the embodied Jīva-Self and Brahman).

4.1.1 L.28 ✅ भेददृष्ट्यपवादाच्च;
Besides, the Scriptures have censured the looking upon of entities as being different.

4.1.1 L.29 ✅ तथा हि – ‘अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद’ (BrhU.1.4.10)
‘मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति’ (BrhU.4.4.19, KathU.2.1.10)
‘सर्वं तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः सर्वं वेद’ (BrhU.4.5.71)
इत्येवमाद्या भूयसी श्रुतिः भेददर्शनम् अपवदति।
For instance, Scriptural passages, such as “The man who meditates upon a deity as an entity different from himself, really does not understand (the Truth)” (BrhU.1.4.10),
“One who here perceives entities as being different from each other, only goes from death to death” (BrhU.4.4.19),
“Everything forsakes him who considers all entities as being different from the Self” (BrhU.4.5.7),
Have censured the understanding of such difference (in entities).

4.1.1 L.30 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – न विरुद्धगुणयोरन्योन्यात्मत्वसम्भव इति,
As regards the statement (by the opponent of Vedānta), that it is not possible for entities having opposite natures to be the Self of each other (i.e. to be mutually identical),

4.1.1 L.31 ✅ नायं दोषः, विरुद्धगुणताया मिथ्यात्वोपपत्तेः।
(We reply) — This is no fault, because it is reasonably sustainable, that the notion of their possessing natures opposed to each other, is illusory.

4.1.1 L.32 ✅ यत्पुनरुक्तम् – ईश्वराभाव-प्रसङ्ग इति,
As regards the statement that there would be the predicament of the non-existence of the Lord,

4.1.1 L.33 ✅ तदसत्, शास्त्रप्रामाण्यात्
(We reply) — that also is not so, because of the authority of the Śāstra,

4.1.1 L.34 ✅ अनभ्युपगमाच्च;
And also because we do not understand (as you the opponent of Vedānta do) that the Lord himself has the nature of the transmigratory Jīva-Self.

4.1.1 L.35 ✅ न हि ईश्वरस्य संसार्यात्मत्वं प्रतिपाद्यत इत्यभ्युपगच्छामः –
We understand that the Scriptures do not propound that the Lord is the transmigratory Jīva-Self,

4.1.1 L.36 ✅ किं तर्हि? – संसारिणः संसारित्वापोहेन ईश्वरात्मत्वं प्रतिपिपादयिषितमिति।
But on the other hand we do understand that the Scriptures aim at propounding, by denying the transmigratory nature of the Jīva-Self itself, that it is the Lord.

4.1.1 L.37 ✅ एवं च सति अद्वैतेश्वरस्य अपहतपाप्मत्वादि-गुणता विपरीत-गुणता तु इतरस्य मिथ्येति व्यवतिष्ठते।
This being so, it is determined, that the non-dual Lord has the nature of being free from all sinfulness, and that the (supposed) contrary nature of the Jīva-Self, is illusory.

4.1.1 L.38 ✅ यदप्युक्तम् – अधिकार्यभावः प्रत्यक्षादि-विरोधश्चेति,
With regard to the statement (by the opponent of Vedānta) that there would be the absence of any person competent (to study the Vedānta Śāstra) and that such means-of-proof as direct perception would be contradicted,

4.1.1 L.39 ✅ तदप्यसत्, प्राक्प्रबोधात् संसारित्वाभ्युपगमात्,
(We reply) that, that also is not so, because it is understood by us, that prior to the realization of knowledge, the Jīva-Self by all means, does indeed have such transmigratory nature,

4.1.1 L.40 ✅ तद्विषयत्वाच्च प्रत्यक्षादि-व्यवहारस्य;
And it is during such condition that the operation of such means-of-proof, as direct perception etc. takes place.

4.1.1 L.41 ✅ ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (BrhU.2.4.14)
इत्यादिना हि प्रबोधे प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावं दर्शयति।
While the Scriptures indicate by the passage “When all this becomes to him, the Self as such, by what will he see and see what”? (BrhU.2.4.14)
That after the realization (of the Self) there is absence of such means-of-proof as direct perception etc.

4.1.1 L.42 ✅ प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावे श्रुतेरप्यभाव-प्रसङ्ग इति चेत्,
If it be said (by the opponent of Vedānta) that in the absence of the means-of-proof such as direct perception, there would be the predicament of even the Scriptures themselves ceasing to be the Scriptures (because they are the strongest means-of-proof),

4.1.1 L.43 ✅ न, इष्टत्वात्;
(We reply) — Not exactly, because, we on the other hand, do welcome such a predicament (i.e. it is for us a consummation devoutly to be wished).

4.1.1 L.44 ✅ ‘अत्र पिताऽपिता भवति’ (BrhU.4.3.22) इत्युपक्रम्य,
‘वेदा अवेदाः’ (BrhU.4.3.22) इति वचनात्
इष्यत एव अस्माभिः श्रुतेरप्यभावः प्रबोधे।
Besides, the Scriptures beginning with “In this condition (of realization), a father ceases to be a father” (BrhU.4.3.22),
Go on to say in the end, that “The Vedas cease to be the Vedas” (BrhU.4.3.22),
And thus after the realization (of Brahman) we do welcome, even the Vedas ceasing to be the Vedas.

4.1.1 L.45 ✅ कस्य पुनरयम् अप्रबोध इति चेत्,
If the opponent were to say — “Who in that case, is the one, that is in ignorance i.e. in need of such realization?”,

4.1.1 L.46 ✅ यस्त्वं पृच्छसि तस्य ते – इति वदामः।
We reply — It is you yourself, who are asking this question.

4.1.1 L.47 ✅ ननु अहमीश्वर एवोक्तः श्रुत्या –
If the opponent were to say — “Oh, but the Scriptures declare that I myself am the Lord”,

4.1.1 L.48 ✅ यद्येवं प्रतिबुद्धोऽसि, नास्ति कस्यचिदप्रबोधः।
(We retort) — If you have realized it to be so (i.e. that you are the Lord) then (in that case) there is none that happens to be without any such realization.

4.1.1 L.49 ✅ योऽपि दोषश्चोद्यते कैश्चित् – अविद्यया किल आत्मनः सद्वितीयत्वात्
Again the fault attributed, viz. that inasmuch as the Self along with Avidyā (i.e. Nescience) necessarily make a pair, it makes for duality,

4.1.1 L.50 ✅ अद्वैतानुपपत्तिरिति, सोऽपि एतेन प्रत्युक्तः।
And hence ‘Advaita’ (non-duality or monism) is not reasonably sustainable, is also refuted by what has just gone before.

4.1.1 L.51 ✅ तस्मात् आत्मेत्येव ईश्वरे मनो दधीत॥३॥
Therefore, one should focus the mind on the Lord as being the Ātmā (the Self). — 3.

[Go top]

---

Na: not; Pratīke: in the symbol (such as Ākāśa, the sun, the mind, etc.); Na: not; Hi: because; Saḥ: he.

🔗 The Symbol cannot be (understood to be the Self). He (i.e. the person meditating) does not (look upon it as the Self). — 4.1.4.

4.1.4 L.1 ✅ ‘मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीतेत्यध्यात्मम् अथाधिदैवतम् आकाशो ब्रह्मेति’ (ChanU.3.18.1)
तथा ‘आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः’ (ChanU.3.19.1)
‘स यो नाम ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते’ (ChanU.7.1.5) इत्येवमादिषु
प्रतीकोपासनेषु संशयः –
Now a doubt arises, with regard to meditations on symbols
In such (Scriptural passages) as “One should meditate on the mind as Brahman, the Adhyātma (aspect), and ‘the Ākāśa is Brahman’ the Adhidaivatā (aspect)” (ChanU.3.18.1),
“The instruction is that Āditya is Brahman” (ChanU.3.19.1),
“He who meditates on Nāman (i.e. the Vedas) as Brahman” (ChanU.7.1.5),

4.1.4 L.2 ✅ किं तेष्वपि आत्मग्रहः कर्तव्यः, न वेति।
As to whether the symbols should themselves be understood to be the Self (Ātmā) or not.

4.1.4 L.3 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)?

4.1.4 L.4 ✅ तेष्वपि आत्म-ग्रह एव युक्तः कर्तुम्।
It is, that it is logical that they also should themselves be understood to be the Self (Ātmā).

4.1.4 L.5 ✅ कस्मात्? ब्रह्मणः श्रुतिषु आत्मत्वेन प्रसिद्धत्वात्,
Whence is it so? Because in the Scriptures, Brahman is well-known as being the Self (Ātmā),

4.1.4 L.6 ✅ प्रतीकानामपि ब्रह्मविकारत्वाद् ब्रह्मत्वे सति आत्मत्वोपपत्तेः
And inasmuch as these symbols, as the effects or modifications (Vikāra) of Brahman, are also of the nature of Brahman, it is reasonably sustainable that they also are of the nature of the Self.

4.1.4 L.7 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – न प्रतीकेष्वात्ममतिं बध्नीयात्;
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply — One should not fasten the notion of the Self on symbols.

4.1.4 L.8 ✅ न हि स उपासकः प्रतीकानि व्यस्तानि आत्मत्वेन आकलयेत्।
The person meditating does not understand these different symbols to be the Self.

4.1.4 L.9 ✅ यत्पुनः ब्रह्मविकारत्वात् प्रतीकानां ब्रह्मत्वं ततश्च आत्मत्वमिति,
The argument that symbols being the effects of Brahman, are themselves of the nature of Brahman, and hence they are of the nature of the Self also,

4.1.4 L.10 ✅ तदसत्, प्रतीकाभाव-प्रसङ्गात्;
Is not correct because (in that case) there would then be the predicament of the non-existence of the symbol itself thus resulting.

4.1.4 L.11 ✅ विकारस्वरूपोपमर्देन हि नामादि-जातस्य ब्रह्मत्वमेव आश्रितं भवति।
It is only after the nature of the diverse effects such as Nāman etc. qua effects is destroyed, that it is possible to accept them as being of the nature of Brahman.

4.1.4 L.12 ✅ स्वरूपोपमर्दे च नामादीनां
When this nature of the effects i.e. Nāman etc. is destroyed,

4.1.4 L.13 ✅ कुतः प्रतीकत्वम् आत्मग्रहो वा?
How could they then have the nature of a symbol or how could they then be accepted as being of the nature of the Self?

4.1.4 L.14 ✅ न च ब्रह्मण आत्मत्वात् ब्रह्मदृष्ट्युपदेशेष्वात्म-दृष्टिः कल्प्या,
Because Brahman has the nature of the Self, it cannot be supposed, that in the instruction about the contemplation on Brahman, there is an instruction about the contemplation on the Self,

4.1.4 L.15 ✅ कर्तृत्वाद्यनिराकरणात्;
Because in the instruction about the contemplation on Brahman, the agentship (of the person meditating) is not dispensed with.

4.1.4 L.16 ✅ कर्तृत्वादिसर्वसंसारधर्म-निराकरणेन हि ब्रह्मण आत्मत्वोपदेशः;
The doing away of all the attributes of transmigratory nature such as agentship etc., is a sine qua non for the instruction that Brahman is the Self,

4.1.4 L.17 ✅ तदनिराकरणेन च उपासन-विधानम्।
While an injunction to meditate is given without doing away with such attributes as agents etc. (implicit in transmigratory existence).

4.1.4 L.18 ✅ अतश्च उपासकस्य प्रतीकैः समत्वात्
Hence, inasmuch as, both the persons meditating, and the symbol (the object of meditation) are similar (because neither are Brahman),

4.1.4 L.19 ✅ आत्मग्रहो नोपपद्यते;
That the symbol can be looked upon as the ‘Self’ is not reasonably sustainable.

4.1.4 L.20 ✅ न हि रुचक-स्वस्तिकयोः इतरेतरात्मत्वम् अस्ति;
A Rucaka (a kind of golden utensil) and a Sv-asti-ka (another kind of golden utensil) are not the self of each other (i.e. they are not identical).

4.1.4 L.21 ✅ सुवर्णात्मनेव तु
They are identical only as gold.

4.1.4 L.22 ✅ ब्रह्मात्मना एकत्वे प्रतीकाभाव-प्रसङ्गम् अवोचाम।
We have said already, that if symbols are considered to be of the nature of Brahman, there would then be the predicament of the non-existence of the symbol resulting.

4.1.4 L.23 ✅ अतो न प्रतीकेष्वात्मदृष्टिः क्रियते॥४॥
Therefore, the symbol is not looked upon as being the Self. — 4.

[Go top]

---

Brahma-dṛṣṭiḥ: the view of Brahman, the view in the light of Brahman; Utkarṣāt: on account of superiority, because of super-eminence.

🔗 (The Āditya i.e. the Sun etc.) are to be looked upon as Brahman, because, that way there is exaltation (Utkarṣa) (of them). — 4.1.5.

4.1.5 L.1 ✅ तेष्वेव उदाहरणेष्वन्यः संशयः –
As regards the instances given (above), this other doubt arises, viz.,

4.1.5 L.2 ✅ किमादित्यादिदृष्टयो ब्रह्मण्यध्यसितव्याः,
As to whether, therein, Āditya etc. are to be looked upon as Brahman,

4.1.5 L.3 ✅ किं वा ब्रह्मदृष्टिरादित्यादिष्विति।
Or Brahman is to be looked upon as Āditya etc.

4.1.5 L.4 ✅ कुतः संशयः? सामानाधिकरण्ये कारणानवधारणात्;
Whence is there any such doubt? Because we do not know of any reason for both these having the same case-ending (Sāmānādhikaraṇya).

4.1.5 L.5 ✅ अत्र हि ब्रह्मशब्दस्य आदित्यादिशब्दैः सामानाधिकरण्यमुपलभ्यते,
Here, it is seen that the word Brahman has the same case-ending as the words ‘Āditya etc.’

4.1.5 L.6 ✅ ‘आदित्यो ब्रह्म’ ‘प्राणो ब्रह्म’ ‘विद्युद्ब्रह्म’
In the passages “Āditya (is) Brahman”, “Prāṇa (is) Brahman”, “Lightning (is) Brahman”.

4.1.5 L.7 ✅ इत्यादि-समानविभक्ति-निर्देशात्; न च अत्र आञ्जसं सामानाधिकरण्यम् अवकल्पते,
Here, the fact of their having the same case-ending is not clearly understood to be proper,

4.1.5 L.8 ✅ अर्थान्तरवचनत्वाद् ब्रह्मादित्यादि-शब्दानाम्;
Because the words ‘Brahman’ and ‘Āditya’ etc. have different meanings.

4.1.5 L.9 ✅ न हि भवति – गौरश्व इति सामानाधिकरण्यम्।
A sentence such as ‘The bull (is) a horse’ cannot be an instance of a proper coordination merely because of the fact that both have the same case-ending.

4.1.5 L.10 ✅ ननु प्रकृतिविकार-भावाद् ब्रह्मादित्यादीनां मृच्छरावादिवत्
But (it is argued by the opponent of Vedānta), as there is a relationship of cause and effect between Brahman and Āditya, just as there is for instance, between clay and a trough,

4.1.5 L.11 ✅ सामानाधिकरण्यं स्यात् –
There would be such coordination between them, by reason of their having the same case-ending.

4.1.5 L.12 ✅ नेत्युच्यते; विकारप्रविलयो ह्येवं प्रकृतिसामानाधिकरण्यात् स्यात्,
No, we reply. By such coordination resulting from their having the same case-ending, the effect qua an effect would be destroyed,

4.1.5 L.13 ✅ ततश्च प्रतीकाभाव-प्रसङ्गम् अवोचाम;
And it has already been stated by us, that there would then be the predicament of the non-existence of the symbol itself resulting,

4.1.5 L.14 ✅ परमात्मवाक्यं चेदं तदानीं स्यात्,
And this passage would then be a passage relating to the Highest Self,

4.1.5 L.15 ✅ ततश्चोपासनाधिकारो बाध्येत,
And thus the competency (of a man) to meditate would be affected,

4.1.5 L.16 ✅ परिमितविकारोपादानं च व्यर्थम्।
And a particular mention here of only a few limited entities (such as Āditya, Prāṇa and lightning, when all entities are equally the effects of Brahman), would be useless.

4.1.5 L.17 ✅ तस्मात् ‘ब्राह्मणोऽग्निर्वैश्वानरः’ इत्यादिवत् अन्यतरत्रान्यतरदृष्ट्यध्यासे सति,
Therefore when there is a superimposition of one entity on another, as in the passage “The Brāhmaṇa (is) the Vaiśvā-nara Agni”,

4.1.5 L.18 ✅ क्व किंदृष्टिरध्यस्यतामिति संशयः।
And there is a doubt as to what is to be superimposed on what,

4.1.5 L.19 ✅ तत्र अनियमः, नियमकारिणः शास्त्रस्याभावादित्येवं प्राप्तम्।
And the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that in the absence of any Śāstra laying down the raison d’etre of such a rule, there could be no rule as to that,

4.1.5 L.20 ✅ अथवा आदित्यादिदृष्टय एव ब्रह्मणि कर्तव्या इत्येवं प्राप्तम्;
Or preferably, the conclusion is, that Brahman should be looked upon as being the Āditya etc.,

4.1.5 L.21 ✅ एवं हि आदित्यादिदृष्टिभिः ब्रह्म उपासितं भवति;
Because it is only by looking upon Brahman as the Āditya etc. in this way that there would be a meditation on Brahman,

4.1.5 L.22 ✅ ब्रह्मोपासनं च फलवदिति शास्त्रमर्यादा।
And the Śāstra also lays down that it is only the meditation on Brahman that has a fruit,

4.1.5 L.23 ✅ तस्मात् न ब्रह्मदृष्टिरादित्यादिषु
And that hence the Āditya should not be looked upon as Brahman.

4.1.5 L.24 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – ब्रह्मदृष्टिरेव आदित्यादिषु स्यादिति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta),we reply — Āditya etc. should be looked upon as Brahman.

4.1.5 L.25 ✅ कस्मात्? उत्कर्षात्;
Whence is it so? Because of the exaltation (Utkarṣa).

4.1.5 L.26 ✅ एवम् उत्कर्षेण आदित्यादयो दृष्टा भवन्ति,
It is in this way that Āditya etc. would really be looked upon as exalted,

4.1.5 L.27 ✅ उत्कृष्टदृष्टेस्तेष्वध्यासात्;
Because the notion of their being exalted (viz., that they are Brahman) is superimposed on them.

4.1.5 L.28 ✅ तथा च लौकिको न्यायोऽनुगतो भवति;
The same thing is held good in ordinary life,

4.1.5 L.29 ✅ उत्कृष्टदृष्टिर्हि निकृष्टेऽध्यसितव्येति लौकिको न्यायः –
Which expects that the idea of exaltation should always be properly superimposed on an inferior entity,

4.1.5 L.30 ✅ यथा राजदृष्टिः क्षत्तरि;
As for instance when a king’s charioteer is looked upon as the king.

4.1.5 L.31 ✅ स च अनुसर्तव्यः विपर्यये प्रत्यवाय-प्रसङ्गात्;
The same rule aught also to be followed here, because to reverse the process would cause the predicament of a fault (Pratyavāya) being committed.

4.1.5 L.32 ✅ न हि क्षत्तृदृष्टिपरिगृहीतो राजा निकर्षं नीयमानः श्रेयसे स्यात्।
If a king is looked upon as a charioteer, and is thus lowered in estimation, it would not be proper.

4.1.5 L.33 ✅ ननु शास्त्रप्रामाण्यादनाशङ्कनीयोऽत्र प्रत्यवाय-प्रसङ्गः,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) such a doubt about the predicament of a fault thus resulting should not be entertained, because of the authority of the Scriptures,

4.1.5 L.34 ✅ न च लौकिकेन न्यायेन शास्त्रीया दृष्टिर्नियन्तुं युक्तेति –
And it would not be logical to regulate the outlook of Śāstra by the canons of the ordinary world.

4.1.5 L.35 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – निर्धारिते शास्त्रार्थे एतदेवं स्यात्;
To this our reply is — This would be so, provided the meaning of the Śāstra happens to be properly determined,

4.1.5 L.36 ✅ सन्दिग्धे तु तस्मिन्,
But when the meaning of the Śāstra is doubtful,

4.1.5 L.37 ✅ तन्निर्णयं प्रति लौकिकोऽपि न्याय आश्रीयमाणो न विरुध्यते;
The application of the canons of ordinary life for clearing the ambiguity would not be wrong.

4.1.5 L.38 ✅ तेन च उत्कृष्टदृष्ट्यध्यासे शास्त्रार्थेऽवधार्यमाणे,
निकृष्टदृष्टिम् अध्यस्यन्प्रत्यवेयादिति श्लिष्यते।
So, it is but proper, that when the meaning of the Śāstra is duly ascertained to be in favour of the superimposition of the notion of an exalted status (on an inferior entity),
Any one who superimposes a low status (on a superior entity) would be going into an error.

4.1.5 L.39 ✅ प्राथम्याच्च आदित्यादि-शब्दानां
Besides, as the words ‘Āditya’ etc. come first (in the passage),

4.1.5 L.40 ✅ मुख्यार्थत्वम् अविरोधात् ग्रहीतव्यम्;
In the absence of any reason to the contrary, they ought to be understood in their primary sense.

4.1.5 L.41 ✅ तैः स्वार्थवृत्तिभिरवरुद्धायां बुद्धौ,
When therefore, that these words should be understood in their primary sense is thus fixed in our mind first,

4.1.5 L.42 ✅ पश्चादवतरतो ब्रह्मशब्दस्य मुख्यया वृत्त्या सामानाधिकरण्यासम्भवात्,
And the word ‘Brahman’ which comes to our mind later cannot be properly coordinated with the earlier words ‘Āditya’ etc. in a Sāmānādhikaraṇya sense, if it is understood in its primary sense,

4.1.5 L.43 ✅ ब्रह्मदृष्टिविधानार्थतैव अवतिष्ठते।
The only remaining alternative available, is, that it (i.e. the passage) enjoins the looking upon the first entity as Brahman.

4.1.5 L.44 ✅ इति-परत्वादपि ब्रह्मशब्दस्य एष एवार्थो न्याय्यः;
Besides as the word ‘as’ (Iti) is used in conjunction with the word ‘Brahman’ the same meaning is logical.

4.1.5 L.45 ✅ तथा हि – ‘ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः’ ‘ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत’ ‘ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते’
इति च सर्वत्रेतिपरं ब्रह्मशब्दमुच्चारयति,
For the Scriptures everywhere mention the word ‘Brahman’ in conjunction with the word ‘Iti’,
As for instance in “That it is as Brahman, is the instruction”; “That it is as Brahman, is how it should be meditated upon”, “That it is as Brahman, is how he meditates on it”,

4.1.5 L.46 ✅ शुद्धांस्तु आदित्यादि-शब्दान्;
While they mention only the mere words ‘Āditya’ etc.

4.1.5 L.47 ✅ ततश्च यथा शुक्तिकां रजतमिति प्रत्येतीत्यत्र,
Hence as in the sentence ‘He perceives the mother-of-pearl as silver’

4.1.5 L.48 ✅ शुक्ति-वचन एव शुक्तिका-शब्दः,
While the word ‘mother-of-pearl’ means the mother-of-pearl,

4.1.5 L.49 ✅ रजत-शब्दस्तु रजत-प्रतीतिलक्षणार्थः –
The word ‘silver’ means only the perception of silver (in the mother-of-pearl).

4.1.5 L.50 ✅ प्रत्येत्येव हि केवलं रजतमिति, न तु तत्र रजतमस्ति –
A man merely perceives it as silver, when actually no silver is there.

4.1.5 L.51 ✅ एवमत्रापि आदित्यादीन् ब्रह्मेति प्रतीयादिति गम्यते।
In the same way it is understood here also, that he should look upon ‘Āditya’ etc. as Brahman.

4.1.5 L.52 ✅ वाक्यशेषोऽपि च द्वितीया-निर्देशेन आदित्यादीनेव उपास्ति-क्रियया व्याप्यमानान् दर्शयति –
‘स य एतदेवं विद्वानादित्यं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते’ (ChanU.3.19.4)
‘यो वाचं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते’ (ChanU.7.2.2)
‘यः सङ्कल्पं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते’ (ChanU.7.4.3) इति च।
The complementary passages “He who knows this to be so, meditates on the Āditya as Brahman” (ChanU.3.19.4),
“Who meditates on ‘Speech’ as Brahman” (ChanU.7.22.1),
“Who meditates on a mental resolution (Saṅkalpa) as Brahman” (ChanU.7.4.3)
Also, by using the words Āditya etc. in the accusative case, indicate that the Āditya etc. are the objects of the act of meditation, by superimposing the idea of Brahman on them.

4.1.5 L.53 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – ब्रह्मोपासनमेवात्र आदरणीयं फलवत्त्वायेति,
With regard to the statement (by the opponent of Vedānta) that it is Brahman that should be meditated upon for the purpose of the fruit (viz. Final Release),

4.1.5 L.54 ✅ तदयुक्तम्, उक्तेन न्यायेन आदित्यादीनामेव उपास्यत्वावगमात्;
We say that it is not proper, because as demonstrated above, it is the Āditya etc. that have to be meditated upon (as Brahman).

4.1.5 L.55 ✅ फलं तु अतिथ्याद्युपासन इव आदित्याद्युपासनेऽपि ब्रह्मैव दास्यति, सर्वाध्यक्षत्वात्;
As regards the fruit of such meditation (viz. Final Release), Brahman itself, which presides over every thing, will of course vouchsafe the fruit of the meditation on Āditya etc., as in the case of the service (Upāsanā) of a guest (Atithi).

4.1.5 L.56 ✅ वर्णितं चैतत् ‘फलमत उपपत्तेः’ (BrS.3.2.38) इत्यत्र।
This has been already described in the Sūtra — “The fruit (comes) from Him (the Lord) for it is reasonably sustainable” (Bra. Su. III. ii. 38).

4.1.5 L.57 ✅ ईदृशं च अत्र ब्रह्मण उपास्यत्वम्, यत्प्रतीकेषु तद्दृष्ट्यध्यारोपणम् –
When it is said that Brahman is the object of meditation, it is in the sense of the superimposition of the idea of Brahman on symbols,

4.1.5 L.58 ✅ प्रतिमादिष्विव विष्ण्वादीनाम्॥५॥
Just as there is the superimposition of Viṣṇu etc. on images etc. — 5.

[Go top]

---

Āditya-ādi-matayaḥ: the idea of the sun, etc.; Ca: and; Aṅge: in a subordinate member (of the sacrificial acts); Upapatteḥ: because of consistency, because of its reasonableness.

🔗 Notions of Āditya etc. (are to be superimposed) on the subordinate parts (i.e. Aṅgas of sacrificial acts), because it is reasonably sustainable. — 4.1.6.

4.1.6 L.1 ✅ ‘य एवासौ तपति तमुद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.3.1)
‘लोकेषु पञ्चविधꣳ सामोपासीत’ (ChanU.2.2.1)
‘वाचि सप्तविधꣳ सामोपासीत’ (ChanU.2.8.1)
‘इयमेवर्गग्निः साम’ (ChanU.1.6.1)
इत्येवमादिषु अङ्गावबद्धेषूपासनेषु
As regards meditations which relate to the subordinate parts (i.e. Aṅgas of sacrificial acts) such as
“He (the Sun) who shines, should be meditated upon as Udgītha” (ChanU.1.3.1),
“The worlds should be meditated upon as five-fold Sāman” (ChanU.2.2.1),
“‘Speech’ (Vāk) should be meditated upon as the seven-fold Sāman” (ChanU.2.8.1),
“This (very Earth) (is) the Ṛk and the Agni (is) the Sāman” (ChanU.1.6.1),

4.1.6 L.2 ✅ संशयः – किमादित्यादिषु उद्गीथादिदृष्टयो विधीयन्ते,
A doubt arises, as to whether it is enjoined, that the Āditya etc. should be looked upon as the Udgītha

4.1.6 L.3 ✅ किं वा उद्गीथादिष्वेव आदित्यादिदृष्टय इति।
Or that the Udgīṭha etc. should be looked upon as the Āditya etc.

4.1.6 L.4 ✅ तत्र अनियमः, नियमकारणाभावात् – इति प्राप्तम्;
With regard to that, the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that there is no rule as to that, on account of the absence of any reason for any such rule.

4.1.6 L.5 ✅ न हि अत्र ब्रह्मण इव कस्यचिदुत्कर्षविशेषोऽवधार्यते;
Here, it is not understood that there is any special exaltation of anything in particular, as there is in the case of Brahman.

4.1.6 L.6 ✅ ब्रह्म हि समस्तजगत्कारणत्वात्
अपहतपाप्मत्वादि-गुणयोगाच्च
आदित्यादिभ्य उत्कृष्टमिति शक्यम् अवधारयितुम्;
It is possible to understand that Brahman is more exalted than the Āditya etc.,
By reason of its being the cause of the world
And because of its being endowed with the nature of being free from sin,

4.1.6 L.7 ✅ न तु आदित्योद्गीथादीनां विकारत्वाविशेषात् किञ्चिदुत्कर्षविशेषावधारणे कारणमस्ति।
But there happens to be no reason to understand any reason for understanding that there is any special exaltation in the case of the Āditya and the Udgīṭha, inasmuch as, the nature of being but effects only, is common to them both.

4.1.6 L.8 ✅ अथवा नियमेनैव उद्गीथादिमतय आदित्यादिषु अध्यस्येरन्।
Or rather, (we think, that) the notions of Udgīṭha etc. should as a rule be superimposed on the Āditya etc.

4.1.6 L.9 ✅ कस्मात्? कर्मात्मकत्वादुद्गीथादीनाम्,
Whence is it so? Because Udgītha etc. are of the nature of sacrificial acts,

4.1.6 L.10 ✅ कर्मणश्च फलप्राप्तिप्रसिद्धेः;
And because it is well-known that it is through such acts that fruits are obtained.

4.1.6 L.11 ✅ उद्गीथादिमतिभिरुपास्यमाना आदित्यादयः कर्मात्मकाः सन्तः फलहेतवो भविष्यन्ति।
Āditya etc. when meditated upon with the notions of their being the Udgīṭha etc. may themselves acquire the nature of religious acts and may thus become the cause of the acquisition of fruits.

4.1.6 L.12 ✅ तथा च ‘इयमेवर्गग्निः साम’ (ChanU.1.6.1) इत्यत्र
For the Scriptures, by the passages “This (very Earth) (is) the Ṛk, this Agni (is) the Sāman” (ChanU.1.6.1),

4.1.6 L.13 ✅ ‘तदेतदेतस्यामृच्यध्यूढं साम’ (ChanU.1.6.1)
And by (the complementary passage) “That this Sāman is superimposed on this Ṛk” (ChanU.1.6.1),

4.1.6 L.14 ✅ इति ऋक्शब्देन पृथिवीं निर्दिशति, सामशब्देनाग्निम्;
Indicate the Earth by the word Ṛk, and Agni by the word Sāman,

4.1.6 L.15 ✅ तच्च पृथिव्यग्न्योः ऋक्सामदृष्टिचिकीर्षायामवकल्पते,
Which is possible only when it is desired to look upon the Earth and the Agni as the Ṛk and Sāman respectively

4.1.6 L.16 ✅ न ऋक्सामयोः पृथिव्यग्निदृष्टिचिकीर्षायाम्;
And not when it is desired to look upon the Ṛk and Sāman as the Earth and Agni.

4.1.6 L.17 ✅ क्षत्तरि हि राजदृष्टिकरणात् राजशब्द उपचर्यते,
It is when the charioteer is looked upon as the king, that the word ‘King’ happens to be used metaphorically for the charioteer,

4.1.6 L.18 ✅ न राजनि क्षत्तृशब्दः।
But the word ‘charioteer’ is never so used metaphorically for the king.

4.1.6 L.19 ✅ अपि च ‘लोकेषु पञ्चविधꣳ सामोपासीत’ (ChanU.2.2.1)
इति अधिकरणनिर्देशात् लोकेषु साम अध्यसितव्यमिति प्रतीयते;
Besides, by the use of the locative case (Adhikaraṇa) in connection with the word ‘worlds’,
In the passage “The worlds should be meditated upon by looking upon them as the five-fold Sāman”,
It is understood, that it is the Sāman that is to be superimposed on the worlds.

4.1.6 L.20 ✅ ‘एतद्गायत्रं प्राणेषु प्रोतम्’ (ChanU.2.11.1) इति च एतदेव दर्शयति।
In the Scriptural passage “This Gāyatra (Sāman) (in which the five-fold Sāman is considered to be the five Prāṇas i.e. the sense-organs) is woven into the Prāṇas” (ChanU.2.11.1) also, it is indicated similarly.

4.1.6 L.21 ✅ प्रथमनिर्दिष्टेषु च आदित्यादिषु चरमनिर्दिष्टं ब्रह्माध्यस्तम् –
‘आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः’ (ChanU.3.19.1) इत्यादिषु;
In the Scriptural passage “That Āditya is Brahman, is the instruction” (ChanU.3.19.1),
Brahman, which is referred to after Āditya, is to be superimposed on Āditya etc. which are referred to first.

4.1.6 L.22 ✅ प्रथमनिर्दिष्टाश्च पृथिव्यादयः, चरमनिर्दिष्टा हिंकारादयः –
‘पृथिवी हिंकारः’ (ChanU.2.2.1) इत्यादिश्रुतिषु।
In the Scriptural passage “The Earth is the Hiṅ-kāra” (ChanU.2.2.1) again,
The Earth etc. are referred to first, and the Hiṅ-kāra etc. are referred to afterwards.

4.1.6 L.23 ✅ अतः अनङ्गेष्वादित्यादिषु अङ्गमतिक्षेप
Hence the notion of the subordinate parts (of a sacrificial act) are to be superimposed on Āditya etc. which are not such subordinate parts (of action i.e. Karma).

4.1.6 L.24 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः – आदित्यादिमतय एव अङ्गेषु उद्गीथादिषु क्षिप्येरन्।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) we reply — It is the notions of Āditya etc., that should of course be superimposed on such subordinate parts (of sacrificial acts) as the Udgītha etc.

4.1.6 L.25 ✅ कुतः? उपपत्तेः;
Whence is it so? Because, it is reasonably so sustainable.

4.1.6 L.26 ✅ उपपद्यते हि एवम् अपूर्वसन्निकर्षात् आदित्यादिमतिभिः संस्क्रियमाणेषु उद्गीथादिषु कर्मसमृद्धिः।
It is reasonably sustainable, that it is only when the Udgītha etc. undergo refinement by the superimposition of the notions of Āditya on them, that on account of the contact with the Apūrva (lit., the remote consequence of an act, here, the merit of such religious acts) the religious acts attain greater augmentation.

4.1.6 L.27 ✅ ‘यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इति च
विद्यायाः कर्मसमृद्धिहेतुत्वं दर्शयति।
The Scriptural passage “Whatever (religious act) he performs with knowledge, faith, and meditation (on the deities), that alone becomes more potent” (ChanU.1.1.10)
Indicates that knowledge (Vidyā) is the cause which makes a religious act more potent.

4.1.6 L.28 ✅ भवतु कर्मसमृद्धिफलेष्वेवम्;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), this may be so, in the case of actions which are made more potent by such meditations,

4.1.6 L.29 ✅ स्वतन्त्रफलेषु तु कथम् –
But what is the position (Katham) with regard to actions which have their own independent fruit,

4.1.6 L.30 ✅ ‘य एतदेवं विद्वाँल्लोकेषु पञ्चविधं सामोपास्ते’ (ChanU.2.2.3) इत्यादिषु?
As is seen for instance, in the Scriptural passage “He who, knowing this, meditates on these worlds by looking upon them as the five-fold Sāman” (ChanU.2.2.3)?

4.1.6 L.31 ✅ तेष्वपि अधिकृताधिकारात् प्रकृतापूर्व-सन्निकर्षेणैव फलकल्पना युक्ता,
(We reply) — Even in that case, because it is only those who are competent that can engage themselves in such meditation, it is logical to hold, that the fruit is obtained as a result of the relation of the aforesaid Apūrva to the meditation,

4.1.6 L.32 ✅ गोदोहनादि-नियमवत्।
As it is for instance, in the case of the rule about the Go-dohana (Milk-pail).

4.1.6 L.33 ✅ फलात्मकत्वाच्च आदित्यादीनाम् उद्गीथादिभ्यः कर्मात्मकेभ्यः उत्कर्षोपपत्तिः;
Besides, inasmuch as Āditya etc. have themselves the nature of (vouchsafing) a fruit, it is reasonably sustainable to understand that they are more exalted than the Udgītha etc. which are of the nature of a religious act.

4.1.6 L.34 ✅ आदित्यादिप्राप्तिलक्षणं हि कर्मफलं शिष्यते श्रुतिषु।
Moreover the Scriptures teach us that the fruit of religious acts is of the nature of the attainment of Āditya etc.

4.1.6 L.35 ✅ अपि च ‘ओमित्येतदक्षरमुद्गीथमुपासीत’ (ChanU.1.1.1)
‘खल्वेतस्यैवाक्षरस्योपव्याख्यानं भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इति च
उद्गीथमेव उपास्यत्वेनोपक्रम्य,
Besides, the Scriptures by mentioning in the beginning that the Udgītha is something that should be meditated upon by the passage
“The letter ‘Om’ is the Udgītha and it should be meditated upon. The following is the further explanation of Udgītha” (ChanU.1.1.1),

4.1.6 L.36 ✅ आदित्यादिमतीर्विदधाति।
Later on enjoin this notion of looking upon them as Āditya.

4.1.6 L.37 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – उद्गीथादिमतिभिरुपास्यमाना आदित्यादयः कर्मभूयं भूत्वा फलं करिष्यन्तीति,
The statement (by the opponent of Vedānta) that the Āditya etc. meditated upon as the Udgītha etc. would themselves acquire the nature of a religious act and yield a fruit,

4.1.6 L.38 ✅ तदयुक्तम्, स्वयमेवोपासनस्य कर्मत्वात् फलवत्त्वोपपत्तेः।
Is not proper, because meditation itself being a religious act, it would be reasonably sustainable that meditation itself would yield a fruit,

4.1.6 L.39 ✅ आदित्यादिभावेनापि च दृश्यमानानामुद्गीथादीनां कर्मात्मकत्वानपायात्।
And also because Udgītha etc. even though looked upon as Āditya etc. would not thereby lose their nature of being religious acts.

4.1.6 L.40 ✅ ‘तदेतदेतस्यामृच्यध्यूढꣳ साम’ (ChanU.1.6.1) इति तु लाक्षणिक एव पृथिव्यग्न्योः ऋक्सामशब्द-प्रयोगः;
The use of the words ‘Ṛk and Sāman’ for the Earth and the Agni respectively, in the Scriptural passage “That Sāman is superimposed on the Ṛk” (ChanU.1.6.1), is by way of an indirect application (Lakṣaṇā).

4.1.6 L.41 ✅ लक्षणा च यथासम्भवं सन्निकृष्टेन विप्रकृष्टेन वा स्वार्थसम्बन्धेन प्रवर्तते;
Indirect application (Lakṣaṇā) is promoted by its possible proximate or even distant relation as the case may be, to the primary meaning (of the word).

4.1.6 L.42 ✅ तत्र यद्यपि ऋक्सामयोः पृथिव्यग्निदृष्टिचिकीर्षा,
Hence even though it is desired here that the Ṛk and Sāman are to be looked upon as the Earth and Agni,

4.1.6 L.43 ✅ तथापि प्रसिद्धयोः ऋक्सामयोर्भेदेनानुकीर्तनात्,
Still, inasmuch as such well-known entities as Ṛk and Sāman have been separately mentioned,

4.1.6 L.44 ✅ पृथिव्यग्न्योश्च सन्निधानात्,
And again inasmuch as the entities, Earth and Agni are proximate to them,

4.1.6 L.45 ✅ तयोरेव एष ऋक्सामशब्द-प्रयोगः ऋक्साम-सम्बन्धादिति निश्चीयते;
Therefore, the Ṛk and Sāman thus being related to Earth and Agni, it is definitely ascertained that the words Ṛk and Sāman are used synonymously for the Earth and Agni respectively.

4.1.6 L.46 ✅ क्षत्तृशब्दोऽपि हि कुतश्चित्कारणाद् राजानमुपसर्पन् न निवारयितुं पार्यते।
Again, it is not possible to prevent the word ‘charioteer’ from proceeding to denote a king, for some reason or other (as for instance when the king chooses to take up the reins in his own hand, and do the work of a charioteer).

4.1.6 L.47 ✅ ‘इयमेवर्क्’ (ChanU.1.6.1) इति च
यथाक्षरन्यासम् ऋच एव पृथिवीत्वम् अवधारयति;
The Scriptural passage “This (Earth) itself, is the Ṛk (Iyam eva Ṛk)” (ChanU.1.6.1),
Because of the order in which the words (earth and Ṛk) are mentioned, makes it understood that it is the Ṛk that is of the nature of the Earth.

4.1.6 L.48 ✅ पृथिव्या हि ऋक्त्वेऽवधार्यमाणे –
If the Scriptures had meant it to be understood that the earth was of the nature of the Ṛk, the order of the words would have been —

4.1.6 L.49 ✅ इयमृगेवेत्यक्षरन्यासः स्यात्।
This (i.e. the Earth) is but the Ṛk only (Iyam Ṛk Eva).

4.1.6 L.50 ✅ ‘य एवं विद्वान्साम गायति’ (ChanU.1.7.7) इति च
अङ्गाश्रयमेव विज्ञानम् उपसंहरति, न पृथिव्याद्याश्रयम्।
Besides the Scriptural passage “He who knowing thus, sings Sāman” (ChanU.1.7.7)
Concludes that the meditation is upon the subordinate part (i.e. Aṅga of a religious act) and not upon the earth.

4.1.6 L.51 ✅ तथा ‘लोकेषु पञ्चविधꣳ सामोपासीत’ (ChanU.2.2.1) इति
यद्यपि सप्तमीनिर्दिष्टा लोकाः, तथापि साम्न्येव ते अध्यस्येरन्,
Similarly, in the Scriptural passage “The worlds may be meditated upon as the five-fold Sāman”,
Even though the word ‘world’ is governed by the locative case (Lokeṣu), it is the worlds that are to be superimposed on the five-fold Sāman,

4.1.6 L.52 ✅ द्वितीयानिर्देशेन साम्न उपास्यत्वावगमात्;
Because it is understood from the word Sāman which is governed by the accusative case, that it is the Sāman that is the object of meditation.

4.1.6 L.53 ✅ सामनि हि लोकेष्वध्यस्यमानेषु साम लोकात्मनोपासितं भवति,
When the worlds are superimposed on Sāman, it is that Sāman which is meditated upon as the worlds,

4.1.6 L.54 ✅ अन्यथा पुनः लोकाः सामात्मना उपासिताः स्युः।
Or otherwise it would be the worlds that would happen to be meditated upon as Sāman.

4.1.6 L.55 ✅ एतेन ‘एतद्गायत्रं प्राणेषु प्रोतम्’ (ChanU.2.11.1) इत्यादि व्याख्यातम्।
This discussion should be understood as explaining the Scriptural passage “This Gāyatra (Sāman) is woven into the Prāṇas” (ChanU.2.11.1),

4.1.6 L.56 ✅ यत्रापि तुल्यो द्वितीयानिर्देशः ‘अथ खल्वमुमादित्यꣳ सप्तविधꣳ सामोपासीत’ (ChanU.2.9.1) इति,
Where also the Scriptures use the accusative case equally for both (the words), as in the passage “Now verily this seven-fold Sāman should be meditated upon as Āditya” (ChanU.2.9.1).

4.1.6 L.57 ✅ तत्रापि – ‘समस्तस्य खलु साम्न उपासनꣳ साधु’ (ChanU.2.1.1)
‘इति तु पञ्चविधस्य’ (ChanU.2.7.2)
‘अथ सप्तविधस्य’ (ChanU.2.8.1) इति च
साम्न एव उपास्यत्वोपक्रमात् –
As the introductory portion shows the Sāman as the entity to be meditated upon, thus — “Verily meditation on the whole Sāman is good” (ChanU.2.1.1),
“Now about the five-fold” (ChanU.2.7.2),
“And now about the seven-fold” (ChanU.2.8.1),

4.1.6 L.58 ✅ तस्मिन्नेव आदित्याद्यध्यासः।
It is the Āditya etc. that are to be superimposed on it (i.e. the Sāman).

4.1.6 L.59 ✅ एतस्मादेव च साम्न उपास्यत्वावगमात्
It is precisely because it is understood that it is the Sāman that is to be the object of meditation,

4.1.6 L.60 ✅ ‘पृथिवी हिंकारः’ (ChanU.2.2.1) इत्यादिनिर्देश-विपर्ययेऽपि
That even when the Scriptural indication is the opposite way, such as “The Earth is the Hiṅ-kāra” (ChanU.2.2.1),

4.1.6 L.61 ✅ हिंकारादिष्वेव पृथिव्यादिदृष्टिः।
It is Hiṅ-kāra etc. that are to be looked upon as the Earth etc.

4.1.6 L.62 ✅ तस्मात् अनङ्गाश्रया आदित्यादिमतयः अङ्गेषूद्गीथादिषु क्षिप्येरन्निति सिद्धम्॥६॥
Therefore it is thus proved that the notions of Āditya etc., which do not rest on any subordinate part (of a religious act) are to be superimposed on the Udgīṭha etc. which are such subordinate parts of religious acts. — 6.

– 158. Āditya-ādy-Adhikaraṇam.

Su.4.1.7 Su..8 Su..9 Su..10

[Go top]

---

Āsīnaḥ: sitting; Sambhavāt: on account of the possibility.

🔗 (The person meditating must be) in a sitting posture, because (it is only that way that meditation) is possible. — 4.1.7.

4.1.7 L.1 ✅ कर्माङ्ग-सम्बद्धेषु तावत् उपासनेषु कर्मतन्त्रत्वात् न आसनादि-चिन्ता;
There could be no question of the consideration about posture etc. in the case of meditations relating to the subordinate parts of religious actions, inasmuch as they are regulated by the religious actions themselves,

4.1.7 L.2 ✅ नापि सम्यग्दर्शने, वस्तुतन्त्रत्वाद् विज्ञानस्य;
Nor can there be any such question in the case of the correct i.e. perfect intuitive knowledge (of an entity such as Brahman), as the knowledge of such an entity depends upon such intuitive knowledge of the entity itself.

4.1.7 L.3 ✅ इतरेषु तु उपासनेषु
किम् अनियमेन तिष्ठन् आसीनः शयानो वा प्रवर्तेत
उत नियमेन आसीन एवेति चिन्तयति।
But with regard to other meditations,
The Sūtra-kāra now proceeds to consider, whether they should as a rule be performed in a sitting posture
Or whether a man should set about to perform them, regardless of any such rule, whether he be standing, sitting, or lying down, just as he pleases.

4.1.7 L.4 ✅ तत्र मानसत्वादुपासनस्य अनियमः शरीरस्थितेः
With regard to this, the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that inasmuch as meditation is a mental act, there could be no rule with regard to the bodily posture.

4.1.7 L.5 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, ब्रवीति – आसीन एवोपासीतेति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) the Sūtra-kāra replies — A person should meditate in a sitting posture only.

4.1.7 L.6 ✅ कुतः? सम्भवात्।
Whence is it so? Because it is possible (only in that posture).

4.1.7 L.7 ✅ उपासनं नाम समानप्रत्यय-प्रवाहकरणम्;
Meditation indeed is the setting up of a continuous stream of homogeneous mental apprehensions,

4.1.7 L.8 ✅ न च तत् गच्छतो धावतो वा सम्भवति,
Which is not possible when a person is either walking or running,

4.1.7 L.9 ✅ गत्यादीनां चित्तविक्षेपकरत्वात्;
As motion etc. of any kind are prone to distract the mind.

4.1.7 L.10 ✅ तिष्ठतोऽपि देहधारणे व्यापृतं मनो न सूक्ष्मवस्तु-निरीक्षणक्षमं भवति;
In the case of a man standing also, inasmuch as the mind is preoccupied in maintaining the body in an erect posture, it is not capable of realizing a supersensuous entity.

4.1.7 L.11 ✅ शयानस्यापि अकस्मादेव निद्रया अभिभूयते;
A man in a recumbent posture is prone to be suddenly overpowered by sleep.

4.1.7 L.12 ✅ आसीनस्य तु एवंजातीयको भूयान्दोषः सुपरिहर इति
But, in the case of a man in a sitting posture, many such faults are easily avoidable

4.1.7 L.13 ✅ सम्भवति तस्योपासनम्॥७॥
And meditation by him is thus possible. — 7.

[Go top]

---

Dhyānāt: on account of meditation; Ca: and.

🔗 Also because (of meditation being) of the nature of steadfast concentration of thought. — 4.1.8.

4.1.8 L.1 ✅ अपि च ध्यायत्यर्थ एषः, यत्समानप्रत्यय-प्रवाहकरणम्;
Besides, to concentrate on a thought steadfastly is but the setting up of a continuous stream of homogeneous mental apprehensions.

4.1.8 L.2 ✅ ध्यायतिश्च प्रशिथिलाङ्ग-चेष्टेषु प्रतिष्ठितदृष्टिषु एकविषयाक्षिप्त-चित्तेषु उपचर्यमाणो दृश्यते –
The term ‘steadfast concentration of thought’ is seen to be used in a secondary sense, when bodily movements are perfectly relaxed, the vision is fixed (as in a brown-study), and the mind is absorbed in a single object, as for instance,

4.1.8 L.3 ✅ ध्यायति बकः, ध्यायति प्रोषितबन्धुरिति।
When we speak of a crane watching intently (for a fish) or of a grass widow (a Proṣita-bandhu i.e. a woman whose husband is absent on a journey) watching intently with steadfast devotion (her traveller-husband’s return).

4.1.8 L.4 ✅ आसीनश्च अनायासो भवति;
This can be accomplished with ease in a sitting posture.

4.1.8 L.5 ✅ तस्मादपि आसीनकर्मोपासनम्॥८॥
Therefore, also, meditation is an act to be performed in a sitting posture. — 8.

[Go top]

---

A-calatvam: immobility, stability, steadiness; Ca: and, indeed; Apekṣya: referring to, aiming at, pointing to.

🔗 It is with reference to the steadfastness (of the earth even while rotating, that the Scriptures have used that term in steadfast concentration in the case of the earth). — 4.1.9.

4.1.9 L.1 ✅ अपि च ‘ध्यायतीव पृथिवी’ (ChanU.7.6.1) इत्यत्र
In the Scriptural passage “The Earth is, as it were, in (a condition of) steady concentration (of thought)” (ChanU.7.6.1),

4.1.9 L.2 ✅ पृथिव्यादिषु अचलत्वमेवापेक्ष्य ध्यायतिवादो भवति;
The statement about such concentration of thought is used in reference to the Earth’s (apparent) want of movement.

4.1.9 L.3 ✅ तच्च लिङ्गम् उपासनस्य आसीनकर्मत्वे॥९॥
That is a Scriptural indicatory mark for holding, that meditation is an act to be performed in a sitting posture. — 9.

[Go top]

---

Smaranti: the Smṛti texts say, it is mentioned in the Smṛtis; Ca: also.

🔗 The Smṛtis also say similarly. — 4.1.10.

4.1.10 L.1 ✅ स्मरन्त्यपि च शिष्टा उपासनाङ्गत्वेन आसनम् –
The learned Smṛti-kāras also speak of the sitting posture (Āsana) as a subordinate part of meditation, thus —

4.1.10 L.2 ✅ ‘शुचौ देशे प्रतिष्ठाप्य स्थिरमासनमात्मनः’ (BhG.6.11) इत्यादिना।
“Having taken up a firm sitting posture for oneself in a hallowed place etc.” (BhG.6.11).

4.1.10 L.3 ✅ अत एव पद्मकादीनाम् आसनविशेषाणाम् उपदेशो योगशास्त्रे॥१०॥
Hence also, the Yoga-Śāstra gives instructions about such special postures as Padmaka (the lotus posture — i.e. sitting, right foreleg on left thigh and left foreleg on right thigh). — 10.

[Go top]

---

Yatra: where, wherever; Eka-agratā: concentration of mind; Tatra: there; A-viśeṣāt: for want of any specification, it not being specifically mentioned, as there is no special direction in Śruti.

🔗 Because, no particular (rules are mentioned, meditation should he performed) wherever concentration of mind (can he attained). — 4.1.11.

4.1.11 L.1 ✅ दिग्देशकालेषु संशयः – किमस्ति कश्चिन्नियमः, नास्ति वेति।
As regards the direction, environment or time (in which meditation should be performed), a doubt (arises), as to whether there is or is not any rule (governing it).

4.1.11 L.2 ✅ प्रायेण वैदिकेष्वारम्भेषु दिगादिनियमदर्शनात्,
स्यादिहापि कश्चिन्नियम इति यस्य मतिः,
तं प्रत्याह –
The Sūtra-kāra answers the opponent of Vedānta,
Who considers, that there may be some sort of rule as to that,
Inasmuch as it is observed that usually in the case of Vedic actions there is a rule as to the direction etc.,

4.1.11 L.3 ✅ दिग्देशकालेषु अर्थलक्षण एव नियमः;
That a rule as to direction etc. in connection with the aim (of such meditation) does exist by implication, thus: —

4.1.11 L.4 ✅ यत्रैव अस्य दिशि देशे काले वा मनसः सौकर्येणैकाग्रता भवति,
तत्रैवोपासीत, प्राचीदिक्-पूर्वाह्ण-प्राचीनप्रवणादिवत् विशेषाश्रवणात्,
एकाग्रताया इष्टायाः सर्वत्राविशेषात्।
As there is no special Scriptural mention about any rule about meditation, as there is in Sacrifices etc., as regards the eastern direction, or forenoon, or a site sloping towards the east, one should perform meditation wherever
And in whichever direction, and whenever, concentration of mind can be secured with ease,
Because such concentration of mind is possible anywhere.

4.1.11 L.5 ✅ ननु विशेषमपि केचिदामनन्ति –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) some do mention such special rules as for instance —

4.1.11 L.6 ✅ ‘समे शुचौ शर्करावह्निवालुकाविवर्जिते शब्दजलाश्रयादिभिः।
मनोनुकूले न तु चक्षुपीडने गुहानिवाताश्रयणे प्रयोजयेत्’ (SvetU.2.10) इति यथेति –
“One should meditate in a level place which is clean and is free from pebbles, fire, sand etc. and also free from noise and ponds etc.
And in a place which is agreeable to the mind, but not in a place where there are mosquitoes etc. which are troublesome to the eye, i.e. in a cave etc. where the air is still and calm” (SvetU.2.10).

4.1.11 L.7 ✅ उच्यते; सत्यमस्ति एवंजातीयको नियमः;
The reply given is — No doubt there is such a kind of rule

4.1.11 L.8 ✅ सति त्वेतस्मिन्, तद्गतेषु विशेषेष्वनियम इति सुहृद्भूत्वा आचार्य आचष्टे।
But such a rule being there, the Ācārya as a friend hints that there is no special rule about the special things mentioned in that rule.

4.1.11 L.9 ✅ ‘मनोनुकूले’ इति चैषा श्रुतिः यत्रैकाग्रता तत्रैव – इत्येतदेव दर्शयति॥११॥
The expression ‘agreeable to the mind’ indicates this very thing, viz. that meditation should be performed, in such places wherever there is concentration of mind. — 11.

[Go top]

---

Ā prāyaṇāt: till death, till Mukti; Tatra: there, then; Api: also, even; Hi: because; Dṛṣṭam: is seen (in the Śruti).

🔗 There should he repetition of meditations, right up to the time of death, because it is observed to be so, even at that moment. — 4.1.12.

4.1.12 L.1 ✅ आवृत्तिः सर्वोपासनेष्वादर्तव्येति स्थितमाद्येऽधिकरणे;
In the first Adhikaraṇa it was concluded that there should be repetition of all meditations.

4.1.12 L.2 ✅ तत्र यानि तावत् सम्यग्दर्शनार्थान्युपासनानि, तानि अवघातादिवत् कार्यपर्यवसानानीति
So far as that is concerned, as such meditations for the purpose of correct i.e. perfect knowledge, should, as in the case of the pounding (of rice etc.), ultimately culminate in the achievement of the objective viz. correct i.e. perfect knowledge,

4.1.12 L.3 ✅ ज्ञातमेव एषाम् आवृत्तिपरिमाणम्;
The extent of their repetition has of course been understood already.

4.1.12 L.4 ✅ न हि सम्यग्दर्शने कार्ये निष्पन्ने यत्नान्तरं किञ्चिच्छासितुं शक्यम्,
When the effect of meditation viz. correct i.e. perfect knowledge, is achieved, it is not possible to enjoin any further effort (of meditation)

4.1.12 L.5 ✅ अनियोज्यब्रह्मात्मत्व-प्रतिपत्तेः शास्त्रस्याविषयत्वात्।
Because, as Brahman is the Self of all and is not something which can be enjoined (on a man), it cannot be the province of a Śāstra.

4.1.12 L.6 ✅ यानि पुनः अभ्युदय-फलानि,
With respect to meditations which have the fruit of the nature of secular prosperity, however,

4.1.12 L.7 ✅ तेष्वेषा चिन्ता – किं कियन्तंचित्कालं प्रत्ययम् आवर्त्य उपरमेत्,
There is scope for consideration as to whether one should stop after repeating such meditations for some time,

4.1.12 L.8 ✅ उत यावज्जीवम् आवर्तयेदिति।
Or whether they should be repeated as long as one continues to live.

4.1.12 L.9 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)?

4.1.12 L.10 ✅ कियन्तंचित्कालं प्रत्ययम् अभ्यस्य उत्सृजेत्,
It is, that meditation having been performed for some time, should be given up,

4.1.12 L.11 ✅ आवृत्तिविशिष्टस्योपासनशब्दार्थस्य कृतत्वाद्
Because the Scriptural requirement of ‘meditation’ in which such repetition is implicit, is thereby achieved.

4.1.12 L.12 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) we reply: —

4.1.12 L.13 ✅ आ प्रायणादेव आवर्तयेत् प्रत्ययम्,
Meditation should be repeated right up to the time of death,

4.1.12 L.14 ✅ अन्त्यप्रत्यय-वशाद् अदृष्टफल-प्राप्तेः;
Because the acquisition of the invisible fruit of meditation is dependent upon the final act of the acquisition of knowledge (Antya-pratyaya).

4.1.12 L.15 ✅ कर्माण्यपि हि जन्मान्तरोपभोग्यं फलमारभमाणानि
Religious acts which begin to produce the fruit to be enjoyed during the next birth,

4.1.12 L.16 ✅ तदनुरूपं भावनाविज्ञानं प्रायणकाले आक्षिपन्ति –
Require (Akṣipanti) the knowledge of the nature of i.e. the conception of, such fruit, at the time of death,

4.1.12 L.17 ✅ ‘सविज्ञानो भवति सविज्ञानमेवान्ववक्रामति’
‘यच्चित्तस्तेनैष प्राणमायाति प्राणस्तेजसा युक्तः सहात्मना यथासङ्कल्पितं लोकं नयति’
इति चैवमादिश्रुतिभ्यः;
According to Scriptural passages such as
“He becomes endowed with special consciousness of desires, he follows the subtle body (Liṅga-Śarīra) which has such special consciousness of desires” (BrhU.4.4.2),
“He approaches the Prāṇa with whatsoever he has in his mind. This Prāṇa conjointly with Tejas, takes him along with the Self, to the desired world” (PrasU.3.10).

4.1.12 L.18 ✅ तृणजलूका-निदर्शनाच्च;
(This is so), also because of the illustration of the caterpillar on the grass (while connected from the previous, the caterpillar connects to the next blade).

4.1.12 L.19 ✅ प्रत्ययास्त्वेते स्वरूपानुवृत्तिं मुक्त्वा किमन्यत् प्रायणकाल-भावि भावना-विज्ञानम् अपेक्षेरन्।
But so far as these meditations are concerned, what knowledge of desires other than that which accrues at the time of death, apart from the repetition of such meditations, can such meditations expect?

4.1.12 L.20 ✅ तस्मात् ये प्रतिपत्तव्यफल-भावनात्मकाः प्रत्ययाः, तेषु आ प्रायणात् आवृत्तिः।
Therefore, there ought to be a repetition of the meditations, which are of the nature or the conception of the knowledge of the desire of the fruit to be obtained at the time of death.

4.1.12 L.21 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘स यावत्क्रतुरयमस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति’ इति
For even so does the Scriptural passage “With whatever special desire he departs from this world”

4.1.12 L.22 ✅ प्रायणकालेऽपि प्रत्ययानुवृत्तिं दर्शयति।
Indicate the repetition of the act of meditation, even at the time of death.

4.1.12 L.23 ✅ स्मृतिरपि – ‘यं यं वापि स्मरन्भावं त्यजत्यन्ते कलेवरम्।
तं तमेवैति कौन्तेय सदा तद्भावभावितः’ (BhG.8.6) इति,
‘प्रयाणकाले मनसाचलेन’ (BhG.8.10) इति च।
The Smṛti also says — “With whatever desire in mind he departs from the body at the end,
To that object of desire, Oh son of Kuntī, obsessed as he is with that desire, he goes” (BhG.8.6),
“With a steadfast mind, at the time of departure (from the body)” (BhG.8.10).

4.1.12 L.24 ✅ ‘सोऽन्तवेलायामेतत्त्रयं प्रतिपद्येत’ इति च
मरणवेलायामपि कर्तव्यशेषं श्रावयति॥१२॥
The Scriptures also declare, that even at the time of death, there is something still remaining to be done, thus —
“He should at the time of death, call to his mind the three things” (The three Mantras addressed to the Sun, the Ādhidaivika aspect of Prāṇa thus — “There is no destruction of you, you are constant, you are the subtle element of Prāṇa”) (ChanU.3.17.6). — 12.

[Go top]

---

Tad-adhigame: when that is realised; Uttara-pūrva-aghayoḥ: of the subsequent and the previous sins; A-śleṣa-vināśau: non-clinging and destruction; Tad-vyapadeśāt: because Śruti has declared so.

🔗 On its (Brahman’s) realization, the possible future sins and the past ones, do not come into contact and are destroyed respectively, because it is so declared (by the Scriptures). — 4.1.13.

4.1.13 L.1 ✅ गतस्तृतीयशेषः;
The supplemental portion which remained (to be discussed) in the third Adhyāya is now finished.

4.1.13 L.2 ✅ अथेदानीं ब्रह्मविद्या-फलं प्रति चिन्ता प्रतायते।
Now, the Sūtra-kāra starts on the consideration of the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman.

4.1.13 L.3 ✅ ब्रह्माधिगमे सति तद्विपरीतफलं दुरितं क्षीयते, न क्षीयते वेति संशयः।
The doubt is, as to whether, when realization of Brahman has taken place, sinful acts whose fruit is contrary to it (i.e. the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman) are destroyed or not.

4.1.13 L.4 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्? फलार्थत्वात् कर्मणः फलमदत्त्वा न सम्भाव्यते क्षयः;
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)? It is, that inasmuch as actions do have the result of producing their fruit, their destruction, prior to their producing such fruit, is not possible,

4.1.13 L.5 ✅ फलदायिनी हि अस्य शक्तिः श्रुत्या समधिगता;
Because it is understood from the Scriptures, that actions do possess an inherent power of producing their fruit,

4.1.13 L.6 ✅ यदि तत् अन्तरेणैव फलोपभोगमपवृज्येत, श्रुतिः कदर्थिता स्यात्;
And hence if sinful acts were to be so destroyed before their fruit is duly suffered, the Scriptures would thus happen to be ignored.

4.1.13 L.7 ✅ स्मरन्ति च – ‘न हि कर्म क्षीयते’ इति।
The Scriptures also declare — Actions are never destroyed.

4.1.13 L.8 ✅ नन्वेवं सति प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशोऽनर्थकः प्राप्नोति –
But (says the Vedāntin) if it be so, then it would come to this, that the instruction of the Scriptures with respect to expiatory rites would be rendered meaningless.

4.1.13 L.9 ✅ नैष दोषः, प्रायश्चित्तानां नैमित्तिकत्वोपपत्तेः
This is no fault (the opponent of Vedānta replies), because it is reasonably sustainable that expiatory rites are understood to depend upon particular occasions, as for instance,

4.1.13 L.10 ✅ गृहदाहेष्ट्यादिवत्।
Like the Iṣṭi which is to be performed, when a house is destroyed by fire.

4.1.13 L.11 ✅ अपि च प्रायश्चित्तानां दोषसंयोगेन विधानाद् भवेदपि दोषक्षपणार्थता;
Besides as expiatory rites have been enjoined in connection with a man’s contact with sin, they may well have the purpose of neutralizing such sinful acts,

4.1.13 L.12 ✅ न त्वेवं ब्रह्मविद्यायां विधानमस्ति।
But there is no such injunction (about expiatory rites) with respect to the Vidyā of the knowledge of Brahman (viz. that it should be attained for the purpose of neutralizing sinful acts).

4.1.13 L.13 ✅ नन्वनभ्युपगम्यमाने ब्रह्मविदः कर्मक्षये
But (says the Vedāntin), if it is not understood that the sinful acts of a man who has attained the knowledge of Brahman are so destroyed,

4.1.13 L.14 ✅ तत्फलस्यावश्यभोक्तव्यत्वाद् अनिर्मोक्षः स्यात् –
Then inasmuch as the fruit of such actions has necessarily to be suffered, no Final Release would ever take place.

4.1.13 L.15 ✅ नेत्युच्यते;
(The opponent of Vedānta replies) — No,

4.1.13 L.16 ✅ देशकालनिमित्तापेक्षो मोक्षः कर्मफलवत् भविष्यति।
Because, like fruits of actions, Final Release also may come about, depending upon a particular environment, time and special cause.

4.1.13 L.17 ✅ तस्मान्न ब्रह्माधिगमे दुरितनिवृत्तिः
Therefore, there never is any destruction of the sinful acts, on the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman.

4.1.13 L.18 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply: —

4.1.13 L.19 ✅ तदधिगमे ब्रह्माधिगमे सति उत्तरस्य अश्लेषः, पूर्वस्य विनाशः।
On its (i.e. Brahman’s) realization, the destruction and non-contact respectively of prior and subsequent sinful acts, come about,

4.1.13 L.20 ✅ उत्तरपूर्वयोः अघयोः अश्लेषविनाशौ भवतः – I.e. the prior sinful acts are destroyed and possible sinful acts in future do not come into contact with a person.

4.1.13 L.21 ✅ कस्मात्? तद्व्यपदेशात्;
Whence is it so? Because of the declaration to that effect (by the Scriptures).

4.1.13 L.22 ✅ तथा हि ब्रह्मविद्या-प्रक्रियायां
For the Scriptures, in the chapter dealing with Brahma-Vidyā,

4.1.13 L.23 ✅ सम्भाव्यमान-सम्बन्धस्य आगामिनो दुरितस्यानभिसम्बन्धं विदुषो व्यपदिशति –
Indicate that a learned man does not come into contact, with future sins, (even though such contact is possible in the case of future sinful acts), thus —

4.1.13 L.24 ✅ ‘यथा पुष्करपलाश आपो न श्लिष्यन्त एवमेवंविदि पापं कर्म न श्लिष्यते’ (ChanU.4.14.3) इति;
“Just as water does not stick to a lotus-leaf, even so, sinful acts do not contaminate a man, who knows this in this way” (ChanU.4.14.3).

4.1.13 L.25 ✅ तथा विनाशमपि पूर्वोपचितस्य दुरितस्य व्यपदिशति –
The Scriptures similarly indicate the destruction of sinful acts committed already, thus —

4.1.13 L.26 ✅ ‘तद्यथेषीकातूलमग्नौ प्रोतं प्रदूयेतैवꣳ हास्य सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते’ (ChanU.5.24.3) इति;
“Just as a fluff of cotton-wool sticking to an arrow is consumed when the arrow is put in the fire, even so are all his prior sins destroyed” (ChanU.5.24.3).

4.1.13 L.27 ✅ अयमपरः कर्मक्षयव्यपदेशो भवति –
The following again, is yet one more Scriptural declaration about the destruction of actions —

4.1.13 L.28 ✅ ‘भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः।
क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे’ (MunU.2.2.8) इति।
“The knot of the Hṛdaya is cut under and all doubts are resolved
And all actions destroyed on the realization of Him who is at once both the High (Para) and low (Avara)” (MunU.2.2.8).

4.1.13 L.29 ✅ यदुक्तम् – अनुपभुक्तफलस्य कर्मणः क्षयकल्पनायां शास्त्रं कदर्थितं स्यादिति,
With regard to the statement (by the opponent of Vedānta) that the assumption of the destruction of acts before their fruits are experienced, would mean that the Śāstra is ignored or vitiated,

4.1.13 L.30 ✅ नैष दोषः;
We reply that this is no fault.

4.1.13 L.31 ✅ न हि वयं कर्मणः फलदायिनीं शक्तिम् अवजानीमहे;
We do not mean to deny the power of actions to generate their fruit,

4.1.13 L.32 ✅ विद्यत एव सा;
सा तु विद्यादिना कारणान्तरेण प्रतिबध्यत इति वदामः;
But we only wish to say, that such power which of course is always inherent in actions,
Is merely arrested by some such other cause as correct or perfect knowledge etc.

4.1.13 L.33 ✅ शक्तिसद्भावमात्रे च शास्त्रं व्याप्रियते,
The Śāstra is concerned merely in maintaining that such power does exist,

4.1.13 L.34 ✅ न प्रतिबन्धाप्रतिबन्धयोरपि।
But not in maintaining either its liability to be obstructed, or not to be obstructed, in any way.

4.1.13 L.35 ✅ ‘न हि कर्म क्षीयते’ इत्येतदपि स्मरणमौत्सर्गिकम् –
The Smṛti statement, viz., that action is never destroyed is a statement only of the nature of a general rule,

4.1.13 L.36 ✅ न हि भोगादृते कर्म क्षीयते तदर्थत्वादिति;
That inasmuch as action has the result of producing a fruit, it is never destroyed unless its fruit is first experienced.

4.1.13 L.37 ✅ इष्यत एव तु प्रायश्चित्तादिना तस्य क्षयः –
‘सर्वं पाप्मानं तरति, तरति ब्रह्महत्याम्, योऽश्वमेधेन यजते, य उ चैनमेवं वेद’ इत्यादि श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यः।
On the authority of such Scriptural statements as “He escapes from all sins, He who performs the Aśva-medha sacrifice escapes from the sin of the killing of a Brāhmaṇa, and also every one who knows it to be so”,
The destruction of actions by expriatory rites is of course to be desired.

4.1.13 L.38 ✅ यत्तूक्तम् – नैमित्तिकानि प्रायश्चित्तानि भविष्यन्तीति,
The statement (by the opponent of Vedānta) that expiatory rites may well be for special occasions as and when they arise,

4.1.13 L.39 ✅ तदसत्, दोष-संयोगेन चोद्यमानानामेषां
(We reply) — It is not so, because as they are enjoined whenever there is a contact with sin,

4.1.13 L.40 ✅ दोषनिर्घातफल-सम्भवे फलान्तरकल्पनानुपपत्तेः।
And as their fruit, viz. the destruction of such sins by them, is possible, the idea of their having some other fruit is not reasonably sustainable.

4.1.13 L.41 ✅ यत्पुनरेतदुक्तम् – न प्रायश्चित्तवत् दोषक्षयोद्देशेन विद्याविधानमस्तीति,
With regard, again, to the statement (by the opponent of Vedānta) that there is no injunction as regards the acquisition of the knowledge (of Brahman) with the intention of the destruction of sin, as there is in the case of an expiatory rite,

4.1.13 L.42 ✅ अत्र ब्रूमः – सगुणासु तावद्विद्यासु विद्यत एव विधानम्,
We reply — There of course is such an injunction in the case of Vidyās (Cognitions) with respect to qualified Brahman,

4.1.13 L.43 ✅ तासु च वाक्यशेषे ऐश्वर्य-प्राप्तिः पाप-निवृत्तिश्च विद्यावत उच्यते,
Because in the complementary passage with regard to them, the attainment of lordly power by, and the removal of sin of, him, who has attained such knowledge, is referred to,

4.1.13 L.44 ✅ तयोश्चाविवक्षाकारणं नास्ति –
And as there is no reason for the Scriptures not desiring to state so,

4.1.13 L.45 ✅ इत्यतः पाप्मप्रहाणपूर्वकैश्वर्य-प्राप्तिः तासां फलमिति निश्चीयते;
It is therefore definitely ascertained that the acquisition of lordly power, as preceded by the destruction i.e. incineration (Pradaha) of sin, is their fruit.

4.1.13 L.46 ✅ निर्गुणायां तु विद्यायां यद्यपि विधानं नास्ति,
As regards Vidyās (Cognitions) with respect to unqualified Brahman, even though there is no similar injunction,

4.1.13 L.47 ✅ तथापि अकर्त्रात्मत्वबोधात् कर्मप्रदाहसिद्धिः।
The destruction i.e. incineration of all actions is established as a necessary result of the knowledge that the Self is not an agent.

4.1.13 L.48 ✅ अश्लेष इति च आगामिषु कर्मसु कर्तृत्वमेव न प्रतिपद्यते ब्रह्मविदिति दर्शयति।
The term ‘non-contact’ indicates, that, with regard to actions (which may occur) at some future time, any one who has realized Brahman does not ever actually become an agent of any action.

4.1.13 L.49 ✅ अतिक्रान्तेषु तु यद्यपि मिथ्याज्ञानात्कर्तृत्वं प्रतिपेद इव,
With respect to actions in the past, though a person through false-knowledge understood himself to be such an agent as it were,

4.1.13 L.50 ✅ तथापि विद्यासामर्थ्यान्मिथ्याज्ञान-निवृत्तेः
Still by reason of the removal of such false-knowledge through the power of the knowledge (of Brahman)

4.1.13 L.51 ✅ तान्यपि प्रविलीयन्त इत्याह – विनाश इति।
Even these past actions are dissolved, and that is why the Sūtra-kāra has referred to their destruction.

4.1.13 L.52 ✅ पूर्वसिद्धकर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्व-विपरीतं हि
त्रिष्वपि कालेष्वकर्तृत्वाभोक्तृत्व-स्वरूपं ब्रह्माहमस्मि,
नेतः पूर्वमपि कर्ता भोक्ता वा अहमासम्, नेदानीम्, नापि भविष्यत्काले –
इति ब्रह्मविद् अवगच्छति;
The person who has realized Brahman understands,
That he himself is Brahman, which has the nature of never being an agent or an experiencer during all the three divisions of time (viz. the past, present or future),
Contrary to the preconceived (wrong) notion of being such an agent or experiencer,
And a person who has realized Brahman knows that he never was such agent or experiencer before, nor is he so at present, nor will he ever be so at some future time.

4.1.13 L.53 ✅ एवमेव च मोक्ष उपपद्यते;
Final Release is reasonably sustainable only in this way.

4.1.13 L.54 ✅ अन्यथा हि अनादिकालप्रवृत्तानां कर्मणां क्षयाभावे
Otherwise as there would never be any destruction of actions which have their origin in beginningless time,

4.1.13 L.55 ✅ मोक्षाभावः स्यात्।
There would be no Final Release.

4.1.13 L.56 ✅ न च देशकालनिमित्तापेक्षो मोक्षः कर्मफलवत् भवितुमर्हति;
Final Release does not, like fruits of actions, deserve to be dependent on environment, time and special causes,

4.1.13 L.57 ✅ अनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गात्,
Because (if it were to be so), there would be the predicament of its being transitory i.e. non-eternal,

4.1.13 L.58 ✅ परोक्षत्वानुपपत्तेश्च ज्ञानफलस्य।
And also because it is not reasonably sustainable that the fruit of knowledge is not directly perceptible.

4.1.13 L.59 ✅ तस्मात् ब्रह्माधिगमे दुरितक्षय इति स्थितम्॥१३॥
Therefore, it is firmly established that on the realization of Brahman, sinful actions are liquidated. — 13.

[Go top]

---

Itarasya: of the other; Api: also; Evam: thus, in the same way; A-samśleṣaḥ: non-clinging; Pāte: at death; Tu: but, indeed.

🔗 But there is a similar non-contact even of the other i.e. meritorious acts, in the same way (as in the case of sinful acts), and (Final Release takes place), as soon as the body falls (i.e. death takes place). — 4.1.14.

4.1.14 L.1 ✅ पूर्वस्मिन्नधिकरणे बन्धहेतोरघस्य स्वाभाविकस्य अश्लेष-विनाशौ ज्ञाननिमित्तौ शास्त्र-व्यपदेशान्निरूपितौ;
In the former topic (Adhikaraṇa), non-contact and destruction of (future and past) sins which are natural and which are the cause of bondage, were as indicated by the Scriptures (Śāstra), explained as being caused by the knowledge (of Brahman).

4.1.14 L.2 ✅ धर्मस्य पुनः शास्त्रीयत्वात् शास्त्रीयेण ज्ञानेन अविरोध इत्याशङ्क्य
Now, a doubt having been raised, that meritorious acts being acts in accordance with the Śāstra, they could not be antagonistic to knowledge based on the Śāstra,

4.1.14 L.3 ✅ तन्निराकरणाय पूर्वाधिकरण-न्यायातिदेशः क्रियते –
In order to remove such doubt, an extended application (Atideśa) of the argument in the previous Adhikaraṇa is made here (in the Sūtra),

4.1.14 L.4 ✅ इतरस्यापि पुण्यस्य कर्मणः एवम् अघवत् असंश्लेषो विनाशश्च ज्ञानवतो भवतः –
Viz. that in the case of a man who has attained knowledge, there is a similar non-contact and destruction of acts of the other kind i.e. meritorious acts, as in the case of sinful acts.

4.1.14 L.5 ✅ कुतः? – तस्यापि स्वफल-हेतुत्वेन ज्ञानफलप्रतिबन्धित्व-प्रसङ्गात्,
Whence is it so? Because of the possibility of a predicament of such acts being an impediment to the fruit of knowledge (i.e. Final Release) occurring, as they also, are the cause of their own fruit.

4.1.14 L.6 ✅ ‘उभे उ हैवैष एते तरति’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यादिश्रुतिषु च
In Scriptural passages such as “He verily transcends both (i.e. meritorious as well as sinful acts)” (BrhU.4.4.22),

4.1.14 L.7 ✅ दुष्कृतवत् सुकृतस्यापि प्रणाश-व्यपदेशात्,
There is a mention that like sinful acts meritorious acts also are annihilated,

4.1.14 L.8 ✅ अकर्त्रात्मत्वबोध-निमित्तस्य च कर्मक्षयस्य सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः तुल्यत्वात्,
As is indicated by (the use of) the word ‘destruction’, because the destruction of actions, as a result of the knowledge that the Self is never an agent (i.e. the doer of such acts), is common, both to meritorious as well as sinful acts,

4.1.14 L.9 ✅ ‘क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि’ (MunU.2.2.8) इति च
And as in the Scriptural passage “His (i.e. of the man who has realized Brahman) actions are annihilated” (MunU.2.2.8);

4.1.14 L.10 ✅ विशेषश्रुतेः।
No distinction is made (between meritorious and sinful acts).

4.1.14 L.11 ✅ यत्रापि केवल एव पाप्म-शब्दः पठ्यते, तत्रापि तेनैव पुण्यमप्याकलितमिति द्रष्टव्यम्,
Besides where only the word ‘sin’ is seen (to be used in the Scriptures) it should be understood that it covers ‘merit’ also,

4.1.14 L.12 ✅ ज्ञानापेक्षया निकृष्टफलत्वात्।
Because, as compared with the fruit of perfect knowledge (i.e. Final Release) the fruit of a meritorious act (which is only secular prosperity) is inferior.

4.1.14 L.13 ✅ अस्ति च श्रुतौ पुण्येऽपि पाप्मशब्दः –
Besides the word ‘sin’ is used in the Scriptures also to indicate merit,

4.1.14 L.14 ✅ ‘नैनं सेतुमहोरात्रे तरतः’ (ChanU.8.4.1) इत्यत्र
Because, in the Scriptural passage “Neither day nor night transcend this bund” (ChanU.8.4.1),

4.1.14 L.15 ✅ सह दुष्कृतेन सुकृतम् अप्यनुक्रम्य,
Good deeds are enumerated along with the bad deeds,

4.1.14 L.16 ✅ ‘सर्वे पाप्मानोऽतो निवर्तन्ते’ इत्यविशेषेणैव प्रकृते पुण्ये पाप्मशब्द-प्रयोगात्।
And in the passage “All sins turn back from here”, for ‘merit’ which also is relevant here, the word ‘sin’ is used in a common way.

4.1.14 L.17 ✅ ‘पाते तु’ इति तुशब्दोऽवधारणार्थः।
The word ‘as soon as’ (Tu) in the Sūtra ‘as soon as the body falls’ is used for the purpose of indicating proper ascertainment.

4.1.14 L.18 ✅ एवं धर्माधर्मयोर्बन्ध-हेत्वोः विद्यासामर्थ्यादश्लेषविनाश-सिद्धेः
It being thus established, that there is non-contact and liquidation of good and bad deeds which are the cause of bondage, as a result of the power of the knowledge i.e. Vidyā (of Brahman),

4.1.14 L.19 ✅ अवश्यंभाविनी विदुषः शरीरपाते मुक्तिरित्यवधारयति॥१४॥
The Sūtra-kāra makes us understand that in the case of a man who has attained knowledge (of Brahman), Final Release is bound to take place the moment the body falls (i.e. death supervenes). — 14.

[Go top]

---

An-ārabdha-kārye: in the case of those works, the effects of which have not begun to operate, i.e., to yield fruits or results; Eva: only; Tu: but; Pūrve: former works; Tad-avadheḥ: that (death) being the limit, because of waiting till death.

🔗 But it is only the past actions which have not started their effects i.e. fructification (that are annihilated by the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman), because (the Scriptures have declared death to be) the point of time, (for Final Release). — 4.1.15.

4.1.15 L.1 ✅ पूर्वयोरधिकरणयोर्ज्ञान-निमित्तः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्विनाशोऽवधारितः;
From the foregoing Adhikaraṇas, the annihilation of meritorious and unmeritorious actions as brought about by the knowledge of Brahman, has been ascertained.

4.1.15 L.2 ✅ स किमविशेषेण आरब्धकार्ययोः अनारब्धकार्ययोश्च भवति,
उत विशेषेणानारब्धकार्ययोः एवेति विचार्यते।
It is now being considered whether, this (annihilation) takes place indiscriminately in the case of both, viz. actions which have started to fructify and those which have not yet started, to do so,
Or particularly in the case of those only, which have not yet started to fructify.

4.1.15 L.3 ✅ तत्र ‘उभे उ हैवैष एते तरति’ (BrhU.4.4.22)
इत्येवमादिश्रुतिष्वविशेषश्रवणाद्
With regard to that, as, by the passage “Verily he transcends both these” (BrhU.4.4.2),
The Scriptures do not specify anything in particular,

4.1.15 L.4 ✅ अविशेषेणैव क्षय इति
(The conclusion is that) there is annihilation of all acts generally.

4.1.15 L.5 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, प्रत्याह – अनारब्धकार्ये एव त्विति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply — (the annihilation is) of only those acts which have not yet begun to fructify.

4.1.15 L.6 ✅ अप्रवृत्तफले एव पूर्वे जन्मान्तर-सञ्चिते,
It is the collective meritorious and unmeritorious actions of the previous birth,

4.1.15 L.7 ✅ अस्मिन्नपि च जन्मनि प्राग्ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः सञ्चिते, सुकृत-दुष्कृते
And those also of the present birth done prior to the generation of knowledge of Brahman and which have not yet started to fructify,

4.1.15 L.8 ✅ ज्ञानाधिगमात् क्षीयेते;
That are annihilated by such acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman,

4.1.15 L.9 ✅ न तु आरब्धकार्ये सामिभुक्तफले,
But not those which have already started to fructify and which are only semi-enjoyed,

4.1.15 L.10 ✅ याभ्यामेतत् ब्रह्मज्ञानायतनं जन्म निर्मितम्।
And which have constituted the cause of the generation of the present body (i.e. Janma) which is the repository of the knowledge of Brahman.

4.1.15 L.11 ✅ कुत एतत्?
‘तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति
शरीरपातावधिकरणात् क्षेमप्राप्तेः;
Whence is it so?
Because the Scriptures have prescribed the fall of the body as the point of time at which Final Release takes place,
By the passage “He is delayed in the acquisition of Final Release, only so long as he is not relieved of the body” (ChanU.6.14.2),

4.1.15 L.12 ✅ इतरथा हि ज्ञानाद् अशेषकर्म-क्षये सति स्थितिहेत्वभावात् ज्ञानप्राप्त्यनन्तरमेव क्षेमम् अश्नुवीत;
As otherwise, in the absence of any raison d’etre for a man’s existence after all actions are annihilated as a result of the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman, he would secure Final Release immediately after such acquisition of knowledge,

4.1.15 L.13 ✅ तत्र शरीरपात-प्रतीक्षां न आचक्षीत।
And (if such were to be the case) the Scriptures would not have spoken about a man’s having to await the fall of the body (for Final Release).

4.1.15 L.14 ✅ ननु वस्तुबलेनैव अयमकर्त्रात्मावबोधः कर्माणि क्षपयन्
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) when this knowledge, viz. that the Ātmā is not in fact an agent, annihilates actions as a result of its own natural power (Vastu-balena),

4.1.15 L.15 ✅ कथं कानिचित्क्षपयेत् कानिचिच्चोपेक्षेत?
How can it be (maintained) that it annihilates some actions only and neglects to annihilate some others?

4.1.15 L.16 ✅ न हि समानेऽग्निबीजसम्पर्के,
When the contact between the seed and the fire is common (to all seeds),

4.1.15 L.17 ✅ केषाञ्चिद्बीजशक्तिः क्षीयते, केषाञ्चिन्न क्षीयते – इति शक्यम् अङ्गीकर्तुमिति।
It is not possible to accept that the power of some particular seeds (to germinate) is annihilated and the power of some others is not (so annihilated).

4.1.15 L.18 ✅ उच्यते – न तावदनाश्रित्य आरब्धकार्यं कर्माशयं ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते;
We reply — It is not reasonably sustainable, that there can be any generation of the knowledge of Brahman without the acceptance of a reservoir of actions (which is the cause of the generation of a body), in which actions have started their effects i.e. fructification,

4.1.15 L.19 ✅ आश्रिते च तस्मिन्कुलालचक्रवत् प्रवृत्तवेगस्य अन्तराले प्रतिबन्धासम्भवात्
And when once that is accepted, and when, as in the case of a potter’s wheel which has been set in motion, there is no possibility of any hindrance to the momentum which is generated,

4.1.15 L.20 ✅ भवति वेगक्षयप्रतिपालनम्
It is inevitable that such knowledge has to await the dissipation of that momentum.

4.1.15 L.21 ✅ अकर्त्रात्म-बोधोऽपि हि मिथ्याज्ञान-बाधनेन कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति;
The knowledge that the Self (Ātmā) is not an agent also annihilates actions by removing false-knowledge,

4.1.15 L.22 ✅ बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत् संस्कारवशात् कंचित्कालम् अनुवर्तत एव।
But even though it is so removed it does still persist for a while, as a result of past impressions, just as, for instance, the notion about there being two moons also persists for some time.

4.1.15 L.23 ✅ अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् –
Besides, it should not be discussed here (i.e. it is not debatable here)

4.1.15 L.24 ✅ ब्रह्मविदा कञ्चित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति।
As to whether a man who has realized Brahman does continue to possess a body for some time after such realization, or whether he does not,

4.1.15 L.25 ✅ कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदय-प्रत्ययं ब्रह्म-वेदनं देह-धारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत?
Because how can one man ever dispute another man’s experience of both the realization of Brahman and of his yet continuing to possess a body, as such experience of the other man, can belong to such other man alone?

4.1.15 L.26 ✅ श्रुति-स्मृतिषु च स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षण-निर्देशेन एतदेव निरुच्यते।
The Scriptures and the Smṛtis by way of indicating the characteristics of a man firmly ensconced in the knowledge of Brahman, have explained the same thing.

4.1.15 L.27 ✅ तस्माद् अनारब्धकार्ययोरेव सुकृतदुष्कृतयोः विद्या-सामर्थ्यात् क्षय इति निर्णयः॥१५॥
Therefore the final conclusion is, that through the power of knowledge there is annihilation only of the meritorious and unmeritorious actions which have not yet started their effects i.e. fructification. — 15.

Su.4.1.16 Su..17

[Go top]

---

Agni-hotra-ādi: daily Agni-hotra, etc., daily offering of oblations to the perpetually maintained fire; Tu: but; Tat-kāryāya: tend towards the same result as that (knowledge); Eva: only; Tad-darśanāt: that being seen from the scriptures.

🔗 Agni-hotra etc. also (Tu), lead to the same result (viz. the generation of the effect of knowledge), because it is seen to be so (from the Scriptures). — 4.1.16.

4.1.16 L.1 ✅ पुण्यस्याप्यश्लेष-विनाशयोः अघन्यायोऽतिदिष्टः;
Extended application (Atideśa) of the reasoning about sinful acts, was made in the case of the non-contact and destruction of meritorious actions also.

4.1.16 L.2 ✅ सोऽतिदेशः सर्वपुण्यविषय इत्याशङ्क्य प्रतिवक्ति – अग्निहोत्रादि त्विति।
The Sūtra-kāra now raises a doubt as to whether this holds good in the case of all meritorious acts, and says — “Agni-hotra etc. also”.

4.1.16 L.3 ✅ तुशब्द आशङ्कामपनुदति;
The word ‘also (Tu)’ removes the doubt.

4.1.16 L.4 ✅ यन्नित्यं कर्म वैदिकमग्निहोत्रादि,
Whatever is routine (Nitya) Vedic religious action, such as Agni-hotra etc. for instance,

4.1.16 L.5 ✅ तत् तत्कार्यायैव भवति;
Makes for precisely the same result.

4.1.16 L.6 ✅ ज्ञानस्य यत्कार्यं तदेव अस्यापि कार्यमित्यर्थः।
The meaning is that the result of such action is the same as the result of knowledge.

4.1.16 L.7 ✅ कुतः? ‘तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन’ (BrhU.4.4.22) इत्यादिदर्शनात्।
Whence is it so? On account of the Scriptural indication, viz. “The Brāhmaṇas endeavour to know the Self by means of the reciting of the Vedas, and by means of sacrifice, and charity” (BrhU.4.4.22).

4.1.16 L.8 ✅ ननु ज्ञान-कर्मणोः विलक्षणकार्यत्वात् कार्यैकत्वानुपपत्तिः –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) inasmuch as the results of knowledge and actions are dissimilar, it is not reasonably sustainable that they can have the same result.

4.1.16 L.9 ✅ नैष दोषः,
We reply — This is no fault,

4.1.16 L.10 ✅ ज्वर-मरण-कार्ययोरपि दधि-विषयोः
Because even though curds and poison have the effect of (causing) fever and death respectively,

4.1.16 L.11 ✅ गुड-मन्त्र-संयुक्तयोः तृप्ति-पुष्टिकार्य-दर्शनात्,
Still, when they are used conjointly with brown sugar, and incantations (Mantras) respectively, they are observed to produce satisfaction, and physical well-being i.e. nourishment, respectively.

4.1.16 L.12 ✅ तद्वत् कर्मणोऽपि ज्ञान-संयुक्तस्य मोक्ष-कार्योपपत्तेः।
Even so, religious actions when they are connected with knowledge, produce the result of Final Release.

4.1.16 L.13 ✅ ननु अनारभ्यो मोक्षः,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) Final Release is not something which can be effected i.e. produced,

4.1.16 L.14 ✅ कथमस्य कर्मकार्यत्वमुच्यते?
And so how can it be said to be the result of action?

4.1.16 L.15 ✅ नैष दोषः, आरादुपकारकत्वात् कर्मणः;
We reply — This is no fault, because actions help to produce that effect indirectly from a distance.

4.1.16 L.16 ✅ ज्ञानस्यैव हि प्रापकं सत् कर्म
Action being something which promotes knowledge,

4.1.16 L.17 ✅ प्रणाड्या मोक्षकारणमित्युपचर्यते;
It is metaphorically said to be the means of Final Release, through the medium of knowledge.

4.1.16 L.18 ✅ अत एव च अतिक्रान्तविषयम् एतत् कार्यैकत्वाभिधानम्।
Hence it is, that the statement about the result being the same, is with reference only to action already performed (before the generation of knowledge).

4.1.16 L.19 ✅ न हि ब्रह्मविद आगाम्यग्निहोत्रादि सम्भवति,
In the case of a man who has realized Brahman, it is not possible that there can be any performance of Agni-hotra etc. after such realization,

4.1.16 L.20 ✅ अनियोज्य-ब्रह्मात्मत्वप्रतिपत्तेः शास्त्रस्याविषयत्वात्।
Because the realization of Brahman as the Self (of a man), which cannot be something to which a man can be enjoined, cannot properly be the subject of a Śāstra.

4.1.16 L.21 ✅ सगुणासु तु विद्यासु कर्तृत्वानतिवृत्तेः
In the case of meditations connected with qualified Brahman, inasmuch as in that case, a man does not cease to be an agent,

4.1.16 L.22 ✅ सम्भवति आगाम्यपि अग्निहोत्रादि।
The performance of Agni-hotra etc. even afterwards (i.e. after attaining knowledge of qualified Brahman) is of course possible.

4.1.16 L.23 ✅ तस्यापि निरभिसन्धिनः कार्यान्तराभावाद्
And when such action is performed in a disinterested manner (without any motive), then in the absence of its having any relation to any other result,

4.1.16 L.24 ✅ विद्या-सङ्गत्युपपत्तिः॥१६॥
It is reasonably sustainable, that it has appropriateness for such a relation to meditation (Vidyā). — 16.

[Go top]

4.1.17 L.1 ✅ किंविषयं पुनरिदम् अश्लेष-विनाश-वचनम्,
किंविषयं वा अदो विनियोग-वचनम् एकेषां शाखिनाम् –
‘तस्य पुत्रा दायमुपयन्ति सुहृदः साधुकृत्यां द्विषन्तः पापकृत्याम्’ इति?
Now, with respect to what action (Karma), then, is this Scriptural statement, about the non-contact and destruction (of actions)?
And with respect to what action (Karma), then, is this statement about the appropriation (of merits and demerits), by the followers of one branch (of the Vedas)? thus —
“His sons inherit his property, his friends inherit his meritorious actions, and his enemies inherit his unmeritorious actions”

4.1.17 L.2 ✅ अत उत्तरं पठति –
The Sūtra-kāra gives a reply: —

---

Ataḥ: from this; Anyā: different; Api: also; Hi: because, indeed; Ekeṣām: of some (Śākhās); Ubhayoḥ: of both.

🔗 There are good acts, other than those (i.e. Agni-hotra etc.). (This statement about the appropriation is about them.) Both (Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa) (agree about that). — 4.1.17.

4.1.17 L.3 ✅ अतोऽग्निहोत्रादेः नित्यात्कर्मणः अन्यापि ह्यस्ति साधु-कृत्या,
There are good acts, other than these compulsory routine acts, such as Agni-hotra etc.,

4.1.17 L.4 ✅ या फलमभिसन्धाय क्रियते,
Which are undertaken with a desire for a particular fruit,

4.1.17 L.5 ✅ तस्या एष विनियोग उक्तः एकेषां शाखिनाम् –
And it is about the appropriation of these that the followers of one branch have spoken thus —

4.1.17 L.6 ✅ ‘सुहृदः साधुकृत्यामुपयन्ति’ इति।
“His friends inherit the good deeds etc.”.

4.1.17 L.7 ✅ तस्या एव च इदम् अघवद् अश्लेषविनाश-निरूपणम् – इतरस्याप्येवम् असंश्लेष इति।
It is with regard to these, that there is this statement (Itarasyāpy evam asaṃśleṣa BrS.4.1.14) about this non-contact and destruction, as in the case of sinful acts.

4.1.17 L.8 ✅ तथाजातीयकस्य काम्यस्य कर्मणो विद्यां प्रत्यनुपकारकत्वे सम्प्रतिपत्तिः
उभयोरपि जैमिनि-बादरायणयोः आचार्ययोः॥१७॥
Both the Ācāryas Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa
Agree in holding that such kind of acts, performed for some desired end, are not helpful towards (the acquisition of) knowledge. — 17.

[Go top]

---

Yad eva: whatever; Vidyayā: with knowledge; Iti: thus, this, so; Hi: because.

🔗 (The Scriptural passage) “Also whatever (he does) equipped with Vidyā (knowledge of Brahman)” also (intimates similarly). — 4.1.18.

4.1.18 L.1 ✅ समधिगतम् एतद् अनन्तराधिकरणे –
It is understood from the preceding Adhikaraṇa,

4.1.18 L.2 ✅ नित्यमग्निहोत्रादिकं कर्म
That a compulsory routine act (Nitya-Karma) such as Agni-hotra etc.,

4.1.18 L.3 ✅ मुमुक्षुणा मोक्षप्रयोजनोद्देशेन
Which, if performed (by a man) with a desire for the fruit of Final Release,

4.1.18 L.4 ✅ कृतमुपात्त-दुरितक्षय-हेतुद्वारेण
And which by way of being the cause of the destruction of the sinful acts committed (by him),

4.1.18 L.5 ✅ सत्त्वशुद्धि-कारणतां प्रतिपद्यमानं
Becomes the means of the purification of the mind,

4.1.18 L.6 ✅ मोक्षप्रयोजनब्रह्माधिगम-निमित्तत्वेन ब्रह्मविद्यया सह एककार्यं भवतीति;
Thus becomes the means of producing in cooperation with Vidyā the same result as that produced by the knowledge of Brahman, which has Final Release as its fruit.

4.1.18 L.7 ✅ तत्र अग्निहोत्रादि कर्माङ्गव्यपाश्रय-विद्यासंयुक्तं केवलं चास्ति –
Now religious acts such as Agni-hotra etc. are acts which are either connected with Vidyā which is dependent upon the subsidiary part of religious acts, or are mere unconnected acts as such.

4.1.18 L.8 ✅ ‘य एवं विद्वान्यजति’ ‘य एवं विद्वाञ्जुहोति’ ‘य एवं विद्वाञ्शंसति’ ‘य एवं विद्वान्गायति’ ‘तस्मादेवंविदमेव ब्रह्माणं कुर्वीत नानेवंविदम्’ (ChanU.4.17.10)
‘तेनोभौ कुरुतो यश्चैतदेवं वेद यश्च न वेद’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इत्यादिवचनेभ्यो
विद्यासंयुक्तमस्ति, केवलमप्यस्ति।
By reason of Scriptural statements such as “He who sacrifices, knowing thus”, “He who offers oblation, knowing thus”, “He who recites, knowing thus”, “He who sings, knowing thus”, “Therefore one should appoint him only, who knows thus, as the Brahma-priest, and not one who does not know it to be like this” (ChanU.4.17.10),
“Both equally, i.e. he who knows this to be so, and he who does not, perform acts (by means of the letter ‘Om’)” (ChanU.1.1.10),
It is understood that religious acts are of both kinds, viz. either those connected with Vidyā or not so connected.

4.1.18 L.9 ✅ तत्रेदं विचार्यते –
With regard to that it is being considered,

4.1.18 L.10 ✅ किं विद्यासंयुक्तमेव अग्निहोत्रादिकं कर्म
Whether, it is only acts such as Agni-hotra etc. connected with Vidyā,

4.1.18 L.11 ✅ मुमुक्षोर्विद्याहेतुत्वेन तया सह एककार्यत्वं प्रतिपद्यते न केवलम्;
Which, by way of being the means of knowledge, come to have the same result as the result of knowledge, and not the mere Agni-hotra which is not so connected (with Vidyā),

4.1.18 L.12 ✅ उत विद्यासंयुक्तं केवलं च अविशेषेणेति।
Or whether both these kinds of acts whether connected or not so connected with Vidyā, equally without any distinction come to have the same result.

4.1.18 L.13 ✅ कुतः संशयः? ‘तमेतमात्मानं यज्ञेन विविदिषन्ति’ इति यज्ञादीनाम् अविशेषेण आत्मवेदनाङ्गत्वेन श्रवणात्,
Whence is the doubt? Because the Scriptural passage “(They) endeavour to know this Self by sacrifice”, speaks of sacrifice etc. generally, as being subsidiary to the knowledge of the Self,

4.1.18 L.14 ✅ विद्यासंयुक्तस्य च अग्निहोत्रादेः विशिष्टत्वावगमात्।
While Agni-hotra etc. connected with Vidyās are understood to have a sort of special significance.

4.1.18 L.15 ✅ किं तावत्प्राप्तम्?
What then is the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta)?

4.1.18 L.16 ✅ विद्यासंयुक्तमेव कर्म अग्निहोत्रादि आत्मविद्या-शेषत्वं प्रतिपद्यते, न विद्याहीनम्,
It is, that it is only Agni-hotra etc. which are connected with Vidyās, which become complementary to the knowledge of the Self, and not those which are not so connected,

4.1.18 L.17 ✅ विद्योपेतस्य विशिष्टत्वावगमाद् विद्याविहीनात् –
Because that which is equipped with Vidyā is understood to have a special significance over that which is not so connected.

4.1.18 L.18 ✅ ‘यदहरेव जुहोति तदहः पुनर्मृत्युमपजयत्येवं विद्वान्’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः,
Also because of such Scriptural passages as “One who knows this to be so, conquers death, the very day on which he offers an oblation”,

4.1.18 L.19 ✅ ‘बुद्ध्या युक्तो यया पार्थ कर्मबन्धं प्रहास्यसि’ (BhG.2.39)
‘दूरेण ह्यवरं कर्म बुद्धियोगाद्धनञ्जय’ (BhG.2.49) इत्यादिस्मृतिभ्यश्च
And because of the Smṛti passages “Equipped with which knowledge, Oh Pārtha, wilt thou' get rid of the bondage of acts?” (BhG.2.39),
“Oh Dhanañjaya, (mere) action is vastly inferior to action equipped with the possession of knowledge” (BhG.2.49).

4.1.18 L.20 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते प्रतिपाद्यते – यदेव विद्ययेति हि।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), it is expounded (by the Sūtra-kāra), thus — Also whatever (he does) equipped with Vidyā — (in the above Sūtra).

4.1.18 L.21 ✅ सत्यमेतत् – विद्यासंयुक्तं कर्म अग्निहोत्रादिकं विद्याविहीनात्कर्मणोऽग्निहोत्राद्विशिष्टम्,
It is true that an act such as Agni-hotra etc. when it is connected with Vidyā is superior to a mere act of Agni-hotra which is not so connected (with Vidyā),

4.1.18 L.22 ✅ विद्वान् इव ब्राह्मणो विद्याविहीनाद् ब्राह्मणात्;
Just as a Brāhmaṇa who is equipped with Vidyā, is superior to one who is not so equipped.

4.1.18 L.23 ✅ तथापि नात्यन्तमनपेक्षं विद्याविहीनं कर्म अग्निहोत्रादिकम्।
Still, it is not, that an act of Agni-hotra, not so connected with Vidyā, is not at all necessary.

4.1.18 L.24 ✅ कस्मात्? ‘तमेतमात्मानं यज्ञेन विविदिषन्ति’ इत्यविशेषेण अग्निहोत्रादेर्विद्याहेतुत्वेन श्रुतत्वात्।
Whence is it so? Because, the Scriptural passage “They endeavour to know this Self by means of a sacrifice” speaks of Agni-hotra generally as being the means of the knowledge of Brahman.

4.1.18 L.25 ✅ ननु विद्या-संयुक्तस्य अग्निहोत्रादेर्विद्याविहीनाद्विशिष्टत्वावगमात्
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) inasmuch as Agni-hotra etc. which is connected with Vidyā is understood (from the Scriptures) to be superior to one which is not so connected,

4.1.18 L.26 ✅ विद्या-विहीनम् अग्निहोत्रादि आत्मविद्याहेतुत्वेनानपेक्ष्यमेवेति युक्तम् –
It is logical, that Agni-hotra which is not so connected with Vidyā, is not considered necessary, as the means of the knowledge of the Self.

4.1.18 L.27 ✅ नैतदेवम्;
(We reply) — No, it is not so.

4.1.18 L.28 ✅ विद्या-सहायस्याग्निहोत्रादेः विद्यानिमित्तेन सामर्थ्यातिशयेन योगात्
आत्मज्ञानं प्रति कश्चित्कारणत्वातिशयो भविष्यति,
न तथा विद्याविहीनस्य –
इति युक्तं कल्पयितुम्;
Rather, it is logical to imagine
That as an Agni-hotra which is connected with Vidyā has very great power because of such Vidyā,
It only happens to be a superior means as regards the knowledge of the Self,
While it is not so in the case of a mere Agni-hotra which is not so connected with Vidyā.

4.1.18 L.29 ✅ न तु ‘यज्ञेन विविदिषन्ति’ इत्यत्राविशेषेणात्मज्ञानाङ्गत्वेन श्रुतस्याग्निहोत्रादेः अनङ्गत्वं शक्यमभ्युपगन्तुम्;
It is not proper to understand, that, Agni-hotra etc., which is mentioned by the Scriptures to be but a subordinate part of the knowledge of Brahman, in a general way only, thus — “Endeavour to know by means of a sacrifice”, is not such a subordinate part of the knowledge of Brahman.

4.1.18 L.30 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिः – ‘यदेव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तदेव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति’ (ChanU.1.1.10) इति
For the Scriptures which declare, thus — “Whatever he does with Vidyā, faith and esoteric meditation, becomes more potent” (ChanU.1.1.10),

4.1.18 L.31 ✅ विद्या-संयुक्तस्य कर्मणोऽग्निहोत्रादेः वीर्यवत्तरत्वाभिधानेन स्वकार्यं प्रति कञ्चिदतिशयं ब्रुवाणा
विद्या-विहीनस्य तस्यैव तत्प्रयोजनं प्रति वीर्यवत्त्वं दर्शयति;
And speak of a certain sort of superiority of an Agni-hotra which is connected with Vidyā, towards its own effect, by thus speaking about its being more potent,
Also indicate thereby, that the same Agni-hotra, when it is not so connected with Vidyā, has at least some potency as regards its fruit any way.

4.1.18 L.32 ✅ कर्मणश्च वीर्यवत्त्वं तत्, यत्स्वप्रयोजनसाधन-सहत्वम्।
Now what constitutes the potency of an act, is its ability to produce its own fruit.

4.1.18 L.33 ✅ तस्माद् विद्या-संयुक्तं नित्यमग्निहोत्रादि विद्या-विहीनं च उभयमपि
It is thus established, that the compulsory routine Agni-hotra, whether connected with Vidyā or not so connected,

4.1.18 L.34 ✅ मुमुक्षुणा मोक्षप्रयोजनोद्देशेन इह जन्मनि जन्मान्तरे च प्राग्ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः कृतं यत्,
And performed by an aspirant for Final Release, with the desire for such Final Release as its fruit, prior to the generation of the knowledge (of Brahman), whether during the present or previous birth,

4.1.18 L.35 ✅ तद्यथासामर्थ्यं
And which in proportion to its power,

4.1.18 L.36 ✅ ब्रह्माधिगमप्रतिबन्ध-कारणोपात्तदुरितक्षयहेतुत्व-द्वारेण ब्रह्माधिगम-कारणत्वं प्रतिपद्यमानं
Becomes the cause of the realization of Brahman, by way of causing the annihilation of the aggregate of sins which constitute an impediment to such realization (of Brahman),

4.1.18 L.37 ✅ श्रवणमननश्रद्धातात्पर्याद्यन्तरङ्ग-कारणापेक्षं ब्रह्मविद्यया सह एककार्यं भवतीति स्थितम्॥१८॥
And which is helpful to such internal causes as, hearing, contemplating, faith and steadfast devotion, thus becomes a collaborator of Brahma-Vidyā in the production of the same result, viz. Final Release. — 18.

[Go top]

---

Bhogena: by enjoyment; Tu: but; Itare: of the other two works (merit and demerit); Kṣapayitvā: having exhausted; Sampadyate: becomes united with Brahman, becomes one with Brahman, obtains, joins.

🔗 By destroying other acts (i.e. these meritorious and unmeritorious acts which have started to fructify) by experiencing their fruit, however, he attains identification with the Supreme Spirit i.e. Kaivalya. — 4.1.19.

4.1.19 L.1 ✅ अनारब्धकार्ययोः पुण्यपापयोः विद्यासामर्थ्यात् क्षय उक्तः।
Mention has already been made (by the Sūtra-kāra) of the destruction of the meritorious and sinful acts which have not yet started to fructify, through the power of knowledge.

4.1.19 L.2 ✅ इतरे तु आरब्धकार्ये पुण्यपापे उपभोगेन क्षपयित्वा ब्रह्म सम्पद्यते,
Having also annihilated the other meritorious and sinful acts which have already started fructifying, by the experiencing of their fruit, identification with the Supreme Spirit is attained,

4.1.19 L.3 ✅ ‘तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ सम्पत्स्ये’ (ChanU.6.14.2) इति ‘ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति’ इति च एवमादिश्रुतिभ्यः।
On the authority of the Scriptural passages “He is delayed only so long as he is not relieved of the body and then he becomes one with Brahman” (ChanU.6.14.2), and “Himself being Brahman, he merges into Brahman” etc.

4.1.19 L.4 ✅ ननु सत्यपि सम्यग्दर्शने
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) — Even though correct i.e. perfect knowledge is there,

4.1.19 L.5 ✅ यथा प्राग्देहपाताद् भेददर्शनं द्विचन्द्रदर्शनन्यायेनानुवृत्तम्,
Just as, according to the maxim (Nyāya) of ‘the vision of double moons’, a man still continues to see entities as different, prior to the fall of the body,

4.1.19 L.6 ✅ एवं पश्चादप्यनुवर्तेत –
He may well continue to do so i.e. see entities as different even after that.

4.1.19 L.7 ✅ न, निमित्ताभवात्।
(We reply) — No, because of the absence of any cause for it.

4.1.19 L.8 ✅ उपभोगशेष-क्षपणं हि तत्रानुवृत्ति-निमित्तम्,
In the former case, the necessity of the destruction of the residue of actions of which the first has yet to be experienced, is the cause of the persistence of such notion of duality,

4.1.19 L.9 ✅ न च तादृशम् अत्र किञ्चिदस्ति।
While no such cause exists in the present case.

4.1.19 L.10 ✅ ननु अपरः कर्माशयोऽभिनवमुपभोगम् आरप्स्यते –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) another fresh aggregate of actions may start a fresh experience of the fruit of actions?

4.1.19 L.11 ✅ न, तस्य दग्ध-बीजत्वात्;
(We reply) — No, because the seeds (of such actions) happen to have been burnt out.

4.1.19 L.12 ✅ मिथ्या-ज्ञानावष्टम्भं हि कर्मान्तरं देहपात उपभोगान्तरम् आरभेत;
Any new action, which has to depend upon false-knowledge, may if at all, begin a fresh experience after the fall of the body,

4.1.19 L.13 ✅ तच्च मिथ्याज्ञानं सम्यग्ज्ञानेन दग्धम् –
But such false-knowledge is completely destroyed by correct i.e. perfect knowledge,

4.1.19 L.14 ✅ इत्यतः साध्वेतत् आरब्धकार्य-क्षये विदुषः कैवल्यम् अवश्यं भवतीति॥१९॥
And hence, the proposition, that on the dissipation of the effects of actions which have started to fructify, a wise man experiences complete identity with the supreme spirit (Kaivalya), holds perfectly good. — 19.

Su.4.2.1 Su..2

[Go top]

4.2.1 L.1 ✅ अथ अपरासु विद्यासु फल-प्राप्तये देवयानं पन्थानम् अवतारयिष्यन्
Now, (the Sūtra-kāra) wishing to lead a man to the path of the Gods (Devāyana) for the attainment by him of the fruit of the lower kind of Vidyā,

4.2.1 L.2 ✅ प्रथमं तावत् यथाशास्त्रम् उत्क्रान्तिक्रमम् अन्वाचष्टे;
To begin with, speaks about the order of the passage (of the Self, out of the body), according to the Śāstra.

4.2.1 L.3 ✅ समाना हि विद्वदविदुषोः उत्क्रान्तिरिति वक्ष्यति –
He will later on say how the passage (of the Self, out of the body) is common, both in the case of those who are equipped with knowledge and those who are ignorant of it.

---

Vāk: speech; Manasi: in the mind; Darśanāt: because it is so seen or observed, because of the scriptural declaration; Śabdāt: because of the word of the Vedas, because of the statement of the Smrti; Ca: also, and.

🔗 Vāk i.e. Speech (merges) into the Mind (Manas), because it is so seen and also because of the Scriptural statement. — 4.2.1.

4.2.1 L.4 ✅ अस्ति प्रायणविषया श्रुतिः –
There is the following Scriptural statement with regard to the subject of death —

4.2.1 L.5 ✅ ‘अस्य सोम्य पुरुषस्य प्रयतो वाङ्मनसि सम्पद्यते मनः प्राणे प्राणस्तेजसि तेजः परस्यां देवतायाम्’ (ChanU.6.8.6) इति।
“Oh gentle one, when a man is dying, Speech (Vāk) merges into the Manas, the Manas into Prāṇa, the Prāṇa into Tejas, and Tejas into the Highest deity” (ChanU.6.8.6).

4.2.1 L.6 ✅ किमिह वाच एव वृत्तिमत्त्या मनसि सम्पत्तिरुच्यते,
उत वाग्वृत्तेरिति विशयः।
Here, the doubt is, whether the Scriptural passage speaks of the merger of speech (Vāk) itself along with its mode or function, into the mind (Manas),
Or whether it speaks of the merger of only the mode or function (of speech).

4.2.1 L.7 ✅ तत्र वागेव तावत् मनसि सम्पद्यत इति प्राप्तम्;
With regard to that the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), is, that it is speech (Vāk) itself, that merges into the mind.

4.2.1 L.8 ✅ तथा हि श्रुतिरनुगृहीता भवति;
It would be only thus that the proper meaning of the Scriptural passage will be brought out,

4.2.1 L.9 ✅ इतरथा लक्षणा स्यात्;
Otherwise a Lakṣaṇa (implication) would result.

4.2.1 L.10 ✅ श्रुतिलक्षणाविशये च श्रुतिर्न्याय्या, न लक्षणा;
Whenever there is a doubt as between a Scriptural passage and a Lakṣaṇa, logically the Scriptural passage is acceptable and not a Lakṣaṇa.

4.2.1 L.11 ✅ तस्मात् वाच एव अयं मनसि प्रलय इति॥
Hence, the merger into the mind, is of speech (Vāk) itself.

4.2.1 L.12 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः – वाग्वृत्तिर्मनसि सम्पद्यत इति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply — It is the mode or the function of speech (Vāk) that merges into the mind.

4.2.1 L.13 ✅ कथं वाग्वृत्तिरिति व्याख्यायते,
(Asks the opponent of Vedānta) — How do you interpret that it is only the function of speech (Vāk) that merges,

4.2.1 L.14 ✅ यावता ‘वाङ्मनसि’ इत्येव आचार्यः पठति?
When the Scriptural passage recites that speech (Vāk) merges into the mind (Manas)?

4.2.1 L.15 ✅ सत्यमेतत्; पठिष्यति तु परस्तात् –
(We reply) — What you say is right, but the Sūtra-kāra will mention hereafter (in Sūtra 16 of this Pāda) thus:

4.2.1 L.16 ✅ ‘अविभागो वचनात्’ (BrS.4.2.16) इति;
“There is nonseparateness (Avibhāga), i.e. complete merger, because of the Scriptural statement”.

4.2.1 L.17 ✅ तस्मादत्र वृत्त्युपशममात्रं विवक्षितमिति गम्यते।
Therefore, it is understood that what is intended to be spoken of here, is merely about the cessation of the mode or function of speech (Vāk).

4.2.1 L.18 ✅ तत्त्वप्रलय-विवक्षायां तु सर्वत्रैव अविभाग-साम्यात्
Assuming, the Sūtra-kāra intended to speak about the merger of the entity (Tattva) itself (i.e. speech), then, as nonseparateness i.e. complete merger would be common (between all entities) everywhere,

4.2.1 L.19 ✅ किं परत्रैव विशिंष्यात् – ‘अविभागः’ इति;
Why would he, only at a later stage, speak of nonseparateness or complete merger of it (into a person who has attained knowledge, in Sūtra 16)?

4.2.1 L.20 ✅ तस्मादत्र वृत्त्युपसंहार-विवक्षा।
Therefore the cessation of the mode or function alone is intended to be spoken of here,

4.2.1 L.21 ✅ वाग्वृत्तिः पूर्वमुपसंह्रियते
मनोवृत्ताववस्थितायामित्यर्थः।
The meaning being, that the mode or function of speech is arrested first,
While the mode or function of the mind still continues to function.

4.2.1 L.22 ✅ कस्मात्? दर्शनात् –
Whence is it so? Because it is so seen.

4.2.1 L.23 ✅ दृश्यते हि वाग्वृत्तेः पूर्वोपसंहारो मनोवृत्तौ विद्यमानायाम्;
It is actually seen that the function of speech is arrested first, even when the function of the mind still exists.

4.2.1 L.24 ✅ न तु वाच एव वृत्तिमत्त्या मनस्युपसंहारः केनचिदपि द्रष्टुं शक्यते।
Nobody is able to observe the merger of speech itself along with its function, in the mind.

4.2.1 L.25 ✅ ननु श्रुति-सामर्थ्यात् वाच एवायं मनस्यप्ययो युक्त इत्युक्तम् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) it has been said, that on the authority of the Scriptures, it is logical that there is a merger of speech itself, into the mind.

4.2.1 L.26 ✅ नेत्याह, अतत्प्रकृतित्वात्;
We reply — No, because speech has not the mind as its cause.

4.2.1 L.27 ✅ यस्य हि यत उत्पत्तिः, तस्य तत्र प्रलयो न्याय्यः, मृदीव शरावस्य;
It is logical (to hold) that, from whatever cause any entity is created, into that, it merges, as for instance, an earthenware trough, into (its cause) the earth.

4.2.1 L.28 ✅ न च मनसो वागुत्पद्यत इति किञ्चन प्रमाणमस्ति।
There is no means-of-proof i.e. authority (for saying) that speech results from the mind.

4.2.1 L.29 ✅ वृत्त्युद्भवाभिभवौ तु अप्रकृति-समाश्रयावपि दृश्येते;
The generation and the cessation of a function, however, are seen to depend even upon what is not their cause.

4.2.1 L.30 ✅ पार्थिवेभ्यो हि इन्धनेभ्यः तैजसस्याग्नेः वृत्तिः उद्भवति, अप्सु च उपशाम्यति।
For instance, the function of fire which is of the nature of Tejas, is generated from fuel which is of the nature of the earth, while it (i.e. fire) is extinguished in water.

4.2.1 L.31 ✅ कथं तर्हि अस्मिन्पक्षे शब्दः – ‘वाङ्मनसि सम्पद्यते’ इति?
Supposing this view is correct (says the opponent of Vedānta), how is there a Scriptural statement, that “Speech merges into the Mind”?

4.2.1 L.32 ✅ अत आह – शब्दाच्चेति;
The Sūtra-kāra replies — On the authority of the Scriptures themselves.

4.2.1 L.33 ✅ शब्दोऽप्यस्मिन्पक्षेऽवकल्पते,
The meaning is that the Scriptural statement is reconcilable in favour of this view,

4.2.1 L.34 ✅ वृत्तिवृत्तिमतोः अभेदोपचारादित्यर्थः॥१॥
By metaphorically treating the function of an entity and the entity itself as being non-different. — 1.

[Go top]

---

Ataḥ eva: hence; Ca: and, also; Sarvāṇi: all (organs); Anu (Anugacchanti): after (follow).

🔗 Hence it is that all (sense-organs) follow the lead (of the mind). — 4.2.2.

4.2.2 L.1 ✅ ‘तस्मादुपशान्ततेजाः पुनर्भवमिन्द्रियैर्मनसि सम्पद्यमानैः’ (PrasU.3.9) इत्यत्र
In the Scriptural passage “Therefore when (after leaving the body) the Jīva-Self, whose lustre i.e. bodily heat (Tejas) has cooled off, (goes) to a rebirth (through death which is then imminent) along with the sense-organs that have become one with the mind” (PrasU.3.9),

4.2.2 L.2 ✅ अविशेषेण सर्वेषामेवेन्द्रियाणां मनसि सम्पत्तिः श्रूयते;
The Scriptures have mentioned the absorption of all sense-organs generally, into the mind.

4.2.2 L.3 ✅ तत्रापि अत एव वाच इव चक्षुरादीनामपि सवृत्तिके मनस्यवस्थिते वृत्तिलोप-दर्शनात्
Here it is to be seen from this Scriptural passage, that, for this very reason, viz., that just as speech by way of its mode or function becomes one with the mind, even so, the mode or functions of the eye etc. also merge into the mind which along with its mode or function is still in existence,

4.2.2 L.4 ✅ तत्त्व-प्रलयासम्भवात्
शब्दोपपत्तेश्च वृत्तिद्वारेणैव
सर्वाणीन्द्रियाणि मनोऽनुवर्तन्ते।
And, as it is possible to construe the word ‘sense-organ’ occurring in the Scriptures as meaning its function,
And as the complete absorption of the sense-organ as such (Tattva) is not possible,
The Scriptures mean to say that it is only through the merger of their modes or functions that the sense-organs are understood to become one with the mind.

4.2.2 L.5 ✅ सर्वेषां करणानां मनस्युपसंहाराविशेषे सति
Now, when the absorption of all the sense-organs generally (by way of their mode or function) into the mind, is being intended to be spoken of by the Scriptures,

4.2.2 L.6 ✅ वाचः पृथग्ग्रहणम् ‘वाङ्मनसि सम्पद्यते’ इत्युदाहरणानुरोधेन॥२॥
The special mention of speech (Vāk), the organ of speech (in the Sūtra) is in accordance with the particular instance from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad — “Speech becomes one with the Mind”. — 2.

[Go top]

---

Tat: that; Manaḥ: mind; Prāṇe: in the Prāṇa; Uttarāt: from the subsequent clause (of the Śruti).

🔗 It is understood from, the following (sentence) that, Mind (merges) into Prāṇa (by way of its function or mode). — 4.2.3.

4.2.3 L.1 ✅ समधिगतमेतत् – ‘वाङ्मनसि सम्पद्यते’ (ChanU.6.8.6) इत्यत्र
वृत्तिसम्पत्ति-विवक्षेति;
By the Scriptural passage “Speech merges into the Mind” (ChanU.6.8.6),
It is meant to be spoken here, that it is the mode or function (of speech) that merges, is understood.

4.2.3 L.2 ✅ अथ यदुत्तरं वाक्यम् ‘मनः प्राणे’ (ChanU.6.8.6) इति,
As regards the next sentence — “Mind merges into Prāṇa” (ChanU.6.8.6) —

4.2.3 L.3 ✅ किमत्रापि वृत्ति-सम्पत्तिः एव विवक्ष्यते,
उत वृत्तिमत्सम्पत्तिः –
इति विचिकित्सायाम्,
When it is considered,
As to whether it is intended to be told, that here also, there is merging of the mode or function only,
Or whether there is merging of that to which the mode or function belongs (i.e. the entity, the sense-organ mind) along with its mode or function,

4.2.3 L.4 ✅ वृत्तिमत्सम्पत्तिरेव अत्र इति प्राप्तम्,
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that it is the merging of the mind along with its mode or function, that is meant to be spoken of here.

4.2.3 L.5 ✅ श्रुत्यनुग्रहात्; तत्प्रकृतित्वोपपत्तेश्च;
Because the Scriptures favour the view, and it is reasonably sustainable, that the mind has Prāṇa as its material cause.

4.2.3 L.6 ✅ तथा हि – ‘अन्नमयꣳ हि सोम्य मन आपोमयः प्राणः’ (ChanU.6.5.4) इति
अन्नयोनि मन आमनन्ति, अब्योनिं च प्राणम्;
For the Scriptural passage “Oh gentle one, mind has the structure of the earth, and the Prāṇa has the structure of water” (ChanU.6.5.4)
Declares, that the earth is the cause of the mind, and water is the cause of the Prāṇa,

4.2.3 L.7 ✅ ‘आपश्चान्नमसृजन्त’ – इति श्रुतिः।
And that “the Āpas (i.e. waters) created the earth” (ChanU.6.2.4).

4.2.3 L.8 ✅ अतश्च यन्मनः प्राणे प्रलीयते, अन्नमेव तदप्सु प्रलीयते;
Hence when the mind therefore merges into Prāṇa, it is in fact the earth that merges in water,

4.2.3 L.9 ✅ अन्नं हि मनः, आपश्च प्राणः, प्रकृतिविकाराभेदादिति।
For mind in fact is the earth and the Prāṇa is water, because, there is non-difference between the cause and the effect.

4.2.3 L.10 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply —

4.2.3 L.11 ✅ तदपि आगृहीत-बाह्येन्द्रिय-वृत्ति मनो वृत्तिद्वारेणैव प्राणे प्रलीयत इति
उत्तराद्वाक्याद् अवगन्तव्यम्;
It should be understood from the next sentence,
That it is by way of its mode or function only, that the mind, after having absorbed into itself the modes or functions of the external organs-of-sense merges into Prāṇa,

4.2.3 L.12 ✅ तथा हि सुषुप्सोर्मुमूर्षोश्च प्राणवृत्तौ परिस्पन्दात्मिकायाम् अवस्थितायाम्, मनोवृत्तीनामुपशमो दृश्यते;
Because it is seen, that in the case of a man in deep sleep or a man dying, there is a cessation of the function of the mind, while the respiratory function of the Prāṇa still continues.

4.2.3 L.13 ✅ न च मनसः स्वरूपाप्ययः प्राणे सम्भवति;
Again the merger of the mind (itself i.e. in its own nature) into Prāṇa is not possible,

4.2.3 L.14 ✅ अतत्प्रकृतित्वात्।
Because mind has not Prāṇa as its material cause (Atat-prakṛtitvāt).

4.2.3 L.15 ✅ ननु दर्शितं मनसः प्राणप्रकृतित्वम् –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), it has been shown that the mind has Prāṇa as its material cause.

4.2.3 L.16 ✅ नैतत्सारम्;
(We reply) — This is not quite right.

4.2.3 L.17 ✅ न हि ईदृशेन प्राणाडिकेन तत्प्रकृतित्वेन
मनः प्राणे सम्पत्तुम् अर्हति;
Mind does not deserve to merge into Prāṇa,
By maintaining by way of such ratiocination (viz. that mind is earth, Prāṇa is water, and the earth originates from water) that mind has Prāṇa as its material cause.

4.2.3 L.18 ✅ एवमपि हि अन्ने मनः सम्पद्येत, अप्सु चान्नम्, अप्स्वेव च प्राणः;
Even accepting this view, mind will be absorbed into the earth, and the earth into water, and Prāṇa also into water.

4.2.3 L.19 ✅ न ह्येतस्मिन्नपि पक्षे प्राणभाव-परिणताभ्योऽद्भ्यो मनो जायत इति किञ्चन प्रमाणम् अस्ति;
Besides, even in this view there is no authority for the statement that mind has its origin in water which has modified itself into Prāṇa.

4.2.3 L.20 ✅ तस्मात् न मनसः प्राणे स्वरूपाप्ययः।
Therefore, mind itself (with its own nature) is not absorbed into Prāṇa.

4.2.3 L.21 ✅ वृत्त्यप्ययेऽपि तु शब्दोऽवकल्पते,
वृत्तिवृत्तिमतोः अभेदोपचारात्
इति दर्शितम्॥३॥
It has been shown (already) that
Even the Scriptural statement as it is, holds good, even if only the mode or function (of the mind) is understood to be absorbed,
By metaphorically holding a mode or function (of an entity) and the entity to which such function belongs, as being non-different. — 3.

Su.4.2.4 Su..5 Su..6

[Go top]

---

Saḥ: that (Prāṇa); Adhyakṣe: in the ruler (the Jīva); Tad-upagama-ādibhyaḥ: on account of the (statements as to the Prāṇas) coming to it and so on.

🔗 The Prāṇa (vital breath) merges into the presiding entity (Adhyakṣa i.e. the Jīva-Self) because of its reaching the Jīva-Self, the presiding entity (Adhyakṣa). — 4.2.4.

4.2.4 L.1 ✅ स्थितमेतत् – यस्य यतो नोत्पत्तिः, तस्य तस्मिन्वृत्ति-प्रलयः, न स्वरूपप्रलय इति;
It has thus been established, that there is merger of merely the mode or function of an entity and not of the entity itself into another entity, from which the former entity has not had its origin.

4.2.4 L.2 ✅ इदमिदानीम् ‘प्राणस्तेजसि’ इत्यत्र चिन्त्यते –
Now, with regard to the Scriptural statement, “Prāṇa (merges) into Tejas”, it is being considered

4.2.4 L.3 ✅ किं यथाश्रुति प्राणस्य तेजस्येव वृत्त्युपसंहारः,
Whether, as stated by the Scriptures, this merging of the mode or function of Prāṇa, is into the Tejas only,

4.2.4 L.4 ✅ किं वा देहेन्द्रियपञ्जराध्यक्षे जीव इति।
Or it is into the Jīva-Self, the entity presiding over the bodily cage.

4.2.4 L.5 ✅ तत्र श्रुतेरनतिशङ्क्यत्वात् प्राणस्य तेजस्येव सम्पत्तिः स्यात्,
With regard to that, the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that, as the Scriptures are above being doubted (Anatiśaṅkyatvāt), the merging of Prāṇa must be into Tejas,

4.2.4 L.6 ✅ अश्रुतकल्पनाया अन्याय्यत्वात् –
Because the assumption of anything that is not stated by the Scriptures is not logical.

4.2.4 L.7 ✅ इत्येवं प्राप्ते प्रतिपद्यते – सोऽध्यक्ष इति।
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), the Sūtra-kāra explains — The Prāṇa merges into the presiding entity (the Jīva-Self).

4.2.4 L.8 ✅ स प्रकृतः प्राणः, अध्यक्षे अविद्या-कर्म-पूर्वप्रज्ञोपाधिके विज्ञानात्मनि अवतिष्ठते;
The Prāṇa which is relevant (to the present discussion) subsists in the Jīva-Self i.e. the Cognitional Self, which is the presiding entity, having Nescience (Avidyā), action (Karma), and consciousness of the former birth (Pūrva-prajñā) as its limiting adjuncts.

4.2.4 L.9 ✅ तत्प्रधाना प्राणवृत्तिः भवतीत्यर्थः।
The meaning is that the function of Prāṇa has mainly that Jīva-Self as its basis (of operation).

4.2.4 L.10 ✅ कुतः? तदुपगमादिभ्यः –
Whence is it so? Because it is understood, that they (i.e. the Prāṇas i.e. sense-organs which have merged in the Prāṇa, the vital breath) reach the Self.

4.2.4 L.11 ✅ ‘एवमेवेममात्मानमन्तकाले सर्वे प्राणा अभिसमायन्ति यत्रैतदूर्ध्वोच्छ्वासी भवति’ इति हि
The Scriptural passage “Just in this way do all the Prāṇas gather round the Self at the time of death, when man reaches the final gasping stage” (BrhU.4.3.38),

4.2.4 L.12 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तरम् अध्यक्षोपगामिनः सर्वान्प्राणान् अविशेषेण दर्शयति;
Says so, commonly, of all Prāṇas in general, and a Scriptural passage elsewhere indicates, how all the Prāṇas approach the presiding entity,

4.2.4 L.13 ✅ विशेषेण च ‘तमुत्क्रामन्तं प्राणोऽनूत्क्रामति’ (BrhU.4.4.2) इति
And the Scriptures indicate in particular by the passage “When the Self goes out of the body, all the Prāṇas (i.e. sense-organs) follow the Self”,

4.2.4 L.14 ✅ पञ्चवृत्तेः प्राणस्य अध्यक्षानुगामितां दर्शयति,
As to how the Prāṇa of the five-fold modes or functions (i.e. of Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna) follows the presiding entity (i.e. the Jīva-Self),

4.2.4 L.15 ✅ तदनुवृत्तितां च इतरेषाम्
‘प्राणमनूत्क्रामन्तꣳ सर्वे प्राणा अनूत्क्रामन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.2) इति;
And the Scriptural statement “When Prāṇa sets forth out of the body, all the Prāṇas, (i.e. sense-organs) follow that Prāṇa (i.e. vital breath)” (BrhU.4.4.2),
Indicates how the other Prāṇas follow in the wake of the Prāṇa of the five-fold modes or functions.

4.2.4 L.16 ✅ ‘सविज्ञानो भवति’ इति च
And the Scriptural statement “He becomes equipped with special cognition” (by way of being equipped with the sense-organs)

4.2.4 L.17 ✅ अध्यक्षस्य अन्तर्विज्ञानवत्त्व-प्रदर्शनेन
Demonstrates how the presiding entity becomes possessed of internal consciousness (Antar-vijñānatva),

4.2.4 L.18 ✅ तस्मिन् अपीतकरण-ग्रामस्य प्राणस्य अवस्थानं गमयति।
And makes it understood that the Prāṇa (i.e. vital breath) in whom the aggregate of all the other sense-organs has merged, subsists in it (i.e. in the presiding entity i.e. the Jīva-Self).

4.2.4 L.19 ✅ ननु ‘प्राणस्तेजसि’ इति श्रूयते;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), the Scriptural passage declares that Prāṇa merges into Tejas.

4.2.4 L.20 ✅ कथं प्राणोऽध्यक्षे इत्यधिकावापः क्रियते?
How then do you go further and accept in addition that the Prāṇa merges into the presiding entity?

4.2.4 L.21 ✅ नैष दोषः, अध्यक्ष-प्रधानत्वाद् उत्क्रमणादि-व्यवहारस्य,
(We reply) — This is no fault, because, with regard to this business of the exodus from the body (Utkrānti), as the presiding entity (the Jīva-Self) is the main entity that is concerned in it,

4.2.4 L.22 ✅ श्रुत्यन्तर-गतस्यापि च विशेषस्यापेक्षणीयत्वात्॥४॥
Any special circumstances mentioned in other Scriptural passages, ought to be given due regard to. — 4.

[Go top]

4.2.5 L.1 ✅ कथं तर्हि ‘प्राणस्तेजसि’ इति श्रुतिरिति
The doubt here is as to how the Scriptural statement “The Prāṇa merges into Tejas” is to be explained.

4.2.5 L.2 ✅ अत आह –
The Sūtra-kāra replies: —

---

Bhūteṣu: in the elements; Tat-Śruteḥ: as that can be understood from Śruti, from the Śruti texts to that effect, there being a Vedic statement about that.

🔗 (The presiding entity along with Prāṇa) resides in the (subtle) elements, because the Scriptures declare to that effect. — 4.2.5.

4.2.5 L.3 ✅ स प्राण-सम्पृक्तोऽध्यक्षः तेजःसहचरितेषु भूतेषु देहबीज-भूतेषु सूक्ष्मेषु अवतिष्ठत इत्यवगन्तव्यम्,
It should be understood that the presiding entity which is in conjunction with Prāṇa, resides in the subtle elements, which are the associates of Tejas and which are the seeds of the body,

4.2.5 L.4 ✅ ‘प्राणस्तेजसि’ इति श्रुतेः।
Because of the Scriptural statement — “Prāṇa (merges) into Tejas”.

4.2.5 L.5 ✅ ननु च इयं श्रुतिः प्राणस्य तेजसि स्थितिं दर्शयति,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) this Scriptural statement indicates the residing of Prāṇa in the Tejas,

4.2.5 L.6 ✅ न प्राणसम्पृक्तस्याध्यक्षस्य –
And it does not say that the presiding entity having Prāṇa in conjunction resides in the Tejas?

4.2.5 L.7 ✅ नैष दोषः, सोऽध्यक्षे – इति
अध्यक्षस्याप्यन्तराल उपसंख्यातत्वात्;
(We reply) — This is no fault. Because, by the preceding Sūtra, which says — “Prāṇa (merges) into the presiding entity”,
(It should be understood that) the presiding entity has been enumerated by the Scriptures as coming in between (Antar-āla) the Prāṇa and the Tejas.

4.2.5 L.8 ✅ योऽपि हि स्रुघ्नान्मथुरां गत्वा मथुरायाः पाटलिपुत्रं व्रजति, सोऽपि स्रुघ्नात् पाटलिपुत्रं यातीति शक्यते वदितुम्;
It is possible to say of a man, who, after going to Mathurā from Srughna proceeds from Mathurā to Pāṭali-putra, that he goes from Srughna to Pāṭali-putra.

4.2.5 L.9 ✅ तस्मात् ‘प्राणस्तेजसि’ इति
Therefore, by the Scriptural passage “Prāṇa (merges) into Tejas”,

4.2.5 L.10 ✅ प्राण-सम्पृक्तस्याध्यक्षस्यैव एतत् तेजः-सहचरितेषु भूतेष्ववस्थानम्॥५॥
It is precisely the residing of the presiding entity in conjunction with Prāṇa, in the subtle elements which are the associates of Tejas, that is meant. — 5.

[Go top]

4.2.6 L.1 ✅ कथं तेजःसहचरितेषु भूतेष्वित्युच्यते,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) how could it be said that the presiding entity resides in the elements which are the associates of Tejas,

4.2.6 L.2 ✅ यावता एकमेव तेजः श्रूयते – ‘प्राणस्तेजसि’ इति?
When the Scriptures speak only of one element viz. the Tejas, thus — “Prāṇa (merges) into Tejas”?

4.2.6 L.3 ✅ अत आह –
The Sūtra-kāra replies: —

---

Na: not; Ekasmin: in one; Darśayataḥ: (both the Śruti and Smṛti) declare so, both the Śruti and Smṛti show; Hi: as, for, because.

🔗 But the Jīva-Self does not reside in one (element i.e. Tejas) only, because (the Scriptures and Smṛtis) both indicate this. — 4.2.6.

4.2.6 L.4 ✅ न एकस्मिन्नेव तेजसि शरीरान्तर-प्रेप्सावेलायां जीवोऽवतिष्ठते,
The Jīva-Self, at the time of entering into another body, does not happen to reside in Tejas only,

4.2.6 L.5 ✅ कार्यस्य शरीरस्यानेकात्मकत्व-दर्शनात्।
Because the gross physical body, which is the effect (of the subtle body), is seen to be composed of many (elements).

4.2.6 L.6 ✅ दर्शयतश्च एतमर्थं प्रश्न-प्रतिवचने ‘आपः पुरुषवचसः’ (ChanU.5.3.3) इति;
The same meaning is conveyed by the passage in the form of a question and answer, thus — “(Do you know) how Āpaḥ (during the fifth oblation) attain the name of a Puruṣa (man)?” (ChanU.5.3.3).

4.2.6 L.7 ✅ तद्व्याख्यातम् ‘त्र्यात्मकत्वात्तु भूयस्त्वात्’ (BrS.3.1.2) इत्यत्र।
This has been explained thus — “Because (Āpaḥ) has a triple composition (of elements), (but Āpaḥ is particularly mentioned) because of its preponderance” (BrSEng.3.1.2).

4.2.6 L.8 ✅ श्रुतिस्मृती च एतमर्थं दर्शयतः;
Both the Scriptures and Smṛtis indicate the same thing.

4.2.6 L.9 ✅ श्रुतिः – ‘पृथ्वीमय आपोमयो वायुमय आकाशमयस्तेजोमयः’ इत्याद्या;
The Scriptures say thus — “(This Self) has the structure of Earth, Water, Vāyu, Ākāśa and Tejas” (BrhU.4.4.5).

4.2.6 L.10 ✅ स्मृतिरपि – ‘अण्व्यो मात्राऽविनाशिन्यो दशार्धानां तु याः स्मृताः। ताभिः सार्धमिदं सर्वं सम्भवत्यनुपूर्वशः’ इत्याद्या।
The Smṛti says thus — Along with the subtle and indestructible minute parts of the five (lit., half of ten) elements, all this world is born, as of yore.

4.2.6 L.11 ✅ ननु च उपसंहृतेषु वागादिषु करणेषु शरीरान्तरप्रेप्सावेलायाम्
‘क्वायं तदा पुरुषो भवति’ (BrhU.3.2.13) इत्युपक्रम्य
श्रुत्यन्तरं कर्माश्रयतां निरूपयति –
‘तौ ह यदूचतुः कर्म हैव तदूचतुरथ ह यत्प्रशशꣳसतुः कर्म हैव तत्प्रशशꣳसतुः’ (BrhU.3.2.13) इति;
But (says the opponent of Vedānta) beginning with the Scriptural passage “Where, at that time, does the Puruṣa happen to be?”,
The subsequent Scriptural passage “What these two (viz. Yājña-valkya and Ārta-bhāga) spoke about was but Karma (action), what they praised (as being the material cause of the world) was but Karma (action)” (BrhU.3.2.13),
Explains, how, when all the sense-organs such as speech etc. become merged, at the time of the Self’s going away to another body,
It is but Karma on which the Self depends.

4.2.6 L.12 ✅ अत्रोच्यते –
The Sūtra-kāra says with regard to this —

4.2.6 L.13 ✅ तत्र कर्म-प्रयुक्तस्य ग्रहातिग्रह-संज्ञकस्य इन्द्रियविषयात्मकस्य बन्धनस्य प्रवृत्तिः
इति कर्माश्रयतोक्ता;
There, what is intended to be spoken of as (the Self’s) dependence on Karma (action),
Is the bringing about of the bondage (of the Self) by the tendency of sense-organs and sense-objects termed as Graha and Atigraha respectively, which is promoted by Karma (action).

4.2.6 L.14 ✅ इह पुनः भूतोपादानाद्देहान्तरोत्पत्तिः
इति भूताश्रयत्वमुक्तम्;
Here, on the other hand, what is spoken of as the dependence (of the Self) on the elements,
Is because of the desire to speak of the generation of another body, out of the elements, as its material cause.

4.2.6 L.15 ✅ प्रशंसाशब्दादपि तत्र प्राधान्यमात्रं कर्मणः प्रदर्शितम्,
Besides by the use of the word “praise” (Praśaṃsā), what is indicated is, that action is of the chiefest importance,

4.2.6 L.16 ✅ न त्वाश्रयान्तरं निवारितम्;
And not, that the dependence (of the Self) on another entity, is excluded.

4.2.6 L.17 ✅ तस्मादविरोधः॥६॥
Therefore, there is no contradiction (in those two passages). — 6.

[Go top]

---

Samānā: common; Ca: and; Ā-sṛti-upakramāt: up to the beginning of their ways; A-mṛtatvam: immortality; Ca: and; An-upoṣya: without burning, without dissolution.

🔗 (This going out of the body) is common (to both the learned and the ignorant), up to the beginning of the Path. (This) immortality is of those who have not completely destroyed their afflictions (such as Avidyā etc.). — 4.2.7.

4.2.7 L.1 ✅ सेयमुत्क्रान्तिः किं विद्वदविदुषोः समाना,
With regard to those who entertain a doubt, as to whether this going out (of the body) is common both to the learned and the ignorant,

4.2.7 L.2 ✅ किं वा विशेषवती –
Or whether, there is any distinctive peculiarity about it, (and that it applies only to the ignorant),

4.2.7 L.3 ✅ इति विशयानानां विशेषवतीति तावत्प्राप्तम्।
The conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is that there is such distinctive peculiarity (i.e. it is applicable to only one of the two).

4.2.7 L.4 ✅ भूताश्रयविशिष्टा ह्येषा;
It relates to the Jīva-Self which depends on the subtle elements.

4.2.7 L.5 ✅ पुनर्भवाय च भूतान्याश्रीयन्ते;
It is for rebirth that these subtle elements are resorted to (by the Jīva-Self).

4.2.7 L.6 ✅ न च विदुषः पुनर्भवः सम्भवति;
Rebirth is not possible in the case of the learned,

4.2.7 L.7 ✅ अमृतत्वं हि विद्वानश्नुते – इति स्थितिः;
Because it is a firmly established conclusion that no rebirth is possible for a learned man and that he attains immortality.

4.2.7 L.8 ✅ तस्मादविदुष एव एषा उत्क्रान्तिः।
Therefore, this manner of going out (of the body) is only for the ignorant.

4.2.7 L.9 ✅ ननु विद्या-प्रकरणे समाम्नानात्
But (says the Vedāntin) — As this going out is mentioned (in the Scriptures) in the chapter dealing with the knowledge of the Self i.e. Ātmā-Vidyā (in Chāndogya 6.8),

4.2.7 L.10 ✅ विदुष एव एषा भवेत् –
This going out may be only in the case of the learned.

4.2.7 L.11 ✅ न, स्वापादिवत् यथाप्राप्तानुकीर्तनात्;
(The opponent of Vedānta replies) — No, like sleep etc. it is only referred to as a thing already established (by other means-of-proof) elsewhere before.

4.2.7 L.12 ✅ यथा हि ‘यत्रैतत्पुरुषः स्वपिति नाम’ (ChanU.6.8.1), ‘अशिशिषति नाम’ (ChanU.6.8.3), ‘पिपासति नाम’ (ChanU.6.8.5) इति च
Similarly, just as elsewhere in Scriptural passages, such as “When a man indeed desires to sleep, or desires to eat or desires to drink” (ChanU.6.8.1-5.3.5),

4.2.7 L.13 ✅ सर्वप्राणि-साधारणा एव स्वापादयोऽनुकीर्त्यन्ते विद्या-प्रकरणेऽपि
Sleep etc., which are common to all beings generally, are referred to even in the chapter dealing with the knowledge of the Self,

4.2.7 L.14 ✅ प्रतिपिपादयिषितवस्तु-प्रतिपादनानुगुण्येन,
As being best calculated to explain the thing desired to be explained,

4.2.7 L.15 ✅ न तु विदुषो विशेषवन्तो विधित्स्यन्ते;
And the Scriptures there, do not particularly purport to enjoin them on the learned,

4.2.7 L.16 ✅ एवम् इयमपि उत्क्रान्तिः महाजनगतैवानुकीर्त्यते,
Even so, this going out of the body which applies in the case of the people in general is here spoken of in a general way only,

4.2.7 L.17 ✅ यस्यां परस्यां देवतायां पुरुषस्य प्रयतः तेजः सम्पद्यते स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि – इत्येतत्प्रतिपादयितुम्।
With a view to propound, thus — “That Highest Deity in which the Tejas of the man about to die, merges, is the Ātmā (i.e. the Highest Self), and, that Self thou art”.

4.2.7 L.18 ✅ प्रतिषिद्धा च एषा विदुषः –
This manner of going out is denied in the case of the learned man,

4.2.7 L.19 ✅ ‘न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इति।
On the authority of the Scriptural passage “His Prāṇas do not depart” (BrhU.4.4.6).

4.2.7 L.20 ✅ तस्मात् अविदुष एवैषेति॥
Therefore, this (going out of the body) is applicable only in the case of the ignorant.

4.2.7 L.21 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः –
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply —

4.2.7 L.22 ✅ समाना चैषा उत्क्रान्तिः ‘वाङ्मनसि’ इत्याद्या
This going out of the body, beginning with the Scriptural statement, that “Speech (merges) into the Mind” etc.,

4.2.7 L.23 ✅ विद्वदविदुषोः आसृत्युपक्रमात् भवितुमर्हति,
Deserves to be common to both the learned as well as the ignorant up to the beginning of the Path,

4.2.7 L.24 ✅ अविशेषश्रवणात्;
Because nothing special in particular is mentioned by the Scriptures about it.

4.2.7 L.25 ✅ अविद्वान् देहबीजभूतानि भूतसूक्ष्माण्याश्रित्य
The ignorant person (by which, his Self is meant) after resorting to the subtle elements which form the seeds of the body,

4.2.7 L.26 ✅ कर्मप्रयुक्तो देहग्रहणम् अनुभवन् संसरति,
And being impelled by (his) Karma, goes out for experiencing the acquisition of a body,

4.2.7 L.27 ✅ विद्वांस्तु ज्ञानप्रकाशितं मोक्षनाडी-द्वारम् आश्रयते –
And the learned man on the other hand resorts to the Nāḍī which is the way to Mokṣa (i.e. Final Release) and which is illuminated by knowledge.

4.2.7 L.28 ✅ तदेतत् ‘आसृत्युपक्रमात्’ इत्युक्तम्।
The same is expressed (in the Sūtra), by “Upto the beginning of the path”.

4.2.7 L.29 ✅ ननु अमृतत्वं विदुषा प्राप्तव्यम्,
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), it is immortality which a learned man aims to attain

4.2.7 L.30 ✅ न च तद्देशान्तरायत्तम्,
And that does not depend upon (a man’s going) from one place to another, (i.e. it does hot involve any movement),

4.2.7 L.31 ✅ तत्र कुतो भूताश्रयत्वं सृत्युपक्रमो वेति –
So how can there ever be any such resort to subtle elements or any such going up to the Path (in his case)?

4.2.7 L.32 ✅ अत्रोच्यते – अनुपोष्य च, इदम्, अदग्ध्वा अत्यन्तम् अविद्यादीन् क्लेशान्,
To that (we reply) — This is for those who have not had their afflictions (i.e. Avidyā) destroyed (Anupoṣya).

4.2.7 L.33 ✅ अपरविद्या-सामर्थ्यात् आपेक्षिकम् अमृतत्वं प्रेप्सते सम्भवति
Where a man desires to obtain only a relative immortality on the strength of the Vidyā of qualified Brahman, without having got rid of afflictions such as Nescience etc.,

4.2.7 L.34 ✅ तत्र सृत्युपक्रमः भूताश्रयत्वं च –
There, in their case, the beginning of the Path and a resort to subtle elements is possible,

4.2.7 L.35 ✅ न हि निराश्रयाणां प्राणानां गतिरुपपद्यते;
Because, it is not reasonably sustainable, that any movement (towards Final Release) could be possible in the case of Prāṇas which have not resorted to any such subtle elements.

4.2.7 L.36 ✅ तस्माददोषः॥७॥
Therefore, there is no fault (of any kind here). — 7.

Su.4.2.8 Su..9 Su..10 Su..11

[Go top]

---

Tad: that, aggregate of the elements, the sum total of the subtle elements; Ā-apīteḥ: till the attainment of Brahman (through knowledge); Saṃsāra-vyapadeśāt: because (scriptures) declare the state of relative existence.

🔗 That (i.e. Tejas) subsists upto the time of complete merging (Pralaya), because there is reference to transmigratory existence till that time (in the Scriptures). — 4.2.8.

4.2.8 L.1 ✅ ‘तेजः परस्यां देवतायाम्’ (ChanU.6.8.6) इत्यत्र प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात्
तत् यथा प्रकृतं तेजः साध्यक्षं
सप्राणं सकरणग्रामं भूतान्तरसहितं प्रयतः पुंसः परस्यां देवतायां सम्पद्यत इत्येतदुक्तं भवति;
That the Scriptural passage “The Tejas (merges) into the transcendent deity (i.e. Brahman)”
Means that the Tejas of the person dying, which is the subject matter of the context here, along with the presiding entity,
Prāṇa, the set of sense-organs, and other elements, merges completely into the transcendent deity, has been stated on the authority of the Scriptural chapter.

4.2.8 L.2 ✅ कीदृशी पुनरियं सम्पत्तिः स्यादिति चिन्त्यते।
Of what nature, however, can this merger (i.e. Sampatti into Brahman) be, is being considered now.

4.2.8 L.3 ✅ तत्र आत्यन्तिक एव तावत् स्वरूपप्रविलय इति प्राप्तम्,
With regard to this the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) is, that this merging of the Tejas (i.e. of its own nature) is a total merging (into the transcendent deity),

4.2.8 L.4 ✅ तत्प्रकृतित्वोपपत्तेः;
Because, that it has that (i.e. the transcendent deity) as its own cause, is reasonably sustainable.

4.2.8 L.5 ✅ सर्वस्य हि जनिमतो वस्तुजातस्य प्रकृतिः परा देवतेति प्रतिष्ठापितम्;
It has been established, that the Highest deity (Brahman) is the material cause (Prakṛti i.e. Upādāna cause) of the entire set of entities liable to be created,

4.2.8 L.6 ✅ तस्मात् आत्यन्तिकी इयमविभागापत्तिरिति।
And hence this attainment (by an entity) of this condition of non-separation (with its material cause), is therefore absolute and complete.

4.2.8 L.7 ✅ एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः – तत् तेजआदि भूतसूक्ष्मं श्रोत्रादिकरणाश्रयभूतम्
This being the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta), we reply – These subtle elements, Tejas etc., which form the substratum of all sense-organs, such as the sense-organ of hearing etc.,

4.2.8 L.8 ✅ आपीतेः आसंसारमोक्षात् सम्यग्ज्ञाननिमित्तात् अवतिष्ठते –
Subsist upto the time of merging i.e. upto the time of this Final Release from transmigratory existence resulting from correct i.e. perfect knowledge,

4.2.8 L.9 ✅ ‘योनिमन्ये प्रपद्यन्ते शरीरत्वाय देहिनः। स्थाणुमन्येऽनुसंयन्ति यथाकर्म यथाश्रुतम्’ (KathU.2.2.7) इत्यादिसंसार-व्यपदेशात्;
Because, the following Scriptural passage, viz. “Some enter into the species (Yoni) of beings which have a body, for the purpose of acquiring such a body, and others acquire existence as inanimate (rather as, ‘stationary’, like plant) things, according to what their actions are, and what they know” (KathU.2.2.7), indicates such transmigratory existence (in the case of the ignorant),

4.2.8 L.10 ✅ अन्यथा हि सर्वः प्रायणसमय एव उपाधिप्रत्यस्तमयादत्यन्तं ब्रह्म सम्पद्येत,
Because otherwise, every one would attain absolute Brahman by the mere extinction of all limiting adjuncts, just at the moment of death.

4.2.8 L.11 ✅ तत्र विधिशास्त्रमनर्थकं स्यात्, विद्या-शास्त्रं च;
In that case both the Śāstra which gives injunctions, as also the Śāstra of correct i.e. perfect knowledge, would be rendered meaningless.

4.2.8 L.12 ✅ मिथ्याज्ञान-निमित्तश्च बन्धो न सम्यग्ज्ञानादृते विस्रंसितुमर्हति;
Bondage, of which false-knowledge is the cause, does not deserve to be dissolved, except through correct i.e. perfect knowledge.

4.2.8 L.13 ✅ तस्मात् तत्प्रकृतित्वेऽपि सुषुप्ति-प्रलयवत्
बीजभावावशेषैव एषा सत्-सम्पत्तिरिति॥८॥
Therefore, even though it (i.e. Brahman) is the cause (of all the subtle elements) this merging into Sat (i.e. supreme being) is — as in the case of deep sleep and the great absorption (Pralaya) —
Only in such a way that they (i.e. the Jīva-Self, Prāṇa, the set of sense-organs and the subtle elements) still continue to exist in a seed form. — 8.

[Go top]

---

Sūkṣmam: subtle; Pramāṇataḥ: as regards size; Ca: and; Tathā: thus, so; Upalabdheḥ: because it is experienced, it being observed.

🔗 (This Tejas) is subtle in its nature and in its size, because it is seen to be so. — 4.2.9.

4.2.9 L.1 ✅ तच्च इतरभूतसहितं तेजो जीवस्य अस्माच्छरीरात् प्रवसत आश्रयभूतं स्वरूपतः परिमाणतश्च सूक्ष्मं भवितुमर्हति।
This Tejas (of a person) which, along with the other subtle elements, is resorted to by the Jīva-Self as it goes out of the body, deserves to be subtle by itself (in its own nature and size).

4.2.9 L.2 ✅ तथा हि नाडी-निष्क्रमणश्रवणादिभ्योऽस्य सौक्ष्म्यमुपलभ्यते।
Its subtle nature is also understood from the Scriptural declaration about its passage through the Nāḍīs etc.,

4.2.9 L.3 ✅ तत्र तनुत्वात् सञ्चारोपपत्तिः;
And its rarefied fineness (Tanutva) makes its movement reasonably sustainable,

4.2.9 L.4 ✅ स्वच्छत्वाच्च अप्रतिघातोपपत्तिः;
And its freedom from obstruction is made reasonably sustainable by reason of its pristine purity,

4.2.9 L.5 ✅ अत एव च देहान्निर्गच्छत् पार्श्वस्थैर्नोपलभ्यते॥९॥
And hence it is, precisely, that it is not perceived by persons round about (a person dying) as it goes out of the body. — 9.

[Go top]

---

Na: not; Upamardena: by the destruction; Ataḥ: therefore, because of this reason.

🔗 Hence it is that (the subtle body is not destroyed) on the destruction of the gross body. — 4.2.10.

4.2.10 L.1 ✅ अत एव च सूक्ष्मत्वात् नास्य स्थूलस्य शरीरस्योपमर्देन दाहादि-निमित्तेन इतरत्सूक्ष्मं शरीरमुपमृद्यते॥१०॥
Hence it is that when the gross body is destroyed during cremation etc., this subtle body is not so destroyed. — 10.

[Go top]

---

Asya: of the subtle body; Eva: verily, certainly, alone; Ca: and, also; Upapatteḥ: it being possible, because of possibility; Eṣaḥ: this; Uṣmā: (bodily) heat.

🔗 This warmth is of this (i.e. the subtle body), because, that it is so, is reasonably sustainable. — 4.2.11.

4.2.11 L.1 ✅ अस्यैव च सूक्ष्मस्य शरीरस्य एष ऊष्मा, यमेतस्मिञ्जीवच्छरीरे संस्पर्शेनोष्माणं विजानन्ति।
It is precisely the warmth of this subtle body, which is experienced (by people) on touching the body,

4.2.11 L.2 ✅ तथा हि मृतावस्थायाम् अवस्थितेऽपि देहे विद्यमानेष्वपि च रूपादिषु देह-गुणेषु, न ऊष्मा उपलभ्यते,
For when the body is in the defunct condition, even when the body still subsists and the attributes of the body, such as form etc., are still present, no warmth is perceivable,

4.2.11 L.3 ✅ जीवदवस्थायामेव तु उपलभ्यते –
While it is so perceivable only when the body is in a living condition,

4.2.11 L.4 ✅ इत्यत उपपद्यते प्रसिद्धशरीरव्यतिरिक्त-व्यपाश्रय एव एष ऊष्मेति।
And hence it is that it is reasonably sustainable that this warmth has its resort elsewhere than in this well-known body as such.

4.2.11 L.5 ✅ तथा च श्रुतिः – ‘उष्ण एव जीविष्यञ्शीतो मरिष्यन्’ इति॥११॥
Of a similar import is the Scriptural passage “He is warm while he is living and cold when he is dead”. — 11.

Su.4.2.12 Su..13 Su..14

[Go top]

---

Pratiṣedhāt: on account of the denial; Iti: so; Cet: if (if it be argued); Na: not so, you cannot say so; Śārīrāt: from the individual soul.

🔗 If it be said that because of the denial (by the Scriptures), (the Prāṇas i.e. sense-organs of him who has realized Brahman) do not go out of the body, (we, the Vedāntins say) — No, because the denial is meant to imply that they i.e. the Prāṇas do not leave the Jīva-Self. — 4.2.12.

4.2.12 L.1 ✅ ‘अमृतत्वं चानुपोष्य’ इत्यतो विशेषणात्
(The Vedāntin says) — By the qualification made by the Scriptural passage “Immortality without having destroyed the afflictions (such as Avidyā)”

4.2.12 L.2 ✅ आत्यन्तिकेऽमृतत्वे गत्युत्क्रान्त्योः अभावोऽभ्युपगतः;
It is understood that in the case of absolute immortality there is absence of any movement and going out (of the Jīva-Self),

4.2.12 L.3 ✅ तत्रापि केनचित्कारणेन उत्क्रान्तिम् आशङ्क्य प्रतिषेधति –
Still (the Sūtra-kāra) by raising a doubt that this ‘going out’ may still be there on account of some reason or other, ultimately denies it all the same

4.2.12 L.4 ✅ ‘अथाकामयमानो योऽकामो निष्काम आप्तकाम आत्मकामो भवति न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इति।
By the Scriptural passage “Now about one who does not desire (Akāmayamānaḥ), who therefore is without desire (Akāma), who is free from (any) desire (Niṣkāma), when (his) desires have all been fulfilled (Āpta-kāma), he whose desire is all contained in the Self (Ātma-kāma), and who being Brahman himself, merges into Brahman” (BrhU.4.4.6).

4.2.12 L.5 ✅ अतः परविद्या-विषयात् प्रतिषेधात्
Hence, this denial, thus, having reference to the subject of the knowledge of the Highest Brahman,

4.2.12 L.6 ✅ न परब्रह्मविदो देहात् प्राणानामुत्क्रान्तिरस्तीति चेत्,
When it is said (by the Vedāntin) that in the case of those who have realized Brahman, his Prāṇas do not go out of the body,

4.2.12 L.7 ✅ नेत्युच्यते, यतः शारीरादात्मन एष उत्क्रान्तिप्रतिषेधः प्राणानाम्, न शरीरात्।
(The opponent of Vedānta says) — No, this denial about the going out of the Prāṇas has reference to the going out of the Prāṇas from the embodied Jīva-Self and not from the body.

4.2.12 L.8 ✅ कथमवगम्यते? ‘न तस्मात्प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति’ इति शाखान्तरे
How is it understood (asks the Vedāntin)? Because in the Scriptural passage of the followers of another branch (of the Vedas), thus — “Prāṇas do not go away from him (Tasmāt)”,

4.2.12 L.9 ✅ पञ्चमी-प्रयोगात्;
The ablative case (Tasmāt i.e. from him) is used, (and not the genitive, Tasya i.e. of him).

4.2.12 L.10 ✅ सम्बन्धसामान्य-विषया हि षष्ठी
The genitive case which refers only to a general relation is thus restricted in its ordinary application in a general way,

4.2.12 L.11 ✅ शाखान्तरगतया पञ्चम्या सम्बन्ध-विशेषे व्यवस्थाप्यते;
And is made to govern a special relation by the ablative case used in the other branch of the Scriptures.

4.2.12 L.12 ✅ ‘तस्मात्’ इति च प्राधान्यात् अभ्युदयनिःश्रेयसाधिकृतो देही सम्बध्यते, न देहः;
The words “from him” are made to govern the Jīva-Self, which alone is competent as regards secular prosperity and Highest Bliss and which is the chief subject (of the chapter) and not the body.

4.2.12 L.13 ✅ न तस्मादुच्चिक्रमिषोः जीवात् प्राणा अपक्रामन्ति, सहैव तेन भवन्ति – इत्यर्थः॥१२॥
Therefore, the meaning is that the Prāṇas do not go away from the Jīva-Self as it leaves the body, but continue to be with it. — 12.

[Go top]

4.2.13 L.1 ✅ सप्राणस्य च प्रवसतो भवत्युत्क्रान्तिर्देहादिति एवं प्राप्ते,
Thus, the conclusion (of the opponent of Vedānta) being, that the going away of the Jīva-Self from the body is along with the Prāṇas (i.e. sense-organs),

4.2.13 L.2 ✅ प्रत्युच्यते –
The Sūtra-kāra refutes it, thus: —

---

Spaṣṭaḥ: clear; Hi: for; Ekeṣām: of some Śākhās or schools; the statement of some Śrutis.

🔗 (It is not as you say) because, in the case of the followers of one branch, there is a clear denial of the going out of the body (by the Jīva-Self). — 4.2.13.

4.2.13 L.3 ✅ नैतदस्ति –
यदुक्तम्,परब्रह्मविदोऽपि देहात् अस्त्युत्क्रान्तिः
उत्क्रान्ति-प्रतिषेधस्य देह्यपादानत्वादिति;
The statement (by the opponent of Vedānta), that there is such going out of the body of the Prāṇas (i.e. sense-organs), even in the case of one who knows the transcendent Brahman,
Because, the denial of such going out, thus — “from him the Prāṇas do not go out”, is with reference to the going out (Apādāna) of the Prāṇas from the embodied Jīva-Self,
Is not correct,

4.2.13 L.4 ✅ यतो देहापादान एव उत्क्रान्ति-प्रतिषेध एकेषां समाम्नातॄणां स्पष्ट उपलभ्यते।
Because in the case of some reciters of the Scriptures, that the denial of such going out (Apādāna), is with reference to a body from which such going out takes place, is definitely observed.

4.2.13 L.5 ✅ तथा हि – आर्तभागप्रश्ने ‘यत्रायं पुरुषो म्रियत उदस्मात्प्राणाः क्रामन्त्याहो नेति’ (BrhU.3.2.11) इत्यत्र,
Even so, in the question (posed) by Ārta-bhāga, viz., “Whether, when such person dies, the Prāṇas go away from him, or they do not?” (BrhU.3.2.11),

4.2.13 L.6 ✅ ‘नेति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः’ (BrhU.3.2.11) इत्यनुक्रान्तिपक्षं परिगृह्य,
The view being taken, that there is no such going out, thus — “No, said Yājña-valkya” (BrhU.3.2.11),

4.2.13 L.7 ✅ न तर्ह्ययमनुत्क्रान्तेषु प्राणेषु मृतः – इत्यस्यामाशङ्कायाम्
And when a doubt (under such circumstances) is (expressed), that inasmuch as the Prāṇas (of such a man) do not depart, he does not therefore in fact die,

4.2.13 L.8 ✅ ‘अत्रैव समवनीयन्ते’ इति प्रविलयं प्राणानां प्रतिज्ञाय,
The Scriptures, having declared the dissolution of the Prāṇas by stating, “The Prāṇas get absorbed even here, (i.e. in the body)”,

4.2.13 L.9 ✅ तत्सिद्धये
In order to establish that statement,

4.2.13 L.10 ✅ ‘स उच्छ्वयत्याध्मायत्याध्मातो मृतः शेते’ (BrhU.3.2.11) इति
स-शब्दपरामृष्टस्य प्रकृतस्य उत्क्रान्त्यवधेः उच्छ्वयनादीनि समामनन्ति;
Mention the bloating and swelling of him (i.e. Jīva-Self) who is the relevant subject here, and who is thus referred to as ‘He’ in the Scriptural statement —
“He becomes bloated, he swells and lies down dead, thus bloated” (BrhU.3.2.11).

4.2.13 L.11 ✅ देहस्य च एतानि स्युः न देहिनः;
Now this can only happen to the body and never to the Jīva-Self.

4.2.13 L.12 ✅ तत्सामान्यात्, ‘न तस्मात्प्राणा उत्क्रामन्त्यत्रैव समवनीयन्ते’ इत्यत्रापि –
And in common with that, (in the Scriptural statement) “From him the Prāṇas do not depart but are dissolved even there (in the body)”,

4.2.13 L.13 ✅ अभेदोपचारेण देहापादानस्यैव उत्क्रमणस्य प्रतिषेधः –
The denial is, thus, of the going out from the body, from which such going out takes place, the body and the Jīva-Self being metaphorically considered to be one and the same and non-different.

4.2.13 L.14 ✅ यद्यपि प्राधान्यं देहिनः – इति व्याख्येयम्,येषां पञ्चमीपाठः।
Even though the Jīva-Self is to be explained as being the chief entity, in the case of those, in whose branch the Scriptures recite the ablative case, even in that case it should be explained that the denial is of the going out of the body, because of such metaphorical treatment of non-difference between the body and the Jīva-Self.

4.2.13 L.15 ✅ येषां तु षष्ठीपाठः,
In the case of those in whose Scriptural recital, the genitive case is used,

4.2.13 L.16 ✅ तेषां विद्वत्सम्बन्धिनी उत्क्रान्तिः प्रतिषिध्यत इति,
The denial about the going out, which has reference to a man who has attained knowledge (of Brahman), is the denial of the going out from the body,

4.2.13 L.17 ✅ प्राप्तोत्क्रान्ति-प्रतिषेधार्थत्वात् अस्य वाक्यस्य,
Inasmuch as the Scriptures here purport to deny the going out which is well-known,

4.2.13 L.18 ✅ देहापादानैव सा प्रतिषिद्धा भवति देहादुत्क्रान्तिः प्राप्ता, न देहिनः;
And as it is the going out from the body and not the going out from the Jīva-Self, that is well-known, the denial, therefore, is of the going out from the body.

4.2.13 L.19 ✅ अपि च ‘चक्षुष्टो वा मूर्ध्नो वान्येभ्यो वा शरीरदेशेभ्यस्तमुत्क्रामन्तं प्राणोऽनूत्क्रामति प्राणमनूत्क्रामन्तꣳ सर्वे प्राणा अनूत्क्रामन्ति’ (BrhU.4.4.2)
इत्येवमविद्वद्विषये सप्रपञ्चमुत्क्रमणं संसारगमनं च दर्शयित्वा,
Besides having described this going out, and reverting into transmigratory existence, of those who are ignorant (of Brahman), in detail,
By the Scriptural passage “That (this Jīva-Self) goes out by way of the eye or the head or by way of some other region of the body, and as it goes out, the Prāṇa follows in its wake, and as the Prāṇa goes out all the other Prāṇas (i.e. subtle sense-organs) follow suit” (BrhU.4.4.2),

4.2.13 L.20 ✅ ‘इति नु कामयमानः’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इति उपसंहृत्य अविद्वत्कथाम्,
And having thus concluded this statement about those who are ignorant (of Brahman) by the passage “This is about one who still has desires (Iti nu Kāmayamānaḥ)” (BrhU.4.4.6) etc.,

4.2.13 L.21 ✅ ‘अथाकामयमानः’ (BrhU.4.4.6) इति व्यपदिश्य विद्वांसम् –
And having thereafter indicated those who have realized Brahman, by the passage “Now about those who have no desires (Atha Akāmayamānaḥ)” (BrhU.4.4.6),

4.2.13 L.22 ✅ यदि तद्विषयेऽप्युत्क्रान्तिमेव प्रापयेत्,
If the Scriptures were to make one understand this going out, to be of one who has realized Brahman,

4.2.13 L.23 ✅ असमञ्जस एव व्यपदेशः स्यात्;
Then such indication by the Scriptures would necessarily be meaningless.

4.2.13 L.24 ✅ तस्मात् अविद्वद्विषये प्राप्तयोर्गत्युत्क्रान्त्योः विद्वद्विषये प्रतिषेधः – इत्येवमेव व्याख्येयम्,
व्यपदेशार्थवत्त्वाय।
Therefore, in order that such indication may have meaning,
This movement and going away from the body arrived at in the case of those who are ignorant (of Brahman), should be explained as having been denied (by the Scriptures) in the case of those who have realized Brahman.

4.2.13 L.25 ✅ न च ब्रह्मविदः सर्वगत-ब्रह्मात्मभूतस्य प्रक्षीणकामकर्मणः
In the case of one, who has realized Brahman, and to whom his Self is but the all-pervading Brahman itself, and whose desires and actions have come to an end,

4.2.13 L.26 ✅ उत्क्रान्तिः गतिर्वा उपपद्यते, निमित्ताभावात्।
Any such movement or going out (of the body) would not be reasonably sustainable, because of the absence of any proper cause for it.

4.2.13 L.27 ✅ ‘अत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुते’ इति च एवंजातीयकाः श्रुतयो गत्युत्क्रान्त्योः अभावं सूचयन्ति॥१३॥
Besides Scriptural passages such as “Here (in this very body) he attains Brahma-hood” also indicate the absence of any such movement or going out (on the part of one who has realized Brahman). — 13.

[Go top]

---

Smaryate: the Smṛti says, it is mentioned in the Smṛtis; Ca: and.

🔗 Smṛti also (has said similarly). — 4.2.14.

4.2.14 L.1 ✅ स्मर्यतेऽपि च महाभारते गत्युत्क्रान्त्योरभावः –
Besides, the Mahā-bhārata also has mentioned that there is absence of any movement or going out (of the body), (in the case of one who has realized Brahman), thus —

4.2.14 L.2 ✅ ‘सर्वभूतात्मभूतस्य सम्यग्भूतानि पश्यतः। देवा अपि मार्गे मुह्यन्त्यपदस्य पदैषिणः’ इति।
“In their search of the path of a man to whom all beings have but become his Self and who has understood all beings correctly by intuition (as being of the nature of the Ātmā) and who has no path (such as the Deva-yāna or Pitṛ-yāṇa) to traverse, even the Gods get perplexed”.

4.2.14 L.3 ✅ ननु गतिरपि ब्रह्मविदः सर्वगतब्रह्मात्मभूतस्य स्मर्यते –
But (says the opponent of Vedānta), the Smṛti does speak of such movement even in the case of one who has realized himself to be the all-pervading Brahman, thus —

4.2.14 L.4 ✅ ‘शुकः किल वैयासकिर्मुमुक्षुरादित्यमण्डलमभिप्रतस्थे पित्रा चानुगम्याहूतो भो इति प्रतिशुश्राव’ इति –
“Śuka the son of Vyāsa, who with a desire for Final Release set forth towards the sphere of the Sun, when called by his father following him, responded with the words — ‘Yes, father?’”.

4.2.14 L.5 ✅ न; सशरीरस्यैव अयं योग-बलेन विशिष्टदेशप्राप्ति-पूर्वकः शरीरोत्सर्ग इति द्रष्टव्यम्,
(We reply) — No, it should be understood here, that he (i.e. Śuka) after first having reached a particular region physically by means of the powers of Yoga, thereafter discarded his body,

4.2.14 L.6 ✅ सर्वभूतदृश्यत्वाद्युपन्यासात्;
Because, the Smṛti has stated that he was seen by all beings

4.2.14 L.7 ✅ न हि अशरीरं गच्छन्तं सर्वभूतानि द्रष्टुं शक्नुयुः;
And all those beings could not have actually seen him going, were he to go in a disembodied condition.

4.2.14 L.8 ✅ तथा च तत्रैवोपसंहृतम् – ‘शुकस्तु मारुताच्छीघ्रां गतिं कृत्वान्तरिक्षगः। दर्शयित्वा प्रभावं स्वं सर्वभूतगतोऽभवत्’ इति।
The legend is then wound up with the remark — “Śuka, traversing the stellar region at a speed faster than that of the wind, and having thus displayed his prowess, entered into all beings”.

4.2.14 L.9 ✅ तस्मादभावः परब्रह्मविदो गत्युत्क्रान्त्योः।
Therefore, in the case of one who has realized Brahman, there is absence of any movement and going out (of the body).

4.2.14 L.10 ✅ गति-श्रुतीनां तु विषयमुपरिष्टाद्व्याख्यास्यामः॥१४॥
We shall explain the subject of those Scriptural passages which speak of movement, later (in BrS.4.3.7). — 14.