jīvamukhyaprāṇaliṅgāditi cet tadvyākhyātam ..1.4.17..

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 116 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA I. 4. 17.

जीवमुख्यप्राणलिङ्गादिति चेत् तद्व्याख्यातम्॥१.४.१७॥

jīvamukhyaprāṇaliṅgāditi cet tadvyākhyātam ..1.4.17..

… Jiva, the individual soul… Mukhya-prana, the principal life-breath, the chief vital air. … Lingat, because of the inferential marks. Na iti, not thus. … Chet, if. …. Tat, that. … Vyakhyatam, has been explained.

17. If it. be objected, that in the above passage of the Kaushika Upanishad, we have characteristics given, leading to the inference that cither the Jiva, or the Chief Prana. is the subject taught there, and not Brahman; we reply that this is not so; for the reasons already given in Sutra I., 1. 31 — 125.

COMMENTARY

In the Sutra I., 1. 31, which dealt with the topic of the dialogue between Indra and Pratardana, this objection was raised and answered. All those arguments would apply here also. There it was shown that when a text is interpreted as referring to Brahman, on the ground of a comprehensive survey of its initial and concluding clauses, all other inferential marks which point to other topics, such as Jiva or Prana, etc., must be so interpreted, that they may harmonize with the principal topic. In this passage also, the initial clause refers to Brahman, in the sentence, ‘Shall I tell you Brahman?’ So also the concluding clause is, «Having overcome all evils, he obtains pre-eminence among all beings, sovereignty and supremacy, yea, he who knows this». Thus the initial and concluding clauses here also refer to Brahman; and if in the middle of this passage we find any mark, from which Jiva or any other topic may be inferred, we must so interpret that passage as to refer to Brahman, in order to avoid contradiction. Nor is this topic redundant, as being already taught in Sutra I., 1. 31, for the chief point discussed here is the word Karma, which was liable to misinterpretation. Therefore, this Adhikarana does teach something new.

An objection is raised:, The word Karma was in grammatical construction with the word Etat in the above Upanishad passage, and so the word Karma was explained as this universe, and though the word Prana also found there is in construction with Etat and so is applied to Brahman, and thus the whole context may be applied to Brahman, so far as these two words are concerned; but how do you get over the difficulty of the other references in this very passage to Jiva? The words Karma and Prana have been interpreted by you as moaning the universe and Brahman, because the word Etat is there in construction with them. But there is no such word in regard to Jiva, and from the questions and answers given in this passage, we find that the Jiva is taught to be Brahman, and that there is no separate Brahman other than the released Jiva. The reference to Jiva is very clear in this passage; and admitting your argument that the topic here is Brahman, the thing taught is that there is no Brahman other than the Jiva. The question asked in the above passage is, «Where, O Balaki, did this person sleep? «Where was he? Whence did he thus come back?» This shows that the question relates to Jiva only. And that the place where the Jiva goes to sleep are the Nadis: and all the sense-organs become one in this Jiva at the time of sleep; and this Jiva is called also Prana here. Thus the whole question and answer shows, that reference is to the Jiva. And when the awakening takes place, the Jiva comes out from the place of sleep. Thus the whole passage proves that the topic is of the Jiva, and that Jiva who is called here Prana is Brahman. To this objection the next Sutra gives an answer.

Познавательные статьи:



Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления

Рынок недвижимости. Сущность недвижимости

Решение задач с использованием генеалогического метода

История происхождения и развития детской игры