VEDANTA-SUTRAS WITH RAMANUJA'S SRÎBHASHYA 21 страница

It thus clearly appears that 'on account of distinction and statement of difference' the Upanishad does not treat of the Pradhana and the soul. For that the highest Brahman is different from those two is declared in passages such as 'That heavenly Person is without body; he is both without and within, not produced, without breath and without mind, pure, higher than what is higher than the Imperishable' (II, 1, 2); for the last words mean 'that imperishable highest Self possessing invisibility and similar qualities, which is higher than the aggregate of individual souls, which itself is higher than the non-evolved subtle elements.' The term 'akshara' (imperishable) is to be etymologically explained either as that which pervades (asnute) or that which does not pass away (a- ksharati), and is on either of these explanations applicable to the highest Self, either because that Self pervades all its effects or because it is like the so-called Mahat (which is also called akshara), free from all passing away or decaying. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'invisibility and so on.'

24. And on account of the description of its form.

'Fire is his head, his eyes the sun and the moon, the regions his ears, his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things' (II, 1, 4) -- the outward form here described can belong to none but the highest Self; that is, the inner Self of all beings. The section therefore treats of the highest Self.

25. Vaisvanara (is the highest Self), on account of the distinctions qualifying the common term.

The Chandogas read in their text, 'You know at present that Vaisvanara Self, tell us that,' &c., and further on, 'But he who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self as a span long,' &c. (Ch. Up. V, 11, 6; 18, 1). The doubt here arises whether that Vaisvanara Self can be made out to be the highest Self or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the latter alternative. For, he says, the word Vaisvanara is used in the sacred texts in four different senses. It denotes in the first place the intestinal fire, so in Bri. Up, V, 9, 'That is the Vaisvanara fire by which the food that is eaten is cooked, i.e. digested. Its noise is that which one hears when one covers one's ears. When man is on the point of departing this life he does not hear that noise.' -- It next denotes the third of the elements, so in Ri_. Samh. X, 88, 12, 'For the whole world the gods have made the Agni Vaisvanara a sign of the days.' -- It also denotes a divinity, so Ri_. Samh. I, 98, 1, 'May we be in the favour of Vaisvanara, for he is the king of the kings,' &c. And finally it denotes the highest Self, as in the passage, 'He offered it in the Self, in the heart, in Agni Vaisvanara'; and in Pra. Up. I, 7, 'Thus he rises as Vaisvanara, assuming all forms, as breath of life, as fire.' -- And the characteristic marks mentioned in the introductory clauses of the Chandogya-text under discussion admit of interpretations agreeing with every one of these meanings of the word Vaisvanara.

Against this prima facie view the Sutra declares itself. The term 'Vaisvanara' in the Chandogya-text denotes the highest Self, because the 'common' term is there qualified by attributes specially belonging to the highest Self. For the passage tells us how Aupamanyava and four other great Rhshis, having met and discussed the question as to what was their Self and Brahman, come to the conclusion to go to Uddalaka because he is reputed to know the Vaisvanara Self. Uddalaka, recognising their anxiety to know the Vaisvanara Self, and deeming himself not to be fully informed on this point, refers them to Asvapati Kaikeya as thoroughly knowing the Vaisvanara Self; and they thereupon, together with Uddalaka, approach Asvapati. The king duly honours them with presents, and as they appear unwilling to receive them, explains that they may suitably do so, he himself being engaged in the performance of a religious vow; and at the same time instructs them that even men knowing Brahman must avoid what is forbidden and do what is prescribed. When thereupon he adds that he will give them as much wealth as to the priests engaged in his sacrifice, they, desirous of Release and of knowing the Vaisanara Self, request him to explain that Self to them. Now it clearly appears that as the Rishis are said to be desirous of knowing -- that Brahman which is the Self of the individual souls ('what is our Self, what is Brahman'), and therefore search for some one to instruct them on that point, the Vaisvanara Self -- to a person acquainted with which they address themselves -- can be the highest Self only. In the earlier clauses the terms used are 'Self' and 'Brahman,' in the later 'Self' and 'Vaisvanara'; from this it appears also that the term 'Vaisvanara,' which takes the place of 'Brahman,' denotes none other but the highest Self. The results, moreover, of the knowledge of the Vaisvanara Self, which are stated in subsequent passages, show that the Vaisvanara Self is the highest Brahman. 'He eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs'; 'as the fibres of the Ishîka reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus all his sins are burned' (V, 18, I; 24, 3).

The next Sutra supplies a further reason for the same conclusion.

26. That which the text refers to is an inferential mark -- thus.

The text describes the shape of Vaisvanara, of whom heaven, &c., down to earth constitute the several limbs; and it is known from Scripture and Smriti that such is the shape of the highest Self. When, therefore, we recognise that shape as referred to in the text, this supplies an inferential mark of Vaisvanara being the highest Self. -- The 'thus' (iti) in the Sutra denotes a certain mode, that is to say, 'a shape of such a kind being recognised in the text enables us to infer that Vaisvanara is the highest Self.' For in Scripture and Smriti alike the highest Person is declared to have such a shape. Cp. e.g. the text of the Átharvanas. 'Agni is his head, the sun and moon his eyes, the regions his cars, his speech the Vedas disclosed, the wind his breath, his heart the Universe; from his feet came the earth; he is indeed the inner Self of all things' (Mu. Up. II, I, 4). 'Agni' in this passage denotes the heavenly world, in agreement with the text 'that world indeed is Agni.' And the following Smrriti texts: 'He of whom the wise declare the heavenly world to be the head, the ether the navel, sun and moon the eyes, the regions the ears, the earth the feet; he whose Self is unfathomable is the leader of all beings'; and 'of whom Agni is the mouth, heaven the head, the ether the navel, the earth the feet, the sun the eye, the regions the ear; worship to him, the Self of the Universe!' -- Now our text declares the heavenly world and so on to constitute the head and the other limbs of Vaisvanara. For Kaikeya on being asked by the Rishis to instruct them as to the Vasvanara Self recognises that they all know something about the Vaisvanara Self while something they do not know (for thus only we can explain his special questions), and then in order to ascertain what each knows and what not, questions them separately. When thereupon Aupamanyava replies that he meditates on heaven only as the Self, Kaikeya, in order to disabuse him from the notion that heaven is the whole Vaisvanara Self, teaches him that heaven is the head of Vaisvanara, and that of heaven which thus is a part only of Vaisvanara, Sutejas is the special name. Similarly he is thereupon told by the other Rishis that they meditate only on sun, air, ether, and earth, and informs them in return that the special names of these beings are 'the omniform,' 'he who moves in various ways,' 'the full one,''wealth and 'firm rest,' and that these all are mere members of the Vaisvanara Self, viz. its eyes, breath, trunk, bladder, and feet. The shape thus described in detail can belong to the highest Self only, and hence Vaisvanara is none other but the highest Self.

The next Sutra meets a further doubt as to this decision not yet being well established.

27. Should it be said that it is not so, on account of the word, &c., and on account of the abiding within; we say, no; on account of meditation being taught thus, on account of impossibility; and because they read of him as person.

An objection is raised. Vaisvanara cannot be ascertained to be the highest Self, because, on the account of the text and of the abiding within, we can understand by the Vaisvanara in our text the intestinal fire also. The text to which we refer occurs in the Vaisvanara-vidya of the Vajasaneyins, 'This one is the Agni Vaisvanara,' where the two words 'Agni' and 'Vaisvanara' are exhibited in co-ordination. And in the section under discussion the passage, 'the heart is the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharya-pakana fire, the mouth the Ahavanîya fire' (Ch. Up. V, 18, 2), represents the Vaisvanara in so far as abiding within the heart and so on as constituting the triad of sacred fires. Moreover the text, 'The first food which a man may take is in the place of Soma. And he who offers that first oblation should offer it to Prana' (V, 19, 1), intimates that Vaisvanara is the abode of the offering to Prana. In the same way the Vajasaneyins declare that Vaisvanara abides within man, viz. in the passage 'He who knows this Agni Vaisvanara shaped like a man abiding within man.' As thus Vaisvanara appears in co-ordination with the word 'Agni,' is represented as the triad of sacred fires, is said to be the abode of the oblation to Breath, and to abide within man, he must be viewed as the intestinal fire, and it is therefore not true that he can be identified with the highest Self only.

This objection is set aside by the Sutra. It is not so 'on account of meditation (on the highest Self) being taught thus,' i.e. as the text means to teach that the highest Brahman which, in the manner described before, has the three worlds for its body should be meditated upon as qualified by the intestinal fire which (like other beings) constitutes Brahman's body. For the word 'Agni' denotes not only the intestinal fire, but also the highest Self in so far as qualified by the intestinal fire. -- But how is this to be known? -- 'On account of impossibility;' i.e. because it is impossible that the mere intestinal fire should have the three worlds for its body. The true state of the case therefore is that the word Agni, which is understood to denote the intestinal fire, when appearing in co-ordination with the term Vaisvanara represented as having the three worlds for his body, denotes (not the intestinal fire, but) the highest Self as qualified by that fire viewed as forming the

body of the Self. Thus the Lord also says, 'As Vaisvanara fire I abide in the body of living creatures and, being assisted by breath inspired and expired, digest the fourfold food' (Bha Gî. XIV, 15). 'As Vaisvanara fire' here means 'embodied in the intestinal fire.' -- The Chandogya text under discussion enjoins meditation on the highest Self embodied in the Vaisvanara fire. -- Moreover the Vajasaneyins read of him, viz. the Vaisvanara, as man or person, viz. in the passage 'That Agni Vaisvanara is the person' (Sa. Bra. X, 6, 1, 11). The intestinal fire by itself cannot be called a person; unconditioned personality belongs to the highest Self only. Compare 'the thousand-headed person' (Ri. Samh.), and 'the Person is all this' (Sve. Up. III, 15).

28. For the same reasons not the divinity and the element.

For the reasons stated Vaisvanara can be neither the deity Fire, nor the elemental fire which holds the third place among the gross elements.

29. Jaimini thinks that there is no objection to (the word 'Agni') directly (denoting the highest Self).

So far it has been maintained that the word 'Agni,' which stands in co- ordination with the term 'Vaisvanara,' denotes the highest Self in so far as qualified by the intestinal fire constituting its body; and that hence the text under discussion enjoins meditation on the highest Self. Jaimini, on the other hand, is of opinion that there is no reasonable objection to the term 'Agni,' no less than the term: 'Vaisvanara,' being taken _directly_ to denote the highest Self. That is to say -- in the same way as the term 'Vaisvanara,' although a common term, yet when qualified by attributes especially belonging to the highest Self is known to denote the latter only as possessing the quality of ruling all men; so the word 'Agni' also when appearing in connexion with special attributes belonging to the highest Self denotes that Self only. For any quality on the ground of which 'Agni' may be etymologically explained to denote ordinary fire -- as when e.g. we explain 'agni' as he who 'agre nayati' -- may also, in its highest non-conditioned degree, be ascribed to the supreme Self. Another difficulty remains. The passage (V, 18, 1) 'yas tv etam evam pradesamatram abhivimanam,' &c. declares that the non-limited highest Brahman is limited by the measure of the pradesas, i.e. of the different spaces-heaven, ether, earth, &c. -- which had previously been said to constitute the limbs of Vaisvanara. How is this possible?

30. On account of definiteness; thus Asmarathya opines.

The teacher Asmarathya is of opinion that the text represents the highest Self as possessing a definite extent, to the end of rendering the thought of the meditating devotee more definite. That is to say -- the limitation due to the limited extent of heaven, sun, &c. has the purpose of rendering definite to thought him who pervades (abhi) all this Universe and in reality transcends all measure (vimana). -- A further difficulty remains. For what purpose is the highest Brahman here represented like a man, having a head and limbs? -- This point the next Sutra elucidates.

31. On account of meditation, Badari thinks.

The teacher Badari thinks that the representation in the text of the supreme Self in the form of a man is for the purpose of devout meditation. 'He who in this way meditates on that Vaisvanara Self as "pradesamatra" and "abhivimana," he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs.' What this text enjoins is devout meditation for the purpose of reaching Brahman. 'In this way' means 'as having a human form.' And 'the eating' of food in all worlds, &c. means the gaining of intuitional knowledge of Brahman which abides everywhere and is in itself of the nature of supreme bliss. The special kind of food, i.e. the special objects of enjoyment which belong to the different Selfs standing under the influence of karman cannot be meant here; for those limited objects have to be shunned by those who desire final release. A further question arises. If Vaisvanara is the highest Self, how can the text say that the altar is its chest, the grass on the altar its hairs, and so on? (V, 18, 2.) Such a statement has a sense only if we understand by Vaisvanara the intestinal fire. -- This difficulty the next Sutra elucidates.

32. On account of imaginative identification, thus Jaimini thinks; for thus the text declares.

The teacher Jaimini is of opinion that the altar is stated to be the chest of Vaisvanara, and so on, in order to effect an imaginative identification of the offering to Prana which is daily performed by the meditating devotees and is the means of pleasing Vaisvanara, having the heaven and so on for his body, i.e. the highest Self, with the Agnihotra- offering. For the fruit due to meditation on the highest Self, as well as the identity of the offering to breath with the Agnihotra, is declared in the following text, 'He who without knowing this offers the Agnihotra -- that would be as if removing the live coals he were to pour his libation on dead ashes. But he who offers this Agnihotra with a full knowledge of its purport, he offers it in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs. As the fibres of the Ishîka reed when thrown into the fire are burnt, thus all his sins are burnt.' (V, 24, 1-3.)

33. Moreover, they record him in that.

They (i.e. the Vajasaneyins) speak of him, viz. Vaisvanara who has heaven for his head, &c. -- i.e. the highest Self -- as within that, i.e. the body of the devotee, so as to form the abode of the oblation to Prana; viz. in the text,'Of that Vaisvanara Self the head is Sutejas,' and so on. The context is as follows. The clause 'He who meditates on the Vaisvanara Self as pradesamatra,' &c. enjoins meditation on the highest Self having the three worlds for its body, i.e. on Vaisvanara. The following clause 'he eats food in all worlds' teaches that the attaining of Brahman is the reward of such meditation. And then the text proceeds to teach the Agnihotra offered to Prana, which is something subsidiary to the meditation taught. The text here establishes an identity between the members -- fire, sun, &c. -- of the Vaisvanara enjoined as object of meditation (which members are called Sutejas, Visvarupa, &c. ), and parts -- viz. head, eye, breath, trunk, bladder, feet -- of the worshipper's body. 'The head is Sutejas' -- that means: the head of the devotee is (identical with) heaven, which is the head of the highest Self; and so on up to 'the feet,' i.e. the feet of the devotee are identical with the earth, which constitutes the feet of the highest Self, The devotee having thus reflected on the highest Self, which has the three worlds for its body, as present within his own body, thereupon is told to view his own chest, hair, heart, mind and mouth as identical with the altar, grass and the other things which are required for the Agnihotra; further to identify the oblation to Prana with the Agnihotra, and by means of this Prana-agnihotra to win the favour of Vaisvanara, i. e. the highest Self. The final -- conclusion then remains that Vaisvanara is none other than the highest Self, the supreme Person. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'Vaisvanara.'

THIRD PADA.

1. The abode of heaven, earth, &c. (is the highest Self), on account of terms which are its own.

The followers of the Atharva-veda have the following text, 'He in whom the heaven, the earth and the sky are woven, the mind also, with all the vital airs, know him alone as the Self, and leave off other words; he is the bank (setu) of the Immortal' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 5). The doubt here arises whether the being spoken of as the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is the individual soul or the highest Self.

The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he remarks, in the next sloka, 'where like spokes in the nave of a wheel the arteries meet, he moves about within, becoming manifold,' the word 'where' refers back to the being which in the preceding sloka had been called the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, the clause beginning with 'where' thus declaring that that being is the basis of the arteries; and the next clause declares that same being to become manifold or to be born in many ways. Now, connexion with the arteries is clearly characteristic of the individual soul; and so is being born in many forms, divine and so on. Moreover, in the very sloka under discussion it is said that that being is the abode of the mind and the five vital airs, and this also is a characteristic attribute of the individual soul. It being, on these grounds, ascertained that the text refers to the individual soul we must attempt to reconcile therewith, as well as we can, what is said about its being the abode of heaven, earth, &c.

This prima facie view is set aside by the Sutra. That which is described as the abode of heaven, earth, &c. is none other than the highest Brahman, on account of a term which is 'its own,' i.e. which specially belongs to it. The clause we have in view is 'he is the bank of the Immortal.' This description applies to the highest Brahman only, which alone is, in all Upanishads, termed the cause of the attainment of Immortality; cp. e.g. 'Knowing him thus a man becomes immortal; there is no other path to go' (Sve. Up. III, 8). The term 'setu' is derived from _si_, which means to bind, and therefore means that which binds, i.e. makes one to attain immortality; or else it may be understood to mean that which leads towards immortality that lies beyond the ocean of samsara, in the same way as a bank or bridge (setu) leads to the further side of a river. -- Moreover the word 'Self (atman) (which, in the text under discussion, is also applied to that which is the abode of heaven, earth, &c.), without any further qualification, primarily denotes Brahman only; for 'atman' comes from _ap_, to reach, and means that which 'reaches' all other things in so far as it rules them. And further on (II, 2, 7) there are other terms, 'all knowing,' 'all cognising,' which also specially belong to the highest Brahman only. This Brahman may also be represented as the abode of the arteries; as proved e.g. by Mahanar. Up. (XI, 8-12), 'Surrounded by the arteries he hangs ... in the middle of this pointed flame there dwells the highest Self.' Of that Self it may also be said that it is born in many ways; in accordance with texts such as 'not born, he is born in many ways; the wise know the place of his birth.' For in order to fit himself to be a refuge for gods, men, &c. the supreme Person, without however putting aside his true nature, associates himself with the shape, make, qualities and works of the different classes of beings, and thus is born in many ways. Smriti says the same: 'Though being unborn, of non-perishable nature, the Lord of all beings, yet presiding over my Prakriti I am born by my own mysterious power' (Bha. Gî. IV, 6). Of the mind also and the other organs of the individual soul the highest Self is strictly the abode; for it is the abode of everything. -- The next Sutra supplies a further reason.

2. And on account of its being declared that to which the released have to resort.

The Person who is the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is also declared by the text to be what is to be reached by those who are released from the bondage of Samsara existence. 'When the seer sees the brilliant maker and Lord as the Person who has his source in Brahman, then possessing true knowledge he shakes off good and evil, and, free from passion, reaches the highest oneness' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 3). 'As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and form, thus a wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is higher than the high' (III, 2, 8). For it is only those freed from the bondage of Samsara who shake off good and evil, are free from passion, and freed from name and form.

For the Samsara state consists in the possession of name and form, which is due to connexion with non-sentient matter, such connexion springing from good and evil works. The Person therefore who is the abode of heaven, earth, &c., and whom the text declares to be the aim to be reached by those who, having freed themselves from good and evil, and hence from all contact with matter, attain supreme oneness with the highest Brahman, can be none other than this highest Brahman itself.

This conclusion, based on terms exclusively applicable to the highest Brahman, is now confirmed by reference to the absence of terms specially applicable to the individual soul.

3. Not that which is inferred, on account of the absence of terms denoting it, and (so also not) the bearer of the Pranas (i. e. the individual soul).

As the section under discussion does not treat of the Pradhana, there being no terms referring to that, so it is with regard to the individual soul also. In the text of the Sutra we have to read either anumanam, i. e. 'inference,' in the sense of 'object of inference,' or else anumanam, 'object of inference'; what is meant being in both cases the Pradhana inferred to exist by the Sankhyas.

4. On account of the declaration of difference.

'On the same tree man sits immersed in grief, bewildered by "anîsa"; but when he sees the other one, the Lord, contented, and his glory; then his grief passes away' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 2). This, and similar texts, speak of that one, i.e. the one previously described as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., as different from the individual soul. -- The text means -- the individual soul grieves, being bewildered by her who is not 'îsa,' i.e. Prakriti, the object of fruition. But its grief passes away when it sees him who is other than itself, i.e. the beloved Lord of all, and his greatness which consists in his ruling the entire world.

5. On account of the subject-matter.

It has been already shown, viz. under I, 2, 21, that the highest Brahman constitutes the initial topic of the Upanishad. And by the arguments set forth in the previous Sutras of the present Pada, we have removed all suspicion as to the topic started being dropped in the body of the Upanishad.

6. And on account of abiding and eating.

'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit; without eating, the other looks on' (Mu. Up. III, 1, 1). This text declares that one enjoys the fruit of works while the other, without enjoying, shining abides within the body. Now this shining being which does not enjoy the fruit of works can only be the being previously described as the abode of heaven, earth, &c., and characterised as all knowing, the bridge of immortality, the Self of all; it can in no way be the individual Self which, lamenting, experiences the results of its works. The settled conclusion, therefore, is that the abode of heaven, earth, and so on, is none other than the highest Self. -- Here terminates the adhikarana of 'heaven, earth, and so on.'

7. The bhuman (is the highest Self), as the instruction about it is additional to that about serenity.

The Chandogas read as follows: 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is fulness (bhuman). Where one sees something else, hears something else, knows something else, that is the Little' (Ch. Up. VII, 23, 24).

The term 'bhuman' is derived from _bahu_ (much, many), and primarily signifies 'muchness.' By 'much' in this connexion, we have however to understand, not what is numerous, but what is large, for the text uses the term in contrast with the 'Little' (alpa), i.e. the 'Small.' And the being qualified as 'large,' we conclude from the context to be the Self; for this section of the Upanishad at the outset states that he who knows the Self overcomes grief (VII, 1, 3), then teaches the knowledge of the bhuman, and concludes by saying that 'the Self is all this' (VII, 25, 2).

The question now arises whether the Self called bhuman is the individual Self or the highest Self. -- The Purvapakshin maintains the former view. For, he says, to Narada who had approached Sanatkumara with the desire to be instructed about the Self, a series of beings, beginning with 'name' and ending with 'breath,' are enumerated as objects of devout meditation; Narada asks each time whether there be anything greater than name, and so on, and each time receives an affirmative reply ('speech is greater than name,' &c.); when, however, the series has advanced as far as Breath, there is no such question and reply. This shows that the instruction about the Self terminates with Breath, and hence we conclude that breath in this place means the individual soul which is associated with breath, not a mere modification of air. Also the clauses 'Breath is father, breath is mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 1), show that breath here is something intelligent. And this is further proved by the clause 'Slayer of thy father, slayer of thy mother,' &c. (VII, 15, 2; 3), which declares that he who offends a father, a mother, &c., as long as there is breath in them, really hurts them, and therefore deserves reproach; while no blame attaches to him who offers even the grossest violence to them after their breath has departed. For a conscious being only is capable of being hurt, and hence the word 'breath' here denotes such a being only. Moreover, as it is observed that also in the case of such living beings as have no vital breath (viz. plants), suffering results, or does not result, according as injury is inflicted or not, we must for this reason also decide that the breath spoken of in the text as something susceptible of injury is the individual soul. It consequently would be an error to suppose, on the ground of the comparison of Prana to the nave of a wheel in which the spokes are set, that Prana here denotes the highest Self; for the highest Self is incapable of being injured. That comparison, on the other hand, is quite in its place, if we understand by Prana the individual soul, for the whole aggregate of non-sentient matter which stands to the individual soul in the relation of object or instrument of enjoyment, has an existence dependent on the individual soul. And this soul, there called Prana, is what the text later on calls Bhuman; for as there is no question and reply as to something greater than Prana, Prana continues, without break, to be the subject-matter up to the mention of bhuman. The paragraphs intervening between the section on Prana (VII, 15) and the section on the bhuman (VII, 23 ff.) are to be understood as follows. The Prana section closes with the remark that he who fully knows Prana is an ativadin, i.e. one who makes a final supreme declaration. In the next sentence then, 'But this one in truth is an ativadin who makes a supreme statement by means of the True,' the clause 'But this one is an ativadin' refers back to the previously mentioned person who knows the Prana, and the relative clause 'who makes,' &c., enjoins on him the speaking of the truth as an auxiliary element in the meditation on Prana. The next paragraph, 'When one understands the truth then one declares the truth,' intimates that speaking the truth stands in a supplementary relation towards the cognition of the true nature of the Prana as described before. For the accomplishment of such cognition the subsequent four paragraphs enjoin reflection, faith, attendance on a spiritual guide, and the due performance of sacred duties. In order that such duties may be undertaken, the next paragraphs then teach that bliss constitutes the nature of the individual soul, previously called Prana, and finally that the Bhuman, i.e. the supreme fulness of such bliss, is the proper object of inquiry. The final purport of the teaching, therefore, is that the true nature of the individual soul, freed from Nescience, is abundant bliss -- a conclusion which perfectly agrees with the initial statement that he who knows the Self passes beyond sorrow. That being, therefore, which has the attribute of being 'bhuman,' is the individual Self. This being so, it is also intelligible why, further on, when the text describes the glory and power of the individual Self, it uses the term 'I'; for 'I' denotes just the individual Self: 'I am below, I am above, &c., I am all this' (VII, 25, 1). This conclusion having been settled, all remaining clauses must be explained so as to agree with it.

⇐ Предыдущая 22 23 24 25 262728 29 30 31 Следующая ⇒