jīvamukhyaprāṇaliṅgānneti cennopāsatraividyādāśritatvādiha tadyogāt ..1.1.31..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 43 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA I. 1. 31.

जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गान्नेति चेन्नोपासत्रैविद्यादाश्रितत्वादिह तद्योगात्॥१.१.३१॥

jīvamukhyaprāṇaliṅgānneti cennopāsatraividyādāśritatvādiha tadyogāt ..1.1.31..

… Jiva, the human Soul, the individual Self, … Mukhya Prana, the chief Breath, the chief vital air. … Lingat, because of the characteristic mark. .. Na, not. .. Iti, thus. .. Chet, if. .. Na, not.. Upasa, meditation, worship, ... Traividhyat, because of the three-foldness. … Ashritatvat, because of being met with (in other places also), because of such texts taking shelter with or applying to Brahman in other places also. .. Iha, here, in this Kaushitaki passage. …Tad-yogat, because of its appropriateness.

31. If it be said that Brahman alone is not meant there, for we find there marks of the individual Soul (Jiva) and the chief vital air (Mukhya Prana): we say, no; because then the meditation taught would become three-fold (which is absurd). Therefore the marks of Jiva and Prana should be applied to Brahman, for such an application is met with in the other texts also, and of its being appropriate here too. — 31.

Though there are characteristic marks of Jiva (individual soul) and vital air in the above Upanishad, yet these two are not to be worshipped or meditated upon. Why? For then there would be three sorts of worship. When Indra says, ‘Meditate on me as Prana’, he uses only one sentence; and one sentence can not be used to mean three different sentences; for this goes against tin maxim, «one sentence must be interpreted in one way only». The sense is this, that because in the above passage we find the characteristic marks of the human soul and the life breath: are we to interpret the other marks which apply to Brahman as applicable to the Jiva and the breath? Or are the three to be, taken separately and independently? Or are we to apply the marks of Jiva and the life breath to Brahman? Thus there are three alternatives, i.e., (i) take them all as applicable to Jiva and breath: (ii) take them all separately: (in) take them all as applying to Brahman. The first alternative has already been set aside. For the marks of Brahman cannot be applied to Jiva. The second has the fault of ordaining three sorts of meditation, which is contrary to the maxim of interpretation. Now remains the third alternative. That is, are we to take the characteristic marks of Jiva and Prana as applied to Brahman? To this the author says, yes. The marks of Jiva and vital air found in the above Upanishad should be applied to Brahman; because the words like Jiva and Prana are applied to Brahman. Therefore, the author uses in the above Sutra the word ‘Ashritatvat’— meaning ‘Such is met with in other texts also’.

If it be objected that in other texts, the characteristic marks of Jiva and breath, have been applied to Brahman, because there were contrary indications in those texts showing that Brahman alone was meant there. What is the indication in this chapter?

To this we reply. Here also there is such indication; for Pratardana asks, «What is the most beneficial meditation for man?» The reply to this is, «The meditation on Prana». This is an indication that Brahman is meant. Therefore, here also there is appropriateness. Therefore the author uses in the above Sutra the words ‘Iha tad yogat’ meaning «here also it is appropriate» (to use Prana and Jiva indications as applying to Brahman.)

But — an objection is raised again — how can you reconcile simultaneous dwelling of the Prana and Prajna, in Jiva and their going out of Jiva, in the case of Brahman? To this we reply, that the above passage means that Brahman and the energy of action (Kriya-shakti) represented by the vital Prana, and the energy of consciousness (Jnana-shakti) represented by the Jiva, all three simultaneously dwell in the body and simultaneously leave it.

It is again objected, the words like Prana, etc., denote certain substances having certain attributes; how could they, be taken here to mean attributes and not the substances. This is not so: though certain attributes are mentioned here, yet the attributes denote and include the things also. For the attribute and the substance in which they inhere are the same. Thus when Indra says, ‘I am Prana’, I am conscious-Self (Prajna), he means that he (Indra) possesses these two powers or attributes: vital energy and conscious energy, as also the substance of those energies. Therefore he says that «what is Prana that is Prajna: what is Prajna» that is Prana». The right interpretation is that Brahman alone is to be understood by the words Indra, Prana, Prajna, etc., there.

But another objection is raised. What is the necessity of this Adhikarana again, «meditation on Prana» and identifying Prana with Brahman, when in the preceding Sutra, I., 1. 23, it has been shown that Prana means Brahman?

To this we answer: this Adhikarana is not a redundancy. In the Sutra I, 1. 23, the doubt was only with regard to the meaning of the single word Prana. In this Adhikarana the doubt was not about the meaning of the word Prana, but about the whole passage, in which there are words, and marks or indications that would have led a person meditating, to think that Jiva and breath were also meant to be meditated upon. To remove this doubt, it is declared that Brahman alone is the topic of discussion in this Kaus. Up. and not Jiva or vital breath.

Therefore this Adhikarana has been separately stated by the author.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры